Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Common Descent at Uncommon Descent

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I have consistently argued that intelligent design neither rules out the common descent of life on Earth (Darwin’s single Tree of Life) nor restricts the implementation of design to common descent, as if that were the only possible geometry for the large-scale relationships of organisms. Thus, with regard to this forum, the truth or falsity of common descent is an open question worthy of informed discussion.

To open up Uncommon Descent in this way reflects not just the ID community’s diversity of views on this topic but also the growing doubts about common descent outside that community. For instance, W. Ford Doolittle rejects a single “Tree of” and argues instead for an intricate network of gene sharing events. Likewise, Carl Woese, a leader in molecular phylogenetics, argues that the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms.

In short, it is not just ID advocates who are suggesting that there is no universal common ancestor.

Comments
[…] recently found this comment from intelligent design theorist […]Not-So-Uncommon Descent | Hume's Apprentice
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
RedReader said: "The problem with extrapolation is it comes equipped with blinders. a) “both have them” and “share them” are two different concepts. Automobiles and playground equipment do not “share” nuts and bolts. Your distinction is trivial. Human and chimp endogenous retroviral sequences have high homology - akin to an automobile and a piece of playground equipment using exactly the same type of a nut and bolt. b) …suggests “derived from a common ancestor”. Why not “derived from a common designer”?" It is formally possible that they are derived from a common designer. I do not rule that possibility out of hand. However, given our current state of knowledge about endogenous retroviruses, (i.e. that they integrate into genomes in a pseudo-random fashion and are inherited), the more parsimonious explanation is that the retroviral sequences in question inserted into the genome of a chimp/human ancestor. "“…suggests that humans and chimps are most closely related.” Which are more closely related: John Deer tractors and John Deer pickups or John Deer Pickups and Ford Pickups? Answer: Neither." I don't see the point you are making. You are setting up two categories, name (Ford, John Deere) and class (tractor and pickup) and are saying that all combinations of name and class are equally similar (or dissimiliar). How does this relate the situation I describe with primates, where one can construct a cladogram based on increasing conservation of ERV sequences (or other genetic features)? "OK, this is bigoted: “It is of course possible that a Designer decided to stick these bits of DNA in our genomes to fool us.” Since you are not privy to the Designer’s plans you have no way of knowing why the Designer made any of the choices He/She/It made. You have made yourself the judge of the Designer, an absurd “suggestion”." First, calling me bigoted is rude. Please desist. The point I was making is that if one invokes a Designer of unknown motives and power - as you have just done - then nothing is incompatible with design. Invoking such a designer is an epistemic dead end, as it can explain everything superficially, and nothing in detail. -DaveWattDaveWatt
February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Xavier As usual you demonstrate that you have not read my papers, some of which are a touch of your mouse away right here at Uncommon Descent. I am not going to respond to you until you can demonstrate that you have. I may not even then. My work is now preserved for all time on the shelves of the world's libraries and until you can demonstrate that you have read it and the authors on which my own work is based I am not going to respond to you. I am certain that my position is transparently clear to anyone with the necessary background to understand what I have written. At my age I just don't have the time. I hope you will understand, but if you don't that is just too bad. I am also sorry that Salvador is confident there is not enough room in the genome of any organism especially since, as nearly as I can determine, there is not an organism on the surface of this planet that is still capable of any further major change. The only thing that I see they are capable of is extinction which many of them are really good at as any one can see if he would only look objectively at what is happening. Skoal "You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it or, having read it, comprehend it." John A. DavisonJohn Davison
February 4, 2006
February
02
Feb
4
04
2006
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Dr. Davison You missed my earlier comment no 67, presumably. As you do not mince words, I thought you would prefer me to say clearly what opinion I have formed after making some considerable effort to understand it. Apologies for being late but internet connection was brought down by snow. So the PEH proposes all genomic information was preloaded. I am with S. Cordova in doubting there is room for all that information to be incuded in one organism’s genome. But why is not someone looking for the horses’ teeth? Also. This front-loaded information then unfolds to give rise to a new species, yes? But there must be some co-ordination so that at least two organisms of opposite sex have saltations at the same time and place, otherwise how will the new species increase numbers. PEH seems pretty unconvincing as a hypothesis.Xavier
February 4, 2006
February
02
Feb
4
04
2006
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Should be: "...Darwin’s hypothesis that evolution occured primarily..." The point is, he thought that dumb/purposeless/blind causes alone were sufficient. They ain't.j
February 4, 2006
February
02
Feb
4
04
2006
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
"In my own research area of evolutionary algorithms, intelligent design works together with evolutionary principles to produce better solutions to real problems. Sometimes the results are novel and surprising, but, on reflection, they were always inherent in the initial formulation. Without the initial activity of an intelligent agent, the evolutionary mill has no grist to work on." -- Professor Colin Reeves, School of Mathematical and Information Sciences, Coventry University, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/31/dt3101.xml The episodic evolutionary development hypothesis by j Mankind is the product of a process of evolutionary development. The claims of the scientific community that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that the first life appeared on earth about 4 billion years ago, and that it evolved from simple to highly complex forms, are all true. However, Darwin's hypothesis that evolution occured exclusively by means of natural selection acting on random variation, is wrong. Episodically, either the selection, the mutations, or both, have been non-random, i.e., they occurred in accordance with the intent of an intelligence. In these episodes, the intelligence has had a, literally, specific purpose in mind: to create various species. Species have been allowed to exist for a limited amount of time, and then they (or part of their populations) have been formed into something slightly different.j
February 4, 2006
February
02
Feb
4
04
2006
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Okay Dave Scot I consider myself warned. I'm sorry for the vulgarity, although I could swear I didn't mention it first. Are you being even-handed? As for Bozeman, I was out of line there too, but I meant it affectionately. But I do not think I engage in gratuitous religion bashing. I have asked a few times why did Darwin say he couldn't understand why anyone would want the Christian message to be true. I have not had one thoughtful answer yet. I think a good case can be made that this sort of reaction to CERTAIN ASPECTS of Christian theology has been a common and major underpinning of the world view Dembski is dedicated to overthrowing. But what caused that reaction? Why have so many wanted to invest in this material world view? Why did Darwin have a ready audience? I think it is largely because they became tired of the very same things Darwin couldnt stomach. I consider myself the friend of Christianity but somebody needs to goad them into taking a look at a couple of sacred cows because they don't seem to see it. Because they don't see it the two sides are talking past each other. That cannot lead to reconciliation. Since I have obviously said many positive things about religion here (for example my post to Artist in training) and since many ID detractors engage in religion bashing all the time, I wonder if perhaps it is only acceptable to be all for or all against, but not to actually engage in critical analysis? More probably you are annoyed at too much religion talk, and I can't blame you for that.avocationist
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Avocationist Please stifle yourself when tempted to use inflammatory phrases like Bible Thumper and vulgarities like masturbatory. Gratuitous religion bashing can be taken elsewhere too. Let's keep it clean & friendly. Consider yourself warned.DaveScot
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Boesman, You're not the evil twin of the prior Bozeman who was more of a Bible Thumper, are you? "Why don’t you save them all that time and effort and prove them wrong by the end of next week? All you need is some scientific evidence for your alternative/replacement hypothesis." (Origin of life) Just because we don't know what the moon is made of is no reason to insist it is made of green cheese, and mock those who are honest to admit that they are in the presence of a very huge problem. You may as well mock the accomplishment of the guy who invented the wheel or shaped the first spear because he hasn't invented nuclear physics. It is far wiser to say "we haven't even enough of a clue to get started" than to insist that just because someone has come up with a cockamamy theory it has to stand because there isn't a replacement. Yah, yah, we've got the green cheese theory. What's your side got? "Nice job you’re doing promoting the EAC there, btw." Thanks but what is EAC? "Are you saying that people need to understand/accept that there is a God before they can expect to study the natural world and how it works (pp)? Sounds an awful lot like religious doctrine to me." I don't think I said that, and keeping the internet masturbatory talking-past-each-other tendency firmly in...mind-- what I did say is you can't rule God out as a policy because there is ONLY ONE reality and we're in it. If it includes God it would be silly to have ruled it out because it would hinder your ability to come to conclusions in as objective a manner as possible. Don't narrow your search parameters when you're not out of the starting gate. "I understand that your ‘reality’ is your religion, and that you don’t understand why everyone else doesn’t believe the same." Well that is probably accurate enough, after reality is all there is. I do understand why everyone doesn't believe the same, however. It has to do with consciousness, perception, individuality, ego, and so forth. We're all just here for the ride, but I try to help other people have a good time, throw them a vomit bag if they need it. "My understanding of reality is pretty solid to me." Well, now that's your problem right there. Come back when you realize you know nothing. Me:“Dogmatic prejudices and limitations have no place in science.” You: "--This is why religious beliefs are excluded from science." The dogmatic prejudice goes both ways. That was the whole point. (I predict science will prove God and disprove RM) "I don’t see how your prediction would prove God (I assume that you want this to prove the Christian God) though it might be considered compatible with certain Biblical interpretations of God, and probably a few other deities as well." Nobody owns God. The Christian (interpretation of) God is a schizophrenic and a sociopath who has been the major cause of today's atheism. Jesus knew better, but Jehovah has infected Christianity. I consider Jehovah an imposter. Anyway, I meant that God would be proved in some other way, such as consciousness research. But biology and and chemistry and cosmology are already coming up with rudiments of what may be indirect proofs of God. "AiG has a list of old world Christian scientists, some with statements about how they set out to investigate/prove God in nature. Of course they don’t really cover how didn’t really find what they were looking for and/or lost their faith, so some further investigation is required." Well, it was a noble endeavor, but they expected too much, too soon. It just wouldn't be fun if it was that easy. That's why I think faith in God is highly overrated. Even the pious folks have a faith that is about a millimeter thick. A little scratch and its gone. Now if science could prove God it would be a great boon to mankind. "Historically speaking, religion has only hampered scientific enquiry, but good luck with your endeavours anyway." Greatly exaggerated. Well, somewhat exaggerated. "His mind was more profound because he disproved a previously held religious belief? OK, I think you’re trying to say that older/more primitive religious beliefs are less valid as science, but that your more sophisticated religious beliefs are correct as science? Some clarifications of the differences might help your case." His mind was more profound because he had a deeper handle on how to think cosmic thoughts, so he was not thrown off his horse at the first unexpected rock in his path. Of course, if religous or other beliefs don't jive with solid scientific findings, one must take one's mind back to the drawing board. Rather than see science as in opposition to spirituality, which it cannot possibly be because (if spirit exists) there is only one seamless reality -- instead see that it is a compass, a north star that can let us know when we are drifting off course. Which, for us hapless human saps means we are fantasizing again.avocationist
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Dear Avocationist, -I’m just a layperson hillbilly who tries to keep up a bit with quantum mechanics and string theory. Noble pursuits! If only more people were interested.... -So, are there miracles? Many people say not, but I think that while they are disconcertingly rare, there are too many reports for me to dismiss, and I believe that I have witnessed ESP occur (which would be nonlocal consciousness)that cannot be attributed to chance. Well, I suppose this is the key question. I would suggest that the evidence is not great---at least, it is difficult to differentiate someone's *experience* of a miracle, or ESP, from whether it actually happens in any objective sense. Of course, objectivity is somewhat tricky to pin down, but this is why we try to repeat experiments, and have them repeated by other people. -My understanding of atomic or subatomic reality, including strings, is that everything is made up of smaller and simpler components until we get down to a nondifferentiated level. Well, this is how things seem to some extent, but there is a lot more to understand. -So it follows from chemistry that rearranging these elements changes the atoms from one element to another. If I were God and had access to these inner realms, I would rearrange the atoms from water into wine. Simple, no? What you are describing is nuclear physics---nuclear fusion and fission describe happens when one element changes to another. There is no need to go down to a stringy description to see this. However, just because nuclear fusion can happen, doesn't mean that anything goes! In particular, it doesn't mean that water can be changed into wine on a tabletop via known physical processes. Of course, I'm not saying it couldn't happen---but I think you'd usually require much more evidence before abandoning the standard picture. Again, I would warn against interpreting physical processes which have a very well defined meaning in a particular context, and applying them to prove something you *want* to be true. If you want to do physics, it's best not to come in with any preconceptions about what you want to show is possible....physicist
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Xavier Since you think the PEH is nonsense, please be so kind as to elaborate on just exactly which portions of it you find unacceptable. Be specific. Until you do I will regard your comment as a cheap shot and will treat it with with disdain and a certain amount of disgust. Got that? Write that down.John Davison
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
Dr Davison I think your PEH is nonsense but I agree with part of your comment #80 That is what internet forums are for so each can ignore what everyone else has to say and go right on gratifying his own ego with gay abandon in what can only be described as a kind of hysterical intellectual masturbation.Xavier
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT
Salut Jeanstaune, Vous êtes de quel coin? Moi, j'habite au Grand Sud. Je pense que vous trouviez que les gars ici sont un peu egoiste. C'est pas la vérité mais la croyance qui compte. Franchement ils ont les idées fixes, mais bon courage quand-même.Xavier
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
To arbitrarily deny one or more original Creators with an intelligence far beyond out comprehension as some are so willing to do both here and elsewhere is, in my not very humble opinion, positive proof of an inferior intellect and a congenitally deprived view of the real world. Science most certainly can address religious issues and is doing it in experimental laboratories all over the world. What is emerging is an undertanding of life that demands a Creator or Creators in order to even begin to understand what is being revealed. Trust me but of course you won't. That is what internet forums are for so each can ignore what everyone else has to say and go right on gratifying his own ego with gay abandon in what can only be described as a kind of hysterical intellectual masturbation. Enjoy yourself.John Davison
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
avocationist, “But you asked if God was supernatural. I think this idea is a stumbling block and needs revision.” Do all the revision you want, and return with something scientifically testable -not mere assertions and conjecture. “I firmly separate the ID inference from these other interesting questions, but they in fact are interrelated and no one can make it not so. Just look at the OOL morass. It is an open secret that most Darwinists would lose their will to live if it were proven that abiogenesis could never happen. It is very important to them and it is an underpinning to their whole worldview - yet they distance themselves from it and for no other reason than that it has so little progress to show for itself. They hope for it but take no responsibility. They are buying time.” Why don't you save them all that time and effort and prove them wrong by the end of next week? All you need is some scientific evidence for your alternative/replacement hypothesis. Nice job you're doing promoting the EAC there, btw. “God has no place in science in the sense that we expect to study the natural world and how it works, and not come up with dead ends, nor should our understanding that there is a God hinder our study.” Are you saying that people need to understand/accpet that there is a God before they can expect to study the natural world and how it works (pp)? Sounds an awful lot like religious doctrine to me. “But what I’m trying to convey to you is that there is only one reality. Do you agree to that?” I understand that your 'reality' is your religion, and that you don't understand why everyone else doesn't believe the same. “Science is the study of this reality that we are all bewildered by.” My understanding of reality is pretty solid to me. “Dogmatic prejudices and limitations have no place in science.” This is why religious beliefs are excluded from science. “Yes. I predict science will prove God, probably indirectly. I predict that biology research will discover the actual cause(s) of the limits that prevent a species from evolving into another.” I don't see how your prediction would prove God (I assume that you want this prove the Christian God) though it might be considered compatible with certain Biblical interpretations of God, and probably a few other deities aswell. “Don’t you think it’s funny that I, a mystic who thinks about God all the time, have so much faith in science?” Don't take this the wrong way but I'd call it wishful faith. ““Christians set out to investigate/prove God in nature.” Did they? When was that?” AiG has a list of old world Christian scientists, some with statements about how they set out to investigate/prove God in nature. Of course they don't really cover how didn't really find what they were looking for and/or lost their faith, so some further investigation is required. “This remark is why I persist. People had primitive notions of God. It needs to be updated. Frequently.” Historically speaking, religion has only hampered scientific enquiry, but good luck with your endeavours anyway. “Almost everyone understands that God is something very far beyond us and would involve prolonged discovery, and yet they also act as if their caveman notions have serious validity.” Of course you have all the answers; why am I then bothering to question you? All you have to know is present your scientific evidence for God and we'll be done with it. “I have read that when Newton discovered his laws of motion, many people considered God or his angels dethroned. They wanted a universe in which God and his angels flew around making things go. You’ll notice that Newton himself had no problem with his findings, and I can suppose that is because his mind was more profound than the general run of men.” His mind was more profound because he disproved a previously held religious belief? OK, I think you're trying to say that older/more primitive religious beliefs are less valid as science, but that your more sophisticated religious beliefs are correct as science? Some clarifications of the differences might help your case. ““Some remained devout, some didn’t. Devout scientists still exist today and most will tell you that science cannot address religious questions. What do you mean by people “being silly”?” Being egotistic, not keeping their minds fluid.” You mean like those who want their dogmatic religious beliefs accepted as science?Boesman
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
