Two challenges for KL – (fossil) Lucy’s defender

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 3, 2011

Human evolution}

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

A most interesting discussion has got started here at “But ‘Lucy’ herself is mostly an artifact”. Commenter KL got it going, I suspect, by observing that

I certainly don’t consider you hicks. However, my spouse and associates are primate researchers, physical anthropologists, geologists and archeologists. It’s strange to come here and see their work dismissed as a just so story. Some of them have been in the field extensively and have published many, many papers. Are you guys saying that somehow all these people are simply mistaken?

Yes, it is quite possible.

My question is, is there anything fronted by “evolution researchers” that KL wouldn’t believe? How about the Big Bazooms theory of human evolution? Or Marc “Well, the monkeys talk to me!” Hauser? How about any single item on this list? Is there nothing that KL would even wonder about? Does he know that E. O. Wilson has retracted his own kin selection theory?

Two things: The public of a free society is not stupid. When we see a parade of amazing nonsense – marketed as evolution – we wisely don’t believe any of it. I don’t bother sorting through it for the same reason as I don’t scan the tabloids to see if anything in them is true.

It is no use berating us, let alone blaming us for low science scores. Revisit your strategy.

And second, would KL be willing to read The Nature of Nature, to understand what the controversy is really about? Then we could have a serious discussion.

(Note: KL has a spouse and associates in primate research, and I have a number of relatives and friends in medicine. That does not commit me to any particular theory, no matter how widely espoused, and a good thing too: Look how much medicine has changed. )

Comments

--Jemima Rackentouey: "Why don’t you spell them out and I’ll tell you if I believe in them or not." The Laws of logic or the laws of thought include, [A] Law of non-contradiction. [B] Law of Identity. [C] Law of excluded middle. Do you accept these laws as non-material realities? Do you agree that they are not composed of matter or energy, that they are not extended in time/space, and that they are universal, and unchangeable?StephenB_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

F/N: Since there are ever so many talking points about fossils directed to me, that fail to address the facts and arguments in my always linked through my handle, section C [see how easy it is to erect and pummel a strawman], let me put up the relevant part of the table of contents for that note, and clip a couple of key cites, noting already that the accusation that it is design theory that has a fossil problem is a false strawmannish accusation in the teeth of easily accessible evidence. First, table of contents clip:
C] Case II: Macroevolution and the Diversity of Life --> the observed fossil record pattern: sudden appearance, stasis, disappearance --> Defining "Irreducible Complexity" --> The Bacterial Flagellum --> Macro- vs. Micro- Evolution --> Natural selection as a probabilistic culler vs. an innovator (& the gambler's ruin challenge)
Onlookers, would you believe that a discussion on those topics was just one click away at all times, if all you had to go on was the remarks of JR and KL above? (Do you therefore see what sort of shennanigans and abuse go on in evo mat hangouts such as ATBC, and why people interested in civil and serious discussion simply ignore such fever swamps full of angry mosquitoes?) Anyway, here is the clip from Loennig of the Max Planck Institute, in his paper: "Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity," which is of course peer-reviewed [and from a source safely out of reach of the thought police at NCSE etc]: _______________ >> examples like the horseshoe crab are by no means rare exceptions from the rule of gradually evolving life forms . . . In fact, we are literally surrounded by 'living fossils' in the present world of organisms when applying the term more inclusively as "an existing species whose similarity to ancient ancestral species indicates that very few morphological changes have occurred over a long period of geological time" [85] . . . . Now, since all these "old features", morphologically as well as molecularly, are still with us, the basic genetical questions should be addressed in the face of all the dynamic features of ever reshuffling and rearranging, shifting genomes, (a) why are these characters stable at all and (b) how is it possible to derive stable features from any given plant or animal species by mutations in their genomes? . . . . A first hint for answering the questions . . . is perhaps also provided by Charles Darwin himself when he suggested the following sufficiency test for his theory [16]: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." . . . Biochemist Michael J. Behe [5] has refined Darwin's statement by introducing and defining his concept of "irreducibly complex systems", specifying: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" . . . [for example] (1) the cilium, (2) the bacterial flagellum with filament, hook and motor embedded in the membranes and cell wall and (3) the biochemistry of blood clotting in humans . . . . One point is clear: granted that there are indeed many systems and/or correlated subsystems in biology, which have to be classified as irreducibly complex and that such systems are essentially involved in the formation of morphological characters of organisms, this would explain both, the regular abrupt appearance of new forms in the fossil record as well as their constancy over enormous periods of time. For, if "several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function" are necessary for biochemical and/or anatomical systems to exist as functioning systems at all (because "the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning") such systems have to (1) originate in a non-gradual manner and (2) must remain constant as long as they are reproduced and exist. And this could mean no less than the enormous time periods mentioned for all the living fossils hinted at above. Moreover, an additional phenomenon would also be explained: (3) the equally abrupt disappearance of so many life forms in earth history . . . The reason why irreducibly complex systems would also behave in accord with point (3) is also nearly self-evident: if environmental conditions deteriorate so much for certain life forms (defined and specified by systems and/or subsystems of irreducible complexity), so that their very existence be in question, they could only adapt by integrating further correspondingly specified and useful parts into their overall organization, which prima facie could be an improbable process -- or perish . . . . According to Behe and several other authors [5-7, 21-23, 53-60, 68, 86] the only adequate hypothesis so far known for the origin of irreducibly complex systems is intelligent design (ID) . . . in connection with Dembski's criterion of specified complexity . . . . "For something to exhibit specified complexity therefore means that it matches a conditionally independent pattern (i.e., specification) of low specificational complexity, but where the event corresponding to that pattern has a probability less than the universal probability bound and therefore high probabilistic complexity" [23]. For instance, regarding the origin of the bacterial flagellum, Dembski calculated a probability of 10^-234[22].>> _______________ So, in the peer-reviewed literature, for nigh on eight years now, there has been a design theory based explanation of the dominant features of the fossil record, sudden emergence and stasis followed by disappearance and/or continuity into the modern world. That explanation has sat in my always linked note -- which I am sure has been studied by the likes of JR and KL etc -- since c 2006. So, there is no excuse to turn me into a strawman and pummel away. this is nothing short of willful refusal to do duties of care to be true and fair in analysis and criticism on JR's part and KL's part. As I just pointed out, the specific case of origin of man has been addressed by me on the issue of origin of FSCO/I. If you want a link to a more elaborate discussion, the section of the IOSE course on origin of man, mind etc [which is also relevant to the way JR has tried to twist C S Lewis to fit her rhetorical agendas] has already been linked but studiously ignored in the haste to erect and knock over strawmen. I suggest in particular, that JR and KL spend some time pondering on the implications of the Smith two-tier controller model of a MIMO cybernetic system. In short, JR and KL have tried to import to UD the typical ideological evo mat tactic of systematic misrepresentation of those they differ with. beyond a certain point, that is no longer a mere matter of having been misled, but willful, inexcusable and uncivil resistance to duty to the truth and to fairness. But, I must go on to another clip, which has a context that is a revelation on the ruthless thought police tactics at work in the wider discussion. So, let us hear from Meyer in his PBSW article that "passed proper peer review" by "renowned scientists" but was then made the subject of an orchestrated and slander-filled attack [led by the NCSE and involving key members of the Smithsonian Institution] that involved the sort of unjustified career busting that just led to the U of K having to pay US$ 125,000 in settlement of a lawsuit by Gaskell: ________________ >> The Cambrian explosion represents a remarkable jump in the specified complexity or "complex specified information" (CSI) of the biological world. For over three billions years, the biological realm included little more than bacteria and algae (Brocks et al. 1999). Then, beginning about 570-565 million years ago (mya), the first complex multicellular organisms appeared in the rock strata, including sponges, cnidarians, and the peculiar Ediacaran biota (Grotzinger et al. 1995). Forty million years later, the Cambrian explosion occurred (Bowring et al. 1993) . . . One way to estimate the amount of new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals is to count the number of new cell types that emerged with them (Valentine 1995:91-93) . . . the more complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian (e.g., arthropods) would have required fifty or more cell types . . . New cell types require many new and specialized proteins. New proteins, in turn, require new genetic information. Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI . . . . In order to explain the origin of the Cambrian animals, one must account not only for new proteins and cell types, but also for the origin of new body plans . . . Mutations in genes that are expressed late in the development of an organism will not affect the body plan. Mutations expressed early in development, however, could conceivably produce significant morphological change (Arthur 1997:21) . . . [but] processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream. For this reason, mutations will be much more likely to be deadly if they disrupt a functionally deeply-embedded structure such as a spinal column than if they affect more isolated anatomical features such as fingers (Kauffman 1995:200) . . . McDonald notes that genes that are observed to vary within natural populations do not lead to major adaptive changes, while genes that could cause major changes--the very stuff of macroevolution--apparently do not vary. In other words, mutations of the kind that macroevolution doesn't need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don't occur.6 [] >> ________________ Now, we see the challenge being glossed over on the body-plan change from say an ape like ancestral animal to a human being. Namely, that we need mutations expressed early in embryological development, that shape key parts such as for instance creating the verbal capacity in the brain etc. We have an estimate that we are dealing with needing to account for hundreds of thousands to millions of base pairs worth of DNA information, between the protein codes and the regulatory networks that express them as embryological development unfolds. And, in relevant epigentic structures otherwise. Where is the empirically substantiated discussion of this in the literature, that shows how this happened step by functional, gradualistic step? It is not there, or that would have been trumpeted to the high heavens. Instead, what we have are just so stories, constrained by a materialistic straight jacket, and in a context where even the dating of fossils, is too often subject to ideological considerations and a priori worldview impositions. In that context, incredulity on the stories, drawings, museum models, and computer reconstructions and the like is quite justified. In short, the turnabout tactic on fossils, blatantly fails. And, in failing, it points to the heart of the problem being ducked by the promoters of evo mat talking points: the origin of FSCO/I in living systems on warrant to best, empirically anchored explanation.kairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

20 --> But that is precisely the problem, there is an institutionally established, a priori materialist prejudice that dominates the key institutions of science, education, public information and policy decision. 21 --> Nor is such an accident, for we may read in Darwin's strangely obscure -- or, maybe not so strangely obscure -- October 13, 1880 letter to Edward Bibbins Aveling [Marx's son in law, who had wanted to dedicate a book to him], as follows:
. . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion . . .
22 --> In short, a worldviews-level ideological agenda was embedded in Darwinian theory, right from its foundations. So, the Lewontin confession is simply a public admission of that ideology, and an announcement that it has triumphed in the relevant key institutions. 23 --> So, then, it is impossible to cogently address evolutionary materialist ideology as an imposition on origins studies, without addressing worldvierw level issues and agendas. 24 --> So KL's dismissive remarks on "Metaphysical arguments against evolution . . . " above are little more than a demand to let the reigning materialist orthodoxy get away with imposing their bias on origins science. Sorry, we were not born yesterday. In science, if your explanation is better than the last, you should be able to show it, and no one is willing to do so here. 25 --> An outright fabrication in the teeth of explicit explanation, analysis and evidence. If you suppress, deny, distort and reject the truth in the teeth of patient and repeated pointing out, what are you? 26 --> One more time: the pivotal evidence to be explained is the causal source of FSCO/I, which consistently KL et al duck and divert form, even as just as consistently, it is put back on the table. 27 --> There is no credible materialistic explanation on the gamut of the observed cosmos -- and, multiverse speculations are both a blatant resort to speculative metaphysics, and simply postpone the issue one step [what explains the wider cosmos that is so set up that it buds off or bubbles up sub cosmi in the region about the "knee" that our sub cosmos sits on?] -- for the origin of codes, language, algorithms, data structure conventions etc on chance contingency plus blind mechanical necessity. 28 --> By contrast, we routinely and reliably observe that choice contingency based on the artful action of intelligence, is a reliable cause of such FSCO/I. 29 --> So, we are well within our epistemic rights to infer from FSCO/I as reliable sign to the signified cause, choice contingency, on the warrant that has been repeatedly explained. I have to conclude that you all are a long way from providing anything that can remotely challenge evolution as the reigning paradigm. 30 --> "Evolution" -- a word with a wide range of meanings, from minor populaiton variation to universal common descent on evolutionary materialistic presuppositions -- is not the issue, the origin of FSCO/I in light of what is known about causal factors, is. 31 --> If by "evolution" you mean to use the usual slippery slope extrapolation from minor, empirically supported changes well within the FSCI limit, to the grand metaphysically controlled materialist narrative, then we call your bluff, KL. 32 --> Small scale variations within an already functioning system, that allow us to move around in islands or even archipelagos of function are one thing, accounting for the origin of such functionality is a wholly different thing, especially given the scope of DNA information in the simplest observed life: 100,000+ bases, or a similar number of bits. Major body plans with dozens of new cell types credibly require 10 mn plus bases. 33 --> These are several orders of magnitude beyond the 1,000 bit threshold, where there are 1.07*10^301 configs, 10^150 times more than the number of Planck time states our observed cosmos' about 10^80 atoms will undergo across the cosmic lifespan of 50 mn times the generally accepted timeline to date. Chance contingency is not a credible explanation for reaching dozens of major islands or archipelagos of function of the sort of orders of complexity involved. Just 100,000 bits of storage capacity dispose of a config space of 9.99 *10^30,102 possibilities, for instance. I had hoped you would have something. 34 --> Arrogantly condescending dismissal on having ducked the pivotal issues and begged the central questions. Perhaps you need to find an anthropologist to join you? 35 --> An anthroplogist blinded and constrained by a priori evolutionary materialism and refusing to address the question of cogently explaining the origin of functionally specific complex bio-information is part of the problem, not a part of the solution. 35 --> In fact, at an earlier point in exchanges with KL, I pointed out that humans have a DNA complement of some 3 billion bases or 6 bn bits. 36 --> It is said that 98 percent is similar to the chimp genome [for protein coding], so using that yardstick for argument, we can see that we need to explain the origin of 120 nm bits worth of info. 37 --> Let us dismiss 99% of this, for argument as "junk." That leaves 1.2 mn bits to be explained, specifying a config space of 9.88*10^361,235 possibilities. 38 --> This is so far beyond the gamut of the search capacity of the observed cosmos, that it cannot be explained on that scope, much less jumping up an ape -- Lucy and kin, for argument -- on the plains of E Africa over the past 6 - 10 MN years. 39 --> By sharpest contrast, given that we already see genetic engineering in action, a molecular nanotech lab a few generations beyond Venter's would be a very reasonable explanation, if we wanted a simple alternative model. 40 --> this issue was put on the table, but was studiously and pointedly ignored by KL in his haste to make rhetorical talking points on the behalf of the reigning evo mat orthodoxy duly robed in the holy lab coat, as he now continues below. A anyway, good luck. 41 --> Condescendingly arrogant and patently insincere. I think I’ll stick with my spouse and associates on this one, 42 --> A priori materialism closes the mind . . . as they can address the specifics about the distribution, age and features of the fossils. 43 --> Blatantly false, starting with the issue of accounting for the origin of relevant FSCO/I; cf the just above. 44 --> What they can do, is construct just so stores that are plausible to those locked in an evo mat circle of thought You can’t ignore that they exist, so explaining them can’t be avoided. 45 --> There is nothing about living or fossil body plans, or generally used timelines, that does not fit in a design paradigm. This is a brazen turnabout rhetorical tactic, as the pivotal issue is precisely the failure to explain sudden emergence, stasis and disappearances as the general pattern of the fossils, and to explain the source of the required FSCO/I to support said fossils, on eh part of the reigning orthodoxy. One final point-unless you fix your moderation system, you’ll not have many here offering a different perspective. 8,10,12 hours or more before a post appears is just too long; it disrupts the conversation and makes posts appear out of context. 