In new book on the Royal Society’s Public Evolution Summit, Oxford’s Denis Noble explains,
The reasons I think we are talking about replacement rather than extension are several. The first is that the exclusion of any form of acquired characteristics being inherited was a central feature of the modern synthesis. In other words, to exclude any form of inheritance that was non-Mendelian, that was Lamarckian-like, was an essential part of the modern synthesis. What we are now discovering is that there are mechanisms by which some acquired characteristics can be inherited, and inherited robustly. So it’s a bit odd to describe adding something like to the synthesis ( i.e., extending the synthesis). A more honest statement is that the synthesis needs to be replaced.
By “replacement” I don’t mean to say that the mechanism of random change followed by selection does not exist as a possible mechanism. But it becomes one mechanism amongst many others, and those mechanisms must interact. So my argument for saying this is a matter of replacement rather than extension is simply that it was adirect intention of those who formulated the modern synthesis to exclude the inheritance of acquired characteristics. (p. 25)
That’s why the fat’s in the fire and smoking hot. Darwinism (or whatever the term du jour is) has been a totalistic system, enforced as such. But the evidence today simply doesn’t support it.
Reading Mazur’s book, I was struck by two things:
The genuinely interesting nature of alternative evolution proposals contrasts sharply with the science media release where fairly dull researchers have come up with a casuistical explanation of how Darwinism can account for various phenomena. And one realizes that for those individuals, that is evolution. That is science. Science is about reaffirming and finding evidence for the teachings of the Great One. And deploring or attacking anyone who doubts his teachings, irrespective of the state of the evidence.
The new approach is not exclusive or totalistic. It does not behave, as Darwinism does, as a metaphysic. Among many assemblies of evidence, some will naturally prevail, as more persuasive than others. But for once, evidence exists to understand living things better rather than to understand Darwin better.
Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets. This’ll be fun.
See also: What to expect from the Royal Society’s public evolution summit November 7-9
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Off Topic:
Ray Comfort’s new movie “The Atheist Delusion” is finally up on YouTube
The Atheist Delusion Movie (2016) HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM
Of note: The movie leans heavily on Intelligent Design inspired arguments
Noble rightly points to the exclusion of non-Mendelian forms of inheritance, such as epigenetics, as the problem spot for neo-Darwinism, or, the Modern Synthesis.
I posted here about a type of non-Mendelian inheritance that works independently of epigenetics and is now seen to work on scale previously unimaginable. So there are severe problems for neo-Darwinism. It has competitors. And we all know that competition fuels the “survival of the fittest.”
But what Noble isn’t saying, or perhaps, doesn’t choose to look at presently, is that both epigenetics and the new double-stranded RNA modes of inheritance are really about ‘adaptation.’
For the three-thousandth time, if Darwin has written a book titled, “The Origin of Adaptations,” no one would have quibbled so much.
Let’s face it: neo-Darwinism (pure population genetics), epigenetics, and even ds-RNA inheritance, isn’t going to explain new “species.”
[What are called new “species” today really should be simply called “varieties.” According to Darwin, an “incipient species”, his word for “varieties”, moves in a new and separate direction from the past. We don’t see this happening; and, so, this whole notion of “new species” is nothing but rhetoric.]
ID is the only plausible mechanism we know of that can accomplish a new, ‘integrated,’ whole we would call a “new species.”
That’s an odd argument by Noble, and I’m not sure if it’s even historically correct. The modern synthesis was developed to combine Darwin’s ideas with the data from genetics that had been developed. And even if he is historically correct, so what? The architects of the modern synthesis are long dead, so why do we have to follow their agenda?
as far as the science goes, Noble seems to be suggesting that evolutionary biology should be Mendelian genetics plus epigenetics, i.e. in practice he’s suggesting that we extend evolutionary biology by adding inheritance of acquired characteristics. Which would be very interesting (I’ve seen a couple of theoretical papers on this, but more is definitely needed). The nice thing is that we are gathering the empirical evidence to show that acquired characteristics can be inherited, so our models will be better informed: this isn’t just pie in the sky.
BA77,
Thank you for posting the reference to that interesting video.
@5:20 they say that genes give instructions to the cell. That does not seem quite accurate, does it?
Darwin proposed that evolution was via natural selection + the inheritance of acquired characteristics + numerous other mechanisms.
If including the inheritance of acquired characteristics is a replacement of the Modern Synthesis, then was the Modern Synthesis a replacement for Darwin’s theory when it excluded the inheritance of acquired characteristics?
And if re-including the inheritance of acquired characteristics is a replacement of the Modern Synthesis, then aren’t we replacing the Modern Synthesis with something more akin to Darwin’s theory?
Using Denis’s logic it would make more sense to make the title of this OP “Replacement of the Modern Synthesis with Darwinian evolution theory”.
Clearly, the Royal Society will not be discussing-
“Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture — TrueOrigin Archive.”
https://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.php
Hitler’s secretary Traudl Junge wrote that they were in the Reich bunker in Berlin while the soviet army was around the corner, the American and British armies had taken over most west/south Germany but the Fuhrer and a few of his closest comrades still believed their Reich (built to last 1000 years) was invincible.
History repeats. Pathetically bizarre.
Dr. Noble’s critique of the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism is pretty devastating as far as it goes,,,
,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”.
Of note: Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.
As I said, and as is obvious from the preceding article by Casey Luskin, Dr. Noble’s critique of the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism is pretty devastating as far as it goes. Where his critique does not go far enough, in my honest opinion, is that Dr. Nobel still holds onto the notion that there is some type of gradual pathway for unguided material processes to traverse between species, i.e. universal common descent. That belief that there is still some type of gradual pathway for unguided material processes to traverse between species is simply false.
The best way to point this fact out is with alternative splicing codes.
Although the protein coding regions between species are unexpectedly similar between species, (and indeed Darwinists try to use the approx. 80% thru 98% genetic similarity, according to varying estimates, between chimps and humans as knock down proof that humans evolved from some type of chimp-like ancestor), alternative splicing codes are found to be ‘species specific’. That is to say, alternative splicing codes, (which are regulatory codes that tell which genes when and where to turn on and off in an organism), are codes which are unique, i.e. tailor-made if you will, for each ‘kind’ of species.
The following papers help drive the point home as to just how devastating ‘species specific’ alternative splicing codes are for any attempted gradual explanations:
Of related interest to the ‘strikingly different interaction profiles’ for the up to a million unique polypeptides generated by alternative splicing, is Behe’s vindicated limit for the ‘Edge of Evolution’. A limit for what evolutionary processes can accomplish. A limit which is put at generating just 2 new protein-protein binding sites by unguided Darwinian processes. i.e. 1 in 10^40,,,
In what should be needless to say, since Darwinian evolution presupposes the unlimited plasticity of organisms, then this finding of inflexible, yet radically different, alternative splicing patterns between even supposedly closely related species is exactly the opposite finding for what would have been expected by Darwinists.
If Darwinian evolution were a normal science that was subject to rigorous testing like other sciences, instead of being basically the unfalsifiable pseudo-science/religion that it is, this finding, by itself, should have been more than enough to falsify Darwinian evolution outright and consign it forever to the dust bin of failed scientific theories.
But alas, evidence does not, and never did, really ever matter for die-hard Darwinists. Only their rejection of God truly matters for them. Don’t believe me? Well if rebellion against God is not central to hard core Darwinian thought then why has Darwinian literature always been so dependent on bad liberal theology in order to try to make its case for Darwinian evolution?
If you are shocked that Darwinian evolution would be so dependent of bad liberal theology, then perhaps it time for you to seriously question just exactly what it is that hard core Darwinists are really trying to sell you?
“For the three-thousandth time, if Darwin has written a book titled, “The Origin of Adaptations,” no one would have quibbled so much.”
Maybe a bit of quibbling with “Origin of Adaptations”, PaV? Take the Peppered Moth for example. The lighter colored moth already existed in the population. Only after its darker brothers were eaten would the lighter peppered version proliferate. The camouflage design/ability was already in place. No origin of the adaption in the moth.
How about “Origin of the Easiest Meal”?
Since no one else here will do it, in spite of paying lip service to science, let’s see what an evolutionary biologist like Jerry Coyne thinks of physiologist Dennis Noble’s criticism of evolution:
Only Seversky would think that the ‘illusion of Coyne’s’ bluff and bluster carries any weight here on UD:
Note to Seversky, illusions, by definition, are not to be taken seriously! Much less is a person who claims that he really is an illusion to be taken seriously!
Only BA77 would link to a Ray Comfort (ashamedly, a fellow countryman), as if it merrited viewing.
You do know BA about the youtube Ray Comfort/ Kirk Cameron, banana embarassment? He said, to paraphrase, ‘God is real because the banana fits the human hand, and is easy to peal’.
Honestly, he said that! You can see yourself on your own research tool, youtube! Have you ever seen a chimpanzee peal a banana? Don’t, they do it as dextorously as we do; perhaps by this evidence God is a Chimp!
I have a question for Mr Comfort, and Kirk; ‘What was God thinking when he invented the coconut?’
As to the post; Coyne is abrasive and cantankorous, but with a decent sense of humour, something soundly lacking in the posters here.
Not true, rvb8. The video looks pretty good from what I’ve seen of it.
But if you’re going to bring up Ray Comfort’s past, we may as well ask you about your past refusal to answer my question about your ridiculous dietary restrictions on eating certain types of highly nutritious animal protein based on atheistic “moral grounds.”
I’d say that was at least as embarrassing as Ray Comfort’s the banana bit.
-Q
Ray Comfort is premiairing his latest film in the hull of a land bound boat, that if put on water would sink. He is doing this in the company of an Ozzy who built said boat. Said Australian also has a museum with a Triceriatops with a saddle, ‘like olden times’. In this museum we learn that kangaroos hopped to Australia from Arrarat, and none died on the way, hence only fossil kangaroos in Australia.
Ken and Ray are made for each other. This is a straightforward and honest question. I am not trying to be smart or dismissive; ‘Do you really want the ID movement associated with these people?’
‘Q’ I’m glad we agree that the immortalization of Comfort on youtube is embarassing. We can quibble over whether my natural evolved aversion to eating members of my own species, is equivalent to the utter scientific incompetance of a smiling, imbecile.
Apparently, Ray and Ken contend (give me strength), the video shows knock down questions to atheists who are stumped by the logic and genius of said questions. Why am I never confronted by this rock solid evidence for God, all I get is you lot. Assertion, hearsay, mis-quotation, ‘I saw the eyes of the statue weep blood’ etc, and research from dubious sites at best.
Thanks for the link at 8, ba77. Noble misrepresents the history:
No, Mendel’s paper was rediscovered, but it was seen as an argument against Darwinian evolution.
The modern synthesis was just about completed by 1940 – Fisher started in 1915, and published The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection in 1930. Haldane published The Causes of Evolution in 1932.
This certainly mis-represents Dawkins’ aims: he was writing about an extension of The Modern Synthesis, where the effects of individuals on the fitness of other organisms could be analysed.
I listened a bit further, but it just got worse: Noble doesn’t seem to understand the difference between a mutation and the rate of mutation (the former can be random whilst the latter is under control).
rvb8, since you can not be bothered to watch the new Ray Comfort video because of your aversion to him making an erroneous claim of evidential support in the past from a banana, (which is a surprising aversion on your part since the history of Darwinian evolution is chock full of egregious and erroneous claims of evidential support in the past, (i.e. see junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc… etc… also see Cornelius Hunter’s page “Darwin’s Predictions”),,, anyways,, since your refined scientific sensibilities prevent you from ever watching a Ray Comfort video then I will ask you the main simple question from the video.
OK, pretend you are holding, say, an evolutionary biology textbook in your hands and that you are thumbing through all the rich texts and pictures of the book.
OK, got it?, now,,
“Do you believe the book wrote itself by accident or do you believe that a person intentionally wrote that book?”
And if you rightly, and sanely, believe that a person wrote that book, then do you also rightly, and sanely, believe that the information in DNA, (which is orders, upon orders, more complex and extensive than the information in the book is), is also written by a person?
All the college kids in the video, who were atheistic at the beginning of the video, rightly agreed that it is impossible for unguided processes to write the information in the book and thus, by default, they also agreed that it is also impossible for the much more extensive and complex information in DNA to be written by accident, i.e. they agreed that a person had to intentionally write the information in DNA.
In fact, no one has EVER seen unguided material processes created non-trivial information. Every time we see information generated in the world we invariably trace its source back to an intelligent agent!
In fact, if you, or any Darwinists, can come up with just one example of unguided material processes creating non-trivial information then you would falsify ID and possibly net yourself up to 3 million dollars.
Moreover, ID uses the exact same method of science as Darwin himself used, i.e. presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question, thus if you try to say that ID is unscientific, then you are also, by default, saying that Darwinian evolution itself is unscientific:
verse:
rvb8- You also seem to have an aversion to answering straightforward questions.
Any sign of that aversion going away and you answer my question re fossil ancestry.
Bob O’H, you are picking at inconsequential details in Noble’s broad historical outline, Details that Noble purposely skipped over in order to make his presentation short and sweet so as too be able to highlight the more important empirical falsifications of neo-Darwinism in his short lecture. Moreover, you are apparently ignoring the much more important ‘elephant in the living room’ empirical falsifications against neo-Darwinism that Noble presented in his talk in order to focus on inconsequential historical details.
It does not reflect well on you to be so disingenuous to the science at hand.
As to your attempted, half hearted, defence of Dawkins, that is simply inexcusable. IMHO, Dawkins is almost single handedly responsible for leading the entire field of molecular biology down a blind path for decades with his ‘selfish gene’ concept:
At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the concept of the selfish gene ‘inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences’, for over 30 years:
also of note
Of related note: It is certainly not your grandfather’s selfish gene any more
Bob O’H:
I linked to a post pointing out the surprise finding of how ds-RNA migrates into the new gamete. If you look at the short video, it is quite remarkable. This is no small amount of ds-RNA that is being transferred.
This is an additional mechanism. It further dilutes RM+NS. And it is always at the level of ‘adaptation,’ not ‘innovation.’
neo-Darwinism has always limped. Now it is in a wheelchair.
William Provine, THE historian of neo-Darwinism, as his final work, decimates the underpinnings of the MS. He points out, over and over, that genetic changes in small populations occur not because of “random genetic drift,” but because of “inbreeding.”
Neo-Darwinism is defective at its core.
I am still stunned, now about seven or eight years later, that Fisher’s “Fundamental Theorom of Natural Selection” comes from differentiating two equations used for actuarial tables (i.e., how to calculate the rate of death), and then equating the differentials! Wow! That’s the “fundamental theorom”? Oh, my.
And, of course, his “equation” finds great use in “statistical mechanics.” You might as well say that increasing entropy causes evolution! Oh, wait. They do! Oh, my. Just go to your nearest ‘heat bath’ and see what nature has produced!
OT: Dr. Paul Giem wraps up his review of Doug Axe’s book ‘Undeniable’
Querius
The first 30 minutes are good – although even that went on too long, a lot was repeated. I object to the part at about 41:20 where Mr. Comfort interviews a Catholic student and starts giving him his theological views. From that point on for the next 25 minutes it’s all basically Christian preaching in the style of Ray Comfort (which I don’t like and don’t agree with). Interviewing a Catholic in a movie directed at “the Atheist Delusion” was tasteless and demeaning, but that’s very much in the style of Ray Comfort as I see him.
An edited version with just the ID parts (maybe 20 minutes max) would be great. If not, it’s more like something oriented to Evangelical church ministry, and that’s certainly ok for its purpose.
But even there, I enjoy watching David Rives who does a Creation Ministry program – very similar to Ray Comfort but more appealing in my opinion. But it’s a different kind of ID than I’m familiar with, very Biblically based as the starting point. The science seems good. But they actually oppose ID because it doesn’t name the designer as the God of Christian Faith.
I always appreciate BA77’s links – which come from a variety of sources, including atheists who support ID, so I hope we don’t view my comments as a criticism of him or the great job he does in providing resources!
And, in fact, I’m very glad to have heard about this video in the first place, so thank you!
Commenters who have not read Mazur’s Public Evolution Summit interviews are urged to do so.
For the first time, the Darwinsmoke cleared and one was listening to modern-day evolutionary biology.
People like Coyne are noisy relics now. Dawkins is running an anti-God crusade. I don;t think PZ Myers has invented a new swear word in the last decade.
More later, be sure of it.
PaV, you’ve said that the HIV medical industry has serious fundamental problems, and the basic science is incoherent and wrong. Please explain those problems on a dedicated thread. It would be great to find out what all these issues are. If scientists are being deceptive like they are with evolution and global warming, lets get it out in the open and discuss it.
AK:
Stop playing a game. If you have issues with those who disagree with the HIV consensus, then state it in simple language.
I can’t because you haven’t fully explained your disagreement. That’s what I’m urging you to do. State the case for why the medical and scientific community is wrong on this too.
I think sometime sit is useful to review just what Darwinism is, and what the significant revision adds.
The two pillars of Darwin’s theory:
1. All life shares a common ancestry.
2. The different forms of life arose (and arise) via natural selection acting on heritable phenotypic variability.
The addition: The different forms of life arose (and arise) via the dual proceesss of fixation of random heritable variation and of natural selection acting on heritable phenotypic variability.
It is hard to see how this summit changes either of these, at all. Fantastic and sweeping claims that these fundamentals are in some way being challenged are wrong. Just plain wrong.
Arthur:
RM+NS couldn’t explain evolution before. [What I mean is that look wherever you like, you will not find a sustained mathematical argument for how species arise. The argument is always that inheritable nucleotides can change from one generation to another, and that these nucleotide changes can become ‘fixed.’ What is left out, however, is how, over time, through numerous ‘generations,’ new ‘species’ arise. There is no ‘proof,’ but only ‘conjecture.’ And the ‘conjecture’ is rather sweeping, and un-detailed.] The situation is now worse in terms of “genetic load.” We now have three levels of inheritance that can only be ‘filtered’ via mortality, or, genetic load.
As to the two pillars, I grant you number (1), given that you’ve used the word ancestry and not inheritance. But number (2) was unsupported before, and now only becomes more problematic.
If one looks at a ‘trend line,’ so to speak, the ‘trend’ is in the direction of finding more and more interactions–something that implies more and more types of feedback: i.e., complexity. More complexity is the friend of ID, and the enemy of Darwinism.
Alas, as you know I’ve said, “another day, and another bad day for Darwinism.” This trending increase in complexity is exactly what I have in mind when I write this phrase.
Just like on Wall Street, “the trend is your friend!”
Dennis Noble:
By “replacement” I don’t mean to say that the mechanism of random change followed by selection does not exist as a possible mechanism.
If the mechanism of random change followed by selection DOESN’T EXIST, what’s the alternative professor Noble? Give us a few hints other than the ones you don’t want to admit.
Art Hunt says that it is hard for him to see how anything that is being brought up in the conference would be a challenge to the theoretical core of Darwinian evolution. And he is right to claim that it hard to see how anything can be a challenge to Darwinian evolution. It should be very hard for anyone to see how anything can ever really be a challenge to the theoretical core of Darwinian evolution since Darwinian evolution does not even have a hard core to be challenged in the first place:
Basically, Lakatos was referring to the fact that Darwinian evolution is not scientifically falsifiable. That it to say, there is no test that someone can perform in the lab that has the potential to directly falsify evolution. And since it is not falsifiable, then it does not qualify as a science but is more realistically classified as a pseudo-science along the lines of tea leaf reading:
J. B. S. Haldane himself, one of the main founders of population genetics, basically agreed with the point that Darwinian evolution is untestable in the lab, and therefore unfalsifiable, when he offered up the laughable ‘pre-cambrian rabbit’ as a supposed test that could falsify evolution:
The reason why Darwinian evolution, as it is presently configured, is a unfalsifiable pseudo-science is because it has no rigid mathematical basis to test against (As say Quantum Theory and General Relativity have a rigid mathematical basis to test against):
The primary reason why no scientist has been able to ‘quantify its dictums’ is because there are no known laws of nature for Darwinists to appeal to to base their math on. In other words, there is no known ‘law of evolution’, such as there is a ‘law of gravity’, within the physical universe for us to test against:
In fact, not only does Evolution not have any universal law to appeal to as other overarching theories of science have, Entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts Darwinian claims that increases in functional complexity can be easily had (Granville Sewell, Andy McIntosh). Moreover, empirical evidence is also overwhelmingly telling us that Genetic Entropy, as an overriding principle for biology, i.e. genomic decay, holds for biology (Michael Behe, First Rule of Evolution, John Sanford, Genetic Entropy)
In fact, in so far as the math of population genetics can be applied to Darwinian claims, it has falsified natural selection, which was Darwin’s primary claim to scientific fame, under the bus:
And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, et al) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-609504
Moreover Lakatos, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria, he was brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science and a pseudo-scientific theory will generate ‘epicycle theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions:
And even by Lakatos’s much softer falsification criteria, (a falsification criteria of just making successful predictions in science instead of subjecting a theory to direct empirical testing of its claims), we find that Darwinian evolution qualifies as a pseudo-science rather than qualifying as a hard science:
Dr. Hunter comments here on Darwinism’s failed predictions:
And following in Lakatos footsteps, Dr. Hunter has compiled a list of many of the major false predictions generated by evolutionary theory. False predictions that are fundamental to evolutionary theory, i.e. go to the ‘core’ of the theory, and falsify it from the inside out as it were.
Moreover, as bad as all of the preceding is for people who prefer to believe in Darwinian evolution no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, being a pseudo-science is not the worse failing of Darwinian evolution. The worst failing of Darwinian evolution is its naturalistic basis. Simply put, if we try to use naturalism as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practising science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. sense of self. observation of reality, beliefs about reality, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
Verse:
PaV,, regarding your resort to “the math”, i don’t think you have any idea what you are saying. You seem to be claiming, for example, that we have no idea about the mechanisms that underlie the origins of, say, the Hawaiian silverswords. That is more than wrong, it is silly. (I believe this subject has been broached before here, and the anti evolution crowd reflexively resorted to “no fair, they’re just plants”.).
As far as the alleged insufficiency of RM+NS, it is a fact that no antievolutionist has ever published any sort of well-controlled positive experimental evidence for this claim. The fact is, RM+NS is all there is, and these mechanisms quite completely suffice to explain the variety of life as we know it. The summit we are talking about proposes new modes of heritable variation, but it doesn’t seem to question this core pillar.
as to:
” The fact is, RM+NS is all there is, and these mechanisms quite completely suffice to explain the variety of life as we know it.”
Dr. Sanford, among many others, begs to differ:
RM and NS is “not even wrong”
Of note: The phrase “not even wrong” is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Here is what Pauli said about evolution:
Marfin @17
So, you noticed that, too? All you read is Baseless Assertions and Pointless Vituperation. I wonder whether rvb8 is actually a Turing test using a BA/PV app. I once had had a similar experience when I was a kid trying to corner Eliza . . .
-Q
Silver Asiatic @ 21,
Points taken. I got bored after a few minutes due to its slow pace and familiar approach.
It seems like it would be good for someone to critique his material. The banana routine in another of his videos sounded like it came straight from an evolutionary argument in a Biology text. You know, like the goofy ones that try to trace the evolution of mustaches in men or that compare human blood to the sea water of ancient oceans.
Now that film was a real corker! 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mHZbrVnuA
-Q
as to this claim:
“As far as the alleged insufficiency of RM+NS, it is a fact that no antievolutionist has ever published any sort of well-controlled positive experimental evidence for this claim.”
and yet we find,,,
Of note, it is hardly just ‘anti-evolutionists’ that find RM & NS severely wanting. “The Third Way” has a list of many distinguished scientists, who no doubt believe in some type of evolution, who find the mechanism of RM & NS severely wanting:
ba77 @36 – your first link is dead. The Third Way group is odd – I suspect almost every evolutionary biologist would agree that “other mechanisms [than natural selection] are essential for a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes”. That’s why mutation, demography, drift, behaviour, and even (*gasp*) epigenetics are part of evolutionary biology.
(although in fairness the evolutionary role of epigenetics is poorly understood)
“your first link is dead.”
Indeed it is. Although the original article has apparently died and gone to internet heaven, here are some links that get the same point across
Your critique of The Third Way is fuzzy to put it nicely.
But I guess a Darwinist, who is purposely being obfuscating and disingenuous to the science at hand, would find it ‘odd’ that respected scientists, who have no theological axe to grind, would strenuously object to the mechanism of RM & NS on purely empirical grounds:
These guys a pretty impressive in their work. One of the scientists listed on “The Third Way”, who finds Darwinian explanations severely lacking, is Didier Raoult himself:
Querius
Agreed! He needs a tough-minded editor who wont’ give him the chance to just keep replaying the same material. 🙂
Arthur:
You missed the part where I talked about Darwin describing “varieties” as “incipient species.” This does get us back to “they’re still just a [type of] plant.”
What Darwinism needs to demonstrate is still left for demonstration. Adaptation, and phenotypic diversity, is not “macroevolution.” Simple as that.
As to adaptive radiations, have you ever looked at Richard Goldschmidt’s (1934?) “The Material Basis of Evolution”? There you will find that he determined that the one “new species” of moth that seemed to creep up at the end of one such ‘radiation,” was not due to ‘genetics,” but due to the type of soil. Guess what, even back then we were running into ‘epigenetics’: that is, environmental cues changing the regulatory mechanism of a ‘genome.’
Well, in a way, I have. Look here (posts 46 and 48) and here.
I predicted that the Adriatic lizard, Podacaris sicula, if fed the diet that the transplanted lizards encountered after transplantation to a new island in the lab would produce the same phenotypic changes that occurred. I suggested that this study be carried out. It was. I turned out to be correct.
So, though I didn’t publish it, the study was done and published. It’s what Goldschmidt was saying 80 years ago.
r – rare
v – virus
b – bot
8 – 8th iteration
?
ba77 @ 38 – huh? That paper that you link to shows natural selection, at several dozen loci. From the abstract:
So there is both genotypic and phenotypic change, and this is repeatable across replicates.
Your comments about me being “obfuscating and disingenuous” are not worth responding to.
Bob states that “Your comments about me being “obfuscating and disingenuous” are not worth responding to.”
And yet Bob himself demonstrates the disingenuous nature in which conducts himself by his selective omission of what followed directly after his selected quote,,, specifically
The conclusion is more direct than the abstract:
I’ll let the unbiased readers decide for themselves whether Bob provided the rope for his own hanging on the charge of being disingenuous towards the evidence!
ba77 – where do those quotes say that natural selection is not effective? Yes, they say we don’t get selective sweeps and fixation, but I don’t know any serious biologist who’s claimed that natural selection has to lead to selective sweeps and fixation.
“where do those quotes say that natural selection is not effective?”
““Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.”
Further quotes from empirical and mathematical investigations that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of natural selection as the supposed ‘designer substitute’:
Darwin himself referred to Natural Selection as some type of master craftsman:
Yet contrary to what Darwin and his modern day ‘just so story tellers’ may believe, Natural Selection as the designer substitute is not only blind but is dead:
ba77 – You’re equating effectiveness of natural selection with fixation. But I don’t know of any argument for why this should be the case. And in the paper you’re citing, we see a large adaptive change without fixation. So that would seem to be clear evidence that natural selection can be effective without fixation.
Actually, despite how desperately you apparently want to spin this to not reflect badly of Darwinism, the main point of the paper is precisely about the ineffectiveness of natural selection. Moreover, they note that the ‘flawed paradigm’ leads to dangerous practices in drug development.
Put simply, if Selection struggles so mightily to fix just a single unambiguously beneficial mutation, then the following awe inspiring wonders are forever out of the reach of Darwinian ‘just so stories:
ba77 – the paper show a large, repeatable change in both phenotype & genotype. How come that isn’t due to natural selection?
The point of the paper (as I understand it) is that selection can have a large effect without necessarily sending alleles to fixation, or with selective sweeps. The only way I can see the paper’s conclusions matching your is if you think that natural selection is only effective when it leads to fixation. What evidence do you have for this view? (or, if this isn’t your view, can you explain what I’ve misunderstood about your position?)
Bob, you are now trolling me. I suggest you stop. I don’t have time to play stupid games all day with you.
ba77 – you seem to be equating two things that are not the same. I’m simply trying to find out why you’re doing this, or if I’ve misunderstood you. I don’t see trying to understand your point of view better as a “stupid game”.
The paper says what it says. I’ll let the readers, and administrator, decide who is being forthright. If you persist in pestering me I will request you be banned for trolling.
Yes, the paper does say what it says, but not what you seem to think it says.
It looks like we’ll have to leave the matter here.
BA77 it is clear that Bob is being forthright and you are not. Any honest reader can see that. And if you had a shred of decency you would admit that. And possibly you could learn something if you were not so emotionally immature.
BornAgain, Bob is in the right here. It’s not hard to just acknowledge a mistake and learn from it. But not acknowledging a mistake and learning from it is a bad route to take.
Simply amazing. Three birds one stone.
To reiterate the conclusion of the paper so as to dispel any ambiguity:
BA77,
Good point.
Please, don’t forget that you’re dealing with folks who have no interest whatsoever in serious science. Otherwise they would have been active participants in the discussion threads “Mystery at the heart of life” and “A third way of evolution?”, but they aren’t.
Just a reminder -from an openly anti-ID source- for your politely-dissenting interlocutors:
Just let your politely-dissenting interlocutors argue with Dr. Shapiro, Dr. Noble, et al.
Maybe then they’ll get the point, finally?
🙂
Dionisio, although the decades long empirical work on fruit flies is certainly very good for pulling the empirical curtain back and showing that the ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection has no clothes on, I would like to clearly lay out a primary reason why natural selection is so severely lacking in creative power at the genome level.
Dr. John Sanford, in the first part of this following video, clearly illustrates the ineffectiveness of natural selection with what he calls ‘the princess and the pea paradox’:
The ‘princess and the pea paradox’ is simple in its clarity. The paradox states that in order for natural selection to be effective in the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution, it must operate the genetic sequence level. Yet natural selection operates at the whole organism level which is many levels, i.e. mattresses, removed from the genetic sequence level. It does not operate at the genetic text level. In other words, Natural Selection only operates by killing off an entire organism of a population in order to try to improve the genetic text which is buried within the trillions upon trillions of cells of the population of organisms. It is very much similar to trying to write a new and improved computer program by randomly introducing a change to an existing program on a computer and then throwing out all the computers that crash as result of the random change and only keeping those that don’t crash. As you can see, it is certainly not a very ‘effective’ way to write a new computer program, and it certainly drives the point home of natural selection being very ‘ineffective’ as the supposed ‘designer substitute’. i.e. As you can clearly see from the princess and the pea illustration of Dr. Sanford, it is simply impossible for Natural Selection to be ‘daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad preserving and adding up all that is good’ as Darwin and his followers imagine(d) it to be
But as devastating as the princess and the pea paradox is to the proposition that Natural selection could possibly function as a effective ‘designer substitute’, there is another problem for natural selection which is just as, if not more, devastating as the princess and the pea paradox is. Moreover, this problem, which is highlighted in the last part of the ‘abject failure’ video that I referenced, hits closer to home with Intelligent Design since it involves the physical reality of information in biological systems. Namely, this devastating problem for Natural Selection has to do with what is termed ‘quarter power scaling’:
The reason why ’4-Dimensional’ quarter power scaling laws are impossible for Darwinian evolution to explain is that Natural Selection operates at the 3-Dimensional level of the organism and the ’4-Dimensional’ quarter power scaling law are simply ‘invisible’ to natural selection. The reason why 4-Dimensional things are, for all practical purposes, completely invisible to 3-Dimensional things is best illustrated by ‘flatland’:
And the reason why living things operate as if they were 4-Dimensional, instead of operating as if they were 3-Dimensional, is because, contrary to the materialistic framework upon which Darwinism sits, it is ‘physically real information’ which is foundational to life and it is not matter and energy that are foundational to life as is presupposed in the materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution.
Here are a few notes on the physical reality of ‘immaterial’ information:
Breakthroughs in quantum biology, particularly the recent establishment of quantum entanglement/information in molecular biology on a massive scale, i.e. in every DNA and protein molecule, further drives the point home. The point being, of course, that life operates as if it is 4-Dimensional, instead of 3-Dimensional as Darwinists would expect, because ‘higher dimensional’ information is literally what is ‘holding life together’ until death:
A few notes to that effect:
Verses and Music:
BA77,
Thank you for posting all that interesting information.
Hopefully your politely-dissenting interlocutors will read it too.
🙂
Dinosio @ 57 –
Going through my inbox just now, I’ve been sent some data on an experiment in canine psychology, got emails from colleagues about an analysis I sent them last night about Mongolian livestock, and was CC’ed a decision on a manuscript I reviewed. That’s just overnight. So the reason I don’t participate in every thread is that I’m busy actually doing serious science (this morning it’s more Mongolian livestock and global trees).
Bob O’H @60:
Huh?
Huh?
Bob O’H @60:
Huh?
Did you mean “Dionisio @ 56” ?
Have you considered taking a short break from your busy work schedule so you can rest?
Huh?
Did I ever ask you to explain why you don’t participate in anything?
You don’t have to explain why you participate in some discussion threads but don’t participate in other discussion threads. That’s up to you to decide. Nobody else should do it for you.
Hey, relax. You can checkout anytime you want and you can actually leave. 🙂
Bob O’H @60:
Take a look at this:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-619716
Note you’re absent from that thread, where I made a similar observation as @56 in this current thread, hence it refers to other folks too. Don’t take things so personally. 🙂
However, regarding this current thread, let’s see:
3 Bob O’H October 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm
15 Bob O’H October 24, 2016 at 2:08 am
37 Bob O’H October 25, 2016 at 5:16 am
42 Bob O’H October 26, 2016 at 4:40 am
44 Bob O’H October 26, 2016 at 6:59 am
46 Bob O’H October 26, 2016 at 8:27 am
48 Bob O’H October 26, 2016 at 9:10 am
50 Bob O’H October 26, 2016 at 9:43 am
52 Bob O’H October 26, 2016 at 1:32 pm
60 Bob O’H October 27, 2016 at 3:35 am
Hmm…
Are you really as busy as you claim @60?
Note that October 23-27 you didn’t miss a day here in this thread.
And on the 26th you were really active here. Was that your day off from your busy work schedule? 🙂
But since News started this thread the 23rd you have not missed a single day of participation in this thread.
Hence your excuse @60 seems like a weak argument, doesn’t it?
It’s obvious that a selective participation is indeed in place here. Don’t agree?
The two threads I mentioned @56 were started by News long ago. One has been around 2.5 years, the other close to two years. Both are heavily loaded with numerous references to biology research papers. Maybe over 3 thousand references combined?
Are there other threads in this UD site having more biology research papers referenced than the two threads I mentioned @60?
How many times have you commented in those two threads combined?
Should we count it?
Dinosio@ 72 (approx.) – you were complaining that some of us “have no interest whatsoever in serious science”, which I took to be a pretty direct insult to those of us who are serious scientists.
I don’t read every thread (just when I have time), so the reason I don’t participate is because I lack the time or interest. One reason I lack the time is because I’m doing serious science. This week I’ve been poking at analyses, and waiting for my Markdown documents to compile, so I have time to pop in & look at threads I’ve been active on.
(and yes, I was tempted to wait 3 days before posting this response :-))
Bob O’H @64:
In this current discussion thread you have posted @:
You haven’t missed a single day since News started this thread last October 23rd.
1. Is your allegedly ‘scientific’ work really keeping you as busy as you claim? (yes/no)
2. What has motivated you to post comments here in this thread every single day since it started?
The following 3 questions (3-5) are related to the two threads I mentioned @56 which were started by News long ago.
One has been up around 2.5 years, the other close to two years.
Both are filled with numerous references to relatively recent biology research papers. Maybe over 3 thousand references combined?
3. Have you ever looked into the discussion threads “Mystery at the heart of life” and/or “A third way of evolution?” even without posting any comments?
(yes/no)
4. Have you ever posted a comment on at least one of those discussion threads?
(yes/no)
5. Do you have any strong counter arguments against any of the comments posted by others in those two threads?
(yes/no)
The following questions were asked to professor L.M. of the U. of T.
His answers are publicly available in this site.
Now you have the opportunity to answer them too.
6. Do you know exactly how the morphogen gradients are formed?
(yes/no)
7. Do you know exactly how the morphogen gradients are interpreted?
(yes/no)
That’s all for now. Thank you.
Bob O’H @64:
In this current discussion thread you have posted @:
As anyone can see, you haven’t missed a single day since News started this thread last October 23rd.
You have posted 11 comments in 6 days just in this thread.
Definitely you don’t lack interest to comment in this thread. And apparently you’ve had some time for that too.
Is this an accurate observation?
Dionisio,
Your logical fallacy is ad hominem.
Please address the poster’s argument, not his person.
Thank you.
No, they’re not, DK. These are what are termed “observable facts.” This is actually what science is supposed to be based on.
Imagine that.
-Q
Querius,
You’re funny.
Dionisio’s fallacious reasoning is science?
Get a grip, if you can.
Daniel King, if you are not a Theist then, by default, you are not being ‘scientific’ but are in fact being anti-scientific.
Let us be VERY clear to the fact that ALL of science, every discipline within science, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility.,,,
Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use naturalism as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
Supplemental notes:
Daniel King @67:
Please, can you indicate what “poster’s argument” are you referring to?
Daniel King @67:
1. Do you know exactly why Dionisio is writing directly to Bob O’H?
2. Do you know who started the direct exchange of comments between Bob O’H and Dionisio?
3. BTW, did Bob O’H hire you as his defense lawyer? 🙂
4. Do you want to discuss science with me?
5. Do you have time for such a discussion?
6. Would you be really interested in such a discussion?
7. At any depth of details?
You may use any help you can get. Just let me know when you’re ready.
For appetizers you may start from the questions # 6 & 7 posted @65.
Bob O’H:
There’s an error in a statement within my post @56.
Here’s the corrected text:
The word ‘apparently’ was added.
However, still it would be highly appreciated if you responded the questions posted @65.
Dionosio – I don’t see why I should be beholden to you. I comment on some threads, and not others, depending on how interesting they are, how busy I am, and whether I feel there’s something worth commenting on.
I’ve no idea why you’re asking me about morphogen gradients. It’s not my area of expertise.
Bob O’H:
Thank you for replying again.
Please, note that it was you -not I- who started this ‘conversation’ with your comment @60.
You provided much unsolicited information which caused more confusion. I took it as an open invitation to discuss.
If you want to ‘chat’ with me, be willing and ready to answer questions. Otherwise, don’t even start. Again, in this case, it was you who started the exchange of comments.
If someone starts a direct one-on-one discussion/debate/conversation/chat with me, I assume that person is willing and ready to ask and answer questions.
I’m very curious and know much less than most folks in this site, including yourself, hence I like to ask questions to learn.
Many questions I ask are fairly simple and easy to answer.
But we should read the questions carefully and follow any given directions on how to answer them.
As you can see in this case, most of the questions I asked you just required a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. That’s it.
Also, note that the questions @65 are numbered and grouped by categories. Thus you don’t have to repeat the questions along with your answers. It’s sufficient to refer to the question number and write your answer next to that number.
One reason I do it like that, besides my curiosity, is to make my interlocutor reveal his/her real motives for the conversation/discussion.
If a person complains about simple questions like those, it could mean that person is not really interested in having a serious conversation/discussion with me.
You could have answered all the questions posted @65. But did you want to? Apparently not. That’s fine, it’s your prerogative. But again, you were the initiator of this exchange. I did not address you directly in this thread before you addressed me @60.
Do you understand what I mean? I’m not good conveying ideas clearly.
From what you described in your comments, in a way you’re a scientist, but I’m not and I’m far from becoming one.
Most probable you know a lot more about biology than I do. For years I’ve worked as a software developer for an engineering design system. But I like science, specially biology.
Therefore if we were to discuss some biology stuff here, I could benefit more than you because I have more to learn from what you know than you could learn from what I know about biology. Do you agree?
Let’s go back to my questions @65:
Are the questions 3-7 difficult for you to answer either ‘yes’ or ‘no’?
Actually, it should be easy for you to answer the first seven questions I asked Daniel King @72, right?
Yes, no, maybe? 🙂
There’s one most important knowledge -above any scientific or philosophical knowledge- which I would enjoy sharing with you, which gives me the confidence that frees me from having to meet some worldly standards in order to qualify as ‘acceptable’ to this world. It’s the knowledge of Christ, who made everything that was made, including you and me. I pray that somehow someday you’ll have that knowledge too. I know He loves you, because He proved He loves me, and I’m sure I’m not better than you. He created you and me in His image (Imago Dei). Therefore you and I have the same dignity. And most important, you and I can have intimate relation with our own Creator. He gracefully provided the way for us to approach Him personally, forever.
Think about this.
I’ll pray for you.
Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
PS. This ends our conversation, as per your request.
Dionisio @72:
You can answer those silly questions yourself.
That smokescreen doesn’t hide your attack on Bob O’H simply for disagreeing with bornagain77.
Ad hominems seem to be the modus operandi of this site. (I am grateful to my Jesuit mentors for teaching me a little elementary Latin and elementary logic. Both come in handy when analyzing the illogic of UD supporters.)
bornagain77:
Looks like ad hominems are so ingrained in the UD community that it’s become the standard reply to any criticism.
You’re not fooling anybody, except yourself.
Daniel King @69 wrote:
To which, (Daniel King)^-1 would reply:
Thus it becomes apparent that multiplying them together and subtracting one from the product would simply leave a bad smell. 😉
-Q
Querius
I like you buddy. You’ve made me laugh out loud.
But I feel sad for DK.
I used to exist in that same state of mind for a substantial portion of the time I’ve been around, totally oblivious to reality. It’s pathetic, because I wasn’t aware of my lost condition. Everything seemed fine from my distorted perspective.
However, there’s hope that DK could be rescued from that miserable situation. I know God loves him, because God loves me and I’m not better than DK.
DK, you and I were made in God’s image (Imago Dei), hence we all share the same dignity and can have intimate relation with our own Creator. It doesn’t get better than that.
I pray that DK’s spiritual eyes get wide open so that he can see the true ultimate reality, defined in the first few verses of the gospel according to the apostle John.
PS. One reason to ask very simple easy to answer ‘yes’/’no’ questions is to let your interlocutors reveal their real motives for discussing. If they hassle about those simple questions, it most probably means that they’re not interested in having a serious discussion whatsoever. Just observe DK’s hysterical reaction.
It’s definitely sad.
By the pool of Bethesda our Lord met a man who had been paralyzed many years. Do you remember what Jesus asked him? What did the sick man respond? What happened next?
Dionisio,
Yes, I agree.
The reason that I’ve added some ridicule to certain replies is in the perhaps vain effort to shake them into awareness. It seems like few if any of their posts are genuine attempts at discussion.
What woke me up was the speculative nature and inadequacy of Darwinism. I started asking questions in high school and then rejected the pathetic theory after studying *part* of a wall-full of complex biochemical cycles in college.
The sick man by the pool wanted healing and told Jesus straight out. He didn’t argue or rationalize when Jesus told him to get up,take up his bed, and walk.
Certain people here want anything but healing, preferring instead to waste our time with stupid arguments to justify their lifestyle.
However, I respect a question or doubt as long as the person is genuine and honest. There’s a huge difference!
-Q
Daniel King in regards to this statement that I made,,,
,, you replied,,,
Daniel King, contrary to what you may personally believe, a statement of a fact is not a personal ad hominem. It is simply a statement of a fact. If you consider my statement personally offensive then that is your own fault for being too personally attached to the naturalistic worldview. The naturalistic worldview, as much as you may admire that worldview, is not ‘you’. In fact, since consciousness is an illusion under naturalism, then there would be no ‘you’ to be offended in naturalism were actually true. I merely pointed out the now established fact that the naturalistic worldview is indeed anti-scientific.
Daniel King, you then go on to, of all things, state this,,,
Yet Daniel King, if Naturalism were actually true then Naturalism itself would be ‘fooling’ everybody and science would be impossible. That is, in fact, a very large part of the reason why I stated that Naturalism is in fact the ‘anti-scientific’ worldview.
For instance, although reliable ‘observation’ of reality is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself,,,
,,, Although reliable ‘observation’ of reality is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method, the naturalism that Darwinian evolution rests upon undermines this necessary cornerstone.
That is to say, given the atheistic premises of naturalism, not only are our personal beliefs about reality held to be somewhat flawed, and therefore in need of testing, even our perceptions/observations of reality itself are held to be untrustworthy and thus ‘illusory’ given the materialistic premises of atheism.
Richard Dawkins puts the awkward situation between Darwinian evolution and reliable observation like this:
In the following video and article, Donald Hoffman has, through numerous computer simulations of population genetics, proved that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory.
Although Hoffman tried to limit his results to just our visual perceptions, as Plantinga had pointed out before Hoffman came along, there is no reason why the results do not also extend to undermining our cognitive faculties as well:
Thus, in what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding ALL of our observations of reality, and even our cognitive faculties, are illusory, is NOT a worldview that can be firmly grounded within the scientific method!
Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics said it would be. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory!
In conclusion, Atheistic Naturalists undermine their own testimony about reality since they, self admittedly, cannot trust anything that they may see and/or think about reality if their worldview were actually true. In other words, Naturalism is ‘anti-scientific’:
Whereas on the other hand, as science itself demonstrates, the testimony of the Christian Theist, as to what result he may have personally saw in an scientific experiment, or what he personally saw otherwise, remains reliable in its overall integrity.
Verse:
Dionisio @77 – I responded to a particular comment which I found rather insulting. I wasn’t intending that to be an invitation to be asked about other topics that hadn’t been brought up and I’m sorry if you misconstrued my response as such.
If you genuinely want to learn, then I’d suggest trying a less confrontational approach. Even if there is much we don’t agree on, I would hope that a genuine discussion could be had.
Bob O’H,
A genuine discussion here is always welcome. This involves both expository and responsive posts. Communication goes two ways.
I’m not sure what a “world tree” is in this context, but if you’re more comfortable using Mongolian livestock as a point in case, feel free to do so, but expect others to do likewise in areas you might not feel comfortable in.
Are you studying the genomes of Mongolian livestock?
-Q
Bob O’H @82:
Thank you for writing back.
Please, forgive me if I wrote anything that sounded ‘insulting’ to you. That was not my intention and I don’t have any right to insult anybody here or anywhere else.
You mentioned a few interesting things related to the scientific work you do:
@60:
@64:
I would like to hear more about the scientific work you do, at least in general terms, without revealing any identities or classified information.
But first, can you tell what’s your scientific/professional/educational/academic background without revealing specific details about people, places or dates?
Take your time. No rush. I can wait.
Thank you.
Bob O’H:
Since I’ve started to like you, specially after your comments @82, I want to show you the answers to some questions I asked you @65, so you see how easy they are:
The answer to both questions is NO, because nobody knows exactly how the morphogen gradients are formed or interpreted. There are important outstanding questions in that area. In the thread “Mystery at the heart of life” there are several references to very recent papers on this subject. A lot is known, but still far from knowing exactly the whole enchilada.
In your case, since this is not your area of expertise, it was obviously easy to realize that the answer is NO.
bornagain77:
Contrary to what you may personally believe, bornagain, your opinion is not a fact.
If you really were born yesterday, I can understand your confusion.
Dionisio:
More ad hominems
Is that all you have?
You might rethink your position.
as to: “Contrary to what you may personally believe, bornagain, your opinion is not a fact.”
At least there is a ‘me’ with free will, instead of a neuronal illusion with no free will, in my Theistic worldview in order to even be able to form a personal opinion about something in the first place.
Daniel King accused
They weren’t ad hominem attacks, it’s not a fraction of the knowledge that Dionisio provides us, and he doesn’t need to “rethink” his experience with Jesus Christ, as neither do bornagain77, nor I.
-Q
Querius,
Thank you.
Rev. 22:21
Dionisio @ 84 – As I wrote, I’m not beholden to you, and I’m sorry but I’m not going to spend time explaining what I do – I have a homepage (although it’s not up to date, sorry).
Bob O’H @91:
That’s fine. No problem.
I’ll ask Querius to tell me what else I can do to keep myself busy. 🙂
Have a good week.
Querius:
May the grace of your Lord and Savior shine upon you and elevate your spirit.
But let’s get things straight: Dionisio’s accusations were ad hominem fallacies, not ad hominem attacks.
Do you understand the difference?
You seem to be dealing with a strawman.
Vy,
Yes, indeed!
Daniel King had written
Although I do acknowledge that that strawmen and strawwomen are easy to make and are quite fun for people who are entertained by puppets! Sock puppetry comes next, followed by the ink clouds of octopussary. 😉
-Q
But since real strawmen, i.e. scarecrows, are merely illusions of persons that are created by real people, and yet naturalists claim that ‘personhood’ is itself illusory, then, by default, does that not make all naturalists strawmen? i.e. make them merely illusions of persons that were created by real people? 🙂
But if naturalists really want to insist, against all reason, that they really don’t exist as real people, then at least they can do us Theists a big favor and stop acting like they really do exist. It would make their argument that they don’t really exist much more convincing! 🙂 And would also make their argument that they don’t really exist much shorter since scarecrows, i.e. illusory people, don’t ever argue back to real people trying to convince them that they don’t really exist as real people!
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be a delusion.
supplement
BA77, Querius and Vy,
Please, let’s show grace and compassion for DK, who is a spiritually blind person. Pray for him.
Your capacity to see clearly far beyond DK should move you to a merciful attitude, because you are beneficiaries of God’s mercy and grace. Now it’s time to share that mercy and grace with others. Someday it will be too late.
DK is in the desperate situation described by Pink Floyd in their song Time, where they said they were waiting for someone to show them the way. Worse than that, because DK doesn’t know he’s in that situation. That’s a tragedy. DK is not fighting against us, but against his Creator. This is not a battle between DK and us, but between DK’s master and ours. Let our Lord take care of this. Let’s leave the battle to Him. We know He won already.
We know the Way. The only Way. Let’s show it to others too! There’s nothing else we can do.
Thank you.
BA77,
You write very insightful comments, loaded with valuable information. Keep doing it, I like it. Also many onlookers, lurkers, anonymous visitors can read your posts and learn much from them too.
Spiritually blind people won’t see it. Their minds are set.
But their spiritual eyes could get opened eventually.
However, not all will get their spiritual vision restored to what it was intended to be. Unfortunately many won’t.
We sing hallelujah when our spiritual vision got restored,
And rejoice, and share the joy.
We’re sad when we see the lost ones.
We are sorrowful yet always rejoicing.
Vy and Querius :
Your logical arguments are very persuasive. Thank you.
Dionisio,
First of all, let me acknowledge that I may be completely wrong in my responses. Yes, I agree that DK is blind, hard edged, self-confident, and hurting as we all once were.
So, I’m trying an experiment in the theory and hope that maybe I need to plow up the hard soil first, before a seed of faith can be planted.
Consider Psalm 18:25-17 (NASB)
The word translated “astute” is a challenge. In Hebrew, it literally means “twisted,” and in the Septuagint, it reads “You turn aside.” Jesus was pretty rough on the self-righteous Pharisees, asserting that they did the deeds of their father, the devil. And he said that prostitutes and tax collectors were closer to the kingdom of heaven than they were.
Maybe the plow is needed in this case. Or maybe I’m dead wrong. If I am wrong, I’m totally willing to apologize.
Consider carefully my brother and let me know either way.
-Q
Querius
You’ve got a very valid argument.
Agree with you.
Perhaps some anonymous readers are benefiting from your comments right now and that is a great reason for joy.
Well done. Keep it like that.
Thank you.
Where is everyone going to go if Uncommon Descent is shut down? I google Intelligent Design and this is like the last blog left.
Actually this blog doesn’t even show up in google. Lots of dead pages that were last updated in like 2009.
This is like a ghost town.
Thank you, Dionisio. I hope so.
AhmedKiaan,
But we’re friendly ghosts . . . 🙂
-Q