Jean wrote: Is the question “is the earth rotating around the sun ” an open question on this forum??? If yes the forum is unscientific and the case is closed. .... Evolution below the species level has been observed. Above the species level has not been observed. This is why Professor Dembski says the question is open. The sun rotating around the earth has been observed. That question is not open. Here is a restatement of this understanding: “The mechanism by which nature is alleged to have fashioned a single ancestor into both whales and man has never been observed. Indeed, its existence is based on...extrapolation from the commonplace observation that within a single species different traits provide a survival advantage in certain circumstances - e.g., black moths fare better vis-a-vis predators against a sooty backdrop and light moths do better in a clean environment.” http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361067333&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter Extrapolation is not adequate to substitute for observation. Extrapolation is the error by which one may conclude that the earth is flat: "The earth I see is flat; therefore the earth is flat."Red Reader
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Welcome jean from France. Maybe there is some reason your post is gone. Maybe it was an accident. ++++++++++++ “An increasing number of biologists who work on the early branches of the Tree of Life have begun to say that there never was a single Tree, rooted in a single common ancestor." One notes with satisfaction yet another missed prediction to add to the pile. ++++++++++++++++ Dazza, You said: I exist too. Do I have something vital? No. Certainly not if your life is an aggregation of chemicals. When I say something doesn't really exist I mean that's its existence is dependent upon something else. All things we see are combinations of particles. They dissolve. They also depend upon their surrounding environment. They do not have inherent existence. Now, if all life comes from God and is in fact part of God, then that life in you inherently exists. It won't dissolve, it has no beginning and no end, it has no form or shape or definition. It is unaffected by time. You said: If I were to say to you that I created everything, wouldn’t it be natural to ask who or what created me? What if I declined the explanation and stated that some things are just too complicated for you to understand. Would that be convincing to you? I actually explained quite clearly. I merely pointed out that your question are on a different level than our regular, 3D, material, shallow observations and yet you want answers on that level. You are like a 2D creature wanting 3D answers in 2D. To understand, even to begin to understand, even to see that one does not understand - these require a conceptual leap that the human brain appears at best marginally able to do. I'm not picking on you - this is the way it is. Don't you see that the same series of questions can be asked of matter. Where did it come from? As I said earlier, the existence of anything at all is a mind-stopper. If it isn't, it should be. You said: Firstly, I mde clear that I was not advocating any particular theory. Ockham’s razor does, however, imply that the theory with fewer problems is the better one. Yes, I remember, but you imply some preference for the one which ignores the real and hard questions. Amazing coincidence that it happens to be simpler. I think Ockam's razor gets over used. You said: What explanation does ID propose? (origin of matter) Let's be clear that this is well outside the scope of ID. My take is that there is an unavoidable understanding that there is something at the bottom of this reality that has a property of fundamental existence. You said: unless the designer is not made of matter, we are in a state of paradox once again. If the designer is not made of matter, ID would need a plausible explanation of how a being that is not composed of matter can create matter. Or influence it, either. This I don't understand. I asked a physics student what the heck can be meant by a massless particle. Religions speak of the nonmaterial. But what does it mean? It may be right. But I also entertain the notion that there may be a smooth continuum, and at the other end is something so extremely subtle that it may as well be nonmaterial. In any case, matter seems to be made of light and vibration. You said: Also, I’m not sure how life as an electrochemical construct would imply that it doesn’t exist. Nothing there but chemical reactions, they'll dissolve and so what. It's about as real as the life in your car. "It may be disheartening but that should not prevent scientific inquiry." God forbid! And no, I was not suggesting alien theory as a resolution to any paradox. I think I brought it up because you were talking about various designers. As I said, it does not resolve these sorts of questions, although it might throw some light on others.avocationist
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Boes, "You’re preaching again. Religious beliefs are not relevant in a scientific discussion." But you asked if God was supernatural. I think this idea is a stumbling block and needs revision. "It’s this kind of advocacy that leads people to dismiss ID as religious." I firmly separate the ID inference from these other interesting questions, but they in fact are interrelated and no one can make it not so. Just look at the OOL morass. It is an open secret that most Darwinists would lose their will to live if it were proven that abiogenesis could never happen. It is very important to them and it is an underpinning to their whole worldview - yet they distance themselves from it and for no other reason than that it has so little progress to show for itself. They hope for it but take no responsibility. They are buying time. "Can God, or his works, be tested and/or falsified? If not, then God has no place in science." God has no place in science in the sense that we expect to study the natural world and how it works, and not come up with dead ends, nor should our understanding that there is a God hinder our study. But what I'm trying to convey to you is that there is only one reality. Do you agree to that? Science is the study of this reality that we are all bewildered by. Dogmatic prejudices and limitations have no place in science. "Now all you have to do is come up with some empirical evidence in support of your predictions." Yes. I predict science will prove God, probably indirectly. I predict that biology research will discover the actual cause(s) of the limits that prevent a species from evolving into another. Don't you think it's funny that I, a mystic who thinks about God all the time, have so much faith in science? "Christians set out to investigate/prove God in nature." Did they? When was that? "The only scientific evidence they returned with provided only natural explanations for natural phenomenon, and no proof of God’s work." This remark is why I persist. People had primitive notions of God. It needs to be updated. Frequently. Almost everyone understands that God is something very far beyond us and would involve prolonged discovery, and yet they also act as if their caveman notions have serious validity. I have read that when Newton discovered his laws of motion, many people considered God or his angels dethroned. They wanted a universe in which God and his angels flew around making things go. You'll notice that Newton himself had no problem with his findings, and I can suppose that is because his mind was more profound than the general run of men. "Some remained devout, some didn’t. Devout scientists still exist today and most will tell you that science cannot address religious questions. What do you mean by people “being silly”?" Being egotistic, not keeping their minds fluid.avocationist
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
dembski said "Thus, with regard to this forum, the truth or falsity of common descent is an open question worthy of informed discussion." Is the question "is the earth rotating around the sun " an open question on this forum??? If yes the forum is unscientific and the case is closed If No it must be the same for the question of the common descent the FACT we share an common ancestror with all living thing is a fact at the same level that the earth is rotating around the sun so please Bill, awake, look at the data and...evolvejeanstaune
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Hello from France my name is Jean Staune I am 101% evolutionnist AND I am a critics of darwinism (as all serious non-darwinian biologists are!) I wrote un article you can find on www.metanexus.net/conference2005/pdf/staune.pdf (it will inform you about what is REALLY non-darwinian biology, ID is only a very very TINY part of it) In the article I was saying: "It seems that the majority of Intelligent Design theorists do not believe in the idea of a common ancestry (fortunately this is not the case of Michael Behe, the historical stronghold of the Intelligent Design movement). It is a very disturbing situation. This is why, if the keepers of Intelligent Design are (like myself) persuaded that Darwinism is false, not for religious and political reasons but scientific, and if, as Christians (like myself) they are committed to the search for the truth; I suggest that they climb onto the nearest tabletop straightaway and yell at the top of their lungs: “ Yes! Evolution is a fact! ” When young Earth creationists say that the Earth is not older than 10,000 and that mankind existed during the time of dinosaurs, I tell them that if they really want to do something against Darwinism, that they should commit suicide as soon as possible! In fact, the conversion of Intelligent Design theorists to the idea of evolution and the disappearance of young Earth creationists would be dramatic for Darwinians as this would finally free up a space in which the development of a non-Darwinians school of thought (evolutionist of course, and therefore credible) based on the different theories and ideas present in this article." And 2 weeks ago Dembski advise the readers of his blog to read my article!!! www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/682 From all the history of the post 744 and it removal I deduce that I had an influence on dave scot but not enough influence on Dembski! It is a pitty because without accepting common ancestror (at least for all vertebrates) there is no future for critics of darwinism; It Is clear that ID pepole like Dembski have to...evolve!jeanstaune
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
avocationist: "No. The turtles have to stop somewhere. There are things our minds can hardly take in. Infinity, eternity, timelessness. The whole point of being God is that he’s different - he’s got something vital. That vital thing is existence." I'm not sure I understand the difference - I exist too. Do I have something vital? If I were to say to you that I created everything, wouldn't it be natural to ask who or what created me? What if I declined the explanation and stated that some things are just too complicated for you to understand. Would that be convincing to you? "Yes, and because [abiogenesis] is simplistic you think it has fewer problems to explain and therefore is a better theory. Sure, it doesn’t stretch the mind to the breaking point like reality does. But it doesn’t work for me because I think matter needs an explanation for coming into being, or for eternally existing. Also, it is disheartening because if life is a chemical construct, then life doesn’t really exist. "' Firstly, I mde clear that I was not advocating any particular theory. Ockham's razor does, however, imply that the theory with fewer problems is the better one. I still think you're caught in a paradox. You say that you think matter needs an explanation for coming into being or for eternally existing. What explanation does ID propose? If the explanation is a designer, then unless the designer is not made of matter, we are in a state of parado once again. If the designer is not made of matter, ID would need a plausible explanation of how a being that is not composed of matter can create matter. Also, I'm not sure how life as an electrochemical construct would imply that it doesn't exist. It may be disheartening but that should not prevent scientific inquiry. "Yeah, (apparent) paradoxes are rife in spiritual/philosophical questions, whereas a made up story can be quite neat! For the record, I am not against alien theory, and I think it quite likely they have been here and done some serious genetic engineering, but it isn’t relevant to our questions because they would have the same ones on their own planet." I'm not sure that derisive name-calling of a theory is really going to help matters. If the paradox is only apparent, then how is it practically resolved? You suggest alien theory, but with alien theory, as always, we have to ask where the aliens originated from?dazza
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
This just in relevant to this thread: Paul Nelson wrote: "In increasing number of biologists who work on the early branches of the Tree of Life have begun to say that there never was a single Tree, rooted in a single common ancestor. In a recent publication, Carl Woese (for instance) argued that "the Doctrine of Common Descent has deceived us" -- the capital letters are his." Read it all http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/02/challenges_to_darwins_tree_of.htmlRed Reader
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Boseman wrote: "Religious beliefs are not relevant in a scientific discussion. It’s this kind of advocacy that leads people to dismiss ID as religious." .... I think it is a bogeyman to suggest that we can control what other people think. People are smart enough to sort out the differences between what we believe is implied and what we know through observation.Red Reader
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
avocationist, “1.God is not supernatural. The word has little meaning. It means magic or the unexplained. If God can be called supernatural, it is in the sense that S/He is the cause of nature. But there’s nothing non-natural about that. It is the most perfectly natural fact. What I am trying to convey is that if nature is what God does, how can you separate that out? You’d be skinning him alive.” You're preaching again. Religious beliefs are not relevant in a scientific discussion. It's this kind of advocacy that leads people to dismiss ID as religious. Let's forget about the question of natural versus supernatural. Can God, or his works, be tested and/or falsified? If not, then God has no place in science. “2. I think the existence of consciousness or something like that will be proved by science. I am an optimist. We don’t know what science can or cannot prove. Don’t predict the future of science. You can’t see the vista.” Defining conciousness, as with defining life, is very subjective -and I don't think the ultimate definition will help your cause anyway. You seem to have predicted a number of things for science. Now all you have to do is come up with some empirical evidence in support of your predictions. Good luck! “3.I try to speak of God when its pertinent to the discussion. Which it so often is. As someone pointed out on another thread, this whole 150-year debate is really about materialism versus nonmaterialism. While I have high hopes for scientific proofs for God, in general people are looking in the wrong place. And it’s very silly of them.” Look in the right place then. Gather the evidence, present your findings and/or proofs, and start writing your Nobel Prize acceptance speech. “4.You are spouting rhetoric about the prior lack of success in science. Many of the greatest scientists have been very devout. Religion has its faults and people who lack faith cling to false ideas out of fear. This includes religious people and so sometimes they have obstructed rational thinking. If people would stop being silly, everything would progress better. Generally, the same behavior patterns can be found on both sides of a divide.” Christians set out to investigate/prove God in nature. The only scientific evidence they returned with provided only natural explanations for natural phenomenon, and no proof of God's work. Some remained devout, some didn't. Devout scientists still exist today and most will tell you that science cannot address religious questions. What do you mean by people “being silly”? “5. There is no such thing as a supernatural explanation. There are intuitive instincts, such as that life comes from God, (which is logical as well) but this in no way obstructs science. We just keep plugging away, studying nature. To anything that has ever happened, there is a pathway of detail. Just because God is at the root of it all, changes nothing.” Most of that is just another unscientific religious proclamation. “I’m not into faith and I certainly try not to dictate. I just think its funny when people who want to hide from God choose careers in science, because it is the study of God. I do believe it has undone many physicists and astronomers.” Just more preaching about how others need to subscribe to your religious beliefs.Boesman
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Dave, the *fact* is that there is an exception - namely, all of life. Yes, ever since there have been people to observe (and record their observations) we have only seen life coming from life. But the *fact* is that life happened some way or another from some process that we are unable to account for. Pushing that event back doesn't justify the insertion of a process that there is no evidence for - namely - common descent. No one has ever observed an organism begetting another type of organism.jacktone
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
DaveScot/Scordova, I'm glad for your posts. My stumbling block to frontloading is that it seems there's a divide at OOL. I can see, as per Nature's Destiny, that this universe and its laws could have contained the constraints needed to support life, and even a creature much like humans. But the cell and DNA I can't see coming together from the Big Bang. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dazza, I'm trying to follow your argument: "Either God is alive and hence life comes from His life which means that His life must have come from somewhere (which again begs the question) or He is not alive and hence life has come from non-life." No. The turtles have to stop somewhere. There are things our minds can hardly take in. Infinity, eternity, timelessness. The whole point of being God is that he's different - he's got something vital. That vital thing is existence. "The idea of abiogenesis is that life can rise from non-life since life is basically an electrochemical construct." Yes, and because it is simplistic you think it has fewer problems to explain and therefore is a better theory. Sure, it doesn't stretch the mind to the breaking point like reality does. But it doesn't work for me because I think matter needs an explanation for coming into being, or for eternally existing. Also, it is disheartening because if life is a chemical construct, then life doesn't really exist. "With ID, however, we encounter a logical paradox, whereas evolutionary theory does not have such a philosophical stumbling block." Yeah, (apparent) paradoxes are rife in spiritual/philosophical questions, whereas a made up story can be quite neat! For the record, I am not against alien theory, and I think it quite likely they have been here and done some serious genetic engineering, but it isn't relevant to our questions because they would have the same ones on their own planet. ++++++++++++++++++++ Physicist, Your name indicates I'm in trouble. I'm just a layperson hillbilly who tries to keep up a bit with quantum mechanics and string theory. ---However, I’m unconvinced by your assertion that: “God and sometimes people have access to subquantum events (reality before it is jelled up here where we can see it) and can manipulate events. We humans are constantly bringing about things which nature, unaided, could never do.” ---Do you have any justification for why this should be the case? can you define clearly what `access to subquantum events’ really means? Sorry, I am a bit skeptical about people using physical terms loosely to get to conclusions they *want* to get to. If "miracles" occur, there is a pathway. If Cindarella's fairy godmother waves her wand and a pumpkin turns into a coach, there was a pathway of some kind. Every atom must be accounted for and every energy transfer. So, are there miracles? Many people say not, but I think that while they are disconcertingly rare, there are too many reports for me to dismiss, and I believe that I have witnessed ESP occur (which would be nonlocal consciousness)that cannot be attributed to chance. My understanding of atomic or subatomic reality, including strings, is that everything is made up of smaller and simpler components until we get down to a nondifferentiated level. (Yes, I realize these ideas are still provisional.) If someone were to turn water into wine, how could it possibly work? Since everything we see up here on the surface of reality has a depth leading down to quantum particles, and if (for example) strings are true, then it is just a different vibration of the "mother substance" which causes physicality to manifest itself into the different elements. Even above the strings level, I have read that "an electron is an electron is an electron" meaning that you can exchange them from one atom to another without any chang in property. So it follows from chemistry that rearranging these elements changes the atoms from one element to another. If I were God and had access to these inner realms, I would rearrange the atoms from water into wine. Simple, no?avocationist
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Apologies for being late but internet connection was brought down by snow. So the PEH proposes all genomic information was preloaded. I am with S. Cordova in doubting there is room for all that information to be incuded in one organism's genome. But why is not someone looking for the horses' teeth? Also. This front-loaded information then unfolds to give rise to a new species, yes? But there must be some co-ordination so that at least two organisms of opposite sex have saltations at the same time and place, otherwise how will the new species increase numbers. PEH seems pretty unconvincing as a hypothesis.Xavier
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
"I thought that evolution theory didn’t deal with origin of life?" Strictly speaking it doesn't. But just bring it up to any Darwin apologist and see if they have nothing to say on it. I tried that. If they don't have any opinion on the origin of life I said "okay, how about if the first cell was complex and was programmed to evolve into mushrooms and dinosaurs and people". No, that's not possible because Darwin's theory says life goes from simple to complex. So in fact it does speak to the origin of life. It says the first life must be simple. ID doesn't deal with the origin of life either. ID doesn't even deal with evolution. ID in the biological realm only deals with patterns found in living tissue. It does not address the question of how, when, or why the patterns got there other than to say it must be through intelligent agency because nothing but an intelligence has ever been observed producing CSI.DaveScot
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
In 52 above: I deny MACRO-evolution: inter-genomic evolution. I do not deny MICRO-evolution: intra-genomic evolution.Red Reader
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Artist in training There is no registration at Pandas Thumb, I believe. You just have to give an email address.Xavier
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply