GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
Gary Gaulin - Friday, July 10, 2015 6:37:00 PM
John Avise could not get the premise/definition of the Theory of Intelligent Design right either, and fabricated a whole new one:
Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome
John C. Avise
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697
Abstract
Intelligent design (ID)—the latest incarnation of religious creationism—posits that complex biological features did not accrue gradually via natural evolutionary forces but, instead, were crafted ex nihilo by a cognitive agent.
http://www.pnas.org/content....bstract
The real definition/premise is:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Replies
Warren Johnson - Saturday, July 11, 2015 8:49:00 AM
I say that your definition of ID theory is too vague, and requires elaboration to even understand it, let alone use it. Stephen Meyer has removed that ambiguity by 'explaining' the Cambrian explosion. Didn't Avise make a clear restatement of Stephen Meyer's explanation?. Do you have a statement that better represents Meyer's hypothesis?
Gary Gaulin - Saturday, July 11, 2015 9:12:00 AM
Source:
http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php
John Harshman - Saturday, July 11, 2015 11:57:00 AM
I don't think Meyer actually explained anything. You will search Darwin's Doubt in vain for a clear hypothesis of what actually happened in the Cambrian. All you will find is a list of things that are wrong with evolution.
Dazz - Saturday, July 11, 2015 12:57:00 PM
The problem with IDiots like Gaulin is they don't understand what "best explained" means. Their non-theory doesn't explain anything about the design process (and no, GG. your stupid cockroach simulator is not the answer). It has zero predictive power and essentially is all about the "not an undirected process" part. A (failed) negative argument is not an explanation, let alone the best one.
"Best explained" in a scientific theory is redundant anyway. It's already implicit in the scientific framework that the theory that provides the best explanation is the accepted one.
We all know they will never have a proper theory because that would imply figuring out the designer itself, but of course it's a well known fact that he works in mysterious ways.
But crooks like Meyer, Luskin & Co. don't really target scientists or educated people. They target the simpletons that will believe any crap thrown at them disguised in science to keep them from quitting religion and make a living out of these gullible minions.
Gaulin must be so mad at the DI for ignoring him completely. They don't want to share the income with you, deal with it GG
Laurence A. Moran - Saturday, July 11, 2015 2:17:00 PM
@John Hashman
You are right. Intelligent Design Creationism explains nothing. It is essentially a series of attacks on evolution, assuming a false dichotomy. The proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism can't even agree on some basic facts.
For example, Stephen Meyer seems to accept the basic idea of common descent and the fact that Cambrian fossils are more than 500 million years old and look nothing like modern species. Here's his explanation (p 412) ...
Unlike the theistic evolution of Francis Collins, however, the theory of intelligent design does not seek to confine the activity of such an agency to the beginning of the universe, conveying the impression of a decidedly remote and impersonal deistic entity. Nor does the theory of intelligent design merely assert the existence of a creative intelligence behind life. It identifies and detects activity of the designer of life, and does so at different points in the history of life, including the explosive show of creativity on display in the Cambrian event. The ability to detect design makes belief in an intelligent designer (or a creator, or God) not only a tenet of faith, but something to which the evidence of nature now bears witness. In short, it brings science and faith into real harmony.
Now, I've looked really hard at the latest reconstructions of Hallucigenia and I really don't see the evidence of design, let alone intelligent design. I'm guessing that Stephen Meyer sees it differently but forgot to explain why god made such a strange animal. .
Gary Gaulin - Saturday, July 11, 2015 3:20:00 PM
The problem with IDiots like Gaulin is they don't understand what "best explained" means.
Apparently, with enough mental masturbation even the phrase "best explained" becomes incomprehensible.
Gary Gaulin - Saturday, July 11, 2015 3:37:00 PM
Larry says: Intelligent Design Creationism explains nothing.
Then what does "Evolutionary Creationism (EC) viewpoint on origins." explain?
DazzSaturday, July 11, 2015 3:53:00 PM
Gee Gee, nice projection, as usual.
Dazz - Saturday, July 11, 2015 4:08:00 PM
Then what does "Evolutionary Creationism (EC) viewpoint on origins." explain?
The same as Evolutionary Alienfartism, that posits evolution is true but there's a mutation only when an alien farts, and life was created when an alien took a big dump long ago
Gary Gaulin - Saturday, July 11, 2015 4:20:00 PM
It's all about critical thinking—something that seems to be in short supply these days.
Laurence A. Moran - Saturday, July 11, 2015 7:20:00 PM
@Gary Gaulin
There are many naturalistic explanations of the Cambrian explosion. They all conform to the available evidence including the molecular evidence that shows a common origin for all those fauna. None of the explanations are so convincing that scientists universally accept them but they are, at least, plausible.
Now, put on your critical thinking cap and give me an explanation that's consistent with all the data but requires gods. Tell me which species were "designed" and when, and why you think your explanation is more reasonable than the scientific ones.
I bet you can't do that. You have nothing worth saying beyond "gods did it."
John Harshman - Saturday, July 11, 2015 8:39:00 PM
Larry,
Stephen Meyer seems to accept the basic idea of common descent and the fact that Cambrian fossils are more than 500 million years old and look nothing like modern species.
He clearly accepts the age of the Cambrian, but I don't know that he accepts common descent at all. There's a whole chapter in Darwin's Doubt that attempts to cast doubt on phylogenetic analysis. And if you assemble all his little hints, his hypothesis about the explosion appears to be that all the phyla, at least, appeared instantly and without ancestors. He has elsewhere denied that there is any good evidence that humans are related to chimpanzees.
All told, the best guess is that he's an old-earth, progressive creationist. Granted, due to his skill in concealing his ideas, this is at best tentative.
Gary Gaulin - Sunday, July 12, 2015 6:09:00 AM
Well Larry, seeing that you asked I went over the grammar and composition for that section of the theory, at:
https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf
Cambrian Explosion
Fossil and phylogenetic evidence shows that soon after our planet formed a solid crust molecular level intelligence was already thriving, over 3,000 million years ago. There is next expected to have been a proliferation of cellular level intelligence including plants and eukaryotic cells (single cell animals) which have a nucleus and specialized organelles. Then next, roughly 600 million years ago, there was the well documented “Cambrian Explosion” where a large biodiversity of multicellular intelligence (animals with brain made of neurons) rapidly proliferated. Relatively complex eyes suddenly appeared and are still here in much the same form as in the beginning.
JoeMeertTimeline.jpg
Chart supplied by Professor Joseph Meert
Since the Intelligence Design Lab models the mechanism that is expected to produce these three exponential biological diversification rates we can use it to demonstrate the mechanism that caused the most recent, the Cambrian Explosion. In the run shown below a two lobe compound eye critter is kept busy chasing a feeder for one million memory (write/read) cycles. The green foraging success line shows how well (on average) it is foraging on its own, keeping its stomach full. When using the model for the Cambrian Explosion the foraging success relates to the survival rate of species, which would rapidly decline during mass extinction events then quickly recover. The blue line shows average confidence level, their brain's proficiency at acquiring useful knowledge. The black line shows total memory locations used, which relates to the overall brain capacity of animals. Taken together these show the variables associated with a learning rate which takes into account how much can be learned during its lifetime, and on average how much of that knowledge is actually useful to their overall confidence (well being) and survival success.
https://sites.google.com/site.......art.png
The lines seen here are representative of the development of multicellular level intelligence during the predicted period of time known as the Cambrian Explosion. There are also two earlier predicted events of the same magnitude (for molecular and cellular level intelligence), where due to not leaving behind much fossil evidence are harder to detect but none the less await future paleontological discovery.
Laurence A. Moran - Sunday, July 12, 2015 7:40:00 AM
@Gary Gaulin
Oops! My apologies. This is the first time I've looked at your website.
I won't be bothering you again. Keep taking your meds.
Sceptical Mind - Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:32:00 AM
Larry
I think you may have meant "start taking your meds" haven't you?
Gary Gaulin - Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:28:00 PM
Larry says: Oops! My apologies. This is the first time I've looked at your website.
At least you have the honesty to admit that after all these years you did not even look at what you claim to be an expert in.
Your critical thinking score is now zero.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
