RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: For the love of Avocationist, A whole thread for some ID evidence< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:22   

Quote (improvius @ Jan. 24 2007,11:00)
 
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,11:27)
4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

I can get you started on this one right now.  Dembski asks:
   
Quote
Why is intelligent design held to such a high standard when that standard is absent from the rest of the empirical sciences (nowhere else in the natural sciences is strict logical possibility/impossibility enforced, not even with the best established physical laws like the first and second laws of thermodynamics)?


His assumption that the theory of evolution is not held to "strict logical possibility/impossibility" is incorrect.  He is arguing, in effect, that evolution is not falsifiable.  In reality, there are many ways to test the falsifiability of the ToE.  And we do not think it is too much to ask the same of ID, if it is to be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.

So, what hypothetical tests would you like to present for ID?

Ahh yes, falsification.

Avo, if (like Dembski) you don't understand this term, then you might be interested in reading this thread at richarddawkins.net, in which AFDave has the concept of falsifiability explained to him in several dozen ways. He still doesn't get it of course, but I'm sure you will, because you are brighter than him, right?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:23   

Quote
Now, again, I dropped by to commiserate a little because of the banning business at UD, which I think I have made pretty clear I dislike. I got jumped by Lenny with "Aha! Here's a creationist - so explain to me creationist, why they wrote what they did in the wedge document. I'll explain Lenny, when you personally account for the eugenics movement as it abuse Darwin's theory in the 1930s - 1950s in this country and Europe, OK?

I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.

1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.


Now THIS I like!

Ok then, I'll kick off with the easy one:

Eugenics. This falls foul of the "Is/Ought" fallacy (at least). Just because it is possible to envisage a scenario in which we could "improve" the human genome by weeding out "undesirables" doesn't we should do so. One should note the words "improve" and "undesirable" are in the case of eugenics carefully undefined, or at least defined in such a way to be consonant with preexisting prejudices. Even if they are rigourously defined then this still doesn't work. I can envisage a sceanrio in which pushing people out of windows is a good thing, this doesn't mean I should do so, nor does it reflect on the accuracy of gravitational physics at the time I have the idea!. Something being real does not equate to it being moral or a fortiori supportive of a moral action.

Ok so now what's left? Mike Gene, Dembski, Denton, and Berlinski. In one sentence: all arguments from personal incredulity wrapped up in the trappings of actual work. All logically fallacious, standard, creationist boilerplate in nice new shiny packages and as such ignorable. If you want the more detailed critique, you'll have to wait beyond this evening. Question my everything to your heart's content, after all I'm not the one who thinks that handwaving by self-confessedly biased individuals promoting a religious agenda (for the most part) constitutes a) positive evidence for anything, or b) a decent reason to abandon all science and replace it with the religious book of choice. Sorry if YOU don't like that.

Oh and btw, nobody has asked you to defend all of IDC at all times anywhere, well maybe Lenny has! What most people have asked you for is YOUR understanding of ID inorder to have a conversation. I know that being asked questions is horribly hostile to the near terminally insecure but if you could try to realise that the "hostility" you "experience" (for I question the validity of both those terms) is due precisely to frustration at your evasiveness, vacuity, and general assumption that the whole world is against you, I for one would be overwhelmingly grateful.

Louis

P.S. Oh and btw give me just one good reason that anyone should take the comments of Dembski et all seriously when the entirety of working scientists in the relevant fields of science to those comments don't take them at all seriosuly and have openly refuted them? Could it be that a) the evidence is not evenly distrubuted, and b) the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the IDCists, not the other way around?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:46   

Quote
"Violation" is easily misused (often by those who are using it for the purpose it was never designed for). An increased amount of disorder would render a low entropic reading. Lesser equilibrium, low entropy. Less complex, higher entropy.


I was simply making the point that subsystems that are not in thermal equilibrium can experience a decrease in entropy. dS/dt for the entire isolated system, which can be expressed as the sum of the entropy of all of the subsystems, must necessarily be positive or 0. Disorder here is the sense that the number of states of the system reaches a maximum at thermal equilibrium. In the case of a gas at a pressure separated by wall with a vacuum, the number of states initially is much smaller than after the divider has been lifted and the system has been allowed to relax into thermal eq. The system naturally picks the state with highest entropy, which will be a state in which the gas particles are distributed evenly in the entire box. It is an irreversible process (since the entropy changes), and therefore must be a state of high disorder as I've defined it.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4045
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:54   

Serendipity,

Re "If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process."

I don't see how the second sentence there follows, since an intelligent designer wouldn't necessarily care if we had an afterlife or not.

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:09   

Quote

AH the old "reading for comprehension" problem. Et tu it would appear Wesley.


Right back at you. I did not endorse Avocationist's notions; I was pointing out where they may have come from.

You can certainly take it from there, though I think that if you insist on speaking in code that the force of the "context" argument is much reduced, and the point about prediction rather than description is far too subtle for readers like Avocationist to appreciate on first misreading.

For someone who believes their words should be studied in the sort of loving detail required of the scholastics, you certainly didn't render that same attention to mine.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Henry J



Posts: 4045
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:10   

Re "I was simply making the point that subsystems that are not in thermal equilibrium can experience a decrease in entropy."

Like in recharging a battery.

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:19   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 24 2007,11:11)
The natural world doesn't care whether its behaviour makes sense to you, or to anybody else.  It just keeps on doing what it's doing, without even pausing to consider whether you like it or not.

Well said and couldn't of been said more precisely.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:23   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 24 2007,11:54)
Serendipity,

Re "If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process."

I don't see how the second sentence there follows, since an intelligent designer wouldn't necessarily care if we had an afterlife or not.

Henry

Henry,

Thats why I was particular in the selection of the words I used. Its not in the designers best interest, but in humanities.

Serendipty goes to work.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:40   

Wesley,

I am not susre where I said Darwin's ideas were misused. Maybe in relation to eugenics?

I am not excusing negative  and insulting rhetoric, I simply made the point that in some of those cases, they are comparing similar behaviors in certain situations, not actually calling the people nazi's, for example.

Quote
Johnson compares Gould to Gorbachev. Again, no discussion of the ideas. Is this really not a comparison: "Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory." ?
It isn't the same sort of comparison as I have seen made, for example, when IDists have compared academic establishment behaviors to a priesthood. That is a direct comparison, but if they compare a situation in which a regime is under challenge to a similar one involving the soviets or Gorbachev, it is not a direct comparison, i.e., they are not calling them communists. He is saying that Gould finds himself in a similar predicament.

Hello Creek (where do some people come up with these names?),

Quote
"A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax


Is it not so that even in an open system, the tendency toward equilibrium is still there, but simply can be counteracted?

I didn't understand your post and I'm not sure I should ask.

Why do you multiply the states, then switch and add them instead, and why do you say that A entropy increases and B entropy decreases and yet say they are not in equilibrium with each other. It wasn't clear to me whether system A and B are interacting. What does the In stand for in this:
( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10)
Quote
Personally, I'm curious in what manner you're interested in applying the 2nd law. Is it abiogenesis, or evolution, or genetic information, or even something as general as having a universe that isn't in thermal equilibrium?
General information about how things work, and specifically about how other laws might be in an interactive system with it.

Chris,

Quote
In scientific terms that's a conjecture or a hypothesis at best.
Yes, it's probably a hypothesis. That's alright with me.
Quote
The 'theory of intelligent design' needs to include what the designer did, and in more detail than 'he designed things somehow'. For example it needs to include whether evolution was frontloaded at some point, or if the designer intervened whenever anything needed doing. It needs to take a position one way or the other on common descent, and most likely the age of the earth. If the earth is young it needs to explain how x number of kinds could evolve into x number of species in a few thousand years. If life was frontloaded it needs to explain how the unused information was not degraded by mutation, and in more detail than something like 'some kind of fantastic error correction mechanism'.
Those are ALL important questions.

Quote

Most importantly this theory needs to make predictions,
I have seen a few. Just reading around. Natch I can't remember them. But I have made one yesterday. I predict that we will find specifics in  genetics/embryonic development that prevent species from jumping the species barrier. I.e., we will find a species barrier. Of course, that could be a problem if there is frontloading. If there is frontloading, we will have to find out how the programming allows for saltation into new species, on a periodic but not gradual basis.

Demallion,
Quote
The big problem with your use of entropy, is that you wish to refer to some properties of entropy in a closed system.
So does entropy have any effect on a biological organism? What about when it dies?

Do you really think I don't know what you posted about the mechanism of evolution? Are you really unaware that much has been written to refute that? Are you unaware that while it might sound good it might not stand up to scrutiny? I mean, what was the point in assuming I didn't know that mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution? If you didn't read my post, why throw in your two cents? I clearly stated it isn't adequate, and I think it is a wrong turn that the theory took, and its salvation lies in rethinking that.

Cedric,

If you'll note, I made a general response to 3 posters together. One of them said he wished that just once an IDer would state what the theory of ID is. Now, that's pretty absurd since it is clearly and often stated at the various sites. As to your request that I put my theory in my own words, I consider that a silly time waster. Does each of you have your own personal theory of evolution? would you feel called upon to improve upon, say, Mayr's def?

What I gave you was plenty of my own thoughts and ideas, as well as a quick run down of where I'm coming from, what I've read and considered important. You want to play a little game on your terms.

The bit about if I was at a party is actually a good way to put it, but I am not sure I'd bother at the party. I'd give a very vague rundown, and tell them that if they are truly interested and they probably are not, that I can loan them a book. I'd tell them that things are not alwasy as they appear and they may have heard one side.

I think I said quite a few interesting things in my post. the one liner wasn't even for you.

Don-
Quote
Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why?


Are you completely unaquainted with the literature? What have you read?

Serendipity,

That last paragraph, in italics, is it from you? The conclusion that an intelligent designer gives us hope for immortality doesn't really follow.

If it is from you, then it means you find the arguments of Denton, Dembski, Behe, Meyer insultingly simplistic.

In that case, I'd like you to answer the following and clear it up for me,
Quote
   If selection could, in principle, accomplish “anything,” then all the order in organisms might reflect selection alone. But, in fact, there are limits to selection. Such limits begin to demand a shift in our thinking in the biological sciences and beyond. We have already encountered a first powerful limitation on selection. Darwin’s view of the gradual accumulations of useful variations, we saw, required gradualism. Mutations must cause slight alterations in phenotypes, But we have now seen two alternative model “worlds” in which such gradualism fails. The first concerns maximally compressed programs. Because these are random, almost certainly any change randomizes the performance of the program. Finding one of the few useful minimal programs requires searching the entire space ­requiring unthinkably long times compared with the history of the universe even for modestly large programs … But the matter is even worse on such random landscapes. If an adapting population evolves by mutation and selection alone, it will remain frozen in an infinitesimal region of the total space, trapped forever in whatever region it started in. It will be unable to search long distances across space for higher peaks. Yet if the population dares try recombination, it will be harmed on average, not helped. There is a second limitation on selection. It is not only on random landscapes that evolution fails. Even on smooth landscapes, in the heartland of gradualism, just where Darwin’s assumptions hold, selection can again fail and fail utterly. Selection runs headlong into an “error catastrophe” where all accumulated useful traits melt away…. Thus there appears to be a limit on the complexity of a genome that can be assembled by mutation and selection!

   Stuart Kaffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 183-184.


While you are at it, resolve the Haldane's dilemma.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:41   

Quote
I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.

1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

It's so sad.  Avo thinks he/she can easily demonstrate the unfairness of our demands to actually cite ID theory and evidence by turning the questioning around and demanding the same pathetic level of detail we all know we'll never get from him/her or from ID.  Of course, it will impact Avo's thinking not one bit that the people he/she's arguing with can immediately begin to thoroughly answer her questions, and he/she will never own up to the real meaning of the contrast between this and his/her/ID's own total inability and obstinate refusal to forthrightly answer ours.
 
Quote
If you don't like the theory of evolution, no-one is going to be impressed with the nasty taste in your mouth.  What's your evidence for not liking it?

Right.  Because, Avo, you're not just disliking it, you're trying to convince others they should dislike it too.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,13:07   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)
In that case, I'd like you to answer the following and clear it up for me,
Quote
   If selection could, in principle, accomplish “anything,” then all the order in organisms might reflect selection alone. But, in fact, there are limits to selection. Such limits begin to demand a shift in our thinking in the biological sciences and beyond. We have already encountered a first powerful limitation on selection. Darwin’s view of the gradual accumulations of useful variations, we saw, required gradualism. Mutations must cause slight alterations in phenotypes, But we have now seen two alternative model “worlds” in which such gradualism fails. The first concerns maximally compressed programs. Because these are random, almost certainly any change randomizes the performance of the program. Finding one of the few useful minimal programs requires searching the entire space ­requiring unthinkably long times compared with the history of the universe even for modestly large programs … But the matter is even worse on such random landscapes. If an adapting population evolves by mutation and selection alone, it will remain frozen in an infinitesimal region of the total space, trapped forever in whatever region it started in. It will be unable to search long distances across space for higher peaks. Yet if the population dares try recombination, it will be harmed on average, not helped. There is a second limitation on selection. It is not only on random landscapes that evolution fails. Even on smooth landscapes, in the heartland of gradualism, just where Darwin’s assumptions hold, selection can again fail and fail utterly. Selection runs headlong into an “error catastrophe” where all accumulated useful traits melt away…. Thus there appears to be a limit on the complexity of a genome that can be assembled by mutation and selection!

   Stuart Kaffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 183-184.


While you are at it, resolve the Haldane's dilemma.

Wow. Talk about ships at night. Try looking into "genetically isolated populations". Then, if I may be so hopeful, read Gould. Seriously.

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
.

That book is where he outlines his problems with evolution. You might be surprised to find that, although large, it is quite readable. I am often reminded of this thread when I read comments like yours.

Do you think you are open-minded?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,13:11   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Quote

Most importantly this theory needs to make predictions,
I have seen a few. Just reading around. Natch I can't remember them. But I have made one yesterday. I predict that we will find specifics in  genetics/embryonic development that prevent species from jumping the species barrier. I.e., we will find a species barrier. Of course, that could be a problem if there is frontloading. If there is frontloading, we will have to find out how the programming allows for saltation into new species, on a periodic but not gradual basis.

Ah, I see.  You are confused about what we mean by "predictions".  It is not meant in the sense that you take it - that we will somehow find evidence in the future.  Think of it as more of an if-then statement.  IF humans and apes share a recent common ancestor, THEN we should have relatively similar DNA to modern-day apes.  ELSE humans and apes do not share a recent common ancestor.

Predictions are tied to the concept of falsifiability.  Your predictions are scientifically useless because (as far as I can tell), a negative result will not falsify your theory.

So far you still seem to be stuck with "Someday there will be evidence for ID, though I am not sure what that specific evidence will be."

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,13:12   

Quote

I am not excusing negative  and insulting rhetoric, I simply made the point that in some of those cases, they are comparing similar behaviors in certain situations, not actually calling the people nazi's, for example.

Quote

Johnson compares Gould to Gorbachev. Again, no discussion of the ideas. Is this really not a comparison: "Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory." ?


It isn't the same sort of comparison as I have seen made, for example, when IDists have compared academic establishment behaviors to a priesthood. That is a direct comparison, but if they compare a situation in which a regime is under challenge to a similar one involving the soviets or Gorbachev, it is not a direct comparison, i.e., they are not calling them communists. He is saying that Gould finds himself in a similar predicament.


I didn't say that Johnson was calling Gould a communist. I said that he was making an invidious comparison of Gould to Gorbachev. Which he did. This is not a hair-splitting moment.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,13:21   

Hi Avo,

I can't answer your whole question, but I can clear up this bit until CB comes by:
Quote
Why do you multiply the states, then switch and add them instead, and why do you say that A entropy increases and B entropy decreases and yet say they are not in equilibrium with each other. It wasn't clear to me whether system A and B are interacting. What does the In stand for in this:
( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10)

ln (that's a lowercase L, not an I), is the natural logarithm function. Creeky has not "switched" anything, but rather has expressed the function differently. The natural logarithm of X times Y ALWAYS equals the natural logarithm of X plus the natural logarithm of Y.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Henry J



Posts: 4045
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,13:40   

Re "Because, Avo, you're not just disliking it, you're trying to convince others they should dislike it too."

Besides which, disliking a conclusion and thinking it to be wrong, are two different things. For all I know, some evolutionary biologists might personally dislike some of conclusions of the ToE, but that doesn't mean they think they're wrong.

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,14:12   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 24 2007,18:09)
Quote

AH the old "reading for comprehension" problem. Et tu it would appear Wesley.


Right back at you. I did not endorse Avocationist's notions; I was pointing out where they may have come from.

You can certainly take it from there, though I think that if you insist on speaking in code that the force of the "context" argument is much reduced, and the point about prediction rather than description is far too subtle for readers like Avocationist to appreciate on first misreading.

For someone who believes their words should be studied in the sort of loving detail required of the scholastics, you certainly didn't render that same attention to mine.

Touche et pointe!

Now THIS is why arguing with someone with a brain is a true joy.

I was wrong Wesley, and being slightly naughty. My apologies and thanks.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,14:23   

{at a party}

Me: So, the theory of I.D., eh? What do you mean by that?

Avo: The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why?

Avo: Are you completely unaquainted with the literature? What have you read?

Me: I've never heard of it before, but you seem to think it explains natural phenomena well. I was just wondering which features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design?

[throw me a frickin' bone here!]

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,14:24   

Quote
Hello Creek (where do some people come up with these names?),


In high school my friend and I spent a whole summer making short, stupidly comedic movies, and it took so much of our time we ended up missing meals; thus our bellies creaked.  It became the nickname of our production company, and just kinda stuck with me.

Quote
"A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax

Quote

Is it not so that even in an open system, the tendency toward equilibrium is still there, but simply can be counteracted?

I didn't understand your post and I'm not sure I should ask.


You can do work on certain subsystems to decrease entropy, but the work you do will always result in the entropy of the whole system (including you) remaining constant or increasing.

Quote

Why do you multiply the states, then switch and add them instead, and why do you say that A entropy increases and B entropy decreases and yet say they are not in equilibrium with each other. It wasn't clear to me whether system A and B are interacting. What does the In stand for in this:
( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10)


So you multiply the states because you can have the following:

State A (1-6)   State B (1-10)
1                     1
...                    ...
1                     10
2                     1
....                   ....
6                     10

therefore there are 6x10=60 total states.
Entropy uses a logarithm, which allows us to add the quantities since it has the property that:

logarithm(6x10) = logarithm(6)+logarithm(10)

There are different logarithm bases to choose from, and the simplest is base 10, so that:

log(10) = 1

therefore:

log(1000) = log(10x10x10) = log(10)+log(10)+log(10) = 3

There's what we call the natural logarithm, as well, in a base which is called 'e', and is abbreviated 'ln'

ln(e) = ln(2.7181) = 1

It has the same additive properties as the other base 10, but the actual values will be different.

In this setup A is allowed to interact with B, but is otherwise isolated.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,14:27   

Hmm. Well, Avocationist, I find myself somewhat torn here.
I recognize that you're merely attempting to turn the evidentiary table -- asking that people here dismantle ID claims before you have produced any evidence of it --

I think it's somewhat useful to point out that IF you had indeed an INFORMED opinion on the subject at hand, you'd have actually read all reasonably available material from the opposing camp.

At any rate, in the interest of actually getting you to produce what you believe to be evidence FOR ID (rather than merely against Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory), I'll point you to a few well-known examples of what you asked for:

On the flagellum:    
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum_evolu.html Be sure to read the linked paper(s) cited there and in the comments.

Critiques of Denton can be found at:  
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html  
http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/denton.html

A discussion of Haldane's dilemma can be found at :  http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....-154697 Posted by caligula on January 11, 2007 4:53 PM. Note particularly the discussion of intra-species competition. All members of a given species compete for resources. In a finite landscape...members of a species will compete not merely against other species, but also amongst themselves. ReMine ( as he abuses Haldane)  seems unable to deal with this, and has not addressed it at all to my knowledge.

In regards to the Kaufmann quote: Kaufmann is doing two things there:
One, pointing out that selection is falsifiable and limited (contrary to the claims of ID-ers, who say silly things about "Evilushunists claim selection can do anything!!")

Two, he is pointing out that the real world of evolution is neither one great unbounded, utterly random search nor is it a great smooth plane. We only have a sample of ONE planet where life exists and on this planet constraints exist that preclude PURE randomness and that life does not proceed by ONLY mutation and selection. There are other means known by which variation occurs.

Now, would it be possible for you to lay out your evidentiary support FOR ID?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,14:36   

Avocationist: I'd also like to politely ask that if you have specific disagreements with what I posted, that you'd at least hold off a bit on those and instead focus on PRECISELY what evidence from ID you find so compelling?
I'm hoping for something a bit more substantive than arguments from incredulity and "because I said so." Arguments that actually have a bit of science in them are preferred in science, I should think. Thanks.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,15:02   

From page 188 of Kaufmann's "At Home in the Universe" ( the end of the chapter you cited):
" ..we return to a tantalyzing possibility: that self-organization is a prerequisite for evolvability, that it generates the kinds of structures that can benefit from natural selection. It generates structures that can evolve gradually, that are robust, for there is an inevitable relationship among spontaneous order, robustness, redundancy, gradualism and correlated landscapes."

I should have added this to the post I made above -- Kaufmann is specifically arguing for that self-organizing principles work hand-in-hand with variation and selection in a rugged landscape to produce order that is stable, even at the "chaotic edge" of a non-linear framework. ( but this doesn't mean "infinitely stable")

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,15:12   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Is it not so that even in an open system, the tendency toward equilibrium is still there, but simply can be counteracted?

I'm just curious - do you think that our planet is or has ever been in or near a state of equilibrium?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,15:26   

Quote
Those are ALL important questions.
Which all need to be addressed before you can claim there is a theory of design, which needs to be done before you can claim positive evidence for design. The alternative would be strectching incredulity to breaking point, but this would involve something like producing the designer, discovering a centaur or a unicorn,or decoding a stretch of DNA that reads 'designed circa 4004 BC'.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4045
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,16:04   

Re "discovering a centaur or a unicorn,"

Course, that by itself wouldn't be evidence that anything else was deliberately engineered - something with bioengineering tech and a sense of humor might have read some human mythology and decided to pull a prank (i.e., it might have nothing to do with how anything else originated).

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,16:31   

Quote (k.e. @ Jan. 24 2007,01:37)
Avo. I suggest you devise an experiment to test for g$d then sit back and wait, when you get the results and you don't like them ......wait some more.

Just for the excercise how would you test for g$d?

I can give you plenty of examples if you want.

I've asked that same thing of her several times.  Good luck getting an answer.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,16:32   

Avocationist:

 
Quote
1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.


These aren't bad topics..... I've been looking for an answer to 3 for a looooooong time. But keep in mind that some of these arguments are much broader in scope than others. For example, Berlinski's criticism of N-P, even if valid, only touches on one paper. 2, on the other hand, is a broadside on common descent itself. Maybe we should focus on Denton for now. One problem is that Denton himself has repudiated much of the arguments in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. There are other problems with the book which I'll get to tonight. Deadman's links are certainly worth a look.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,17:57   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.

And you intend to, uh, actually READ them . . . ?

Or will you just page through it briefly and find it boring, like you did Mayr . . . .

I see no need in attempting to teach someone who simply doesn't want to hear it.

Paticularly when that person can answer all of her own questions with ten minutes of Google.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:04   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

By the way, Avo, didja know that Denton repudiated that book in his very next book, declared that ID is full of crap, and left the Discovery Institute?

Didja know that Berlinski also thinks ID is full of crap?

Silly me --- of COURSE you don't know that --- you're utterly and totally pig-ignorant of the entire topic.  Just like you were when you declared that the Roman Catholic Christian Ken Miller's science textbook taught students that there is no need for God, and when you stupidly declared that the word "unguided" was dropped from his textbook, when in fact that word was added to the Kansas science standards --- and it was added BY THE CREATIONISTS.

And you wonder why everyone here thinks you're an uninformed buffoon?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:08   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
Now, again, I dropped by to commiserate a little because of the banning business at UD

Hey Avo, did it ever occur to you to wonder why the IDers think you're just as nutty as everyone here does . . . . .?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:08   

Quote
I predict that we will find specifics in  genetics/embryonic development that prevent species from jumping the species barrier. I.e., we will find a species barrier. Of course, that could be a problem if there is frontloading. If there is frontloading, we will have to find out how the programming allows for saltation into new species, on a periodic but not gradual basis.
Firstly I keep quite up to date with the literature and currently there is absolutely no evidence of this barrier, in fact is is considerably less likely than it was a decade ago. Secondly the way you prove frontloading is to first hypothesize mechanisms and then make predicitons. I don't see how you can 'discover frontloading' and the work out the mechanism. Im pretty sure that it would be a lot easier to disprove evolution by proving that there is some kind of frontloading mechanism than just coming up with negative arguments. This is what the ID people should be doing, and if they are right this whole debate will be over much quicker. Unfortunately they seem to have no wish to do this at all.

Quote
Re "discovering a centaur or a unicorn,"

Course, that by itself wouldn't be evidence that anything else was deliberately engineered - something with bioengineering tech and a sense of humor might have read some human mythology and decided to pull a prank (i.e., it might have nothing to do with how anything else originated).
Your right, I think sometimes I read so much ID stuff that even I start to think evidence against evolution = evidence for ID. Excuse me while I bang my head against the wall a few times.

  
  459 replies since Jan. 22 2007,04:54 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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