Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Talk to the Fossils: Let’s see what they say back

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpg O’Leary for News’s new series here at Evolution News & Views:

A while back, I started a series here called “Science Fictions” that I began by asking a simple question: Why is the space alien understood as science but Bigfoot as mythology? The reason I asked is that, still lacking specimens of either entity, decade after decade, answers are likely to be revealing.

Those answers help us see how “science” is understood, allowing us to interpret claims about the origin of the universe, life, human life, and the human mind.

In general, naturalism (the idea that inanimate nature somehow created minds) seems to be the guiding principle of enterprises classed as science today, even though the evidence actually goes in the opposite direction.

In a new series, “Talk to the Fossils,” I would like now to look at ways evolution might happen (or not).

Contrary to what we sometimes hear, few people doubt that evolution occurs in principle. The scientifically serious questions revolve around mechanisms, that is, around the question of — as biochemist Michael Behe puts it in Darwin’s Black Box –how exactly does it occur?

The point of Behe’s critique is often missed: Anyone can come up with a “how” explanation — that is, “how, according to my own grand theory.”

Science is not about merely how. It is about how, exactly. More.

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpgAfter fifteen years of news coverage on issues of interest to the ID community, I finally got to say what seems evident to a news writer (who doesn’t wave pom poms for Darwin’s followers):

First, the fossils speak, but hardly with one voice:

University of Chicago biochemist James Shapiro, not a design theorist, offers in one of his lectures four kinds of rapid, evolutionary change that Darwin “could not have imagined”: horizontal DNA transfer, symbiogenesis, genome doubling, and built-in mechanisms of genome restructuring. His approach is in sharp contrast to the “defend Darwin” strategy usually championed in the academy. So it is no surprise that he is a controversial figure. But is he right in saying that many possible mechanisms of evolution owe little or nothing to Darwin’s theory, the only concept of evolution most of us hear about?

It is reasonably estimated that there are 8.7 million species today (excluding bacteria), but that only about 14 percent have been identified — and only 9 percent of ocean life forms. Our picture of Earth’s life forms might change radically if we had more information about all the others. For example, an entire kingdom of life, the Archaea, was only identified in the 1970s.

How did all these life forms get to be where they are? As we examine some evidence-based mechanisms, we should keep in mind a critical question: How does a given mechanism fit our current picture of evolution? And how much change can it account for?

The welter of data coming back from paleontology, genome mapping, and other studies presents a challenging picture. With so much new information, the history of life begins increasingly to resemble the history of human civilizations. There is peril in that, principally to older ideas that depended on less information and more overarching theory.

Overarching theories often falter when evidence replaces speculation. Darwinian evolution is, despite legislative protection, certainly one of the victims. By contrast, discarded and ridiculed theories like Lamarck’s (inheritance of characteristics acquired in life by the parents) may turn out to have some basis in epigenetics.

So, to start this series, instead of contemplating yet another picture derived from grand theories, let us assemble, under eight headings, some of what we have learned in past decades that we did not expect. That might help us evaluate theories, new and old. More.

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpgWhat is the true significance of convergent evolution?

Here.

A century or so ago, British paleontologist St. George Mivart noted that Darwin’s theory of evolution “does not harmonize with closely similar structures of diverse origin” (convergent evolution). There is more evidence for Mivart’s doubts now than ever.

According to current Darwinian evolutionary theory, each gain in information is the result of a great many tiny, modest gains in fitness over millions or billions of years, due to natural selection acting on random mutations. The resulting solutions should then follow inheritance laws, in the sense that the more similar life forms are according to biological classifications, the more similar their genome map should be.

That just did not work out. Different species can have surprisingly similar genes. For example, kangaroos are marsupial mammals, not placentals. Yet their genes are close to humans. Researchers: “We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not.”

Kangaroos? Shark and human proteins, meanwhile, are also “stunningly similar.” Indeed, sharks are genetically closer to humans than they are to aquarium zebrafish. Researchers: “We were very surprised… “

Sharks? But does all this not raise a serious question? The popular science literature claims that a near identity between the human and chimpanzee genome is irrefutable evidence of common descent. Why then do we hear so little about any of these findings, which muddy the waters? Why are science writers not even curious? More.

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpg


Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), sometimes called lateral gene transfer (LGT), is a profound recent discovery in genetics: Genome mapping has shown that bacteria can acquire genes from the bacteria around them –that is, horizontally — rather than from a previous generation (vertical transfer), as when a parent cell divides into two daughter cells. They can transfer multiple segments of DNA at once to fellow species members.

But that was hardly the critical finding. This is: Because bacteria are found everywhere and are comparatively simple, they can move newly acquired genes between life forms in the other domains of life. They can produce heritable changes with no recent common ancestor. …

So we are a long way from when biochemist Christian de Duve (1917-2013), grudgingly admitted the significance of horizontal gene transfer, noting that it “… has been recognized as a major complication when attempting to use molecular data to reconstruct the tree of life.”

It certainly has, because where HGT is in play, there just isn’t a tree of life. Even popular science writers are beginning to recognize the significance of this fact. More.

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpgEpigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

To recap, Darwinism entails vertical transfer of genes from a common ancestor to descendants. Horizontal gene transfer means transfer of genes from one organism to another on contact, irrespective of the ancestry of either life form. HGT is a form of evolution, yes. But it drastically weakens the status of Darwinism as the “only known theory.” Any Darwinian claim about evolution must first rule out HGT as a possible explanation. And, as we shall shortly see, it must rule out epigenetics as well.

Why does this historic shift in the burden of proof receive comparatively little attention? Probably it’s due to the overwhelming acceptance of Darwinism as a cultural metaphor and philosophy of life. One thinks, for example, of Amazon citing “purposeful Darwinism” and taking Darwinian Theory to the max as a defense against a recent exposé of the firm’s labor conditions. The concepts Amazon advances are scientifically meaningless but culturally meaningful. And culture drowns out science.

Thus, when talking to fossils (or current living forms), our challenge is to listen to what they have to say, not what the Darwinian interpreters of the fossils (and of almost everything else) have to say.

Which brings us to epigenetics. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) was an early evolutionist who proposed that life forms could acquire information from their environment and pass it on in their genes. He was dismissed, when not ridiculed, by Darwinists for many decades (though not, as it happens, by Darwin). But the basic thrust of his idea has recently resurfaced in epigenetics.

There is an irony in the way the resurgence came about. A key science achievement of the 1990s was the mapping of the human genome.

More.

Who guessed that the genome, of all things, would be, not Darwinism’s triumph, but its grave?

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpg Devolution: Getting back to the simple life

Most of the time, when we think of evolution, we mean mechanisms for the growth of complex new information. After all, entropy (the tendency for disorder to increase over time) can satisfactorily explain loss of information. Yet, in the history of life, some forms survive while — or even by — losing information (devolution). Their history may tell us something useful too.

We all know devolution when we see it — a jar of pennies becomes a doorstop, a computer becomes a boat anchor, the XYZ volume of the Encyclopedia props up a too-short table leg.

But interest in devolution of life forms spiked with the recent discovery of giant viruses, which a 2014 editorial at The Scientist considered a possible fourth domain of life.

The giant mimivirus for example, unlike conventional viruses, “carries many genes thought to be unique to cellular life, suggesting that it evolved from a cell.”

If so, strictly speaking, it “devolved” from a cell. More.

Devolution caused researchers to think Incorrect thoughts.

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpgLife continues to ignore what evolution experts say (look, this is becoming a habit!)

Readers may well wonder about the term “mechanism” of evolution, as used here. Consistent with Michael Behe’s question, “How, exactly?”, it means a process observed to account for inherited change. If a bacterium is observed to absorb antibiotic resistance genes from another bacterium and pass them on during cell division, we will term that a mechanism. It is not a theory about what “must have happened” over vast tracts of time; it is an event we have witnessed, produced by causes we can identify.

But what drives the process? That is, why do living cells attempt to protect themselves in ways that rocks and rotting wood do not? As we shall see, a number of non-Darwinian biologists now focus on the way that cells have changed and do change themselves to respond to challenges in their environment — natural genetic engineering. More.

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpg Natural genetic engineering? Natural popcorn? Or something more important?

Why does the animal want to live?

We can build machines — we create them to do what we want — and then put them out with the trash. But not free-living life forms. They try to survive. To deny this would require us to say, as Barham notes, that purpose is an illusion.

Part of the problem between Barham and Shapiro, which led to an exchange of views, sounds conceptual. What does Dr. Shapiro mean by “natural” processes, as opposed to “more than strictly material” ones, as above? A strictly material process would be a series of events fully explained by material processes (for example, what happens when a loose stone falls off a cliff).

But some entities in nature are not material at all: the number 7 comes to mind. Some philosophers have argued that we can construct a theory of items grouped by sevens without using a concept like 7. But whatever advantages these philosophers’ suggestion may offer, it does not represent what people do. We have an immaterial concept of 7 that organizes items and events, instantiated in various media at various times. It is natural without being material in any meaningful way. More.

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpgNatural selection: Could it be the single greatest idea ever invented?

Darwin’s theory of evolution (natural selection acting on random mutations) is a cultural icon, like the Big Bang, or e=mc2. One needn’t know anything specific about any of these ideas. Indeed, media professionals can be passionately devoted to Darwinism without knowing anything about it at all.

That makes sense. Professed loyalty to Darwin is an admission to good parties. And Darwinism’s relationship to modern warfare and eugenics is drowned out by cultural support. True, hillbillies thump the Bible against it, to the groans of the better educated. But what if…?

First, what exactly is Darwin’s theory anyway, other than an invite to the approved parties?

Here it is: Information can be created without intelligence. That is, natural selection acting on random mutation explains the order of life we see all around us. What can’t survive won’t, and that explains how very complex life forms and structures — including the human mind — get built up.

True: Things that can’t survive don’t. But why would that fact alone drive nature to produce anything as simple as a kitten, let alone a math genius?

We’ve looked earlier at documented ways evolution can really happen — if all we really want to know is how life forms can change over time. That said, I spent the last fifteen years trying to understand the cultural part. Darwinism isn’t just about evolution as such. It is also a way of looking at life. It tries to explain life without assuming that there is any actual mind at all, dispensing with traditional philosophies and religions. More.

And how is that working out? Also, just out of interest, why do so many Christians support it?

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpg Can sex explain evolution?

Picture a triplex: Tom, a world class cribbage addict in Apartment A, does no work and has no money (apart from social assistance and charity). Dick, in Apartment B, works eight shifts a week in trucking, so has no trouble paying his bills. Harry, formerly in Apartment C, went off and became a multimillionaire (legally) in packaging and shipping for the software industry.

Does work alone explain Harry’s success? Did he work a thousand times harder and more often than Dick? Is that even possible? Or is it all an accident of fate, such that Tom or Dick might have stumbled down the same way and done the same thing?

Most human beings tend to doubt that it is so simple. Also, there are not a billion generations between Tom, Dick, and Harry. Not even one, actually.

And if each of these guys somehow ends up with fertile heirs, is any of them “unfit”?

Very well, so let us now look at Darwin’s other theory, sexual selection: More.

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpg Could we all get together and evolve as a group?

No subject apart from religion has vexed Darwin’s followers more than why people sacrifice themselves for others. They have embraced the ambiguous term “altruism” because it does not clearly mean “compassion” or “heroism.” Rather, it is to be seen as the same natural force that causes worker ants to pass on their genes by serving their queen, who lays lots of eggs, instead of reproducing themselves (kin selection). Maybe this force creates the change we are looking for.

A champion of this proposed mechanism was evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson.

But then Wilson dramatically abandoned kin selection in 2010 in a Nature paper, “The evolution of eusociality,” co-authored with mathematicians. He argued that strict Darwinism (natural selection) “provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations,” dispensing with the other theories he had promoted for decades. Over 140 leading biologists signed a letter to Nature, attacking the 2010 paper. Some called his new, strictly Darwin model “unscholarly,” “transparently wrong,” and “misguided.”

What? All this is said of a Darwin-only model? More.

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpgMany species can’t be bothered with evolution. If we go by the fact that they survive tens or hundreds of millions of years pretty much unchanged.

That wasn’t what Darwin told us to expect.

Darwin explained clearly and eloquently the pattern we should find in the fossil record if his theory was correct, let alone the juggernaut that his present day supporters insist:

It may be said that natural selection is 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; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

However, it hasn’t turned out that way. Nature seems not to like such orderly schedules much.

Species often explode suddenly into life, as in the Cambrian explosion, which even Darwin found to be a problem for natural selection. (See the new short video from Discovery Institute, The Information Enigma.)

Some of them do not persist beyond the age to which they are adapted. That does not require an explanation.

But others just settle down to long eons where they don’t change much, no matter what the environment. … The cockroach, for example, is still around and still easily identifiable after perhaps 350 million years. The 350-million-year-old coelacanth fish and the 300-million-year-old horsetail grass survive largely unchanged.

When the coelacanth, supposed extinct for 70 million years, turned up in the Indian Ocean in 1938, it disappointed biologists who hoped for a living proof of Darwinism. It is a living proof of non-Darwinism.

Similarly, a recently discovered 425-million-year-old crustacean showed no significant changes in internal body parts, compared to present-day specimens. One researcher called it “a demonstration of unbelievable stability.” But the stability is only unbelievable if we start with Darwin’s assumption that “natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest.” Apparently not. More.

Welcome to the world of stasis. To understand how evolution happens, we need to pay more attention to cases where it doesn’t happen.

Talk to the Fossils 3.jpgConclusions: What the fossils told us in their own words

Common ancestry was at one time mainly a religious dispute. Everyone thinks they know what happened at the iconic Scopes “Monkey” Trial (they don’t, actually).

But now, since genome mapping became routine, the unthinkable has happened: Actual genomes do not demonstrate the Tree of Life in the neat and orderly way that underlies Darwinian accounts of evolution. They could hardly be expected to do so, given the creativity many life forms exhibit with their own genes via natural genetic engineering, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, and a crowd of other mechanisms. The Tree of Life has become a bush or a circle of life.

Finally, when we add up all the demonstrable mechanisms of change in life forms over time, a great deal of the picture is still missing. Either there are many more mechanisms still to be discovered or there is a fundamental force we are not accounting for.

Part of the answer probably lies in the application of information theory to the history of life. On that score, see The Information Enigma More.

Read there, argue here.

See the other series:  The cosmology series is here. The origin of life series is here. The human evolution series is here. The human mind series is here.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

 

Comments
4 REC July 1, 2015 at 11:50 am Define "Darwinism."
Here are some more appropriate comments* which may help you understand what Darwinism is: [Darwinism means] natural selection acting on random mutation generates huge levels of information, not noise if “macroevolution” means that life had a history that is partially preserved in fossils, there’s some evidence here. But if “macroevolution” is supposed to mean how it happened, this excerpt is standard story-telling. The critical controversy today is not between Darwin’s followers and the proponents of Noah’s ark. Rather, it is between a story of evolution where Darwinism explains almost everything about life vs. one in which a variety of mechanisms of change have operated throughout the history of life. In the present day, the burden of proof lies on the proponents of Darwinism—which in any other setting would be called “magic” * excerpted from https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/note-from-a-reader-on-free-macroevolution-excerpt/cantor
August 27, 2015
August
08
Aug
27
27
2015
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
4 REC July 1, 2015 at 11:50 am Define “Darwinism.”
When I say "Darwinism" I mean Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" evolution: "Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." -- Dawkins, p. 287, Blind Watchmaker, 1986 .cantor
August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
I view the lineage progressions being the result of multiple designers [engineers], given the time frames involved, the competitive nature of bioforms, and the necessary step-by-step processes. The CEO of GM has a hierarchy of surrogates working under him/her to do the grunt work; same [possibly] with lineage progressions. Our God may have came later, as well. The Cosmos is replete with various intelligentsia, and not bioforms, which could not exist nor travel the Cosmos. We ourselves are spirit entities, which have elected to partake in sabbaticals from the cosmic realm, thus an adventure of sorts on 'Theme-Park Earth' as I refer to it; a priori possibly a biologic workshop of sorts. "One of the ways to check is to see if it is feasible, is by checking the abilities of the designer." Even if we knew first hand the God was involved, we would have no way of knowing His abilities. Since lineages were stepwise, following ribosome mechanics within prokaryotes, and later eukaryotes, that would have involved molecular manipulations. Later came biologic forms that involved organs, organelles, and systemics. Multiple designers are a distinct possibility. Go here for an overview, by an atheist, but covering motives and conclusions nonetheless. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/09/introduction-to.html In short, there is distinct evidence of design along the way, and not via random mutations. Statistical improbabilities of protein and enzyme spontaneous formations have been investigated by Gauger and Axe, a free download of the complete study: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1leebowman
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
leebowman, Not only has design not been detected, but at the point it is thought that ID was confirmed, real science demands that you check to make sure you are right. One of the ways to check is to see if it is feasible, is by checking the abilities of the designer. If the abilities of the designer are too limited for biological ID, then biological ID didn't happen.Carpathian
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Carpathian: He answered it in the next citation:
"Once design has been detected and studied, ID is confirmed. And design has been detected and is being studied."
To add to that, non-functional intermediates, or at minimum, with no reproductive or survival advantages, would have no reason to be embued within a population.leebowman
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
This following video makes the argument that "I can walk across the block, but for me to hike across the entire state, that would be impossible." Thus, macro evolution is a valid extension of micro evolution, although some evos don't like to use those terms. I had fun awhile back undermining DeistPaladin's logic in this video. Comparing equal steps to adaptations, which subsequently build to complex organs, organelles and body plan revisions is absurd, as we all know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8FvcYfLpOsleebowman
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Except ID isn’t about the designer nor the process. Those are other research projects. And we are not beholden to your ignorant agenda, duh.
Of course ID is about the designer as he is a neccessary part of the process of ID. If biological ID can't be done, then biological ID didn't happen. After ten years, no one in the ID community has tried to determine whether non-creationist ID is possible. No scientist would leave such a major part of a theory uninvestigated.Carpathian
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
@ Roy: "So you can’t. Your investigating some other programmer’s code is not you investigating intelligent design in nature." Identifying evidence for design [functional coding] does not identify the source of the coding. Nor in the study of biologic lineages, are the source(s) identifiable. The question of 'who is the designer' is nothing more than an attempt to get God into the picture; IOW, depicting an a priori belief, but not empirically confirmable by the data.leebowman
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
@ Roy: "Can you produce an example of an IDer investigating how the design was done? Otherwise it is true that IDers refuse to do this." Early on, via molecular manipulations to form ribosomes and cellular structures. Later, by genetic coding alterations.leebowman
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Neo-Darwinian evolution, which is a name often given to the Modern Synthesis (MS), claims to account for how life evolved from some primitive form – say a single primitive cell. But the claim is false. The claim of the MS is that random mutations (including random genetic recombinations) generate enough variability for natural selection to work on and produce a better adapted species. This reliance on random mutations to produce speciation requires that a probability analysis be made to show that such adaptations are likely enough to make evolution happen. Mathematical analyses have not shown that the probability of speciation is anything but negligibly small. Therefore the claim is false. The so-called evidence of common descent (mainly fossils and molecular similarities) do not imply descent. Descent has not been observed, and it may very well have not happened. The evolution that has been observed is microevolution that involves rapid morphological and behavioral changes that adapt to new environments. These adaptations cannot be accounted for by the MS, but there is ample evidence that these evolutionary changes are the responses of the organisms to the stress imposed by a changing environment. The mechanism of these responses are also known. It is the result of stress-related hormonal secretions, which are known to cause genetic rearrangements. Pursuing failed theories of how life descended from a single source has led only into a blind alley. More profitable would be to try to understand the mechanism of the only evolution we actually observe, and drop the barren Modern Synthesis.Lee Spetner
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
The problem is scientism, the mistaken belief that the only knowledge worth knowing is that obtained through science. IDers are a big tent group with a diverse number of philosophical and theological backgrounds. However, we all acknowledge the rather-commonsense truth about life and its origins at the hand of an intelligent designer. From that starting point, the other means of discovering truth rapidly gain in importance.OldArmy94
July 2, 2015
July
07
Jul
2
02
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Roy, obviously you don't know jack about science.
Option 1: Design has been detected. IDers should be figuring the who and how – but they aren’t. ID is a failure.
Except ID isn't about the designer nor the process. Those are other research projects. And we are not beholden to your ignorant agenda, duh. Once design has been detected and studied, ID is confirmed. And design has been detected and is being studied. Just look at evolutionism- all the resources and yet no one knows how the vision system evolved. No one can even attempt to model unguided evolution producing such a thing. The "how" eludes all evos. So by Roy's standards evolutionism is a failure- well it is.Virgil Cain
July 2, 2015
July
07
Jul
2
02
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
"You investigating some other programmer’s code is not you investigating intelligent design in nature." Roy, Please explain to me how investigating code is not in nature. If it's not in nature, where is it? Andrewasauber
July 2, 2015
July
07
Jul
2
02
2015
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
How do archaeologists go about figuring the who and how? By studying the design and all relevant evidence. That means both of those come after design is detected and is being studied. ID is about the detection and study of design in nature.So... Option 1: Design has been detected. IDers should be figuring the who and how - but they aren't. ID is a failure. Option 2: Design has not been detected. ID is a failure. Conclusion: ID is a failure.Roy
July 2, 2015
July
07
Jul
2
02
2015
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Me:
Can you produce an example of an IDer investigating how the design was done? Otherwise it is true that IDers refuse to do this.
asauber:
I do it just about every day at work. I do some computer programming for my job, and one of thigs I do is look at code that’s already been composed by another programmer that produces certain output and modify it to suit my own needs.
So you can't. You investigating some other programmer's code is not you investigating intelligent design in nature.Roy
July 2, 2015
July
07
Jul
2
02
2015
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Good intro. I will make my claim that the fossils say nothing about biological relationships. They are only snapshots of a critter at the time of its death. any connections with other snapshots is entirely guessing. Looking alike is not evidence of evolving from eacxh other even if it was true. its evidence only of what it is. the connections are not fossilized. The fossils say nothing especially because they are based on a geology paradigm. If the geology is wrong then the fossils spoke wrongly. So they say nothing biologically speaking. ID folks make the mistake also of using fossils as bio sci evidence.Robert Byers
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
4 REC July 1, 2015 at 11:50 am Cantor @3 Define “Darwinism.”
The theory that evolution is primarily driven by RM+NS. .
Evolutionary biology is.
The carnival mirror version of it you propose probably isn’t. .cantor
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
(unlike asauber who cops out by discussing human design) Design is design. Go from there. Not sure why you dislike my example. Andrewasauber
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
REC:
Maybe UD would let you author a post detailing each of your conclusions and the data behind it.
Nope. I got no time for it. An entire book could be written on the designers. I got too many things on my plate as it is. I just use UD during breaks.Mapou
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
IMHO, ID and Darwinism are both paradigms, not theories. As such, they include unstated assumptions and approaches. The difference between them is that pragmatically, ID has a much better track record than Darwinism, which has been hindering scientific progress as researchers are forced to fit their discoveries into an obsolete 19th century speculation. One example, would be "junk" DNA. The Darwinist assumption is that it has no function. Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, the Darwinist establishment has grimly held onto their position, only reluctantly admitting that some non-coding DNA might be functional after all. The ID approach is that if something looks designed, study it as if it were. No speculations are made regarding the nature and purpose of the intelligent designer. The difference between these paradigms is why Darwinists are almost always "surprised" by the latest study, the latest discovered "living fossil," and the latest fossil discoveries. This is also why Darwinists refuse to follow the data when T. Rex bones are discovered containing pliable tissue and red blood cells that has been carbon dated. Instead, they support a goofy theory that the tissue has miraculously survived 65-68 million years of ionizing background radiation that should have turned it all into powder---something that's easily testable in the lab. Worst of all, they don't understand the irony in Monty Python's Dead Parrot skit. :P -QQuerius
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Intelligent Design is about the- wait for it- DESIGN. It would be highly improbable to determine how living organisms were designed given the fact that we cannot design them. We have a difficult time figuring out how ancient artifacts were made and that is given the fact that we can produce artifacts. How do archaeologists go about figuring the who and how? By studying the design and all relevant evidence. That means both of those come after design is detected and is being studied. ID is about the detection and study of design in nature. Our step-by-step process is inherent in that. ID has never claimed to be about the specific mechanism or designer. And ID does not prevent anyone from looking into that.Virgil Cain
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Mapou@ 10. Thanks for your honesty (unlike asauber who cops out by discussing human design). That is the most comprehensive reply regarding ID mechanisms I've seen. Maybe UD would let you author a post detailing each of your conclusions and the data behind it.REC
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
"Can you produce an example of an IDer investigating how the design was done?" I do it just about every day at work. I do some computer programming for my job, and one of thigs I do is look at code that's already been composed by another programmer that produces certain output and modify it to suit my own needs. This requires design analysis. You have to come to understand things like syntax, functionality, comparison, and the like and how it all fits together to make the program work. That's just one of many examples that could be presented. Andrewasauber
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
REC:
“I am an ID supporter and I have no problem investigating how design was done.” For example….?…?
By observing human intelligent design, the fossil record and living organisms, we can tell a lot about some of the techniques used by the original designers. IMO, there were/are many designers, each with his or her own style and expertise, not unlike human designers when they cooperate on a complex project. They have a highly sophisticated sense of beauty and humor. They are not perfect. They apparently either destroyed some of their previous designs through mass extinctions (they did not like them) or they were just going through a terraforming/ecological/fact-finding process. We can't tell much about their technology other than that they are obviously extremely advanced. Someone once said that highly advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature. We also know that complex design over a long period always results in a mostly nested hierarchy, which is what is observed. So, I would say that those aliens/gods who prepared the earth and seeded it with life are essentially an extremely advanced and wise civilization. In a lot of ways, theirs is not unlike our own civilization, without the wars and the other human nastiness, of course.
“this has nothing to do with the ID hypothesis” vs. “Can we identify each step of the claimed process from beginning to end, subject to investigation and confirmation, and show that the process results in the outcome?”
Again, ID does not claim to understand or know what the steps were. But you people do. You claim it happened and continues to happen via random mutations and natural selection. From single cells to elephants, all by random chance. But, as we in the ID camp know all too well, it's all crap.Mapou
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
"I am an ID supporter and I have no problem investigating how design was done." For example....?...? "this has nothing to do with the ID hypothesis" vs. "Can we identify each step of the claimed process from beginning to end, subject to investigation and confirmation, and show that the process results in the outcome?"REC
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Bob:
ID’s supporters consistently refuse to do this – to investigate how design was done, who was the designer etc.
I am an ID supporter and I have no problem investigating how design was done. However, since this has nothing to do with the ID hypothesis, your criticism amounts to a load of manure. The ID hypothesis is about the detection of design, not of the designer.
So does Mrs O’Leary then think that ID is not science?
No. The difference between ID supporters and you guys is that you claim to know how it's started without evidence. You claim to know that it just emerged from random chemical processes. But we all know it's all chicken shit superstition. Or, as Karl Popper was fond of saying, it's a metaphysical research project.Mapou
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
@ asauber: Can you produce an example of an IDer investigating how the design was done? Otherwise it is true that IDers refuse to do this.Roy
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
It depends on what you mean by "Evolutionary" biology. Define that scientific field please.ringo
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
"ID’s supporters consistently refuse to do this – to investigate how design was done, who was the designer etc." I don't think this is true. I think evolutionists just don't like the information this kind of investigation produces. Andrewasauber
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Cantor @3 Define "Darwinism." The carnival mirror version of it you propose probably isn't science. Evolutionary biology is.REC
July 1, 2015
July
07
Jul
1
01
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply