Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The limits of darwinism.

Posted: Feb. 01 2010,18:42

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,09:24)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,09:18)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,08:35)

But from a functional perspective, they also weaken those with this desease.

Is being "weakened" better or worse then "dead"?

Definitly better, from an evolutionary perspective. And Aferensis provided that study that showed that even though there may be an initial weakening, evolution can also just as easily provide mittigating mutations to strengthen the organism.

Actually, I linked to Zhang's work on pancreatic and digestive Rnases. For the other you need to start with Labbe's work on the Ace gene and Weill and references therein.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,08:50

So I found this list in one of PZ Myers' review of Edge.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....t_i.php

Quote

Beyond evolultion or showing evidence of intelligent fine tuning.

Laws of nature
Physical constants
Ratio of fundamental constants
Amount of matter in the universe
Speed of expansion in the universe
Properties of elements such as carbon
Properties of chemicals such as water
location of solar system in galaxy
location of planet in the solar system
origin and properties of Earth/Moon
properties of biochemicals such as DNA
origin of life
genetic code
multiprotein complexes
molecular machines
biological kingdoms
developmental genetic programs
integrated protein networks
phyloa
cell types
classes

Tentative edge of Random Evolution

Orders
Families
Genera

Contingency in Biology

Species
Varieties
Individuals
Random mutations
Environmental accidents

Regardless of what you believe about ID's opinion on the intelligent causation of those things listed that are beyond evolution or show signs of fine tunning, my question is as follows:

1-Are the items listed in the first part of Behe's list truly beyond what current research in evolution can prove?
2-If yes, are Darwinists invoking an evolutionary version of the God of the Gaps argument to explain these things, just as the IDer invoke an intelligent design God of the Gaps argument to explain these things?

I guess my question boils down to what is truly the edge of what Darwinistic evolution can definitely claim using their arguments, and what is purely speculation?

Based on my viewing of Expelled (a truly bad movie, I know) it seemed that Ruse and Dawkins couldn't provide a non speculative account for the origins of life, at the very least....

Before you jump to the conclusion that I'm trying to prove ID correct, let me just make it clear that I think ID is a God of the Gaps argument, and therefore will always remain in the realm of non-science and pure speculation.

Anyone want to take a crack at it?

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,09:18

Quote

it seemed that Ruse and Dawkins couldn't provide a non speculative account for the origins of life

Science proposes an account. Science tests the plausibility of that account. Science moves onto the next account. Rinse. Repeat. What has ID brought to the table? "A designer did it". Nothing else whatsoever. I imagine that there will always be some level of speculation in any account, no matter how well supported. We're talking about things that happened a long long time ago. If you want absolute certainty you know where that can be found - religion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm
� �

Quote

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a 'primordial soup' of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the 'soup' theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.
Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all," said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College London. "We present the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent -- one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores."

Whereas for 2000+ years it's been accepted that "the designer" created life and nothing has progressed in that regard.

Also have a look at autocatalytic networks. We may have to settle for a plausible account.

--------------
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

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,09:18

Quote

Are the items listed in the first part of Behe's list truly beyond what current research in evolution can prove?

Everything down to and including "origin of life", certainly. The theory of evolution does not attempt to address any of them.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,09:23

Notice the critical phrase in that text I quoted

Quote

We present the alternative

It's easy to say why something is wrong, not so easy to propose an alternative. ID has never presented an alternative that can be tested.

So unless an account is available that is not speculative, you'll have to put up with a speculative one.

--------------
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

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,09:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 03 2010,09:18)

Quote

it seemed that Ruse and Dawkins couldn't provide a non speculative account for the origins of life

Science proposes an account. Science tests the plausibility of that account. Science moves onto the next account. Rinse. Repeat. What has ID brought to the table? "A designer did it". Nothing else whatsoever. I imagine that there will always be some level of speculation in any account, no matter how well supported. We're talking about things that happened a long long time ago. If you want absolute certainty you know where that can be found - religion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm
� �

Quote

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a 'primordial soup' of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the 'soup' theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.
Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all," said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College London. "We present the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent -- one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores."

Whereas for 2000+ years it's been accepted that "the designer" created life and nothing has progressed in that regard.

Also have a look at autocatalytic networks. We may have to settle for a plausible account.

I think that for as long as we have only plausible evidence for some biological structures, we will have creationists trying to plug the holes with God.

In other words, so long as their is a possibility that God did something, they will jump on that possible bandwagon, even though there is no way to test the plausibility of this kind of account.

Cheers,
Ut

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,11:19

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,09:58)

I think that for as long as we have only plausible evidence for some biological structures, we will have creationists trying to plug the holes with God.

In other words, so long as their is a possibility that God did something, they will jump on that possible bandwagon, even though there is no way to test the plausibility of this kind of account.

Good work. You've discovered the reason that creationism (ID included) can't stand on its own as science. Once you allow for variables that can't be isolated and controlled, science goes out the window. There's a famous cartoon that illustrates the point perfectly:

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,12:06

At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,12:18

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)

At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

What if, indeed. It's not turtles all the way down, so you're still left with explaining E.T.

The point is that we can only use the tools and evidence we have to understand things. In that sense it doesn't matter if we're the result of some sort of panspermia, nor does it matter if jebus hisownself waved a wand at some point. If we can't see evidence of such things, we have to assume causes that exist within the framework of knowledge we have now.

IDers like to disingenuously claim that they don't need to identify their designer, and that what they see as evidence for design is enough. But it's clearly not enough, because it's impossible to tell the difference between the work of their designer and what they like to refer to as "nature working freely."

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,12:32

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 03 2010,12:18)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)

At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

What if, indeed. It's not turtles all the way down, so you're still left with explaining E.T.

The point is that we can only use the tools and evidence we have to understand things. In that sense it doesn't matter if we're the result of some sort of panspermia, nor does it matter if jebus hisownself waved a wand at some point. If we can't see evidence of such things, we have to assume causes that exist within the framework of knowledge we have now.

IDers like to disingenuously claim that they don't need to identify their designer, and that what they see as evidence for design is enough. But it's clearly not enough, because it's impossible to tell the difference between the work of their designer and what they like to refer to as "nature working freely."

So until we find evidence of Jebus laboratory, or E.T.'s landing site, we can't invoke it as a possible explanation?

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,13:03

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:32)

So until we find evidence of Jebus laboratory, or E.T.'s landing site, we can't invoke it as a possible explanation?

Cheers,
Ut

I refer you to the Church of the flying Spaghetti Monster.

You can invoke anything as a possible explanation, but if you've no actual evidence for it then you can fit anything at all into that gap, all with the same level of confidence.

Quote

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I�m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I�m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don�t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

And I ask you, why Jebus anyway? There are many other deities worshipped around the world. Why does the Christian version have to be "the truth" when there are plenty of other competing religions out there, all with the same level of evidence. I.E. None whatsoever.

--------------
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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,13:11

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)

At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

In the same way we would detect genetic engineering now.

Yet it so happens that "the designer" has, so far, made everything in such a way so that miracles are not required as an explanation for observed data. The same cannot be said for human genetic engineering, for example Jellyfish genes making glow in the dark cats. Not possible from an evolutionary framework, cats with Jellyfish genes exactly as they are in Jellyfish.

� �

Quote

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

What of it? You still have to explain where E.T came from. So it just pushes the problem back another level.

And anyway, when pushed IDiots often fall back to the "designed to evolve" idea. Which to my mind is essentially surrendering, accepting evolution happens but leaving open the question of how the first replicator came to be. And as I said earlier, there will probably never be a 100% exact answer to that, and that gap will probably last for ever. �If people want to pretend that is somehow evidence for a designer, more fool them.
� �

Quote

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

You would start from the data that leads you to believe that E.T intervened. Do you have such data? Until such appears I prefer to think that his noodly appendage reached through the clouds and created the first microbe. There's as much evidence for that as any other telic intervention. None whatsoever.

--------------
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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,13:14

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)

At the risk of being severely beaten

This place is not that bad!

And I would refer you to this thread

AF DAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS.

And that's just part one!

--------------
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

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,15:59

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,13:06)

At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

Seems to me that you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It is up to those who hypothesize a particular causal account (miraculous intervention, E.T., etc.) to describe necessary and unique empirical consequences (entailments) of that account, such that the the account would be at risk of disconfirmation should we fail to observe those predicted consequences.

Should it prove to be the case that such testable empirical entailments cannot be devised, it follows that the hypothesis cannot be given tractable scientific meaning. That, frankly, isn't a problem for those who are disinterested in the hypothesis.

--------------
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

Cubist

Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,16:24

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)

At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

By proposing a hypothesis of exactly what happened -- a hypothesis which is sufficiently detailed that the proposer could work out what physical evidence was left by that 'miracle', and what to look for in order to confirm that said 'miracle' really was what happened.
If all you've got is "somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intellegint did something"... well... how the heck do you test that?

Quote

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

That question doesn't quite follow from the paragraph you wrote just preeding; I think you meant to ask "How would we discover ET's genetic manipulations?"
Me, I'm not sure we could discover ET's genetic manipulations. We don't know what sort of tools and techniques ET might have used, so we wouldn't recognize the "tooth marks" left by ET's "saws" even if we actually did see them, right? And how do you distinguish a gene altered by ET from a gene altered by random mutation?

On an unrelated note, Utunumsint, a couple pages back I posted a takedown of Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument against evolution. You might want to look it over and see if you can find a way to salvage Behe's argument.

Quack

Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,16:32

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)

but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

AFAIK, the origins of microbes lie billions of years back at a time when the planet hardly would have been habitable for ET.

Further, AFAIK, evidence for nested hierarchies is strong against intervention by IT later that that.

While, still AFAIK, the ongoing studies of genetics, DNA and related issues are strong evidence for natural causes. �

I try to read as much relevant stuff as I can and I found this document very fascinating. There must be tons of interesting things to read out there.

I've found these books useful:

The Riddled Chain, Jeffrey McKee
Your Inner fish, Neil Shubin
Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Sean B. Carroll
The Emergence of Life on Earth, Iris Fry. (Though I don't think I'll recommend it.)

I have not read all of Darwin's but you should of course try some, I enjoy the Victorian style, we are invited into Darwin's thought process in a way not often (if ever?) found in modern books

Good luck, a lifetime won't be enough.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
Robert Byers.

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,17:59

Darn, Ut, my truncheons are out being cleaned. Report here Monday for your beating.

A couple of things. First, regarding "speculation." Creationists are fond of saying scientists "merely speculate" about origin of life chemistry. This is speculation: I think Denver will win the Super Bowl in 2011 because I like Colorado and the word "bronco" is cool. That is mere speculation. Based on nothing but an idea pulled out of my ass.

Origin of life chemistry is an entirely different level based on years of study, thermodynamic and kinetics calculations and experiments, observation and much deliberation. It's not "mere speculation." It's a plausible, supportable chain of events.

Second, dog breeding and intelligent design. Dog breeding is evolution at work. Artificial selection is an artificial term that only means that a human being provided the selection rather than Mother Nature. Technically, what is the difference? If humans select dogs with thick coats because they are pretty or Nature selects dogs with thick coats because it helps them survive cold conditions, what's the difference? Selection is selection.

Humans are not manipulating the dog's genes, not determining which point mutations occur or not and where or not. It's just selection.

Now, jump to "intelligent design" designing DNA. It's not just the DNA, but EVERYTHING in the cell that has to be designed. The membranes, the transport mechanisms, reproduction mechanisms, all the chemistry and equilibria, all the bits and pieces that work in concert with DNA. It's not just the DNA, it's EVERYTHING.

Finally, a bit of sleight of hand. How long did life percolate in that "primordial soup" before multicellular organisms took off? Let's see, using the Cambrian Explosion as a convenient marker, our lineage, the vertebrates have been going for about 500 million years, give or take.

Percolation, using very rough terms, went on for about 3000 million years.

Think about that, Ut, 3000 million years is a long time for mechanisms to be built up step by step, reaction by reaction, component by component, structure by structure.

"Intelligent design" proponents would have you believe that the Designer came along, built the cell, DNA, structures and all that stuff, then TOOK A 3000 MILLION YEAR HOLIDAY, then came back to give it a little nudge.

Seriously? Who's speculating, Ut?

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Feb. 03 2010,19:35

Quote

Me, I'm not sure we could discover ET's genetic manipulations. We don't know what sort of tools and techniques ET might have used, so we wouldn't recognize the "tooth marks" left by ET's "saws" even if we actually did see them, right? And how do you distinguish a gene altered by ET from a gene altered by random mutation?

My guess is that with just one gene, no way. But maybe look for a statistical pattern from lots of genes that would be consistent with "something engineered stuff", but not expected under the current theory?

-----

Quote

If humans select dogs with thick coats because they are pretty or Nature selects dogs with thick coats because it helps them survive cold conditions, what's the difference???Selection is selection.

A thought on that: nature might select something besides thickness of coat, such as how good an insulator it is, or add chemicals that make it better at absorbing heat from the sun, or add a layer of insulating fat under the skin, or tinker with the internal thermostat, or something I haven't thought of.

Henry

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 04 2010,08:35

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 03 2010,13:03)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:32)

So until we find evidence of Jebus laboratory, or E.T.'s landing site, we can't invoke it as a possible explanation?

Cheers,
Ut

I refer you to the Church of the flying Spaghetti Monster.

You can invoke anything as a possible explanation, but if you've no actual evidence for it then you can fit anything at all into that gap, all with the same level of confidence.
�

Quote

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I�m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I�m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don�t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

And I ask you, why Jebus anyway? There are many other deities worshipped around the world. Why does the Christian version have to be "the truth" when there are plenty of other competing religions out there, all with the same level of evidence. �I.E. None whatsoever.

And the answer is, The Mormons. :)

Gatta propogate those spirit children.

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 04 2010,08:48

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2010,15:59)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,13:06)

At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

Seems to me that you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It is up to those who hypothesize a particular causal account (miraculous intervention, E.T., etc.) to describe necessary and unique empirical consequences (entailments) of that account, such that the the account would be at risk of disconfirmation should we fail to observe those predicted consequences.

Should it prove to be the case that such testable empirical entailments cannot be devised, it follows that the hypothesis cannot be given tractable scientific meaning. That, frankly, isn't a problem for those who are disinterested in the hypothesis.

Well Behe's been pretty clear about where he thinks the edge of evolution is in his last book. And ironically, it is that book that is convincing me that ID is ultimatly incorrect.

Here is my thought process so far.

1-Behe seems to have stepped back from his innitial theory of ID that claimed it was impossible to evolve to one of his irreducibly complex machines. Now he seems to be saying that it is not impossible, only exceedingly unlikely.
2-He made the claim in the book that evolution ultimatly weakens an organism, but as oldmandidntdoit argued, and I agreed with is that this is only true when the new organism has to return to the old environment and compete head to head with the old organism. But bring in the old organism into the new environment, and the winner is clearly the new one. So Behe's claim doesn't work.
3-Behe claims that it took 50 or so years for malaria to evolve Chloroquine resistance. The theory is that it created a new protein pump to remove the poisonous haemozoines. Matke argued that there were many more mutations that we can still find here and there that have been removed from the evolutionary record, so to speak. So there were many more selectable mutations paths to CQR than just 10 to the 20th.
4-In a very small population of ecoli, over the space of 20 years, we have a selected sequence of mutations that lead to citrate digestion function. So it took around 20 years to evolve this function. Divide 10 000 years by 20, and you have 500 possible functions that could have evolved in the wild, where the selection pressures are undoubtebly diverse. Divide 3 million years by 20, and you have 150 000 possible functional mutations.....You can create a lot of complexity with those numbers.

All of this leads me to the conclusion that Behe and the IDers are simply wrong. And I have Behe to thank for getting so specific in his argument.

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 04 2010,08:53

Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 03 2010,16:24)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)

At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

By proposing a hypothesis of exactly what happened -- a hypothesis which is sufficiently detailed that the proposer could work out what physical evidence was left by that 'miracle', and what to look for in order to confirm that said 'miracle' really was what happened.
If all you've got is "somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intellegint did something"... well... how the heck do you test that?

Quote

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

That question doesn't quite follow from the paragraph you wrote just preeding; I think you meant to ask "How would we discover ET's genetic manipulations?"
Me, I'm not sure we could discover ET's genetic manipulations. We don't know what sort of tools and techniques ET might have used, so we wouldn't recognize the "tooth marks" left by ET's "saws" even if we actually did see them, right? And how do you distinguish a gene altered by ET from a gene altered by random mutation?

On an unrelated note, Utunumsint, a couple pages back I posted a takedown of Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument against evolution. You might want to look it over and see if you can find a way to salvage Behe's argument.

Hi Cubist,

Sorry I didn't respond to your previous post. I was never really convinced by IR anyway, so I didn't really feel like trying to salvage it. :)

As for ET's intervention in human history. I'm starting to agree with people that it wasn't really necessary, unless they did so in such a way as to be undetectable. In which case we will never know until they suddenly show up and tell us how they did it.

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 04 2010,08:55

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 03 2010,17:59)

Darn, Ut, my truncheons are out being cleaned. �Report here Monday for your beating.

A couple of things. �First, regarding "speculation." �Creationists are fond of saying scientists "merely speculate" about origin of life chemistry. �This is speculation: �I think Denver will win the Super Bowl in 2011 because I like Colorado and the word "bronco" is cool. �That is mere speculation. �Based on nothing but an idea pulled out of my ass.

Origin of life chemistry is an entirely different level based on years of study, thermodynamic and kinetics calculations and experiments, observation and much deliberation. �It's not "mere speculation." �It's a plausible, supportable chain of events.

Second, dog breeding and intelligent design. �Dog breeding is evolution at work. �Artificial selection is an artificial term that only means that a human being provided the selection rather than Mother Nature. �Technically, what is the difference? �If humans select dogs with thick coats because they are pretty or Nature selects dogs with thick coats because it helps them survive cold conditions, what's the difference? �Selection is selection.

Humans are not manipulating the dog's genes, not determining which point mutations occur or not and where or not. It's just selection.

Now, jump to "intelligent design" designing DNA. �It's not just the DNA, but EVERYTHING in the cell that has to be designed. �The membranes, the transport mechanisms, reproduction mechanisms, all the chemistry and equilibria, all the bits and pieces that work in concert with DNA. �It's not just the DNA, it's EVERYTHING.

Finally, a bit of sleight of hand. �How long did life percolate in that "primordial soup" before multicellular organisms took off? �Let's see, using the Cambrian Explosion as a convenient marker, our lineage, the vertebrates have been going for about 500 million years, give or take.

Percolation, using very rough terms, went on for about 3000 million years. �

Think about that, Ut, 3000 million years is a long time for mechanisms to be built up step by step, reaction by reaction, component by component, structure by structure.

"Intelligent design" proponents would have you believe that the Designer came along, built the cell, DNA, structures and all that stuff, then TOOK A 3000 MILLION YEAR HOLIDAY, then came back to give it a little nudge.

Seriously? �Who's speculating, Ut?

I see what you're saying Doc. From a theological perspective (if anyone cares about theology around here) I find evolution much more awe inspiring than a God who has to fix his creation every five seconds. :)

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 04 2010,09:01

Thanks to everyone who've helped educate me on these issue.

I feel like I need to test my newfound knowledge. Does anyone know of a forum where I can find IDers to argue the other side?

No offense, but it seems to me that there is no one here to provide any counter arguments for ID.

Cheers,
Ut

Zachriel

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Feb. 04 2010,09:13

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:01)

Thanks to everyone who've helped educate me on these issue.

I feel like I need to test my newfound knowledge. Does anyone know of a forum where I can find IDers to argue the other side?

No offense, but it seems to me that there is no one here to provide any counter arguments for ID.

Uncommon Descent

Telic Thoughts

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Stephen Elliott

Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Feb. 04 2010,09:18

EDIT

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Uncommon Descent

Telic Thoughts

Posted: Feb. 04 2010,09:24

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 04 2010,09:13)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:01)

Thanks to everyone who've helped educate me on these issue.

I feel like I need to test my newfound knowledge. Does anyone know of a forum where I can find IDers to argue the other side?

No offense, but it seems to me that there is no one here to provide any counter arguments for ID.

I can't figure out how to start threads on these sites. I see you've been busy on the telic web site.

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 04 2010,09:33

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:24)

I can't figure out how to start threads on these sites. I see you've been busy on the telic web site.

You can't, you can just respond to the posts. And over at UD you'll find that the moment you say something one of the moderators does not like you and your comments will be airbrushed from history.

The usage of the ban hammer at UD has been documented on this thread.

Jump to the end to see how the latest moderators (Clive, Barry) use deletion and banning as a tactic to make their case.

Yep, they complain about people being "expelled" but are happy to do it themselves, despite it being against their own stated moderation policy.

--------------
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

Zachriel

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Feb. 04 2010,10:22

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 04 2010,09:33)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:24)

I can't figure out how to start threads on these sites. I see you've been busy on the telic web site.

You can't, you can just respond to the posts. And over at UD you'll find that the moment you say something one of the moderators does not like you and your comments will be airbrushed from history.

Just don't say anything sensible. You'll be alright.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006