Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design Science

Wired

Spread the love

Wired.com has a new article about why ID isn’t science because it’s been falsified. Usually the tactic against ID is that it isn’t a science because it isn’t falsifiable. I reckon use whatever club is closest at hand when you’re interested only in beating ID instead of being consistent. The article states:

“You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre,” he said. “But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.”

“In which these machineries emerge before there’s a need” for the machineries. I don’t see how that makes any sense. Evolution is supposed to be a stepwise mechanism of solving problems, now they get solved before there is a problem. The article basically makes the assertion that if parts of a whole mechanism are found somewhere else, operating or not operating in any other capacity whatsoever, then the whole mechanism in question is explained by virtue of finding some component parts. If I found an engine foreign to me, I would not be overjoyed to explain it, as a whole, by finding bolts and cylinders and iron lying about, and noticing that the engine uses all three. My first inclination would not be “It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.” But that is exactly the argument being made:

But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.

The pieces “were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function…”

It was just a matter of time before they came together into more complexity? Really? That’s a belief system showing it’s cards. And how this follows, without seeing the “coming together” itself, is fanciful, to use a kind word.

According to evolutionary theory, however, cellular complexity is reducible. It requires only that existing components be repurposed, with inevitable mutations providing extra ingredients as needed.

Repurposed, recruited, with a dash of mutation for the bread to rise. Did we witness this recruitment, or must it be so for an evolutionary explanation? It must be so, and it has not been witnessed. And what was the purpose before that purpose? Do you have an infinite regress of purposes and recruitments until you get to single molecules that had no purpose? It seems so:

The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral evolution,” in which the buildup of the parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23.

How does one even begin to sort through the assumptions? That peices gather together somehow, none falling off the wagon, snap together, fit, that somehow even if they did gather together it wouldn’t be a total wreckage, but rather become a cohesive and intricately connected and symbiotic whole beginning to operate as a machine at 3:00 pm on a Thursday, with mutation and natural selection thrown in to supervise the whole endeavor and “take care of the rest”, whatever that means.

Well, you get the idea. And it is an idea, if nothing else. Not an evidentially discerned causal explanation, only, rather, the only possible explanation that a Darwinist has. Find the parts, add natural selection and mutation, and you get the whole. What about actual observation, you ask? Apparently, not necessary, because we are, after all, only trying to satisfy a philosophical presupposition of explanation that must turn from simple to complex, and finding some scattered parts is good enough. Actually seeing the increase in the complexity is not necessary for this kind of “science.”

36 Replies to “Wired

  1. 1
    Atom says:

    I saw this article and was dumbfounded at the sloppy logic revealed in it. Your engine analogy is a pretty apt description of that sort of thinking.

    Co-option/exaptation/preadaptation all strike me as explanations of the following form:

    Theorem: We can climb out of any hole.

    Assumption 1: Assume that obtaining a ladder of the size we need is feasible at that moment…

    Atom

  2. 2
    GilDodgen says:

    The author’s speculations are precisely what science is not. How ironic, that in an attempt to demonstrate that ID is not science he spouts utterly unsupported speculative silliness to demonstrate what real science is all about.

    His speculation is the old co-option fantasy. This particular Darwinian fantasy demonstrates a complete lack of any, even the most trivial, analytical scrutiny. I wrote the following on this topic:

    1) In order for co-option to produce a bacterial flagellum (for example) all of the component parts must have been present at the same time and in roughly the same place, and all of them must have had other naturally-selectable, useful functions. There is no evidence whatsoever that this ever was the case, or that it ever even could have been the case.

    2) The components would have to have been compatible with each other functionally. A bolt that is too large, too small, or that has threads that are too fine or too coarse to match those of a nut, cannot be combined with the nut to make a fastener. There is absolutely no evidence that this interface compatibility ever existed (between all those imaginary co-opted component parts), or that it even could have existed.

    3) Even if all the parts are available at the same time and in the same place, and are functionally compatible, one can’t just put them in a bag, shake them up, and have a motor fall out. An assembly mechanism is required, and that mechanism must be complete in every detail, otherwise incomplete or improper assembly will result, and no naturally-selectable function will be produced. The assembly mechanism thus represents yet another irreducibly complex hurdle.

    4) Last, and perhaps most importantly, assembly instructions are required. Assembly must be timed and coordinated properly. And the assembly instructions must be complete in every detail, otherwise no function will result. This represents an additional irreducibly complex hurdle.

    Co-option is a demonstrably fantastic story made up out of whole cloth, with absolutely no basis in evidence. And it doesn’t withstand even the most trivial analytical scrutiny. There is not a shred of evidence that this process ever took place, or that it even could have taken place. Worst of all, it requires blind acceptance of the clearly miraculous.

    There is a great irony here. This verifiably ridiculous co-option fantasy is presented as “science,” while a straightforward and reasonable inference to design is labeled pseudoscience. The real state of affairs is precisely the reverse.

  3. 3
    nullasalus says:

    Not an evidentially discerned causal explanation, only, rather, the only possible explanation that a Darwinist has.

    I disagree, Clive. It’s not the only possible explanation a Darwinist has – it’s barely a “Darwinist” solution at all. Even the author points out that neutral evolution “falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin”.

    The fact is that, whatever one may think of ID, biology has turned out to be a very different beast from what Darwin expected at the time. Horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, cellular complexity, symbiosis, convergent evolution, etc. Darwin’s thoughts, in large part, are vestigial organs in the modern evolutionary beast.

    Anyway, the article screws up right at the start: “Intricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design. They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts.” First of all – as Dembski himself said recently on this site – ID is compatible with evolution. By my understanding, what it really isn’t compatible with is Darwinism – and even there, particularly the superfluous-to-science metaphysical components of “Darwinism”.

    Second – someone correct me if I am wrong here – the claim with irreducible complexity is not that an IC structure “can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts”. Rather, it’s that an IC structure requires several parts to perform its given role at all – and if you remove one of these parts, that role is not performed. That’s different from finding some role, any role, for a given part of an IC structure.

    Frankly, the anti-ID “explanation” Wired offers here sounds suspiciously similar to ID Front-loading Hypotheses. The idea of useful structures coming into being in advance of any need and then being put into use by an organism later on is one hell of a hop away from Darwin. It’s not necessarily a hop away from evolution writ large, but people should realize that just because something evolved doesn’t mean there was no design in play. Evolution-style programs are used by designers after all.

  4. 4
    Blue Lotus says:

    In the spirit of “real science”, Atom, could I ask you to settle something as something of an authority on the subject, having written the programs in question.

    There’s been a bit of a back and forth lately on Weasel. Kariosfocus believes (paraphrasing, you can read the thread of course) that Dawkins weasel and Dembski/Marks “weasel” are using the same algorithm.

    Do you agree or disagee with Kariosfocus on that?

    If you agree, what’s your explanation for why the outputs differ totally from one generation to the next on D/M and are almost identical in Dawkins “original”? And the population question, of course – 1 vs N population, how can they be using the same algorithm?

    threadjack over!

  5. 5
    Blue Lotus says:

    nullasalus

    Darwin’s thoughts, in large part, are vestigial organs in the modern evolutionary beast.

    Have you read “the origin”?

    The fact is that, whatever one may think of ID, biology has turned out to be a very different beast from what Darwin expected at the time.

    And what was that? What did Darwin expect “biology” to turn out to be?

    First of all – as Dembski himself said recently on this site – ID is compatible with evolution. By my understanding, what it really isn’t compatible with is Darwinism – and even there, particularly the superfluous-to-science metaphysical components of “Darwinism”.

    Can you give me an example of something specific that ID is not compatible with other then “Darwinism” in general? And an example of a superfluous-to-science metaphysical component of said “Darwinism” would be great too. Just so I understand where you are coming from on this, of course.

    Evolution-style programs are used by designers after all.

    So you worship a programmer? How uber:geeky!

  6. 6
    tribune7 says:

    Only a cultist can hold a dogma that allows something unfalsifiable to be falsified.

  7. 7
    tribune7 says:

    The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called preadaptation.

    Preadapation requires planning and planning is (cough, cough) design.

    Unless you are down in the rabbit hole with the Darwinists and the Queen of Hearts. 🙂

  8. 8
    nullasalus says:

    Blue Lotus,

    Have you read “the origin”?

    Yep. I did not say all of Darwin’s thoughts were wrong, but certainly he was wrong or just plain completely uninformed about quite a lot of things.

    Not that that means he was a moron, of course. Newton was wrong about quite a lot of things too. But Newton also has much less of a fan club.

    And what was that? What did Darwin expect “biology” to turn out to be?

    I mentioned a number of ideas/mechanisms, etc, that Darwin didn’t foresee. If you want to really catch him being off-base, go read up on what he thoughts cells ultimately were.

    Can you give me an example of something specific that ID is not compatible with other then “Darwinism” in general?

    Rather depends on the particular ID claim, of which there are many. The greater metaphysics of Darwinism – which are extraneous to science anyway – are a large part of the problem. Mind you, I’m an ID critic myself, though very sympathetic.

    And an example of a superfluous-to-science metaphysical component of said “Darwinism” would be great too. Just so I understand where you are coming from on this, of course.

    That biological events and evolutionary history are the result of mindless chance and law rather than any kind of guidance, whether via front-loading or particular intervention or otherwise. There’s a difference between creating a pragmatic model that of course makes no reference to these things, and declaring that these things don’t exist. Worse, that science can determine whether or not they exist.

    So you worship a programmer? How uber:geeky!

    Thanks for the gratuitous, misdirected insult. I didn’t mention my religion here at all, and fail to see what it has to do with the topic.

  9. 9
    Blue Lotus says:

    NS

    Yep. I did not say all of Darwin’s thoughts were wrong, but certainly he was wrong or just plain completely uninformed about quite a lot of things.

    Then it should not trouble you to name a few of those things, if there are “quite alot of them”.

    What sort of things was Darwin uninformed about at the time he wrote the origin that would have made a difference to what he wrote? What do you think Darwin should have known?

    Not that that means he was a moron, of course. Newton was wrong about quite a lot of things too. But Newton also has much less of a fan club.

    Newton spent much of his energy and life on the “wrong” unproductive things. Darwin spent very little in comparison.

    I mentioned a number of ideas/mechanisms, etc, that Darwin didn’t foresee.

    So what? I could name 1000. How does that make any difference to his central point? Selection. Varation.

    If you want to really catch him being off-base, go read up on what he thoughts cells ultimately were.

    That old chestnut. Yes, blobs of protoplasm. How quaint. The mechanisms driving evolution could have been clockwork for all it ultimatly matters. Yes, Darwin was ignorant of all that. It matters not!

    Rather depends on the particular ID claim, of which there are many. The greater metaphysics of Darwinism – which are extraneous to science anyway – are a large part of the problem. Mind you, I’m an ID critic myself, though very sympathetic.

    Huh? Yet you said

    First of all – as Dembski himself said recently on this site – ID is compatible with evolution. By my understanding, what it really isn’t compatible with is Darwinism – and even there, particularly the superfluous-to-science metaphysical components of “Darwinism”.

    What components are those then? You are the one making the claim!

    Look, if you want to say it depends on the particular ID claim then can we just say it’s the ID claim that you were referencing then when you said ID is mostly compatable with evolution?

    That biological events and evolutionary history are the result of mindless chance and law rather than any kind of guidance, whether via front-loading or particular intervention or otherwise.

    So you are unable to differentiate between front-loading, some kind of guidance, particular interventions but you are already, correct me if I’m wrong eh?, convinced that such interventions etc were 100% required for life to either begin or to evolve?

    OK.

    There’s a difference between creating a pragmatic model that of course makes no reference to these things, and declaring that these things don’t exist.

    What about a pragmatic model that makes no refernce to those things for the same reasons you are unable to say what one, if any, of those things happened?

    Any anyway, who exactly has “declared” that those things don’t exist? People might have declared there is no evidence for them (if there was you would know which of the possible interventions happened right, so therefore there is no such evidence as you cannot do so) but they have not claimed that they do not exist, have they (whoever “they” are)? As we all know, how can you prove something does not exist?

    Worse, that science can determine whether or not they exist.

    Worse and worse yet! Pray tell, who is making these claims? And why does it offend you so in any case, everybody has the right to free speech no?

    Thanks for the gratuitous, misdirected insult. I didn’t mention my religion here at all, and fail to see what it has to do with the topic.

    You said

    Evolution-style programs are used by designers after all.

    Are you saying that you think that the designer is not the same as whatever god you happen to worship then? That it could be a material being that brought (and intervenes, somehow) life into being and not some kind of deity? Is that allowed as a possibility for you then?

  10. 10
    nullasalus says:

    Blue,

    You have some seriously poor reading skills. I pointed out I’m an ID critic – I don’t believe ID is science, as much as I sympathize with ID philosophically and with the hypocritical treatment they receive. I’ve pointed out that Darwin was wrong and in the dark about quite a lot of biology, but certainly not wrong about everything. And I haven’t brought up my religion, if I have any, even once.

    In exchange, you keep right on baiting me about religion, mangling what I’ve already said about Darwin (It’s funny how you demand and insist I give you a list of things Darwin was wrong/uninformed about, despite my already giving a list – and then admitting yourself that you could name “1000” of these things!), and twisting off into other subjects.

    If more critics were like you, I’d feel compelled to be an ID supporter, rather than a critic. Please, for the sake of whatever metaphysical being or principle you subscribe to, either learn more about ID, Darwin, and contemporary biology, or learn to be quiet. And if you want to learn how to make an argument that’s actually impressive, here’s a key: Read what people write, not what you wish or hope they would write.

  11. 11
    DATCG says:

    Blue,

    Nullasus is definitely critical of ID.

    As far as what Darwin got right, why don’t you name all of them for us?

    You seem to be a great expert.

    Please make a list of his great accomplishments today, besides being worshipped by his cult followers in churches now.

  12. 12
    Upright BiPed says:

    Please send a beverage of choice over to Null’s table.

    – – – – – – – –

    That was the most baited and sophmoric attempt witnessed since the recent talking donkey episodes (or perhaps watching Diffaxial’s laborious and repeated sholveling of the ground under his feet).

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    Darwin on evolution was essentially a failure. He was wrong about gradualism. He was wrong that natural selection was a major factor in evolution. He was wrong about the Malthusian struggle for resources. He is probably wrong about common descent. On another thread the discussion of the Cambrian is a major obstacle in the common descent scenario.

    Darwin was a decent scientist in his work on barnacles and worms and did a decent job of classifying species during the Beagle trip and apparently was insightful with his analysis of geology in South America but in evolutionary biology he was a bust. That is why it is so hard to defend him and his ideas on evolution. He got it all wrong and if the people of his day knew about the information content of the cell and the problems with the origin of new information they would have laughed him out of the building. He would have probably never have left Down House except to present his work on barnacles and worms.

  14. 14
    DATCG says:

    Interesting from Dr. Lynn Margulis…

    SYMBIOGENESIS
    Symbiogenesis is a theory of evolution. It argues that symbiosis is a primary force of evolution, because acquisition and accumulation of random mutations or genetic drift are not sufficient to explain how new inherited variations occur. According to this theory, new cell organelles, new bodies, new organs and new species arise from symbiosis, in which independent organisms merge to form composites. This challenges some standard textbook ideas of how evolutionary change occurs. To some degree, Darwin emphasized competition as the primary driving process of evolution, symbiogenesis emphasizes that co-operation can also be important to the process of evolution.

    Darwin also said bears swimming with mouths wide open turned into whales. He was laughed at so roundly for such an absurdity that he eventually removed this conjecture as he appeared to “look silly” for ever making such a statement.

    So, you have Lynn Margolis, you have Horizontal Gene Transfer, you have evolutionist Gould ripping apart the myth of “gradual steps” of evolution with a failed fossil record prediction by Darwin in favor of Punctuated Eq. You have the TOL falling apart into a Bush or Forest of Trees for lack of better description these days as a result of discoveries over the last several decades.

    Depending upon which scientist is trimming and hedging Darwin’s tree of life into oblivion, the original TOL envisioned by Darwin is no longer a valid metric. Though some think you can still utilize it in textbooks as a tool. Sure, continue the myth, why not?

    You have no evidence of random mutations ever being a strong enough force to create novel genes.

    The list goes on and on. Darwinism has been a grand failure of science for macro evolutionary study.

    But, it has been a grand success of religious zealotry in the intellectual classes and of atheist high priest.

    By the by, when is the next scheduled worship event of Darwin in churches around the nation? Always so fun to see atheist go to church and genuflect to their saint.


    A dollup of Dawkins selfish gene grey poupon anyone?

  15. 15
    pilotfo64 says:

    Behe said on his Blog in March from “The Old Enigma”:

    “Yet if one can’t explain how specific protein-protein interactions developed, then it is delusional to claim that we can explain how anything that depends on them developed, such as the molecular machinery of the cell. It’s like saying “we understand perfectly well how a car could evolve; we just don’t know how the pieces could get fit together.” If such a basic requirement for putting together complex systems is not understood, nothing is understood. Keep this in mind the next time you hear a blithe Darwinian tale about the undirected evolution of the cilium or bacterial flagellum.”

  16. 16
    IRQ Conflict says:

    “when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion”

    Would that be thinking without thinking at all? In a blind, random and chaotic fashion?

    Perhaps energy from the sun will keep my thoughts cohesive and therefore allow me to reach an otherwise unreachable conclusion.

    All hail Ra and Horus!

  17. 17
    Upright BiPed says:

    Send a round to DAT’s table as well.

    Well done.

  18. 18
    uoflcard says:

    It’s like a covered wagon carrying a load of modern car parts. All that’s needed is deep time and a bumpy ride towards the Wild, Wild West, and you’ll be cruising at 80 mph before you know it!

    I just watched a program on the history channel about leading material science research institutions learning things “beyond our wildest imagination” in the “designs of nature”. It’s amazing our “random errors + selection” leads to brilliant, perfectly designed mechanisms throughout all of biology.

  19. 19
    Cabal says:

    Find the parts, add natural selection and mutation, and you get the whole. What about actual observation, you ask? Apparently, not necessary, because we are, after all, only trying to satisfy a philosophical presupposition of explanation that must turn from simple to complex, and finding some scattered parts is good enough.

    How would you rate this:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi.....225219.stm

    With respect to asking for science to observe events or rather a chain of events stretched out over maybe thousands of years, any ideas about methods of observation? What about some actual observations of ID in action?

    In what way is ID not a philosophical presupposition, as opposed to science, or is ID science too? Or maybe I got it wrong, evolutionary research is not science, while rocket science and ID is? I am confused.

    I understand this stuff as a layman and only ask my layman’s questions.

  20. 20
    Clive Hayden says:

    Cabal,

    I have to say, that mouse’s fur changing color is the sort of evolution that evidences grand-scale evolution, like molecules-to-man, thanks for linking to it. I’m kidding, of course. You’re presupposition that anything evolutionary occurs over “thousands of years” should be examined before you assume it, and then dismiss observation as being invalid or impossible. It would be begging the question to say that it took thousands or millions of years for something to evolve, and therefore it’s not observable, when you have nothing supporting the initial assertion that it took thousands or millions of years for something to evolve without observation.
    ID is not a philosophical presupposition, for it comes after the scientific evidence, not before, that is why it’s not incompatible with evolution. The position that no intelligence was involved, and that a “random” (a word with metaphysical meaning) chance event of mutation and natural selection accounts for all of life’s complexities, is. Really, if evolution is chained to abductive reasoning about the past, then it cannot fault ID for making the ID inference. ID doesn’t discredit such articles as above on the grounds of abduction, it has problems with the philosophical bias against intelligence. With ID, you can fit in evolution, with evolution, you cannot fit in ID, nor can you really even fit in evolution. It’s the difference between waking and dreaming. When we’re awake, we can fit in our dreams from the night before, when we’re dreaming, we cannot fit in our waking life, or our other dreams.

  21. 21
    NT says:

    Wow, what a nice pro-ID/front-loaded/preadapted evolution/”simulation argument” article from wired. From the article:

    But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.

    With the massive amount of preadaptations, the biased nature of evolution, the memetic algorithms, the machinery of life and the fine-tuned cosmos, is it any wonder certain beings, like us, emerged?
    What is the best way to search for an optimal solution in ALL possible fitness landscapes? Designing memetic algorithms to search a fitness landscape for the best, optimal solution sounds like a good designing tool. Give it time and the most optimal solution for a particular fitness landscape will emerge…as a result of a few fine-tuned algorithms and laws :).

    Sounds like an ID/simulation arguments hypothesis is brewing…

  22. 22
    IRQ Conflict says:

    “It’s the difference between waking and dreaming. When we’re awake, we can fit in our dreams from the night before, when we’re dreaming, we cannot fit in our waking life, or our other dreams.”

    Good analogy Mr. Hayden.

  23. 23
    Blue Lotus says:

    Nullasarus

    You have some seriously poor reading skills.

    I aim to please. And yet I find it is not me that is unable to substantiate my claims. It’s you.

    Claim 1:

    Yep. I did not say all of Darwin’s thoughts were wrong, but certainly he was wrong or just plain completely uninformed about quite a lot of things.

    Darwin was uninformed or wrong on quite alot of things.

    You response when challenged:

    It’s funny how you demand and insist I give you a list of things Darwin was wrong/uninformed about, despite my already giving a list

    Please link to or reprise this “list. Note that a “list” has to contain more then one item, which as far as I can tell is you “Darwin was wrong about what cells are”. Hardly a list.

    Claim 2:

    I mentioned a number of ideas/mechanisms, etc, that Darwin didn’t foresee.

    When challenged to detail what those are you failed to deliever. When asked what difference Darwin knowning those would have made to the origin you failed to deliver.

    Is this your “list”?

    The fact is that, whatever one may think of ID, biology has turned out to be a very different beast from what Darwin expected at the time. Horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, cellular complexity, symbiosis, convergent evolution, etc. Darwin’s thoughts, in large part, are vestigial organs in the modern evolutionary beast.

    So please tell me how any of this negates Darwin’s central point. Varation. Selection.

    Yes Dawrin might have been uninformed on cellular complexity, symbiosis, convergent evolution “ETC” but again I ask “so what?”

    I suppose the question I have for you is “If Darwin had known about those things, are you saying he would not have written the origin?”

    Or to put it another way: Of the things you list, which of them are incompatable with evolution as Darwin saw it?

    As you might as well list space travel as something Darwin was uninformed about and imply that if he had known about it things would have turned out differently.

    So, imply all you want that if Dawin had known about those things that he would not have written the origin but until you say why you’ll only be preaching to the converted.

    Please, for the sake of whatever metaphysical being or principle you subscribe to, either learn more about ID, Darwin, and contemporary biology, or learn to be quiet.

    From you, and considering what you’ve written so far in this thread, I consider that a compliment.

    Tell me, what parts of contemporary biology are incompatible with “Darwinism” and which are incompatible with “ID”.

    And lastly, I ask one more time. Do you think that “the designer” could be a seperate entity to “whatever god you believe in” I.E. a material entity. I’ll understand if you ignore this question again you “ID Critic”.

  24. 24
    Joseph says:

    Blue Lotus,

    Even YECs accept variation and selection.

    Had Darwin known about genetics he would have had a very difficult time with his theory.

    I say that because there isn’t anything in genetics which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible.

  25. 25
    Joseph says:

    Wired-

    Yes if you ASSUME mitochondria arose from engulfed but not digested bacteria that didn’t have the components, then sure it looks like something interesting took place.

  26. 26
    Upright BiPed says:

    Blue,

    Did you just wake up from a long sleep? Asking someone to list the ways in which “gradual change by means of random mutation filtered by natural selection” missed the empirical mark is…well…a little out of date.

    I mean, come to your senses. Missing CELLULAR LIFE and INFORMATION is likely to be considered fairly important. Sort of like a LIST unto its own.

  27. 27
    Blue Lotus says:

    Upright,
    Then I ask you. What difference would it have made to “the origin” if Darwin would have known about CELLULAR LIFE and INFORMATION?

    What would have been different?

    You are making the unclear claim that “something” would have changed. Can you be specific?

    Joseph

    Had Darwin known about genetics he would have had a very difficult time with his theory.

    Saying it don’t make it so. Be specific. Why would Darwin had a very difficult time with his theory?

    Believe that if you like, but unless you explain why and justify your position nobody else will.

  28. 28
    Blue Lotus says:

    Upright

    Asking someone to list the ways in which “gradual change by means of random mutation filtered by natural selection” missed the empirical mark is…well…a little out of date.

    Me and the rest of the scientific community I guess. Yes, alot more is now known about how evolution happens and the engines of variation but Darwin was right about the core of it.

    Why don’t you tell me what emperical evidence does not support Darwins central claim?

    Dare you.

  29. 29
    IRQ Conflict says:

    Blew Smoke Wrote:

    “Saying it don’t make it so. Be specific. Why would Darwin had a very difficult time with his theory?

    Believe that if you like, but unless you explain why and justify your position nobody else will.”

    This from a Darwin proponent. How rich! How very ironic! Methinks it’s why I keep coming back here. Just for the laughs.

  30. 30
    IRQ Conflict says:

    BL, have a poke around in here:
    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

  31. 31
    Joseph says:

    Blue Lotus,

    I told you why Darwin would have had a hard time writing “On the Origins of Species…” had he known about genetics and the internal workings of the cell-

    To date there isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible.

  32. 32
    Cabal says:

    Clive Hayden,

    You’re presupposition that anything evolutionary occurs over “thousands of years” should be examined before you assume it, and then dismiss observation as being invalid or impossible.

    Now I really am confused. Behe is full of praise for science for its discoveries. As far as I understand his Black Box he only objects to the theory that natural causes can account for the observed changes in species over time. So what’s wrong with thousands of years?

    If, as you say, “With ID, you can fit in evolution”, do you mean that all changes are caused by ID, or just some?

    The position that no intelligence was involved, and that a “random” (a word with metaphysical meaning) chance event of mutation and natural selection accounts for all of life’s complexities, is.

    What’s metaphysical about randomness? Is “Intelligent Designer” without metaphysical meaning? Mutations are a fact, as are natural selection, what remain is for ID to show that nature doesn’t account for all of life’s complexities.

  33. 33
    Cabal says:

    IRQ conflict,

    Are you saying what I read, that Darwin would have had problems; he would have rejected the science built on his foundation? What would he have seen that the scientific community so far has been unable to see?

    He expected and met largely religiously founded opposition in his own time, what would have been different?

  34. 34
    Joseph says:

    Cabal,

    Behe’s argument is against undirected processes.

    And there is a paper that tells us with undirected processes there isn’t enough time in the universe to get the diversity of life from some single-celled organism.

    And ID isn’t about “complexities”.

    BTW Darwin wouldn’t be rejecting science, he would be embracing it.

  35. 35
    Cabal says:

    Joseph,
    where does Behe say that *all* of evolution is directed (by an outside force, not caused by nature)?

    The way I read Behe, he just thinks there are limits to what “Darwinian evolution” may accomplish, and that’s where the designer steps in.

    WRT the paper, if that was the last word, why are we having the controversy?

  36. 36
    IRQ Conflict says:

    Cabal,

    He may have gone in any direction. Flew, Gould or Dawkins. Take your pick.

Leave a Reply