Genomic Junk and Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter
July 5, 2010

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Evolution was claimed to be an undeniable fact in the nineteenth century so today new proofs hardly seem necessary. But science continues to offer them up, say evolutionists, as we probe the depths of biology. These days a common source of such proofs is the genomic data which exploded onto the scene in recent decades. But are the new data really undeniable confirmations of Enlightenment speculation or are the new data merely interpreted according to the same old metaphysics? Read more

Comments

Occam,
If in fact the weighty Dembski/Wells text open on my desk contains the explanation that you have shared here, the two of them need to go back to school. They can’t begin to present a case with the clarity you have done in a few short paragraphs.
"If in fact...."? You don't know if the text contains the explanation that you're claiming requires more schooling for brevity? Wouldn't that mean that you couldn't then criticize the text, for what would you be criticizing if you don't know what the text says? You certainly couldn't, then, criticize the text. Does this mean that you would need to go back to school, to learn to read, and to learn to make an argument? Do you need to go back to school? Do you understand what I'm writing?Clive Hayden_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Occam, "Finally, you reveal what a Darwinist is. By your definition, which I accept absent any other usage, it is someone who extends evolutionary mechanisms back to the origins." The issue of the term Darwinism started with your post, where you suggested it must be "insider" terminology within the ID camp, and was perhaps intended to shut the public out of the conversation, and indeed, made it hard to understand what was being debated. Personally, I would think the term was somewhat clear for anyone awake and paying attention at any point in the past 50 years or so. But hey, whatever. For me, a Darwinist is an ideologue who uses (and abuses) the backdrop of science to A) front their intolerant adherence to metaphysical materialism, or B) operate in complete accordance those in group A. "Fine, was the earlier diatribe necessary to extract that explanation?" Firstly, you didn't much ask for an explaination. But if this is a recognition on your part that starting your post with a provocation and ending it with an insult was both provocative and insulting, then I'll be happy to recognize that I took your post at face value. "From my recollection of Origin of Species I suspect the Charles Darwin of that time was, within the experiential base of a 19th century Englishman, a Darwinist. I also doubt in light of the additions to the knowledge base, he would be one today." I could not agree with you more. Whatever actual advances in knowledge one would like to attribute to Darwin, they have been completely corrupted by materialist ideology. Now we agree on what a Darwinist is. "I don’t know whether to think of NS as trivial or powerful, because it seems to be some of each, and I’ve seen it argued both ways by folks that dedicate a lot more of their lives to the question than I could afford. You apparently reject the “trivial” side without explanation. If you have the tools to enlighten the world, forge ahead." To even exist as a "force" in biology, NS requires an almost impossibly elaborate system which instatiates an abstraction of the organism in material form which is then passed down from one generation to the next. NS cannot operate without such a system, and when NS does operate, it does so by nothing more than allowing less fit organisms to die and stay dead. Now I ask, which part of this scenario is interesting? "Okay, so the chemists that think they can unlock the secrets of life are Darwinists. Who knows, maybe this categorization will catch on in the vernacular. And maybe they will someday be able to build that body of knowledge that would be generally accepted as theory. Maybe." Such chemist I would most likely term a materialist - but again, whatever. I am not sure it matters. In any case, they have an intractible task on their hands. Exactly how does a chemical compound form an abstraction of itself?Upright BiPed_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Graham,
To StephenB: A ‘theory’ as used in Science, is a set of ideas that are very widely accepted. ID is not even close to this, and I would be very surprised if you have formulated a ‘theory’ (in this sense). Unless you have re-invented gravity.
Gravity re-invented? Um, I'm sorry but this doesn't really make any sense. A theory in science is a set of observations that are consistent, and then they are widely accepted later, they are widely accepted for this reason, they are not (one would hope) widely accepted because they are widely accepted. They would have to have a reason to accept them in the first place, before it was widely accepted, that's what makes something a theory. Something can be a theory even if the scientist observing the phenomenon never disseminates the information, or sits on it for a while before he publishes it, and then, by various influences and in no quantifiable way, the theory is permeated throughout the scientific community, and it may eventually be widely held, but it may be held by only a few at first and for an unspecified amount of time. It certainly wouldn't cease to be a theory because it hasn't yet reached the majority vote.Clive Hayden_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap,
Admittedly here I can see how people think there’s no evidence – I’ve certainly never been able to grasp the mathematical model of darwinian evolution. Still, we do know that common descent is true, and that mutations are what cause children to be different from parents, so that is clearly where the ‘design’ is happening. The darwinian explanation is at least consistent with this. It’s also observable on small scales with things like bacteria. I don’t believe any of this is objectionable – to my knowledge, ID accepts all this as true – it doesn’t believe it counts as evidence for evolution for some reason. That’s a long way from there being ‘no evidence’.
That the whole of the biosphere, that every single thing that has ever lived shares the same single-celled great great great (etc.) grandparents, has to have a lot more evidence than children being born with different hair and eye colors than their parents. If I jump two feet in the air while flapping my arms, and then I point to an eagle flying, and say that his flying is just more of the same of my flying, I'm not, in reality, really saying anything at all. Different hair color and common descent are not the same, and common descent is not more of the same sort of thing. It's very different, and needs its own evidence, not just just-so "evidence" by a vast extension of hair color difference among children. We're talking about the difference between shrimp and man, the difference between a lobster and a banana tree, a spider and a whale. That's certainly not just more of the same as you would see with children having different hair color.Clive Hayden_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: Figured you'd catch that :) Yes, such a discussion would be welcome. Later, after I give my pound of flesh for the day (don't know if you're in the same boat).Occam_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Occam and others, here is a very insightful interview with Stephen Meyer that just came out that may be very interesting for you since it touches on many of the questions that you are asking: Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer? http://magazine.biola.edu/article/10-summer/can-dna-prove-the-existence-of-an-intelligent-desi/bornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Occam: You are faithful to your nickname! :) Maybe I have something to spend in favour of ID in the sense of parsimony, if we go on with our discussion...gpuccio_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Occam, my expectations of materialism (neo-Darwinism) are much more modest than to demonstrate the origin of life, I would like to see materialism (neo-Darwinism) demonstrate the capacity to generate any functional information WHATSOEVER, much less the staggering, and unmatched, levels that are present in the simplest life on earth: notes: The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 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." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. 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 For a broad outline of the "Fitness test", required to be passed to show a violation of the principle of Genetic Entropy, please see the following video and articles: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "The Fitness Test" - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation. "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm "Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day." Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cybernetics The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532 The Digital Code of DNA - 2003 - Leroy Hood & David Galas Excerpt: The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity - David L. Abel - 2009 Excerpt: "A monstrous ravine runs through presumed objective reality. It is the great divide between physicality and formalism. On the one side of this Grand Canyon lies everything that can be explained by the chance and necessity of physicodynamics. On the other side lies those phenomena than can only be explained by formal choice contingency and decision theory—the ability to choose with intent what aspects of ontological being will be preferred, pursued, selected, rearranged, integrated, organized, preserved, and used. Physical dynamics includes spontaneous non linear phenomena, but not our formal applied-science called “non linear dynamics”(i.e. language,information). http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdfbornagain77_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

gpuccio I would add that parsimony is helpful in getting a theory accepted. As Einstein is loosely quoted, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." This doesn't mean that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions necessarily is the correct one - ground truth is elusive - merely that it is the easier sell.Occam_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed Finally, you reveal what a Darwinist is. By your definition, which I accept absent any other usage, it is someone who extends evolutionary mechanisms back to the origins. Fine, was the earlier diatribe necessary to extract that explanation? From my recollection of Origin of Species I suspect the Charles Darwin of that time was, within the experiential base of a 19th century Englishman, a Darwinist. I also doubt in light of the additions to the knowledge base, he would be one today. On the other hand, from what I've seen posted about his later works, it looks as if he might have become radicalized and less rational later in life. Think I'll pick up some of those writings and see where they lead. I don't know whether to think of NS as trivial or powerful, because it seems to be some of each, and I've seen it argued both ways by folks that dedicate a lot more of their lives to the question than I could afford. You apparently reject the "trivial" side without explanation. If you have the tools to enlighten the world, forge ahead. Okay, so the chemists that think they can unlock the secrets of life are Darwinists. Who knows, maybe this categorization will catch on in the vernacular. And maybe they will someday be able to build that body of knowledge that would be generally accepted as theory. Maybe.Occam_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "Theory #1 [ID] Life was designed. Evidence supporting the theory—detectable patterns in nature indicating the presence of intelligence" But this relies on rather weak assumptions, doesn't it? ID doesn't search for 'patterns', but rather for 'improbability', which is considered to be equivalent to design. I hardly call the search for improbability evidence when it's not even clear that improbability equals design at all. The best I've ever seen from ID to connect the two is 'human designs are improbable, therefore improbable things are probably designs'. Never mind that a process of natural selection and mutation, assuming that it is capable of repeatedly adding beneficial mutations, would increase improbability anyway. "Theory #2 [Darwinism] Life found a way. Evidence supporting the theory—none" To be more accurate, life found a way by repeated mutations and promotion of beneficial mutations in a population. Admittedly here I can see how people think there's no evidence - I've certainly never been able to grasp the mathematical model of darwinian evolution. Still, we do know that common descent is true, and that mutations are what cause children to be different from parents, so that is clearly where the 'design' is happening. The darwinian explanation is at least consistent with this. It's also observable on small scales with things like bacteria. I don't believe any of this is objectionable - to my knowledge, ID accepts all this as true - it doesn't believe it counts as evidence for evolution for some reason. That's a long way from there being 'no evidence'.Venus Mousetrap_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

mullerpr There is no expectation of any new theory to explain the “current evidence” it only explain a subset of current data, in terms of the new theoretic basis. If it is a good theory it will explain more of the data than the previous theory. Fair statement. The P.S. is far better than the post.Occam_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Oh, and I forgot... Just to stay clear, and it is sad that it's become so necessary to constantly reaffirm that: Theories are never facts, and facts are never theories.gpuccio_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

mullepr et al: Just to stay very simple, I would say that a good scientific theory is a logical-mathemathical explanatory model which can be considered, if not the best explanation, at least one of the best possible explanations for known facts. A good scientific theory should be both: a) logically consistent: the logico-mathenathical model must not be self-contradictory. and: b) well supported by facts: IOW, it must be able to explain most, if not all, known facts, and possibly new facts. A bad scientific theory is one which is consistent nbut is not well supported by facts. A very bad scientific theory is one which is both logically inconsistent and unsupported by facts. I will not repeat here my well known judgment about the scientific status of neo-darwinian theory, because I have stated it too many times.gpuccio_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

Cassandra and Occam, Since you are pedantic about theories lets do it from first principles. What would you consider a valid theory for "Who killed the cat?"? Obviously there can not be one theory for "Who killed the cat?", because you first need to account for "Was the cat killed?". "Who killed the cat is?" is a loaded question. A theory for "Was the cat killed?" would be a valid theory. The hypothesis is "The cat was killed", the theory is: Inductive reasoning & investigation of physical phenomenon can successfully collect the epistemological resources to verify if "The cat was killed" is a warranted true belief or not. This we intuitively assume to be true for all valid hypothesis in natural science. P.S. There is no expectation of any new theory to explain the "current evidence" it only explain a subset of current data, in terms of the new theoretic basis. If it is a good theory it will explain more of the data than the previous theory.mullerpr_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Cassandra, I hope that you and Occam will tell us about the rise of life by purely unguided forces. What are the testable predictions that flow from the narrative? What happend? How did it happen? When did it happen? Where did it happen? Why did it happen? And by the way, how is the narrative falsifiable? Since this is the central core assumption of Darwinism as it is practiced throughout academia, and also since these are the exact questions you both belittle ID with, then it should be easy for you to address these questions in support of the opposing paradigm. Heck it should be a snap, after all, the (non-falsifiable) assumptions about the unguided nature of events surrounding the rise of Life have been elevated to the status of being unquestionable. According to the materialist paradigm, it happened by unguided forces, and there can be no doubt about it. Certainly none is allowed within the walls of the club. And since Life as we know it is based upon semiotic information transfer, please don't leave out the details as to how meaning came to be instantiated into matter. After all, the transcribed arrangement of adenine-cytosine-adenine provides meaningful information in the context of DNA transcription (and only in that context) so why run from the it? One thing means another, but is not the physical product of it (there is nothing you can do to adenine and cytocine to physically end in threonine outside of the semiotic context instantiated within DNA transcription). In other words, chemistry alone cannot provide an explaination for it; it requires the semiotic context (rules) within transcription to operate. (Since Occam is exercised over the years of disservice to science, he may be interested to know that Polanyi published that little tidbit of truth in Science back in 1968 and it still stands unrefuted today, 42 years later). However, given that the Darwinian paradigm ignores such things and arrogantly maintains that there is no meaning in our material universe, I am truly interested in how it came to be emperically found there after all. Any unequivocal answers to this? Or are they all equivocal? Wait, let me guess. The rise of Life has nothing to do with Darwin's theory, and therefore nothing to do with Darwinian materialism, right? Or (as Occam is setting up his line of reasoning) - sure OOL is a mystery, but as long as we can explain the triviality of NS, whats the fuss? Who cares if Darwinist ideologues within the sciences delude themselves (and the public) that chemistry alone can explain the observed semiosis in biology. What's the harm, right? - - - - - - - This essay was posted on another UD thread recently, its a perfect backgrounder. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.htmlUpright BiPed_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

To StephenB: A 'theory' as used in Science, is a set of ideas that are very widely accepted. ID is not even close to this, and I would be very surprised if you have formulated a 'theory' (in this sense). Unless you have re-invented gravity.Graham_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

StephenB writes (31),
—Occam: “Wow! You don’t understand much about theories.” Unfortunately, you guessed wrong. I am quite familiar with theory building, both in the hard sciences and in the social sciences.
It seems odd, then, that you would write in 25:
Theory #1 [ID] Life was designed.
That is not a scientific theory. Unless and until you augment it with the "who, what, when, where, why, and how", it does not explain the current evidence (certainly not better than the modern synthesis) nor does it make testable predictions that could serve to falsify it. Like Occam, I would be very interested to see a real scientific theory of intelligent design. Thus far, none have been presented in the extant literature, including this blog.Cassandra_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

---Occam: "Wow! You don’t understand much about theories." Unfortunately, you guessed wrong. I am quite familiar with theory building, both in the hard sciences and in the social sciences. I have even built a couple of theories myself, though not in the present subject matter. At the same time, I am also well acquainted with Darwinist talking points about the necessary criteria for a theory, just as I am well aware of the Darwinist talking points about the definition of science, just as I am aware of the Darwinist talking points about methods. The way you carry on, one would get the impression that you think you have broken new ground here. Indeed, many of your questions have already been answered in our "Frequently Raised but Weak Objections to Intelligent Design" section. We even provided a definition of "Darwinism," a point that is obviously of great importance to you. Thus, as someone who seems to fancy himself as a thoughtful person, you would have made a far better impression if you had confronted the FAQ answers with follow up questions rather than to recyle the objections themselves as if we hadn't already heard them and answered them hundreds of times.StephenB_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 Thanks for these. Some I had not seen. I'm as full of wonderment about origins as many of you. Let ID proponents ponder the problem, same as chemists, biologists, you name it. This seems like a hard one. I don't expect to see anything approaching a theory of origins in my lifetime. But I've been surprised before. Who would have expected the Big Bang to beat out an eternal universe? Or that continents would turn out not to be as solid as the (figurative) Rock of Gibraltar?Occam_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

StevenB (#25) Wow! You don't understand much about theories! (#26) Except for having acquired along the way... Davis and Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, 1993. Page 43, reference to a "theory" of intelligent design. Wells, Icons of Evolution, 2000. Dembsky and Wells, the Design of Life, 2008 and in the last 15 years or so, checking in on web sites to see what's new. There are also some older Gould books on the shelf, but biology isn't an obsession. Lots of books on American and ancient history, biographies (mainly politicians), some golf books (they don't work either), and occasional revisits to my undergraduate days - but physics has changed too much, the models too complex, too strained. Not sure what piqued my interest last week. Maybe a book I passed on the shelves at Barnes and Noble.Occam_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Further, were you aware it’s about what may very well be a one-time event in the history of the Universe? Nope. Seems you neglected to mention that possibility. Same as the ID texts I've purchased. They don't confine themselves to origins, they purport to explain evolution as well, implying but not offering an alternative to current evolutionary theory. I stated the concern up front. "Theory" is a very strong concept - tying together observed facts with a coherent explanation. If someone says they have a theory, then you expect them to be able to articulate it. Otherwise, let them choose a more appropriate term. One thing about a theory, it might only hold over a certain range, rather than being universal. One of physics' problems is that the standard model holds in the microscopic world, while relativity governs the macroscopic. They're incompatible. Doesn't one have to be wrong? Maybe, but each is useful in its own domain, which is important to conduct of science. Ground truth would be satisfying, but maybe it's not necessary - or even possible. Similar, but not identical, Newton's laws hold up fine after all these years except when things get moving real fast. Is evolution a good theory? Yep, it's held up and evolved (yeah, I know) since before Charles Darwin - does that make it Darwinism? New discoveries in biology, anthropology, geology, continue to reinforce and refine. Is it true? Maybe, maybe not, but it remains useful all the same. Maybe something will come along to drastically modify or overturn it, which is why scientific explanations are held as provisional - "accepted," rather than "believed" - with practitioners ready to jump ship soonest with best chance to make a name for themselves. Now the hard part. Is current evolutionary theory extensible to origins, which you now seem to be saying ID is about, or is it really confined to questions of descent? As I posted to you, I'm skeptical about origins science. Thus far experiments are too contrived, results too tentative, deep time too remote with too few clues about the past to allow confidence in any prospective theory. Here an argument like irreducible complexity has a lot of appeal. I know now I'm moving to God of the Gaps, but the gap is so great as to suggest it. What intermediate chemical construct between naturally occurring chemicals and what we would acknowledge as "life" would be self-sustaining and capable of climbing up the complexity ladder? Tough question, and if the chemists have an answer they haven't been able to couch it in language the rest of us can understand. A long-winded way of saying, no there is nothing today I would accept as an origins theory. And I suspect the scientific community writ large would agree. As far as I'm concerned this field is as open to ID as any other contender. And there's nothing wrong with lack of an ID theory. What's objectionable is an unsubstantiated claim to an unstated theory, which is exactly what my initial post addressed. Now see? There was no need for ridicule, misrepresentation or parody. Straightforward questions, straightforward answers.Occam_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

Occam, if you are interested here is Stephen Meyer, author of Signature In The Cell, explaining the scientific basis of the Intelligent Design argument: Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For Intelligent Design - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651 Here is Stephen Meyer touching on the failure of material processes to account for even trivial levels of information: Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Here is just one example of a molecular machine found within life Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630 And contrary to what you may have heard this exquisite machine has not come close to being explained by Darwinian processes. In fact,,, "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist and Intelligent Design, unlike neo-Darwinism, is falsifiable: Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4101851bornagain77_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

---Occam: "About 20 years ago I read an article in the Washington Post about a new theory." ---"I came across this site by googling for “intelligent design,” looking for evidence that a theory was emerging." So there was a twenty year gap between the time you first heard about ID and the time you finally decided to check into it? Now that's what I call following up with dispatch.StephenB_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Occam: "The only problem is that there is this rather persistent reference to an existing theory, as if the reader could dig it out if he only tried." It doesn't require much digging. Theory #1 [ID] Life was designed. Evidence supporting the theory---detectable patterns in nature indicating the presence of intelligence Theory #2 [Darwinism] Life found a way. Evidence supporting the theory---noneStephenB_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

Occam, I fear it is not reading comprehension at the stake, it is most assuredly yours. You profess to coming into contact with ID twenty years ago and apparently have followed it enough to offer an opinion - yet, in all that reading you did not get the message that ID is not about natural selection, per se? Not really about evolution? Not primarily about common descent? Nowhere did you come across the idea that ID is an argument primarily about purely unguided forces being the creative mechanism behind the existence of life on this planet? Ya know, OOL? Further, were you aware it's about what may very well be a one-time event in the history of the Universe? A re-reading of your post will not be helpful to your cause. My objection to your opener was that you jump in to scold ID for not getting to it for the past twenty years, while you suck the sweet foam off a theory that hasn't developed the core underlying assumption it made in 1859 with exactly zero evidence for its validity.Upright BiPed_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Phaedros (#21) Thanks for the sweeping, unsupported generality. The totality of my posts on this site are on this thread, with the sole exception of my welcoming CH to "real science," so you're fully welcome to re-examine them in light of your comment. True, at one point I stooped to BiPed's level, but i) I announced it ahead of time, ii) it was response to his conduct, not his position, iii) I moved on. How would you have reacted to similar treatment?Occam_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Indeed the argument from design is not new, but has been around for at least 2300 years.Phaedros_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Occam- I fear respect is scarce when it comes to showing it to proponents of ID and you prove no different.Phaedros_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

gpuccio (#14) Thank you for taking the time and showing the maturity to engage in thoughtful exchange. There is a lot to your post, and it is worth in-depth reading and contemplation. If in fact the weighty Dembski/Wells text open on my desk contains the explanation that you have shared here, the two of them need to go back to school. They can't begin to present a case with the clarity you have done in a few short paragraphs. You have indeed been clear and explicit. You'll have a bit of a wait for feedback, because your material is deserving of time to digest and reflect. This is the kind of conduct ID proponents need to display if they want respect and support from the scientific community and the public. Take care.Occam_{July 6, 2010
July
07
Jul
6
06
2010
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next