»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection
| The Alley |
|
Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection |
|
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes 
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387 It seems that the Scopes Trial wasn't quite finished after all... and this time, the monkeys won. The main reason the court found to stop teaching "Intelligent Design" in science classes is because it is Creationism in disguise and teaching "religious principals" is a violation of Separation of Curch and State. At my high school, there was a ban on teaching Creationism, however we studied the King James version of the Bible because of it's literary significance, and the fact that it was translated as poetry. My questions are: 1) Is teaching Creationism along side Darwanism (presenting both theories equally) a violation of the separation clause? 2) Is there a difference between teaching Creationism as a scientific possibility and teaching the Christian Bible as literature? "...and as we drift along, I never fail to be astounded by the things we'll do for promises..." |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Bradly Stott - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The problem is that there are many Creationism-theories from many religions. If you are in a private Christian school, surely you may teach and learn Christianity's creationism. But if you are in a public school how may it be right to teach one religion's creationism over anothers, when people of different religions shall be present? |
||
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
My opinion is, I can't see why both cannot be taught in public schools. I guess the main controversy surrounding intelligent design, in my mind, is that few really seem to currently understand what it means or what it's about. Some believe this belief is rooted in faith, while others believe this belief is rooted in reason, so it seems few are yet really aware of the concept, myself being one of them. But I cannot see why not both the concepts of evolution and intelligent design can co-exist as sections in your public school textbook. It's not as though you're deliberately imposing your beliefs on others, they're just beliefs, theories, and should be up for the students to decide which theory rings to their hearts more, which discussing and debating these theories is exactly what makes public education at its finest. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Ok, so we have the Theory of Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism. In what supposedly should be a marketplace for ideas and learning is instead a monopolistic discussion which is in turn religious in nature, seeing how many not only accept the Theory of Evolution as FACT but also believe it so fervently as to be faith. Creationism is fairly self explanatory and is definitely Judeo-Christian-Muslim in nature. Yahweh, God, Allah created all. Then there's the hybrid, Intelligent Design. The base tenet is that Something aided the formation of life, seeing how things fit a bit too neatly to be pure random happenstance. Since the Scopes trial in the 30's, Evolution is the only theory taught. Creationism is right out due to federal/state funding of schools...'gotta keep em seperated' to quote Offspring. But I really don't see what the big deal is with Intelligent Design. Something out there, over millions and billions of years, aided evolution. I'm reminded of Anne Rice's 'Memnoch the Devil' where a precept very much akin to Intelligent Design is discussed at some length. What I'm really confused by is the Judge's brief, which was anything but. 300-some-odd pages to essentially state that the Theory of Intelligent Design was bunk in his mind? 300 + pages? That's a book, not a brief, half the size of Stephen King's 'Christine'. Out of nearly 20000 residents of that school district, 11 parents complained. Not the kids, but 11 parents. Not the teens actually in school presumably to learn and be exposed to new ideas, but 11 parents. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, I reckon. Reminds me of a story I read where 5 people complained about a railroad Christmas village in New Orleans, complete with blue tarp roofs. So it was removed. Then 500 people complained about it being removed. It was replaced. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It don't think it is about how "popular" it is among parents, more than what virtue it has as being in a Science class. How is such a belief Science? I always thought that a Religion studies course would be great in schools, such a belief could be studied in that kind of Class. But I don't think it stands in a right place set in a Science class. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Yeah, I was musing about this while up working on the roof. ID, since it contains a supernatural aspect, does not belong in a pure science class. Philosophy and/or religious studies (all religions) would be better suited. Briefly, someone or something basically stirred the primordial soup, but who or what did the stirring is unknown, hence the supernatural. The fact that 11 parents somehow speaks for a population of 20,000 is proof yet again about the diminishment of our Republic, slowly changing into a Democracy: the rights of the few outweigh the rights of the many, instead of vice-versa. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
What makes either a science? Question for Evolutionists: Is a theory that is not empirically testable and falsifiable and not based on a body of controlled, replicable experiments a scientific theory? Question for Intelligent Design Proponents: Is a theory that is not empirically testable and falsifiable and not based on a body of controlled, replicable experiments a scientific theory? I think the answer to both should be "no" ... and since neither Evolution nor ID can claim to be empirically testable and based on a body of controlled, replicable experiments, both should be disqualified from a claim to being a hard science. Since much of Macroevolutionary theory relies on a problematic fossil record and logical bridges between microevolutionary observations and macroevolutionary hypotheses, it is more of a historical or philosophical theory than a scientific one. Intelligent Design, while offering many arguments (such as the argument from complexity), is simply a form of the millennia old Cosmological Argument - that all things with a beginning have a cause - which led philosophers such as Aristotle to speculate about an uncaused cause or Prime Mover (a/k/a God). Thus, it is more of a philosophical or theological theory than a scientific one. Does it matter that both lack key attributes of theories generally regarded as scientific? No. It simply means that the debate is between history and philosophy, not one scientific theory against another. Jim |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
here's the thing..I happen to live fairly close to that school district...it isn't a county system or a city system but a very small borough or township...probably with one high school, one or two elementary and a middle school. The school board decided on their own to change the curriculum with no input from the population that pays the taxes and the teachers had no say..they were told they must teach it and teach it the way it was given to them. The school board members were almost all of the Christian Faith. They didn't want the subject to be one of questioning or comparison to what was already taught... they wanted it to be the one and only way despite what you read or heard in national papers and tv. If the majority of the people, Alicat, were not against it then how come when the elections were held this year all school board members were voted out by that non complaining population that you think was larger than those 11 who were. The school board previously had not given the public, whose taxes pay the school system, the choice. I don't know or remember who took them to court anymore...but the people of that school district won through a democratic process...and it went back to the original curriculum. By the way, on our local tv, students complained too...you just didn't see that on the national news because locally we dealt with it over a longer period of time. I probably am not expressing myself well..but religion should be taught in religious schools unless all religions are given the exposure of their beliefs. And that won't happen. And discussing parts of the bible in literature classes is not the same as declaring one's religious beliefs and forcing them upon others. Maureen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
evolution: predicted nested hierarchies falsification test: found nested hierarchies. ID: predicted designer falsification test: to be continued Creationism: predicted flat earth falsification test: Earth |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I disagree Jim - the "Theory" in Theory of Evolution should be removed. It is a scientific and empirically testable fact and can be found everywhere in current and testable events. Whether evolution represents the "beginning," I believe, is the question that needs the word Theory attached to it and is the part that most who disagree take issue with. I doubt you’ll find many who would disagree that life is evolution in fact, even if they disagree on the foundation of the “trigger-event.” I personally don’t have an issue with all being taught in school, as long as the provable facts are listed as provable facts and the rest are presented as theory – including the “Big Bang” scenario. I also think the problem with creationism is that many people fear it can’t be presented as a scientific theory without relying on information whose credibility cannot be supported by a base of provable facts. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
You see a magician change flowers into a dove. How did he do it? If he just did is a viable response, well, . . . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Untrue, Brad. Macro-evolution accommodates nested hierarchies, but does not predict them. Within the randomness of evolution, life on this planet could easily have taken many parallel paths instead of a single diverging one. There is nothing in the theory to predict a single point of origin, rather than multiple points. On the other hand, ID does predict and demand a single point of origin.  quote: ID is fully capable of making the same untestable predictions that are made by macro-evolution, Brad. For example, ID should predict that Life will never be seen to spring from non-life. Throw a bunch of chemicals in a vat, hit them with some serious energy, and if Life springs from the primordial soup, ID is no longer a necessary requisite to explaining our Universe. quote: Chris, you shouldn't confuse micro-evolution with macro-evolution. The former, which is more closely related to natural selection, is indeed testable. Introduce a stimulus and, over the course of multiple generations, certain characteristics of a species will become more pronounced. The classic example is Darwin's finches which, trapped on an remote island with periodic droughts, tended towards longer beaks than finches elsewhere. During hard years, the birds with longer beaks could reach the grubs beneath tree bark and so survived long enough to pass on their genetic traits to young, long-billed finches. The difference between micro- and macro-evolution, however, is that during the more plentiful years, the short-billed birds made a remarkable comeback. Why? Because natural selection never results in permanent change to a species. The DNA always remains the same. Macro-evolution, however, is a one-way street. It depends on inherently random mutations that, under the influence of natural selection, can change one species into another species. No one has ever seen that happen and, short of a time machine or damn long life span, there's no way to test the theory. You can bombard a lizard all day with radiation and the most you are likely to do is kill it. There is no theory nor mathematical basis to tell us just what kind of radiation in what dosage will result in a lizard that gives birth to baby parakeets. Mutation is an evolutionist's own unique brand of supernaturalism. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Parallel paths are certainly a possibility. but evolutionary theory accomodates the single path we see. Nested hierarchies, as far as I can tell, are a necessary corollary of the theory itself. I don't see anyway around it. And speciation has been observed. In plants. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Good questions, nakdthoughts. It was never really explained why almost all the school board members who changed the curriculum were voted out, though one could by extrapolation conclude it was due to ID being discussed in biology classes as a differing theory to the evolutionary one. I have no real idea why they were voted out, excepting that they really pissed off enough voters to lose their jobs. I really don't think it was due to high school biology teachers having their students write a few paragraphs about ID and Darwinian evolution. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
I think that it was due to the fact Alicat, that they did not let anyone else have a viewpoint at their board meeting, having already decided what they planned to do. One board member resigned angrily over it. You have to understand too that board members are just the parents or adults voted in from their communities who run on a certain platform. They changed or added ID to the plans without any consultation or inclusion of others in how it would be taught.. I think it was more their arrogance and defiant over others input that got them all relieved of their positions...besides the fact the town wasn't pleased about making national news. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, all that together would certain do it, especially about being cast in the national spotlight and being inundated by lawyers, lobbyists, reporters, the curious, and otherwise bored pundits from all sides of this debate. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3330694 todays article... Dover is in York County |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
What difference does it make if when you’re dead you’re dead. Seems to me that is the discomfort of evolution theory which is opposed. An intelligent design theory that doesn’t at least imply support for the notion that someone out there not only cared enough to start life but provide for it once over would be no more attractive. Evolution theory at it’s root is hopeless in such regard and that is what makes it distasteful. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Ah, ok and thanks nakdthoughts. Also have to amend the Judge's brief...as I have a nasty habit of transposing numbers. 139 pages, instead of the 319 I was thinking he wrote. Is still a lot to write when it all boils down to his view that ID is total hogpiddle. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I haven't read the judge's opinion, nor have I studied ID claims extensively. I believe though that where ID and creationism diverge is that ID doesn't necessarily question COMMON DESCENT (which is probably the term that you should be focusing on Brad instead of nested hierarchies) it merely suggests a creator was the cause of common descent. Is this science? It can certainly be studied scientifically -- all one needs to do is find the creator -- show how the creator caused common descent -- explain the design and the purpose of the design -- demonstrate the process using the tools the creator used to cause common descent. Until then... it isn't science. Or it at least doesn't belong inside the theory of evolution. It's important to understand that evolution is Scientific Theory -- (capital S, capital T) which is different than say, conspiracy theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory It would be an honor to have one's hypothesis elevated to the status of Scientific Theory -- a Scientific Theory is a general explanation of observable natural phenomena based on evidence. Einstein's Theory of relativity offers us predictable results -- as does Newton's Theory of gravity. As does Quantum Theory, as does Electric Theory... but there are limits -- and areas where Theories are dynamic and progressive as new observable data becomes available. Common descent is provable, falsifiable, consistent internally and externally, useful, parsimonious -- it doesn't add unnecessary concepts it only deals with observable data, it can be tested -- both through prediction and retrodiction -- it is completely scientific -- it doesn't ask certain questions though -- and as all of science has areas of incomplete information. It would be extremely lazy to merely inject 'God' as the answer to the gaps though. Gaps continue to be filled in in all disciplines of science. To teach ID AS science is the problem -- it isn't. It is philosophy and can be taught as such. To the extent that ALL knowledge is philosophy -- then yes -- it can be said that science is a particular world view -- it is an acceptance that there is an external reality from our consciousness and therefore IS a type of faith -- the alternative is solipsism. It is very difficult to find evidence for solipsism though. It really can't be a Scientific Theory based on that deficit. But what science doesn't do is look for 'Truth'. It just looks for how and why things work. Teach science in science class. Teach philosophy in philosophy class. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Hawke (and Brad): quote: This is the problem I have with macroevolution positioning itself as primarily scientific. With evolution, there are no single subject design studies (of which I'm aware) and there are no controlled comparison studies to shore up its validity. "Prediction" is a very precise term and is not the same as "forecasting" (i.e., you can't dumb down a prediction to describe something that is merely a statistical forecast) ... retrodiction is simply historical inquiry. So the tests are not "scientific" in the way positivists would like us to believe, but rather are evidential and historical and, therefore, subject to a much higher level of uncertainty. From what I've seen (and please show me what I've missed), the behavioral sciences demonstrate a higher level of validity than evolution. If it can be called "scientific," it is softly scientific. I don't dispute the use of the principle of parsimony in determining the superiority of one explanation over another, and I am not convinced that ID wins the day against evolution theory on this point, but when the physical sciences are concerned, much greater weight must be given to what can be tested and observed. I just don't see how evolution fits that bill without softening the definition of hard science. And I agree ... teach science in science class and philosophy in philosophy class. Microevolution is science. We can know that microevolution occurs. We can only opine, however, that macroevolution has occurred. So let's teach science in science class and history in history class. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Agreeing with Jim, here. None of the predictions of macro-evolution are convincing and most (such as nested hierarchies, aka common descent) aren't even true predictions. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
It seems to me that the crux of the judicial issue here was that ID was included in Science curriculum. And Maureen's point about it being thrust upon the district without any school area voters input/approval created a major stumbling block. Perhaps, if our school districts were encouraged to create a new course, an Origin of Life Theories course, the problems would be solved? For then, multiple philosophical as well as scientific and psuedo/scientific approaches could be presented equally. I would vote for such a course. |
||
|
majnu
since 2002-10-13
Posts 1088SF Bay Area |
I do not understand the very premise of the argument. ID as it is called is not science. It has not undergone peer review. Therefore it cannot be introduced in a science class. If they want to discuss ID in a world religions class or philosophy class it would be appropriate but not in a science course. as for the discussion of predictability, well, much of the work done in early universe physics cannot predict anything. however, certain theories can be verified by looking back in time at the CMB and other traces of early universe phenomena. in fact a huge amount of physics is done in this way. i do not see how looking at the fossil record to verify the basic postulates of evolution is any different. -majnu -------------------------------------- Timid thoughts be not afraid. I am a Poet. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm not sure I understand your standard for the sciences, Jim and Ron. Wouldn't you have to get rid of geology, meteorology, and cosmology as well? Don't laugh. Check out some Creationist websites. That's precisely what they do. Thinking about this last night and wondered if you guys thought I meant common descent when I said nested hierarchy. Evolutionary theory, as far as I can tell, nowhere predicts common descent, but if there is common descent then nested hierarchies necessarily follow. The study of this is cladistics (which tells us among other things that hippos are genetically closer to whales than they are to bovine). I think the micro/macro thing is a bit of a ruse, Jim. We know that evolutionary descriptions work, we know that speciation occurs, and in order for the distinction to make sense we need to some kind of wall that stops evolution at the maco level. I haven't seen anything like that except, "I find it hard to believe that a fly can turn into a monkey." To which we can respond with a big, fat "can't". Honestly, what I think you and Ron are bothered by isn't the theory itself, only the current monopoly it has. Evolutionary theory doesn't claim a monopoly, it just seems to be the best way to go at the moment. After all, we already know that intelligence has interfered with species. We've been doing it for a long time. And with that said, the ball is in ID's court. What startling new insights, discoveries have been found by Behe and the rest except, "Wow, the world is really complex!"  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Brad -- Common Descent is exactly what evolution predicts/retrodicts -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent Jim, Ron, Retrodiction is both historic and scientific -- we can scientifically retrodict, for example, the phases of the moon or a solar or lunar eclipse -- it is a matter of being history and science - they are not mutually exclusive propositions. The fossil record is supportive of Common Descent -- it does not support transformationism or a sudden generation of life. But Common Descent is also supported by biochemistry, anatomy, biogeography, embryology and genetic principle alone without ever even looking at a fossil and then there is Homology or non-functional similarities between species. Micro-evolution supports macro-evolution -- if a population (A) migrates and undergoes environmental selection and becomes (A1) then the opportunity for (A2) to emerge with further migration and environmental selection is entirely possible... there is no need for A, or A1 to ever be selected out if they don't migrate though and by the time (A20) exists it is completely compatible with Micro-evolution that (A20) and (A) may be so dissimilar that re-production between the two is not possible -- thus -- a new species. (A20)=(B) Speciation. What we can infer about Common Descent is also falsifiable if, for example, it becomes evident that our methods for carbon dating are incorrect and the universe and the world are in fact only a few thousand years old. This would then throw the fossil record out. Creationism still maintains the problem of explaining the origin of the creator and being falsified -- the statement 'God made it' can' t be falsified by saying 'did not'. This is not, however, an indication that God did not make it. It merely means that we can't observe it -- or observe enabling evidence to support the claim. The simple, elegant solution is Macro-evolution -- but we can't bombard a dog with enough radiation to turn it into a chicken in the laboratory-- they tend to die first. Even though Macro-evolution is vague and speculative it remains scientific -- it is unlikely that a life form will evolve that is not subject to gravity. Even though Newton's theory breaks down at the atomic level -- it's still a good bet that equal and opposite reactions will take place and that cow's aren't going to be jumping over the moon tonight. Retrodictively we can say a cow has probably never jumped over the moon. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I meant universal common descent. You're right that evolution speaks of a common ancestor for different species, but I don't see how it predicts a common ancestor for everything. It, to use Ron's word, accomodates quite well to that however. Am I missing something? I seem to remember a discussion in Dennet's book on common parenthood that I never quite got either. It made sense at the time but it didn't stay with me (which usually means that I didn't understand it all that well). |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Try this Brad; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
The problem with macroevolution isn't immediately apparent because it can't be seen with the naked eye. Speciation is all well and good, but on a cellular and sub-cellular level, the tiny changes which are responsible for speciation in complex organisms just aren't possible. Remove any part of a cell and it ceases to work. If any theory wishes to suggest the development of life from simpler organisms, wouldn't it make sense to start from the bottom of the chain? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well, first.. a biologist isn't going to differentiate between macroevolution and microevolution. There is simply evolution. Changes in genetic code over time is what is observable. The distinction between macro and micro is an ontological argument made by creationists either intentionally meant to confuse the issue or merely represents a misunderstanding of the science. I'm convinced that usually the case is the latter and not the former. Please -- anyone -- explain the mechanism that prevents microevolution (which is stipulated by most creationists in the same manner as Ron and Jim here) from becoming macroevolution over time. Because of the relatively short life-span of humans it is difficult to observe speciation because it isn't a huge leap from dog to cat. But we can, and do, observe speciation in plants and flies. |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
All very interesting but goes nowhere. I as maybe the oldest here can say: I remember being in junior high in 1945 and making drawings about evolution for science class.I agree it does not belong in the science class. At the same time we were facing the problem of religion in the schools.They worked that out by allowing those who wanted a class on religion to go across the street to a church on Wednesday at the last class period for a religious study. A lot of kids oped for that as technically we were let out of school forty minutes early on Wednesday.We did have to show up at the class, thought I do not remember if any one really checked on that. Later they discussed having the "Bible as Literature" for a class in English. I don't know how long that lasted there as I went on to high school.(I still have the notebook containing the drawings! AND the "facts" have changed!) I had nothing along either line in high school,if I did my mind was elsewhere. I quit school in the third year. I am posting only because I wonder if this problem will ever be solved to everyones best interest? I do not personally think so. martyjo |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Defining "species" by the inability to reproduce is one way, LR, to reach speciation, but it's a definition not all naturalists would agree is accurate or useful. Your example, after all, would suggest that breeding a horse and a donkey will produce a new species of animal. Many within the biological community use quite different definitions of species, including those based on morphological, genetic, evolutionary (a bit circular, that one), paleontological, phylogenetic or biosystematic models. How can we agree that speciation has been reliably observed when we can't even agree what constitutes a species? The problem with every example of speciation I've seen published (and there aren't that many) is that there is never a test for viability. Even if we agree on the definition of a species, and even if we use that definition to discover the introduction of a brand new one, that alone is not enough to support the claims of evolution. Mutations are not in dispute, after all. Virtually every claim, prediction, and retrodiction of evolution rests on the single premise that the functions of Life could follow multiple paths. There are hundreds of different polymers, for example, but only three are used to support Life. The DNA in all organisms uses only four nucleotides out of nearly a hundred known. The list goes on and on and on, and all of this evidence is used to prove the validity of common descent. Occam's razor would suggest a much simpler explanation. Maybe we've only seen one way for Life to function because there IS only one way for Life to function? There is absolutely nothing in evolutionary history to predict a single point of origin. On the contrary, if there are a hundred different ways for DNA to exist in a viable form, evolution would tell us the only thing required is sufficient time. You want to convince me the commonalities of life prove common descent? Fine. Show me the exception evolution insists must exist. Find or build me a form of life that falls outside the nested hierarchy. Do that and I'll have no choice but to accept that everything within the hierarchy sprang from a single source. We have an infinitude of integers, yet only zeroes and ones are used to write today's digital computer programs. Gather all those programs into a taxonomy and I strongly suspect cladistics would give us a phylogenetic tree that very closely resembles the universal common descent tree attached to Life. Should I then theorize that, given a little background radiation and enough time, the word processor I'm using to write this post will one day evolve into a sapient spreadsheet? While I understand your reluctance, LR, to differentiate between micro- and macro-evolution, I think it is nonetheless a necessary distinction. Survival of the fittest is about emphasizing characteristics that already exist in a species and is very nearly inevitable. Bacteria don't suddenly develop a resistance to penicillin through magic, but rather because a few already had a resistance that allowed their progeny to survive where others couldn't. It does not, in my opinion, naturally follow that bacteria will one day exhibit entirely new characteristics that enhance their survival, perhaps turning into green algae or horn worts in the process. Micro-evolution is inevitable. Macro-evolution is a matter of completely random chance, and even within the context of a hundred million years, the odds aren't real good. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: quote: I think I'd prefer to get rid of the term "science" - since it seems to have become trite and misleading term used to give a discipline credibility, rather than that credibility being earned by a clear demonstration of the production of knowledge. My problem with applying the term "science" to all of the so-called "scientific" disciplines, regardless of the activity that is taking place within the discipline, is that the biologist, geologist or palientologist rarely advertises whether we are being led into an uncertain or certain environment. Think of it in the same way Aristotle cautions his audience to not confuse knowledge (i.e., self-evident or highly certain information) and opinion (i.e., positions that progressively approach knowledge as the evidence supporting their claims grows). Most of the arguments I hear in favor of evolution include a statement such as, "There is currently no better explanation than evolution." Naturally an evolutionist would argue this, and they might be right in doing so, but I think they must also accept that their opinion is supported by the weight or majority of available evidence behind it, rather than certain knowledge. If you must classify me, call me a "soft evolutionary-agnostic." To me, it is not so important which theory of origins is the correct one, but that all acknowledge that they very well could be wrong. Brad, within the disciplines you mentioned, it is certainly possible to arrive at opinions with a very high degree of certainty, but it is also possible to falsify highly certain opinions. Meteorologists were highly certain that Katrina was going to hit somewhere between the Texas and Alabama coasts, and somewhat certain it would be in the vicinity of New Orleans. This illustrates that, given a limited number of data, the closer we move from the general to the particular, the more uncertain our conclusion becomes. This is just as true of evolution as it is of meteorology. We increase knowledge of a problem beyond mere opinion when (1) we collect relevant data, (2) identify patterns in that data, and (3) apply the identified patterns in the data to the problem. This increases our ability to think in more objective terms, moving us away from the uncertain environment of mere opinion and further toward an environment of certainty. Great care must be taken in the problem-solving process because of internal factors that can affect the validity of our conclusion such as the analyst’s ability to (1) sift relevant from irrelevant data, (2) perceive patterns in the applicable data, and (3) lay personal biases aside. By presupposing the validity of a macroevolutionary position, are the analysts ruling out other possible conclusions or ignoring information that undermines their position? I don't know. Do you? Hawke: quote: Or perhaps the biologist has made a precipitous classification error by assuming minor changes in the genetic code over short periods of time are indicative of dramatic changes in the genetic code over long periods of time that can result in an organism changing from a fish to a frog over the course of so-many-million years. When the biologist does this, he isn't doing biology anymore ... he's doing logic. And the validity of his conclusion is dependent on the validity of his premise(s). And as I suggested above, those premises are at least somewhat uncertain. quote: I can't anymore than you can explain the mechanism that enables microevolution to become macroevolution over time. We can't observe it. We can't explain it. All we can do is speculate and opine about it. Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Everything is the same universe just in a different shape. |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
quote: Actually, macroevolution is a theory that arose from inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. Given a fossil record that carbon dating and geological examination would suggest to be fairly complete (or at least more complete than incomplete), the lack of transitional species such as Darwininan theory would predict forced proponents of Evolution to attempt to explain the appearance of sudden, radical mutations which apparently occurred on a population-wide scale. While it seems reasonable to suggest that speciation, given enough time, could account for just about any variety of life, the fossil record in many cases simply does not support this claim. Perhaps we will one day unearth the fabled Elephant Graveyard where all the missing transitional species are hiding, but until then ... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If scientists can project what they see in this little acre of the universe--evolution--as scientific evidence of something that works universally, then why can't creationists project what they see --creation--as scientific evidence of something something that works universally? How can anything in a universe not be universal? There is physical proof and observation of creationism/intellegent design as readily observable as the proof and observation of evolution. Animals/insects create nests, holes, hutches, webs, honey, etc. Humans create poetry, movies, automobiles. This very site was created by Ron; and our poems were created by us; not by Evolution. These are very parts of the universe that are creationism/intellegent design, not evolution. Are you saying that onely one kind of proof can be scientific and projected on the rest of the universe, but the other cannot? How do you justify that? I still don't think they should be taught in the same class, but this is because they are so very different; just as math and poetry are very different. But I think it is a mistake to treat one as having "scientific evidence" and the other as not. However, this was only a point toward some of the physical evidence. A wiser scientific approach also acknowledges that spiritual evidence is just as true for evidence as physical evidence. If one studies well he knows that clouds, winds, less solid influences are every bit as existant and based on substantial things as rocks and soil, more solid things; and therefore also, that beliefs are every bit as existant and based on substantial things as sciences. Nothing in a universe is not substantially based on the universe itself. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-24-2005 03:30 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
When Filipchenko coined the terms macro and microevolution in 1927 he was attempting to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. He was an orthogeneticist, not a Darwinian. His student, Dobzhansky, by 1937 said "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution" in his 'Genetics and the Origin of the Species'. (Which is what Darwin had posited since the 1860's) -- this is where the terms were introduced to the English language. It was a conversation between scientists talking about how speciation occurs -- not whether or not it does. In the same manner today the conversation between proponents of Gould's Punctuated equillibrium or the majority who are still in synthesis are talking about a process that does occur and is observable -- they just aren't always sure how -- and neither is necessarily mutually exclusive -- speciation can happen both ways and it is observable. To biologists talking about microevolution and macroevolution is like talking to a mathematician about pi and super pi. The same process(es) that cause within species changes in the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes. Unless -- there is a mechanism that prevents it. All of the steps have been demonstrated in the rest of biology and genetics. Occam's razor favors synthesis. What we observe today in more mature life forms may not have been true in the past though -- and explosions of change may have occurred -- that is to say -- at some point change may not have been as tightly regulated as it is in today's cutting edge playthings of nature... and it stands to reason that life forms that were more resistant to change were/are more likely to persist. Creationists have latched onto the terminology and either through ignorance or willful strategy have twisted it in an attempt to discredit speciation. It isn't really a bad strategy -- because if we can't even agree to the terms, like -- what a species is http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=species and attempt to salt the population with red-herrings like hybrids who don't have the ability to reproduce (that is to say -- mules don't reproduce -- but, unfortunately Jackasses seem to be able to appear spontaneously ). then it is a pointless exercise. quote: I would certainly hope not. I would merely hope that you would provisionally accept it as the best explanation available. Science isn't interested in absolutes or dogma. But we don't have to find one.. as in the other historical sciences, archaeology, astronomy, geology -- natural experiments can test and falsify. What some claim are 'gaps' in the fossil record are due to the speed at which some changes have occurred -- extinctions, population bottlenecks, unoccupied niches -- geological conditions, catastrophic events -- quote: The mechanism is the same Jim. It is evolution. Genetic change that occurs over time. Certainly you played telephone when you were a kid. Same thing. Change accumulates. We do observe it. We do explain it and find solutions that appropriately model the evidence. We certainly don't understand everything that we know about it -- but computer models certainly support it. (and -- no Ron -- I don't expect your word processor to evolve into a sapient spreadsheet due to background radiation and time -- but -- it might become intelligent through the rapid increase in the economy of computing power -- doubling - what every 18 months?? by 2030 with hardware advances and programs writing programs -- it's not out of the question -- but that's another conversation isn't it? There are multiple false scenarios that can satisfy the conditions of evolution -- and that's clear indication of falsifiability). quote: But that's what science is Jim. Every path in science is uncertain. It isn't in the business of dogma or absolutes. Newton gives way to Einstein gives way to Quantum..... in the meantime -- gravity exists. Every scientific fact carries the unwritten disclaimer 'to the best of our knowledge'. But what science does is seek consistency of methodology and of internal and external explanations. Anomalies don't thwart science -- they drive it. Ron uses the right word when he says 'accept'. You're driven by ontology and epistemology -- evolution theory doesn't seek those things -- it's a study of a system that exists. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Again, LR, I disagree. Emphasizing what already exists within the DNA is markedly different from randomly introducing what never existed into the DNA. I don't think one can legitimately extrapolate from one to the other. quote: That sounds remarkably like a statement of faith, LR. quote: And yet, LR, the very statement "gravity exists" IS dogmatic and absolute. I'm not trying to be facetious, either, but rather trying to demonstrate that absolutes are impossible to avoid. The only difference between Euclidian and Riemannian geometry are the absolutes/axioms upon which they are built. Macro-evolution is based upon the axiom that random change inevitably leads to increased order and complexity, an absolute I believe has never been sufficiently supported. Of course, that doesn't mean it's wrong. It does, however, mean other alternative axioms should carry equal weight. Newton was "mostly right," a conclusion that could be amply demonstrated through experiment, but there is no such demonstrable weight behind Darwin. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: No, it doesn't. The theory doesn't predict that and the fossil record shows that, for most of life's existence, that's not what happened. We have a record of life existing at least to 3.5 billion years ago. Perhaps, it was getting more complex, perhaps it wasn't. As far as we know, they were still single celled creatures. There's nothing inevitable about that. It's not complexity or order (at least not in an aesthetic sense) that matters, it's survivability and reproducibility. What could be more common sensical than that? |
||
|
Jaime Fradera Senior Member
since 2000-11-25
Posts 843Where no tyranny is tolerable |
I'll have more to say about this in a minute, well in a while, when I will propose a theory that the universe was designed by an ancient cockroach in a sombrero, which not only explains the existence of Mexico, but also, of sombreros.But right now I'm going off to participate in a ceremony that probably got started in Celtic Scandanivia, which was performed this time of year to make the Sun stop going down and start coming up. But later ... later ... ... ... La Cucaracha |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Which is still just another way of saying, "We got lucky." You have to admit, Brad, it would be really tough to type on this keyboard were we still singe-celled creatures. It always comes back to worshipping at the feet of randomness. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sure Ron. Even if you only acknowledge microevolution -- you're still at the mercy of randomness. You started out as a sperm in competition with hudreds of thousands of other sperm for one egg -- and you won the lottery. Or, just swam faster -- depending on how you look at it. Your potential survived -- your potential siblings did not. But what did you eat today? Did you kiss anybody? Did you brush up against a plant? A peice of wood? Did you catch a virus? Inhale some bacteria? Even if you were in a hyperbaric chamber all day long as your cells reproduced the telomeres in each cell got a little bit shorter. Mine too. Ergo -- when we shave in the morning we might find a new wrinkle... a new gray hair - or a new vacant spot where a gray one used to be. Everytime we come in contact with foriegn genetic material our body's immune system develops a response that says -- that's not me. It remembers and encodes. This is one way it is possible for new genetic information to get into our own complex systems. Complexity isn't really an argument for intelligent design though -- quite the opposite -- elegant design is always the simplest. If logic sounds like faith to you I have no idea what to say about that -- except that I have faith you'll explain it. I'll leave you with this question though before I depart for the Yule -- how many times do you have to flip a quarter before it comes up tails? Happy Christmas, Channukah, Kawanza, Ramadan, Festivus, Solctice, Saturnalia, to all... and to all a good night. May random chance bless us every one!  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Happy Holidays back at ya, Reb . . . no matter what random day upon which it may fall for you. quote: At least once, Reb. While we shouldn't confuse probabilities with randomness, neither has the opportunity to occur until someone reaches out a hand and picks up the coin. How it lands can be attributed to chance, but that it lands at all still falls within the realm of cause and effect. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"how many times do you have to flip a quarter before it comes up tails? " It depends on how you flip it. If you try to juggle knives without experience and skill then they are more likely to cut you according to how you juggle them; If you juggle them with experience and skill though they are less likely to cut you, according to how you juggle them. The same principle is on the coin; it's just far more difficult to see exactly how it flips or control that with such a small object. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-25-2005 10:22 PM).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
For a follow-up question: How many times do you have to flip a quarter before it becomes a $20 gold piece? Long ago, I had a physics prof who had the annoying habit of always looking up every time he broke the chalk while writing on the board. His explanation: "There is a small but finite probability that the chalk will fall up instead of down. If it happens, I damn sure don't want to miss it." I believe he is still waiting. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If a quarter or a $20 gold peice exhibited any of the four characteristics of life then evolution would apply to them as well -- attempting to apply evolution to inanimate objects is not arguing the merits of the science -- it's just being argumentative. Neither is attempting to steer the question back to one of ontology either. Evolution has no mechanism for examining where life came from or if it was created intentionally or accidentally. Ecologists and geneticists aren't really all that concerned about prebiotic chemistry. Evolution starts with the organization of complexity and examines the dynamics of change in that system -- not the origin of the system. Specific tenets of specific religions have been challenged by the knowledge obtained through the study of life -- but it remains rather difficult to study the existence of a force or personality that resides outside of the universe. It may be on this front that atheists have been as dishonest as theists. The questions of why we exist and what to do with our existence belong in a different realm outside of science. I understand that to some theists it is a personal affront to consider themselves as nothing more than another animal -- but evolution doesn't say this either -- it says we're much more than that -- that we've transcended, somehow. We didn't evolve FROM monkeys -- we have common ancestry with today's very matured species we recognize as monkeys -- and also with the bird flu virus. Is it really so out of line with Judeo-Christian heritage to make such claims? Only if one wants to interpret the bible as being literally 'true'. While we can't even begin to talk about randomness without talking about probabilites we have to recognize that randomness is random -- and that even though this is true the law of probability is still in effect -- if I, or you, honestly, randomly flip a quarter enough times it is probable, and likely that about 50% of the time it's going to come up heads and the other 50% of the time it's going to come up tails. But it's even beyond the power of the 'hard' science of math to make a specific prediction about any given flip -- just as biology can't make any specific predictions about what direction evolution will take for a specific genome or why some variations never become manifest -- if variations never occur though -- they certainly can't be selected. Mystery abounds in the universe and in the study of it. We won't get smarter if we don't give children the right tools though -- which is what this thread is supposed to be about. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But from the point of view of the coin though it seem to have rightness, not randomness. In any flip, it goes to the right height, speed, direction, etc. according to how it is flipped, and reacts rightly to anything it encounters along its flight, then lands rightly just as it may from that flight. The human may not show or intend any "pattern" in the way he flips the coin off his thumb, but the coin certainly has a pattern of how it must go based on how it is flipped, and differs rightly according to any difference in the condition around flipping it. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-26-2005 04:51 PM).] |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
quote: zactly, and so? in thinking about the cockroach/sombrero story promised to us by senior jaime? 1. I honestly believe all possible origin theories should be presented equally 2. let's not presume to be smarter than the future generations 3. give the students the info, let them sort through it themselves...most don't really want to be spoon-fed our regurgitated hash |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
When you have a formula for determining which butterfly's wings caused a particular tornado Ess, that will be a useful and impressive technology. On the other hand, if you keep telling a golfer the ball went exactly where he hit it you'll be tossed out of the cart and have to walk back to the clubhouse -- where the beer tab will undoubtedly be left for you to pay. You raise a good point though, chaos, fractals, and the study of automotons show quite regularly that complexity can and does arise out of simplicity. Kacey, I eagerly await Jamie's creation myth as well. And I agree with your point. Evolution just isn't one of those idealisms. It belongs no more in a class on metaphysics than intelligent design belongs in evolution. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: There it is. What tools do the IDeists bring to the table? If intelligent tampering were discovered before we came along, it wouldn't disprove evolution. Because evolutionary theory doesn't presuppose a world view, it's not a creation myth, it doesn't contradict living on turtle shells. It would change the current way we describe natural history, but evolutionary theory wouldn't be touched. Dennett has an hypothesis on what to look for when it comes to ID (I'll tell you later if you're interested). What do the IDers have? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
The irony, of course, is that if intelligent tampering really did happen, it will be the evolutionary researchers who discover it. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
and who discovers it if it was due to unintelligent tampering?   probably me  ?should I change my icon to the clown??? don't answer that! |
||
|
Mandamus Junior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 13 |
Brad: quote: Rediscover it, actually. With the small details of the sun and the stars following plants (light DID precede plants - not bad by 25th century B.C. standards), I think Moses beat Darwin to the prize. After all ... Moses didn't tell us how God did it. He just said he did it in a particular order. I just don't want you to think that the IDeists are representative of the entirety of theistic heritage. Bought by son a mosasaur tooth for Christmas. It doesn't cause any problems with my views on Christmas ... why do you think it feels like a wedgie to an IDeist? Mandamus |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I agree. And if evolution was demonstrated in the laboratory tomorrow, it wouldn't disprove Intelligent Design. But that's not the point. What ID and evolution share has always been more important than where they differ. Both are highly resistant to proof, and both are seemingly incapable of making ANY useful predictions that can be tested. They are twin brothers, born of the same parents, Rationalization and Faith. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
wrong, rhetorical nonsense Ron. evolution is entierly useful -- unless you never go to the doctor. it is metaphysically neutral. you had parents. every living thing had a parent -- it came from life -- dung beetles do not spring spontaneously from dung. the fossil record shows conclusively that different forms of life existed before the present form. not one find has sprung up to show that current life forms existed in pre-historic times. you continue to make the error of comparing a theory of a designer to a study of the 'designed' |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I stopped reading this somewhere around page two. Which one of you can break this down for me? Pretend I am the little kid in the class (because with all your micro/macro-theoreticisms, I don't have a frigging clue as to what you are talking about.) And if I don't know, my kids won't either. This is not about what we personally believe is true, but about educating our children to the expansion of their minds to possiblity. I want my flying monkeys, (gotta wink at LR )--I want them and all of their possibilities taught to my kids right next to Adam & Eve.Drop the fig leaves and reveal it all, I say. Teach comparative religion, history, anthropology--right along side of how to put square blocks into square holes. I am all for it. What the hell, I have to teach it at home anyway...Besides, the world of comparative belief is such a satisfying study anyhow. (Did ya'll know that the number, 72, is like, the Muslim equivilant of "innumerable"? Is it just me? But I find that fascinating. So no, suicide-dude-bomber, there may not be exactly 72 virgins awaiting you in martyrdom, but there will be, more likely, much more purity than you can handle.)<--I love that shtuff. I like to think in a broader scope.  Oh well. It's late (or early) depending on if you've slept. grin...I haven't. and once upon a time I was an English Education major with my minor, child psychology.  almost had yer kids, I did. watch out folks, we're everywhere.... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
After this thread K I am wondering what all the hullaballoo is about anyway. Evoloution is clearly NOT being taught in schools. Let alone science. Here are some resources but, first what is scientific? quote: What is an experiment? quote: What is a natural experiment? quote: Both quotations from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment a good simple primer on evolution for all levels children to adults: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ of course Wiki has good overview too; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution and.. you almost had my kids??? were you that girl in New Orleans who?? um... nevermind... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's called biology, Reb, not evolution. It is best explained by Genetics, where offspring combine the existing DNA of parents, not evolution where the offspring get to make up whimsical new characteristics never before seen. quote: Reb, that is the part where evolution fails the test of science. Evolution makes no verifiable predictions. It can't, because its underpinnings are essentially random. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't think you're going to be able to successfully divorce genetics and biology from evolution. Descent, that is having parentage, is the principle vehicle of evolution. I hate it when people shotgun issues in posts, so, I'm going to limit myself to a very specific example which is also up to the hour practically; quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177_pf.html ok... so here's where everybody attacks the Washington Post and calls it a liberal newspaper. http://www.broad.mit.edu/cgi-bin/news/display_news.cgi?id=161 |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I've been reading all this, and one thing keeps coming to mind regarding evolution and primates. Insulin. Yep, that's right, insulin. And do you know where the majority of natural insulin for human consumption comes from? PIGS. Domestic pigs. Bristly snouted larders on hooves. Not monkeys, not chimpanzees, not any 'primate' we've seen in any type of public zoo. So, my question is this: if chimps are the closest genetically, when why on earth do type 1 diabetics (type 2 is largely resistant) inject natural insulin that comes from pigs? If the Theory of Evolution is FACT, that homo sapiens came from monkeys, why is primate insulin rejected by the human body, but pig is accepted? I've leave my thoughts about 'millions of years old cave art about modern critters that haven't changed a whit during all that time' for a later post, which is something else I've been pondering. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/organfarm/interviews/cooper.html The fact that pig (and cow) insulin is even adaptable at all to use in humans should indicate the opposite to you Cat... that speciation does occur, and that we, pigs, cows, chimpanzees, all share a common ancestor. We didn't evolve FROM monkeys. We have common ancestry with monkeys. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, you'll call it speciation, and I'll call it randomness. See, scientists and researchers didn't just wake up one morning in a fit of seredipidy and proclaim, 'Pigs and Cows, founts of human tolerant insulin!'. They performed massive trials with lots of errors. Pigs and cows, and to some extent horses, can provide human tolerant insulin. Not so with other members of the swine or equine families, and no success at all regarding felines, canines, sea mammals, and rodentia, which includes to my view squirrels, possums, rats, mice, groundhogs, prairie dogs, bats, and raccoons, to name a few. Of all the classes of mammals out there, including humans, only domestic pigs and domestic cows (not javelina, warthogs or musk oxen) can provide human tolerant insulin which most can use. Those that can't can sometimes utilize horse insulin. Of all those mammals, including humans, you hold true to 'all from common ancestors', yet only a few can produce insulin type 1 diabetics can use. And that, to me, sound far too random to be natural selection, adaptation, or evolution. Micro or macro. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I'm not sure I understand the question. The only thing I was trying to get at there was that it will be those actually doing the research that discover anomalies. Spending most of your time coming with statistical arguments against evolution (Demski) or writing books and papers explaining why something is really complex (Behe) isn't going to get you very far. Though, to be honest, I suspect there is some value to Behe's work. It motivates others to show him up. By the way, Behe, at least, is perfectly comfortable with evolution for the most part. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Curious if there is any information on this relationship and native Americans? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Why would cross-species compatibility of insulin work at all Cat? That not all species can do this is indication that they are speciated. That not all members of a species can accomplish this when some can isn't so incredible either -- after all, there is a probability that you, Ron, Brad, and I can't all share the same blood in a transfusion. But, one thing you are correct about -- what you have presented is indication of randomness -- and of common descent. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, if you dismiss completely God et al in ensuring humanity has a ready and compatible source of natural insulin for Type 1 diabetics, then I have a very hard time accepting that pigs adapted to provide humans with a usable form of insulin, just to be more useful than mere medical test beds and walking larders. Yes, back to pigs, as their DNA and chromosonal pairings more closely match the majority of humans than any other critter out there, including the Remus chimpanzee. Muscle density, flesh composition, immune system...put them in suits and you'd have Congressmen.  All joking aside, I just can't accept that it's all happy accident, that out of the thousands of species and the millions of variants, only the domestic pig, domestic cow and in lesser respects the domesticated horse, have pancreatic insulin with little or no rejection rate for human injectees for Type I therapy. Even if you took identical twins, one diabetic and the other not, and took insulin from the not and gave it to the diabetic, the diabetic's body would in all likelihood reject his twin's insulin, and would be lucky to survive the system shock. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
While I'm not going to argue with the assertion that livestock would be a better match for Congress than human DNA you simply have some of the facts confused. Other primates, specifically chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, are the closest genetically to humans -- which means we have the most recent common ancestry. After that come old world monkeys such as the rhesus. Because of our close genetic match we also carry similar diseases. It is one of the benefits of our dissimilarities that make pigs a great source of tissue for such work as Xenotransplantation because they carry no human pathogens and are easier to clone than primate DNA. Work has progressed in hybridizing pig DNA and human DNA so they can actually grow human-compatible organs. quote: quote: Discounting supernatural explanations is exactly what science does Cat. I find your logic a bit curious. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"When you have a formula for determining which butterfly's wings caused a particular tornado Ess, that will be a useful and impressive technology." Local Rebel Is that how much might you attribute to the weather, that a butterfly can flip it like a coin? I think if you believe in evolution you should look at the weather more deeply. To use the example of the thumb and the coin, as analogy I don't think the weather is more like the coin than the thumb that flips the coin in certain ways making many conditions that evolution inevitably hangs on. Just ask yourself this: if life is random and not determined by certain conditions, then why is it not on any planet in our solar system, but is on this certain particular planet, that is a certain distance away from the sun, with certain weather conditions between the moon and sun? I'm not saying littler things don't have influence and active force. But I don't think they take the role of a more active force over the weather, than the weather takes over them. How can anything evolve without the right weather conditions? And if the weather conditions make the conditions in which something may evolve, the way those conditions bend within must influence very strongly the way evolution bends. I'm just saying it is a mightier force than to say a butterfly probably flipped up a tornado, because if we say that, it seems we must also say that when the human flipped the quarter -the smaller vessel of forces--it was not the human that made the human flip the quarter, but the quarter itself. That just doesn't seem likely. Nor does it seem likely that the weather is moved by the butterflies more than the butterflies are moved by the weather. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-29-2005 12:00 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Not much time right now Ess... my apologies, I was making what is apparently an obscure reference to Chaos Theory and the Butterfly Effect, I thought it had gained more general awareness; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory http://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I've got to get out of Philosophy 101 more, I miss too many good threads. It would be interesting to reconsider what philosophical heritage Darwinian Evolution has, and at least ask the question of whether or not such presuppositions have at any time softened the rigors of what is to be considered "scientific fact". A doctrine of Evolution goes back to the Milesian philosopher Anaximander, who believed that people evolved from fish-like creatures ... without an ounce of "science" to affirm it. Was there a philosophic desire or longing which was conveniently met when Darwin came along ... whether or not he was right or wrong concerning macroevolution? He himself tended to doubt it far more than his contemporary proponents do. Of course ID also may have a philosophic bias as well, and would be worthy of discussion. Stephen |
||
|
majnu
since 2002-10-13
Posts 1088SF Bay Area |
everything is philosophy until you can conduct experiments that test a self consistent set of rules. then it becomes what we like to call science. philosophy is inherently speculative. back then people knew little and had no system with which to decide if and when they knew something. we are better off now. as for need, i think id is more in that vein. how comforting to think that a hyperintelligent being made everything just so for some grand purpose. -majnu |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Of course -- the next question becomes free will. And we're back to attempting to consider whether or not the universe is a billiard game where every action is calculable from the previous action. Certainly chaos theory demands that it be such a deterministic system with nonlinear variables that are calculable if we only had a brain. The intial conditions being a giant cue ball strike called the big bang. Genesis said God spoke the universe into existence. If we listen to the 'sound' of the big bang that still resonates in the universe we can hear the word of God. He said, "Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" or "hmmmmmmmmmmmmm" http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/MathSource/5083 |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Sorry; I deleted my little verse because I thought it was a bit out of place. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-30-2005 12:47 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
well you could put something regarding your thoughts in its' place Ess.. and.. Stephen.. the alley could always use a strong polemic voice |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
REb, maybe SHE said OM, and we heard UM... and have mis-interpreted everything ever since |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
maybe Zir said Zim...? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Last night I saw a Robin on the lawn, I watched it through my window as it hopped about hunting for worms. I started to think out loud about the evolutionary processes and conditions that were needed to create a Robin. My wife smiled and said “God made it”. I learned a long time ago that “God made it” was the end of the discussion as far as my wife was concerned, it was all she needed to know and all she ever wanted to know and that’s a trait she shares with the proponents of Intelligent Design Theory. There is no credible or corroborating evidence whatsoever that God, Allah or little green men created life on earth and simply repeating “God made it” is a cop-out argument that’s designed to stifle the advancement of human knowledge not augment it. The ID and Wedge Strategists use “God made it” in the same way my wife uses it – as a period marking the closure of an unwanted discussion. So is evolution the answer? No one knows but it’s the best answer so far, most people accept that it exists but I admit there are still fairly large holes in the theory that need filling in, such as speciation but given time and effort I’m sure those holes will be filled. One of the most credible things evolution has going for it is that the knowledge pertaining to it and biology as a whole is growing because of the discussion and scientific experimentation that it’s sparked. The theory of evolution and in consequence knowledge itself is evolving and it will either endure or wilt based on its scientific merits - if evolution is a red herring it will eventually be proved to be such and we’ll be that much wiser, however my guess is that if the evolutionists did prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theory is correct the ID and Wedge Strategists will start chanting “Evolution? - God made it” in an attempt to stifle the news. My own belief is that ID and the Wedge Strategy they devised isn’t a credible attempt to explain life on earth it’s simply a thinly veiled attempt to indoctrinate young people into the Christian faith, if you don’t believe me here it is from the horses’ mouth. IDT founder Phillip Johnson, a law professor at U.C. Berkeley and the 'father' of ID, wrote in a 1999 article in Church & State magazine: “The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’” Or put simply – “God made it” [This message has been edited by Grinch (01-01-2006 12:43 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch What's the difference between your wife saying "God made it" and you saying "Evolution made it"? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Essorant, I didn’t say evolution made it– I said that there were processes and conditions involved in the making and that I wanted to know what they were. Evolutionary theory does go a long way to explain those processes and evolutionary theorists are attempting to expand our understanding of those processes and expand our knowledge at the same time, which was my main point. ‘God made it’ increases my knowledge of those processes and conditions by exactly 0% and is used to negate the necessity or predilection to expand knowledge by avoiding the question – HOW? – Which is exactly the question the evolutionary theorists are asking. Yesterday I was out walking with my wife and saw a pick-up struggling up a steep slope and started to wonder out loud about the processes that were needed to build an internal combustion engine. My wife smiled and said “Ford made it” Does ‘Ford made it’ expand my knowledge of the internal combustion engine? Would I not gain more knowledge by examining the engine and it’s component parts and researching how they interact? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: In fact, the danger is that if my SCIENCE becomes 'God made it' -- or a supernatural force... then the response to the AIDS virus may be 'God made it' -- ergo he wants the people who have AIDS to have it (because they deserve it). Who am I to try to cure it? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
i'm converting: Alternative Intelligent Design Theory |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
enjoyed the morning read with my cup of coffee and the responses by the school board members...how on earth did you find this link... thanks, M |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I hope the Flying Spaghetti Monster is benevolent as I have, all these years, not worn a pirate costume.. arrrrrrrrrgh...but me friend Long John is prolly safe. I'd like to know how they know the FSM is a Him though...may we all be touched by her noodly appendage... (um... that is a whole grain noodly appendage? I don't want too many simple carbs) |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
a friend sent it to me some time back and this conversation reminded me. my favorite part: quote:do i detect a note of sarcasm in there somewhere? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LOL. The FSM has been around a long time, long enough to develop a very elaborate mythos around. At the end of the day, though, I think our thirds should be devoted to How, not Who. The way I see it, that comes down to Random Design, Intelligent Design, and for lack of a better term, Unintelligent Design. When I look around at today's world, I still don't buy that everything is random. It probably wouldn't take a lot more, however, to convince me it's all pretty stupid. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: The place for that conversation is in regards to pre-biotic chemistry -- not an alternative to evolution. There is a marked difference between 'Origin of the Species' and the 'Origin of Life'. If someone wants to say that intelligent space cocker spaniels designed an original biotic fractal and seeded the planet with it -- or just took a whiz on terra firma on the way by like a giant fire hydrant -- it's a free country. But, do you want Pandas and People taught in schools? http://www.textbookleague.org/53panda.htm |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I keep hearing the claim that evolution is random and while I agree that the genetic mutation that sparks the process has elements of randomness (even at this point constraints apply) the process that underpins and defines evolution – natural selection- is anything but random. Natural selection sieves genetic mutation by using a very simple rule, if the organism that displays the mutation is better placed to survive and reproduce than the same organism without the mutation then the one with it survives. If the male bumble beetle wins the right to mate with female bumble beetles by using it’s stag like horns to beat off rivals and mutation creates a bumble beetle with significantly longer and stronger horns the mutation, and all subsequent offspring, will prevail. The tendency towards longer and stronger horns will continue (this won’t continue indefinitely, there’s a point where cost curtails the process) There’s definitely nothing random involved, natural selection is the selection of the fittest organism determined by means of survival and reproduction. Would you say the winner of a golf tournament was randomly chosen or has a selection process occurred that decides the winner? If your answer is that the selection is not random then how can the selection of the fittest beetle be anything but non-random? Hopefully that clears up the non-random nature of evolution – if it doesn’t it’s probably my ability to explain it rather than the theory itself that’s at fault. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
The opposite of random, Grinch, is cause and effect. So, tell me exactly what it is that we need to do to make the bumblebee's horns longer and stronger? How much background radiation does it take? How long should the dosage be maintained? What wavelength will do the most good while doing the least harm? You can't tell me those things, of course, any more than you can tell me how to get snake eyes on my next roll. The best you can do is tell me that if I roll the dice enough times, there is a probability I will eventually see my desired result. That's not cause and effect, though, because when push comes to shove every single roll of an honest die is a random event that can be neither predicted or controlled. Let's look at the math involved. When you roll one die, there are six possible ways for it land. For each one of those six ways, you can then roll another die, which also has six ways for it land. The total number of ways for two dice to land, therefore, is six times six, or 36. Of those 36 ways for the dice to land, only one of them will result in snake eyes. The odds of rolling snake eyes, then, is 1/36 or about 2.78 percent. That's science, albeit a science based on random events. I can't tell you if the next roll of the dice will result in snake eyes, but I can tell you that if you roll the dice 1,000 times you should see just about 28 snake eyes appear. I won't be in the least bit surprised if you roll a few more or a few less, but I'll be very surprised if you roll 1,000 snake eyes in a roll. If we have any money on the table, I might even grow a tad suspicious. The problem with evolution is that it can't possibly make the same predictions. And it never will. Evolution isn't just using a die with six sides or a die with six billion sides or even six billion factorial. The evolutionary die has an infinite number of sides. No matter how large a number you can cite, I can always add one to it and cite a bigger number. Integers are infinite. No matter what mutation you can cite, I can always mutate the mutation and give one you haven't cited. Mutations are infinite. Survival of the fittest tells us which mutations to keep and which to throw away, but it cannot predict when or if or why either of those two variations will appear. Evolution would have us believe that fifteen billion years is enough time to lead to the complexity of life as we know it today. We have no idea yet how life sprang from non-life, we have no idea how many mutations have occurred in the intervening five billion or so years, and we have no idea which mutation will occur tomorrow morning at six o'clock. We know pretty much nothing when facing infinite possibilities, but are nonetheless convinced that randomness will eventually lead to non-random order, simply because we know the good ones will survive and the bad ones won't. There's an old cliché I'm sure everyone has heard about a monkey, a typewriter, and the complete works of Shakespeare? It's based on the mathematical certainty that infinite time equals infinite possibilities. Well, I'm sorry, but fifteen billion years isn't infinite and it isn't near enough time to randomly generate the complete works of Shakespeare. How much less adequate is it to produce all of Life in a universe otherwise ruled by entropy? It's really not all that hard a sale, guys. Show me the math. Tell me when the next viable mutation will happen in bluebirds. Shoot, just create something that resembles Life from non-life and then take it from point A to point D in a predictable manner. I'm not unreasonable, nor am I in the least concerned that good answers will undermine religion (science always seem to support religion in my experience), and I really would like to feel confident we're on the right path towards truth. Right now, I'm afraid the numbers just don't compute for me. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
I have been reading everyone's responses with interest, yet I have intentionally stayed out of this discussion as I have not really decided for myself which is the best of the theories being presented. I have an observation, and then a question: At the end of the stage play "Inherit The Wind",(about the Scopes Monkey Trial) one of the lawyers (Drummond) picks up the copy of Darwin and also picks up the court’s copy of the Bible. He holds one in each hand and pretends to balance them like a scale. He then puts both books in his briefcase and walks out of the courtroom and away across the square. The obvious statement is that both of these books can work together... Question: Is it possible that both books/theories can work together, or are they permenantly independant of each other? "...and as we drift along, I never fail to be astounded by the things we'll do for promises..." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. Doesn't that depend on whether either of the books is accurate? The way I see it, if both books are accurate representations of our reality then they clearly have to be able to work together. There can be no recognizable truth in the absence of internal consistency. If both are wrong, however, they may or may not work together. If only one is right and the other wrong, there's no possible way for them to coexist peacefully. Unfortunately, those are not the only options. More likely, I think, both books are incomplete. Like a child told never to go into the street, time and maturity will bring new revelations that will shed greater light on what we only think we know. Just like blind men gathering around an elephant, the parts of a truth may seem incongruous and even incompatible. If the blind men look for consistencies instead of differences, I think those consistencies can be a roadmap to truth. First, though, they have to agree there's a reason to expect consistency. If each man remains convinced he is exploring something quite apart from his fellows, they will expect and ultimately only see the differences. Perhaps the real debate is over who has hold of the tail and why they should probably be stepping very carefully. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, “The opposite of random, Grinch, is cause and effect.” Actually the exact opposite of random is non-random in the same way that the opposite of up is down and not gravity, I say evolution is not random you insist it is. Switching the argument to cause and effect and away from question of whether evolution is random or non-random doesn’t prove that evolution is random, in fact it adds weight to the case that it isn’t. That’s because all I have to do is prove that some non-random events don’t have to be predictable or measurable by cause and effect. I offer the winner of a golf tournament as my example The fact that you can’t select the winner of a golf tournament using cause and effect doesn’t mean that the winner is chosen at random. By the same token my inability to predict the winner in an evolutionary race by applying rules of cause and effect doesn’t mean that the winner is selected randomly. I cannot predict precisely who will win the golf tournament but I can predict that the winner will definitely not be chosen at random. Cause and effect can be applied to a tournament winner but only AFTER the event, if you could use it to predict the winner before the event bookies and golf tournaments would be redundant. The monkey\Shakespeare example is an old one, the chances of a monkey (or monkeys) typing the complete works of Shakespeare are so small as to be almost 0, you’d need a number far in excess of the number of atoms contained in the universe followed by a “to one”. You can however use the example in a scaled down version to show how the sieving nature of cumulative natural selection can reduce that number, Richard Dawkins first described it but hopefully I can remember enough of the description to explain it. Let’s take a small part of Shakespeare’s work: Methinks it is like a weasel There are 28 characters (including spaces) in the above statement to make it easy we’ll give the monkey a keyboard that only contains the necessary characters, the chances of a monkey typing the first letter ‘m’ at random is 1 in 27 (1/27), the chance of getting the second is also (1/27). The chance of getting the first and second letters is (1/27) X (1/27) which is 1/729. The chance of getting the whole statement correct is (1/27) to the power of 28 - a very big number.. 1 in 10,000 million million million million million million For a single monkey to type even this short statement would probably require a very very very long time. The type of selection it would use is called single step selection of random variation however evolution uses cumulative selection, so how does that compare? In cumulative selection the initial try is relatively random. Lets say it produces this: Ghtshj kolg trde klpp mczqqt Not much like ‘Methinks it is like a weasel’ but instead of attempting the whole thing again as in single step selection cumulative selection uses this selection and keeps the most useful elements. In this case the original is duplicated and the third letter ‘t’ is kept then the other 27 are re-selected. This process of selection for the best or closest fit is repeated until the statement is produced. Using cumulative selection “Methinks it is like a weasel” can be reached in as little as 40 or so generations. Of course in this example “Methinks it is like a weasel” was a predefined target, in evolution the target is undefined the outcome has only to be better, or fitter, than what came before. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
From the outside of life there is the weather, unconcious hammering upon the metal of life, with thoughtless strokes. Inside life, there is the weather again, concious, hammering upon the metal of life with thoughtful strokes. These two weathers are lifesmiths. They smite life into its shapes. The weather outside smiting one half with a wide hammer, and the weather inside smiting the other half with a narrow hammer and the force between both hammers making a momentary shape. The hotter they smite the metal, the easilier it bends into new shapes. The colder they smite it , the harder life bends into new shapes. Between the thoughtless and unconcious weather's force outside and the thoughtful and concious weather's force within, the metal of life has no choice but to change according to the weather. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: By that logic, Grinch, the opposite of up isn't down, but rather is non-up. While true, it's a circular definition that brings little light into the room. You don't like cause and effect? Fine, offer another definition with meaning. How about predictability? Anything that isn't random must follow a pattern and be predictable. If X, then Y. Your golf tournament, for example, is entirely predictable. If Tiger Woods enters and is leading after the first nine holes, we can predict a 78 percent likelihood he will win. If X, then Y. The more we know, the better we can predict. Even the weather, a classic case of chaos theory, can be predicted. We're not always right, but predictability doesn't require we always be right. It only requires we be right MORE than can be accounted for by blind chance. I can predict how many heads you'll see when you flip a coin a thousand times, but I'll never be consistently right more than allowed by probability theory. Genetic Mutation follows no pattern. It cannot be predicted. It is as utterly random as the toss of a coin, but instead of heads or tails, the possible results are infinite and defy statistical measure. Within the confines of Science, that puts mutation right up there with magic. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, My original statement was that evolution through cumulative natural selection is not random you maintain (I presume) that it is. “Your golf tournament, for example, is entirely predictable. If Tiger Woods enters and is leading after the first nine holes, we can predict a 78 percent likelihood he will win. If X, then Y.” You haven’t ‘entirely predicted’ anything until he wins – supposing he loses, does the failure of your prediction prove that the winner is decided in a random way? Will Tiger win every tournament? In science predictability goes hand in hand with the ability to reproduce the results, if I throw a lead ball into the air I can predict the parabolic arc its flight will take before it hits the earth. I can test my prediction and if my prediction is correct and the results are repeatable I’m well on my way to describing the affects of gravity on the trajectory of a lead ball. If X then Y (cause and effect). You can’t use cause and effect on the golf tournament to predict anything, you can use probability and statistical analysis to make an informed guess but you can’t ‘entirely predict’ that Tiger Woods will win a golf tournament. Even if he did happen to win repeatability of the experiment on numerous occasions and obtaining the same result isn’t likely. Your cause and effect prediction should read something like this to be 100% accurate. IF a golfer completes the course with a lower number of shots THEN he will win the tournament. You can test this hypothesis as many times as you like and it’ll always be true, this proves that golf tournaments aren’t random, that the winner is decided by means of selection. So how can you maintain that evolution, which works through cumulative natural selection, is random if the process of both examples is, to all intents and purposes, the same? “Genetic Mutation follows no pattern. It cannot be predicted. It is as utterly random as the toss of a coin, but instead of heads or tails, the possible results are infinite and defy statistical measure.” Genetic mutation, as I said earlier is random – although not utterly random – the results are only permissible within broad, but nevertheless restricting boundaries even before cumulative selection starts its job. This would technically allow the calculation of the probability of a mutation happening but the biology and math involved is beyond my humble ability. Genetic mutation however is not evolution by cumulative selection, which is absolutely non-random. “Within the confines of Science, that puts mutation right up there with magic.” And presumably evolution right next to golf tournaments |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If X then Y If something cannot copy itself 100% accurately then the copy will not be like the original. If the copy has a characteristic that is more useful than the original then it will survive better than copies that don't have that characteristic. When the more useful successive copies recombine then the more useful characteristic becomes emphasized. I go back to the already cited article for sake of simplicity; quote: Of course -- we can always use the Biblical method. We can show a strong horse to mating horses so their offspring will be strong. If we show them a white horse -- they'll have a white colt. According to the Biblical way. Which one seems like magic? Which one is science? We can only predict the weather really well for a few hours -- the further into the future we go the least accurate we get -- about a week maximum, generally speaking, because of non-linear random variables. Where I think you're going wrong Grinch is that you aren't being clear on the main thrust of evolution. The CAUSE of evolution IS random. The EFFECT of evolution is sort-of not -- the best suited due to the environment will survive -- but the environment is determined by non-linear random variables too. We can use genetic algorithms for lots of things... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm when we do that though we screw up because we're seeking an end -- thereby limiting the potential outcomes of the algorithm What is interesting about outcomes though is analogs vs. homologs... this is a very simple primer to follow http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/similarity_hs_01 A dolphin and a shark share surprisingly similar features considering one is a fish and the other a mammal -- they followed very different evolutionry paths -- but wound up with similar characteristics -- due to natural selection for the environment -- cause and effect -- the environment caused certain features to be emphasized in reproduction. Lamarckism has, however, long been discredited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Probability has little to do with non-random events, though statistical measure would certainly be useful. Effectively, you're saying we can't "entirely predict" the weather, either, because we can't be 100 percent right. Yet, we do predict the weather. Neither a golf tournament nor the weather is the result of randomness. We may not fully understand the relationships between cause and effect, but we understand them well enough to make predictions that defy simple probabilities. quote: There are always restrictions to randomness, if only those imposed by physical laws. That doesn't necessarily mean that the flip of a coin isn't still utterly random. Essentially, it sounds like we are in agreement that mutation is random. You just haven't followed that through to its logical and necessary conclusion. Returning to our now legendary golf tournament, let's simplify it a bit and make it a little closer to mutation dynamics. Let's say they can't hit the ball any more, because we need to eliminate direct cause and effect, along with all skill and intent. They tee up and then wait for some random effect to move the ball. It might be the weather, a passing bird (a really big one, I guess), or an earthquake. Whatever. Now let's throw in a little natural selection. If the ball randomly moves away from the next hole, the golfer gets to tee up again. If the ball randomly moves toward the next hole, the golfer moves his tee to the new position. In this way, the ball is always moving towards a goal, even in the face of randomness. Sound fair, so far? Now, tell me who is going to win. When the entire game rests on a foundation of randomness, there is no way to predict anything. Even adding natural selection into the mix, the most we've accomplished is to vary the distribution of golf balls (there's going to be a LOT of abandoned balls behind the golfers). We can't predict who is going to win, we can't predict who is going to finish, we can't predict how long it will take to move a ball from A to B, we can't predict ANYTHING at all. Multiply fifteen billion years of existence by zero and the result will always be zero. Multiply infinity by randomness and the result will still be randomness. The foundation determines the structure. quote: And my point is that the math is intrinsically beyond anyone's ability. In our imagined golf tournament, any one ball can randomly move only within a 360 degree arc. It can't go up, it can't go down, and it can't move sideways into a parallel universe. The math would get dicey, but we could conceivably determine there was, say, a ninety percent chance any random storm would move the ball away from the green and therefore a ten percent chance it would move it toward the green. That's only a start, of course, but ten percent of 360 degrees is at least computable. Okay, so how much is ten percent of infinity? I don't know, either. However, when I look around at the complexity of life, and especially at what appears to be irreducible complexity, I get this gut feeling that it's going to a whole lot longer than just fifteen billion years. The age of the universe is vast compared with human life spans, but it is comparitively tiny in calculations involving infinite quantities. Maybe we really did just "get lucky" in all the amazing coincidences leading up to the advent of life, and maybe we have remained incredibly fortunate in the events since the advent. It's hard to believe, but I'm always willing to suspend disbelief for a time. Maybe it's all down to luck. I just don't find that very darn useful, either scientifically or personally. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I too don't have enough "faith" to believe in a non-personal, non-intelligent, origin for life on Earth. I'm an ideological blasphemer, apostate, and heretic. The "Inherit the Wind" situation has completely reversed itself. If nothing else, the observations of ID, has helped many to awaken out of "dogmatic slumber" regarding Neo-Darwinism. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
For the life of me, I can't quite figure out what you're asking for Ron. A quick perusal over at Talk Origins will answer most of your questions -- I think. Part of me still thinks that you're pulling our legs a little bit. I had doubts about certain aspects of evolution a couple of years back and it was you and LR, as I recall, that set me straight (and motivated me to start doing some homework). But let's take it seriously. What seems to rattle your chains is the idea that our existence is essentially founded on chance. I don't know why that should bother you as LR has already pointed out you're already the result of chance unless God is doing the guiding of sperm cells. Then why have so many of the darn polywogs? I guess it's like the movie "Sliding Doors". One small change can make your life irrevocably different, but by the end it seemed that the important things in life will still come in the end. I liked the movie, I just don't buy the premise. I laughed at Stephen's comment. It seems that most people in the world believe what he believes, not the evolutionary model. But let's take the point seriously as well: We have a scientific consensus that evolution creates change in animals, we believe that this creates new species over time (In the same way that, say, the Voyager spacecraft will make it to a different star system as long as nothing gets in its way) we have many IDeists who point to IC only to be refuted by more research (Behe's book came out over ten years ago). Evolutionary theory has made predictions (or retrodictions -- though to be honest I'm not sure retrodiction is the right term for a new fossil discovery), that have been confirmed (and predictions that haven't panned out and have been discarded). The onus is not on evolution to prove itself, it is on ID to stop its parasitic life and stand on its own two feet. How many times are we going to listen to the argument from incredulity? How many times are we shooting for the God of the gaps as those gaps get ever smaller? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
LR, “The CAUSE of evolution IS random.” This needs clarification – if you simply state that mutation is random you allow Ron’s idea of a Darwinist that would allow any and every possible mutation to exist from centaurs to angels – that just isn’t true. It is important to define the randomness of mutation. The first way in which mutations aren’t random is that they are caused by definite physical events mutagens, x-rays etc. – they do not just spontaneously happen. In addition not all genes are likely to mutate, every area on a chromosome has its own mutation rate – the mutation rate for Huntington’s Chorea for instance is 1 in 200,000 The next suppressor of randomness is that mutations in certain areas of the chromosome display a trait called mutation pressure, which creates a bias for mutation in a certain direction. Mutation can only make alterations to existing processes of embryonic development – if there is no embryonic tendency to sprout wings on a mans back there aren’t going to be any random evolutionary angels. Genetic mutation IS random in that there is no bias towards improvement within the restrictions stated above both good and bad mutations on in the same frequency as a coin toss occur and natural selection does the rest. “The EFFECT of evolution is sort-of not (random) -- the best suited due to the environment will survive -- but the environment is determined by non-linear random variables too.” The winner of a golf tournament is sort-of-not random – the golfer that gets round the course with the lowest score is the winner – but the weather may play a part, which is random. Does that sound right to you? If you substitute ‘weather’ for ‘club selection’ does it affect the fact that the golfer with the lowest score wins? Ron, “Returning to our now legendary golf tournament, let's simplify it a bit and make it a little closer to mutation dynamics. Let's say they can't hit the ball any more, because we need to eliminate direct cause and effect, along with all skill and intent. They tee up and then wait for some random effect to move the ball. It might be the weather, a passing bird (a really big one, I guess), or an earthquake. Whatever. Now let's throw in a little natural selection. If the ball randomly moves away from the next hole, the golfer gets to tee up again. If the ball randomly moves toward the next hole, the golfer moves his tee to the new position. In this way, the ball is always moving towards a goal, even in the face of randomness. Sound fair, so far? Now, tell me who is going to win.” The golfer whose ball ends up in the hole in the lowest number of moves. You’d need to alter the game rules to truly reflect evolution though, our evolutionary ball wouldn’t have a specific goal such as getting in the hole, there’d just have to be an significant advantage to being closer to the flag. You’d also have to allow the ball the ability to move under it’s own volition, mutation and it’s effects are internal not external and of course you’d have to allow mutation to improve the balls ability to move. So now we have a ball that can move in any direction and can improve that ability through mutation and compound the ability through cumulative selection. Added to that there is a clear advantage gained by the ball if it hops towards the flag, we can even say that any ball that hops away from the flag is eliminated. My prediction is that, given time and if the advantage is significantly great, a species of ball will evolve that can hop in a single bound from the tee into the hole. At that point everyone will win except perhaps the unfortunate golfer whose ball contains a regressive gene. “However, when I look around at the complexity of life, and especially at what appears to be irreducible complexity, I get this gut feeling that it's going to a whole lot longer than just fifteen billion years.” That gut feeling is personal incredulity, if you look back at the Shakespeare example I’ve shown that cumulative selection can reduce the mind-boggling numbers that single step selection requires down to numbers we can handle. If you want another example this may help. Dogs have evolved from wolves into the myriad of types we have today in a few hundreds, possibly thousands, of years. You have variation that stretches from the Chihuahua to the St Bernard, granted they are all dogs and no speciation has yet occurred, but we’re only talking a small number of years. Richard Dawkins has pointed out that if you represent the whole evolutionary history of dogs by one walking pace then to get back to Lucy, the earliest known hominid, you’d have to walk two miles. To get back to the very beginning of evolution you’d have to walk the distance from London to Baghdad. If you look at the diversity in dogs and multiply that by the number of steps between London and Baghdad there’s plenty of time for evolution to be viable. I, like Brad, have a suspicion there’s slightly more of the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ in your replies than pure disbelief but I don’t mind discussing irreducible complexity in detail if you believe it’s a stumbling block evolutionary theory can’t overcome. Brad, While I agree that the proponents of ID need to argue their own case (what’s the probability of a designer for instance) we can’t simply ignore the questions raised, they are as valid if they come from a creationist as they are if they come from an evolutionist. It would however be nice for a change to hear the case for the ID argument instead of the arguments against evolution. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: What Ron most likely thinks is a stumbling block that evolutionary theory can't overcome is personal incredulity. It's very difficult to formulate an argument against 'I just don't believe it'. It's very close to an 'argument from ignorance'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Most biologists have given up arguing with creationists because it is a waste of time. The current debate only exists because the IDists haven't given up and have made a few clumsy attempts to inject Pandas and People into some school curriculums. What Ron KNOWS is that there is no mathmatical formula that will predict the path of a single electron but, that hasn't prevented him from employing Electrical Theory every day of his life. But, then again -- he calls that magic too. And, himself a wizard |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
The first question either argument is based upon is the origination of the belief. Creation = via God created by the humankind through subjective philosophy. Evolution = via Science, which is an objective to the humankind, based upon evidence. Remember, someone from the humankind had to first state, "There is a God who created the universe." The first retort to that would be, "What is your proof?" Which would answered by, "My proof is it is what I believe or what my mind believed God had told me." "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
CMGrimm Senior Member
since 2000-02-14
Posts 685USA |
I wonder what would happen if our school boards, faculty, parents, legislatures, court systems, churches, media, students, and everyone else involved would put this much effort and passion into teaching our children how to write, read, add, subtract, multiply, divide, SPEAK, and behave? Never be a carbon copy of anybody...make your own impressions. - ANON. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
As a parent of children in public schools Grimm I can fully understand the tone of frustration in that post. But, is there a possibility that you're shortchanging an awful lot of teachers, ministers, judges, parents, et al who are extremely passionate about doing the things that you say? In fact, I'd say the vast majority of them are doing the very best they can to that end. The problems arise in that passionate people often disagree about what the 'best' way to go about doing that is. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Look ye, Starbuck, all visible objects are but as pasteboard masks. Some inscrutable yet reasoning thing puts forth the molding of their features. The white whale tasks me; he heaps me. Yet he is but a mask. 'Tis the thing behind the mask I chiefly hate; the malignant thing that has plagued mankind since time began; the thing that maws and mutilates our race, not killing us outright but letting us live on, with half a heart and half a lung.” |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: You're not noting the very significant distinction between small-scale changes within the species, and large-scale development of organ systems, or new species. The terms "micro" and "macro" have been used by many biologists to describe this difference. The problem with your presentation here, is that though there is indeed a consensus about one phenomenon called "evolution", being based upon actual evidence, there is no such evidential consensus for the other kind. If there is any consensus about macroevolution, it is not an evidential one. And where such evidence is given, it is sketchy and threadbare. Even your own argument for Evolution most often goes as such: . . . We know that small scale evolutionary change happens ... We know that speciation, and many complexities of life has happened ... Therefore we can be pretty confident that the big questions are answered in the same fashion (without anything near like a complete picture of how it did). But this is hypothesis (with certain philosophical precommitments) not established scientific fact. I had to laugh at the Voyager analogy. The thing is, we understand the "how" of Voyager quite clearly, including velocity, distance, durability, design (did I use that word? excuse me), physics of space travel, etc ... But when it comes to how an eye is made, or a leg, or a heart, (along an evolutionary scheme), we know next to nothing. We only know that bird beaks change sizes, and that bacteria become resistant to certain drugs. We don't know ANYTHING of how a bacteria might become something other than a bacteria. Or even how a bacterial flagellum (a very small yet complex part of the bacteria) might become something other than a flagellum. We only understand that if we dismantle complex protein parts (theoretically in our intelligent minds) we can design them into something else (there's that darned word again) with more than a few tweaks here and there which might have occurred over several million years. To compare something as well understood as "Voyager" with macroevolution is sophistry. A better analogy would be that an ant travelling south will make it to Antarctica if nothing gets in it's way .... Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention as long as it crawls up an Argentina-Bound 747 boarding ramp ... and gets blown out of the plane over the South Pacific ... and lands on a Mission boat to the South Pole... etc ... The ruling forces of what you might call evolution are not at all established in the scientific mind (other than speculative theory), as anything like a spacecraft's trajectory and destination. quote: Regardless of how much ID has been able to "stand on it's own two feet", according to your opinion, it has a very definite function to show that Neo-Darwinian "science" has never really done so itself. "Oh Ye of Little Science" is a phrase that loses significance in the mouth of just another priestly type. quote: You're right, I guess. The ant has travelled twenty yards or so. If God owns the gaps, so does Evolutionary theory, for it must credibly explain how those gaps were traversed. And this I believe hasn't even begun in earnest, other than dogmatic theorizing, with "examples" of evidence placed (like the captives of Procrustes) on the Neo-Darwinian bed. In short, I feel your description of the gaps closing, is a great exaggeration. And that has been the overwhelming pattern of Neo-Darwinian science, in my opinion. And as far as the "how" of things goes ... (though I think evolution would still require an omnipotent God) ... Cinderella doesn't have to have the glass slipper, to know that another shoe doesn't fit. Reb: quote: To say such, makes me think that you haven't really read ID literature on it's own, but perhaps only about it from a critical Neo-Darwinistic perspective. I haven't read "Pandas and People", but it surely can't be a poorer example of science, than some of the stuff in grade level, high school, and college level texts books, purporting to teach evolution. I think Jonathan Wells demonstrated this quite well, for critical minds who aren't content with the dogma. http://www.iconsofevolution.com/ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895262002/qid=11 36817170/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2471449-6551825?n=507846&s=books&v=glance Stephen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephanos, To help me understand the thrust of the argument for ID could please post a simple list of main points and perhaps a brief summary of each? Also to demonstrate that it is an independently viable alternative theory to evolutionit it would be helpful if you could perhaps avoid any reference to evolutionary theory, Darwinism etc. in your post - I’d like to examine each as independent entities based on their own merits. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: You're right, but that's because I don't consider it a significant distinction. I don't even know what you mean when you say large scale development of organs in terms of evolutionary theory. quote: Because there is no other kind. quote: What big questions? quote: When you find rabbits in the Cambrian, dolphins in the Cretaceous, and humans in the Jurassic, then we'll talk. quote: You know when people go after Behe and his flagellum, one of the first questions they ask is, "Which one?" But the Voyager analogy was meant to stress, not our knowledge or its design, but that little things go along way over time. A comet hits Mars and sends a rock out of the solar system, given time, it will reach the other side of the galaxy provided nothing gets in the way. Why does this happen? I have no idea why Newton was right. As I recall he didn't know either. I have no idea why mutation works the way it does. quote: Oh, and I forgot to mention, some of the Martian rocks also landed in Antarctica. Now, what are the odds of hitting the specific spot in Antarctica given all the other possible trajectories it could have had? Pretty big is we assume no boundary conditions. Given the right conditions, however bizzare for the ant or for the rock, all that was necessary was physics and the right boundary conditions. I don't know why those exist the way they do. My hunch is that they didn't have to be that way. quote: What do you think those speculative ruling forces are? I don't have any problems arguing the metaphysical limits of what evolutionary theory can and can't do, but IR and ID are just barking up the wrong tree. Go to the very limits of philosophy (so far) and science (so far) and you'll get no argument from me. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"But when it comes to how an eye is made, or a leg, or a heart, (along an evolutionary scheme), we know next to nothing. " I'm not sure what you mean Stephanos. We know that the earth under certain conditions and temperatures can afford certain changes. That they are changed and the earth is no longer able to afford such changes, does not mean they were not there when they were needed for the creation and evolution of body parts, the same way as the right conditions and temperatures are here to sustain those body parts. How is that evidence that God wasn't/isn't here, or that it wasn't/isn't creation as well though? It isn't. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch, Here is a summary from Wikipedia: Intelligent Design |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Essorant, Thanks but I read that some time ago, it doesn’t really state the case FOR ID so much as outline some objections to Evolution – and I think that’s one of my biggest problems with ID. If someone wants to convince me the earth is flat I want to know the basis of their assumption not obscure arguments why it can’t possibly be round. If someone wants to convince me that evolution through natural selection can explain the diversity of life on earth I want to hear the basis of that assumption, not a list of objections to creationism. Yet wherever I look, and trust me I’ve looked, I just see objections to evolution in arguments for ID – I was hoping Stephanos (or anyone else) could give me a simple statement of the arguments for ID without all the anti-evolution baggage. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
And Stephen... from what perspective does Jonathan Wells, Sr. Fellow at the Discovery Institute (of Wedge Strategy fame http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) Write? I suppose that an ultimate objective of proving the existence of God is noble. But, really -- what Christian values are these guys actually exhibiting in their behaviour of obfuscation and deception? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR, Don't have time yet to post in the detail I want... But I would like to encourage yourself and others to read Jonathan Well's book "Icons of Evolution" rather than merely what opposition says about it. Deception and obfuscation are exactly what it seems Mr. Wells has uncovered in abundance, in many text-book presentations of Evolution as scientific fact. I won't defend any deceptive behavior on the part of Wells, or any other ID scientist. But neither am I presently aware of any. But I would encourage you to consider whether or not something like the classic example of the "Peppered Moth" , as an example of natural selection in action, was itself dishonest. And if not dishonest ... at least never corrected, and set straight by the Neo-Darwinistic community. A piece of scientifically unsound rhetoric, that can be found still in some evolutionary textbooks today, I'm sure. The "Peppered Myth" is at least worth looking into. There are many other examples as well. Of course this doesn't "disprove" evolution. But it does show that the touted "detached objective and genuinely scientific" character of the movement ... is itself questionable ... is itself open to the charge of being a "religion" of sorts, as dogma to be loyalistically defended, rather than rigorously proved on the basis of the empirical. These are the same charges that you level against ID. http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=1263 http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_significancepm.htm More later, Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-12-2006 06:47 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Turn that around for a moment. Imagine yourself as one in the past who believed in a flat earth. I'm quite sure that many of the arguments for a spherical earth, were exactly as you describe ... not "direct" and irrefutable proof that the earth was round, but increasing difficulties and challenges presented to those who asserted that it was flat. The overturning of "flat earth" was not all at once. I have no doubt that many arguments, bringing flat-earth into question, also served as a "wedge" before many people would even consider the possiblity of something else. I think something like that is going on with ID. Of course I don't think that anti-evolutionary arguments are all that ID has to offer ... (I'll try to explain in more detail soon, what it presents as positive evidence for design) ... but, even if that's ALL ID served to do, that would not be a bad thing. Because if Darwinistic evolution has not really been established, except by "obscure" arguments, dogmatic rhetoric, and dramatically inflated extrapolations, then that would be good to know, regardless of a replacement "theory". quote: Me too! I would like to hear something other that this: ... Since we know some small scale change occurs by genetic mutation and natural selection, it MUST be the explanation behind such things as morphology, complex organ functions, and differing species. There is no scientifically documented intermediary between reproduction by cell division, and sexual reproduction. But the Gap is ENORMOUS if evolution occurs by small incremental steps (each providing the organism with a functional advantage), as Darwin proposed. What good is a half of a genitalia? There is nothing in this area of consideration presented, in scientific journals, other than grotesque speculation. (However, I'd be willing to read anything that you could point me to). But I really have no problem with all of that. Just call it what it is ... faith, creative imagination, devotion to an idea or philosophy, a belief in miracles ... a hypothesis even. But don't call it scientifically established fact. That's what the "wedge" means to me ... an effort to dislodge the dogmatic status of Evolution, with proper criticism, questions, challenges. There's nothing wrong or deceptive about this ... only a question of whether the individual arguments hold any weight. When something claiming to be scientific, becomes a tautology, a self complacent orthodoxy, it's a good thing to attempt to show it as such. Sometimes such a paradigm has to be challenged in it's own grounds before people can open their minds to other ideas. And that's a good function of ID, whatever else they might have to say about evidence for design. Remember how I said that Cinderella should be able to know whether or not the boot fits, regardless of the advent of glass slippers? And if ID is doing anything, it's at least showing that the boot isn't fitting. Stephen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephanos, “I'll try to explain in more detail soon, what it presents as positive evidence for design” I look forward to reading it, meaningful debate is easier if opposing viewpoints and the evidence for such are clearly stated - proving your own position is far easier than criticising the opposition. The danger in relying on criticism is that your own premise goes unproved and unnoticed. I’ll even do you a deal, you state the arguments for ID and present the evidence that supports it without reference to evolution and I’ll post an argument against Darwinian evolution. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: http://www.biology.iastate.edu/intop/1Australia/04papers/LewisSftCorl.htm quote: We also know the single celled creatures can share DNA. This is called lateral something or other. Time on search engine: approximately a minute and a half. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
"This is called lateral something or other." Lateral DNA Transfer |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, that makes sense. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Stephen, can you give me a compelling reason why I should read it? What is the big biological/medical disaster that reading it will avert? Are we missing curing disease because of this big 'conspiracy' of text-book publishers? I did read his introduction, and his argument is fairly convincing. There must be a conspiracy -- all the books give the same evidence for evolution. Wow. There must be a conspiracy on the value of Pi too. Not to mention every text book on English uses a 26 letter alphabet. Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
How does referring to biological disasters, diseases, conspiracies, or the English alphabet, answer any context, specific points, or argument that Stephanos brought up? That seems more to avoid than address the issues at hand. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Did you ever wonder what DNA literally means? Let's look at the meanings of the words that make it up: de - Latin de " of, off, down from" oxy - from Greek oxus "sharp" ribo - from the -rab of arab nucle- - from latin nucleus "kernel" ic - equivelent to english "-ish" acid - from Latin acidus "sour" Considering the above, we come to a translation something like this: Of-sharp-arab-kernelish sour (using the word sour substantively) How is that for sense  [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-16-2006 02:15 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Or it could simply be derived from: Deoxyribonucleic acid D........N...... A... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Because Ess, teaching biology to high school students isn't some polemic philisophical exercise -- it's laying the foundation for the utilitarian application of the knowledge of how our anatomy works for the purpose of supporting medical/health issues. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Essorant, What points do you want to concentrate on? The peppered moths thing refers to the fact that the picture of the moth on a tree was fudged. Doesn't change the fact that moths really did change color (over generations) to more closely resemble soot during the industrial revolution. When the pollution disappeared, they changed color again. I haven't read the book either (Stephen, I've read Behe, I thought it was your turn to read Dennet? ). but another myth is the time life diagram showing an austrolopithecus gradually turning into modern man. I suspect all of us an any side know that that is a myth as well.But it makes a nice picture. What I think we all agree on is that evolution is not taught very well in school. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Before I go on, I would like to clarify my personal position, as perhaps a bit different than mere "ID". I am certainly not closed to any of the positive arguments of Intelligent Design ... ranging all the way from Michael Denton's doubts about the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection, to account for the complexities of biological life, to Behe's presentation of Irreducible complexity on a micro-bilogical level, to William Dembski's mathematical "explanatory filter" to detect the high probability of design in nature. But at the same time, I believe that large inference is strong in the ID view of things. Their "proofs" also have problems, gaps, and still require an inferential "leap" to believe that design is at work. When we are studying what happened long ago, we are discussing a distant and highly speculative area ... where "reconstruction" of large segments of biological history must be hazarded, regardless of one's position. This, by nature, is the business, more of artists than of scientists. You might call it, scientific art. But if so, there is also no artist, comparable to the creative flair of the Neo-Darwinist. To me, there is a great value in ID, for helping to challenge the NeoDarwnistic paradigm, and show that it is a grand inference ... most likely built upon philosophical presuppositions, and held with yeoman-like passions (much like a religious view). There is an indomitable resilience to Evolution ... an uncanny ability to recover and always smooth it's difficulties (or to ignore them), that is only characteristic of a pietistic belief. When something cannot be disproved, or even seriously called into question, on the basis that we "may know a purely naturalistic explanation someday", it falls well out of the realm of science ... into the pale of ardent devotion, or at least metaphysical tautology. And I actually have no problem, with that. I deeply hold religious faith myself. But let's call it what it is. It doesn't bother me that you believe in evolution, only that you and others call it indisputable fact. Hopefully your devotion does not extend to the priestly level of someone like Richard Dawkins who wrote , "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)". If anyone is blind to the "design" of his own precommitments to philosophical naturalism, it is Richard Dawkins. As far as the positive "proof" claims of ID, I do not doubt that there are some stretches, akin to the kinds heard of in DE. However, I am not even sure that we (at PIP) can debate the intricacies of microbiology enough to evaluate Michael Behe's ideas ... or that we can meaningfully evaluate whether or not Dembski's "explanatory filter" is valid. Much of this goes beyond our knowledge of biology, or mathematics. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to try. I can "google", copy, and paste as fast as Brad can. But I would encourage you to read some the prominent thinkers of ID, for yourself, if you are interested in knowing what their ideas are. Don't just read the opponents of their books, if you want to give it a fair hearing. Why doubt the opponents enough to read otherwise, you ask? I think the historically demonstrated devotion involved with Darwinism, as a totalistic belief system, ought to at least give you pause. (I actually plan to post a separate thread soon, presenting the case that Evolution has a long presuppositional pedigree of developmentalism in philosophy ... and that it's acceptance, defense, and propagation, has been largely motivated by anti-religious sentiment.)My aim, has never been just to jump on the ID bandwagon, and say "What they say is irrefutable and absolutely true". But to protest, "criticizing the opposition" as you do, seems to me another telltale sign of a devotee. GeoCentrism was surely criticized along with any said evidence of Heliocentrism. Roman Catholics who were committed to Aristotelian views of astronomy and science, didn't tolerate such "criticism". Every time there is a paradigm shift in science, there is a "wedge" of doubt that comes in, and is resented by many. So, having said that, I would like you to explain / defend your view that "criticism" of a status quo is never a valid part of finding truth. I don't think that ID has nothing to say, positively ... But I would like to ask, even IF it didn't, would that automatically make it's criticisms of Neo-Darwinism invalid? Alvin Plantinga put it this way: "I think Cardinal X will be the next Pope; you think that is unlikely, but don't have a candidate of your own; there is no one such that you think it is more likely than not that he will be the next pope. Is there something wrong with your procedure? I think not." (On Rejecting The Theory of Common Ancestry: A Reply to Hasker) Again,it seems to me that your insistence on the invalidity of criticism, is evidence of something akin to Papal devotion, on your part. But I could be wrong. That's a question for you to ponder. In the meantime here are some links to books by ID authors... Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Micheal J. Behe Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute) The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory), by William A. Dembski No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence, by William A. Dembski The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, by William A. Dembski That’s enough to get you started. And though criticism of “Evolution” is to be found among these books (more in some authors than others), I think there are positive arguments put forth as well, If you really want to take the time to look. Brad: quote: Brad, respectfully, your examples only reiterate the problem of incompleteness in the Darwinistic proposal. Worms or Coral that can “reproduce both sexually and asexually” exhibit both kinds of reproduction, yes. But I was asking you to give me examples of what may lie between asexual and sexual reproduction. You only provide me with examples with BOTH already fully intact, and fuctioning in the enterprise of reproducing. Quite a ladder is required here. If you provide some more tangible steps, we could discuss the plausibility. From a design standpoint, I could just as easily infer that such organisms were designed to reproduce both ways. Just because an organism has both systems doesn’t prove that one system came from the other. Again, a gross overconfidence in the explanatory power of “Evolution”. Neither can sharing DNA between organisms, convincingly bridge the gap, as no reproduction of a new organism occurs, only change of an existing one. Reb: quote: I’m really glad Darwinistic “Evolution” as a theory came along. Just think how it has been pragmatically useful in curing diseases, among other things. And, no, I am aware that mutation and natural selection is a real process, within species, which has given us understanding of drug resistant bacteria, among other helpful things. But I am referring to the overly ambitious “Macro” metanarrative that Darwin’s humble truth has given way to. Your point is a double-edged sword. Demanding present usefulness out of a theory of developmental processes which span large periods of time, is questionable. It would seem that any theory of “origins” or even of the “how” of development would be subject to your criticism .... including Macro-evolution. Truth is not always measured by sheer pragmatism. In fact I would say, philosophically, that truth is always primary, and the practical aspect secondary. quote: So, majority rules? End of story? What about when “flat earth” was in the majority, or Geo-centrism, or spontaneous generation? I think looking at the issues at hand, is a better approach. The merits of one thing, such as “Pi”, cannot be used to validate something entirely different. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Not so. The majority that ruled on a flat Earth did so not on the basis of evidence but upon the basis of dogma. It isn't, necessarily, ludicrous for uneducated masses to follow the dictates of the powerful. What would make little sense is to insist that the Earth is flat after Columbus, Magellan, Eric the Viking, et al. The scientific community rests on evidence and peer review. The reason falsification is the measure of science is because scientists always seek to falsify, or prove wrong, a concept rather than attempting to prove it right. If they can prove it wrong, then it is wrong. If they can't prove it wrong then it is a conditionally operative explanation of the observed events/phenomenon based on repetition and duplication of results. Go ahead. Try to commit a fraud on the scientific community. Tell them you've made cold fusion in the laboratory. Tell them you've cloned human beings. Your chickens will come home to roost. quote: The micro macro issue has been asked and answered already in this thread. There is no controversy in the scientific/biological field over whether or not speciation occurs. The only contention is the remaining question of exactly what factors are involved and if it happens in more than one way. quote: It certainly is... more importantly in preventing and predicting them. Such as the potential evolution of the bird flu into a human to human pathogen. Or in the case of the Ebola outbreak in Zaire where Paul Ewald was able to predict that it would fizzle out on its own. Try to separate evolution from biology. quote: |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: And my point is that they developed concurrently. There ain't nothing in between because one did not develop from the other. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Reb: quote: And that is my main contention with Neo-Darwinism, that it is much more "dogma" than science. I'll be demonstrating that soon enough in a separate post. quote: Macroevolution, by nature is beyond the pale of proof / disproof ... unless you know someone with a couple of billion years to spare. And the "evidence" for it is tenuous. Again, more dogma than science. quote: Answered? You mean the distinction has been merely denied. That's convenient. I guess that means, since bacteria become drug resistant, we can assume a light-sensitive spot became a seeing eye over billions of years. Big assumption. Just because random mutation, and natural selection, works on small scale changes, it can't be extrapolated that such explains all the variation and complexity we see. It's actually a bit underhanded to call small-scale changes in populations "evolution", then, once people believe in that process, to say that it covers quite different phenomenon (in scope and variety). If evolution merely means that genetic mutations cause some organisms to fail, and become disadvantaged in the race for life ... then I too believe in "evolution". But obscurantism, is to blur the distinctions, and to always talk as generally as possible, so as not to alert people to the very distinct and complex nature of the issues at hand. quote: Only because common ancestry is taken for granted. Therefore the mere existence of different species, is said to prove that such a thing happened. That's the way I've heard evolutionists describe it for the longest, and just recently Brad said something like that too. But the mere existence of species, with homologous parts, does not prove that species evolved from one into another. quote: Again, if you mean by "evolution", genetic change within organisms .... I am a full fledged evolutionist. You're making a straw man. I've never tried to separate that kind of process, from biology. Nor have ID scientists, that I'm aware of. Brad: quote: And my point is that science holds no plausible record of development at all, regardless of whether "concurrent" or otherwise. If sexual reproduction developed seperately from asexual reproduction, then describe (in detail) the steps of it's development. Oh, and if you believe in common ancestry, don't you have to believe that sexual reproduction developed from asexual reproduction? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But Brad, that's not the whole story is it? quote: Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephen, You're all over the place there. Okay, we should probably start another thread because the questions your asking and the assumptions behind them need a lot of space and time (Quite possibly years given my time limitations these days ).Three quick questions: 1. How do you define sexual and asexual reproduction? (Don't laugh, it's a trickier question than you might think.) 2. From what point to what point am I supposed to start and end this (detailed) description? 3. What exactly do you think common descent is? And believe me that's just the beginning. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
To readers, participants, and those just looking at the pictures -- if I don't address something that is not an indication that it is correct -- it is either out of the scope of discussion or beyond my ability to address in a succinct posting at present (it takes time to be brief)quote: Stephen... true or false -- through any two points there is exactly one line. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephanos, “But to protest, "criticizing the opposition" as you do, seems to me another telltale sign of a devotee.” Criticism is a valid tool when backed by evidence but criticism alone cannot be offered, and indeed shouldn’t be taken, to be the sole basis of a viable theory, oh and btw I think you’ve labelled me wrong; I’m more a devotee of nothing in particular (apart from the truth) – a soft sceptic by any other name. My reason for asking for a clear explanation of ID theory without reference to Evolutionary theory was to point out that ID isn’t really an independent theory; it’s almost entirely a construct of evolutionary critique. I don’t make that claim from ignorance of the subject either, my bookshelf contains more books on creationism and ID theory than evolution, I fervently believe Dawkins would have served his cause better if he’d have said: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in something without examining the evidence for AND against, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)". Every opinion or theory has a counter opinion or theory whether it’s evolution, abortion, the death penalty or book of the year. Before I comment on anything I like to know both sides of the argument to the point where I can, in most circumstances, argue for or against either side (and often do). Debating from both sides is a useful exercise and a sure way of seeing the flaws or strengths of a particular argument, in this case I could just as easily have argued against evolution. However, I don’t believe I could construct a reasonable argument FOR ID without it degrading into a simple critique of evolution or a defensive retreat into the bunker of belief commonly referred to as the “God made it” syndrome. I could use irreducible complexity but that’s an old argument and resurrecting the watchmaker doesn’t get us any closer to the ‘how’ of anything whether eyes, ears flagellum or mousetraps are used as examples and that’s the difference between ID and evolution I was trying to highlight. One says this is a theory of ‘how’ and the evidence that supports it and the other says this is a theory of ‘who’ and the evidence against the other theory. You keep mentioning the ‘wedge’, obviously you know the significance of the term and it’s relevance to IDT, perhaps it would be worthwhile explaining the relevance – understanding the motives and history behind IDT is essential if you want to understand the issue as a whole. I fear if I explained it I’d be accused of being biased (or an uneducated devotee) – could you (or anyone else) post a short synopsis for people who are unaware of the wedge?"However, I am not even sure that we (at PIP) can debate the intricacies of microbiology enough to evaluate Michael Behe's ideas ... or that we can meaningfully evaluate whether or not Dembski's "explanatory filter" is valid." Michael Behe, Dawkins and the like write for the masses, including the masses at PIP, their explanations and ideas are written so we can understand and debate them, I don’t doubt for a minute that you or anyone else posting here is capable of understanding them. My 15 year old son understood Dembski’s filter when I explained it: (1) Does a law explain it? (2) Does chance explain it? (3) Does design explain it? He suggested it wasn’t valid as an argument for ID claiming the filter only worked if evolutionary theory was assumed to be incorrect (it begs the question). I tend to agree, assume for a second that evolutionary theory is correct and run it through the filter number 3 has to be resounding NO. BTW my son wants to point out that he actually said “ I dunno it depends on if evolution is right or not” apparently my poetic license made him sound like a dork. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
