Science Friday tomorrow -- Monkey Girl, Flock of Dodos

From the Dover case:

arguments against evolution are not arguments for design.

ID does not argue against evolution, it argues against the theory that random mutations and natural selection can entirely account for the origin of new species. This is a valid objection to the currently accepted neo-Darwinist theory. ID does not have to propose an alternative theory for its argument to be valid.

just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.

So it's ok if neo-Darwinists don't have an explanation -- because they probably will some day. But ID theorists must have an explanation right now.

ID researchers are merely saying that no one knows what causes new species to originate. Scientists currently admit they do not know what caused life to originate. So why insist that they already understand the mechanism of evolution?

Darwin hypothesized that the origin of life could be explained as a series of accidental events, but his hypothesis has not been verified, and has not been supported by mathematics or evidence.

Similarly, Darwin's hypothesis that new species originated by the mechanism of chance variations and natural selection has not been verified or supported by mathematics or evidence.

Yet Neo-Darwinism is accepted on faith, on the assumption that it will be verified some day.

This is not a controversy over whether evolution occurred or not, or whether the Christian bible is literally true. This is about whether the Neo-Darwinian explanation of evolution has been verified, or not. It has not been.

Darwin NEVER hypothesized that the origin of life was anything at all. Darwin never put forth ANY hypothesis about the origin of life. What Darwin actually said was that variability occurs in populations through an unknown mechanism, that species divide into sub-species and that sub-species were the basis of new species. Darwin made no arguments at all about the origin of life, only how living things came to be diverse.

The basis of variability has certainly been verified, but not by Darwin. Heritable variability is genetic. This is true in all living things that have ever been seen. We can phylogenetically trace backward through time to get an increasingly good idea of what descended from what ancestor. Again, this kind of work has certainly been verified with mathematical and increasing precision.

Modern evolutionary biology has a good, and growing, grasp on how biological systems evolve, and increasingly are working backward in time to extremely primitive organisms, this taking place through a number of different disciplines that consistently back each other up despite looking at rather diverse evidence. At no point in any of this cross-referencing has any necessity for design arisen. Are there gaps in the record? Sure. It's a very big record and progress on reading it was very slow until the last 50 years or so, but there's certainly heaps of evidence from numerous fields that either agree or force revisions in the specifics of particular lineages --- but not one that has necessitated a complete overhaul of the principle.

Long story short, biological evolutionary theory has amassed tremendous volumes of corroborating data in its support. ID, on the other hand, seems to do nothing but handwave, make claims about conspiracies, and, apparently, get even the most basic facts about the history and scope of evolutionary theory wrong in order to advance what amounts to a political and religious agenda, never yet finding anything remotely testable or reproduceable to support its assertions.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be listening here in Florida!

arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. ID does not argue against evolution, it argues against the theory that random mutations and natural selection can entirely account for the origin of new species. This is a valid objection to the currently accepted neo-Darwinist theory. ID does not have to propose an alternative theory for its argument to be valid.

just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. So it's ok if neo-Darwinists don't have an explanation --- because they probably will some day. But ID theorists must have an explanation right now.

biological evolutionary theory has amassed tremendous volumes of corroborating data in its support.

Yes, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support evolution. There is also plenty of evidence for random mutations, and for natural selection.

So NDE advocates cite all that evidence as supporting NDE. But it doesn't! You have NO evidence that a new species can be created merely by random mutations and natural selection. It is a matter of faith.

You have tons of evidence for evolution, none for your particular explanation for the cause of evolution.
You have evidence for adaptive changes within a species, but NO evidence that NDE can create a new species.

Darwin NEVER hypothesized that the origin of life was anything at all. Darwin never put forth ANY hypothesis about the origin of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".

ID does not have to propose an alternative theory for its argument to be valid.

arguments against evolution are not arguments for design.

just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.

ID does not argue against evolution, it argues against the theory that random mutations and natural selection can entirely account for the origin of new species.

Posted by realpc on February 22, 2007 4:26 PM (e) Darwin NEVER hypothesized that the origin of life was anything at all. Darwin never put forth ANY hypothesis about the origin of life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".

So because Darwin made a suggestion in a letter to a colleague, he was an expert in the topic, IN THE 1870s?

Yet Neo-Darwinism is accepted on faith, on the assumption that it will be verified some day.

Darwin NEVER hypothesized that the origin of life was anything at all. Darwin never put forth ANY hypothesis about the origin of life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin made the suggestion

my only question is, is this a new troll, or a disguised one?

Must be nice.

Nope, we can all accept "we don't know". But IDers want to replace the "we don't know" position with "designed".

Hope this clarifies

Neo-Darwinists say they know how new species are created. They say, with certainty, that all genetic mutations are random errors. They say with certainty that evolution retults ENTIRELY from random mutations and natural selection.

Neo-Darwinism is a theory that claims to explain the mechanism of evolution.

ID is a mathematical criticism of Neo-Darwinism. ID does not claim to have an explanation of the cause of evolution.

Neo-Darwinists say they know how new species are created. They say, with certainty, that all genetic mutations are random errors. They say with certainty that evolution retults ENTIRELY from random mutations and natural selection.

ID is a mathematical criticism of Neo-Darwinism. ID does not claim to have an explanation of the cause of evolution.

Actually, if you think ID is a proper mathematical critique, I suggest you demonstrate it. Rigorously. Without any waving of hand, obfuscating of math, overloading of terms, and misrepresenting evolution. You've already failed on this last criterion.

Hubert Yockey, a physicist has used information theory to show that life could not have originated by chance. His argument is not very different from what ID theorists are claiming -- new information is not created by chance.

Humans have been creating new breeds of domestic species for thousands of years, but this never involves an increase in information. A new, more complex, species is never created from an existing species through artificial selection.

Similarly, the creation of a new species by natural selection has never been observed. Only variations of existing species.

That is because random accidents do not create meaningful information.

Hubert Yockey, a physicist has used information theory to show that life could not have originated by chance.

ID is a mathematical criticism of Neo-Darwinism.

ID does not claim to have an explanation of the cause of evolution.

Whether "realpc" is a liar or indeed believes what he (she) has posted here, does not matter. He (she)is a troll who has hijacked the thread which originally was about a different topic. I can understand why several commenters felt a need to respond to realpc's arrogant fallacies, but doing so they just played his (her) game. Please stop feeding the troll -let him (her) spew the dreck on the ID's sites. Thanks.

Neo-Darwinists say they know how new species are created.

They say, with certainty, that all genetic mutations are random errors.

They say with certainty that evolution retults ENTIRELY from random mutations and natural selection

ID is a mathematical criticism of Neo-Darwinism.

Sir Toe writes... my only question is, is this a new troll, or a disguised one?

I know you would prefer everyone to be in agreement. Anyone who questions the accepted Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution is considered a troll.

But I think you owe it to yourselve to hear another view, because it might clarify your thinking in some areas.

IDers are as guilty as anyone of muddled thinking. I am as unwelcome at an ID blog as I am here, because I question them also.

People like to belong somewhere, and they like to have their ideas confirmed. So they form homogeneous groups to congratulate and reinforce each other. This leads to intellectual inbreeding, and people with differing views can no longer communicate at all.

This is especially true in the evolution debate, because it has such great philosophical significance for humanity. That's why I care about the subject, and have followed it for 30 years.

A big mistake made by IDers is when they start criticizing aspects of evolution theory that are unrelated to Darwinism. Evolution theory in general, is beyond question, as is natural selecction.

The mistakes made by NDers are when they claim the evidence for evolution and for natural selection supports their theory. It does not.

The ND theory says that the genetic mutations which will be selected from are errors. Of course nothing is really random, because everything must have a cause. But it is essential to the ND theory that these variations are errors, accidents, without purpose. That is the central message of Darwin's hypothesis, and of the currently accepted theory.

Other theories of evolution, such as Lamarckianism, assumed that evolution is in some way driven by some kind of purpose. Only Darwin's theory suggested a way for species to evolve by a combination of accident and competition for survival.

Neo-Darwinism, the currently accepted theory, appeals to many scientists because it attempts to explain evolution without relying on non-material forces or intentions. Naturalism, or materialism, tends to be popular among scientists and they have welcomed ND enthusiastically.

The debate is highly charged emotionally. And, as I said, communication between opponents is amost impossible. Partly because of the intellectual inbreeding, and because so much is at stake. But also because the arguments are highly technical and confusing to everyone, even to the experts.

Neither side has a conclusive argument, and we will have to wait, maybe forever, to for the decision.

My goal is merely to point out what I see as obviously illogical and misleading statements -- claiming evidence for evolution is evidence for ND evoluion, for example.

I don't think the deception is intentional. People have strong feelings on this subject, if they care about it at all. They become more concerned with supporting their side than with looking for truth.

There is emotion involved, but for different reasons:

Fundamentalists of all stripes react emotionally to evolutionary theory because it undermines their sense that humans have some "purpose".

Scientists, evolutionary biologists especially, react emotionally (frustration and anger) when the theory is misrepresented by people who have no clue what they are talking about, or who lie to promote their narrow religious views, or undermine scientific education to placate parents who are themselves ignorant about how science works. "Science" doesn't give a rat's ass about how people "react emotionally" to scientific evidence or the theories developed to organize and explain said evidence.

But it is essential to the ND theory that these variations are errors, accidents, without purpose.

Neo-Darwinism, the currently accepted theory, appeals to many scientists because it attempts to explain evolution without relying on non-material forces or intentions. Naturalism, or materialism, tends to be popular among scientists and they have welcomed ND enthusiastically.

Maybe trolls are evolving.

materilaistic materialistic.

There is infinite room for improvement in our understanding of non-material forces. Start with gravity, for example.

Scientists do not understand the nature of subatomic particles. Their theories about matter include "strings" and higher-order dimensions. Who can claim to really understand matter, or energy?

There are many ideas, not much consensus. The same thing ought to be acknowledged in biology, but it is not. Biologists seem content with the idea that life emerges from inanimate matter, even though the nature of matter is not known (yes there are many theories and equations, but no end in sight to the confusion).

What if matter is ultimately made out of information, for example? This would open up vast philosophical problems and debates, and attempts to define "information."

I think the most promising direction for biologists would be to investigate the possible existence of biological fields and energies. If physicists try to explain matter and energy in terms of fields, why not do something similar in biology?

Morphogenetic fields are one avenue to explore.

The idea that there is some kind of "life energy" has been around forever, but is flatly denied in modern biology. Has it ever been investigated or considered with an open mind?

I don't claim to have answers, just more questions than you want to think about.

Scientists do not understand the nature of subatomic particles. Their theories about matter include "strings" and higher-order dimensions. Who can claim to really understand matter, or energy?

Lots of people. Well enough, in fact, to create falsifiable and repeatable experiments, not limited to the everyday use of electricity. Note that scientific theories are subject to change based on new data. Now, how about some data from the ID people?

There are many ideas, not much consensus. The same thing ought to be acknowledged in biology, but it is not. Biologists seem content with the idea that life emerges from inanimate matter, even though the nature of matter is not known (yes there are many theories and equations, but no end in sight to the confusion).

The same thing should be acknowledged if, in fact, such a situation existed. It doesn't. Arguments like this aren't coming from any substantial number of people who've actually done work in the field, and in fact your own argument is a conflation of a very poor understanding of science itself with a good degree of pseudoscience. We do understand the nature of matter well enough to make very good prediction about how it behaves, for example, and certainly it is understood well enough at the chemical and molecular level to know how it will act in terms of biological systems. It isn't necessary to understand cutting-edge theoretical physics to understand biochemistry. Your argument is, essentially, like saying that one can't repair one's car without a thorough knowledge of metallurgy.

What if matter is ultimately made out of information, for example? This would open up vast philosophical problems and debates, and attempts to define "information."

This goes back to the poor understanding part. Nothing can be made of information; information is neither matter nor energy, but an interpretation of matter or energy that exists in a relationship with something else. Not even the data on a computer, for example, consists of information. It consists of electrical pulses and magnetic domains. Moreover, there is a mathematical definition of what constitutes information, but not some objective thing that exists as "stuff" unto itself. Yes, it would certainly open up debates and problems if anything were ever found to be "made of information," because it would absolutely fly in the face of everything we know about the universe. By all means, go find something "made of information" and collect your international fame. As far as I'm aware, though, nobody has found any such thing, and it is rather implausible that anyone will, anymore than someone is likely to find an object made of sight or taste.

I think the most promising direction for biologists would be to investigate the possible existence of biological fields and energies. If physicists try to explain matter and energy in terms of fields, why not do something similar in biology?

Because biology isn't physics. Look, if cooks use flour to bake cakes, why not use it to build telephone poles? Apples and oranges. I like a nice biological field as much as the next person, but spending my day lying on my back in a sunny, grassy biological field rarely nets any useful data.

Morphogenetic fields are one avenue to explore.

So are phlogiston and flying spaghetti monsters. The reason nobody explores morphogenetic fields is that nobody has ever seen any evidence of one existing. It would be equally productive to explore the possibility that fairies are replacing our babies with changelings.

The idea that there is some kind of "life energy" has been around forever, but is flatly denied in modern biology. Has it ever been investigated or considered with an open mind?

Nonsense. In fact, life energy is well documented. It's called reduction-oxidation, for one thing. Electron transport chains, the synthesis and breakdown of ATP, all of these things are essentially "life energy." What you're advocating is nothing more than a notion that we should go backward in time to a point at which "life energy" was something that couldn't be defined at any material basis. The problem with that is that we've already gotten past that point. It's not qi or prana or ghosts in the machine; it's a chemical, or dare I say subatomic, reality. Try ingesting a chemical sometime that completely inhibits ATP synthesis and see how long non-material "life energy" keeps you functioning.

I don't claim to have answers, just more questions than you want to think about.

No, what you have are no answers and questions that science has already thought about. You are either unaware of, or don't like, the answers.

The problem with that is that we've already gotten past that point. It's not qi or prana or ghosts in the machine

No, you have not in any way disproven life energy. The vast numbers of people -- in oriental medicine, osteopathic medicine, chiropractic, for example -- who believe it exists and experience it every day, are not all nitwits.

You have no instruments capable of measuring life energy, so you flatly deny it could possibly exist. Vitalism went out of style in biology, and that was that. No further inquiries could be made.

Belief in life energy in no way denies the existence of the energies known to physics. Liviing things are made out of the same kind of matter as non-living things. But living matter cannot be reduced to non-living matter. In other words, the biological level depends on the physical level, but cannot be reduced to it.

Hubert Yockey, a physicist has used information theory to show that life could not have originated by chance. His argument is not very different from what ID theorists are claiming --- new information is not created by chance.

That is because random accidents do not create meaningful information.

But living matter cannot be reduced to non-living matter. In other words, the biological level depends on the physical level, but cannot be reduced to it.

You have no instruments capable of measuring life energy, so you flatly deny it could possibly exist.

Vitalism went out of style in biology, and that was that. No further inquiries could be made.

No, you have not in any way disproven life energy. The vast numbers of people --- in oriental medicine, osteopathic medicine, chiropractic, for example --- who believe it exists and experience it every day, are not all nitwits. You have no instruments capable of measuring life energy, so you flatly deny it could possibly exist. Vitalism went out of style in biology, and that was that. No further inquiries could be made. Belief in life energy in no way denies the existence of the energies known to physics. Liviing things are made out of the same kind of matter as non-living things. But living matter cannot be reduced to non-living matter. In other words, the biological level depends on the physical level, but cannot be reduced to it.

If we have no instruments to detect the "life energy", how can we even research it?

Many people see it and/or feel it. Of course, that's just anecdotal. The last scientist who studied it, as far as I know, was Wilhelm Reich (orgone) and he was persecuted.

It would be great if a life energy-detecting instrument could be developed. Probably too little is known on the subject at this point, since vitalism has been out of style for so long.

Science is just as vulnerable to fads and fashions, and politics, as any other human activity.

And by the way, I am not advocating vitalism, or any other theory. I just brought it up as an example of an unexplored alternative to materialism. I think complexity theory can also help us understand how or why life originates and evolves. There may be many other possibilities -- if only biologists had not decided on NDE and slammed the door.

Many people see it and/or feel it. Of course, that's just anecdotal. The last scientist who studied it, as far as I know, was Wilhelm Reich (orgone) and he was persecuted.

realpc,

No doors have been slammed.

If you can objectively show that "life energy" (or whatever) can explain the situation better than our current models, people would have no problems switching to that.

The problem is that terms like "life energy", while they make for great word salad, don't actually have definitions that we can use to form models of nature.

realpc, what exactly *is* the definition of the term "life energy", how can it be tested, and how can it be falsified?

And by the way, I am not advocating vitalism, or any other theory. I just brought it up as an example of an unexplored alternative to materialism.

ID is a mathematical criticism of Neo-Darwinism.

ID does not argue against evolution, it argues against the theory that random mutations and natural selection can entirely account for the origin of new species. This is a valid objection to the currently accepted neo-Darwinist theory.

Darwin hypothesized that the origin of life could be explained as a series of accidental events, but his hypothesis has not been verified, and has not been supported by mathematics or evidence.

Yet Neo-Darwinism is accepted on faith, on the assumption that it will be verified some day.

This is about whether the Neo-Darwinian explanation of evolution has been verified, or not. It has not been.

You have NO evidence that a new species can be created merely by random mutations and natural selection.

They say, with certainty, that all genetic mutations are random errors. They say with certainty that evolution retults(sic) ENTIRELY from random mutations and natural selection.

Hubert Yockey, a physicist has used information theory to show that life could not have originated by chance.

realpc, what exactly *is* the definition of the term "life energy", how can it be tested, and how can it be falsified?

First of all, NDE CANNOT be falisified. Your all-purpose answer is "given enough time, anything it possible."

The mountains of evidence for NDE are really mountains of evidence for evolution in general, or for natural selection. There is never any evidence that genetic errors plus natural selection is THE cause of evolution.

As for neo-vitalism and other non-orthodox approaches -- they cannot get funding, period. Materialist science has monopolized the funding, and will fight to keep it. Non-orthodox science, when it manages to get resources somehow, hardly ever gets published in the mainstream journals, no matter how successful the results.

Dean Radin just got something important published however, so watch out!

realpc,

Ok, so you completely avoided my question, even though you quoted it.

Say NDE is complete BS, for the sake of argument.

I then ask *again*:

realpc, what exactly *is* the definition of the term "life energy", how can it be tested, and how can it be falsified?

realpc,

Also, regarding your claim that "(m)aterialist science has monopolized the funding", how do you explain the Discovery Institute's funding, especially considering the funding they were given by the Templeton Foundation?

What exactly is the definition for the term "non-orthodox science"?

Lastly, can you point to any examples where "non-orthodox science" produced successful results, but was kept out of the mainstream journals? Or did you just make this up?

Nick - great job! Boy, religion sure got talked about a bit, didn't it? The pitfalls were expertly avoided, though.

ben --- FSM waved her hand!

FSM is not amused...

how do you explain the Discovery Institute's funding,

Yes, Discovery has funding, I guess from some rich right-wing Christian organizations. At least Dembski can do his work. But Discovery is very biased, and I'm sure you agree with me on that.

University funding is very scarce for non-materialist science. There is a little parapsychology -- Radin at Nevada, Schwartz at Arizona, Jahn at Princeton but he's retiring.

Almost all university science departments are strictly materialist, or naturalist, as they prefer to call it.

Parapsychologists are routinely "debunked" by Randi and Dawkins -- no matter how scientific and valid their experiments!

realpc,

You said "Parapsychologists are routinely "debunked" by Randi and Dawkins".

Why do you think that is? Isn't the easiest way to shut up these debunkers by showing them repeatable double-blind studies which support the claims of the parapsychologists?

Why do you think people like The Amazing Randi and Richard Dawkins try to debunk people like Dean Radin?

Also, I'm still waiting for the definition of "life energy".

No, you have not in any way disproven life energy. The vast numbers of people --- in oriental medicine, osteopathic medicine, chiropractic, for example --- who believe it exists and experience it every day, are not all nitwits.

Hey, want to hear something interesting?

I've studied Indian metaphysical ideas extensively. I own one of the only 150 copies of a rare, early Indian treatise on medicine and alchemy ever translated into English. I've got a copy of the Pasupati Sutram a couple of feet from where I'm sitting now, and if I look at the bookshelf three feet to the right of where I'm sitting right now, the titles that jump right out at me are Layayoga, Periya Puranam, and Mantra Mahodadhi. In fact, with your knowledge of things "oriental," I'm surprised that you haven't made a comment about my name yet! I've spoken firsthand, one-on-one, with the Baba of a temple to the goddess Kali located at the edge of a rainforest on an island just off the coast of South America at which I spent several days and to which I have a standing invitation to return again anytime. Funny thing; he and I talked about this very subject, and I explained what I knew abut electron transport chains and ATP and even evolution, and he had no problem with it at all.

And certainly, he didn't try to misrepresent my words back at me by saying something like, "No, you have not in any way disproven life energy," when I never claimed to have done anything of the sort. What I did say is that science has explained what this "life energy" is in a way that makes sense with what we see in the world. So well that we can quantify it it down to the eV. Go ahead, point out to me where I said anything about life energy being proven or disproven. To the contrary, your idea of what "life energy" is has been disproven, and you don't like that answer. You thus become an obstructionist and start twisting words and even making up entire arguments.

You have no instruments capable of measuring life energy, so you flatly deny it could possibly exist. Vitalism went out of style in biology, and that was that. No further inquiries could be made.

We have plenty of instruments capable of measuring life energy. Essentially, they're voltmeters. We have no instruments capable of measuring what you think life energy ought to be, and there's a good reason for it; that's not what it is. I'm sorry that the fact that life energy has turned out to be pretty much the same stuff that allows you to switch on a light bulb ruins the party for you, but that's what it is, and personally I have no problem at all reconciling that with a sense of awe at the universe. To me, the idea that our lives are so closely linked with the same stuff that makes lightning bolts light up the sky is a wonderous thing. Why that seems so awful to you that it's unacceptable is your own issue, but it's not only wonderous to me, but practical as well.

Belief in life energy in no way denies the existence of the energies known to physics.

That's nice. I'll go you one further; life energy is one of the eneries known to physics. In fact, it carries a charge of 1.60 x 10^-19 Coloumbs, and the same laws of physics that govern it when its part of something inanimate (e.g., lightning) govern its behavior in our own bodies. We have built up a tremendous understanding of life energy, so good that we can use it reliably in medicine and nutrition and organic chemistry and molecular biology all at the same time. So why are you so busy trying to deny it?

Liviing things are made out of the same kind of matter as non-living things. But living matter cannot be reduced to non-living matter.

Interesting hypothesis. So, which of the elements in the ATP catabolic and anabolic pathways are alive? Without that pathway, every living things stops being alive and is reduced to non-living matter (including viruses, which are nonliving matter until they get at the ATP-stored energy in a host cell). The ATP pathway is, in fact, one of the deepest homologies we see in all living things, without exception. What part of it is alive?

In other words, the biological level depends on the physical level, but cannot be reduced to it.

Do you even understand what you're saying here? You just said two paragraphs ago that life energy was in keeping with the energies known to physics, but all of the energies known to physics are precisely physical energies. Now you're saying that biology, which you have based on the existence of that life energy, without which living things cannot live, can't be reduced to the "physical level." Which one is it?

realpc said: Science is just as vulnerable to fads and fashions, and politics, as any other human activity.

I've spoken firsthand, one-on-one, with the Baba of a temple to the goddess Kali...

Isn't Kali a kind of unpleasant God who therefore attracts unpleasant people?

At least Dembski can do his work

There is never any evidence that genetic errors plus natural selection is THE cause of evolution.

You just said two paragraphs ago that life energy was in keeping with the energies known to physics, but all of the energies known to physics are precisely physical energies.

No, I said the existence of life energy does not deny the existence of the energies known to physics.

Life depends on more than one kind of energy, including electricity, heat, etc. But I think it's possible that the qi of oriental medicine, and prana of hatha yoga, actually exist. I experience this kind of energy, and so do many others. I see no reason it could not be investigated scientifically.

Wilhelm Reich (you can look him up at wikipedia) investigated what he called orgone -- he did not know the concept had already existed for thousands of years in the orient. He was thrown in jail and died, and mainstream science has never shown an interest in his work. NOT simply because it was quackery. Lots of people think he was onto something. But because it did not fit the scientific fashion of the latter 20th century.

This is merely one example. There are and have been many sane and intelligent scientists who do not conform to the scientific fashions of their day, and they are ignored.

Life depends on more than one kind of energy, including electricity, heat, etc. But I think it's possible that the qi of oriental medicine, and prana of hatha yoga, actually exist. I experience this kind of energy, and so do many others. I see no reason it could not be investigated scientifically.

Reich was sent to jail on fraud charges after continuing to sell tinfoil-lined wooden boxes that were determined to not actually do anything. His claims were investigated, and when the government issued an injunction for him to stop defrauding people, he refused to do so.

Apparently, his fraud is still working on a few people, though, particularly those with no grasp on how anything actually works.

If you think this nonsense ought to be "scientifically investigated," then perhaps you ought to get your head filled with something besides propaganda and become qualified to actually investigate it scientifically. Nobody else who ever did so found anything to them, and the fact that someone experiences something doesn't mean that it's anything more than their imagination. For example, some people experience ignorance and imagine that it means there's a lack of information, and they come up with something called "intelligent design" to find other people with a similar experience. Then they toss about unfounded claims and anecdotal junk about "experiencing something" and expect that a couple of centuries of scientific progress will change course because they said so.

Put your money where your mouth is, "realpc." Quit your bitching, learn actual science, and investigate these things you're claiming. Prove everyone else wrong. Otherwise, don't expect anyone to change their minds simply because you make a claim.

I know who Reich was. Reich was sent to jail on fraud charges after continuing to sell tinfoil-lined wooden boxes that were determined to not actually do anything. His claims were investigated, and when the government issued an injunction for him to stop defrauding people, he refused to do so.

Apparently, his fraud is still working on a few people, though, particularly those with no grasp on how anything actually works.

If you think this nonsense ought to be "scientifically investigated," then perhaps you ought to get your head filled with something besides propaganda and become qualified to actually investigate it scientifically. Nobody else who ever did so found anything to them, and the fact that someone experiences something doesn't mean that it's anything more than their imagination.

Put your money where your mouth is, "realpc." Quit your bitching, learn actual science, and investigate these things you're claiming. Prove everyone else wrong. Otherwise, don't expect anyone to change their minds simply because you make a claim.

This is merely one example. There are and have been many sane and intelligent scientists who do not conform to the scientific fashions of their day, and they are ignored.

test

Quit your bitching, learn actual science, and investigate these things you're claiming.

Well I did get a PhD in experimental psychology, hoping to be a parapsychologist. But there is no funding. I will do it someday, though, when I can afford to cut back on work.

Quit your bitching, learn actual science, and investigate these things you're claiming.

Well I did get a PhD in experimental psychology, hoping to be a parapsychologist. But there is no funding. I will do it someday, though, when I can afford to cut back on work.

Well I did get a PhD in experimental psychology...

Realpc said: NOT simply because it was quackery. Lots of people think he was onto something. But because it did not fit the scientific fashion of the latter 20th century. This is merely one example. There are and have been many sane and intelligent scientists who do not conform to the scientific fashions of their day, and they are ignored.

But there is no funding.

ID does not argue against evolution, it argues against the theory that random mutations and natural selection can entirely account for the origin of new species. This is a valid objection to the currently accepted neo-Darwinist theory. ID does not have to propose an alternative theory for its argument to be valid.

— realpc

John Krehbiel wrote:

As I understand it, the central concept of ID is that certain structures ... can only function as complete systems in their present form. (Refuted in each case, BTW) What the flip does that have to do with "the theory that random mutations and natural selection can entirely account for the origin of new species?"

The Creative Process

Evolution resembles our own creative processes. We get lots of ideas, most of them useless, and keep only the most promising. Then we submit our ideas to peer review and the selection process continues.

There is a degree of trial and error in both human creativity and in natural evolution. Many of the ideas turn out to be stupid and there are many dead ends. But there are also many that are useful or beautiful, a few that are world-changing.

I do not think genetic mutations are pure error, but I don't think they are straight from God either. I think they are part of nature's creative process, which is similar (but vastly superior) to our own.

Humans have designed amazing things, like airplanes, that seem to be a great improvement over birds. But our machines can't repair themselves or reproduce, and they aren't biodegradable. The systems of nature seldom get out of balance or poison the environment. There are no toxic waste dumps in nature, and no slums.

We could learn a lot from nature, if we only could learn to respect it. And I think it would help if we stopped insisting that the natural world is the product of error and selection, completely lacking creativity or intelligence.

Scientists hate ID because ID is supported by anti-science Christian groups. But ID also is, or should be, supported by scientific people like myself, who are skeptical of materialist ideology.

The source for the selection process (genetic errors) has no intelligence or purpose.

— realpc

Oh yes, I know, you think it's all badly designed and full of junk.

— realpc

I note in passing that all the (neo and otherwise)vitalists make a incredible metascientific howler in addition to their usually called out blunders about lack of evidence, etc. This is the treatment of energy as a stuff; it isn't, as Maxwell pointed out ages ago. (See his Theory of Heat, I believe it was.)

A more modern refutation is from an equation like E = mc², which a moments semantic analysis shows the same thing. (Mass and the speed of light are clearly properties, not stuffs, so for dimensional homogenity reasons ...)

I thought Randy Olson came off as kind of a prick in that SciFri program. He made this ridiculous point of how scientists are arrogant and poor communicators and that his interview with the nice old lady with the zealot's gleam in her eye who didn't believe in evolution because there weren't enough transitional forms showed what a good communicator should be like. I couldn't believe he said that. You can see the "nice" old lady in the clip "The Controversy" on the SciFri website.

Realpc said: ID claims... ID researchers suspect ... My opinion is that ... I do not see ... I think that ... ID researchers suspect ...

Realpc said: Scientists hate ID because ID is supported by anti-science Christian groups.

[ID] should be supported by scientific people like myself, who are skeptical of materialist ideology.

no, we say that point mutations are non-deterministic, and essentially unpredictable

— Sir_Toejam

sorry at present compatible with neodarwinism at present not compatible with neodarwinism

sorry at present compatible with neodarwinism at present not compatible with neodarwinism

Oh yes, I know, you think it's all badly designed and full of junk. Well, I do not see it that way. I think that, as we continue to learn about DNA and life it will look more and more astounding. Now biologists say all the DNA they can't figure out is "junk." Typical human arrogance. ID researchers suspect that DNA is one heck of a mind-boggling computer program.

— realpc

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Scientists hate ID because ID is supported by anti-science Christian groups.

ID researchers suspect that DNA is one heck of a mind-boggling computer program.

The only valid-accepted non-deterministic physical theory is Quantum Theory.Classical(Newtonian) Physics,Special Relativity, General Relativity and Chaos Theory are deterministic theories.Biology,by the small-general knowledge I've got on this discipline, is classical-physics based.

— Thanatos

The only way I can think of how point mutations can be non-deterministic is if quantum physics effects have started to be considered in biology(thus in point mutations also). Again please clarify,has research shown-brought up a quantum mechanism for point mutations(or something else in biology)?

No, certainly not. Biology at the cellular scale is chemistry, and modern chemistry is entirely quantum-based

— Anton Mates

All known mechanisms for point mutations are based in quantum theory. Take radiation-induced mutations

following this line of thinking ,everything (microcosmic and mesocosmic) except of (roughly) general relativistic portion of astrophysics and cosmology is truely (meaning more precise than newtonian theories)explained in QM terms since classical physics theory has been falsified. Sure,that's true,that's obvious ,I don't disagree but I din't mean that.I meant researching really in quantum reality logic terms ,finding quantum superposition phaenomena in the scale of "reality" that is been researched.

— Thanatos

biology,by the small-general knowledge I've got on this discipline, is classical-physics based.

ID claims to detect information in living things, and information is never purely the result of error, even if the process of selecting among the errors is rational (and natural selection is rational).

I'm Plato's reincarnation gone mad.

why do we get such idiotic trolls so often around here? oh, that's right, because the supposedly "intelligent" representatives of the ID movement have ALREADY been torn to shreds. all that's left are idiots too stupid to realize the inaninity of continuing to support such a vacuous endeavor.

MarkP wrote:

Idle speculation does not science make. When IDers can demonstrate their views with replicable experimental results, or rigorous mathematics (you know, the kind that even non-IDer mathematicians can support), then they will be worthy of consideration.

At some unspecified time, some unspecified deity performed some unspecified miracle.

No, that is not the essence of ID. It's possible that some followers of ID somewhere said that. But ID is supposed to be science, and is therefore supposed to stick with observations. No one has seen evidence of a deity creating life, so it would be religion, not science, to claim this as fact.

ID questions the central assumption of neo-Darwinism, and that assumption is that nature has no intelligence. There may be sexual selection, genetic drift, you name it. But there is no intelligence or purpose in nature, according to NDE.

Anyone who believes there is some kind of creativity beyond, or underlying, our sensory world is not a Darwinist. The essence of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism) is the assmption that nature creates without being creative. That design in nature is an illusion.

Saying that nature seems to have some kind of creative intelligence is NOT the same as saying gods created life by performing miracles. No scientific theory claims anything like that.

Neo-Darwinism is a theory, and it cannot be demonstrated with replicable experiments.

At some unspecified time, some unspecified deity performed some unspecified miracle.

But ID is supposed to be science, and is therefore supposed to stick with observations.

ID questions the central assumption of neo-Darwinism, and that assumption is that nature has no intelligence.

There may be sexual selection, genetic drift, you name it. But there is no intelligence or purpose in nature, according to NDE.

Realpc galloped thusly: No human being knows the cause of evolution. Neo-Darwinism is a theory, and it cannot be demonstrated with replicable experiments. ID is a theory which is skeptical of Neo-Darwinism. Neither one is proven --- it may never be possible to prove either. Neo-Darwinists are not being scientific when they claim to have proof for their theory, because they do not. As I said, they show their proof of evolution and natural selecton as if it were evidence for their theory, but it is not.

And that is exactly the case in biology---events on the quantum scale impact large-scale reality, whereas they don't in, say, celestial mechanics.

— Anton Mates

biology,by the small-general knowledge I've got on this discipline, is classical-physics based.

— Sir_Toejam

go actually read a bit about probability and statistics, and i won't need to clarify for you. In short, you should stop throwing about terms you haven't the slightest clue as to their meaning.

in another thread, Thanatos admits, in a post to Glen:

I'm Plato's reincarnation gone mad.

— Sir_Toejam

Glen I just give up. Obviously you're the speaking voice of what all scientists have in mind ,you're the speaking voice of Truth and I'm Plato's reincarnation gone mad.Sorry.next time I'll try to be Heracleitus. OK all matters and problems solved. Glen said so. I just give up.

It has been demonstrated through replicable experiments for 150 years without a single refutation.

You cannot show me a reference to one single experiment ever done that demonstrated neo-Darwinist evolution.

You cannot show me a reference to one single experiment ever done that demonstrated neo-Darwinist evolution.

tick tock.

as i thought.

here, for you general edification, and just to show you i could easily live up to my side of the wager:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=cache:TRrQAJ52c0cJ:www.ria.ie/publications/journals/journaldb/index.asp%3Fselect%3Dfulltext%26id%3D100501+new+species+polyploidy

heck, there's a lot more if we just consider new species arising from polyploidy alone, let alone other mutations, and if we extend it back, you get lists like what talk origins posts in response to your inanity:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

do note that even that list merely scratches the surface.

give me a week and I'll put together a list that is larger, and contains a lot of accessible articles like this one.

Anyone who believes there is some kind of creativity beyond, or underlying, our sensory world is not a Darwinist. The essence of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism) is the assmption that nature creates without being creative. That design in nature is an illusion.

— realpc

yeah! damn ID baby-eatin scumbags.

where's my flamethrower!

Amazingly enough, realpc never answered any of my questions. Such as, what the definition of "life energy" is, or any examples where "non-orthodox science" produced successful results, but was kept out of the mainstream journals.

SHOCKED, I am.

No human being knows the cause of evolution. Neo-Darwinism is a theory, and it cannot be demonstrated with replicable experiments. ID is a theory which is skeptical of Neo-Darwinism. Neither one is proven --- it may never be possible to prove either.

— realpc

Oh yes, it's a "new" species as long as it can't reproduce with the parent species. No increase in complexity is required.

And where are the controlled experiments?

How can you falsify it? (since you materialists are always demanding theories that can be falsified).

Anytime a variation is observed, you can say the variation was an accident, and was selected because of its usefulness. You can always deny that intention motivated the variation.

Suppose a species has genetic options which can be turned on or off, depending on environmental conditions.

Anytime a variation is observed, you can say the variation was an accident, and was selected because of its usefulness. You can always deny that intention motivated the variation.

Suppose a species has genetic options which can be turned on or off, depending on environmental conditions.

Hmmm... you mean like every single organism on the planet? Every single living thing has such "genetic options" and turn them on and off all the time. Did you manage to get through freshman biology class without hearing of the lac operon?

What's more, we certainly see lots of pseudogenes out there, which are essentially genes that have been turned off at one point in evolutionary history and never switched on again, although they continue to be replicated. These are an incredibly powerful demonstration of how a chance mutation leads to rather deterministic outcomes.

This is basic stuff, and if you don't know that much about the way living things actually work, then there's no point in arguing evidence with you. I can't imagine this is the first time you've ever heard of these things, but you certainly don't seem to be aware of them to ask this kind of question. I can only conclude that you refuse to look at anything that refutes your viewpoint.

If you do indeed have a PhD, I find it a sad commentary on the state of higher education. How anyone can get a doctorate without ever learning how to consider ideas and evidence is beyond me, but you appear to have done it. Me, I haven't been allowed that luxury to date in my own ongoing education.

Kit said: Amazingly enough, realpc never answered any of my questions. Such as, what the definition of "life energy" is, or any examples where "non-orthodox science" produced successful results, but was kept out of the mainstream journals. SHOCKED, I am.

Realpc said: Oh yes, it's a "new" species as long as it can't reproduce with the parent species. No increase in complexity is required.

No increase in complexity is required.

If you do indeed have a PhD

Suppose a species has genetic options which can be turned on or off, depending on environmental conditions.

I waited for some days for a biologist to answer my questions.No answer.
Any way, here for any future reference is a banch of thoughts that I think may come handy and useful to biologists when dealing with foundamental issues and terms of physics.
The central issue is a phaenomenon as opposed to a second level phaenomenon upon phaenomena and their erroneous ambiguity in common language when not careful.
Expressions aren't of strict mathematical sense and essence,but try to understand what they mean,it's quite easy(I think).I expressed my thoughts thus ,trying to be laconical.If someone doesn't understand them,I can help explain.

After completing reading I ask you to consider,to think of the chaotical character of mutagents such as the Concentration of chemical mutagents and the dependence of Intensity of UV Rays on spacetime,habits-properties of individual organism (such as nocturnal or not,depth of water when sea creature,heavily fured or not),geographical latitude,etc.

Have ,statistical functions-probabilities of both microfactors and macrofactors across evolution(or not),
affecting point mutations ,been calculated-estimated and therefrom, the latter have been found
unimportand and insignificant compared to the former(meaning quantum mechanical (qm-ical) factors)?
If not how can you say that point mutations ,especially in evolutionary terms, are non deterministic?

Intuitionally ,in my opinion, the abundance of macrofactors seems to eliminate the microfactors,therefore chaos rules and not qm.Therefore in the context of what I mean,point mutations are of a deterministic nature.

I would be grateful if you clarified.

(If in my line of thinking you see any errors please show them to me.)

Here it goes ...

Can you understand the difference between :

A.A Phaenomenon A that is a function of (some) variables and/or has a function-
property with respect to (some) variables.
A=A(variables),A has a property , A=A(property) or A = property

examples :
A=A(x,y,z,t),
A= point mutations = Non deterministic ,
or A= point mutations = Deterministic

and

B.The Phaenomenon of Phaenomena
B= Metaphaenomenon(A) = (A of A)=MetaA
where A=A(variables) and/or A = property ,and
MetaA=MetaA(A,other variables) and
MetaA = MetaA(variables,other variables) and/or
MetaA=MetaA(another property)=another property=function of property=MetaProperty
MetaA=another property of property

B1.B=MetaA=property of a (specific) A with respect to other variables

example :
the consequences of a (specific) point mutation of a (specific)
individual organism across scales(from micro to macro)

B2.B=MetaA= a function or a Metaproperty of a collection of As with
respect to other variables

example :
a statistical function of point mutations across evolution and/or
with respect to macrofactors such as space,time,systems,different cells of an
individual,individuals,habits of them,generations,species, phyla

Can you understand the ambiguity in common language ,of the
usage of Phaenomenon A as both A and MetaA and the problems derived from
it?
Problems such as Metaproperty=Property ->Wrong (=not in general correct)

examples:
every specific point mutation has a non deterministic qm-ical
chemical creation mechanism,so point mutations in general across scales,
generations and spacetime have a non deterministic statistical character

a specific point mutation on an individual has a non deterministic
qm-ical chemical creation mechanism therefore cross-scale the produced
phaenotypical effect is of non deterministic nature.

a point mutation of DNA of qm-ical mechanism = the point mutant-
mutated DNA in action

finally an ad nauseam simplification in order to understand the basic ambiguity- expressions

X=X(T)=T^2=MetaT,
V=dX/dT=V(X,T)=V(T)=2T=MetaT=MetaX ,
A=dV/dT=A(V,X,T)=A(X,T)=A(T)=A(trivial)=2=MetaV=MetaX=MetaT

Feedback, critical or not, is welcome.
Chairein!

How can you falsify it? (since you materialists are always demanding theories that can be falsified). Anytime a variation is observed, you can say the variation was an accident, and was selected because of its usefulness. You can always deny that intention motivated the variation.

— realpc

oops depth of water when sea creature

oops depth of water when sea creature

oops depth of water when sea creature

sorry for the triple entry but I just couldn't see my comment even after refreshing again and again,exiting, refreshing,...

Luria and Delbrück got a Nobel Prize for figuring out how to distinguish between randomly-occurring variations and variations which occur in response to selective pressures. You might want to read about it.

Luria and Delbrück got a Nobel Prize for figuring out how to distinguish between randomly-occurring variations and variations which occur in response to selective pressures. You might want to read about it.

sorry again for multiple entries,

Error 500 for hours