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

KF,
Do you appreciate why a sample of 1,000 randomly selected people often gives a very good +/- 3% or so picture of the US population of 300 Millions?
Yup, I have an MS in Mathematics and used to teach statistics.
In short, sampling theory tells us that — and why — a random or close enough sample [or, actually most samples . . . ] tend to reflect the dominant patterns of a population.
Yup, a random sample of a defined population (or a stratified random sample) can be very indicative of the whole population. At least as far as it's opinion is concerned. Are you saying fossils are random samples of past life forms?
So, the plea that the fossils support incremental body form transformation is not supported by the evidence, and indeed may well be flat contradicted by it. That is in part why Gould et al came up with a theory of invisibility of asserted evolutionary change.
Interesting that Gould did not give up on evolutionary theory though. Perhaps it's because evolutionary theory is NOT based solely on the fossil record.
And so we end up with a theory that is dominant in the teeth of the mute weight of the evidence.
Including the genetic, biogeographic (which you have not addressed as far as I can remember) and the morphological evidence? And the lack of independent physical evidence for a designer? Or an alternate model which has the same explanatory power and explains the data?
And in all of this, we need to remember, that the diversification to yield the varied forms is so complex that transitional forms SHOULD be utterly statistically dominant, e.g. cf Berlinski’s estimate that it would take maybe 50,000 steps to make a cow-like animal into a whale like one, that is, 50,000:2. The like obtains for ever so many other variations. The linking, half-half forms therefore should be 90+% of the world of life, and should be what we mostly pick up in cross-sections, if life developed by a process of incremental variation and fixation of such.
Hmmm . . . I can't recall that Dr Berlinski has ever tested his idea in the peer-reviewed biological forum. And I can't recall that he has any special background or training that makes his pronouncement especially significant. I think my assumption that there were life forms between those that were lucky enough to leave fossils that we have discovered is more parsimonious than to infer a designer who has left no physical evidence of their work or intentions. And if you buy the front-loading argument and the designer did not interfere after a certain stage they you are also making the assumption there are intermediate forms that did not fossilise.
Links should not be consistently missing, they should be THE dominant feature of the world of life, once we accept that there is no reason that floods, volcanic eruptions etc should be correlated with a neat pattern of “snapshots” that somehow manages to overwhelmingly consistently miss transitional forms; though we do have a good number of mosaics on record, in fossils and as still living forms. Mosaics, not transitional forms, mosaics like the platypus that point to a library of adaptable genetic info, not an evolving tree.
As I don't think evolution is a guided process, i.e. there is no goal or target, then I consider all species to be transitional forms from what came before to what came later. Therefore all fossils ARE transitional forms.
In short, after 150 years, the fossils still say a loud no to the Darwinian macro-evo picture. If we are listening.
What does the biogeographic evidence say? What about the ability of random mutation and selection to take wolves to all the varieties of dogs? Or why whales have internal hind legs? Or all the various diseases that have killed more human beings than any despot or pogrom? What about allergies? Who thought they were a good idea?
And, the timeline is irrelevant, 500 – 1,000 bits is sufficient to swamp the atomic level resources of our solar system or the observed cosmos, respectively; across the 13.7 BY that are available on the usual cosmological timelines, where we have the worked out physics of collapsing H-gas balls, the resulting main sequence lifespans that are reasonable for stars, and the associated HR diagrams of star clusters with branches from the main sequence heading for the giants branch that are consistent with 10 or so BY as galactic lifespan. The evidence points to 100,000+ bits of FSCO/I required for first life and 10 – 100+ millions for various multicellular life forms.
The timeline is irrelevant? Really? Does that mean you are not contesting the dating techniques?
The only known adequate cause of that level of info and organisation, is design.
That is your opinion. Even carbon atoms will spontaneously arrange themselves into structures given the right environmental conditions. I know you don't buy the climbing Mt Improbable contention (although it seems Johnny von Neumann did) but your argument is just that the sample space is too big even though no biologist says the space was going to be randomly sampled. AND, even if that was the case, for life to get started it only has to hit a lucky combination once.
Even, where we do not separately know the exact technology or designers involved.
Well, I like to have more evidence personally. And people will ask questions . . .
What is more, biogeography, homologies, etc etc similarly support a picture of common design. (Don’t forget, Wallace, co-founder of evolutionary theory, heavily emphasised bio-geog in his work, and was a design thinker from 1869 on. No prizes for guessing why he has been relegated to footnote status, given what we are seeing.)
Okay, you are addressing the biogeographic data. Cool. Although you don't really argue against it except to invoke Wallace. Too bad, I was hoping you'd talk about things like marsupials and old vs. new world monkeys. Oh well. I know about Wallace, he's hardly hidden from view to anyone who bothers to look. Even Dr Shermer wrote a book about him. I can't say what his opinion would be 100 years on and with the genetic evidence he didn't have access to. Are you very, very sure he'd still be a design proponent?
It is time to blow the whistle and halt the juggernaut.
Well, find some evidence and come up with a model that has the same explanatory power and only invokes known processes and agents. Do the work and make the case. If you just said it was a matter of faith I wouldn't argue with you. You are making scientific claims and almost all of the qualified scientists in the world disagree with you. Maybe you are right but you're going to have to work harder to prove your case. Science is, and should be, fairly conservative. And, according to the vast majority of working scientists, you haven't toppled the model yet.Jerad_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

F/N: JvN of course is hinting at the key challenge of complexity. Notice, the underlying issue is to get to the threshold level beyond which there can be some incremental elaboration. In addition, we are not dealing with linear incrementalism, but with radical diversity of forms in an integrated complex. So, over and over again, we have to cross the space of non-functional forms to get to zones of novel functional forms capable of elaboration. Multiply this by the FSCO/I issue and we came right back tot he islands of function issue. But to see that requires thinking outside the Darwinist, a priori materialist box. I am ever more convinced that this is the big problem.kairosfocus_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

Jerad: Do you appreciate why a sample of 1,000 randomly selected people often gives a very good +/- 3% or so picture of the US population of 300 Millions? In short, sampling theory tells us that -- and why -- a random or close enough sample [or, actually most samples . . . ] tend to reflect the dominant patterns of a population. In the case of the fossil world, as has already been pointed out to you, since Darwin's day, we have had a scouring of the world's sedimentary beds (with, BTW, a big boost from the energy industry . . . ) across all eras of the conventional timeline/geological column. As a result, we have looked at billions of fossils in situ, have many millions groaning on museum storage shelves, and have considerably north of 250,000 fossil species on record. There is every reason to see that the consistent pattern of that record over the past 150 years is predominant and reflects the major patterns of the world of life. Namely, isolation of forms. This is usually expressed in terms of sudden appearance, stasis and disappearance (with cases like coelacanth showing both disappearance and continuity to the current world). So, the plea that the fossils support incremental body form transformation is not supported by the evidence, and indeed may well be flat contradicted by it. That is in part why Gould et al came up with a theory of invisibility of asserted evolutionary change. That is, the evidence is not there, but it is not the evidence that drives the theory, it is the dominant paradigm, underpinned by the worldview trends of the intelligentsia over the past 200 or so years. That is how we end up with attempts to redefine science on terms that build in evolutionary materialism a priori, by the back door. Which in turn undermines the ostensive commitment of science to seek the unfettered truth about our world in light of empirical evidence. And so we end up with a theory that is dominant in the teeth of the mute weight of the evidence. Which is something the onlooking public has a right to know, and the students in our schools also have a right to know, on pain of reducing public and formal education to indoctrination, i.e. fact-twisting, manipulative propaganda. No wonder Philip Johnson, replying to Lewontin and though him others, warned:
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." [Emphasis added] . . . . 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.]
You will understand why I will summarise your remarks just above as a disguised concession. The evidence of your "snapshots" does not say what you want, and what Darwin hoped and expected -- yet another collapsed expectation/prediction, but the system stands. So, we are in our rights to draw out that the dominant pattern of the fossil record, after 150 years of diligent search -- and despite the misleading headlines, museum exhibits, and textbook or Nat Geog Channel icons, declarations, reconstructions and footage, and even outright fraud [ a la Haeckel] etc -- is that we have islands of body forms. Precisely the opposite to what the darwinian tree of incrementally varying life forms branching out by RV + NS, would lead us to have expected. And in all of this, we need to remember, that the diversification to yield the varied forms is so complex that transitional forms SHOULD be utterly statistically dominant, e.g. cf Berlinski's estimate that it would take maybe 50,000 steps to make a cow-like animal into a whale like one, that is, 50,000:2. The like obtains for ever so many other variations. The linking, half-half forms therefore should be 90+% of the world of life, and should be what we mostly pick up in cross-sections, if life developed by a process of incremental variation and fixation of such. Links should not be consistently missing, they should be THE dominant feature of the world of life, once we accept that there is no reason that floods, volcanic eruptions etc should be correlated with a neat pattern of "snapshots" that somehow manages to overwhelmingly consistently miss transitional forms; though we do have a good number of mosaics on record, in fossils and as still living forms. Mosaics, not transitional forms, mosaics like the platypus that point to a library of adaptable genetic info, not an evolving tree. Yet, the hoped for links are overwhelmingly, consistently missing. Right from the Cambrian fossil life revolution on. Which is still top down, main branches first. Discrete major forms, and onward discrete lesser forms that require abundant FSCO/I to work. In short, after 150 years, the fossils still say a loud no to the Darwinian macro-evo picture. If we are listening. That is empirical disconfirmation if there ever was. The only empirically supported explanation of this pattern is that once we note how FSCO/I rich it is, and once we look seriously at the observations and analysis that support the contention that FSCO/I is a signature of design, we are looking at eloquent evidence of designed forms. And, the timeline is irrelevant, 500 - 1,000 bits is sufficient to swamp the atomic level resources of our solar system or the observed cosmos, respectively; across the 13.7 BY that are available on the usual cosmological timelines, where we have the worked out physics of collapsing H-gas balls, the resulting main sequence lifespans that are reasonable for stars, and the associated HR diagrams of star clusters with branches from the main sequence heading for the giants branch that are consistent with 10 or so BY as galactic lifespan. The evidence points to 100,000+ bits of FSCO/I required for first life and 10 - 100+ millions for various multicellular life forms. The only known adequate cause of that level of info and organisation, is design. We are entitled to take that as a sign of design. Even, where we do not separately know the exact technology or designers involved. What is more, biogeography, homologies, etc etc similarly support a picture of common design. (Don't forget, Wallace, co-founder of evolutionary theory, heavily emphasised bio-geog in his work, and was a design thinker from 1869 on. No prizes for guessing why he has been relegated to footnote status, given what we are seeing.) The evidence points to common design, the ideology demands darwinist gradualism and an incrementally evolving tree of life. The ideology has been winning. It is time to blow the whistle and halt the juggernaut. KFkairosfocus_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

