Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig Falsifies Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, who studied mutations for 25 years as a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Koln, Germany, is now retired but still writes often on the topic of Darwinism and Intelligent Design. He is one of those old-school scientists who believes evidence matters even when it comes to questions of biological origins.

Charles Darwin famously offered the following suggestion as to how his theory could be falsified:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Dr. Loennig has repeatedly offered examples which defy a gradualist explanation, for example, listen to this
interview where he discusses carnivorous plants, whose complicated traps were clearly useless until almost perfect. (I have written on this topic myself, here. )

But Darwin offered other suggestions as to how his theory could be falsified, one of which was as follows: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Loennig has recently written an article which falsifies Darwinism on this criterion also, Plant Galls and Evolution.

The new paper is typical of Loennig’s writings, with abundance of details and references. As you listen to his Podcast on carnivorous plants, or read his new article on Plant Galls, I suggest the following exercise: try to imagine hypothetical species which would falsify Darwin, using his own criteria, in a more spectacular way.

If you want to see more of Loennig’s works, including his writings on the long-neck giraffe, go here .

Comments
@KF
CR: So, obviously, you adhere to the inductive inference that all designers have complex material brains, right?
KF: CR, too many tangents. I pointed out that as a going concern matter inductive reasoning (modern sense: arguments that more or less support rather than necessitate their conclusions) is inherently provisional so a selectively hyperskeptical dismissal is improper.
Except them they don't? Why doesn't all of those trillions of observation you keep referring to provisionally support the conclusion that all designers are well adapted for the purpose of designing things?
KF: Second, there is no good inductive inference that brains are a necessary condition of mindedness, indeed there is abundant reason to infer that physical processing is conditioned by chance and/or mechanical necessity tied to organisation, thus is not the locus of responsible, rational freedom.
And I introduced too many tangents? It's unclear how "mindedness" is sufficient to design things. In fact, I just make an argument against that very thing. Do you exhibit "responsible, rational freedom"? Do I? Does at last some significant percentage of the medical community? If we take the claim that ""responsible, rational freedom" is the locus of "design" seriously, as if it's true in reality, then shouldn't we be able to rationally, responsibility and freely choose to cure cancer? Shouldn't it have been cured decades ago? And, if we take that idea seriously, then what's to prevent say, rocks, from having minds? If not being well adapted to serve a purpose, then what is that separates people from rocks or other inanimate objects? Could rocks have minds if God wanted them to? Apparently, they don't merely because he decided against it?
Absent that freedom, our own reasoning collapses in self referential absurdity — as the discussion on Oog etc brings out — and so we see that there is a huge explanatory gap on evolutionary materialist accounts of origins of the human mind.
What you haven't shown is freedom is necessary for the growth of knowledge in the case of biological organisms. Or that there are other designers other than what we've observed. All of that violates Newton's principles. Nor could we have designed ourselves. So, apparently, all of those trillions of observations count, except when they don't.critical rationalist
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
> From your theory, what are the material conditions that enable something to be specified in a medium? And why is your theory not defined specifically so as to not exclude God?Mung
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
CR, too many tangents. I pointed out that as a going concern matter inductive reasoning (modern sense: arguments that more or less support rather than necessitate their conclusions) is inherently provisional so a selectively hyperskeptical dismissal is improper. Second, there is no good inductive inference that brains are a necessary condition of mindedness, indeed there is abundant reason to infer that physical processing is conditioned by chance and/or mechanical necessity tied to organisation, thus is not the locus of responsible, rational freedom. Absent that freedom, our own reasoning collapses in self referential absurdity -- as the discussion on Oog etc brings out -- and so we see that there is a huge explanatory gap on evolutionary materialist accounts of origins of the human mind. Back to an evolving local crisis. KFkairosfocus
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
CR @115 Too many too complex questions to tackle at once. I suggest you focus on just explaining how the first ever pair instruction-processor appeared on earth.EugeneS
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Origenes "Do you hold that all the information that is necessary for building a human being is physically encoded in the zygote?" The simple answer is, I do not know. I believe essential information must be there, e.g. some basic response patterns should be present in some form. However, there are certain decisions that are made conditionally. "There can be no specific “if A, then B else C” about such a specific situation" I think the behaviour pattern need not be as specific as we might expect. E.g. to specify a pattern I do not have to specify every combination of sensory data values. Storage may be decentralized, as is decision making as a whole (there may be cases where the centre does not need or even should not get involved in local event processing). Again, this is just an opinion. I am open to other views.EugeneS
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
I referenced an entire paper which presents a physical theory of information, which includes programable constructors.
CR, to say that something is "programmable" implies that something has become specified in a medium. From your theory, what are the material conditions that enable something to be specified in a medium?Upright BiPed
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
@KF
Think about what you demand: that an INDUCTIVE inference demonstrates an impossibility without limit . . . in effect an absolute logical impossibility of being (which can only come from showing incoherence of core characteristics: as in square circle), in a context governed by statistical issues of search challenge on sol system or observed cosmos scale. [...] This fallacious approach violates Newton’s principle that in explaining things we cannot directly see i/l/o their traces, we should only refer to causes seen to produce the like effect.
And every cause we've seen producing the effect of designing things have been themselves well adapted for the purpose of designing things. They they have complex, material brains that have been well adapted from raw materials. So, obviously, you adhere to the inductive inference that all designers have complex material brains, right? Nor would you violate Newton's principle by referring to things other than we have observed, such as designers that are not well adapted for the purpose of design, would you? Something being well adapted to serve a purpose cannot be the explanation for being well adapted to serve a purpose. Or are you suggesting that we have observed things that are not well adapted for the purpose of designing things? If so, what examples would you cite? Why are they capable of design if they are not well adapted for the purpose of doing just that? Why haven't we observed, say, rocks designing things? They're not well adapted for the purpose of designing things, either.critical rationalist
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
I responded directly to your claims. I asked you a very straightforward question: “What are the material conditions that enable this information to be instantiated in medium?” You refused to engage the issue. In fact, you seemed a little confused that there even were any material conditions, much less a uniquely definable organization.
That's odd. I referenced an entire paper which presents a physical theory of information, which includes programable constructors. When I asked if you were presenting a theory of information, you refused to answer the question until after being asked point blank at least a dozen times. At which I pointed out said theory of information was incomplete. For example, the referenced theory spans both classical and quantum physics. In addition, for information to be instantiated into a medium, it requires reversible computations, which includes a material source of the information to be copied. Your supposed "theory of information" doesn't address any of those issues. So It's unclear how criticizing your theory represents a failure to engage the issue.
When pressed on the issue, you eventually stated that “a medium would have to undergo *transformations*,” but then refused to say what those transformation are, or even explain their purpose in the system.
Again, the transformation a medium would have to undergo are unique to the actual information itself. It's unclear how the very same transformations can somehow copy different information. To assume that they would is, well, irrational.
And then when pressed further still, you said “It’s not just that it is merely allowed by some abstract laws of physics, but which exactly regularities in nature defines information via a dichotomy of possible and impossible tasks that result in properties of being copyable, counterfactual, substrate independent, etc.” You even italicized the word “defines”, as if you felt like you had finally struck at the heart of the matter.
That's what a physical theory of information does, UB. It brings information into fundamental physics. It defines it at a more fundamental level than what you presented, which is why is is independent of knowing subjects. It’s what specific laws of physics are necessary for information to be possible. This is why I kept asking you if your were actually presenting a physical theory of information.
As far as being an explanation for the material conditions of a medium, that is complete nonsense. It’s bafflegab. A medium is established by a representation and a constraint creating function within a system. That is how a thing becomes specified by a medium in our semantic-free physical universe (which is a necessary condition of your “knowledge”, so you might want to actually know what is physically necessary for it to exist).
This represents yet another of your vague criticisms. Supposedly being “ bafflegab” could be applied to absolutely anything because it’s void of any specific criticism. Again, is there some other non-physical theory of information? Is there no such thing as quantum information as your “theory” doesn’t say anything about it. What about copying? Is this is some kind of argument from irreducible complexity? Are you arguing there must be some prior “establisher”? Are you referring to the circular problem of distinguishability in other physical theories of information, like Shannons? I really don’t know what your point is. Why don’t you spell it out for us? Simply put, organizations that play a causal role in being retained are knowledge. Organizations which do not are not knowledge. We cannot merely choose for some organization to contain knowledge anymore than we can choose for some organization of bits on a flash drive to cure cancer. If we could, we’d have a cure for cancer by now, right? Yet we do not. Why? Because cancer will only be cured when the requisite knowledge is actually present there. Our intent, will or belief is insufficient. Do you actually have any criticism of this other than being “bafflegab”?
But you’ve already been shown that this is not physically possible. Darwinian evolution cannot function until a system exist that can specify objects among alternatives and encode those specifications in a material medium. If A requires B for A to exist, then A cannot be the source of B.
First, you might not want to use an analogy that illustrates how ID doesn’t actually solve the problem it purports to solve. The appearance of design is being well adapted to serve a purpose and It’s unclear how being well adapted to serve a purpose can be the explanation for, well, being well adapted to serve a purpose. All you’ve done is push the problem up a level without improving it. After all, out of all the trillions of observations of designers designing things, every one was well adapted for the purpose of designing things. Right? Or are you actually suggesting they are not? Second, I pasted that section to show that you’ve yet again ignored a response to your question, which is right above in my comment. Apparently, you just don’t find it interesting? For your convenience.
But in unchallenging ones (i.e. sufficiently unchanging and resource-rich), the requirement is easily met by highly inaccurate self-reproducers that not only have no appearance of design, but are so inaccurate that they can have arisen spontaneously from generic resources under no-design laws – as proposed, for instance, by the current theories of the origin of life [11, 31]. For example, template replicators, such as short RNA strands [32], or similar “naked” replicators (replicating with poor copying fidelity without a vehicle) would suffice to get natural selection started. Since they bear no design, they require no further explanation – any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.(11)
A highly accurate replicator would exhibit the appearance of design. That is, it would be well adapted to the purpose of highly accurate replication. Your argument is how can something being well adapted to serve the purpose of highly accurate replication be the explanation for highly accurate replication? However, highly inaccurately replicators would not exhibit the appearance of design. In unchallenging environments, primitive replicators are sufficient to get natural selection started. They are not well adapted for the purpose of replication.
And what did you do with this information CR? I’ll tell you what you did, with the greatest effort possible, you ignored it completely.
Again, it’s unclear how directly quoting and responding with specific criticism is “ignoring it completely”. This is in contrast with how you ignored the above in this thread and many others like it from the start.
What is it in a medium that you say is “substrate independent” CR? Can you just post the irrelevant quotes of a fringe theory, or are you able to actually organize a coherent claim? What is required for your “knowledge is information retained in a medium” CR? How does “substrate independence” interact with dynamics?
Gee wiz, UB. It’s not mediums are not substrate independent. It’s Information. I guess you can’t even be bothered to actually read the referenced paper. Go figure.critical rationalist
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
How many nuts, bolts, gears etc have been made in the past say 150 - 200 years? Every one of them manifests functional coherence based on specific, information-rich organisation.kairosfocus
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
EugeneS @103 Thank you for your explanation. Maybe I’m taking this thread too much off-topic, but I cannot resist replying.
EugeneS: Basically, I think that decision making has been implanted in organisms in the form of a programmed behaviour: if A then B else C Obviously, as organisation gets more complex, so do A, B and C, which themselves can contain many conditions and other statements.
In my estimation there is not enough physical storage for information, in genome, epigenome and elsewhere, about the situation after a surgery, as described by Brian Ford; see #98. There can be no specific “if A, then B else C” about such a specific situation. And given the level of coordination of the repair there can be no reduction of this specific situation to a multitude of implanted standard replies. IOWs there must be decision-making, overview and information at a non-material level. There is also not enough physical storage for the information concerning brains, nervous system and so forth.
How it is encoded and how it is stored, is a different matter. But it must be there …. maybe sugar, membrane and other codes exist …
Do you hold that all the information that is necessary for building a human being is physically encoded in the zygote?Origenes
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
KF
Just think of nuts and bolts, gears and the like.
Do I have to?Mark Hammersla
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
MH, The Internet, libraries, artifacts of many kinds etc. Just think of nuts and bolts, gears and the like. KFkairosfocus
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Bob Oh @ 108. I think that KF is referring to the libraries throughout the world that are full of books, each full of strings of specified text. This would surely amount to trillions of cases.Mark Hammersla
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
fk @ 104 - I'm afraid I've absolutely no idea what you are on about. For a start, what is the URL of the database? And does it have a good API (something that big will need it!).Bob O'H
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
--What you creationists seem to have a hard time grasping is that for us there is no compelling evidence for a Creator…-- Seversky, one of the frustrating things we have to deal with is figuring out the rules of debate. Are you basing the discussion on science or faith or “science when I speak but faith when you speak” or philosophy of life or what? That all life came from a single common ancestor via random genetic changes fixed by natural selection is a legitimate point of scientific inquiry. That to demand that this premise be assumed, however, is ironically anti-science. To say that designed objects have quantifiable characteristics and that aspects of nature also have these characteristics is also a legitimate point of scientific inquiry. The movement, however, does not demand that these be assumed in the name of science. If someone should dispute it there is no push to drive him from the academy. Nobody wants to destroy his reputation. ID is not faith. You can have faith in God with or without ID, and the wise thing is not to base your faith in God on ID as ID has aspects that are potentially falsifiable namely the quantifications of design, and that an aspect of nature meets the quantifications. What you should reflect on though is the philosophy of life aspect. Should you base your life on the assumption that we are designed and have a purpose, or that we are here merely by chance and can create our own purpose? If you cite science as the authority for choosing the latter you are literally worshipping science which is again ironically, anti-science.tribune7
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
RW, the design inference on FSCO/I as sign makes very specific predictions and can be overthrown by a single solid observation. Find a case where blind chance and or mechanical necessity on gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos is seen to actually create FSCO/I beyond 500 or 1,000 bits. Does not have to be biological, this is a general statistical result for blind search in configuration spaces. KFkairosfocus
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
KF Your comment 95 is a very good one, I think! I linked to it from my Russian blog.EugeneS
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
BO'H: A database of trillions of observed cases with no counter-examples backed up by the import of configuration spaces i/l/o search challenge is not a superficial look at the matter. And yes, I am speaking far more broadly than the OP, given the thread above and the wider context of discussions for years. KFkairosfocus
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Origenes Many Thanks for your interest. I think the answer to your important question is 'decision making'. Decision making amounts to choosing between alternatives. Note that this does not require conscious decisions. Perhaps the simplest ever example of decision making in organisms is chemotaxis. Basically, I think that decision making has been implanted in organisms in the form of a programmed behaviour: if A then B else C How it is encoded and how it is stored, is a different matter. But it must be there. That is basically all that is needed. But that is very powerful! The beauty is that I, as a programmer, need not worry what exactly happens to the organism and when. All I need is provide the appropriate event processing condition. And then it acts like a trigger. Bingo! Obviously, as organisation gets more complex, so do A, B and C, which themselves can contain many conditions and other statements. I do not know if all this intricate behaviour is encoded in genome or epigenome. I suspect not, as there are other (meta)-languages in the organism (maybe sugar, membrane and other codes exist, I can only guess). It's like layer upon layer of organization. In 1953 scientists just started scratching the surface. I hope I have answered your question.EugeneS
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
rvb8:
One question, any quotes beyond Behe?
Plenty but not required.ET
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Seversky:
What you creationists seem to have a hard time grasping is that for us there is no compelling evidence for a Creator...
Only to people who cannot properly assess the evidence. Plenty of evidence in support of an Intelligent Designer has been presented. hand waving it away isn't going to make it go away
and that, as I wrote above, a Creator doesn’t actually solve the problem anyway.
Sure it does. Again your incapability doesn't mean anything. Saying something was the product of an intelligent designer eliminates classes of explanations and tells us how to conduct our investigation. It adds the possibility of reason and purpose.ET
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
We want to see solid evidence to be convinced.
That is demonstrably false. Many people accept evolutionism despite the total lack of supporting evidence. ATP synthase is evidence for ID. It meets Behe's criteria and evolutionism doesn't have anything to explain its existence. Now you can whine and stomp your feet but those are the facts.ET
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
rvb8:
However, when a position relies on nothing but negative attacks on the position they deny (evolution), it becomes tedious, predictable, and indefensible.
LoL! Evolutionists rely on nothing but negative attacks on ID. And AGAIN, ID is not anti-evolution so no one is denying evolution. Your willful ignorance is growing tiresome.
Evolution on the other hand is busily filling gaps
Who is doing that? Reference please. No one knows how natural selection produced ATP synthase and no o ne is trying to figure it out. That goes for all IC systemsET
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
EugenS I have reread your interesting OP on the second law, in order to better understand your thinking. There is obviously a lot that I agree with, but there is one or two things that are bugging me. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that you hold that an organism consists of two components: matter and information.
Living cells are material objects! They, as any other material body, consist of particles of matter subject to natural regularities. But the point is that life is not only physics or chemistry! Life is about functional organization (not mere order) whereby its parts are integrated into a whole and act in such a way that the whole persists long enough without disintegration by maintaining its autonomy, metabolizing, replicating and responding to stimuli. [EugenS]
In your view, as I understand it, it is information — or the state of being organized — that keeps an organism together. If so, this is where our views fundamentally differ. In my view there is no amount of information that can prep the organism for the challenges of life. The requirements for homeostasis shift every nanosecond and are never the same. Consider these thoughts offered by English biologist, Brian Ford:
Surgery is war. It is impossible to envisage the sheer complexity of what happens within a surgical wound. It is a microscopical scene of devastation. Muscle cells have been crudely crushed, nerves ripped asunder; the scalpel blade has slashed and separated close communities of tissues, rupturing long-established networks of blood vessels. After the operation, broken and cut tissues are crushed together by the surgeon’s crude clamps. There is no circulation of blood or lymph across the suture. Yet within seconds of the assault, the single cells are stirred into action. They use unimaginable senses to detect what has happened and start to respond. Stem cells specialize to become the spiky-looking cells of the stratum spinosum; the shattered capillaries are meticulously repaired, new cells form layers of smooth muscle in the blood-vessel walls and neat endothelium; nerve fibres extend towards the site of the suture to restore the tactile senses . . . These phenomena require individual cells to work out what they need to do. And the ingenious restoration of the blood-vessel network reveals that there is an over-arching sense of the structure of the whole area in which this remarkable repair takes place. So too does the restoration of the skin. Cells that carry out the repair are subtly coordinated so that the skin surface, the contour of which they cannot surely detect, is restored in a form that is close to perfect.
Stephen Talbott commented on Ford as thus:
It is not being radical to point out that we can’t even begin to picture the unfathomable movement of trillions of molecules and millions of cells in the damaged area. The story is directed toward a desirable conclusion that you and I know very well — restoration to normalcy of a damaged body part — but how does the story “hold together” at the level of molecules and cells, which certainly do not “know” what we know? And yet, quite obviously, in some objective sense the necessary knowledge is there in the organism. It knows. It gets the job done.
"The knowledge is there in the organism. It knows.", writes Talbott. But how can this knowledge precede the surgery? How can there be information specific to this specific surgical intervention? How does the organism get from a unique point A to B? That's what I meant when I wrote that homeostasis is incompatible with naturalism.Origenes
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
kf - I appreciate that it might be impossible to investigate every possible explanation, but that doesn't mean you can take a cursory look and then declare victory. This is especially true if one is to declare a hypothesis falsified. If you're going to declare that, then one had better make sure that one has falsified it. At best, Lönnig has falsified one statement by Darwin. Science is hard. We want to see solid evidence to be convinced. Read the Science article linked to here to see scientists demanding strong evidence to back up a claim, and also note how that the claimant responded - by trying to provide that evidence.Bob O'H
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
BO'H: You are demanding the default, in service to a proposed cause never actually observed to have capability to create FSCO/I-rich entities. Think about what you demand: that an INDUCTIVE inference demonstrates an impossibility without limit . . . in effect an absolute logical impossibility of being (which can only come from showing incoherence of core characteristics: as in square circle), in a context governed by statistical issues of search challenge on sol system or observed cosmos scale. That is, you have spectacularly stacked the rhetorical deck. This fallacious approach violates Newton's principle that in explaining things we cannot directly see i/l/o their traces, we should only refer to causes seen to produce the like effect. I repeat, the only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is intelligently directed configuration. You are implying an appeal to utter statistical miracle, in the face of an otherwise patent explanation: contrivance comes about by intelligently directed configuration. The days when the living, self-replicating cell could be seen as "simple" "protoplasm" are long past. KFkairosfocus
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
RVB8, it is sadly revealing that you are so little acquainted with the matter at stake. FYI, in NFL, Dembski cited a long list of prior sources on how in biological systems, specification is based on funciton. In fact, speaking to functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information PRE-DATES Dembski, it is in Orgel in 1973 and in Wicken in 1979. These, in the professional literature. The sum total of my "contribution" -- and I can read the subtext there -- is that I have highlighted it as the centrally relevant case to the world of life from OOL on, and that to save typing I have put up an abbreviation, FSCO/I. The issue is not personalities but the substantial matter: coherent function based on specific configuration of parts, such that we see islands of function in very large configuration spaces. Islands of function traces to Dembski over a decade ago, and configuration spaces is a term closely tied to state spaces and phase spaces. In effect, think of cases where relative position and arrangement are critical rather than position and momentum. You would be better served by considering that such configurations can be specified in a description language via a structured chain of Y/N questions, producing a binary digital -- bit -- string. the length of the string is then an index of information conten6t in the functional organisation. This is how things like AutoCAD work. Once configuration becomes highly complex, with information beyond 500 - 1,000 bits, there is then a search challenge that swamps the atomic resources of the sol system or the observed cosmos, leading to infeasibility of blind search on Sol system scope or observed cosmos scale. the ONLY actually observed cause of such FSCO/I, unsurprisingly, is intelligently directed configuration, with trillions of cases in point. In fact, FSCO/I becomes a reliable observable sign of design as cause. To overthrow this, simply produce a case that is actually observed (hence Newton's stricture that we ought not to allow speculative explanations not actually seen to produce the like effects). The fact is, there is no actually observed evidence that say the genetic code to synthesise a protein of 300 base pairs can arise de novo from in effect filtered off noise, filtered for success. Likewise, there is no "warm little pond" observed where such a protein originates by blind forces. In the real world the only observed cause of such proteins is assembly under control of a coded sequence of mRNA instructions, then folding to effective form, perhaps with agglomeration, addition of other components etc. This is the context in which the living cell has been compared to say a petroleum refinery, with the advantage going to the cell. KFkairosfocus
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
Seversky "Naturalistic science can offer explanations of what happened just after the Big Bang" Often, but not always. And you know why. There are areas where naturalism is well warranted and has been successfully helping to solve practical problems. The laws of nature explain how matter behaves. They can predict e.g. the state of a point mass in the gravity field at time t2 given the knowledge of its state at time t1. However they cannot explain what mass is or how it came about. Naturalism is no help in the question of origins, as you yourself concurred. The naturalistic explanations as offered, e.g. by Hawking, are laughable because they really explain nothing and carry a heavy cognitive bias. Look, "All that is necessary to explain the world is gravity." (Hawking). When people asked him where gravity came from, he answered earnestly: "from ...the M-theory". It is nonsense for two reasons: 1. because the laws of nature cannot explain themselves. They cannot explain why there is matter or energy or how they came to be. 2. because they have absolutely no causal power. They are just descriptions of how things are now. The law of gravity cannot cause two point masses to attract. It is just a description of an objectively existing natural regularity. The laws of economics cannot cause a single penny to go to my bank account, as John Lennox put it. It is a problem not just with the current naturalistic picture, it is a systematic flaw of naturalism. As you can hopefully see, you hard-line naturalists commit fallacies even before you cross the demarcation line. But if you want to cross it, ok. "But suggesting intelligence as the ultimate origin doesn’t help either. " You know why it doesn't help you guys? Because you keep asking the wrong question. There is no answer to the question, 'who painted the painter?' "We can always ask where this complex intelligence came from" Here you go again... You can ask as many silly questions as you like. However, there is no guarantee there is answers ;) Why should the Creator be any more complex than the things He creates? To be different is enough. "What you creationists seem to have a hard time grasping is that for us there is no compelling evidence for a Creator" It is your choice, I acknowledge that. "The existence of a Creator does not solve anything". In what sense? Personally or epistemologically? Subjectively or objectively? The existence of a Creator solves a great deal for me (on both sides of the demarcation line ;)EugeneS
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
hgp - no I wasn't asking how galls evolved. I was asking if it was was impossible for them to evolve, and laying out some evolutionary explanations for how they could evolve. I'm afraid mis-understood what I wrote.Bob O'H
September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT
Bob O'H @70:
so basically my answers to one question aren’t good answers to a different question. I hope you don’t mind me being utterly unsurprised and unconcerned at that.
Let's look at the question, that you yourself wanted to answer in post 20:
he hasn’t shown that galls can’t have evolved by natural selection. I can think of a few possible evolutionary explanations
So you were the one asking how galls evolved. But your proposed answers answer a different question, namely how do galls manage to stay alive and well after they evolved. I was pointing out, that your proposed answers don't answer the question you asked but another question. Pretending now that it was me who introduced a red herring is a sign of you not understanding the problem. Your answers pretend to answer one question when they don't and they answer another question that you didn't ask. If you are "unsurprised and unconcerned at that" then your argument can't be taken seriously.hgp
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 8

Leave a Reply