Scientific Frustration

_{Gil Dodgen

June 8, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

Something that continues to frustrate me is that Darwinists would like people to believe that their “science” is in the same category as mine and that of my colleagues who are working on the development of hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators. We must get stuff right. There is accountability.

If the thing burns up, is aerodynamically or structurally deficient, and falls apart and goes down in flames, we are proven to be wrong and incompetent.

There is no such standard for Darwinists. They just make up stories and call it science. When their theories/stories go down in flames (e.g., junk DNA) they just proclaim victory, that Darwinian theory is still incontrovertible and fully intact, and walk away.

It would be as though the scientists and engineers who designed and built the hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators, after they crashed and burned, proclaimed that the project was actually a success, and that their theories predicted this outcome from the start.

If our team did such a thing, and made such a claim, we would be laughed out of the science and engineering community and never be awarded another penny of funding from anyone for anything.

Yet, Darwinists do exactly what I have described, and are not only never held to account, but are awarded endless funding to make up stories that have nothing to do with legitimate science.

This is a travesty.

Comments

KF, I don't think I was trying to change the subject. I've always been clear about what model I think is the best explanation. And I think the evidence we have means we can extrapolate to the point where it's fair to assume that a step-by-step path along functional pathways can get us from a unicellular organism to all of life. You disagree for reasons we've already discussed at great length. I do tend to shy away from OoL discussions 'cause, to be honest, I really don't understand the issues surrounding the modern biological hypotheses like the RNA world. I mean the chemistry is beyond me. But as I consider that a separate issue from evolution I think that's fair.Jerad_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PST}

UB: It is actually worse, as the OOL case shifts the weight of credible explanation decisively. There is no credible explanation for language, algorithms, codes, nanomachines organised to carry out algorithms based on codes, and all set up as a von Neumann self replicator, than intelligence acting through directed purposeful contingency, i.e. design. Such, then sets a basis for seeing that adaptations of the scope required to move through the range of body plans, also implicates design. Of course this s consistent with the actual evidence of islands of function at body plan level. And of course stuff about dog or cabbage/mustard family varieties is utterly irrelevant to the actual issue on the table: how to get from a unicellular organism to a cabbage or a dog/wolf. But it is always ever so easy to change the subject and rule off areas where one will not go. KFkairosfocus_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PST}

OoL stuff . . . I tend to stay away from.
Yes, lots of people say the same - particularly given that the material evidence is almost intractibly against a purely material origin. On the basis of "who knows" they allow themselves to ignore what is already known, and consequently they feel free to assume their conclusion about the rest.Upright BiPed_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PST}

Oh, by the way, about the fine tuning argument (from Wikipedia):
Computer simulations suggest that not all of the purportedly "fine-tuned" parameters may be as fine-tuned as has been claimed. Victor Stenger has simulated different universes in which four fundamental parameters are varied. He found that long-lived stars could exist over a wide parameter range, and concluded that "... a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes". Fred Adams has done a similar study to Stenger, investigating the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant ?, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist. Harnik, Kribs and Perez have argued for the viability of a universe with no weak interaction at all. However, they noted that their analysis does not extend to the supposed fine tuning of the cosmological constant, and concluded that "the fine-tuning problems associated with the electroweak breaking scale and the cosmological constant appear to be qualitatively different from the perspective of obtaining a habitable universe."
IF the universe is even tuneable. We don't know if the fundamental constants can vary. Suggesting they can vary is pure speculation, there's no empirical evidence.Jerad_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PST}

UBP,
Knowing the mutations in genetic information required to lead from one variety of mustard plant to another does not explain how the arbitrary relationships required to record genetic information came to be established in the first place. The second question is far more instructive than the first, IMO.
True, and I'm not saying it does address that point. But it would be a good thing to check to see how a step-by-step functional path of mutations can create morphological changes. Quite dramatic ones for the brassicas in fact. OoL stuff . . . I tend to stay away from. I don't think panspermia is really a viable option owing to the huge distances and conditions involved but it is possible. And if true that would give life a huge first step onto the ladder. But that's not a hypothesis you can falsify, more science fiction really. You might be able to prove something like the RNA-world is possible but that doesn't mean life got started that way. I'm afraid it's always going to be something of a mystery.Jerad_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PST}

Jerad, Knowing the mutations in genetic information required to lead from one variety of mustard plant to another does not explain how the arbitrary relationships required to record genetic information came to be established in the first place. The second question is far more instructive than the first, IMO.Upright BiPed_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PST}

UBP,
Observing the change in DNA sequences “over the past 2000 years” does nothing to explain the rise of recorded information. Its often no more than a pacifier that helps to perpetuate ignorance.
I was just talking about the observable morphological changes but you do bring up a good point: it might be possible to get some old dog and plant DNA from the last 2000 years . .. . hmmmm . . . If you were able to examine the brassica DNA over the development of the markedly different varieties then you would be able to see which mutations created the substantial morphological changes that have occurred. In fact, you could probably do the same by looking at the genomes of the modern varieties. Interesting . . . makes me wish I was a geneticist. Very interesting . . .Jerad_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PST}

KF,
The stuff about the divine in science is a side-track. If we broaden focus to what was called natural philosophy, we cna see that the matters can be informed by scientific concerns but are phil issues. Cf Newton’s General Scholium.
I'll take your word for it; I'm no philosopher.
But, what is most definitely scientific is the empirically tested, reliable signs of intelligence.
I'm still a bit uhhhhhhhhh about that.Jerad_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PST}

Observing the change in DNA sequences "over the past 2000 years" does nothing to explain the rise of recorded information. Its often no more than a pacifier that helps to perpetuate ignorance.Upright BiPed_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PST}

J: That crisis is hotter than ever but I can pause a minute. The stuff about the divine in science is a side-track. If we broaden focus to what was called natural philosophy, we cna see that the matters can be informed by scientific concerns but are phil issues. Cf Newton's General Scholium. But, what is most definitely scientific is the empirically tested, reliable signs of intelligence. And that is what we find all overt he world of life and in the fine tuned cosmos that facilitates such life. G'day KFkairosfocus_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PST}

Joe, I guess you're not going to attempt to tell me how you can account for the divine in science. Pity, I was looking forward to hearing your views on that. And I was hoping to hear some specifics about ID other than that there was a designer, sometime, somewhere, somehow. I'm not asking for a commitment from the whole ID community, just your view about how and when it might have happened.
LoL! No new multi-protein machinery. With dogs, no new body plans. IOW if we use that to extrapolate baraminology looks great!
What about the brassicas then?
Modifications tat occur in a lab cannot be extrapolated for universal common descent.
Why? What difference does it make where the modifications are observed?Jerad_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PST}

Jerad:
Well, we can see in the last 2000 years what selective breeding has done to dogs and brassicas.
LoL! No new multi-protein machinery. With dogs, no new body plans. IOW if we use that to extrapolate baraminology looks great! Modifications tat occur in a lab cannot be extrapolated for universal common descent.Joe_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PST}

Convergent Evolution reminds me of Fools Gold, sure looks pretty, but worthless to speculate on as the real thing.DATCG_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PST}

Joe,
Science has to deal with reality. And if the reality is we are here by divine intervention then science has to deal with that.
I suppose but I just don't see how it can. You can't make the divine perform on command in a lab. In which case the divine inference would be in the same position you say evolution is: no evidence. But what does Intelligent Design really mean? That there was front loading of information? That the designer intervenes every so often? That the designer intervenes by tweaking the mutations in a certain direction? I'm trying to figure out what people are saying when they invoke ID.
And we can only extrapolate from current processes. And wrt biology/ evolution there aren’t any current processes we can extrapolate from to get universal common descent unless the first populations had all the information required.
Well, we can see in the last 2000 years what selective breeding has done to dogs and brassicas. So we extrapolate from that. And there are other examples of modifications that have arisen in labs or observed in 'the wild'. How is that different from the theory of plate tectonics?Jerad_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PST}

Jerad:
But how would you limit, define and test something that is supernatural or divine? How can science deal with something divine?
Science has to deal with reality. And if the reality is we are here by divine intervention then science has to deal with that.
But without the evidence beyond the inferred designed object, and considering the objections many scientists have regarding the design inference how do you really know there was a designer?
There are many designed objects tat encompass several scientific fields. And if those who object to the design inference could just step up and support their position ID would fall-> Newton's four rules of scientific investigation takes care of that.
So, you’re not going to tell me your proposed model that explains the evidence?
Intelligent Design.
No one saw the continents drift apart or the magnetic poles of the earth swap either.
And we can only extrapolate from current processes. And wrt biology/ evolution there aren't any current processes we can extrapolate from to get universal common descent unless the first populations had all the information required.Joe_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PST}

Joe,
1- ID does not require the divine/ supernatural 2- Science only cares about REALITY, regardless of what that is and even if it includes the divine/ supernatural.
But how would you limit, define and test something that is supernatural or divine? How can science deal with something divine?
What you think is irrelevant. Ya see the ONLY way to make any possible scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
But without the evidence beyond the inferred designed object, and considering the objections many scientists have regarding the design inference how do you really know there was a designer?
You don’t even know if your model encompasses the evidence. Just because you think it does that does not make it so.
So, you're not going to tell me your proposed model that explains the evidence?
When imagination = evidence you will have something. However no one has ever seen accumulations of genetic accidents constructing new and useful multi-protein systems. So your imagination is meaningless.
No one saw the continents drift apart or the magnetic poles of the earth swap either. Does that mean those things are merely speculative as well? No one saw the dinosaurs . . . . could it be that their fossils were merely planted/created to confuse us?Jerad_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PST}

Jerad:
I see life forms slowly, over millions of years, branching off and forming new body plans.
When imagination = evidence you will have something. However no one has ever seen accumulations of genetic accidents constructing new and useful multi-protein systems. So your imagination is meaningless.
But in the case of the whales say, there are enough intermediate steps that the progression is clear.
LoL! There are a handful of possible fossils when there are 50,000+ transformations that had to have occurred. And no one knows if such a transformation is even possible. And THAT means tehre is a HUGE gap. Ya see Jerad, ignorance is not evidence either...Joe_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PST}

Jerad:
Well, Darwin and Wallace inferred common descent based on the fossil record AND the biogeographic and morphological data.
Good for them. They did not have any way to confirm their inference, meaning their inference is untestable.
Before that the default way of thinking was design and the immutability of species.
LoL! THAT is a strawman Darwin invented or at least pushed. Ya see Linne- aka Carolus Linneaus- had already placed the Created Kinds to at least the level of "Genus", meaning Creationists accepted speciation decades before Darwin wrote "On the Origins of Species..."
My statement was an attempt to put into different words Lewontin’s imprecation that the Divine/supernatural has no place in science.
1- ID does not require the divine/ supernatural 2- Science only cares about REALITY, regardless of what that is and even if it includes the divine/ supernatural.
I think at some point in the design inference you do have to discuss the designer’s or designers’ scheme at least, otherwise you aren’t explaining the evidence.
What you think is irrelevant. Ya see the ONLY way to make any possible scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. And guess what? By doing so IDists have inferred the universe is designed for scientific discovery. Also it is a fact that it is easier to infer stuff about designers whose designers are easily redone by us- that is designs that we are capable of doing. But that is not what we have with Intelligent Design. With ID we have a design that we cannot duplicate. So with ID it would be akin to some Amazon native that never seen technology trying to figure out a laptop and who made it.
Anyway, as I’ve said I am interested in other models that encompass all the evidence so tell me what your idea is.
You don't even know if your model encompasses the evidence. Just because you think it does that does not make it so.Joe_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PST}

PeterJ, If you're really interested then I recommend Donald Prothero's book Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters. He shows a large number of examples of fossil records. But even that book is 5 years old now and may be outdated in some aspects. I watched the video. On the face of it, as presented in the video, I admit the evolution of whales looks pretty . . . ill defined. And certainly evolutionary biologists have changed their minds over the decades. And, of course, all mammals will share a common ancestor with all other mammals. I think the best thing to do is to get the most recent model based on the most recent fossil AND genetic data. In the Wikipedia article on the evolution of cetaceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans) there is a discussion of how biologists have changed their minds about whales' antecedents. It's all very well to go anomaly hunting. Science is a human endeavour and mistakes are made, people screw up, web pages are not updated, opinions change. All knowledge is provisional. If Darwin were alive today he would not agree with his opinion from the mid-19th century.Jerad_{June 13, 2012
June
06
Jun
13
13
2012
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PST}

Jerad 'Well, lots of people will disagree with you on that, including me.' Fair enough. 'I see life forms slowly, over millions of years, branching off and forming new body plans.' Perhaps you could show me what you consider to be a good example. 'Obviously not all the intermediate steps are present so some lineages are better documented than others. But in the case of the whales say, there are enough intermediate steps that the progression is clear.' Really? Tell you what, you watch this video clip, it's 28 minutes long, but to save time I will give you the times to watch between 8.39 - 17.29. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf9CTrvEeE0 I hope this helps.PeterJ_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PST}

KF, No, I had missed that. Well, that is an amazing example of convergent evolution between the bats and whales if that is correct. I'm really surprised that the similarity goes down that deep. Interesting. I consider that extremely unlikely. I agree that a phylogenetic tree based on the prestin sequence would be very misleading. Interesting. I don't know what's the problem with the human and kangaroo genome being that similar. Human and chimp genomes are much closer obviously. Ha! I read a newspaper story about that story, it had some of the same quotes you gave. And the researcher, Graves, said:
Kangaroos are hugely informative about what we were like 150 million years ago.
Hmmm . . . I'd like to hear other biologists opinion on that!! I do find both those results surprising and improbable. I'm not a biologist but I'd love to hear an evolutionary biology take on them both. I'm just a tad sceptical based on what I've read so far.Jerad_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PST}

J: Did you follow the link on the genetic similarity involved? Sci Daily, as I clipped in IOSE on the body plan discussion page:
two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable [[sonar echolocation] ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level. "The natural world is full of examples of species that have evolved similar characteristics independently, such as the tusks of elephants and walruses," said Stephen Rossiter of the University of London, an author on one of the studies. "However, it is generally assumed that most of these so-called convergent traits have arisen by different genes or different mutations. Our study shows that a complex trait -- echolocation -- has in fact evolved by identical genetic changes in bats and dolphins." A hearing gene known as prestin in both bats and dolphins (a toothed whale) has picked up many of the same mutations over time, the studies show. As a result, if you draw a phylogenetic tree of bats, whales, and a few other mammals based on similarities in the prestin sequence alone, the echolocating bats and whales come out together rather than with their rightful evolutionary cousins. Both research teams also have evidence showing that those changes to prestin were selected for, suggesting that they must be critical for the animals' echolocation for reasons the researchers don't yet fully understand.
Similarly, on kangaroos:
The tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii), was the model kangaroo used for the genome mapping. Like the o'possum, there are about 20,000 genes in the kangaroo's genome, Graves says. That makes it about the same size as the human genome, but the genes are arranged in a smaller number of larger chromosomes. "Essentially it's the same houses on a street being rearranged somewhat," Graves says. "In fact there are great chunks of the [[human] genome sitting right there in the kangaroo genome."
That was a bit of a splash a little while ago. That is what I am pointing to. Gotta go again. KFkairosfocus_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PST}

PeterJ,
The so called ‘fossil record’ doesn’t really exist, it’s all in the mind. You simply don’t have a ‘record’. What you have are ‘fossils’, period.
Well, lots of people will disagree with you on that, including me. I see life forms slowly, over millions of years, branching off and forming new body plans. Obviously not all the intermediate steps are present so some lineages are better documented than others. But in the case of the whales say, there are enough intermediate steps that the progression is clear. What is your explanation for the fossils that evolutionary biologists say show the development of whales? Or hominids. Or . . . take your pick. If you don't like my explanation then let's hear yours! I really am interested. Do you think there were intermediate life forms that did not get recorded as fossils? IF each intermediate form was designed then what was the purpose of the progression? Why not just create whales in one go? That would have created a HUGE gap and made the design inference pretty clear.Jerad_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PST}

KF, I'm not sure the sonar capacities of whales and bats are comparable . . . I'm not sure if the organs involved are that similar . . . I'll try and look it up. Hey! I didn't bring up convergent evolution!! :-) What's the problem with humans and Kangaroos being 150 MYA on the timeline? (Is that right? I'll try and look that up too.) There were mammals around 150 MYA. Platypuses are weird. They are monotremes and I forget how they fit in. I don't know what lineages your are implying they could not have come from. Could you be more specific?Jerad_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PST}

Jerad, 'I’d say the biogeographic and genomic and morphological evidence support that contention and those are separate lines of evidence. What do you think is responsible for the fossil record?' The so called 'fossil record' doesn't really exist, it's all in the mind. You simply don't have a 'record'. What you have are 'fossils', period.PeterJ_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PST}

J: Quick note, please observe, Whales and bats are not tied to any close links that would account for the same sonar DNA code. Humans and Kangaroos are 150 MY apart on the usual timeline -- that's Dinosaur era. And, Platypuses are just plain weird. They could not simultaneously come form those lineages, and their code is a mosaic. The idea of the same code or structures -- try the camera eye for a case -- originating "spontaneously" multiple times, is not darwinist evo, it is a molecular version of Platonic forms, at best and would raise serious questions of a cosmos that has that sort of built in programs. Just to spark a rethink, too busy for details and step by step development. KFkairosfocus_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PST}

Joe,
Well evolution is limited to gradual step-by-step modifications, building on what’s gone before.
No, it isn’t. If some organism could make a leap of a change, then theory of evolution would just accomodate that.
It would be very improbable depending on how big a leap you're talking about. Have you got an example in mind? I'm not aware of a documented case of major morphological changes happening in a leap.
Over long periods of time it can accomplish much as seen by the fossil record.
That is the propaganda. However there isn’t any independent evidence for that.
I'd say the biogeographic and genomic and morphological evidence support that contention and those are separate lines of evidence. What do you think is responsible for the fossil record?
The fossil and genetic records give a good idea if the speed at which evolution can work.
And yet neither say anything about evolution- evolution has to first be assumed. And still no independent evidence for it.
Well, Darwin and Wallace inferred common descent based on the fossil record AND the biogeographic and morphological data. And the ability of breeders to fix changes in body plan. Before that the default way of thinking was design and the immutability of species. So I'd say that evolution was deduced from the evidence.
how can you limit, constrain, measure and define a being that is not limited to natural laws?
Nice red herring. ID is about the DESIGN, not the DESIGNER.
My statement was an attempt to put into different words Lewontin's imprecation that the Divine/supernatural has no place in science. I wasn't asking about the designer. I think at some point in the design inference you do have to discuss the designer's or designers' scheme at least, otherwise you aren't explaining the evidence. But that's not what I was doing at that particular moment. Anyway, as I've said I am interested in other models that encompass all the evidence so tell me what your idea is.Jerad_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PST}

KF, I think there's much shared generic material because most animals, vertebrates and mammals in particular, need many of the same functions and organs. Internally most mammals are pretty similar. I just think the similarity is due to common descent and not common design. But the result is similar, for sure.Jerad_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PST}

Jerad: #43
Well evolution is limited to gradual step-by-step modifications, building on what’s gone before.
No, it isn't. If some organism could make a leap of a change, then theory of evolution would just accomodate that.
Over long periods of time it can accomplish much as seen by the fossil record.
That is the propaganda. However there isn't any independent evidence for that.
The fossil and genetic records give a good idea if the speed at which evolution can work.
And yet neither say anything about evolution- evolution has to first be assumed. And still no independent evidence for it.
how can you limit, constrain, measure and define a being that is not limited to natural laws?
Nice red herring. ID is about the DESIGN, not the DESIGNER.Joe_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PST}

F/N: J, in passing, how do you explain the recent discoveries that bats and whales, in connexion with their sonar systems, have more or less the same DNA at the key points? Similarly, how huge swathes of the human genome are found in kangaroos, i.e. marsupials said to be split off from the main mammal line 150 MYA or so? Both of these were recently headlined, and are brought up in my IOSE discussion on body plan origins. Add in that famous mosaic creature the platypus, and its genome with parallels to all sorts of animals. Cf the concept of code reuse. KFkairosfocus_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply