The Incredible Shrinking Timeline

_{September 15, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction.

Fossil Reptilian Tracks

[BTW, let’s remember that the Darwinian objection to an absence of intermediate forms is the imperfection of the fossil record, with the difficulty of ‘soft-tissue’ fossilizing as a partial reason. But here we’re talking fossil footracks, which would seem even harder to form, and yet they’re found!]

Professor Mike Benton offers this:

“As it is, the new footprint evidence suggests a more dramatic pattern of replacement, where the sprawling animals that dominated Late Permian ecosystems nearly all died out, and the new groups that evolved after the crisis were upright. Any competitive interactions were compressed into a short period of time.”

Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.

Ah, yes, the incredible shrinking timeline for the Cambrian Explosion, the Reptilian Explosion and the Mammalian Explosion (This last one has been coming out over the last year or so, and now we’re seeing the Reptilian Explosion come to the fore). Let’s hear it for Darwinian ‘gradualism’. When will these guys ever give up?!? Behe, in his Edge of Evolution, documents that it has taken 10^16 to 10^20 replication events (progeny) of the eukaryotic malarial parasite for it to come up with a two amino acid change as a way of resisting cholorquinone. Assuming one year/generation for the reptiles, this meant evolutionists before had 20-30 million generations for ‘something’ to happen. And now? Darwinism is hopeless to explain these new discoveries. And, yet, they persist. Scientific faith is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

Comments

#207 OK. To avoid wasted effort let's set some criteria for proving my point. If I were to identify papers from five contemporary philosophers from respectable academic institutions arguing that an infinite regression of causes was logically possible would that be enough?Mark Frank_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

It is "the law of eternal return" that is applicable here. The law of eternal return of StephenB's argument for the existence of a personal God, that is. The proof and related topics have already been beaten to death here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/disappointed-with-shermer/ (Only 746 comments) and here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/6695/ (608 comments) And here: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/i-keep-having-to-remind-myself-that-science-is-self-correcting/ (A mere 250. That one was particularly easy for me because when Stephen didn't like my responses, he started writing them for me, one of the more lunatic moments on UD. Hence the closing comment on that thread.) This fits right in. Said Diffaxial in April:
While we’re inventing BOTH inherently unobservable (because pre-bang), timeless, impersonal laws AND similar timeless personal agents, and inventing them out of thin air, why not postulate the law “Then nothing. Then something. Then nothing. Then something. (Repeat without end),” a law that had no beginning (because it always was, which proves it had no beginning). Many impersonal, lawful physical phenomena oscillate. If you don’t like my law, what observation can disconfirm it? What observation distinguishes the consequences of my law from the actions of a personal agent? ...I postulate it to demonstrate that, because unconstrained in principle by observation, we can define/invent “laws” and “agents” alike, as we please, and draw logical consequences from them ’till the cows come home. When all is said and done we know nothing more than when we started...
[StephenB}:The fact that the origin being impersonal would necessitate that the mere relationship between the impersonal force and the origin of the universe would be sufficient to bring about the Big Bang.
This is simply bald assertion, and doesn’t flow from “necessity.” I have baldly asserted a force that contradicts the necessity of that conclusion. As I said, my postulated force oscillates - and that oscillation had no beginning. Moreover, my force (by definition) does not give rise to the big bang while in one of its two postulated states. Only upon assuming the opposite value does the bang issue forth. Moreover, I also pull from my hat the fact that my force may remain in a state of “nothing” for periods beyond time before (inevitably, impersonally) assuming the state “something.” Hence it stands in relationship to the universe without giving rise to that universe - until it does, in fact, give rise to it. Exactly in the same sense that your preferred personal agent does not issue forth a universe, until it does. And it postulates series of events only in the same sense that your postulate of an agent does likewise. Of course this is all nonsense. But no more so than Stephen’s assertions.
The above from https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/disappointed-with-shermer/#comment-312981 Many of the participants (hazel, David Kellog, Beelzebub, etc.) have since been banned or moderated and no longer participate at UD. Otherwise we could have a rousing reunion!Diffaxial_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, Yes I know that was your intention, but you really didn't establish that point. All you gave me was "google it." I'm still open to you establishing it, though, which would prove me wrong. After all, I didn't exactly establish my point either.CannuckianYankee_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

PaV, Re: #197 - Now you are just making stuff up to try and rescue Behe. Your numbers are arbitrary, unconnected, and very tenuous genetically and statistically. If you want, I can elaborate on another blog - the moderation delay and the, um, philosophical sideshow make this thread too unwieldy. About Verapamil, your parenthetical statement was:
In the presence of PfCRT mutations, mutations in a second transporter (PfMDR1) modulate the level of resistance in vitro, but the role of PfMDR1 mutations in determining the therapeutic response following chloroquine treatment remains unclear (13). At least one other as-yet unidentified gene is thought to be involved. [This last sentence probably refers to Vaparimil.]
The abstratc of the paper you later ppointed to says:
We show here that mutations in Pgh1, the product of the malaria parasite’s pfmdr1 gene, influence the parasite’s susceptibility to the toxic effects of verapamil.
Do you see why your parenthetical aside makes no sense? The bottom line is this - Behe and many others cite the number 10^20 as an absolute and rigid a value derived from solid, empirical results. We have seen here and elsewhere that Behe in fact pulled the number out of thin air (why do you think he did not provide the full and accurate quote in his book?). I have provided an alternative and much more reliable estimate of the same parameter Behe claims to have established beyond doubt. And the reality of the situation is that Behe is wrong. The very best that can be said about Behe's scholarship in this case is that, as you yourself inadvertently point out in your preceding posts, Behe should be stating no more than that the Edge of Evolution may be on the order of 10^20, but that this value lies within a much broader range implied by the source of his number and established by other examples (such as the one I discuss at my blog). But that ain't gonna happen, is it?Arthur Hunt_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

#205 I did not intend to embark on a discussion of whether infinite causal regresses make sense. I just wanted to point out this not at all a settled issue among philosophers.Mark Frank_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

"Just type “infinite regress of causes” into Google and you will find many articles discussing whether it makes sense or not – both pro and con." Yes, Mark, I have read many of them, thanks. Most arguments that seem to counter infinite regress 'denial,' :) tend to offer the types of solutions that quantum physics quacks seem to offer, which is really no solution, Or they discuss infinite regresses as an abstraction, and not applicable to natural reality. I'm talking about infinite regresses that 'potentially' pertain to natural reality. I don't mean the types of regresses such as spatial regresses, where a space can be divided in half, and that the half can be divided again in half, and that this process can occur infinitely. This distinction is where I think much of the disagreement lies. This is why I stated that acutal infinite regresses are impossible, while potential infinites are not. William Lane Craig makes much progress in this area, when talking about the Kalam Cosmological argument for the existence of God. He makes the distinction that actual infinites cannot be traversed. If the abstract infinite example of the space being divided infinitely, were an example of an actual infinite, I could not get from one side of my room by walking to the other, because there would be an infinite amount of space to traverse. Therefore, it is not an actual infinite, but a potential one. If we translate this concept from space to time, you can see that we cannot traverse an actual infinite amount of time, because the present time would never have arrived - the infinite set of time before the present would render this impossible. So I'm quite certain that most philosophers who understand the parameters of the concept from this perspective, reject this kind of infinite regress, even though they might have other concepts that could be described as such and/or other ways around this one. The argument is logically sound, but some philosophers try other solutions, which in my view, are not real solutions. Plus, there tend to be disagreements in the terms defining infinite regresses, while if the terms defined as they are by theistic philosophers in positive arguments for the existence of God were understood and accepted by others, most would be in agreement that such concepts are impossible. It seems to me also, that atheism often appeals to the infinite regress problem in asking "well who designed the designer?" So it seems appropriate to point out that the infinite regress problem is more problematic for naturalistic atheism than it is for theism. I think that the above problem, when realized by atheists, is the reason for the confusion among philosophers. Some attempt to counter the implications of the absurdity of infinite regresses by positing positive solutions to them or by denying they're a problem through complex counter reasoning, but such 'solutions' only detract from the real problem. They fail the test of parsimony. The simple answer is that infinite regresses are logically impossible, and as such, to posit that they are not requires a complexity of reasoning, which defies logic as a whole, but not incrementally, so it's not so obvious. Anybody who follows and accepts the argument, does so incrementally, and so misses the larger logical defiance. This is, incidentally what I beleive also occurs with Darwinism.CannuckianYankee_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

#203 So logically, this trashes the infinite regress option, and this is why most philosophers have ruled it out. Are you sure about this? I would describe the possibility of infinite regress of causes as a debate between philosophers, not something which most have ruled out. Just type "infinite regress of causes" into Google and you will find many articles discussing whether it makes sense or not - both pro and con.Mark Frank_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Ritchie, "Actually we don’t. Maybe there IS an infinite regress of causes. I have no reason to assert that, but it is at least a possibility. Unless you can show it is impossible?" It is logically impossible because we live in finite time that had a beginning. You can't separate out finite time from infinite time meaningfully, because 'parts' of infinite time are logically absurd. Here's why: You can't count to negative infinity. Therefore, what 'started' in negative infinity could never acheive a goal in the 'future.' It can't because it has to traverse an infinite amount of time to do so. You can see how this is absurd. You cannot add or subtract from an infinite set without being left with still an infinite set. If you take all the numbers from 1 to infinity (which is illogical, because it has a starting point - but let's assume that you could), and you separate all the odd numbers from the even, you are left with two infinite sets; an infinite set of odd numbers, and an infinite set of even numbers. Therefore, actual infinite sets are really not possible - only potential infinites are possible. So logically, this trashes the infinite regress option, and this is why most philosophers have ruled it out. Now let me give you another option. Suppose we have a designer who lives outside of time. In that sense, we can say that such a designer is eternal. This designer is uncaused. The designer just is - without reference to a beginning or an end. To ask who created the designer is absurd, because the designer is uncaused and eternal. Eternal implies uncaused. The designer is the ultimate reality from which all other reality is possible. The designer is the necessary first cause of all that exists. This designer solves the infinite regress problem - and logically, such a designer is the only solution to this problem. Quantum voids are no solution, because voids imply just that - a void. No intelligence, no purpose - no decision making. An eternal designer solves the problem because there is no void - there is existence beyond nature and outside of time, with intelligence and the ability to actualize purpose. Since the designer is outside of time, He can actualize time along with purpose. No other concept can do this. You asked what came before the big bang. You rightly stated that to ask what happened before is absurd, because it represents the beginning of time, motion and matter. So if the eternal designer is outside of time, then this is the solution - and the only one - perhaps the designer planned our reality that way so that we could know the certainty of His existence. When thinking theists state that God is eternal, what they mean is that He is outside of time. Time is not a factor for God. This means that He is not affected by time, but is changeless. When atheists ask "who designed the designer," they are less detracting from theism, while more detracting from atheism; because it is really atheism that has a problem with infinite regresses, not theism. Theism offers a solid (and the only) solution to the problem that has been logically posited in our history.CannuckianYankee_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Link above broken, fixed below: http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/chimps.htmlSpitfireIXA_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

Granny @122
Let’s start with the spine. The major spinal difference between chimps and humans occurs in the lumbar region. Humans have longer and wider lumbar vertebrate than chimps – hardly a major redesign of the spine.
Good of you to agree to one “main difference.” You ignore: 1. The small ape gluteal muscles must become significantly larger and reposition their attachments to the spine in the human. 2. The hamstring, quadriceps and most of the muscles along the back must change length, layering and tension to provide a stabilizing capability, rather than a propulsive capability needed by the ape. 3. The special curvature of the spine is finely tuned in the human, and very different from the ape, especially in the lumbar and the neck. 4. The head, neck and shoulder muscles must change length, layering and tension to handle a vertical connection and stabilization of the human skull. 5. Nerve pathways must change to correspond with the new positioning, layering and tensions of the muscles and cartilage. Even slight failure to do so is crippling. Thousands of changes, and this is just the spine. You talk about the length of the femur bone, but ignore the connection and angle to the knee, and all of the ligament changes that occur as a result. You pass off the foot changes as “more specialized,” ignoring the changes needed to rotate the toe and all of its connections 90 degrees to accomplish a completely different purpose. The underside of the foot undergoes even more drastic changes, as the purpose of the foot goes from gripping to compression exceeding kilotons when running. Effectively, you are turning a hand into a foot. And of course you have the thoroughly redesigned pelvis. And the upgraded circulatory system. And the vastly increased neural feedback requirements to sustain bipedalism. All of the changes above are generally detrimental to a quadruped but necessary to a biped, so if they don’t happen ALL at once, you have failure. The above generally indicates that your morphological analysis is lacking, and we didn't bother with the precisely opposing thumb, the finely-tuned creation of the pendulum effect with our proportions , etc. To quote biologist D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson:
The hundreds of different bones, muscles and joints are inseparably associated and molded with each other. They are only separate entities in the limited sense that they are part of a whole – that can no longer exist when they lose their composite integrity.
** James Le Fanu has the best overview of this subject in “Why Us?”. See also articles involving medical use of chimps, which are more honest in their appraisals of the differences – for example, http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/chimps.htmlSpitfireIXA_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

----Ritchie: "Rob, in post 192, though perhaps a little ungently put, does seem to have a point. You are asserting a lot, and what you seem to call logical is often assertion." Rob's comments are irrelevant because Rob will not engage in debate. ---"By necessity we do not know anything outside the universe in which we live. We do not know if there is matter, time, or by what rules they operate. For all we know, there are all of these things, and many more which we cannot even begin to imagine." We know that the universe began in time and we know that anything that began to exist in time had a cause. ---"The cause of the universe only caused the matter, time and space which exists INSIDE the universe. As to whether any of these things exist outside of the universe too, we simply have no way of knowing." If you think that the laws of logic do not apply to the whole cosmos, then why would you want to talk about it? There would be no reason to discuss it and no way to discuss it. On the matter of the creator: If a non-personal eternal law could create, which in any case it cannot, then it would have always been creating. A non-personal “law” cannot be creating one during one era and not creating during another era. Otherwise, it would not be an unchanging law. Only an intelligent agent that can chose to create can produce a universe that begins in time. ---"It is vital to remember that the universe is not goverened by laws. Laws are things human beings have made up to explain how the universe operates. The distinction may seem petty, but I think it is a very important one. Gravity existed long before Newton. Newton simply drew up the law of gravity to describe the attraction between objects with mass. The attraction is not ‘obeying’ a law. The law is decribing the attraction." If you don't think that physical laws govern the universe, or that its law-like regularities are only human constructs, there is nothing more to be said.StephenB_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

---StephenB: "Ritchie, as you can see, “self-evident” is the term that StephenB applies to assertions that he cannot demonstrate logically, mathematically, or empirically. In StephenB’s world, rationality entails acceptance of these undemonstrated assertions." Rob, the last I heard from you, you acknowledged tjat the law of causality was "trivially true," yet when I suggested that you apply it to a real world situation, you grew silent. ---"In these debates, one must use the tools with which one is equipped. It appears that StephenB’s only tools are philosophical works and an armchair." If you were equipped, you would step up to the plate and answer my questions. How is it that you acknowledge that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, but you slink away when asked if the universe, which began to exist, has a cause? If you can abandon causality once or twice, as you clearly do, why not twenty or thirty times? Since you always snipe away from your armchair while timidly refusing to state your own position and avoid all relevant questions, your comments are irrelevantStephenB_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Free will exists and intelligent agents can influence their own desiny. ---Rob: "As if that assertion is incompatible with compatibilism. But there’s no point in arguing the issue until you can reconcile your contradictory positions for and against determinism." Obviously, you know nothing about compatibilism. Compatibilism's free will is not a free will through which one can influence his own destiny. Also, I am not a determinist, since determinism places cognitive activity in a strict causal chain. That is why your mindless ABC chart was meaningless. In any case, it is not my sensibilities that are on trial. My position is clear and you have not arguments against it. Stay focused. The questions I have asked you are still on the table. ---"Yes. I think it’s quite trivial to note that if something occurred, then nothing prevented it from occurring. But I’ll gladly entertain whatever argument you have for the non-triviality of this statement." That is not what the law of causality states. For that matter, I am not interested in your opinion about the alleged triviality of a statement which is obviously not trivial. I am interested in your capacity to apply it to the real world. As I wrote: "Well, then, you agree that the universe, which began to exist, had a prior cause and that the existence of quantum particles are not uncaused. There is nothing trivial about that." Perhaps, I should not have connected the dots for you. Do you acknowledge that the universe had a prior cause and that quantum particles are not uncaused? ---"It’s trivial because your version of causation renders it trivial. Can you logically conceive of an event that is uncaused according to your definition? If not, then causation tells us nothing." It tells us that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. It tells us that something cannot come from nothing.StephenB_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Arthur Hunt [176]:
Your parenthetical addition makes no sense. . . . . ....................................Care to tell us who added the reference to Vaparimil?
Let's start with the Veparamil reference: I added it, and I thought it would be obvious I added it. As to the added portions, obviously I had a reason for that as well. So, here goes: (1) White says that a "single genetic event" is sometimes all that is needed to confer resistance; (2) White says that "The single point mutations in the gene encoding cytochrome b (cytB), which confer atovaquone resistance, or in the gene encoding dihydrofolate reductase (dhfr), which confer pyrimethamine resistance, have a per-parasite probability of arising de novo of approximately 1 in 10^12 parasite multiplications." From this it is easy to conclude that (a) only ONE mutation is necessary for resistance to these drugs, and (b) that there are probably a number of SNP that bring about resistance for each of these drugs; (3) If, for a single amino acid substitution the probability of arising is 1 in 10^12, then, for a SECOND amino acid substitution to occur "randomly" would be 10^8 times higher (for a genome of length 10^8 nucleotides long). This gives us 1 in 10^20 as the probability of TWO amino acid substitutions occurring. [N.B. This is more or less how Behe treats the probabilities in his EofE] Now, are the TWO substitutions on the SAME gene product (protein), or on TWO proteins? We don't know. When White says that "Chloroquine resistance may be multigenic," he's probably referring to this uncertainty. I added the note about Vepearmil because this drug has been used in tests, and it apparently restores resistance to CQ-resistant strains via the PfMDR1 gene, and I would suppose that's why White talks about the PfMDR1 gene in an "in vitro" context, whereas his calculation of 1 in 10^20 is strictly "in vivo". In your first post, you wrote this: But White is not talking about double mutations in PfCRT when he tosses out the number 10^20. Yet, White talks about "single point mutations" having an in vivo probability of 1 in 10^12. Further, a few paragraphs later he writes this: This suggested that prevention of the emergence of resistance would be very difficult, and control efforts would be better directed at limiting the subsequent spread of resistance. Recent remarkable molecular epidemiological studies in South America, southern Africa, and Southeast Asia have challenged this view. By examination of the sequence of the regions flanking the Pfdhfr gene, it has become apparent that, even for SP, multiple de novo emergence of resistance has not been a frequent event, and that, instead, a single parasite (with a mutation in Pfdhfr at positions 51, 59, and 108) has in recent years swept across each of these continents (24–26). The ability of these resistant organisms to spread has been phenomenal and may well relate to the apparent stimulation of gametocytogenesis that characterizes poor therapeutic responses to SP (27)." Notice that a malarial parasite with THREE mutations is resistant to anything they throw at it. And, all three mutations are on the same Pfdhfr gene. This makes Behe's thesis of "two" mutations at positions 76 and 220 of the PfCRT gene completely compatible with this finding. You see, Behe's claims aren't "so out of touch with reality." Quite the contrary.PaV_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

StephenB [from 191] Rob, in post 192, though perhaps a little ungently put, does seem to have a point. You are asserting a lot, and what you seem to call logical is often assertion. By necessity we do not know anything outside the universe in which we live. We do not know if there is matter, time, or by what rules they operate. For all we know, there are all of these things, and many more which we cannot even begin to imagine. Take this, for example: "The first cause must be immaterial and timeless because it created matter, time, and space, all of which began to exist." The cause of the universe only caused the matter, time and space which exists INSIDE the universe. As to whether any of these things exist outside of the universe too, we simply have no way of knowing. Also, I sense a problem when you say "just as law must regulate matter, intelligence must inform law." It is vital to remember that the universe is not goverened by laws. Laws are things human beings have made up to explain how the universe operates. The distinction may seem petty, but I think it is a very important one. Gravity existed long before Newton. Newton simply drew up the law of gravity to describe the attraction between objects with mass. The attraction is not 'obeying' a law. The law is decribing the attraction. I make this point because if you think of the universe having laws 'programmed' into it like a computer having commands programmed into it, it by necessity raises the question of who created these laws. If we keep in mind that the laws are merely DESCRIBING the interaction within, and properties of, the universe it is easier to realise that no intelligence is needed to create the way things operate. Perhaps I haven't explain that very well. Does that make sense?Ritchie_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Nakashima (@ last Friday) So I respect that just as I might respond to someone who argues that evolution implies Hitler with a narrow definition of evolution, someone such as yourself can justifiably whip out the narrow definition of ID as a defense against an attack on the broader position of ID, the thin edge of the Wedge that will shatter materialist science and restore the Logos to Its rightful place as the Alpha and Omega of scientific investigaton. Is there such a 'broader' or 'larger' ID? I'm curious to know. I always perceived it as a very narrow hypothesis, although it seems some people might have attached larger hopes and dreams to it. Despite being a religious person, I don't expect ID to determine anything more than the vague notion of intelligent cause. ID cannot validate anyone's religious beliefs (unless those beliefs are as narrow as ID itself.) To me that's a strength, not a weakness. But if I've understood incorrectly all this time, perhaps someone will correct me.ScottAndrews_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

PaV [from 190] This mammalian explosion thing is getting complicated, so let me see if I can simplify. I was indeed under the impression that directly following the death of the dinosaurs, all mammals immediately began to diverge and create what you call the mammalian explosion. According to the article you cited, this was the recieved wisdom until about two years ago. Why did I assume that? Because that is what generally happens following mass extinctions. The surviving species suddenly find themselves with far fewer competitiors/predators and flourish. Now you have pointed me to an article suggesting something I did not know - apparently there was a 10-15 million year delay (or 'fuse, to continue the explosion metaphor) before the ancentors of EXTANT mammals really diversified. A curiosity, to be sure. An anomaly that needs explaining. But not, as you seem to believe, any kind of challenge to the theory of evolution itself. Only a challenge to the idea that the ancestors of today's mammals diversified 65 million years ago. Perhaps you imagine that NO mammals went through a population explosion after the K-T event? This, apparently is not true. This is another report on the same study as the one you cited: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/uons-tdr032507.php And here are two quotes from it: "The study ... suggests that while some early mammals may have benefited from the demise of the dinosaurs, many were on branches of the family tree not closely related to present-day mammals and died off early on." "It's as though they [our ancestors] came to the party after the dinosaurs left, but just hung around while all their distant relatives were having a good time." In other words, there was an increase in diversity of mammals, but not, curiously, on the branch that gave rise to all modern mammals. How did they discover this? From the artricle you cited: "These are the surprising conclusions of a comprehensive study of molecular and fossil data on 4,510 of the 4,554 mammal species known to exist today." So they took samples from 4,510 of the 4,554 known mammal species and traced them back to a SHARED ANCESTOR who existed 50-55 million years ago. A SINGLE ANCESTOR which gave rise to all species of mammal alive today, from bats to whales, from mice to humans. A single species from whom all mammals share COMMON DESCENT. Isn't that the very thing you've been denying? And you seem to think this article supports your position? "As to a troll: you come here feigning much knowledge in evolutionary matters (though, indeed, you say you believe in it)" 'feigning much knowledge'? I'd like to think I know a thing or two about biology and evolution, but are you accusing me of pretending to know EVERYTHING? "and then you start quoting chapter and verse from the Darwinian Bible." There is no such book. Perhaps you did not mean it literally? "But perhaps, you’re just simply borrowing from various websites without proper acknowledgment. I don’t know." I'm not making this up, if that's what you mean. I have a working knowledge of the theory of evolution. Just because I don't agree with whatever you think evolution says does not mean I'm making things up as I go along. From my perspective YOU are the one with the confused idea of evolution. Why else would you think a study which is based on the premise of the common descent of mammals in some way challenges the theory of evolution?Ritchie_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Ritchie, as you can see, "self-evident" is the term that StephenB applies to assertions that he cannot demonstrate logically, mathematically, or empirically. In StephenB's world, rationality entails acceptance of these undemonstrated assertions. In these debates, one must use the tools with which one is equipped. It appears that StephenB's only tools are philosophical works and an armchair.R0b_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

----Ritchie: "Actually we don’t. Maybe there IS an infinite regress of causes. I have no reason to assert that, but it is at least a possibility. Unless you can show it is impossible?" The rules of right reason cannot be demonstrated. They must be assumed apriori as self evident truths. One must to choose to accept or not accept them, which is another way of saying that one must chose to be rational or not rational. ----"I notice you stopped using the word ’caused’ and started using the word ‘created’." Yes, one begins with the understanding that a first cause is necessary, and a creator is the logical conclusion one arrives at. Consult the section where I listed the characteristics the first cause must have. ---"I find this odd since they imply slightly different things. A minor earth tremor could ’cause’ broken china on the floor by shaking a vase off its shelf. But this does not imply an earth tremour has the capacity to plan or design, which is more easily implied by the word ‘created’. Or is that just me?" No, you are right. Created is a stronger claim justified by the points made earlier about the characteristics that the first cause would have to have. It is a second order conclusion based on further reasoning. The uncaused cause must be self existent because it cannot depend on anything or anyone else. ---"Okay, yes. That’s rather the same as calling it uncaused, isn’t it?" It is implied, to be sure, but it also needs to be made explicit. Other things implied that must also be made explicit with respect to the causeless cause are its unity, its timelessness, its transcendence, its personal nature, and several other things which I will not mention. The first cause must be immaterial and timeless because it created matter, time, and space, all of which began to exist. ---"Must it? Why can’t an material entity have created the universe. It’s only matter which exists inside the universe which began to exist at the Big Bang…" The first cause must be eternal and unchanging. Yet matter is finite and ever-changing. Thus, the unchanging first cause cannot be material or it would also always be finite and ever-changing. That, by the way, it why it must also be transcendent. As an unchanging cause, it cannot be a part of the changing matter. It must be personal, because only a personal agent can choose to create or not create. ---"A cause does not necessarily choose to be a cause. A cause need not be sentient or able to make choices. Why do you assume the cause of the Big Bang CHOSE to be the cause of the Big Bang." If a non-personal eternal law could create, which in any case it cannot, then it would have always been creating. A non-personal "law" cannot be creating one during one era and not creating during another era. Otherwise, it would not be an unchanging law. Only an intelligent agent that can chose to create can produce a universe that begins in time. Further, just as law must regulate matter, intelligence must inform law. Matter cannot decide on its own that it will change from one thing to another; the laws of nature regulate that change. Similarly, the laws of nature cannot decide on their own how they will operate; their creator must make that decision. The laws of nature cannot inform themselves any more that matter can regulate itself. The laws must be something different from the matter that they regulate and the cause of the laws must be something different from the laws themselves.StephenB_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

PaV, Dave Wisker [184]: Yes, it’s Veparamil, and it has been used to make malarial parasites with CQ-resistance become resistant again. Here’s a reprint of an article. As far as I can tell, the drug has only been used in vitro. And White doesn't mention it at all. What makes you think he was referring to it?Dave Wisker_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Very interesting, but you are misrepresenting what it is saying. Ritchie [187]:
It doesn’t say the explosion in species of mammals had nothing to do with the extinction – it says there is a 10-15 million year delay between the great K-T extinction and the ‘mammalian explosion’. This is not a problem for evolutionary theory. It is only a curious anomaly which requires an explaination.
So, you see, there was an explosion contrary to what you said in [187] "Did they? How many extant species can trace their ancestry more than a few million years", and, it did NOT occur right after the K/T entinction, in contradiction to your statements and thoughts in[151]: "Also, I have great difficulty in understanding your problem with ‘explosions’. They make sense to me. They generally follow mass extinctions! Once that has happened, the survivors pretty much have free reign of the planet." The article I quoted says this:
Writing in the journal, the leaders of the project said the “fuses” leading to the explosive expansion of mammals “are not only very much longer than suspected previously, but also challenge the hypothesis that the end-Cretaceous mass extinction event had a major, direct influence on the diversification of today’s mammals.”
Isn't this straightforward---and pretty much what I said. You write this:
Personally I would not have expected a population explosion to happen IMMEDIATELY. The K-T extinction did not JUST wipe out dinosaurs, but many other species of plants and animals too. Ecosystems need to rebuild themselves from the bottom up – what would the carnivores eat before the herbivores had recovered in numbers? What would herbivores eat before plants had recovered in numbers? So the ‘dust needs to settle’ from the extinction, and then life re-establish itself from the bottom up.
Yet, as in the quote above, you had a very different position prior to my pointing you in the direction of the article---which the entire above scenario also comes from. As to a troll: you come here feigning much knowledge in evolutionary matters (though, indeed, you say you believe in it), and then you start quoting chapter and verse from the Darwinian Bible. But perhaps, you're just simply borrowing from various websites without proper acknowledgment. I don't know.PaV_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker [184]: Yes, it's Veparamil, and it has been used to make malarial parasites with CQ-resistance become resistant again. Here's a reprint of an article.PaV_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
—Rob: “Only if you’re an incompatibilist.” Free will exists and intelligent agents can influence their own desiny.
As if that assertion is incompatible with compatibilism. But there's no point in arguing the issue until you can reconcile your contradictory positions for and against determinism.
Trivially true?
Yes. I think it's quite trivial to note that if something occurred, then nothing prevented it from occurring. But I'll gladly entertain whatever argument you have for the non-triviality of this statement.
Well, then, you agree that the universe, which began to exist, had a prior cause and that the existence of quantum particles are not uncaused. There is nothing trivial about that.
It's trivial because your version of causation renders it trivial. Can you logically conceive of an event that is uncaused according to your definition? If not, then causation tells us nothing.R0b_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

PaV [from 178] "I misspoke. The first extant mammalian lines appeared suddenly." Did they? How many extant species can trace their ancestry more than a few million years? "This still doesn’t resolve the problems for Darwinian theory. In fact, it makes it worse, because the same authors say that this rise had nothing to do with K/T extinction, but happened 10-15 million years afterwards. Here’s an article on it." Very interesting, but you are misrepresenting what it is saying. It doesn't say the explosion in species of mammals had nothing to do with the extinction - it says there is a 10-15 million year delay between the great K-T extinction and the 'mammalian explosion'. This is not a problem for evolutionary theory. It is only a curious anomaly which requires an explaination. Personally I would not have expected a population explosion to happen IMMEDIATELY. The K-T extinction did not JUST wipe out dinosaurs, but many other species of plants and animals too. Ecosystems need to rebuild themselves from the bottom up - what would the carnivores eat before the herbivores had recovered in numbers? What would herbivores eat before plants had recovered in numbers? So the 'dust needs to settle' from the extinction, and then life re-establish itself from the bottom up. Is 10-15 million years a strangely large delay before we should expect such an 'explosion'? I don't know. Apparently so. The article certainly makes it sound so. So again, we simply need to investigate and see if we can discover the cause of the delay. "BTW, your last post demonstrates that you’ve come here as a troll. Why the deceit?" Deceit? I don't believe I've deceived you. I've never hidden the fact that I accept the theory of evolution. And does challenging you make me a troll? I thought a troll was a person who wasted peoples' time on discussion board with rubbish. Are you labelling me one just because I disagree with you? What kind of discussion would you ever have with someone who simply agreed with everything you say?Ritchie_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

StephenB [from 177] "It is less about my being determined to find an uncaused cause and more about being compelled by reason to assert it. We already know that infinite regress is out," Actually we don't. Maybe there IS an infinite regress of causes. I have no reason to assert that, but it is at least a possibility. Unless you can show it is impossible? "It must be supernatural since it created time and space." I notice you stopped using the word 'caused' and started using the word 'created'. I find this odd since they imply slightly different things. A minor earth tremor could 'cause' broken china on the floor by shaking a vase off its shelf. But this does not imply an earth tremour has the capacity to plan or design, which is more easily implied by the word 'created'. Or is that just me? "It must be self existent because it cannot depend on anything or anyone else." Okay, yes. That's rather the same as calling it uncaused, isn't it? "It must be immaterial and timeless because it created matter, time, and space, all of which began to exist." Must it? Why can't an material entity have created the universe. It's only matter which exists inside the universe which began to exist at the Big Bang... "It must be singular, because two self-existent creators is a contradiction in terms." Is it? "It must be personal, because only a personal agent can choose to create or not create." A cause does not necessarily choose to be a cause. A cause need not be sentient or able to make choices. Why do you assume the cause of the Big Bang CHOSE to be the cause of the Big Bang?Ritchie_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

----Cabal: "Our minds are made to handle the real world. The hypothetical before the big bang has very little in common with this world." Be careful when you say our "minds were made" since that formulation sounds an awful lot like they were designed for a purpose. Surely, a Darwinist would never want to take such a heretical position as that. In any case, our minds really are supposed to apprehend the "real world," and part of that apprehension consists in interpreting evidence according to reason's standards. {News flash: evidence must be interpreted}. All rational people understand the meaning of the following two statements: Something cannot come from nothing and no physical event can occur without a cause. Those who pretend not to understand what that means are simply feigning ignorance to avoid debate. The atheist scientists who were offended by the theological implications of the big bang had no trouble connecting the dots, which is why they had to be dragged in kicking and screaming. The universe began to exist, therefore, the universe was caused. If they could have plausibly claimed ignorance about the meaning of "nothingness" or the "principle of causality," they would have used that ploy.StephenB_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

PaV, At least one other as-yet unidentified gene is thought to be involved.[This last sentence probably refers to Vaparimil Neither paper by White mentions Vaparimil. What makes you think he was referring to it? Is it used as an anti-malarial drug?Dave Wisker_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

BTW, nothing happens without a cause. This is an argument from ignorance.Oramus_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

Cabal, I propose that QM activity is the result of the interface between multiple dimensions. String theory AFAIK says there are 11 universes in a multiverse. I believe they are not separate universes, but simply dimensions within dimensions comprising ONE universe. I believe they are arranged concentrically, like Russian eggs. The difference is the inner most dimension pervades all the other ones. And the second inner most dimension pervades all other dimensions, save the inner most one, etc. Therefore, the further you travel within, the closer you get to experiencing reality in its most complete form. At the center most dimension lies...you guessed it. But too few have been there.
I don’t understand QM. Can anyone here with a hand over his heart say he understands QM?
Oramus_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

Guess I have to add:
Something cannot come from nothing. [B] Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.
The five terms begin, something, nothing, exist and cause have no meaning in the context of a hypothetical 'before' the big bang. Isn't it obvious that in a state of nothingness, not even cause can be present? Isn't quantum uncertainty just that - things happen without a cause? We don't understand it but we have been forced to admit that it is a fact. (Well, maybe it is just me that don't understand.) Our minds are made to handle the real world. The hypothetical before the big bang has very little in common with this world.Cabal_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply