Joined: May 2006
Well it does appear that you responded to my post on proximate causes. I thought you might have, but without any fear of being wrong I could post that you didn't counter with a post on the observed mechanisms of design. Instead, the same tedious BS is put out, with you never comprehending how you appear more and more inept and prejudiced with every incompetent statement.
|What Afdave fails to recognize in the area of origins is the importance of establishing proximate causes, of showing how one event causes another one. |
What I am doing, Glen, is showing everyone why MY proposed proximate cause makes more sense than YOUR proposed proximate cause for explaining the phenomena in the universe.
What proximate cause? You simply tell your little lie.
|But what we need for any ID hypothesis is a designer who has been shown to design items similar to organisms. |
Well, I cannot show Him to you any more than you can show me a fruitfly evolving into a "housefly type insect" or a "foot becoming a flipper."
I can show you a dinosaur becoming a bird. That you won't recognize the evidence as evidence is part of your ineptitude. Also, that it is evidence from the past is hardly important--all evidence inevitably comes from the past. Your problem with past evidence is another thing that sets you apart from science.
I don't know whether we can precisely show a foot turning into a flipper. Smaller bones don't fossilize well. Hardly matters, though. Tiktaalik was found in a targeted search, not to find intermediates between fish and amphibians (we already had some of those) .per se, but to find an intermediate showing the evolution of legs from fins. Deal with the evidence.
Again you show your ignorance in supposing that a fruitfly is supposed to be able to evolve into a housefly. Perhaps it could (though not identical in genetic material), but it would probably be very difficult for any number of reasons.
And it has been established that you don't care about the evidence that evolution has occurred, so you don't care that fruitflies and houseflies share many genes, and that they fit nicely into cladistic schemes.
Most importantly, yes, you cannot show "Him" to me, but you aren't interested in proximate causes. That was my point. And that you admit that you can't show "Him" to me belies your prior false claim of a proposed proximate cause. Perhaps you are so dull or ignorant as to believe that an invisible and unobserved "entity" counts as a proximate cause in science, but that's your problem.
|This is because animals are very different from machines, even at a cursory glance. |
Yes, but the key difference is that they are SO SO SO SO much more sophisticated. Ask Bill Gates ...
See, this is one of the problems with creationism/ID. Never an original thought, an old PRATT from Bill Gates who is not well educated in biology. I don't disagree with him as he meant it, true, but "sophisticated" has an anthropomorphic ring to it, and the term also belies the fact that much of adaptation isn't sophisticated in the design sense at all.
And of course you only consider your PRATT to be key, when biologists pay a good deal of attention to other aspects of the differences between life and designed objects. Mere prejudice again, based in your incomprehension and gee whiz "facts" approach to "science". That marks you as a functional dullard.
What is more, go ahead and consider the fact that life is so much more complicated, and realize that never ever have we observed a designer create anything like this. So you have no observed designer, as I pointed out previously. And you have the facts, though not the intelligence (at least not the educated intelligence) to deal with them sensibly, in order to conclude that no proximate "design" cause for life is known.
I have in many cases pointed out that, among other life aspects, the complexity of life is something that we have never observed intelligent agents to make. It sort of knocks out your analogy, although we have yet to see you abandon an argument just because you have been shown to be wrong.
I suppose I should note that aliens may in fact make machines as complex as life, for all I know. Even then we would likely be able to distinguish between those machines and life, for we have no expectation of aliens producing in ways that mimic the predictions of evolution (unless, of course, they mean to re-create life to see if they can, in which case we'd still probably do best calling it life (since it wasn't designed originally, but was only "designed" to mimic an evolved organism)).
|What is more, we aren't even satisfied with "intelligence" as a "reason" for human-made machines and art, rather we typically appeal to psychology, evolution, and social causation to explain why and how art is made (as in all historical sciences, we can't fully explain Sumerian art, but we can explain important aspects of it). |
You're kidding, right? I will let you take this one back if you want to and I won't even bring it up again.
It's interesting that you are so ignorant that sophisticated argumentation seems ridiculous to you. Again you sneer at expertise, in order to support your ignorant prejudices, your fragile, pathetic ego.
Crack a book, go back to school, or at least learn how not to act like a fool among the knowledgeable.
|This brings up an important fact: triumphant IDists would likely impede investigation into what intelligence is and why it is the way that we find it to be--even if only by suggesting that intelligence is some kind of "universal constant" or "law". |
Your implication that IDists are not progressive in science? What about Galileo, Newton, Hooke, Brahe, Copernicus and Huygens? They all believed in Design. Were they anti-progressive?
Another PRATT. I'm sure you've heard the appropriate arguments, and are just trolling here. What is more, I seriously doubt that all of them believed in "design" in the ID sense, though I'll leave it at that since it would be hard to demonstrate (Galileo isn't likely to refute mechanistic notions of creation which weren't current then).
Again the argumentum ad verecundiam, and your total incapacity to counter my own argument. You are one superficial "thinker".
|IDists analogize wildly to God, but then they fail utterly to be able to identify factors, like evolution, that would constrain God's designs. |
What? Constrain God's design? Creationists accept Designed Adaptation that you call evolution. Maybe I'm not following you.
Of course you're not following me, because you have no concept of the necessity of identifying proximate constrained causation via science. You took this out of a context, which no doubt you did not understand, a context which explained how humans can be considered "proximate causes", namely, because they are constrained (by evolution, physics, etc.).
And no, I can't discuss science on your level, because you know virtually nothing about science. I made a good series of arguments regarding the identification of "design", and you uncomprehendingly settle back into your fog of incomprehension. For those with a modicum of comprehension, I repeat, we cannot identify design because we do not know of any proximate cause which would actually "design" the derivative structures we see in organisms.
|but if we could not find causes of evolution in the genome/environment, we would have to abandon evolution as an explanation. |
Yes. I predict this will happen soon.
Of course you predict what you cannot demonstrate. It's an old dodge, kind of the old tribal/herd belief that future battles will vindicate the claims of the "authorities". Once again, you fail even to comprehend what is needed to make a compelling argument.
|Dave doesn't like macroevolution, claiming that it has not "been seen". Since, however, macroevolution is predicted to be produced by largely known mechanisms, therefore to produce the sorts of fossils, nested hierarchies, and genomes that we see, it is fair to say that we have observed it, since we are surrounded by it and are a part of it. |
No. You have NOT observed it. You have observed what you THINK is evidence for it, but I will show you in time why this fails.
You couldn't show anyone the way out a tepee.
You also miss the fact that we are observing macroevolution all around us, and of course you simply deny excellent evidence any time it is brought up.
You're becoming so redundant, boring, and useless even as a foil to demonstrate the IDiocy of ID and creationism.
|No, we do not accept Causes that are not seen to be acting, we accept the mutations and selections of those mutations as the sort of mechanism that evolution demands and requires, both as a science of proximal causes, and as a theory peculiar to biology. |
Yes. You DO accept Causes that are not seen to be acting. Again, no one has seen feet evolve into flippers, etc.
You're too lame even to know the difference between cause and accumulated effects (we may not have seen all of the mechanisms of macroevolution acting "in nature", but we've seen virtually all in the lab, at least). Perhaps some day you will know the difference between cause and effect, but today I simply shake my head at how low your intellectual capacity is.
|We have our proximate causes, then. The IDists/creationists have no cause at all, but only an analogy that on the face of it appears flawed, and which more tellingly cannot be backed up through evidence for active proximal causes. |
No. You don't have your proximate causes, then. You don't even have an analogy.
So you can only deny the proximate causes, and cannot show that your denial has any basis in fact. I also mentioned several analogies, from languages to "microevolution", but you're too incapable of intellectual discussion even to throw out some tendentious lies about the specific analogies. Just blank denial, which in fact is your modus operandi.
|We at least have an analogy from our experience. To me, this is far more scientific.|
Why yes, you have no notion of the necessity or means of backing up analogy. You don't begin to comprehend scientific justification. You have your stupidity, and want to keep it. Then keep it, just don't go lying and showing your ignorance for the rest of your life.
I knew from your first post on PT that you were too intellectually dishonest for me to have a meaningful discussion with you. I have argued this here and at PT, giving probable explanations for it.
But I have still responded to you as if you could read properly, and as if there were an inkling of curiosity, objectivity, and honesty in there somewhere. Primarily as a foil, yes, yet I often enough gave you the benefit of the doubt.
All that you have done is to disgust me. Whether they be the PRATTs, the fallacies, the outright lies, or the inability to comprehend even reasonably intellectual discussion, you are unworthy to engage in further discussion.
I made a number of good arguments, mainly for the sake of lurkers who might be suckered into the blatant nonsense that you spout. They're done, and remain available even to Dave if there is yet a speck of intellectual honesty in him. I can't step into the intellectual sewer he lives in any more, and am done with responding to him for a while (the only likely exception would be if he responded quickly to my previous post), perhaps forever. It's an intention, not a promise, but it is probable. There hasn't been much science here, other than that aimed at the uncomprehending cretinist in our midst, so I may not bother with the rest of "After the Bar Closes" for a while either
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy