Engineer says, the atom has a designer. Trolls disagree.

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 15, 2012

Design inference, Engineering, Intelligent Design, News}

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

In “Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet” ( Ann Arbor News, May 24, 2012), engineer Lakhi Goenka, grieving the death of his son, reflects,

Atoms are machines that enable the physical, electromagnetic (including light), nuclear, chemical, and biological (including life) functioning of the universe. Atoms are a complex assembly of interacting particles that enable the entire functioning of the universe. They are the machine that enables all other machines. It is virtually impossible to explain the structure, complexity, internal dynamics, and resulting functionality of the atom from chance events or through evolutionary mechanisms. The atom is a machine that provides multiple functions, and every machine is the product of intelligence. The atom must have a designer.

Trolls respond here. Usual nonsense.

See also The strongest argument against design

Comments

Claudius: Pardon me but 150 years worth of looking for "missing links" and of headlining and highlighting links and icons in museums that then had to be taken back and similar, says very different to your talking points. In short, the after the fact revisionism simply underscores the force of the point that forms appear suddenly, show stasis and disappear or continue to the current world. As Gould summed up. and as for attempted burden of proof shifting, that falls of its own weight. Plainly, the CD model starts with a LCA, unicellular organism. Then it gets to multicellulars and body plans across a branching tree of life. First problem, we see major top level body plans suddenly appearing in Cambrian strata (as was known to and a challenge for, Darwin). Then, subsequently, the different body plans follow the same pattern, at lower levels. That is what Gould spoke to. Where gradualistic transitional forms would vastly outnumber the forms we do see if the NDT account were so. So, the fossil record should brim over with major transitional forms and sequences -- much as the horse sequence used to be a major museum and textbook exhibit never mind how minor the actual changes were. (And yes, they have almost dog sized mini horses today and horses are apparently still occasionally born with three toes.)I am sure you have seen some of the ape to man alleged sequences, never mind the more sober conclusion that they are quite distinct. The problem is that the record as a whole does not show gradualistic transitions as a common much less dominant feature, and the world of life around us, even less so. finally, I have cited Gould as exactly a case of an expert giving a key admission against known interest. You know what that is, or you SHOULD know what that is, and its evidentiary value. Gould went out and tried to develop a theory of evo, to account for the missing transitionals. That too is telling, so your attempted turnabout is itself revealing. KFkairosfocus_{July 10, 2012
July
07
Jul
10
10
2012
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 187
KAIROSFOCUS @ 182: The absolutely overwhelming pattern is appearance without incremental transitional ancestors, stasis and disappearance or continuity to the modern world. There is every reason to believe that transitionals would have vastly outnumbered final forms. CLAVDIVS: How do you know that final forms outnumber transitionals unless you can tell transitional forms apart from final forms? Pray, what is the difference you are basing this statement on? KAIROSFOCUS @ 187: It is your side that set it self the task of finding these ...
No. The scientific theory of evolution proposes that, if there are any final forms in the fossil record, there is currently no empirical way to tell them apart from transitional forms. You made the claim that the final forms outnumber the transitionals. What I want to know is: How are you distringuishing between final forms and transitional forms? If we do not know this then we cannot assess the soundness of your argument.
KAIROSFOCUS: So, where are the overwhelming numbers of missing [found] links? Gould tells us, they are not there, period ... why not enlighten us benighted types who were so dumb as to take Gould at his word?
I don't think you should be treating Gould as an authority because his overall view appears to be the opposite of what you're saying:
... humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. [Gould, S.J., Evolution as Fact and Theory, Discover, May 1981] Punctuated equilibrium, catastrophic theories of mass extinction, hopeful monsters, and a variety of hypotheses about rapid rates of change in continuous sequences, not about unintelligible abrupt appearances, are part of scientific debate and bear no relationship to the nonscientific notion of abrupt appearance ... [Gould, S.J., "Creationism: Out of the Mainstream," The Scientist, 1986, 1 (Nov. 17): 10] [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting ... [Gould, S.J., "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Co, 1983, pp. 258-260]
CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 10, 2012
July
07
Jul
10
10
2012
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

F/N: In fact, too, the first basic problem with the evidence often brought forth along various lines and claimed to prove universal evolutionary common descent is that it is being evaluated in the same question-begging circle just highlighted. Then, in too many cases, what we are being shown is outright misleading -- and in certain cases outright fraudulent -- icons. In other cases, small-scale variations well within the body plan limit -- e.g. moth colouration, or insecticide or antibiotic resistance -- are being grossly extrapolated into a grand, metaphysically driven narrative sold to us under the label, "science," presented as practically certain knowledge. But, all of this is tangential as the evidence of design does not depend on rejection or acceptance of common descent by whatever means. The real issue at stake is that a modest set of mechanisms that covers minor population adaptation has been grossly extrapolated into an account of body plan diversity, and presented to us under the false colours of being as well supported as the view that the planets orbit the Sun.kairosfocus_{July 10, 2012
July
07
Jul
10
10
2012
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Jerad: I of course point you tot he just above on the subject of fully formed body plans, as though that is really a mystery in context. When pine trees appear they are pine trees. Ants are ants. When bats appear, they are bats. Lobsters are lobsters, shrimp are shrimp. The missing links are missing, and Gould et al tell us not to expect them to be found. Appearance, stasis, disappearance or continutity into the modern era. I guess that should make me less than surprised to see how you try to deflect the force of the implications of the requisites of a von Neumann replicator joined to a constructor and controlled by digital code by making a sloppy half-quote. For, von Neumann -- as you cited and as I pointed out when you wanted to skip over this key point -- believed that such a replicator could get more complex ONCE ABOVE A CERTAIN THRESHOLD of complexity. The problem of course is to get to that threshold, which is well past the FSCO/I limit. That is why it is a safe conclusion that he origin of a metabolising, self-replicating entity is not a credible product of spontaneous processes in some warm little pond or the like. Kindly explain to us on empirical evidence, the origin of digital symbolic codes, algorithms, control tapes storing the object codes, properly arranged execution machines and associated component and energy source machines, etc, by spontaneous, chance and necessity processes in that warm little pond or equivalent, again. this has been repeatedly put t6o you, but has just as repeatedly been ducked. And yet, it is the issue at the root of the whole tree of life proposed by Darwin. Without a sound, empirically based answer here, the whole scheme is literally rootless. And, the only empirically warranted source for such FSCO/I is design. Which, puts design as a credible causal candidate at the root of the whole world of life. Which also shifts the reasonable estimate for the source of the even more complex main body plans sharply in favour of design as well. All the way up to our own body plan. Save, of course, to those who have long since made up their minds before the evidence is allowed to speak, that design is strictly verbotten, tut tut! Which, in plain words, is what seems to be consistently at work in this thread. As in, please think about whether we have here a case of the fallacy of the closed, question-begging mind exemplified by Lewontin here:
. . . 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 . . . [["Billions and billions of demons," NYRB, Jan 1997. if you have swallowed the attempted turnabout that this is quote-mining, cf. here.]
Philip Johnson's retort to Lewontin's a priori evolutionary materialism is apt:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
Please, think again. KFkairosfocus_{July 10, 2012
July
07
Jul
10
10
2012
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

Claudius: Remember, we are looking at body plans here. Half a wing, half a lung, a sequence of fossils that shows the origin of the bat's echolocation system step by step, etc. In short, the missing sequences of links that after 150 years are notoriously just that: MISSING. Recall, again from above -- 3rd time in just this thread IIRC, to go from cow-like to whale-like, maybe 50,000 steps. With a reproductive cycle time of some years, and relatively small populations. 50,000:2, is well past 99% transitional, and the same would obtain in case after case. If the incremental transitionals were out there, they should have dominated the world of life, and that should by every reasonable view of sampling theory, be significantly reflected in the fossil record of billions of field samples, millions on museum shelves and over 1/4 million species. So, where are the overwhelming numbers of ~~missing~~ [found] links? Gould tells us, they are not there, period. Indeed, he spent decades advancing an alternative theory to provide an explanation after the fact that would make it seem plausible that his would be the case. It is your side that set it self the task of finding these, and now that the task has plainly spectacularly failed, we have a perfect right to draw out the implications per what investigations and observations of FSCO/I tells us about the nature of specifically functional complex organisation. It will come in deeply isolated islands in a config space, however hard objectors try to pretend otherwise. For the good reason that if things have to be specifically arranged and matched to work, there are going to be a lot more ways to get what does not work, than what will work. Of course, if you know of the hundreds or thousands of cases of observed step by step emerging body plans out there, why not enlighten us benighted types who were so dumb as to take Gould at his word? KFkairosfocus_{July 10, 2012
July
07
Jul
10
10
2012
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

PeterJ,
Secondly, yes any lineage would do me just fine, however incomplete it may seem to you
Well, I guess you could just pick one! Have you looked at the info at talkorigins.org?
And thirdly, the reason that I began investigating evolution in the first place was so that I could make my mind up on the subject once and for all, sadly I haven’t been able to do that.
Ah, I thought you had already done that. Well, I'd recommend several books: Only a Theory by Miller is quite good. I like The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins but he does rub some people the wrong way. Why Evolution is True by Coyne is a very good summary as well and he spends time talking about the geographic distribution of species which I hadn't really considered before. KF has not explained what he means by "final forms' so I'll reserve judgement on that. Evolutionary theory says species are not immutable and therefore there are no goals or targets or final forms. This means that all life forms are transitional. What do you think KF meant by 'final forms'? Do you think the notion is viable?
Can you show me an example for instance of a line of transition where there are some gaps in it? Even that would suffice for the time being.
All fossil lines have gaps!! We don't have any complete line of descent, i.e. one where almost every single morphological change potentially visible in the fossil record is extent. Dr Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposing that sometimes evolution may be 'quicker' than at other places and times. Perhaps owing to changes in climate or other local conditions. If species were changing 'more quickly' then some large morphological gaps in the fossil record could be due to there being less time and fewer individuals to fossilise. Dr Dawkins has a pretty good discussion of the differences between him and Dr Gould in The Blind Watchmaker . . . I think. When I think of the incredibly unlikely prospect of most land dwelling animals becoming fossils I'm not bothered by gaps. And when I look at all the lines of evidence for evolution . . .
Ps. I would I be wrong in deducing that you are perhaps questioning your own beliefs on the business of fossils, even slightly?
Nope. I agree with Dr Dawkins. If you took all the fossils away I think the remaining evidence is strong enough to 'prove' universal common descent via the undirected processes of variation, selection and drift (and some other minor effects).Jerad_{July 10, 2012
July
07
Jul
10
10
2012
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Jerad ‘I’m sorry you’re so fixated on the fossils. I don’t think any lineage I suggest would be complete enough. But I wouldn’t worry about it if I were you. You’re not looking to change your mind so . . .’ Firstly, I am not fixated on fossils; I am merely investigating what I believe in itself, is a good enough reason to reject Darwinian evolution. Secondly, yes any lineage would do me just fine, however incomplete it may seem to you. And thirdly, the reason that I began investigating evolution in the first place was so that I could make my mind up on the subject once and for all, sadly I haven’t been able to do that. I do however, from the evidence I have gathered so far, and not only from that of the fossil record, believe that creation is the best explanation so far. As KF explained ‘The absolutely overwhelming pattern is appearance without incremental transitional ancestors, stasis and disappearance or continuity to the modern world. There is every reason to believe that transitionals would have vastly outnumbered final forms.’ This holds true, however you look at fossils. It is agreed by most, if not nearly all the world’s leading Palaeontologists. Jerad, can you please explain what you mean here. ‘As Dr Dawkins has discussed, Dr Gould was still a gradualist and was trying to give a rational explanation for some gaps in the fossil record which all biologists and paleontologists agree are to be expected.’ What do you mean by ‘some gaps’? Can you show me an example for instance of a line of transition where there are some gaps in it? Even that would suffice for the time being. Thanks P Ps. I would I be wrong in deducing that you are perhaps questioning your own beliefs on the business of fossils, even slightly?PeterJ_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

KF,
No, I have little interest in the mere psychological fact of disagreement, as well you are aware. In disagreeing, you did a “no evidence” declaration — a common selectively hyperskeptical trick of sweeping contrary evidence off the table with a mere assertion.
I believe that the fossil, genetic, morphologic, geographic and breeding evidence are sufficient evidence for universal descent via the undirected processes of genetic modification, drift and selection. Dr von Neumann said he believed it was possible for a self-replicating system to increase complexity without outside input. I have also said that the design inference is stronger for non-lliviing systems which have no way to descend with modification. I have also said that it I find it less parsimonious to infer an hypothesised agent. I don't think that means I have 'done' a 'no evidence' declaration.
I have again stepped you through the evidence, FSCO/I in the living cell, and what best explains it. To date you have no cogent reply. That leaves the matter at selective hyperskepticism on your part.
It means I find non-directed processes sufficient and that I chose not to infer to a hypothesised agent.
As to the newest pretence that we do not know the relevant facts about cells and how they work, kindly note that ALL living cell-based life forms are based on DNA, RNA, proteins etc, and that D/RNA works based on code that drives regulatory behaviour and specifies protein chain AA sequences. Those are facts that have been on the table for decades.
I said no one knows the nature or structure of the hypothesised first basic replicator which led to the formation of cells.
If you now wish to dispute them, kindly identify the observed alternative architecture of biological life forms. And, in any case, that would require explaining the change in system, which would be comparable to OOL.
I have said the OoL issue is far from settled and I have made no guesses as to how that will be accomplished.
In any case, the universality of the pattern clearly implicates a common architecture. It is the origin of this, with metabolism, integrated self replication using a von Neumann replicator and digitally coded control that has to be explained. Sweep it off the table by a hyperskeptical move unsupported by empirical observation is little more than an implicit acknowledgement of the force of the point. Namely, that the only observed, adequate cause of FSCO/I is design.
I think over 2000 years of observed breeding show the ability of random genetic mutations to provide variation that selection can work upon to create morphological changes and speciation.
Similarly, the point on body plans is the simple but telling one that we don’t see the overwhelming majority of incrementally transitional forms required if gradualist origin of body plans was so. We find well-formed creatures fully representative of their body plans, as Gould implied.
You have not spelled out what you mean by 'fully formed body plans' so I shall defer answering this until you have done so as I think it might influence my argument. I have already said I consider all life forms transitional, links from what has come before to what will arise later. The implication being that species are not fixed or immutable or pre-ordained.
The absolutely overwhelming pattern is appearance without incremental transitional ancestors, stasis and disappearance or continuity to the modern world. There is every reason to believe that transitionals would have vastly outnumbered final forms. So, once fossilising events are un-correlated with the pattern of change, the fossil record SHOULD reflect gradualistic change as dominant pattern, i.e clashing uncorrelated processes are not credibly likely to give a sample that is THAT biased and correlated. As Gould testifies, what Darwin hoped for just has not happened. Darwin’s plea that the record had been poorly surveyed and would move in his favour with exploration has been resoundingly disconfirmed. That is why Gould et al set out to found a theory to explain that absence.
As Dr Dawkins has discussed, Dr Gould was still a gradualist and was trying to give a rational explanation for some gaps in the fossil record which all biologists and paleaontolgists agree are to be expected. Unless all the individual life forms that ever existed became fossils there will be gaps. Some life forms were soft bodied and were therefore extremely unlikely to leave physical evidence. Many land dwelling individuals are unlikely to leave remains. In many ways we are lucky to have the fossils we do!! And again, please address what you mean by 'fully formed body plans' and 'final forms' as these terms are not generally used in biological analysis and seem to imply goal or target life forms which I'm pretty sure you did not mean.Jerad_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 182
The absolutely overwhelming pattern is appearance without incremental transitional ancestors, stasis and disappearance or continuity to the modern world. There is every reason to believe that transitionals would have vastly outnumbered final forms.
How do you know that final forms outnumber transitionals unless you can tell transitional forms apart from final forms? Pray, what is the difference you are basing this statement on? Not to mention yoiu tacitly admit that there are at least some transitional forms, albeit outnumbered. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

PS: There are billions of fossils observed, all around the world, in all main sections of the geological column -- e.g. Barbados is made up from cubic miles of fossils, especially corals, with a lot of bivalve molluscs. Museums have millions of specimens, altogether over a 1/4 million species. The absolutely overwhelming pattern is appearance without incremental transitional ancestors, stasis and disappearance or continuity to the modern world. There is every reason to believe that transitionals would have vastly outnumbered final forms. So, once fossilising events are un-correlated with the pattern of change, the fossil record SHOULD reflect gradualistic change as dominant pattern, i.e clashing uncorrelated processes are not credibly likely to give a sample that is THAT biased and correlated. As Gould testifies, what Darwin hoped for just has not happened. Darwin's plea that the record had been poorly surveyed and would move in his favour with exploration has been resoundingly disconfirmed. That is why Gould et al set out to found a theory to explain that absence.kairosfocus_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Jerad: No, I have little interest in the mere psychological fact of disagreement, as well you are aware. In disagreeing, you did a "no evidence" declaration -- a common selectively hyperskeptical trick of sweeping contrary evidence off the table with a mere assertion. I have again stepped you through the evidence, FSCO/I in the living cell, and what best explains it. To date you have no cogent reply. That leaves the matter at selective hyperskepticism on your part. As to the newest pretence that we do not know the relevant facts about cells and how they work, kindly note that ALL living cell-based life forms are based on DNA, RNA, proteins etc, and that D/RNA works based on code that drives regulatory behaviour and specifies protein chain AA sequences. Those are facts that have been on the table for decades. If you now wish to dispute them, kindly identify the observed alternative architecture of biological life forms. And, in any case, that would require explaining the change in system, which would be comparable to OOL. In any case, the universality of the pattern clearly implicates a common architecture. It is the origin of this, with metabolism, integrated self replication using a von Neumann replicator and digitally coded control that has to be explained. Sweep it off the table by a hyperskeptical move unsupported by empirical observation is little more than an implicit acknowledgement of the force of the point. Namely, that the only observed, adequate cause of FSCO/I is design. Paper speculations do not suffice to overturn that. Similarly, the point on body plans is the simple but telling one that we don't see the overwhelming majority of incrementally transitional forms required if gradualist origin of body plans was so. We find well-formed creatures fully representative of their body plans, as Gould implied. We could go on step by step but the pattern is clear enough. KFkairosfocus_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

PeterJ,
The sheer lack of transitional fossils is my biggest problem with evolution, I am aware of many other arguments, thanks largely to UD, but this particular problem is suffice for me at the moment. Surely, if as Darwin himself predicted, they are out there, then where are they?
Darwin knew there'd be gaps in the fossil record. He found the evidence from breeding, morphology and the geographic distribution of life forms convincing enough.
Jerad, you yourself are saying that the fossils we have today are ‘illustrating moments in a great continuum’, but can you please be more specifc. If you know of any fossils that clearly depict this then please would you let me know what it is and where I can find it.
Moments in a continuum like photos in a photo album: not every single event of someone's life is recorded just not not every single morphological variation was fossilised. But what we have is very persuasive in league with the other data. I'm sorry you're so fixated on the fossils. I don't think any lineage I suggest would be complete enough. But I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. You're not looking to change your mind so . . .Jerad_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Joe,
With ID the molecular variation is part of the design- organisms were designed to evolve and the variation is part of the design.
Interesting. How is that different from evolutionary theory? How does the variation arise? Or do you mean a front loading kind of thing where all future varieties are already inherit in the system? Does that mean you think there were transitional forms that did not fossilise? Does that mean no designer influence after the initial launch of life forms? What was the point of all the species that went extinct then? If all the transitional forms had to get slogged through first does that mean that humans were not predestined? Are Polio, Maleria, Tuberculosis, Dengue Fever, Ebola, the Plague, Infuenza, Yellow Fever, etc part of the plan? If humans were predestined then why not just jump to the tips of the clades?Jerad_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Jerad- With ID the molecular variation is part of the design- organisms were designed to evolve and the variation is part of the design.Joe_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Jerad ‘I see fossils like photos in an album, snapshots along the way illustrating moments in a great continuum.' Jerad (and everyone else), I'm sorry to keep banging on about this, but I don't see evidence of one single species, of anything, having evolved over time in a snapshot manner. The sheer lack of transitional fossils is my biggest problem with evolution, I am aware of many other arguments, thanks largely to UD, but this particular problem is suffice for me at the moment. Surely, if as Darwin himself predicted, they are out there, then where are they? Jerad, you yourself are saying that the fossils we have today are 'illustrating moments in a great continuum', but can you please be more specifc. If you know of any fossils that clearly depict this then please would you let me know what it is and where I can find it. Thanks PPeterJ_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Joe,
Molecular variation is the how-
Could you be more specific?Jerad_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

KF, I'm not ignoring anything, I just disagree with you. What about the 'fully formed body plans'?Jerad_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Jerad: At this point you are simply going in circles of repetitive, selectively hyperskpetical assertion that choose to ignore that -- per serious investigation and analysis reviewed above in light of the logic of induction -- FSCO/I does count as significant and even decisive evidence. As in, sign points to signified. I have to go now. KFkairosfocus_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

PeterJ,
I have looked at the same evidence for evolution that you have but I’m afraid I don’t quite see what you see. In some ways I wish I could, that would certainly make life easier when discussing creation with non-believers, but after having studied the subject formidably I honestly can’t hold that position.
It works both ways: you look at things in the world and see purpose and meaning whereas (in some cases) I just see chaos and randomness. I think you need to be true to yourself first and foremost.
If you could show me an example of one such creature, the fossils that make up the family album, then I will obviously have a rethink. If evolution is the fact you think it is, then surely there must be at least one to choose from.
Well, it's not just the fossils. It's all the other evidence and just what I see as more parsimonious. There isn't a particular life form that makes the case for me. It's all the life forms and all the data and what makes sense in the way the world looks to me. I'm not in the business of trying to convert or convince anyone. More important than our views of human (and other) origins is that we respect and listen to each other. Regardless of whether we have a spark of the divine or not we need to get to know each other and share our selves.Jerad_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

Jerad 'I see fossils like photos in an album, snapshots along the way illustrating moments in a great continuum. If you looked at someone’s family photo album you’d not assume that those people had no lives except what was illustrated in the snapshots. Fossils are deathmasks of SOME of the lifeforms that have existed. But only some. Each one of those fossils had precursors, many left offspring. I haven’t got pictures of all my ancestors but I know they existed or I wouldn’t be here!' I have looked at the same evidence for evolution that you have but I'm afraid I don't quite see what you see. In some ways I wish I could, that would certainly make life easier when discussing creation with non-believers, but after having studied the subject formidably I honestly can't hold that position. I don't see the family albums you are talking about concerning the Cambrian fossils. You have all these very distinct species with nothing to link them to a common ancestor, and nothing proceeding from them. Same goes for the dinosaurs, at least 700 distinct species, nothing to link any of them together, nothing preceding them and nothing proceeding from them. And of course the same can be said for mammals, both extinct and in existence today, we don’t have a family album depicting how even one of them evolved over time from a common ancestor. Anything that suggests they did therefore is pure speculation as there is no physical evidence to prove it. If you could show me an example of one such creature, the fossils that make up the family album, then I will obviously have a rethink. If evolution is the fact you think it is, then surely there must be at least one to choose from. Thanks. PPeterJ_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

KF,
What I objected to is your repeated selective hyperskepticism in dismissing evidence of the ROUTINELY OBSERVED — and only observed — adequate cause of FSCO/I (design), and the inductive logic inference that FSCO/I is therefore a reliable sign of design. Thus, you have dismissed evidence of design, in favour of a proposed cause, blind chance and mechanical necessity, that has never been observed to actually be efficacious as an original cause of FSCO/I.
What I rejected was the inference to an agent which has not been proven to exist.
Because we have all been inundated in the notion that chance variation plus differential reproductive success can create novel body plans, I started with the case where reproduction is off the table, OOL. There is no adequate chance and necessity account anchored by observational evidence. But, even the self-replicating facility itself is chock full of FSCO/I. Indeed, digital, algorithmic code and associated molecular nanotech execution machines. Credibly, involving over 100,000 bits. Well past any threshold where chance + necessity could even remotely be plausible as the source.
We don't know what the basic replicator was like yet. I agree, it's an issue that needs sorting out.
As for biogeography, homology, etc etc, the evidence is that these at best speak of adaptations of fully formed body plans. That in a world where given the number of steps of incremental change to do the sorts of transformations required, such transitional forms should utterly dominate the world of life, currently living and fossil. That, notoriously, just is not so.
I'm glad you brought this up 'cause I was meaning to ask you: what do you mean by 'fully formed body plans'? Can you give me some examples of fully formed and not fully formed body plans so I know what you are referring to.
That is why you are in the position of dismissing evidence of adequate cause and proposing inadequate causal forces and demanding that they instead be accepted. So, not so fast.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not insisting anyone agree with me. I'm just trying to explain my view.Jerad_{July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

Jerad: Pardon my directness, but not so fast. What I objected to is your repeated selective hyperskepticism in dismissing evidence of the ROUTINELY OBSERVED -- and only observed -- adequate cause of FSCO/I (design), and the inductive logic inference that FSCO/I is therefore a reliable sign of design. Thus, you have dismissed evidence of design, in favour of a proposed cause, blind chance and mechanical necessity, that has never been observed to actually be efficacious as an original cause of FSCO/I. Because we have all been inundated in the notion that chance variation plus differential reproductive success can create novel body plans, I started with the case where reproduction is off the table, OOL. There is no adequate chance and necessity account anchored by observational evidence. But, even the self-replicating facility itself is chock full of FSCO/I. Indeed, digital, algorithmic code and associated molecular nanotech execution machines. Credibly, involving over 100,000 bits. Well past any threshold where chance + necessity could even remotely be plausible as the source. So, right from the root, the tree of life, per empirically anchored inference to best explanation on reliable signs, points strongly to design as the cause of cell-based life. Design is in the door and sitting at the table as best explanation for OOL. Not on no evidence, but on reliable sign. So also, beyond that point, it is just as reasonable to infer design as the cause of major body plans, requiring credibly 10 - 100+ Mbits of increments in FSCO/I dozens of times over. And so on down to our own origin. You have put forward the fossil record. In reply, I have documented from relevant expert, that it is consistent with what we should expect from the very nature of FSCO/I: islands of functional configs, in a much wider sea of possible but non-functional configs.In short, when we see the embryo self assembling into a viable body plan, that is not a given by law of necessity, it is an algorithm that has to be explained. And there is just no evidence that incremental variation form an original life form, viable and ecologically dominant all the way, could do this in the time available in our observed cosmos, much less our solar system; our practical universe for chemical interactions. As for biogeography, homology, etc etc, the evidence is that these at best speak of adaptations of fully formed body plans. That in a world where given the number of steps of incremental change to do the sorts of transformations required, such transitional forms should utterly dominate the world of life, currently living and fossil. That, notoriously, just is not so. That is why you are in the position of dismissing evidence of adequate cause and proposing inadequate causal forces and demanding that they instead be accepted. So, not so fast. KFkairosfocus_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

KF,
With all due respect I am pointing to your habit of asserting NO EVIDENCE in the teeth of evidence and linked reasoning on widely used and scientifically accepted principles of logic. Please deal with that.
I can only repeat things I've already said and if that was inadequate before it will be again so there's not much point. My evidence and reasoning are not acceptable so . . . Time to let it go I think.Jerad_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Jerad With all due respect I am pointing to your habit of asserting NO EVIDENCE in the teeth of evidence and linked reasoning on widely used and scientifically accepted principles of logic. Please deal with that. KFkairosfocus_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Jerad: As a statistician by training, you MUST know that most samples from a population will be representative of its bulk features. And, surely you know the significance of my reference to a lack of correlation between life forms being in complete rather than transitional state, and the incidence of floods, volcano eruptions etc. The evidence on its weight is that there is far more than an adequate cross section and for decades there has been a stable pattern, that points to a dominant pattern, indeed and overwhelming pattern. As to Gould et al, the facts do not pivot on whether or not they are evolutionists, save that these are admissions against interest. That is why he found himself developing a theory to explain LACK of evidence. As for biogeography, I have repeatedly pointed out that the pattern is that of minor adaptation within forms, as is all the actual observed evidence. Recall, taxonomic criteria are significantly subjective and subject to change. For instance I have raised, red deer of Europe and Elk of North America brought to NZ -- despite species lines -- turned out to be freely interfertile. The family is probably the reasonable threshold for discussion of body plans (in many cases), and the evidence of biogeography is of adaptation, specialisation, small pop founder effects and loss of info in the wider pool of genes with minor effects of mutations [often damaging such as loss of wings or vision]. The Galapagos Finches turned out to be interfertile across quite distinct forms, with famous cases in the literature. Biogeography simply does not bear the weight of body plan level macro evo you would put on it. Instead, it is evidence of adaptation within a body plan that was already functional. The issue is to get to body plans, not to adapt them. As to timelines and conventional dates, I am pointing out that 500 - 1,000 bits is so many orders of magnitude inside the actual ranges that we would have to account for, that the solar system and observed cosmos do not have the atomic resources -- not enough atoms, not enough time in 13.7 BY, to get us anywhere near a reasonable expectation of spontaneous origin of the FSCO/I observed on blind chance and mechanical necessity. As has been pointed out to you and linked over and over and over. Why the insistent repetition of talking points without cogent reply on substance? KFkairosfocus_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

Kf, I do apologise. I think we're both getting a bit repetitive and frustrated so it's probably time to quit. I certainly do feel that I have a greater understanding of your position than I did before we started. And I think my explanations of my view are not saying anything new. I am not a trained biologist or geologist so it's not too surprising my efforts fall somewhat short of the mark. I completely agree that you have the inalienable right to come to a different conclusion than I; that's the reason I'm participating in this forum: to find out what ID proponents think and why. I don't agree with you but I do respect your well thought out opinion. I do feel that sometime, in this forum, participants are not always respectful of the evolutionary conclusion; lots of references are made to evolutionary theory being brainless, without foundation, completely absurd, a series of tale-tales. I would ask that we all try a bit harder to respect each other viewpoints. I chose to come here and ask some questions. And I did my best to answer questions. I'm a human being so I made mistakes and if any of those were offensive then I am truly sorry about that. Anyway GEM, thanks for taking so much time and effort. You've given me much insight and for that I am very grateful.Jerad_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

Jerad FYI, once life forms are pushed below about 300 kbases of genome, they collapse. There are life forms with down to 100k or so bases, but they are parasitic. The threshold for the code of functional independent life is closer to 1/2 - 1 mn bases than to 100,000. KFkairosfocus_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

PS: Let me make two points clear: (i) I am calling every butcher's shop, every ER, every Hospital, every Medical practitioner, every Vet, and the whole science of pathology as witness to the fact of islands of function, (ii) I am not merely inferring on best explanation, but doing so in the context of origins science and science in general as well as broader inductive reasoning.kairosfocus_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Jerad: This is disappointing and even subtly disrespectful, after some weeks and after I have already answered it over and over:
. . . you are willing to infer an agent which you have no evidence existed ever.
I have to ask you to stop this sort of subtle insinuation of irrationality, backed up by a bland dismissal of in fact abundant evidence. If you disagree with my reasoning on observed evidence per the Newtonian uniformity principle in light of inductive logic and inference to best explanation, do please show us why; kindly do not further subtly and snidely deride and dismiss such reasoning and evidence as empty question-begging rooted in "no evidence." That phrase, in short, is snide and should be taken back. Do, kindly note that you are here dealing with someone who has dealt with the evidence and linked reasoning, literally at book-length, cf here on. Let us review, in relatively short steps of thought: 1 --> We have a question of inference on sign. A characteristic and long-standing, highly successful and indeed inevitable pattern of inductive reasoning. Here is Aristotle in The Rhetoric, Bk I Ch 2:
[1357b] Of Signs, one kind bears the same relation to the statement it supports as the particular bears to the universal, the other the same as the universal bears to the particular. The infallible kind is a "complete proof" (tekmerhiou); the fallible kind has no specific name. By infallible signs I mean those on which syllogisms proper may be based: and this shows us why this kind of Sign is called "complete proof": when people think that what they have said cannot be refuted, they then think that they are bringing forward a "complete proof," meaning that the matter has now been demonstrated and completed (peperhasmeuou ); for the word perhas has the same meaning (of "end" or "boundary") as the word tekmarh in the ancient tongue. Now the one kind of Sign (that which bears to the proposition it supports the relation of particular to universal) may be illustrated thus. Suppose it were said, "The fact that Socrates was wise and just is a sign that the wise are just." Here we certainly have a Sign; but even though the proposition be true, the argument is refutable, since it does not form a syllogism. Suppose, on the other hand, it were said, "The fact that he has a fever is a sign that he is ill," or, "The fact that she is giving milk is a sign that she has lately borne a child." Here we have the infallible kind of Sign, the only kind that constitutes a complete proof, since it is the only kind that, if the particular statement is true, is irrefutable. The other kind of Sign, that which bears to the proposition it supports the relation of universal to particular, might be illustrated by saying, "The fact that he breathes fast is a sign that he has a fever." This argument also is refutable, even if the statement about the fast breathing be true, since a man may breathe hard without having a fever. It has, then, been stated above what is the nature of a Probability, of a Sign, and of a complete proof, and what are the differences between them . . .
2 --> In inductive reasoning, we have every right to infer that if a known adequate cause that has no alternative known adequate causes leaves certain characteristic observable signs, then if we see the sign, the sign counts as evidence -- indeed, often STRONG or even decisive or demonstrative evidence -- of the presence of the known adequate cause. (Observe Ari's remarks on that. This is not exactly a recent development of thought. Science pivots on identifying things from their signs, and since it is incapable of demonstration of proposed laws beyond correction, it seeks to provide empirically reliable patterns of thought on signs.) 3 --> Here, we know that FSCO/I is known to be caused by intelligence, per a massive observational base including even posts in this thread. We also know that per the million monkeys and needle in the haystack type analysis, that there is no credible reason to expect that FSCO/I in particular, beyond 500 - 1,000 bits, will emerge by chance and/or mechanical necessity. In any context. 4 --> The usual objection here is to pretend or suggest that in the world of life we have a major exception. This as I have just pointed out, in the teeth of evidence that there is no exception, i.e. there is in fact no empirical reason to believe that there is a continuous tree of life that incrementally flowed out of one or a few primitive unicellular forms. 5 --> There is instead, every reason to see that life forms fit into the common pattern that when something is based on the assembly of many well-matched parts into a functional whole, slight derangement or destruction of parts often yields catastrophic collapse of function. The .22 bullet in the head of a cow, is a good example. And there are many, many others. The world of life is not exceptional to the pattern that FSCO/I comes in islands in a vastly larger config space utterly dominated by non-functional forms. 6 --> So, the 500 - 1,000 bit threshold comes in as the zone where atomic resources of our solar system or the cosmos as a whole will be utterly dominated by the space. We can only sample a tiny fraction of it, and have no reasonable right to expect that a blind chance and necessity walk across configs will land us to a shoreline of complex specific function. 7 --> This is most evident in the case at the root of the Darwinist tree of life, OOL. For, at this juncture, there is no already existing joining of metabolic constructor to self-replication controlled by a digital, algorithmic, symbolic code and carried out by molecular nanomachines. 8 --> So, the complexity threshold of 100,000+ bits has to be crossed, without being able to appeal to existing self-replication. the only known, empirically and analytically adequate basis for that is design. 9 --> So, we have known reliable sign and we have inferred causal basis per best explanation. 10 --> Origin of life screams design, in short. 11 --> Could it be lying, merely designoid? The problem with inferring that as explanation, is that it is an appeal to statistical miracles in the teeth of the evidence. 12 --> So, the only reasonable basis for resorting to that is if we have in hand decisive evidence that a designer was not POSSIBLE at the origin of life. 13 --> Absent such a demonstration, to resort to a statistical miracle (soon, to be backed up by dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of even more extreme ones) is a sign of selective hyperskepticism because of metaphysical preference or prejudice, not a sign of an evidence-led conclusion. 14 --> And even if one makes this his or her own view, there is no proper right to impose this as a censoring a priori on science practice and science education, formal or popular. 15 --> In short, dismissive assertions notwithstanding, we have strong evidence of design at the root of the tree of life. 16 --> Let us put that directly: When was the last time you saw algorithms, code [plus underlying language], storage units, readers and execution machines spontaneously originating by blind chance and mechanical necessity? By design? 17 --> The answers are obvious and speak loud and clear for themselves. 18 --> Next, we come to the various body plans from the Cambrian revolution on to our own origins. Again and again, we are looking at increments of FSCO/I from 10 - 100+ mn or even bns of bits. We see fossil and other evidence that consistently points to discrete islands of function, as has already been highlighted just above. 19 --> So, it is highly reasonable accept that such FSCO/I is a reliable sign of the only observed adequate cause, and is itself evidence that a designer was present at the origin of life and of body plans, up to our own. (We have already shown that it is reasonable to see that a molecular nanotech lab using extensions of techniques already in routine operation, could do the job.) 20 --> In the teeth of this, the denial that such reliable signs point to the only empirically known and analytically warranted adequate cause of such signs, is selectively hyperskeptical. 21 --> That is, just as I found 30 years ago with the then dominant Marxists, there is clearly a controlling a priori that leads to rejection of what would otherwise be "a no-brainer." 22 --> Namely, the sort of Lewontinian a priori materialism that seeks to even redefine science on materialist ideology. 23 --> Whether you yourself formally adhere to that ideology or simply are accommodating it makes little difference. 24 --> I cannot make you abandon such an a priori, but I can spotlight it and identify how it affects your conclusions. 25 --> On the strength of that, I have every right to require of you that you not tax me with a false insinuation of question-begging, for I have gone through a process of comparative difficulties across live options, as just outlined in summary. __________ And, that is therefore my formal request, that you respect my right to -- having undertaken a responsible process of analysis and reasoning per inductively based inference to best explanation in light of evidence -- draw a different conclusion from yours. Plainly, there is evidence on signs that points to a designer. Surely, that should be adequate to warrant such an inference on best explanation. So, kindly have some respect. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

KF,
Notice, the underlying issue is to get to the threshold level beyond which there can be some incremental elaboration.
He didn't say what it was though. Has anyone proved a biological threshold? And he definitely said you can get increased complexity via self replication which I keep hearing from ID proponents is not possible.Jerad_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply