|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2004 : 20:53:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
******Now then Jerry, please explain to me exactly why blind cave fishes have rudimentary eyes if they were created as a whole and not evolving away from them.******
Because they are evolving away from them? That would be my guess.
quote:
And why does the electric eel, a creature capable of navigating by electrical pulses, have eyes. Seems silly, especally as it is blinded by electricity-induced cataracts at an early age.
Tons of quirks of nature running around, isn't there? It could be that the eel is evolving away from eyes and into another system of navigation. Could be that the eel needs eyes in its youth to better complete for food using redundant systems. It's anybody's guess as to why, I would presume.
quote:
It gets better; the surinam toad has no tongue and must cram it's prey into it's cavernous gullet with it's forelimbs. Whassup wid dat?
Why would this surprise you? Nature is very diverse in some respects and quite similar in others and the frog seems to do OK with this feeding system, does it not?
quote:
A fish's tail is a marvelous means of aquatic propulsion, yet the 1/2 ton pelagic sunfish has all but none. It swims by waggling it's dorsal and ventral fins. Did somebody forget something?
Now who could be prejudiced against this guy.
It does look like somebody forgot something. But this species seems to be doing just fine as a species. I tried to research it a little on the Web but few sites popped up on this guy.
Let me take this opportunity to point out to you how differently a Darwinist and an IDist think about nature. To me, this species seems evidence of design. What possible force in natural selection could be selecting for fish "without" tails? But if I look at this fish from the design aspect, I can see that this is a completely different design this seems to do very well for this species.
quote:
To revisit the human body, why do we have too many teeth for the size of our jaws and often have to have our wisdom teeth, which grow in at odd angles, yanked?
I don't have an answer for this one. Perhaps the mouth used to be bigger? Perhaps there was a change in diet? I don't think anyone really has an answer that can satisfy as a scientific one. It certainly does not suggest that one of my ancestors was an amoeba.
quote:
Why do non-venomous snakes have duvernoy's organ, and why are those marvelous venom glands degenerate in serpents such as pythons, that kill by constriction?
Actually snakes with duvernoy's organ are considered non-venomous only in classification. Some snakes of the class colubridae seem to fall into this classification:
"There is another group of snakes that has venomous members. That family is called colubridae, but not all of its members are venomous. In fact, most are not venomous and its members include the rat snakes and king snakes. Most of the venomous colubrids have rear fangs: enlarged teeth in the back of the mouth instead of the front. Instead of being hollow, these teeth are usually, though not always, grooved and instead of a full venom gland, they have a reduced, simpler organ called a Duvernoy's gland. The Duvernoy's gland still produces toxin, but it is not as advanced as a venom gland. Although rear-fanged snakes in other parts of the world can be deadly to humans, none in the U.S. are considered dangerous. In fact, most of these snakes are less dangerous than many non-venomous snakes. That is because the venom apparatus is there only to subdue the snakes prey (usually frogs, toad and lizards)."
As to the Python, perhaps that gland is being selected against because it is no longer needed?
http://www.coastalplainsreptiles.com/articles/Everyone/DangerousVsVenomous.htm
quote:
Why do snakes have two lungs and only use one, the other being degenerate?
Perhaps the lung is in a state of evolution? That would be my guess. What would be yours?
quote:
Why cannot naked mole rats control their body temperture as efficently as other mammals?
I don't know. As I've stated previously there is both diversity and similarity of organisms throughout nature. I'm wondering what it is that you think you have shown here. I've pointed out from the get-go that I'm anti-Darwinist, not anti-evolution. Do you think any of the stuff you listed in this post is evidence for Darwinism?
Very good!
Now then, how is this evidence of design?
Incidently, some venomous colubrids are a truly bad scene, the boomslang, for instance. I had a one here (in transit) for a while. It was very fast and ill-tempered, and they have caused fatalities in healthy, adult humans. Quite a pretty serpent, though.
Most hot colubrids are scarcly medically significent and many of those only produce local symptoms. But duvernoy's in colubrids hints that any of them might some day become hot.
Did you know that duvernoy's is located in the lower jaw of gila monsters?
And only a drunk in the throws of delerium tremens would have designed the surniam toad. I've an essay on them somewhere in here.
And again with the darwinism! You seem to be objecting to a piece of scientific history that has long since been regulated to dusty shelves. Why?
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 21:00:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order
See, that's what I'm talking about.
ToE states no such thing. You are just making shit up.
You conflate "increased complexity" with "increased order/decreased entropy".
Yet you fail to demonstrate the necessity in this. Extremely complext systems can have very high entropy. There IS NO NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPLEXITY AND ORDER.
It's just ONE of the straw-men you have set up with regard to thermodynamics.
Maybe when you stop making up fantasy facts about ToE and thermodynamics, we'll take you more seriously. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 21:18:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm still waiting for you to explain how your logic isn't arguing FOR a supernatural creator.
No, you're not waiting for anything as this has been explained to you and others a half dozen times or more. But seeing how some seem to think I've been avoiding posts and they are actually believing you and others when you accuse me of failing to address your argument, here is a repost that I made earlier directly addressing this point:
Its true that when something is designed for a purpose there must be a designer but ID makes no effort to identify one. We are aware that if the designer were a deity or an astronaut, the identity of this designer could not be precisely identified through scientific analysis. If the designer were a god, would we expect to be able to find and scientifically analyze the foot-prints of God? Would we expect to discover a spirit with a stethoscope or a CAT scan? Could we perhaps have the C.O.B.E satellite beam down pictures of the designer for us to examine? No, even to ponder this is quite silly.
So, ID embraces no particular designer and espouses that it has no idea who/what the designer was/is. The designer could have been a deity, an astronaut, a previously existing race of highly intelligent earth creatures or even seeded on earth by meteorites as the panspermian/atheist side of ID espouses. We would have no way of knowing because we have discovered no evidence to point us in a given direction.
Articles placed under the auspices of our science for study are often artifacts, chemically formulated substances, patterned items, DNA, organisms, organs, cells and cell organelles that were initially conceived millions and sometimes billions of years ago.
We understand it is not scientifically possible to go back in time and empirically seek conclusions of a designer thus, we don‘t go there. Musings on the nature and identification of the designer we leave to the philosophers and the theologians because that has little bearing when considering natural origins verses intelligently guided ones in nature.
Picture in your mind your favorite shirt out of all in the wardrobe in the closet. Isn't that a cool shirt? Something or someone designed a really neat piece and you are proud to wear it. Now, what/who designed it? Odds are, you probably cannot even tell me the company that manufactured it without looking, much less the name of the individual draftsman who created the design. And who cares? We can still appreciate the design of the shirt, wear it and enjoy it. The design engineer becomes irrelevant because the design is already here and functioning.
So, you get to pick the designer if you so choose to do so. We leave that conclusion to the individual and individual beliefs. You may believe the designer was Yahweh, an astronaut, little green aliens, Allah, Krishna or your uncle Frank. That's up to you because we are only concerned with design science.
Consider an archeologist who uncovers what appears to be a rock roof supported by pillars on a dig. Did this structure occur by some natural law or process or was it designed by a builder for a particular use? The archeologist will have to determine this. If she concludes this to be a structure designed by a civilization, then perhaps she should continue this dig which could possibly uncover an ancient city or culture. But if this is just some strange looking natural occurrence formed through natural law or process, then her money might be better spent researching another avenue.
Similarly, imagine a paleontologist discovering a bear fetish carved of bone in the style of Native Americans. Perhaps the scientist is unfamiliar with fetish carvings in that culture, but for sure, he concludes, this is a strange bone. Is there any chance this bone cou |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 21:21:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Let me take this opportunity to point out to you how differently a Darwinist and an IDist think about nature. To me, this species seems evidence of design. What possible force in natural selection could be selecting for fish "without" tails? But if I look at this fish from the design aspect, I can see that this is a completely different design this seems to do very well for this species.
Actually, the sunfish, or mola mola if you prefer, easily falls into natural selection. It feeds mainly on jellyfish and has no need for speed. And it is large enough and tough enough that, as an adult, it is seldom preyed upon. Thus, what ever tail it might have had degenerated as did the snakes other lung. A vestage can be seen in the excellent drawings you provided.
Of course, this animal evolved before ships plyed the oceans and pollution became a concern. I've read that today it is in something of a decline, although no one seems certain as to how serious it is.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 21:33:49 [Permalink]
|
Jerry wrote:quote:
Conversely, ID proposes no *poofs* at all.
Actually, ID is forced to propose "poofs" because if there were no "poofs," then gradualistic evolution is not a problem. For examples,- The "poof" in which a racemic mixture of amino acids suddenly became homochiral,
- the "poof" of design in which all the organs in the mammalian circulatory system were designed whole and in place, or
- the "poof" in which what looks like common descent had intelligent help to overcome the SLOT,
These are not inconsequential "poofs," as they're all entirely without observed evidence here on Earth. You can plead to unknown and unknowable designers all you like, but the evidence they may have left behind has entirely vanished. From what I understand of what you say about ID, it depends on the appearance of "poofs" for its support, and "explains" those "poofs" as the consequence of an intelligent designer.quote:
No Darwinist I am aware of, from Stanley Miller to Richard Dawkins has ever proposed a credible scenario of abiogenesis being caused by chemical evolution. So this first organism would appear to be a *poof* to some.
And yet, abiogenesis has on-going research programs, wins grant money based upon its testable hypotheses, and appears to be a healthy and well-established science. How does this compare to ID?
Besides that: you're quite right that the theories of evolution only apply once life (self-replicating entities which are capable of being replicated incorrectly and whose survival depends on how well they replicate) exists. While evolution may "lead to" abiogenesis (or the other way around, or both), this doesn't really make a difference to what the theories explain. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, and abiogenesis doesn't explain life's diversity.
You may attack abiogenesis all you like, and think you're disputing "Darwinism," but in fact, evolution doesn't "care" where life came from, be it an intelligent designer, a pre-biotic goo, God, an astronaut, or from outside this universe. It doesn't make any predictions about how life began, just like you claim that ID doesn't attempt to identify a designer.quote:
The more we learn about the universe around us, the easier it becomes for any free-thinking person, regardless of religious beliefs, to accept and fully embrace intelligent design.
You know, it's this kind of prejudicial language that really annoys me. No less so than "thinking people are Democrats" does. What's my point? My point is that I don't accept ID because as far as I can tell, it has failed to make a compelling argument that it is correct, that it is a science, and that it can answer questions about origins and diversity better than can the currently-orthodox theories. This isn't due to some sort of emotional attachment to currently-accepted ideas (which would be the antithesis of "free-thinking"), but simply because ID, in both the way you present it and the way the religionists like Dembski present it, doesn't make sense, doesn't make testable predictions, and answers fewer questions (in less-rigorous ways) than does evolution, selection and common descent and abiogenesis.quote:
I don't believe we need be ignorant any longer as we can |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 21:42:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To classify a system or an artifact as designed has no logical connection to, ‘therefore the designer was….' To think differently is to logically miss the big picture. I often equate the logic of those who fail to understand this clear division to a person who seeks to write a book on the design and operation of a chainsaw and becomes so confused as to end up with a biography of the design engineer.
Now you can no longer assert I have not addressed this and the tone of your last post will clarify why I have every right to ignore further posts from you in the future
Bullshit. You have STILL failed to address the prediction your "theory" makes.
You have stated, in no uncertain terms, that CSI cannot occur randomly in nature.
You have stated that CSI must be designed.
Therfore, no designer can occur naturally.
Therfore, any designer must be supernatural.
This is very simple deductive reasoning, and if your statements about CSI are in fact true (as you claim they are) then a supernatural designer is the ONLY POSSIBLE DESIGNER.
All that long bafflegab bullshit in your post is meaningless unless you specifically address this point. Which you have not done.
Thank you for proving that your sole intent is to be a lying fundamentalist preacher of supernatural creationism.
Have a nice life yourself, in your little fundie fantasy world.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 21:46:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
quote:
I'm still waiting for you to explain how your logic isn't arguing FOR a supernatural creator.
No, you're not waiting for anything as this has been explained to you and others a half dozen times or more. But seeing how some seem to think I've been avoiding posts and they are actually believing you and others when you accuse me of failing to address your argument, here is a repost that I made earlier directly addressing this point:
Its true that when something is designed for a purpose there must be a designer but ID makes no effort to identify one. We are aware that if the designer were a deity or an astronaut, the identity of this designer could not be precisely identified through scientific analysis. If the designer were a god, would we expect to be able to find and scientifically analyze the foot-prints of God? Would we expect to discover a spirit with a stethoscope or a CAT scan? Could we perhaps have the C.O.B.E satellite beam down pictures of the designer for us to examine? No, even to ponder this is quite silly.
So, ID embraces no particular designer and espouses that it has no idea who/what the designer was/is. The designer could have been a deity, an astronaut, a previously existing race of highly intelligent earth creatures or even seeded on earth by meteorites as the panspermian/atheist side of ID espouses. We would have no way of knowing because we have discovered no evidence to point us in a given direction.
Articles placed under the auspices of our science for study are often artifacts, chemically formulated substances, patterned items, DNA, organisms, organs, cells and cell organelles that were initially conceived millions and sometimes billions of years ago.
We understand it is not scientifically possible to go back in time and empirically seek conclusions of a designer thus, we don‘t go there. Musings on the nature and identification of the designer we leave to the philosophers and the theologians because that has little bearing when considering natural origins verses intelligently guided ones in nature.
Picture in your mind your favorite shirt out of all in the wardrobe in the closet. Isn't that a cool shirt? Something or someone designed a really neat piece and you are proud to wear it. Now, what/who designed it? Odds are, you probably cannot even tell me the company that manufactured it without looking, much less the name of the individual draftsman who created the design. And who cares? We can still appreciate the design of the shirt, wear it and enjoy it. The design engineer becomes irrelevant because the design is already here and functioning.
So, you get to pick the designer if you so choose to do so. We leave that conclusion to the individual and individual beliefs. You may believe the designer was Yahweh, an astronaut, little green aliens, Allah, Krishna or your uncle Frank. That's up to you because we are only concerned with design science.
Consider an archeologist who uncovers what appears to be a rock roof supported by pillars on a dig. Did this structure occur by some natural law or process or was it designed by a builder for a particular use? The archeologist will have to determine this. If she concludes this to be a structure designed by a civilization, then perhaps she should continue this dig which could possibly uncover an ancient city or culture. But if this is just some strange looking natural occurrence formed through natural law or process, then her money might be better spent researching another avenue.
Similarly, imagine a paleontologist discovering a bear fetish carved of bone in the style of Native American |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 21:53:14 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
Thank you for proving that your sole intent is to be a lying fundamentalist preacher of supernatural creationism.
Have a nice life yourself, in your little fundie fantasy world.
Come on. I'm trying to play nice, and Kil specifically told everyone to play nice. Play nice, dammit!
We've already determined that this thread is extremely frustrating for a number of reasons - Jerry's dodging of the meat of these issues being one of them - so given that these things are out in the open and obvious to all, the frustration level should be going down, not up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 22:11:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Its true that when something is designed for a purpose there must be a designer but ID makes no effort to identify one. We are aware that if the designer were a deity or an astronaut, the identity of this designer could not be precisely identified through scientific analysis. If the designer were a god, would we expect to be able to find and scientifically analyze the foot-prints of God? Would we expect to discover a spirit with a stethoscope or a CAT scan? Could we perhaps have the C.O.B.E satellite beam down pictures of the designer for us to examine? No, even to ponder this is quite silly.
Hi, Jerry. In the above, you admit that ID doesn't answer-- indeed can't answer-- who designed life on earth. This is fine. Any theory that claims to have answers for every question probably doesn't.
But why is it OK for ID to say that questions of the origins of life on earth aren't a concern of ID, but that abiogenesis is so troubling for you? In an earlier post, you wrote:
quote:
No Darwinist I am aware of, from Stanley Miller to Richard Dawkins has ever proposed a credible scenario of abiogenesis being caused by chemical evolution. So this first organism would appear to be a *poof* to some.
Why does not knowing the god/magical pink unicorn (peace be upon his horn)/alien seem fine for ID, but abiogenesis not? (And by the way, Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, does talk about the origins of life. I'm looking at the book now. My version is with the 1996 copyright, a paperback publication by W.W. Norton. Look at chapter 6, "Origins and Miracles," pp. 139-66.)
Other things:
Regarding the link and the quote I cited from it-- you noted that in searching for it, all you found was "a link to the institute and to a document on 'the wedge' in which I could find no statement to the effect that there exists a strategy to destroy science and replace it with something called theistic science." Look again. Right beneath the link that reads "The 'Wedge' Document" it says "The 1998 manifesto of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture lays out their plans for destroying science as it is currently done and replacing it with 'theistic science.'" It's right there. But still, you answered the question, so thanks.
Next issue: in that same lengthy post, you hold that "common descent cannot be falsified." I must (again) disagree. I'm not trained in any way in the ToE, though, and others have a much better command of the evidence than I, do I turn to them. A nice link, used for an entirely different debate, is this one. It's the very first post to the thread, so I don't think you can miss it. I think that the best evidence comes from so-called retroviruses, which "are able to insert their DNA or RNA into the host DNA." On rare occasions, their imprint is made on the host's DNA, and that viral "scar" can be passed down to the host's offsrping. (Again, I'm summarizing and paraphrasing from Peptide's excellent post.) The rarity of this event is such that when "two people having the same ERV at the same letter of DNA," it is virtually certain that "they share something like a great, great, great grandparent" or some other ancestor.
Now, long before DNA was discovered, the ToE suggested that humans were closely related to chimps, and also closely (but not as closely) related to other apes. With the discovery of DNA, we can test this hypothesis. If the ToE is right, humans and chimps should share a good number of these ERV "scars" while humans and, say, gibbons will share less, as the evolutionary branch that led to gibbons split with the branch that led to the 'great apes' long before humans and chimps went their seperate ways.
Of course, the examination of the ERV "scars" in human and chimp (and other primate) DNA fits perfectly with the prediction. If it did not, then the ToE as we understand it would be in trouble.
The ERV example (and I can't stress enough how you should actually read the linked post) is a nice example of both a) the predictive power of the ToE, and also b) how the ToE is falsifiable.
Earlier, I asked you if ID made predictions, or if it could be falsified. You offered a list of things ID predicts, but, as I noted then, the seem "more like a long, incomplete definition of what ID is," as opposed to actual predictions that can be falsified.
Help me out, as I'm perplexed-- how does one falsify the claim that "irreducibly complex systems will only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent"
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 22:31:04 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist wrote:quote:
Next issue: in that same lengthy post, you hold that "common descent cannot be falsified." I must (again) disagree. I'm not trained in any way in the ToE, though, and others have a much better command of the evidence than I, do I turn to them. A nice link, used for an entirely different debate, is this one... I think that the best evidence comes from so-called retroviruses, which "are able to insert their DNA or RNA into the host DNA."
While the HERVs are really good evidence, common descent can be falsified simply enough (again) by finding the Devonian Bunny or Cambrian Croc. Since there were no mammals in the Devonian, nor any reptiles in the Cambrian, the DB and the CC would be examples of animals which appeared before their evolutionary ancestors, thus falsifying both common descent and evolution in one blow (each).
Jerry has suggested that such finds would not be the death-knell for common descent that we might suggest it would be, and that people would just "change the rules" in response. Of course, if changing the theory is warranted by the evidence, then that's only good science, since only dogmatists cling to or reject theories whole. But, this would be evidence of such magnitude that it's unlikely the theories could simply be modified and still work to explain all the available data, and Jerry's prediction that "complex macroevolution" would escape unscathed is not predicated upon any evidence of its own.
Unless, of course, Jerry can supply some evidence that damning counter-evidence against common descent has been found and "pooh-poohed" by the othrodoxy already. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 22:39:41 [Permalink]
|
Hawks,
quote:
You missed the point. Morpholgical/bevioural classification has previously concluded that cats and dogs are more closely related (eg, they are mammals and so suckle their young) than are cats and frogs (frogs don't suckle their young so they will not be mammals). If ToE is true, then the prediction is that genetic comparisons will come to the same conclusion. This prediction is falsifiable.
How? You are looking at what is. You can't falsify that mammal suckle their young or that frogs don't suckle their young, isn't that a little silly? If a tree is standing out in my front yard I can't falsify that because if the tree is there, it is there. End of story.
quote:
Scientific theories do not have to predict future events. They do have to be falsifiable. I could for example measure the height of a sample of kiwis. Based on the average height of the sample population I can predict that the kiwi I caught this morning (and keep in a cage) but have not measured yet will be of a certain height (+- uncertainty). I've got a hypothesis that can be tested.
PS. When I say kiwi here, I mean the bird, not the holder of the New Zealand passport.
Thanks for clarifying that, I was mentally constructing a picture of a piece of fruit and I was wondering why you were capturing fruit and putting it in a cage.  But I suppose I can buy into this as it is really just accumulating comparison studies which I do myself in ID. But what is it here you feel you could falsify?
quote:
This is just illogical. If I failed to state any falsifiable predictions regarding evolution, then I have not falsified Darwinism any more than I have falsified Newtons law of gravity. I would just have failed to state any falsifiable predictions. And again see the falsifiable prediction above regarding cats, dogs and frogs. (Please note also that this is not a prediction of Darwinism as such. With the advent of molecular genetics something known as "the new synthesis" is more appropriate. Or just call it evolutionary theory or ToE if you will).
I call it the modern synthesis which I believe is the term du jour. But if you fail to state any falsifiable predictions for Darwinism you are correct in that you haven't falsified Darwinism. What you have shown is that it has no place in science because if a philosophy has no falsifiable tenets, then according to the scientific method, it is not science. This is my point.
******OK then, how does SLOT make ID falsifiable?*******
It doesn't. I fear we may be talking past one another on this issue. All I was trying to get across is that this is a tenet of ID and I would think it is probably unique to ID when it comes to origin studies. I then was attempting to show several tenets of ID as falsifiable and I thought someone was asking me HOW I would falsify this one. Since this tenet is based on SLOT, the answer would be to falsify SLOT. But the germane point is that it IS falsifiable.
quote:
Then what is the relevance of this to evolution or life in general?
Nothing. I was just showing you that sometimes when energy is added to a thermodynamic system, it actually disorders that system just as when you stick a cup of coffee into a microwave to warm it.
quote:
Yes, SOME energy will always be lost as heat. Ie the entropy of the UNIVERSE will increase (this is SLOT). So what? SLOT does not forbid entropy to decrease in parts of the system.
I know this. I'm trying to communicate that when entropy decreases there is always a reason. When a crystal grows in a cave, that crystal orders and the reason it orders is because of a process we know in science called nucleation. When a stalagmite orders, we understand it is because calcium deposits in dripping water are precipitating out of solution and accumulating onto the stalagmite.
Thus, we cannot say that just because entropy CAN decrease in an open system that it DID decrease in the case of macroevolution. We need find out what that energy is, and understand how it worked to overcome SLOT in this process. I don't believe it can be done and if it cannot be done then it can't be logically used to argue that SLOT was overcome in the case of macroevolution.
quote:
No one is arguing with you that the entropy in the universe is increasing. The Sun does bombard Earth with huge amounts of energy, though - roughly 1372 J/s/m2 at the top of the atmosphere. Energy that can be used by living organisms.
So, the entropy of the UNIVERSE might increase (this is SLOT). So what? SLOT does not forbid entropy to decrease in parts of the system.
Well, let me flip it right back at ya, so what?
quote:
A strawman. Homo sapiens are not descendants from amoeba. They have common ancestors.
Then whatever you choose to call that first unicelled organism is fine with me.
quote:
Are you implying that the sun can overcome SLOT in microevolution?
No, because microevolution is just change. That law has nothing to do with change. It only gets involved when that change is one from simplicity to complexity.
quote:
Are you implying that the sun can overcome SLOT with regards to the growth and maintenance of phototrohic organisms?
Not completely, but does it help? Yes, photosynthesis reduces entropy that can be calculated. I have that calculation on one of my computers but for the life of me I cannot remember where.
quote:
The entropy of the UNIVERSE might increase (this is SLOT). So what? SLOT does not forbid entropy to decrease in parts of the system.
It doesn't forbid an entropy decrease, nor does it require one. If you are going to continue in this vein of logic at some point you will have to get specific. What part of the universe are you talking about? What causes this decrease and how can I calculate it?
quote:
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 23:25:12 [Permalink]
|
DAVE:
quote:
Actually, Jerry, as has been pointed out numerous times here and elsewhere, the "huge rift" in the United States is largely due to people deciding that evolution denies their god(s). Which is why the "Wedge Strategy" states,
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies... the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.
(My emphasis pointing out where "theistic science" comes into play, as an understanding of nature is what science attempts.)
No, there is nothing in the Bible which contradicts evolution, except a literal reading of Genesis which clearly implies a 6,000-year-old Earth (giving evolution little time to operate) and a worldwide flood (giving evolution even less time). Fundamentalists don't just deny common descent - as you do - they deny the evidence from geology, cosmology, and other sciences which have found a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth and a 15 billion-year-old universe. Yet, they focus their wrath on evolutionary theories because they believe that evolution turns them into animals, and "frees" people from personal responsibility and morality.
But it just ain't so.
Well, that quote from the DI does not address the quote from me, I don't believe. The fact that they have "re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature" is probably true. But I would hardly think that the DI is comprised of the people that form the rift I pointed out previously as these people are not members of the DI.
I also want to point out that I see materialism as largely just another religion in that when one comes to a conclusion that there are no metaphysical attributes to the universe, they have stepped out on faith to do so. Since faith can be defined as a belief in something where there is no evidence to support it, how can this philosophy be anything other than religion since there is no evidence to support materialism?
Native Americans have a philosophy called 'walking the Red Road.' The Red Road goes straight through the middle of almost everything and it is my favorite road to walk. I argue for neither theism or materialism to be included in science. Do the experiments and the math and let the chips fall where they may.
I agree that YEC tends toward a literal interpretation of Genesis. But YECs are few and far between in the ID movement. In fact, I would think you could find almost all of them somehow associated with the DI. I used to be a fairly regular poster at ARN until I got tired of the place and considering the regular posters over there, I can think of only 2 YECs while I can also think of 4 very pro-ID agnostics. And just for the record, I know some very moral atheists. That's ot an issue with me.
quote:
I know enough science to know that what you're arguing against isn't Darwinism, it's just common descent. Especially since you go out of your way to agree with "microevolution." Besides which, modern evolutionary science is no longer simply Darwinism. Darwin had no idea how heritable information was passed on, but we do know now.
Darwin proposed common descent in Origin of Species (others also did) so yes common descent seems the gist of Darwinism but this represents a very broad category from transitional fossils like therapsid, archie and pakicetus all the way up to hierarchies, random mutation and natural selection.
quote:
In other words, I would look like an idiot to agree to defend Darwinism in a debate against you or anyone else.
I no longer desire a personal debate with you as I have no wishes to demean or denigrate you. You simply pissed me off and when I read the quite reasonable posts that followed our exchanges this morning, I came to the conclusion that I probably misjudged the place as a result of being the new guy. That challenge is formally withdrawn.
quote:
You're not actually arguing against Darwinism or common descent or even against the secular humanist orthodoxy, what you're really arguing against is SLOT as everyone else knows it. The proper place to have such discussions is with the chemists and physicists, in the peer-reviewed journals appropriate to the subject matter.
This is simply a baseless assertion as I view thermodynamics no differently than any honest thermodynamicist that teaches the subject. That does not count those biased ones who claim SLOT could not have prohibited macroevolution but this is just religious bias on their part. I've debated several of those guys at the PhD level and they simply cannot support that assertion with science and math. I can mine.
quote:
After all, a debate here on these forums means nothing, in the grand scheme of things.
Agreed. Case closed. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 00:06:48 [Permalink]
|
Filthy:
quote:
Ok, and you are right. There is indeed a rift between science and the general public. But the reason is that science has poor PR. Scientists are simply too busy doing science to get into self-promotion beyond their individual research. This is not true for the Creationist and ID movements, who preach at the public on a regular basis.
I don't buy the possibility this is the reason for the rift. I think the poll I mentioned where 90% of college graduates reject Darwinism (other than theistic evolutionists which comprises about 30% of those polled if I remember correctly) rather refutes that notion. One cannot even make it through high school today without understanding the concept. Science, just does not make the case for it and it's quite obvious, I believe, to those who will study it with an open mind.
quote:
Why do you constantly use the term 'Darwinist?' The ToE has long left the writings of Darwin, excellent for his day, far behind. You seem to make it sound like a religious sect, like 'Methodist.' To my knowledge, no one has started a Church of Darwin, although if there's any cash in it, I might.
I use that term because in my experience, many Darwinists seem to almost espouse the philosophy with the fervor of a Pentecostal preacher. While there may be none on this forum, I'm quite aware of many who actually evangelize forums hoping to win converts to their cause. What would you call this? Do you see gravity physicists doing this? 
I also use the term to insure that people understand I am not 'dissing' all of ToE. If you've kept up with the posts you'll understand how easily confused people can become when it seems I'm both trashing evolution while claiming to be an evolutionist. Using the term Darwinism seems to keep down that confusion in my experience.
quote:
I accept the ToE, but I have neither belief nor faith in it because it is entirely falsifiable. If you come up with that Devonian bunny, or the equivlent, and get it past peer review, I'll toss the theory and never look back. The only regrets I'd have would be that you didn't find it sooner.
Peer review. That's the sticky part in science. The Toumi skull found in Chad two or three years or so ago is, at last reading, still going through it and that review is all but bloody. Is Toumi a 7 million year old ape or a hominin, or is it evidence of an ancestor of both? I wonder if it will be resolved in my lifetime, especally if no more fossils of it are found.
Nothing wrong with this view. I wish everyone felt this way about the discipline and I really couldn't find much fault with that, as a person has looked at the evidence for themselves and drawn a rational conclusion. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.
And do you want me to go ahead and classify the Toumi skull for you? We have no evidence to show it is anything other than the discovery of another extinct species. We cannot go back 7 million years to do breeding tests and/or DNA tests to show that this find is an ancestor of anything. Therefore, science requires that we not draw that conclusion.
quote:
Evolution can be observed working among species alive today. If you get a chance, look up the grasshopper mouse. It is a mouse that has become a carnivore. It will attack other mice even larger than it's self, snakes and lizards, and any arthropod it comes across including scorpions and bombadeer beetles (this last, it grabs the beetle and jams it's backside into the ground and holds it there while it eats the rest). It hunts in family packs and even howls to communicate. And it is as territorial as any wolf pack.
This little mouse is showing physical changes to suit it's unmouse-like way of life, notably it's dentation. It's insisors are long, narrow and very sharp, unlike the wide chisles in other mice. It kills with a bite to the neck
Given a few tens of thousands of years, do you think this ravanous rodent, that is succeding in a new nitch will still be the same mouse? Or even a rodent at all?
Me, I don't know.
I don't know how it will evolve either. But I do know it will still be a rodent if it is presently and properly classified as one. There are limits to how far anything can grow, how fast a certain species can run, how fat a species can get and how far a species can evolve. Never will we be able to breed hens that lay cylindrical eggs, horses with wings that can fly or 20,000 pound pigs to revolutionize the pork industry. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 00:21:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Very good!
Now then, how is this evidence of design?
Well, other than what I pointed out about the sunfish, I don't particular see the other examples as evidence of much of anything other than simple evolution. I certainly would never use any of those examples as evidence for anything else.
quote:
Incidently, some venomous colubrids are a truly bad scene, the boomslang, for instance. I had a one here (in transit) for a while. It was very fast and ill-tempered, and they have caused fatalities in healthy, adult humans. Quite a pretty serpent, though.
Most hot colubrids are scarcly medically significent and many of those only produce local symptoms. But duvernoy's in colubrids hints that any of them might some day become hot.
Did you know that duvernoy's is located in the lower jaw of gila monsters?
No. I stayed away from those suckers in college even though the profs had them everywhere including some weird experiment with dozens of them turned upside down breathing nothing but liquid. My job was to restock the anatomy lab with sheep eyeballs and cats ready for dissection--lightweight duty. But you can have all of the snakes I ever come by as pets. They wouldn't get along with my cats and I know they wouldn't get along with my woman.
quote:
And only a drunk in the throws of delerium tremens would have designed the surniam toad. I've an essay on them somewhere in here.
Have you ever considered that the designer could have been a drunk in the throws of DTs? You won't get any argument from me.
quote:
And again with the darwinism! You seem to be objecting to a piece of scientific history that has long since been regulated to dusty shelves. Why?
Hopefully I cleared that up in my last post to you. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 01:15:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, ID is forced to propose "poofs" because if there were no "poofs," then gradualistic evolution is not a problem. For examples,
The "poof" in which a racemic mixture of amino acids suddenly became homochiral,
the "poof" of design in which all the organs in the mammalian circulatory system were designed whole and in place, or
the "poof" in which what looks like common descent had intelligent help to overcome the SLOT,
These are not inconsequential "poofs," as they're all entirely without observed evidence here on Earth. You can plead to unknown and unknowable designers all you like, but the evidence they may have left behind has entirely vanished. From what I understand of what you say about ID, it depends on the appearance of "poofs" for its support, and "explains" those "poofs" as the consequence of an intelligent designer.
You lost me on your logic altogether here. There are no probabilities involved in a designer situation. An object is either designed one way or it is designed another way. There no poofs in chirality involved in the case of a designer, a designer simply picks the parts it wants and runs with them.
How many poofs do you suppose happen with the design of a new car or a skyscraper? You seem to have missed something, somewhere.
quote:
And yet, abiogenesis has on-going research programs, wins grant money based upon its testable hypotheses, and appears to be a healthy and well-established science. How does this compare to ID?
Abiogenesis doesn't exist. Spontaneous generation has been refuted for 400 years. Pasteur refuted it again later. Miller refuted it again when he tried to produce life and ended up with nothing but 98% tar and a few heterochiral amino acids. And this doesn't compare at all to ID. There is no ID biology in existence that could get any grants for research. Just another myth floating around in the numinous ether.
quote:
Besides that: you're quite right that the theories of evolution only apply once life (self-replicating entities which are capable of being replicated incorrectly and whose survival depends on how well they replicate) exists. While evolution may "lead to" abiogenesis (or the other way around, or both), this doesn't really make a difference to what the theories explain. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, and abiogenesis doesn't explain life's diversity.
Please show how evolution led to abiogenesis. And you cannot get past the fact that if Darwinism had nothing to evolve, nothing could have evolved. Darwinism requires something to evolve. If you do not think that something came about by abiogenesis, then pray tell how it did.
quote:
You may attack abiogenesis all you like, and think you're disputing "Darwinism," but in fact, evolution doesn't "care" where life came from, be it an intelligent designer, a pre-biotic goo, God, an astronaut, or from outside this universe. It doesn't make any predictions about how life began, just like you claim that ID doesn't attempt to identify a designer.
Evolution may not, but Darwinism certainly does as it attempts to explain the origin of life. This is inverted logic in that life originated but since abiogenesis is not a part of Darwinism then it really did not originate. Why are you attempting to shy away from abiogenesis. Do you simply view the concept as unsupportable?
quote:
You know, it's this kind of prejudicial language that really annoys me. No less so than "thinking people are Democrats" does. What's my point? My point is that I don't accept ID because as far as I can tell, it has failed to make a compelling argument that it is correct, that it is a science, and that it can answer questions about origins and diversity better than can the currently-orthodox theories. This isn't due to some sort of emotional attachment to currently-accepted ideas (which would be the antithesis of "free-thinking"), but simply because ID, in both the way you present it and the way the religionists like Dembski present it, doesn't make sense, doesn't make testable predictions, and answers fewer questions (in less-rigorous ways) than does evolution, selection and common descent and abiogenesis.
I've given you testable predictions, why will you not test them? You have given me nothing at all in Darwinism that could be even remotely considered as a testable prediction even though I have repeatedly ask for them. Why is this? Because you cannot think of any?
And what in ID doesn't make any sense to you? Without ID somewhere in the picture, you have no credible explanations at all when we get down to the most basic questions such as how the universe came to exist. When the law of conservation of energy states that matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then where do you think the matter/energy came from to power the big bang? Did it arrive by osmosis, magic, what?
The fact is that things that do not exist cannot contain things that do exist. Therefore there could have been nothing in this universe before it existed in order to power the big bang. How does your philosophy of naturalism explain this obvious breach of logic?
quote:
That will only tell us what humans know about design. You have no idea who the designer is, and thus cannot say whether it was human or not.
I'm not sure you said anything here. If you did I didn't understand it.
quote:
By human beings, nothing more. It's a single sample out of an infinite number of possibilities. It is impossible to generalize from human design to the design methodology of an unknown and unidentified designer, so this point - and your further delving into quantum mechanics and Omega Point stuff is irrelevant.
Not true. Design in general can become a study as evidenced by the fact that there is such an occupation known as design engineers that study nothing else.
One might be surprised in the similarities between the way that GM designs cars and the way that Ford does. Different designers altogether but certain things in common. This is called semiotics. And you have no evidence at all to suggest that the initial designers were not another advanced race of human or even humanoid astronauts from the planet Xenon.
But you think that the quantum mechanics used as the initiation of chemical design by the design engineers that wrote that paper is accomplished by human beings? Don't know how to word this to you other than to simply state it doesn't make a lick of sen |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