Bye the way, I was curious as to what Johnny von Neumann had to say about self replicators and I came across this extended quote:
Anybody who looks at living organisms knows perfectly well that they can produce other organisms like themselves. This is their normal function, they wouldn’t exist if they didn’t do this, and it’s plausible that this is the reason why they abound in the world. In other words, living organisms are very complicated aggregations of elementary parts, and by any reasonable theory of probability or thermodynamics highly improbable. That they should occur in the world at all is a miracle of the first magnitude; the only thing which removes, or mitigates, this miracle is that they reproduce themselves. Therefore, if by any peculiar accident there should ever be one of them, from there on the rules of probability do not apply, and there will be many of them, at least if the milieu is reasonable. But a reasonable milieu is already a thermodynamically much less improbable thing. So, the operations of probability somehow leave a loophole at this point, and it is by the process of self-reproduction that they are pierced. Furthermore, it’s equally evident that what goes on is actually one degree better than self-reproduction, for organisms appear to have gotten more elaborate in the course of time. Today’s organisms are phylogenetically descended from others which were vastly simpler than they are, so much simpler, in fact, that it’s inconceivable how any kind of description of the later, complex organisms could have existed in the earlier one. It’s not easy to imagine in what sense a gene, which is probably a low order affair, can contain a description of the human being which will come from it. But in this case you can say that since the gene has its effect only within another human organism, it probably need not contain a complete description of what is to happen, but only a few cues for a few alternatives. However, this is not so in phylogenetic evolution. That starts from simple entities, surrounded by an unliving amorphous milieu, and produces something more complicated. Evidently, these organisms have the ability to produce something more complicated than themselves. The other line of argument, which leads to the opposite conclusion, arises from looking at artificial automata. Everyone knows that a machine tool is more complicated than the elements which can be made with it, and that, generally speaking, an automaton A, which can make an automaton B, must contain a complete description of B and also rules on how to behave while effecting the synthesis. So, one gets a very strong impression that complication, or productive potentiality in an organization, is degenerative, that an organization which synthesizes something is necessarily more complicated, of a higher order, than the organization it synthesizes. This conclusion, arrived at by considering artificial automata, is clearly opposite to our earlier conclusion, arrived at by considering living organisms. I think that some relatively simple combinatorial discussions of artificial automata can contribute to mitigating this dilemma. Appealing to the organic, living world does not help us greatly, because we do not understand enough about how natural organisms function. We will stick to automata which we know completely because we made them, either actual artificial automata or paper automata described completely by some finite set of logical axioms. It is possible in this domain to describe automata which can reproduce themselves. So at least one can show that on the site where one would expect complication to be degenerative it is not necessarily degenerative at all, and, in fact, the production of a more complicated object from a less complicated object is possible. The conclusion one should draw from this is that complication is degenerative below a certain minimum level. This conclusion is quite in harmony with other results in formal logics, to which I have referred a few times earlier during these lectures. … There is a minimum number of parts below which complication is degenerative, in the sense that if one automaton makes another the second is less complex than the first, but above which it is possible for an automaton to construct other automata of equal or higher complexity. … There is thus this completely decisive property of complexity, that there exists a critical size below which the process of synthesis is degenerative, but above which the phenomenon of synthesis, if properly arranged, can become explosive, in other words, where synthesis of automata can proceed in such a manner that each automaton will produce other automata which are more complex and of higher potentialities than itself.
(Reproduced in Papers of John von Neumann on Computing and Computer Theory, W. Aspray and A. Burks, eds., MIT Press, pp 481-482Jerad_{July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

PeterJ,
I thank you for your reply, although I think you have already conceded that there isn’t much for me to debate there. You see fossils and see ‘evolution in action’, I see fossils and see ‘stasis’.
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! Also, I believe in evolution because of multiple lines of evidence not just the fossils.
I think it’s fairly obvious that we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. But I would be very interested to hear you explain in some more detail why you think Prothero’s take on the fossil record supports evolution.
Firstly he understands what evolutionary theory means. He is then able to show how the fossil record is exactly the sort of thing we'd expect to see if evolutionary theory is true. He also addresses lots of objections and explains why they are incorrect. There isn't a particular argument or case that I want to point to. It's Dr Prothero's approach and his knowledge of the evolutionary processes and his deep knowledge of the fossil record that make the book valuable to me.
Thanks for your kind words earlier Jerad, and the same goes to you.
You are very welcome! I hope you have a grand and glorious Sunday!Jerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

KF,
You seem to have just skimmed. I am warning that the whole geodating system has too many imponderables begged, so we would be well advised to reckon with circularities and uncertainties rather than toss dates around as though practically certain. I have much more respect for the sort of timelines that are supported by say the HR stellar patterns of star clusters. That is why that page leads with an example of origin science done right.
Imponderables begged? Really? We observe properties of physics and assume that exactly the same processes occurred in the past? Star clusters can't help us date fossils.
but this is not opening yet another tangential debate. I am highlighting that we have not observed the ACTUAL past and need to be duly cautious in reconstructions.
Which is why we only assume known and observed processes are active in the past. Not agents unless there is independent evidence of them being around at the time.
You will also notice, that I put far more stock in the implications of tested and found reliable signs, than in what too often pivots on little more than just so stories.
Yet you are willing to infer an agent which you have no evidence existed ever. In my opinion.
PS: Remember, it takes just one fact to overturn a mountain of appeals to authority. And we are in a context that has to reckon with the biasing effect of a priori materialism. in this case there is just one empirically and analytically warranted source of FSCO/I. Design. Which evidently cuts across the bias.
IF you could establish that DNA was created by a designer then I'd agree.Jerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Jerad, 'What I really liked about Dr Prothero’s book was how he spelled out, in lots of detail but at a layman’s level, how the fossil record is examined and interpreted.' That's quite funny because it is exactly that which made me think that all isn't right with this line of reasoning. I thank you for your reply, although I think you have already conceded that there isn't much for me to debate there. You see fossils and see 'evolution in action', I see fossils and see 'stasis'. Nearly all Paleontologists agree that the fossil record, especially where dinosaurs are concerned, does not show the kind of evolution we are discussing here. I think it's fairly obvious that we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. But I would be very interested to hear you explain in some more detail why you think Prothero's take on the fossil record supports evolution. If you could do that for me I would be very gratefull. Thanks for your kind words earlier Jerad, and the same goes to you. PPeterJ_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

PS: Remember, it takes just one fact to overturn a mountain of appeals to authority. And we are in a context that has to reckon with the biasing effect of a priori materialism. in this case there is just one empirically and analytically warranted source of FSCO/I. Design. Which evidently cuts across the bias.kairosfocus_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Jerad: You seem to have just skimmed. I am warning that the whole geodating system has too many imponderables begged, so we would be well advised to reckon with circularities and uncertainties rather than toss dates around as though practically certain. I have much more respect for the sort of timelines that are supported by say the HR stellar patterns of star clusters. That is why that page leads with an example of origin science done right. but this is not opening yet another tangential debate. I am highlighting that we have not observed the ACTUAL past and need to be duly cautious in reconstructions. You will also notice, that I put far more stock in the implications of tested and found reliable signs, than in what too often pivots on little more than just so stories. KFkairosfocus_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

KF, Okay, I found your radiometric dating techniques criticism. You've got a case of a supposed problem . . . does that mean the whole system gets thrown out? There is an implication that researchers reject conflicting dates. Is that just supposition or is there clear evidence that this is a real problem? I guess you've not arguing with the science of radiometric dating . . .but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Perhaps you should clearly state the problems you see.Jerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

KF,
On dating, please cf here on.
Your link is only to the top of your IOSE page. Could you narrow it down a bit? Or summarise your argument?
And, I repeat, we start from what we have: sound, empirically based answers, and build out from there. We do not impose materialist a prioris, known inadequate processes that cannot account for FSCO/I — and given the von Neumann self replicator and the needle in the haystack challenge, that includes in the world of life — and we do not accept that because we do not have some answers, we should drop the answers that we do have.
As I said, I accept design as an argument. But regarding evoution's hows, whys and whens at this point the design inference has got less explanatory power AND only one line of (disputed) evidence.
Humble admission of what we do not know is better than pretensions that that which is grossly inadequate is what we should project to the public and to kids in school as being as practically certain as that the planets orbit the sun.
There's A LOT in evolutionary theory that is not known. And the OoL is . . . not quite guess-work but in its infancy for sure. Maybe not, I don't keep up on that. But, since we can't measure and define the divine and since there's no real evidence for an intelligent designer aside from DNA (which is disputed greatly) I'll settle on the evolutionary theory model for now.
In short, even when interpreted along the conventional timeline (and, the actual past, we did not and cannot observe, all is reconstruction with a disturbingly high degree of circularity), the fossils speak to discrete islands of morphology, not to a well-rooted, smoothly incrementally developing and branching tree of life on a contiguous continent of functional forms from amoeba to Einstein.
And yet Dr Gould and Dr Dawkins and Dr Coyne and Dr Prothero and lots and lots of other people who have spent decades examining the evidence still accept the evolutionary model.
The fossil-anchored Darwinian tree of life is a myth.
I think the genetic evidence will win out in the end.
Indeed, there is no one tree, once we look at the many conflicting molecular reconstructions.
I'm thinking that some of the confusion might be due to cross-fertilisation before a final species split. Like between Neanderthals and Home Sapiens. Just a thought, I am not a biologist in any way, shape or form.
So, we will hear the confident declarations, but we should recall the challenge of the facts to all such creedal declarations. However sincere.
Far enough. Especially if you've got an alternate model which has the same explanatory power.
If those who trot out claims on that record cannot cogently answer to Gould with a multitude of counter-examples — not cherry-picked much headlined cases that tend to fall apart on closer examination as has repeatedly happened for 150 years — that show incremental progression from one major body plan to another, they should not be allowed to claim that here is an empirically warranted incremental Darwinist tree of life and they should not be allowed to claim that body plan level macro evolution is an empirical fact.
Dr Gould himself answered his challenge: he was a Darwinist. There was no death-bed conversion from Dr Gould.
I have already laid out a linear progression from what we have done over the past 30 – 40 years with genetic technologies, to the obvious conclusion that genetic and cellular engineering in a molecular nanotech lab is quite feasible. Indeed, we can say that to a material degree, it is being done on an almost routine basis around us.
Yup, we're getting there.
To then pretend that in the teeth of this, we cannot infer from empirically reliable sign, FSCO/I, to the signified explanation, design, in favour of proposed mechanisms that do not have empirical warrant, is revealing.
You can infer that, I'd prefer to have more, independent evidence.
To then go on to demand that we have observations from the known unobservable remote past, is selective hyperskepticism.
And yet, ID proponents are always asking for step-by-step proof that non-directed processes did what evolutionary theory says they did. How can anyone, ever 'prove' how something happened in the far past? We draw inferences based on what processes we observe in effect today that can be safely assumed were still in effect at the time in question.
All of this brings us back to the Newtonian uniformity principle: when we see a known adequate process that leads to reliable signs, we have every good reason to infer that like causes like, and to hold that in the teeth of any and all contrary metaphysical speculations and doctrines that do not have that sort of empirical warrant. In other worlds, we are well within our scientific rights to insist on the credibility of inductive generalisation on signs that reliably point to known adequate cause.
I completely agree with uniformity. But you can't infer a cause like intelligence, currently observable, to have been in effect in the distance past without proof that such an intelligence existed at the time! Intelligence is not a basic force of the universe. It requires an agent. What agent was around at the time in question? What were its abilities? How did it operate? What were it's motives?
That is what design theory is about, and it is why in the end, once people realise what is at stake in rejecting it — driving the proverbial stake through the heart of scientific methods and empirical reasoning — it will prevail.
Design theory has to withstand the same scrutiny as any other hypothesis. It has to have data which cannot be explained in any other way. It has to be testable. It has to be definable. It has to have explanatory power for all the data. It has to have few assumptions as possible. It has to stand up regardless of the creed or beliefs of the person examining it.
There is a lot of sound and fury, but noise and intimidation or clinging to the orthodoxy of the day do not make up for logical gaps like this one.
I agree. Show/explain to the world what ID is really saying regarding the how, why and when questions and see how it fairs. Seriously.Jerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Joe,
Ya see even with all you have posted- good stuff- Jerad still needs “independent” evidence for the designer- like a fossil, a video or a meeting. Who has time for someone like that?
Well, you keep asking me for evidence for evolutionary theory. I keep hearing that intelligence is the only OBSERVED source for complex specified information. I was only asking for some evidence, observed or otherwise aside from DNA, that there was a designer around capable of what is being claimed s/he did . . . whatever that is. No one can really say for some reason. But I live in hope some of the participants in this forum will enlighten me regarding their views as PeterJ has so kindly done. I have great respect for him, he was honest and straightforward. I will not argue with him over his faith which sustains and enriches him, it would be cruel to do otherwise. AND illogical. If you're not going to take the discussion seriously then I guess it's over. Oh well. Unless you want to trade jokes . . . What's the worst part about being a materialist? Not being able to say 'I told you so!' after you die.Jerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

PeterJ, What I really liked about Dr Prothero's book was how he spelled out, in lots of detail but at a layman's level, how the fossil record is examined and interpreted. I don't believe in evolution just because of the fossil record although it's one of the major lines of evidence supporting the theory. But even though I understood the basics it was nice to have Dr Prothero's more in-depth discussions of the whole field. I have read lots of books supporting evolutionary theory but they are generally generalist tomes not completely diving into any one line of evidence. Obviously one book, no matter how good, cannot convey the expertise gained from decades of experience but it was a very good try. I wish I could find books that did the same for the morphological, genetic and biogeographic evidence as well. Hmmmmm, maybe I just haven't looked hard enough. Anyway, that may not have fully answered your question but I will have another think! I don't think I've really addressed the how it supports evolution really yet. And, I admit, I read it already believing in the theory.Jerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

KF Thank you for the quotes by Guold. Very interesting, but also very obvious too when you think about it. I honestly don't see how anyone can look at the fossil record, for any supposed period in time, and see any form of 'evolution' from one body plan to another. PPeterJ_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

KF, I have figured out that reasoning is useless so now I am just playing. Ya see even with all you have posted- good stuff- Jerad still needs "independent" evidence for the designer- like a fossil, a video or a meeting. Who has time for someone like that?Joe_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Joe: I have already laid out a linear progression from what we have done over the past 30 - 40 years with genetic technologies, to the obvious conclusion that genetic and cellular engineering in a molecular nanotech lab is quite feasible. Indeed, we can say that to a material degree, it is being done on an almost routine basis around us. To then pretend that in the teeth of this, we cannot infer from empirically reliable sign, FSCO/I, to the signified explanation, design, in favour of proposed mechanisms that do not have empirical warrant, is revealing. To then go on to demand that we have observations from the known unobservable remote past, is selective hyperskepticism. All of this brings us back to the Newtonian uniformity principle: when we see a known adequate process that leads to reliable signs, we have every good reason to infer that like causes like, and to hold that in the teeth of any and all contrary metaphysical speculations and doctrines that do not have that sort of empirical warrant. In other worlds, we are well within our scientific rights to insist on the credibility of inductive generalisation on signs that reliably point to known adequate cause. That is what design theory is about, and it is why in the end, once people realise what is at stake in rejecting it -- driving the proverbial stake through the heart of scientific methods and empirical reasoning -- it will prevail. There is a lot of sound and fury, but noise and intimidation or clinging to the orthodoxy of the day do not make up for logical gaps like this one. KFkairosfocus_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

F/N: More from Gould: ________ >> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." [[Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127.] "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt." [[Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.] "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps [[ . . . . ] He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory.[[Cf. Origin, Ch 10, "Summary of the preceding and present Chapters," also see similar remarks in Chs 6 and 9.]
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." [[Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14.] >> _______ Remember, Gould's knowledge of the fossil world and of the state of fossil science was encyclopedic. If those who trot out claims on that record cannot cogently answer to Gould with a multitude of counter-examples -- not cherry-picked much headlined cases that tend to fall apart on closer examination as has repeatedly happened for 150 years -- that show incremental progression from one major body plan to another, they should not be allowed to claim that here is an empirically warranted incremental Darwinist tree of life and they should not be allowed to claim that body plan level macro evolution is an empirical fact. KFkairosfocus_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
How is: by a step-by-step process of molecular variation.
IOW you have no idea. Thank you for finally admitting that your position has absolutely no clue as to the "how".
Common design could explain it if you can be more specific regarding when, how and why.
Molecular variation is the how-Joe_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

PS: It seems we are destined to keep going in circles on the fossil record claims. let us drastically discount all such unless we see a solid answer to Gould in his The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002), a technical work published just two months before his death; as a "constructive critique" of contemporary Darwinian thought: ________ >> . . . long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists. [[p. 752.] . . . . The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section [[first occurrence] without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants." [[p. 753.] . . . . proclamations for the supposed ‘truth’ of gradualism - asserted against every working paleontologist’s knowledge of its rarity - emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most ‘textbook classics’ upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the ‘case study’ method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record. [[p. 773.] >> _________ In short, even when interpreted along the conventional timeline (and, the actual past, we did not and cannot observe, all is reconstruction with a disturbingly high degree of circularity), the fossils speak to discrete islands of morphology, not to a well-rooted, smoothly incrementally developing and branching tree of life on a contiguous continent of functional forms from amoeba to Einstein. The fossil-anchored Darwinian tree of life is a myth. Indeed, there is no one tree, once we look at the many conflicting molecular reconstructions. So, we will hear the confident declarations, but we should recall the challenge of the facts to all such creedal declarations. However sincere. KFkairosfocus_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Jerad, Thanks. I will look forward to that. No rush however. PPeterJ_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Jerad: Back around the circle. On dating, please cf here on. And, I repeat, we start from what we have: sound, empirically based answers, and build out from there. We do not impose materialist a prioris, known inadequate processes that cannot account for FSCO/I -- and given the von Neumann self replicator and the needle in the haystack challenge, that includes in the world of life -- and we do not accept that because we do not have some answers, we should drop the answers that we do have. Humble admission of what we do not know is better than pretensions that that which is grossly inadequate is what we should project to the public and to kids in school as being as practically certain as that the planets orbit the sun. KFkairosfocus_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

PeterJ, Thank you for your honest and clearly heartfelt explanation. I have immense respect for people of great faith and you clearly are one of those!! And I applaud your ability and desire to look for answers in lots of places. I will have more time later . . . . perhaps this evening? And I'd like to give you a decent answer and not one just off the cuff. But right now life calls!Jerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Jerad, I suppose, suddenly becoming a Christian, and then learning about 'creation', I couldn't quite get my head around it, and therefor sought some answers to this problem from various different sources. I looked at various sites, like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries etc, but found them to be quite frustrating as they would take you so far with the evidence, and then hit you with the creationist default setting 'yeh... well... no one was there to see how it all happened' or 'we therefor can't possibly know for sure that things have always been constant etc.' Tbph, I would have been quite happy to accept theistic evolution, and simply left it at that, but certian books, like the one you have mentioned, caused me a major problem. There was just far too much that was speculation, and assumption filled interpretation. I can see why you would have enjoyed the book. It was certainly informative in the area of fossils, and attacked many 'creationsts' evidences, but only by knocking down, what I soon discovered were, strawman arguments. Even in my relative newness to the subject of 'evolution', it sadly didn't give me the confidence required to take that stance. I had to find out what, if anything offered the most sense on this subject, and looking at what the evidence 'actually' says, and I quickly found it to be very different to what Prothero, as well as some others, were purporting at the time. Discuss with me (when you have the time to do so) what you regard in Prothero's book to be an excellent argument for 'evolution' in the fossil record. And by that I do not mean 'variation within a species'. Thanks. PPeterJ_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

PeterJ, That's the book!! I would rather not hesitate a guess. Don't want to put words in your mouth. I am very intrigued as to how it pointed you in the direction of creationism. I found the book exhaustive to the point of being a bit boring actually. But Dr Prothero clearly knows fossils and, after years and years and years of looking at them, he still believes in evolution. It sounds like we're probably just going to have to disagree in the end. Which is fine. I am still very interested in what and why you believe the way you do and I shall try and be respectful of your convictions.Jerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Jerad, 'Read Prothero’s book. I can’t even come close to his expertise and ability to elucidate the fossil record.' Which one would you be reffering to 'Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters'? If so then I would happily discuss this with you. I no longer possess a copy but I do still have fresh on my mind a lot of what was in it. It is actually one of the main books that pointed me in the direction of 'creationism'. And if you would like to know why I'll gladly tell you, although I have a feeling you could probably guess. :o) PPeterJ_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

We all know from his writings that Newton was a solid believing Creationist. However, I did not confirm the ultimate source of this fun read. Even-so, if not for anything else, the principle is still relevant here for consideration:
Sir Isaac's Solar System Sir Isaac Newton's work represents some of the greatest contributions to science ever made by an individual. Most notably, Newton derived the Law of Universal Gravitation, invented the branch of mathematics called Calculus, and performed experiments investigating the nature of light and color. He also was scholar of the Bible and devoted much time to its study. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton's home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. A scientist friend of Newton's came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "Oh My! What an exquisite thing this is!" Newton's friend exclaimed. "Who made it?" Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Oh? Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?" Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!" the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is." Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion? adapted from Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book: The Truth: God or evolution?, by Marshall and Sandra Hall, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)
JGuy_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Atoms are the Lego blocks of the universe... ...and we already know Lego's are intelligently designed. So, that's at least a basis for a hypothesis. :)JGuy_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

KF,
Per that indoctrination, you are perfectly at ease with gross exaggerations — not mere extrapolations — of the power of minor variation and adaptation, in the teeth of direct evidence that chance and/or mechanical necessity is not a credible cause of the FSCO/I we see all around us in the world of life.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on that then.
At the same time you are utterly unwilling to accept the inductive logic consequences of the fact that that the only OBSERVED — and, the routinely observed — causal factor responsible for FSCO/I is design. For, that out and out means that such FSCO/I is an empirically reliable sign of design as cause.
I agree with you regarding inanimate objects.
When the matter is put in these terms, it is at once evident why if science seeks truth about our world including its origins, design must sit to the table by right.
I agree it should always be considered. And it was thought to be true for biological entities for millennia.
However, as with many others, you have been indoctrinated to accept a dominant school of speculation’s assertions over the actual evidence in front of you and what would otherwise be the patently superior explanation. but, we are told, science CANNOT tolerate the mere thought of a divine foot in the door, or the grand project of explanation per naturaliSTIC cause would collapse in a chaos of arbitrary supernatural activity.
The trouble is: how do you measure or weigh or limit the divine?
In fact, it is the Bible-based. Judaeo-Christian doctrine of creation, sustaining and providence of the God of Order that was the matrix in which modern science was conceived, nurtured and born. Indeed, that is the root of that odd little diagnostically indicative term, LAWS of nature (as in, impressed by the Author of nature).
Don't forget the Arabs!! Wonderful astronomers and mathematicians. At one time. I agree that, probably pretty soon, us humans will be capable of producing life forms from scratch. Lots of hurdles to overcome but we'll get there. I just don't see any proof there was anyone around at the time when many life forms were in existence.
But, even without seeing direct evidence of such a lab at origin of life and major body plans, we have abundant circumstantial evidence on reliable signs that both OOL and OO body plans shows more than enough FSCO/I — including algorithmic coded info — to sustain an inference that he best explanation of these signs is design. Indeed, the very existence of digitally coded algorithms in life forms is a sign that language, computer science, related mathematics, and associated engineering, purposeful planning and digital technology existed before life as we observe it.
We'll just have to disagree on that. Too bad the designer didn't leave some documentation or some blueprints eh?
In that context, I in principle care very little about timelines and scenarios as to how tweredun in details, over 6,000 year ago or over 4 – 5 bn years ago makes but little difference. What is crucial is that he evidence implicates design, strongly. There was arson.
Well, I can't help wanting to have answers to the how, when and why questions.
Design is in the door, and sitting at the table as of right, from the origin of that first self-replicating facility, thanks to that member of the suspected circle of “Martians” in the universities of the late Austrian Empire, John von Neumann.
"Martians"?
Sure, we can have biogeographic distribution, variation and adaptation. But, in that we recognise limits, and do not demand a steady stream of informational magic popping out of noise and being explained away by uninformative labels such as “emergence.”
I think there are limits. Otherwise some life form would have evolved wheels as a mode of locomotion and some animal would be able to eat rocks.
In short, never mind the raft of objecting talking points, a design view is inherently reasonable and is classically scientific.
It certainly is in archaeology and forensics. And if you could give me some evidence, aside from DNA, that there was a designer around at all the times you claim s/he intervened then I'd certainly want to start considering it strongly in biology. And I'd be asking lots and lots of how, when and why questions. Like: why were so many life forms created and allowed to go extinct? Why do whales have internal hind legs? Why can't I synthesise vitamin C? Why does the laryngeal nerve have such a weird path? What's the point of Leprosy? Or Rabies? Or Gout? Or arthritis? Or Polio? Or Dengue Fever? Or Ebola? Or cancer? Or the plague? Why aren't life forms immortal? What was the point of Neanderthals? If dinosaurs were so fantastically successful why not bring 'em back after the comet did them in? Why do human beings have different numbers of repeats in our genomes? Why does the number of base pairs in genomes vary so much? Why does the number of chromosomes vary so much? Why aren't humans hairier, like apes? Why don't whales and dolphins have gills? Why are there marsupials? Lots and lots of questions.Jerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

PeterJ,
If we look for instance at the evidence for dinosaur evolution I think you will find that stasis, fixity of species, is what the fossil record shows. You have 700 species of dinosaur, many different examples of each having been found, but nothing that links any of them together, or for that matter an example of anything that links any one of them to a common ancestor. I don’t think you’ll find anyone who can honestly argue that fact, especially by providing solid evidence.
Read Prothero's book. I can't even come close to his expertise and ability to elucidate the fossil record.
‘Life forms are continually changing and altering. All species are transitions along the way to . . . who knows!! Some particular life forms became fossils while others didn’t OR we haven’t found them yet. Lots of soft-bodied creatures don’t leave fossils at all. If every stage of every life form left a fossil we’d be buried in them!!’ But that, surely, without any examples to look at, is pure speculation.
Well, we don't see new life forms being created wholesale these days and science can only extend observable processes. Plus there is the genetic, morphologic and biogeographic evidence which supports common descent.
My belief is that yes God created, and very possibly all at the same time.
Okay!! Thanks! I guess you'd believe that s/he could do that without leaving material evidence of the process. Any idea why so many life forms were created and allowed to go extinct?
Can you explain to me the dating methods you think provide proof that they lived at different times, if that is what you are implying.
The standard dating techniques. Different ones for different eras. Obviously carbon-14 cannot be used for dinosaur fossils. It's all discussed in Prothero's book if you're interested but I'm sure Wikipedia has a good basic discussion of dating techniques. Here's one discussing various kinds of radiometric dating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_datingJerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

Jerad ‘All fossils are transitional from what came before to what came later!! Seriously, read Donald Prothero’s book on evolution. Tons and tons of fossils. I can’t possibly present the information better than he does.’ If we look for instance at the evidence for dinosaur evolution I think you will find that stasis, fixity of species, is what the fossil record shows. You have 700 species of dinosaur, many different examples of each having been found, but nothing that links any of them together, or for that matter an example of anything that links any one of them to a common ancestor. I don’t think you’ll find anyone who can honestly argue that fact, especially by providing solid evidence. As you know the answer to that is ‘scarcity of available fossils due to the incompleteness of the fossil record.’? ‘Life forms are continually changing and altering. All species are transitions along the way to . . . who knows!! Some particular life forms became fossils while others didn’t OR we haven’t found them yet. Lots of soft-bodied creatures don’t leave fossils at all. If every stage of every life form left a fossil we’d be buried in them!!’ But that, surely, without any examples to look at, is pure speculation. ‘As a creationist do you think God/the designer created all the life forms we have fossils of independently and at the time indicated by the dating methods?’ My belief is that yes God created, and very possibly all at the same time. Can you explain to me the dating methods you think provide proof that they lived at different times, if that is what you are implying. PPeterJ_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply