Stephen Meyer on ID’s Scientific Bona Fides

_{William Dembski

July 13, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

It is the great divide between physicality and formalism.
Seems to divide people, but doesn't seem to impede progress in physics, chemistry and biology. I don't know of any contribution made to human knowledge based on the assumption that an unspecified entity having unspecified capabilities did unspecified somethings at unspecified times and places using unspecified methods for unspecified reasons.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, There will always be gaps, but over time the gaps narrow. It’s a historical trend in all sciences. Please show just one example of the novel origination of just one new gene from purely material processes, If you do provide a concise method to generate information from material processes there is One Million dollars waiting for you: "The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. http://www.us.net/life/index.htm As with evolution itself, the problem for the origin of life clearly turns out to be explaining where the information came from in the first place: “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.” Origin of life theorist Bernd-Olaf Kuppers in his book "Information and the Origin of Life". Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html Petrushka, Only in you imagination is the gap growing more narrow for neo_Darwinian evolution. In fact the Gap for the design inference has been growing very narrow while the gap between material processes ever generating functional genetic information is shown to be growing ever wider. You keep stating the same lies over and over without ever providing any proof to the contrary. Does it not bother you to be completely out of the loop as far as evidence is concerned?: The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity - David L. Abel - 2009 Excerpt: "A monstrous ravine runs through presumed objective reality. It is the great divide between physicality and formalism. On the one side of this Grand Canyon lies everything that can be explained by the chance and necessity of physicodynamics. On the other side lies those phenomena than can only be explained by formal choice contingency and decision theory—the ability to choose with intent what aspects of ontological being will be preferred, pursued, selected, rearranged, integrated, organized, preserved, and used. Physical dynamics includes spontaneous non linear phenomena, but not our formal applied-science called “non linear dynamics”(i.e. language,information). http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf A monstrous ravine hardly sounds like the narrow gap you imagine Petrushka!!!bornagain77_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: I said new genes are mostly derived from small changes in existing (inherited sequences). The fact that their function as genes is new is implied in their name.
We estimate that around 24% are highly divergent members of mammalian protein families. Interestingly, around 53% of the orphan genes contain sequences derived from transposable elements (TEs) and are mostly located in primate-specific genomic regions. This indicates frequent recruitment of TEs as part of novel genes. Finally, we also obtain evidence that a small fraction of primate orphan genes, around 5.5%, might have originated de novo from mammalian noncoding genomic regions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064677 There will always be gaps, but over time the gaps narrow. It's a historical trend in all sciences.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: I am currently battling with a flat dead phone line [lightning storm?] and a faulty fault report system that 24 hrs after 1st report, had not queued my call-in for action. Heading off to Telco, so a pause at the local public library . . . Anyway, this thread has been a helpful beta test, cf clarifying updates here. (Thanks to critics and commenters.) ______________ Stephen & Gaz: I cannot but notice how this thread has drifted from one tangent to another, with the underlying unity being that objectors to the scientific bona fides of the design inference (cf. the just linked) consistently are unable to address the matter on the merits or even show that hey have accurately and fairly read what design thinkers and theorists or even bloggists have to say. When a case has to rest on consistent misrepresentation of design thought and open or veiled attacks against design thinkers sustained in the teeth of correction, it is telling. Similarly, it is telling that no-one has provided a clear and convincing demonstration that especially digitally coded functionally specific complex information -- what we find in the heart of the cell [cf the new fig I.5, promoted to the summary] -- can have its origin in undirected forces of chance and necessity. We note that we reliably know such to be routinely produced by intelligent agents, as we may see from this thread's posts. I notice quite a side-exchange on the first, self-evident principles of right reason, and related remarks on quantum phenomena. A few notes: 1 --> Objectors need to understand that cause comes in two flavours, sufficient and necessary (as already noted). Sufficient cause WILL make an event happen, and if a necessary causal factor is missing, the event CANNOT happen. (Think about how each of oxidiser, fuel and hear is necessary for, and the three are jointly sufficient to have a fire.) 2 --> Necessary factors are particularly relevant here, e.g. without a where and when to happen in [i.e. a space-time domain], even quantum events would not happen. That sounds physically trivial, but it is logically vital given what is being denied. For, it warrants the point that even quantum events are causally constrained. 3 --> Next, let us go back to Einstein's breakthrough with the photoelectric effect. One of the points he established is that here is an energetic threshold for photons, on which if the frequency in the expression E = h*f is too low, there will be no photoemission. This is of course a necessary condition, and is explained on how energy is required to break through the energy barrier. 4 --> Now tunneling is raised as an illustration of how classical barriers become permeable (looks like even temporal ones may be permeable), on the wave-particle duality. [Way back, the analogy in classical thinking we had was how total internal reflection may be frustrated by bringing a similar surface close enough to a glass block, i.e. there is an exponentially decaying disturbance [the evanescent wave] that can couple to the second block if it is close enough, so we get partial and eventually complete enough transmission.] 5 --> But, suddenly we are not in the zone of poof-magic, something happens out of nothing, nowhere, when as and if it wants [which is MORE of a miracle than the necessary being (so uncaused) Creator God saying "Fiat lux . . . "], but we are discussing: causal factors and constraints amenable to analysis, discussion, calculation and observational testing. 6 --> We may not know sufficient factors to determine that an effect will happen here, now -- and Heisenberg uncertainty [including Einstein's Energy-time version] principle is relevant here -- but we do know that we are dealing with factors that fit certain conditions, including the principle that energy-time uncertainty products or position-momentum products are fairly close to a small multiple of h-bar. 7 --> Such constraints are definitely necessary conditions, however imprecisely quantified. 8 --> A further issue raised above has been virtual, unobservable particle pairs within the energy time observability window. These are connected to the carrying of forces and to tunnelling; Wiki has a nice little remark that helps us see how:
A virtual particle is one that does not precisely obey the m^2*c^4 = E^2 ? p^2*c^2 [2] relationship for a short time. In other words, their kinetic energy may not have the usual relationship to velocity — indeed, it can be negative. The probability amplitude for them to exist tends to be canceled out by destructive interference over longer distances and times. They can be considered a manifestation of quantum tunnelling. The range of forces carried by virtual particles is limited by the uncertainty principle, which regards energy and time as conjugate variables; thus virtual particles of larger mass have more limited range. There is not a definite line differentiating virtual particles from real particles — the equations of physics just describe particles (which includes both equally) . . . In the quantum field theory view, "real particles" are viewed as being detectable excitations of underlying quantum fields. As such, virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are detectable only as forces but not particles. They are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations, but are not detected as single particles . . . . There are two principal ways in which the notion of virtual particles appears in modern physics. They appear as intermediate terms in Feynman diagrams; that is, as terms in a perturbative calculation. They also appear as an infinite set of states to be summed or integrated over in the calculation of a semi-non-perturbative effect. In the latter case, it is sometimes said that virtual particles cause the effect, or that the effect occurs because of the existence of virtual particles.
9 --> In other words, cause-effect constraints and analysis have not vanished in the quantum world. it is a lawful cosmos, not a lawless chaos. 10 --> going on, quantum fluctuations are similar, and are liked to he energy density of free space [i.e. of the vacuum itself . . . space, in Physics is real and has a lot of properties and also energy, indeed, an energy density of space is held to drive the cosmological expansion as a "yeast bubbler"]. Wiki again:
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle . . . . That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge. In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not the same as (e.g. the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the particle number operators. Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure.
____________ In short, the materialist magicians have had the curtains suddenly pulled back in the land of Oz, and the hidden causal factors are there for us all to look at . . . Sure, we deal with stochastic phenomena, with uncertainty and unpredictability [and with probability -- that bug bear for materialists who don't like the low odds of codes, algorithms and first life as well as body plans materialising out of lucky noise] but that is very different indeed form causality being overturned. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Gaz states: "If the evidence says one thing and your reasoning another, then your reasoning is wrong." Thus this is the breakdown in Gaz's reasoning and allows Gaz to state that nothing can cause something i.e. zero can equal one, 0=1, in quantum mechanics for with Gaz there is no proper check to his philosophical bias, at least none that he will allow to challenge his atheistic worldview. Must be nice to write your very own rules of science Gaz!bornagain77_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee (415), "What’s there to explain? If you’re going to argue that a thing can be and not be at the same time, there’s no point in reasoning with you." Then you don't believe in superposition of quantum states? "Reason flies out the window at that point." No, it's just an acceptance that that is what the evidence shows. It may seem unreasonable, but the quantum world often seems that way. "You clearly use right reason when you try to present your case, unless it isn’t convenient for you." I just take the evidence and go where it leads. "Evidence does not supersede right reason. Right reason supersedes evidence." I see, so if you think reason means you can't have superposition of states then there isn't superposition of states even if the evidence says there is? "It’s a prime principle under which all evidence must adhere." Nope - if the evidence is there you can't just ignore it. If the evidence says one thing and your reasoning another, then your reasoning is wrong.Gaz_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Gaz a paper just came out, which strangely confirms the sub topic of this thread that evidence does not supersede right reason, as well the paper overturns Duwell's objection to Bennett's claim for instantaneous infinite information transfer in Quantum Teleportation because it would violate what Duwell had perceived to be a "backwards in time" constraint. We were talking about this topic the other day here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/comment-page-7/#comment-359265 Here is the paper that addresses Duwell's concern for his "backwards in time" constraint for teleportation: Time travel theory avoids grandfather paradox - July 2010 Excerpt: “In the new paper, the scientists explore a particular version of CTCs based on combining quantum teleportation with post-selection, resulting in a theory of post-selected CTCs (P-CTCs). ,,,The formalism of P-CTCs shows that such quantum time travel can be thought of as a kind of quantum tunneling backwards in time, which can take place even in the absence of a classical path from future to past,,, “P-CTCs might also allow time travel in spacetimes without general-relativistic closed timelike curves,” they conclude. “If nature somehow provides the nonlinear dynamics afforded by final-state projection, then it is possible for particles (and, in principle, people) to tunnel from the future to the past.” http://www.physorg.com/news198948917.html Gaz this paper is very interesting for Seth Lloyd, and company, are using the "transcendent logic/reason/information" of mathematics to establish that "infinite information of teleportation" is not bound by space-time constraints in the first place, Thus overturning Duwell's objection against Bennett's claim for infinite information transfer in teleportation. This paper is also, as I stated earlier, a excellent example of right reason superseding evidence, as well as confirming what should be clear to most IDer's by now,,, i.e. "Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day." Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cyberneticsbornagain77_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: Your obsession with orphan genes is the result of a misunderstanding of what is meant. The gene function may be novel, but the sequences are descended from the tree.You can have new functionality with very small changes to the sequences. You are simply wrong. Orphans are defined on the basis of lack of homologues. Homology is evaluated at the primary structure level. Function has nothing to do with that (it may well be unknown). Here is the definition of orphan gene from Wikipedia: "there is no detectable homolog in other organisms or the homologous genes are restricted to closely-related organisms." I understand you are not a biologist, but you should be more careful not to state things that are wrong, please check them before making statements which can confound others.gpuccio_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

"He’s like a dog chasing his own tail. Why bother, Stephen?" Like this? StephenB (410), “A thing cannot be and not be at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. Superposition does not violate that principle.” Gaz (414) "Please explain why not." What's there to explain? If you're going to argue that a thing can be and not be at the same time, there's no point in reasoning with you. Reason flies out the window at that point. You're argument would be self defeating. You would say that validity for your argument is, while your reasoning would say that validity for your argument is not, or both at the same time - into total absurdity. You clearly use right reason when you try to present your case, unless it isn't convenient for you. Evidence does not supersede right reason. Right reason supersedes evidence. It's a prime principle under which all evidence must adhere.CannuckianYankee_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

StephenB (410), "A thing cannot be and not be at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. Superposition does not violate that principle." Please explain why not.Gaz_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

Hello All and well said, above. I have been following this thread and it is becoming quite entertaining seeing people denying the laws of logic. On a similar vein to how above just stated the problem, what rules of logic does Gaz use to argue that the laws of logic can be invalidated in certain circumstances. The answer can't be "mere evidence" since data must be interpreted logically in order to generate "evidence." Talk about sawing off the branch upon which you are sitting ..... I wish I could stick around, but alas edumacation calls.CJYman_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

@Stephen -"Speaking of which, are you now prepared to answer my question: Inasmuch as you assert that new evidence can invalidate the laws of logic, do you also assert that new evidence can invalidate the laws of mathematics? (Question not yet answered)" How can gaz invalidate logic through the use of evidence? Would he not be reasoning in making that claim? If he does not believe in principles of right reason, how can he "reason" that they do not exist? He's like a dog chasing his own tail. Why bother, Stephen?above_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, so you just deny the ORFans are unique genes? "If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes." After all, humans are recent, they reproduce slowly, and they are not that many. Some reshuffling and a bundle of mutations in HARs can always be tolerated, provided that we can affirm that the genomes of humans and chimps are 99% or something similar. But 1000 new genes? And so, the answer is simple: “Such a model would require a prodigious rate of gene birth in mammalian lineages and a ferocious rate of gene death erasing the huge number of genes born before the divergence from chimpanzee. We reject such a model as wholly implausible.” But such a model is not implausible at all. It is only implausible for darwinists. But if you reflect on the obvious fact that humans and chimps are very different, that humans are practically unique in their ability of abstract intelligent thoughts, that they have changed the world they live in under many respects, that they have built varied civilizations and explored reality scientifically and in other ways, then few hundreds of new genes in their basic level proteome information could in some way seem justified… https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/#comment-358505 But of course you knew all this petrushka, thus since you refuse to learn anything, and will only believe what you want to believe no matter what evidence is gone over in excruciating detail with you, I will not play your games any more save to expose you.bornagain77_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

---Gaz: "Why is this labelled by you as “right reason” and how does it differ from common-or-garden reason?" Right reason does not differ from common or garden variety reason. Inductions are inductions; deductions are deductions, abductions are abductions; syllogisms are syllogisms. [Hint: deductions are based on the principle of non-contradiction. If you reject that principle, you cannot deduce anything because you cannot rule out options that will allow you to go from step one to step two]. ---"Nor have you answered the question as to where the principles came from." How many names do you want? Let's begin with the law of non-contradi tion---Parmenides, Aristotle, Aquinas, Scotus, Leibniz, Locke, Mill, Spir, Einstein..........( ---"And don’t forget either that neither Aristotle nor any other philosopher or scientist up until the late 19th and early 20th century can have had the foggiest notion of the strangeness of the quantum universe." We scarcely have a clue about it ourselves, much less to we know enough to rule out causality each time we fail to identify the cause or the causal conditions, as is the case for quantum events. ---"So even if they did formulate your [A] to [F] – which are apparently non-exhaustive – it was based on an understanding of the universe which was far, far less than ours." We are always learning more about the universe, but the rational tools by which we study it do not change. If they did, we could not learn anything. The laws of logic do not change, the ordered nature of the universe does not change, and the laws of mathematics do not change. Speaking of which, are you now prepared to answer my question: Inasmuch as you assert that new evidence can invalidate the laws of logic, do you also assert that new evidence can invalidate the laws of mathematics? (Question not yet answered) ---"Let’s take an example – your [A], a Thing cannot be and not be at the same time. I’m afraid that in the quantum realm this is not correct. You have heard of quantum superposition, yes?" Yes. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. Superposition does not violate that principle. You have not provided me with your reasons for saying that, if causality is suspended, it can only be suspended in the case of quantum mechanics. Indeed, you have multiple positions on the subject, saying at times that acausality is peculiar to quantum mechanics, and, at other times, saying that it could apply in the case of new evidence not yet discovered. And, of course, you clearly reject causality in terms of a first cause. ---"But I’ve just given you the reason in the paragraph above – it’s in the maths! You can calculate the value of h/4(pi) can’t you?" Yes, but that doesn't prove acausality and I can't imagine why you think it would. Your position on this matter is not really consistent. You have said that quantum mechanics is different from other realms. Indeed, it is different insofar as quantum events are unpredictable and hard to measure, but those differences do not add up to differences about causality. However, you now say that acausality could apply in other contexts. ---As you put it, "If new evidence invalidates it, then great – a whole new field of science opens up. But we do know, based on the observations and evidence we have so far, that such events would be rare even if they did theoretically happen." So, not only do you say quantum acausality is not unique, you even apply acausality to the beginning of the universe. So, the fact is, you barely believe in causality at any level---except when you want to. ---"It’s not a LAW, causality is something that happens AT THE CLASSICAL LEVEL, but not necessarily at the QUANTUM LEVEL." Or, as you just said "at other levels opening up new fields of science" (presumably none of which will be identified with causality), or, as you would have it, at the level of a beginning universe, or, as you insist, at the level of life coming from non life, or, as you believe, at the level of mind coming from matter. “[Gaz]”Wrong, see above. It’s not a matter of what is negotiable or not – you should understand that by now. It’s a matter of what the evidence shows.” But as I have pointed out to you in vain, bare evidence shows us nothing until it is interpreted and you have no standard for interpreting it. Do you have a standard? If so, what is it? Hint: "evidence" is not an answer to the question. (Question unanswered) ---"So you deny despite the evidence – some provided even by bornagain77 – that virtual particles can pop in and out of existence?" I deny that it is a causeless event, of course. I feel confident that bornagain77 would agree. Why not ask him? What evidence would cause you to accept the law of non-contradiction and the law of causality? (Question unanswered). The principles of right reason allow us to deduce the fact that the first cause must be an uncaused cause. I would take you through the proof except for the fact that you reject the logical principles by which the proof is made.” ---"Oh, I can follow proofs. Please go ahead. This should be interesting." It really isn't very complicated. According to the principle of "infinite regress" [another principle of right reason] a chain of causal events cannot go on into infinity. Thus, they must stop at a first cause--the causeless cause. (No, new evidence could not invalidate that principle either). Again, reason's principles inform evidence; evidence does not inform reason's principles.StephenB_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Your obsession with orphan genes is the result of a misunderstanding of what is meant. The gene function may be novel, but the sequences are descended from the tree. You can have new functionality with very small changes to the sequences.Petrushka_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

@Petrushka It’s not common descent or evolution as a theory that I am inquiring about. I am specifically asking to see whether RV + NS are falsifiable. That’s the reason I elaborated and used vernacular language as so to unveil, in layman’s terms, what we are essentially referring to when we speak of things such as RV + NS. My challenge is best crystallized in the following paragraph from my previous post: “So in essence these so called nobel laureates are simply saying that things change and we are ignorant of what direction the change will be elicited in – if we knew what they represented and could predict them they would not be random after all – and that some of these changes persist in living organisms while others do not. To put it in the most vernacular way possible, what they are effectively saying is this: Life has the capacity to change and to learn.” The reason why I asked whether NS is a tautology – which in my opinion to some extend it is – comes from the notion of the survival of the fittest. Which in turn we ask, who is the fittest, the answer being the one that survives. Then we ask, who survives and the answer then becomes, the fittest. It’s in a sense self-referential. I’m not rejecting it completely – not yet at least. I’m merely bringing into question the hidden assumptions behind the language we use to talk about NS and its validity. You provided several situations of selection and for the most part I see some truth in all: 1. Environmental selection 2. Human selection 3. Random selection (asteroid etc) 4. Female selection 5. Divine selection And I am sure there are many more. So then, if a lot of things – possibly most things? – can act as selectors, then what exactly are we speaking of when we refer to ‘selection?’ It seems that selection or NS if presented as such is an extremely lose term. I do not want you to think that I am expecting you to defend evolution nor am I looking into attacking evolution per se. I am simply questioning whether or not RV + NS are strict science and free of philosophical assumptions. I am also interested in seeing what exactly is it that we mean when we speak of selection in this evolutionary context. To me, when I think of it, it seems to be something akin to Gould’s “advantages persist” notion. Feel free to ask me to clarify in case I wasn’t clear enough in how I presented my thoughts. In short, I am addressing two issues: 1. Scientific demarcation 2. Linguistic analysisabove_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms...
Morphology isn't the issue. The origin of genes would be the issue, but you kindly provided a link that verified what I have been saying for the whole thread: the genes are ancient. What we have since the Cambrian is mostly tweaking.Petrushka_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

You know petrushka Instead of just playing games why don't you just go ahead and show us the generation of functional information by material/evolutionary processes and I, like Dr. Hunter, will join you in your crusade to enlighten the world to "the fact" of neo-Darwinism.bornagain77_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Petrushka you state for falsification criteria: 3. Every fossil found must fit somewhere on a tree of descent. 4. Every sequence of DNA must be compatible with an inheritance tree. Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories By: Stephen C. Meyer; Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington "To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. And, indeed, in almost all cases, the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna (Miklos 1993, Erwin et al. 1997:132, Steiner & Reitner 2001, Conway Morris 2003b:510, Valentine et al. 2003:519-520). Further, several recent discoveries and analyses suggest that these morphological gaps may not be merely an artifact of incomplete sampling of the fossil record (Foote 1997, Foote et al. 1999, Benton & Ayala 2003, Meyer et al. 2003), suggesting that the fossil record is at least approximately reliable (Conway Morris 2003b:505)." http://www.discovery.org/a/2177 One persistent misrepresentation, that evolutionists continually portray of the fossil record, is that +99.9% of all species that have ever existed are extinct when in fact 40 to 80% of all living species found on the earth are represented in the fossil record. In fact, we have a few million species living today whereas we only have 1/4 million different species collected in our museums, a large percentage of which happen to be "living fossils" which are still living today. The Fossil Record - The Myth Of +99.9% Extinct Species - Dr. Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028115 of note Bats popped out of the woodwork 55 million years ago with no evidence of transition from any other species: First Eocene Bat From Australia Excerpt: Remains of a bat, Australonycteris clarkae, gen. et sp. nov., are reported from freshwater clays radiometrically dated to 54.6 million years old in southeastern Queensland, Australia. It is the oldest bat recorded for the southern hemisphere and one of the world's oldest. http://www.jstor.org/pss/4523576?cookieSet=1 Australonycteris clarkae Excerpt: Australonycteris clarkae, from the Eocene of Queensland, is the oldest bat from the Southern Hemisphere and one of the oldest in the world. It is similar to other archaic Eocene bats from the Northern Hemisphere, and could probably navigate using echolocation, like most bats do today. (of note: some "modern" bats do not use echolocation today): http://australianmuseum.net.au/Australonycteris-clarkae I especially like this falsification criteria of yours petrushka 4. Every sequence of DNA must be compatible with an inheritance tree. Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes. Although this was strong evidence that the sequences were not true protein-coding genes, it was not quite convincing enough to justify their removal from the human gene catalogs. Two other scenarios could, in fact, explain their absence from other mammalian genomes. For instance, the genes could be unique among primates, new inventions that appeared after the divergence of mouse and dog ancestors from primate ancestors. Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm The sheer, and blatant, shoddiness of the science of the preceding study should give everyone who reads it severe pause whenever, in the future, someone tells them that genetic studies have proven evolution to be true. This following site has a brief discussion on the biased methodology of the preceding study: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/#comment-358505 If the authors of the preceding study were to have actually tried to see if the over 1000 unique orphan genes of humans may actually encode for proteins, instead of just written them off, they would have found that there is ample reason to believe that they may very well encode for biologically important proteins: A survey of orphan enzyme activities Abstract: We demonstrate that for ~80% of sampled orphans, the absence of sequence data is bona fide. Our analyses further substantiate the notion that many of these (orfan) enzyme activities play biologically important roles. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/244 Dr. Howard Ochman - Dept. of Biochemistry at the University of Arizona Excerpt of Proposal: Although it has been hypothesized that ORFans might represent non-coding regions rather than actual genes, we have recently established that the vast majority that ORFans present in the E. coli genome are under selective constraints and encode functional proteins. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/#comment-358868 In fact it turns out that the authors of the "kick the ORFans out in the street" paper actually did know that there was unbiased evidence strongly indicating the ORFans encoded proteins but chose to ignore it in favor of their preconceived evolutionary bias: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/#comment-358547 So clearly every DNA sequence is NOT compatible with a tree!!! So please tell me Petrushka why will you not follow your very own falsification criteria and ignore the evidence presented?bornagain77_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

1. Are they falsifiable? 2. How is NS not a tautology?
Certainly. Common descent has entailments. Entailments are requirements imposed by a theory. 1.You can't find fossils of modern plants and animals in the same strata as plants and animals from earlier eras. 2. Evolution is slow. It requires much more time than was known to be available in 1859. The discovery of radioactivity and a power source for the sun was absolutely necessary to salvage Darwin's timeline. 3. Every fossil found must fit somewhere on a tree of descent. 4. Every sequence of DNA must be compatible with an inheritance tree. there are lots more. NS is not a tautology for the simple reason that it is not true under every possible condition. It is possible, for example, that a system could respond to pruning of certain types by accelerating the production of those types. We don't see living things doing that, but a designed system could do it. There are lots of possibilities for selection mechanisms. We have had some discussion of human directed selection. There is also random selection, as in being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Too close to an asteroid impact, for example. darwin was among the first to notice female choice, which appears to be responsible for extreme bird plumage. It is, of course, logically possible, that unseen agents do some of the choosing. The only problem is finding an instance to observe.Petrushka_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Now you are confusing the phenomenological approach of ID science with the metaphysical assumptions that launched modern scienctific enterpreise. The two approaches are compatible but they are not the same.
I have no reason to doubt you on this. From my reading of the history of science, the early inventors of science were indeed looking for evidence of God's handiwork. Including evidence of a global flood. I think the flood project crashed and burned about 1830, although there are lots of holdouts. ID is not likely to crash and burn, but I think it will find its scope increasingly narrowed. I suspect Michael Denton's Nature's Destiny will have a revival in the next ten years.Petrushka_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

---Petrushka: "What I said was that human knowledge is not advanced by the assumption that an unknown entity did some unspecified something at unspecified times and places using unspecified methods for unspecified reasons." The trailblazers of science believed that the God of the Bible created the universe out of love in order to share his love. There is nothing ambiguous about that. ---"What those Christians were looking for was order, not caprice." That's right. They reasoned that a rational God purposely made a rational universe in order that men would "think God's thoughts after him." ---"You and I come from different Christian traditions. I was taught not to put God to the test." Putting the person of God to the test, which is indeed an offense, is not the same thing as putting the Christian religion to the test, which is exactly what any rational person should do. No one should believe something that is contrary to reason--above reason, yes--but not contrary to it. Christiantity begins by alluding to a visible universe that points to an invisible God, follows by pointing to a series of prophecies that became manifest in time/space/history, and ends by recording testimonies about miracles--all this in order to disguish itself as a reasonable faith system and draw a contrast between its tenets and those of all other faith systems which are based solely on faith It is from that reasonable foundation that Christians are then asked to make a further leap into theological truths that must be accepted on faith alone. Christianity, unlike all other world views, asks no one to make mindless leaps based on the whims of self-styled human prophets. ---"That can have a number of meanings, but I was taught that looking for proof of God’s existence is wrong. That the need for proof is an unworthy desire." The reason the Bible discusses the relationship of God to nature in Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19 is to make an appeal to reason so that the dogmatic articles of faith which follow will be seen to have come from the same reasonable God. ---"Unworthy and futile. I don’t think you will find God in the gaps." Now you are confusing the phenomenological approach of ID science with the metaphysical assumptions that launched modern scienctific enterpreise. The two approaches are compatible but they are not the same. To be sure, there are some, Hugh Ross comes to mind, who try to establish a complete thought system linking the findings of science with the existence of the Biblical God. I admire his work, and he may even be on the right track. He is not, however, an advocate of ID science or an admirer of ID paradigms, believing them to be unnecessary compromises.StephenB_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

StephenB (395), "[Gaz]—”I’ve answered it several time. I wonder if you are able at all to grasp even the basics of physics. You understand that elementary particles are very small, yes? They have a very tiny mass (=energy). Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that we cannot be certain of the energy of a particle over a given time interval to a precision greater than h/4(pi)- here h is Planck’s constant (I’ll let you look up the value). At the quantum level that uncertainty in energy levels is very significant because of the mass of the particles is so small and can result in virtual particles popping in and out of existence. However, at the classical levels – things such as you, me and concrete walls – the masses are enormously greater, and so the uncertainty in the energy levels of you, me and concrete walls to a precision of h/4(pi) is absolutely tiny. The prospects of you, me and concrete walls popping in and out of existence is therefore highly unlikely to the point of being virtually impossible.” [StephenB] No, you haven’t answered the question. You have not provided me with your reasons for saying that, if causlity is suspended, it can only be suspended in the case of quantum mechanics." But I've just given you the reason in the paragraph above - it's in the maths! You can calculate the value of h/4(pi) can't you? "You have said only that quantum mechanics is different from other realms. Indeed, they are different insofar as they are unpredictable and hard to measure, but those differences do not add up to differences about causality." Yes, they are - check out the Heisenberg uncertainty inequality and the maths. "How do you know, based on your assumption, that new evidence will not invalidate causality at the macro level? You have provided no answer to that question." If new evidence invalidates it, then great - a whole new field of science opens up. But we do know, based on the observations and evidence we have so far, that such events would be rare even if they did theoretically happen. "I read the above. You did not answer the question. You can’t appeal to the law of causality because you disavow it." It's not a LAW, causality is something that happens AT THE CLASSICAL LEVEL, but not necessarily at the QUANTUM LEVEL. "[Gaz]”Wrong, see above. It’s not a matter of what is negotiable or not – you should understand that by now. It’s a matter of what the evidence shows.” [StephenB] The problem is that it is not I who does not understand. Evidence must be interpreted and you have no rational standard by which you can interpret it." So you deny despite the evidence - some provided even by bornagain77 - that virtual particles can pop in and out of existence? "What evidence would cause you to accept the law of non-contradiction and the law of causality? I don’t have to wonder about whether you can answer that question because I know for a fact that you cannot." Then why waste our time posing it? "If you confront that question honestly, you will come to understand your error. No amount of evidence can prove the law of causality, nor can any amount of evidence invalidate it." Making it suspicious. "To come to a deeper understanding, ask yourself this question: Could evidence invalidate the laws of mathematics? Or is it the case that you believe even that? Either you accept first principles and choose to be reasonable, or you reject them and choose to be unreasonable." So you are the arbiter of reason? Then tell us about "right reason" and its origins. "Incorrect. The principles of right reason allow us to deduce the fact that the first cause must be an uncaused cause. I would take you through the proof except for the fact that you reject the logical principles by which the proof is made." Oh, I can follow proofs. Please go ahead. This should be interesting.Gaz_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

StephenB (395), "—-Define “right reason”. How does it differ from other forms reason? Who formulated the principles of “right reason”? Please provide references. Here are some of the most important: [A] A Thing cannot be and not be at the same time. [B] (Derived from A) Nothing can begin to exist without a cause, [C] A proposition cannot be true and false at the same time. [D] We have rational minds, we live in a rational universe and there is a correspondence between the two. [E] Mathematics have laws [F]] The ordered universe is syncronized with the laws of logic and mathematics. References: Western Civilization beginning with Aristotle. The history of the philosophy of science." You are dodging the answer. Why is this labelled by you as "right reason" and how does it differ from common-or-garden reason? Nor have you answered the question as to where the principles came from: lazily saying "Aristotle and the history of the philosophy of science means either (a) you don't know or (b) you know that it's not going to stand scrutiny. And don't forget either that neither Aristotle nor any other philosopher or scientist up until the late 19th and early 20th century can have had the foggiest notion of the strangeness of the quantum universe. So even if they did formulate your [A] to [F] - which are apparently non-exhaustive - it was based on an understanding of the universe which was far, far less than ours. Let's take an example - your [A], a Thing cannot be and not be at the same time. I'm afraid that in the quantum realm this is not correct. You have heard of quantum superposition, yes? This is where a particle has a probability of existing in a range of states, which can be infinite in range and include a probability of not existing at all. This is the basis of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment: basically the cat exists in a superposition of "dead" and "alive" depending on whether or not a particle is emitted from a radioactive nucleus (i.e. - the particle exists (cat dead) and doesn't (cat alive) at the same time). It is only when there is an interaction with an observer and the wavefunction collapses that the physical state reduces to one particular state. So indeed, a thing can exist and not exist at tghe same time - at the quantum level. Hence your [A] is wrong. So where does this leave your "right reason"?Gaz_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

I would like to raise a question here for everyone and including darwinists/materialists: WJM said: -“ From an open letter, signed by 38 Nobel Laureates, to the court during the Dover trial: Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.” This first and foremost is an epistemological assertion. All this means is that we as humans are unable to understand the advent of life and its numerous forms, however we have proposed two “mechanisms” in our attempt to explain this phenomenon. The first is random variation – which is simply this: change happens in living organisms but we cannot predict it using our empirical methods or we are simply not capable to do so given our limitations (intellectual, biological, logical etc) – and natural selection is, to use one of Stephen J. Gould’s phrases, “advantages persist.” So in essence these so called nobel laureates are simply saying that things change and we are ignorant of what direction the change will be elicited in – if we knew what they represented and could predict them they would not be random after all – and that some of these changes persist in living organisms while others do not. To put it in the most vernacular way possible, what they are effectively saying is this: Life has the capacity to change and to learn. Does one even need a scientific understanding to come to that conclusion? Obviously not. I just don’t understand what the big fuss about evolution is. It’s made out to be this larger than life theory that is suppose to provide exceptional insight into living organisms. But this idea is neither new nor impressive. It’s just stating what is naively obvious to just about most people. Now I would like to proceed by investigating the validity of RV + NS as adequate, scientific and logical (as opposed to philosophical) explanatory proposals under the assumption of metaphysical materialism. For example: 1. Are they falsifiable? 2. How is NS not a tautology? 3. Even if we do accept RV + NS as explanatory mechanisms, how can we scientifically (not philosophically) prove their connection to materialism. E.g. how can we refute Lewotnin’s honest claim regarding a priori materialistic, metaphysical commitments? The reason I am bringing this up is to hopefully initiate a conversation about which aspects of the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are empirical and which are philosophical. I have a suspicion that there is a significant part of evolutionary theory that is simply not science proper but rather a philosophy. Once this is addressed, I think people can focus more on the actual science, where issues might be more easily resolved. I look forward to hearing people’s opinions on this!above_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

I'm not going to argue theology. I don't know enough. I'm simply stating my opinion that divine nature and invisible qualities are just that. They are invisible. ID seems to be searching for tangible proof. A signature. But my opinion on this is of no importance. Nor is my opinion that big gaps are made of little gaps, and little gaps of smaller gaps. All the way down.Petrushka_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, Once again you are patently wrong: Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. You are completely twisting the entire context of "not putting God to the test" to mean something other than what the original text meant and you know that!!! Luke 4 9-13 9The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. 10For it is written: “‘He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; 11they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’c” 12Jesus answered, “It says: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’d” 13When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time.bornagain77_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, every branch of modern “hard” science, save for evolution of course, is built on the backs of Christian theists who investigated the mysteries of reality precisely because they believed that all of reality had been ordered by the mind of a omnipotent Creator.
True. And they hoped to improve their understanding of order. What I said was that human knowledge is not advanced by the assumption that an unknown entity did some unspecified something at unspecified times and places using unspecified methods for unspecified reasons. What those Christians were looking for was order, not caprice. You and I come from different Christian traditions. I was taught not to put God to the test. That can have a number of meanings, but I was taught that looking for proof of God's existence is wrong. That the need for proof is an unworthy desire. Unworthy and futile. I don't think you will find God in the gaps.Petrushka_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

---Gaz: "No, it isn’t. It depends on the aspect of design you are talking about. Few designs are entirely original, especially in the auto world, and components and body shapes and colours are borrowed from other designs." I don't know what to say to someone who thinks that a 1959 Ford or a 1963 Corvette Sting Ray is not distinguishable from other models. ---"Yes, based on experience. We’ve both seen writing lots of times and know its generated by humans. So far, we agree. What the design inference doesn’t manage to do, though, is successfully sift out those items that appear in nature that actually are designed." How did you know that the sentence written in the sand on the planet Mars did not occur through natural causes? You have already acknowledged that it did not? ---"All you are telling me is that we assess what is design based on experience." Not solely. We also assess design from patterns, just as you assessed desing in the patterns I alluded to on the planet Mars. You have no experience of Mars, nor do you need it to know that sentences written in the sand did not occur via natural causes. Everyone knows that, from the standpoint of reasonable probability, wind, air, water, and time cannot produce intelligent-like patterns. Unfortunately, for ideological reasons, not everyone will admit what they know. ---"Where are your probability filters? How do you apply them?" You assessed the probability that natural causes did not write the sentences, ruled it out, and inferred design. The more letters involved, the less chance that natural causes were responsble. It isn't at all unlikely that natural causes would produce something that looks like an "S." or an "O." On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that natural causes would write thematic sentences that use those letters. This is all quite obvious. ---"That’s not a “formal design inference”, that’s a rough and ready assessment based on experience! For a formal design inference you need to sshow me the evidence and the probability calculations and the application of your filter. I see none of that here." That's right. I should have used the word, "informal." Thank you. The reason I have taken this tack is because most Darwinists who complain about the math do not even understand the inference independent of the math. ----Define “right reason”. How does it differ from other forms reason? Who formulated the principles of “right reason”? Please provide references. Here are some of the most important: [A] A Thing cannot be and not be at the same time. [B] (Derived from A) Nothing can begin to exist without a cause, [C] A proposition cannot be true and false at the same time. [D] We have rational minds, we live in a rational universe and there is a correspondence between the two. [E] Mathematics have laws [F]] The ordered universe is syncronized with the laws of logic and mathematics. References: Western Civilization beginning with Aristotle. The history of the philosophy of science. ----"And if the evidence conflicts with reason then the reason is wrong." How would you interpret evidence if not through reason's principles? ---"Sorry, the evidence at the quantum level suggests it can." There is no evidence that quantum events are uncaused nor could there ever be. You cannot assure me that your suspension of the law of causality is limited to quantum events and no where else because you acknowledge no principle by which you could make that claim. If it can be suspended even once, why can it not be suspended again and again? You cannot answer that question. ---"I’ve answered it several time. I wonder if you are able at all to grasp even the basics of physics. You understand that elementary particles are very small, yes? They have a very tiny mass (=energy). Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that we cannot be certain of the energy of a particle over a given time interval to a precision greater than h/4(pi)- here h is Planck’s constant (I’ll let you look up the value). At the quantum level that uncertainty in energy levels is very significant because of the mass of the particles is so small and can result in virtual particles popping in and out of existence. However, at the classical levels – things such as you, me and concrete walls – the masses are enormously greater, and so the uncertainty in the energy levels of you, me and concrete walls to a precision of h/4(pi) is absolutely tiny. The prospects of you, me and concrete walls popping in and out of existence is therefore highly unlikely to the point of being virtually impossible." No, you haven't answered the question. You have not provided me with your reasons for saying that, if causlity is suspended, it can only be suspended in the case of quantum mechanics. You have said only that quantum mechanics is different from other realms. Indeed, they are different insofar as they are unpredictable and hard to measure, but those differences do not add up to differences about causality. How do you know, based on your assumption, that new evidence will not invalidate causality at the macro level? You have provided no answer to that question. Can a concrete wall appear out of nowhere on the highway causing some poor driver to collide with it? ---"No, see above." I read the above. You did not answer the question. You can't appeal to the law of causality because you disavow it. In fact, a concrete wall cannot come from nowhere because nothing can come from nowhere. ----"Wrong, see above and explain why we see virtual particles popping in and out of existence if you maintain your view." If it is the case that something can come from nowhere, then there is no reason in principle that a concrete wall cannot come from nowhere. For you, there is no non-negotiable principle of causality and therefore no standard for determining when and when causality will or will not apply. ---"Wrong, see above. It’s not a matter of what is negotiable or not – you should understand that by now. It’s a matter of what the evidence shows." The problem is that it is not I who does not understand. Evidence must be interpreted and you have no rational standard by which you can interpret it. ---"No, I am happy to change my assumptions in line with the evidence. You need to stick with your dogma because, at the root of it, you see a need for a first cause vanish. And that makes you uncomfortable." What evidence would cause you to accept the law of non-contradiction and the law of causality? I don't have to wonder about whether you can answer that question because I know for a fact that you cannot. If you confront that question honestly, you will come to understand your error. No amount of evidence can prove the law of causality, nor can any amount of evidence invalidate it. To come to a deeper understanding, ask yourself this question: Could evidence invalidate the laws of mathematics? Or is it the case that you believe even that? Either you accept first principles and choose to be reasonable, or you reject them and choose to be unreasonable. ---"Yet that agent itself [first cause] can spring from nowehere in violation of your own metaphysical principles." Incorrect. The principles of right reason allow us to deduce the fact that the first cause must be an uncaused cause. I would take you through the proof except for the fact that you reject the logical principles by which the proof is made. You consider the same evidence and yet, because you reject reason’s principles, assume that the universe could bring itself into existence. By that same standard, you assume that mind can come from matter and the life can come from non-life. ---"Correct, because that is what the evidence suggests." There is no evidence to suggest any of these things. None. Those are all misguided INTERPRETATONS of evidence. To put it simply, you are not distinguishing between evidence and interpretations of evidence. The difference in our points of view is not related to the evidence ---"Yes it is." No, it isn't. We are looking at exactly the same body of evidence. I reject not one piece of it. I acknowledge the first principles of right reason; you do not.StephenB_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

It seems also that other evolutionary scientists disagree with your notion that artificial selection and gene-manipulation falls under the definitional, historical, or theoretical purview of evolutionary theory.
There are unrelated concepts being conflated in your argument. The on that is incompatible with Darwinian evolution is the possibility that variation is directed. That would be the case with direct gene manipulation, whether by humans of by mysterious agencies. That could be detected. The other case, in which selection is manipulated is fully compatible with Darwin. In fact Darwin outlined many varieties of selection. The only thing they have in common is that some individuals wind up having more offspring than others. It is really pointless to argue about this. The point of contention is whether variation is guided. All sides seem to agree that selection is complicated and can be guided. Of course Darwin didn't believe it was guided prior to the existence of humans. But in case you didn't notice, I spent a dozen or more posts on this thread asking if design detection could distinguish varieties that are the result of artificial selection. Several posters said I was wasting time. But apparently not, since you seem to believe that human (or agency) directed evolution is fundamentally different from selection done by the non-human ecosystem.Petrushka_{July 21, 2010
July
07
Jul
21
21
2010
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 24 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply