Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery, writes:
Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals.
Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,,
It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference.See full article at Evolution News.
We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.,,, Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man.
The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. We could not express such a concept, misguided as it is, if we were apes and not men.
Thanks to “bornagain77” for referencing this article.
Human exceptionalism does not square with Christian humility.
correction: “Human exceptionalism does not square
with Christian humilitywith Darwin’s belief that the difference between apes and men is one of degree and not of kind.”There, all better! 🙂
Sounds like jealousy to me.
Is this an attempt to be the creator of the most absurd comments? We have a lot of potential winners here.
Relevant to the OP, look to the huge differences that appear in the expression of neural genes as one factor. Something that has no explanation from science.
Exceptional and Humble are not mutually exclusive.
Andrew
In “Nature” 2010:Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content
I stopped reading after the falsehood claimed in the second sentence.
I believe this is the general conclusion of scientists that have researched this.
There is no evidence of any animal except humans building something better for future generations.
A good reference
Seversky at 1,
You are not God’s stand in. OK? The Bible makes humans exceptional.
Genesis 1:26
‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
In the Catholic understanding, God consists of three persons. Man is not an animal. God gives him dominion over the other creatures on Earth.
My major complaint about Egnor (and this is by no means limited to him) is that he’s smart enough to read and understand philosophers who agree with him, but he’s never taken the time to study carefully anyone who doesn’t.
As far as I can tell, Egnor is committed to all of the following premises:
1. Rational thought involves apprehension of real universals.
2. Real universals are abstract objects.
3. Abstract objects have no material properties.
4. Therefore rational thought involves apprehension of objects with no material properties.
Firstly, premises (1) and (2) are hugely questionable, yet Egnor writes as if they are just obviously true. It’s as if he’s never taken any time at all — not one hour out of one day in his life — to take seriously nominalism.
Secondly, the conclusion (4) is too weak to sustain the conclusion “therefore the intellect itself must be immaterial”.
What would be needed is some further principle, such as “a material intellect could not apprehend immaterial objects”. Egnor needs to show the following:
(4) rational thought involves apprehension of immaterial objects
(5) the intellect is the capacity of rational thought
(6) but a material intellect could not apprehend immaterial objects
(7) therefore the intellect must be immaterial.
But what would justify (6)? Why couldn’t a purely material intellect — a brain, for example — apprehend immaterial objects?
I suspect that part of what’s driving Egnor’s view is that idea that the intellect must somehow share in the nature of or resemble that which it apprehends. Apprehension, cognitive awareness, requires a similarity in nature — they need to be of the same kind.
But while this assumption has certainly played an important role in the history of metaphysical thinking, I’m not sure what actually justifies it.
Apart from that, it’s not just true that nonhuman animals can’t reason abstractly. There’s a growing body of evidence for analogical reason, categorization, metacognition, and other psychological capacities in some nonhuman animals. I suspect that we’re just now beginning to scratch the surface on what animal minds are really like. Again, something that Egnor knows nothing about and can’t be bothered to take an hour of his life to learn.
Sir Giles 6
I would love to tour the animal cities and see their technology at work. Their libraries of literature would be cool, too. Got a location?
In a fictional world created by evolutionists, our ‘evolutionary cousins,’ meaning chimps, can be taught to talk. After trying to teach chimps to speak – after all, all that is required is a little help from humans – a few will now appear in the play, Hamlet.
Yeah, right.
Here, some scientists give the differences. But they have nothing but guesses to explain why such differences exist.
https://elifesciences.org/articles/18683
I had an idea for another bot here. I’ve named it Banalbot ™. It generates vacuous clichés from keywords, their dictionary definitions, and linking words.
I’m ready to try it out!
Input: global temperature geography
“It’s cooler in the summer than in the mountains.”
Input: universe evolution nothing
“The universe evolved from nothing by means of random mutations and natural selection.”
Input: biology structures evolution
“All biological structures are random mutations, but some survive by means of natural selection.”
Input: human Christian exceptionalism
“Human exceptionalism does not square with Christian humility.”
WOW, IT REALLY WORKS!!!
-Q
And more . . .
Input: chimps humans evolution adapt
“Chimps evolved from humans by means of adaptation.”
Input: Thanksgiving Turkey celebrate football
“Turkey celebrates Thanksgiving by means of football.”
Have a nice one. (smile)
-Q
PMI: “Apart from that, it’s not just true that nonhuman animals can’t reason abstractly.”
Hmm, that claim reminds me of this ‘experiment’,
Of note:
@PM1@10. Agree that Egnor jars with his generalizations but not with the statement,”it’s not just true that nonhuman animals can’t reason abstractly.”
In https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0735-7036.122.2.176 a serious test was made recently using humans, chimps, and Rhesus monkeys. The results were clear enough. Humans can reason abstractly, the monkeys can’t, and equivocal results were obtained from the chimps. In some, abstract reason benefited, in others, it handicapped.
A problem lay in interpretation of results. When some chimps appeared to respond to abstract reasoning it was put down to individual differences – basically some were smart, the others were dumb. To me, a very unsatisfactory conclusion.
Neuroscience is plagued with the problem that they have better and better instrumentation to measuring how, what, where, and when but no instrumentation to measure why.
Querius,
As to human vs chimp
Did you know that no mammalian genome was fully sequenced ?
Human genome was fully sequenced only this year ( for 20 years, there were 8 % of the genome data missing )
Now they discovered 2000 new genes.
Chimp genome was also never fully sequenced.
I was wondering, how can Darwinists compare two genomes and throw any numbers on similarity when you missing 8 % of the data ?????
Can some smart Darwinist explain it to me ?
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/scientists-publish-first-complete-human-genome-2022-03-31/
I
Yes, The Human Genome Project was completed only in this year. But for anyone familiar with computer programming, strange – and for anyone in ID, not strange – repetitions appeared.
“Some parts of our DNA are painfully repetitive.
“Some sections of the human genome sequence consist of long, repetitive stretches of letters that are difficult to put in the right place. Over the past two decades, researchers developed new technologies to read longer stretches of DNA – from only about 500 to now over 100,000 letters at a time – which allowed them to assemble the full length of the most difficult repeats.”
Check-sum instructions, full stop instructions and limiters.
Source: https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational-resources/infographics/Completing-the-human-genome-sequence
The exceptional people I know also tend to have a good degree of humility.
Well, you obviously didn’t meet any of them here.
Martin_r @18,
No, I sure did not know this! Reading the article you linked . . .
Yeah, I remember the self-congratulatory celebrations, so I’m bothered by the expressions, “what was then billed as.” Is this what they call “lying” nowadays?
It worse than what you’re imagining. If I remember correctly, the comparison was done only with homologous DNA sequences.
In other words, the purported 98.6% (three decimal precision!) similarity of human versus chimp DNA was ONLY CONSIDERING THE PARTS THAT WERE ALREADY SIMILAR. The other stuff didn’t count for some reason.
Not a chance.
-Q
I have to hand it to him, Seversky says entertainingly stupid sh*t.
Re: human vs chimp
Forgetting the morpological differences, when it comes to intellectual differences, the differences are obvious and radical. Now, how to explain them. Nobody can. Because we don’t know the details of the “what” that leads to the intellectual differences. (The brain programming.) If you don’t know the “what” you can’t even begin to explain the “how.”
PMI at 10, in trying counter Dr. Egnor, asks, “Why couldn’t a purely material intellect — a brain, for example — apprehend immaterial objects?”
So, let’s get this straight, instead of PMI presenting any empirical evidence that such a fairly extraordinary claim is remotely possible, PMI’s instead asks us why should we consider such a thing to be considered impossible?
Well, my first response is that “DUH, they’re immaterial objects for crying out loud, that’s why it’s not possible”.
In other words, It is intuitively obvious that that which is material can never apprehend, understand, and perceive, immaterial objects.
But to go beyond what is intuitively, even blatantly, obvious, and to demonstrate exactly why it is impossible for material objects to ‘apprehend’, understand or perceive, immaterial objects.
First off, it is important to note that reductive materialism can’t even explain our ability to apprehend, i.e. subjectively perceive, material objects, (so thus much less can reductive materialism ever explain how we can possibly apprehend, i.e. subjectively perceive, ‘objects’ which are immaterial in their foundational essence). The inability of materialism to explain subjective conscious experience is known as the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness i.e. ‘qualia’. Perhaps PMI can, as he chastised Dr. Egnor to do, “take an hour of his life to learn” about the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness, i.e. ‘qualia’?
Materialists simply do not have any realistic clue, much less any real-time empirical evidence, for how anything material could ever give rise to the inner subjective consciousness experience of qualia.
As Professor of Psychology David Barash honestly admitted in the following article, an article which happens to be entitled “the hardest problem in science?”, “But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.”
And since Darwinian materialists have no realistic clue how it is even possible for the material brain to have subjective conscious experience of material objects, i.e. qualia, how much more so is the perception, and contemplation, of immaterial objects to be considered beyond the reach of any possible materialistic explanation? As Dr. noted in the OP, “Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,,”
For example, as Dr. Egnor noted elsewhere, “Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,,”
Moreover, although there are a virtual infinity of immaterial mathematical objects which we contemplate, but which are immaterial mathematical objects for which there is no precise instantiation in nature, when we do find immaterial mathematical objects that do have a precise instantiation in nature, such as we find with relativity and quantum electrodynamics, it is a correspondence between the immaterial realm of mathematics and the material realm which is, by all rights, to be considered a ‘miracle’.
Don’t take my word for it. Both Eugene Wigner (quantum mechanics) and Albert Einstein (relativity) are on record as to regarding it as a ‘miracle’ that math should even be applicable to the universe in the first place. Moreover, Wigner questioned the ability of Darwinian processes to produce our “reasoning power” in his process of calling it a miracle, and Einstein even went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in his process of calling it a ‘miracle’.
Moreover, another obvious reason why Darwinian materialism can never explain why we can ‘apprehend’, understand and perceive, immaterial objects, is simply because, due to advances in quantum mechanics, it is now widely held that it is the immaterial realm of information which is giving rise to the material realm.
In short, since it turns out to be the immaterial realm of information which is giving rise to the material realm then, obviously, it is impossible for that which is material to ever give rise to that which is immaterial. i.e. No effect can give rise to its own cause.
Darwinian materialists, with their claim that it is the material realm that is giving rise to the immaterial realms of information, (and consciousness), simply have the entire concept of cause and effect completely backwards.
As George Ellis illustrated, the fact that immaterial information, (and consciousness), have causal power over the material realm, (and not the other way around as Darwinian materialists hold), is easily demonstrated via computers.
That immaterial information has causal power over material particles has also now been experimentally established in quantum information theory and the recent experimental realization of the Maxwell demon thought experiment.
As the following 2010 experiment found, “they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.”
As Christopher Jarzynski, who was instrumental in formulating the ‘equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information’, stated, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”
In short, it is now experimentally shown that, when dealing with immaterial ‘positional’ information, we are not dealing with some abstract, ethereal, entity that has no real causal effect on the material world, (as Darwinian materialist hold), but we are instead dealing with an immaterial entity that has a quote-unquote “thermodynamic content”, i.e. that has a ‘real causal effect’ on the material world.
Moreover, and even more antagonistic for Atheistic materialists, advances in quantum information theory have now shown that, quote-unquote, “an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer”
And as the following article 2017 stated, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
To repeat that last statement, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”
That statement is simply completely devastating to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian atheists, and is a full vindication of the presuppositions of Intelligent Design where it is held that only an Intelligent Mind has the capacity to create the (positional) information needed to explain why life is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium (which is 10^12 bits for a ‘simple’ bacterium).
Moreover, immaterial information, on top of having ‘top-down’ causal power over material particles, is now also shown to be a completely independent, and separate, entity from matter and energy. This was done with quantum teleportation.
For instance, the following article states, “the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,”
And as the following article states. “scientists have successfully teleported information between two separate atoms in unconnected enclosures a meter apart,,, information,,, is transferred from one place to another, but without traveling through any physical medium.”
Moreover, this independent entity of immaterial quantum information, which is shown to be separate from matter and energy, (and of which classical information is a subset),
Moreover, this independent entity of immaterial quantum information, which is shown to be separate from matter and energy, (and of which classical information is a subset), is now found to be ubiquitous within molecular biology,
The thing that is so antagonistic, indeed so devastating, for Darwinian materialists with quantum entanglement, and/or quantum information, is that it takes a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause in order to explain quantum entanglement, and/or quantum information.
As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
In fact, the evidence for beyond space and time quantum ‘non-locality’ has now become so strong that, just last month, a Nobel prize was finally awarded to the main scientists, (John Clauser, Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger), who empirically established the reality of quantum non-locality.
Darwinian atheists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain quantum non-locality. Whereas Christian Theists readily do have an explanation that they can appeal to in order to explain the quantum non-locality of quantum entanglement, (and/or quantum information).
It is also important to realize that quantum information, unlike classical information, is physically conserved. As the following article states, “In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.”
The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, cannot be created nor destroyed, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence strongly suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Personally, I consider these recent findings from quantum mechanics and quantum biology to rival all other scientific discoveries over the past century. Surpassing even the discovery of a beginning of the universe, via Big Bang cosmology, in terms of scientific, theological, and even personal, significance.
To repeat, and as Jesus once asked his disciples along with a crowd of followers, “Is anything worth more than your soul?”
Related ‘overarching’ verse;
I’ve never understood the horror that some religionists express over the fact that humans and chimps share a common ancestor and demonstrate an unusually high degree of genetic overlap. Psychologists have long speculated that if we could devise an accurate non-verbal IQ measure for chimps and superimpose that distribution over a human non-verbal IQ distribution, how much overlap we would find. The results would likely be humbling. Perhaps it would end the ridiculous debate this OP underscores. Most likely not, it’s hard to give up one’s privileged spot in the cosmos…..
They have such measures.
What a ridiculous comment. Does ChuckDarwin actually believe chimps and humans overlap?
That may explain a lot of comments here.
“the fact that humans and chimps share a common ancestor”
CD,
Which ancestor would that be? You guys keep using the phrase Common Ancestor and Precursor instead of just identifying the ancestor.
Andrew
CD: “the fact that humans and chimps share a common ancestor”
Balderdash.
as to CD’s claim, “it’s hard to give up one’s privileged spot in the cosmos”,,,
<blockquoteWhich ancestor would that be?
A MAGA Republican?
“A MAGA Republican?”
SG,
Evidence indicates they didn’t exist back when a Common Ancestor would have existed. Try again.
Andrew
CD @28
i am surprised that you mentioning psychologists :))))
These guys are the last ones i would mention in any debate :))))
Today, psychology is considered pseudoscientific …
“because no test could ever show them to be false.” reminds me of evo theory :)))))
Querius,
here is a most comprehensive video on human- chimp DNA comparison I have ever seen.
It is obvious, that this video wasn’t created by creationists because in the video is Human-chimp common ancestor mentioned and other mainstream stuff. But if creationists would create a video on human-chimp similarity, it wouldn’t look much different :)))))
“Are we really 99% Chimp” ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbY122CSC5w
@25
“Intuitively obvious” is not an argument. What someone finds “intuitively obvious” is simply a feature of what beliefs they already hold, not a reason for holding those beliefs.
Consider it this way: it would be quite problematic for someone to say “the intellect must be immaterial because there can’t be a causal relation between what is material and what is immaterial”. If the intellect is immaterial, but the sense-organs are material and so are the brain-regions that initiate movement, then the impossibility of a causal relation between the material and the immaterial would make impossible both perceptual judgment and intentional action.
So, if even the most staunch defender of the immaterial intellect must accept that the immaterial and the material must be able to causally affect each other, then why couldn’t a material intellect be causally affected by immaterial objects?
I’ve read The Conscious Mind in its entirety, plus some related essays. (It took about two weeks, I think.) I respect Chalmers immensely as a philosopher but I cannot agree with him about qualia. I think his arguments rely upon a version of possible world semantics I don’t accept and also an impossibly demanding conception of scientific explanations. I think that the very distinction between the easy problem of consciousness and the hard problem of consciousness relies on a conception of the nature of explanations in cognitive science that we ought to reject.
I’d say more, but I don’t see the point in going into detail when talking someone with such open disdain for philosophy.
Sir Giles/33
Ouch!!! But kind of unfair to chimps…..
CD at 28,
Your lack of proper psychoanalytical skills is showing. I think it is horrible that non-religionists/agnostics still push the ape-human common ancestor idea with nothing to show for it. God – the Creator – reused various body plans. Two arms, two legs and so on, but it clearly states in the Bible that man was a special creation. Man was made to be in communion with God and other human persons.
PM1
Don’t hold back, some of us here actually value your comments. I do think, however, that Chalmers desperately needs a decent haircut…..
Relatd/39
So now God is an eco-friendly recycler? Where do you come up with this stuff?
PMI at 37. in posts 25-27, I went into the empirical evidence detailing exactly why your, intuitively false, belief that the material realm can give rise to perception of immaterial objects is wrong.
You can, in your refusal to be honest to the evidence, retreat into philosophical posturing all you want. The empirical evidence, nor I, care.
CD @41
are coders eco-friendly recyclers ?
CD, I was always wondering, what is your education ? You sound like a biologist ….
I also asked Seversky about his education, you guys never want to share with us …
@28
I don’t like this way of putting the thought, since it assumes too much about IQ tests and I’m not even sure it makes sense to say that intelligence is a linear cross-species metric. Chimpanzees are surely very intelligent animals, but they are intelligent at doing the things that chimpanzees need to do, as the kind of social animal that they are, in the specific ecological niches that they occupy.
But I agree with the more general point: that there’s a very anthropocentric bias to how we talk (or don’t talk) about animal cognition and consciousness, and it’s difficult for us to overcome that bias. Frans de Waal summarized that problem in a paradoxical title, Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?.
Bornagain77 @26, 27,
Thanks for your excellent comments! I wasn’t aware of the following:
https://phys.org/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html
This is huge! And also the following quote.
Yes, indeed! These findings strengthen an experiment-based validation for information being the ground for our reality!
-Q
@42
Oh, bless your heart.
Firstly, at no point did I say that I believed that a material intellect can know immaterial objects. I was only pointing out that even if there are immaterial objects, that does not entail that the intellect is immaterial. Some further premise is needed and not just whatever seems “intuitively obvious” to you.
Secondly, you did more than just marshal “empirical evidence”: you introduced Chalmers’s argument that there is a ‘hard problem of consciousness’ because of ‘qualia.’ Those are philosophical concepts, not scientific ones. It would be one thing if you were familiar with Dennett or Frankish, but I very much doubt you do. So I shall leave you with the wisdom of John Stuart Mil:
I know the reasoning of Chalmers and many other philosophers who I respectfully disagree with. I very much doubt you understand the reasoning of the philosophers you disagree with, and I’m not even sure you understand of the reasoning of the philosophers you do agree with. On Mill’s principle, you have no rational basis for your own opinions.
Martin_r/43
It’s no mystery. My undergrad degree is in biology, and I taught HS bio for a couple years many decades ago, but I would never hold myself out as a professional biologist…….
CD at 41,
I can see you and Seversky standing before God.
Chuck: You go first.
Seversky: No, no, YOU go first.
Chuck: No, I insist.
Seversky: No, I insist.
And so on…
Martin_r @36,
Thank you! Your video link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbY122CSC5w) makes the explanation of what was left out of the human-chimp DNA comparison very clear!
25% of the human DNA and a different 18% of the chimp DNA were excluded so as to compare only the matching sections to get the desired result.
Actually, human-banana DNA comparison could achieve similar results by selective exclusion, however more mismatching DNA would need to be excluded to get the desired result.
It should now be obvious to Darwinists that chimps actually more evolved than humans, being far better adapted to their natural environment in Africa than humans are! In a fight, chimps can easily kill an unarmed human!
https://animalworldfacts.com/man-vs-chimp-who-would-win-in-a-fight/
https://www.foxnews.com/science/chimps-killing-people-in-uganda
So the only way that humans were able to survive in their competition with chimps was to change the natural environment.
You see, Darwinism can be used to rationalize anything, but successfully predicts nothing. This is why one frequently reads about evolutionary scientists being surprised at some latest discovery.
-Q
Querius @49
Right.
And, because the video is 7 years old, you have to add another 8% to these numbers. Those 8% of DNA missing until 2022.
As Relatd explained, those missing 8% are ‘only’ repetitive stretches of letters, but i can’t wait to see how it will align with chimp’s DNA.
PS: I would like to hear, what our dear colleague biologist CD thinks about this video …
to CD.
Thank you for the clarification. I knew you are a teacher. The very moment you started correcting my bad English, I knew it … Moreover, a biology teacher.
I don’t want to be rude, but do you understand, that you shouldn’t comment on intelligent design or any other design whatsoever ? You are not qualified … Do you understand that ?
PMI at 46, instead of honestly engaging the empirical science that I presented to him as he should have done, tries to retreat into philosophy. Moreover, PMI claims that the hard problem of consciousness, i.e. qualia “are philosophical concepts, not scientific ones” and further tries to retreat into the philosophical arms of Dennett and Frankish in particular, in order to try to counter Chalmers’ claims about the irresolvable ‘hard problem’ of consciousness for materialists. i.e. ” It would be one thing if you were familiar with Dennett or Frankish,”
First off, to put it mildly, I’m not impressed with PMI’s retreat into the philosophical arms of Dennett and Frankish, (and/or any other ‘esteemed’ materialistic philosopher PMI may wish to retreat into the arms of), to try to avoid engaging the harsh reality of the scientific evidence I presented to him that has falsified his claims against Dr. Egnor.
As should be needless to say, denying the reality of consciousness, and calling it a ‘fiction’, an ‘illusion’, a ‘controlled hallucination’, a ‘process’, even if you use 25 cent philosophical words to deny the reality of consciousness, is not honestly dealing with the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness. But is, DUH, in reality denying the reality of consciousness.
The claim from materialists that consciousness is a fictional illusion is simply self-refuting nonsense,
Secondly, PMI’s claim that consciousness has no place in science, but belongs, solely, to the realm of philosophy, is another false claim for him to make.
We simply could not do science if we were not first conscious. Consciousness, and/or conscious ‘observation’, is a primary prerequisite for doing science.
As Eugene Wigner noted, “The principal argument (against materialism) is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied.”
And as John von Neuman noted, “we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.”
In fact, the scientific method itself lists conscious ‘observation’ as the first step, the cornerstone if you will, of the scientific method,
Moreover, besides materialism claiming that consciousness is a fictional illusion, if Darwinian materialism were actually true, then ALL of our perceptions, and/or conscious ‘observations’, of reality would also be illusory too. (thus Darwinian materialism, in its claim that our observations of reality are illusory, actually undermines a necessary cornerstone for doing science)
Donald Hoffman, via the mathematics of population genetics, proved that if Darwinian evolution were true then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory,
Although Hoffman tried to limit his results to just our visual perceptions, (i.e. conscious observations), as Plantinga had pointed out years before Hoffman came along, there is no reason why the results do not also extend to undermining our other cognitive faculties as well:
Moreover, in direct contradiction to the mathematical prediction from population genetics that tell us, (if Darwin’s theory is held to be true), that ALL of of perceptions of reality will be illusory , experimental results from quantum theory could care less what the mathematics of population genetics predict for Darwin’s theory.
In the following experiment, it was found that ““It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Likewise, the following experiment also found that “reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
And as the following experiment also found that, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
In short, experimental results from quantum mechanics could care less that the Darwinist, via population genetics, is forced to believe that all of his observations of reality are illusory. Quantum mechanics experimentally proves that ALL our perceptions, and/or our conscious ‘observations’, of reality, far from being unreliable and illusory, are far more reliable of reality, even far more integral to reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predict for Darwinian theory.
And in science, experimental results trumps theory, (and especially trumps philosophical theorizing), every time. As Feynman stated, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
Verse:
to CD
one more note in regards to parts-recycling …
Have you ever seen a software code ? For a coder, it is crucial to re-use the same code in various projects … moreover, it is very common to share code with other software developers (some species doing it as well via HGT) . I am sure, despite you are a biology teacher, you know how a code/software engineer works. So why it is so surprising, that our Creator would re-use the same code/DNA code/ over and over again ?
The basics of most species is the same. Most of the species have to eat, sleep, think, see, hear, feel, they have legs, hands, hair, skin, bones, blood, etc etc … so why it is so surprising that our Creator re-used most of the DNA over and over again ?
to CD
you said you are a biology teacher. You comment on Evolution/Creation issues.
Can i ask you a question ?
It is a bit off topic, I asked this question elsewhere, it is regarding retroviruses. I was unable to google the answer.
Did the same retrovirus insert in human genome more than once ? In other words, was the same retrovirus DNA found more than once in human genome ?
Martin_r
I said I had taught bio many years ago for a short time (1975-76). Almost 50 years ago. I don’t know the answer to your retrovirus question.
I’m curious, do you apply the same exclusionary criteria to biologists and biochemists at the Discovery Institute? That they are unqualified to comment on ID? People like Behe or Axe. How about DI philosophers such as Meyer or Dembski? How about folks with no science background at all?
Chuckdarwin @56,
Much has happened since you taught biology. There have been so many discoveries that the 19th century theory of evolution needs to be overturned. And this call is from evolutionists!
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
The scientific attractiveness of ID is that this approach results in faster scientific progress than a presumption of undirected random chance together with natural selection. ID doesn’t depend on theism. It doesn’t depend on science fantasy stories. It doesn’t depend on alien intrusions.
All that ID claims is that living things appear intelligently designed, so that organelles, biochemical cycles, and genetic mechanisms that are poorly understood should be studied as if they were intelligently designed rather than ignored as useless vestiges of undirected evolution.
In contrast, Darwinism presumes that any poorly understood biological feature or structure is junk, proving evolution. This is an ideological, not a scientific position.
Examples:
• Evolutionary biologists once claimed over 100 “vestigial” organs in the human body, including the thyroid and other ductless glands. The was PREDICTED by Darwinism. It failed.
• Evolutionary geneticists once believed in “junk” DNA, which is now termed non-coding DNA. Junk DNA was PREDICTED by Darwinism. It failed, but Darwinists are grimly hanging on to the shrinking areas of DNA that they can still claim as junk.
• Evolutionary paleontologists PREDICTED that the skeletal remains of extinct animals called dinosaurs supposedly lived roughly 65-250 million years ago were all PETRIFIED artifacts without any possibility for organic matter to survive. It failed, but Darwinists are grimly hanging on to the scientific impossibility that 100 million years of background radiation miraculously allowed organic bone, stretchy connective tissue, and even red blood cells to survive.
However, ID takes NO POSITION on the source of biological design, nor does it take a position on the origin of life. This is where it departs from Creationism. All that ID advocates is researching biology as if it were intelligently designed.
-Q
CD
I see … but you know that since then, lots of very important discoveries have been made …
I don’t understand, how you guys can still deny the obvious. I am sure, that you guys perfectly understand what is going on, but you just can’t admit that you were wrong the whole life. I know, it hurts. A lot.
I, as an engineer, I never trusted Darwinian biologists … what they claimed just did not make any sense … I have no formal education in biology, so i started to study biology as a hobby. It just confirmed what i was suspecting – that Darwinism is a fake news, a hoax.
Most biology papers i was interested in, i was like “these guys must be joking…” or “these guys are completely insane” …
This has nothing to do with any religion. I just have to defend a fellow engineer, our Creator. Because what you guys claim, is as offensive as it gets. We are looking at the most advanced technology imaginable (beyond human comprehension) …. and you guys even dare to call it a bad design. This is so absurd and very very offensive. All engineers should stand up against biologists … Biologists infested the whole world with a crazy absurd theory …
Here is another very important point:
Let’s say, that all species emerged via evolution. You guys don’t realize the following – if it would be true, that all the sophisticated species evolved from some single celled organism, such a design would be way way way sophisticated than a special creation of species.
You don’t realize that, do you ?
I can imagine, that some species may have emerged via some process of hybridization or horizontal gene transfer, but, from engineering point of view, a special creation makes more sense. Or, special creation plus hybridization plus HGT. No problem with that.
If i would be such a skilled engineer, i would like to demonstrate what i can, my skills …. just for fun … so i would design completely distinct species … and that is exactly what we see (from octopuses to hummingbirds or mosquitos) … if Darwinian evolution and this natural selection non-sense would be true, we would see a very limited variety in species …
Sure. We are looking at very advanced engineering, almost beyond human comprehension. Only very skilled engineers should comment on this. I am definitely not that skilled, but i can comment on some simple things … Also, when Dr. Behe and Co. claim, that e.g. bacterium flagellum was designed, i can only agree … i won’t fight with him … it is obvious …
PS: for example, this guy is pretty qualified to comment on design in biology.
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/people/person/Stuart-Burgess-d9aa408b-265a-46e0-9446-b3d77d3477dc/
“Why Human Skeletal Joints Are Masterpieces of Engineering”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmXjK4HiM4M&t=4s
i suggest to read some comments below the video, lots of engineers there
a top comment:
“They make fun of the design argument but they attempt to replicate designs from nature because they’re… well designed ?”
Martin_r
i found another great comment below the video i posted above
from Mike M
the cell is a 3D printer. ( prints 3D ‘objects’ … from grass, trees, insects, birds to humans)
An excellent analogy.
On googling, I see he gets a good press from Creationist websites? What other credentials does he have to qualify him in the field of biology?
And generally, why is the “Intelligent Design” community populated with engineers?
Another data-point for the Salem Hypothesis?
Alan Fox @60
What other credentials does he have to qualify him in the field of biology ????
Professor of mechanical engineering at Bristol University is not enough ? :)))
Ohh… i forgot. You think that biologists are qualified to comment on design in biology, …right ? :))))))
You see ? You guys are completely confused …
Now focus:
Biology IS ALL ABOUT ENGINEERING. PERIOD.
Actually, biologists – natural science graduates are the last ones who should comment on design in biology … Biologists can eventually do some research, but to be honest, i am not sure whether this is/was a good idea too … to leave the whole biology research to biologists, i don’t know … these guys just don’t understand what they are looking at … when doing research, a biologist should always come with an engineer …
This Nathan Lents and his book about human errors, this is a textbook example when biologists should keep their mouths shut. But for some unknown reason, people like you listen to them instead of listen to experts (e.g. Stuart Burgess)
Alan Fox @60
so what do you think? why is that ? :)))))
PS: may i ask, what is your education ?
Good grief, what arrant nonsense!
You must have some reason to think an engineering approach brings value to biological and biochemical research. It may do though I can’t think of an example other than designing, constructing and improving scientific instruments. Maybe you can list some, Martin_r.
I guess you refer to Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes whose central theme, that cultural evolution has overwhelmed and diminished the effects of biological evolution in humans, seems pretty obvious to me.
Dr Lents is somewhat of a bête noire with Evolution News and the Discovery Institute (I suspect over his rôle in exposing Mike Behe’s dishonest use of data regarding polar bear genes) so I understand why you might not hold him in high regard.
Of course you may. I studied biochemistry at undergraduate level but did not pursue a career in academia.
And I guess Martin_r is/was some kind of engineer?
The university I attended half a century ago was in the UK and riddled with class prejudice in all sorts of ways. Status depended on choice of faculty. Medicine and Law were top, then Science, Arts, a sharp drop to Social Science, and at the bottom, Engineering.
Alan Fox.
:))))))))))))))))))))))))
So Alan, now focus, a quick google search:
Science.org (published 20 years ago!!!!):
PS: like i said … you guys are completely confused.
Alan Fox
Yes, i am a mechanical engineer (university degree).
Yesterday I gave the same advice to Chuckdarwin … Do you guys realize, that with your education, you should never, NEVER, comment on design in biology or any other design whatsoever ?
Do you realize that ?
Nonsense.
I’m mildly curious however how you justify the quoted statement. Can you?
Personally, I’m fascinated how the environment designs living organisms. Everywhere I look, I see the process in action.
Alan Fox
Are you saying, that Discovery institute doesn’t like Dr. Lents, EvolutionNews doesn’t like Dr. Lents,
and that is the reason why I don’t like Dr. Lents ?
Is that right? English is not my first language, so perhaps i misunderstood something.
if so, let me clarify the following:
From an engineer point of view, Dr. Lents is saying very stupid things ….( no wonder, he is a biologist) … And that is the reason why I have mentioned him in my previous post … yes, EvolutionNews or some other blog brought Dr. Lents to my attention … never before heard of him…. i am always surprised how many biologists (natural science graduates) dare to comment on design/engineering. Even publish a book !!!! This is something unbelievable … what is wrong with these people ?
Hmm. That paper is behind a paywall.
Really? Such as? Dr Lents has been a frequent commenter at Peaceful Science and I have found his comments there to be erudite and insightful.
Alan Fox
Sure i can ….
BECAUSE BIOLOGISTS NEVER MADE ANYTHING … you guys don’t understand how things work … you guys are not qualified to comment on simple design let alone to comment on very advanced design like we see in biology. This is so absurd. You don’t even see how absurd it is :)))))))))
Do you recall how biologist Dawkins commented on backwardly wired retina ? (you know, eye’s bad design ) ?
and then … at Scientific American (2015):
“The reverse-wiring of the eyeball has long been a mystery, but new research shows a remarkable structural purpose: increasing and sharpening our color vision”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-purpose-of-our-eyes-strange-wiring-is-unveiled/
Like i said, you guys don’t understand how things work … so you should never comment on design in biology … because then you look stupid …. but it seems, you will never learn your lesson (now biologist Lents) …
But you don’t in the text that follows. You just restate your prejudice.
@62
That would be true if organisms were machines. But they aren’t. Hence it is false.
And that is why the entire “intelligent design” movement rests on a mistake — indeed, I would say, a category error (if “machine” and “organism” are categories).
I feel this merits some further belaboring: my opposition to intelligent design has nothing at all to do with my commitment to materialism*, Darwinism**, or atheism***.
It is due to my understanding that intelligent design is based upon a mechanistic conception of organisms, which I consider to be fundamentally and incorrigibly confused.
* = I think that some version of emergentism is true and that Kim’s argument against emergence is badly confused. Moreover I’m quite opposed to every version of “reductive materialism”, but especially that of Alex Rosenberg, which I regard as incoherent even by his own standards of philosophical adequacy.
** = I like the organism-centered approaches to evolution (Darwin, Dewey, Lewontin, Oyama, Walsh, Noble, Nicholson, Moss, Newman) and think that the gene-centered approach of the Modern Synthesis was generally speaking mistaken, as are its propagandists such as Monod and Dawkins.
*** = not an atheist but a theistic naturalist.
@ PyrrhoManiac1
Agree: Alex Rosenberg is (in what I’ve observed) incoherent.
Disagree: Dawkins on gene-centric selection was a side issue to his best idea, the extended phenotype. Denis Noble overstates physiology first.
Rorty got a lot right, and Dennett too.
@52
It’s true that I think Chalmers was mistaken to distinguish between what he called “the easy problem of consciousness” and “the hard problem of consciousness”. Rejecting that distinction as mistaken does not entail denying the reality of consciousness.
Good thing for me that I never claimed that, nor did anything that I did say have that implication. I claimed that we should reject the conceptual basis of the distinction between the easy problem of consciousness and the hard problem of consciousness. I wouldn’t mind explaining my reasoning here, but first you’d have to understand what the claim is that I’m actually making.
@53
Hoffman is only able to generate his results because he configures his algorithm by treating veridicality and fitness as independent variables. Taking them as independent variables makes it easy to optimize one at the expense of the other. If he had configured the parameters so that fitness depended on veridicality, he could not have come up with his silly little result.
Plantinga has been ably refuted by numerous philosophers, but I especially recommend the responses by Paul Churchland and by Feng Ye.
The fatal flaw at the heart of Plantinga’s entire argument is that, on his conception of naturalism, the naturalist is not entitled to a conception of semantic content as itself being a target of natural selection. This is flawed because, in point of fact, naturalists do have a conception of semantic content as causally efficacious and therefore as a target of natural selection. This view is generally called “teleosemantics”. The most recent (and I think most successful) version of informational teleosemantics is that of Gualtierro Piccinini though he builds upon important previous work by Karen Neander and Nicholas Shea.
In other words, Plantinga’s argument assumes that naturalists don’t have a conception of semantic content as a target of selection, and that’s simply not true. Everything else in the EAAN depends on that assumption, and without it, the whole rest of the argument falls apart.
@76
There seems to be somewhat little attention to what is (I think) the gravest problem in Rosenberg’s entire project: he says that the facts about fermions and bosons determine all the facts that there are. But this cannot be the case, because we don’t have a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics. We don’t have the slightest idea of how to explain gravitational attraction in terms of fermions and bosons.
I like niche construction, so in that regard I don’t hate the extended phenotype. But I think that “memes” is a dumb way of thinking about culture.
I don’t mind over-stating the importance of physiology given how neglected its been in the second half of 20th century evolutionary theory, when everyone talked about genes and populations and organisms were considered irrelevant.
Definite agreement there. Not everything, but a good deal.
PM1 at 75,
You’re wrong.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-022-01402-2
https://intelligentdesign.org/articles/molecular-machines-in-the-cell/
Pyr @75
You are as confused as it gets, so I will try to keep the following as simple as possible for you …
Are you saying, that engineers only design machines ? What about civil engineers ? They design bridges … Bridges made of concrete skeleton. A skeleton designed to handle an enormous static and dynamic stress. I was wondering, if biologists can tell the difference between static and dynamic stress. I bet you hear these two words for the first time.
Now let’s have a look at some trees – a giant sequoia (300 feet tall) has to handle its enormous own weight (static stress), and also enormous dynamic stress (wind). Sequoia’s root is just another example of an engineering masterpiece. No concrete or metal armoring is needed, because it evolved that way :))))))))))
Have a look at this short video – a pretty huge and complex concrete foundation needs to be ENGINEERED for a wind-turbine’s pillar, so it can handle enormous static and dynamic stress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHkWMQMECZ0
And then, smart biologists come around with their ‘theory’ and claim, that sequoia root doesn’t need any engineer and that it has nothing to do with engineering, because it is biology :)))))))))))))))))))))))))
It is like in some mental hospital …
Alan Fox
i just showed you … a very skilled engineer (Stuart Burgess) is explaining it in his lecture “Why Human Skeletal Joints Are Masterpieces of Engineering” .
But i don’t expect you to understand anything from this lecture … it is too technical … most lay people (including Lents) won’t understand a single word, but we engineers do …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmXjK4HiM4M
Alan Fox
i told you, BECAUSE BIOLOGISTS NEVER MADE ANYTHING …. this says it all …. it is not a prejudice, it is a fact… BIOLOGISTS (natural science graduates) NEVER MADE ANYTHING …. most of the time, they are telling just-so stories ….
Alan Fox,
Look at these Darwinists from Yale, they obviously don’t agree with you :)))))))))))
Classic illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
PMI, at 52 I quoted your ‘favored’ philosophical sources calling consciousness a fiction, an illusion etc…
You punted on defending those outlandish claims of your favored philosophers and said, “It’s true that I think Chalmers was mistaken to distinguish between what he called “the easy problem of consciousness” and “the hard problem of consciousness”.
So what??? I didn’t ask you if you thought the hard problem was explicable in materialistic terms. Write a philosophy book on it if you think that consciousness can be explained in materialistic terms. What do I care what you think ‘philosophically’ about the hard problem??? I simply don’t care. What I do care about is what the science says. And right now you have ZERO empirical evidence that such is possible
The rest of PMI’s post is just as incoherent, if not more so, so I’ll let my posts at 52 and 53 stand for unbiased readers to judge for themselves who is making a sound argument for his position and who is simply blowing smoke trying to protect his atheistic worldview.
https://uncommondescent.com/human-exceptionalism/man-ape-chasm-of-differences/#comment-770647
Martin_r,
It must be frustrating when you encounter statements from PyrrhoManiac1 such as
The problem is that on the level of physical chemistry, that’s exactly what organisms are! They are EXTREMELY complex machines, but machines nevertheless by means of trillions of moving parts in billions of cells (in humans, the majority of which are bacteria).
What makes them “alive”? Well, one first has to define “alive,” and this is where viruses become controversial. “Alive” requires fine-tuned interplay between machine components called metabolism and systems within systems (among other things). A crude analogy is an automobile engine that won’t start and is starting to rust compared with one that’s purring happily.
More nonsense! ID is simply a useful model with a FAR better track record at predicting new functions than undirected random chance together with selective extinction of unworkable or suboptimal combinations.
So here’s what PyrrhoManiac1 should be addressing to falsify ID by something stronger than unsupported assertion:
PyrrhoManiac1 needs to find an example of something Darwinism successfully predicted as FUNCTIONLESS junk that was thought by ID researchers to have a function but turned out to be a random and useless vestige of evolution after all.
Note that at the time of the Scopes trial, over 100 “vestigial” organs were trotted out as proofs of evolution. How many of those “vestigial” are still considered vestiges of evolution?
-Q
Querius
it is not. I am used to Darwinian nonsense. We see it all the time.
Moreover, there is a simple rule to follow:
If a Darwinist claim something, you can be sure, that the exact opposite is true.
you know:
“…current concepts are reviewed…”
“…uprooting current thinking….”
“…latest findings contradict the current dogma….”
“… it challenges a long-held theory…”
“… it upends a common view…”
“… in contrast to the decades-long dogma …”
“… it needs a rethink … ”
“… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ”
“… it shakes up the dogma … ”
“… earlier than thought…”
“… younger than thought….”
“… smarter than thought ….”
“… more complex than thought ….”
Alan Fox
“The Dunning-Kruger effect effect occurs when a person’s lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence.”
I assume you are talking about Darwinian biologists commenting on design/engineering.
Could you confirm ?
I’m talking about you, Martin_r.
But engineers seem particularly susceptible to “Intelligent Design” as somehow a productive approach to understanding reality. Martin_r is perhaps the most blatant example here.
There are echos of the cargo cult and John Frum. As I said, the phenomenon has a mild fascination for me, from a sociological perspective.
Another parallel I see is the ID movement failing the fundamentalist Christian right as Trump is failing the Republican party.
And another point:
Querius:
There is no fixed certainty in science, no unquestionable authority. Scientific endeavour follows evidence and theories must adapt to new discoveries or die.
This desire for certainty, control even, seems a strong instinct among engineers, add a little religious fervour and you have an ID proponent in the making.
What next though? Conquer the scientific realm or just hang here sharing bitter discontent?
AF, has it occurred to you that familiarity with the substance and challenges of successful design allows us to appreciate what is implicit in other designs, via reverse engineering? Setting aside personalities and invidious associations in your rhetoric, you are trying to deny that strong, empirically well founded signs of intelligently directed configuration are just that, signs of design. This, to substitute a claimed design mimic that has never been shown per observation, capable of creating 500 – 1,000 bits of functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information. We therefore, per fair comment, infer from your agitated manner, confession by projection to the other. KF
I dunno, KF, I look at the physical world and try to see what is there rather than what I would like or imagine it to be.
“But engineers seem particularly susceptible to (see) “Intelligent Design” as somehow a productive approach to understanding reality.”
I think I will just park a few examples here :
And you, KF, invest much time in posting stuff here. I wonder what you think you achieve. Who is taking notice?
BA @ 95
You have the cart before the horse, learning from nature, the amazing products of the evolutionary process, is the way of science.
“the amazing products of the evolutionary process,”,,,
Save for the small fact that no one can ever seem to catch evolutionary processes designing anything, much less designing things that outclass our best engineered systems by orders of magnitude.
Which is precisely the point.
We agree on this, at least. 😉
Good job this is not the evolutionary position. Selection is not accidental or random. Selection designs.
Alan Fox
as to Dunning-Kruger effect
Does it not apply to biologists commenting on design/engineering ?
Does it only apply to engineers commenting on design/engineering ? :)))))))
Martin_r, the effect is observed in people whose confidence exceeds their knowledge and ability. As you are demonstrating here now.
“Selection designs.”
At least ‘selection’ producing the ‘appearance of design’ is what evolutionary biologists falsely claim for their theory,,,
The ‘small’ problem with this claim from Darwinists of selection ‘producing the appearance of design’ is that Darwinists have no evidence whatsoever for selection designing anything.
For instance, in the following long term study on fruit flies it was found that,,, “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.”
As Michael Lynch stated, “There is no compelling empirical or theoretical evidence that complexity, modularity, redundancy or other features of genetic pathways are promoted by natural selection…”
And as James Shapiro and company at the ‘Third Way’ have observed, “some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.”
Without any empirical basis in science, natural selection, Darwin’s supposed ‘designer substitute’, functions far more in the realm of imagination, and fictional ‘just-so story’ telling, than it does in the real world of empirical science,
,,, Darwinists, although they, in their ‘just-so stories’, often speak as if natural selection can explain any facet of biology, no matter how sophisticated the ‘design feature’ in biology may be, Darwinists, to repeat, simply have no real-time empirical evidence, especially for multicellular creatures, that natural selection can do anything of significance.
Moreover, besides its failure to have any ‘real empirical basis’, natural selection is also found, via the mathematics of population genetics and the ‘waiting time problem’, to be grossly inadequate in its role as a supposed ‘designer substitute’,
With natural selection being cast to the wayside by empirical evidence, and by the mathematics of population genetics, as the supposed ‘designer substitute, then “the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
As Richard Sternberg states, “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
Verse:
Alan Fox
i as an engineer, i never understood this ‘natural selection’ nonsense.
Isn’t it self-evident, that weak die, and strong survive ? It is common sense ….
Why biologists need to give it some names ??????? So their absurd theory look more convincing and scientific ?
Years ago I came across a website called the “THE THIRD WAY OF EVOLUTION”,
Among other things, right on the title page, there was highlighted the following statement:
First i thought, i have landed at some creationists’ website.
But then i found the following disclaimer (still on the title page):
Here is the website- it is still there:
https://thethirdwayofevolution.com/
PS: i see that BA77 is also aware of THE THIRD WAY OF EVOLUTION
Alan Fox
I perfectly understand what is D-K effect. You don’t need to explain it to me over and over again. Perhaps you have overlooked it, but I myself posted the following:
That is why i am asking (for the 2nd time), if the above doesn’t apply to biologists (natural science graduates) when they comment on design/engineering ?
It is a pretty simple question ….
Like i said earlier today
Published today at ScienceDaily:
Darwinists – always wrong ….
PS: this Cambrian brain organization … just another confirmation of common design …
Whether design is everywhere is not the question. The question is what is the source of design in nature. Evolutionary theory gives an explanation for the source of design processes – the niche.
“Intelligent Design” has no answers.
Alan Fox
This theory is a bunch of nonsense. All the ‘supporting evidence’ is just a misrepresentation of reality.
And Darwinists start to realize that … and it will get much worse for them … because they just started looking …
Alan, in 21st century, you can’t claim that fully autonomous self-navigating flying systems weren’t designed by engineers. And this is exactly what Darwinian biologists claim … this simple fact makes this theory as stupid/absurd as it gets …. what is even more absurd, biologists claim that it happened 4 times repeatedly and independently (birds, insects, mammals, dinos
If you claim such things in 21st century, people may think that you lost your mind …
AF, 96, and why do you spend so much energy on objections and side tracks, if you imagine this is all in a little overlooked corner? Meanwhile, you have yet to show the capability of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity to create FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits per actual observation. That is telling as design routinely exceeds that including many of your own comments here. KF
PS, I would find it amusing that people can look at molecular nanotech then deny what they are seeing if it were not sad;y telling.
PPS: You were present when I pointed to Venter years ago and suggested, go some generations beyond, for a molecular nanotech lab. That is a plausible model that builds on what we are already doing. Your no means accusation is false and held up in the teeth or repeated correction.
AF: “Intelligent Design” has no answers.
Says the man who holds an Atheistic metaphysics which says that there is no real purpose and/or reason to be found for why the universe and life exist, i.e. “Why Look for a Reason When There Are No Reasons?” and champions a theory that must be protected by lawyers so as to avoid embarrassing questions from students that it can’t answer, i.e. “‘Put Your Hand Down, Johnny’: When Asking Questions About Science Is Unconstitutional,”
Of note:
Several answers come to mind. Mohamed has to come to the mountain, as ID enthusiasts on the whole don’t venture out from their safe space. It’s mental exercise for me. I’m probably a bit OCD. My wife thinks it’s ego-driven.
It’s a loaded question, where you are assuming that biological processes are akin to human engineering. I disagree with the premise. I do agree that engineers can learn a lot from deconstructing biological systems. But that biological systems were magically engineered by some divine designer whose modus operandi is secret is an unfounded assumption that adds nothing to scientific endeavour.
@86
Nope, not even close — cells are not machines.
I suspect that there are a few structures originally classified as vestigial that have been reclassified. This is not unexpected as we gain more knowledge.
But I also suspect that you do not understand what vestigial means.
Alan Fox @114
Now i really don’t follow. Are you playing games with me ?
Biologists like Dawkins and Lents claim “Backwardly wired human retina is a bad design … human ankle joint is a bad design …. there are useless bones in human legs and so on …. ” and they continue “… no designer would it make that way … ”
Perhaps i am totally stupid, but i see how THEY PUBLICLY COMMENT ON DESIGN/ ENGINEERING AND THEY ALSO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OTHER DESIGNERS/ENGINEERS ….
So why is my question loaded ???????
So i am asking for the 3rd time … does D-K effect also apply to biologists who comment on design/engineering ?
Evolutionists try to have their cake and eat it too with their definition of the word ‘vestigial’:
Moreover, the false claim from Darwinists that many structures and organs in the human body are vestigial has not been harmless, but has led to rampant medical malpractice in the past,
Verse:
We have only been studying DNA for less than 100 years. Life has been around of 3,000,000,000+ years. Scientists conduct experiments using litres of solution whereas the earth has 1.386 billion cubic kilometres of solution to play with.
But, more significantly, why do you expect evolutionary biologists to directly observe something to demonstrate the validity of their claim when you do not expect the same burden of proof for ID claims?
No. I’m telling you your question contains a false premise making it a loaded question.
A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner’s agenda.
I don’t accept the equivalence between biological systems and machinery. It’s a very poor analogy, poor enough to be counterproductive, as you continue to demonstrate.
@116
I’m gratified to see that Wells has the intellectual acumen to see that Kant and Nicholson are basically right: organisms (even single cells) are not machines and there are limits to the machine metaphor for biology.
I’m less impressed by his attempt to salvage the machine metaphor with regard to sub-cellular biomolecular processes, because (as Nicholson argues here) the kinds of physical and chemical forces operating on large biomolecules are nothing like what we know about from macroscopic machines.
So while I agree with Wells (following Kant and Nicholson) that the machine metaphor fails at the level of the whole organism, I disagree that it can be retained for any processes at the sub-organismal level.
I might add that I’m also echoing views developed by Stephen Talbott (see also here and J. Scott Turner (see also here).
This is not to say that I would say “yes” to the question, “is it reasonable to posit supernatural intervention as the best explanation for the transition from non-teleological thermodynamic systems to teleological systems?” — but it is to say that accepting the reality of teleology is a sine qua non for any intellectually adequate form of naturalism in the 21st century.
PM!, “I’m less impressed by his attempt to salvage the machine metaphor with regard to sub-cellular biomolecular processes, because (as Nicholson argues here) the kinds of physical and chemical forces operating on large biomolecules are nothing like what we know about from macroscopic machines.”
Two things, first molecular machines greatly outclass man-made machines. For instance,
Secondly, the means by which molecular machines achieve nearly 100% efficiency, and speeds much greater than man-made machines, via “information engines”, is simply completely devastating to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution,
Alan Fox @92,
Yes, exactly. But Darwinism is now taught as a FACT. If you want to get published and remain in academia, you must have unquestioning loyalty to this 19th century racist conjecture that concludes with the ultimate “humane” extinction of brown and black people.
No, I’m not accepting this crap science.
ID is not a religious position as I’ve explained innumerable times here. It pragmatically results in demonstrably faster scientific progress by approaching the appearance of design with a reverse engineering mindset.
One of those “vestigial” organs was a ductless gland called the thyroid. Note the profound difference between an assertion that it has no function and the admission that it likely has a function that we don’t understand.
Yes, I’m disgusted by the implicit racism in dogmatic Darwinism. I would love to see Darwin’s cold dead, fingers pried from the throat of science.
-Q
Martin_r @107,
Haha! Great timing, but then this is a pretty common event. What do you call a theory that repeatedly gets surprised by new findings?
That Darwinists grimly hang on to their ridiculous theory speaks to an ideological motive rather than a scientific one.
-Q
Alan Fox @108,
Oh really? Or is the question the study of what exists and how it works?
Yes, Darwinism provides “an explanation.” But so does Greek mythology.
What exactly makes Darwinism superior to Greek mythology? Experimental evidence is lacking and, as Martin_r showed in the latest example, Darwinism is frequently and continually embarrassed by new findings.
Exactly! It takes no position on the source of design. Currently, we’re clueless.
However, if someone is able to cook up a primordial soup (salt to taste), bubble through ammonia and other gases, fry it and freeze it, and finally blast it with spectacular electrical discharges like in the movies to produce living cells, we would know that something like it is indeed possible.
Until then, science has no answers. If you want “answers,” you might want to reconsider Greek mythology or something else outside the domain of science.
-Q
PyrrhoManiac1 @115,
What? Did you actually read what’s in that paper?
This is crackpot philosophy, not science! Or maybe that’s why it’s published in Theoretical Biology.
The paper starts out attacking mainstream science like this:
And then we’re treated to a gooey magic sauce that claims to track individual molecules in cells, resulting in such confusion that the basic principle of cause and effect seems to be lost.
There are no experimental results that falsify the mechanical duplication of DNA molecules, protein molecules, the mechanical (in physical chemistry) operation of the ADP-ATP cycles as well as a vast number of other cycles.
Oh, please.
-Q
Agreed. ID is not any sort of position. But the folks that try to claim ID has merit tend to hold strong religious views.
mechanical =/= physical. “Vast number of other cycles”? Ah, is that your disingenuous list you posted previously?
Alan Fox @128,
Now you’re trolling me. So here’s my familiar cut-and-paste answer.
As Martin_r explained to you, ID is similar to reverse engineering. Reverse engineering assumes that all parts in a design have a function. The parts are not mostly random junk, some of which happen to work and have survived as a result.
-Q
No, I think I’ll stick with mainstream science. I’m quite content with partial explanations. The pattern that has emerged so far since Darwin’s day remains coherent and consilient.
Maybe ID will manage to leave the starting gate one day. Wish harder! 🙂
Reverse engineering is a respectable process. ID, not a process at all, more of a scam.
Alan Fox @129,
Huh? Do you have any idea of the number of biochemical cycles in cells? Do you know how many enzymes operate in a cell?
You can read up on them here:
https://byjus.com/neet/biochemical-pathways/
Or you can post more trolls and ad hominems.
-Q
@127
The job of theoretical biology is to explore the conceptual foundations of biology, which is what we’re talking about here. The question is whether reductionism or organicism is a better conceptual framework in which to do biology and biomedical science. I think ID is mistaken because it assumes reductionism.
Probably better than you judging by previous experience. Your link doesn’t work for me (I’m in the EU).
Bornagain77 @116,
While there’s no question that Kant was brilliant, he did not have any idea of DNA, biochemistry, ribosomes, etc. The machines he was familiar with were fairly simple. The epitome of mechanical complexity in his day were pocket watches. And yes, those pocket watches were designed by an external agent.
However, not knowing the mechanical nature of how molecules bond together and that biochemistry is mechanical and physical at its core (this is how drug companies experiment with drugs using software), he recognized a fundamental difference in cellular processes of metabolism, reproduction, growth, defense (immune response), and repair as completely different.
They are different, but it’s a matter of size, scale, complexity, interaction, and most importantly INFORMATION.
-Q
Alan Fox @135,
Sorry about the link not working in the UK. Here’s an excerpt to make my point:
Additionally, there are also catabolic pathways and amphibolic pathways. Hopefully, you get the idea.
Each of these chemical pathways involve physical interaction between molecules. It’s extremely complex, but not magic. Science cannot study magic.
@132,
Why do you resort to plastering the discussion with unsupported assertions?
“ID is similar to reverse engineering.”
“No, it’s a scam.”
“No, it’s not”
“Yes, it is.”
“No, it’s not”
“Yes, it is.”
etc.
What’s the point of your posts if you are unwilling or unable to support your position?
-Q
PyrrhoManiac1 @134,
Sadly, though perhaps mercifully, the paper is behind a $20 paywall.
Reading the abstract leaves me with some concerns. The science of physics starts from a reductionist base rather than some organic emergence reminiscent of Greek philosophy that perfection in circularity is intrinsic to the (emergent organic) nature of celestial objects.
While reductionism must always adapt to increasingly finer adjustments (the orbit of Mercury being a “stellar” example), emergent organic explanations are immune from scientific experimentation and are reminiscent of Von Helmont’s celebrated experiment.
You might argue along with Michael Behe that some systems are irreducibly complex. This might indeed be the case, but I’d imagine you’d hardly be an advocate for Dr. Behe. Right?
-Q
…in an aqueous medium. And biochemical reactions happen when molecules collide. Enzymes act as marriage brokers, introducing reactants to each other, which results in faster reactions. But there’s no production line, no assembly process. What drives reactions in, say, the Krebs (citric acid) cycle is removal of products, preventing a reaction from reaching equilibrium.
I spent three years a long while ago studying biochemistry at undergraduate level.
Alan Fox
i am trying to understand (but it is really hard), what has yours:
to do with the fact, that biologists Dawkins and Lents commenting on design/engineering.
Could you clarify ?
I am a long-time lurker here and former contributor. I even wrote a guest post here once. Random variation in moderation policy has at times prevented me from posting and allowed me to contribute at other times including currently. I was prompted to reregister here on seeing JVL being stalked by Upright Biped and thinking JVL needed a bit of support. Why I stick around now? Amusement? Inertia? Ego? I’ve given up on anyone presenting a convincing case for “Intelligent Design”.
Regarding my position? My position that evolutionary theory is the only credible, consilient set of overlapping explanations for the biological reality that we see? I don’t need to reinvent the wheel. There’s a mountain of evidence and libraries full of literature.
Though the basic concept of evolution is so simple, anyone should be able to grasp it. I do pick up on the straw man misrepresentations that keep popping up in comments here but it is a bit of a thankless task. I feel like Sisyphus sometimes.
Dawkins doesn’t say much publicly these days. Give me an example of Nathan Lents commenting on “design/engineering” so I’m clear on what you mean.
Alan Fox @139,
Yes, and chemical reactions also occur in gaseous and solid media.
But you must remember how DNA works and mRNA synthesizes proteins, right? No, there aren’t any tiny workers on a production line, but there is a line of amino acids.
A lot of new insights have been discovered since you studied biochemistry many years ago! Take a look at this terrific video:
Your Body’s Molecular Machines (6:20 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tYrnv_o6A
Looks like engineering to me!
-Q
It’s the ribosome that brings everything together.
Well no there isn’t a line of amino acids either. Assembly of proteins depends on collisions between aminoacyl RNA transferases and the ribosome active site.
🙂
It’s chemistry, in reality.
Alan Fox @141,
So how did dynein motors evolve?
(https://youtu.be/X_tYrnv_o6A?t=275)
Functions and mechanics of dynein motor proteins
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3972880/
But there’s some good news. You don’t have to answer the question for free. You can receive a US $10,000,000 prize!
https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
I highly enjoyed Perry Marshall’s book, Evolution 2.0. You might, too.
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-2-0-Breaking-Deadlock-Between/dp/1944648755/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1669666999&sr=8-2
-Q
🙂
It’s chemistry, in reality. Whilst Veritasium make very good videos, these are pitched at a popular audience. The animations are models, not reality.
Alan Fox,
Dawkins doesn’t say much these days, but he did say lots of things in the past and published several books. He did comment on design/engineering in the past. I don’t get what you are trying to say…
As to Lents, here is a 2021 lecture, from the video description:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chdXO_Bxdf8
Have to ask, Querius, where the basic facts are coming from? The results of research of mainstream science, I suggest. You seem to want to spin those facts to tell an engineering story. I don’t think it’s warranted and I don’t think you succeed.
Give me an example, then, if you prefer.
In what way is the passage you quote a comment on design/engineering? I don’t see it
AF,
“Chemical engineering is applied chemistry. It is the branch of engineering concerned with the design, construction, and operation of machines and plants that perform chemical reactions to solve practical problems or make useful products.”
Andrew
And the relevance is what exactly, Andrew?
AF,
I thought your meaning was that there is either chemistry or engineering.
Andrew
@ Andrew
No. My position is that regarding the chemistry in biological systems as akin to engineered design is a misleadingly poor analogy.
Thanks, Asauber, but his meaning is obviously obfuscation and evasion. I can’t pry his hands off his eyes when he claims he can’t see.
Of course YouTube videos are actually videos rather than chemistry, but the models are reasonable facsimiles of what the molecules look like and how they behave in real time. They are extremely advanced chemical machinery, called nanomachines. Yes, machines. Engineers know about machines, machine code, and machine design.
Notice how he ignored my challenge to explain how dyneins “musta” evolved?
And considering the role of DNA in biological organisms, when do you suppose the dyneins first evolved and from what? Random chance maybe?
-Q
PM1 at 134,
Forget about the ism’s. Intelligent Design is identifying complex biological engineering. That’s what ID is all about. And this level of engineering cannot be created by blind, unguided chance.
*chuckles*
I didn’t know anything about dyneins and kinesins and their role in mitosis till glancing at Wikipedia. Seems there is still much that is unknown. How did Querius learn of dyneins, I wonder. I bet it wasn’t from ID research papers.
If true, this should be headline news. Tell me more. Which ID researcher is doing this important work? Is there a published paper I can read?
SG [attn AF], gaslighting on a turnabout projection. We do routinely observe intelligently directed configuration producing FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits; many comments in this thread are cases in point, i.e. ASCII text beyond 72 – 143 characters. By contrast, as you evade constantly, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity have never been observed doing same. Also, molecular nanotech labs doing engineering of DNA, per Venter et al are observed facts. Further to this the search challenge of FSCO/I is not touched by appealing to the ocean. Take the low end, a sol system of 10^57 atoms, 10^17 s, give each a tray of 500 coins, or equivalently a paramagnetic substance with that many cells. Toss 10^14 times/s. That gives 5*10^90 samples for the space of 500 bits, which has 3.27*10^150 possibilities. Negligible sample to space. For 10^80 atoms and 1,000 bits, it is much worse. It remains, that there is no plausible blind mechanism to generate FSCO/I of relevant complexity and appeals to an imagined earlier architecture of life simply compound the speculations. You are already challenged to acknowledge the common fact that just right components have to be present, arranged and coupled on a correct wiring diagram with relatively small wiggle room to work, i.e. fine tuning and islands of function in seas of non function are observed realities. That’s before we notice how readily degraded or subject to cross reactions etc such energetic molecules are. But then, the point is to see just how strained the OoL proposals on the table are, not to expect admission of same. KF
Q, a very good approach to science is, that it is reverse engineering nature, identifying how it was put together so how it works. It’s not just ID. KF
Alan Fox,
first of all, i found out, that it is not entirely true that Dawkins does not say much these day.
He is repeating the same “bad design” claims to these days.
So lets start with this classic one it is 3 minutes long (from 2021)
“The Laryngeal Nerve is obviously bad design”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OptJMRj8z-E
And another classic – backwardly wired retina, 3 minutes video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE_jHzmj3kQ
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —-> But the following video is the best one i have ever seen with Dawkins …
it is only 5 minutes, and it is a sum up of various Dawkins claims on design in biology.
If you look at this video, and if you would not know who Dawkins is, you may think, that he is a creationists/ID proponent.
2 Top claims (from the video, you have to see it with your own eyes to believe):
R. Dawkins
R. Dawkins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prFZTMIKOi4
PS1: Alan, you said, you don’t like the organism-machine analogy. You must be something special … Even Dawkins sees the analogy …
PS2: and now Alan, it is time to get back to D-K effect ….
@ KF
You omitted a couple of pivotal facts.
1. The process of selection. Evolution is more than blind chance.
2. Evolution is not a search. Organisms can function with adequate systems. Variation that happens to have improved function in a particular niche can be selected for. “One in a gazillion” is not a realistic model of evolution.
Martin_r
Good catch. I see you didn’t have to do much work to find it. Dawkins is a popular quote-miner’s target.
I would change “obviously bad” to constrained, which is the point Dawkins is making. A huge constraint on evolutionary processes is that any adaptation must be viable enough for an organism to develop, grow, live and reproduce. Common descent constrains to the extent that there has to be an unbroken chain of viability from LUCA to every organism since that exists or has existed.
Without those constraints, the pharyngeal nerve detour is inexplicable.
I think most “Intelligent Design”vs evolution hinge on constraints. Evolution imposes the requisite of the unbroken chain of descent on each and every individual organism that has ever lived. This is a huge constraint. Yet critics of evolution struggle to present any examples that do not fit these constraints.
But finding an example of a constraint violation in evolutionary theory would not be evidence of “Intelligent Design”.
ID’s problem is its lack of constraints. There is no way to test the idea. It explains everything and nothing.
Alan Fox,
you wanted some additional explanation on “In what way is the passage you quote a comment on design/engineering? I don’t see it”
So here is more stuff from Lents ….
New York Post (2018), a review of Lents book “Human Errors…”
Lents:
https://nypost.com/2018/05/12/our-horribly-designed-bodies-are-making-us-sick/
PS: can we now get back to D-K effect ?
Martin_r
Lents is making the same point that I made in 165. Evolutionary changes are constrained by the requirement for unbroken viability. “Design” involves no such constraints.
Regarding Dunning-Kruger, try asking a question that doesn’t contain a preconception.
Alan Fox
so far I gave you several examples where top biologists comment on design/engineering.
You perfectly understand that these guys suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome … But I played this
game with you … I was wondering, how far will you go.
You are a coward … it is very common, I debated lots of Darwinian cowards through the years …
And like I said, you must be something special … you don’t like the organism-machine analogy, but even Dawkins uses this analogy in the video I posted above. And then, Dawkins is commenting on the design of this machine :))))))))))) A biologist is commenting on design/engineering …
By the way, the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to you as well, you don’t realize that, do you ?
Earlier you said:
Who are you?
Not only R. Dawkins disagree with you, but what is more important, because your education, you are not qualified to make such a claim … do you understand that ? You are not qualified …
You are textbook example of Dunning-Kruger effect ….
No you didn’t. Whether “Design” is involved is the very point at issue and you are asking the same loaded question.
Sauce for the goose… What qualifies you to make such a judgment?
I have spent time at pro-evolution sites frequented by professional scientists and my errors get pointed out quickly and clearly. If you want ant more of an intellectual challenge, you should try engaging at one or two such sites.
Alan Fox
Education in mechanical engineering.
Alan, in 21st century, you can’t make statements like “a heart is not a machine and you don’t like the analogy ” :)))))) Such a claim is stupid/absurd.
Heart is a mechanical pump controlled by an electrical signal. It is a machine.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations/artificial-heart.htm
PS: by the way, this conversation is absurd …. if I will keep talking to you, i am afraid that my IQ will drop significantly …
🙂
What does the word “mechanical” do in that sentence? Sure the (human) heart pumps blood. But your (and my) heart grew by cell differentiation and division from a unicellular embryo. Nobody built it. And the vagus nerve that carries impulses between brain and heart is not carrying electricity but changes in electrochemical potential. The speed of a nerve impulse is not like electricity in a wire. What remains the same is fluid dynamics and basic physics. Calling the heart a machine leads to a fruitless semantic argument on definition.
And if mechanical engineers are so capable, why is the development of artificial hearts not a raging success?
Alan Fox
yes, as a mechanical engineer I am very qualified to comment on a mechanical pump controlled by an electrical signal … definitely more than you or any other biologists (natural science graduate).
Like i said, when i will continue this conversation my IQ will drop for sure ….
WHY ON EARTH IT IS IMPORTANT HOW THE PUMP WAS BUILT ?????
ARE YOU PLAYING GAMES WITH ME AGAIN OR ARE YOU SO SIMPLE ????
Heart not constructed. Heart grew. Baby Martin had baby heart. Big Martin had big heart. Runs without maintenance all his life, with luck.
No engineer can match that with mechanics, even in all caps. 😉
Alan Fox,
you are right … mechanical engineers are useless, they should talk to biologists how to build this pump using random mutations :)))))))))))
Alan Fox
one more thing (I couldn’t resist)
From the article on artificial heart
pump, engine, machine ….
But some Alan Fox does not like the analogy :))))))))))))
Like i said … you must be something very special ….
I see you forgot selection again. I bet, in the real world, artificial hearts get selected. Designs that fail as artificial hearts get discarded. Designs that work to some extent get to be modified. If there were an analogy worth developing, “suck-it-and-see” trial and error in engineering is somewhat analogous to variation and selection in adaptive evolution.
Alan Fox,
I didn’t forget anything. You Darwinists keep saying the same nonsense over and over again.
FIRST YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE RANDOM MUTATIONS … THEN YOU CAN SELECT SOMETHING ….
ACCORDING TO YOUR ABSURD THEORY, RANDOM MUTATIONS CREATED THAT HEART DESIGN… NOT SOME NATURAL SELECTION ….
Are you really that simple ?
So yes, in your fantasy world, RANDOM MUTATIONS can replace the engineers from the article on artificial heart.
PS: like i said earlier … i consider Natural Selection as another Darwinian conjecture. Similar to what THE THIRD WAY OF EVOLUTION website states ….
And yet it happens. Artificial selection by both plant and animal breeders has produced all sorts of change over time. Brassicas, for example. Or do you think artificial selection not a similar process to natural selection? It is in fact identical from the point of view of the selected organism.
My niece is training to become a vet and currently doing work experience on artificial insemination in sheep. It involves inducing super-ovulation in chosen ewes (which can produce up to 20 eggs), egg gathering, in-vitro fertilization, and reimplantation in host mothers. Farmers pay to have embryos implanted in their sheep. Apparently the monetary value of desirable rams and ewes are rising into multiple thousands. That’s artificial selection for you. If skeptical Cumbrian hill farmers are parting with cash, it must work.
You have a very simplistic view of how selection works. If you were better-informed, you could make a much more convincing case against evolution, especially if you were aware of the constraints. As I mentioned, for any organism that has a pumped circulatory system, the heart has to grow and develop, starting at some point in embryological development and remain functional for the lifetime of that organism. And, for evolution to be correct, there has to be a nested hierarchy of changes small enough to not disrupt that viability. That’s a big target to attack but you would rather argue semantics.
Very odd!
Alan Fox.
listen, this debate between you and me started as I was accused of D-K syndrome. I have argued, that all biologists who comment on design in biology or any other design whatsoever should keep their mouths shut (including you) because you people have no idea what you are talking about. You are not qualified, it is you/biologists who suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome when commenting on design in biology …
I am not going to talk about this natural selection nonsense and other Darwinian conjectures. I got schooled so many times from Darwinists, that I don’t understand “HOW EVOLUTION WORKS” …
The fact is, that meanwhile I know you people very well. You are totally untrustworthy, your ‘facts’ and ‘understanding’ is overturned every day with new findings … Moreover, Darwinian biologists fight each other … in 2022 there are many views on “HOW EVOLUTION WORKS” so you must be something special or above top evolutionists when you dare to school me on evolution ….
I think Querius already posted a very recent article on this, published in THE GUARDIAN (2022):
“Do we need a new theory of evolution?”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
There you will find, how biologists fight each other (and these are ugly fights) because NOBODY UNDERSTANDS THIS CRAZY ABSURD THEORY …. (but Alan Fox understands and schooling others)
I will finish this conversation with a quote from that THE GUARDIAN article which perfectly illustrates what I am talking about
A fairytale :))))) Touche!
here you go, it is a very long and informative article … you should read it instead of schooling me … perhaps you will learn something …
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
PS: step by step heart evolution … I hope, that after this debate, you don’t think that I would even consider that a mechanical pump with all the one way valves controlled by an electrical signal evolved and wasn’t engineered. Such things happen only in Darwinian fantasy world … in real world, you have to visit a technical university to become an engineer …
Alan Fox,
one last thing …. in that article i posted above (THE GUARDIAN), so called Plasticity or Phenotypic plasticity is being mentioned…. i came across this term elsewhere, and i always wanted to ask some expert …
i found this definition of phenotypic plasticity
Alan, could you explain to me, what is difference between Darwinian evolution (random mutations+NS) and this phenotypic plasticity ?
You are under no obligation. I don’t come here primarily to talk other commenters into accepting evolutionary theory, though I can’t help pointing out the more egregious straw-man versions that folks here regularly present.
I keep asking for the “Intelligent Design” alternative explanation of biological phenomena. I’m beginning to suspect that there isn’t such a thing.
The genome or genotype is the total of genetic information stored in the chromosomes of a particular organism.
The phenotype is the physical organism that develops and grows from that genome.
Adaptive evolution involves changes in the genome due to mutation, etc being fixed in a population die to natural selection favouring phenotypes that are more successful reproductively.
Phenotypic plasticity does not involve genome changes, but is the ability of some organisms to survive when faced with.a changing environment.
Wikipedia
Phenotypic plasticity refers to some of the changes in an organism’s behavior, morphology and physiology in response to a unique environment.[1][2] Fundamental to the way in which organisms cope with environmental variation, phenotypic plasticity encompasses all types of environmentally induced changes (e.g. morphological, physiological, behavioural, phenological) that may or may not be permanent throughout an individual’s lifespan.[3]
En bref: plasticity; no genomic change. Adaptive evolution; genomic change.
I’m an avid Guardian reader, BTW. The Guardian is the only paper I know that is independent of vested interest control, having been set up as a trust that pays to keep it going indefinitely without meddling from investors.
I read that article when it was published. It’s a bit breathless but I don’t think it’s detrimental to current mainstream evolutionary ideas and it certainly doesn’t give any comfort to ID.
Alan Fox: And yet it happens. Artificial selection by both plant and animal breeders has produced all sorts of change over time. Brassicas, for example. Or do you think artificial selection not a similar process to natural selection? It is in fact identical from the point of view of the selected organism.
I think this is an important point that ID has not thought through very well if at all. The reason that Darwin used human/intelligent selection as an analogy for natural selection is because both methods work from a continual source of variation generated genetically. The objection that natural selection only takes away and doesn’t add is beside the point: it’s the continually generated variation that provides new pathways to explore.
Also, if there is a designer with a goal in mind then how is it that humans can direct the development of new morphologies? Why doesn’t the designers’ plan override that of human breeders? (To argue that humans are doing ‘God’s work’ unknowingly is just defining God in terms of humans’ motivations and needs.)
Anyway, selection of any kind is NOT RANDOM. The selection can be unguided but that doesn’t make it random. Think about a particular environmental niche, like Siberia. That environment will ‘favour’ certain variations that have arisen which are better able to cope with those particular environmental pressures. The variations that can produce more offspring (because they can ‘harvest’ more food, out run their predators, learn to manipulate natural resources, etc) will have their variation become more prevalent in the local population.
I have to say it completely baffles me why people like martin_r can’t grasp these basic ideas. I say ‘he’ can’t grasp them because the way ‘he’ argues shows he hasn’t understood them. But they keep telling us their hypothesis (with an undefined designers who did something undefined at some undefined time) is a better explanation when they admit they aren’t even trying to answer how and when questions. Crazy.
Artificial selection by plant and animal breeders produces what? The genetic material that exists can be combined or excluded but that’s it. No novel – as in never existed before – information is created. Some animals bred for dog shows experience health problems when human beings don’t understand that there are limits to this sort of thing.
Related: Artificial selection by plant and animal breeders produces what? The genetic material that exists can be combined or excluded but that’s it. No novel – as in never existed before – information is created. Some animals bred for dog shows experience health problems when human beings don’t understand that there are limits to this sort of thing.
Go look at all the dog breeds that have been developed in a few hundred (or less) years? Do you really think that a Chihuahua could actually breed with a Great Dane now? Look at all the brassicas. They all came from the same root plant. We know that because we have records of how they all were developed.
The point isn’t that bad varieties were developed. The point is that the naturally occurring variations can provide pathways to a vast assortment of different types within a fairly short period of time. Why don’t you address that?
Alan Fox,
after reading that THE GUARDIAN article, would you agree, that YOU don’t understand how evolution and natural selection work ? Would you agree, that the top evolutionists don’t understand ?
And that maybe “the theory of evolution is a fairy tale to give up” – like the author of the article suggests ?
Alan Fox,
Phenotypic plasticity … so species can change without genome change.
What ???? How is that suppose to work ???? Is it some miracle ????
Does it mean, that you no longer need random mutations and natural selection ??????
This theory seems to be way bigger mess than i thought …
Well, there does seem an imbalance in how the burden of proof should be share here. 😉
JVL
It seems that JVL and Alan Fox are the only ones on this planet who understand how evolution works …
Because top biologists don’t …
JVL, take your time, and read this article …
DO WE NEED A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION ?
(IT IS A MAINSTREAM ARTICLE… NO CREATIONISM …or ID …)
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
No. Phenotypic plasticity does not produce heritable changes.
And my needs are irrelevant
I’m pleased you have become a Guardian reader, Martin_r. Please keep it up and keep passing on those recommendations.
Alan, see my post @194
after reading that article, would you agree that you don’t understand how evolution/natural selection works ?
Alan, please let me ask again, because i am lost …
To change species’ appearance you don’t need random mutations and natural selection ?
Regarding the Guardian article by Buranyi (a journalist, not a scientist), I’ve said it was a bit breathless but on reading it again, there a a few statements that are a bit overblown.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s Jerry Coyne.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/07/06/our-rejected-letters-to-the-guardian-about-evolution/
When a caterpillar metamorphoses into a butterfly, there is no change to the genome. But populations of butterflies are subject to natural selection over time. The phenomena are not mutually exclusive.
Martin_r: It seems that JVL and Alan Fox are the only ones on this planet who understand how evolution works …Because top biologists don’t …
What happens in a a dynamic and changing science is that people working in that field can end up disagreeing with parts of the overall paradigm and what influences are stronger than others. It doesn’t mean any of those scientists are now opting for ID.
JVL, take your time, and read this article …
Okay, I read it. Not one thing supporting ID in there. A lot of people saying that we need to nail down the natural processes in play and which ones have more effect than others. Fine. But no design. No one is saying that.
Alan @202
you start playing games again … Buranyi may be only a journalist, but he quoted several biologists …
and thank you for Coyne’s article. I wasn’t aware of it.
Coyne rebuttal only confirmed what i claimed earlier today. Biologists fight each other and arguing about the BASICS of the theory … so there is no way that YOU or JVL or let alone a creationist can understand this mess called evolutionary theory :))))))))))
Well, if you are a Creationist, Martin_r, no wonder we are having difficulty communicating.
JVL @204
i never said that Buranyi’s article supports ID. I never said that.
I came up with this article, to show how biologists fight each other and arguing about the BASICS of the theory. ABOUT THE BASICS e.g. natural selection …
In other words, YOU or Alan Fox, you guys have no idea how evolution works, because top biologists don’t know …
So JVL, in the future, please spare me the following nonsense:
Alan Fox @206
Alan, it is not only us, look at the biologist-biologist communication (from Buranyi article)
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015
An article by a major proponent of an extended evolutionary synthesis. The other side of the Coyne coin.
and Alan, i looked closer at a paper on phenotypic plasticity …
??? Most organisms are equipped with a capacity to produce multiple phenotypes (shapes) ????
??? are equipped ???? how that happened ???
???? program that allows the organisms to sense environmental cues ????
organism can sense to adapt ???? No selection pressure, no natural selection … nothing???
it just can sense the need ???? :))))))))))
this biologist must be joking …. he sounds like an ID proponent ….
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25086-5
Martin_r: I came up with this article, to show how biologists fight each other and arguing about the BASICS of the theory. ABOUT THE BASICS e.g. natural selection …
You are way behind the times. Decades ago it was realised that natural selection was only one influence on unguided evolution. There are lots of kinds of selection along with things like genetic drift. You really should spend more time trying to understand that which you criticise.
In other words, YOU or Alan Fox, you guys have no idea how evolution works, because top biologists don’t know …
They are arguing about a lot of specific effects. But the general principle is still true: unguided evolution via inheritable random variation.
So JVL, in the future, please spare me the following nonsense:
It’s not nonsense since you clearly are not keeping up with the research and data. You argue against a narrow view that no one holds anymore. And when we point that out you get abusive. Why is that? Ashamed to admit you don’t stay abreast of the research?
Suppose I criticised an engineering project based on 1940s standards of construction? You’d tell me off, you’d point out I was behind the times, you’d most likely dismiss my criticism as being uninformed. We’re doing the same to you. For a similar reason. AND, we are not obligated to ‘catch you up’. That’s up to you. Or you can keep looking uninformed. Your call.
Alan @209
yes, i know Gerd Muller… he is an Austrian. I red this paper few years ago.
By the way, this guy belongs to THE THIRD WAY OF EVOLUTION movement….
Scroll down, you will find him …
https://thethirdwayofevolution.com/people
Don’t forget, what the “THE THIRD WAY OF EVOLUTION”-movement thinks of natural selection…
let me remind you
I’m familiar with the third way, which is a bit of a misnomer. Denis Noble is respectable but has lost his way with this
Martin_r: Don’t forget, what the “THE THIRD WAY OF EVOLUTION”-movement thinks of natural selection…
Again, since you clearly don’t even understand the basic ideas of random mutations and natural selection why should we care that you read some article which said something you might have misinterpreted? Why should we spend hours and hours trying to explain things to you when you are clearly out of date?
JVL
i got schooled just yesterday/ today …from Alan Fox…
I was told, that Natural selection created a mechanical pump with one way valves, controlled by electrical signal ….
Martin_r: i got schooled yesterday/ today on natural selection. From Alan Fox.
How natural selection created a mechanical pump – a heart.
Doesn’t mean you understood it. And I don’t think you did based on your comments. So, why should we bother?
Let’s just suppose you actually don’t understand the basics of unguided evolutionary theory. Can you think of a good reason why the rest of us should keep trying to explain things to you?
Alan Fox @213
Gerd Muller isn’t respectable ? I don’t know.. just asking …
Because he is also a part of THE THIRD WAY … go to PEOPLE section:
https://thethirdwayofevolution.com/people
Now that’s not true, is it, Martin_r. You expressed no interest in learning about the evolution of the mammalian four-chambered heart.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6767493/
JVL
what has the following to do with an unguided process ?
it does not look like an unguided process ….
“Let’s just suppose you actually don’t understand the basics of unguided evolutionary theory.”
JVL,
There’s nothing to understand. It’s a fairy tale. You either believe the Once Upon A Time Evolution Made Some Creatures or you reject it.
Andrew
Alan Fox: Now that’s not true, is it, Martin_r. You expressed no interest in learning about the evolution of the mammalian four-chambered heart.
Martin_r is just trying to waste our time. He thinks he’s doing good work trying to get us frustrated and annoyed spending hours and hours teaching him the basics of unguided evolutionary theory which any intelligent person who was interested would have spent time learning themselves. Martin_r clearly hasn’t bothered or hasn’t grasped simple concepts.
Martin_r: it does not look like an unguided process ….
Not my problem if you can’t read and understand an explanation. It’s obvious that you are either intentionally trying to waste our time or are just incapable of grasping the concepts.
I’m not familiar with him but I have no reason to think he’s not. Yes, I know he’s attached his name to the third way group. I don’t expect them to become a groundbreaking movement but we’ll see.
Martin_r has mentioned he is a Creationist. I guess he has his own agenda.
Alan Fox,
That is correct. I am an engineer and a Creationist. What did you think ???
“I guess he has his own agenda.”
Says the guy who spends all his active hours at UD spamming Evolution.
Andrew
Alan Fox,
in any case, I will have a closer look at some articles on Phenotypic plasticity … It looks like I will have lots of fun … I already learned, that “organisms are equipped with a capacity to produce multiple phenotypes in response to environmental change” … and that there is “a developmental program that allows the organisms to sense environmental cues in early stages of life to better adapt” …. good stuff :)))))))))
About Creationism? Of the 6,000 year old Earth type? I can’t imagine how anyone can stare down all the contrary evidence and maintain such a belief.
Alan Fox
ever heard of Old Earth Creationists ?
Sal Cordova held to that idea. Haven’t come across Sal in a while and I can’t recall the details
Those who breed dogs can cause certain health problems with their selective breeding.
https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/dogs/puppy/pedigreedogs/health
There are limits.
Indeed. Inbreeding is a terminal problem in small populations. Loss of genetic diversity leads to extinction.
Asauber @226
Indeed! Pumping out comment after comment mostly without any content, but filled instead of examples of the genetic fallacy and pointless ad hominem attacks.
And then, we get anointed with other dribbles and drools that Darwinism is not random since selection isn’t, while forgetting that mutations, purportedly (and incorrectly) are the source of all genomic change, which are indeed RANDOM, although some regions are conserved more than others.
Maybe we should remind them of the severe limit on the speed of evolution, which is known as . . . wait, let’s see whether JVL or Alan Fox know this one. LOL
And finally, I’d like to nominate Martin_r for the Peace & Patience Prize!
-Q
AF,
1: as you full well know, function including reproductive function [implying a highly complex von Neumann kinematic self replicator] with metabolising automata having encapsulation and smart gating must be present for differential reproductive success to be possible for cell based life . . . what hides behind “selection”.
2: Any hypothesised different architecture needs to be warranted on actual observation of same in action, and that is simply not there.
3: With cells on the table, blind chance variations and differential reproductive success directly fit blind chance and/or necessity — as you full well know, noting too that differential reproductive success is in significant part highly chance influenced.
4: The net result of such would at best be local hill climbing, unable to span a good valley within an island of fine tuned function, much less an intervening sea of non function.
5: That is likely why some objectors pretend that it is dubious for complex configuration based function to require correct, properly oriented, matched and correctly coupled parts (sharply restricting effective configurations in the space of possibilities).
6: All this shows is, refusal to acknowledge the logic of process, even while typing out sentences that are sharply constrained to be functional English rather than at random gibberish 9ieblore6okve or stuck key repetition hhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
More can be said,
KF
And just as night follows day, much, much more will be said. And, equally predictable, the arguments will not be found to be compelling by anyone knowledgeable in the science. But by all means, keep tilting at those windmills.
1) By that argument, mountain formation and the Big Bang are insupportable.
2) And what observations does ID have of the designer implementing new body plans? New species?
3) Why dies ID have a different burden of proof than evolution?
SG at 236,
Your only apparent mission here is to trash ID and to use useless arguments for that position. The highly complex biological engineering found in living things is not being ignored by scientists. Blind, unguided chance had no ability to create such things. That is the ID position.
And no evolutionary biologist would disagree with you. Sing evolutionary theory does not propose that blind, unguided chance is responsible for the diversity of life, ID’s opposition to evolution is based on a false premise.
@238
I agree that ID’s opposition to evolution is based on a false premise, but I don’t think this correctly identifies what that false premise is.
As I understand Dembski, the initial idea was to just stipulate that “design” was required wherever “chance” and “necessity” were insufficient.
In other words, the premise is to take an Epicurean metaphysics of nature (or rather, a crude and simplified version of Epicureanism) as what nature must be like in the absence of intelligence. With that as the conceptual background, it became almost trivial to argue that therefore the intervention of an intelligent being is required to do anything beyond 17th-century billiard-ball physics.
In other words, the error in ID is not to neglect how selection winnows biological novelty into adaptations but to begin with a fundamentally mistaken conception of what nature itself really is, since it is only against that background that it seems necessary to posit a designer to do what nature itself cannot.
“to posit a designer to do what nature itself cannot”
PM1,
And you know what nature can and can’t do? Did you make a list of what nature can and can’t do?
Andrew
PM1,
My guess is that your idea of Nature just happens to make your beliefs about Evolution possible. Right?
Andrew
SG at 238,
Cut the crap, OK? I’m a working book editor. Out of 100 manuscripts, I might – might – see one that is worth publishing. Evolution has no intelligence, no brain. Supposedly, the submissions I see were created by people who do. But most are incapable of stringing words together in an interesting, functional way. And you expect people to believe EVOLUTION can do better?
@241
I would say that my understanding of nature (and hence of “naturalism”) involves my own personal experiences as an outdoor enthusiast and amateur natural historian, plus my eclectic reading history that would need to include, amongst my most important influences, David Abrams , Murray Bookchin , John Dewey , Hans Jonas, and Terrence Deacon.
Sir Giles @235,
Thank you for the excellent generic trollbot response! This one is going into my growing collection.
-Q
Relatd @242,
My highest respect goes to talented editors! This is a very challenging profession. In my experience, the insights, clarity, and expertise that editors provide, especially in their developmental and copy edits, are amazing!
Keep up your invaluable work!
-Q
PyrrhoManiac1 @243,
Let me recommend a book that I believe you would enjoy: Earthly Pleasures : Tales from a Biologist’s Garden by Roger B. Swain
However, let me observe that the more one learns about the stunning complexity in nature, the less credible one finds Darwin’s theory.
Since JVL and Alan Fox don’t know the answer to this question, maybe you can enlighten them. (smile)
-Q
Given the number of spelling, grammatical and other errors I see in recently published books, I am not surprised.
SG,
strawman projections and doubling down on the already adequately answered:
>>) By that argument, mountain formation and the Big Bang are insupportable.>>
1: Not at all, maybe first, you don’t know that I live about ten miles, line of sight from where a mountain has been destroyed, rebuilt and destroyed, then rebuilt, over the past 30 years.
2: The observable expansion of the cosmos allows direct projection back to a singularity.
3: The actually observed capability of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity to generate FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits is directly nil and for quite evident search challenge reasons; meanwhile there is an observed causal factor that routinely creates it, you just did in your objection — intelligently directed configuration.
>>2) And what observations does ID have of the designer>>
4: There is no THE designer observed, we have observed designers and characteristic products of intelligently directed configuration, such as FSCO/I.
5: This shows that designs and designers are possible and have known capability beyond blind forces.
6: Where, to cut off another predictable strawman, we exemplify designers, we do not exhaust them, and we have a particularly strong sign in the molecular nanotech of the cell, coded algorithms thus language and goal directed stepwise processes.
7: Attempts to obfuscate this in objections here and in the penumbra around UD, only show how far objectors are willing to go to keep up their objections.
>> implementing new body plans?>>
8: You full well know how inference to the best empirically anchored explanation works on Newton’s rules, let us for record note again to you from Sir Charles Lyell, as has been pointed out in your presence many times:
9: We notice, in body plans, certain key features that are integral to the structure, especially, FSCO/I. We know separately that this is a strong and reliable sign — trillions of observed cases, no exceptions — of intelligently directed configuration as key causal factor.
10: Thus on reasonable like causes like, we may infer readily to the causal factor of the remote past, on what we have observed.
11: Of course, such an abductive inference is readily defeasible in principle, simply show another observed factor with the capability. It is obvious that the rhetorical expedients we are seeing are being put up because you do not have such an alternative.
>> New species?>>
12: The same answer.
>>3) Why dies ID have a different burden of proof than evolution?>>
13: False, you full well know the Newton Rule standard as cited from Lyell, and that one factor has met it but not the one you obviously favour.
KF
PM1, strawman. We both know the logic of defeasible inference to the best causal explanation and what it takes to defeat it. Just your own objections repeatedly show what intelligently directed configuration can and does do, and in our observation on trillions of cases only this factor. We can readily recognise that a heavy object routinely falls when unsupported by mechanical necessity, here, gravity. If said object is a die with eight corners and twelve edges, by the butterfly effect it effectively settles to an uppermost face at random, showing chance by a common process; quantum processes seem to follow chance patterns directly. A string of such dice can be intelligently arranged per a code to express a message and it is maximally implausible that such beyond 500 – 1,000 bits worth would be by chance. Where, actually, a coin is a two sided die with one effective edge and a similar butterfly effect. Going beyond, examining aspects of a great many phenomena, it has been found highly relevant and powerful to recognise lawlike necessities producing low contingency reliable outcomes on similar initial conditions; we call such, laws of physics . . . of which there are literally thousands. Under other circumstances, similar initial conditions routinely produce highly contingent outcomes, often fitting distributions of many types such as bells, J or reverse J, U, bimodal, flat, flicker noise, pink noise etc. Thirdly, we readily observe intelligently directed configurations that do not fit such patterns and are often associated with functional patterns of performance. All three factors are commonly operating in many cases and per aspect studies help us distinguish. Indeed, just in telecommunications, a key metric, signal to noise ratio relies on ability to distinguish such patterns, and of course so does SETI. Where, it is almost certain that you are suppressing your knowledge of statistical hypothesis testing which is another case in point. KF
Relatd, you here see a case in point why I use the otherwise clumsy phrase, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Objectors here routinely fail — or outright refuse — to recognise that due to the need for multiple, well matched, properly organised and coupled parts to achieve function, most of the configuration space of possibilities is taken up by non functional gibberish, leading to fine tuning and operating points clustering in narrow zones, i.e. islands of function. Text vs gibberish vs stuck keys is a simple example they refuse to acknowledge, telling us much about them as they have to compose text to object. Of course, configuration spaces are actually cut down phase spaces, and that reveals the root of this point, statistical thermodynamics. KF
PS, just for fun, Walker and Davies make much the same point:
PM1, I draw your attention to Walker and Davies, just above. KF
SG, a crude ad hominem targetting Relatd, that tells us much; none to your credit. KF
KF, I notice that your admonitions about the tone of a person’s comments are only applied to those who you have disagreements with. That tells us much; none to your credit.
Have you ever bothered to read Relatd’s comment. They are second only to the dearly departed ET in their level of abusive insult.
SG at 253,
You can’t handle sharp and direct? You can’t reply to my comments but accuse me of abuse? Sad.
Reply to my comments and leave the accusations behind.
A poor second. Wonder what’s happened to Joe, hope he’s OK
1) Red herring.
2) The majority of mountains are not of volcanic origin.
3) They are the result of one plate subduction under another, causing uplift of the crust.
4) we have observed small uplift events but nobody has observed a mountain being formed by this process.
5) We extrapolate our observed events over long periods of time to theorize what the outcome could result in.
6) No different that the millions of small evolutionary events that have been observed and extrapolation over time to theorize what the potential outcome could be.
7) The observed changes in population genotypes and phenotypes allows projection back to a common ancestor.
8) And this is supported by observations in molecular biology, geology, palaeontology, nuclear physics and other scientific fields.
9) And the actually observed capability of subduction to generate a mountain range is directly nil.
10) I know that the best empirically anchored explanation is one that is supported by evidence from diverse fields of study.
11) Which evolution is.
12) ID has an inference from human design.
13) Not supported by geology, palaeontology, molecular biology, nuclear physics and the other fields of study that are consistent with evolution.
SG at 256,
Evolution has no intelligence, no brain. It is a series of made up stories designed around fitting them to a framework that cannot be shown to be true. Articles in science journals include a lot of guesswork, and words and terms like, “may have,” “appears to” and so on. Then I see words and terms like “unexpected,” “upends previous thinking” and so on.
Intelligent Design identifies complex, clearly engineered biological structures that could not have arisen unguided. Continuing research reveals more and more levels of complexity, showing evolution to be orders of magnitude improbable, including a time factor that extends to the current age of the Universe. Chance did not, and could not, do much of anything. There was not enough time.
SG, I simply note that we have here seen mountain building forces and destroying forces in rapid action, which allows us to address a range of other forces. For example, the amount of sand and gravel produced de novo tells us much. And again much more, I will simply note your continued needlessly snide commentary and its probable intent, to cause ever sharper polarisation . . . a strong sign of failure on merits. Especially as, just to object you further provide an example of the causal factor known to create FSCO/I. KF
And the question still remains unanswered by the Evolution Experts and Darwinian Defenders . . .
“And just as night follows day, much, much more will be said. And, equally predictable, the arguments will not be found to be compelling by anyone knowledgeable in the science. But by all means, keep tilting at those windmills. – Sir Giles”
Oh, I like it! And it’s now been added to my TrollTrove ™.
-Q
1) repetition of a red herring.
2) The Rockies, the Himalayas, the Andes for the most part were not produced by volcanoes.
3) They were produced by the uplifting caused by one plate subducting under another.
4) This is as settled as science can get yet we do not have a single observation of this happening.
5) We have concluded this by extrapolating small observable changes over long periods of time.
6) Supported by geological observations of plate tectonics and the location of mountain ranges.
7) we have plenty of evidence of natural selection resulting in new function over observable time.
8) For example, antibiotic resistance, pesticide resistance, nylonase, etc.
9) We have a morphological classification system that matches up very well with a genomic classification and proteomic classification.
10) Both the morphological and genomic classification systems of extant organism are remarkably consistent with what we have derived as ancestral lineages in the fossil record.
11) We have a fossil record showing that forms have changed over time.
12) Supported by the geologic record.
13) We have demonstrated that fairly significant phenotypic changes can be associated with minor genetic changes.
14) we have observations of complicated structures (eg, flagellum) being very similar to other complicated structures (eg injectisome).
15) Biogeography supports evolution.
16) ID has zero observations of the implementation of biological design other than the biological modifications intentionally caused by humans.
17) ID has zero hypotheses on how and when designs were implemented.
18) ID has zero ideas of how to test the zero hypotheses they have on the implementation of design.
There is much more that can be said, but this will do as an introductory primer.
Sir Giles @260,
Pronouncing something as a “red herring” doesn’t make it so.
Strawman. No one said they were—please quote where this was claimed.
Oh really? You think that mountain ranges are on or adjacent to subduction zones?
There’s no such thing as settled science. We do have observations. First of all, I guess you never heard of Jack Oliver’s paper, Seismology and the New Global Tectonics, was published in 1968. Before that time, plate tectonics was considered crackpot science. Secondly, you’re apparently not aware of direct measurement of mountain uplift.
https://www.livescience.com/29680-gps-data-study-on-mountain-range-vertical-movement.html
https://daily.jstor.org/how-to-measure-a-mountain/
Extrapolating and observable are not compatible in this case. Maybe you meant “interpolating.” The problem is that linear extrapolation over long periods of time usually proves wrong.
How does this square with your assertion in 4, that there’s not a single observation of this happening?
No, we have plenty of interpretations but we’re never seen NEW functions, only existing functions being disabled or existing suppressed functions being enabled (Lenski’s experiments).
These are not de novo, but a shift in gene/allele frequencies.
https://www.biologydiscussion.com/genetics/population-genetics/calculating-gene-allele-frequencies-in-a-population-genetics/84576
Haha. We wish!
Then why is it that a month doesn’t go by without some announcement how evolutionary biologists are surprised at some discovery? Baloney.
We have fossils, some of which are classified as out of place. We have polystrate fossils. We have modern-looking fossils in the same strata as extinct ones. It’s been shown that strata can form quickly at river mouths or over large areas due to mega floods.
https://www.usgs.gov/publications/missoula-and-bonneville-floods-a-review-ice-age-megafloods-columbia-river-basin
The geologic record is supported by the biological record supported by the geologic record . . .
Yep. And most of these changes are fatal to the organism. Or do you mean epigenetics? And how did that evolve?
Really? So, what’s the RPM of an injectisome?
Really? How?
More baloney. ID predicts that apparent junk does indeed have an important function. For example “junk DNA” and so-called (at the time) “vestigial” organs.
Correct. On purpose. ID takes no position on the source of design. But the ID perspective of investigating poorly understood features has been demonstrated as advancing science faster than the blind alleys of assuming unknown structures have NO function.
You mean the null hypothesis? Again, ID has no position on the SOURCE of design. This question is inaccessible to science due to a lack of evidence.
Are we in an ancestor simulation?
Is there some sort of god/gods?
Are we a class project for an alien biology class?
As far as evidence is concerned, there’s no evidence that matter has innate consciousness, intelligence, or anything else, or some entity that can result in the vast design complexity of what we observe. Until there’s scientifically accessible (measurable) evidence, ID takes no position.
Yes, I’m sure we’ll need to endure mountains of additional, unsupported speculation subducted by lack of credibility and new discoveries.
-Q
While we wait for any kind of scientific hypothesis from “Intelligent Design” theorists.
Every tub must stand on its own bottom
Sir Giles @260
please! stop parroting the nonsense about antibiotic resistance as an example of Darwinian evolution…
Antibiotic resistance is a textbook example of intelligent design.
Sir Giles, have you ever heard of efflux pumps ?
yes, efflux pumps are nano-pumps located in bacteria cell membrane.
Those are literal pumps. This is not a metaphor.
Antibiotic resistance has nothing to do with some Darwinian evolution … it is just another example how Darwinian biologists misrepresented the reality…
These efflux pumps did not evolved … they were always there …. they just started to work/adapted to work more efficiently when bacteria exposed to antibiotics …
???? The Ability to recognize toxic compounds ??????
???? The ability to pump toxic compounds from within the cell ?????
Are you Darwinists kidding ???? What has this to do with some evolution ???
If this is not a textbook example of intelligent design, then i don’t know ….
Martin_r
Darwinian evolution is an explanation of how living organisms (populations, not individuals) can change over time in response to changes in their ecological niche.
That some bacteria have acquired the ability to digest nylon since it has appeared in that habitat is Darwinian evolution in action.
AF, evidently, you would not recognise scientific explanations, hypotheses and work with concrete and successful results if you tripped over them. Once, they don’t fit your ideological, crooked yardstick frame. Start from, you are forced to create cases of FSCO/I complete with island of functioning fine tuning, just to intelligently direct text configurations to object. KF
That’s your unique fantasy, KF. FSCO/I (try a Google search, onlookers, and see how widespread this acronym is), islands of function (the niche landscape is dynamic), text as analogy for DNA, are debunked and survive only in your repetitions.
SG,
I will simply note on a few points of observation and implications here and around the region, noting that you seem to struggle with Sir Charles Lyell’s direct point on Newton’s rules much less wider matters.
a: We have directly observed this island inflating and deflating like a balloon, thanks to sub mm GPS derived position fixes, showing direct motion due to magma movements.
b: This already points to power, energy, work and force availability and energy in the tectonic system. Where, power is rate and work a cumulative effect, with energy directly equivalent. Also, force and displacement together give work. This tells us about available energy and rates it can be released. Well beyond nuclear bombs of course.
c: Directly, subduction zones, movements and earthquake patterns have been seen, helping to construct a frame for an island arc subduction zone with a shift in subduction angle hence Guadeloupe as a double island in a butterfly shape and North of it two sub arcs.
d: We have a context for seeing the islands as forming at points where magma related to the subduction surfaces, forming chains of volcanic centres, e.g. here has three.
e: Wider, a global pattern of crustal plates and motions has been observed and motion monitored real time.
f: 1,000 mi W, a strike slip zone is active and is associated with the phenomena of Jamaica, Haiti, Cayman etc. This is similar to the San Andreas zone in California. The big earthquake in Haiti was associated with a fault trend that runs into Jamaica and the latter awaits its turn, again. In the past, IIRC, San Andreas and related quake zones have seen crustal shifts of 10+ feet associated with quakes, again an index of forces, energies and power.
g: Just long mountain in Kingston-St Andrew has in it an obvious break, showing brittle behaviour on mountain building scale. Where, direct motion of zones and plates has moved beyond nails on either side of a point to sub mm GPS measurement. That is of course a sedimentary zone with say the Liguanea plain an alluvial deposit by contrast with the volcano collapse E coast here.
h: Barbados. 300 mi S, shows cu mi of jumbled staghorn corals and similar things [with a stepped pattern in the land visible in Ch Ch], where too, I have collected fossil bivalves there and on my grandpa’s farm in Jamaica, that could have come off a beach here (as I was looking at a couple of weeks ago).
i: So, we can see dynamics, forces, power, energy, etc and can reasonably project, noting the presence of mechanical necessity and stochastic chance [e.g. in quake patterns], for example certain seismic signals and frequency bands are tied to particular aspects of volcano dynamics.
j: There have even been periods of predictable relaxation oscillator behaviour on eruptive cycles here, on scales of hours to days. A roughly 30 year deeper cycle seems evident too. It is again due about now.
k: Shifting, we here see the significance of observation anchored explanations involving causal factors established on observation, involving chance and necessity. Where, text in this thread shows another, intelligently directed configuration and associated signs including FSCO/I.
l: Reasonable explanation on combinations of the three and subject to observational control, are reasonable.
Red herring accusation, fails.
KF
AF, I am unimpressed with your continued denial of a highly obvious phenomenon, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, which you full well know was identified by Orgel and Wicken in the 1970’s as has been repeatedly documented. To object to such FSCO/I as an alleged fantasy, you are forced to construct a case in point, text in English. That shows the magnitude of crooked yardstick thinking and resulting ideological blindness, cognitive dissonance and projection to the obviously despised other involved in your objection. You are in repeated, predictable denial of blatant facts inconvenient to your preferred views. I suggest you pause and ponder the structure of a gear train, nuts and bolts, fishing reels, watches, moving coil meters, aircraft instrument panels, oil refineries, turboprop and turbofan engines, computer paper tape, then compare assembly line transfer machines and production cells, then the cellular metabolic reaction process flow network, ribosomes, tRNA, mRNA, DNA with protein codes, the flagellum etc. Pause and look at a few molecular cars. Then come back with fresh eyes. KF
Alan Fox
Are you playing games with me again ?
Did you read what i wrote ? Did i talk about bacteria digesting nylon ?
PS1: because Darwinists misrepresented the reality so many times, including bacteria ATB resistance, i bet, that they have misrepresented that nylon thing as well … You should keep in mind, that these guys are ALWAYS wrong … they can not be trusted …
PS2: i bet you never heard of efflux pumps ….
Alan Fox,
the nylon thing….
Here you go…. i quick google search:
Wikipedia:
??? most probably developed as a single-step ???
??? scientific consensus ????
If something starts like “there is a scientific consensus” especially if it is a Darwinian scientific consensus, one can be 100% sure that there is something wrong with what the consensus claims …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria_and_creationism
Alan Fox,
when you mentioned this nylon thing….
I as an engineer, i was wondering, how is the capacity to digest nylon evidence for evolution ?
Bacteria can adapt to eat various things including nylon … so what ?
What it has to do with some Darwinian evolution ?
It looks like another example of intelligent design …
AF at 262: “While we wait for any kind of scientific hypothesis from “Intelligent Design” theorists.
Every tub must stand on its own bottom”
AF is falsely claiming that Darwinian evolution is a testable science and that Intelligent Design is not a testable science.
That oft-repeated false claim from Darwinian atheists is a patently false claim and is, in actuality, the complete opposite of what is actually true. It is Darwinian evolution itself that lacks any rigidly defined falsification criteria so as to make it a testable science. Whereas Intelligent Design can be easily falsified by someone/anyone demonstrating that unguided processes have the capacity within themselves to produce coded information. In fact, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can falsify ID,
Whereas, on the other hand, there is simply no empirical finding within science that Darwinists will ever allow to falsify evolution,
In fact, as Dr. Hunter recently pointed out, everything central to Darwin’s theory can be forfeited within evolutionary theory, (i.e. natural selection, random causes, common descent) save for atheistic naturalism itself,
The interesting thing about Darwinian atheists holding on to their presupposition of atheistic naturalism, in the face of all contradictory evidence that falsifies central tenets of Darwin’s theory, is that presupposing atheistic naturalism, and/or ‘methodological naturalism’, to be true drives science itself in to catastrophic epistemological failure,
In fact, to add insult to injury, quantum mechanics has now falsified material particles themselves as being “real”. i.e. Quantum mechanics has falsified material particles as the ultimate substratum upon which our primary definition of ‘reality’ can be based,
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
And although Darwinists cling to their presupposition of Atheistic Naturalism in the face of all contradictory evidence, the truth of the matter is that is all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of Intelligent Design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of Atheistic Naturalism.
Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of Intelligent Design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of Atheistic Naturalism.
In fact, modern science was born out of, and is STILL very much crucially dependent on, Judeo-Christian presuppositions ,
As Paul Davies stated, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
Thus, AF may have claimed that “Every tub must stand on its own bottom”, but alas, the bottom of AF’s Darwinian ‘tub’ is standing on atheistic naturalism. And atheistic naturalism simply can’t provide a rational and coherent foundation for practicing ‘science’.
Shoot, for that matter, atheistic naturalism/materialism can’t even provide a coherent foundation for its own ‘tub’ as an ‘abstract’ philosophy.
You see, Atheistic Naturalism is a metaphysical claim about the nature of reality which renders it a profoundly immaterial, abstract, even ‘non-natural’, claim about the nature of reality. i.e. How much does the philosophy of Atheistic Naturalism weigh? Does the philosophy of Atheistic naturalism have a positive or negative charge? Or is Atheistic Naturalism hotter or colder than the philosophy of Judeo-Christian Theism? or etc.. etc.. etc…?
As Adam Sedgwick scolded Charles Darwin, “There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly”,,
Hopefully AF can now see that his Atheistic Naturalism collapses in on itself, and can’t even provide a solid foundation for its own basis, i.e. for its own ‘tub’, much less can it provide a solid foundation for modern science.
If anyone is interested in the nylon eating enzyme see
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-nylon-eating-bacteria-show-that-new-functional-information-is-easy-to-evolve/
It is discussed in full.
Aside: in this thread I bring up the name Jurgen Brosius a few times with links. The links are all dead as the university he was associated with took them down.
Aside2: a proposed research study that would answer
all
the questions for Darwinian Evolution as well as for punctuated equilibrium is discussed. It has been ignored by all here. Which leads one to the assessment that neither side here wants an answer.
Why?
PS, AF of course refuses to note that islands are dynamic, especially barrier islands. That’s before we get to the focus of the metaphor, zones of effective functional organisation amid seas of non function. His niches are within islands of function, they do not solve the challenge of getting to a body plan level shoreline of function. And of course the objection itself is a case in point of Orgel-Wicked FSCO/I.
So that’s evolution!
Come off it, KF, morphological changes are much less demanding of genome changes than evolution of the cellular biochemistry. Subsequent to the origin of life, there are several milestones that set the stage: eukaryotes, sexual reproduction, multicellularity. Once you have deuterostomes, bilaterians and segmentation, much of the heavy lifting is done. Hox genes orchestrate the embryological development and sheets of cells differentiate and fold, variations on a theme. We are just variations on the basic deuterostome doughnut.
“So that’s evolution!”
Is people eating synthetic sweetener evolution?
Andrew
No, Andrew, biological evolution entails changes in allele frequencies in populations over time in response to ecological niche change.
That’s genetics not Evolution.
AF,
you set up and knock over yet another strawman.
No one has suggested that body plans do not imply significant molecular and metabolic process issues and changes, also development biology shifts, especially embryological ones. For instance, highlighted by Alfred Russel Wallace [an ID pioneer], flight feathers are a case of FSCO/I rich structures.
But, such are useless without further FSCO/I rich wing, neurological, air and blood circulation, musculature, brain wiring and underlying biochemical processes. Going back to the Darwin pond or the like, origin of smart gated encapsulation, metabolic process flow networks and associated molecular nanotech units and the von Neumann kinematic self replicator have to be addressed.
Suggestions of alternative architectures for early life still lack adequate observational warrant, something attested to inadvertently by the common move of setting aside OoL when its issues are inconvenient. You full well know that from Thaxton et al on, modern scientific work on ID has raised OoL as a central point, with onward shifts to body plans being in that context.
Also, stories of an architecture shift — at crude level contrast Apple II on a 6502 to Lisa and Mackintosh then Power PC then Intel then now ARM — would have to further account for switch and disappearance of the claimed first architecture, beyond lab coat clad just so stories.
And all of this does not even engage the qualitative, transformational invisible shift in our own emergence as OP highlights:
That is the biggest hole in the grand, lab coat clad, just so, evolutionary emergence — that part is poof, magic — narrative.
KF
Jerry, correct. In addition, there is need to explain organisms capable of adaptation to niches, informed by recognition of the implications of need for many, well matched, properly arranged and coupled components to achieve function. Niche is being abused as yet another form of poof magic something from nothing, i.e. origin of FSCO/I is not adequately addressed. Lucky noise incrementally filtered through differential reproductive success is grossly inadequate in itself and fails to address what the von Neumann kinematic self replicator tells us about self replication. Or for that matter Paley in his ch 2 thought exercise on a self replicating watch. KF
Since my questions remain unaddressed, here’s a video posted today by Rice Professor, James Tour at the portion in which he addresses Darwinism and the Origin of Life Problem:
https://youtu.be/8nRHvGdruIQ?t=1699
He invites anyone to a free lunch paid for by him to anyone who can clearly explain macro evolution or the origin of life at the molecular level. He promises to only ask questions.
-Q
Looks like the ID skeptics here musta fallen into the aforementioned chasm. 😉
-Q