Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A year ago, Nature published an educational booklet with the title 15 Evolutionary gems (as a resource for the Darwin Bicentennial). Number 2 gem is Tiktaalik a well-preserved fish that has been widely acclaimed as documenting the transition from fish to tetrapod. Tiktaalik was an elpistostegalian fish: a large, shallow-water dwelling carnivore with tetrapod affinities yet possessing fins. Unfortunately, until Tiktaalik, most elpistostegids remains were poorly preserved fragments.

“In 2006, Edward Daeschler and his colleagues described spectacularly well preserved fossils of an elpistostegid known as Tiktaalik that allow us to build up a good picture of an aquatic predator with distinct similarities to tetrapods – from its flexible neck, to its very limb-like fin structure. The discovery and painstaking analysis of Tiktaalik illuminates the stage before tetrapods evolved, and shows how the fossil record throws up surprises, albeit ones that are entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking.”

Just when everyone thought that a consensus had emerged, a new fossil find is reported – throwing everything into the melting pot (again!). Trackways of an unknown tetrapod have been recovered from rocks dated 10 million years earlier than Tiktaalik. The authors say that the trackways occur in rocks that: “can be securely assigned to the lower-middle Eifelian, corresponding to an age of approximately 395 million years”. At a stroke, this rules out not only Tiktaalik as a tetrapod ancestor, but also all known representatives of the elpistostegids. The arrival of tetrapods is now considered to be 20 million years earlier than previously thought and these tetrapods must now be regarded as coexisting with the elpistostegids. Once again, the fossil record has thrown up a big surprise, but this one is not “entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking”. It is a find that was not predicted and it does not fit at all into the emerging consensus.

“Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachemie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.” (Janvier & Clement, 2010)

The Nature Editor’s summary explained: “The finds suggests that the elpistostegids that we know were late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms, and they highlight just how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates.” Henry Gee, one of the Nature editors, wrote in a blog:

“What does it all mean?
It means that the neatly gift-wrapped correlation between stratigraphy and phylogeny, in which elpistostegids represent a transitional form in the swift evolution of tetrapods in the mid-Frasnian, is a cruel illusion. If – as the Polish footprints show – tetrapods already existed in the Eifelian, then an enormous evolutionary void has opened beneath our feet.”

For more, go here:
Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/01/09/lobbing_a_grenade_into_the_tetrapod_evol

Additional note: The Henry Gee quote is interesting for the words “elpistostegids represent a transitional form”. In some circles, transitional forms are ‘out’ because Darwinism presupposes gradualism and every form is no more and no less transitional than any other form. Gee reminds us that in the editorial office of Nature, it is still legitimate to refer to old-fashioned transitional forms!

Comments
Heinrich (#260) Thank you for your post. You wrote:
Those of us on the other side of the ID debate still want to see how FCSI can be calculated for a realistic biological problem. Can you show us a calculation?
Sure. Jerry (#155) included a link to a paper by K. D. Kalinsky, entitled, “Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life?” which can also be accessed online at http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2008/02/22/intelligent_design_did_biological_life_r . It's well worth reading; you'll find the biological applications in section V. Proteins are one of the central illustrations used by Kalinsky of structures requiring intelligent design. After rigorously defining “functional information,” he examines two particular proteins, SecY and RecA, which are found in all living things, and would therefore be required in a minimal genome. Kalinsky cites calculations estimating that the functional information in the two proteins is 832 bits and 688 bits for RecA and SecY respectively, and concludes that the average 300-amino acid protein has around 700 bits of functional information. He calculates that “ID is 10^155 times more probable than mindless natural processes to produce the average protein,” and concludes that “if natural selection is invoked to explain the origin of proteins, a fitness function will be necessary that requires intelligent design.” He goes on to estimate that the simplest life form would have had 267,000 bits of functional information. Earlier on in this thread, someone asked about the amount of FCSI in the following: A. a banana, B. a tree, C. a single cell and D. the bacterial flagellum. Fair enough. I've just quoted Kalinsky's estimate for the simplest viable cell: 267,000 bits of functional information, so that answers C. Regarding the bacterial flagellum, I did some hunting around, and found an article in PNAS (April 24, 2007, vol. 104, no. 17, pp. 7116-7121) by R. Liu and H. Ochman, entitled Stepwise Formation of the Bacterial Flagellar System . (For Dr. Michael Behe's reponse to this paper, please see here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/darwinism_gone_wild_neither_se.html ) Anyway, according to the article by Liu and Ochman, the ancestral bacterial flagellum would have had 24 genes. So that's about 24 X 700 = 16,800 bits of functional information. But that's probably an underestimate, if Dr. Behe is correct. (Nicholas Matzke is dubious of the article's claims, too.) Regarding A: it appears that scientists are still sequencing the banana genome, according to this press release: http://www.cns.fr/spip/September-8th-2009-Banana-genome.html Luckily, I found another article saying that the common ancestor of all angiosperms would have had 12,000 to 14,000 genes. (I understand there's been some duplication since then.) See here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS4-4N0PG3D-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1174734978&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cba3d1d9baa367435079d519c45c8fc2 So that's 8,400,000 to 9,800,000 bits of functional information in each cell, for a typical flowering plant. A tree contains no more information than a single cell; apparently different genetic switches are turned on in different cells. By the way, everyone, this link on genome sizes might be of interest: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/G/GenomeSizes.html Hope that helps, Heinrich.vjtorley
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
Nakashima
I thought most ID supporters were fairly certain that function would eventually be found for the whole genome or most of it – that there is no such thing as junk DNA.
Jerry shouldn't be mistaken as a real ID supporters. IMO he always has just presented his personal point of view which may occasionally have been compatible with ID. However, in most cases I would judge his contributions rather as a burden than a help for ID.osteonectin
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Mr Jerry, Each coding region would have its own FSCI and from that the conclusion of design can be made, not the whole genome. Are you saying non-coding regions have no function?? I thought most ID supporters were fairly certain that function would eventually be found for the whole genome or most of it - that there is no such thing as junk DNA. Or are you just saying that operationally, we can't calculate FCSI unless we've already determined function. Once we determine the function of non-coding regions we can expand the FCSI calculation to those areas as well? Thanks in advance for a clarification!Nakashima
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
"Those of us on the other side of the ID debate still want to see how FCSI can be calculated for a realistic biological problem Can you show us a calculation?" It has already been done but I tell you what. When anyone who opposes ID can give me a coherent defense of naturalistic macro evolution (our definition,) I will do it again. In the mean time, pick your coding region and have at it. Just follow the instructions. They are written in English.jerry
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Mustela, we may be talking past each other. You seem to see CSI as being designed to create a graduated scale of items according to design content. I see it as being meant to be more of a Boolean logic gate -- if it has CSI it is designed, if it doesn't, it may/may not be designed. I don't think anybody has tried to scale it, or felt it necessary to do so.tribune7
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
The FSCI applies to the specific coding areas, not the whole genome.
Only coding regions? Those of us on the other side of the ID debate still want to see how FCSI can be calculated for a realistic biological problem. Can you show us a calculation?Heinrich
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
"In that case, the naive calculation of two to the number of bits required to describe the artifact is not a good definition of FCSI. There are several known and observed types of mutations that can increase the size of a genome, for example, including fully replicating it. Those would increase FCSI by that measure, with no intelligent intervention required." What drivel! The FSCI applies to the specific coding areas, not the whole genome. You and efren ts got hung up in the joke I was having with Backwards Joseph. The complexity of a total organisms is not at issue with FSCI. Each coding region would have its own FSCI and from that the conclusion of design can be made, not the whole genome. It is obvious you haven't a clue what this is about since your function here is to nit pick. But you should try to understand what you should concentrate your nit picking on. Duplication in all its forms are not an issue. How much new functionality comes from duplication is the issue. ID recognizes that the new section can then mutate since it is not under selection pressure and theoretically a new coding region can come into existence with new function. I said theoretically because I believe the examples are few and there are tens of thousands of genes that have to be explained including unique genes for nearly every species. So you are essentially making the ID case and don't know it. Good try though. Maybe you should read a basic biology book to get up to speed.jerry
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Mustela -- I know that ID proponents, including Dembski and you, in another thread ( https://uncommondescent.com.....ent-345510 ), claim that CSI can be calculated. Complexity is not CSI. Do you believe complexity can be calculated? What predictions does (ID) make? That nothing that is irreducibly complex will be found not to have been designed. That no pattern of a particular complexity showing a specificity -- and functionality is a fine maker for it -- the probability of which occurring being, well, very, very low, will be found not to have been designed. How would a test of those predictions put ID at risk of disconfirmation? It would show that the things that ID says shows design, don't.tribune7
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Cabal, Fine, no more God or magic, is that it? You're an atheist, aren't you? Why would you put God and magic in the same sentence. They are irreconcilable.tribune7
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
tribune7,
ID is science. It can be falsified. It does not the involve the supernatural in the least.
Fine, no more God or magic, is that it?
don’t know who’d agree with that. I think everyone on this board would concede that random genomic changes are an integral factor.
I wrote 'mechanism' and did not mention any integral factor. Coal is required to make trains run, but I'd hesitate to call it a mechanism.Cabal
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
tribune7 at 250, Do you believe complexity can be calculated? I know that ID proponents, including Dembski and you, in another thread ( https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-and-common-descent/comment-page-5/#comment-345510 ), claim that CSI can be calculated. I would like to see an example of that.Mustela Nivalis
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
tribune7 at 236, ID is science. It can be falsified. In order to be considered science, there must be a scientific theory of ID from which falsifiable predictions can be made. Paul Nelson, one of the leaders of the ID movement, stated in 2004 that no such theory exists: We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity' -- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design. Has a scientific theory been created since then? If so, what is it? What predictions does it make? How would a test of those predictions put ID at risk of disconfirmation?Mustela Nivalis
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Mustela, While I wasn’t able to get enough detail from that description to implement a CSI calculator in software, Do you believe complexity can be calculated?tribune7
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Jerry writes, "But the argument is not flawed, so where is the apology? You made a claim about us that does not exist." But we disagree about whether the argument is flawed. One doesn't apologize for disagreeing with someone. We both made our points, and agreed, I think, to bring the discussion to a close. Others who were participating in the discussion, or who were just reading along, can come to their own conclusions about which of us is more correct, and I'm sure there will be disagreement there also. There's nothing wrong with disagreement - it's the fuel for further refinement of understanding.Aleta
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
jerry at 231, “2) CSI is claimed to be a unique characteristic of designed systems. Is FCSI also supposed to only be present in designed systems?” Yes In that case, the naive calculation of two to the number of bits required to describe the artifact is not a good definition of FCSI. There are several known and observed types of mutations that can increase the size of a genome, for example, including fully replicating it. Those would increase FCSI by that measure, with no intelligent intervention required.Mustela Nivalis
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
jerry at 231, Thanks for the detailed answer. I'll take the first question first, just to be different. “1) How is FSCI related to CSI, if at all?” It is a type of CSI CSI is defined in No Free Lunch as a specific characteristic that indicates design. While I wasn't able to get enough detail from that description to implement a CSI calculator in software, Dembski seems to have a particular calculation in mind. Given that, how can there be different "types" of CSI? CSI is a general concept that is supposed to work with any designed entity. Life forms are just a small part of the world and non life designed entities are also a small part of the world. But CSI is meant to apply to all designed processes not just life forms so by its nature it must be very broad and thus lies the problem. Because of this generality it can be very vague in how it is applied. If CSI is "vague" then it isn't useful for uniquely identifying design. If we can't use it to make a qualitative measurement, as Dembski and others suggest is possible, how can it reliably distinguish between designed and non-designed objects?Mustela Nivalis
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
"I said the argument was flawed" But the argument is not flawed, so where is the apology? You made a claim about us that does not exist.jerry
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Cabal -I am not certain it was in this thread, but I was challenged about my claim that Nmatural Selection is not the only mechanism in evolution. I don't know who'd agree with that. I think everyone on this board would concede that random genomic changes are an integral factor.tribune7
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Jerry writes, "...But in reality it is insulting to have someone come here and call us flawed like we are somehow lacking either in intellect or good intentions when they cannot defend their ad hominems." I said the argument was flawed, not the people here. And I have made no ad hominem arguments. I have addressed the issues, not attacked people.Aleta
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
efren ts:
But, it does leave unanswered the question as to how an ID Scientist would rank order the list by complexity if CSI and FCSI only can partially help.
What is the relevance of the list?Joseph
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Aleta:
My answer to that question is that it is a subterfuge to claim that ID is not about the supernatural.
ID is about the DESIGN, not the designer. The design exists in this physical world. It can be observed and tested. As for the designer we just do not know. However we do know that even the materialistic postion regresses to the SAME POINT. Ya see natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins. The best we can say about any designer of the universe is it was PRE-natural- pre- meaning before. It could also be other-dimensional. That said what would happen if we allowed the design inference, followed the data/ evidence and it led to the supernatural? It would be too late to disallow the inference after that.Joseph
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
Aleta said, "Jerry brings up what I consider one of the key metaphysical flaws in ID theory: the belief that if everything happens naturally there is no room for God” I already commented on this above but had some further thoughts on this. Actually this is the atheist point of view and unfortunately has become the prevailing one with most of society. Why does one need God, when all can happen naturally. ID does not make any claim like that at all. The following comment from a couple years ago is relevant. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rush-limbaugh-reviews-expelled-on-talk-radio/#comment-190514 ID has no problem with any naturalistic approach to anything. If God, as the Great Clockmaker, decided to use a certain naturalistic process to effect evolution, ID would have zero problem with it. But ID says that there is no known mechanism of naturalistic evolution that can explain the history of life on the planet. Not that it won't be found but that any of the currently proffered explanations is lacking. And to offer them up as explanations is at best speculative and to assert them as supported by the empirical data is at best advocating bad science but to accept them for philosophical reasons, beyond the pale. Especially when this acceptance is the engine that drives atheism. In 4 1/2 years here I have seen no one able to dispute that assessment. Certainly not those who support what we call Darwinian evolution. Darwinian processes explains small changes but large changes are not just the accumulation of small changes. We say that for two reasons. There is no evidence of the accumulation of small changes leading to large changes which we call the origin of novel complex capabilities. And there are very good physical and logical reasons why it cannot happen. The latter are best discussed under the topic of information in biology. Complex capabilities requires large scale systems of controls of unique parts so not only the information for all the parts has to be developed but also the control processes for their expression and placement. So when a new capabilities appears it is not just a few little additions here and there but the sudden appearance of thousands of intricately designed sub systems and parts. As of the present there is no process that is capable of making these large scale changes. The micro evolution process is quite capable of making small changes but as Behe has shown in the Edge of Evolution it is not capable of doing much beyond the simple. Now these simple and relatively trivial changes can have dramatic affects on many organisms but they do not produce the massive changes seen in the very complicated biological systems in nature. So if one is going to challenge ID, then one has to have a mechanism that will explain these changes. To just offer up Darwinian processes is ludicrous when there has never been an example where it could even come close to making the massive changes necessary for these complex novel capabilities. One of our favorite anti ID people here graciously said the eye is the result of a cascade of 2000 different proteins in precise order. Not a trivial mechanism nor one that was built up one change at a time or even a few fortunate changes at a time. It appeared out of nowhere 520 million years ago and no new eyes have developed since. Similarly the very complicated ATP synthase and the transcription/translation process are so complicated and so essential for life that it boggles the mind how such intricate process arose gradually or in any naturalistic way. But to say that ID does not accept naturalistic explanation is absurd. ID is perfectly willing to accept naturalistic explanations when they are reasonable and supported by the data and will point to all the micro evolutionary processes that produce changes in microbes or that are used by species to adapt to a new environment or unfortunately explain too many diseases or human medical problems. It is ironic that theistic evolutionists have chosen a path proclaimed by the atheists as the basis for their beliefs when there is no evidence for this path. If the evidence was there, then any logical person would accept it but the reality is that it is not there. And yet we have people here telling us how dumb we are and how we accept flawed ideas when they cannot support their ideas. Ironic at best. But in reality it is insulting to have someone come here and call us flawed like we are somehow lacking either in intellect or good intentions when they cannot defend their ad hominems. When I grew up that was very bad behavior.jerry
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
I am not certain it was in this thread, but I was challenged about my claim that Nmatural Selection is not the only mechanism in evolution. Well, here is what Darwin wrote:
"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."
Further details are not hard to find for anyone interested.Cabal
January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
Aleta, Some of your comments are a little arrogant. You make claims that ID does not hold. How can you do that unless you think you know better since you said you are here to find out about it. Yet you pontificate. "Jerry brings up what I consider one of the key metaphysical flaws in ID theory: the belief that if everything happens naturally there is no room for God" I never said that and I never ever thought that. How could you interpret that from what I said. I said if FSCI is true, the atheist world falls apart and that is true. They posit no intelligence before humans and look at a past intelligence as most likely God. ID does not make that claim though many who support ID will. It is beyond what ID can show. I did not say the theist world falls apart but for many it apparently would. I have said elsewhere, on the Steve Barr thread that science for many of the theistic evolutionists is ideological just as it is for the atheist and the young earth creationist. Not all TE's fit this pattern but some definitely do as Darwinian evolution is part of their theology. God must have done it naturally not that He could have done it that way. It is an absolute. ID does not deny that God could have done it naturally, just that the evidence does not indicate this. The theistic evolutionist denies the evidence because of theological reasons not because science supports it. ID is based on science. My theology says God could do it anyway He wants and he gave us the ability to see His works. To deny them would be contrary to the abilities that God have us. The TE's deny this and say it must have happened naturally. If you want to see my full answers go back to the Fiirst Things thread and read them. "I believe one of the points made in that thread, with which I agree, is this: that if ID advocates make claims about design in the interest of supporting their belief in God, and those claims are in fact seen as flawed by many religious and non-religious people alike (as I think is the case), then such ID advocacy actually sets back the cause of those who would like to advocate for theism." If ID claims are flawed, then I suggest you argue them out. I find them religiously neutral and compelling based on science and logic. I believed in Darwinian evolution till about 10 years ago. I read an ad by a Catholic organization in New York City that a friend showed me and we went to the presentation. That was my introduction to ID and since then my religious beliefs have not changed one iota but my beliefs about evolution and science changed dramatically. Why should religion and science be at odds. I believe in one truth and that God would not fool us. My background in college and grad school was physics and mathematics and my current job requires knowledge of some biological processes. I am blown away by the science, not the ideology and there are several more here like me. Barr has to speak to his Maker, because he distorted what ID is about and you apparently have a false impression about it too as you are here one day and have made a lot of non sensical claims. So Barr is mis representing things and maybe he is responsible for you going astray. Not in your religious beliefs but in just what ID is. If ID is saying someone had a hand in life, I find that theistic evolutionist saying that this is bad theology, quite remarkable since there is supposedly God's intervention with the conception of each human and then there is prayer. Prayer is nothing more than an expectation that God will intervene as He sees fit in human affairs. Is prayer bad theology, these days. Not where I attend church as there are prayers offered every Sunday for various things. To say that ID is setting back the cause against atheism is a joke coming from people who blindly accept the same bad science that atheist say is the basis of their fulfillment. Have you checked how many youth attend church after high school when they are not forced to by their parents. They have bought into the materialist philosophy that is taught in the schools, public and private. ID has nothing to do with this. "what I think is a false proposition – that the blind chance hypothesis is an accurate and adequate model for calculating the probability that something came to be. If one wants to argue for design, tying one’s case to a faulty proposition and then defending it at all costs, because failing to do so supposedly cedes ground to atheists, prevents a broader set of design arguments from being advanced and prevents a larger group of people from joining the cause of design advocacy." I haven't a clue what is meant here. ID is a periphery idea, not main stream. So how can it prevent broader sets of design arguments from being advanced. How can ID prevent a larger group of people from joining the cause of design advocacy when most are now laughing at it because they are told false things about it. We do not defend anything at all cost. We defend what is reasonable from a science and logic point of view. If the evidence is bad or lacking, ID will not support it. "In my opinion, those people who are straightforwardly acknowledging that their belief in design is metaphysical, whether it be Christian theism or Buddhism or some type of New Age spiritualism, have a much better chance of influencing the culture than IDists who are abusing science and logic because they think they have to beat the scientists at their own game." We never lose at science because we respect it and demand evidence. That is the irony of this. Stephen Barr will not debate ID on science and as soon as science came up on his thread, he bailed out. There has never been a person who came here in 4 1/2 years who has been able to defend the science of evolution as it is taught in the schools of this country. Not one and we have had biologist and evolutionary biologists fail to do so. None have been able to do it. Does that tell you anything. Probably not because you will think we are deluded. But I can make a safe bet. You will not be able to find anyone who can do it. The way to make yourself to feel comfortable is to make up a lot of nonsense about ID. There are a lot of engineers here, software programmers, business owners, etc who spend a lot of time in the world and have to deal with reality. Darwinian evolution of complex novel capabilities is not reality. "It may not be willful obfuscation, but it certainly strikes me as dogmatic and stubborn to resist acknowledging that how things change over time must be taken into account in their theory." This is pure nonsense. On what basis do you make this claim? This is another case of pontification without understanding. Is that how you were brought up. When I was young, it was called bigotry. To make false claims about some people without any knowledge. "Christians as well as members of other religions) oppose ID because they think it is wrong scientifically, and because they don’t like hitching a belief in design, which they support in the broad sense, to a flawed argument." More nonsense. How do you know ID is wrong scientifically. I just said that we have found no one who can make a coherent argument for naturalistic evolution of complex novel characteristics. Did you read the links I told you to read. Did you read the Behe book. Then if you didn't then you should refrain from knowing it all. I have not found one theistic evolutionist who will risk an argument on evolution. We have asked many and none have attempted to take the challenge. I take that back, a couple did but had to admit they couldn't defend their beliefs. They just appealed to experts after they realized their arguments were wrong. The experts who supposedly have the knowledge never write anything to back up their beliefs. The thread on First Things started when a Theistic Evolutionist praised the latest book by Dawkins. I have asked many here, what is in Dawkins book that makes the case for naturalistic evolution and no one could point anything out. So before you question our judgment on science, find someone who can back up Darwinian evolution. Because we would love to see it. "But if ID doesn’t involve the supernatural “in the least”, then why would an atheist oppose it? Your two claims contradict each other." Because the atheist think it does. Not because any claim that ID makes. ID just wants to get Darwinian evolution out of the curriculum because it is bad science and is acknowledged to lead people to atheism. ID can not make any claims about the designer being God because the science does not support it. If one wants to personally think it is God, then that does not flow from ID. So I think you know little of what you are talking about. You have no idea about the science involved and till you do, you should refrain making any claims about it. The people here who support ID are Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, some agnostics and some who have little use for religion. I am sorry this is so long but one usually does not get so much nonsense in one day.jerry
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
Aleta, but one of the main points of my post was that many non-atheists (Christians as well as members of other religions) oppose ID because they think it is wrong scientifically, Then they would not be using non-scientific means to stop it such as refusing to allow ID advocates to publish in journals even as a letter-to-the-editor response to an article criticizing their ideas , cutting off resources solely because they are perceived as sympathetic to ID etc. But if ID doesn’t involve the supernatural “in the least”, then why would an atheist oppose it? I guess you'd have to ask an atheist. I'll certainly agree that it isn't rational for them to do so.tribune7
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
tribune7
ID is science. It can be falsified.
1. Unfortunately nobody here realized when it happenend. 2. Still it doesn't follow that ID were in any way science. 3. Maybe sciency but then it doesn't need to be falsified.osteonectin
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
Hi efren. I agree that abuse is too strong a word - I apologize for that: perhaps "misuse" is better. But I don't think it is the case that Jerry et al (the et al being the many other people who use the pure chance hypothesis as part of the same argument) merely lack the mathematical reach to calculate a meaningful measure of improbability. It may not be willful obfuscation, but it certainly strikes me as dogmatic and stubborn to resist acknowledging that how things change over time must be taken into account in their theory. Also tribune writes, "Aleta, you are reading something into this that is not there. It is not that the Christian supports ID to prove God. It is the atheist that opposes ID for metaphysical reasons." It is true that some atheists oppose ID on both scientific and metaphysical grounds (although why would an atheist oppose it on metaphysical grounds if it weren't about God?), but one of the main points of my post was that many non-atheists (Christians as well as members of other religions) oppose ID because they think it is wrong scientifically, and because they don't like hitching a belief in design, which they support in the broad sense, to a flawed argument. (Many also oppose ID on metaphysical grounds also, but that is an another topic.) Also tribune writes, "ID is science. It can be falsified. It does not the involve the supernatural in the least." But if ID doesn't involve the supernatural "in the least", then why would an atheist oppose it? Your two claims contradict each other. My answer to that question is that it is a subterfuge to claim that ID is not about the supernatural. Over at First Thoughts, Stephen Barr listed some of the possible non-supernatural intelligent agents, and then concluded, "I think that list is pure smoke. One is talking about a supernatural intelligent being." I agree with Stephen on this.Aleta
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
Jerry, nice post at 231. Aleta, you are reading something into this that is not there. It is not that the Christian supports ID to prove God. It is the atheist that opposes ID for metaphysical reasons. ID is science. It can be falsified. It does not the involve the supernatural in the least.tribune7
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Aleta:
In my opinion, those people who are straightforwardly acknowledging that their belief in design is metaphysical, whether it be Christian theism or Buddhism or some type of New Age spiritualism, have a much better chance of influencing the culture than IDists who are abusing science and logic because they think they have to beat the scientists at their own game.
I think that is a little unfair to Jerry. Just because he doesn't have enough confidence in his ability to calculate CSI for the record doesn't mean he is a science abuser. Sure, ID science will advance very little until ID scientists are willing to stand behind their convictions and publish their CSI calculations. But, that is hardly sufficient grounds to assume that they are willfully obfuscating. Maybe their mathematical reach just exceeds their grasp at this time.efren ts
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Now that Jerry has pointed out one of the elephants in the room, I'd like to offer some thoughts. Jerry writes, "For atheists, the problem is obvious. If FSCI is in reality CSI, then their whole world falls apart. Thus, the intense fight to discredit the obvious and to insist that it had to arise naturally. Now ID says FSCI could arise naturally but is highly unlikely for obvious reasons and there has never been an instance of it arising naturally. If such was common in nature then ID’s claim would be suspect but there are none let alone frequent examples. So we get the usual nonsense here trying to discredit what is very obvious. The whole thing comes down to the anti ID people saying there was no intelligence who could have done it so it must have happened naturally and ID says there must have been an intelligence because nature is unlikely to have done it." Jerry brings up what I consider one of the key metaphysical flaws in ID theory: the belief that if everything happens naturally there is no room for God. Once you accept this premise, then the theist must find some way to claim that at least some things take some special input, outside of what natural processes can accomplish, in order for God to have a role, or at least for some aspect of his role to be scientifically visible. Thus advocating for ID becomes a battle against atheism, and of course on that front no ground can be given. Of course, many theists don't accept the premise, and have no conflict with the idea that God acts within natural processes, and that the rainbow is no more or no less designed than DNA. I was led to register here, as I have said before, from a thread over at First Thoughts by Stephen Barr, a theist who believes in design from a theological perspective but has strong disagreements with ID. I believe one of the points made in that thread, with which I agree, is this: that if ID advocates make claims about design in the interest of supporting their belief in God, and those claims are in fact seen as flawed by many religious and non-religious people alike (as I think is the case), then such ID advocacy actually sets back the cause of those who would like to advocate for theism. This is in part, and I said this earlier in the thread, why I focused on what I think is a false proposition - that the blind chance hypothesis is an accurate and adequate model for calculating the probability that something came to be. If one wants to argue for design, tying one's case to a faulty proposition and then defending it at all costs, because failing to do so supposedly cedes ground to atheists, prevents a broader set of design arguments from being advanced and prevents a larger group of people from joining the cause of design advocacy. The flaw is that ID is trying to justify itself scientifically. The irony here is that in doing so the ID movement is in fact ceding the epistomological framework to the very people who they perceive as their adversaries - the people of science. The attitude is that science (and those materialistic atheists who embrace) are wrong, and by golly we going to show scientifically that we're right! In my opinion, those people who are straightforwardly acknowledging that their belief in design is metaphysical, whether it be Christian theism or Buddhism or some type of New Age spiritualism, have a much better chance of influencing the culture than IDists who are abusing science and logic because they think they have to beat the scientists at their own game. All for the record.Aleta
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 14

Leave a Reply