46 --> Moderation for cause [whether automatic by Akismet in an age of spam and worse, or manually by the judgement of moderators] is not censorship, and there is every advantage to having a conversation take the time to be analytical rather than hasty and hot >> _______________ I trust that sufficient has been put on the table to move the discussion forward to a positive basis. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Overnight, there was what looks like an islandwide power cut (M/rat has been running on containerised standby units for over a decade . . . long story). Let's take up KL at 14, though it seems the post is mostly complaining about being in moderation: ______________ >> Well, folks, between spending hours in moderation 1 --> Generally speaking, people go in mod at UD for cause [cf policy on comments], especially when their arguments are pretty run of the mill, so the issue is whether KL has triggered Akismet automatically [key words, patterns of posting . . .] or manual intervention by a moderator. 2 --> I am not a mod, so I leave the mods to speak for themselves and finding that no one is able to answer the original question, I guess it’s time to move on. Metaphysical arguments against evolution is not the same as explaining the evidence from a different paradigm. 3 --> the basic problem here, is that -- as I pointed out with excerpts at 61, starting with Lewontin's admission -- the reigning evolutionary materialist orthodoxy has exactly imposed an a priori metaphysics on the evidence of origins, so this boils down to little more than a demand to work in a materialistic circle. 4 --> At the same time, this is distractive from the key challenge faced by that reigning paradigm: once you pass the threshold of 1,000 bits/125 bytes/143 ASCII characters, it is not plausible that blind chance and mechanical necessity on the gamut of our observed cosmos can account for functionally specific, complex information, while we routinely observe that intelligence creates such FSCI. 5 --> Thus, on inference to best, empirically anchored explanation, such FSCI is a reliable inductive sign of design. That is a key facet of what is meant when we see definitions of the theory of intelligent design, like this one from NWE on ID (a much better 101 survey than the hopelessly biased, hostile Wiki article):
Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.
6 --> Notice, especially, the divergent scope of ID from that of the neo-darwinian theory of evolution. ID is a theory in the main of the origin of functionally specific, complex organisation and information, on the empirically known causal patterns of chance, mechanical necessity, and art. So, it speaks to cosmological origins on the observation of fine tuning that fits our cosmos for C-chemistry, cell based, aqueous solution, intelligent life, and it speaks to the key informational content of first life and onward to that in novel major body plans. 7 --> Specifically, it sees that he FSCO/I involved points to design as the most plausible root causal explanation. That does not imply an overturning of generally used cosmological or geological model timelines [we do not directly know the actual timeline of the deep past, we are reconstructing on analytical models and observations in the present . . . even the timeline of history beyond about 1,000 BC is a matter of significant debate], but instead it is asking what type of cause best explains the sort of objects, processes and patterns we see. (Recall, the issue of fine tuning is tied to the generally accepted Big Bang model of cosmological origins, which in turn principally draws empirical support from the Hubble red shifts, the distance estimates for astronomical objects,and the 2.7 K background radiation. Long before the recent estimates of 13.7 BY, that had clustered at 10 - 20 BY.) 8 --> So, as the UD weak argument correctives point out explicitly [esp 9 - 10], design theory is compatible with partial or complete common descent, and with the typically used 4.5 BY timeline for the earth. Indeed, Michael Behe holds to universal common descent of life forms. (And BTW, modern forms of young earth creationism are compatible with limited common descent, i.e the view of what "kinds" means is different from what "species" means, so say Mr Ham, speaks of the dog-wolf kind.) 9 --> The issue pivots on the point consistently ducked -- for years -- by advocates of evolutionary materialism who have had exchanges with us at UD: what causal factor best explains FSCO/I on empirical evidence and the infinite monkeys type analysis of searching large config spaces? 10 --> In the days of Plato it was immemorial that causal factors trace to chance/accidental circumstances, to mechanical necessity [phusis], and to art or design. 2,300 years later, we still can analyse causal patterns and factors across aspects of a phenomenon, object or process on these three factors, using the explanatory filter on a per aspect basis. 11 --> Mechanical necessity best explains such aspects that show low contingency natural regularities, e.g. heavy objects that are unsupported near the earth's surface tend to fall with initial acceleration of 9.8 or so m/s per s. We explain that by natural law. 12 --> Other aspects of phenomena exhibit high contingency: they come into being, they vary under similar initial conditions, they stop from being. Such contingency consistently traces to choice or chance. 13 --> Chance contingency is dominated by stochastic patterns fitting probabilistic distribution models. So, for instance, the second law of thermodynamics, in statistical form, is an account of why at micro-scale, systems with large numbers of small masses [think, molecules etc] and energy that may distribute itself in very diverse ways, tend to move towards those clusters of microstates consistent with a macro-level state, that have overwhelmingly high statistical weights. 14 --> At macro-level, chance is a good model for how a tumbling fair die, thanks to 12 edges and 8 corners, will by highly nonlinear behaviour, tend to settle at random on its possible readings. So, a die is a classic example of chance. 15 --> By contrast, choice contingency is NOT dominated by statistical weights of clusters of possible micro-arrangements. For, intelligent agents, by imagination, skill, knowledge and purpose, can configure objects and processes in ways that follow the Wicken style wiring diagram towards a desired function. 16 --> So, strings of alphanumerical symbols are shaped to express a message in this blog thread, or to program a computer. Similarly, diverse elements are put together to make up a 747 Jumbo jet, never mind how otherwise improbable such an object would be. 17 --> And so, once intelligent agents are at all possible in a situation, if we are to infer fairly to best explanation, we must be willing to accept the possibility of choice contingency, AKA design. 18 --> So, once we refuse to be forced into a materialist straightjacket, we easily enough see that he existence of a DNA based architecture for living forms is best explained on design. 19 --> Similarly, we see that the cosmos that is finely balanced to support the possibility of C-chemistry, cell based, intelligent life, is also credibly designed. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

KF, The facts are the fossils. How do you explain them? If you can't then why not accept the prevailing explanations until you can come up with something better? Oh, that's right.JemimaRacktouey_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

StephenB
You believe in the immaterial laws of logic do you?,
Why don't you spell them out and I'll tell you if I believe in them or not. Please be sure to differentiate between the "immaterial" and the material laws. I.E the ones that exist outside of the universe and the ones we've extended ourselves from those. Oh, and if you could explain how you know the difference that would be super.JemimaRacktouey_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

Upright,
If you could only leave aside the distractions and debate me on the core tenets of ID.,
And what would those "core tenets" be exactly? If nobody can agree on the definition of CSI then how can anybody possibly know what the core tenets of ID are as presumably it involves CSI at some level? If you can explain what it is (and if required define CSI) then I'm up for a serious debate. Only if however there is a general consensus on it, if it's your private definition (like how everybody had their personal versions of CSI) then you can "debate" yourself.JemimaRacktouey_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

---Jemima Rackentouey: "Seems to me that Lewis couldn’t comprehend the fundamentals of logical deduction." You believe in the immaterial laws of logic do you?StephenB_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

surely Lewis cannot mean that if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as valid reasoning. If he really thought this, he would have to endorse the hypothetical ‘If naturalism is true, then modus ponens is invalid.’ Lewis was not arguing that "there is no such thing as valid reasoning" if naturalism is true, or that "modus ponens" is invalid in and of itself. The claim is that if naturalism (materialism, in this case) is true, humans do not reason, nor do they arrive at conclusions due to the intellectual force of an argument. It's not that far away from the claim that if naturalism is true, there are no beliefs. You can find some naturalists (eliminative materialists are famous for this) who argue that beliefs do not exist.nullasalus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Interesting that you bring up the placental/marsupial divergence. If there was ever an actively researched and well documented evolutionary sequence, that is it. Backed by work in several areas of science, too. It's fascinating and it's all evolution. I have not seen anything using another paradigm that can explain it. Yes, the picture is not complete, but more information is coming in about the mechanisms, chronology, and changes in the genetic sequences that make these two lines different. And it's ALL evolution. No other paradigm.KL_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

"That’s because that makes no sense what so ever."
If you conflate methodology with worldview, and further, if you are incapable of separating the two, then you are right.
"So, let’s say that there are in fact guided material forces in the cosmos. What are they doing and how do you know that? Are you sitting under a cardboard pyramid? “OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM” Did you do much acid in the 60?s?"
Belittlment and humiliation are your defensive tactics Jemima, you've shown this to be the case. I have no problem with that, although I do consider it a waste of my time. If you could only leave aside the distractions and debate me on the core tenets of ID.Upright BiPed_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Clive, On C.S Lewis Keith Parsons said: “surely Lewis cannot mean that if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as valid reasoning. If he really thought this, he would have to endorse the hypothetical ‘If naturalism is true, then modus ponens is invalid.’ But since the consequent is necessarily false, then the hypothetical is false if we suppose naturalism is true (which is what the antecedent asserts), and Lewis has no argument.” Seems to me that Lewis couldn't comprehend the fundamentals of logical deduction.JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
I guess that is why the theory of evolution is so unpopular.
You realize the joke's on you right? Comparison of ID vs Evolution on Google Trends If that was a heart monitor then ID is already off to the organ donation center!JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

I am not KL. In case anybody was wondering. I just reponsed the comment that you won't let out of moderation, and for some reason I'm still not moderated. I guess Clive is having an off day. But I am active on that thread I just linked to. Come jump in, the water is lovely! Bring your worked example of the Explanatory Filter for bonus points!JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Here is KL's latest post as (re)posted on ATBC.
KL 04/06/2011 1:40 pm Your comment is awaiting moderation. If you want your ideas to be considered science, you must do what scientists do: the hard work of developing explanations for evidence. Detailed work involving mechanisms, patterns, empirical and relative ages, geographic distribution, biometrics, variations within and between related species. To answer scientific questions by claiming another paradigm but then not using that paradigm to offer a better explanation is not science. That’s fine, if you don’t care to be called scientists or what you do science. But, if you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. Don’t try to play scientist by offering up analogies that are meaningless in practice, philosophy instead of mechanisms, and claims you cannot support with evidence. Not to mention outrageous statements about scientists wasting their careers; scientists who have done and continued to do the hard work of science. QuiteID, the paradigm of evolution has stood the test of time, and continues to explain all the evidence, even down to the tiniest detail, very well. A shift in paradigm is an extraordinary claim, which must be demonstrated by extraordinary evidence. Philosophical explanations and computer science analogies are not sufficient to convince any scientist to abandon the reigning paradigm. New post: Reams of typing, quotemines of Gould offered by Philip Johnson, who I think has perfected the art, an piece from Proverbs, more metaphysics, but nothing regarding the age, features or distribution of the hundreds of hominid fossils. Plus, another post in moderation for going on 3.5 hours.
If you want to engage with KL then could do worse then going to ATBC where there are no arbitrary "moderation" delays. Delays that always seem to favor one viewpoint over another. http://tinyurl.com/3n35lknJemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

KF, The facts are the fossils. How do you explain them? If you tell me one more time how the materialistic paradigm fails to explain them I simply won't read it. I'll just ask again.JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Upright,
It might also be helpful to remember that there hasn’t been a single discovery ever made that has been endowed with veracity based upon the idea that there is nothing but unguided material forces in the cosmos.
That's because that makes no sense what so ever. So, let's say that there are in fact guided material forces in the cosmos. What are they doing and how do you know that? Are you sitting under a cardboard pyramid? "OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM" Did you do much acid in the 60's?JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

If anybody else is interested in how other people have (mis)used that quote please see here: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Lewontin_on_materialism It's amazing the lengths people will go to.JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Reams of typing, quote mines of Gould offered by Philip Johnson, who I think has perfected the art, an piece from Proverbs, more metaphysics, but nothing regarding the age, features or distribution of the hundreds of hominid fossils. Plus, another post in moderation for going on 3.5 hours.KL_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

KF Here is Lewontin’s stunning confession, which please notice is seen as a general pattern in origins science: As usual you leave out, for some strange reason, the last few words in that quote.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
Is there any particular reason you leave out that last sentence?
Fossils do not support gradualism on chance variation plus natural selection; instead they have been force-fitted into a gradualistic account.,
You've told me what they don't support. Now care to tell me what they do support? Blatantly ducked. What, because I did not "explain" the "issue" of origin of FSCI on chance plus necessity? You already know the origin of such, nothing anybody can say will convince you otherwise. And until others "explain" it to your satisfaction that's apparently your excuse for not engaging on the issues others have raised and replacing those issues with your own "islands of functionality" talking points. It seems I have to repeat KL's post again
I remind you that the original thread was a claim regarding the fossil record. A specific claim that I asked to be supported with evidence. Anthropologists make hypotheses based on really good familiarity with the fossils and understanding of comparative anatomy. The original thread did not mention cellular biology, molecular biology, metaphysics, or computer programming. Just fossils. So, if you are going to make that claim, and the subsequent claim that anthropologists have wasted their entire careers chasing a fantasy, from a scientific standpoint you should offer a better explanation of the specifics (age, features, distribution) of the fossil record. To divert to another topic is evasion.
If you want to talk about the meaning of life, FSCI, aliens, islands basking in the light of designer granted functionality the please do so. But don't accuse others of "ducking" questions that nobody is actually interested in answering because they are unanswerable as you are making up your own special terms that can mean anything you want them to mean. Here is a list of meaningless things ID proponents have invented: bCSI, Biological Complex Specified Information BPB, Biological Probability Bound CSI, Complex Specified Information DFSCI, Digital Functionally Specified Complex Information EF, Explanatory Filter FAI, Functional Algorithmic Information FCT, Functional Coded elemenT FIIRDS, Functional Incredibly Improbable Random Digital Strings Fits, Functional Bits FSC, Functional Sequence Complexity FSCI, Functionally Specified Complex Information GSP, Genetic Selection Principle ID, Intelligent Design IDC, Intelligent Design Creationism IR, Irreducible Complexity LCCSI, Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information PI, Prescriptive Information TARD, The Argument Regarding Design TE, Theistic Evolution UPB, Universal Probability Bound UPM, Universal Plausibility Metric Joe, care to calculate the DFSCI of a cake? Or a baseball? What about a photon? Much DFSCI in that?JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

idcurious, You ask about ID pre-suppositions. It might be helpful to keep in mind that ID throry does not contradict a single scientific fact (as in a documented repeatable observation). You also comment about the usefulness of the scientific endeavor in regards to materialism. It might also be helpful to remember that there hasn't been a single discovery ever made that has been endowed with veracity based upon the idea that there is nothing but unguided material forces in the cosmos. Conflating discrete items is often the source of confusion.Upright BiPed_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Passed by again, and see ever more of distractive, turnabout tactics rhetorical games that exploit the fact that I happen to be busy elsewhere just now to pretend that it is the design option that is on trial and being found wanting. All the while, we find nowhere the faintest trace of empirically credible evidence that functionally specific, complex information can be accounted for on undirected chance plus mechanical necessity. Of course, such FSCI is the routinely observed product of intelligence. So, on inference to best, empirically anchored explanation, we have every epistemic right to take FSCI as a strong sign of design. In the case of DNA, we see coded, digital information, that is the basis for algorithms and data structures specifying the workhorse molecules of life and regulating their expression from earliest embryonic stages on. What is the empirically known source of codes, languages [computer languages are languages with symbols, rules, meanings, intensional reference etc], algorithms, data structures, and the detailed information that fills in the outlines given in specifications? have the evo mat advocates succeeded in providing credible cases where these things originate by chance plus necessity without intelligent guidance? or, are they not forced to beg the question of getting to islands of existing function, in say their evolutionary or genetic algorithms, by starting ON such islands of function, with intelligently designed programs? Was not PAV able to point out in a previous thread that ev's search capacity [apparently said to be about the best of breed by Schneider] is well within the FSCI limit, 500 - 1,000 functionally specific bits? So, do we not see here a begging of the question, backed up by an attempt to indulge in turnabout accusatory questions and assertions? When it comes to "explaining fossils" on design, what is really being asked for? Have the evolutionary materialists satisfactorily explained the origin of the FSCI in the core of life [and thus its origin], or the origin of major body plans -- which includes our own, or the origin of man and mind and morality on forces of chance plus necessity, in a material cosmos, or have they -- as Lewontin admitted so plainly -- primarily imposed an a priori constraint that blocks the facts from speaking, then constructed biased narratives? [Notice, the linked discussions, with actually hours of videos to watch.] Here is Lewontin's stunning confession, which please notice is seen as a general pattern in origins science:
To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.]
Let me give just one cite on fossils, from Gould (which I have already highlighted recently):
. . . long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists. [[p. 752, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002).] . . . . The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section [[first occurrence] without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants." [[p. 753.] . . . . proclamations for the supposed ‘truth’ of gradualism - asserted against every working paleontologist’s knowledge of its rarity - emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most ‘textbook classics’ upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the ‘case study’ method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record. [[p. 773.]
Remember, the problems start with the Cambrian life revolution fossils, where dozens of major body plans appear, without a pattern of antecedents that would back up the Darwinian tree of life. Darwin hoped the gaps would be filled in with further research, but as Gould has admitted, the problems are just as intractable today. Fossils do not support gradualism on chance variation plus natural selection; instead they have been force-fitted into a gradualistic account. And the issue of origin of FSCI on chance plus necessity has been ducked. Blatantly ducked. Now, the design alternative is not about the timeline involved, or the detailed mechanism of natural history, but rather it asks what is the key empirically supported cause of the critical phenomena; pointing to abundant evidence that shows the only empirically credible cause of functionally specific, complex information, which is therefore an empirically reliable sign pointing to design. But if there is a censoring a priori materialistic constraint -- and the Lewontin cite and some stunning statements from the NAS, NSTA and other sources show strong proof that there indisputably is, the force of such evidence is stifled before it can speak, and no alternative that does not fit in the materialistic begged circle will be permitted. Philip Johnson's retort to Lewontin is all too apt:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
In that sort of context,the only serious option is to expose the closed mindedness at work. Which has been done, and if you look carefully above you will see there is no answer to it. As to mechanisms, I have long since pointed out there is more than one way to skin a cat. For the origin of life and the origin of major body plans, any sufficiently advanced molecular nanotech lab a few generations beyond Venter could have done it. That could very easily fit with the fossil record on the usual timeline interpretations, with this further factor: it accounts for the key gap in the evo mat paradigm: the origin of FSCI. I therefore invite you to ignore the bluster above, and take the time to explore for yourself the mini online course that starts here, to see the way that serious issues can be seriously addressed in the design paradigm. GEM of TKI PS: Overnight, DV, I will take up KL's post at 14 above, point by point.kairosfocus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

idcurious: Where is your testable evidence for this designer?
All around you. Geez long-time atheist Anthony Flew finally stopped trying to fight it. What UCD lacks is genetic evidence to support the alleged transformations.
idcurious: Whether we like it or not, most geneticists disagree.
Doubt it and I know they don't have the evidence. Evo-devo has been a bust.Joseph_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

JemimaRacktouey: What makes a theory popular is it’s usefulness.
I guess that is why the theory of evolution is so unpopular.Joseph_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

KL, though you think you have solid science backing you up, the fact is that you don't have any 'solid science'. Primarily because, as QuiteID pointed out, the materialistic evolutionary framework is found to be false (especially the 'materialistic' foundation). And the Theistic framework, for all of reality, is shown to be true. Thus even if you could possibly build a gradual evolutionary case from the fossils and/or genes, of a gradual increase in complexity, which I adamantly hold that you can't build a case from, the best you would have done was to 'tentatively' prove that the gradual increase in complexity was due to a gradual Theistic Evolutionary process of God gradually introducing greater complexity, you certainly would not have proven that your presupposed materialistic evolutionary process increased the complexity since materialism is shown to be false in the first place from first principles in science, and secondly since you are working from a 'historical narrative' instead of actual observable data. You stated that you have a 'better mechanism' of explanation than we have. Yet that is simply not true. For I hold that design was implemented 'top down' for a 'optimal' parent species/kind, with radiation occurring 'downward' from that initial parent species, instead of species originating 'bottom up' from a 'non-optimal' universal common ancestor. Moreover this 'top down' mechanism can be bore out on several levels of evidence,, from the extremely highly ordered 'out of nothing' origination of the universe itself, which has been 'running downhill' ever since,,,, Picture of Cosmic Microwave Radiation https://webspace.utexas.edu/reyesr/SolarSystem/cmbr.jpg Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, The Known Universe by AMNH – video - (please note the 'centrality' of the Earth in the universe in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U ,,,According to esteemed British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (1931-present), the odds of one particular individual constant, the 'original phase-space volume' of the universe, required such precision that the "Creator’s aim must have been to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123”. This number is gargantuan. If this number were written out in its entirety, 1 with 10^123 zeros to the right, it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe, even if a number were written down on each sub-atomic particle in the entire universe, since the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles in it. Roger Penrose discusses initial entropy of the universe. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf This 1 in 10^10^123 number, for the time-asymmetry of the initial state of the 'ordered entropy' for the universe, also lends strong support for 'highly specified infinite information' creating the universe since; "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more." Gilbert Newton Lewis - Eminent Chemist "Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ....The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental..." Tom Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90 - Quotes attributed to Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin in the article We also see this 'top down pattern' at the Cambrian explosion; Evolution's Big Bang: “Yet, here is the real puzzle of the Cambrian Explosion for the theory of evolution. All the known phyla (large categories of biological classification), except one, first appear in the Cambrian period. There are no ancestors. There are no intermediates. Fossil experts used to think that the Cambrian lasted 75 million years.... Eventually the Cambrian was shortened to only 30 million years. If that wasn't bad enough, the time frame of the real work of bringing all these different creatures into existence was shortened to the first five to ten million years of the Cambrian. This is extraordinarily fast! Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould stated, "Fast is now a lot faster than we thought, and that is extraordinarily interesting." What an understatement! "Extraordinarily impossible" might be a better phrase! .... The differences between the creatures that suddenly appear in the Cambrian are enormous. In fact these differences are so large many of these animals are one of a kind. Nothing like them existed before and nothing like them has ever appeared again.” Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology). Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263 A Cambrian Peak in Morphological Variation Within Trilobite Species; Webster Excerpt: The distribution of polymorphic traits in cladistic character-taxon matrices reveals that the frequency and extent of morphological variation in 982 trilobite species are greatest early in the evolution of the group: Stratigraphically old and/or phylogenetically basal taxa are significantly more variable than younger and/or more derived taxa. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5837/499 ,, But perhaps most importantly KL, is that 'present day' scientific experimentation, not 'historical narrative' as you are relying on, shows that all beneficial adaptations from a parent species always come at a loss of the information that was already present,,, KL we have no known present day cases of information 'spontaneously' increasing above what was already present: Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086 “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

their life’s work is a waste of time. Let's say that's true. Then what? Does KF explain the fossils or is KF only able to critique other peoples explanations? And I use "critique" in the very loosest of senses. It's like KF says If the theory of evolution on chance plus necessity only does not account properly for empirical facts [such as was already pointed out to KL, but ignored i the above], then regardless of its popularity among the new magisterium and their publicists, it is not well grounded. , What makes a theory popular is it's usefulness. When a new theory appears that is more useful then the previous, the new theory replaces the old. It's happened time and time again. But each time it happens the new theory explains a fact or makes a prediction that the old cannot. Does that sound like ID?JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 49
I expect such empirical evidence for key explanatory models in my home discipline, and I have a right to expect it in anything called science.
I'm intrigued. Do you use any non-materialist presumptions, techniques, evidences, methods or materials in your home discipline? -- QuiteID @ 52
JR and KL, I think what kairosfocus is saying is that, if their work operates from the (typical) evolutionary materialistic framework of contemporary science, then yes, KL’s spouse, and friends, and all the other people mentioned — their life’s work is a waste of time.
I might be wrong, but it appears to me that the "materialistic framework of contemporary science" has been wildy successful. In under a century took us from the Wright Brothers to walking on the moon; from mechanical counting machines to the Internet; from seeing of the Universe as containing thousands of stars to countless billions; and to millions upon millions of lives being saved by advances in medicine. Can anyone anywhere tell me of any advances in science or technology which have ever been made anywhere from non-materialistic science? There must be some, surely? Otherwise kairosfocus's claims would seem a little strange?idcurious_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

If you want your ideas to be considered science, you must do what scientists do: the hard work of developing explanations for evidence. Detailed work involving mechanisms, patterns, empirical and relative ages, geographic distribution, biometrics, variations within and between related species. To answer scientific questions by claiming another paradigm but then not using that paradigm to offer a better explanation is not science. That's fine, if you don't care to be called scientists or what you do science. But, if you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. Don't try to play scientist by offering up analogies that are meaningless in practice, philosophy instead of mechanisms, and claims you cannot support with evidence. Not to mention outrageous statements about scientists wasting their careers; scientists who have done and continued to do the hard work of science. QuiteID, the paradigm of evolution has stood the test of time, and continues to explain all the evidence, even down to the tiniest detail, very well. A shift in paradigm is an extraordinary claim, which must be demonstrated by extraordinary evidence. Philosophical explanations and computer science analogies are not sufficient to convince any scientist to abandon the reigning paradigm.KL_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

You should be aware that for some reason KL has been put into moderation and his comments are not being released for viewing.critter_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

JR and KL, I think what kairosfocus is saying is that, if their work operates from the (typical) evolutionary materialistic framework of contemporary science, then yes, KL's spouse, and friends, and all the other people mentioned -- their life's work is a waste of time.QuiteID_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply