avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| Quote | Cedric said
Its just that I am curious what thought processes run through a person's head when they get into the whole ID thing.
Well, I don't know about the word twisting but the referencing of your own words doesn't seem unreasonable.
Occam said
Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.
What is your model, how can it be tested, and what does it predict?
In your response, please feel free to omit references to the alleged inadequacies of any other theory.
Also please keep in mind that part of the bargain is that you need to be prepared to update or discard your theory should it be falsified. If you cannot commit to this, please leave science alone and go back to church.
Stephen quotes Darwin-
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." |
1. I think GCT may have a personality disorder. Of course bringing up previous words is fine, but it was an endless morass. It gets hard to keep up the sense of the back and forth remarks when the conversation takes place with 9 people simultaneously, and everything gets misinterpreted again and again. And always petty stuff.
2. 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.
3. My model? Why would I have my own model? My own prediction, is that as we learn more about evo-devo and epigenetic factors, we will learn exactly why a species cannot go beyond certain bounds. People constantly say ID needs to do its own research and blah blah, but the results of the world's research are public domain, and I certainly note the frequency with which UD finds new little aspects of some article that seem promising toward an ID perspective. The main difference between ID and NDE isn't the research, but how the research is interpreted. However, it is no doubt true that from an ID perspective junk DNA would not have been as easily dismissed, and I remember thinking years ago when I heard about it, "that can't be right." If more researchers had an ID mindset, it would from time to time cause them to interpret or react differently.
4. I certainly refuse to agree to omit any references to the inadequacies of nde. That just won't fly. If a theory is inadequate, then it's inadequate. Whether or not you happen to have a well-thought out alternative is just irrelevant. When you notice a problem in your theorems, you go to work trying to fix it. Nor will I apologize for my incredulity.
5. Yes, I update and discard ideas all the time and plan to continue. It wouldn't bother me in the least if random processes were capable of generating life forms. I just don't think they are. Now, how much would it bother you to discard NDE? Honestly now.
The bolded part of Darwin's paragraph are quite Lamarkian! But that's not to criticize. Lamarkian ideas seem quite intuitive to me, and after all he was working with what he had.
Now, I have read probably 8 or 10 books and found their arguments persuasive. You people should be well aware of them. Not to mention articles on the net. I have especially enjoyed the refutations and answers by the authors of works, since I get to see their works attacked and defended. It doesn't matter much, though, because as someone here said, they didn't find Darwin's Black Box impressive, and I did. I think Demski won the flagellum debate hands down. I think Berlinski won the fish eyes papers debate as well. I just don't find the NDE arguments persuasive. I find them shallow. I read Mike Gene's 5-part essay on the flagellum, including its assembly, and I plead incredulity. No way that could arise by random processes. The arguments against RM+NS are just too good.
Also, I am quite sure that evolution proceeds by a saltational route.
Someone mentioned dating methods. Isn't that mostly for YECers? I think the human race is far, far older than 100,000 years. I have no idea how old. I don't know how old the universe is, or whether some sort of memory pattern from prior universes could be impressed upon it. I don't see how, but I'd like to think so. Now that would be evolution!
I deeply believe and hope in evolution. I like to think of the universe as on a trajectory of becoming, with many planets full of life forms. What I take issue with, the rock bottom that I am certain of, is that NDE is on an absurdly wrong path, in supposing that the mechanism of evo is mutations of the genome. Mutations of the genome is not a positive. Nor is it adequate. Yeah, yeah, I know about transpositions and duplications and deletions and cooption.
I don't know how life evolved, nor does anyone. It stumps me. It may not even have evolved here on our planet, which means we wouldn't even have accurate clues. But let's not think about that.
I consider the mind of God responsible for it ultimately, but not necessarily in a personal God kind of way. Maybe DNA itself is an immortal or semi-immortal life-spirit that works from within. Think about it. From the first DNA to now, no such thing as death. It just goes on and on. Maybe there are platonic patterns that forms get kind of 'pulled' into conformity with.
What the theory of evolution needs is a mechanism. That's the problem. No mechanism to account for what we see. But there is progress. People are looking at emergent properties, and self-organizing properties. I don't think that's enough, but it's a big help.
You guys really ought to read Denton. He is looking hard at understanding evolution from a whole cosmic point of view, and he believes that life forms evolve as a result of intrinsic properties of matter and physics, at least in part. Very teleological but very naturalistic and nonDarwinian. There is nothing in his views that ought to be repugnant to any but the most hard boiled atheist or Biblical literalist. (Even Dawkins really only dislikes the stupidities of religions and what gets done in its name.)
One thing Denton has explained that goes along with my own approach is how all-of-a-piece this whole universe is. While there is a qualitative gap between animate and inanimate objects, nonetheless, living things are quite firmly nestled in the physical laws that surround them. The universe, its laws, and its elements are the supporting structure for life forms. I don't know if there is a better synopsis of the amazing level of fine tuning that exists than Nature's Destiny. The first few chapters are a little dry, but powerfully important.
If there is anyone on this whole playing field who can be a mediator and facilitator of salvaging evolution theory it is Denton. I want him knighted. You guys cling to random mutation because it's all you've got but it's less than nothing.
Here's a Denton quote:
| Quote | | A fascinating aspect of the folds, which we first pointed out in our papers, is the way adaptations are in every case the secondary modification of a primary natural form. I am now quite sure that the discovery that the protein folds are natural forms is only the beginning of what may turn out to be a major Platonic revision of biology, and an eventual relocation of biological order away from genes and mechanism and back into nature- where it resided before the Darwinian revolution. |
I find the information arguments compelling, and here is a little snip from scordova:
| Quote | But I don’t think we have even touched the tip of the iceberg. One simple example. At first we observed the translation of DNA into a protein, kind of a nice sequential, start-to-finish read and write. Apparently no big deal. Then we saw that in some cases that the same strand of DNA could be tranlated backward into yet another meaningful protein. Then we saw the same process with frame shifting!!!
The level and compactness of information is astounding. Even today we know there exists not just one layer of coding but layers and layers and layers. I seem to recall Sanford saying it appears that not just one level of coding exists for DNA but maybe 12 have been so far discovered. |
What I'd like to see is some good refutations of Denton's book. Unfortunately, what the promoters of the book being shown at the top of this forum page had to say made me roll my eyes, and the one negative review was idiotic as well.
By the way, Febble did a bangup job of stating why she thinks natural selection is capable of generating IC systems. I just did not think her arguments were compelling enough.
Alright here's another prediction: You can have your evolution, but you gotta change the package. A lot. I mean, look at it this way. The knowledge of the cell and of genetics in Darwin's day was nil, and shortly thereafter we had Mendel. Soon as the evo's got over that shock, they incorporated it, and it was the only game in town and they've been running with it ever since. RANDOM MUTATION HAS GOT TO GO. I'M BEING YOUR FRIEND HERE!
|
