Ideological Turing Test

_{Barry Arrington

November 29, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

To all of our friends who subscribe to materialist accounts of evolution:

Here is an interesting little test.

The Ideological Turing Test is a concept invented by Bryan Caplan to test whether a political or ideological partisan correctly understands the arguments of his or her intellectual adversaries. The partisan is invited to answer questions or write an essay posing as his opposite number; if neutral judges cannot tell the difference between the partisan’s answers and the answers of the opposite number, the candidate is judged to correctly understand the opposing side.

Now most folks in the ID movement can pass the test when it comes to materialist evolutionary theory. After all, it is the dominant paradigm, and it has been crammed down our throats all of our lives. Yeah, yeah, I know. Our opponents often insist that only someone who does not truly understand their theory can reject it. Let’s set that bit of self-serving question begging aside. It really is the case that I have never seen a fair summary of ID theory come from one of our opponents. Invariably we get some caricature like “ID posits that all complex things must be designed.”

So, here is my challenge to our opponents: Do you understand ID well enough to pass the Ideological Turing Test? If you think you do, prove it by giving a one paragraph summary of ID in the comments below.

Comments

Here are a few things, briefly off the top of my head, that are not considered 'natural' by the vast majority of scientists who profess to adhere to methodological naturalism, but that are considered 'natural' by the vast majority of everyday people who are living their daily lives in the 'real world' as it were.
1. Minds/Consciousness 2. Free will 3. The concept of personhood 4. The applicability of mathematics to the physical world
A few notes to that effect:
"There is only one sort of stuff, namely, matter-the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology-and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain." Daniel Dennett "How does the brain go beyond processing information to become subjectively aware of information? The answer is: It doesn’t. The brain has arrived at a conclusion that is not correct. When we introspect and seem to find that ghostly thing — awareness, consciousness, the way green looks or pain feels — our cognitive machinery is accessing internal models and those models are providing information that is wrong." Michael S. A. Graziano “I’m not arguing that consciousness is a reality beyond science or beyond the brain or that it floats free of the brain at death. I’m not making any spooky claims about its metaphysics. What I am saying, however, is that the self is an illusion. The sense of being an ego, an I, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts. An experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads as a kind of a passenger in the vehicle of the body. That’s where most people start when they think about any of these questions. Most people don’t feel identical to their bodies. They feel like they have bodies. They feel like they’re inside the body. And most people feel like they’re inside their heads. Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense.” Sam Harris: The Self is an Illusion Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html "that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994 "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0 "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands." Albert Einstein - Letters to Solovine - New York, Philosophical Library, 1987 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF25AA4dgGg 1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists.
bornagain77_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Some more comments. You say: "The same can be said for “design” and many other aspects of reality." No. The concept of design has no ambiguity at all. I have defined it here in a fully operational way: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/defining-design/ I quote my final definition: "Design is a process where a conscious agent subjectively represents in his own consciousness some form and then purposefully outputs that form, more or less efficiently, to some material object. We call the process “design”. We call the conscious agent who subjectively represents the initial form “designer”. We call the material object, after the process has taken place, “designed object”." Some ID thinkers, including maybe Dembski, avoid that kind of definition, probably because they think that referring to consciousness in a definition makes it less acceptable. If that is their reason, I don't agree. I use consciousness as an observable fact. Nothing more, nothing less. That use of consciousness is completely empiric, and completely appropriate in science. I make no assumptions about what consciousness is, and about how it should be explained in a wider map of reality. Not in my definition of design, at least. :) So, the concept of design has no ambiguity, and can be operationally defined with precision. I really doubt that "scientists know what is meant by ‘natural’ at least in comparison with supernatural". If they have to define "natural" only "in comparison with supernatural", I am really happy that I don't know what they are supposed to know! You say: "But in general, scientists know what is meant by ‘natural’ at least in comparison with supernatural." and: "Some things cannot be subjected to laboratory testing, they’re not the proper study for science (theology, philosophy for example)." I agree, but I would say that things that cannot be subjected to observation are not the proper study for science. the lab is not always the necessary setting. Again, science is about empirical facts. And explanations for the, which are not facts and are not observable. Well, the configuration of a painting, and of biological objects, are observable. So, they are "proper study for science", whatever their explanation may be. We cannot observe a quantum wave function in the lab, only facts that are supported by that complex explanation. Don't you think that quantum wave functions are part of science? "As a believer in God, I hold that God is the ultimate reality. But at the same time, I wouldn’t expect scientists to be involved in discussions about the nature of the Holy Trinity or the procession of the Holy Spirit or the nature of angels, for example." I agree, because nothing of that is observable, or the necessary explanation for observable facts. At least, as far as we know at present! :) You say: "We might be talking about different things, but it seems you’re saying that ID cannot properly work within the context of methodological naturalism. So, scientists who adopt that thinking would have to change in order to accept or understand ID, right?" Yes. At least, scientists who adhere to the philosophy of scientism and methodological naturalism have to change. I don't think all scientists share that philosophical attitude. It is absolutely not necessary to do good science, indeed it is a dangerous attitude. You say: "I don’t see any problem with MN myself at all. In fact, that’s why I think ID is successful is because it can work within the context of MN, and in fact, does not require a different philosophy of science." OK, as I have explained I disagree. But I would add that no good philosopher of science would think that some absolute "philosophy of science" exists, and that it should be shared by all, or by all scientists. Why do you think that philosophers, and scientists, are still debating (and I hope they will always do) about the nature of science? Popper, Kuhn, Polanyi, Feyerabend, Chalmers, Penrose, and so on? You say: "But that’s a difference we have. I had always thought that ID did not have a unique philosophical position." Here I fully agree. Having different philosophical positions is good. Very good. In ID, in science, in life. I love different philosophical positions. That's one more reason why I reject methodological naturalism (or any other philosophy) as a necessary philosophy of science. :)gpuccio_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @81: Thank you for the detailed comment. You can also look at my answer to Eric Anderson at #88. However, but I will try here to directly answer your points and clarify better what I think: You say: "Now, if you’re saying that “ID rejects MN” – that’s a philosophical component to ID that I wasn’t aware of. As I said earlier, ID is fully compatible with Methodological Naturalism." Well, let's say it is a philosophical component of my views about science and ID. I like to take full personal responsibilities for the things I say. :) You say: "All MN means is that science is limited to the empirical, physical, material, natural, observable aspects of the universe. Causes that fall outside of that range are not the subject of physical science." Here is the real point. You list 5 adjectives. That's the source of the dangerous ambiguity. I fully agree for two of them: empirical and observable (which, IMO, mean more or less the same things). So, let's say that we perfectly agree that science is about what is observable, and its possible explanations. But with one important caveat: while the facts that science tries to explain are certainly observable, the explanations themselves are not observable at all: theories are mental realities. Let's go to the other 3 adjectives. Physical and material may well mean about the same thing, but that thing is really vague and dangerously ambiguous. What is matter? What is physical? Are fields physical? Is quantum wave function physical? Is dark matter (if it exists) physical? Is dark energy (if it exists) physical? Are strings (if string theory is true) physical? Your answer could be "yes", because you could say that those things, if real, have definite roles in determining what we observe. But then, is consciousness physical? Again, the answer should be yes, because it too has definite roles in determining what we observe. A painting is physical, certainly, and the origin of its configuration is in the consciousness of the painter. Isn't that a scientific explanation of the configuration of the painting? Is it compatible with methodological naturalism? You say. The simple point is: subjective experiences in consciousness cannot in any way be explained by what at present is considered "physical laws". Let's go to "natural". That is even worse, because in brief it means nothing, it only expands the undefined concepts of physical and material to all that can be observed, or that can have a role to determine what we observe. So, while I agree with the fact that science is about non observable explanations of what is observable, I definitely don't agree that science is in any way related to the concepts of physical, material, natural, whatever they may mean. Those concepts are simply the bad results of a bad philosophical fixation of some good scientific results: IOWs, what is usually called "scientism", which is absolutely a specific philosophy, a very bad philosophy of reality which could be summed up as follows: "the only maps of reality that can be accepted are those which deal only with the concepts derived from science as we interpret it now". Not good. Not good at all. So, why do I think that ID is not "fully compatible with Methodological Naturalism"? It's simple. ID is a scientific theory about specific observable facts (biological objects and their configuration) that states that we can safely infer that those objects can only be explained by a design process. That implies that conscious agents interacted with matter on our planet in the last 4+ billion years. Now, is that compatible with methodological naturalism? Well, if we think of aliens as the designers, maybe. But if we think of other kinds of conscious agents? Any other kind? Not necessarily God? It's easy: our adversaries have said hundreds of times that the idea that conscious agents interacted with matter, say, at the time of OOL and then after that, for billions of years, is against methodological naturalism. Indeed, that is often the final defense of neo darwinists. Why? Because their map of "nature" does not include conscious intelligent agents that are not humans (except maybe aliens, that for many reasons are not a reliable solution). And so? My map of nature can well include that idea, because there is nothing in what we understand of consciousness that precludes such a theory. So, if I observe objects that can only be designed by a conscious agent, I accept the hypothesis of a conscious agent as the best explanation for those objects, and I move on, looking for scientific ways to test that hypothesis. Methodological naturalists refute a priori the hypothesis, because for them some unknown conscious agent, at present not understandable in terms of our present physical laws, is not acceptable as a scientific hypothesis. If physicists reasoned like that, no debate about dark energy would ever have existed. Now, there is a debate about the facts: are they safe enough to justify the search for a theory which is completely out of what we presently understand? Are they really 5 sigma+ ? That's a good debate, because it is about facts. But physicists would never deny that facts whose evidence is more than 5 sigma, and that cannot be explained by our current understanding of physical reality, need a paradigm shift in our understanding of reality. They would never insist in explaining those facts with bad theories based on the present understanding. Now, the point is: the evidence for design in biological objects is well beyond 5 sigma. Incredibly higher than that. And yet, biologists still insist in trying to explain those facts with very bad theories (neo darwinism) simply because they cannot accept a paradigm shift including design processes. And they invoke the lie of methodological naturalism to do that. Well, I don't agree. To be even more clear, I don't reject methodological naturalism because of what I think of ID. I reject it because of what I think of science.gpuccio_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

There's no such thing as a former Marine. ;)Phinehas_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

I am amazed at the patience and compassion displayed by ID advocates toward their mockers/haters. As a former Marine, I am wired for violence and revenge. Kairosfocus, BornAgain77, and so many other regular contributors to this site have shown me a better way. Thank you all!Truth Will Set You Free_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Solomon may have a better explanation for why MatSpirit was late to the party. Mockers resent correction, so they avoid the wise. Phinehas_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson; "Nature" is not only an ambiguous word: it is a word with dangerous ambiguity. Let's see. "Methodological naturalism" is a philosophical position which assumes thart all explanations for things that we can observe (IOWs, scientific explanations) must be based only on "natural" events or laws. More or less. That is a very strong restriction of what science is. Is it warranted? Again, let's see. What is "natural", and what is not? You ask: "What word or words would you prefer to describe things that result from the undirected, unintelligent (I was going to add “natural,” but will defer this time) processes of chemistry and physics?" Well, for example: 1) Things that result from undirected processes: unguided systems. 2) Alternatively, things that result without the intervention of conscious processes: non conscious systems. What has "natural" to do with that? Is a painting "non natural"? "Supernatural"? Beyond the reach of science? You tell me. 3) Things that result from processes of chemistry and physics: systems that can be well explained by the laws of chemistry and physics as we know them today. (They could always be explained better tomorrow by new ideas, laws, or principles). Is dark energy (if it exists) "natural"? Why? Who decides what is natural, and can be part of science? Is consciousness natural? Is it beyond the range of scientific thought? Who decides? The point is simple: science is about reality, and what we can understand of it. Nobody can categorize in advance reality (things that exists, as they exist) in the two sets of natural and non natural. What is the rule for that binary decision? So, explanations cannot be categorized in advance as "in the range of science" or "out of science": all those explanations that explain observed facts better that others are better scientific explanations.gpuccio_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Now this is starting to get very suspicious! How about if we look at the geochemical signature from bacteria over billions of years? Surely, since the environment itself has changed drastically over billions of years, we can be sure to find us some 'evolution in action' now?
Odd Geometry of Bacteria May Provide New Way to Study Earth's Oldest Fossils - May 2010 Excerpt: Known as stromatolites, the layered rock formations are considered to be the oldest fossils on Earth.,,,That the spacing pattern corresponds to the mats' metabolic period -- and is also seen in ancient rocks -- shows that the same basic physical processes of diffusion and competition seen today were happening billions of years ago,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100517152520.htm Geobiologist Noffke Reports Signs of Life that Are 3.48 Billion Years Old - 11/11/13 Excerpt: the mats woven of tiny microbes we see today covering tidal flats were also present as life was beginning on Earth. The mats, which are colonies of cyanobacteria, can cause unusual textures and formations in the sand beneath them. Noffke has identified 17 main groups of such textures caused by present-day microbial mats, and has found corresponding structures in geological formations dating back through the ages. http://www.odu.edu/about/odu-publications/insideodu/2013/11/11/topstory1 Scientists find signs of life in Australia dating back 3.48 billion years - Thu November 14, 2013 Excerpt: “We conclude that the MISS in the Dresser Formation record a complex microbial ecosystem, hitherto unknown, and represent one of the most ancient signs of life on Earth.”... “this MISS displays the same associations that are known from modern as well as fossil” finds. The MISS also shows microbes that act like “modern cyanobacteria,” http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/13/world/asia/australia-ancient-life/ 3.5 billion-year-old ecosystem found - November 12, 2013 Excerpt: "Mound-like deposits created by ancient bacteria, called stromatolites, and microfossils of bacteria have previously been discovered in this region. However, a phenomenon called microbially induced sedimentary structures, or MISS, had not previously been seen in rocks of this great age." MISS were created by microbial mats as the microbial communities responded to changes in physical sediment dynamics, Professor Wacey said. "A common example would be the binding together of sediment grains by microbes to prevent their erosion by water currents," he said. "The significance of MISS is that they not only demonstrate the presence of life, but also the presence of whole microbial ecosystems that could co-ordinate with one another to respond to changes in their environment.",,, The team described the various MISS from the ancient coastal flats preserved in the Dresser Formation and found close similarities in both form and preservation style to MISS in younger rocks. http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20131211-25003.html Oldest fossils on Earth discovered in 3.7bn-year-old Greenland rocks – August 31, 2016 Excerpt: Scientists have discovered the oldest physical evidence for life on the planet in the form of fossils in Greenland rocks that formed 3.7bn years ago. The researchers believe the structures in the rocks are stromatolites - layered formations, produced by the activity of microbes, that can be found today in extremely saline lagoons in a few locations around the world. The new fossils are 220 million years older than any previously discovered. “Up until now the oldest stromatolites have been from Western Australia and they are roughly 3,500 million (3.5bn) years [old],” said Clark Friend, an independent researcher and co-author of the research. “What we are doing is pushing the discovery of life earlier in Earth’s history.”,,, the shape of the newly discovered structures, together with clues from their chemical make-up and signs of layers within them, suggests that they were formed by microbes,,, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/31/oldest-fossils-on-earth-discovered-in-37bn-year-old-greenland-rocks-stromatolites
OK, I give up. I can't find any of the evidence for Darwinian evolution that Darwinists insist exists everywhere. Apparently, despite the fact that Darwinists insist they have abundant evidence substantiating their claims for Darwinian evolution, it appears that bacteria themselves forgot that they were suppose to evolve into something other than bacteria over billions of years.bornagain77_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

further note to posts 72-74, I've got another idea. How about if we look at the molecular sequences of extremely ancient bacteria that have been revived from hundreds of millions of years ago so as to see just how much Darwinian evolution has occurred over hundreds of millions of years.
“Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.” http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=281961 The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637
Now that certainly can't be right. Surely we should some change over 250 million years. Alrighty, I know what we can do now, let's just forget about looking at molecular sequences of 250 million year old revived bacteria and focus strictly on the morphology of extremely ancient bacterial fossils. Surely now, by throwing out all the stops, we can finally catch us some 'evolution in action':
Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years - February 3, 2015 Excerpt: Using cutting-edge technology, they found that the bacteria look the same as bacteria of the same region from 2.3 billion years ago -- and that both sets of ancient bacteria are indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found in mud off of the coast of Chile. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203104131.htm Organisms Refusing to Evolve Over Millions of Years - January 15, 2016 Excerpt: The team conducted multiple tests on the mats and the microbes found hidden under them, including bulk carbon and SEM analysis and Raman micro-spectroscopy and report that the microbes were shaped like rods, growing in train like filaments, similar to many bacteria alive today. They note also that the microbes were quite uniform in shape and that they were able to control their diameter and length as modern microbes do. The fossils are also approximately 500 million years older than any other previous fossil found in a habitat, and thus represent some of the earliest forms of life ever found (the very earliest date back to approximately 3.43 billion years ago.) http://crev.info/2016/01/refusing-to-evolve/
bornagain77_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

I really like this idea. Trying to pass the test for both ID and Evolution proved to be difficult, primarily due to the brevity requested - every statement leads to a rabbit trail of clarifying or expository remarks. Anyway, for your critique, here's my efforts to sound like something I'm not: "Evolution is the near-universally accepted fact that all life on earth has descended from a single ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection. Supported by overwhelming evidence from biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and every other branch of science, evolution is the unifying theory behind all life sciences. Primarily the brain-child of Charles Darwin, Evolution theory was based on the observation that all life forms exhibit similarity in a graduated form from simple to complex, with the simplest forms of life appearing early in the chronological record some 3-4bya and more complex forms of life, culminating in mankind, appearing as time progressed. Over the last 150 years, advances in scientific knowledge concerning the cell, DNA, and biological development have all confirmed every aspect of the theory. While the precise mechanisms responsible for the evolution of individual species are somewhat debated and probably encompass a wide variety of processes, the overall conclusion that all life is the product of chance and time is not." "Intelligent Design (ID) is the theory that the likelihood that any object is the product of either deliberate design by an intelligent source, or the product of random chance, can by scientifically and mathematically calculated from the properties of the object. These properties are often referred to as the Complex Specificity, or Functional Complexity, or other terms dealing with the amount of 'Information' and 'Complexity' exhibited by the object. As an example, a 747 exhibits these design properties to a much greater extent than, say, a rock, and thereof one can scientifically calculate the increased probability that a 747 is the product of Intelligent Design rather than some random chance process. ID has implications for Evolutionary Theory, in that all life forms exhibit significantly high degrees of Information and Complexity that make it extremely unlikely, if not mathematically impossible, for all life to have been the product of random chance."drc466_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @61:
I don’t accept references to “nature” and “naturalism” because, as I have tried many times to argue, there is no true definition of “nature”, and therefore of “naturalism”. The word is simply vague and ambiguous.
Nearly any word can be somewhat ambiguous and we will probably be without perfect definitions in almost any sphere. I'm curious, though, why you oppose the use of words like "natural" and "naturalism." The standard dictionary definitions of those words would seem in most instances to be plenty adequate for present purposes. Certainly those words are much less fraught with ambiguity than, for example, the word "evolution," which is all over the map. If you don't like the word "natural," what word or words would you perfer to describe things that result from the undirected, unintelligent (I was going to add "natural," but will defer this time :) ) processes of chemistry and physics?Eric Anderson_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit @ 64. Your bigotry is very ugly. I will leave it up for all to see.Barry Arrington_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit When you use every opportunity you have to ridicule your opponent, eventually that wears thin and you don't score any more points that way. As I pointed out earlier, one reason this Test is a challenge is that our opponents have to set aside emotion and animosity and try to give a neutral definition. I think it's difficult to do that. If we passionately hate something, do we have enough mental discipline to actually present the positive argument for it? In your case, it doesn't seem so. Are you driven by hurt and anger? In any case, that's why I admire and congratulate wd400, daveS, rvb8 and Bob O'H for offering objective definitions, without rancor or snarkyness. I would hope and wish I could do the same with positions I oppose ... but I'm not sure! To truly engage the topic, I would have to be objective and -- in some cases, force myself to present the best possible argument for my opponent. But if I didn't do that, I can't possibly claim to understand my opponent's position, and I could never really be effective against it.Silver Asiatic_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

gpuccio
I don’t believe that an absolute method for science exists. That’s not the same thing. I am all in favor of Feyerabend here.
Of course, science just designates a branch of study. When I say "science would have to change", what I meant was "science as it is most commonly known in the world today". That is, Methodological Naturalism is the most widely used (even if not explicitly stated) method and meaning for science. Now, if you're saying that "ID rejects MN" - that's a philosophical component to ID that I wasn't aware of. As I said earlier, ID is fully compatible with Methodological Naturalism. All MN means is that science is limited to the empirical, physical, material, natural, observable aspects of the universe. Causes that fall outside of that range are not the subject of physical science. Yes, I know from Medieval times, theology was considered a branch of science, and I could defend that, but I don't think ID is saying that science needs to include studies of God's nature, for example.
So, if an universal scientific method does not exist, why should I say that it must change?
As above, MN is the 'universal' method used in universities, labs, research facilities, publishing houses -- and basically worldwide for science. No, it's not 'universal' in the sense of an absolute philosophical definition. But my point is - "does ID propose that the very basis of science that is most commonly understood (MN) must change to permit immaterial, supernatural causes"? It seems you're saying "yes" - that is the ID project, in part.
I don’t accept references to “nature” and “naturalism” because, as I have tried many times to argue, there is no true definition of “nature”, and therefore of “naturalism”. The word is simply vague and ambiguous.
The same can be said for "design" and many other aspects of reality. But in general, scientists know what is meant by 'natural' at least in comparison with supernatural.
That’s why most references to “methodological naturalism” are simply a (bad) philosophical position stating that scientific answers must be in the range of what someone expects them to be, an idea that is completely anti-science.
I differ here in that I think it is merely a safeguard for science in that it limits science to certain aspects of reality. Some things cannot be subjected to laboratory testing, they're not the proper study for science (theology, philosophy for example).
That’s why I prefer to think of science as a shareable search for reality, for things as they are. I would never categorize “reality” in advance as “natural” or else. Neither should science do anything like that.
As a believer in God, I hold that God is the ultimate reality. But at the same time, I wouldn't expect scientists to be involved in discussions about the nature of the Holy Trinity or the procession of the Holy Spirit or the nature of angels, for example.
And I believe that methodological naturalism is a biased philosophy of science, a dogmatic position which is in essence completely anti-science, always has been and always will be.
We might be talking about different things, but it seems you're saying that ID cannot properly work within the context of methodological naturalism. So, scientists who adopt that thinking would have to change in order to accept or understand ID, right?
And, if a method of science really exists (which I doubt), then methodological naturalism has nothing to do with it.
I don't see any problem with MN myself at all. In fact, that's why I think ID is successful is because it can work within the context of MN, and in fact, does not require a different philosophy of science. But that's a difference we have. I had always thought that ID did not have a unique philosophical position.Silver Asiatic_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit @64: BTW, it is too bad that you didn't take Barry's intellectual challenge seriously as wd400 and some others did, but instead used your opportunity to comment as a chance to sling mud and issue a diatribe against intelligent design, all with a few ad hominems thrown in to boot. Shows a real lack of objectivity and reflects poorly on critics of intelligent design. Not an impressive effort.Eric Anderson_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

EugeneS @75: Good thoughts. Yes, the acceptance of design as a real, purposeful, intelligent activity must be accepted before we can have a rational discussion about whether design exists in the real world. I'm not sure this is so much a critical aspect of intelligent design theory as it is a basic matter of logic and definitions. You are quite right that many ID opponents have descended into completely irrational positions in order to avoid discussing the merits of ID -- including arguing that there is no design anywhere, that everything is the result of purely natural causes (even human design, because, hey, humans are part of "nature"), and the like. These red herrings don't address the fundamental questions of ID, but instead are semantic games geared toward deflecting the issues by defining away any rational understanding of the word "design." Unless we can start with a reasonable and rational, even if not perfect, but reasonable, set of definitions for words like "intelligence" and "design" we don't even get to an assessment of intelligent design. You are quite right, however, that the juxtaposition of design as a potential cause category, together with chance and necessity, is an important concept for understanding how we approach intelligent design.Eric Anderson_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit @64:
ID is the traditional Christian belief that God created life, the universe and everything, especially living things and especially us. It also encompasses the traditional Christian belief that this should be readily detectable. “The heavens declare the glory of God” or William Paley for examples.
Talk about missing the mark. You've been around the debate long enough that you should know much better. One can only assume that you did not provide the above description in an attempt to accurately describe the claims of intelligent design. Rather, it seems to be a description based on your projection of the alleged motives of intelligent design proponents.Eric Anderson_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

ID is not an invention of a group of people, but an undeniable fact we all can attest to. Unfortunately some people want to deny it because the implications beyond science are not acceptable to them.Dionisio_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

EugeneS @75: Excellent point! Thank you.Dionisio_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson, #21 A nice summary. I would only stress one thing: the irreducibility of design as a causation category to chance and/or necessity. I think that this is the bottom line idea underpinning all ID. Otherwise it can be circularly argued that, well, okay, design is fine but agency itself can be reduced to more basic categories, i.e. to natural regularities and/or chance.EugeneS_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

"The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146 Kenneth Miller Steps on Darwin's Achilles Heel - Michael Behe - January 17, 2015 Excerpt: Enter Achilles and his heel. It turns out that the odds are much better for atovaquone resistance because only one particular malaria mutation is required for resistance. The odds are astronomical for chloroquine because a minimum of two particular malaria mutations are required for resistance. Just one mutation won't do it. For Darwinism, that is the troublesome significance of Summers et al.: "The findings presented here reveal that the minimum requirement for (low) CQ transport activity ... is two mutations." Darwinism is hounded relentlessly by an unshakeable limitation: if it has to skip even a single tiny step -- that is, if an evolutionary pathway includes a deleterious or even neutral mutation -- then the probability of finding the pathway by random mutation decreases exponentially. If even a few more unselected mutations are needed, the likelihood rapidly fades away.,,, So what should we conclude from all this? Miller grants for purposes of discussion that the likelihood of developing a new protein binding site is 1 in 10^20. Now, suppose that, in order to acquire some new, useful property, not just one but two new protein-binding sites had to develop. In that case the odds would be the multiple of the two separate events -- about 1 in 10^40, which is somewhat more than the number of cells that have existed on earth in the history of life. That seems like a reasonable place to set the likely limit to Darwinism, to draw the edge of evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/kenneth_miller_1092771.html Michael Behe - Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA
Thus, despite the fact that leading Darwinists themselves admit that life gives the overwhelming appearance of design, and despite the fact that both wd400 and Mat claim to follow the evidence wherever it leads, the fact of the matter is that neo-Darwinists have "no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” In conclusion, whatever wd400 and Mat (and other atheists) may be doing here on UD, they are, in fact, not following the evidence wherever it leads. There simply is no evidence for 'design without a Designer' (Francisco Ayala) Further notes:
About a Bike Lock: Responding to Richard Dawkins – Stephen C. Meyer – March 25, 2016 Excerpt: Moreover, given the empirically based estimates of the rarity (of protein folds) (conservatively estimated by Axe3 at 1 in 10^77 and within a similar range by others4) the analysis that I presented in Toronto does pose a formidable challenge to those who claim the mutation-natural selection mechanism provides an adequate means for the generation of novel genetic information — at least, again, in amounts sufficient to generate novel protein folds.5 Why a formidable challenge? Because random mutations alone must produce (or “search for”) exceedingly rare functional sequences among a vast combinatorial sea of possible sequences before natural selection can play any significant role. Moreover, as I discussed in Toronto, and show in more detail in Darwin’s Doubt,6 every replication event in the entire multi-billion year history of life on Earth would not generate or “search” but a miniscule fraction (one ten trillion, trillion trillionth, to be exact) of the total number of possible nucleotide base or amino-acid sequences corresponding to a single functional gene or protein fold. The number of trials available to the evolutionary process (corresponding to the total number of organisms — 10^40 — that have ever existed on earth), thus, turns out to be incredibly small in relation to the number of possible sequences that need to be searched. The threshold of selectable function exceeds what is reasonable to expect a random search to be able to accomplish given the number of trials available to the search even assuming evolutionary deep time. ——- (3) Axe, Douglas. “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds.” Journal of Molecular Biology 341 (2004): 1295-1315. (4) Reidhaar-Olson, John, and Robert Sauer. “Functionally Acceptable Solutions in Two Alpha-Helical Regions of Lambda Repressor.” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 7 (1990): 306-16; Yockey, Hubert P. “A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977c): 377-98; Yockey, Hubert. “On the Information Content of Cytochrome C,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977b) 345-376. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/about_a_bike_lo102722.html Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact – Cornelius Hunter – July 2011 Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible (over the entire history of life on earth) is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude. The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html “Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – January 1, 2015 Excerpt: The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/happy_new_year092291.html When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/ The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/ “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.” Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary Whale Evolution vs. (The Waiting Time Problem of) Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpted from ‘Living Waters’ video) (2015) https://youtu.be/0csd3M4bc0Q
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

Well that’s certainly disappointing. How about if we try to help neo-Darwinian evolution out a little bit and saturate genomes with mutations until we can actually see some ‘evolution’ in action?
Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Mutation + Selection = Stasis - October 8th, 2014 Excerpt: As a trained physicist, Desai applied a statistical perspective using robots to precisely manipulate hundreds of lines of yeast to perform large scale evolutionary experiments. Scientists have long studied genetic evolution of microbes, but until now, only a few strains at a time. Robotically managing 640 lines of yeast from a single parent cell, Desai’s team was efficiently tooled to statistically analyze evolution at this level for the first time. In an interview with Singer, Joshua Plotkin, an evolutionary scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, commented, “This is the physicist’s approach to evolution, stripping down everything to the simplest possible conditions… They could partition how much of evolution is attributable to chance, how much to the starting point, and how much to measurement noise.”,,, While early mutations in the experiment initially variably influenced fitness, fitness in the final generations was the same. “Scientists,” Singer noted, “don’t know why all genetic roads in yeast seem to arrive at the same endpoint”.,,,, “I think many people think about one gene for one trait, a deterministic way of evolution solving problems,” David Reznick, a biologist at the University of California-Riverside, told Singer. “This says that’s not true.” Unexpectantly, Desai’s team discovered genetic mutations plus selection yields stasis in the microbe model– not evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2014/10/mutation-selection-stasis/
Dang still no luck! We should have seen something, Oh well, how about if we try to force bacteria to evolve to adapt to a new environment?
Researchers Ran a Massive Yearlong Experiment to Get Bacteria to Evolve. Guess What Happened? - August 22, 2014 Excerpt: (the problem the researchers tried to address?) "the general inability to connect phenotype to genotype in the context of environmental adaptation has been a major failing in the field of evolution.,,," (Their results in addressing this major failing?) 'In short, it was hard to find anything beyond a "suggestion" or a "scenario" that these bacteria improved their fitness in any way by genetic mutations, other than the gross observation that some of the clones managed to survive at 45 °C. But even the ancestor could do that sometimes through the "Lazarus effect."' http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/researchers_ran089231.html
Hmmm? Still no luck. Hey, I've got an idea, let's just ask a professor of bacteriology if he has ever seen any evidence for Darwinian evolution:
Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282 "One century of studies on mutations has not provided a single verified example of a gene mutation that led to adaptive morphological change in metazoans." (Cabej 2012.)
Maybe Linton missed something? Let's personally look at the last four decades worth of lab work to see if we can find what he may have missed:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Now this is starting to get a little frustrating. Perhaps we just have to give neo-Darwinian evolution a little ‘room to breathe’? How about we ‘open the floodgates’ and look at Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment and see what we can find after 50,000 generations, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution?
Richard Lenski and Citrate Hype -- Now Deflated - Michael Behe - May 12, 2016 Excerpt: ,,, for more than 25 years Lenski's lab has continuously grown a dozen lines of the bacterium E. coli in small culture flasks, letting them replicate for six or seven generations per day and then transferring a portion to fresh flasks for another round of growth. The carefully monitored cells have now gone through more than 60,000 generations, which is equivalent to over a million years for a large animal such as humans.,,, In 2008 Lenski's group reported that after more than 15 years and 30,000 generations of growth one of the E. coli cell lines suddenly developed the ability to consume citrate,,, the authors argued it might be pretty important.,,, They also remarked that,,, perhaps the mutation marked the beginning of the evolution of a brand new species.,, One scientist who thought the results were seriously overblown was Scott Minnich, professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho ,,, So Minnich's lab re-did the work under conditions he thought would be more effective. The bottom line is that they were able to repeatedly isolate the same mutants Lenski's lab did as easily as falling off a log -- within weeks, not decades.,,, Richard Lenski was not pleased.,,, In a disgraceful move, Lenski impugned Scott Minnich's character. Since he's a "fellow of the Discovery Institute" sympathetic with intelligent design,,, (Regardless of the ad hominem) With regard to citrate evolution, the Minnich lab's results have revealed E. coli to be a one-trick pony.,,, The take-home lesson is that,,, (Lenski's overinflated) hype surrounding the (implications of the citrate adaptation) has seriously misled the public and the scientific community. It's far past time that a pin was stuck in its (Lenski's citrate) balloon. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/05/richard_lenski102839.html
Now that just can’t be right. We should really start to be seeing some neo-Darwinian fireworks by 50,000 generations, i.e. 1 million years! Hey I know what we can do. How about we see what happened when the ‘top five’ ‘beneficial mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined? Surely now the Darwinian magic will start flowing?
Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
Well again, that just can't be right! Something is going terribly wrong here. Have not Darwinists assured us that neo-Darwinian evolution is an established fact on par with gravity? Tell you what, let’s just forget trying to observe evolution in the lab. I mean it really is kind of cramped in the lab ya know, and let’s REALLY open the floodgates and let’s see what neo-Darwinian evolution can do with the ENTIRE WORLD at its disposal. Surely now neo-Darwinian evolution will flex its awesomely powerful muscles for all to see and forever make those IDiots, who believe in Intelligent Design, cower in terror and crawl back to their churches and shut up about all this intelligent design nonsense!
A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution
bornagain77_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

wd400 at 3 states:
"I’m much more interested in evidence than ideology"
MatSpirit at 64 states:
Meanwhile, the scientific world kept clearing its throat and saying, “How about evolution? We’ve got lots of evidence for that.”
And yet, despite this claim of fidelity to empirical evidence and thus to the scientific method by wd400 and Mat, i.e. to 'follow the evidence wherever it leads', the fact of the matter is that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can produce what atheists themselves admit is 'the overwhelming appearance of design':
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1 “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21 quoted from this video – Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – 2010 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY "The real core of Darwinism,,,, the 'design' of the natural theologian, by natural means." Ernst Mayr "design without a designer" Francisco Ayala living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed" Lewontin "The appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature." George Gaylord Simpson “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit - p. 138 (1990) “Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30
Yet, despite the fact that, according to many leading atheists themselves, life gives the overwhelming ‘appearance’ of having been designed for a purpose, and that Darwinian evolution is suppose to explain that appearance of 'design without a Designer', the truth is that they have no real time empirical evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can produce this self admitted 'appearance of design' Franklin M. Harold, whom I believe is also an atheist, calls Darwinian accounts ‘a variety of wishful speculations’. Specifically he states:
“,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA
James Shapiro, main founder of the anti neo-Darwinian group "The Third Way", makes an almost verbatim statement prior to Harold's statement:
“The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} 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 for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.” Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64.
In the following humorous exchange I had with Larry Moran, he inadvertently admits he has no real time empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution
Larry Moran, a professor of Evolutionary Biology, quoting Futuyma: “The theory of genetic drift … includes some of the most highly refined mathematical models in biology.” Me: “can you be kind enough to point us to the exact experiment that verified that those ‘highly refined mathematical models’ were actually talking about reality instead of just Darwinian pipe dreams?” Larry Moran: “That’s like asking to show how the mathematical models of physics predict the formation of Venus. Do you realize how silly that sounds?” Me: “Not nearly as silly as you saying that unguided material processes could EVER build a flagellum given all the time in the universe. Which is still yet orders of magnitude not as silly as you saying unguided material processes created your ‘beyond belief’ brain.
In the following quote, Coyne admits that Darwinian evolution is a 'historical science' that is not subject to rigorous testing:
“In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago
But hey, these are just quotes, and since wd400 and Mat claim to follow the evidence wherever it leads, let's look at the empirical evidence itself. Many times Darwinists claim that evolution is an observed fact on par with the observed fact of gravity. But very contrary to their claims, the plain fact of the matter is that there are ZERO observed instances of neo-Darwinian evolution building up functional complexity. How about the oft cited example for neo-Darwinian evolution of antibiotic resistance? This following short video investigates antibiotic resistant bacteria and finds it to fall short as to being evidence for Darwinian evolution.
Investigating Evolution: Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Peboq0AqA
This following site has a list of the degraded molecular abilities of antibiotic resistant bacteria
Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? - Kevin Anderson, Ph.D. Excerpt: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ,,, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
Moreover, far from being an example of Darwinian evolution, research has demonstrated that 'antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria' and has also demonstrated that 'antibiotics themselves induce mutations leading to antibiotic-resistant bacteria'
(Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics - April 2012 Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes. http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183# The Diseaseome Could Take Medicine Beyond the Genome By Cynthia Graber on Thu, 09 Oct 2014 Excerpt: Today, antibiotic resistance is thought to emerge because, scientists have believed, there are a few bacteria in a given community that are naturally resistant to a drug, and they thrive after the drug kills off the bacteria’s brethren. But instead, as Collins’ research has demonstrated, antibiotics themselves induce mutations, leading to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/network-medicine/
Antibiotic resistance doesn’t seem to be helping Darwinists. How about we look really, really, close at very sensitive growth rates and see if we can find any evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution?
Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010 Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html
Well, that doesn’t seem to be helping Darwinists either. How about if we just try to forcibly fix an unconditionally ‘beneficial’ mutation by sustained selection?
Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila - 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/aspiliop//2010_2011/Burke%20et%20al%202010.pdf UCI scientists decode genomes of sexually precocious fruit flies - September 16, 2010 Excerpt: For decades, most researchers have assumed that sexual species evolve the same way single-cell bacteria do: A genetic mutation sweeps through a population and quickly becomes “fixated” on a particular portion of DNA. But the UCI work shows that when sex is involved, it’s far more complicated. “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology & evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. https://news.uci.edu/press-releases/uci-scientists-decode-genomes-of-sexually-precocious-fruit-flies/
bornagain77_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

funny comment from around the internet: "I always figured BA77 was some deep cover, long game troll." I don't think so. I think he's a True Believer.AhmedKiaan_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

wd400: I don't know if there is "any lack of clarity or mis-statement" in Ewert’s post. It is clear enough for me, and I completely disagree with him. Is it possible to disagree with a fellow IDist? Sure. As I have often said, ID is no religion nor dogma. Not is it a political party. It is science, and in science anyone can always disagree with anyone else.gpuccio_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Dionisio: You can quote any of my comments whenever and wherever you like. They are public, and I am sure you will always quote them in the right context. :) Thank you for giving them your attention.gpuccio_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

EA, I don't think there is any lack of clarity or mis-statement in Ewert's post. You might want to take it up with him, or Dembski for that matter.wd400_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit @64: http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r154/janiebellemcknight/potw.jpgAhmedKiaan_{December 2, 2016
December
12
Dec
2
02
2016
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

I'd say part of the reason Barry is in charge here instead of a scientist is because ID was a legal strategy, not a scientific revolution.AhmedKiaan_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

Barry, what's your definition of evolution? As far as I can tell from what you've written, it's about as poor as Harris and Klebold's.MatSpirit_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply