RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (638) < ... 311 312 313 314 315 [316] 317 318 319 320 321 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2008,21:26   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 21 2008,20:12)

First off Bill, unless you start answering more of my specific arguments, I'm going to assume that the parts of my posts you snip are conceded.

YOU don't even believe that.
           
Quote
Second, I am not making predictions of order, organization and complexity based on what I see in nature (this is what your side does).  I am making those predictions based on what I see rational human beings doing.  From a Christian perspective - where man is made "in the image of God" - I'd expect man to be something like God.  Man's creations are often complex, orderly, organized and beautiful, therefore I'd expect God's creations to be the same - only orders of magnitude more advanced.

This is obviously a religious, not a scientific, assertion. As I think I said once before, I appreciate that you are up front about it, in contrast with the dishonest indirection employed by the (now utterly defunct) ID movement.
           
Quote
You, on the other hand, have no rational reason to predict complex organization - other than the fact that it's already here.  Why can't you just be honest and admit that?

When did I predict complex organization? I'm not in the habit of predicting things we already know to be the case. Moreover, it is my personal belief that the origins and evolution of life on earth were highly contingent events, and that had the factors upon which those contingencies revolved been otherwise, life may well never have emerged on earth and ramified in the way that it has.
           
Quote
Now, I'm not smart enough to make a specific prediction about anything and then tell you how it could be empirically verified.

THANK YOU. But the problem isn't your IQ. The problem is that it simply isn't possible to generate tractable empirical predictions of power and specificity sufficient to guide empirical research from the framework you are advocating. Regardless of IQ.

Here is Robert T. Pennock on methodological naturalism:

           
Quote
Ontological Naturalism should be distinguished from the more common contemporary view, which we can call Methodological Naturalism. The Methodological Naturalist does not make a commitment directly to a picture of what exists in the world, but rather to a set of methods as a reliable way to find out about the world - typically the methods of the natural sciences, and perhaps extensions that are continuous with them - and indirectly to what those methods discover. An important feature of science is that its conclusions are defeasible on the basis of new evidence, so whatever tentative substantive claims a Methodological Naturalist makes are always open to revision or abandonment on the basis of new, countervailing evidence. Because the base commitment of a Methodological Naturalist is to a mode of investigation that is good for finding out about the empirical world, even the specific methods themselves are open to change and improvement; science may adopt promising new methods an refine existing ones if doing so would provide a better evidential warrant. (p. 84-85).

....

Empirical testing relies fundamentally upon the use of the lawful regularities of nature that science has been able to discover and sometimes codify in natural laws. For example, telescopic observations implicitly depend upon the laws governing optical phenomena. If we could not rely upon these laws - if, for example, even when under the same conditions, telescopes occasionally magnified properly and at other occasions produced various distortions dependent, say, upon the whims of some supernatural entity - we could not trust telescopic observations as evidence. The same problem wold apply to any type of observational data. Lawful regularity is at the very heart of the naturalistic world view and to say that some power is supernatural is, by definition, to say that it can violate natural laws. So, when [Phillip] Johnson argues that science should allow in supernatural powers and intelligences he is in effect saying that it should allow beings that are above the law (a rather strange position for a lawyer to take). But without the constraint of lawful  regularity, inductive evidential inference cannot get off the ground. Controlled, repeatable experimentation, for example...would not be possible without the methodological assumption that supernatural entities do not intervene to negate lawful natural regularities.

Of course science is based upon a philosophical system, but not one that is extravagant speculation. Science operates by empirical principles of observational testing; hypotheses must be confirmed or disconfirmed by reference to empirical data. One supports a hypothesis by showing consequences obtained that would follow if what is hypothesized were to be so in fact. Darwin spent most of the Origin of Species applying this procedure, demonstrating how a wide variety of biological phenomena could have been produced by (and thus explained by) the simple causal processes of the theory. Supernatural theories, on the other hand, can give no guidance about what follows or does not follow from their supernatural components. For instance, nothing definite can be said about the processes that would connect a given effect with the will of the supernatural agent - God may simply say the word and zap anything into or out of existence. Furthermore, in any situation, any pattern (or lack of pattern) of data is compatible with the general hypothesis of a supernatural agent unconstrained by natural law. Because of this feature, supernatural hypotheses remain immune from disconfirmation (p. 89).


From Pennock's Naturalism, Evidence, and Creationism Found in Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics (MIT Press, 2001)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2008,21:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 21 2008,20:38)
Life is not "nature".  Life exists in nature and is made of natural components, but there is no natural reason for the organization of life.

Bizarre.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
1of63



Posts: 126
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2008,23:13   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 21 2008,19:38)
Life is not "nature".  Life exists in nature and is made of natural components, but there is no natural reason for the organization of life.

Crystals.  Snowflakes.  They're organized.   And that organization arises out of the properties or 'nature' of the materials they're made from.  So it's natural.  Living things are just a lot more organized.  But they're still natural, still arise out of the properties of the stuff they're made from.

This arguing by assertion is dead easy, isn't it?

Here's one for you to try: why did God create anything?  God - the Christian one which is the one we're talking about - is a necessary being in the philosophical sense.  To be the First Cause, it has to be.  It's not contingent, not dependent on anything outside of itself, has no need for anything outside of itself.  Before it created the Universe there was nothing outside of itself.  So why create the Universe, why create us?  What's the point?   Can't be because it needs us because it's entirely self-sufficient by definition.

As for being made in God's image, I'm not at all happy about the idea of being made in the image of the OT version.  I mean, right at the beginning, it creates Adam and, being omniscient, knows exactly how he's going to behave.  It knows full well the poor sap is going to take a bite out of the apple given half a chance.  Yet it still punishes him - and the rest of us - for a design flaw that was God's fault in the first place.  That's after it lied to him, of course.  Told him he'd die on the day he ate the fruit but instead booted him and Eve out of the garden and let him live for another 900 years or so.

You may think naturalistic science is a mess but, believe me, what you're shovelling as an alternative is a lot messier.

--------------
I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them. - Tracy P. Hamilton

  
stevestory



Posts: 8838
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2008,23:40   

It's rough watching Danny get the beat-down. Amusing, but rough.

   
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,00:00   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 21 2008,17:38)
You mean like the existence of an information carrying code at the heart of every cell?   Would that more logically follow from the premise that life was engineered or from the premise that life was the result of natural accidents?    

It's pretty crap engineering. Why put the whole genome in every cell ? Why not keep a handful of redundant copies with some fancy error correction, and then build each cell with only the bits it actually needs ? If that's proof of design, it's also proof the designer was a moron.

Oh right, God the designer moves in mysterious ways. Plus cancer and all the other shitty side effects of his crap designs give him a raging hardon*.

If you actually studied a little biology, you'd realize just how Rube Goldberg we are. Those nice diagrams that make cells look like machines... they are a simplification made by humans to help us understand particular process.

* Suffering after all is a sign of Gods love, right ?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4015
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,00:12   

Quote
I'm guessing there are lots of conflicting hierarchies already - hence the increasing need for HGT, WGD and other "mass genomic shuffling" mechanisms.  In some ways the phylogenetic explanations remind me of the projected planetary orbits in the geocentric universe.  They got more and more bizarre.


Well, nobody expects things to be simple when looked at in detail. Certainly, microbes that routinesly swap genes outside their species will produce conflicting trees when the swapped genes are used. Those "bizarre" mechanisms weren't invented fo the heck of it; they were added to biological knowledge because they were observed to sometimes happen.

Complete agreement of the nested hierarchies is expected in the absence of any cross-species genetic transfers. For animals, those are apparently rare enough to have no significant affect on phenotype, as far as I know. (I'm not sure about plants in this regard.)

Quote
Organization is not a reason to accept the theory - it's a reason to reject the theory.

That's absurd. The occasional development of new structures in organisms is expected by the current theory. Rejecting it because we see something that it expects would make no sense.

Quote
Life is not "nature".  Life exists in nature and is made of natural components, but there is no natural reason for the organization of life.

Life is part of nature. Whether or not there is a "natural reason" is pretty much what this argument is about, so saying "no natural reason" is simply restating your opinion.

Quote
You mean like the existence of an information carrying code at the heart of every cell?   Would that more logically follow from the premise that life was engineered or from the premise that life was the result of natural accidents?

The existence of something to convey heritary traits to offspring would follow from either, and therefore that by itself cannot be used to distinuish them.

Quote
The limitations are the refusal to consider anything but unguided natural mechanisms.

There is no such refusal. Scientists need evidence prior to investigating something; if somebody found actual evidence that something in a life form was engineered, there would be consideration of it. You're basically accusing scientists of refusing to investigate something that is not at present there to be investigated.

---

Quote
Predictions

Because Evolution is proactive and not reactive:
...

Some of those predictions would be rather hard to distinguish from the expectations of the current theory:

Quote
* Organisms will show evidence of preparation for anticipated environments; rudiments of organs not yet needed will be found.

How is "rudiments of organs" supposed to be distinguished from an existing simple organ that turns out to be useful for something else?

Quote
* Patterns and laws will be found that govern how evolution works.

Yes, but that's not distinct from current science. It's how science works - by detecting patterns and then seeing how far they extend.

Quote
* Lineages will be found to have begun before environments in which they later flourished began.

Yes, sometimes a species that began in one place will later become successful somewhere else. (Especially if the somewhere else lacks the predators of their previous environment.)

Quote
* Mass extinctions will have been preceded by the introduction of new types that would dominate the next phase in earth?s cycle.

Yes, if the new types weren't already present before the mass extinction, then they wouldn't very well be able to proliferate afterward. Whether a type was "introduced" or not would probably be rather hard to test directly.

Quote
* Organisms will be found to have begun an adaptive process for a specific feature before the specific adaptation would have been necessary for survival.

Yes. A feature that is necessary for survival had to have evolved from something that didn't used to be essential; that follows from the current theory.

Quote
* Mathematical patterns useful for information integrity and transmission will be found in the genetic code.

Could be, but without something more specific than that, I don't think it can be distinguished from current theory.

---

Quote
* When confronted with environmental changes, organisms will adapt using pre-existing but unexpressed features or, they will become extinct.  No new features will evolve.

If that were correct, it should have already made the nested hierarchy concept unworkable, since those pre-existing features would have popped up whenever some species needed them.

Quote
* Patterns will be found in the origin, differentiation and eventual extinction of lineages that are not dependent upon environmental factors but exist across all manner of differing environments, geographical locations, types of organisms and ages.

I'm not sure what that means. It seems likely to me that patterns of some sort will be found regardless of what model is correct, so I don't see the point of this one.

Quote
* Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought.

That's something that human engineers would probably take pains to avoid. Why would the hypothetical engineer(s) make heavy use of it?

Quote
* Careful examination of genomes will find preparatory and adaptive codes ?waiting in the wings? ready to be utilized in case of environmental changes - many just a frame shift away.

Unexpressed DNA mutates. Over geological time spans, it would degrade into uselessness, unless there's a far more accurate replication mechanism used for it than what has been found so far. And if there were a high fidelity copier for the preparatory stuff, then there should be large sections of identical but apparently unused DNA to be found among multiple species.

Quote
* Frame shifting will be found to be a more common mechanism for sudden evolutionary change than previously thought.

Why? How does that follow logically from the premise that the DNA was deliberately engineered?

Quote
* Due to the fact that all organisms evolved from one or more ?universal genomes?, the genomes of simpler organisms will contain large tracts of essentially useless evolutionary ?leftovers?.  More complex organisms will have less useless information in their genomes.

That would seem to contradict what is already known. Animals seem to have lots of unused DNA, bacteria have very little. From what I understand, the size of the genome seems to have very little correlation with "complexity".

Quote
* Phylogenetic trees will produce results that will increasingly rely on gene swapping and other mechanisms that cause large scale genetic changes.

Why? How does that follow logically from the premise that the DNA was deliberately engineered? Also this appears to me to conflict with the notion of genomes having lots of preparatory stuff sitting around in storage.

Quote
* No adequate explanation (other than design) will ever be found for the origin of life?s most basic components - i.e. protein synthesis, cell division, sexual reproduction, etc.

You might want to be careful with this kind of prediction; those would be just the sort of thing that some scientists would be bound to try to figure out, so they probably already know quite a bit about most of those.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,00:53   

Quote
Life is not "nature".  Life exists in nature and is made of natural components, but there is no natural reason for the organization of life.


This is daniel's opening gambit.  From there, wank the dink to the donk and Q-dy-E-fucking-D.  

But it's a faith based claim.  After all, we can't distinguish between a universe where life originates as a property of matter and is a property matter and the universe Daniel wishes us to accept on his personal testimony (and as a result deny the very mechanisms of knowledge generation that generates useful products and services, from the dentist, the shitty beer that stevestory likes to swill, the robotic man-i-kin that Louis keeps in the coat closet to the breast implants on arden's hairy back.  and pink marshmallows.  oh yeah and Galaga and helicopters).

Daniel why should we believe that  
Quote
Life is not "nature".  Life exists in nature and is made of natural components, but there is no natural reason for the organization of life.

other than your say so?  Particularly you claim that if something is not known on Judgment Day it can never be known and was never meant to be known.  How can you know that  
Quote
Life is not "nature".  Life exists in nature and is made of natural components, but there is no natural reason for the organization of life.
?

You bloody well know you that you can't tell the difference.  You're either perfectly self-deluded to the point of no re-run or you're some sort of troll that enjoys getting abused.  I suspect the latter but either way one thing is clear you don't give a flying pillar of salt about what science says or does.  You just need some personal confirmation of shit you keep in a deep dark dank pit of festering denial and self-loathing.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,05:41   

The question now is will Danny respond to the responses to his "predictions" or just ignore them?

Your next move Danny is important. Do you want to engage in a argument that may not go your way or just ignore it all and continue to say the same thing over and over? Are you a sufficent man to face the consequences or what?

Your move bible repair man.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,06:16   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 22 2008,06:41)
Your move bible repair man.

Made my day, thanks.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,13:18   

Due to restrictions with the number of quotes allowed I have to split my response into two posts.
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 21 2008,22:12)
 
Quote
I'm guessing there are lots of conflicting hierarchies already - hence the increasing need for HGT, WGD and other "mass genomic shuffling" mechanisms.  In some ways the phylogenetic explanations remind me of the projected planetary orbits in the geocentric universe.  They got more and more bizarre.


Well, nobody expects things to be simple when looked at in detail. Certainly, microbes that routinesly swap genes outside their species will produce conflicting trees when the swapped genes are used. Those "bizarre" mechanisms weren't invented fo the heck of it; they were added to biological knowledge because they were observed to sometimes happen.

Complete agreement of the nested hierarchies is expected in the absence of any cross-species genetic transfers. For animals, those are apparently rare enough to have no significant affect on phenotype, as far as I know. (I'm not sure about plants in this regard.)

So what I hear you saying is "Yes, plenty of hierarchies don't line up".
   
Quote
 
Quote
Organization is not a reason to accept the theory - it's a reason to reject the theory.

That's absurd. The occasional development of new structures in organisms is expected by the current theory. Rejecting it because we see something that it expects would make no sense.

"Organization" is the issue.  It's not just organization though, it's "functional complex organization".  This is expected from engineered systems.  You'll have to explain to me why it would be expected from accidentally built systems.

   
Quote
 
Quote
Life is not "nature".  Life exists in nature and is made of natural components, but there is no natural reason for the organization of life.

Life is part of nature. Whether or not there is a "natural reason" is pretty much what this argument is about, so saying "no natural reason" is simply restating your opinion.

I'm restating it because I'm still waiting for your side to provide one (a natural reason that is).
   
Quote
   
Quote
You mean like the existence of an information carrying code at the heart of every cell?   Would that more logically follow from the premise that life was engineered or from the premise that life was the result of natural accidents?

The existence of something to convey heritary traits to offspring would follow from either, and therefore that by itself cannot be used to distinuish them.

This is a case of expecting what's already there.  How do you get "hereditary information" in the first place?  What natural force or law can you point to that would cause you to predict the formation of an information carrying code if you didn't already know one existed?  You see, I can predict such a thing because rational beings produce information carrying codes, your side has nothing it can point to as a source for such a thing except what's already there.
   
Quote
     
Quote
The limitations are the refusal to consider anything but unguided natural mechanisms.

There is no such refusal. Scientists need evidence prior to investigating something; if somebody found actual evidence that something in a life form was engineered, there would be consideration of it. You're basically accusing scientists of refusing to investigate something that is not at present there to be investigated.

The evidence is there.  I could cite pages and pages of life's systems that exhibit characteristics of engineered systems.  It's the fact that scientists seem to be resigned to only considering these systems as the product of accidental events that directs their research down a path with limited explanatory power.  Face it - they can't provide a detailed explanation for the origin or evolution of anything this way.
 

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,13:25   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 21 2008,22:12)
---

       
Quote
Predictions

Because Evolution is proactive and not reactive:
...

Some of those predictions would be rather hard to distinguish from the expectations of the current theory:

       
Quote
* Organisms will show evidence of preparation for anticipated environments; rudiments of organs not yet needed will be found.

How is "rudiments of organs" supposed to be distinguished from an existing simple organ that turns out to be useful for something else?  

It's all in how you look at it.  Your side needs for that simple organ to be useful (along with every step along the way in its development), my side doesn't - it could just be there for future use.

     
Quote
     
Quote
* Patterns and laws will be found that govern how evolution works.

Yes, but that's not distinct from current science. It's how science works - by detecting patterns and then seeing how far they extend.

Detecting patterns is different from predicting them.  Why would accidental naturalism predict convergent evolution such as of placental and marsupial mammals?
       
Quote
     
Quote
* Lineages will be found to have begun before environments in which they later flourished began.

Yes, sometimes a species that began in one place will later become successful somewhere else. (Especially if the somewhere else lacks the predators of their previous environment.)

I'm predicting that that is the norm.  These species arise in the fossil record before it is advantageous for them to do so, then later the conditions change and suddenly their pre-existing characteristics become an advantage.  IOW, evolution was pre-planned.
       
Quote
     
Quote
* Mass extinctions will have been preceded by the introduction of new types that would dominate the next phase in earth's cycle.

Yes, if the new types weren't already present before the mass extinction, then they wouldn't very well be able to proliferate afterward. Whether a type was "introduced" or not would probably be rather hard to test directly.

Your side has to come up with a reason explaining why these types were advantageous before they actually were.  My side predicts they will evolve before there's any advantage which would explain their evolution.  Pre-planning.
       
Quote
     
Quote
* Organisms will be found to have begun an adaptive process for a specific feature before the specific adaptation would have been necessary for survival.

Yes. A feature that is necessary for survival had to have evolved from something that didn't used to be essential; that follows from the current theory.

"Had to have"?  Are you admitting that an essential feature cannot evolve?  

       
Quote
     
Quote
* Mathematical patterns useful for information integrity and transmission will be found in the genetic code.

Could be, but without something more specific than that, I don't think it can be distinguished from current theory.

Why would the current theory predict any of this - other than that it's already known to exist?
     
Quote
---

       
Quote
* When confronted with environmental changes, organisms will adapt using pre-existing but unexpressed features or, they will become extinct.  No new features will evolve.

If that were correct, it should have already made the nested hierarchy concept unworkable, since those pre-existing features would have popped up whenever some species needed them.

They would only "pop up" within a limited framework.  Many organisms would simply go extinct.
       
Quote
       
Quote
* Patterns will be found in the origin, differentiation and eventual extinction of lineages that are not dependent upon environmental factors but exist across all manner of differing environments, geographical locations, types of organisms and ages.

I'm not sure what that means. It seems likely to me that patterns of some sort will be found regardless of what model is correct, so I don't see the point of this one.

I based this one on the work of Otto Schindewolf, the preeminent German paleontologist, who found that he could identify repeating patterns of evolution in the fossil record.  If organisms evolved via a constrained and lawful pathway, such would always be the case.  Why would a theory that is based on accidental mechanisms predict such a thing?
       
Quote
     
Quote
* Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought.

That's something that human engineers would probably take pains to avoid. Why would the hypothetical engineer(s) make heavy use of it?

Efficiency - saves space.  Integrity - multiple uses of the same section of coding insures retention of that code.  Ability - most human designers would do this but probably can't figure out how - it is extremely difficult - God doesn't have that trouble.  Now explain again, why would natural forces be predicted to come up with this?
       
Quote
     
Quote
* Careful examination of genomes will find preparatory and adaptive codes ?waiting in the wings? ready to be utilized in case of environmental changes - many just a frame shift away.

Unexpressed DNA mutates. Over geological time spans, it would degrade into uselessness, unless there's a far more accurate replication mechanism used for it than what has been found so far. And if there were a high fidelity copier for the preparatory stuff, then there should be large sections of identical but apparently unused DNA to be found among multiple species.

If it's truly preparatory, it would be retained, if it's a leftover, it could mutate into anything.  The truth is we have no idea which explanation applies to which sequence.

       
Quote
     
Quote
* Frame shifting will be found to be a more common mechanism for sudden evolutionary change than previously thought.

Why? How does that follow logically from the premise that the DNA was deliberately engineered?

It follows from A) embedded coding and B) preparatory coding.  
       
Quote
     
Quote
* Due to the fact that all organisms evolved from one or more ?universal genomes?, the genomes of simpler organisms will contain large tracts of essentially useless evolutionary ?leftovers?.  More complex organisms will have less useless information in their genomes.

That would seem to contradict what is already known. Animals seem to have lots of unused DNA, bacteria have very little. From what I understand, the size of the genome seems to have very little correlation with "complexity".

I said nothing about genome size, I was talking more about a ratio of used to unused.
       
Quote
     
Quote
* Phylogenetic trees will produce results that will increasingly rely on gene swapping and other mechanisms that cause large scale genetic changes.

Why? How does that follow logically from the premise that the DNA was deliberately engineered? Also this appears to me to conflict with the notion of genomes having lots of preparatory stuff sitting around in storage.

Prescribed evolution posits that genome reshuffling is the basis of evolution (see Dr. John Davison's papers).  From that it follows that genomes will be a lot like shuffled decks of cards which then modified themselves for new features.  Saltational evolution.
       
Quote
     
Quote
* No adequate explanation (other than design) will ever be found for the origin of life?s most basic components - i.e. protein synthesis, cell division, sexual reproduction, etc.

You might want to be careful with this kind of prediction; those would be just the sort of thing that some scientists would be bound to try to figure out, so they probably already know quite a bit about most of those.

Henry

I'm hoping they are researching these things because that's the only way my prediction will be verified.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,13:59   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 21 2008,19:26)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 21 2008,20:12)

First off Bill, unless you start answering more of my specific arguments, I'm going to assume that the parts of my posts you snip are conceded.

YOU don't even believe that.

I believe you snip the parts you have no good answer for.
                 
Quote
   
Quote
Second, I am not making predictions of order, organization and complexity based on what I see in nature (this is what your side does).  I am making those predictions based on what I see rational human beings doing.  From a Christian perspective - where man is made "in the image of God" - I'd expect man to be something like God.  Man's creations are often complex, orderly, organized and beautiful, therefore I'd expect God's creations to be the same - only orders of magnitude more advanced.

This is obviously a religious, not a scientific, assertion. As I think I said once before, I appreciate that you are up front about it, in contrast with the dishonest indirection employed by the (now utterly defunct) ID movement.

It is based on religion yes - but it can be empirically falsified.  So it's a scientific prediction based on religious beliefs.
                 
Quote
   
Quote
You, on the other hand, have no rational reason to predict complex organization - other than the fact that it's already here.  Why can't you just be honest and admit that?

When did I predict complex organization? I'm not in the habit of predicting things we already know to be the case. Moreover, it is my personal belief that the origins and evolution of life on earth were highly contingent events, and that had the factors upon which those contingencies revolved been otherwise, life may well never have emerged on earth and ramified in the way that it has.

So you're admitting that a scientific philosophy based solely on naturalism could not predict the construction of something as complex as life?  After all, if it is a highly contingent series of events, it would not be predicted to happen, (except of course under the "everything's possible" catch-all category).
                 
Quote
   
Quote
Now, I'm not smart enough to make a specific prediction about anything and then tell you how it could be empirically verified.

THANK YOU. But the problem isn't your IQ. The problem is that it simply isn't possible to generate tractable empirical predictions of power and specificity sufficient to guide empirical research from the framework you are advocating. Regardless of IQ.

I think you're wrong.  If I knew more about biology, my predictions would be more specific.  As it stands, I have to keep them general.  Even these general predictions can be empirically tested though - I'm just not smart enough to tell you exactly how.  For instance, I predicted that no one could come up with a workable natural pathway that would lead to the formation of the amino acid synthesis system in E. coli.  Now I don't presume to be able tell a scientist how he would go about his empirical research into the subject, I'm just predicting an unsuccessful outcome.
   
Quote
Here is Robert T. Pennock on methodological naturalism:

                 
Quote
Ontological Naturalism should be distinguished from the more common contemporary view, which we can call Methodological Naturalism. The Methodological Naturalist does not make a commitment directly to a picture of what exists in the world, but rather to a set of methods as a reliable way to find out about the world - typically the methods of the natural sciences, and perhaps extensions that are continuous with them - and indirectly to what those methods discover. An important feature of science is that its conclusions are defeasible on the basis of new evidence, so whatever tentative substantive claims a Methodological Naturalist makes are always open to revision or abandonment on the basis of new, countervailing evidence. Because the base commitment of a Methodological Naturalist is to a mode of investigation that is good for finding out about the empirical world, even the specific methods themselves are open to change and improvement; science may adopt promising new methods an refine existing ones if doing so would provide a better evidential warrant. (p. 84-85).

....

Empirical testing relies fundamentally upon the use of the lawful regularities of nature that science has been able to discover and sometimes codify in natural laws. For example, telescopic observations implicitly depend upon the laws governing optical phenomena. If we could not rely upon these laws - if, for example, even when under the same conditions, telescopes occasionally magnified properly and at other occasions produced various distortions dependent, say, upon the whims of some supernatural entity - we could not trust telescopic observations as evidence. The same problem wold apply to any type of observational data. Lawful regularity is at the very heart of the naturalistic world view and to say that some power is supernatural is, by definition, to say that it can violate natural laws. So, when [Phillip] Johnson argues that science should allow in supernatural powers and intelligences he is in effect saying that it should allow beings that are above the law (a rather strange position for a lawyer to take). But without the constraint of lawful  regularity, inductive evidential inference cannot get off the ground. Controlled, repeatable experimentation, for example...would not be possible without the methodological assumption that supernatural entities do not intervene to negate lawful natural regularities.

Of course science is based upon a philosophical system, but not one that is extravagant speculation. Science operates by empirical principles of observational testing; hypotheses must be confirmed or disconfirmed by reference to empirical data. One supports a hypothesis by showing consequences obtained that would follow if what is hypothesized were to be so in fact. Darwin spent most of the Origin of Species applying this procedure, demonstrating how a wide variety of biological phenomena could have been produced by (and thus explained by) the simple causal processes of the theory. Supernatural theories, on the other hand, can give no guidance about what follows or does not follow from their supernatural components. For instance, nothing definite can be said about the processes that would connect a given effect with the will of the supernatural agent - God may simply say the word and zap anything into or out of existence. Furthermore, in any situation, any pattern (or lack of pattern) of data is compatible with the general hypothesis of a supernatural agent unconstrained by natural law. Because of this feature, supernatural hypotheses remain immune from disconfirmation (p. 89).


From Pennock's Naturalism, Evidence, and Creationism Found in Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics (MIT Press, 2001)

I don't think you are trying very hard to understand my position Bill.  If you had, you'd stop presenting these supernatural strawman arguments.  When have I appealed to "supernatural" mechanisms?  

My argument is based on God's intelligence - NOT his supernatural powers.  I've never cited "miracles" except when mocking the explanatory power of the currently held theory.

BTW, why would one expect the universe to be based on "lawful regularity" from a naturalist POV - except for the fact that it already is observed to be?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,14:17   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 22 2008,14:59)
I don't think you are trying very hard to understand my position Bill.  If you had, you'd stop presenting these supernatural strawman arguments.  When have I appealed to "supernatural" mechanisms?  

My argument is based on God's intelligence - ...

priceless.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,15:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 22 2008,14:59)

I believe you snip the parts you have no good answer for.

Then you should press me on those points, and see if that is the case.
   
Quote
So you're admitting that a scientific philosophy based solely on naturalism could not predict the construction of something as complex as life?  After all, if it is a highly contingent series of events, it would not be predicted to happen, (except of course under the "everything's possible" catch-all category).

Contingent events don't necessarily happen. They occur only if certain other other facts are also the case (that's the definition of "contingent.") The emergence of life on earth was contingent upon the prior formation of heavier elements in supernovas. It was contingent upon existence of water in liquid form, which in turn required that the earth and its star stand in particular relation to one another. Among myriad other facts. I believe that might easily have not occurred. But it did.

I also happen to believe, BTW, that the emergence of life SOMEWHERE in the universe, and probably in many places, was/is inevitable (because the universe is so vast, the likelihood of the required contingent events arising together in many locations is very high).

But these are my personal beliefs. I don't claim that they are "scientific" assertions, nor am I representing myself as a spokesman for all of science.

BTW, you still don't seem to grasp the problem entailed in "predicting" events that have already occurred.
   
Quote
Quote
Quote
Now, I'm not smart enough to make a specific prediction about anything and then tell you how it could be empirically verified.

THANK YOU. But the problem isn't your IQ. The problem is that it simply isn't possible to generate tractable empirical predictions of power and specificity sufficient to guide empirical research from the framework you are advocating. Regardless of IQ.
I think you're wrong.  If I knew more about biology, my predictions would be more specific.

Then I invite you to search the ID literature high and low and find an example. You're the one making the claim that empirical predictions of sufficient power to test and falsify your hypothesis are possible. The burden is on you to demonstrate that.   
   
Quote
But what if God (or some other being) actually did create life?

   
Quote
My argument is that life is so intricately organized - it requires God as its source.

   
Quote
However, within the God-centered empirical framework, we'd predict that a rational, creative God would create spectacular, incredibly marvelous things.

   
Quote
I'd expect God's creations to be the same - only orders of magnitude more advanced.

   
Quote
1) God organized the first cell(s) from the raw materials available here on earth.

   
Quote
2) God fitted these cells with 'universal' genomes which contained information for their differentiation...

   
Quote
First, God is not a man - he is not bound to our physical limitations. He's also all powerful. Essentially he could just will the atoms into place.

   
Quote
God made the first cell(s) in the same way man makes a car.  He put the parts together.

   
Quote
When have I appealed to "supernatural" mechanisms?
 
Oy.
   
Quote
why would one expect the universe to be based on "lawful regularity" from a naturalist POV - except for the fact that it already is observed to be?

Actually, "it is already observed to be" is good enough. "We don't know" is also an option.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,15:12   

Placeholder to circumvent the "new page" bug.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,15:49   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 22 2008,13:59)
   
Quote
 
Quote
Second, I am not making predictions of order, organization and complexity based on what I see in nature (this is what your side does).  I am making those predictions based on what I see rational human beings doing.  From a Christian perspective - where man is made "in the image of God" - I'd expect man to be something like God.  Man's creations are often complex, orderly, organized and beautiful, therefore I'd expect God's creations to be the same - only orders of magnitude more advanced.

This is obviously a religious, not a scientific, assertion. As I think I said once before, I appreciate that you are up front about it, in contrast with the dishonest indirection employed by the (now utterly defunct) ID movement.

It is based on religion yes - but it can be empirically falsified.  So it's a scientific prediction based on religious beliefs.

I thought I should join the scrum.

I'm with RB; that's a religious assertion. It presupposes the existence of God, and so far, you've been unable to provide any objective evidence for that presupposition, which is necessary for your assertion. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence for chance, necessity, and contingency.

As Laplace said to Napoleon, re God - "I have no need for that hypothesis".  And you have no evidence for it.

Carry on.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,16:07   

Shorter Daniel:

Quote
First: assume there is a god.

Second: See? Goddidit.

Third: P.S. Nothing supernatural about it.



Edited by Lou FCD on Nov. 22 2008,17:16

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,16:55   

Interesting historical note from the beeb:



Quote
The world's oldest surviving Bible is in bits.

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

Anti-Semitic writings

The fact this book has survived at all is a miracle. Before its discovery in the early 19th Century by the Indiana Jones of his day, it remained hidden in St Catherine's Monastery since at least the 4th Century.
Pope at St Catherine's Monastery
The monastery at the base of Mt Sinai

It survived because the desert air is ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered.


More at the link.

I've just come across this pretty neat feature of the BBC, called "Ten things we didn't know last week" which is a sort of news roundup feature, not unlike Greg Laden's Blogospherics but for BBC news articles. This is one from a few weeks ago.

Hat tip to MadLolscientist via her FaceBook account.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,17:20   

HA! In the "The more things change, the more they stay the same" category, we have this:

Quote
Sue Jones-Davies is trying to overturn a near 30-year ban imposed by the town on Monty Python's Life of Brian - the film in which she played a role.

Long before she donned her mayoral robes in the mid Wales town, she played Brian's girlfriend in the movie.

Opponents claimed it made fun of Jesus, but she says it is "amazing" that a town like hers still officially bars a movie now regarded as a comedy classic.

In 1979, however, it grabbed the headlines for the wrong reasons, with critics accusing the Python team of blasphemy with its story about a Jewish man who was mistaken for the messiah and then crucified.

Some religious groups picketed cinemas which screened the film.


BRIAN HAZ BINNED EXPELLED!!!!

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,21:09   

It should be noted that the Pythons are striking back at the rampant piracy of their work on youtube :D

Apropos the Codex Sinaiticus story.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4015
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2008,21:23   

Quote
So what I hear you saying is "Yes, plenty of hierarchies don't line up".

Life is sometimes messy, yes. Matching heirarchies are expected when inter-species DNA transfer is not significant. If life was engineered they wouldn't be expected at all.

Quote
You'll have to explain to me why it would be expected from accidentally built systems.

It's called the theory of evolution. Variations are caused by mutation, DNA swapping, recombination, plus some other processes, plus differential success of some variations over others, when these processes are repeated over huge numbers of generations, can cause adaptations that sometimes develop into new traits.

Quote
This is a case of expecting what's already there.  How do you get "hereditary information" in the first place?

It's a case of scientists trying to understand what is there; of course they're not going to predict the existence of the thing that they're studying; if it wasn't there already they wouldn't be studying it in the first place. Sheesh.

As plenty of people have already pointed out, abiogenesis does not have an established theory; enough pieces are known to make it premature to call it impossible. Not being a biologist myself, I can't describe the hypotheses on how RNA based life (or whatever preceeded DNA; afaik RNA is the prime suspect for that) evolved a DNA based inheritance system (i.e., my guesses could be wrong).

Quote
What natural force or law can you point to that would cause you to predict the formation of an information carrying code if you didn't already know one existed?

If such wasn't already known, it's formation might not be predictable. How is that supposed to reduce confidence in any of the conclusions that scientists have reached?

Quote
Face it - they can't provide a detailed explanation for the origin or evolution of anything this way.

That would depend on how much detail one insists on being given; those who dislike the conclusions can always fall back on demanding an unrealistic level of detail. Besides which, the alleged "alternatives" haven't provided a detailed explanation for anything - "designed" isn't an explanation; it's a claim that some agency was responsible. That by itself doesn't even contradict current theory until at least some detail is provided about either the designer(s), his/her/its/their motives, the engineer(s) that implemented it, the methods used, the limitations of those methods, the materials used, the timetable, the goal, or preferably some combination of those.

Quote
It's all in how you look at it.  Your side needs for that simple organ to be useful (along with every step along the way in its development), my side doesn't - it could just be there for future use.

Well, then go find a significant proto-organ that preceeded a later functional organ, without ever having been of any use. Preferably (for your model, that is) one that isn't visibly related to something else.

Quote
Detecting patterns is different from predicting them. Why would accidental naturalism predict convergent evolution such as of placental and marsupial mammals?

That's more contingent than accident. For predators that hunt in packs, some shapes work better for that than other shapes, so variations closer to those shapes are likely to accumulate. At this point, evolution would predict convergence of outward shape of separate species engaging in very similar lifestyles (i.e., in equavalent niches). Ergo, current theory explains (it can't predict something that's already known) that some marsupials developed shapes similar to those of some placentals. (Cetacians and fish are another analogous example of the same principle.)

Quote
I'm predicting that that is the norm.  These species arise in the fossil record before it is advantageous for them to do so, then later the conditions change and suddenly their pre-existing characteristics become an advantage.  IOW, evolution was pre-planned.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. Migrations can happen without need
of being planned, indeed a world with no migrations would be even more in need of explanation than one with them. Also, establishing that something was planned requires details about agency, motive, method, timetable, etc.

Quote
Your side has to come up with a reason explaining why these types were advantageous before they actually were.  My side predicts they will evolve before there's any advantage which would explain their evolution.  Pre-planning.

What the heck does "types were advantageous" mean? Per current theory, species proliferate as niches (lifestyles) become available. If a whole bunch of dominant species die out, those niches are then available to whatever is still around that's able to use them. So again, establishing any "planning" behind that requires some details that are actually explained by the premise that the thing was planned.

Quote
Quote
Yes. A feature that is necessary for survival had to have evolved from something that didn't used to be essential; that follows from the current theory.


"Had to have"?  Are you admitting that an essential feature cannot evolve?

Please read the entire sentence to which you are responding.

Quote
you: * Mathematical patterns useful for information integrity and transmission will be found in the genetic code.

Quote
me: Could be, but without something more specific than that, I don't think it can be distinguished from current theory.

Quote
you: Why would the current theory predict any of this - other than that it's already known to exist?

Your "answer" does not address what was said.

Quote
I based this one on the work of Otto Schindewolf, the preeminent German paleontologist, who found that he could identify repeating patterns of evolution in the fossil record.  If organisms evolved via a constrained and lawful pathway, such would always be the case.  Why would a theory that is based on accidental mechanisms predict such a thing?

Why wouldn't it? Overlooking that "repeating patterns of evlution" is by itself too vague to mean anything, current theory is not based on "accidental mechanisms". Mutations and recombinations (among other things) continuously increase variety; selection processes remove the less successful of those varieties. Mutations are individually random, but there's a huge number of them every generation in any large population, so aside from genetic drift the result is contingent, which is neither random nor accidental. (Besides, "accident" usually means an unplanned result of a planned action, which doesn't apply to events that weren't planned to start with.)

Quote
Efficiency - saves space.  Integrity - multiple uses of the same section of coding insures retention of that code.  Ability - most human designers would do this but probably can't figure out how - it is extremely difficult - God doesn't have that trouble.  Now explain again, why would natural forces be predicted to come up with this?

One can't predict what has already been observed. Although, if saving space was the criteria, seems like our genome could be a lot smaller. Multiple use - if it works adequately, natural selection would retain it. Multiple uses of a section would seem to discourage furthur evolution of that section even if changing one of the uses would be advantageous due to some environmental change; seems like that could be either advantageous or detrimental depending on circumstance.

Quote
If it's truly preparatory, it would be retained, if it's a leftover, it could mutate into anything.  The truth is we have no idea which explanation applies to which sequence.

No, if there's a mechanism present to preserve it, it would be retained. The only mechanism presently known to preserve over geologic time scales is natural selection, and that only works on sequences that are expressed and which make a difference to reproductive success of the species.

Quote
you: * Frame shifting will be found to be a more common mechanism for sudden evolutionary change than previously thought.

Quote
Me: Why? How does that follow logically from the premise that the DNA was deliberately engineered?

Quote
You: It follows from A) embedded coding and B) preparatory coding.

No, that doesn't logically follow. Something doing preparatory coding might use that method, although an explicit on/off switch would probably be safer. Course, all of this "preparatory" stuff depends on having something in there to preserve DNA that isn't as yet expressed. If a mechanism of that sort were present in cells, seems to me it should have been found already, while scientists were studying the mechanisms that they have found.

Quote
Prescribed evolution posits that genome reshuffling is the basis of evolution (see Dr. John Davison's papers).  From that it follows that genomes will be a lot like shuffled decks of cards which then modified themselves for new features.  Saltational evolution.

Reshuffling? Such as genes getting moved around on a chromosome, or from one chromosome to another, or chromosomes getting split or fused together? Events of those sorts are types of mutations. That doesn't imply what I guess you mean by "saltational". As for "modified themselves for new features", that looks to me like a poetic way of saying "repeated cycles of variation plus selection producing adaptations". As for seeing Dr. John Davison's papers, no thank you. I've looked at his "manifesto" before; lots of assumptions, little support for them.

Quote
My argument is based on God's intelligence - NOT his supernatural powers.

I'm not sure how one can separate those two. Intelligence by itself can't do anything; some method of manipulation is necessary as well. But that aside, the premise that an intelligent God is responsible for the universe doesn't in itself say that evolution (or abiogenesis for that matter) didn't proceed via natural processes. You're throwing in an ad-hoc assumption that God wouldn't do things the way science is concluding that they happened. (By ad-hoc, I mean it doesn't follow from the primary assumption.) Ergo, your argument is not based on God's anything; it's based on your assumption that evolution science is somehow wrong in some basic way.

In addition, if "preparatory coding" doesn't involve supernatural something, then it requires so far undetected natural mechanism for the preservation of the coding, which is itself also so far undetected. A mechanism that could do that should have left traces that should have been noticed already, if it existed.

Not to mention (although I have probably mentioned it above) that the front loading hypothesis does not explain the prevalence of matching nested heirarchies. In the simplest interpretation of front loading, species would grab whichever unexpressed feature would best suit their current situation. So to reconcile that with the observed hierarchies, it would also be necessary to posit some rather complex mechanism to prevent species from going outside thier "intended" phylogenic group when activating one of those stored sections of code.

Scientists do have an aversion to positing a bunch of thus far unobserved mechanisms in the absence of a problem that would be solved by that positing, or a prediction from other theories that those mechanisms should be there (a.k.a. Occam's razor).

Henry

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2008,00:33   

If front-loading were the case, it should be possible to look at a genome and say what traits are hidden but have not yet been expressed, to predict the evolution of an organism (unless, of course, you believe that perfection has now been reached and there will be no future change). Daniel - what progress has been made in this direction? Who, indeed, is even working on it?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4015
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2008,01:07   

Quote
Daniel - what progress has been made in this direction? Who, indeed, is even working on it?  

My impression is that that's exactly what he's complaining about, or one of the things, anyway: he thinks scientists should be working on things like that, but aren't because it goes against the rules, or something.

Henry

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2008,02:06   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 22 2008,22:33)
If front-loading were the case, it should be possible to look at a genome and say what traits are hidden but have not yet been expressed, to predict the evolution of an organism (unless, of course, you believe that perfection has now been reached and there will be no future change). Daniel - what progress has been made in this direction? Who, indeed, is even working on it?

Even in the latter case, we have an increasing number of ancient genomes available. If we sequence the ancestors of existing species, it should be possible to find the "front loaded" sequences for subsequently evolved traits.

On the subject of horizontal transfer, Carl Zimmer has a pair of fascinating posts on the emerald green sea slug. Those close minded darwinists have their explanation, can your front loading hypothesis offers something better Daniel ?

BTW Daniel, you never did explain why your designer makes such crap designs. Isn't your so-called prediction based on him being, like super smart and stuff ?

edited for speeelink

  
Quack



Posts: 1748
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2008,04:20   

Quote
You don't have a clue what I believe about the bible (or anything else).  Don't make assumptions.  If you really want a sense of what I believe, go back and read all my posts in this forum.  Don't just breeze in mid-conversation and pronounce judgment.  It makes you look foolish.


I have no intention of going back to read all that Daniel has written, when all he's ever said can be distilled into

1. God did it.
2. Science will prove that.
3. Scientists do not know their stuff, he knows better, and they should adopt his point of view. And become believers like him.

   
Quote
I've finished half of the abiogenesis papers now and I must say that the thing that strikes me most about this subject is, quite frankly, the silliness of it all.


That looks like real foolishness to me. I sometimes (i.e. often) find it too difficult to write in English and this is one of the cases so I will leave it there.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2008,07:43   

Daniel said:  
Quote
So what I hear you saying is "Yes, plenty of hierarchies don't line up".


Daniel, under your "design" theory would

1) All hierarchies match?
2) Some hierarchies match?
3) Other?

Please support your answer. Please give examples and show how you came to that conclusion.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2008,08:45   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 23 2008,01:07)
Quote
Daniel - what progress has been made in this direction? Who, indeed, is even working on it?  

My impression is that that's exactly what he's complaining about, or one of the things, anyway: he thinks scientists should be working on things like that, but aren't because it goes against the rules, or something.

Henry

I should have been clearer. Why are Behe, Dembski, Wells and the rest of the shower not working on this?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2008,08:53   

This is worth repeating:

Front loading would require pre-storage of the countless adaptations, speciation events, ecological interactions, arms races, and even extinction events that have characterized the story of the survival of life on earth, such that countless biological adaptations remain tightly coupled to an endless succession of changing environments and ecosystems over billions of years. Yet the environmental transitions that demand these changes result from physical processes (planetary, geological, meteorological, astronomical, etc.) that are themselves inherently contingent and unguided and which cannot themselves possibly have been "arranged," "planned," or "predicted." This includes the changing microenvironments and apposite adaptations of every extinct and every extant lineage that has taken its place among the astronomical number of ramifications of the tree of life.

This problem stands regardless of the storage capacity of DNA, the action of imaginary error correction methods, even a mechanism to limit the triggering of the expression of adaptive features such that they conform to the nested patterns we would expect to result from descent with modification. It would require God, as "he" used his force of will to assemble the first cells (like people building cars) and stuff them with all this information, to either exercise complete foreknowledge of, or anticipate sustaining complete control over, the output of the sun, the timing and consequences of asteroid impacts, the tectonic formation and reformation of continents and oceans, along with the accompanying geological events, climatological changes, advancing and receding ice sheets, and on and on, over billions of years.  

Not that anything miraculous was involved.

(I'll save Daniel the trouble of responding: "No problem! That just shows that God is really REALLY great!")

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 4015
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2008,17:06   

Quote
It would require God, as "he" used his force of will to assemble the first cells (like people building cars) and stuff them with all this information, to either exercise complete foreknowledge of, or anticipate sustaining complete control over, the output of the sun, the timing and consequences of asteroid impacts, the tectonic formation and reformation of continents and oceans, along with the accompanying geological events, climatological changes, advancing and receding ice sheets, and on and on, over billions of years.

Not that anything miraculous was involved.


Heh. Of course, a being that could handle all that could just as easily arrange for descent with modification to produce the results. Which means that the argument for front-loading refutes the claim that evolution couldn't have happened, since it posits a being that would be capable of causing evolution to happen.

Henry

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2008,17:26   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 21 2008,19:12)
First off Bill, unless you start answering more of my specific arguments, I'm going to assume that the parts of my posts you snip are conceded.

Daniel, I take it then you've conceded 99% of the specific arguments you've failed to respond to over the last few months?

Yes, lets play "ignore it, it's conceded".

Daniel, define "rapid" for me please in each quote below, all you.
     
Quote
the rapid differentiation found at the beginning of the fossil record with the overall genetic continuity that flows throughout

     
Quote
But we know that bacteria, fruit flies and mice - due to their rapid reproduction rates

     
Quote
All advantageous mutations are non-random and are therefore experimentally repeatable and will occurr too rapidly to be random.

     
Quote
I merely said that I would expect the same frame shift to occur more often and more rapidly than random mutations could account for.

     
Quote
you can substitute any "fit", rapidly reproducing species - it doesn't matter, one species should overtake all the others if there's no balance in nature
     
Quote
the sudden appearances and rapid evolution of new forms that delineated the boundaries between ages.

     
Quote
There are countless predictions put forth by Schindewolf, Berg, Davison, etc., that evolution consisted of rapid "explosions" of phyla.
     
Quote
They all made predictions of rapid explosions of phyla in books published well before they died
   
Quote
I'm not under the impression that any of these papers are suggesting any type of rapid evolution - nor did I say they were.

   
Quote
Schindewolf and Davison also championed this view and it makes perfect sense - since it reconciles the rapid differentiation found at the beginning of the fossil record with the overall genetic continuity that flows throughout.

Could you especially define rapid in the context of those last two quotes please, Mr Daniel Smith?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  19124 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (638) < ... 311 312 313 314 315 [316] 317 318 319 320 321 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]