Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinian Debating Device #17: “The Black Knight Taunt”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The essence of the “Black Knight Taunt” is to pretend overwhelming victory after suffering a crushing defeat. Here we have a classic example from a commenter named “keiths.”

In my No Bomb After 10 Years post I noted that after 10 years of debating origins I had never encountered a “science bomb” that would disabuse me of my ID position.

Amusingly, keiths insisted that he had posted just such a bomb over at The Skeptical Zone that proved that Darwinism is “trillions” of times better at explaining the data than ID. His argument failed at many levels. Yet, even more amusingly, he kept on insisting he had debunked ID after his so-called bomb had been defused by numerous commenters. See, e.g., here and here.

Here is the Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

In my example, WJM lopped off the Black Knight’s arms and KF took out his legs. Yet days later he was still posting shrill comments announcing his triumph.

In the clip above Arthur gives the only response to “The Black Knight Taunt.” We pick up the scene after Arthur has cut off the knight’s arms and legs:

Black Knight: Right, I’ll do you for that!
King Arthur: You’ll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I’m invincible!
King Arthur: …You’re a loony.

Arthur rides away.

Black Knight: Oh, oh, I see! Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!

Comments
William, Okay, so provided that there's nothing special about the streambed, your answer to the first three questions is that Bob's friend has the better theory. Good. We agree on those three. Now on to the fourth. You write:
Based on the information given, neither of them have a theory that is not riddled with gaping ideology-based assumptions. Bob’s friend’s theory is circular, assuming the evidence was generated by unguided forces and then using that evidence to demonstrate the explanatory power of unguided forces.
It's not circular. As Theobald's examples show, you do get an ONH when microevolution is in operation. Microevolution does not require Designer intervention. Therefore, unguided evolution can produce an ONH. This is not controversial. Vjtorley understands it, and if you simply think about gradual, unguided evolution with primarily vertical inheritance, you can see that it must be true. Are you really not seeing this? Do I need to provide a detailed example? You can use phylogenetic analysis in court cases, fercrissakes. Do you think the judges are idiots for allowing that kind of evidence? Or do they, and the experts they rely on, understand something that you don't?
Also, Bob’s friend is assuming that a pattern only otherwise known to be generated by design can be, and would be, generated by unguided forces, even though no other unguided forces(meaning, besides the phenomena in dispute) are known to generate that pattern.
This gets us back to your bizarre assertion:
Your own source states plainly that no other process (besides design) is known to create ONH’s…
Quote, please.
Bob is assuming both everything his friend assumes (that the “unguided” nature of the evidence has been rigorously established), and is also assuming that “the designer” had trillions of options. However, Bob is correct in assigning the evolutionary pattern to a designer, because no other kind of processes are known to produce that pattern.
Suppose you observe raindrops, with absolutely no sign of guidance, leaving a pattern of impressions in the mud. Then, somewhere else, you see that same pattern of impressions in a mudbank. Which is more likely, that the second pattern was produced by unguided rain, or that it was designed?keith s
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Just to be clear, and for the record, what are your answers to the four questions? In each case, who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? If your answers differ, please explain why.
First things first, Keith. I've called you out - I want to know the peer-reviewed scientific experiments where 'unguided' versus 'guided' were tested for in relation to evolution, physics, etc. With 'guided' including 'God' or even 'Very powerful designers', a la Nick Bostrom's simulator sysops. And if you don't have any, I'd like you to cop to as much - admit that there's zero science behind your claim. On the other hand, if you do offer up some nice, tasty peer-reviewed scientific experiments - well, I'm going to have a whole lot of fun examining their methodology. We're already at the heart of the matter. I'm not going to chase you away from it, down a rabbit hole.nullasalus
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
William had the guts to answer my challenge, for which I give him credit. What about the rest of you? Share your answers with us. Did your answers to the four questions differ? If so, please explain exactly why.keith s
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
nullasalus, Just to be clear, and for the record, what are your answers to the four questions? In each case, who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? If your answers differ, please explain why.keith s
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Box,
Why doesn’t an organism just fall apart? What force is keeping it together? If it is just chemistry all the way down, what is this delicate balancing act we observe? These are the questions that are always ignored by materialists.
Seriously, Box? You believe in some kind of "life force" above and beyond physics and chemistry? Get thee to a library! The élan vital has long since been abandoned by biologists.keith s
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
keiths,
A rock breaks off the side of a cliff and tumbles into the gorge below. Do we know that it is unguided? No. Is Intelligent Falling a plausible explanation? No, and most ID proponents are smart enough to recognize that.
What most ID proponents would do is recognize that their ID arguments wouldn't apply to that scenario. Yet many ID proponents would also believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, who foresaw and preordained (or, for some, even ultimately orchestrated) that falling rock. Now, they wouldn't call that intelligent design of the sort they mean with regards to Behe and company, because ID proponents wisely recognize the difference between ID arguments and arguments for God's design specifically. But what I've said still stands: there is zero scientific evidence for the claim 'that was not designed'. If someone digs in their heels and says, 'It wasn't designed because... well, it just wasn't!'? I'm unimpressed, and you should be too. I'd like the evidence, please. The scientific test. I'm sure you have some, right?
If you don’t believe in the Rain Fairy, the Streambed Designer, the Explosion Designer, or the angels pushing the planets around, why would you believe in a designer who just happens to produce an ONH?
Considering intelligent designers we know of demonstrably can make it rain, develop artificial streams, certainly make explosions, etc... why in the world would I or anyone else say 'It was totally undesigned/happened by blind chance!' when I not only A) utterly lack any scientific evidence for such a claim, and B) have plenty of scientific and non-scientific evidence that weighs against it? Here's a tip, keiths. The magical rain fairy, the magical planet moving fairy, and the magical universe crafting fairy doesn't become more plausible when you stipulate that the fairy is mindless, blind, and exists and operates by chance. Or do you believe in fairies like that, with zero evidence?nullasalus
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Verse and Music: Isaiah 40:31 but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint. Hillsong United - You Are My Strength https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGMOKBki56kbornagain77
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini put the problem that Quarter Power Scaling presents to Darwinism this way:
“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79
i.e. The reason why ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are impossible for Darwinism to explain is that Natural Selection operates on the 3-Dimensional phenotypes of an organism. ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are simply ‘invisible’ to natural selection. The fact that 4-Dimensional things are for all intents and purposes completely invisible to 3-Dimensional things is best illustrated by ‘flatland’:
Dr Quantum - Flatland (3-D in 2-D world) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4
Also of note, the energy efficiency of the cell vastly exceeds the energy efficiency of man-made devices,,,
Life Leads the Way to Invention - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: a cell is 10,000 times more energy-efficient than a transistor. “In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.” This and other amazing facts lead to an obvious conclusion: inventors ought to look to life for ideas.,,, Essentially, cells may be viewed as circuits that use molecules, ions, proteins and DNA instead of electrons and transistors. That analogy suggests that it should be possible to build electronic chips – what Sarpeshkar calls “cellular chemical computers” – that mimic chemical reactions very efficiently and on a very fast timescale. http://creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100226a
Moreover, as if all that was not 'horrendous' enough for the committed Darwinist, the programming of the cell appears to be designed along the parameters of 'reversible computation', i.e. ... the integrated coding between the DNA, RNA and Proteins of the cell apparently seem to be ingeniously programmed along the very stringent guidelines laid out by Landauer’s principle, by Charles Bennett from IBM of Quantum Teleportation fame, for ‘reversible computation’ in order to achieve such amazing energy/metabolic efficiency.
Logical Reversibility of Computation* - C. H. Bennett - 1973 Excerpt from last paragraph: The biosynthesis and biodegradation of messenger RNA may be viewed as convenient examples of logically reversible and irreversible computation, respectively. Messenger RNA. a linear polymeric informational macromolecule like DNA, carries the genetic information from one or more genes of a DNA molecule. and serves to direct the synthesis of the proteins encoded by those genes. Messenger RNA is synthesized by the enzyme RNA polymerase in the presence of a double-stranded DNA molecule and a supply of RNA monomers (the four nucleotide pyrophosphates ATP, GTP, CTP, and UTP) [7]. The enzyme attaches to a specific site on the DNA molecule and moves along, sequentially incorporating the RNA monomers into a single-stranded RNA molecule whose nucleotide sequence exactly matches that of the DNA. The pyrophosphate groups are released into the surrounding solution as free pyrophosphate molecules. The enzyme may thus be compared to a simple tape-copying Turing machine that manufactures its output tape rather than merely writing on it. Tape copying is a logically reversible operation. and RNA polymerase is both thermodynamically and logically reversible.,,, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall04/cos576/papers/bennett73.html Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon - Charles H. Bennett - September 2003 Excerpt: Of course, in practice, almost all data processing is done on macroscopic apparatus, dissipating macroscopic amounts of energy far in excess of what would be required by Landauer’s principle. Nevertheless, some stages of biomolecular information processing, such as transcription of DNA to RNA, appear to be accomplished by chemical reactions that are reversible not only in principle but in practice.,,,, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135521980300039X Logically and Physically Reversible Natural Computing: A Tutorial - 2013 Excerpt: This year marks the 40th anniversary of Charles Bennett’s seminal paper on reversible computing. Bennett’s contribution is remembered as one of the first to demonstrate how any deterministic computation can be simulated by a logically reversible Turing machine. Perhaps less remembered is that the same paper suggests the use of nucleic acids to realise physical reversibility. In context, Bennett’s foresight predates Leonard Adleman’s famous experiments to solve instances of the Hamiltonian path problem using strands of DNA — a landmark date for the field of natural computing — by more than twenty years. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-38986-3_20
Of realted note, The amazing energy efficiency possible with ‘reversible computation’ has been known about since Charles Bennett laid out the principles for such reversible programming in 1973, but as far as I know, due to the extreme level of complexity involved in achieving such ingenious ‘reversible coding’, has yet to be accomplished in any meaningful way for our computer programs even though the payoff would be huge:
Reversible computing Excerpt: Reversible computing is a model of computing where the computational process to some extent is reversible, i.e., time-invertible.,,, Although achieving this goal presents a significant challenge for the design, manufacturing, and characterization of ultra-precise new physical mechanisms for computing, there is at present no fundamental reason to think that this goal cannot eventually be accomplished, allowing us to someday build computers that generate much less than 1 bit's worth of physical entropy (and dissipate much less than kT ln 2 energy to heat) for each useful logical operation that they carry out internally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing#The_reversibility_of_physics_and_reversible_computing
bornagain77
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Have you read this thread? It’s all about the evolvability of metabolic changes. actually I read it and commented on it, twice:
‘laws’, whether they be hidden laws or in your face laws, have never ’caused’ anything to happen in this universe. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-driven-by-laws-not-random-mutations/#comment-524236 Fairly severe constraints are found for unlimited plasticity in micro-organisms and even for individual proteins. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-driven-by-laws-not-random-mutations/#comment-524270
Moreover, Metabolic pathways as fascinating to ponder, for instance they are found to be optimal,,,
Metabolism: A Cascade of Design - 2009 Excerpt: A team of biological and chemical engineers wanted to understand just how robust metabolic pathways are. To gain this insight, the researchers compared how far the errors cascade in pathways found in a variety of single-celled organisms with errors in randomly generated metabolic pathways. They learned that when defects occur in the cell’s metabolic pathways, they cascade much shorter distances than when errors occur in random metabolic routes. Thus, it appears that metabolic pathways in nature are highly optimized and unusually robust, demonstrating that metabolic networks in the protoplasm are not haphazardly arranged but highly organized. http://www.reasons.org/metabolism-cascade-design Making the Case for Intelligent Design More Robust - 2010 Excerpt: ,,, In other words, metabolic pathways are optimized to withstand inevitable concentration changes of metabolites. http://www.reasons.org/making-case-intelligent-design-more-robust Optimal Design of Metabolism - Dr. Fazale Rana - July 2012 Excerpt: A new study further highlights the optimality of the cell’s metabolic systems. Using the multi-dimension optimization theory, researchers evaluated the performance of the metabolic systems of several different bacteria. The data generated by monitoring the flux (movement) of compounds through metabolic pathways (like the movement of cars along the roadways) allowed researchers to assess the behavior of cellular metabolism. They determined that metabolism functions optimally for a system that seeks to accomplish multiple objectives. It looks as if the cell’s metabolism is optimized to operate under a single set of conditions. At the same time, it can perform optimally with relatively small adjustments to the metabolic operations when the cell experiences a change in condition. http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-optimal-design-of-metabolism
Moreover, Darwinian evolution has no way of explaining such optimality in the 'horrendously complex' metabolic pathways (or anything else for that matter),,,
Study demonstrates evolutionary ‘fitness’ not the most important determinant of success – February 7, 2014 – with illustration Excerpt: The researchers found that the ‘fittest’ simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales. http://phys.org/news/2014-02-evolutionary-important-success.html
This following headline sums up the preceding study very nicely:
Fittest (Optimal) Can’t Survive If They Never Arrive – February 7, 2014 http://crev.info/2014/02/fittest-cant-survive-if-they-never-arrive/
Moreover, as if that were not ‘horrendously’ bad enough for Darwinists, metabolic pathways are found to operate on ‘Quarter Power Scaling’. i.e. Metabolic Pathways operate as if they were ‘four-dimensional’, not three-dimensional
Kleiber’s law Excerpt: Kleiber’s law,[1] named after Max Kleiber’s biological work in the early 1930s, is the observation that, for the vast majority of animals, an animal’s metabolic rate scales to the 3/4 power of the animal’s mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf
bornagain77
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
So "Bob" must be the evolutionist.Joe
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
Family trees are examples of branched descent with modification, yet family trees to do not form objective nested hierarchies based on defining traits. And seeing that unguided evolution is impotent what pattern would we expect from it?Joe
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Streambed Designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Streambed Designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?
Without knowing what they actually saw, there's no way to answer. If it was a dry streambed where every rock, pebble and grain of sand and silt was arranged to spell out a Shakespearean sonnet, then bob has the better theory. If the arrangement appears to be what natural forces are otherwise known to easily produce, his friend has the better theory.
2. Bob is invited to the scene of an investigation by a friend who is an explosive forensics expert. They observe serious damage radiating out in all directions from a central point, decreasing with distance, as if an explosion had taken place. Bob’s friend performs some tests and finds large amounts of explosive residue. Bob says, “Somebody went to a lot of trouble to make it look like there was an explosion here. They even planted explosive residue on the scene! Of course, there wasn’t really an explosion.” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?
Bob's friend. Bob inserts a blatantly unnecessary commodity into the explanation.
3. Bob and another friend, an astronomer, observe the positions of the planets over several years. They determine that the planets are moving in ellipses, with the sun at one of the foci. Bob says, “Isn’t that amazing? The angels pushing the planets around are following exactly the paths that the planets would have followed if gravity had been acting on them!” The astronomer gives Bob a funny look and says “Maybe gravity is working on those planets, with no angels involved at all. Doesn’t that seem more likely to you?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?
Bob's friend. Bob inserts an unnecessary commodity into the explanation.
4. Bob is hanging out at the office of a friend who is an evolutionary biologist. The biologist shows Bob how the morphological and molecular data establish the phylogenetic tree of the 30 major taxa of life to an amazing accuracy of 38 decimal places. “There couldn’t be a better confirmation of unguided evolution,” the biologist says. “Don’t be ridiculous,” Bob replies. “All of those lifeforms were clearly designed. It’s just that the Designer chose to imitate unguided evolution, instead of picking one of the trillions of other options available to him.” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?
Based on the information given, neither of them have a theory that is not riddled with gaping ideology-based assumptions. Bob's friend's theory is circular, assuming the evidence was generated by unguided forces and then using that evidence to demonstrate the explanatory power of unguided forces. Also, Bob's friend is assuming that a pattern only otherwise known to be generated by design can be, and would be, generated by unguided forces, even though no other unguided forces(meaning, besides the phenomena in dispute) are known to generate that pattern. Bob is assuming both everything his friend assumes (that the "unguided" nature of the evidence has been rigorously established), and is also assuming that "the designer" had trillions of options. However, Bob is correct in assigning the evolutionary pattern to a designer, because no other kind of processes are known to produce that pattern.William J Murray
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: A few things always remain unexplained – why the drive for reproductive success or survival at all? This necessarily has to be traced to chemistry and physics (in the materialist model).
The drive for reproductive success and survival pertains to the organism as a whole. But, indeed, what is this organism in a materialistic model? And, indeed, how is it traced to chemistry and physics?
Silver Asiatic #301: Why shouldn’t natural forces just produce non-life? Even after the lucky chance that life arose by accident, why not natural forces just killing off all life – with no OHN produced at all?
Why doesn't an organism just fall apart? What force is keeping it together? If it is just chemistry all the way down, what is this delicate balancing act we observe? These are the questions that are always ignored by materialists.Box
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
spamagain77, Have you read this thread? It's all about the evolvability of metabolic changes. Denyse helpfully posted it, thinking that it was actually evidence against unguided evolution. Oops. Thanks, Denyse!keith s
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
William,
Your own source states plainly that no other process (besides design) is known to create ONH’s...
Huh? Does anyone have any idea what William is talking about? Quote please, William.keith s
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
modified for humor: "Bob is walking through the laboratory with his friend, a Darwinian biologist. They come across what appears to be a Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell. After some thought, Bob states that every pathway, molecular machine, and protein was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Major Metabolic Pathways designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This Major Metabolic Pathways have exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by natural selection and random mutations. Why invoke a Major Metabolic Pathways designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell – picture http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AKkRRa65sIo/TlltZupczfI/AAAAAAAAE1s/nVSv_5HRpZg/s1600/pathway-1b.png Interactive schematic: http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1bornagain77
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Is anyone brave enough to respond to the actual challenge?
Share your answers with us. Did your answers to the four questions differ? If so, please explain exactly why.
"Share your answers" means this: For each of the four scenarios, tell us who has the better theory: Bob, or his friend. "Explain exactly why" means this: If your answers to the four questions differed, tell us what the relevant differences are that caused you to give a different answer to one question versus the others.keith s
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
keith said:
A rock breaks off the side of a cliff and tumbles into the gorge below. Do we know that it is unguided? No. Is Intelligent Falling a plausible explanation? No, and most ID proponents are smart enough to recognize that.
One hopes that most ID proponents are smart enough to recognize the abject failure of this comparison. Do rocks breaking off a side of a cliff necessarily tumble into objective nested hierarchies? Your own source states plainly that no other process (besides design) is known to create ONH's, so your example is completely irrelevant. Nobody is debating whether or not some rocks tumbled into an intelligently designed pattern, but if some rocks did tumble into a pattern otherwise only known to be generated by design, then we'd be debating natural vs design in that scenario as well.
They won’t argue for Intelligent Falling, and they won’t argue that angels are pushing the planets around.
We would be arguing that design was a causal factor if the pattern they fell into was otherwise only known to be generated by design. We would also be so arguing if a planet (or any other object in space) moved in a way only otherwise known to be the result of design.
Yet they will argue that God the Designer guided evolution, and that the pattern that was produced just happens to be the same one that unguided evolution would have produced, had it been operating.
Only, you have absolutely no basis for claiming that the pattern we see is the pattern that unguided evolution would produce, because (1) the only other examples of ONH's are design artifacts, and (2) no aspect of evolution has, to my knowledge, been rigorously quantified as fundamentally "unguided".
It makes no sense. If you don’t believe in the Rain Fairy, the Streambed Designer, the Explosion Designer, or the angels pushing the planets around, why would you believe in a designer who just happens to produce an ONH?
This is keiths shifting the burden once again. I have no case to support here; this is keith's argument, keith's premises, keith's assumptions, keith's conclusion. I do not have to claim and then defend that evolutionary processes are guided; keith must demonstrate that unguided processes in the real world can, and will, produce an ONH, and those processes must be quantified as indeed unguided. Keiths simply doesn't know if Markovian ONH can be generated by unguided processes; he assumes it, therefore his correlation to falling rocks and dry steambeds is nothing more than his assumption that they are alike and can all be accounted for via unguided processes.William J Murray
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
WJM:
Unfortunately, he and every other anti-ID advocate insist there exists no means by which to make an inference between design and unguided causal categories.
Exactly. Supporting the "unguided" part of the assertion would be tantamount to admitting that a design inference is possible. But not supporting the "unguided" part leaves his "bomb" flopping about like the impotent little damp squid it is.Phinehas
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
keiths: A slightly altered version of your question is illustrative.
1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a sand castle. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a sand castle designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This sand castle has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water and wind erosion. Why invoke a sand castle designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend
You see, once you set aside the assumption that natural forces are easily and routinely capable of producing what is seen, the answer isn't nearly as obvious as you suppose. Now, who has the better theory will depend on whether Bob's friend can demonstrate that flowing water and wind are capable of creating the sand structure in question. If he cannot do so, then Bob's explanation stands as, if not the better theory, certainly a valid alternative to the unguided explanation, does it not?Phinehas
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
WJM: -- I challenged you on your claim that unguided evolution necessarily produces ONH. -- “Are you saying that it is impossible for natural forces to generate a mismatched set of trees?” As I read it, that's what needs to be proven and has not been. I believe the claim is that natural forces necessarily generate only an ONH and no other pattern is possible. A few things always remain unexplained - why the drive for reproductive success or survival at all? This necessarily has to be traced to chemistry and physics (in the materialist model). So chemistry and physics can only produce an ONH and not any multitude of other patterns or chaos? Why shouldn't natural forces just produce non-life? Even after the lucky chance that life arose by accident, why not natural forces just killing off all life - with no OHN produced at all?Silver Asiatic
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
The money quote from keith's "bob" analogy:
“All of those lifeforms were clearly designed. It’s just that the Designer chose to imitate unguided evolution, instead of picking one of the trillions of other options available to him.”
The problem is that we do not have a rigorously verified case of "unguided evolution" by which we could compare what we observe. We do know, however, that no other natural force or process creates the pattern we observe in biological evolution, nor does any known natural process or force generate the kinds of complex, interdependent, functional mechanisms found throughout biological organisms. The only thing we know that creates the hierarchical patterns and similar machines as those found in biology is a designing intelligence. Outside of the phenomena under debate, the only known source of ONH's is design, and the only known source of digital, coded data is design, and the only known source of complex, functional machinery is design. Keith wants to use the very phenomena under debate as evidence that unguided processes can produce the pattern found there (and, I'm sure, those other things). Unfortunately, he and every other anti-ID advocate insist there exists no means by which to make an inference between design and unguided causal categories.William J Murray
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
William:
I’m still waiting for an answer.
The same advice applies to you as to lifepsy:
I’m not ignoring you, lifepsy. I’ll get to your comment, but you’ll need to be patient. There is only one of me, and I have a real life outside of UD. You can thank the moderators, by the way. Ever fearful of open discussion, they are silently banning ID critics. That means there are fewer critics available to answer your comments, which means you’ll have to wait longer for a response. You might want to take advantage of the waiting time by cracking an evolution textbook. :-)
keith s
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
nullasalus:
And it is being pointed out here that the sense of ‘unguided’ evolution you’re talking about is not even observed in the original case, because there is no scientific observation of ‘unguided’ evolution. What was observed was descent with modification – NOT ‘unguided’ evolution, or ‘unguided’ anything else for that matter.
A rock breaks off the side of a cliff and tumbles into the gorge below. Do we know that it is unguided? No. Is Intelligent Falling a plausible explanation? No, and most ID proponents are smart enough to recognize that. They won't argue for Intelligent Falling, and they won't argue that angels are pushing the planets around. Yet they will argue that God the Designer guided evolution, and that the pattern that was produced just happens to be the same one that unguided evolution would have produced, had it been operating. It makes no sense. If you don't believe in the Rain Fairy, the Streambed Designer, the Explosion Designer, or the angels pushing the planets around, why would you believe in a designer who just happens to produce an ONH?keith s
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
In 293 I said: "I didn’t claim that microevolution was unguided." Corrected: "I didn't claim that microevolution was guided."William J Murray
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Keith: 1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Streambed Designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Streambed Designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?
How can water explain the existence of rocks, pebbles, sand and silt particles? I get it Keith, we do indeed need to invoke a Streambed Designer.Box
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Keith said:
Sure I have. There are 10^38 possible trees of the 30 major taxa, which means there are 10^38 possible ways for one tree (derived from morphology, say) to mismatch another tree (derived from molecular data, say).
I asked: "Are you saying that it is impossible for natural forces to generate a mismatched set of trees?" I'm still waiting for an answer.William J Murray
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
… But surely no purely random process of extinction would have eliminated so effectively all ancestral and transitional forms, all evidence of the trunk and branches of the supposed tree, and left all remaining groups: mammals, cats, flowering plants, birds, tortoises, vertebrates, molluscs, hymenoptera, fleas and so on, so isolated and related only in a strictly sisterly sense.
Such a good point from Denton - having refuted the argument so long ago. Those clear distinctions look much more like design than by an unguided process. Additionally, he points out that a strict classification of hierarchy doesn't allow for overlaps, which would be necessary for fish to become mammal to become human.Silver Asiatic
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
keith said:
No, I am using Theobald’s observed cases of descent with modification to demonstrate that unguided evolution produces ONHs, and then pointing out that we also see ONHs in the unobserved cases. Coincidence?
Only, it doesn't demonstrate that "unguided" evolution does anything of the sort. The "unguided" part is just assumed and thus exposes the circularity of your argument. Please point me to where the processes involved were rigorously vetted as "unguided".
By the way, you’re contradicting yourself if you claim that microevolution is guided. Earlier you told us that if a natural process was capable of explaining a phenomenon, then the natural explanation should be preferred over ID.
Another attempt to shift the burden. I didn't claim that microevolution was unguided. I challenged you on your claim that unguided evolution necessarily produces ONH. That means the onus is on you to demonstrate that an evolutionary process that has been rigorously quantified as "unguided" in fact necessarily produces ONH. I await the data that explains what criteria was used in determining the "unguided" status of said evolutionary processes.
Come on, William. Even the YECs acknowledge that Designer intervention is not required for microevolution.
Wishing that you were arguing with someone else doesn't answer my challenges.
Read Theobald again:
It doesn't matter how many times I read Theobald because he's not the one trying to slip his conclusion into his premises - you are. You are simply asserting that that which creates ONHs in biology is unguided, and then saying that because ONH exists in biology, it is evidence for unguided evolution. Entirely circular.William J Murray
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Lifespy: How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if nature’s divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity…
Who can argue against that? I suppose Theobald can, the leading light who states that science can answer the question “how exactly did/does the Creator create?Box
November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 12

Leave a Reply