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

With rare exceptions sympatric species pair and breed conspecifically, and as a result are reproductively isolated from each other. African tribes vs Irish again. The finches remain isolated even on the same island. The Africans and Irish do not remain isolated when put on the same island.Nakashima_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

OK, how do yo think about fossils? If they are not fragmentary evidence in your view of UCD, what are they evidence of? Do species enter into existence with fixed traits, live as a population for millions of years, and then go extinct, without leaving behind any descendant species? If this is your view, what brings species into existence?Nakashima_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Since even Darwin recognized that the line between variations and species is very fuzzy and often arbitrary, so what?Dave Wisker_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

IOW Dave what you call "speciation" others call variation.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker quting the Grants: Species can be recognized by their morphological characteristics and songs (13, 14). African tribes vs. the Irish.
With rare exceptions sympatric species pair and breed conspecifically, and as a result are reproductively isolated from each other.
African tribes vs Irish again. IOW if we follow that "logic" the races of humans, as long as they remain isolated, are different species.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
I’ve read many of your comments, which are generally challenges and questions of generally accepted positions.
I don't care what is accepted. I care what can be demonstrated or has positive evidence.
May I ask you to briefly outline your view of the history of the world?
You can ask but I haven't given it much thought, although colonization from some ancient "alien" civilization seems to be more likley than UCD.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

joseph writes: By what criteria are the variations of finches “different species”? In a discussion of species on the Galapagos, the Grants wrote:
Species can be recognized by their morphological characteristics and songs (13, 14). With rare exceptions sympatric species pair and breed conspecifically, and as a result are reproductively isolated from each other.
On Daphne Major, however, they discuss the situation where three species, Geospiza fortis, Geospiza scandens and Geospiza fulginosa hybridize :
In the first decade of the study on Daphne Major none of the F1 hybrids survived long enough to breed, therefore no gene exchange took place between the species, which were, in that sense, completely reproductively isolated. From 1983 onwards the hybrids backcrossed to the parental species and neither they nor their offspring experienced any apparent loss of fitness. The species were not reproductively isolated and were (and still are) moving slowly on a trajectory toward panmixia. The movement is slow because song constrains the mating of members of the backcross generations (12); none of the backcrosses have hybridized (20). Should these be considered three species or one? Given the variety of opinions about how species should be defined and recognized (50), there is no clear answer to that question now, any more than there was when Huxley (51) wrote “we must not expect too much of the term species. In the first place, we must not expect a hard-and-fast definition, for since most evolution is a gradual process, borderline cases must occur. And in the second place, we must not expect a single or a simple basis for definition, since species arise in many different ways.” In our view it is preferable to continue to treat the finches on Daphne as three species, expecting that environmental conditions will change back to those disfavoring the hybrids (14, 39). Elsewhere in the archipelago the three species are morphologically distinctive (52).
Grant PR and BR Grant (1997). Genetics and the origin of bird species. 94(15): 7768-7775Dave Wisker_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, I've read many of your comments, which are generally challenges and questions of generally accepted positions. May I ask you to briefly outline your view of the history of the world? I'm getting a sketchy idea of your views, but I would be interested in hearing your perspective in your own words. Thank you.Nakashima_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

As for evidence of large changes- What is the positive evidence that demonstrates genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and body plans? As I have said before the only evidence for the alleged evolution of eyes/ vision systems is we observe them in varying levels of complexity and we "know" the original population(s) didn't have one.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

By what criteria are the variations of finches "different species"? Are the different human races also to be classified as "different species"?Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Khan, Geocentrism was based on the science of the time.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Cabal, I have always maintained the premsie of designed to evolve/ evolved by design. Dr Spetner wrote of something like that in "Not By Chance".Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Hi jerry, I'm confused. The estimated age of the Galapagos Archipelago is 5 million years or less. The Grants, as far as I'm aware (and I'm very familar with their work) believe the adaptive radiation of Darwin's Finches into the 13 recognized species there occurred during that time frame. So I'm wondering where they came up with a 23 million year figure for just one species.That's why I asked for a bit more clarification.Dave Wisker_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

jerry, so you want a mutation-by-mutation analysis of the evolution of higher phylogenetic groups, with the function of each gene identified, the fitness changes of each mutation calculated in every generation (including all the epistatic and epigenetic effects), for multiple individuals of each sex of every species, including the 99% that went extinct along the way? does that about summarize it?Khan_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, Yes, it was the Grants. I made a mistake in the name. I believe they were referring to the Galapagos environment.jerry_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

"what kind of “proof” would you accept for macroevolution?" I think there is plenty of proof for macro evolution from the fossil record. What is missing is proof for a specific mechanism. Since the evidence seems to preclude Darwinian gradualism. To give one an example on how people think, we were at a motel in New Hampshire visiting some relatives, and while at the motel my wife was eating breakfast at one of the typical breakfast rooms a lot of hotels/motels have while I was taking a shower. She got into a discussion with some people who were discussing evolution and she said it didn't happen and the people replied that they just had visited the Harvard exhibit on evolution and told my wife that if she had seen that she would believe in evolution. She then corrected herself and said of course it happened but that there is no proof how it happened or that it happened the way Darwin said it did and essentially how species arose is still a mystery. And Darwin's book and the subsequent modifications to his ideas still can not explain how many species arose over the eons. The people were quite patronizing to my wife and just assumed she did not really know anything and that they knew better. But of course they didn't and had no idea of the controversy. So as regards to proof of anything, I spent a long time in various posts over time spelling out what would be necessary to document a mechanism for macro evolution. And for my efforts, was generally mocked by the anti ID people. That didn't really bother me because it is the standard MO of the anti ID people and actually an admission of defeat. But what I find interesting is that someone would then ask me what would count as evidence after I spelled out what the evidence would look like. It would be in the genomes of a family or even higher up the taxonomic tree. All the changes between genera and species and variants would be there and all the paths that the changes could have taken would theoretically be there too. I have proposed this more than once and have said that the issue will not be resolved for several years as various genomes get mapped and compared. But what has to happen is not only the various species of a family have to be mapped but there must be several mapping of individual members of a population to look at the breadth of a gene pool to get a feel just how much variation can arise within species members by sexual reproduction. Essentially what will have to be ascertained is the copy number variation within each species and within a family. Then people can assess how the changes happened and if anything major arose through a gradual process. It is several years away before anything like this could happen. Needless to say they know of no major change that has happened by any known mechanism or else we would be inundated with it by the anti ID crowd. So as of now, most of my confidence in ID rests on the "dog barking the night." But the dog did not bark. Precisely, if the dog had a reason to bark, we would hear the barks, growls and howls. But the dog has been silent. I wonder why.jerry_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Hi Jerry, I'm curious-- where did the Grants (I assume you meant them, not the "Franklins") say it would take 23 million years to get a new species? Where they referring to a particular situation and specific populations in the Galapagos?Dave Wisker_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

jerry, what kind of "proof" would you accept for macroevolution?Khan_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Joseph @63:
The problem is that evos equivocate that into universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
Don't you think it is possible that the accumulation of changes in the genome may be contributed by the Designer, and are not accidents - but evidence for design? How can we differentiate between the two? Behe is not in doubt:(DBB p.233)
The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell – to investigate life at the molecular level – is a loud, clear, piercing cry of “design” The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrödinger, Pasteur and Darwin. The observation of the intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes around the sun or that disease is caused by bacteria or that radiation is emitted in quanta. The magnitude of the victory, gained at such great cost through sustained effort over the course of decades, would be expected to send champagne corks flying in labs around the world. This triumph of science should evoke cries of “Eureka!” from ten thousand throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps even be an excuse to take a day off.
(My bold)Cabal_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

I have personally watched the evolution section of the Berkeley biology course by four different instructors. In none did I see a coherent defense of any particular mechanism for all of evolution or even for a major part of the large changes that have happened. It is certainly implied that the mechanism was Darwinian but never backed by any proof. When Will Provine debated Phillip Johnson, he essentially made religious arguments. I assume he would have used scientific data if he had them. I haven't seen Allen MacNeill use any proof here so I assume he does not in his evolutionary biology course. Both are from Cornell. So while that is a sample of two, these are prestigious schools. Maybe Podunk U has an evolutionary biology course which lays it all out. Also which of the textbooks present information that supports Darwinian evolution or any other mechanism? We have finches and peppered moths but they are trivial examples. And by the way the Franklins said it would take 23 million years to get a new bird species from the finches. And what have we got from that but a new species of bird; not an eye, nervous system or major organ but a different bird. Hallelujah, what Darwin has delivered unto us through his almighty power, a new bird species in 23 million years. Praise be to Darwin.jerry_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Cornelius, geocentrism was certainly a metaphysical idea. or is seeing the universe as a spindle of necessity, attended by the Sirens and turned by the three Fates not metaphysical enough for you? so, is arguing that heliocentrism explains the data better than geocentrism a religious argument? how about arguing that chemistry fits the data better than Islamic alchemy?Khan_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the link and further clarification, Joseph!herb_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

herb, We cannot allow equivocation. Once we do that it can be made as if we are against any and all types of change. That is the strawman that Darwin argued against. And that same strawman lives on today. See also: Biological Evolution- What is being Debated It may be semantics but it has to be made clear that we are not arguing against "evolution", rather ID is an argument against "the blind watchmaker thesis".Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
herb, Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. The problem is that evos equivocate that into universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
Thanks for the correction. I meant to object to the evos' equivocation you are referring to, as Cornelius did recently:
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies.
herb_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Khan:
Cornelius is arguing that because evolutionists sometimes compare their predictions with those of creationism and show that the former fit the data much better than the latter, that evolutionary biology is religious in nature
This reveals that you understand precisely nothing of the actual argument Hunter has presented. Which necessarily leads one to ask whether you understand anything of the science. Maybe go take a few courses in logic and philo and try to grasp some basic meaning of words like "implications", "underlying premises", etc.? You're very good at strawman arguing but have yet to reveal a basic understanding of the real point. A ubiquitous observation one makes when trying to discuss anything with Darwinists. No wonder Hoyle pegged you Darwinian fundamentalists so starkly,
Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view [Darwinism], new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature [magazine]." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4).
Borne_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Khan, Angel etc. : You guys are all revealing yourselves to fit both the delusional and in denial categories by almost everything you post. Ex. Angel says: "that it is a fact because it has been observed" Either you don't understand whats being discussed in the least or your just blowing more hot air using the "bait and switch" tactic. By the definition of evolution you give, even the most staunch of YECs is an evolutionist. Ignorance of the actual facts and missing the point entirely betrays you at every step. There are no poor designs. Only in the muffled minds of Darwinians. Just like the infamous vestigial organs. All of which have gone down the tubes. Besides, these "poor design = no design" arguments are old illogical junk. And they are indeed theological arguments, not scientific ones at all. I'm not surprised that Darwinists are still using them though, seeing they are in denial.Borne_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design
I was recently on an NPR program with skeptic Michael Shermer and paleontologist Donald Prothero to discuss intelligent design. As the discussion unfolded, it became clear that they were using the phrase "intelligent design" in a way quite different from how the emerging intelligent design community is using it. The confusion centered on what the adjective "intelligent" is doing in the phrase "intelligent design." "Intelligent," after all, can mean nothing more than being the result of an intelligent agent, even one who acts stupidly. On the other hand, it can mean that an intelligent agent acted with skill, mastery, and eclat. Shermer and Prothero understood the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" to mean the latter, and thus presumed that intelligent design must entail optimal design. The intelligent design community, on the other hand, means the former and thus separates intelligent design from questions of optimality. But why then place the adjective "intelligent" in front of the noun "design"? Doesn't design already include the idea of intelligent agency, so that juxtaposing the two becomes an exercise in redundancy? Not at all. Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design on the one hand and optimal design on the other. Apparent design looks designed but really isn't. Optimal design is perfect design and hence cannot exist except in an idealized realm (sometimes called a "Platonic heaven"). Apparent and optimal design empty design of all practical significance. A common strategy of opponents to design in biology (like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Francisco Ayala) is to assimilate intelligent design to one of these categories--apparent or optimal design. The problem with this move is that it constitutes an evasion. Indeed, it utterly sidesteps the question of intelligent, or actual, design. The automobiles that roll off the assembly plants in Detroit are intelligently designed in the sense that human intelligences are responsible for them. Nevertheless, even if we think Detroit manufactures the best cars in the world, it would still be wrong to say they are optimally designed. Nor is it correct to say that they are only apparently designed. Within biology, intelligent design holds that a designing intelligence is indispensable for explaining the specified complexity of living systems. Nevertheless, taken strictly as a scientific theory, intelligent design refuses to speculate about the nature of this designing intelligence. Whereas optimal design demands a perfectionistic, anal-retentive designer who has to get everything just right, intelligent design fits our ordinary experience of design, which is always conditioned by the needs of a situation and therefore always falls short of some idealized global optimum.
Ya see no one said that the design had to be perfect. And even if it started out that way no one said it had to remain that way.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

The religion is the belief in universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents. The worship is with mother nature, father time and magical mystery mutations. Ya see there isn't any genetic data which would demonstrate the transformations required are even possible. And no one can has ever produced a testable hypothesis for the premise. IOW it is all based on beliefs and nothing more.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

herb, Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. The problem is that evos equivocate that into universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.Joseph_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

DU(49)
IDPs propose an intelligent designer that designs things with far more intelligence and perfection than we are currently capable of. Hunter(59) I didn’t know that. Can you give an example if an IDP who says that?
IIRC, Behe says he thinks that God is the designer; I even think I have read a similar claim from other IDP's as well. Which leads to some interesting questions to consider, like: Is the designer supernatural or is he a physical being? Is there more than one designer? Is God more intelligent than us? Would a human be capable of the design and manufacture of not just one, but millions of speciesCabal_{July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply