Larry Moran Was Channeling Ace Ventura

_{Barry Arrington

November 9, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

This will be my last post on this subject. To remind our readers:

1. I said I understand Darwinian.

2. Larry Moran said that I do not.

3. I challenged Larry to back up his claim. He could have done that by, for example, pointing to a statement I made about Darwinism that is false.

4. Larry put up two posts in response to my challenge.

5. In the first post he quibbled about the term “Darwinism.” Though in the end he admitted I have made it clear I am using the term as shorthand for Neo-Darwinism. Larry’s Grade: F

6. In the second post he said I erred when I wrote that Darwinists in the past said Darwinism predicts junk DNA. The problem is that it is very easy to find quotations from Darwinians such as Jerry Coyne doing just that. Larry’s Grade: F

Summary

After two posts Larry has been unable to back up his claim. It turns out he was just talking though his . . . well, follow this link to an Ace Ventura clip if you want to know what he was talking through: Ace Ventura

But what if Larry searches through all of my writings and comes up with an error in his third post in response to my challenge? Have I not ended this too soon? No. Larry asserted I do not understand Darwinism. The following logic ensues:

1. If Larry could not back up his assertion AT THE TIME HE MADE IT he was channeling Ace Ventura.

2. Larry could not back up his assertion at the time he made it. We know this, because after two follow up posts, he has still not backed up his assertion.

3. Therefore, Larry was channeling Ace Ventura.

UPDATE:

After two failed posts, Larry has put up a post on a completely unrelated topic, apparently giving up on even a pretense of backing up his claim. I expect to see him post an apology for his smear against me that, when challenged, he was unable to support (as soon as pigs fly).

Comments

Jack Jones
Not only that, But people that go around squwaking that they are rationalists do not sound rational but Moronic.
Or...... moranic. ...Andre_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

UD, Larry Moran has a point. His theory does not carry sufficient scientific weight to have been properly factored into the New World Encyclopedia. As such, an addendum to the definition of Darwinism is called for. I suggest that we use the ominous code: RM+NS or RV+NS in our definition. While it can be said, and has been said by me repeatedly, that neutral mutations are not mutations that are disconsidered by natural selection, but are mutations that have been considered by natural selection, and have been found to offer neither advantage nor disadvantage to the organism. (I recognize that, according to theory, many of these mutations fall into the "junk DNA" where they are readily dismissed by natural selection, however, natural selection still rates them as inconsequential. And, on the rare occasion the mutation activates a segment of junk code, making it affect the phenotype, and so become consequential.) How do I help y'all understand the difference between "not considered" and "considered and found to be unimportant"? In the "C" programming language (and most others) there is a nice tool for this. We call it NULL. NULL does not equate to 0. There is zero selective value in a "neutral mutation", but the selective value is not NULL (disconsidered). As such, though the current definition puts a lot of weight on the power of selection for creativity, because selection plays a role in all mutation analysis, it is absolutely reasonable to view drift as part of the definition of Darwinism that has been provided. 'Still say, we need a better definition than quoting the New World Encyclopedia.bFast_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Professor Moran @10 says "Lot’s of people challenge me on my blog and lots of people are rude and crude. You were banned because you spammed my blog with dozens of lengthy posts that were irrelevant. Just like you do here." Don't be Daft. The ID people posting on this blog can see that the people that are spamming away on your blog, are the people that are your followers, they can rant and rave at ID supporters with their angry rhetoric and you do not ban them. When people challenge you or your supporters and you do not like what they have to say, then you delete comments and/or block them. You are not really in a position to make accusations about spam with the way your followers carry on. Professor Moran@17 "I don’t agree with Ernst Mayr but I’d glad that ID proponents accept him as an authority. He states quite clearly that “Darwinians” oppose junk DNA. That’s the exact opposite of what many ID proponents claim. I don’t expect you to agree with me or with Ernst Mayr. I DO expect you represent the views of evolutionary biologists correctly. Is that too much to ask?" What has the junk dna debate got to do with the points I raised? I think the debate about Junk DNA is a red herring because the debate when it comes to design vs chance in biology starts with the origin of a first living organism or organisms, You and your chance evolutionary supporters are going to support whatever is found to be the case with the Junk DNA issue anyway. The issue for me is how life originated, Now as the law of Biogenesis shows that life does not arise spontaneously in nature then this shows that to get an initial living organism or organisms requires that we go beyond how nature operates and is not governed by natural law. When you appeal to purely natural causes for the origin of a first living organism then you are rejecting how nature is known to operate, whereas a person that accepts that you have to go outside of nature to a cause that is not governed by nature, is accepting how nature operates. You are rejecting knowledge and you believing your reasoning faculties are the result of chance does not ground reason. So it is funny how you use the tag rationalism for your posts. Not only that, But people that go around squwaking that they are rationalists do not sound rational but Moronic.Jack Jones_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran:
It’s clear that none of you actually think that neutral alleles and random genetic drift are part of “Darwinism” or you would have made sure to include it in your glossary definition.
LoL! Is that your argument? I wasn't part of that process, Larry, and I have always known- since reading darwin back in the early 70s- that drift was part of Darwinism
The evolutionary biologists who constructed the “Modern Synthesis” also didn’t think that drift and neutral alleles were an important part of evolution and that’s the version that ID endorses as the correct view of evolutionary theory.
You must be a mental midget, Larry, as I have explained that to you many times. NS is the only posited mechanism said to produce adaptations. Read Futuyma. No one has any evidence that drift can produce the appearance of design. Larry, UD doesn't speak for all IDists and I am not beholden to UD's glossary. Grow up.Virgil Cain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

From the glossary: https://uncommondescent.com/glossary/
Though agreement is not universal on the parameters of the modern synthesis, many descriptions hold as basic (1) the primacy of natural selection as the creative agent of evolutionary change;
While natural selection is an important mechanism of adaptation, non-adaptive changes can be creative; hence, neutral theory is not encompassed in the definition given for Neodarwinism.
(2) gradualism (accumulation of small genetic changes);
By happenstance, evolutionary changes probably follow something like a scale-free pattern common to network evolution; mostly small changes, a few big changes, and the occasional revolutionary change. Again, this would not be encompassed in the conventional definition of Neodarwinism.
and (3) the extrapolation of microevolutionary processes (changes within species) to macroevolutionary trends (changes about the species level, such as the origin of new designs and broad patterns in history).
There are some mechanisms that may only apply on the macroevolutionary scale; therefore, not part of the given definition of Neodarwinism.Zachriel_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Well Moran, you can just as well consider me as a man on the street. As to being 'rigorous and scientific', I find that to be an interesting comment coming from a Darwinist. If any science has ever been unrigorous and unscientific in its approach it has been Darwinian evolution. Contrary to what you desperately want to believe Moran, Story telling IS CERTAINLY NOT rigorous science. Far from it, imaginary story telling is the antithesis of rigorous science. As Behe comments in some of his lectures:
"Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html
A few more quotes:
"Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!" - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel laureate – Physics - A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist - Michael Egnor Excerpt: The fight against the design inference in biology is motivated by fundamentalist atheism. Darwinists detest intelligent design theory because it is compatible with belief in God. But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity–the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells–is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines. I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin’s theory of biological origins is atheism’s creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor. - Michael Egnor is a professor and vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/06/neurosurgeon-intelligent-design-opinions-darwin09_0205_michael_egnor.html What One Famous Scientist Said About Evolution “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me …..” “[The] question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”.” Part of a keynote address given at the American Museum of Natural History by Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) in 1981. Unpublished transcript. http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/main.htm "So numberless a multitude, and so great a variety of birds, beasts, fishes, reptiles, herbs, shrubs, trees, stones, metals, minerals, stars, and everyone of them plentifully furnished and endowed with all the qualifications requisite to the attainment of the respective ends of its creation, are productions of a wisdom too limitless not to be peculiar to God: ... which do all of them deserve that extensive exclamation of the Psalmist, “How manifold are thy works, 0 Lord; in wisdom hast thou made them all.”" [Psalm 104:24] — Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691), father of experimental chemistry
bornagain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Virgil Cain says, Darwin refutes Moran: Gimme a break! We all know about those few sentences in Darwin's book. If you look carefully you can find all sorts of Darwin quotes that seem to support modern views of evolution. It's clear that none of you actually think that neutral alleles and random genetic drift are part of "Darwinism" or you would have made sure to include it in your glossary definition. The evolutionary biologists who constructed the "Modern Synthesis" also didn't think that drift and neutral alleles were an important part of evolution and that's the version that ID endorses as the correct view of evolutionary theory. You can't have it both ways. You can't go to some effort to define what you mean by "Darwinism" and then turn around and refute it by referring back to a few sentences in a 150 year-old book. Pick one position and defend it.Larry Moran_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

"Darwinism" refers to blind watchmaker evolution, Larry. That includes natural selection and drift.Virgil Cain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

bornagain says,
Funny, a person on the street has no problem whatsoever knowing what someone means when they say Darwinian evolution. Namely, that all life arose via undirected material processes via common descent.
But here on Uncommon Descent you want to be more rigorous and scientific so a few years ago you had a discussion about how to define "Darwinism." You came up with the glossary entry on Darwinism. Is it wrong for me to assume that's what you mean when you talk about Darwinism on this blog? Is it wrong for me to assume that's what Barry Arrington means since he wrote the glossary entry?Larry Moran_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

scottH Is there a book on neutral theory anyone would recommend? There isn't a good book for students who are just learning about evolution but you could try any of the introductory evolutionary biology textbooks. Douglas Futuyma's book "Evolution" is excellent, but expensive. You could also try "Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution" by Dan Graur and Wen-Hsiung Li. It was first published in 1991 and you may find a cheap version for sale on the internet. The Wikipedia article on Nearly-neutral Theory is a pretry good overview.Larry Moran_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran, actually I have a particular dislike for Mayr's supposedly 'scientific' method of shoehorning everything into the Darwinian narrative with homo erectus. In fact, because of such inherent bias that he has, I was a bit surprised that he would be so honest in admitting the non-scientific 'story telling' basis of Darwinian evolution. Because of the surprising honesty is why I like the quote, not because I respect his, ahem, 'science'.
Hominids, Homonyms, and Homo sapiens - 05/27/2009 - Creation Safaris: Excerpt: Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification. Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class. “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained. “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period....”. They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification: "Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record). Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable. Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be." By “ratchet effect,” they appear to mean something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: i.e., “Let’s put everything from this 2-million-year period into one class that we will call Homo erectus.” Someone complains, “But this fossil from Singapore is very different from the others.” The first responds, “That just shows how variable the species Homo erectus can be.” http://creationsafaris.com/crev200905.htm#20090527a Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is. 2001)
Of related note on junk DNA Funny, a person on the street has no problem whatsoever knowing what someone means when they say Darwinian evolution. Namely, that all life arose via undirected material processes via common descent. But, ironically, highly educated Darwinists now find it necessary to separate Darwinian evolution into different camps so as to protect it from falsification by junk DNA. Interestingly, the squabble now degenerates into how much junk DNA and natural selection makes you a true Darwinist and how much does not. I'm sure hard numbers for distinguishing true Darwinists from untrue Darwinists will be forthcoming in another 100 years or so. :)bornagain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Darwin refutes Moran:
Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions.- On the Origins of Species sixth edition chapter 4, end of paragraph 1
Virgil Cain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Jack Jone quotes Ernst Mayr and bornagain says "Nice quote." I'm glad we've established that you respect Ernst Mary as an authority on evolutionary biology because it may help you understand why Darwinists opposed junk DNA. Ernst Mary was one of the classic examples of a true Darwinian whose view of evolution was very much like the view that ID proponents share (see glossary entry on "Darwinism"). Scientists like Mayr did not "predict" junk DNA as Barry Arrington and other ID proponents incorrectly claim. They opposed it. Here's what Mayr says in his 2002 book "What Evolution Is" (p. 108).
A remarkably high proportion of the DNA in the chromosome seems not to perform an obvious function such as coding for RNAs and proteins. Such DNA, sometimes incorrectly referred to as "junk," is estimated for humans to be as much as 97 percent of the total DNA. This portion of the genome includes introns, repetitive sequences such as microsatellite DNA, and various kinds of "interspersed elements" such as Alu sequences. There is widespread belief among Darwinians that such apparently unnecessary DNA would have been eliminated long ago by natural selection if it did not have some, as of yet undiscovered, function. [my emphasis - LAM]. Indeed the introns have a recognized function, to keep the exons apart prior to the activation of a gene (translation of the DNA message into proteins). During the translation process the introns are excised prior to thee translation of a gene into proteins. Introns also contain many regulatory elements (DNA motifs that serve as binding sites for transcription regulation genes) and are thought to enhance eukaryotic genetic complexity via alternative splicing through both cis- and trans-acting elements.
I don't agree with Ernst Mayr but I'd glad that ID proponents accept him as an authority. He states quite clearly that "Darwinians" oppose junk DNA. That's the exact opposite of what many ID proponents claim. I don't expect you to agree with me or with Ernst Mayr. I DO expect you represent the views of evolutionary biologists correctly. Is that too much to ask?Larry Moran_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Larry or anyone for that matter, Is there a book on neutral theory anyone would recommend? ThanksscottH_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD says ...
Yet the reality that they purport over the years is exactly this: “We would expect neutral drift to accumulate non functional sequence and remnants of past genetic sequences in the genome”
This is not correct. Evolutionary biologists, in general, expect that nonfunctional DNA will be eliminated from genomes because of its cost in replication. The sequences are clearly detrimental at some level and there's no compensating selective advantage. This is, in fact, what happens in bacterial genomes and many protozoa and algae. The surprise in the late 1960s was the fact that genomes of multicellular species had lots of extra DNA that appeared to be junk. It was only after the development of Nearly-Neutral Theory and the new-found appreciation of random genetic drift that population geneticists could show that junk DNA cannot be eliminated by negative selection in species with small effective population sizes. The current situation is that evolutionary biologists do not "expect" non-functional sequences to accumulate in all species. When it is seen (e.g. mammals) it always seems to correlate with small effective population sizes as explained by modern non-Darwinian evolutionary theory. "Darwinism" or "Neo-Darwinism" cannot explain the observations.
And when we find function: “We would expect natural selection to get rid of unnecessary and junk / non-functional regions of the genome or find use for these regions”
See above. I don't expect you to agree with evolutionary biologists. However, I DO expect you to represent their views accurately. Is that too much to ask?Larry Moran_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Philip S. Skell put the unscientific 'historical narrative' aspect of Darwinian evolution like this:
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word evolution as a 'narrative gloss' in peer-reviewed literature:
Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY
Dr. Gauger comments on evolution being used as a 'narrative gloss' here:
Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger - Jan. 12, 2014 Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other. I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language. Let me give you an example.,,, http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/107965814309/rewriting-biology-without-spin
Dr. Wells comments here:
Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate - April 20, 2015 Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution: 1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact. 2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution]. 3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory. 4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/jon-wells-on-pop-science-boilerplate/
Darwinian evolution is simply hardly ever allowed to be seriously questioned in the literature:
"Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered. ... The methodological skepticism that characterizes most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/second_thoughts098141.html
A few more notes:
Anti-Science Irony Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/ "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9znyGQo2QE "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood." Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit (1988)
bornagain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Nice quote Jack Jones:
"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science — the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." Ernst Mayr - Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought - Originally published July 2000 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/
In other words, Darwinian evolution is assumed as true from the outset and contrary experimental findings are not allowed to challenge it, but are instead explained away with a 'narrative', i.e. a 'just so story'.bornagain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD, that is exactly it. Because it is 'mainstream', the theory of naturalistic evolution gets to play games that other theories do not, just like the reindeer in the song. But as Dawkins and Coyne would have it, 'we would expect the carrying costs of junk DNA to cause them to be 'naturally out-selected', but when we DO end up finding them, they clearly point to the fact that blind chance, and NOT design, was the determining factor.'soundburger_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

"If we find that the genome is full of junk, it is as we would expect from a deterioration from a fully functional starting point that was designed. If we find function for most of the genome, it is expected from a designer." State the above, and expect slating and mockery from materialists as to how unscientific this approach is and proves that design is a cop out as cannot be disproved. Yet the reality that they purport over the years is exactly this: "We would expect neutral drift to accumulate non functional sequence and remnants of past genetic sequences in the genome" And when we find function: "We would expect natural selection to get rid of unnecessary and junk / non-functional regions of the genome or find use for these regions"Dr JDD_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

Jack Jone says,
I am banned for challenging him in my posts but people on his side can write absolute drivel against ID proponents and personally attack them but he allows it.
Lot's of people challenge me on my blog and lots of people are rude and crude. You were banned because you spammed my blog with dozens of lengthy posts that were irrelevant. Just like you do here.Larry Moran_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Barry, I do agree with Carpathian @ 5 that we should at least post something here at UD about what intelligent design is. We seem in desperate need of something like that. Maybe Carpathian would be willing to help out.Mung_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

My guess is that, for the second argument, Larry is saying that what Dawkins and Coyne have done is blanketed junk DNA within an evolutionary framework AFTER the fact. His use of the word 'predicted' places him in a different position from Dawkins and Coyne, who merely seem to be saying that junk DNA 'could have been predicted' or should be considered 'predictable' (and thus evidentiary). If so, it is little more than a pyrrhic victory, as he has caught Coyne and Dawkins offerring a just-so story, of how even something that was initially counterintuitive to the idea of natural selection (as Larry explains in his post) can, after its discovery, be displayed as a shining example of the impeccability of the theory.soundburger_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

"How can we test the claim that natural selection and drift produced ATP synthase?" Mr Cain, When I posted this quote, then Moran went ballistic. Marc Kirschner (1945) Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School Web Amazon GBS AV In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all. Missing Links The Boston Globe October 23, 2005 Larry Moran then told me to go through Books on Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and find where evolution is not discussed. I told him that his problem is with Marc Kirschner, and I also went on and gave him the words of H Allen Orr which backed up what Kirschner said and I gave him the words of Ernst Mayr who said "Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science -- the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." I told him that if the word evolution is used then it must be in a generic sense or as narrative gloss. I said to him, that You would not use a term in one sense and then try and conflate it with another sense. would you Professor?. (I had already called him out before of doing that with his broad use of the term Creationist for ID proponents and then trying to conflate that in a narrow sense of how it is commonly understood) He deleted the comment and had deleted other comments of mine, and that of some other people who were not being rude in their comments. I am banned for challenging him in my posts but people on his side can write absolute drivel against ID proponents and personally attack them but he allows it. The fact that they have to be so slippery in how they use the term Evolution and play their bait and switch game should be a red flag to people who are honest and not dogmatists when it comes to the evolutionary position that they hold.Jack Jones_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Carpathian- Unfortunately your side has nothing to outline. And Zachriel is the last person to say anything. How can we test the claim that natural selection and drift produced ATP synthase? I know how we test the claim that ATP synthase is intelligently designed-> Eliminate necessity and chance, as per Newton, Occam, parsimony and the EF, and see if it matches some specification, in this case it has several different components that are configured together allow for a required function.Virgil Cain_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Barry, This might be an opportunity for both sides to have their positions outlined on one site. Could you ask Larry Moran or Zachriel or someone familiar with the evolution position to post an always linked overview? That way, both sides could be assured of what they are debating.Carpathian_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

What I typically say is if all of us on here with advanced degrees don't understand Darwinian evolution, then how did the public schools and other schooling fail us? I thought that every child was supposed to graduate understanding Darwinian evolution, and that it is important for the schools to succeed here. Is what Larry arguing is that he knows something important that we should know and that all new high school grads should also?groovamos_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

I am still waiting for him to show me which chemical elements are free. BTW... When I responded back and forth with him and humiliated him then he started deleting my comments and blocked me.Jack Jones_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

I can't wait to see who Larry channels next!Mung_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Larry has nothing. The science has passed him by and he is left with hollow rhetoric and imagination. It's a fascinating time to be alive as Darwinism crumbles to the ground under the science and its apostles are reduced to cartoon characters. Larry is Monty Python's Black Knight guarding the bridge. His arms and legs are chopped off and he is surrounded by a pool of his own blood but he fights on all the while claiming victory (Larry desperately needs that irreducibly complex blood clotting mechanism for which he has no explanation). Fight on, Larry. At least you're entertaining as a comic if pathetic as a scientist.Florabama_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply