avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Russell,
I'm going through looking for missed questions.
| Quote | No, what I meant is that Behe and Dembski and no doubt others are looking into how to realistically detect design and how.
What leads you to think that? |
They are examining the question of how do we reasonably infer design. Incidentally, over at UD there is a surprising essay by John Stuart Mill in support of design.
| Quote | | But that's the problem with Behe's thesis. It rests on there being no way for these systems to have come about naturally. So what kind of research program has any IDer proposed to figure out a mechanism by which something happened supernaturally? |
Well, I have a problem with questions of this sort because the idea that God causes supernatural events just doesn't compute. It is not a refutation of ID if ID does not know how the designer did it. I know of no research programs capable of detecting supernatural events. But NDE (neodarwinian evolution) doesn't know a lot of things also. One person who has at least taken a stab at proposing how things might have unfolded, albeit designed to do so, is Davison.
| Quote | | What are these alleged very good arguments against "Darawinism"? |
This is what we are spiraling towards. I will have to give it some serious effort, hopefully tomorrow.
| Quote | | Well, now. "SFAIK" is pretty much the key question. How much effort have you put into finding out? And how well equipped are you to judge what you read? You display some very fundamental misunderstandings of basic biology (e.g. the difference between a virus and a bacterium, but I'll get to that in another post). |
This was in reference to the question about IC systems having been refuted. I just read today that Behe is planning an afterword in a 10th anniversary addition to DBB which will address said lack of any forthcoming refutation in the intervening ten years. He'd better have his ducks in a row or he'll get fried. I am not quite sure what you consider effort. I have read criticisms and answers to criticisms, in which literature is sometimes cited. It seems that the ID side usually goes through the literature with a fine comb and finds it wanting, having been promised far more than delivered. I don't actually go through the articles myself.
The bit about slappig down 59 or whatever it was articles during the courtroom trial was just as Behe said - bad courtroom theatrics. It is not to be taken seriously. All evidence used in trial is 'discoverable' which means it must be presented in adequate time to the lawyers of both sides.
When did I misunderstand the difference between a virus and a bacteria?
When I am not equipped to judge what I read, I think I usually know. I can't judge Demski's math, but I can certainly read and evaluate the logic of most of his essays. I can't read biology papers that are beyond my level, which is low, but if it is written for the nonexpert, one would hope that I have at least a fair ability. I was intrigued by, but not able to verify or come to a firm opinion on Davison's Evolutionary Manifesto. That I think would require a pretty deep knowledge of biology.
I had some trouble during the Dover trial getting good links. I read mostly Behe's testimony. It is pretty lengthy but I would be willing to look into it more. There are links back on page 2 that I have not had time to go back to. Are those what you are referring to?
| Quote | | Have you read Matt Inlay's summary of evolution of immunity? |
Is that from the trial?
| Quote | | No, you don't. When you say such and such nonsense is good enough to convince Denton and yourself (and, let's face it, you're taking Denton's word for it), that elevates that nonsense to the same status of credibility as millions of person-hours of intensive research - call it what you want, but that's just postmodernist anti-intellectualism. |
What about the thousands of man hours that Denton has put into his career and his book? I'm just not that moved by majority versus minority opinions. Your argument is that the majority must be right, and my argument that I can make up my own mind - postmodernism says that if it's true for me then it's true for me - a completely different ballgame.
| Quote | | Denton's first book was all about "debunking" common descent. His "equidistance" genetic argument is posed in direct opposition to it. Not just to "gradualism" - a term I think you're a little fuzzy on - but to common descent. Genetic distance does not speak to the rate or pace of change, it speaks to the number of steps between organism A and organism B. Now, I have to admit I've only scanned his second book, because from my scan and the reviews I read, it looked like a thorough waste of time. But I gathered that he dropped that argument altogether. Perhaps you can set me straight: does "equidistance", or any other quibble with common descent - play any role at all in his second book? You call that "Denton's thought progressing nicely". I call it a crackpot abandoning a 150 year old idea that he championed 15 years ago, but attempting to retain his iconoclast hero status with less obviously wrong - because less substantial - mumbo-jumbo. |
I think we are a little fuzzy on common descent, yes. Perhaps the only way to answer your question is to look through the second book. I did look at the index for common descent in the first book, and I didn't turn up any direct statements against it. So I guess it is more implied. Your interpretation of him is different from mine and again, I think the best thing would be to search for any recent statements from him on this. If he didn't make any mention of his prior arguments in his second book it doesn't mean he disavows the evidence he presented. I think he moved on to a more cosmic teleology and he speaks of frontloading. What if that frontloading includes sudden leaps? Does that frontloading corroborate common descent as understood by NDE? I think not.
| Quote | | Our working theory is that both the virus and its host evolve. Do you doubt that? |
I don't think we can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution. Assuming the host is humans, I don't think we are having an apprecable amount of evolution in your lifetime for it to matter much one way or the other. As I already answered, the virus may indeed mutate in pernicious ways.
| Quote | | Do you think the fundamental mechanisms by which the two evolve are different? |
Probably not but I don't think we know how either one evolved, and one is multicellular and the other one - is hard to even define. It is questionable how we get from single celled to multi. So I don't know. But the thing about viruses is that they are purely parasitic - isn't that so? Therefore, they must have evolved after hosts, despite their simplicity.
| Quote | | Do you think that "random mutation and natural selection" accounts for viral evolution, but that some fundamentally different mechanism is required for host evolution? |
No, rather I think that the role of RM and NS are not adequate to produce the life forms. Certainly, the simpler the life form, the more likely that a random or other small mutation could be incorporated successfully into it's structure.
| Quote | | Or do you think there's some intelligence we can't detect driving the changes that sure look like they're due to random mutation and natural selection in the virus? |
Well, as has been recently discovered, bacteria at least turn on mutations and turn them off as well. I find that pretty intelligent. The cell itself is very intelligent and hard to come to terms with. All those thousands of processes utilizing millions of molecules and billions of atoms in every cell, which seems to know how to manage it all. Perhaps there is some sort of cosmic mind permeating all living things. But no, I don't think God helps viruses mutate. Random mutations are just that - errors. On the other hand, when pathogens happen to control their own mutations, I would consider that an interesting possibility for design theorists to add to their list.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that evolution proceeds against and despite the incredible array of error prevention, detection, and repair mechanisms of the replication process? That the mechanism of bringing forth endless millions of varied life forms is errors that slip past the sentinels? That DNA has devised some of the cleverest mechanisms to prevent that which is its greatest salvation? That a process which is usually deadly is also the one that leads to life?
Does that fit in with Occam?
There is nothing surprising in there being general families of viruses or bacteria. You seem to suppose that if I don't believe in NDE, that life forms are quite unrelated to each other and don't even operate upon the same principles.
| Quote | | But please, pray tell, what do you consider the driving force of evolution? Disembodied intelligence? Fascinating! Tell us how that works. Or, more to the point, tell us what evidence you have. |
I have wondered this, and I don't have the answer. Look, here is my understanding of the human situation - we are intelligent but easily confused, we have no idea of the answers to any important question - who are we, what are we, why are we, where are we, what is our future, do we have a future - and we have little or no idea how to find the answers. Our perceptions are filled with fantasy and unreliable. For all intents and purposes, a human being is floating in the endless black without a compass or coordinate.
And there are two kinds of people in this world. A tiny minority who have noticed this, and the rest who haven't thought about it.
Pretending to have answers, or taking the nearest half-decent answer, doesn't satisfy me.
Yes, I think there is disembodied intelligence. My personal take on how it might work is that this intelligence, which may or may not be personal, is acting from within, guiding itself so to speak. This may answer the questions about why the creation isn't perfect or appears willy nilly at times. It very likely is.
| Quote | | So you think there are fundamentally different forces at work? |
What I meant to say was that in your field, mutations are indeed important, but that I doubt mutations are the reason that organisms at a higher level than species or subspecies have evolved. About two years ago when I read Icons of Evolution, about problems with homology, or wait, maybe it was Milton's book, the idea came to me that there is at least one missing mechanism. Sort of like when Darwin proposed variation but had no idea of genetics. I think Darwinists have put all their hopes in the mutation basket because there are more mechanisms they don't know about and they lack the patience to wait it out.
| Quote | | You read a creationist lawyer, with an obvious religious axe to grind, |
His axe wasn't obvious at all. He never mentions it. He doesn't speak for himself much in the book, just presents topics one by one, held together as necessary but largely consisting of quotes. The reason I came to suspect he is a creationist is because several times he uses the term 'abrupt appearance.'
Yes, of course I am familiar with quote mining, and it is a very valid thing to watch for. But creationists were called on it and I think they make good efforts now to place their quotes in the proper context. There is absolutely nothing wrong with presenting a lot of quotes, so long as you have read and understood them as the author meant them, and present it in the same way to your readers. The majority of his quotes are from evolution scientists, and he never pretends otherwise.
I didn't say unsuccsessful vaccines were secret, but there is probably no reason I'd hear of them. I was just curious which diseases this has occured with.
There now, I think I'm caught up.
|
