Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 27, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

My friend Paul Nelson has the patience of Job. He writes that evolutionists, such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne, “need to think about [their theological arguments] more deeply.” In one moment evolutionists make religious arguments and in the next they claim their theory is “just science.” Their religious arguments, they explain, really aren’t religious arguments after all. Gee, that was easy. In light of such absurdity, I don’t have much confidence that evolutionists are going to think more deeply about this. But it would be nice if they would stop misrepresenting science. And it would be nice if they would stop using their credentials to mislead the public. In short, it would be nice if they would stop lying.

Continue reading here.

Comments

Onlookers, we see that the anti-naturists have not been able meet the STAN challenge -- that is, they can't show us a designed artifact that exhibits STAN. Sure, they try, but in every case I come up with an ad hoc way to disqualify their example. The STAN-based nature inference is unfalsifiable, which means that it's true. As I've mentioned about a hundred times, card-carrying IDEA club member Neil Town has said: "We must stop nature from getting a foot in the door." And that is exactly what the anti-naturists are trying to do with their straw hominems soaked in herring oil.R0b_{July 30, 2009
July
07
Jul
30
30
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

To sum up" 1- We have an arbitrary use of the word "species" pertaining to the varieties of finch and 2) Not one anti-IDists can provide positive evidence for their position- not even a testable hypothesisJoseph_{July 30, 2009
July
07
Jul
30
30
2009
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

hi Folks: FOUND my car part, looks like: order from St Lucia . . . [Talk about irreducible complexity and islands of function . . . ] As to Irish-African mixes, yup they are real as I exemplify (though I am actually J'can). Lonely Irish and Scottish estate overseers are ancestral to a LOT of us from J'ca. In my case, I have both as well as Indian [from India] in my pool of ancestors. My wife is Irish-African, M'rat; with onward links through St Kitts and Barbados. And indeed the Shamrock is a symbol of M'rat and is stamped on passports here. But, over on the Galapagos islands, there were enough bird pairs across species lines that the species label looks very arbitrary to me. Indeed, I recall one inter-species coupling was noted to be among the most successful in terms of numbers of descendants across the time of observation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Joseph, I have an old passport with an entry stamp from Montserrat in it - it is in the shape of a shamrock, reflecting the Irish heritage of that country with a largely African descended population. Also, re Innuit/African compatibility I suggest you check with the Aboriginal Tourism of British Columbia people.PaulT_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

"Stuff That Appears Natural" is too vague to be of any use. Anything and everything that exists in nature is, by definition, natural. In that sense cars are all natural. But here is a concept a 5 year old can understand: Natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot be responsible for its origins. What the debate is about R0b, is what can nature, operating freely produce? IOW where is the "Stuff That Appears To Be Produced By Nature, Operating Freely"? STAPNOF, not STAN. Your STAN is a red herring.Joseph_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, There isn't any documented difficulty with finch interbreeding. Finch "choosiness", yes. Interbreeding difficulty, no. And then we have the different variations of dogs. Some would have great difficulty interbreeding.Joseph_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

jerry:
By the way one criteria I use for someone with a reasonable attitude is if they do not criticize FSCI. If they do, they are automatically unreasonable and are immediately written off because the concept is so simple and straightforward that trying to undermine it is indicative of their underlying attitude.
I know how you feel. My personal deal-breaker is criticism of STAN (Stuff That Appears Natural). STAN is so simple that a 5 year-old can understand it. By massive empirical evidence, only nature produces STAN, so we're justified in inferring that the STAN in biological structures was produced by nature. Some opponents call for more detail in the definition of STAN, but they're just splitting hairs. Some doubt that STAN is an objective measure that yields similar results when it's applied independently by different people, but that's just selective hyperskepticism. Some point out that no studies involving STAN have ever been conducted, so no actual data is available, but why should we study and publish something that's so obvious? When somebody objects to STAN, it's a clear indication that they're a desperate and irrational nature hater.R0b_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, I don't think you can document any significant difficulty of Africans and Irish breeding together.Nakashima_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

I would say the incidences of African tribes people interbreeding with the Irish and/or Inuits meets the criteria of "rare exceptions" pertaining to the finches.Joseph_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, With rare exceptions sympatric species pair and breed conspecifically, and as a result are reproductively isolated from each other. African tribes vs Irish again. Not my goalpost in motion.Nakashima_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, Keep moving the goalposts. You may get a score yet...Joseph_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Dave, The women found me to be a good catch. I wasn't interested.Joseph_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Nakashima (136): I used to live in Trinidad & Tobago. Unfortunately it was during my pre-breeding years (I left when I was nine years old.) The demographics of the T&T "archipelago" is such that the primary populations are of African, East Indian, Chinese, and European descent. With those of African and East Indian descent being about 80% of the population. Interestingly... the Afro-Trinidadians and Indo-Trinidadians are (or were) far likely to interbreed with Europeans those of European descent than they are with each other. This was due to religious, social, and socio-economic reasons. I am sure GEM of TKI can give us a more current picture of Carribean island interbreeding. -DU-utidjian_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

"Did you really mean this? History is full of ideas that people took to be simple and straightforward and turned out to be wrong." Your comments are poster child's for blind reflexive responses and are prime examples of those that can not be taken seriously. FSCI is such a simple idea and underlies all of biology. It is in biology the transcription and translation process and is well documented and is so essential that no biologist would ever deny it. In computer programming and language it also obviously applicable. The similarity of the processes in all three is easy to see. The challenge is not to impugn FSCI but to find it in other places and how it can arise through natural processes. But that is not what some choose to do here. The fact that some attempt to provide inane criticisms is an open admission that 1) it is very applicable and 2) they have no examples outside of intelligence. It is instantly revealing of their motives and attitude. It is not like tilting at windmills, it is like tilting at open air.jerry_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, You might want to talk with someone familiar with Jamaica, Montserrat, and other places in the Caribbean about Africans and Irish. GEM of TKI, perhaps?Nakashima_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Joseph (130), "I have met African tribes. I have had the opportunity to interbreed. Yet I did not. That must mean we are different species." Your met your mother. You had the opportunity to interbreed. Yet you did not. That must mean you are a different species to your mother. Nah, I don't buy it.....Gaz_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

joseph, That African tribeswomen didn't find you a good catch doesn't mean much either.Dave Wisker_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

IOW Dave, nice bait-n-switch...Joseph_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Dave, Provide the data that demonstrates those Africans were tribes people. IOW just because they are of African descent doesn't mean anything.Joseph_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Joseph writes: What is the data that demonstrates that African tribes people and Irish would interbreed freely? Oh I don't know, how about the many examples of people that are the products of Irish-African marriages? Some prominent examples: phil lynnot Samantha Mumba Ruth NeggaDave Wisker_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Khan, Thanks to modern technology the Earth is an archipelago...Joseph_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

I have been to Africa. I have met African tribes. I have had the opportunity to interbreed. Yet I did not. That must mean we are different species.Joseph_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, What is the data that demonstrates that African tribes people and Irish would interbreed freely?Joseph_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Khan writes: Joseph, Interbreeding is possible amongst the finches. yes, bu they do it rarely. where are your data on how frequently races, in a situation similar to the Galapagos, “interbreed”? we need those to see if they are comparable.
A better, more detailed description of the criteria the Grants use to determine species in the Galapagos can be found in Peter Grant’s classic book on the subject, Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches (it was at home and I didn’t have it handy yesterday):
Agreement on the occurrence of fourteen species [13 in the Galapagos and one on Cocos Island] species should not be taken to mean the absence of of taxonomic problems. Sympatric populations that do not interbreed, or interbreed rarely, are clearly separate species. Some populations on different islands are so similar in appearance to each other that they clearly belong to the same species, and in fact most allopatric populations can be confidently grouped into species. Problems arise with moderately to strongly differentiated, allopatric populations. Would their members interbreed if given the opportunity, and hence do they belong to one, two, or more species? (p. 51).
Grant examines the issues with one of the species of ground Geospiza difficilis, whose allopatric populations show strong morphological differentiation. He mentions that some biochemical work (protein variation) had been done to try and look at genetic differentiation, but the resolving power wasn’t very good. In addition, no hybridization studies had been done between the allopatric populations—had they interbred freely when brought together, then they would be considered the same species. So Grant says they had to rely on the traditional tool of comparative morphology. Principal character analysis on numerous morphological traits revealed that in the case of G. difficilis, we are dealing with a single species, albeit one with strongly-differentiated varieties. Grant also discusses other species in the group as well, concluding that further work might change the accepted number of 14 species. If we apply the Grant’s criteria to human populations, it is clear, then, that Africans and Irish do not qualify as separate species, since we know that they interbreed freely when given the opportunity.Dave Wisker_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Googling for “Quadruped+biped, I found this: http://books.google.com/books?id=6EIL3OR6Mr8C&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=quadruped%2Bbiped&source=bl&ots=xmemJqBG1J&sig=rrfqkNhdtBCUC2fPH04f1IHsxFM&hl=en&ei=ViZwSuDALJGSnAOcttGqBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 Jeffrey K. McKee The Riddled Chain: Chance, Coincidence and Chaos in Human Evolution The extensive preview provided whetted my appetite; I guess I’ll have to buy it. But I wonder, how many ID’ers are interested in reading such books? I feel that I have to; I am afraid I don’t trust Cornelius Hunter. That is not to say that ID is wrong; it’s just that I am not certain that all arguments and/or modes of arguing used are quite up to my ideas about standards of thorough, unbiased research, quality and reliability. In short, I am forced to do my own research instead of relying on information provided by either IDP’s or creationists. The words of scientist and YEC, Kurt Wise made me wise; he is unequivocal: Most creation science is garbage" (quoted in an interview in Hitt 1996: http://web.archive.org/web/20040605101458/http://a-s.clayton.edu/criticalthinking/Harper%27s+Mag+on+creationism.htm). Wise has expounded: "This gets me in a lot of trouble with a lot of creationists, ... the material that's out there is—uh, I'll hold back and be nice—garbage. It's really atrocious" (quoted by Mayshark 1998: http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/05-18-98/knox_feat.html).Cabal_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Re MF: History is ALSO full of a very long list of ideas that are both simple and true, that people objected to strenuously because of a priori commitments to things that were false and even absurd. In short, the dismissal by strawmannish half truth is exposed. And, again, FYI, the concept of functionally specific, complex informaiton is indeed simple: 1 --> that there is information that works in real entities [it functions] based on its substantial content, 2 --> that such information is specifically functional, i.e moderate perturbation will destroy its functionality [think about text in English corrupted by random noise] 3 --. tha the information is sufficiently complex through required storage capacity that it is maximally unlikely that event he whole observed universe acting as a search engine could credibly access the islands of function just described across its thermodynamically reasonable working life. 4 --> Specifically, if we have beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of capacity in the FSCI sample, at 1,000 bits the universe's 10^80 atoms, each acting to scan new states every 10^-43 s, and for 10625 s will not scan so much as 10^150 states. 1,000 bits is about 10^301 states, i.e ten times the square of the previous number. So the universe acting as search engine would only scan up to 1 in 10^150 or so of the configuration space, not a credible search. 5 --> It is therefore unsurprising to see that FSCI is routinely produced by intelligence, but not observed to be created by undirected nature acting through forces of chance + mechanical necessity. 6 --> So, on empirically well-supported inference to best explanation, FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligent action. 7 --> This is only controversial because in some relevant cases, it raises issues that Lewontin and co (the a priori evolutionary materialists who dominate today's science instittuions) would not wish us to consider:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [NY review of books, 1997]
Where I come form, I long ago learned that science at its best is the unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) pursuit of the truth about or world in light of empirical evidence and reasoned argument. Lewontinian materialism looks very delusional to me. As does the quite obviously closed-minded endless objection to FSCI. GEM of TKI PS: I find it astonishingly telling that Wikipedia has only a one liner article on the closed mind. let me elaborate a bit, in light of the logic of implication: a --> Take an abstract claim P, which entails conclusions Q: P => Q. b --> Now, if P is at first "reasonable" but leads to Q that is unacceptable, because of prior commitment to F, where F => NOT-Q, then one faces cognitive dissonance. [Cf Lewontinian a priori materialism above.] c --> if one then stipulates F, so NOT-Q; NOT-Q so NOT-P, one is so far reasoning logically. d --> But, if P is empirically or otherwise well supported, we see a new cognitive dissonance: F => NOT-P, but GOOD EVIDENCE, E supports P. e --> Closed mindedness steps in when one suppresses that evidence to retain F in the teeth of good evidence E supporting P. f --> As a rule, this will be further supported by "conformation bias" which seeks support for F [often including censoring out counter-evidence], not to test F against live option alternatives (such as P) on comparative difficulties. g --> Lewontinian a priori materialism is an obvious case in point.kairosfocus_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

#124 Jerry By the way one criteria I use for someone with a reasonable attitude is if they do not criticize FSCI. Did you really mean this? History is full of ideas that people took to be simple and straightforward and turned out to be wrong.Mark Frank_{July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

"if you want to have a decent conversation, perhaps you shouldn’t insult and question the sanity and adulthood of those you want to have conversations with. just sayin’" I have no interest in having conversations with people who I have no respect for. There have been only two or maybe three anti ID people here in the last 8 months that I have any respect for and who act like adults. For me to have respect for anyone they cannot be reflexively negative or have their objective to impugn the ID people. This is a pro ID site and people come here with attitudes that are anything but respectful of the people having a pro ID attitude. If I insult anyone it is because that person has initiated a negative or non constructive exchange with me or someone else. Some do it on their first exchange and for others it takes a little bit longer but they invariably get there. I also have no respect for anyone who does not acknowledge the ID position. They do not have to agree but have to understand why the pro ID people have their point of view. I am well aware of the pros and cons of both sides and acknowledge them. But I see few if any of the anti ID people who have a similar attitude. So as I said I have no respect for them. Most do act like children. Very often my comments are not meant to convince an anti ID person because that will never be acknowledged. The comments are meant to clarify my thoughts and for others reading the comments who are not so automatically negative. Just as this particular response is not necessarily meant for any particular person. By the way one criteria I use for someone with a reasonable attitude is if they do not criticize FSCI. If they do, they are automatically unreasonable and are immediately written off because the concept is so simple and straightforward that trying to undermine it is indicative of their underlying attitude. It is a good way to assess someone. There are several other tests one can use to evaluate someone's honesty in a discussion.jerry_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
And BTW how often do African tribes interbreed with Inuits?
find yourself a nice archipelago where they exist both in allopatry and sympatry, work there for 30 years collecting that data and you'll have a nice little data set with which to answer that question.Khan_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

jerry, OK, so you look at some genomes of representatives from two different families. you find a protein-coding gene that is unique to one family, and you find that it codes for a novel complex trait in that family. then you look for homologues in another family and don't find them. then what? ps if you want to have a decent conversation, perhaps you shouldn't insult and question the sanity and adulthood of those you want to have conversations with. just sayin'.Khan_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply