Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Francisco Ayala: “You’re a heretic and blasphemer, but don’t ask me what I am.”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Darwin's Gift to Science and ReligionFrancisco Ayala has taken an aggressive theological stance against intelligent design, even using words like “blasphemy” and “atrocity” to characterize it (go here). But if Ayala feels entitled to make such strong accusations against ID, one might wonder what Ayala’s own theological views are. I therefore emailed him and copied Michael Ruse:

Dear Prof. Ayala,

I’m writing to inquire whether in any of your writings you lay out your present religious faith (and, if so, where?). I’m copying my friend Michael Ruse because I find his criticisms of ID parallel your own, and yet he makes clear that he himself is an atheist. You, on the other hand, regularly cite your background in the Roman Catholic Church as a priest. Yet you left the priesthood and it’s not clear what aspects of the Christian faith you retain. Do you, for instance, believe in a personal God who created the world? Do you believe that humans experience continued conscious existence after they die? Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate? I would appreciate any clarifications you can provide. Thank you.

Blessings,
Bill Dembski

Ruse got back to me first and suggested that Ayala would not be forthcoming about his religious views, whereupon Ayala got back to me, agreeing with Ruse: “What Michael Ruse told you about my not asserting publicly my religious convictions is correct. I have stated that on numerous occasions, quoted in all sorts of publications from The New York Times and Scientific American to religious journals and periodicals.”

Interesting that Ayala is willing publicly to acknowledge his former theological views as a Roman Catholic priest (presumably he embraced RCC dogma). And yet his present theological views are off limits. Perhaps when Dover II rolls around, Ayala will be an expert witness and under deposition be required to state his theological views. In the mean time, Ayala’s reticence about his present religious faith (or lack thereof) is at best a convenient ploy.

Comments
For something to be reverse engineered, wouldn’t it have to be engineered in the first place??
That's awfully close to equivocation. If we could figure out the history of a thing by attaching a label. science would be a lot easier. But I can ask a question just as annoying: If you want to say a fly's brain looks engineered, wouldn't you need to compare it to something that you know was engineered, something whose history you know from observation?.
Petrushka
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Clive: Let's just stick to people with first names. I think "LUCA" is a fine guy to be discussed (it's the italian form for Luke). And could someone please explain me why "land dwelling" does not refer to cows? Am I missing something?gpuccio
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
gpuccio Help always gratefully accepted!tgpeeler
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
above: Reductionism is IMO a sort of masochistic approach to knowledge. The reductionist says: "I will know only "this" and believe only in "this", and I will fiercely fight against anything which could be greater or more complex or richer." And even if you try to reassure him, even if you demonstrate in all possible ways that you don't want to take "this" from him, because "this" is certainly true and sacred and important, but you just want to show him that "this" is part of something bigger, of something more beautiful, more meaningful, and there is no reason in the world to stick tenaciously to "this and nothing else", still he defends his position as though he were threathened, as though he could lose some fundamental treasure. Really, there is nothing to lose, and all to be gained. But fear is fear, and it is the greatest enemy of truth.gpuccio
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Petrushka,
The phrase “land dwelling” covers a lot of territory, but alas, not cows.
Your link says that the earliest ancestor was a wolf with hooves, so something like a carnivorous cow, is indeed "suggested". Of course, we know that this animal is not the earliest ancestor, according to common descent the earliest (living) ancestor was a single cell, and even earlier was a self-replicating molecule, and even earlier was a rock, and even earlier was space dust, and even earlier was absolutely nothing. Clive Hayden
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
tgpeeler: I was just poking a stick in the naturalist/materialist eye! Always glad to help :)gpuccio
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
@gpuccio The thing that the reductionist daily denies is what we call reality.above
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
gpuccio I don't have any expectations about what they will be able to figure out. I was just poking a stick in the naturalist/materialist eye! :-)tgpeeler
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
tgpeeler: My question. For something to be reverse engineered, wouldn’t it have to be engineered in the first place?? I suppose so. Obviously, darwinists could always argue that an ancient non conscious process (darwinian evolution), given enough time (maybe not too much) can be smarter than they are :) But seriously, I would not gold my breath waiting that reverse engineering a nervous structure can explain a lot of things. I give you just a few reasons for that opinion: 1) I don't believe that nervous systems, even of simple animals, work in a completely algorithmic way 2) I don't believe that the working of nervous systems can be explained only at the level of gross structure and neural connections. The most important work happens probably inside individual cells, and even at quantum level (as suggested by John Eccles and others). 3) We have the example of the very simple animal C. elegans: its nervous system is made of only 302 neurons (out of 959 total cells in the adult hermaphrodyte). Those neurons are known in detail one by one, numbered, and all their connections have been mapped. But I don't think we understand how that simple nercous sustem control the somewhat rich behavious of this tiny worm (movement, nutrition, reproduction, etc.), or that we can reverse engineer anything from those data. Remember that, before the human genome was sequenced, there were huge expectations about the great knowledge that such an accomplishment would have given us. Without diminishing in any way the importance of the work which has been done, we can however acknoweldge that those expectations were not literally satisfied... The truth is that analytic knowledge is precious, and must absolutely be pursued, but while a reductionist approach expects that all truth must come from that channel, a different approach (we may call it "holistic", but I don't like the word) understands the importance of information, of consciousness, of organization, of thought, of meaning, and of many other entities which are daily denied by reductionists.gpuccio
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
I hope this isn't too off topic... In an attempt to dumb down this discussion so I can understand it, I reproduce a quote from an investment newsletter I get on new technologies. "Efforts are under way to fully map the 100,000 neurons in a fly’s brain, as reported in April’s issue of Nature Biotechnology. Once completed, the fly brain’s “circuitry” could possibly be reverse engineered with memristive circuitry. This would help us to better understand animal intelligence, and hence be able to develop true artificial intelligence. If sufficiently advanced, such computing devices would be able to easily recognize and differentiate between human faces and understand natural human language." My question. For something to be reverse engineered, wouldn't it have to be engineered in the first place??tgpeeler
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Thanks for the clarity once again gpucciobornagain77
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Just a correction: in my previous post, both the first and the second paragraph are quotes from Zach's post. I put my tag in the wrong place, I apologize.gpuccio
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Zach Bailey (#237). This paper suggests there may be more than a few additional islands of function that reduce the odds a bit! As this comment of mine was held in moderation and then finally appeared waaay up thread maybe it got overlooked. I am still interested in the ID response to the possibility that there are many roads to Rome. Evolutionary pathways are the ones that successful lineages happened on. They may not be the only ones. Sort of impinges on the “islands of function” argument. Frankly, I read the paper you linked, and I don't understand how it supports your point (if I have understood well your point). Would you like to elaborate and give some detail? The paper is very interesting. It supports th ID point that protein sequences are "pseudo random" functional sequences, practically non compressible, undistinguishable for truly random sequences unless you can recognize the function encoded. That's exactly the ID point. I quote from the paper: Already Monod (1969) expressed that protein sequences are not structured by any rules. The results observed for all measures of complexity applied in this study give support to the notion of protein sequences as "slightly edited random sequences'' expressed by Pande et al. (1994), White & Jacobs (1993), and others. To express this in numbers: proteins have approximately 99% of the complexity of random polypeptides with the same amino acid composition. I believe this is not an ID paper, but it makes exactly the fundamental point of ID about the nature of information in proteins. Please, note the concept of "slightly edited random sequences". This is also a very good answers to all those who want to believe that protein sequences could be in some way the result of necessity.gpuccio
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
It has now been demonstrated Irreducible Complexity can be mathematically quantified as functional information bits(Fits). Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236 Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak: Abstract: Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define 'functional information,' I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions. http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hazen_etal_PNAS_2007.pdf The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt: To focus the scientific community's attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on wish-fulfillment, we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532 i.e. show me just one example of material processes creating coded information.bornagain77
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Cassandra (et al.): May be there is some confusion here about this supposed new entity (FAI). I paste here the phrase by bornagain77, and I will try to comment on that (bornagain if I am interpreting wrongly your thoughts, please correct me). You have clearly been shown that you have no mechanism to generate functional algorithmic information by material processes, especially by kairosfocus, and you have not countered this evidence with any evidence at all, save for what you have imagined should be true. Now, IMO what BA is saying here is: "you have no algorithmic mechanism to generate fucntionally specified complex information", because FSCI can be generated only by a conscious agent. That's exactly the point of ID. So, please let's go back to the classical concept of FSCI, or if you prefer (I definitely do) to its subset of digital functionally specified complex information (from now on: dFSCI). I have recently posted about that in another thread, debating alsio its measure (so please, those who say that we never go quantitative about that, please read more carefully). I paste here some pertinent comments I posted elsewhere: "2) Consciousness and ID. I did not realize for a long time the importance given in ID to “consciousness”. Its hard to fathom how you believe that some process has to experience its environment the way people do (what else could “consciousness” mean) in order for it to create complex specified output. Even bodily organs do incredibly complex things, without having to sense or understand the world the way that you or I do. Of course consciousness in central in ID theory. ID is about detecting design in things. Design is a process which originates in conscious intelligent beings (the designers). ID affirms that designed objects are recognizable with certainty as such if they exhibit a specific property, CSI. CSI is the main idea in ID. It is objectively recognizable, and in the known world it is always the product of design by an intelligent conscious being (leaving apart biological information, which is the object of the discussion). A special subset of CSI, digital functionally specified complex information (or, if you want, dFSCI), is specially useful for the discussion. It is easily definable as any string of digital information with the following properties: complexity higher than 10^150 (that is, length of about 500 bits); non significant compressibility (it cannot be generated through laws of necessity from a simpler string); and a recognizable, objectively definable function. That definition is very strong and useful. According to that definition, dFSCI includes language, software and practically all relevant biological information (in particular, the sequences of protein coding genes and the primary sequences of proteins). It is easy to show that no example is known of dFSCI (apart from biological information, which is the object of the debate) whic does not originate from a cosncious intelligent being (humans). And our common experience is that consciousness and intelligence are exactly the faculties used by humans in producing dFSCI. Biological information is dFSCI (any functional protein is). That’s why ID, with very sound inference based on analogy, assumes that some conscious and intelligent designer is the origin of biological information. That is, very quickly, the main idea in ID. Neo-darwinism cannot explain the emergence of dFSCI in living beings. The work of a designer can. I would like to mention that dFSCI originates from conscious intelligent beings directly; ot indirectly, through some non conscious machine which has received from an intelligent conscious being the pertinent dFSCI. In other words, Hamlet is dFSCI. Hamlet can be outputted by a PC, but only if someone has inputted it in the software. No computing machine can create Hamlet (or anything equivalent). Specification, function and purpose are definable only in relation to consciousness. Only consciousness recognizes them actively. So, consciousness is central to ID. Without consciousness, no function can be recognized. With consciousness, function can be defined, recognized and measured. And function is the only relevant form of specification in biological information. To go to your examples, bodily organs do not output dFSCI, even if they do complex things. A mchine can do complex things according to the CSI which has been inputted in the machine, but it cannot generate new dFSCI. The human body as a whole can generate new dFSCI (speaking, writing, programming) only because it is an interface for a conscious intelligent being. 3) Types of digital information. But complex meaningful sequences will not be found in monotonic strings, only in the amount of variation provided by randomness. We have three types of digital information: a) highly compressible strings, like monotonic strings. These are not dFSCI. b) truly random strings (high complexity, no functional specification). These are not dFSCI. c) pseudo-random strings, where a recognizable meaning is superimposed to the random structure by an intelligent designer (Hamlet, any software, any long discourse). And, obviouisly, any functional protein. These are dFSCI. About that, I would suggest that you read the following paper: Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel and Jack T Trevors available at the following URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC1208958/" And, about its quantitative measure, another post of mine from another thread: "As this is a fundamental issue, I will try to be more clear. There is a general concept of CSI, which refers to any information which is complex enough (in the usual sense) and specified. Now, while I think that we can all agree on the concept of complexity, some problems appear as soon as we try to define specification. There is no doubt that specification can come in many forms: you can have compressibility, pre-specification, functional specification, and probably others. And, in a sense, any true specification, coupled to high complexity, is a mark of design, as Dembski’s work correctly affirms. But the problem is, some kinds of specifications are more difficult to define universally, and in some of them the complexity is more difficult to evaluate. Let’s take compressibility, for instance. In a sense, true compressibility which cannot be explained in any other way is a mark of design. Take a string of 1000 letters, all of which are “a”. You can explan it in two different ways: 1) It is produced by a system which can only output the letter “a”:in other words, it is the product of necessity. No CSI here. 2) It is the output of a truly random system which can output any letter with the same probability, but the intervention of a conscious agent has “forced” an output which would be extremely rare and which is readily recognizable to consciousness. The string is designed to be highly compressible. In any case, you can see that using the nconcept of compressibility as a sign of specification is not without meaning, but creates many interpretational problems. Or, take the example of analog specified information, like the classic Mount Rushmore example. The specification is very intuitive, but you have two problems: 1) The boundary between true form and vague resemblance is difficult to quantify in analog realities. 2) It is difficult to quantitavely evaluate the complexity of an analog information. For all these reasons, I have chosen to debate only a very specific subset of CSI, where all these difficulties are easily overcome. That subset is dFSCI. A few comments about this particular type of CSI: 1) The specification has to be functional. In other words, the information is specified because it conveys the intructions for a specific function, one which can be recognized and defined and objectively measured as present or absent, if necessary using a quantitative threshold. It is interesting to onserve that the concept of functional specification is earlier than Dembski’s work. 2) The information must be digital. Tha avoids all the problems with analo information, and allows an easy quantification of the search space and of the complexity. 3) The information must not be significantly compressible: in other words, it cannot be the output of an algorithm based on the laws of necessity. 4) If we want to be even more restrictive, I would say that the information must be symbolic. In other words, it has to be interpreted through a conventional code to convey its meaning. Now, in defining such a restricted subset of CSI, I am not doing anything arbitrary. I am only willfully restricting the discussion to a subset of objects which can be more easily analyzed. The discussion will be about these objects only, and any conclusion will be about these objects only. So, if we establish that objects exhibiting dFSCI are designed, I will not try to generalize that conclusion to any other type of CSI. Objects exhibiting analog specified information or compressible information can certainly be equally designed, but that’s not my problem, and others can discuss that. And do you know why it’s not my problem? Because my definition of that specific subset of CSI includes anything which interests me (and, I believe, all those who come to this blog). It includes all biological information in the genomes, and all linguistic information, and all software. That’s more than enough, for me, to go on in the discussion about ID. So, to answer explicitly your questions: 1) The presence of CSI is a mark of design certainly under the definition I have given here (dFSCI), and possibly under different definitions. I am not trying here to diminish in any way the importance of other definitions, indeed I do believe them to be perfectly valid, but here I will take care only of mine. 2) I have no doubt that, under my definition, there is no example known of CSI which is not either designed by humans or biological information. Nobody has ever been able to provide a single example which can falsify that statement. And yet even one example would do. 3) CSI in the sense I have given is certainly an objective measure. The measure only requires: a) an objective definition of a function, and an objective way to ascertain it. For an enzyme, that will be a clear definition of the enzymatic activity in standard conditions, and a threshold for that activity. The specification value will be binary (1 if present, 0 if not). b) A computation of the minimal search space (for a protein of length n, that would be at least 20^n). c) A computation, or at least a reasonable approximation, of the number of specific functional sequences: in other words, the number of different protein sequences of maximum length n which exhibit the function under the above definitions. The negative logarithm of (c/b) * a will be the measure of the specified complexity. It should be higher than a conventional threshold (a universal threshold of 10^150 is fine, but a biological threshold can certainly be much lower). For a real, published computation of CSI in proteins in the above sense with a very reasonable method, please see: Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins. by Durston KK, Chiu DK, Abel DL, Trevors JT Theor Biol Med Model. 2007 Dec 6;4:47. freely available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....ool=pubmed" Finally, for those who ask about units, it should be obvious that the complexity is measure in a way which is similar to the way we measure Shannon's entropy, in bits, with the difference that specification must be present (must have value 1), otherwise there is no functional complexity. I must say that I will be very happy to discuss in detail these topics (usually, when we arrive at this level, nobody answers). It is also true that I don't know if we can really do that here, at post 240 of an old thread.gpuccio
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Petrushka (227) and bornagain77 (221),
I’m a bit confused about how you quantify FAI. What units ins it measured in and can you give me an example of a measurement? Under what circumstances would a point mutation change the quantity of FAI? Does anyone else use this unit?
I'm interested in the answer to this question as well. I lurk here semi-regularly and haven't heard of FAI before. Understanding the units in which it is measured and how it is calculated would help in assessing bornagain77's argument.Cassandra
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Aleta,
All complex theories have multiple component parts. Clive’s complaint that there are a lot of words that describe different aspects of that theory, and that therefore the word evolution is meaningless, is sophomoric. Almost every one of the terms Clive mentions (except Malthus’ myth and the part about re-distribution of wealth – how did that get in there?) are useful terms that describe specific aspects of evolutionary theory.
Petrushka claimed that evolution "was only" descent with modification. I showed that the word means and implies much more, to whoever wants it to mean much more. Descent with modification doesn't mean "evolution" of the kind normally meant among evolutionists. It's a catch-all, a room full of smoke, that changes anytime any evolutionist is pressed as to exactly what the word means. I made up "redistribution of wealth, because there are plenty of "economic" terms that would fit as well; the word "economics" as a theory of "anything money ever does" has as much explanatory power as "evolution" does, which is none. By wanting everything in biology to be explained by virtue of evolution, it becomes vacuous, you get a deadlock.Clive Hayden
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
157 Zach Bailey 05/31/2010 6:13 am KF remarks: …islands of function… This paper suggests there may be more than a few additional islands of function that reduce the odds a bit! As this comment of mine was held in moderation and then finally appeared waaay up thread maybe it got overlooked. I am still interested in the ID response to the possibility that there are many roads to Rome. Evolutionary pathways are the ones that successful lineages happened on. They may not be the only ones. Sort of impinges on the "islands of function" argument.Zach Bailey
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
Oops, my apologies to Clive in 228 above. The quote Petruska was responding to was from bornagain, not Clive. So 228 should read: Good luck, Petrushka – no one here has ever answered that, or any similar, question about a biological entity. Maybe Bornagain will surprise us, though.Aleta
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
All complex theories have multiple component parts. Clive's complaint that there are a lot of words that describe different aspects of that theory, and that therefore the word evolution is meaningless, is sophomoric. Almost every one of the terms Clive mentions (except Malthus' myth and the part about re-distribution of wealth - how did that get in there?) are useful terms that describe specific aspects of evolutionary theory.Aleta
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
That word means whatever any evolutionist wants it to mean anymore, i.e. descent with modification, micro, macro, change in allele frequencies...
You might note that in my post, I narrowed it to descent with modification. I believe that is the common way to disambiguate a term that has many possible meanings.Petrushka
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
However, I'm still interested in whatever answer Clive may have to my question.Aleta
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
---Clive Hayden: "That word means whatever any evolutionist wants it to mean anymore, i.e. descent with modification, micro, macro, change in allele frequencies, random variation, natural selection, lateral, horizontal or vertical genetic drift, genetic sifting, Thomas Malthus’s myth of competition for resources, differential inheritance, redistribution of wealth, convergence, deletion, insertion, Darwinism, and a hundred other words that have no meaning, in reality, within the context of “evolution”. ---Aleta: Clive, please explain how competition for resources is a “myth”. This is a perfect example of the daily Darwinist diversion [a little alliteration there] Responding to Petrushka's attempt at "strategic ambiguity," Clive provides a dozen or more examples of the Darwinist proclivity to morph defintions and terms as a means of avoiding debate. Aleta completely ignores the thematic context and promptly demands to know why the Malthus' myth is a myth. This is typical.StephenB
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Petrushka,
Selection reduces the number of offspring, but also reduces the distortion of mutation. If it does not change, it guarantees compensating changes.
"Selection" is nothing but a name for the fact that offspring differ in how many offspring they generate. It's an outcome, not a process, no matter that guys like Lewontin have modeled it as an operator. There is no guarantee of compensating change. Almost all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Under the theory of genetic entropy, a designer or designers must be revisiting Earth after mass extinctions to add genetic information for many new species.Noesis
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
If not a cow, then something like a cow, a four-legged land-dwelling creature, has most certainly been seriously suggested, and not just suggested, but outright asserted.
The phrase "land dwelling" covers a lot of territory, but alas, not cows. We're really acquiring a good collection of fossils covering the transition to whales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceansPetrushka
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Good luck, Petrushka - no one here has ever answered that, or any similar, question about a biological entity. Maybe Clive will surprise us, though.Aleta
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Believe what you want you will anyway. You have clearly been shown that you have no mechanism to generate functional algorithmic information by material processes...
I'm a bit confused about how you quantify FAI. What units ins it measured in and can you give me an example of a measurement? Under what circumstances would a point mutation change the quantity of FAI? Does anyone else use this unit?Petrushka
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Clive, please explain how competition for resources is a "myth". It seems very clear that very few environment, if any, have abundant enough resources that all organisms in that environment have adequate resources without having to compete for them. So what about this is a "myth"?Aleta
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
Petrushka,
Evolution is a term denoting the observed phenomenon, descent with modification.
That word means whatever any evolutionist wants it to mean anymore, i.e. descent with modification, micro, macro, change in allele frequencies, random variation, natural selection, lateral, horizontal or vertical genetic drift, genetic sifting, Thomas Malthus's myth of competition for resources, differential inheritance, redistribution of wealth, convergence, deletion, insertion, Darwinism, and a hundred other words that have no meaning, in reality, within the context of "evolution". Clive Hayden
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Above, I've was hit with the cichlid example to and then I ran across this video: Cichlid Fish - Evolution or Variation Within Kind? - Dr. Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852 This following study is evidence of the "limited and rapid variation from a parent kind" predicted by the Genetic Entropy model using cichlid: African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research: "The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).----surprising implication of the study?---- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16846905 More evidence for rapid radiations from a parent species can be found here: Biological Variation - Cornelius Hunter Excerpt: One hint that biology would not cooperate with Darwin’s theory came from the many examples of rapidly adapting populations. What evolutionists thought would require thousands or millions of years has been observed in laboratories and in the field, in an evolutionary blink of an eye. http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.2_Biological_variation Materialists may have trouble explaining such evidence for "robust and rapidly adapting genomes" from ancient parent lineages, but Genetic Entropy holds ancient parent lineages will always have a more robust genome than their sub-species. This is readily demonstrated by the rampant problems of inbreeding among "sub-species", witnessed throughout animal husbandry. In fact Above all sub-speciation events which led to reproductive isolation are the result of the loss of genetic information. Thus staying within the overriding principle of Genetic Entropy. Evolutionists will always try to sell you on a limited variation within a kind and never let you "look under the hood" to see that actually is taking place. The fact is that there is no unlimited variation as evolutionists would like you to believe; “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) Evolution? - The Deception Of Unlimited Variation - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113898 The following study shows Genetic Entropy being obeyed in humans: "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- I wonder what Hitler would have thought of that study? all the evidence turns out the same above. It all boils down to the fact that evolutionists have no way to generate information thus all radiations away from a parent species will always come at a loss of information.bornagain77
June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 11

Leave a Reply