Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Man-ape chasm of differences

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery, writes:

Sumatran_Orangutan_at_the_Toronto_Zoo (1).jpg
Image credit: John Vetterli (originally posted to Flickr as Sumatran Orangutan) [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

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.


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.

See full article at Evolution News.

Thanks to “bornagain77” for referencing this article.

Comments
Looks like the ID skeptics here musta fallen into the aforementioned chasm. ;-) -QQuerius
December 3, 2022
December
12
Dec
3
03
2022
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
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:
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. 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.
That is the biggest hole in the grand, lab coat clad, just so, evolutionary emergence -- that part is poof, magic -- narrative. KFkairosfocus
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
changes in allele frequencies in populations over time in response to ecological niche change
That’s genetics not Evolution.jerry
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
No, Andrew, biological evolution entails changes in allele frequencies in populations over time in response to ecological niche change.Alan Fox
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
"So that’s evolution!" Is people eating synthetic sweetener evolution? Andrewasauber
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
...they do not solve the challenge of getting to a body plan level shoreline of function.
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.Alan Fox
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Bacteria can adapt to eat various things including nylon … so what ?
So that's evolution!Alan Fox
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
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.kairosfocus
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
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? jerry
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
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,
Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD Excerpt: What You Must Do to Win The Prize You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without "cheating." The diagram below describes the system. Without explicitly designing the system, your experiment must generate an encoder that sends digital code to a decoder. Your system needs to transmit at least five bits of information. (In other words it has to be able to represent 32 states. The genetic code supports 64.) You have to be able to draw an encoding and decoding table and determine whether or not the data has been transmitted successfully. So, for example, an RNA based origin of life experiment will be considered successful if it contains an encoder, message and decoder as described above. To our knowledge, this has never been done. https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Whereas, on the other hand, there is simply no empirical finding within science that Darwinists will ever allow to falsify evolution,
"Evolution is slow and gradual except when it is fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures are made big and others small, some gloriously beautiful and some boringly gray. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges. It produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield, except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism and it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses…It explains everything without explaining anything well." — Matti Leisola, bioengineer (former Dean of Chemistry and Material Sciences at Helsinki University of Technology) "Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter
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,
What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right? Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That’s according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, “The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing,” by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation. Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature. So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one. Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on. But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now. There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false. - Dr. Cornelius Hunter - PhD. Biophysics https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-evolution-news-there-is-no-settled-theory-of-evolution/
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,
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian materialism to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions and/or ‘observations’ about reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, – April 2021 – Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327
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,
April 2022 - empirical science has now proven, via the falsification of ‘realism’ by Leggett’s inequality, that material particles themselves, (which Darwinist materialists hold to be the ultimate foundation for all of reality), are not ‘real’. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-recognizing-providence-in-the-history-of-life-is-a-hint-about-our-own-lives/#comment-763046
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.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
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.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
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 ,
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.theistic.net/papers/R.Koons/Koons-science.pdf Rob Koons is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. With degrees from Michigan State, Oxford, and UCLA, he specializes in metaphysics and philosophical logic, with special interest in philosophical theology and the foundations of both science and ethics.
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.”
Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, 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.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24
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",,
,,, "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",,,, - Sedgwick to Darwin, 1859 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
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.
Matthew 7:24-27 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
bornagain77
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT
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 ...martin_r
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
Alan Fox, the nylon thing.... Here you go.... i quick google search: Wikipedia:
There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation.
??? 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_creationismmartin_r
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
Alan Fox
That some bacteria have acquired the ability to digest nylon
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 ....martin_r
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
...you are forced to create cases of FSCO/I complete with island of functioning fine tuning, just to intelligently direct text configurations to object.
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.Alan Fox
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
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.Alan Fox
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
Sir Giles @260
8) For example, antibiotic resistance, pesticide resistance, nylonase, etc.
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.
In microbiology, efflux is the moving out of a variety of different compounds out of cells, such as antibiotics, heavy metals, organic pollutants, plant-produced compounds, quorum sensing signals, bacterial metabolites and neurotransmitters.
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 ...
Antimicrobial resistance is a current major challenge in chemotherapy and infection control. The ability of bacterial and eukaryotic cells to recognize and pump toxic compounds from within the cell to the environment before they reach their targets is one of the important mechanisms contributing to this phenomenon.
???? 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 ....
Drug efflux is a key mechanism of resistance in Gram-negative bacteria. These systems pump solutes out of the cell. Efflux pumps allow the microorganisms to regulate their internal environment by removing toxic substances, including antimicrobial agents, metabolites and quorum sensing signal molecules. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3711980/#:~:text=Drug%20efflux%20is%20a%20key,and%20quorum%20sensing%20signal%20molecules.
martin_r
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
Yes, I’m sure we’ll need to endure mountains of additional, unsupported speculation subducted by lack of credibility and new discoveries.
While we wait for any kind of scientific hypothesis from "Intelligent Design" theorists. Every tub must stand on its own bottomAlan Fox
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT
Sir Giles @260,
1) repetition of a red herring.
Pronouncing something as a “red herring” doesn’t make it so.
2) The Rockies, the Himalayas, the Andes for the most part were not produced by volcanoes.
Strawman. No one said they were—please quote where this was claimed.
3) They were produced by the uplifting caused by one plate subducting under another.
Oh really? You think that mountain ranges are on or adjacent to subduction zones?
4) This is as settled as science can get yet we do not have a single observation of this happening.
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/
5) We have concluded this by extrapolating small observable changes over long periods of time.
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.
6) Supported by geological observations of plate tectonics and the location of mountain ranges.
How does this square with your assertion in 4, that there’s not a single observation of this happening?
7) we have plenty of evidence of natural selection resulting in new function over observable time.
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).
8) For example, antibiotic resistance, pesticide resistance, nylonase, etc.
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
9) We have a morphological classification system that matches up very well with a genomic classification and proteomic classification.
Haha. We wish!
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.
Then why is it that a month doesn’t go by without some announcement how evolutionary biologists are surprised at some discovery? Baloney.
11) We have a fossil record showing that forms have changed over time.
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
12) Supported by the geologic record.
The geologic record is supported by the biological record supported by the geologic record . . .
13) We have demonstrated that fairly significant phenotypic changes can be associated with minor genetic changes.
Yep. And most of these changes are fatal to the organism. Or do you mean epigenetics? And how did that evolve?
14) we have observations of complicated structures (eg, flagellum) being very similar to other complicated structures (eg injectisome).
Really? So, what’s the RPM of an injectisome?
15) Biogeography supports evolution.
Really? How?
16) ID has zero observations of the implementation of biological design other than the biological modifications intentionally caused by humans.
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.
17) ID has zero hypotheses on how and when designs were implemented.
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.
18) ID has zero ideas of how to test the zero hypotheses they have on the implementation of design.
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.
There is much more that can be said, but this will do as an introductory primer.
Yes, I’m sure we’ll need to endure mountains of additional, unsupported speculation subducted by lack of credibility and new discoveries. -QQuerius
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
KF: 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.
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
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
And the question still remains unanswered by the Evolution Experts and Darwinian Defenders . . .
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 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 (tm). -QQuerius
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
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.relatd
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
KF: 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.
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.
The observable expansion of the cosmos allows direct projection back to a singularity.
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.
The actually observed capability of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity to generate FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits is directly nil
9) And the actually observed capability of subduction to generate a mountain range is directly nil.
You full well know how inference to the best empirically anchored explanation works on Newton’s rules
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.Sir Giles
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
They are second only to the dearly departed ET in their level of abusive insult.
A poor second. Wonder what's happened to Joe, hope he's OKAlan Fox
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
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.relatd
November 30, 2022
November
11
Nov
30
30
2022
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply