News from “Darwinworld” increasingly mocked?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 15, 2011

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Here, Dave Coppedge handily summarizes and comments on the news from DarwinWorld, everything from “how the skunk got its stripes” to why superstitions “actually make evolutionary sense.” Of course, superstitions make evolutionary sense – in Darwinworld, the distinction between fact and “useful” fantasy disappears.

Interestngly, Coppedge notes,

One encouraging sign is that more readers seem to be mocking the evolutionary just-so stories in the comments. They usually get shouted down by Darwin bigots (some with terrible spelling and no sense of history or philosophy) …

Coppedge offers an anti-bigot kit at the foot of the post.

Comments

of note to DrREC; It seems the entire argument for inferring the supposed fossil sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is primarily based on the erroneous readings of 'bone homology', or bone similarity, between different species. Yet this entire line of reasoning, for establishing scientific certainty for any proposed evolutionary sequence of fossils, is anything but 'certain', as this following video and quote clearly point out: Investigating Evolution: Homology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgXT9sU6y18 ------------------- further note: Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Bat Evolution? - No Transitional Fossils! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6003501/ “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils i.e. DrREC, instead of bedtime stories perhaps a demonstration of material processes generating functional information???bornagain77_{June 16, 2011
June
06
Jun
16
16
2011
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

DrREC, you state; 'I think it is clear ID has no ability to infer the will of the designer.' And yet Neo-darwinists are free to do as such???? In fact neo-darwinists use the argument with a vengeance. Thus the fact of the matter is that ID proper stays focused on the scientific evidence, whereas neo-Darwinism is extremely bad Theology parading in the garb of scientism??? DrREC, perhaps you would care to get down and dirty and actually generate some functional information by purely material processes, and provide an actual scientific basis for neo-Darwinism to work with??? But then again its not about the science is it DrREC??? It Is about you maintaining your atheism!!! I suggest you read this article: Darwin employed theology in a positive fashion, as support for his own position. "In the Origin," Dilley writes, "Darwin used a specific theological view of God's relationship to natural laws in order to argue for evolution and against special creation." The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.htmlbornagain77_{June 16, 2011
June
06
Jun
16
16
2011
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

bornagain77- "you have absolutely no right to, just so to make the theological claim the ‘God would not have done it that way!" Not a claim I made. At all. I specifically question how residual function of vestigial organs would support ID-thus rejecting this line of thought. I again specifically reject the theological argument in a later post above above. I think it is clear ID has no ability to infer the will of the designer. Thus, good design, bad design, broken design, designs made to look like evolution are all fair game. Vestigial organs supporting common descent is totally independent of that argument. I don't have to discuss 'design' to see whale, human, bat and armadillo wrists share homology. By the way, is the irony of calling me out for making "theological" arguments lost on you?DrREC_{June 16, 2011
June
06
Jun
16
16
2011
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Actually DrREC it is getting interesting now, so let's not leave it be. First DrREC, you feel no reservation whatsoever for heavily insinuating the vestigial argument, as long as it supports your purposes,,, as in,,, 'I do see vestigiality as a pro-common descent argument.' Yet you presuppose non-functionality so as to make the argument!!! i.e. you bank on ignorance of function to support your neo-Darwinian world-view!!! i.e. You adamantly claim non-function when you have absolutely no right to, just so to make the theological claim the 'God would not have done it that way!' But as cited earlier the vestigial organ argument has a long history; “The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.” “Tornado in a Junkyard” – book – by former atheist James Perloff ,,So DrREC you are in fact hanging onto pitiful scraps so as to make the same tire theological argument. Simply horrendous science on your part!!! But of more to the point to where today's argument is DrREC. Today neo-Darwinists strongest argument for common ancestry is the 'theologically based' Junk DNA argument: ,,,the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. - Ken Miller,,, ,,, and yet DrREC, the blatant hypocrisy comes in when I point out quantum non-local information is found on a massive scale in molecular biology. i.e. neo-Darwinists are quick to tell us God would not put junk sequences into DNA (though they have no right to) but yet when non-local (beyond time and space) quantum information is found on a massive scale in molecular biology all of the sudden God is not even mentioned as a possible cause for why DNA would have as such!!! i.e. Moreover DrREC, it also follows that since classical information is only known to come from a mind, then the fact that this quantum information found in DNA is transcendent, gives us solid reason to believe that the source of it is a transcendent Mind!!!bornagain77_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

And exactly what was your point mung???
Actually, there were two points I was making. 1. Your posts in this thread, esp @2, make you seem immature. Perhaps you are immature. Just asking. 2. That DrREC was not making the argument you claim. This has since been substantiated from his/her own lips, as it were.Mung_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

ba77, The fact that we find the quantum world weird is not an argument for or against anything other than the fact we are used to a life where certain quantum effects are not noticeable.Driver_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

"Excuse me DrREC, but I thought I was quite clear, I’m quite agreeable to leave the ‘purported vestigial organ’, (your theological words; not mine)" Theological? What? Anyway, perhaps we can call a truce here. If I lead with "I think both sides need to be cautious with the data." And you are agreeable to that, can we leave it there? Must we launch into your peculiar interpretations of quantum entanglement, insults like : ",,, I guess none of this will matter to you huh DrREC???? Because it never was about the science in the first place was it DrREC??? "And the insanity of Darwinian delusions roll on!!!" It gets a bit tedious.DrREC_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Excuse me DrREC, but I thought I was quite clear, I'm quite agreeable to leave the 'purported vestigial organ', (your theological words; not mine), argument behind; in fact, I suggested for you to dive straight into where the cutting edge science is, and asked you directly for your neo-Darwinian explanation of this, since no straight answer has been forthcoming from all neo-darwinists I have asked thus far!!!! ,,,Here is the falsification of local realism (reductive materialism). Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of 'local realism', or the failure of materialism, to explain reality: The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for 'spooky' forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) And yet, quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (materialism) as the true description of reality, is now found in molecular biology! Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours (arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1). “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows - June 2011 Excerpt: -- DNA -- can discern between quantum states known as spin. - The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team's results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure 'quantum form' is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement 'effect' in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) 'cause' when the quantum entanglement 'effect' falsified material particles as its own 'causation' in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various 'special' configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must show local realism to be sufficient to explain the quantum non-locality we find within molecular biology! ,,, As well, appealing to ‘non-reductive’ materialism (multiverse or many-worlds) to try to explain quantum non-locality in molecular biology, or anything else for that matter, destroys the very possibility of doing science rationally; Michael Behe has a profound answer to the infinite multiverse (non-reductive materialism) argument in “Edge of Evolution”. If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever. “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ ================= Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 etc.. etc.. The ‘Fourth Dimension’ Of Living Systems https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Gs_qvlM8-7bFwl9rZUB9vS6SZgLH17eOZdT4UbPoy0Y Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - March 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.htmlbornagain77_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, I'm sorry, but are you reading what I write? I'm not making a broken design=no design argument! I even state the non-falsifiability of such design interpretations, so why would I bother?DrREC_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Tell you what DrREC, instead of you pretending you are being reasonable with a 'bad design' theological argument, since I question the validity of anyone who claims they don't believe in God as to tell me exactly how God should and should not act in the universe in the first place, especially so as to make a 'scientific case' for their position,,,, why don't you just go ahead and get down and dirty with the empirical evidence and tell me exactly why finding quantum non-locality on a massive scale in molecular biology does not falsify the materialistic theory of neo-Darwinism??? Perhaps you would like to bring neo-Darwinism up to speed with the evidence by postulating a even more contrived non-reductive material cause than many-worlds/multiverse???bornagain77_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

"What is remarkable is that I showed you that the vestigial organ argument was a ‘bad design’ theological argument!!" I didn't make a "bad design" argument. I questioned the interpretation of the data, and the wisdom of using purported vestigial organ function as a pro-ID argument. I do see vestigiality as a pro-common descent argument. But, no, a sloppy designer who leaves in less functional bits, and allows for the appearance of common descent cannot be argued against. "you simply restate the bad design argument for the appendix as if what you were doing was reasonable!!!" Nope. Just questioned the interpretation of the data, and why the conclusion would support ID.DrREC_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

DrREC, pardon me???? 'EVERYTHING MAKES EVOLUTIONARY SENSE"!!! :) In fact evolution refuses to be falsified by anything!!! What is remarkable is that I showed you that the vestigial organ argument was a 'bad design' theological argument!! A argument that has no business in science proper!!! but what do you do??? Why by-golly instead of producing actual 'positive' evidence for your case, you simply restate the bad design argument for the appendix as if what you were doing was reasonable!!! And the insanity of Darwinian delusions roll on!!!bornagain77_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

From bornagain77's second link: "Scientists not affiliated with the study have come out in favor of the theory. Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald said the idea was the most likely purpose of the appendix. "It makes evolutionary sense."" So you'll take what you otherwise call evolutionary 'just so' stories when you think it favors you? At any rate, my warning is not to overdo the interpretation of the data, as was done with the post's interpretation of the appendix and tonsil study. It is not to argue whether vestigial organs have some trace of function. If this function isn't strongly selective enough, the feature will eventually be lost. There are undoubtably vestigial compared to full functionality in other organisms. They make a decent case for common descent. Of course, one could argue common design, with a designer who doesn't care about function. One can argue any number of things.DrREC_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Mung, DrREC stated: 'Conclusion: The tonsils and the appendix prevent heart disease, therefore function, therefore not vestigial, therefore design?' and yet mung you stated; 'I don’t see an argument for vestigial organs anywhere in his post.' And exactly what was your point mung???bornagain77_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, how old are you? I don't see an argument for vestigial organs anywhere in his post. What DrREC said was: "I think both sides need to be cautious with the data." That sounds imminently reasonable to me.Mung_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

DrREC, are you still trying to hold on to the old vestigial organ argument??? “The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.” "Tornado in a Junkyard" - book - by former atheist James Perloff Appendix has purpose: Excerpt: "The appendix acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientists:_appendix_has_purpose But DrREC isn't the former vestigial organ argument, much like the current junk DNA argument, just a theologically based 'bad design' argument in the first place, that is used by neo-Darwinists since neo-Darwinists don't have any real scientific evidence to 'positively' support their molecules to man hypothesis??? Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg In fact, it has been pointed out, by many people besides Dr. Craig, that the whole neo-Darwinian argument is, at its core beneath all the rhetoric, a theological argument: On the Vastness of the Universe Excerpt: Darwin’s objection to design inferences were theological. And in addition, Darwin overlooked many theological considerations in order to focus on the one. His one consideration was his assumption about what a god would or wouldn’t do. The considerations he overlooked are too numerous to mention here, but here’s a few:,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-vastness-of-the-universe/#comment-362918 Here is a peer-reviewed paper that shows Darwin's book 'Origin Of Species' was at its a core a theological argument instead of a scientific argument; Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011 Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-philosopher-to-science-writer.html ,,, I guess none of this will matter to you huh DrREC???? Because it never was about the science in the first place was it DrREC???bornagain77_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

I think both sides need to be cautious with the data. For example, his lead story, and one that got a lot of play is a gross over-interpretation. The study showed individuals, under 20, who had their tonsils and/or appendix removed showed a just statistically significant increase in heart disease. Conclusion: The tonsils and the appendix prevent heart disease, therefore function, therefore not vestigial, therefore design? A bit too far, I think. After all, heart diseases are linked to infection (get your teeth cleaned). Someone, under 20, who has had both their appendix and tonsils removed has had quite a potential exposure of the blood to bacteria. Infective endocarditis can present after acute appendicitis*, but even a few cases of something much more subtle could give these statistics. So the hypothesis that these organs do something minor would have to be evaluated against the minor risk of infection and surgery to the heart. *http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20498922DrREC_{June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply