Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Prof claims to know how to slam dunk creationists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Paul Braterman at The Conversation, we learn stuff like:

Evolution, Pence argues, is a theory, theories are uncertain, therefore evolution is uncertain. But evolution is a theory only in the scientific sense of the word. And in the words of the National Academy of Sciences, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Attaching this label to evolution is an indicator of strength, not weakness.

Actually, string theory and multiverse theories are elaborate theories too; there is just no evidence for them. It simply isn’t the case, as Braterman claims, that the word “theory” in science means that the evidence base is vast or strong or even that it exists.  And

Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances.

Has this guy never heard of convergent evolution?  Lots of people have.

And how about this:

Artificial selection, just as much as natural selection, is evolution in action. More.

Yes, that’s called design. And so?

The late Will Provine (1942–2015) used to note that creationist students tend to know more about evolution than their “just shoot the shot, pass, and forget it” peers (By Design or by Chance, p. 141). Seminars at churches are more informative than hanging out at pot shops and malls.

Note: Provine was also absolutely clear that teaching modern Darwinism meant teaching nihilism but he never fibbed about that:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy April 30 1994

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

One concern is that if Darwinians cannot reach their social control goals peaceably, they will resort to other methods.

See also: Teaching evolution to creationist students: Why would anyone who was embarking on teaching evolution as a serious project in good faith try to involve a virulently anti-religious figure like Dawkins in the argument?

Tales of the Tone Deaf, featuring dim profs writing in dozy journals about why people doubt Science and how to fix them.

and

Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

Comments
LoL! That was quite a rant and you didn’t even address what I said. How much junk is in efficient computer programs?
How much junk is, or can be in an efficient computer program? Again, as I pointed out, there is junk in efficient code, even when we have automated systems to try and detect and remove it. Some compliers strip out junk code via optimizations. More advanced processes look through the resulting binaries to strip out unused functions, where its possible to detect it. This is optional and comes about when developers release new binary builds of applications as an ongoing process. Designers actually show up and do it when releasing a new build. IOW, a program can be efficient with junk binary data that simply never get's executed. Furthermore, if the source is lost, entire frameworks can be shipped with a binary that are virtually unused with the exception of a few functions. Most of it is "junk" that is present because we don't have the resources to rewrite it or cannot simply recompile it from source. Core libraries could even contain code for multiple architectures that are no longer in use, such as DEC Alpha on Window's NT. Even I don't always remember what code I wrote a few years ago did or if it's safe to change it, let alone code that other people wrote decades ago. So, unless it get's completely rewritten, unused variables or routines often reman in place because it would cause a complier error if removed, could cause a a crash or behavior change, etc. As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So, it's unclear how this doesn't "address what you said" Again, are you suggesting that some designer is going around stripping dead code from the genomes of newly built organisms? Where is the designer now?critical rationalist
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
CR --First, computer programs are not all that efficient.-- Efficiency is never an absolute measurement. A wheelbarrow is "efficient" when compared to carrying items to market on your back, OTOH, it is inefficient when carrying items to market in a truck.tribune7
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
CR "First, computer programs are not all that efficient." Another quote in response: "Quite often critics of Intelligent Design have never designed anything themselves." Marks, Dembski, Ewert "Introduction to evolutionary programming". This quote says it all. If your statement were true, programmers would never earn a buck. You are obviously being too selective in your criticism. The issue here is not that programs could be improved but that they are invariably miles better than junk. And you know that. Second, optimization in practice is rarely what you would expect as a layman user because time, robustness, return on investment and many other things are part of the problem. Pareto-optimality generally allows more than one optima to exist. Choosing between them is done based on thorough knowledge of the problem domain. Naive criticisms about suboptimality in biology often stem from failure to appreciate the difficulty of the entire problem.EugeneS
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
LoL! That was quite a rant and you didn't even address what I said. How much junk is in efficient computer programs? Saying something was the result of intentional design explains quite a bit. First off it eliminates other classes of explanation. Then it adds an intentional agency and purpose, at the very least. Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality?ET
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
@ET,
How much junk do you see in efficient computer programs?
First, computer programs are not all that efficient. This is because people have to breakdown the problem in a way that can actually be compiled to run on existing hardware and dividing a problem into smaller tasks for optimum efficiency on multiple threads is very difficult. So, no. Even given the hardware we have today, computer programs are not nearly as efficient as they could be. Furthermore, the most efficient computer programs we have today are constantly being redesigned, updated and maintained by designers and we use software build systems strip out unused code with every release. Are you suggesting the designers of the biosphere are constantly redesigning, updating and releasing new builds of life, to strip away dead code? Is there a “dead code” stripping program in the genome that is constantly running that performs this task? If so, where is it in the genome? Why is it doing such a lousy job with, say, the broken vitamin c production genes in human beings? Even with constant maintenance, many relavitly recent computers and smart phones are running outdated and insecure software. Android alone has layers of forward compatibility libraries because most devices never actually get updated to the latest version of the OS. So entire sets of APIs are simply hanging around doing nothing because handset manufactures and carriers cannot affford to update the cheep devices they sell. And don’t get me started on Microsoft’s Win32, which is very out dated foundation for an OS. Things have improved, but the amount of bandaids that have been installed on top of Win32 to handle something as fundamental as the internet are staggering. Not to mention that there is code in Windows that people simply don’t know what it does and they don’t care because it all works or is required because can’t be removed without possiblly breaking something. Again, there are tools designed to remove dead code, but it’s an ongoing processs, not a one time event. However, if software and hardware developers didn’t have limitations, such as customers with existing installations, limited engineering resources, production budgets, shareholders, etc. All software could be ported to every new OS release. Entirely new operating systems could be written for each customer, along with entirely custom solutions. And all of their data could be migrated every time, regardless of how complex. There would be no need for backwards compatablity, etc. The entire backwards compatablity we see in the biosphere would be necessary. Heck, even human designers will eventually be able to build better solutions than those found in nature that need not share the sort of resources we observe in our biosphere. ID doesn’t explain any of these things. That’s because it doesn’t add to the explantion. A designer who designs by merely “choosing” different outcomes could “choose” any percentage of function, just as it could choose any percentage of material to supppsedly non-material. We could have empty skulls with eyes that attach to tiny globs of grey matter that connect to 99% non-material brains, or any other ratio. It’s arbitrary once you open the door to the idea that, supposedly, some things can exist with intelligence, yet still be completely immaterial. “That’s just what a designer must have wanted” explains nothing. Again, if the evidence for ID is merely the trillions of designers we have experienced designing things, it’s unclear why it should predict so much functionality. It just doesn’t add up.critical rationalist
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Umm leaving junk in the wake is very different from leaving junk inside of it. There are diseases and deformities that are "junk in the wake" of biological ID. How much junk do you see in efficient computer programs?ET
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Biological ID doesn’t require a supernatural being, CR.
Then why the supposed prediction of so much functional DNA? Again, the actions of human designers often result in mere orimentation and unexpected / unintended consiquences, which include waste product, transient states, incremental advances that leave “junk” in it’s wake, etc. So, why should ID’s designer be any different? Why all those predictions of functionality when we have trillions of observations of human designers producing unintended, unnecessary and unexpected results with no function? After all, every designer we have observed exhibits this. It’s unclear why you would consider one series of experiences valid inferences, yet not another, unless you were making some additional assumptions not present in ID. Furthermore, it would seem one could just as effectively “explain” both vast amounts of non-functional DNA and 95% functional DNA by saying “that’s just what the designer must have wanted”. Are you suggesting some designer couldn’t have ended up with, or even wanted life to evolve though a process that leaves a significant amount of “junk” DNA? You’d have to know more about the designer to rule this out and biological ID supposedly says nothing about the designer. So, if not a supernatural designer, then why the prediction of so much functionality, as indicated above? What par of the alternative that ID, the supposed scientific theory, leads to those predictions?critical rationalist
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
So, If human designers are the supposed model for ID, it’s unclear why ID predicts any particular level of DNA being non-“junk” as vast amounts of DNA could have no function.
True but you would still have to explain the histone octamer spools and the packaging of the DNA. Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality?ET
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
EricMH:
Oh, well if you are defining evolution as devolution, then yes, I’m sure that sort of thing shows up in the fossil record.
Here's your original statement:
I’ve always wondered what the evidence for evolution is. I’ve never found out.
My orignal response:
It depends on how you define evolution. For some definitions of evolution, there most certainly does exist “evidence for evolution.”
Your comeback:
...for pretty much any definition of evolution, I’ve had much difficulty finding the evidence.
It's no that there is no evidence for evolution. It's that you need to spend some effort deciding which definition of evolution the evidence that does exist is relevant to. This is one reason I find it so difficult to to side with young earth creationists. They take these extreme positions that do nothing but propagate the stereotype of the IDiot. If you think you are being helpful to ID, you aren't. I've given you a link to a book. I hope you'll read it. You and Andrew both.Mung
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
No one ever said that rvb8 is THE ONLY troll here.Mung
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Biological ID doesn't require a supernatural being, CR. You already know this. Anyway, nice job.Upright BiPed
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
ENCODE is evidence ID predictions are solidly on right track versus failure of neo-Darwinism’s blind, non-scientific and ignorant claims at the time that 98% of DNA was “JUNK.”
Except human designers make things that are purely ornamental. And our actions result in unintended side effects, generate waste products, etc. So, If human designers are the supposed model for ID, it's unclear why ID predicts any particular level of DNA being non-"junk" as vast amounts of DNA could have no function. Oh, that's right. Everyone knows ID's designer is God and his actions do not result in unexpected side effects. etc. IOW, any such prediction isn't the result of supposedly scientific theory of ID. It's based on the belief that some supernatural being is the designer. "That's just what a designer must have wanted", could explain absolutely anything, which explains nothing.critical rationalist
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Oh, well if you are defining evolution as devolution, then yes, I'm sure that sort of thing shows up in the fossil record. We could start with primordial super species which "splinter" into less functional sub species. Then, if the super species disappears, it looks like we have a bunch of distinct species. Such as if we kept chihuahuas and great danes, and eliminate all other kinds of dogs, it'd look like we have two new species that cannot interbreed. Such a theory would explain the 'explosions' in the fossil record like the Cambrian explosion. They are literally explosions of the super species into inferior species. This actually makes a whole lot of sense, thanks!EricMH
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
The Scientific Approach to Evolution: What They Didn't Teach You in Biology See also: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2017/08/rob-stadler-and-nabt.html But this is dangerous reading. Perhaps there actually is evidence for evolution.Mung
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
@33 One could define species so that a species can devolve into another. But again, that's not super interesting, because we're trying to come up with an explanation for the fossil record, where increase in new functionality occurs over time. I can call anything I want evolution, but there are only a few concepts going by that name that are notable, and there is no evidence these concepts are true, despite existing since at least Plato's day. That's a couple millenia to come up with something substantial, which should be more than enough time.EricMH
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Mung
bill, you ought to know by now that there is no evolution, only devolution. There is no gain of function, only loss of function. But loss of function isn’t evolution, you see. Only gain of function is evolution. You simply can’t make this stuff up.
I agree. Random change is going to move a functioning sequence away from function. This is because DNA is a sequence and there are many more ways it does not function the it does. Sometimes it can cause an adaption through serendipity (as in the Lensky case) but in every case I have seen it is through loss of function. Eric is right that a new protein was not created but a new function was enabled. The function of consuming citrate in an aerobic environment. BTW I know you are totally aware of this and I am enjoying watching you work the probability game at TSZ. :-) BTW I took 6 classes in statistics at UC Berkeley in the late 70's. Its fun to watch Keiths make an ass out of himself.bill cole
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
EricMH:
As far as I know, all “evidence” of evolution is either breakdown of functionality (devolution) or switching on of existing functionality. I am interested in any hard evidence of evolution proper: the creation of new functionality.
I predicted a shifting goalpost and here it is. So now you have yet another definition of evolution, maybe two. From your post: 2. One species can be turned into another through small incremental changes to DNA. Why can't that happen by "devolution"?Mung
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
@30 if you want to call it that, it's a negative conclusion. It is worthwhile to see if our current explanations have evidential backing and hard theoretical coherence, even if we do not have a coherent alternative. Better no explanation than a false one. As far as I know, all "evidence" of evolution is either breakdown of functionality (devolution) or switching on of existing functionality. I am interested in any hard evidence of evolution proper: the creation of new functionality.EricMH
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
bill, you ought to know by now that there is no evolution, only devolution. There is no gain of function, only loss of function. But loss of function isn't evolution, you see. Only gain of function is evolution. You simply can't make this stuff up.Mung
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Andrew:
Mung, this is poor argumentation. It’s not up to EricMH to have a conclusion about where species came from.
He already has a conclusion about where species come from. They don't come about by evolution. You understand, don't you, that young earth creationists accept speciation as a fact?Mung
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
@28 Your example is not generation of new functionality, it is turning on new functionality. Evidence of #1 would be random variation and selection creating the transporter protein.EricMH
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Eric MH
1. Random variation and selection creates new functionality.
There is evidence that bacteria can obtain new function from random variation. The Lenski experiment is an example where citrate consumption in an oxygen condition was enabled by a few mutations over many years. The enzyme for consuming citrate already existed but the transporter protein for the enzyme was normally in the off condition. A few mutations allowed expression of the transporter enzyme in an oxygen environment and enabled the adoption. Number 2 is where the evolutionists are stuck. They try to claim evidence for 1 can be extrapolated to 2. There has not even been an established mutation rate that can support 2.bill cole
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
The two specific claims of evolution that are of interest are these: 1. Random variation and selection creates new functionality. 2. One species can be turned into another through small incremental changes to DNA. These are the only claims of interest. Change over time and change in allele frequency are only necessary conditions of these claims, and by themselves are neither sufficient for #1 and #2, nor controversial. Is there any hard evidence for #1 and #2? All I've ever seen is groundless extrapolation from observation of minor change and mathematically baseless theorizing.EricMH
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
And 'Change over time' is a descriptive generalization, not a scientific hypothesis. Andrewasauber
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Where do you think modern day species came from?
Mung, this is poor argumentation. It's not up to EricMH to have a conclusion about where species came from. It's up to the person making the original claim to provide the evidence for it.
Even young earth creationists accept speciation
This is even worse. So and so or Group X accepting something doesn't demonstrate anything scientifically. Andrewasauber
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
EricMH:
Yes, I’ll move the goalposts to where the definition of evolution matters. I’ve got no problem with that. I want to find compelling evidence that A) variation and selection can create new functionality and/or B) one species is descended from another.
Where do you think modern day species came from? Was each one specially created? Were they all carried on the ark with Noah and his family? Even young earth creationists accept speciation, except when they are denying it ever occurs.Mung
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
EricMH: Look, I can define evolution as ‘change’. Yes, you can. And even you admit that there is evidence for change over time. You: I’ve always wondered what the evidence for evolution is. I’ve never found out. Me: It depends on how you define evolution. For some definitions of evolution, there most certainly does exist “evidence for evolution.” So you would agree that I was correct? If you want to say which definition of evolution you have never seen evidence for perhaps we could address that.Mung
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
EricMH- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution YOU said: for pretty much any definition of evolution, I’ve had much difficulty finding the evidence. And now you are changing that. But OK, meet the mosquitos of the London underground- a new species descended from an existing species.ET
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Look, I can define evolution as 'change'. Everything changes, so everything evolves. Hurrah, I've proven evolution is true beyond a shadow of a doubt! In your face ID :PEricMH
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Yes, I'll move the goalposts to where the definition of evolution matters. I've got no problem with that. I want to find compelling evidence that A) variation and selection can create new functionality and/or B) one species is descended from another. There is no compelling evidence for either position as far as I can tell, and these are the only definitions of evolution that are of interest. If you want to play the definition game, and go for a trivially true definition of evolution, then your evidence is uninteresting to me, but you can win whatever rhetorical game you're playing if that makes you happy.EricMH
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply