Suzan Mazur, an independent journalist and author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology, takes aim at the outdated Darwinism of the College Board university preparation system:
At Oscillations, she notes that the content of its biology course and exam framework devotes 24 pages or 22% to Darwinian natural selection and describes it in the “Essential Knowledge” section as “a major mechanism of evolution.” The College Board, she reports, explicitly says that: “The principles of natural selection and its components appear throughout the course.”
She sees this as a “catastrophe” (Suzan Mazur, “College Board & The Natural Selection Racket” at Oscillations) because “the evolution paradigm has shifted” and – following Eugene Koonin – natural selection is not taken seriously any more as an explain-all.
Is the stuff she identifies designed to insulate students from the ferment going on in biology or is just the outcome of educrats’ self-insulation…? Maybe both?
Mazur has got to be one of the best-connected people writing about evolution today. Her nose for haven’t-we-seen-this-show-before?, oh-not-THAT-again?, used-to-was, done-to-death, and this-will-wash-no-more is the outcome of having interviewed many movers and shakers (and maybe some slackers and fakers) and kept notes over the years. She should certainly be better known.
The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing ‘the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin’ is also a good introduction to what’s changing in biology.
This was such an odd statement I had to look up its origin. It’s from Mazur’s own interview of Eugine Koonin . All Koonin is saying is that there is that selection doesn’t entail and actual selector. That does nothing to diminish the importance of natural selection at all.
Mimus, you might also want to look up some of the prominent promoters of what is termed ‘neutral theory’, i.e. Graur and Moran for example. A theory in which selection is rendered, for all practical purposes, null and void, in that they hold selection is apparently incapable of eliminating the vast amounts of junk DNA that they postulate must exist in DNA in order to make some type of naturalistic evolution feasible.
In fact, Moran has claimed right here on UD, a couple of times that I’m aware of, that he is emphatically ‘not a Darwinist’ since he rejects natural selection as a major player in evolution.
Just how random chance, all by its lonesome, can produce the overwhelming ‘appearance of design’, minus selection as the supposed ‘designer substitute’, Moran never explains and is apparently left for others to figure out.
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126203207.htm
Natural selection is a process of elimination. If you have differential reproduction due to heritable chance (random) mutations, you have natural selection. The less fit get eliminated over time.
It has never been shown to be the designing force Darwin envisioned.
F***ing “Natural Selection” is a human construct.
We humans observe that some living things last more than others, and then we label that difference as “selection”.
‘Natural’ – Good luck with coming up with a scientific definition for that.
‘Selection’ – What’s doing the selecting here? The Grim Reaper? Death Himself choosing who goes?
No science here. Evolutionists should go back to the land and take up farming. Do something constructive instead of wasting everyone’s time.
Andrew
If you have differential reproduction due to heritable chance (random) mutations, you have natural selection.
How is that a human construct?
ET,
‘Natural’ itself is a human abstraction. It’s not detectable by any measuring device. It’s imaginary. It’s not science. It’s a philosophical position.
Andrew
Does it not signify either panentheism or animism ? Whatever aspect of nature does the selecting, is the subject doing the selecting, and must be intelligent after some fashion. How would sunflowers have the nous to continue to face the sun by a seamless sequence of rationally sequential coincidences – a product of design, and necessarily, of purpose ?
We’re mad arguing with these people, aren’t we ? Where there had been one fool before, our interlocutors creating another fool to keep them company in the ‘secure unit’, known as the scientific-establishment consensus – if only to argue with them.
By the way, according to “naturalists”:
A) Everything is “Nature”.
B) We are the result of “Nature”.
C) Hence, we humans, are “natural”.
Conclusion: “If we select plants or animal breeds,”
We are “Natural Selection” in action.
Where did “daddy” Darwin get the term “artificial” selection then?
Was he suggesting we are different than the “rest” of Nature?
Was “daddy” Darwin suggesting human exceptionalism?
So nothing exists in nature? Nothing is produced by nature? Really?
I liked Dembski’s dissection of the term ‘natural selection’:
As Adam Sedgwick pointed out to Charles Darwin himself about his ‘grand principle’ of natural selection, “what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,, and yet,,, “You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.”
And indeed this faux power for nature to supposedly choose between options is woven throughout the ‘just-so story telling’ of Darwinists in which they give nature the power to supposedly ‘select’ whatever characteristic one is seeking to explain the origination of simply because they can imagine it had some sort of fitness advantage over not having that particular advantage.
As Stephen Jay Gould explained, “Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”
To repeat, “Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”
Try telling that line to your physics professor and see what kind of response you get! 🙂
Here are a few more quotes along that line:
In fact fitness itself, which plays a central role in the concept of natural selection., and which also figures centrally in the equations of population genetics, lacks a rigid mathematical definition.
In fact, many leading thinkers can’t even agree on exactly what fitness is suppose to be;
Moreover, the more rigid one becomes in his mathematical definition of fitness, then the more obvious it becomes that the mathematics of population genetics actually falsifies Darwinian evolution, and does not support it:
In short, fitness itself, when more properly defined mathematically in order to more accurately reflect biological reality, then fitness itself ends up falsifying Darwinian evolution in general and natural selection in particular.
“So nothing exists in nature? Nothing is produced by nature? Really?”
ET,
You are not thinking about this clearly. Things exist, obviously. But what do you mean by ‘nature’? Can you explain to us what nature is and what it isn’t? Is it everything? What comes with a ‘not natural’ sign on it?
Andrew
Natural means “existing in or produced by nature”. Stonehenge exists in nature but nature did not produce it. It is artificial with respect to its origins. Hurricanes exist in nature and are produced by nature. They are natural through and through.
It all depends on the context, Andrew.
According to brain-dead “naturalists”:
– WE are Nature.
– There is not difference between Stonehenge and some randomly assembled group of rocks.
– Our minds are “random”, there are neither purpose nor goals.
BUT we know they are CRAZY LIARS. Our minds are goal-directed, different than a hurricane, or a storm or lightning bolts.
“Natural means “existing in or produced by nature”.
ET,
One of the first rules of definitions is that you should not use the word or a variant of the word you are trying to define in the definition. That results in circular reasoning which logical coherence excludes.
Andrew
Anyway, why would you conclude that Stonehenge is not Natural? Humans are Natural. Why is what Humans assemble not Natural?
Andrew
Andrew thinks that all dictionaries are wrong because they all use the word “nature” in their definition of “natural”. But I digress. Nature is defined as ” the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans”. That means anything existing in that physical world is natural. Then there are the forces of nature. They seem to be limited in what they can create.
We know that Stonehenge wasn’t produced by nature because it exhibits many signs of work/ intention. We know that humans weren’t produced by nature because all living organisms also exhibit many signs of work/ intention. We know this due to our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships.
This paper explains the evolution that led to the vertebrates:
https://evodevojournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13227-018-0099-9
PavelU,
The journal you took that paper from seems to need basic grammar editors:
This statement in the abstract has a basic grammar error:
“little is know about the evolution of this patterning mechanism.“
If they do so bad with basic English grammar, what can we expect about their dealing with more difficult issues ?
🙂
PeterA,
I’m sick and tired of seeing this guy posting his nonsense and the moderators letting him get away with it.
PeterA,
Good catch! But that’s a common mistake. C’mon, be gracious.
At least the statement seems to denote certain level of honesty.
🙂
“We know that Stonehenge wasn’t produced by nature because it exhibits many signs of work/ intention. ”
ET,
So when beez make beezhivez that’s not a production of nature? Beezhivez exhibit many signs of work/intention.
You still keep deliberately missing the point. ‘Nature’ and ‘Natural’ fail as science. They cant be defined very well.
Andrew
“” the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans”
Does this include interplanetary space? Stars? Galaxies? Emotion? Calculation? Possibility? Potential?
Andrew
Jawa
How is this any different than BA77’s posted links?
Ed George
Bornagain77 ‘s links are teleological (goal-oriented), the result of logical thought processes. They relate to the topics being discussed. And they are really interesting, by the way.
PavelU’s ones are random garbage.
See the difference?
“Para-digms they are a-changin’! “
Ed George,
Care to point out where any of my links in post 12 criticizing natural selection are ‘nonsense’?
If you are going to resort to basically insulting me instead of ever engaging any of the substance of my arguments, I will seek to have you banned from UD. (as you have been banned numerous times before under various handles for the exact same type of trollish behavior).
As to PavelU’s repeated ‘nonsense’, is does not take long to see where the papers that he cites do not support the claims he makes for them;
For instance, he claims that “This paper explains the evolution that led to the vertebrates:”
Yet in the actual conclusion of their paper we find that their findings merely “raise the possibility” that they may have an explanation for the evolution that led to the vertebrates:
Thus they admit in the abstract that “little is know(n) about the evolution of this patterning mechanism” that supposedly led to evolution of vertebrates, (which is certainly NOT a minor confession on their part), and in the conclusion of their paper they admitted that they merely raise the possibility that “meis and hoxa11 expression has played a substantial role in the transformation of appendage anatomy.”
If you think raise the possibility is an adequate explanation of anything you are deluding yourself.
In other words, it is the usual Darwinian storytelling and is a far cry from any actual hard science that would have actually demonstrated how the transformation of one species into another species, (say a mudskipper into a lizard), is even remotely feasible.
Darwinists simply don’t have any such substantiating evidence now, nor, in my honest opinion, will they ever have any substantiating evidence in the future that the transformation of one species into a brand new species in possible.
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand how any particular species my acquire its particular shape and/or form.
The failure of the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself.
In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
Simply put, the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution is dead in so far as EVER giving us a adequate explanation as to how any particular organism may acquire its basic shape and/or form.
Ed George @25:
The difference is huge:
BA77’s contributions are very informative, interesting and make sense.
PavelU’s comments make no sense and only show that the guy has no idea what the papers he cites are saying.
BA77
Sorry, but I stopped reading your complete posts after I found most of them to be irrelevant to the topics being discussed. If this has changed, I will try reading them again.
BA77
Sorry, but I have never been banned before. You should stop believing everything ET says. If you doubt me, feel free to ask the moderator. I’m sure he/she can check IP addresses.
Bornagain77 @ 2
Perhaps because when he says “Why I am not a Darwinist” he doesn’t mean random mutation without natural selection. No one does.
It seems there are some here at UD who haven’t caught up with what is currently understood as the theory of evolution in biology. There are also some here who have commented on the incoherence of worldviews founded on false premisses. Believing that their version of “Darwinism” represents the current state of evolutionary biology is arguably just such a false premiss so what does that say about their worldview?
PeterA @ 20 – I’m honestly struggling to see what’s grammatically incorrect about that clause, can you explain?
On PavelU, my suggestion is just ignore him. His posts aren’t obnoxious, and they’re easy to scroll past.
Ed George claims that “I found most of them (your posts) to be irrelevant to the topics being discussed.”
And yet, in this very thread, my posts were directly on the subject of natural selection which is directly relevant to what was discussed in the OP:
Moreover, Ed George blatantly disregards his own criteria of ‘staying on the topic being discussed’.
For example, in kf’s recent thread entitled “Thoughts On The Soul”, a thread which was discussing an article by John C Wright about the soul, Ed George, in his very first comment on the thread, tried to derail the topic of the thread with a reference to “Plato and Same-Sex Sexuality”. A topic which had absolutely nothing to do with the topic that kf had just opened the thread with.
kf admonished Ed George thusly,
Thus Ed George’s standard of being “relevant to the topics being discussed” apparently only applies to others and not to himself.
The real reason that Ed George continually refuses to engage ID arguments in any forthright and substantial manner is that he simply can’t refute the arguments in any meaningful way. but he can only nitpick at the edges of the arguments, if he chooses to engage the arguments at all, (his ‘non’-exchange with Upright Biped being a prime example). This is not the tactic of someone who is trying to honestly search for the truth of a matter but is the tactic of someone who has a disingenuous intent.
As to Ed George’s claim that he has never been banned from UD before. I don’t care whether he has been banned or not. I will seek to have him removed if he continues his trollish behavior towards me and/or towards others. Period! You can rest assured on that,
@30 Ed George
So you are commenting on things you admit you do not read.
A waste of time then.
At post 32 Seversky addresses the fact that Moran claims that he is ‘not a Darwinist”. He quotes Moran’s own words,
I suppose that Seversky is trying to claim that Moran does not explicitly reject Natural Selection outright. But as I pointed out in post 2 of this thread, in Moran’s promotion of what is termed ‘neutral theory’, he has, for all intents and purposes, rendered natural selection itself null and void of any true explanatory power:
The following article by Moran goes into a bit more detail as to exactly why Moran rejects Natural Selection as a major player in evolution
In what should be needless to say, if you believe that Natural Selection is incapable of removing the 90% of the genome that you believe to be junk, then you cannot possibly believe, as Darwin believed, that “natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing…every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good.”
I can see why Seversky (and Moran) would want to preserve some type of explanatory power for Natural Selection since, without Natural Selection, Darwinists are basically stuck with chance alone as a explanatory principle,
As Austin Hughes explained ‘Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.’
In short, with Natural selection being tossed to the side, by neutral theory’, as the explanation for the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but instead are now reduced to arguing that the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all.
Even Richard Dawkins himself finds the claim that chance alone can build such wonderful design we see in life to be ‘absolutely inconceivable’. In the following video Dawkins states that the ‘appearance of design’, “cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That’s absolutely out.,,, It’s out of the question.,,,’
Contrary to what the proponents of neutral theory may want to believe beforehand, with natural selection out of the way as the supposed ‘designer substitute’ for explaining the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life, then the explanation for that ‘appearance of design’ in life does not automatically default to pure chance, as they want to believe, but instead the explanation defaults to intelligent design.
As Richard Sternberg states in the following video, (a video which found natural selection to be grossly inadequate for explaining the fixation of mutations in a genome), “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
Verse:
@32 Seversky
Hehe.
How can Larry Moran (a naturalist) know anything?
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
Acartia Eddie:
Not as “Ed George”. But you have been banned when you posted as Acartia and William spearshake.
IP addresses can be changed by using a VPN.
Andfrew:
No, it is a production of the bees. Nature cannot make beehives.
THAT is total nonsense. Perhaps you should read Newton’s Principia…
seversky:
There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. So your post is just nonsense.
Hate to beat this dead horse some more but…
ET,
The defintion you gave upthread
“the physical world”
should exclude beehives and stonehenge?
What else?
Andrew
Unbelievable. Both exist in the physical world. Both were created by intelligent agencies. Neither one was produced by nature, acting freely* (Del Ratszch in “Nature, Design and Science”)
There is a difference between existing in the physical world, ie nature, and being produced by the physical world.
See also: the Nature of Nature
“There is a difference between existing in the physical world, ie nature, and being produced by the physical world.”
ET,
This is a philosophical distinction. There are many different versions of ‘nature’ that differ from yours.
Andrew
Andrew:
No, it isn’t. Why do you think that we don’t consider every death to be murder? Why is it that no one thinks that every rock is an artifact?
It’s all science, Andrew. And it has to o with knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships
Such as?
Bob O’H @33:
Is this statement grammatically correct?
“little is know about the evolution of this patterning mechanism.“
Just a heads up to anyone engaging, I am almost certain pavelU, jawa, PeterA and Pw are all accounts run by the same person (who once posted as Dionisio). They almost always post in quick sucession of each other, have some of the same peculiar obsessions (including grammar and spelling as above) and often talk to each other. Not sure they should be encouraged.
PeterA – I can’t see anything wrong with that, can you explain?
Mimus – ah, thanks for the heads up. Let’s see if I get an actual explanation of the grammatical issues.
Mimus @ 47
I don’t know if you’ve been able to validate that, but I was wondering about those similarities also. If this is true, with all respect to Pavel-jawa … it can be confusing to have multiple discussions from the same person. You can bring up multiple points, even contrary to ID from a single user-name.
Regarding “Nature” – some can argue that nature cannot produce anything on it’s own, without an intelligent, guiding power behind it. There is ordered purpose found in every part of the universe, from the smallest sub-particles. This is the first cause argument that where we find something acting in a functional manner, something else has to provide the power to do that. All of “nature” has to be supported continually, at every minute.
Whatever function is occurring, is dependent at that moment on other processes and powers, and all of these derive their function from something else.
So, there has to be a First Cause that possesses the power to give to all of these functions.
There isn’t an ordered purpose to the wind-blown leaves or snow drifts.
ET,
The most obvious version of nature that differs from yours is the definition the naturalist uses.
“All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
Even within naturalism, there are shifting sands.
Andrew
What? That doesn’t do anything to what I have said. The explanation of Stonehenge is found within nature itself. But it isn’t nature itself.
And the explanation for nature cannot be found in nature itself. Natural processes only exist in nature and because of that cannot be responsible for nature.
ET,
According to naturalist philosophy, you are incorrect. According to them, nature is everything there is. So, when an Evolutionist regurgitates ‘Natural Selection’ he means something different than you do. Which has been my point from the beginning. ‘Nature’ is defined by philosophy.
Andrew
ET
From the ID perspective, we say that such things are “random nature”. ID is arguing against materialism and Darwinism, so ID takes the materialist view as the starting point. In materialism, there is the belief that nature is a random, mindless, independent force that requires no design. Everything in materialism is built from the bottom up – the smallest molecules accidentally combine and the result is the earth and various things.
So, cloud formations, snow drifts, piles of leaves – these are claimed to be the product of random, mindless forces and they show no ordered design. Plus, these things can be replicated without need for a designing intelligence. So, it seems like there is “nature” versus “design intelligence”.
But another view will say that’s an artificial distinction. “Nature” cannot operate by itself and all nature requires a designing intelligence. Plus, there is ordered function. Some would also say “ordered purpose” but I just said “function”, but in either case – both require a design intelligence.
That would be the Thomistic view, for example, that sees nature as an integrated whole.
In that view, nothing can be created from the bottom-up without a design intelligence.
Snow drifts, for example, are not independent actions. They are completely dependent on ordered, predictable, unexplained phenomenon. Nature cannot create the order required for snow drifts. Nature does not create the chemical bonds of Hydrogen and Oxygen that make water. Nature does not create the effect of temperature on water causing snow, or the fact that snow predictably falls to the ground or that snowflakes have amazing patterns. All of these things require a designing intelligence to create. Snow drifts are ordered, predictable and follow laws.
The question of “purpose” is difficult here, but we can ask “what is the purpose of survival”? For bees, for example, do they really “want to survive and make beehives and create honey”? They just do this by instinct. It’s part of their nature.
From the ID perspective, we separate the intelligent activities of bees from what snowflakes do because bees have intelligence and snowflakes do not.
But both bees and snowflakes and leaves are just acting according to their essence.
Do snowflakes and blowing leaves exhibit “functions”?
From the ID perspective we would say “no” – it’s not a complex intelligent function.
However, another view would say “Yes”. It is just as complex to create a biosphere where there are chemical elements that bond, creating a substance called “water”, which can freeze solid, form into mist, create clouds, fall from the clouds as rain or snow, create rivers and lakes … and dozens of other “functions” that water performs.
All of these functions of water are dependent on predictable, ordered processes that had to exist at the beginning. Nature cannot create the rules and laws that bind molecules together and which make water have the properties it does.
The existence of water, and even the ordered process of any molecules requires a designing intelligence to not only create, but to sustain in an ordered succession continually.
Because a truly blind, mindless “nature”, could not create any consistent patterns at all.
Blind, mindlessness cannot create rules or laws.
Without a design intelligence, there could be nothing but chaos – no laws, no order, no functions.
For purposes of ID, we just forget that point and act as if nature could actually work as a blind, mindless process. Because that’s what materialists think. So, we just take their starting point and then show that “blind nature” can’t create beehives. But we give materialists the idea that “blind nature” could create the patterns of leaves blowing in the wind. But in reality, a truly mindless nature couldn’t create leaves or the consistent powers of wind to move objects. The wind appears random but it actually follows laws of the atmosphere, chemistry, gravity.
Andrew- You don’t know what you are talking about. Just because naturalists say something doesn’t make it so. They do NOT disagree with me on the definition of “nature” nor “natural”.
Evolutionists have defined natural selection and I have just repeated it. Natural selection occurs whenever you have differential reproduction due to heritable chance, as in random, variation(s). And no, nature is not defined by philosophy.
“Just because naturalists say something doesn’t make it so.”
ET,
Obviously. But they say stuff. And its a philosophical position. I don’t know why you don’t get that.
Andrew
Oh my. I have never said that naturalism isn’t a philosophical position. I said that nature isn’t.
ET,
Naturalism comes from how you define nature, philosophically.
For instance, you can ask, does nature have capabilities? If so, what are they?
If you say nature is everything, then of course it has every capability. We philosophically defined it that way!
And that’s what naturalists do.
Andrew
Andrew, Naturalism comes from how you define nature’s capabilities, philosophically. Naturalists still define nature as the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans.
How does Christianity define “nature”, Andrew? How do you think Intelligent Design defines “nature”? Does it differ from the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans?
ET.
You are obviously not going to accept any information beyond your own framework. So, I quit. Have a nice rest of your day.
Andrew
But for those interested in further reading, this was interesting to me:
“The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
Andrew
Andrew- Your projection is duly noted, as in your avoidance of reality.
For the record- There is a HUGE difference between naturalism and nature. Andrew wants to conflate the two.
asauber
That is a detailed article – informative. I didn’t read the whole thing but it explains “causal closure” where “nature” is believed to be nothing other than “the physical”. The two terms are the same.
The “natural world” is the same as the “physical world” in that view.
However, even some naturalists think that there are non-physical causes in nature. So, nature would not be only the physical world. So, in that case, anything governed by natural laws and forces would be “nature” even if such things were non-physical.
“Andrew wants to conflate the two.”
ET,
That is a false accusation. I’m trying to inform you that your idea of Nature is not the the same as everyone’s. And that’s because **You don’t know what Nature is** and neither does anyone else who tries to use the term. What you have is a **philosophical position on what Nature is**.
Lord, have mercy. 😉
Andrew
For those certain naturalists they have a hard time explaining “nature” because to do that you have to have something that is “non-nature”.
In that case, it would be impossible to distinguish anything that is “nature” (physical) from its opposite, non-nature or non-physical.
The term nature would be meaningless in that case.
To identify something as “nature” in that worldview, it has to be separate from non-nature.
All they can say is that nature is distinct from supernatural, and supernatural is something that is non-natural. But doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Andrew:
And you are failing, miserably.
AGAIN:
Naturalists still define nature as the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans.
How does Christianity define “nature”, Andrew? How do you think Intelligent Design defines “nature”? Does it differ from the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans?
Please answer the questions. Also tell me how that definition is philosophical. You won’t because all you have are your false accusations, Andrew.
Lord, have mercy, indeed.
1. EVERYTHING that exists= Nature.
2. We are part of Nature.
Conclusion: when e.g. we modify dog breeds across generations = we are “Natural Selection” in action.
We are selecting traits that (usually) give us aesthetic pleasure (and those aesthetic traits have associated “free riders”).
Am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong. From Ernst Mayr in “What Evolution Is” page 117:
He goes on to say:
Artificial selection is an example of the former whereas natural selection is the latter.
But according to “naturalists”:
1. “Physics” is doing the “selection” (lots of quotation marks because these people say really weird things).
2. “We” (an “illusion”) are “informed” after the fact.
Conclusion: it is “physics” the thing bringing about a change.
Now:
3. “Physics” is natural.
Therefore: Everything is “Natural Selection’.
Bob O’H @48:
Is the sentence (quoted @46) written correctly?
Everything is “Natural”.
Natural deaths vs. Artificial deaths = non-sense.
Once you get rid of the human mind :
EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST TROUBLE.
Me killing my children = A female bonobo killing its offspring.
If we do not punish bonobos,
WHY should I be punished?
Alexa Ranks for related websites:
AiG:………………………44,300
EN:……………………….219,566
RTB:……………………417,037
TO:………………………636,215
UD:………………………662,429
PT:…………………..2,522,379
SW:…………………3,287,895
TSZ:…………………3,605,624
PS:……………………………….?
I still don’t understand well what makes those internet traffic numbers vary so drastically on different days. Any clues?
PeterA @72:
Bob O’H is right. That sentence you seem so obsessed about is written correctly.
You all ID fans don’t like evo-devo because this growing field of biology is weakening your ideas.
EF
If you can’t figure it out, remind me not to leave my granddaughter alone with you.
I knew it.
No logical explanation.
Evolution is the enemy of knowledge.
“Just-so, “it happened”, “it might be”, “billions of years”, “randomness, you know”. That is what evolution means.
Nothing that can stand logical scrutiny.
@ PavelU: you just have wishful thinking.
And regarding the OOL: 150 years of speculation. Or 150 years of nothing, if you prefer.
What about the “warm little pond”? Has it dried up? “Once upon a time”…
PavelU the “neuronal illusion” with his dubious existence 🙂
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-design-of-life-even-in-a-rats-whiskers/#comment-691896
Here’s a very recent series of papers that explain animal body-plan evolution in details:
https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/animalbodyplan
ID proponents might benefit from reading these papers in order to educate themselves and stop believing in their “design” illusion.
PavelU, the “neuronal illusion”, keeps posting.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-design-of-life-even-in-a-rats-whiskers/#comment-691896
How can an “illusory” entity know what “reality” is?
Asylum is where you live. You materialists have locked your-“selves” (hehehe) in. Delusions of existence, living contradictions, absurdity and pretensions.
Who won the prize for explaining the OOL in 2015? Oh wait, another materialist delusion.
Alice in Wonderland. 🙂
http://www.biomedcentral.com/c.....animalbody*duh*
Harry Potter is not science.
Alexa Ranks for related websites:
Website……………….01/31……………………………02/01……………………Top %
AiG:………………………44,300…………………………44,269……………….0.1
EN:……………………….219,566………………………218,250………………….1
RTB:……………………417,037…………………………422,007…………………1
TO:………………………636,215……………………….635,771……………………1
UD:………………………662,429……………………..661,806…………………..1
PT:…………………..2,522,379…………………..2,520,054…………………..3
SW:…………………3,287,895………………….3,284,894…………………..4
TSZ:…………………3,605,624…………………3,602,299……………………4
PS:……………………………….?………………. not enough data available (extremely low traffic)
PavelU @76:
I see you agree with Bob O’H stating that there’s nothing wrong with the quoted sentence from the paper you cited. Are you sure? Think again.
This discussion thread made it into the top 5 most popular posts in the last month:
Popular Posts (Last 30 Days)
Susan Mazur continues to attract readers to her writings.
Jawa
That doesn’t speak well for this site. A discussion with a few people arguing what “nature” means, a tangent on the grammatical correctness of a sentence, some nonsense about bonobos, and another tangent about who I am and whether or not I have ever been banned at UD.
Translation : Ed George has no idea what “nature” means. Definitions are difficult, let’s try some *attempt* at irony instead.
Thank you jawa.
EF
Translation: EF uses the “translation” deception rather than acknowledge that much of the discussion in this thread is lame.
Ed George
Triggered 🙂
* They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.*
Dodging questions is deception.
Enlighten us, Ed George. What does “nature” mean? (Not holding my breath).
EF
Until there is compelling evidence to the contrary, everything we see in the physical world, or exists because of the physical world, is part of nature.
.
Ed,
Physical dynamics cannot establish the measurement function. There, now you have compelling* physical evidence (which has been well known for your entire lifetime).
*you have had vast amounts of compelling physical evidence … you simply choose to ignore that evidence, and assume your conclusions instead.
UB
So your are claiming that the measurement function would exist if the universe didn’t exist. I don’t see how. And, more importantly, I don’t see how you demonstrate this.
“Naturalism”, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
“Physicalism” or “materialism”, according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Ed George @ 91
Exactly. Just as the obvious objection to BA77’s claim that quantum mechanics shows nothing exists until it is observed is that, if that is the case, what is being observed in the first place?
.
No Ed, I said nothing like that.
You see, unlike you Ed, I am not trying to find an undecidable to use as the means to ignore physical evidence. I take that stance from thoughtful scientists I have studied and read over the years. It represents an epistemological stance that is quite distinct from the one you regularly put on display here — your comment at #91 being just another prime example.
.
If either Ed or Sev can use dynamics (the equations of motion, etc) to explain a record of dynamics — then I am all ears.
Note: assuming your conclusion is not an answer.
UB
I fail to see how this is in conflict with the definition I provided for nature.
Ed George @85:
That’s an interesting observation you wrote.
However, i think that the main topic in the OP for this thread is about important educational issues the society confronts these days.
If you look at the information posted @82, note that this website UD is doing much better in internet traffic than other websites that are openly anti-ID, except the case of TO, which is not too far ahead of UD. See how PT, SW, TSZ and PS are o far behind UD. They all have in common that deal with boring nerdy issues that most people out there don’t care much about. That’s why the numbers are so high. But we compare websites with related topics: science, evolution, ID.
Why are the websites PT and SW doing so badly these days? Any clues? Not so long ago they were doing much better. Actually they were in the same top percentile that UD is. Something must have happened recently, but I have no idea what it could be.
Could it be that they don’t provide enough serious discussions as we have here in UD?
Yes, it’s true that sometimes we have nonsense posted, like the case of PavelU’s comments, but also we have very serious comments by other contributors. Fortunately the latter are the majority.
I have argued for the banning of PavelU’s posts, but this website is open enough to allow folks like PavelU to express their opinions, even if they are nonsense.
Jawa
The Westboro Babtist Church site (godhatesfags.com) has an Alexa ranking of 482597, better than UD’s. I only mention this because a web site’s ranking isn’t a good measure of the level of serious discussion taking place on the website.
Ed George @98:
The example you used has nothing to do with seriously discussing fundamental scientific issues. Philosophical questions can be discussed too. But it has to be done with respect of the dignity of every person.
You’re comparing apples and alligators. That wouldn’t work.
We have to compare websites that deal with the same issues. In this case discussing the origin and evolution of biological systems in a serious way.
Some of the websites in the list don’t have discussions. But they are in the same category explained above.
If you know of another website that can be compared, let’s include it too.
But let’s stay away from anything that promotes hatred to other people.
I believe that we all share a given condition called Imago Dei which implies dignity and requires mutual respect.
The questions posted @97 are still awaiting serious response. Your attempt wasn’t serious. You may try again. Thanks.
Ed George,
I think that what attracts visits is the OP, more than the follow up discussion.
Note the proportion of visits to posts.
The list provided by jawa seems correct.
The example you presented doesn’t fit in the comparison.
Jawa, I picked an anti-gay site because of the many discussions held here about homosexuality and same sex marriage.
Another common subject here is abortion.
Pro choice.org…… 595617
Another subject discussed here frequently is atheism/materialism, etc.
friendlyatheist.patheos.com….,,8750
And, occasionally, the discussions revolve around evolution.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php……….. 1704
https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/…..1231
@89 EdGeorge
What “world”, Ed George?
The one inside your head?
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
Ed George @101:
Your examples are invalid. Don’t qualify.
You’re still comparing apples and alligators.
I’ll explain why later.
But maybe you’ll figure it out before I explain it.
Hint: look carefully at the information provided by Alexa.
Actually, to be consistent I should remove AiG and RTB from my list. Perhaps even TO should be removed.
They don’t seem comparable according to Alexa.
Corrected list according to Alexa.
Removed AiG and RTB.
Alexa doesn’t show any (direct or indirect) relation to UD.
Alexa Ranks for related websites:
Website……………….01/31……………………………02/01……………………Top %
EN:……………………….219,566………………………218,250………………….1
TO:………………………636,215……………………….635,771……………………1
UD:………………………662,429……………………..661,806…………………..1
PT:…………………..2,522,379…………………..2,520,054…………………..3
SW:…………………3,287,895………………….3,284,894…………………..4
TSZ:…………………3,605,624…………………3,602,299……………………4
PS:……………………………….?………………. not enough data available (extremely low traffic)
Ed George @101:
Make sure that Alexa shows direct or indirect relation to UD.
None of your examples meet that criteria.
This is why I removed AiG and RTB from my list above.
When you enter friendlyatheist.patheos.com
note that what Alexa processes is really patheos.com instead of the longer name you enter.
When you enter this:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
Alexa can’t find the page.
The result you got was for berkeley.edu
For this name
https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com
Alexa measures nature.com
None of that is related to UD according to Alexa information.
Ed George,
Now do you understand your error @85, @98 & @101?
Basically all your examples were wrong.
You may want to try again?
🙂
@89 Ed George
TF asked:
Enter:
Naturalism’s Epistemological Nightmare (or, the “world” is inside my head).
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
Alexa Ranks for related websites:
Website……………….01/31……………………………02/01…………………02/02……………….Top %
EN:……………………..219,566………….……………218,250……………….219,482…………………1
TO:………………………636,215……………………….635,771………………652,972…………………1
UD:……………………..662,429……………………….661,806……………….660,514………………….1
PT:..…………….……..2,522,379……………..……..2,520,054…….……..2,515,293…………………..3
SW:……………………3,287,895…………………….3,284,894…………..3,278,665…………………..4
TSZ:…………………..3,605,624………………….…3,602,299…………..4,266,831…………………..5
PS:…………………………?………………. not enough data available (extremely low traffic)
Ed George:
Now do you understand your error @85, @98 & @101?
Basically all your examples were wrong. Based on a deep misunderstanding.
The main reason UD attracts more visits than most of its Alexa-based peers is that UD has more interesting articles posted by News, KF, GP, BA, PaV, and other OP contributors, covering a wide range of scientific and philosophical topics. Obviously the follow-up discussions may provoke additional interest for repeated visits, but I think it’s mainly the actual OPs that have the magnetism.
Ed George:
Here’s more information about the links Alexa shows between websites in my list:
Alexa associations:
EN: TO, UD, 864
TO: EN, 2,757
UD: EN, TSZ, 652
PT: UD, 1,022
SW: UD, 473
TSZ: UD, PS, 44
PS: TSZ, 15
Again, UD seems more attractive than its Alexa-based peers because it has more articles covering interesting topics of science and philosophy. Only News produces more interesting topics than the other websites combined. On top of that we have KF, JB, PaV, GP, and other OP contributors.
The Alexa ranks for these websites are in those relatively large numbers because many people aren’t attracted to read serious scientific or philosophical topics.
Ed George,
Also note that EN is much higher than UD in the Alexa ranking, but they don’t have any discussion in their website. However they have many interesting and serious articles on science and philosophy. That’s what attracts serious readers.
That means you were barking up the wrong tree. You were criticizing a strawman that you built based on misunderstanding.
Your examples were so bad that they weren’t even wrong. Complete nonsense. But don’t be discouraged. We all make mistakes, specially when we don’t pay attention to what we do or don’t take it seriously.
Yo were comparing apples and alligators. That’s a no-no. I’m sure you’ll try better next time. 🙂
Jawa, you are expending a lot of energy comparing internet rankings and trying to conclude that they are a measure of the level of seriousness of the discussions. UD posts more OPs than their “peers”. Quantity is not quality. News aggregators also have high rankings.
I can’t really speak for the others because I seldom (if ever) frequent them. But I did make a point of checking them out and I did find something very unique about UD. It is the only one that is riddled with advertising. The one that popped up when I logged in this time was for “Hour of Power”. Not exactly a science or ID related site.
LOL, says more about E.G. than UD
@89 Ed George said:
What “world”?
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
Ed George,
You keep getting it wrong, even though I have tried to explain it to you over and over. It seems like you haven’t read the explanations carefully. Too bad.
Anyway, my main goal is not to persuade you, but to let the anonymous readers see for themselves what’s going on here and draw their own conclusions based on what they read, always testing it to hold what is good.
In a way you’re unwittingly helping them to get the point right. Thanks.
BA77 @ 113:
That’s an interesting observation you made about Ed George’s complaint.
Bob O’H,
Did you miss the question @72?
Interesting indeed, from the guy who ends most of his comments with a verse from the bible. 🙂
If the adds are tailored to my browsing history, which I know they usually are, then the fact that I don’t frequent or search religious websites suggests that my frequent visits to UD are being classified in the religion category, not science.
Ed George complains “from the guy who ends most of his comments with a verse from the bible.”
The implication that he is trying to convey is, of course, that Christianity is somehow anti-science. Yet Christianity is the worldview that gave us modern science in the first place and thus I certainly see no reason to deny the tree that gave us the fruit of science in the first place!
. In fact, science is simply impossible without presuppositions that can only be reasonably grounded in Theistic and/or Christian metaphysics.
Whereas on the other hand, presupposing atheism leads to the catastrophic failure of science itself. This catastrophic failure for science that is inherent in presupposing atheism is most clearly demonstrated in the atheist’s denial of his own free will:
Don’t expect E.G to honestly admit that atheism is completely incoherent as to providing a solid basis for ‘doing science’. He NEVER engages the merits of Intelligent Design as a science with any of the integrity that would be expected from a person in an open discussion, but only seeks to attack Theism in general and Christianity in particular every chance he gets. In other words, E.G is a atheistic troll who could care less about the truth!
As to E.G.’s browsing history, I note that web-trackers also take note of the words you write, and advertise in regards to that as well. And since E.G. never writes about any actual science, but spends most of his time bashing God, then that will, of course, effect his browsing history and will reflect in the advertising that he personally sees when he visits a site.
Science means knowledge .
Interesting word indeed for a subjective idealist/solipsist who can not even be sure he has a brain…
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
BA77
No, the implication he is trying to convey is that the religious adds that he sees at UD are because the systems used to determine what adds to display characterize UD as a religious site.
Hmm, I see advertising related to amazon, eBay, and a PDF site. Thus my personal browsing history is apparently playing a big part in what I see.
What do others see?
Also of note: it is clear that the overall broad bush implication is that you are trying to paint Christianity as being anti-science.
My challenge to you is to prove it! Again, Christianity gave us modern science!
Thank God we are not solipsists 🙂
Is Ed George sure he has eyes to *see* anything?
Maybe he does not reply most of the time because he is *hallucinating his own reality?*
Who knows, materialism is very very weird…
The Vampire Diaries makes more sense.
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
UD posts more science-related articles than PT, SW and TSZ together.
BA77 @122:
I see ads for things I have bought or searched for online, totally unrelated from UD. For example, long ago I was reading about schools for my grandchildren and lately I’ve seen ads for schools displayed on my screen when I open UD.
Alexa internet traffic ranks for related websites:
EN:…………………….221,552 top 1%
UD:……………………660,024 1%
TO:……………………678,636 1%
PT:…………………..2,513,241 3%
SW:…………………3,276,542 4%
TSZ:…………………4,263,969 5%
Ed George, FYI-
In addition to Alexa’s associations posted @110, we can also consider the important contributors at PT, SW, TSZ and PS that have posted comments and actually engaged in discussions in UD. For example Dr Arthur Hunt of University of Kentucky and Dr Laurence A. Moran of University of Toronto.
However, I’d rather stick to Alexa’s rules and that’s why I removed AiG and RTB from the list, even though I consider them somehow associated to UD, but they are not.
Definitely the websites examples you presented were very wrong as I explained before. Hopefully you understood this.
Alexa internet traffic ranks for related websites:
EN:……………………….221,892
UD:………………………653,083
TO:………………………668,632
PT:…………………….2,517,004
SW:……………………3,281,511
TSZ:…………………..4,270,691
PS:……………………………….?
Bob O’H,
Did you miss the question @72?
The bioelectric code: An ancient computational medium for dynamic control of growth and form
Endogenous Bioelectrics in Development, Cancer, and Regeneration: Drugs and Bioelectronic Devices as Electroceuticals for Regenerative Medicine
PMC 2019PMC 2019
hmm…
Alexa ranks for related websites:
EN:……….225,385
TO:……….539,153
UD:……….652,572
PT:……..2,502,542
SW:……3,075,045
TSZ:……6,150,700
Optimality in the standard genetic code is robust with respect to comparison code sets
Do these researchers see that their paper points to ID?
Error-correcting codes and information in biology
Jawa
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=Uncommon%20descent
This pretty much mirrors the trends in interest for ID. I think it is fair to say that UD and related sites have seen a declining trend for several years.
@135 Ed George:
You conveniently *forgot* this part?
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=Uncommon%20descent,Pandas%20Thumb,Sandwalk,Talk%20Origins
I think it is fair to say that “evolutionist” sites have seen a declining trend for several years.
We know evolution supporters have tremendous problems with the concept “comparison”.
Just sayin’ 🙂
@135
Ed George:
“I think it is fair to say that UD and related sites have seen a declining trend for several years.”
Does that include PT, SW, TSZ, PS too?
Oh, never mind, my question was timely answered by Truthfreedom in his post right after yours.
Interest over time
Numbers represent search interest relative to the highest point on the chart for the given region and time. A value of 100 is the peak popularity for the term. A value of 50 means that the term is half as popular. A score of 0 means there was not enough data for this term.
it seems like people in general don’t care much about this debate lately.
Jawa
I think that was the point I was making. The interest in ID, regardless of the site, has declined dramatically in the last several years.
Ed George,
Apparently you’ve misunderstood my point. It seems like many people in this post-truth age we’re going through don’t care about anything, that’s why all the websites in the list I posted have lower traffic than they used to. It’s a general trend. It’s not only UD. Amazon Alexa website stats seem more comprehensive than the Google trends. But both tools show the same trend. UD, TO, PT, SW, TSZ, are going down in traffic. It’s a general trend that hits all the websites dealing with the main worldview conflict.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=Uncommon%20descent,Pandas%20Thumb,Sandwalk,Talk%20Origins
@138 Ed George
And I think you are trying to equivocate and, again, you have failed miserably.
Jawa
The fact that we are seeing these trends strongly suggest that this is not the main worldview conflict, at least not for the vast majority of people.
Although, I do find it interesting that while we are seeing a decline in interest in ID, we are also seeing a decline in interest in Christianity, homosexual, same sex marriage and transgendered,
@141 Ed George
Your post does not make any sense (not surprising at all, by the way).
You say things that you do not support and think you are “making a point”.
Well, coming from someone who says that “killing your children increases their fitness”…
Jawa and Ed George:
What do you guys mean by “the main worldview conflict” ?
What does that expression mean to each of you?
Jawa, since c 2015 – 16, there has been a major cold civil war and culture conflict development in the USA. That has sucked Oxygen out of almost any specialised issue. It has not changed the foundational significance of worldviews, logic and first principles and linked foundations of science issues, or of origins issues. Indeed, going back to Plato in The Laws Bk X, guess where the radical relativism, amorality, perversity, nihilistic factionalism and general lawlessness are coming from? Further to this, it is quite clear that FSCO/I has just one credible source, design. Similarly, the cell has in it DNA, which implements machine code for building proteins, and is a linguistic phenomenon applied in key part to algorithms, which are inherently purposeful. Life, credibly, is designed. In our reasoning, we are inescapably morally governed by duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice and fairness (so, rights) etc, constituting built in law and the framework for responsible bodies of knowledge and just civil law. Such moral government can only be founded in the root of reality, which is required to be inherently good and utterly wise, as well as capable of founding fine tuned universes fitted for cell based life, and more. These things of course cut clean across the intent and assumptions of the juggernaut of radical secularists and fellow travellers who wish to steamroller our civilisation. So, I am not particularly concerned on popularity trends; sooner or later foundational issues will have to be faced and we need to be ready for the unpredictable crisis that will trigger such a focus. One does not have to intentionally jump over a cliff to fall, cliffs by definition are prone to crumble and collapse underfoot. By ignoring the balance on merits and trying to impose a ruinous agenda — history warns, but is being ignored as usual — the radicals are pushing us to the brink of an abyss. KF
PS: Plato’s warning:
PPS More https://uncommondescent.com/popular-culture/a-reminder-or-two-to-our-civilisation-from-plato/
Pw, on worldviews issues, cf here. KF
KF,
“ Building a theistic Worldview: first principles and first truths”
Excellent! Thanks.
KF
Yes, we are slowly catching up with the rest of the world. We are slowly realizing that some of the Christian values that we have taken as “gospel” for the last couple centuries do not hold up to scrutiny. Men can no longer insist that their wives be subservient to them. We can no longer deprive homosexuals of happiness, employment, career advancement and equal treatment in society. We can no longer judge women who enjoy sex with multiple partners different than we do men. We can no longer treat pregnant teens as fallen women. We can no longer deny services to inter-racial couples or homosexual couples and claim religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate.
This is a civil war that is long over due.
EG,
nope, as a civilisation we are re-learning a very old lesson (likely the hard way), as Plato warned us about ever so long ago:
All that has changed is there is a strong push to move us to evolutionary materialist secularism and fellow travellers.
As you know, a central test is the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb, which per Guttmacher-UN figures is proceeding at about another million per week. That indicts us globally as utterly morally bankrupt.
A sounder approach, less fraught with hazards for our civilisation would be to recognise that we are inescapably morally governed creatures. That starts with implicit premises in your argument, which your evolutionary materialism would overthrow: first duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to fairness, to justice etc. Discard those and we don’t have a discussion or argument or even a quarrel. Just, a fight as to who will impose their will.
Of course, nowadays, the idea that there is such built in law is “controversial,” but only because some people do not want to face the implication of our being under moral government. Having to bridge IS and OUGHT, only feasible at reality root. And requiring that the source of worlds is inherently good and utterly wise.
But in the end, the choice is that or suicidal nihilism.
KF
PS: And since you have again specifically attacked the Christian faith, I point you here, to a discussion on its core warrant at 101 level. I suggest to you that unless you have a very good argument as to why that warrant fails, you are being dangerously irresponsible. Your grounds for such a confident manner dismissal are ______, and why they hold water in the teeth of evidence as just linked is _______ . Let’s hear your very good reasons, especially i/l/o the minimal facts considerations.
KF @149:
Excellent!
Multiple Rhythm-Generating Circuits Act in Tandem with Pacemaker Properties to Control the Start and Speed of Locomotion
Control of locomotor speed, arousal, and hippocampal theta rhythms by the nucleus incertus
Cute. Says the atheist materialist with his irrational self-defeating philosophy.
Your atheist faith is nothing more than that, another faith. Another religion. Your nihilist cult.
Alexa ranks for related websites today:
EN:……….230,071……….1%
TO:……….505,361…………1%
UD:……….638,347…………1%
PT:……..2,502,046………..3%
SW:……3,076,179………….4%
TSZ:……6,163,423…………7%
TO’s rank has bounced back up lately, though still remaining far below EN.
PS has sunk so deep that it has fallen off Alexa’s radar. No idea why.
Note the Alexa associations:
EN: TO, UD, 864
TO: EN, 2,757
UD: EN, TSZ, 652
PT: UD, 1,022
SW: UD, 473
TSZ: UD, PS, 44
PS: TSZ, 15
We shouldn’t compare apples and alligators, as Ed George suggested. 🙂
TF
Then I guess it is a good thing that I am neither an atheist nor a materialist. Did you have something of substance to say, or should I just ignore your comments? (Probably a rhetorical question).
I looked at TO website and found this:
Copyright © 1998-2016 Archive
And did not see posts after 2015
But they have a very visible link to PT, which still runs.
How can we explain that TO has a much higher Alexa rank than PT?
Jawa, I may be mistaken but I believe that TO was hosted on a server by Larry Moran. He retired a couple years ago.
Ed George,
I think Dr Moran’s blog is SW, which is still active.
Jawa, Sandwalk is his personal blog. But it is my understanding that TO was hosted on a server located in his office. When he retired, it was moved elsewhere.
EG, you have made several attacks against the Christian faith and have tried to use moral relativism as a motivation for further pushing questionable but fashionable trends being advanced under colour of law. Accordingly, I replied at 149 above, and have challenged you to respond substantially. KF
PS: I see you disclaim being a materialist. However, that is not a necessary requirement for being involved in promoting evolutionary materialistic scientism, in a world where “fellow traveller” has significance. The core worldviews issue is, that we are inherently under moral government, starting with first duties of reason. Duties, such as to truth, right reason, prudence [so, to warrant], to sound conscience, to fairness and justice, etc. Duties, which are implicit premises in your argument (and for all serious discussion). That poses the issue of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap, and post Hume such can only be resolved at reality root; on pain of ungrounded ought. There is just one serious candidate on the table, given that to bridge the gap, we need the root to be inherently good and utterly wise. What is at stake otherwise — as crops up often enough in discussions on roots of morality in contexts dominated by evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers — is reduction of OUGHT to delusion, delusion that pervades our whole rationality. Grand delusion. Which, is absurd. In short, the issue is central.
Ed George,
Did professor Moran retire in 2016?
I thought he retired more recently.
Anyway, it’s interesting that TO, a website that hasn’t updated even their copyright stamp since 2016, has more traffic than PT which is still active and is linked very conspicuously from TO.
Also I may have to review the associations Alexa shows
Maybe I missed some of them
Because TO is explicitly linked to PT
I would expect Alexa to show TO in PT stats.
UD is shown in PT, but TO isn’t.
Apparently Alexa provides more information to the subscribers.
But the connection between TO and PT seems so conspicuous that I would expect that association to show up in the free information.
Could this be a misunderstanding or a bug in their software?
@155 EG
And you are?
Jawa, apparently this is where I found the link between TO and Larry Moran.
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/03/does-talkorigins-still-exist.html
And apparently, he retired in 2017.
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/06/some-of-my-former-students.html
TF
Agnostic on both.
165. Ed George,
Thank you for that interesting information. I wasn’t aware of it.
I don’t understand why TO -which doesn’t seem updated lately- does so much better in Alexa stats than PT -which is very visibly linked from TO and still gets updated quite frequently.
Also don’t understand why I don’t see any TO-PT association in Alexa stats.
Jawa, sorry. I can’t help you with that. I’ve only been to TO and PT a couple times.
Ed George,
That’s fine. No problem.
I think only Alexa techies could explain it.
🙂
‘Textbook’ view of brain and spinal cord development revisited
Fill-in the blanks:
A design principle for floral organ number and arrangement in flowers with bilateral symmetry
Alexa ranks for related websites today:
EN:……..243,078………………1
TO:……..467,275……………….1
UD:……..602,970………………1
PT:…..2,883,234………………3
SW:…3,062,428……………….4
TSZ:….6,147,325…………………7
Inside the Integrated Mitotic Stem Cell
A New View On Cell Division
OLV,
Check this out:
https://dev.biologists.org/content/146/22/dev182154.long
Obvious ID.
In the conclusions of the paper linked in the previous comment:
“The developing spinal cord has served as a leading model system to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying cell fate specification and the establishment and function of neuronal circuits. Ground-breaking work by multiple groups has revealed how neuronal cell identities are established by GRNs that delineate NP identities along the DV and AP axes of the embryonic spinal cord by integrating the levels, duration and dynamics of multiple signalling pathways. Neurons further diversify in response to cell-cell interactions, diffusible signals and along a temporal axis. These mechanisms provide a general framework for understanding neuronal subtype diversification, but they are probably just the tip of the iceberg and other mechanisms likely exist that drive further neuronal diversification. ”
“just the tip of the iceberg”?
Wow!
“Our results suggest a TF code composed of class-specific and region-specific TFs generates EE cell diversity.”
“class- and region-specific TFs regulate subtype specification.”
”EE cellular diversity is generated by a combination of class-specific and region-specific TFs, with class-specific TFs regulated by Notch signaling and region-specific TFs determined by anterior-posterior body planning during early development. The local EE diversity could also be regulated by environmental changes and age-related cell plasticity, possibilities that remain to be explored in the future.“
Another code?
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(19)31530-X
Oh no!
More of this stuff?
ID on steroids?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-02/hud-uii021720.php
@177:
“Unexpected insights into the dynamic structure of mitochondria”
Unexpected?
What else did they expect?
Why?
@178:
“In our opinion, this finding fundamentally changes the way our cellular power plants work and will probably change the textbooks,” says Prof. Dr. Andreas Reichert, Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I at the HHU. The results are described in a publication in EMBO Reports.
“ change the textbooks”?
Oh, no! Again?
🙂
Wow! More ID?
“A novel self-organizing embryonic stem cell system reveals signaling logic underlying the patterning of human ectoderm“
https://dev.biologists.org/content/146/20/dev179093.long
Single cell transcriptomics reveals spatial and temporal dynamics of gene expression in the developing mouse spinal cord
https://dev.biologists.org/content/146/12/dev173807
Interesting that ID objectors stay away from scientific discussions
There was a time when Drs AH (UK) and LM (UT) stopped by to present their poor arguments, but not anymore.
PW boldly proclaimed ID citing science papers. Are the ID objectors going to let PW get away with his claims?
🙂
Warning:
Potential ID overdose: this post may cause severe reactions in individuals who are allergic to ID. 🙂
Paper: Communication codes in developmental signaling pathways
(*) evolved? another indisputable evidence that evolution is true. 🙂
This picture illustrates the comment @183:
https://dev.biologists.org/content/develop/146/12/dev170977/F7.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
More evidences for ID
A novel self-organizing embryonic stem cell system reveals signaling logic underlying the patterning of human ectoderm
Alexa ranks for related websites today:
EN:……..244,566………………1
TO:……..447,337……………….1
UD:……..577,592………………1
SW:…2,477,050………………3
PT:…..3,518,082………………4
TSZ:….8,888,977……………9
@185:
PDF entire text online
Jawa, 186:
Can you interpret this data for me? I recognise two of the websites but what are the others? The numbers don’t represents hits or visits surely; I don’t believe TSZ has over 8 million visits!!
Thanks!
JVL,
Thank you for asking those questions.
You’re correct that that information is too cryptic and could lead to misunderstanding. My fault.
Let’s try to clarify it:
The numbers are provided by Alexa as global ranks regarding internet traffic. The lower the number, the better. However, one must compare related websites. Alexa provides information that shows certain relation between websites. But one could argue that the criteria they apply to the website associations are not quite accurate. That’s debatable. But one must compare apples with apples. A while ago another commenter tried to compare apples and alligators. That doesn’t work.
The % numbers are based on the top 100 million active websites. A given n% number indicates that the website is among the top n% of the top 100M active websites.
The acronyms are:
EN is Evolution News
TO is Talk Origins
UD is this website
SW is Dr LM’s Sandwalk blog
PT is Panda’s Thumb
TSZ is The Skeptical Zone
PS is Peaceful Science
The rank numbers vary almost daily, sometimes quite drastically. TSZ does very poorly lately. PS was in the list but sank so low that it got off the Alexa radar. I don’t quite understand what’s exactly going on with those rank numbers.
Please, let me know if this answered your questions or if you have other questions.
JVL,
Let me correct my previous comment:
The statement
“ The lower the number, the better.”
is not clear.
It should say:
“The smaller the number, the better.”
Obviously ranks under 1M are much better than ranks over 1M.
The % numbers help to clarify it.
Jawa, 189, 190:
Yes, that helps a lot. Thank you!!
The 4 Ps of developmental biology morphogenesis:
Pattern, Position, Precision, Proportion
Neuronal differentiation influences progenitor arrangement in the vertebrate neuroepithelium
@ OLV:
Nice links! Thank you.
Regarding ID, a few days ago I read comments saying that “complexity is a mark of no intelligence/ no designer”.
What can we offer to counteract this claim?
Truthfreedom,
What do they mean by “complexity”?
Alexa ranks for related websites today:
EN:……..249,823………………1
TO:……..447,998……………….1
UD:……..578,519………………1
PT:……2,311,282………………3
SW:…2,479,844…………..3
TSZ:….8,917,217………….…9