Not Even Wrong

_{Cornelius Hunter
July 2, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

The great physicist Wolfgang Pauli once criticized a scientific paper as so bad that it was “not even wrong.” It was so sloppy and ill conceived, thought Pauli, that to call it merely wrong would be to give it too much credit–it wasn’t even wrong. Today such a condemnation applies well to the theory of evolution which relies on religious convictions to prop up bad science. It seems that every argument for evolution wilts under scrutiny. Here is a classic example.

Continue reading here.

Comments

lamarck:
Maybe he hasn’t answered because the wagons are stuck in the ruts it’s been gone over so many times?
lamarck, Yeah, that's it. He's got a really great, devastating rebuttal, but he just can't be bothered to present it. Why should anyone expect him to defend his own position? Well, if you think that Cornelius is too busy or too tired to provide a designer hypothesis, then perhaps you can step into the breach and provide one for him. What designer hypothesis can you offer that is compatible with the phylogenetic evidence we've been discussing?mereologist_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PST}

mere@89 4. Cornelius knows this. However, a deceptive designer of this sort is not what Cornelius was hoping to find. He wants the designer to be the Christian God. One who knows the Christian God should know this is exactly what we expect. 2 Thessalonians 2- Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.IRQ Conflict_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PST}

Mereologist, Maybe he hasn't answered because the wagons are stuck in the ruts it's been gone over so many times? You have failed to demonstrate that an undirected path is possible. There exists no such path. Do you realize even Gould would have corrected you? AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALL STILL HERE You've been programmed by public school to believe that an information increase is possible, that Miller's IC subparts can connect up at once and that machines in cells and double helix's are no problem. Can someone please post a list of the falsifiable points of ID at the top of UD? I myself have made at least five lists of this myself on this site. You think you're onto something here. Why don't you look in the archives to have your questions answered over and over again. You're undirected tree of life is full of assumptions which I've already corrected you on. You think environmental change can't be programmed into brackets. Why? Why is it that we see two different WHOLE ENTIRE genes making insect abdomens and guts? This should clear some things up. Answer these three questions: What is information? Do we observe enough information increase to account for the tree of life? Does your argument depend on information increase via nature alone? Hopefully those three questions will mean less typing and more reading. 90degreeangel, Why don't you summarize the gist of the problem. I bet you and you're friend don't even know what's going on here. I really want to hear this in your own words.lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PST}

herb:
Dude, that’s harsh! At least my man Cornelius keeps it civil!
Calling me a liar is "keeping it civil"?mereologist_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PST}

mereologist,
{humongous wall of text}
Dude, that's harsh! At least my man Cornelius keeps it civil! :(herb_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PST}

mereologist, I must admit that your summary of Dr. Hunters position is exactly what I was just thinking. In the Matrix, Neo [you] had to choose between the red pill and the blue pill . . . here you stand before Morpheous [mereologist]. What will you choose? Somewhere deep inside you know you are wrong Dr. Hunter, but do want to go on living a lie? Good luck. You will need it if you think you can slip out of the difficult situation you are now in.90DegreeAngel_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PST}

I asked Cornelius Hunter:
...why do you refuse to answer my question? Are you able to offer us a falsifiable design hypothesis or not?
His response:
[silence]
I asked:
Do you truly not recognize that other nonrandom patterns are possible besides the one that confirms Darwinian common descent? For example, suppose (using Theobald’s example of the standard phylogenetic tree of the 30 major taxa) that the morphological data produced the standard tree, while the molecular data produced the same tree except with the positions of humans and bananas reversed. That would be a huge problem for evolution, yet it would in no sense be a random pattern. There are literally trillions of trillions of patterns that could falsify evolution. Many of them are quite nonrandom, like the one I just described. All of them would be available to a putative designer.
He replied:
[silence]
I wrote:
Yet when you look at the actual data, the morphological and molecular trees match perfectly, with 38 decimal places of precision.
And:
Either undirected evolution is true, or the designer has made it appear, overwhelmingly, to be true. Either way, you you have to ignore the evidence — all 38 decimal places’ worth — to conclude that ID is correct.
His reply:
This is where the religion takes evolutionists. It may appear to be mere ignorance, but I hear this sort of thing from evolutionists who know better. This is not mere ignorance, and it is fascinating to see in evolution not only a selective examination of the data, but even false presentations of the data.
In other words, "You're lying!" That's it. That's the sum total of his rebuttal. No evidence. No argument. Just an unsupported accusation that is easily refuted. Is this what you've sunk to, Cornelius?mereologist_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PST}

OK, I can't help but respond to tribune7's response to me:
Lenoxus, you don’t understand ID. When you say If the (something) can and does produce both diseases and immune systems with equal flair, you’re channeling evolution.
Huh? Is it not the case that both immune systems and diseases are attributed to the designer? Behe seems to think so (specifically, that malaria could not have evolved to its present form and must have had intelligent guidance). If we are going to talk about common design, this is a serious problem of contradictions. Of course, ID folks can always say they'll get to it later, just as they will with questions of design mechanism and the like — that ID is just not at that stage yet — but somehow I doubt that. Anyway, I'll go ahead and submit it as an argument, though it doesn't fit either of the two holes you provided: designed phenomena simply do not work against themselves in that way, without producing some larger function. Or at least, there is a low probability they would. Again, with the designer, any phenomena are possible.Lenoxus_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PST}

Echidna-Levy, There isn't any genetic, anatomical, physiological or other data that supports universal common descent. Never mone UCD via an accumulation of genetic accidents. You chimps have proven that the theory van't even muster a testable hypothesis with the proposed mechanisms.Joseph_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PST}

The religion is the obvious worship given to mother nature, father time and magical mystery mutations. And if the theory of evolution is scientific then why can't one of you propose a testable hypothesis with the concept of accumulating genetic accidents?Joseph_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PST}

Cornelius Hunter: "This is where the religion takes evolutionists. It may appear to be mere ignorance, but I hear this sort of thing from evolutionists who know better. This is not mere ignorance, and it is fascinating to see in evolution not only a selective examination of the data, but even false presentations of the data." It's interesting that a religious person should perceive selective examination of data, and false presentations of data as symptoms of religion. I'm sure that many critics of religion would happily agree!iconofid_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PST}

Echidna-Levy :
No, NDE is far far more scientific then ID.
So your basically saying "nya nya nya"? "I'm right and you're wrong"? Indeed.
If you want to make such a claim, support it with evidence or don’t be surprised when it’s laughed at. ... Now, make your belief true by supporting it with evidence.
Fine. You want to play the "smarter than you" games? No problem. Take genetic code for starters. It is real code, not analogous to code (Yockey). Code is a symbolic convention for communications. Code thus intrinsically implies intelligent origin. There is no such thing as coded information without intelligent origin. The genetic code contains highly algorithmic informational structure. It is prescriptive information. Prescriptive information cannot arise by any random process. It is functional information. Q: So how did this specific kind of information arise in DNA without intelligent input by random processes? A: Darwinism has no answer because it is impossible w/o intelligence and Darwinism, being based upon materialism and methodological naturalism has a prior excluded design and intelligence from possibility. Genetic information as complex, encoded and functional information cannot have arisen by the laws of either physics or chemistry.
Semantic (meaningful) information has two subsets: Descriptive and Prescriptive. Prescriptive Information (PI) instructs or directly produces nontrivial formal function (Abel, 2009a). Merely describing a computer chip does not prescribe or produce that chip. Thus mere description needs to be dichotomized from prescription. Computationally halting cybernetic programs and linguistic instructions are examples of Prescriptive Information. “Prescriptive Information (PI) either tells us what choices to make, or it is a recordation of wise choices already made.” (Abel, 2009a) Not even Descriptive semantic information is achievable by inanimate physicodynamics (Pattee, 1972, 1995, 2001). Measuring initial conditions in any experiment and plugging those measurements appropriately into equations (e.g., physical “laws”) is formal, not physical. Cybernetic programming choices and mathematical manipulations are also formal. ... No random number generator has ever been observed to generate a meaningful message or a non trivial computational program. ... Configurable switches can only be set by non physical formal choice contingency. This is why we call them “configurable.” Physics and chemistry cannot cause or explain their specific utilitarian settings ... DNA strings are formed through the selection of one of four nucleotides at each locus in a string. These programming choices at quaternary decision nodes in DNA sequences must be made prior to the existence of any selectable phenotypic fitness (The GS Principle, (Abel, 2009b). Natural selection cannot explain the programming of genetic PI that precedes and prescribes organismic existence. ... The formal term of PI [prescriptive information] was further developed in “More than metaphor: Genomes are objective sign systems (Abel and Trevors, 2006a, 2007) ... Important terms relating to PI include Choice Contingency, as opposed to mere Chance Contingency and law-like necessity (Abel and Trevors, 2006b, Abel, 2009c, Trevors and Abel, 2004). The Cybernetic Cut defines a seemingly infinitely deep ravine that divides mere physicodynamic constraints from formal controls (Abel, 2008a, b). The CS Bridge is the one-way bridge across The Cybernetic Cut made possible through instantiation of formal choices into physical configurable switch-settings (Abel, 2008a). No one has ever observed PI flow in reverse direction from inanimate physicodynamics to the formal side of the ravine—the land of bona fide formal pragmatic “control.” The GS Principle states that selection for potential function must occur at the molecular-genetic level of nucleotide selection and sequencing, prior to organismic existence (Abel, 2009b, d). Differential survival/reproduction of already-programmed living organisms (natural selection) is not sufficient to explain molecular evolution or life-origin (Abel, 2009b). Life must be organized into existence and managed by prescriptive information found in both genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms. The environment possesses no ability to program linear digital folding instructions into the primary structure of biosequences and biomessages. The environment also provides no ability to generate Hamming block codes (e.g. triplet codons that preclude noise pollution through a 3-to-1 symbol representation of each amino acid) (Abel and Trevors, 2006a, 2007). The environment cannot decode or translate from one arbitrary language into another. The codon table is arbitrary and physicodynamically indeterminate. No physicochemical connection exists between resortable nucleotides, groups of nucleotides, and the amino acid that each triplet codon represents. Although instantiated into a material symbol system, the prescriptive information of genetic and epigenetic control is fundamentally formal, not physical. Dr David L. Abel. Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Now add to this the fact of genetic entropy, which excludes the probability of NDE ever occurring in the first place since the tide of bad mutations (generally bugs in the code) far outnumber the rare good ones. According to Kimura, Kondroshov et al. most mutations are near neutral and not even visible to selection. But with any good mutation, there are necessarily many more bad or non zero ones. So selection will do what? It will select for the ones it "sees". The rare and trivial good will thus generally be wiped out with the vastly superior numbered bad. Indeed, if you look at Kimura's mutation/selection distribution charts you notice there he put nothing at all on the positive side of the Y axis. All mutations were graphed left of the neutral (Y). So mutations, which are generally deleterious, but which in NDE are the supposed raw material upon which selection acts and creates entirely new families, are entirely unfit for as the creative force in NDE theory! See J.C. Sanford, "Genetic Entropy" and Jerry Bergman on the same.
So, if it’s true that ID is far more scientific than NDE then we should see that in the literature, no?
As much as one would expect to see a peer approved spherical earth article in the sci literature of Galileo's day. So, if I were to search, say, google scholar for ID and NDE papers what do you suppose I would fine? Would the sheer volume of papers supporting Darwinism indicate that ID was more scientfic?
What has lead you to believe that ID is superior to Darwinism? Is it the lab work? Is it the peer reviewed papers? Is the the physical evidence?
All of the above plus good old fashion common sense reasoning [something you seemingly know little of]. Also based on the intuitive design inference - recognized by both Dawkins and Crick - though denied a priori, based on metaphysical beliefs alone, by both. "Designoids" would never have been postulated were not the inference so naturally strong. Take Cricks rather hypocritical and entirely metaphysical prejudice based statement,
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
One legitimately asks, "Why?". Obviously atheist Crick sought to 'help' biologists resist their innate, observation based, design inference in favor of their Darwinian fundamentalist academic training. How lame for such a smart fellow! Then again, one might reference the fact of irreducible complexity. The now infamous example of the E. coli flagellum is made of about 42 parts. It has to be assembled in the correct order to function. Out of order = doesn't work. So the probability of getting the exact combination is about 1/10^50 (~1/42!). I'm being optimistic for you here! Now, add to this the fact that in NDE, no intelligence is allowed, no guidance is allowed and no purpose or goal is allowed. So there are in fact NO trials being attempted! Nature, not even trying to make a simple rotary engine, would never even get close. It has as much chance of creating the correct order assembly of that flagellum as you would shooting an arrow into the sky and hoping to hit the Mars. And this before we even introduce the fact that the genome has somehow produced the necessary parts! The parts, in this factory, just happen to lying around waiting for some informational sequence to describe the assembly! Probabilities, being multiplicative, are so strongly against NDE having made even just a flagellum - let alone millions of distinct fully formed well adapted living organisms - that you are an idiot if you "hedge your bets" on the NDE side. I could go on and on enumerating the many evidences supporting ID - even in the NDE based literature - as this site often does. So you may go on laughing at yourself and arguing against reason and logic all you please.Borne_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PST}

Corneluis
yes, evolution is complete; OOL is part of evolution
This despite Darwin explicitly saying that the origin of life was not something he was attempting to explain.
see the final section here
That seems to be a link to your own site. Got anything that's been fact checked by a 3rd party? Or reviewed by a panel of subject matter experts? No? Then why should your ramblings be given any more credence then Timecube?
Evolution provides a theory of everything whereas ID is limited.
Very limited.
This quickly gets to the question of which limit one prefers for science (method, realism or completeness)
How about "useful", something that ID has not yet been.
or if you’re a typical evolutionist just assume there are no limits, thank you, and turn that apparent constraint into an apologetic for naturalism
Whatever.Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PST}

Alex73 (28): I agree with Alex that an often overlooked aspect of ID is that unlike evolution, it is not complete. (yes, evolution is complete; OOL is part of evolution -- see the final section here; and furthermore, evolutionary thought does not limit itself to biology). Evolution provides a theory of everything whereas ID is limited. This quickly gets to the question of which limit one prefers for science (method, realism or completeness), or if you're a typical evolutionist just assume there are no limits, thank you, and turn that apparent constraint into an apologetic for naturalism.Cornelius Hunter_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PST}

Corneluis
This is where the religion takes evolutionists. It may appear to be mere ignorance, but I hear this sort of thing from evolutionists who know better.
Yet you cannot bring yourself to say a single specific thing about the fact that the morphological and molecular trees match perfectly, with 38 decimal places of precision. If anybody has a religous view on the data it's you. "It's not true and I simply don't believe it. I cannot say why I don't believe if but you'll just have to believe I've got a really really good reason to doubt the data. I can't say what it is, but trust me".
This is not mere ignorance, and it is fascinating to see in evolution not only a selective examination of the data, but even false presentations of the data.
Then would it be too much trouble for you to say what specific problems there are? Give an example of "selective examination of the data" and "false presentations of the data". These are serious charges. If you want them to be taken seriously then back up your statements with some evidence. Why don't you share your reasoning with us? Do you really think you are going to advance your argument with "it's wrong" and nothing else? Science is not done in the playground. It's not "he said, she said". If you have a argument to make, such as falsified data, then make it. It seems that all you are doing is attempting to poison the well with your accusations of dishonestly. Why don't you spell out one of those accusations? I believe it's because you cannot. Accusations are all you have.Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PST}

Folks:
Yet when you look at the actual data, the morphological and molecular trees match perfectly, with 38 decimal places of precision. [57]
This is where the religion takes evolutionists. It may appear to be mere ignorance, but I hear this sort of thing from evolutionists who know better. This is not mere ignorance, and it is fascinating to see in evolution not only a selective examination of the data, but even false presentations of the data.Cornelius Hunter_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PST}

Bourne
So no I would not make a prediction - based on the historical record of the scientific community’s inability to receive new and better ideas (rather to persecute and witch hunt their supporters) and reject old bad ones.
And yet here we sit with our computers, moon rockets, GPS navigation systems, new anti-cancer drugs, Tamiflu, heart transplants etc. Yes indeed, the scientific community sure is resistant to new ideas! I think it's clear to all that the scientific community is more then willing to embrace new ideas but with the provision that they are better then the old ideas they claim to replace. Logically therefore it would be reasonable to assume that ID has not reached that point. Or is it a conspiracy? A global, worldwide conspiracy that includes all scientists around the world, in all countries in all faiths, in all goverment types (secular and theistic) that's stopping ID replacing Darwinism? Q: Was "flat earth theory" replaced by a theory that explained more or less of the data that flat earth theory "explained"? Q: Was "flat earth theory" better then A) No theory at all? B) Saying that "god did it"?Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PST}

Bourne,
ID is far more scientific than NDE.
No, NDE is far far more scientific then ID. You see what the problem with that level of argumentation is? It did not work in the school yard and it does not work in grown up life either. If you want to make such a claim, support it with evidence or don't be surprised when it's laughed at.
One can believe whatever one wishes, but that doesn’t make it true.
That's something we can agree on. Now, make your belief true by supporting it with evidence. So, if it's true that ID is far more scientific than NDE then we should see that in the literature, no? So, if I were to search, say, google scholar for ID and NDE papers what do you suppose I would fine? Would the sheer volume of papers supporting Darwinism indicate that ID was more scientfic? Would the paucity of peer reviewed papers supporting ID prove that ID was more scientific? What has lead you to believe that ID is superior to Darwinism? Is it the lab work? Is it the peer reviewed papers? Is the the physical evidence? Is it the vague, never repeated but oft quoted calculation of CSI? What leads you to that conclusion, specifically?Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PST}

Oops. I see that Echidna-Levy beat me to it.mereologist_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PST}

Joseph, did you even read beyond the misleading title of that editorial? You can't be too happy about this:
From these facts Darwin correctly inferred that life "descended with modification" from common ancestors. Overwhelming evidence for this fact (and none against) comes from, e.g., animal behavior, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, ecology, genetics, geochronology, microbiology, physiology, paleobotany, sedimentary geology, virology and zoology, amplifying Darwin's insight. More than 30 million kinds of life, placed unambiguously into five huge groups—bacteria, protoctists (including 50 phyla of ciliates, diatoms, red and brown seaweeds, slime molds, water molds), fungi, animals and plants—evolved during the past 3,500 million years from our small common ancestors: bacteria. Study of long-chain molecules such as chitin, DNA, lignin, protein, yields spectacular evidence for the shared ancestry of all living matter.
Oops. Margulis doesn't deny common ancestry in the slightest. She just thinks that symbiosis is the chief source of genetic variation (an idea that is accepted by very few other biologists) and that the tree of life is therefore really more of a web. The rest of the biological community continues to accept the standard phylogenetic tree. After all, it's been confirmed, via independent data sets, to an accuracy of more than 38 decimal places.mereologist_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PST}

Echidna-Levy :
Care to make a prediction as to when Darwinism will be replaced, as if it’s already almost dead it can’t be long?
A lot of dead duck theories linger for decades and sometimes centuries before they actually croak. Flat earth? Q: When was flat earth a dead duck theory? A: From its beginning. How long did it take before it finally died? Do the math. So no I would not make a prediction - based on the historical record of the scientific community's inability to receive new and better ideas (rather to persecute and witch hunt their supporters) and reject old bad ones. In the words of the late M. Chrichton,
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had....the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of

And what will it be replaced with?
Some form of ID if we're smart, more materialist hogwash if things go as usual. Possibly a modified panspermia. Even Dawkins supports that. That would still be better than the saliently bogus codswallop of Neo Darwinism.Borne_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PST}

Joseph The article you link to says
From these facts Darwin correctly inferred that life "descended with modification" from common ancestors. Overwhelming evidence for this fact (and none against) comes from, e.g., animal behavior, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, ecology, genetics, geochronology, microbiology, physiology, paleobotany, sedimentary geology, virology and zoology, amplifying Darwin's insight. More than 30 million kinds of life, placed unambiguously into five huge groups—bacteria, protoctists (including 50 phyla of ciliates, diatoms, red and brown seaweeds, slime molds, water molds), fungi, animals and plants—evolved during the past 3,500 million years from our small common ancestors: bacteria. Study of long-chain molecules such as chitin, DNA, lignin, protein, yields spectacular evidence for the shared ancestry of all living matter. Watery cell metabolism (chemical transformation by salt balance, synthesis of proteins and other metabolites always bounded by cell membranes) is incessant whether in aardvark or zoogloea.
Do you agree with that? If so, then it's just the details left to sort out. If not, how can you use it as "evidence" for "There isn’t any standard phylogenetic tree"? And in any case do you have a specific issue with the current phylogenetic tree? Or is your argument simply "here is a link, there isn’t any standard phylogenetic tree"? The article says "Darwin was right". You link to the article as evidence for your position. Therefore you agree with the article. Therefore Joseph says "Darwin was right".Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PST}

Nnoel:
Well you see I was talking about SCIENTIFIC theories, otherwise you missed the Flying Spagethhi Monster, oh and the Beginningless Beginnings of eastern philosophy. These are all well and good but they are not science.
ID is far more scientific than NDE. Panspermia is also more scientific than NDE. Given that both Crick and Hoyle supported it I'd conclude they were very poor scientists by your logic. The FSM et al. are things you should agree with given your next comment:
Excuse ME! but I do believe that excatly! ‘itself intelligent’ is the words I’d use, ... I _believe_ that we are as if all organs in one body, the insects play a role (just like your liver does) and humans play a role (perhaps like your brain does), ...I believe we are all one, and the WHOLE is directing itself.
Thats a lot of spurious and unfounded, unscientific and irrational beliefs in such short space. The only important thing is, "Is it true?" If not your belief is vain. One can believe whatever one wishes, but that doesn't make it true. And one may disbelieve anything but that will never make something true, untrue.Borne_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PST}

Apologies herb... But hey I see them and I hit themJoseph_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST}

mereologist, There isn't any standard phylogenetic tree. Theobald is wrong. Talk Origins is not a good source for information. The Phylogenetic Tree TopplesJoseph_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PST}

Joseph,
Clive Hayden, My apologies it was a typo- I meant “chimps” seeing that they so want to be related and such. ;)
LOL---you owe me a new keyboard!herb_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PST}

CannuckianYankee:
Dawkins anthropomorphises genes as in “selfish.” Why wouldn’t that imply some sort of intelligence?
That is a colossal misunderstanding of the concept of the selfish gene. Here is part of what Dawkins wrote when Mary Midgley made a similar error:
When biologists talk about 'selfishness' or 'altruism' we are emphatically not talking about emotional nature, whether of human beings, other animals, or genes. We do not even mean the words in a metaphorical sense. We define altruism and selfishness in purely behavioristic ways: 'An entity...is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behaviour has exactly the opposite effect. "Welfare" is defined as "chances of survival", even if the effect on actual life and death prospects is...small... It is important to realize that the above definitions of altruism and selfishness are behavioural, not subjective. I am not concerned here with the psychology of motives...that is not what this book is about. My definition is concerned only with whether the effect of an act is to lower or raise the survival prospects of the presumed altruist and the presumed beneficiary' (The Selfish Gene, pp. 4-5). ...In effect I am saying: 'Provided I define selfishness in a particular way an oak tree, or a gene, may legitimately be described as selfish'. Now a philosopher could reasonably say: 'I don't like your definition, but given that you adopt it I can see what you mean when you call a gene selfish'. But no reasonable philosopher would say: 'I don't like your definition, therefore I shall interpret your statement as though you were using my definition of selfishness; by my definition your concept of the selfish gene is nonsense, therefore it is nonsense'. This, in effect, is what Midgley has done: 'Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological'. Why didn't she add to this witty little list, for the benefit of quantum physicists, that fundamental particles cannot have charm? If I spoke of a 'selfish elephant' I would have to be very careful to state, over and over again, whether I meant the word in its subjective or its behaviouristic sense. This is because a good case might be made that elephants subjectively experience emotions akin to our own selfishness. No sensible case can be made that genes do, and I therefore might have thought myself safe from misunderstanding. To make doubly sure, I still went to the trouble of emphasizing that my definition was behaviouristic. The many laymen who have read my book seem to have had little trouble in grasping this simple matter of definition.
mereologist_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PST}

Clive Hayden, My apologies it was a typo- I meant "chimps" seeing that they so want to be related and such. ;)Joseph_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PST}

Cornelius, you claim that the religious argument is rampant in evolutionary thought today. Yet, you fail to back that assertion up. Your Darwin quote above doesn't support it. Sober didn't do it. And, honestly, who cares what Daniel Bernoulli, Immanuel Kant and Pierre Laplace said. When are you going to start backing your claims up?Hoki_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PST}

CannuckianYankee:
Dawkins anthropomorphises genes as in “selfish.” Why wouldn’t that imply some sort of intelligence? Why would Darwinists avoid intelligence at all costs then, if they require intelligence to make that assumption? That seems more illogical to me. Or are genes merely “superficially” intelligent - or “selfish,” for that matter?
All Dawings means is that he thinks that selection works on genes, not organisms. Why do some ID supporters have to intelligencize everything?Hoki_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply