Darwinian evolution is not a valid research program

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 7, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Darwinian evolution is not a valid research program

I do not have a cat entered in the fight, so I don’t really care that much.

But look at this post, and the ensuing comments, and ask yourself, why should any of Darwin’s followers’ rubbish be publicly funded?

If you were an investor, would you invest? Note: Your money, not the government’s (= other people’s)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

RDBoring:
By the way, nobody has taken a crack at my questions regarding “unguided material processes”. 1) Are there any guided material processes? 3) What are guided processes guided by? How are they guided?
I took a dump. The matter ended up in the toilet. It was guided to it's location by, well, you know.Mung_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
Likewise, ID’s operational definition of “intelligence” appears to be “the capacity to produce complex specified information”.
The ability to manipulate nature for a purpose.
The main point here is that ID reifies “intelligence” as though it is a known causal entity apart from the complex organism that behaves intelligently.
ID doesn't say anything about the intelligence. The point about CSI and intelligence is that through our observations and experiences CSI arises only via intelligent agency activity. We have never seen nature producing anything close to it. That means when we see CSI and didn't directly observe it arise, we can safely infer some intelligent agency did it.Virgil Cain_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

RDFish: 1) Are there any guided material processes?
How about you typing a post? A material process guided by an intelligent agent.
RDFish: 2) Are there any unguided immaterial (or non-material?) processes?
Unguided by an intelligent agent? The coming into existence of a desire for the truth, for instance, is not something that one creates/guides.
RDFish: 3) What are guided processes guided by?
Well the creation of a post is obviously guided by an intelligent agent.
RDFish: How are they guided?
What do you mean? Are you asking how mind influences matter?
RDFish: 4) What sort of processes are responsible for human cognition?
An immaterial mind.
RDFish: How do you know?
For one thing because the alternative — non-rational blind material forces — is an insufficient cause; see e.g. the argument from reason.Box_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

By the way, nobody has taken a crack at my questions regarding "unguided material processes". 1) Are there any guided material processes? 2) Are there any unguided immaterial (or non-material?) processes? 3) What are guided processes guided by? How are they guided? 4) What sort of processes are responsible for human cognition? How do you know? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright BiPed, You are quite right - SETI looks specifically for “the capacity to transmit a narrow band signal detectable from earth”. That is their operational definition of "intelligence". Whatever other inferences might be made if a signal is ever received is currently outside the scope of SETI (which, after all, is not a theory nor a scientific discipline, but merely a search for these signals). Likewise, ID's operational definition of "intelligence" appears to be "the capacity to produce complex specified information". Granting that biological systems are chock-full of just that, ID validly infers that whatever produced this CSI in living systems was indeed capable of producing it. By itself, that is a perfectly vacuous conclusion of course - no matter what caused the CSI in living systems it would have to be - by definition! - capable of producing it! ID cannot tell us anything about the cause, however - not even if it meets the operational defintion of "intelligence" that SETI uses! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Hi Barry, I missed your "red fish" post - I'll respond there in a bit.
You seem to believe that “properties like electric charge, color charge, or quantum spin” exist independently of the things of which they are a property. So your question seems ironic to me.
Actually no, that's not what I think. Not only are those properties not things, the "particles" that they are properties of are not "things" either, as Heisenberg famously said. The main point here is that ID reifies "intelligence" as though it is a known causal entity apart from the complex organism that behaves intelligently. This is like imagining "athleticism" is a causal thing, or "beauty" or "personality". It is the old semantic sleight-of-hand that ID uses to pretend it is offering a causal agent that is known to us as the explanation for life origins, when it does no such thing: What we know from our experience is that complex organisms act intelligently (i.e. they learn, solve problems, and so on). We do not have any experience of anything else that does these things. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

RDF: SETI looks for extra-terrestrial life forms, and has never found anything.
RD was speaking a little loosely here, and may not waste too much energy defending this sentence in the form he posted it. He clearly understands that SETI does not look for “extra-terrestrial life forms” simply because there is no method available that would allow us to detect or measure such a thing. Instead, SETI is very clear about their methodology; they look for narrow-band radio signals because – in our universal experience - narrow-band radio signals are produced only by a radio transmitter, which makes the detection of such signals a reliable correlate of intelligent action. In a strict sense, it is not “life forms” that they search for; it is this reliable correlate of intelligence that can be potentially measured across space -- or as SETI describes it, “the capacity to transmit a narrow band signal detectable from earth”.Upright BiPed_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
Archeaology and forensics exclusively study human activity, so are not relevant.
BZZZZT- Archeaology and forensics exclusively study intelligent agent activity, humans are intelligent agencies and because of that they are very relevant- they give us knowledge of what designing agencies can do with nature.
SETI looks for extra-terrestrial life forms, and has never found anything.
BZZZZT- Strike two- SETI looks for signs of artificiality, again based on knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
It means you are implying that there are only two possible choices, whereas there are more than two. In this context, ID implies that “Intelligent Design” and “Darwinism” are the only possible choices regarding theories of origins.
BZZZZT- Strike three, you're OUT. ID never says anything about there only being one other choice- never. It takes on ALL materialistic claims.
I constantly ask these questions about “unguided material processes” but nobody seems able to answer them: Are there any guided material processes? Are there any unguided immaterial (or non-material?) processes? What are guided processes guided by? How are they guided?
Get over yourself- this has been answered over and over again. Natural selection is blind and mindless, hence unguided. Men working would be a guided material process.
That’s quite ridiculous. A thundercloud can produce a lightning without human intervention. However, a human being can also produce a lightning bolt in a laboratory using knowledge of electrical engineering. Does that mean that the lightning bolt the human creates is “not compatible with ID” just because “unguided materialistic processes” can do the same thing? Of course not.
LoL! There is a huge difference between the two bolts- the main one being how they are created.Virgil Cain_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

RDFish
Can these “things” exist apart from the agents that possess them?
You seem to believe that "properties like electric charge, color charge, or quantum spin" exist independently of the things of which they are a property. So your question seems ironic to me.Barry Arrington_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

RDFish,
In reifying “intelligence” you are making a category error.
Speaking of reification errors, you never responded to this post: How to Land a Red Fish I will take your four days' of silence as conceding the point.Barry Arrington_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

RDFish, it is you who refuses to address the evidence in good faith. You never admit that you are wrong on any of your claims even when you are corrected multiple times. Do you think that I don't have much better things to do than to endlessly debate someone who is as intellectually dishonest as you have proven yourself to be? If so, that would be another thing that you are completely wrong on. i.e. 'dog see tail, chase in circle, repeat etc...'bornagain77_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Hi BA77, You failed to respond to any of my points. 1) In your claim that disproving evolution constitutes support for "ID" you are posing a false dichotomy. 2) Are there guided material processes? Are there unguided immaterial processes? What sort of process is going on when human beings use their brains to design things? How do you know? 3) In reifying "intelligence" you are making a category error. 4) You misunderstand information physics by stating that "material processes" are described therein. 5) My example regarding the photoelectric effect is a perfect illustration of your conceptual error that you have no response to. 6) You've twice failed to respond to the failed prediction of ID regarding timescales Instead of responding to anything I say, you paste more stuff from the internet and call me names. That just makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Hi Virgil Cain,
Also intelligence is a thing. It is a thing possessed by intelligent agencies.
I don't know, then, what you might mean by a "thing". Is "beauty" a thing possessed by beautiful agents? Is "athleticism" a thing possessed by athletic agents? Can these "things" exist apart from the agents that possess them?
We ascertain an intelligent agent from the evidence of intelligent design. Just how archaeologists and forensic science does it.
Archeaology and forensics exclusively study human activity, so are not relevant.
The same way SETI does it.
SETI looks for extra-terrestrial life forms, and has never found anything.
LoL! You don’t know what a “false dichotomy” is.
Actually I do. It means you are implying that there are only two possible choices, whereas there are more than two. In this context, ID implies that "Intelligent Design" and "Darwinism" are the only possible choices regarding theories of origins. This is false; hence, the false dichotomy.
To FALSIFY ID one just needs to show that unguided material processes could do it.
I constantly ask these questions about "unguided material processes" but nobody seems able to answer them: Are there any guided material processes? Are there any unguided immaterial (or non-material?) processes? What are guided processes guided by? How are they guided?
RDF: since anything and everything is compatible with “intelligent causation”. VC: If unguided materialistic processes can do it then it isn’t compatible with ID.
That's quite ridiculous. A thundercloud can produce a lightning without human intervention. However, a human being can also produce a lightning bolt in a laboratory using knowledge of electrical engineering. Does that mean that the lightning bolt the human creates is "not compatible with ID" just because "unguided materialistic processes" can do the same thing? Of course not. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Hi Dr JDD,
But if you press me I would firmly state that a creative God and the act of creation (whatever form) if performed by a God that is outside of and transcends the physical world, cannot be proven scientifically.
We agree!
However evolution can be disproven, and it really has its just there is no other materialstic explanation for origins that excludes a god therefore it prevails.
I agree about evolution. However, supernatural explanations ought not to be considered to "prevail" simply because some phenomenon remains unexplained; such theories have a very long history of failure. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Darwinian evolution is not a valid research program
It most certainly is a valid research program. It just has not produced any significant conclusions in terms of the evolution debate. I will repeat that the evolution debate is about the origin of new alleles or how did all the coding sections of the genomes arise? (also coding regions for non protein molecules) We all recognize that variations of proteins exist and many of these proteins arose by normal cellular division processes. But what about all protiens? The various hypotheses for their source are testable by traditional scientific techniques. So far, there is little evidence that novel proteins arose by naturalistic processes. But if they did, the evidence should be in the genomes of various species. If it is not, then that raises the probability that an intelligent source is the cause of some of the coding for proteins and other molecular entities necessary for life.jerry_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

I know that Darwinian evolution is not a valid research program because it cannot be modeled and can't even muster a testable hypothesis.Virgil Cain_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Darwinian evolution is not a valid research program
As I asked in the other thread: how would you know? You're talking about a thread in which you start by demonstrating you ignorance of evolutionary biology as it is taught and practiced. IDers in the comments follow that up with incomprehensible ramblings about snow and property rights in Canada and whole bunch of made-up factoids about what Darwin thought about species (as if that was important to modern evolutionary biology). There's certainly some blather in that thread, but it's not coming from people that understand evolutionary biology...wd400_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Box @ 17 OH yeah! :) nice!bornagain77_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

BA77, Slam dunk :)Box_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

RDFish proves it is clueless:
All one has to do to falsify ID is to provide just one instance of unguided material processes creating non-trivial functional information…
False dichotomy.
LoL! You don't know what a "false dichotomy" is. To FALSIFY ID one just needs to show that unguided material processes could do it. Tat is how it works in archaeology, forensics and SETI- well ALL design-centric venues. To infer ID it takes more than just eliminating unguided materialistic processes.
since anything and everything is compatible with “intelligent causation”.
Wrong again. If unguided materialistic processes can do it then it isn't compatible with ID. What is wrong with you?Virgil Cain_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

Earth to RDFish- Intelligent Design can be scientifically tested and potentially falsified. We have said exactly how to do so. BTW that means it has an empirical basis. You lose, again. Also intelligence is a thing. It is a thing possessed by intelligent agencies. We ascertain an intelligent agent from the evidence of intelligent design. Just how archaeologists and forensic science does it. The same way SETI does it. And there isn't any evolutionary theory. All evolutionism predicts is change and/ or stasis.Virgil Cain_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

RDFish you are the poster child for 'not even wrong'. Marks and Dembski have indeed worked out a rigid mathematical basis for ID that can be tested against by experiment. And as pointed out previously, and as you have characteristically completely ignored, all one has to do to falsify ID is to show by experiment any, i.e. JUST ONE INSTANCE OF, non-trivial functional information being generated by unguided material processes.
LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW - William Dembski - Robert Marks - Pg. 13 Excerpt: (Computer) Simulations such as Dawkins’s WEASEL, Adami’s AVIDA, Ray’s Tierra, and Schneider’s ev appear to support Darwinian evolution, but only for lack of clear accounting practices that track the information smuggled into them.,,, Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information. Active information enables us to see why this is the case. http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ Conservation of Information Made Simple - William A. Dembski - August, 2012 Excerpt: Biological configuration spaces of possible genes and proteins, for instance, are immense, and finding a functional gene or protein in such spaces via blind search can be vastly more improbable than finding an arbitrary electron in the known physical universe. ,,, ,,,Given this background discussion and motivation, we are now in a position to give a reasonably precise formulation of conservation of information, namely: raising the probability of success of a search does nothing to make attaining the target easier, and may in fact make it more difficult, once the informational costs involved in raising the probability of success are taken into account. Search is costly, and the cost must be paid in terms of information. Searches achieve success not by creating information but by taking advantage of existing information. The information that leads to successful search admits no bargains, only apparent bargains that must be paid in full elsewhere. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/conservation_of063671.html
I'm not holding my breath for anyone to falsify ID anytime soon nor am I holding my breath for you ever to be honest to the evidence. But that does not negate the fact that ID does indeed have a rigid mathematical standard to test against by experiment. Moreover, would you please, as a intelligent agent, stop generating information whenever you claim that intelligence is the not the best explanation for information? The hypocrisy of your unjust standard is killing you! :) Or perhaps you are claiming that you are not really an intelligent agent? (If that is your claim, then you finally might have a scientifically defensible argument against ID :) ) The rest of your blather is more of the same ole, same ole, unsubstantiated dog crap that you have become notorious for. You complain about me backing up my points by reference, and yet your entire post is a steaming pile of unsubstantiated conjecture (to put it nicely). Your blatant philosophical bias against ID has literally blinded you intellectually speaking. You would not know real science even if it hit you on the head.bornagain77_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

Summation to date re Darwinian evolution is not a valid research program Well, this has been an interesting discussion! Much thanks to BA77 for useful background info. Recommended. Some respondents also attempted to interject the claim that ID does not have a valid research program (RDFish?) First, whether any intellectual enterprise has a "valid" research program isn't a reasonable question unless the public is being asked to buy in (public funding, legislation, curricula, etc.). Private parties should be free to spend their money on any not-obviously criminal enterprise they wish. Is it valid to spend (waste?) money on the search for ET? Origin of life? In the absence of useful answers, that must remain an open question. My own view (O'Leary for News) favors spending a certain amount of money on stuff taxpayers are just plain interested in. It's their money, after all. But not if it all becomes a big, stupid public fight. Second, I am not aware of any claim that ID should be tax-funded. The only group that could possibly advocate that would be Discovery Institute, which doesn't advocate it. Darwin's followers, by contrast, think that every third- or fourth-rate Darwin shout should be publicly funded. Maybe that is the secret of their success, in a world where people still listen to airheads and bimbos in legacy media? Note to investors: Biotech obviously does not depend on Darwinism but rather on design. Darwinism did not even correctly predict antibiotic resistance. If you think Darwinism matters in biotech, and need the portfolio for your retirement, put your affairs in the hands of a trustee. Let's hope the professionals there are smarter than some of the investors. Follow UD News at Twitter!News_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

Hi RDF, Personally I am more than comfortable with the idea that ID (or certainly creation) has no ultimate rigid mathematical basis. Many here will disagree with this but personally I maintain that and have no problem with it. I do not think that science could ever prove a creative event supernaturally ordained, by very definition. Now I do believe evidence can do one or both of 2 things: 1. Falsify materialstic evolution 2. Provide evidence where the obvious inference is to design. (Occam's razor) But this point still stands - evolution, as proudly protested as verifiable fact, fails the test as a provable mathematically predictable theory. It is full of just so stories and is accepted a priori regardless of any evidence. It accounts for all possibilities. Therefore it is comparable to the belief in an all powerful God who can simply create through speaking something into existence. Where that leaves us then is, much like string theory, by definition a scientific theory and hypothesis outside the normal boundaries modern science invokes on its study. This it becomes a faith position. naturally most here will disagree with me because UD and similar forums are based on the idea that ID is a valid scientific approach. I agree it is, but only because evolution and it's voodoo and just so stories are also considered science. But if you press me I would firmly state that a creative God and the act of creation (whatever form) if performed by a God that is outside of and transcends the physical world, cannot be proven scientifically. However evolution can be disproven, and it really has its just there is no other materialstic explanation for origins that excludes a god therefore it prevails.Dr JDD_{September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

Hi BA77,
ID does have a rigid mathematical basis to test against to potentially falsify ID, per Marks and Dembski, that ‘is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics.’
No, what Dembski attempts to do is to prove that no known mechanism can account for complex form and function such as we observe in biology. This does not in any way demonstrate what the cause is. Similarly, Godel's theorem proves there will be true statements that cannot be proven within an axiomatic system, but says nothing about how how to transcend an axiomatic system, and nothing regarding whether or not human cognition does indeed transcend every axiomatic system.
All one has to do to falsify ID is to provide just one instance of unguided material processes creating non-trivial functional information...
False dichotomy. You pretend that if we fail to explain origins except by hypothesizing that some unspecified "intelligent being" did it, that means that we must conclude this unspecified "intelligent being" did in fact create life. But that's not the case - there is no default answer that becomes justified on the basis that we have no other answer. (I return to this point below). And another thing: You talk about "unguided material processes". Are there guided material processes? Are there unguided immaterial processes? What sort of process is going on when human beings use their brains to design things? How do you know?
We know for a 100% certainty that intelligence can create...
No, "intelligence" doesn't actually do anything, because "intelligence" is not a thing. Rather, "intelligence" is - as far as we know - a property of complex organisms. Complex organisms are the only things that act in ways we call "intelligent", and we know for a 100% certainty that complex organisms did not create the first complex organisms.
RDF: Agreed. BA77: And that gargantuan concession...
You are terribly confused here. This is a belief of mine, not a "concession" - no more of a "concession" than any of your beliefs of course.
... leaves you, as an atheist, with nothing whatsoever to explain where the functional information comes from.
As I just explained to you, it clearly comes from complex organisms. And as I've explained more times than I could ever count, nobody knows where the functional information in living systems came from.
But hey, don’t let giving the entire game away stop you from making a further fool out of yourself
Every single thing you say is wrong, but don't let that stop you from being childish and insulting! :-)
Actually it has everything to do with evolutionary theory. Especially neo-Darwinism as it is currently being taught in public schools. Since information, in principle, cannot possibly be ’emergent’ from a material basis. (in fact energy-matter is subservient to information), then neo-Darwinism is dead as a scientific project. End of story!
Good grief you really haven't grasped this one at all. In information physics, matter and energy are not subservient to information, and there is no such thing as a "material basis" at all! Information physics is based on a monistic ontology where information is all that there is.
Actually the presupposition of God as a causal agent was at the Christian founding of modern science.
And now you're committing a genetic fallacy (besides hilariously over-simplifying the philosophy of science of course).
Moreover, the denial of God as a causal agent by atheistic materialists, and even the denial of humans as ‘free will’ causal agents by atheistic materialists, leads to the epistemological failure of science in general and to complete irrationality of our personal lives.
And now you're completely off your rocker. So scary.
RDF: The point here is that evolutionary theory actually does make a number of testable predictions, just as you show, and this allows for us to find the problems with evolutionary theory and seek to move forward to some other testable theory. BA77:You are a terrible apologist for Darwinian evolution.
You are so wrapped up in your bizarre obsessions you've failed to notice something that is clear, I believe, to everyone I've ever debated here: I am not supporting Darwinian evolution.
ALL the major fundamental predictions of Darwinian evolution have turned out to be wrong. For you to pretend these are just minor adjustments to a better ‘testable’ theory of evolution, and are not in fact solid indications that you are not even in the right ballpark with your ‘theory’ to begin with, is ‘not even wrong’ in your thinking.
You have these tirades on automatic - they spew from you involuntarily like vomitus. Again, I do not suggest that evolutionary theory is true or can be ammended. Good grief. Let's see if I can explain this to you. Imagine you lived in the year 1900 and were attempting to explain the photoelectric effect. Since classical electromagnetism failed to account for experimental results, you came up with theory that said little demons live inside of atoms and eject electrons in just the way we observe whenever they see light beams. Now, you had no way to provide any evidence that these little demons existed, but you said all anyone had to do was to explain the results with any other theory and your demon theory would be falsified! Here's the point: Your theory would have been wrong, and nobody at that time had even imagined what the solution might be. The true solution was simply unknown. This is the case with origins now: We can't imagine what the answer to the question is, but that doesn't mean that little demons (or big demons, or gods, or elves, or angels, or...) constitute a scientifically justified answer! Now do you get it? If ID wants to hypothesize some demon or angel or god or spirit - or a whole army of them - that's fine, but you'll need to provide evidence that such a thing exists (or existed) - we're not just going to take your word for it.
As to ID predictions:...
You completely ignored my example - let's try it again: ID predicts that information will be rapidly infused into systems, yet the record shows that information takes tens of millions of years to be infused into genomes. FALSIFIED PREDICTION. The rest of your list are observations of biological systems, not "predictions" of ID. And finally, if you really wanted to debate these issues, you would stop cluttering up these threads with your long quotes and cites. Anyone can read on the internet - you're not the only one. You are the only one, however, who spends their entire life mining references to paste into your posts instead of actually arguing the issues. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

as to:
6. Darwinism hinders scientific progress by making fundamental false predictions (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc..), The point here is that evolutionary theory actually does make a number of testable predictions, just as you show, and this allows for us to find the problems with evolutionary theory and seek to move forward to some other testable theory.
You are a terrible apologist for Darwinian evolution. ALL the major fundamental predictions of Darwinian evolution have turned out to be wrong. For you to pretend these are just minor adjustments to a better 'testable' theory of evolution, and are not in fact solid indications that you are not even in the right ballpark with your 'theory' to begin with, is 'not even wrong' in your thinking. As to ID predictions: Intelligent Design, contrary to what many Darwinists will say publicly, does in fact make solid predictions for science that we can test. Testable Predictions for ID as they match up to what the scientific evidence is now telling us starts at the 15:23 minute mark of the following video:
Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - video (sound clears up at the 5:00 minute mark) - Oct. 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Fxsxzb90Cho#t=923
Moreover, it is simply impossible to properly do biology anymore without a massive amount 'design thinking' being involved behind the scenes:
"It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology." David Snoke*, Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html podcast: "David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-11T17_19_09-07_00 podcast: David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 2 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-13T16_30_01-07_00
bornagain77_{September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

RDFish
1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (i.e. Demarcation/Falsification Criteria) to test against to potentially falsify it Also true of ID theory.
Actually, unlike Darwinian evolution, ID does have a rigid mathematical basis to test against to potentially falsify ID, per Marks and Dembski, that 'is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics.'
Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence - June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search -- unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with "natural evolution." ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab's website states, "The principal theme of the lab's research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems." So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can't prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can't derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
All one has to do to falsify ID is to provide just one instance of unguided material processes creating non-trivial functional information:
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery. We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/ The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness
as to:
2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis Also true of ID theory.
Also completely false. We know for a 100% certainty that intelligence can create functional information. In fact you yourself, in your own post, just created more functional information than has ever been seen being created by unguided material processes. What no one has ever seen is unguided material processes create non-trivial functional information
"Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source -- from a mind or personal agent." (Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004).) "As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler once observed, “the creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” And, of course, he was right. Whenever we find information—whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, written in a book or etched on a magnetic disc—and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to mind, not merely a material process. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information along the spine of DNA, provides compelling positive evidence of the activity of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is not based upon what we don’t know. It is based upon what we do know from our uniform experience about the cause and effect structure of the world—specifically, what we know about what does, and does not, have the power to produce large amounts of specified information." - Stephen Meyer
as to:
3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’ Agreed.
And that gargantuan concession leaves you, as an atheist, with nothing whatsoever to explain where the functional information comes from. But hey, don't let giving the entire game away stop you from making a further fool out of yourself
4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation experiments it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis) This is speculative (not all theorists agree “information” is sufficient as an ontology for physics), but in any case, this is completely irrelevant to evolutionary theory!
Actually it has everything to do with evolutionary theory. Especially neo-Darwinism as it is currently being taught in public schools. Since information, in principle, cannot possibly be 'emergent' from a material basis. (in fact energy-matter is subservient to information), then neo-Darwinism is dead as a scientific project. End of story!
"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day." Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician -(Cybernetics, 2nd edition, p.132) Norbert Wiener created the modern field of control and communication systems, utilizing concepts like negative feedback. His seminal 1948 book Cybernetics both defined and named the new field. “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Intelligent design: Why can't biological information originate through a materialistic process? - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8
as to:
5. Darwinism, per Imre Lakatos, is found to be a ‘degenerating programme’ where ‘theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” Also true of ID theory, which fabricates the existence of some intelligent being(s) in order to account for our observations, but fails to provide any way of ascertaining if said being exists.
Actually the presupposition of God as a causal agent was at the Christian founding of modern science. Moreover, the denial of God as a causal agent by atheistic materialists, and even the denial of humans as 'free will' causal agents by atheistic materialists, leads to the epistemological failure of science in general and to complete irrationality of our personal lives.
The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - Monday, Aug. 2012 Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/ The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell - Ian H. Hutchinson - 2014 Conclusion: Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver. These men’s insights into physics were made possible by their religious commitments. For them, the coherence of nature resulted from its origin in the mind of its Creator. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-genius-and-faith-of-faraday-and-maxwell BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let's Dump Methodological Naturalism - Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: "Epistemology -- how we know -- and ontology -- what exists -- are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won't include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn't write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. "That's crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then -- to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse -- i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss -- we haven't the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world -- such as your email, a real pattern -- we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we're back to physics versus physics, and there's nothing for SETI to look for.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:
“You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t open the door. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t raise your hand. Physics did, and informed the illusion you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t etc.. etc.. etc… Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”
What should be needless to say, if raising your arm is enough to refute your supposedly ‘scientific’ worldview of atheistic materialism, then perhaps it is time for you to seriously consider getting a new scientific worldview?bornagain77_{September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

I am accepting funding offers for my new Randomly Generated Software Solutions (RAGSS) company. I am hoping to go from raggs to riches. Won't you help me?Mung_{September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

Rdfish, big pharma is profiting from design not Darwin. No one invests in Darwin anymore. Darwin lives off handouts. Not that there is anything wrong with taking care of the senile:)ppolish_{September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Hi BA77,
1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (i.e. Demarcation/Falsification Criteria) to test against to potentially falsify it
Also true of ID theory.
2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis
Also true of ID theory.
3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’
Agreed.
4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation experiments it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis)
This is speculative (not all theorists agree "information" is sufficient as an ontology for physics), but in any case, this is completely irrelevant to evolutionary theory!
5. Darwinism, per Imre Lakatos, is found to be a ‘degenerating programme’ where ‘theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
Also true of ID theory, which fabricates the existence of some intelligent being(s) in order to account for our observations, but fails to provide any way of ascertaining if said being exists.
6. Darwinism hinders scientific progress by making fundamental false predictions (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc..),
The point here is that evolutionary theory actually does make a number of testable predictions, just as you show, and this allows for us to find the problems with evolutionary theory and seek to move forward to some other testable theory. In contrast, ID makes virtually no testable predictions, since anything and everything is compatible with "intelligent causation". The predictions ID does claim are either too general to test or wrong, e.g. ID predicts "rapid infusion of information into systems" by intelligent agents, yet even the most rapid information infusions recorded (in the Cambrian) took many millions of years! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply