Source: Evolution News Blog, Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer (Part 1) Let's carefully analyze this statement. What is intelligent design? It is the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance. In other words, that which remains when science cannot explain how something arose via processes of regularity and chance. In other words, Luskin basically describes the definition of design. However, in order to reach a true design inference, one has to take the step towards agency. It is in that step where ID fails miserably, and even though ID proponents like Dembski warned about confusing design with agency, Luskin seems to not have gotten the memo.In other words, the flagellar machine itself indicates that it did not arise by a random and unguided process like Darwinian evolution, but rather arose by a non-random and intelligently directed process such as intelligent design.
Source: Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory, The American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611 As Elsberry has shown, given Dembski’s logic, natural selection matches his definition of an intelligent designer. Once again we notice how ID fails to distinguish between apparent and actual design. And since ID refuses to propose positive hypotheses, it is thus doomed to be unable to deal with the issue of apparent versus actual design in any scientifically relevant manner. Now I understand why ID takes a 'principled' stance on avoiding to identify its designer Dembski explains:Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an important concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second assumption noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, “even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency” (TDI, 227, my emphasis).
And that is why Intelligent Design is scientifically vacuous. Just ask yourself, how does ID explain the bacterial flagella? It doesn't. And since science has provided scientific pathways, ID needs to show that these explanations fail their explanatory filter before they can infer 'design'. Merely claiming that science's explanation is insufficient, does not resolve the issue. To recap, ID uses a very minimal definition of 'design' which does not even address the issue of agence, as Del Ratzsch points outAs for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”
In other words, the real reason ID refuses to identify its designer is because it lacks the tools to infer 'agency', all ID can claim is 'design' but that's just admitting that science has not found an explanation. Remember that complexity is just the negative base to logarithm of the probability that the system arose via a particular natural pathway. So if a natural, intelligently designed, pathway can be found, the probability will be close to one and the complexity will disappear, countering the design inference. It thus seems self evident that the concept of design as defined by ID is one or more of the following 1. The empty set 2. Our ignorance 3. The supernatural In addition to these equivocations on terminology, ID also uses such words as 'unguided'. But what does unguided mean in the case of evolution where selective processes as well as boundary conditions and other constraints do in fact 'guide' the processes. To argue that evolutionary processes are random and unguided may be rhetorically powerful but hardly principled. Now remember what Dembski said about intelligently directed processes“I do not wish to play down or denigrate what Dembski has done. There is much of value in the Design Inference. But I think that some aspects of even the limited task Dembski set for himself still remains to be tamed.” “That Dembski is not employing the robust, standard, agency-derived conception of design that most of his supporters and many of his critics have assumed seems clear. Del Ratzsch Nature design and science
But directed contingency is exactly the outcome of evolutionary processes. Once again, the step from detecting design to inferring agency falls short of its promises. And this is why ID fails, scientifically to be relevant, it just has redefined design to be our ignorance and hopes that its supporters will fail to see the flaws and jump to a principled inference of a Designer, which we all know is the Christian God. To devout Christians such a jump is almost intuitive and thus they may not notice the scientific flaws. Once you understand the logical flaws underlying the ID argument, any claims that ID does not identify the designer are true and are also why ID remains scientifically irrelevant. Thus any initiatives to have ID taught in school are founded on other reasons or motivations than scientific ones. And thus we return to the Wedge document which outlines the true motives of introducing ID into public schools. Teach the controversy I say. And anytime you hear that ID has made a particular prediction, you know now that it cannot be founded on the principle of the explanatory filter and thus ID has to appeal to secondary sources for its so called predictions. Most of the time, these secondary sources are found to be religious in nature. Such as the claim that ID predicted that Junk DNA would have some function. This is a 'prediction' which cannot logically follow from ID first principles and thus has to have a secondary source. This source is quickly identified as Christianity; the idea that a Creator would not create wastefully.The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice. Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities.
118 Comments
Mike O'Risal · 31 October 2007
A question arises for IDolators based upon this strongly logical analysis. When the "design inference" and "complexity" negate one another, then what's left?
I personally can't see anything remaining but the conclusion that "intelligent design" is a rhetorical device. Is there something I'm missing in the product of this negation?
(Note: quotes are used above because the terms are used in an idosynchratic manner)
Stanton · 31 October 2007
And yet, the Discovery Institute continues to react with great aghast whenever someone points out that Intelligent Design isn't science.
Nigel D · 31 October 2007
PvM, your logic is powerful, but I suspect it may be too subtle for our regular trolls. Prepare to be quote-mined.
CJO · 31 October 2007
PvM · 31 October 2007
Venus Mousetrap · 31 October 2007
fnxtr · 31 October 2007
"Your logic was impeccable, Captain, we are in grave danger."
Erasmus, FCD · 31 October 2007
I'd.. love... better... arguments.
This is fun!!!
All Science So Far!!!
bjm · 31 October 2007
I'd..love...better..opponents
Venus Mousetrap · 31 October 2007
by creationist rules you /are/ allowed to insert words of your own choice, but that's only if you're playing in Easy mode, and is disallowed in tournament quote mining. However skilled players can achieve almost the same result with the square brackets. which ruleset are we playing here?
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 31 October 2007
Frank J · 31 October 2007
bornagain77 · 31 October 2007
Hmmm, No predictions from ID,,scientifically vacuous? Is that really right or is to proud to admit evolution is empirically bankrupt?,,,HMMMM,,,I think you guys may find the following a little uncomfortable.
Edge of Evolution I found to be amazing. It presented a case history of a eukaryote (P.falciparum) that has replicated billions of trillions of times within a span of a few decades. More importantly this is one of the most well studied organisms in biology due to its huge toll on human lives. In the last decade we’ve gone beyond phenotype analysis of the bug and have completely sequenced its genotype. This represents the largest test of evolution that we can hope to observe. The result of random mutation + natural selection being given billions of trillions of opportunities to generate significant novel biological complexity was essentially nil. Except for biochemically (but medically important) trivial changes in genotype the bug went exactly nowhere. It’s still the same old P.falciparum as its great grandparents billions of trillions of generations removed. It neither progressed nor regressed in an evolutionary sense.
All the negative reviews I’ve read of EoE nitpick at minutae while dodging the big picture. The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations did exactly what ID theorists predicted - next to nothing. In contrast the ID deniers tell us over and over that the same evolutionary mechanism (RM+NS), in orders of magnitude fewer generations, turned a lizard into a lemur. Of course that’s a wholly imaginary story because the transformation of reptiles into mammals took hundreds of millions of years so can’t be confirmed by genotype observation. All we have is phenotype evidence based on fossils. Clearly *something* caused the transformation from reptile to mammal but I’ve yet to see any reasonable explanation for the observed failure of P.faciparum to evolve while somehow the same mechanism with fewer opportunities is imagined to have caused reptiles to evolve into mammals. Non sequitur!
Did you catch this part:
The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations did exactly what ID theorists predicted.
Seems like this is a direct prediction from Dembski's work on Conservation of Information and Behe's work on Irreducible Complexity...
Or did evolution somehow predict no evolution occurring?
I think I missed that prediction from the ever flexible theory of "can't be falsified" evolution.
Glen Davidson · 31 October 2007
Huh, isn't it bizarre that a parasite which is adapted to humans and mosquitos, neither of which has changed much over the last hundred years, hasn't changed radically? Let's see, it's evolved quite enough to make several of our medicines inoperative, but because it's still well-adapted to its hosts, that supposedly tells against evolution.
Botchedagain77, your ignorance is appalling, and keeping with the Halloween theme, really a bit scary (thanks to your desire to impose nonsense upon a free society).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Richard Simons · 31 October 2007
SunSpiker · 31 October 2007
PvM · 1 November 2007
PvM · 1 November 2007
Bob O'H · 1 November 2007
ellazimm · 1 November 2007
Sorry, I couldn't resist pointing out that Casey made have tipped his hand a bit regarding who the designer is when he wrote: "the structures themselves have no way of directly telling us whether the designer is Yahweh, Buddha, Yoda, or some other type of intelligent agency." I hate to speculate on Mr Luskin's views on the Star Wars films but the idea of the intelligent designer being a puppet was just too funny to pass up.
Okay, you can go back to arguing with bornagain77, (s)he doesn't seem to understand what natural selection and being well adapted to your environment really mean.
Frank J · 1 November 2007
I find it fascianting that Bornagain77 posted 2 hr after my comment 133609, yet ignored it even though it was the last post, in plain view. I would have expected at least an attempt at denail of my claims. I see no reply to SunSpiker's 133638 either.
Mike O'Risal · 1 November 2007
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 1 November 2007
Mike O'Risal · 1 November 2007
Nigel D · 1 November 2007
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
You guys ought to write a new children's book!
I'll take this last quote from Nigel;
. And, oh, look, it has evolved several differing levels and mechanisms of CQ resistance. Exactly as predicted from first principles by MET...
Hmm,,, it broke something to develop resistance,,,but hey its evolution baby,,,You better come up with some complexity boy!
Well isn't this sweet...Another fairy tale example of how evolution can explain anything!!! Will your new book be in the children's section Nigel?
A theory that can explain everything and be falsified by nothing, is not a scientific theory..It is mere conjecture from the imagination of men!
You see evolution where you want to see it, in the suggestive evidence of genetic similarities and fossil similarities, and don't see any evidence against it in the hard empirical evidence we now have, This is because you have already decided what the evidence must say prior to investigation and that evolution must be true!,,,but in all actuality, when push came to shove and evolution was given the opportunity to demonstrate its almighty power to develop complexity in reality,,,what did hard science find,,,Zilch-Nada-Zero complexity being developed....This is not just an anomaly for malaria and HIV, this is a pervasive phenomena throughout all mutational studies conducted on all life-forms (adaptations (such as antifreeze ) occurs when some preexisting system gets broke!),,,YET THE VERY BEDROCK of evolutionary theory states that fantastic complexity generation is common and happening all the time in all life forms ....Think about it,,,Look at all the amazing diversity of life around you! It is truly AWESOME!....Yet despite absolutely no hard "observed" scientific proof of complexity being generated,,,you go into the shadows of your imagination to develop a "Evolution will not happen when we are looking for it to happen theory"... Oh how fortunate, you now got a theory that explains why we find no evidence for the theory!!!....It would be absolutely funny if it weren't for the fact that you are de^ad serious, de^ad wrong and most likely spiritually de^ad in your soul.
WAKE UP!
this following song is just for you!
Evanesence - Wake Me Up Inside
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/172595
Please pay close attention to the lyric that says:
I've been living a lie!!
...I've been living a lie!!!
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
ID will predict that all adaptations from a parent species to a sub-species,or breed, will come at a loss of genetic diversity (and thus a loss of meaningful specified information) from parent species, and will also predict that the genetic diversity found in the entire range of sub-species will not exceed the genetic diversity found in the parent species. This also conforms to the foundational principle for biology of Genetic Entropy.
Confirmation in this study:
Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.
"We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians."
And confirmation in this study:
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf
of special note:
Some sequences found in dogs were identical to those in wolves...
The sequence divergence within (breeds of) dogs was surprisingly large: the mean sequence divergence in dogs 2.06 + or - 0.07% was almost identical to the 2.10 + or - 0.04% (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (notice that sequence divergence is slightly smaller for dogs than for wolves)
Thus, Coupled with the diverse morphology of domesticated dogs and known hazards of dog breeding, this evidence strongly indicates "front loaded adaptations" for sub-species at a loss of information from parent species. Thus, this is genetic confirmation of the principle of Genetic Entropy for dogs from the parent species of wolves!
As well I would like to point out.
Low levels of genetic variation were detected in both subspecies, ..... Is the decline of desert bighorn sheep from infectious disease the result of low MHC ...
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v99/n4/full/6801016a.html
I can't open the article (no subscription), but the description is clear, loss of diversity within subspecies, or breed, of sheep.
I was hoping to find better studies for the genetic diversity of parent and sub-species (breeds) of sheep, but at least this one study is conforming to the pattern of Genetic Entropy I've found so far in humans and dogs,,,
As well, this other study I found seems to indicate that the closer a sub-species is to a parent species the more robust it is and the more resistant to the problems of inbreeding. (A ID prediction from the theistic perspective!)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070309103157.htm
of particular note:
A Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity. A mouflon (sheep) population, bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents.
This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time.
"What is amazing is that mo^dels of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we've found that it has been maintained," said Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta.
As well I found this study:
Evidence of three maternal lineages in near eastern sheep supporting multiple domestication events.
of special note:
Research including samples of the different mouflon subspecies is necessary for a better understanding of the origin of domestic sheep.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1559946
When they get the genetic studies done of sheep sub-species,,,My money is riding on loss of genetic diversity for each sub-species when compared to the parent species,,as well as compatable genetic diversity when the entire range of sub-species is compared to parent species....
This pattern should hold for all sub-speciation (breeding) events,,,Thus, conforming to Genetic Entropy.
I'm still looking for proof of evolution but alas,,,the genetic evidence I find shows loss of information in each verifiable case of sub-speciation (breeding).... Dang,,maybe you guys can find solid evidence?
How about maize can we find the information being generated there?
Maize molecular diversity is roughly 2- to 5-fold higher than that of other domesticated grass crops (1). Tenaillon et al. (2) reported that in 25 maize individuals, one nucleotide every 28 base pairs is polymorphic, and overall nucleotide diversity is almost 1.3%. That study, the largest examination of random maize loci, found almost no evidence of selection in 21 genes along chromosome 1. Maize's closest wild relative, Z. mays ssp. parviglumis (a teosinte), often has levels of nucleotide diversity that surpass 2%
How about this? Less genetic diversity for maize than for its parent species teosinte?
Shoot maybe you guys can just show me a new origination of a species?
"Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) ... every decade." Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516)
Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990)
"The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis.
Many times, naturalists parade examples of reproductive isolation between close sub-species ( Horse & Donkey; Grizzly Bear & Polar Bear; Various Insects etc.. etc..) as stunning proof of evolution. Yet, the hard evidence of exhaustive experimentation indicates that the information for variation was already "programmed" into the parent species's genetic code and the sub-species, or what is sometimes known as the pure breed, becomes devoid of much of the variety that was present in the genetic code of the parent species. This fact is made especially clear in mans extensive breeding history of domesticated dogs and pure bred horses. Thus, even though a sub-species, or a pure breed, may sometimes be demonstrated to become reproductively isolated, it still has reached a wall in which its possibilities for variation are severely limited in its genetic code when compared to its parent species variability. In fact, from the best evidence we have so far, reproductive isolation is due to the fact that genetic information is being lost, not gained, in the genes of the pure breed or sub-species (genetic entropy). Indeed, the lack of genetic variability in major food crops, such as corn, is a major concern facing scientists today since the genetic variability, that is found in the parent species, gives greater protection from a disease wiping out the entire crop. Even in the differences of human races we find that the younger races (Chinese, Europeans, American Indians, etc.. etc..) are losing genetic information for skin color when compared to the original race of humans that is thought to have migrated out of east Africa some 50,000 years ago. This fact is totally contrary to what we would expect to find if the variation found in the sub-species were truly wrought by random mutations in the DNA generating novel information for variability! And this result is to be totally expected if the parent species were indeed created with a certain amount of flexibility for adaptation to differing environments already programmed in its genetic code! Yet, naturalists conveniently ignore the hard conclusive fact that the variation in the sub-species or pure breed is severely limited when it is compared to the much larger variability that is found in the parent species.
How about that loss of information for skin color in humans?
"
Melanin comes in two types: pheomelanin (red) and eumelanin (dark brown to nearly black). Both amount and type are determined by four to six genes which operate under incomplete do^min^ance. One copy of each of those genes is inherited from the father and one from the mother. Each gene comes in several alleles, resulting in a great variety of different skin tones.
Even if it was just a simple case of the efficiency of one melanin in the skin of people, I would still hold that it demonstrated less information for the younger descended races from Africans,and thus still conformed to genetic entropy...But as the case stands my inference to subtractive color mixing is strong and my case for the Genetic Entropy of skin color in younger human races is bolstered all the more!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/subcol.html#c1
need I bring up the fossil record?
There is never a transition between ANY of the different hominid species no matter where, or in what era, the hominid fossils are found.
"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving". Richard Leakey, world's foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990
How about mutation rates:
Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms that can be measured, at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms that are harmful and/or to the life-form having the mutation (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998)! Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although evolutionists try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate genetic entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is clearly overwhelming, for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker).
I'm still looking guys but it ain't looking good for your beloved theory!
Richard Simons · 1 November 2007
BA77, BJB, Philip Cunningham or whatever you call yourself:
In what way did that last rant address any of the criticisms made of your previous post? All it did was emphasize how little substance there is to what you write. You would have done better to have kept quiet.
Albatrossity · 1 November 2007
BA77 agrees with Behe that changes in the genome of P. falciparum just don't happen in gazillions of generations. Then in his latest post he invokes Genetic Entropy, which is the notion that all of our genomes are rapidly changing for the worse. Why this doesn't happen to P. falciparum is a question that only he can answer.
But I predict that he will ignore this mystery, and maybe even run away, as he did on Behe's Amazon blog just a few days ago.
ben · 1 November 2007
BA77, you keep referring to ID theory and its predictions. I do not believe any such theory exists. If it does not exist, your references to it are at best ignorant and ill-informed and at worst dishonest and deceptive. If it does, I've yet to see it.
Could you please cite or link to a scientific theory of ID? If you cannot do this, I can't see why we should waste any time responding to your commentary.
Nigel D · 1 November 2007
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
Albatrossity said:Why this doesn’t happen to P. falciparum is a question that only he can answer.
I'll Let DaveScot answer that since he addressed it two days agoon UD:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/genetic-entropy-and-malarial-parasite-pfalciparum/#comments
Yet P.falciparum clearly didn’t melt down but rather demonstrated an amazing ability to keep its genome perfectly intact. How?
After thinking about it for a while I believe I found the answer - the widely given rate of eukaryote replication errors is correct. If P.falciparum individuals get an average DNA copy error rate of one in one billion nucleotides then it follows that approximately 97% of all replications result in a perfect copy of the parent genome. That’s accurate enough to keep a genome that size intact. An enviromental catastrophe such as an ice age which lowers temperatures even at the equator below the minimum of ~60F in which P.falciparum can survive would cause it to become extinct while genetic meltdown will not. Mammals however, with an average genome size 100 times that of P.falciparum, would have an average of 3 replication errors in each individual. Thus mammalian genomes would indeed be subject to genetic decay over a large number of generations which handily explains why the average length of time between emergence to extinction for mammals and other multicelled organisms with similar genome sizes is about 10 million years if the fossil and geological evidence paints an accurate picture of the past. I DO believe the fossil and geological records present us with an incontrovertible picture of progressive phenotype evolution that occured over a period of billions of years. I don’t disbelieve common ancestry and phenotype evolution by descent with modification - I question the assertion that random mutation is the ultimate source of modification which drove phylogenetic diversification.
John Pieret · 1 November 2007
By the way, Luskin's other major theme, that Judge Jones "misused" a quote from Of Pandas and People, where he found that the ID "designer" is, in fact, God and Luskin quotes from the Talk Origins Archive about the Raelian aliens to prove that the designer could be a natural being, is hilariously self-contradictory. If the authors of Pandas thought the designer really could be a natural being, why did they say, a priori, that we must leave its nature and identity to religion (of all things!) and philosophy?
Nigel D · 1 November 2007
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
Dang you guys,,,it keeps getting more painful for evolution,,,Function for Psuedogenes?
James D. Watson, writing on the 50th anniversary of his (and
Francis Crick’s) discovery of the helical structure of the DNA
molecule, commented as follows:
‘The most humbling aspect of the Human
Genome Project so far has been the realization
that we know remarkably little about what the vast
majority of human genes do.’13
Now if the foregoing is true of genes, how much
more so of pseudogenes! At very least, pseudogenes have
not been fairly and objectively analyzed:
‘An extensive and fast-increasing literature
does not justify a sharp division between genes and
pseudogenes that would place pseudogenes in the
class of genomic “junk” DNA that lacks function
and is not subject to natural selection.’14
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_3/j18_3_63-69.pdf
Maybe you should title this blog the continued confusion of evolutionary theory!
Venus Mousetrap · 1 November 2007
BA77: I notice after reading the link that you're passing DaveScot's exact words off (earlier) as if you wrote them. That is plagiarism.
This isn't difficult. When you quote, just attribute the quote. It's polite. It makes you look more grown up. And it doesn't confuse people over who said what.
Are you actually going to address the fact that your numbers are off by several orders of magnitude, which essentially demolishes your claim? I note that after those corrections were addressed to you, you went off talking about how evolution is a fairy story. Looks a little hypocritical, eh? (and that's before one gets to the irony of someone who talks about deities 'existing in timeless eternities', and then accusing his OPPONENTS of fairy stories)
Nigel d: Your posts on this are excellent - I finally actually understand what this is all about now. The claims of billions and trillions have been confusing me (it's so hard to pick out which bits are the truth, and which have been added by ID)
Frank J · 1 November 2007
Venus Mousetrap · 1 November 2007
BA77: Quoting a secondary source is a poor way to make a case - in this case, a biased source from people who are known to quote mine, which you have /also/ quoted wrongly (the second and third sentence are from John Woodmorappe, the author of the article, not Watson).
Albatrossity · 1 November 2007
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
Frank,,
Do You believe the Big Bang was a creation event,,,
If so, such a creation event (of massive introduction of information and energy into this dimension) is conclusively demonstrated in the past and thus this opens the very real possibility that information can once again, or many times again, be introduced into this universe.... Since evolution is a joke as far as science is concerned it is The job of science is to track the information to its origination point for different life forms, not to be tied up in the blind ludicrous alley of evolution!!
Thus at this point I can only speculate to the orgination time for information,,but from the best evidence I can find is from Behe,
In the book EoE, Behe argues that while evolution can produce changes within species, there is a limit to the ability of evolution to generate diversity, and this limit (the "Edge of Evolution") is somewhere between species and orders.
PvM · 1 November 2007
PvM · 1 November 2007
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
PvM,
What is the most massive number found for the Anthropic Principle?
It is the phase space measure of entropy calculated by Penrose to be 1 in 10^10^123.
That is (10^10^123) a 1 with 10^123 zeros to the right...Turned on its head, it is a measure of the information content necessary for the singularity from which all degradation of entropy flows!
PvM,
Your God is too SMALL buddy!!!
Frank J · 1 November 2007
Jeez, bornagain, you could be a little more subtle in proving my point that an IDer can't answer a simple question without referring to perceived problems with "Darwinism." Even when your answer is essentially "I don't know"! BTW, I didn't ask for the "origin time for information" but when the information entered a biological system.
As a believer in a designer/Creator, which I call God, I think that design is actuated continuously, and that the Big Bang is just one such event of many. I don't pretend that such a claim is scientific, and am unsure if it ever will be.
IDers like to compare what they do to archaeology and forensics. But the real "design investigators" don't stop at "I found design" but keep going on the whats, whens and hows of design actuation. IDers refuse, either because it will expose hopeless internal contradictions that will alienate their target audience, or because they know that they answer is still evolution, if not their "Darwinism" caricature.
ben · 1 November 2007
hoary puccoon · 1 November 2007
Albatrossity says to Bornagain:
"...you have your choice
a) DaveScot is correct, and mutation rates are what scientists say they are.
b) Sanford is correct, and mutation rates are hellaciously higher than anyone suspects.
c) Behe is correct, and mutation rates are way lower than anyone suspects....
So what is your final answer? A, B, or C?"
And Bornagain immediately replies,
"Do You believe the Big Bang was a creation event,,,"
This is what is so irritating about ID. Exchanges never go from point A to point B and get something resolved. The IDers just argue and argue and ARGUE around in circles. And then say, "see? There's a controversy."
Ginger Yellow · 1 November 2007
"Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities. "
Natural selection sure is smart.
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
Frank You stated:
As a believer in a designer/Creator, which I call God, I think that design is actuated continuously, and that the Big Bang is just one such event of many. I don’t pretend that such a claim is scientific, and am unsure if it ever will be...
This is the whole point frank...When was the information implemented into biological systems....The mutation rate to DNA says that entropy is not violated in biological systems and that degradation of information content is the overwhelming rule for information in the genome!!!Thus,,the primary concern becomes when was the information implemented since we now know it is not occurring by natural means...As I pointed out earlier I believe we already have preliminary indication that the information was inserted:
Thus at this point I can only speculate to the orgination time for information in biology,,but from the best evidence I can find is from Behe (and in the genetic diversity studies I post on this thread!), In the book EoE, Behe argues that while evolution can produce changes within species, there is a limit to the ability of evolution to generate diversity, and this limit (the “Edge of Evolution”) is somewhere between species and orders.
Thus with the two lines of evidence our best inference becomes Behe's estimate for the Edge of Evolution!
Braxton Thomason · 1 November 2007
Is it too much to ask for well-formatted, punctuated, and grammatically correct nonsense these days?
Man, if only more creationists used more exclamation points in their writing, they'd have no trouble getting people to accept it.
PvM · 1 November 2007
Mr_Christopher · 1 November 2007
Hey born again, who's god is small? Yours was castrated by a handful of concerned soccor moms and a single federal judge. Holy cow man, your deity was taken to the mat but a bunch of mothers and held there util he cried uncle. Why is the ID god so patently impotent and weak? He can create the entire universe but cannot get a foot hold in a high school science class, heck he can't even get a photo spread in a high school biology book.
He can create the universe, part oceans, cause global floods, murder every single baby boy in a given country (in one night) yet he can't get two words in a freaking high school biology class. That is a laff riot my friend who was born one too many times.
Yet you claim he can create IC structures but can't make his way into ANY science lab on earth. Talk about a weak sister. Why do you worship suck weak, pathetic, impotent deity?
Anyhow, I'd advise you to lay low when claiming other people have a small god, especially since yours is obviously a midget lighweight. Hmmm...Do you worship a gnome perhaps?
Frank J · 1 November 2007
BA77,
That’s a little slicker, but you’re still proving my point.
If your definition of information were valid, then yes, evolutionary biologists would have to propose – and test - when the information had increased. And they would do just that, and not keep evading the question with a pathetic “you go first.”
Lemme try again with the common ancestor to humans and chimps. You do agree with Behe that there was one, ~MY ago, do you? For each lineage, did the “information” increase or decrease?
Albatrossity · 1 November 2007
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
Frank,
I thought you might like this site:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0710/0710.4235.pdf
Dave:
As far as evolution is concerned the detrimental rate to evolution is 100%,,,so since your beloved theory is so wrong on this one basic point of evidence, why don't you figure out if A, B or C is correct, instead of worrying about my take on it!
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 1 November 2007
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 1 November 2007
Mr_Christopher · 1 November 2007
bornoncetoomanytime77, please address my question. Why is the god of ID so impotent and feeble? Why is he no stronger than a handfull of soccor moms?
Albatrossity · 1 November 2007
fnxtr · 1 November 2007
WTF is this 'degradation' nonsense?
All mutations are bad?
Tell that to someone with one copy of the sickle cell gene when they're exposed to malaria.
Sheesh.
fnxtr · 1 November 2007
Twicetoooften, not once.
Nigel D · 1 November 2007
Nigel D · 1 November 2007
AL · 1 November 2007
Stanton · 1 November 2007
If genetic information is lost with the transition from parent generation to offspring generation, why is it that there have been so many instants of observed speciation in plants through polyploid mutation, such as, for example, the appearance of the giant evening primrose, Oenothera gigas, in a patch of Lamarck's evening primrose, O. larmarckiana?
PvM · 1 November 2007
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
You Know what Stanton,
Sanford actually talks about loss of information in plants in every case through polyploid mutation, in his book Genetic Entropy:
http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028
Although he tries to stretch the mutational evidence too far to fit his philosophical bias of YEC (as you evolutionists also try to do to fit your philosophical bias), The book is excellent overall, for he is an expert in the field of plant Genetics,,,Shoot he invented the Biolistic "Gene Gun" process and holds over 25 patents in the field of Genetics,,,He work was/is essential for the genetically engineered food we now eat around the world,,,
Thus He has years of extensive work with plant genetics, and thus, if he says no new information is being created in plants through polyploid mutation, I believe him.
PvM · 1 November 2007
In case of asexual reproduction, there is the issue of the Muller Ratchet, more on that one later
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
PvM,
It is interesting that you are going to talk about Ellis’ paper here since,,I found the paper on Dembski's website,,, I dougbt Dembski's take on the paper is the same as yours though but who knows, maybe you guys will find some common ground,,,Now That would be strange turn of events in the ID/Evo soap opera world...LOL
Also PvM...you have no solid evidence for evolution ANYWHERE!!!!...all mutational studies show 100% detrimentality when function is clearly known for the mutation,,,Thus don't you dare lecture me on being educated when you blatantly ignore the evidence right in front of you and lead gullible people down a atheistic path... You say you are a Christian, and who am I to deny that, only God can see your heart, but Sir, by not even considering the possibility that God could be intervening at certain times in this world, even though the evidence is very strong for that possibility, makes your faith appear very weak in my eyes.
Frank J · 1 November 2007
Albatrossity · 1 November 2007
Mike O'Risal · 1 November 2007
Mike O'Risal · 1 November 2007
Oh, and I'm still awaiting your explanation of the unusual chitinase in P. falciparum, too. I notice you've dodged that question quite handily so far.
Stanton · 1 November 2007
Stanton · 1 November 2007
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
Mike O'Risal,
This is from you paper
Overall, these observations support the hypothesis that hybridization between serotype A and D enhances the ability of the less virulent serotype D strains to survive both in the environment and in the host. Similar hybrid vigor (UV resistance and tolerance to high temperature) has also been observed in natural aADα hybrids, and the increased fitness of these hybrids is hypothesized to have contributed to their worldwide distribution, whereas the parental Aa strains are geographically restricted to Africa.
also this:
Sequencing of the SXI1Dα allele from the three αADα hybrids revealed a C-terminal truncation of the ORF (119 bp) and a partial deletion of the 3′ untranslated region (301 bp). Thus, the genomic locus is 420 bp shorter in the αADα hybrids:
I would have to dig deeper to be sure,,but it seems from my first read of the article that the "successful" mutant has a less information (genomic locus is 420 bp shorter)...I can assure you ,though complex, this is not conclusive proof of evolution,,,There is always a catch to be found in all evidences I've studied, the information generation WILL be found wanting somewhere!
Mike O'Risal · 1 November 2007
PvM · 1 November 2007
raven · 1 November 2007
CJO · 1 November 2007
*stomps feet*
WILL TOO!!!
*covers ears*
LALALALALALA CAN'T HEEEAAR YOOUUUUBill Gascoyne · 1 November 2007
Good grief, and I thought Glen's comments were long. Is anyone going to actually read that enormous cut-and-paste?
I say, let the a**hole have the last word...
PvM · 1 November 2007
Bornagain, your cut and paste job was moved to the bathroom wall.
Bill Gascoyne · 1 November 2007
PvM: Thank you!
Mike O'Risal · 1 November 2007
Ah, interesting strategy, bornagain. When shown to be demonstrably and factually wrong in an argument, make childish taunts about "you guys think you're so smart" and then spew a bunch of gibberish that nobody's going to read in order to conceal your abject and completely humiliating ignorance.
Your Bible quotes are nonsense. You're a gibbering child who starts crying for daddy when confronted with his own inadequacies. And make no mistake, you are absolutely inadequate... intellectually, socially and, judging from your behavior, almost certainly sexually as well.
The thing is, we don't have to think we're smart in comparison to you, because you've repeatedly demonstrated yourself to be an idiot.
No doubt this deity you're gibbering about will now strike me down, like an angry parent defending his little, helpless, wet-nursed child. My bet is that your surrogate parent doesn't exist, won't do anything to me for saying so and, in the end, you'll still come off looking like a complete jackass. If I were someone who was looking for supporters of alternative theories to evolution, I'd be doing my damndest to disassociate myself from you right about now.
You are, in brief, an embarrassment to your religion, your family, and to any human being with two brain cells to rub together. Presented with an argument you cannot win, you throw a temper tantrum.
Somebody seriously needs to block this troll's posting. He's useless garbage cluttering up the comments section.
lurchgs · 1 November 2007
has BA77 actually answered ANYthing? Or did my eyes glaze over after so many non-sequiteurs that I missed it?
I have yet to find and IDiot who makes any more sense than that *ENGINEER* who asserts that - sometime in the past 100 years - new life should have formed in a jar or peanut butter. As though he has proof that it didn't happen..
So I'm not a biologist/geneticist/etc. The work of literally thousands of hard working people, all concentrated on the same general issue is far more likely to provide the correct interpretation than some money-grubbing back-pew whiners in Seattle.
BA - trivial as it seems, the question you were asked a while back is VERY important. Is the answer A, B, or C? If you won't answer that, I submit that it is obvious to anybody that you live under a bridge and wait for billy goats to pass by overhead - which renders each and every one of your posts completely void of meaning and value.
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
I presented all the facts for design and they were removed, I tried to reason with but you will not listen!
I've presented good solid arguments for design and you attack my character...
One person presented fairly solid evidence that was very complex,,I assert and predict that it will fail to provide conclusive evidence for evolution as all the many proported evidences have...HAH bacterial resistance to anti-biotics is proof of evolution! Whoever said that needs to get a better handle on what's required to prove evolution true...
I'll say it again, you guys are letting your preconceived philosophical bias of materialism blind you to what is really going on in biology! Some of you guys may get paid to do research but I assure you that you are not true scientists!
Mike O'Risal · 1 November 2007
Bornagain, as you have demonstrated that you're nothing but a child, I'll deal with you as one.
Shut up, you pathetic, sniveling little brat. You're nothing, and until you grow up you'll continue to be nothing.
I think you need your diaper changed and a time out now.
hoary puccoon · 1 November 2007
Fourth time I've called you on this, Bornagain--
The quote from Leakey concerning 1470 should never, never, never be used. Leakey had the dates wrong, as his own team later proved. So it's pretty mean to your hero Leakey to keep bringing up the single most embarrassing incident of his career.
Bill Gascoyne · 1 November 2007
PvM · 1 November 2007
SunSpiker · 1 November 2007
Mike Elzinga · 1 November 2007
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 1 November 2007
bornagain77 · 1 November 2007
SunSpiker asked:
Can you elaborate on what you think is required to prove evolution true. What sort of evidence, data,experiments etc. would be required?
Dr. Behe in his book "Edge of Evolution" clearly lays out what is expected for evolution to be proven true.
To conclusively prove evolution true it is necessary to actually "observe" complexity being built up by the RM/NS step by step scenario in the real world...
As I posted earlier, the best chance for RM/NS to prove its almighty power was in the studies of Malaria and HIV (because of their tremendous populations and high mutation rates), Yet the chance to prove evolution true was a dismal failure in trying to generate the complexity required to prove evolution true...
I really recommend reading Behe's book if you have not.
I also recommend for you to read the major attempts at refutation of Behe's book and Behe's defence of his assertions in his book on his amazon blog... It's really entertaining to see him so effortlessly defend his book from the best attacks his high profile enemies can muster.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/104-2850335-2287117?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cursor=1187629152.013&cursorType=after
PvM · 1 November 2007
Albatrossity · 1 November 2007
PvM · 1 November 2007
Stanton · 1 November 2007
Pole Greaser · 2 November 2007
Ichthyic · 2 November 2007
They have not found any.
BULL SHIT
ever heard of polyploidy, idiot?
go grease more poles.
Frank J · 2 November 2007
Pole Greaser,
Bornagain77 kept evading the questions, so I'll try with you.
1. Do you agree with Behe that life on earth has a 4-billion year history?
2. Do you agree with Behe that modern humans share common ancestors with most or all other species?
3. When was the last design actuation event in the lineage that led to modern humans? I'm not asking about the origin of the information, which Behe suggests might have been at the origin of the universe or before, but when it was inserted in a living cell.
4. Did the event in #3 produce life from nonliving matter, or just an in-vivo non-evolutionary genetic change?
Bornagain77,
Since I rephrased the questions, you are welcome to try again.
PvM · 2 November 2007
Stanton · 2 November 2007
SunSpiker · 2 November 2007
Nigel D · 2 November 2007
S. H. Pepper · 2 November 2007
Frank J · 2 November 2007
Stanton · 2 November 2007
Nigel D · 3 November 2007
Nigel D · 3 November 2007
Richard Simons · 3 November 2007
Ichthyic · 3 November 2007
Polyploidy just doubles the number of chromosomes.
wrong again. what the fuck do you think happens after you successfully get recombination within the doubled, or quadrupled, or more, chromosomes?
have you ever even bothered to read a paper on polyploidy? new plant species being produced all the time by it.
seriously, it's something you can easily google up.
but then, you're an idiot, so I don't expect you to even be able to accomplish that.
fuck, I swear this place is becoming WAY to tolerant of even the most ridiculous repeated arguments.
it would be so much more productive to substitute these idiotic posts with simply the numbered reference to the ICC and a link to talkorigins.
complete waste of time to even bother.
Stanton · 3 November 2007
Pole Greaser · 4 November 2007
Marek 14 · 4 November 2007
Stanton · 4 November 2007
Nigel D · 5 November 2007
Nigel D · 5 November 2007
PvM · 5 November 2007
Cleanup cycle finished.