Lenny Susskind on the Evolution of Physicists

_{William Dembski

July 9, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

"What’s an example of a failed prediction from naturalism? (I’m sure there are some, as even theories like Newton’s laws have made them. I just can’t think of any at the moment.)" If you read the words carefully, you will see "Each such failure is another nail in that naturalistic theory’s coffin and as such increases support for an alternative and one of these alternatives is the intelligent cause." I did not say all naturalistic theories. And the alternative could be another naturalistic theory. This is the normal process when one is dealing with science. Thus, when gradualism fails, it does not mean that naturalistic processes fail only that this particular one has failed and many have made this conclusion in the naturalistic camp. So I am not saying that the failure of gradualism is automatically an indication that ID is affirmed. It is a long way from that. But there are other issues which point to intelligence. However, it should be noted that the reason why so many fight so hard for gradualism is that there is no obvious replacement. And secondly, it was a core principle of the patron saint of evolution, Charles Darwin. If there is a replacement for gradualism, the whole naturalistic crowd will jump on the wagon immediately and gradualism will be history. But because there is no replacement in the wings, the typical outcry from a pro gradualist is what do you have to replace it. Right now there is intense scrutiny of just how genomes can change and there is a forensic record for this, namely the genomes of the various species. The data bank for species is increasing each day but the man hours, financing and computers and software to analyze them is not expanding as quickly. If there is an alternative to gradualism it should show up in the genomes. But if the genomes show no evidence of the formation of complex novel capabilities then that will be evidence for ID. Because that is what ID predicts.jerry_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Frosty,
I already told you my argument is not about a step- design whether biology or no is still design
call me old fashioned but when i'm talking about biology i like to use biological examples. or do you really think there's nothing fundamentally different between animals and machines? do you think it's just a small step from designing a car to designing a cell? how many years have we been battling cancer? and that's just trying to kill a cell, not make it.
As far as the plants I exclude them from Macro evolution because they are not nearly as complex as animals.
well first i'd be interested to know on what basis you make this claim. even if they are less complex, they are more complex than the first life forms and have undergone a lot of change. or do you see no fundamental difference between a cyanobacterium and a redwood? plants are as relevant to the debate as anything else.
. I should add that the issue here is not whether some intellect could design macro creatures but whether those creatures require design.
well you can't have design without a designer, can you? so how is it not an issue?Khan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

I should add that the issue here is not whether some intellect could design macro creatures but whether those creatures require design. IN other words while I think the evidence for design is obvious and clear the evidence for macro evolution is not nearly great enough. This is why the logical step to macro design is smaller than via evolution- because of evidence based inference.Frost122585_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Kahn, I already told you my argument is not about a step- design whether biology or no is still design. As far as the plants I exclude them from Macro evolution because they are not nearly as complex as animals.Frost122585_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

jerry: That was a very well-put and thoughtful essay, and it really helped me understand your perspective on these issues. Having read it, I think I might just have to agree to disagree at this point, because you're talking about "root" things like how science itself should work. I can't exactly make an empirical argument for empiricism. So I'll just leave the conversation for now and Who am I kidding, there's always more to discuss! The main bit I had an issue with is this:
One of the things you look for is the failure of predictions for the naturalistic processes when they should be there. Each such failure is another nail in that naturalistic theory’s coffin and as such increases support for an alternative and one of these alternatives is the intelligent cause.
What's an example of a failed prediction from naturalism? (I'm sure there are some, as even theories like Newton's laws have made them. I just can't think of any at the moment.) Joseph: "The paper Waiting for two mutations exposes the limits of non-telic processes." An excerpt from the summary: In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years. In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution. Should this conclusion be credited to bias, or what? And by "limits", do you mean that a few million years is just plain too long? (I can't remember if you're a YEC.)Lenoxus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

jerry (or kairosfocus jr.), i think your post can be summarized as: ID is the null hypothesis for evolutionary tests. Whenever a naturalistic hypothesis fails, it is evidence for ID. the problem is that this is logically flawed. whenever a test X fails it supports the true null hypothesis (Not X), not any random hypothesis you want to slip in. and X is never "evolution."it could be "female choice for a male ornament." if the test fails, then we make a new hypothesis. if you want the hypothesis to be ID, you have to find some way to test that hypothesis against a true null hypothesis.again, the hypothesis won't be "ID." it will be something more specific, some mechanism of ID, comparable to my female choice example. but i don't know of any mechanisms for ID (maybe you do?), and until there are some, you can't do any hypothesis testing and thus can't do real science.Khan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

frost, we'll add you to the list of people who, for some completely arbitrary reason, don't think plants count. any other living organisms you want to exclude? and again, which is the greater logical leap? design of non-living things -> design of living things small scale evolution of living things -> large scale evolution of living things.Khan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Part 3 - Now this game of supporting the ID premise is played two ways and both use the tools of science, logic and reason. One shows that time after time that certain naturalistic processes have failed. The second way is to show why naturalistic processes have failed. Both use science and point to the inadequacy of natural processes. There is a third way which one group says must be present before an intelligent input can be accepted and that is evidence for the specific event where there was an input of intelligence. The first way above is to challenge each natural explanation for the phenomenon as flawed and show why the explanation could not have possibly happened. This is the frequent challenges to Darwinian macro evolution we have seen not only by the ID people but also by the anti ID people as well as the creationists. It is represented here on this site and in the academic and popular literature by the lack of any coherent demonstration that Darwinian macro evolution ever took place. Now macro evolution did take place and no one is denying that here but there is no evidence for it happening by Darwinian processes or any other known natural processes. All the processes of science are brought to bear for this examination so to declare it non scientific is ludicrous. The second way is to use observations of the world and then to complement these observations with some form of analysis, mainly probability, and some understanding of natural processes to illustrate why the failure of naturalistic processes is not only reasonable but to be expected. To this end a couple of different approaches are in their infancy but have showed some reasonable results. One is being developed by Behe and is showing that there does not exist the probabilistic resources to create the changes needed for macro evolution. Behe’s two books, Darwin’s Black Box and Edge of Evolution, are aimed at this objective. Namely, that life is extremely complicated and naturalistic processes seem unable to climb the hurdles necessary to produce all of let alone most of macro evolution. Macro evolution is not just the changing of one protein which results in a very distinctive morphological change. It is the accumulation of many interlocking systems or entities that produce a very useful new capability. Another is being done by Dembski and others trying to show something similar using mathematical and probabilistic approaches to show that reaching the complexity necessary for life is beyond the probabilistic resources of the universe. Could a random search find the resources necessary for these interlocking systems. So in lots of way the two approaches are similar but using different methodologies to attack the same problem. To argue that this is not science is ludicrous. One may argue that the techniques by these scientists are flawed or that the interpretation of the results are invalid but to say that they are not using science is absurd. Now the naturalists respond with their challenges. The best challenge would always be to show that the phenomena probably arose by naturalistic means but this is rarely done because there seems to be little evidence supporting any particular mechanism. The main challenge is to use something similar to what I described above as the first approach, namely that the intelligent input scenario is flawed just as ID people point out that each naturalistic input is flawed. The creator could not be omniscient, or no one would design such an imperfect system or make these childish mistakes etc. They also point to science’s track record in other areas and that the work on the problem is just getting started etc. So we have two broad approaches and any evidence in one camp reduces the likelihood of the other. It is one that won’t be solved any time soon but to assume your side is right a priori is ridiculous. ID is the more reasonable side as far as I can see. They are willing to accept naturalistic explanations when it is demonstrated but are not willing to accept an arbitrary demand of absolute dismissiveness for intelligent inputs that is imposed by the naturalists. One side is flexible and reasonable while the other side is intransigent and unmoving. People will say there are no empirical tests for ID. There certainly are. Those who make this claim are just used to theories operating under natural forces and then trying to predict just what those natural forces will lead to. And if they lead to the right things then one can say that the natural processes hypothesized received support. Since there are no natural forces with an intelligent input, one has to look for something else but it is still empirical. People criticizing ID are operating under the wrong paradigm. One of the things about intelligence is that it is not predictable. If it was, then it would not be a free will operating but blind natural process. Those criticizing ID as not being science are expecting the free will of an agent to operate exactly the same as natural laws. One of the things you look for is the failure of predictions for the naturalistic processes when they should be there. Each such failure is another nail in that naturalistic theory’s coffin and as such increases support for an alternative and one of these alternatives is the intelligent cause. It never proves it because a naturalistic process could always be found and I doubt there are any video tapes of the designer in action thought this is what some want. And if the causes for the failure is the naturalistic limitations that ID research has unearthed then that is evidence to support intelligence. People still don’t understand that it is an either/or situation. And when either the either or the or is disconfirmed it is evidence for the other (make sure that you parse the either’s and or’s correctly.) There is nothing inadequate about discerning the truth. That is why ID is much more enlightening than the naturalistic position. If there were known intelligences wandering around the universe 3.8 billion years ago, no one would think twice about the ID position. If the situation was fast forwarded to today, you would consider intelligence as a potential cause. But the anti ID proponents are prisoners of a limited methodology and because of that they are limited in what they can conceive as possible. ID is not limited as they are. Anything that they could consider, ID can consider. It just can consider more alternatives and can follow the empirical evidence to reach those conclusions.jerry_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Part 2 - We have observed a lot of phenomena through out history that could possibly be explained by an intelligent input and the challenge for science is to verify if there may be a natural cause for each. For most of history it was thought that God was personally responsible for most, much, or a lot of these phenomena. From Zeus throwing lightning bolts in anger and the various gods determining the fates of various personalities such as Odysseus to Newton’s hypothesis that God sent comets to stabilize the orbits of the planets. Newton’s laws and then LaPlace’s theory of the heavens seemed to show that all was under control of natural laws. So it was assumed from then on by many that everything must be under control of natural laws. We have no need for Zeus and lightning bolts and for comets stabilizing orbits. And a natural extension is why should we need an intervention for the origin of life or for evolution. So we get the conventional wisdom that everything is due to natural laws and chance and it is only a matter of time before science gets around to explaining it. And science has a good track record. But what is glaringly obvious is that science has some spectacular failures in one particular area. So while science continues to chalk up win after win there seems to be one opponent which gets the better of it every time. Consequently, one may have to reevaluate the conventional wisdom and maybe consider an alternative to natural processes. ID only exists because science loses most of the time to the heavy weights (tough questions) in this one area, namely life. It does wonderfully well in some important areas of life, specifically medicine, food production and genetics but it is badly outperformed by the problems in the areas of macro evolution (ID's understanding of macro evolution) and origin of life. Why this failure here? Is there an alternative to naturalistic processes in these two domains. Could intelligence be an explanation? Hence, every time science fails in these areas it adds credence to the alternative, namely, that there may not be a naturalistic explanation. At this moment in the realm of logic and reason both alternatives exist. Which is more feasible? Every time we see the failure of one alternative it raises the possibility of the other. After all it is possible. We just cannot identify the intelligence. So each failure for a natural pathway raises the probability of the alternative, namely an intelligent input. And the rationale for an intelligent input has been bolstered by the knowledge that what underlies life is different from every other area of nature, specifically information. Specified information is not present in any other area of nature besides life.jerry_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

I will make this point about the nature of ID in three rather long comments and if anyone wants to comment, feel free. If no one wants to read them, then I understand. I did something very similar a couple months ago. It seems a lot of the anti ID people have a stereotyped perception of ID. And this is my understanding of ID and it is not one that all who support ID will accept or hold. There are two choices for any phenomenon, both of them rather broad. One is that certain things happened naturally, the mechanism to be discovered. The second is that these things were produced through intelligent input. And by the way a lot of what may be considered natural, could be the result of a designed process allowed to proceed naturally. For some simple examples, pearl farmers seed their shell fish with an irritant and the let nature do the rest and beavers dam the course of a river and the ensuing wetlands provide an enhanced habitat for the beavers and other animals and plants. Each involved an intelligent input that then influenced how natural processes changed or evolved a specific entity or an ecology. In general it is mainly one or the other (design or naturalistic but keeping in mind what appears to be natural could also be great design.) There are no other choices unless anyone wants to proffer some. As I said these are rather broad categories and it is almost impossible to eliminate the intelligent input option. It is not a theory such as gravity, the Standard Model, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Kinetic theory of Gases, Information theory or Plate Tectonics etc yet people keep on asking for some hypotheses and predictions like it was. (some have responded with attempts to develop a theory of design and I will get to this later) It should be noted that many ID people hold that these physiological and chemical processes found in nature represent great design due to the fine tuning of the basic forces that rule the universe. ID is simply the proposition that intelligence is an input at some time in the history of being, the universe, the world, life etc. If it could be shown that this happened only once, then the ID hypothesis is valid. It does not have to happen time and time again or even at one specific place. Some hypothesize that it was in the design of the universe itself and the initial conditions and subsequent boundary conditions of the Big Bang were such fantastic design that it enables natural processes to produce everything we see including this very rare planet, the origin of life and the evolutionary progression through subsequent natural consequences. In other words ID happened one time only. Some hypothesize that the input was ongoing and there were various events that reflect an intelligent input. This input could have been minimal and then natural processes were allowed to do the rest. To disprove an intelligent input, one has to show natural processes at every turn. It is a difficult job. All ID has to do is show that naturalistic processes fail at some point and that an intelligent input is more reasonable. They only need one point. That is the nature of the discussion. It seems unfair to some who whine that ID is unfalsifiable. But that is it. Because ID is more of a logic process and not a specific scientific theory it does not have the usual domain of interest such as planet formation, plate tectonics, cosmology or even evolution but within each of these areas there may be evidence of an intelligent input. After all an intelligence could create life or modify a genome to guide life maybe only once and that is not the making of some theory. To create life or modify it is not too hard to understand as it appears to be within human capability in the near future. Thus, the possibility of an intelligence creating and modifying life is not an issue. It is whether it ever happened or not that is at issue. If we had a video camera at the time of an intelligent input, we could settle it once and for all but such an event does not exist and we have had people here and at other places demanding such evidence. Short of this something else has to be done to try and understand what happened.jerry_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Khan, Your examples aren't even close to what is commonly meant by macro evolution. No one here disputes some evolution but to get to vastly different and more complex living novel body structures in highly complex and different creatures- as opposed to plants. You examples show microevolution and I think in your first example the result was obtained by design breeding. The bottom line is that macroevoution has never been observed and for the obvious reason that Darwinists claim it cant be- it takes supposedly millions of years for it to happen.
"so you’re extrapolating from design of non-living things to design of living things, all based on absolute faith in science. and how is this logic better than extrapolating from micro- to macroevolution (which at least both involve living things)?"
I dont think you understood what i was saying. I am tlaking about design here- biological or not. This does not require it to be human design but merely intelligent design. The designer may, and mostlikely does, have greater prowess then human beings. I merely showed you a directly observable example of macroevolution that no one would argue could happen by non-teleological process by chance and which displays great specified complexity. Design is not limited to or away from the bioligical world. However if you want to postulate macroevolution you need to show that it has actually happened via evidence and the small examples you used cannot be extrapolated to the giant gaps from species to species. My example of an aircraft carrier fallows logically from my macro design argument but your claim to macroevolution does not fallow from the micro changes you cited as evidence.Frost122585_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

jerry:
If it happened then it would have left forensic evidence that it happened. None exists.
A double "huh?" The first huh is, how are fossils and DNA (both pointing to the same tree!) not forensic? The second is, what is the "forensic evidence" for design? In an earlier thread, you seemed to ridicule the very idea that the designer would leave forensic evidence.
“two mutations cause a switch from herbaceous to woody growth (think:dandelion-oak)” would not be classified as complex. If one could show that all systems arose from such simple changes then one would have a real story but it seems unlikely that something like an eye arose from a few simple mutations.
Notice how we've just gone from "some" to "all" in that. The original claim, at least as it is generally made, is the evolution cannot produce sufficiently complex systems. When it is shown that it can, and in just a few mutations at that, the claim becomes that it can't produce all complex systems. Here's a suggestion for what you might want to attribute to the designer: the very fact that it only takes two mutations for such a change. You could say "it's chemically and physically impossible for those proteins to code that way without supernatural intervention". Instead of filling the dwindling number of gaps, why not fill a gap that isn't there? There's a lot more of those… I think? Now I'm just confusing myself… Khan:
I predict that in a very hot environment greater expression of heat shock proteins will be selected for. In an environment with large seeds as the only source of food larger bills will be selected for. ic ould go on and on and on.
I've got some to add: In an environment without any light, vision will be gradually lost (oh right, that doesn't count, silly me). In any relationship between predators and prey that rely on speed, there will be an "arms race" of increasingly efficient movement and other abilities. Prey species with strong defensive mechanisms such as poison, stinging, or spraying a smell, will tend to develop a visual "advertisement" for it, and other prey species will tend to, through mimicry (such as Batesian mimicry), develop similar warnings. I'm trying to remember: in what way does ID predict what will be designed "at any point in time"?Lenoxus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Joseph, all caps and multiple exclamation points. the sure signs of mature argumentation. are you saying that evolution doesn't predict what novel structures will emerge?Khan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Khan, It was Dan Dennett who made the claim there is no way to tell what will be selected for at any point in time. Also your generalizations just prove the point. For example:
I predict that in a very hot environment greater expression of heat shock proteins will be selected for.
BWAAAAHAAAAA Your position doesn't predict HSPs!!!!
In an environment with large seeds as the only source of food larger bills will be selected for.
And your position doesn't predict seeds nor bills!!!!Joseph_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

It is the mechanism- designed to evolve (evolved by design) vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents. Khan:
how do you distinguish between the two? it seems like no matte how detailed a pathway we provide, you could always say “it was designed to happen that way.
The paper Waiting for two mutations exposes the limits of non-telic processes. That said if we observe a gene duplication followed by change and integration, that would be in line with Dr Spetner's "non-random evolutionary hypothsis". IOW the more specifcation required the less likely your position is.Joseph_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

jerry,
“two mutations cause a switch from herbaceous to woody growth (think:dandelion-oak)” would not be classified as complex.
why not? woody plants have complex vascular systems that herbaceous plants lack. they also have a novel structure, wood, a complex mixture of cellulose and lignin. i'm sure you'll say it's still not good enough (a la Behe at Dover), but it's inarguably more than the cricket chirps you've provided in defense of your position that macrodesign has been observed.Khan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

joseph,
Natural selection- there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time
I predict that in a very hot environment greater expression of heat shock proteins will be selected for. In an environment with large seeds as the only source of food larger bills will be selected for. ic ould go on and on and on. do these not count either?Khan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

"novel complex traits" khan, I have not read the symbiosis example but the "two mutations cause a switch from herbaceous to woody growth (think:dandelion-oak)" would not be classified as complex. If one could show that all systems arose from such simple changes then one would have a real story but it seems unlikely that something like an eye arose from a few simple mutations. I have said many times that the evidence for what is required will unfold over the years as we understand just what in a genome controls complex systems development. Now one can say that the pax genes may affect eye development but I do not think anyone believes that a single gene or a couple of genes have the capability to form the complete network necessary for eye development. It is more like they unleash something and the question is where is that something these genes are unleashing. My guess is that it is very complicated but just where are all these cascades necessary for complex organs coming from?jerry_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

joseph,
It is the mechanism- designed to evolve (evolved by design) vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
how do you distinguish between the two? it seems like no matte how detailed a pathway we provide, you could always say "it was designed to happen that way"Khan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

jerry, i just provided two examples of macroevolution. yet you still continue to claim there is no evidence. why? and how about that evidence for macrodesign you've been looking for? find any yet?Khan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Lenoxus, It has become clear that you don't understand the debate. It has also become clear that you cannot provide a testable hypothesis for your non-telic position. Natural selection- there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time Random variation- no way to predict what mutation(s) will arise at any given time. IOW void of predictive power.Joseph_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Nakashima-san, The YECs don't see it as macroevolution. And "species" is a vague concept. So any definition using it as a reference is in trouble.Joseph_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Khan, Amoebas that ACQUIRED the new characteristic.
a strain of e. coli without a flagellum is still an e. coli.
Yup flagella can be lost.
does that mean that, if we were to show precisely how it evolved, the flagellum wouldn’t be an example of macroevolution either?
Its "evolution" has nothing to do with it. It is the mechanism- designed to evolve (evolved by design) vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents. Now I have told you that several times and you still refuse to understand it.Joseph_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

"they are are both results of the strong evidence for evolution, and comparative absence for two major ID theories I’m aware of." You do not have any evidence and all you are doing is asserting it happened. If it happened then it would have left forensic evidence that it happened. None exists. Don't you understand that is the issue. The so called evidence does not exist. It is so obvious it does not exist or else we would have thousands of anti ID zealots here presenting it. But we have none. Doesn't that give you a little hint.jerry_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Joseph: "You are using a definition of macroevolution that is vague and useless. The amoebas are still amoebas." This almost contradicts itself. Saying "the amoebas are still amoebas" is vague, because they don't come with name tags telling us precisely which species they belong to, and exactly how much change they undergo before they are no longer amoebas. If one were to say that macroevolution is only evolution at, say, the genus level or higher, one is being vague, because "genus" is a human-defined concept. The development of novel characteristics (like the ability to eat nylon) is quite observable, and a good standard for a definition of macroevolution. But stretch the words "it's still an amoeba" far enough and there's no reason not to say "it's still a eukaryote" for any evolution presented to you. There are two reasons I can think of for why we will almost certainly never see fish-to-reptile evolution in the flesh; they are are both results of the strong evidence for evolution, and comparative absence for two major ID theories I'm aware of. One is that the process of change that extreme is way too gradual. If we got a reptile from a fish in, say, five thousand generations, or a similarly observable amount of time, that would be strong evidence that something more than gradual evolution was responsible for the change. Another reason is that fish -> reptile is just one of many possible paths. Evolution does not say that fish are bound to become reptiles; that would be front-loading. If we replicated that particular evolutionary pathway in a lab without specific breeding, that would indicate something like front-loading at work in the fish genome. Conversely, there are no reasons I can think of why we shouldn't see rapid fish-to-reptile change, or the sudden before-our-eyes appearance of an organism, if design is the case. Evolution is ongoing, and at the same rate of change it has always undergone; why not design?Lenoxus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

IOW that scenario is OK even with YECs. Don't throw YECs under the bus. If they can see that the scenario is macro-evolution, more power to them.Nakashima_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

The analogy with the lion is very misrepresented. Yes the laws of physics are in play but does the lion percieve what is happening? No. from the physiological perspective the purpose for instinctual movements are that they don't have to be thought about, they are not cognitive. In fact a true reflex arc never even make it to the brain until afterwards. Reflex inhibition isn't comething we ever have to be taught. When steo on a nail the opposite leg extends while the foot stepping on the nail flexes to get off the nail as soon as possible due to pain. Do flagellum have a reflex arc? do they respond to outuside stiumuli without having to be taught? How does a baby know how to physiologically cry after being born when he/she has never seen anyone else cry before? Perhaps Dr. Dembske just wanted to see how many people would watch an hour and a half lecture with only small referrence to ID. (Sorry couldn't resist)wagenweg_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

frost, i'm going by jerry's definition of macroevolution as the evolution of novel complex traits. both of the examples I provided fit that definition. and if you don't think symbioisis is important in your "microbes to man" scenario, consider how well we'd be doing without mitochondria.
Humans may not be able to design biologically but we can see that intelligences can design in macro and perhaps biologically one day.
so you're extrapolating from design of non-living things to design of living things, all based on absolute faith in science. and how is this logic better than extrapolating from micro- to macroevolution (which at least both involve living things)?Khan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

joseph,
The amoebas are still amoebas.
yes, amoebas with new capabilities. a strain of e. coli without a flagellum is still an e. coli. does that mean that, if we were to show precisely how it evolved, the flagellum wouldn't be an example of macroevolution either?Khan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Khan that is not macro evolution. Your first example isn't even close to a macro evolution. When I think of macro evolution I am talking about the many mutations required to get from primitive land dwelling creatures to say man. Show me a fish turning into a reptile? This is what is meant but macro evolution and your example of plants is irrelevant. As far as my aircraft carrier example- it shows macro design from the top down and the bottom up- which is compatible with evolution- the evolution of its design- as well as ID- and it requires no universal common ancestry. Just because it is not a biological example dose dismiss it's point. Humans may not be able to design biologically but we can see that intelligences can design in macro and perhaps biologically one day.Frost122585_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply