Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Insane or Simply Wrong?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

David W. Gibson asks some interesting questions in a comment to johnnyb’s last post.  First, he writes concerning Darwinism:  “How could it ever have come to pass that tens of thousands of the most intelligent humans in the world, after decades of detailed study, could STILL fall victim to the ‘transparently ludicrous’?”

Let me answer this question by referring to a couple of similar examples from hisotry.

In the second century Ptolemy devised his system of cosmology.  In this system each planet moves along a “deferent” and an “epicycle.”  The planet’s movement along these two paths cause it to move closer to and further away from the earth.  For the system to work, the planets sometimes had to slow down, stop, and even move backwards.

Tens of thousands of the most intelligent humans in the world ascribed to Ptolemy’s cosmology from the publication of Almagest around 150 until well after the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543.

But this system of deferents and epicycles is “transparently ludicrous” you say.  And so it is in retrospect.  Nevertheless it reigned nearly unchallenged for well over 1,000 years.

Here’s another example.  Humorism.  “This theory holds that the human body was filled with four basic substances, called humors, which are in balance when a person is healthy, and all diseases and disabilities result from an excess or deficit of one of these four humors. These deficits could be caused by vapors that were inhaled or absorbed by the body. The four humors were black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood.”  Wikipedia.

Humorism was the prevailing medical orthodoxy from the time of Galen (circa 150 AD).  It was not definitively displaced until 1858 when Rudolf Virchow published his work on cellular pathology.

Your phrase “transparently ludicrous” comes readily to mind when we think about humorism now.  Yet it was the prevailing orthodoxy among tens of thousands of brilliant medical practitioners for nearly 2,000 years.

Now suppose one of Copernicus’ critics (and he had many; his theory was not accepted immediately) had said, “Hey Copernicus, how could it ever have come to pass that tens of thousands of the most intelligent humans in the world, after 1,393 years of detailed study, could still fall victim to  a theory of cosmology that, if you are correct, is transparently ludicrous?”

Or suppose one of Virchow’s critics had said, “Hey wait a minute!  How could it ever have come to pass that tens of thousands of the most intelligent humans in the world, after nearly 2,000 years of detailed study, could still fall victim to a theory of medicine that, if you are correct, is transparently ludicrous?”

I will put it to you David.  How should Copernicus or Virchow have answered those questions?

Finally you write:  “Centuries of scientific progress can only be explained by mass insanity. Does that work for you?”

First, I don’t know where you get “centuries.”  Origin was published in 1859.  That’s 153 years ago by my count.  Darwin has over 1,000 years to go before he reaches the same status as Ptolemy or Galen based on mere “age of the theory.”

Second, “mass insanity” is a nice strawman.  No one has suggested that someone who believes in Darwinism is insane.  They are simply wrong.

Were all cosmologists from Ptolemy to Copernicus insane?  No, they were simply wrong.

Were all doctors from Galen to Virchow insane?  No, they were simply wrong.

The essence of your argument for Darwinism is:  “All the smart people believe it; it must be true.”  I hope you understand now that that argument is not as airtight as you seem to think it is.

Comments
GEM, G'day! Thanks for spending time explaining things to me. I think we've hit the end of it now. But I really do appreciate your thoughts and insight. And I hope your crisis has been resolved. ~jeradJerad
June 8, 2012
June
06
Jun
8
08
2012
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
J: The crisis is boiling over, let me for now respond by pointing to the Original Post, and clipping Mr Arrington's reply to Mr Gibson:
. . . you write: “Centuries of scientific progress can only be explained by mass insanity. Does that work for you?” First, I don’t know where you get “centuries.” Origin was published in 1859. That’s 153 years ago by my count. Darwin has over 1,000 years to go before he reaches the same status as Ptolemy or Galen based on mere “age of the theory.” Second, “mass insanity” is a nice strawman. No one has suggested that someone who believes in Darwinism is insane. They are simply wrong. Were all cosmologists from Ptolemy to Copernicus insane? No, they were simply wrong. Were all doctors from Galen to Virchow insane? No, they were simply wrong. The essence of your argument for Darwinism is: “All the smart people believe it; it must be true.” I hope you understand now that that argument is not as airtight as you seem to think it is.
The point is that, as my Grandpa used to say: every tub must stand on its own bottom. That is, a scientific explanation must be well warranted on factual -- i.e. empirical -- adequacy, coherence and elegant simplicity such that it is credibly the best current explanation. And, as was explained above, a paradigm can rise and be established without being well warranted, especially in light of further facts. Ideological and values considerations may enter, as is for instance common on economic theories. In the case of the CV + DRS --> DWUM model, it runs into the problem that once we must account for complex multipart body plans, incrementalism no longer works well. The bird's lungs and wings must be there all together for the function to be present, and exaptation of bits and pieces from things suited to other functions and tossed together by chance forces faces significant systems integration challenges per Mengue's C1 - 5. In effect the chance variations face a problem that until one is on a shoreline of function, there is no favourable difference in function that can be rewarded through hill-climbing mechanisms. In short, we have excellent reason to infer a difference between adaptation within a body plan, and origin of a body plan. Where also the ad hoc supposition that there is a vast continent of functional forms that incrementally -- remember, two functionally co-ordinated point mutations is a significant hurdle -- simply lacks empirical warrant. So, we are left with a model that is empirically unsupported as an account of the origin of distinct body plans, and which is analytically implausible. By contrast FSCO/I is an empirically well supported characteristic sign of purposeful intelligent design. So much so that one is well warranted to take it as a sign that such design was present, even in absence of separate evidence of a designer. (It is interesting how there is suddenly an insistence on an interview with a designer, when the point at stake is, can we on empirical warrant infer to designer without having to do an interview with him or her or it. We may properly insist on adequacy of warrant, in a way that is congruent with how e reason generally, but we may not demand arbitrary levels of warrant because we may not like the implications or for whatever reason. By any reasonable criterion, FSCO/I is indeed an empirically well warranted sign of design.) G'day KFkairosfocus
June 8, 2012
June
06
Jun
8
08
2012
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
GEM, You didn't imply anyone was stupid; I was just giving you an 'out' to write me off. A lot of very bright, highly educated, independent minded people agree with the modern evolutionary synthesis. A lot of people whose careers would be 'made' if they found a chink in the armour. There's this popular idea in the ID community that 'Darwinists' have too much invested in the status quo to buck the system. From what I've heard from lots and lots of working scientists that is not true. And I'm not prepared to believe in a conspiracy. I really do think that there are a lot of very bright people who confront the evidence every day who believe that 'Darwinism' is true. Some, like Lynn Margolis, stretch and push it out a bit further. But most of them do not find the need to infer a designer. Don't pick and choose opinions based on if they agree with you or not. Take a look at the vast majority of people, working in the biological field, who have spent decades thinking about it. And then ask me how can so many people say that without going oops. I believe most scientists are curious and honest and are desperate to make their mark. I can't see why they would all be putting on their blinders, reporting to work just to keep their jobs. AND, you know what, much of the research the ID community points to as undermining the existing paradigm is generated by . . . scientists working in the field in question!! Not by ID proponents. If anyone is going to take down 'Darwinism' it's going to be the people who are part of it. They're the ones who know it intimately. MAYBE there's a ground swell of support for ID and that's the way the researchers are playing the game. Stealthily. Maybe. But I kind of doubt it. You could always ask them. Or read their blogs. AND, I have noticed, that you DIDN'T answer any of my thought questions. It's okay, I didn't expect you to. But I'd like you to. Maybe, just maybe, getting a better understanding of each other is being more open about our doubts as well as our convictions. What do you say? Are we building bridges or creating gulfs? What do you say?Jerad
June 7, 2012
June
06
Jun
7
07
2012
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
J: Pardon, but I have neither said nor implied that anyone is "stupid." I do believe we are dealing with the way a dominant paradigm becomes a way both of seeing -- including "with the eye of faith" -- and a way of NOT seeing. (To see what I am highlighting here, cf. my markup on Lewontin, here. Ask yourself why someone who is that bright and well educated can speak like that without going: oops.) Kuhn also warned us in how paradigms can be incommensurate. That is the context in which I am pointing to underlying principles of inductive warrant. There is a need for a serious re-thinking, from first principles on up. KFkairosfocus
June 7, 2012
June
06
Jun
7
07
2012
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
GEM, Well, maybe I'm just stupid. But I'm not the only one. Maybe you're wrong. Maybe your mathematical analysis is incorrect. Maybe the fossil and genetic and biogeographic and morphological records are correct reflections of natural processes in action. You can't completely rule out the possibility. It has to be considered. I could be wrong. I think about it a lot. If I'm wrong I've got lots and lots and lots of follow-on questions to ask. The same questions I'd be asking if I were an ID proponent now. Who. How. When. Why. Do you ask yourself those questions now? And if you're wrong what would you do? Have you got any questions you'd want answers to? Are they questions that biologists are working on or would they be different?Jerad
June 7, 2012
June
06
Jun
7
07
2012
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
J: Pardon, I have a crisis blowing up, so little time for detail. however, I get very uncomfortable when a matter of warrant is persistently reduced to opinion and persuasion. We have a duty of care to seek soundly based conclusions, and adequate information has been repeatedly given as to WHY chance driven contingency is not adequate as a mechanism to generate FSCO/I, whilst choice contingency is a routinely observed cause, so much so that one is well warranted to see such FSCO/I as a signature of design. At no point above -- and for years in this blog [not to mention elsewhere] -- has there been provided good warrant for the implication of evolutionary materialism, that chance variation credibly can originate functionally specific, multi-component, organised entities. That is telling us something pretty strong, and it is pointing to a duty to acknowledge that which is well-warranted. I have to go. KFkairosfocus
June 7, 2012
June
06
Jun
7
07
2012
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT
GEM, I think we're just going to have to disagree. I don't see either of us changing our views. But I'm glad to be more aware and understanding of yours. So thank your for taking the time and effort to talk to me. It's very much appreciated. Hope you get your crises figured out!!Jerad
June 6, 2012
June
06
Jun
6
06
2012
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
PS: On Occam, the point is that hypotheses should not be multiplied without necessity. An incompetent suggested mechanism is not simpler, it is failed: simplistic. That is why I pointed out above on factual adequacy and coherence coming before simplicity. KFkairosfocus
June 6, 2012
June
06
Jun
6
06
2012
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Nope, we have not fully designed something like that, but we are beginning to make components. And, we have developed the architecture for something of that order, the von Neumann self replicator. That is not equivalent to no empirical evidence, or no relevant empirical evidence. besides, the key issue does not start with vNSRs, but with FSCO/I, and we know enough to recognise this and to id4entify empirically its only known source, with reasons to see why such FSCO/I is not going to be credibly observable on chance plus necessity absent intelligence. Needle in haystack reasons. KFkairosfocus
June 6, 2012
June
06
Jun
6
06
2012
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
GEM, I think it's a fair guess humans will progress that far . . . but we haven't seen it yet!! So, as of right now, no empirical evidence to show it's possible.Jerad
June 6, 2012
June
06
Jun
6
06
2012
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
J: Busy again on an already hot morning, after getting up too early. (here's why.) The evidence in hand is enough to point to how sufficiently adept designers can in fact build living cells. We already had Venter et al putting in a new genome, and now we see a case from three years back about a synthetic [partial?] Ribosome. In short, a molecular nanotech lab is feasible. I guess doing a full cell depends on being able to automate manipulation and put it under cybernetic control. It is clear that design is a credible cause of the sort of nanotech we are seeing in the cell, and it is clear that some serious smarts are involved. That is credible adequate cause. KFkairosfocus
June 6, 2012
June
06
Jun
6
06
2012
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
GEM, I wish it was hot here. Oh well. The Jubilee went well at least. :-) I hope Prince Phillip gets better quickly. We are beginning to be able to perform the kind of design hypothesised by ID . . . but we aren't there yet. We don't even know if it's possible. But the real point of my post was to address an issue brought up by Joe. Something I needed to look up. I hope he responds. I have been thinking about the comparisons between our views. I assert that natural processes are capable of generating a wide variety of body forms in a specified period of time based on the evidence of the fossil, genetic, biogeographic and morphological records. You insist that the only way we've seen 'information' generated is through the application of intelligence and so hypothesise an unknown (unknowable?), undefined and, so far, untestable and untraceable designer who has left no contra-flow physical evidence. I still think I win via Ockham's razor: I am assuming fewer agencies. In fact, I'm assuming nothing other than what is observable today. And the available physical evidence does not contradict my conclusion. Just about any evidence is consistent with an unknown designer but we don't know that one was around at the time. I"ve thought a lot about the fCSI argument and I would tend to agree with it IF the contention was that complex body plans had appeared with no precursors which is NOT what evolutionary theory is asserting (some ID proponents are though). I'm not saying all the precursors are available but the the model/theory says there is a gradual progression from functional body plan to other functional body plans. The amount of 'information' added at any given step is only a few bits. My impression is that most ID proponents agree that natural processes are capable of that. The disagreement comes when approaching the proposed (by Dr Behe) 'edge' of evolution. But I can't see there being an edge. His argument is negative: certain events are hideously improbable and therefore . . . improbable. I am reminded of the person who finds some event improbable and says: there's a one in a billion chance that could happen to someone so it's virtually impossible. But, with close to 7 billion people on the planet, even something that happened one in a billion times just might happen to seven people. On average. I'm taking the time to mention all this because I feel I should respond to all the responses I've got to this thread. And, I'm just offering my opinion. I'm quite sure it will not sway many people on this forum. But I'm not trying to influence anyone. I'm just interested in building bridges of understanding.Jerad
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
J: A pause on a hot, busy day -- bad sign for hurricanes. The synthesis of a ribosome discussed in the linked from 211 points to what I have said, that across this century, scientists -- presumably intelligent -- will most likely create synthetic cell based life. KFkairosfocus
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
I guess perhaps cell by cell doesn't mean synthetic but clearly progress is being made. http://blog.targethealth.com/?p=3870Jerad
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Another discussion of Dr Church's research. Created a functional ribosome cell by cell apparently. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/03/10/on-the-quest-for-synthetic-life-scientists-build-their-own-cellular-protein-factory/Jerad
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Joe, Are you sure synthetic ribosomes are not functional? This: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2009/03/synthetic_biologists_prepare_t.html seems to indicate they are.Jerad
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Joe, Thanks for the direct answers, much appreciated. But if two new protein binding sites are beyond Darwinian mechanisms then how is there no need for intervention after the OoL? You've said before you think there may be a repository of 'programming' outside the nuclear DNA . . . I think. You said it maybe in the cell wall/membrane. That wouldn't work for viruses but I'm quibbling. You haven't mentioned the mitochondrial DNA so I don't know if you consider that a potential repository or not. As the ribosomes are made from complexes of RNAs and ribonucleoproteins it's hard to see where their programming would be (considering your comment about synthetic ribosomes not being functional) . . not in the RNA I guess since that comes from the DNA. GEM, I think Dr Behe's proposed 'edge' of evolution is one of the best arguments for the necessity of a designer. Not because of the search rate or sample size but because of the difficulty he asserts certain kinds of combined mutations would have coming into being. That being said a lot of biologists disagree with him. I have read Berlinski's argument. He has only estimates for the number of increments for one thing. Also, we do not have the genome of the whale ancestor to start from. Whales do have vestigal rear limbs and we have a pretty clear fossil progression so the transition is very clear. And, there's no physical evidence or contra-flow indicating a designer around at that time with the capability to give little kicks along the way to jump the gaps between fossils. As I said before, we don't have empirical evidence that such tweaking is possible. I don't know what you think of Joe's 'other programming source' notion. I have heard it before and I'm not sure I'm completely clear on what he's implying.Jerad
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
F/N: before heading off, those who suggest exaptation need to address Mengue's criteria C1 - 5, cf here.kairosfocus
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
J: The limits that can be justified per search challenges on the solar system scale: addition of 500 bits of info (explicit or implicit) required to carry out an integrated novel function. Body plans check in at 10 - 100 mn+ bits, so that points to the origins of body plans. In addition, on Behe's critical review of research and epidemoliogical statistics, he targets the family as a reasonable point where these sorts of issues kick in. He has also pointed out that two co-ordinated mutations is stretching it for a step change in micro-evo. So, even on the assumption of a continent of functional plans accessible incrementally, once we pass the sort of reproduction rates in micro-organisms, and begin to look at multicellular body plan emergence, we are looking at grossly inadequate population, reproduction rate and search resources. The discussion of whale origins here gives a picture of what that implies. (Berlinski has a similar discussion that looks at maybe 50,000+ increments to change something like a cow into a whale.) The resources to do this incrementally are not there, and the evidence we actually see is about gaps and body plan stasis -- islands of function, not transformation of body plans by smooth increments. Then there is the further evidence of the thousands of distinct protein fold domains and their deep isolation in AA-chain sequence space; remember, 20 or so states per position: 20^n possibilities for an n-member chain, i.e. at first pass 4.32 bits per location, which is why the code triplets are used, 6 bits nominal per codon. (We make the "or so" point because of the oddball cases where different AAs are used.) Gotta run. KFkairosfocus
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Jerad:
So, what are the specific limits of Darwinian mechanisms regarding speciation?
It appears that two new protein-to-protein binding sites is the limit.
What is your hypothesis regarding the intervention of a designer?
It is not required after the OoL.
Where do you think the ‘programming’ for ribosomes is?
In the ribosomes.Joe
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Joe, So, what are the specific limits of Darwinian mechanisms regarding speciation? And What is your hypothesis regarding the intervention of a designer? As in: can you give a couple of particular examples? I shall look into the synthetic ribosome issue as it's not an issue I have much knowledge about. Where do you think the 'programming' for ribosomes is?Jerad
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
Jerad- Please TRY to focus. We were talking about SPECIATION via Darwinian mechanisms- period, end of story. And there isn't any evidence in support of UCD- everything that can be used as "evidence" for UCD can also be used as evidence for something else. So it doesn't work. You want positive evidence for ID- start with transcription, translation and the ribosome- synthetic ribosomes do not function yet they should if they were reducible to their chemical and physical make-up. Ya see ribosomes require programming, ie information that is neither matter nor energy. And speaking of energy ATP synthase is another example of design.Joe
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Joe, Well, it sounds like this:
. . . there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.
means that it's not possible, according to ID, for there to be purely mechanistic, Darwinian evolution in all cases, across the board, which is what evolutionary theory says. I don't see how you can have it both ways: ID doesn't preclude Darwinian speciation yet it says it's limited. Are you saying Darwinian mechanisms have their limits but they may not have been hit yet?? Perhaps it would be good to be more specific: what exactly are you saying the designer did? Let's start with that. No need to pick holes in evolutionary theory or what I've said, give me the ID perspective with some positive, specific claims. Something we can examine and look at the evidence for and against. UCD may be untestable but there is no physical evidence to contradict it as of yet. So, it works as a good model based on what we've observed without the need to invoke unknown and undefined agents.Jerad
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Jerad- Correct if you don't have any evidence then there is no point in you saying anything. YOU say:
Like I suspected, ID is NOT okay with pure, Darwinian, natural processes only, speciation.
Yet Wells and Dembski wrote:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms.
Obvioulsy you have other issues, Jerad. Where do I stand on universal common descent? It is untestable. And no the designer need not intervene for UCD. That was not part of anything I quoted. Again you seem to make stuff up to suit yourself.Joe
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
GEM,
I note that a quip like body plans come from ancestors begs the question at stake: origin, de novo, of new body plans; it lends itself to playing the improper substitution and extrapolation game again.
I believe, no surprise here, that ALL, new included, body plans are slowly, step-by-step, derived from existing body plans. In fact, from an evolutionary point of view, there are no fixed points. All species are transitional. I would agree with you if I thought there was a disconnect, a jump, from one body plan to another. But that's not what evolutionary theory says. I don't believe that huge amounts of complex specified information need to be created or 'found' in the sample space all at once. No islands of functionality. It only looks like Mt Improbable when you stand well back and see the long time changes. Up close it's all gentle and gradual and almost indiscernible. Obviously you disagree and I think we maybe reaching the end of any productive discussion.
The only thing sufficient to overturn such, would be empirical observation of ICV + DRS –> Novel body plans, with associated analysis that adequately addresses the sort of fossil record gap Gould et al highlight.
Well, I think that has been shown via the fossil, genetic, biogeographic and morphological records. It's not realistic to expect the fossil record to be complete. Part of Gould's argument was that IF evolution was happening quickly then the chances of intermediate forms becoming fossils was severely diminished. I could ask: do you have empirical evidence of intelligence being able to create FCSI of the particular type required, turning it into the necessary code structure and implementing that design in the numbers required to create a viable population that can dominate the existing, viable life form? We can't do it so, how do you know it's possible? I have heard the Family classification level proposed as the 'limit' of evolution but I haven't heard much discussion in the ID community about it. Has there been that discussion and, if so, what was the consensus? Gregory, I have no interest in doing the work. I like my model just fine! :-)Jerad
June 5, 2012
June
06
Jun
5
05
2012
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
@ Jerad #196 You are welcome to do the work. I have no time for questions to questions. - Gr.Gregory
June 4, 2012
June
06
Jun
4
04
2012
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
F/N: I think it was Behe who pointed to the FAMILY as the pivotal threshold, that where we say distinguish cats and dogs. The difference between a tabby and a tiger seem to be largely regulatory -- scaling and adaptation. But if we look at a dog vs a kangaroo [all within the mammals and the vertebrates] vs a bird vs a mango tree vs a coconut tree vs the several worms, vs a sea urchin vs a crab or tiger shrimp, vs a mushroom, we see quite sharp differences that require considerable explanation and empirical warrant, not just a neat tree diagram [with speculative but persistently missing links and contradictions between various molecular level reconstructions] that papers over big differences to account for.kairosfocus
June 4, 2012
June
06
Jun
4
04
2012
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
J: I have a brewing crisis to handle, which restricts time to look here. I note that a quip like body plans come from ancestors begs the question at stake: origin, de novo, of new body plans; it lends itself to playing the improper substitution and extrapolation game again. The issue, I repeat, is that de novo body plans involving FSCO/I in radically distinct configs and on reasonable estimates 10 - 100 MB of novel FSCI must be accounted for -- and that, dozens of times over. The bird lung and wing (and feathers, too) have been paradigmatic cases at least since Wallace's discussion in The World of Life. Denton, as cited above, puts some of the issues on the table -- the origin of flight in birds is another case he discusses but I have not time to transcribe. The crucial case is the Cambrian fossil revo, and that has been unresolved on
ICV [increm'tl ch var'n] + DRS [diff'tl reprod success) --> DWUM (descent with unlimited modific'n)
. . . ever since the days of Darwin. Dozens of body plans at Phylum/sub-phylum levels, coming first and on the convt'l t-line coming fast and furious, in a top down pattern. As the previous analysis warrants, getting to the implied islands of co-ordinated, config-dependent function, on chance plus necessity, runs out of steam at the lower end of 500 - 1,000 bits; this is WITHIN the solar system, indeed within the earth. 10^42 or so atoms. I repeat, following the principles of inductive, scientific warrant: the only empirically supported cause for FSCO/I is design, and the needle in haystack and monkeys at keyboards analyses similar to those that ground statistical thermodynamics, back that up. The only thing sufficient to overturn such, would be empirical observation of ICV + DRS --> Novel body plans, with associated analysis that adequately addresses the sort of fossil record gap Gould et al highlight. An inadequate proposed mechanism is not "simple," it is simplistic; especially when competing on best explanation with a known adequate cause for the key phenomenon, FSCO/I. KFkairosfocus
June 4, 2012
June
06
Jun
4
04
2012
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT
Gregory,
Is that (or could that be) ‘measurable’ like ‘plugging into the Matrix’?
What do you think? How would you document and measure that?Jerad
June 4, 2012
June
06
Jun
4
04
2012
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
"At some points along the way, the designer had to give the process boosts to help create new species/types." - Jerad (Euro) Is that (or could that be) 'measurable' like 'plugging into the Matrix'? "Neo" received a 'boost,' not just of information, but apparently of experience or knowledge that he didn't have before the plug-in and download session. Also, was it a kind of 'common ancestry' or 'common sense' he gained in the process or something less 'common' or more 'unique' than that?Gregory
June 4, 2012
June
06
Jun
4
04
2012
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply