Actually, the multiverse is cheerfully beyond falsifiability

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 20, 2018

Intelligent Design, Multiverse, Philosophy, Science}

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

File:Soapbubbles1b.jpg — soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

From math prof Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong:

Sean Carroll has a new paper out defending the Multiverse and attacking the naive Popperazi, entitled Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse. He also has a Beyond Falsifiability blog post here.

Much of the problem with the paper and blog post is that Carroll is arguing against a straw man, while ignoring the serious arguments about the problems with multiverse research.

…

the problem with the multiverse is that it’s an empty idea, predicting nothing. It is functioning not as what we would like from science, a testable explanation, but as an untestable excuse for not being able to predict anything. In defense of empty multiverse theorizing, Carroll wants to downplay the role of any conventional testability criterion in our understanding of what is science and what isn’t.More.

Downplaying testability is the whole point of postmodernism. Who is to judge?

And the multiverse is postmodern physics. Wait till it meets up with postmodern (algebra is racist) math.

See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Comments

ID is about the DESIGN and NOT the designer.
And part of the design is the order in which it appears, unless you're assuming that specific appearance is random? For example, when an automobile manufacturer designs a vehicle, it is designed to use one or more common platforms which are designed to have a specific lifespan. And future vehicle are designed with utilizing them in mind, or some yet to be competed future common platform. Temporality is literally part of the design and it represents solutions to solve specific problems. If you claim something was designed by a designer, your claiming that temporality is also part solution that designer came up with, which has implications. My question is, "why that specific solution" and what does that imply about ID's designer? If nothing can be implied then, at best, you could merely say "That's just what the designer must have wanted" which explains nothing. Apparently, that solution was arbitrarily selected.
For example, what are the implications of needing to reuse things?
Intelligence- it is not smart to keep reinventing things that you already have.

If you're a current day automotive manufacturer, it's not smart to redesign a car for every customer because you won't be able to build one every few years. That means one customer every few years. All of the resources you'll need will cost more than you could possibly make. And since current day automotive manufacturers have boards of directors, limited finances, etc. They would go out of business. But ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations, including how much knowledge is has, when it possessed it, etc. So, there are no limits as to how many cars it could build for customers. Heck it doesn't even need customers because it doesn't need to make a profit, have expenses for engineering talent / R&D, a board of directors to appease, etc. Whether it's not smart to "reinvent" things you already have depends on what resources and knowledge you have. ID's designer has no such limitations.
Special pleading
Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID's designer from achieving it is knowing how. It's unclear how this is special pleading. Or are you suggesting that is a false dichotomy? If so, why? For example more energy falls on the Earth's surface every day that the entire population of the Earth uses in an entire year. The only thing that would prevent us from harnessing it is knowing how. And that doesn't include things like building a Dyson sphere around our sun, reproducing nuclear fusion, etc. So, not only could we have abundant energy, but do so cheaply, cleanly and efficiently. And the same can be said for manufacturing , as current day 3D printers are just the beginning. IOW, you're assuming we cannot create the necessary knowledge to utterly transform manufacturing, design, etc. to the extent that this argument simply will no longer hold. Assuming we don't give up or blow ourselves up, we can achieve it. It's a matter of knowing how. Does your designer not possess this knowledge, and therefore is bound to the same means of design and construction that we are?critical rationalist_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Erwin and Valentine's The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin's Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is "Unresolved" - June 26, 2013 Excerpt: "In other words, the morphological distances -- gaps -- between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent." Erwin and Valentine (p. 340) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/erwin_valentine_cambrian_explosion073671.html
Moreover, there are 'yawning chasms' in the 'morphological space' between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,
"Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space." Stephen Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this 'top down', disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found throughout the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html In Allaying Darwin's Doubt, Two Cambrian Experts Still Come Up Short - October 16, 2015 Excerpt: "A recent analysis of disparity in 98 metazoan clades through the Phanerozoic found a preponderance of clades with maximal disparity early in their history. Thus, whether or not taxonomic diversification slows down most studies of disparity reveal a pattern in which the early evolution of a clade defines the morphological boundaries of a group which are then filled in by subsequent diversification. This pattern is inconsistent with that expected of a classic adaptive radiation in which diversity and disparity should be coupled, at least during the early phase of the radiation." - Doug Erwin What this admits is that disparity is a worse problem than evolutionists had realized: it's ubiquitous (throughout the history of life on earth), not just in the Cambrian (Explosion). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/in_allaying_dar100111.html "The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Afterwards, a slow evolution follows; this frequently has the appearance of a gradual change, step by step, though down to the generic level abrupt major steps without transitions occur. At the end of such a series, a kind of evolutionary running-wild frequently is observed. Giant forms appear, and odd or pathological types of different kinds precede the extinction of such a line." Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist 40 (January 1952), 97. “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” TS Kemp - Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians
Moreover, this top down pattern is even detectable in the human fossil record:
“Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 246. (emeritus curator at the American Museum of Natural History) "A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012) https://hcchristian.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/pay-no-attention-to-that-data-behind-the-curtain/ Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride's Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His - Casey Luskin - August 31, 2012 Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we've seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. ,,, The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/read_your_refer_1063841.html If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
bornagain77_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

CR, seems to believe that Darwinism explains 'order of appearance' better than ID. But only in the broadest sense is this true. It is true that single celled organisms appeared before multicellular organisms, but other than that, there is little 'order of appearance' to give support to Darwinian theory. We have bacteria, microbes, Ediacaran fossils, sponges and jellies, and then the Cambrian explosion Yet, the Cambrian explosion itself is a complete departure from CR's 'order of appearance' line of reasoning.
Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video (2:55 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2LDiWeWb4
, as Dr. Wells pointed out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin's tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,
The Theory - Diversity precedes Disparity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif
But that 'tree pattern' that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin's theory predicted.
The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion - 'Darwin's Doubt' (Disparity preceding Diversity) - infographic http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/its_darwins_dou074341.html Jerry Coyne's Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show "Why Evolution is True" - Jonathan M. - December 4, 2012 Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms. Darwin's theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science, "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that, "The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa." Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/jerry_coynes_c067021.html Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark - upside-down fossil record) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY Part 2 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish Excerpt: "In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas." James W. Valentine - as quoted from "On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine" - (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595
bornagain77_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

CR, as you have chosen to twist my comment into a strawman, I join GP in his response to you just now:
[CR:] “If this designer has these limitations, then why are they not present in the theory of ID itself? What are the implication of those limitations?” [GP:] It’s simple. The theory of ID states that you can infer design from the presence of complex functional information. That does not require any knowledge of who the designer is, of his limitations or modalities of action and so on. The only required thing is that the designer is a designer, IOWs that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the consious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter. So, all your objection in no way falsify the simple empirical evidence that new complex functional information can be generated only by conscious intelligent agents. Which is the main point of the comment I quoted, a point you have not answered at present.
KFkairosfocus_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: At last it seems that you have read my comment, instead of simply saying that "I don't quote it"! (I did quote it) "If this designer has these limitations, then why are they not present in the theory of ID itself? What are the implication of those limitations?" It's simple. The theory of ID states that you can infer design from the presence of complex functional information. That does not require any knowledge of who the designer is, of his limitations or madalities of action and so on. The only required thing is that the designer is a designer, IOWs that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the consnious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter. So, all your objection in no way falsify the simple empirical evidence that new complex functional information can be generated only by conscious intelligent agents. Which is the main point of the comment I quoted, a point you have not answered at present. Then, I do agree with you that ID, once design has been inferred for biological objects, has the chance, and I would say the duty, to try a scientific approach to the designer(s). That appproach, being scientific, can only be done fron facts, IOWs from what we know of the designer: its designs. So, when I list the many limitations that the biological designer seems to exhibit, I am not inventing them "a priori": I am inferring them from the biological design. "It seems to need time to implement design." and "It seems to need gradual development of function to implement higher functions." and "It has a lot of “competitors”: for example, biological variation that tends to degrade the functionality in its designs." are simply inferences made from the biological design. They are inferences from facts, like the basic inference of design itself. You ask: "What are the implication of those limitations?" The implications are clear enough: there are resons why the biological designer has, or chooses, to act this way. The simple question should be: are these limitations compatible with the working of a conscious, intelligent, purposeful designer? (or with some set of them?) The answer is obviously yes. All those "limitations", for example, are in some form present in human designe. Therefore, they are obviously compatible with design. You ask: "What are the implications of needing to reuse things?" I am really amazed at that question. Are you serious? Just ask any software programmer, or if you like, just ask any housekeeping wife (or husband, to be politically correct!) :) Why should a conscious intelligent designer "need to reuse things"? It's simpler. It's easier. It's cheaper. It makes a lot of sense. The right question is: why should an intelligent designer re-build things, when he can reuse what he has already built? I can see no reasonable answer to that. Are you familiar with Object Oriented Programming? OOP is definitely an evolution of programming strategies. And it is based on reuse of what already exists. Exactly like biological design. You say: "In the future, mere human beings, using advanced computer systems, will be able to create one of, custom vehicles that reuse no common parts. And we will be able to do this despite having limited resources, time etc. Every single part could be printed and nothing reused. Or it will be assembled using some kind of universal constructor one atom at a time, etc." It's a very strange idea, but let's just say that it is a remote possibility. Humans are silly enough to do even that! "So, will that mean we will be more advanced than the biosphere’s designer?" Maybe. In principle I have no objections to the idea that human designers could in the end be better than the biological designer. As you may have noticed, I have nowhere said that the biologal designer needs to be perfect, or the best of all times. However, I have serious doubts that being able to waste resources, maybe simply to indulge our personal delusions of grandeur, is really the way to be better.gpuccio_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

CR After all, science is supped to maximize explantory power, by deferring to the best explanations, right? Or did I get that wrong? Darwinism does a poor job in explaining how life came about. It's clearly not an adequate explanation. ID is far superior. So we should defer to that, correct?tribune7_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

34 comments about evolution and design, while the OP is about the multiverse hypothesis :) CR is hopeless :) He, for some strange reason, thinks that simple-to-complex cannot be designed. Why not?! God is omnipotent after all. He can do whatever He wants. He wanted to create a world in the way He wanted. He interferes without any difficulty when, where and in what manner He so desires. True, He is not arbitrary with His creation but wants to teach us something. I don't know why this can cause a problem worth mentioning at all. Such 'arguments' always remind me of a cynical remark by Dostoyevsky in his diaries about his contemporary atheists: They think, he wrote, that with their silly arguments they can make me doubt! They cannot even guess what sort of doubts I went through [paraphrase].Eugene S_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

CR falsely accuses me of misunderstanding Popper, and yet it is CR who is misunderstanding Popper. CR then completely ignores the fact that both NS and RV are empirically shown to be virtually non-existent. That is to say, CR does not accept empirical falsification for Darwinism, i.e. falsification of NS and RV. Thus, whatever CR is doing, he is not doing science. i.e. He is, via Popper, not speaking about reality.
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge
a few more details on exactly why Darwinism fails to qualify as a testable, i.e. falsifiable, scientific theory are in the following video:
Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA
As you clearly see from the preceding video, not only does Darwinism fail to qualify as a real science, Darwinism's reductive materialism is directly contrary to the entire field of mathematics, which is the backbone of modern science.bornagain77_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

critical:
If this designer has these limitations, then why are they not present in the theory of ID itself?
ID is about the DESIGN and NOT the designer. How many times do you have to be told that? It's as if you are incapable of learning
For example, what are the implications of needing to reuse things?
Intelligence- it is not smart to keep reinventing things that you already have.
In the future, mere human beings, using advanced computer systems, will be able to create one of, custom vehicles that reuse no common parts.
Special pleadingET_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Yet no one has presented an explanation for that specific order.
I have and you have yet to properly address it. Your non-sequiturs and ignorance of evolution are not arguments.ET_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

I don’t know why you say so. ID’s designer, or designers, is not abstract at all: we simply don’t know who he is. But it is absolutely not true that it has no defined limitations: it seems to have a lot of limitations, perfectly evident in the features of its design. For example, it seems to need time to implement design. It seems to need gradual development of function to implement higher functions. It has a lot of “competitors”: for example, biological variation that tends to degrade the functionality in its designs. It certainly has to act in space and time, and to interact with existing matter to input specific configurations in it. That requires a specific interface, that can certainly be the object of scientific approach. It needs to design reusing what already exists, IOWs through designed descent.
If this designer has these limitations, then why are they not present in the theory of ID itself? What are the implication of those limitations? For example, what are the implications of needing to reuse things? In the future, mere human beings, using advanced computer systems, will be able to create one of, custom vehicles that reuse no common parts. And we will be able to do this despite having limited resources, time etc. Every single part could be printed and nothing reused. Or it will be assembled using some kind of universal constructor one atom at a time, etc. So, will that mean we will be more advanced than the biosphere’s designer?critical rationalist_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

critical:
ID doesn’t claim that biosphere was the intentional outcome of a designer?
Originally it was, then it evolved. Your question doesn't follow from the part you quoted. We need to know what determines what type of organism will develop.
The kind of organism in question is the kind we find in our biosphere because, well, that’s what ID claims is designed, right?
And another non-sequitur. You also have to remember that neither Darwin’s nor any subsequent evolution of his ideas have anything to do with any progression from simple to more complex.
it doesn’t?
No, it doesn't: Can evolution make things less complicated?
“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
And again, evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot explain what we observe. If it could then we wouldn't even be discussing IDET_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Now we’re up to seven comments with two new authors. Yet no one has presented an explanation for that specific order. Gpuccio claims to have answered my question, but doen’t quot it and asks yet another question. BA77 quotemines and generally missuderstands Popper and KF joins the fray by telling me something I already know: ID does’t explain that order. Again, merely negating a theory does not result in a new explantory theory. So, when ID provides those explantory replacements, it will be considered again as a explantory replacement theory. After all, science is supped to maximize explantory power, by deferring to the best explanations, right? Or did I get that wrong?critical rationalist_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

to add to gpuccio's comment at 25 "But natural selection has extremely limited powers, it cannot do that!" Besides natural selection being shown to be grossly inadequate as the supposed 'designer substitute', as Darwinists falsely imagined it to be,,
“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.” Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q
,,, besides natural selection,,, for all practical purposes, random variation is also now known to be virtually non-existent:
How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations - Kevin Kelly - 2014 Excerpt: What is commonly called "random mutation" does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it. On the contrary, there's much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism's predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern. http://edge.org/response-detail/25264
Besides both natural selection and random variation being shown to be virtually non-existent, Darwinists still do not accept that as a falsification as their theory. To wit, via Popper, their theory does not speak about reality:
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge
bornagain77_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

CR, you have been advised any number of times that the design inference is about detecting -- per empirically tested, reliable sign -- design (= intelligently directed configuration) as key causal process, not about speculations regarding designers.This for the very good reason that that is the key point to be established per empirical evidence, in an era where a priori imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism is undermining science as an empirically grounded search for the truth about our world, how it works and how it comes to be as we see it around us. Also, this is what the evidence primarily warrants. Why do you continue to insist on dragging a red herring away to a strawman caricature about designers you wish to mock and/or dismiss? That twerdun is patently prior to whudunit. KFkairosfocus_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

CR quotes Popper, to wit:
“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Karl Popper – Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976) Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/
Tom Bethell, who fairly recently wrote ‘Darwin’s House of Cards’, also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable, i.e. falsifiable, scientific theory.
Tom Bethell on Karl Popper’s rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory – video – 5:54 minute mark https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352 "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge
"it does not speak about reality." ,,, If anything describe Darwinism accurately, those six words are it.bornagain77_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

Seversky at #12: Yes, Moran is certainly a very good example of the following very scientific attitude: Q: How can you exaplain functional information in biological objects? A: Of course, neutral variation had an important role. Q: But neutral varitaion can do nothing to overcome probabilistic barriers! A: Of course, natural selection had an important role. Q: But natural selection has extremely limited powers, it cannot do that! A: Of course, neutral variation had an important role. And so on. If you doubt my statements about RV and NS, maybe you have missed my OPs about those points: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-natural-selection-an-interesting-open-discussion-with-gordon-davisson/ and https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/gpuccio_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: "For example, can any ID proponent here explanation why ID would predict organisms would appear in the order of least complex to most complex? It’s unclear how ID predictions are unique, given that its designer is defined as abstract and has no defined limitations and given our current, best test theories about how knowledge grows, including in the case of human designers." I addressed that point here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/note-to-darwinists-language-itself-is-anti-science/ comment #10 (to you). But you did not answer. Could you answer now, please? If you make a challenge, you should follow it up. I have made, many times, a challenge that nobody has even tried to answer. I copy it here, for your consideration. One never knows...
Will anyone on the other side answer the following two simple questions? 1) Is there any conceptual reason why we should believe that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases? 2) Is there any evidence from facts that supports the hypothesis that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases?
gpuccio_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

CR Then it would seem that refuting Darwinism isn’t something that ID is not “meant” to do? And you would be right.Explaining an aspect of nature is what it is meant to do. But how is rejecting ID because of the fear it might overturn a different theory, science?tribune7_{January 22, 2018
January
01
Jan
22
22
2018
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

I wrote:
As such, ID’s designer could just as well have created organisms in the order of least to most complex or even created them all at once without requiring a sequence of interventions over time.
Correction
To quote Popper...
Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
It's unclear why ID's designer selected this particular method, out of all those that were not prohibited, given it's lack of defined limitations.
So, at best, one could say "That's just what the designer must have wanted" That is, unless ID proponents choose to be more specific about their designer in a way that necessary consequences. However, no such limitations will be forthcoming. This is because, in doing so, ID proponents would exclude their preferred designer. Again, I won't be holding my breath.critical rationalist_{January 22, 2018
January
01
Jan
22
22
2018
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

@ET
FIRST it would be important to understand what, exactly, was intelligently designed.
ID doesn't claim that biosphere was the intentional outcome of a designer?
We need to know what determines what type of organism will develop.
The kind of organism in question is the kind we find in our biosphere because, well, that's what ID claims is designed, right? Furthermore, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID's designer, from achieving something is knowing how. This includes creating organisms in the order of most complex to least complex or even all at once.
Then we can determine how much variation is possible given a mechanism of cumulative selection of genetic change. Then we could tell what, if any, interventions were required to get from the terraforming stage to today.
Except, using "a mechanism of cumulative selection of genetic change" is not a necessary consequence to obtain the biosphere we observe. This is because the origin of an organism’s features is the origin of requisite knowledge of what transformations of matter will covert raw materials into those specific features, including those specific features we find in the biosphere. So, it's a question of knowledge. As such, ID’s designer could just as well have created organisms in the order of least to most complex or even created them all at once without requiring a sequence of interventions over time. IOW it's unclear why ID's designer selected this particular methods out of all those that were not profited given it's lack of defined limitations.
You also have to remember that neither Darwin’s nor any subsequent evolution of his ideas have anything to do with any progression from simple to more complex.
it doesn't? How could raw materials get transformed into complex organisms before the requisite knowledge of which specific transformations to perform to construct them had been created? Specifically, that knowledge would have only came into existence by subjecting the knowledge of how to construct simpler organisms to a form of variation and criticism. Since it did not exist before then, that order was a necessary consequence of the theory. It’s is in this sense that the theory is hard to vary, because it cannot be significantly modified without also significantly impacting its ability to explain the phenomena in question. On the other hand, ID's designer has no limitations on what it knew, when it knew it, etc. And unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent it from achieving an order of most complex to least complex or even all at once, is knowing how. And nothing in the supposedly scientific theory limited what ID's designer new, when it knew it, etc. So, that order is not a necessary consequence of the theory.
And given that the fossil record is incomplete much of what we “observe” may not mean what you think it does. The alleged order is illusory.
And given that the sun is often behind the clouds, our record is incomplete as well. But out theories of optics, geometry, etc. explain why we shouldn’t expect to experience the sun it during those times. And the sun actually being there, at those times, regardless of whether we observe it or not, plays a key part in a number of independently formed, hard to vary explanations about other aspects of the world that we experience. Furthermore, when we “expreince” the sun rising in a mirror on on TV we don’t think there are actually are two suns or the sun is actually rising twice, etc. Again, this is due to our theories of optics, geometry, etc. The same can be said about the fossil record. Our current, best theory of fossilization tells us that we should not expect to observe every transitional form under all conditions. And transitional forms actually being there, at those times, regardless of whether we observe them or not, is part of a number of hard to vary independently formed explanations. What we think is happening, in reality, is based on our current best explanations, not merely what we experience. All observations are theory laden.critical rationalist_{January 22, 2018
January
01
Jan
22
22
2018
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

@Tribune7
But it’s not what ID is meant to do and it’s silly to accuse proponents of some violation of propriety for not using it to do so.
Then it would seem that refuting Darwinism isn’t something that ID is not “meant” to do? The mere negation of an explantory theory does not produce a new explantory theory. Until a new theory is proposed that explains the same aspects of the biosphere that Darwinism does, equally as well, in addition to explaining specific problematic aspects of the theory, that Darwinism cannot, it will continue to be the deepest theory we have of biological origins.critical rationalist_{January 22, 2018
January
01
Jan
22
22
2018
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

CR Tribue7, seems to think the order in which organisms appeared in the biosphere isn’t relevant and therefore not worth explaining. Explain, explore, ponder all you want. It's an interesting and good thing to do. But it's not what ID is meant to do and it's silly to accuse proponents of some violation of propriety for not using it to do so.tribune7_{January 22, 2018
January
01
Jan
22
22
2018
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

critical rationalist:
Apparently, ET seems to think the order of the appearance of organisms is such a mystery that it doesn’t matter if ID can’t explain it.
What "order of appearance"? What about terraforming? I know I specifically said it was something to consider. Physics doesn't allow for a poofing of a planet and inhabitants, so terraforming would be the best answer to your challenge. FIRST it would be important to understand what, exactly, was intelligently designed. We need to know what determines what type of organism will develop. Then we can determine how much variation is possible given a mechanism of cumulative selection of genetic change. Then we could tell what, if any, interventions were required to get from the terraforming stage to today. You also have to remember that neither Darwin's nor any subsequent evolution of his ideas have anything to do with any progression from simple to more complex. And given that the fossil record is incomplete much of what we "observe" may not mean what you think it does. The alleged order is illusory.ET_{January 22, 2018
January
01
Jan
22
22
2018
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Now we're up to four comments. Apparently, ET seems to think the order of the appearance of organisms is such a mystery that it doesn't matter if ID can't explain it. Tribue7, seems to think the order in which organisms appeared in the biosphere isn't relevant and therefore not worth explaining. However, for the sake of argument, even if either of these were the case (which I'm not suggesting) this wouldn't prevent other theories from explaining and predicting the specific order of least to most complex as a necessary consequence, where ID could not. And, therefore, it would still fail to explain the biosphere at least equally as well. Specifically, ID, the supposed scientific theory, has no necessary consequences that would result in, and therefore predict, in the order of lest complex to most complex. This is because ID's designer has no defined limitations, such what it knew, when it knew it, etc. A such, it could equally predict an appearance of most complex to least complex, or all at once. Or any possible order. By nature of explaining everything it explains nothing. (Note: that's not a feature.) At best, one could say "that order is just what the designer must have wanted" But, by all means, the challenge is still open. I won't be holding my breath.critical rationalist_{January 22, 2018
January
01
Jan
22
22
2018
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

CR Out of three comments from ID proponents, none of them have actually explained the order of the appearance of organisms via ID. Nor have we done so via thermodynamics, gravity, or relativity. Just because a discipline does one thing, doesn't mean it does everything.tribune7_{January 22, 2018
January
01
Jan
22
22
2018
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist:
Out of three comments from ID proponents, none of them have actually explained the order of the appearance of organisms via ID.
We don't really know the order of appearance but terraforming would be something to consider.
Again, If ID somehow manages to equally explain not only what neo-Darwinism does today,
Neo-Darwinism doesn't explain anything beyond genetic diseases and deformities. ID explains much, much more than that. ID explains the genetic code and all that goes with it. ID is the only possible explanation for it, too.ET_{January 22, 2018
January
01
Jan
22
22
2018
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Out of three comments from ID proponents, none of them have actually explained the order of the appearance of organisms via ID. What gives? Again, If ID somehow manages to equally explain not only what neo-Darwinism does today, but then explains the problematic aspects of the theory, then by all means, it will considered. So, when will ID get around to doing just this?critical rationalist_{January 22, 2018
January
01
Jan
22
22
2018
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

"failing to refute Darwinism." That's like saying you have failed to refute the pseudo-science of tea-leaf reading. In fact, given the fact that it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Darwinian evolution has turned out to be, it is an insult to compare tea-leaf readers to Darwinists. At least they do no real harm in their delusions.
Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudo-Science based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeDi6gUMQJQ Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA
bornagain77_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 11
CR:
You have confused being off limits for consideration and having been considered and failing to refute Darwinism.
Are you kidding? A-Mats don’t need us for that. They are doing it all by themselves. Just ask Larry Moran whether Darwinism (defined as a predominately adaptationist process) has been refuted. He will tell you yes it has.
Not exactly:
Larry Moran Saturday, November 18, 2006 2:45:00 PM jeffw asks, How does evolution by accident explain convergent evolution(evolving the eye several times independently, for example)? That's due to natural selection. Darwinists, also called adaptationists, attribute everything to natural selection. Pluralists like me don't deny natural selection but we know that there are lots of other things going on. The debate between supporters of Gould and supporters of Dawkins has been going on for 30 years. If you support Dawkins you are happy to be called a Darwinist. If you support Gould, as I do, then that label is odious and incorrect.
Seversky_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply