Jean Rostand on Evolution

_{Granville Sewell

December 16, 2007

Intelligent Design}

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

In his 1956 book, “A Biologist’s View”, French biologist Jean Rostand wrote:

“If it is true that neither Lamarckism nor mutationism [Darwinism] enable us to understand the mechanism of evolution, we must have the courage to recognise that we know nothing of this mechanism…Some people may perhaps feel that such a confession of ignorance plays into the hands of those who are still fighting the doctrine of evolution. But quite apart from the fact that the most elementary intellectual honesty demands that we should say ‘I do not know’ where we believe that this is so, I think that this doctrine is now so solidly grounded on its own merits that it needs no support from false advocacy. I must add that however obscure the causes of evolution appear to me to be, I do not doubt for a moment that they are entirely natural.”

It is becoming harder and harder to find Darwinists willing to make a serious attempt to defend their theory, and explain how it could account for the complexity of life, they are almost entirely in attack mode*. Their three main arguments are 1) ID is not science 2) ID is not science and 3) ID is not science. I believe ID is science, but I can understand the concern many have about it being taught in science classrooms, so I would like to propose a compromise. How about we simply “have the courage to recognise that we know nothing of the mechanism” of evolution, and leave it at that? Each student can decide for himself/herself what the most likely explanation might be.

*see my comment #30 for clarification of this claim

Comments

Gavin: Your first impression is the right one: all of Miller's arguments are nuts. Nobody has ever answered the argument of IC, and nobody ever will, because it is not possible. The argument is deadly right, period. The fact is that ID's fundamental argument is the complete impossibility to attain biological information with any kind of random variation. Both Dembski's CSI theory and Behe IC argument are aspects of the same impossibility. Natural selection is invoked as a non random component of darwinian theory. But NS can do very little, except in the very trivial scenarios well known to all of us. In particular, NS is completely blocked from any complex achievement because of IC. Moreover, Dembski and Marks have clearly shown that a search method can do better than chance only if information about the target is incorporated in the method. And that makes complete justice of the stupid arguments and examples of darwinists, beginning from the silly "Methinks it's like a weasel" example of the sublime Dawkins, up to all bogus genetic simulations. Larry Moran has clearly shown the intellectual and moral level od darwinist arguments: failure to answer any pertinent question, and readyness to grossly insult any adversary, are really their only weapons. While their moral failures can always be pardoned (after all, man is not a perfect being), their intellectual stupidity and arrogance are much more difficult to excuse. I must confess that I don't very much like the call for compromise. Compromise with what? We cannot compromise about truth, and here I am not speaking of religious or spiritual truth, but just of the simple, tangible scientific truth. I don't like fight for its sake, but I have always loved a phrase from one of the most interesting characters in Alan Moore's "Watchmen": "Never compromise!" After all, I am very, very proud of being an IDiot, now and forever...gpuccio_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

To redress the beneficial mutation rate. This is in fact what Dr. Behe did. Dr. Behe states in Edge of Evolution on page 135. Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would explain the complexity of life we see) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite. That order of difficulty is put at 10^20 replications (births) of the malarial parasite. Thus the true rate for beneficial mutations is far in excess of one-hundred-billion-billion mutational events. And as I said before this number for a "truly" beneficial mutation rate is far to generous to the Evolutionists.bornagain77_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Gavin, Here is one of Dr. Dembski's responses to Miller http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm Here is Dr. Behe's response to Miller: Response to Kenneth R. Miller http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK1WNX2AI5EMGXN Response to Kenneth R. Miller, Continued http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3GNLGXQXVL2KT Kenneth R. Miller and the Problem of Evil, Part 1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK2J0FY46FD1DA4 Kenneth R. Miller and the Problem of Evil, Part 2 http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK39W3UJ6MNJV6N Kenneth R. Miller and the Problem of Evil, Part 3 http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK1WHMS8WADYIGZ And for all His responses to all his critics you can go to Behe's blog on amazon here: Michael Behe's Amazon Blog http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2bornagain77_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Hey, sorry about this if this is not really on the thread. I’m not really a blogger and this is new to me; but, in desperation, I’m posting this here in the hope that someone will help. I have read very, VERY little about ID. Therefore I’m seeking advice concerning the sort of counter arguments Kenneth Miller asserts. First I’m not sure if I understand Miller’s arguments. Second I would like to know where Prof Dembski’s latest responses to Miller and others (in similar vein) are to be found – hard copy publications, web articles or both. It seems that when all is boiled down Kenneth Miller’s arguments against ID in general and IC in particular go like this: 1. Argument about component parts It can be shown that some of the component parts of complex biological systems – such as a bacterium’s flagellum – exist as, other complex structures (a corollary being that the amino acid sequencing to make the relevant proteins, with their functional structuring, exists). Therefore, it is possible for natural section to have acted upon organisms whose variation in the relevant parts made it such that flagella evolved out of the recombination of those parts. If that really is one of Miller’s arguments in a nutshell, then it is not hard to see that it is nuts. But is that really hat Miller is in the end saying? Surely not. 2. Argument about preserved system function when the parts are reduced. Some biological systems – such as the blood clotting cascade – don’t need as many parts as some instantiations of those systems in one species/type compared to another species/type, in order to have the same functionality. Therefore, the parts of some complex biological systems are not irreducible. Again if that really is one of Miller’s arguments in a nutshell then it seems to miss several marks. But is that really hat Miller is in the end saying? Comments: It seems to me that even IF ALL the parts required for the construction and functioning of, say, a bacterium’s flagellum, were present in prokaryotic cell, what is required is information for the re-assembly of those parts into flagellum. The random shuffling of code seems rather like the famous comment of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that the probability of life evolving from random processes in the order of the probability of a Boeing 747 resulting from an explosion in junk shop. That intuition seems should even if one allows that all the components of a 747 are already in what, I concede would then be nothing like a JUNK shop. To me, the problem is that the assembly of flagella require instructions for that process to be “written”. But natural selection can’t write instructions since a set of instructions, although it could be built up bit by bit by an intelligent designer who scraps bits that don’t work and adds bits that refine the code to work better, is blind to any end. If some chance mutation manages to integrate some of the code for some of the components into a new set of instructions that would have to result in some actually functioning survival advantage of the system as a whole to the creatures of the relevant population for it to be selected. Intuitively the odds of this happening seem intuitively high. An answer might be to break down the probability into small parts and treat only the probability of the next “successful” step from an already functional state, but the overall probability that a sequence of such “useful” steps (note that “useful” inextricably connotes teleology) has occurred by randomness and blind “selection” seems mind boggling. Occam’s razor would look for something simple. I feel that in spite of all its trumpeting to the contrary, Darwinism lack appropriate parsimony. Further, if some generic system type “for” (better say “with” for “for” implies teleology) a specific outcome/function has varying instantiations, in different situations, (as one might expect from good or ergonomic design) it doesn’t follow that the complexity of the system type is endlessly reducible! There is surely in each concrete instantiation of the system, in a population, one reduction (of a component) too many. Okay, I’ve probably revealed that I have rather a poor grasp on these things. So I’d be grateful to be pointed to Prof Dembski’s latest responses to the matters I’m indicating. Thanks GavinGavin_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Q you ask, Meaning, don;t those statistics show that it is reasonable to expect that some beneficial mutations occur? From Dr. Behe's work we now know that 1 in a million rate for beneficial mutations was far to generous to the evolutionists. Evolutionists like to claim that mutations are beneficial when in fact they are harmful for building complex molecular machines. This includes the sickle cell mutation. All antibiotic resistance can be traced to such disruption of the optimal balance we find in life. The only unambiguous "beneficial mutation" I've seen was a passive ring structure which allowed the virus to permeate the cell membrane of its host. Yet even in this example the virus is not a living organism so it destroyed far, far more complexity in the life of its host that it ever gained in itself on its hypothetical march to becoming living life form. So the 1 in a million "beneficial mutation" quoted is actually far to low for an estimate.bornagain77_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

H'mm: First, I join Gil with his remark over in the next thread on the topic, that: I’m perfectly amenable to being convinced that the complexity, information content, and machinery of living systems can be explained by stochastic processes filtered by natural selection, and I would not even demand hard evidence, just some rigorous argumentation Perhaps, Dr Moran can come over and play with my toy example here, which outlines a bit of what we are getting at and why we sometimes make reference to Sir Fred Hoyle's tornado in a junkyard makes a 747 example? [747s are a lot simpler than the so-called "simple" cell. C'mon in, the thermodynamics waters Dr Sewell has been swimming in for years is fine.] Getting a bit more specific: 1] Dr Moran, over at his linked post: In natural selection the frequency of an allele increases in the population because the presence of the allele confers a selective advantage on the individual who carries it. This individual will survive and reproduce more frequently than individuals possessing the other allele of the gene in question. Over many generations the beneficial allele has a higher than normal probability of becoming fixed in the population This of course aptly summarises the SURVIVAL of the fittest. Namely, in effect, the "fittest" are those who survive and thrive enough to dominate the population across generations. ID's concern is with the ARRIVAL of the fittest, especially at body-plan level. Citing that ever so often dismissed article by Meyer on the Cambrian revolution -- i.e the sudden arrival in the fossil record of dozens of major physla and subphyla (i.e of highly diverse body plans):
The Cambrian explosion represents a remarkable jump in the specified complexity or "complex specified information" (CSI) of the biological world . . . Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000 [I add, 4^318,000 ~ 1.195 *10^191,455 cells in the configuration space, or an information carrying capacity of some 636 kbits, far beyond the 500 - 1,000 bits that mark the edge of chance on the gamut of our observed universe; i.e. it is highly improbable that random searches across that space would arrive at the archipelagos of bio-functionality for DNA alone, much less for all the other nano-machines required for life.]). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI . . . . In order to explain the origin of the Cambrian animals, one must account not only for new proteins and cell types, but also for the origin of new body plans . . . Mutations in genes that are expressed late in the development of an organism will not affect the body plan. Mutations expressed early in development, however, could conceivably produce significant morphological change (Arthur 1997:21) . . . [but] processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream. For this reason, mutations will be much more likely to be deadly if they disrupt a functionally deeply-embedded structure such as a spinal column than if they affect more isolated anatomical features such as fingers (Kauffman 1995:200) . . . McDonald notes that genes that are observed to vary within natural populations do not lead to major adaptive changes, while genes that could cause major changes--the very stuff of macroevolution--apparently do not vary. In other words, mutations of the kind that macroevolution doesn't need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don't occur.6
2] In random genetic drift an allele will increase in frequency due to chance alone and not because it confers a selective benefit. In most cases the allele will be nearly neutral with respect to its phenotype. Over a long period of time, these non-selected alleles will become fixed relative to other similar alleles in the genome. And, what is the chance, Dr Moran, that on the gamut of the observed universe, such a random walk would be able to jump up from say 5 mn bases to 180 mn, an increment of 175 mn? I.e the Cambrian revolution novel body plans credibly need injections of order 100 mn base pairs, in lets be generous 3 bn years on an earth that weighs in at far, far less than the 10^80 or so atoms and 13.7 BY generally held to be available in the cosmos as a whole that we actually observe. FYI, 4^ 100 mn ~ 1.358*10^60,205,999. This vastly exceeds, again, the reasonable edge of chance on the gamut of our cosmos,through exhaustion of available probabilistic resources. In short, that Dembski Universal probability Bound [UPB] rears its head and roars with laughter. I know, I know, that raises the question of . . . 3] Shaner74, in 20: Yesterday I was watching the Darwin Channel (Discovery), and I saw a quick trailer for an upcoming show. In it the question popped up “How do we confirm the existence of other universes?” Then the answer popped up, “Do the math.” And I thought the Galilean principle -- a la leaning Tower of Pisa and other apocryphal examples [the smaller ball will actually lag, slightly, due to differential effects of air resistance . . . G's genius actually lay in his ability to look at real world cases then extrapolate to idealised cases, e.g on his deduction that since a rolling ball in a U-groove tries to climb back up to its level, if we were to have a smooth groove that was flattened out horizontally it would roll on and on "trying" to rise back to its original level . . . ] -- was that ideas were to be subject to empirical tests before being accepted as science? So, we are actually here in the province of metaphysical speculation on possible worlds in which we may live. Fine. But then, we should be honest about that, and accept that : [1] this is not science but phil, and [2] the proper methodology for phil is comparative difficulties across alternative live option worldviews, on pain of closed-minded dogmatism and question-begging. Dr Moran, will you now join us in calling for "teaching the controversy," under its proper label: worldviews options and linked scientific issues? [Noting of course that scientific research programmes, as Lakatos pointed out, constitute a belt of theory etc, surrounding a worldview core. Here is the worldview core of indisputably the greatest scientist of all time, in the greatest single scientific work of all time.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran, I realize there are plenty of Darwinists who will defend their theory in broad, sweeping terms, as you have done. But when confronted with specific complex structures in the cell, there are only a very few who will even attempt to construct detailled, far-fetched, Darwinian explanations, nearly all simply say, "natural selection must be able to explain this, because ID is the only alternative explanation, and ID is not science."Granville Sewell_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

JT75 "“ID stakes its claim at the level of molecular biology…” If this is true then ID science is limited to these small scales and does not have the scope to deal with questions like speciation and the fossil record." The reason ID sticks to the biochemistry is that it is the biochemistry that is actually known and partly understood. The causes of large changes are biochemical but they have not been elucidated well enough for ID to comment. What Mike Behe points out is that there is no layer of complexity below biochemistry. There are many layers above it that remain mysterious. It is almost certain that ID will contribute even more on large scales. It's like we have found computer code. We can tell it is computer code and we can tell what small parts of it do. We have no idea yet how it all joins together to make the Windows operating system.idnet.com.au_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

his 'superior' intellect that (according to his premise) was the product of random mutations and a randomly changing environment. Garbage in, garbage out.ari-freedom_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

I would be surprised if Mr. Moran came back to respond. My guess is that he "knew" his link was the killing stroke for us "IDiots," and he can't be bothered to check up on our response; his superior intellect has more important things to handle.Berceuse_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

DLH said, "begin with the probability of beneficial to harmful mutations. The results in the literature range from 1:10,000 to 1:1, million." I'm missing your point, DLH. Aren't you saying that the statistics show that a large amount, but not all mutations would lead to either death of the organism, or of it's descendents? Meaning, don;t those statistics show that it is reasonable to expect that some beneficial mutations occur? Doesn't that answer your following question about the sustenance of beneficial mutations? Or are you suggesting that all beneficial mutations would automatically somehow be offset by some other harmful mutation? Wouldn't that debunk microevolution, which ID doesn't reject?Q_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran In your post: "Granville Sewell Needs My Help”, it is absolutely amazing to see such blind faith in the creative power of random mutation with the apparent selective power of natural selection. Larry do you even have a clue on the systematic power of mathematics to show the emptiness of such blind faith? Larry, how about we take the major mathematical models of population genetics as summarized in the appendix of John C. Sanford's book "Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome", and dedicate a post to each? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how the simple model of "evolution" you support can overcome such enormous reproductive improbabilities. e.g., begin with the probability of beneficial to harmful mutations. The results in the literature range from 1:10,000 to 1:1, million. Perhaps Larry you could enlighten us as to mathematically how evolution overcomes such odds. Even starting with microevolution, how can you possibly develop and sustain beneficial mutations in the face of the systematic genetic load of harmful mutations? Then perhaps you could enlighten us by showing models with realistic probabilities of abiognesis to the simplest genome and self replicating cell. I believe we would need title the post post: Moran needs Sewell's help on population genetics.DLH_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Forthekids-- There will always be those who believe that mere matter is all that was needed to produce the cosmos, You miss the point that that view is held by the academic establishment as respectable. You also miss the point that those who point out that, that view has no basis in any objective metric are held by the academy as not respectable. You also miss the point that IDists don't claim their view as dogma (unlike Darwinians) but allow it to be subject it to falsification i.e. provide a false positive to CSI or show that the the flagellum is reducible (a attempts have been made, unsuccessfully I think, but simply making the attempt should demonstrate conclusively that ID is science. You also miss the point that though you seem to claim this debate to be futile you are still a participant :-)tribune7_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Their three main arguments are 1) ID is not science 2) ID is not science and 3) ID is not science. Actually, I'd say their argument basically distills into "those people are yucky. You want to hang out with us."tribune7_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

JT75 I think the general problem is that scientists want to do 'calculus' before passing basic arithmetic. And if you don't get the basics down first, it will be very hard to back out of a theory once it's entrenched.ari-freedom_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Even if we knew the mechanism of biological change (random mutation, front loading, etc.), we would still have no explanation for mutually beneficial co-evolution, i.e., the mutual evolution of two co-dependent organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants. In mutually beneficial co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, air, and climate, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be initially absent.Larry Fafarman_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

"Why in the holy heck do we all continue to degrade each other? It’s senseless, and it’s not going to resolve anything other than cause extreme hatred." Because Darwinism is the only justification for many people who can't stomach the thought of God, especially in light of the apparent "fine tuning" of our universe. If Darwin falls, many people will be forced to change their worldview, and they don't want to. "I believe that ID is science, because if it is not, then common descent, the multiverse theory, etc. are not science either." Yesterday I was watching the Darwin Channel (Discovery), and I saw a quick trailer for an upcoming show. In it the question popped up "How do we confirm the existence of other universes?" Then the answer popped up, "Do the math." So maybe you haven't heard, but the materialists have made the multi-verse a reality...case closed.shaner74_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran, thank you for clearing up the confusion of the IDiots. You did an excellent job of describing natural selection and genetic drift. Now that I believe that I understand these forces, let me apply them to a slightly different evolutionary context: When new products are produced, they fail or succeed in the marketplace based on market forces(natural selection and genetic drift). We can therefore determine the overall fitness of a product by its marketshare. We now have a full and complete explanation of how all technology develops. The best technologies spread their way through society driven by market forces. Period, end of issue. Moron -- your case is clear, obvious, and certainly complete.bFast_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 wrote in response to Larry: “I guess you have countless examples of evolution to living organisms that have not in fact degraded the preexisting integrated molecular abilities of the living organisms.” I had to chuckle when I read this. It’s a great line, and really the point (a scientific one) of the entire debate. We have the IDists saying, “look, we know information comes from a mind, but show us the natural unguided mechanism which generates this information from atoms randomly smashing into each other and end of discussion.” We have hard data that shows the limits of Darwinian evolution, but still we have the Darwinists, smug with their attitude of condescension, replying with hand waiving, false claims, and wishful thinking.shaner74_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Compromise is indeed what we need. Really, I think all our academic endeavors should be based on compromise. The purpose of any educational system is to let students learn to learn. Only by exposing them to any and every idea, will they be able to truly get the greatest benefit from their education. All classes, I believe, in most subjects should be based on discussion and open ideas. This goes along with my belief that all tests (even in maths) should be essay. It's the only way to really know if students know what they're talking about.Dog_of_War_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

To: ari-freedom Thank You!! I love ID and think it makes an incredibly perceptive point about the nature of biological information, but it is not yet an alternative paradigm because, as you mention, it does not deal with the broader issues of natural history. Before anyone jumps on me for pointing out the limitations of the ID paradigm (and it does have its limits), look at a post by Dembski on Dec. 2 replying to Marge Midgely's criticisms. He says, "ID stakes its claim at the level of molecular biology..." If this is true then ID science is limited to these small scales and does not have the scope to deal with questions like speciation and the fossil record. ID can either let the Darwinists continue to run rampant with their fantastic stories about natural history, or ID can broaden its program to address these issues directly, while retaining its mathematically based commentary about small-scale biological phenomena. I personally am in favor of the latter.JT75_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

There are 2 main reasons why scientists hate ID so much 1) some people really want to be atheists and ID makes it very very hard on them. Sure one *could* say some alien did it or we are in the Matrix but most atheists really don't want to be put in that position. 2) Scientists really don't like to hear "X theory is false therefore Y is a possibility." They don't like what they perceive as potshots to a theory they claim attempts to explain the large scale patterns of life and history and ID doesn't offer an alternative explanation. We would probably face the same problem with Ptolemaic astronomy. Imagine if we made convincing arguments back then why it would not work but we did not explain how orbits would work under a heliocentric system. We would face a similar disdain and we'd be still using Ptolemaic astronomy today. It actually made predictions. They were off but considered good enough. Astronomers today would still come up with "epicycles" to make it work with all the observations.ari-freedom_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Compromise is a dirty word.Gerry Rzeppa_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

UGH! I can't take it anymore. Yes, compromise is what is needed. This tennis match is maddening, and neither side is ever going to dominate the other except in their own minds. There will always be those who believe that mere matter is all that was needed to produce the cosmos, as well as those who reject the notion that matter can breath life. Why in the holy heck do we all continue to degrade each other? It's senseless, and it's not going to resolve anything other than cause extreme hatred. I believe that ID is science, because if it is not, then common descent, the multiverse theory, etc. are not science either. I think I’d give up on my wish that ID be taught at the university level if only the Darwinists would just simply be forthright about what does and does not constitute a "FACT". Someone in a forum asked me: “So, FtK, why is Dembski's personal belief irrelevant for his scientific efforts, and Dawkins' lack of belief so compellingly and irritatingly an issue for how you think he should do science?” Dawkins’ “lack of belief” wouldn’t be so irritating if his meme/multiverse/common descent lines of reasoning weren’t considered “factual“ or “good science” but rather just good ‘ol scientific hypotheses. And, if Dawkins is hailed for his naturalistic “scientific” ideals, then there should be no reason whatsoever to exclude ID within the realm of science. Dawkins ideals stem from no less of a miraculous event than the inference of ID does, he merely deems his miracles as “natural”. But, obviously my dream of compromise will never transpire as it seems to me that both sides are out for blood and hope to reign as the dominant worldview...yes, obviously these issues all come down to one’s worldview. Now, we’ll all sit back and watch both sides (Moran’s groupies vs. UD groupies) battle it out in yet another deja vu experience. It’s never ending.Forthekids_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

It's not just that these examples don't support evolution. These examples show that if natural selection was the ever present force in nature that evolutionists claim it is, then natural selection would actually promote devolution. Templeton has also shown how natural selection, in the case of sickle cell anemia, actually works against the genotype that has the highest selective value, leaving the population with a nasty disease in its place. http://books.google.com/books?id=dWepgoXym_EC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=tempelton+sickle+cell+anemia&source=web&ots=p_N77_ETgz&sig=mZNkkIOkauv2LtgAdYgYLTel46Iari-freedom_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Larry, So glad to be insulted by the junior high antics of a man of such high pedigree Larry. I guess you have countless examples of evolution to living organisms that have not in fact degraded the preexisting integrated molecular abilities of the living organisms. Now that we have your expertise to guide us along maybe you can point us to the empirical violations of the triple CCC complex cluster that Dr. Behe pointed out so clearly in his Book "Edge Of Evolution". Since science runs on hard evidence why don't you just produce the hard evidence, that you undoubtedly are privy too, seeing as none of your atheistic cohorts can find any examples to refute Dr. Behe with. Michael Behe's Amazon Blog http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2bornagain77_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

OP
How about we simply “have the courage to recognise that we know nothing of the mechanism” of evolution, and leave it at that? Each student can decide for himself/herself what the most likely explanation might be.
If you are suggesting that we imply that UCD (through unguided naturalistic processes) is true but we just don't know the mechanisms, that is not an honest compromise. The fact of the matter is that the assumption that UCD occurred through unguided naturalistic processes is not a scientific one because there is no evidence for it. In order for it to be scientific, there must be evidence for it. So we shouldn't tell people this assumption is true and scientific despite the fact that it's not scientifically supported by evidence.Bettawrekonize_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Ari, not to mention that bacterial resistence and blind cave fish are not facts that suport evolution (goo-to-you-via-the-zoo). Evolutionists must show to the world which non-intelligent force of nature is able to create genetic codes, nano-bio-machines, etc, etc. Until they are able to show us that magical force of nature, we will stick to common sense, evidence and logic, and say that the living world owes it's genesis to an Intelligent Mind.Mats_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Larry, I don't know if you know it but you have made the ID case. Nearly all who support ID recognize the importance of natural selection and genetic drift. They are trivial. So in order to help Granville, you re-state the obvious. Thank you very much. We have moved on to the main issue in evolution, namely the source of variation. That is the real game in town and you should look into it to understand the evolution debate.jerry_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

before we can even talk about mechanisms we should actually observe it in the lab first. Behe has shown that this is not the case and of course, if the Cambrian explosion was replicated in the lab, evolutionists wouldn't need to use trivial examples such as bacterial resistance and blind cave fish.ari-freedom_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply