You've probably noticed that as a soap bubble thins, it acquires a rainbow of iridescent colors across its surface. Or perhaps you've noticed that a film of oil on a mud puddle shows beautiful colors. These are common physical properties of thin film interference.
The way it works is that light entering a material with a higher refractive index is both reflected and transmitted. Some of the light bounces back with a partial phase shift, and some of it passes through. In a thin film, it passes through but doesn't travel far before it hits another boundary, for instance between the film and the water underneath it, and again, some of it is reflected and some transmitted. This second reflected beam of light, though, is out of phase with the first, by an amount that depends on the thickness of the film. What that means is that certain wavelengths will be shifted in such a way as to reinforce the first reflected beam, generating constructive interference that will make that wavelength brighter. Other wavelengths will be shifted the same amount, but they will be out of phase with light in the first reflected beam — there will be destructive interference, and that wavelength will be damped out.
The net result: the light reflecting off the film will be colored, and the color will depend on the thickness of the film. It's a simple physical process. Cephalopods use it to generate their colors — just by shifting thin reflecting membranes by a tiny distance of a fraction of a wavelength of light, they shift which wavelengths constructively and destructively interfere with each other, and thus change their color. Now engineers are exploiting the same principle to build television screens: they use a thin film that can be expanded by fractions of a wavelength of light by applying a voltage to build reflective color screens. This will be very cool. If you've got a Kindle or one of the other e-book readers, you know they use a reflective screen with no backlight that depends on ambient lighting to be visible…and that right now you only get shades of gray. With this technology, we'll be able to have color electronic paper. I'll be looking forward to it.
Unfortunately, we'll also enable incomprehending gomers. Case in point: Casey Luskin thinks that thin-film interference patterns implies design. Well, actually, it's stupider than that — he actually thinks that because TVs are being designed to use thin-film interference, and because cephalopod skin uses thin-film interference to generate color, that implies that cephalopod skin is also designed. I kid you not.
So we may soon have affordable, energy-efficient, cuttlefish inspired flat screen TVs and computer monitors everywhere. But of course, there's no design overtones to see here folks. None whatsoever.
Right. And because trebuchets were designed to use gravity to generate force, and because rocks on mountains will tumble down due to gravity, avalanches are therefore designed. We make fire by design to produce the release of energy by rapid oxidation of carbon compounds; cells also oxidize carbon-containing compounds to produce energy; therefore, cells must have been set on fire on purpose. This is what the IDiots are reduced to: if something designed and something evolved make use of the same properties of our common physical universe, that means the evolved object must be designed, too. It's ridiculous, but it's all they've got.
224 Comments
ben · 9 June 2009
Casey Luskin is as dumb as a rock. Since rocks are not designed, Casey Luskin must also not have been designed.
eric · 9 June 2009
"There are some drawbacks to this design."
Heh. Too bad for the cuttlefish the designer wasn't smart enough to figure out back-lighting.
harold · 9 June 2009
The only new thing here is the new inappropriate analogy.
The two basic arguments that ID has been making at least since 1999 are -
1) If something is designed by a known natural organism (say, Mt Rushmore or an ant hill), then anything else that can be analogized to the first thing, in however strained a fashion, must have been "designed" by an unknown (wink wink) supernatural designer. That's the one we see here in use by Luskin.
2) If we don't know exactly how something arose (or if we do, but the creationist claims we don't), it must have been "designed" by an unknown (wink wink) supernatural designer. (For example, Dembski's "filter" is an elaborate variation of this claim.)
I don't think I've ever seen an ID advocate say anything that can't be boiled down to one of these logically flawed statements.
Keelyn · 9 June 2009
Dave Wisker · 9 June 2009
I've always found it amusing that humans first looked to nature to design the airplane wing-- not the other way around.
Mike Elzinga · 9 June 2009
Evolution has been randomly exploring and sampling many of Nature’s laws for billions of years.
It should be no surprise that any creature that exists in this physical universe would obey the rules of chemistry and physics. Any creature that didn’t obey those laws doesn’t exist.
And there are phenomena that exist in nature that evolution hasn’t yet exploited (at least on this planet); namely bodies of creatures that are superconducting, employ magnetic levitation, use plasma drive propulsion, sprocket-and-chain drive, diesel engine propulsion, laser gyro-compasses, or a whole host of other phenomena that take place in energy ranges outside the ranges in which life on this planet exists.
However, in the relatively narrow energy ranges in which life here exists (roughly within the ranges of liquid water), there are literally thousands if not millions of subtle phenomena that living organisms exploit. It is these phenomena that also go into building these creatures from their earliest ancestors right on up through the chains of ancestors leading to the given creature.
No surprises here. Just because we discover and come to understand these phenomena after billions of years of evolution have already taken place doesn’t make them retroactively designed.
snaxalotl · 9 June 2009
nothing new here, except I'm afraid it hasn't been stated clearly and explicitly enough for it to become a point of ridicule: anytime man creates something that already exists in biology, the biological example becomes obvious design. most of ID is suspended from this argument, and we probably haven't seen enough "cells deliberately set on fire" examples in the past
JohnK · 9 June 2009
Rinsed & repeated at least since 400 BC.
Ray Martinez · 9 June 2009
PZ: how could the Atheist ever recognize the concept of design to exist in nature? To do so would be admitting to the existence of invisible Designer (= God).
Nature and its inhabitants are self-evidently designed---bat sonar to electric fish.
Evolution is a systematic denial of design because the secular world does not want to come under the authority of a Creator. They would rather deny the obvious and take their chances.
To say some unguided material process produced the marvels of nature, and not Intelligence, is moronic and only explained by hatred of coming under the authority of the Biblical Theos.
fnxtr · 9 June 2009
Ray, you're joking, right? Please say you're joking.
I wonder what Miller, Ayala, and the Pope think...
Frank B · 9 June 2009
Ohhh, Ray. I don't want to deny the obvious. Please save me. I wish to learn. Did God tell the Israelites to practice racial purity, and also say that all humans are his children. How did Judas die? Did he hang himself or fall down? Who was Jesus's most beloved disciple? Was Adam created before the animals or after? OOOhhhh, I have many more questions, Ray. Show me the obvious.
Mike Elzinga · 9 June 2009
gabriel · 9 June 2009
Stanton · 9 June 2009
Ray Martinez · 9 June 2009
Ray Martinez · 9 June 2009
Rob · 9 June 2009
Ray,
Have you ever looked at the first part of your bible? The part before genesis where honest bibles describe how the bible has been assembled, edited, and modified by people through time? Try opening your bible and going the part before genesis.
Rob
Stanton · 9 June 2009
Chayanov · 9 June 2009
So does this mean I can play blu-ray movies on my cuttlefish?
TomS · 9 June 2009
Ray Martinez · 9 June 2009
Ray Martinez · 9 June 2009
gabriel · 9 June 2009
So Ray, do you accept gravitational theory? Heliocentric theory? The germ theory of disease? The chromosome theory of inheritance? If so, please explain why you accept theories that every atheist I know also accepts.
Also, like I've said to you before, you don't get to decide who is a "true" Christian or not. You might well ask yourself why you reject God's general revelation in nature.
Ray Martinez · 9 June 2009
Dave Luckett · 9 June 2009
The usual false dichotomy. "You don't accept Scriptural literal inerrancy in anything in it that I choose to designate as not metaphorical, so therefore you don't accept Scripture, so therefore you aren't a Christian."
Nonsense, and nonsense again. And heresy and blasphemy as well. Mr Martinez thinks that his own perceptions and opinions, not merely those of Scripture, are infallible, which means that in his mind he has usurped the attributes of Almighty God. His hubris and arrogance reek to the eye.
Dan · 10 June 2009
Dan · 10 June 2009
PseudoPserious · 10 June 2009
Hi Dan,
Don't let Ray distract you. Frank B's post was about contradictions in the Bible -- God ordering monstrosities on one hand and proclaiming that all people are his children on the other, in his first example. The actual monstrousness of the monstrosities wasn't really the point (although it's sporting of Ray to concede that God's command was immoral).
Cheers,
PP
Rolf Aalberg · 10 June 2009
Michael J · 10 June 2009
danny Satterfield · 10 June 2009
In his book Death by Black hole, Neil de Grasse Tyson devotes much of his last chapter to ID. Among the best written analyses of it's failings I have read.
One quote from it: "Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent Design is a philosophy of ignorance.
Highly recc. the book.
Dan
ben · 10 June 2009
Frank J · 10 June 2009
DS · 10 June 2009
Ray meant to say:
"How could the theist ever not recognize the concept of design to exist in nature? To do so would be to admit to the possibility that there is no need for an invisible Designer (= God).
Nature and its inhabitants are self-evidently not designed—bat sonar to electric fish display historical contingency, inefficiency and a distinct lack of foresight and planning.
Creationism is a systematic denial of this obvious lack of design, because the religious mind requires an excuse to believe in a God in order come under the authority of a figurehead and portector. They would rather deny the obvious and take their chances than face their own mortality.
To say some unguided material process produced the marvels of nature, and not Intelligence, is rational and well supported by all available evidence. To deny this can only be explained by hatred and a strong psychological need to come under the authority of the Biblical Theos. Without the constraints so imposed, religious people fear their own basic nature and mortality so much that they would not want to live in such a world.
DavidK · 10 June 2009
What Luskin and his ilk are "seeing" are like the canals (canali) of Mars. They're trying to connect the dots to support their idea of ID, but unfortunately the "canals" are an illusion as is evidenced by space probes and as science keeps pointing out. Understandably, the Luskins of the world filter out this information and prefer their preconceptual scientist roles versus reality. Facts are too messy for them, and their brains are too small to understand anyway.
from the Wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_Lowell
Raging Bee · 10 June 2009
AKA, Paley’s argument by analogy fallacy and the argument from ignorance fallacy. Rinsed & repeated at least since 400 BC.
And then there's Ray Martinez, who can't even manage that level of intellect, and instead resorts to shrill, relentless, incoherent name-calling; which, on his better days, he manages to dress up as the argument by labelling fallacy.
There's really no point in arguing with people like Ray. All they have to offer is an ongoing temper-tantrum, screaming their hatred of a Universe they can't understand to anyone who will listen. Seriously, I've heard more coherent bollocks from raving LaRouchies and street-lunatics.
Rob · 10 June 2009
Frank J · 10 June 2009
harold · 10 June 2009
Ray Martinez -
Your comments, however hostile and vapid, have nothing to do with "Intelligent Design", as peddled by the Discovery Institute.
"Intelligent Design" is merely a highly specific denial of biological evolution, based on the two logical errors that I and others have noted.
No-one denies "design in nature". There's plenty of design in nature. All human designs are designs in nature - humans are part of nature. A bird's nest is design in nature.
Second of all, whether or not there is a "grand design" in nature is not a question for science. Scientifically educated people differ on that. Ken Miller thinks there is. PZ Myers thinks there isn't. I'm an apatheist - I don't care about religion. I think either of them could be right, or neither, for that matter.
harold · 10 June 2009
Raging Bee -
You are indeed correct about Ray Martinez, but I thought I'd reply to him (after initially ignoring him), in order to correct his implications that ID is some kind of theistic philosophy. That's what the DI wants people to think ID is.
ID is actually just illogical evolution denial, pure and simple. It is ultimately nothing more than that.
It is incoherent with regard to theism (sometimes it's the Christian God and sometimes it's an "unknown designer" who could have been an "alien"). It has no philosophical content to speak of. It's just Paley's watch and the argument from incredulity, specifically and exclusively aimed at biological evolution, over and over again.
Thanatos · 10 June 2009
Frank J · 10 June 2009
Wheels · 10 June 2009
Just Bob · 10 June 2009
Please Ray, why is (your interpretation of) the Genesis account of creation correct and that of the indigenous inhabitants of central Australia wrong?
DS · 10 June 2009
Ray wrote:
"Because evolution, if true, means Genesis is false—the Text is man-made, the Deity does not exist."
OK then, problem solved.
But seriously, you would rather believe that God does not exist than consider the possibility that your interpretation of an ancient text that has been translated at least three times is incorrect? You would rather believe that no God can exist than that it be other thatn the God of the Bible? You would rather dismiss all of the scientific evidence than admit that your desire to believe in God might be affecting your objectivity? Fine by me. But of course that still has no bearing on the validity of evolution and it won't convince anyone familiar with the evidence that evolution is not true.
eric · 10 June 2009
David Fickett-Wilbar · 10 June 2009
Amadán · 10 June 2009
Can any ID proponent here tell me whether anything in the Universe not designed?
If it all is designed, what function do do design detection techniques like the Explanatory Filter have?
If there are some things that are not, how do you account for their existence?
Just asking.
DS · 10 June 2009
Ray wrote:
Yes*, and 1900 years later evolutionary theorists, including Charles Darwin, practiced much worse.
Well, now that you have admitted that God ordered genocide then why do you have a problem with Darwin or anyone else actually doing it? After all, if God says it's OK then it must be OK right?
Of course you just happened to mention the holy war, jihad, crusade, witch hunt or inquisition that Darwin supposedly participated in. Funny that. It's almost as if you just made up some stuff in order to vilify a fine scientist. Now why would you stoop to such a tactic? You should really read the Bible more often Ray. There are a lot of words in there that you ain't followin.
Stanton · 10 June 2009
386sx · 11 June 2009
eric · 11 June 2009
zingzang · 11 June 2009
There's an important connection between the design of colored screens and the design of the cuttlefish's color-shifting skin that PZ Myers has not addressed. The colored screens being engineered for televisions are designed with a specific purpose in mind - to display images. Similarly, the cuttlefish's color-changing ability, according to the referenced article, is for the express purpose of disguise - "to hide from predators or draw in prey for the kill." In both cases, the natural properties of thin films, oils, and light are harnessed in a highly improbable configuration to achieve a specific purpose - to accomplish a useful task. The question that arises seem to be fairly straightforward, "Why would we acknowledge design in the case of the TV screens but not in the case of the cephalopod skin? What is the basis for this distinction?"
PZ Myers also brings up a couple of examples that miss the point. His first "straw man" is the fact that just because trebuchets were "designed to use gravity" (for the purpose of waging warfare) and rocks tumble down mountains "due to gravity" - it would be ludicrous to infer that avalanches are designed. The implication here is that the TV screen / Cuttlefish connection is the same kind of connection as the Trebuchet / Avalanche connection and, therefore, equally absurd. His own wording betrays the important distinction between trebuchets and avalanches: trebuchets were "designed to use gravity" while rocks tumble down "due to gravity". We correctly identify a trebuchet as "designed" because it makes purposeful use of a natural phenomenon (gravity) to achieve a specific purpose (accurately and forcefully flinging a rock at an enemy). An avalanche, on the other hand, accomplishes no specified or useful purpose. His first example misses the point.
His second straw man is similar to the first. He references living cells using oxidation to produce energy - how absurd to conclude that, therefore, living cells are designed. But the argument for design in microbiology is that the process of oxidation and energy production are used to accomplish highly complex and specific tasks with the cell - replication, transport, the production of machinery, and so forth.
I would agree with PZ Myers that the following argument does not hold water: "if something designed and something evolved make use of the same properties of our common physical universe, that means the evolved object must be designed, too." However, this is NOT the argument of design implied by the connection between TV Screen technology and Cuttlefish skin. Both the new TV screen AND the cuttlefish are employing properties of the physical universe to achieve demonstrably purposeful and specific tasks. This is the critical similarity between TV screen technology and Cuttlefish "technology". This is the point that PZ Myers has missed...or avoided. Engaging the real design argument and not his own straw version of the same would make the discussion more productive. Then, perhaps he might not feel the need resort to name calling - ("IDiots?" C'mon! Gimme a break.)
Henry J · 11 June 2009
The cuttlefish itself is the only beneficiary of its ability. There is nobody else known, let along somebody with bioengineering technology, that benefits from its possession of that ability, so for it "design" fails to explain anything. There is a known group of entities that benefits from having TV screens and which has the engineering abilities to make them (in contrast to cuttlefish, which grow from cells produced by their ancestors). That's the relevant distinction between cuttlefish and TV screen.
Henry
eric · 11 June 2009
Kathie Brown · 11 June 2009
Dear Mr. Zang (or are you Chinese/Korean in which case you are Mr. Zing,
In regards to: zingzang said: The question that arises seem to be fairly straightforward, “Why would we acknowledge design in the case of the TV screens but not in the case of the cephalopod skin? What is the basis for this distinction?”
Well for one, televisions don't have the means (yet) to produce themselves; cuttlefish do and, as part of those means, they have the capacity to change over time under selection pressure. They are part of a group of animals that include many other genus/species with color-changing escape strategies.I think this comes under the "eye" thing, you know, what use is half an eye -- pretty damn useful (I think evolution has won this fight.) Also all living cells happen to be pretty good at originating membranes of very specialized functions. You might say it comes with the territory of being a cuttlefish and having those talented cells. Organisms have appropriated many properties of the physical world to their advantage. Just takes a little time and some strange living environments. Have a little sulfur with your tea?
Steve P. · 11 June 2009
Steve P. · 11 June 2009
Stanton · 11 June 2009
chainweb does nothing to refute Henry's statement that the ability of cuttlefish to camouflage themselves is not evidence that they were designed by an unknowable "Intelligent Designer." Of course, if cuttlefish were designed to eaten by others in their indigenous ecosystem as you are implying, Steve P, then please explain why the Intelligent Designer went to so much trouble to enable to defend themselves from their predators with their camouflage, their ink, and their venomous bites? The only people who claim that this is a fallacy are the Intelligent Design proponents, themselves, and this is because they have neither the desire, nor the competence to provide evidence for the "Intelligent Designer." I mean, why should we presume that a cuttlefish is designed if no evidence exists for a cuttlefish being designed beyond wishful thinking grounded in an illogical and inappropriate inference? Furthermore, anyone who dismisses a demand for evidence in discussions of science is a malicious idiot. No, we say that abiogenesis is not necessary to understand evolution(ary biology). It is not necessary to understand how life first arose on this planet in order to understand the processes in which generations of organisms accumulate changes with each successive generation. Idiotic evolution-deniers, such as yourself, Steve P, continue to fail to explain how not being able to determine the precise circumstances of the "primordial soup" renders discussions and descriptions of evolutionary mechanisms, both inferred by examination of fossils and literally directly observed observations of labwork and fieldwork as seen in both captive and wild populations. Or, perhaps you can defend yourself by explaining how, because we still don't have a consensus about abiogenesis, bacteria don't actually evolve things like antibiotic resistance or the ability to digest new substances. (I doubt that you are competent enough to do so, though)Henry J · 11 June 2009
Steve P. · 11 June 2009
MPW · 11 June 2009
Steve P. · 11 June 2009
Dave Luckett · 12 June 2009
Stanton · 12 June 2009
Steve P. · 12 June 2009
Stanton,
Wonderful rebuttal. Evolution is change over time. Nice and specific! Any kind of change? Is it permanent? Is it reversible?
Evolution is what has already taken place in the past to create all the different forms of life we see today. They are fixed. Cats are cats. Birds are birds. Primates are primates. Insects are insects. Bacteria is bacteria. Has this changed in the past few million years? No. Sooooo, evolution is finished.
What you see now is the running of a maintenence program; adaptation. Change within a specified landscape. Species do not break through this threshold. Birds do not change over time to become something other than birds. So birds are not evolving. They are adapting to their environment as required by changes in environmental conditions.
You folks are trying to upgrade a principle of limited change in organisms to a wide ranging theory. That's why you would rather call adaptation micro-evolution. You want to link adaptation with past evolution to show they are inseparable; that micro evolution and macro-evolution are two aspects of the same thing. But no observable phenomena taking place right now can support this linkage.
Bacteria expressing the ability to eat nylon is not evolution. It shows the range of bacteria' adaptive landscape. Can bacteria eat anything? Of course not. Will it be able to consume other substrates? Maybe. Once extensive experimentation and testing is done, we will know the extent of bacteria's adaptive capabilities. However, ID says those capabilities will not be unlimited. As well, bacteria will always be bacteria. They can never escape their identity as bacteria since they have finished evolving.
Nothing difficult to understand, I hope.
Dave Lovell · 12 June 2009
Dave Lovell · 12 June 2009
Dan · 12 June 2009
Dave Lovell · 12 June 2009
DS · 12 June 2009
Steve wrote:
"Evolution is what has already taken place in the past to create all the different forms of life we see today. They are fixed. Cats are cats. Birds are birds. Primates are primates. Insects are insects. Bacteria is bacteria. Has this changed in the past few million years? No. Sooooo, evolution is finished."
Reallly. Well you seem to be unfamiliar with all of the literature documenting recent speciation events. Funny that, if you just google "recent speciation" you get 613,000 hits. Here are a few examples for you to look over (others can add their favorites to the list):
Condor 106(3):774-680 (2004)
Auk 120(3):848-859 (2003)
JME 49:814-818 (1999)
MPE 32(1):198-206 (2009)
Now you can claim that this evolution is not "marco" enough for you, that's OK. There is plenty of evidence for the evolution of major lineages as well. True, most of that did not happen in the last few million years, but then again it still occurs, so what?
If you want to tell professional scientists what they can and cannot believe then you had better be intimately familiar with the literature. Obviously you are not.
DS · 12 June 2009
Oops, sorry. The MPE reference should be from 2004. I just know Steve will want to check his back issues for that one.
Dan · 12 June 2009
DS · 12 June 2009
Steve wrote:
"Your comments are a hodgepodge of just-so assertions."
Yea, Steve much prefers just-not-so assertations not backed up by any evidence.
So how about it Steve, are the references I provided just-so assertions? Were all of the references for transitional forms just-so assertions? Have you even read any of the references yet? I think just-not-so would cover that nicely.
Time to move a long folks, nothing interesting to see here. Just another hit and run creationist with no evidence except incredulity.
eric · 12 June 2009
zingzang · 12 June 2009
There were several thought-provoking responses to my question, “Why would we acknowledge design in the case of the TV screens but not in the case of the cephalopod skin? What is the basis for this distinction?”
1) "The cuttlefish itself is the only beneficiary of its ability. There is nobody else known ... that benefits from its possession of that ability, so for it “design” fails to explain anything."
The question of who benefits from a design is an interesting question, but it is a separate and distinct question from "is this designed?". You might be walking on a beach all by your lonesome - you draw a smiley face in the sand with your finger, then a wave erases all evidence of it. No one else benefitted from the smiley face, yet it was designed, right?
2) "We acknowledge TVs are designed because we can talk to the designers and see them at work. In several thousand years, we have not seen anyone build cuttlefish."
The questions "Can we talk to the designer?" or "Can we see them at work?" have no bearing on whether the object in question was designed or not. Most of us would acknowledge that stonehenge was not an accidental, purposeless configuration of rocks; rather, it was designed by some intelligent agency. Yet, we can't talk to the designer... nor can we see them at work. We may not even know for sure who designed it.
Another example: What if the folks at SETI (The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) detected a radio signal originating from a distant galaxy - far, far, away - that was designed? Perhaps, like in the movie "Contact", it's a long string of the prime numbers. Most of us would agree with Carl Sagan (writer of the book upon which the movie was based) that such a transmission would have been designed, right? Notice that we would make this decision without reference to WHO designed it, WHEN they designed it, WHY they designed it, whether or not we can SEE the designer, or TALK to the designer. Our inference to design is based solely on the characteristics of the object (the radio transmission of prime numbers in this case...or the TV screen ... or the cuttlefish skin) without any reference to the designer. The movie CONTACT would have been short and dull if, after discovering an intelligently designed transmission from deep space, Jodi Foster said, "But wait! This transmission was not designed by humans! We don't know who did this! I can't see them or talk to them! This transmission must NOT have been designed by an intellegent agency!" End of movie.
A final example (thanks for your patience): Imagine that someone you know is found dead. An autopsy reveals that the person was murdered, that is to say, their death was not an accident; rather, their death was intentionally designed. The Coroner comes to this conclusion even though the police have not even begun to search for the murderer. It's not necessary to know WHO murdered someone to know the someone was murdered. Similarly, I would propose that it's not necessary to know WHO designed something to know that it was designed.
I look forward to your intelligently designed responses...
zingzang · 12 June 2009
Eric was explaining a difference between TV design and cuttlefish design. He said, "So, to reiterate: TV observed to be designed. Cuttlefish not observed to be designed, and also observed to arise from non-design means."
How cool! I didn't know that someone had actually "observed" the amazing body plan of the cuttlefish, complete with color-changing skin, "arising from non-design means". Who was it? What's her name? Where can I read the article? Did it take a long time?
This really changes the discussion...
Eric?
Henry J · 12 June 2009
eric · 12 June 2009
Dan · 12 June 2009
Dan · 12 June 2009
Dan · 12 June 2009
Stanton · 12 June 2009
fnxtr · 12 June 2009
Stanton · 12 June 2009
DESIGNERGODDIDIT" will be more than enough to maintain the Internet, give them enough food to eat, and keep them from dying in agony from trivial illnesses like smallpox, or the common cold, or they, like many Creationists, think that the world would be a much better place where the six leading causes of death are disease, famine, war, diarrhea, not being pious enough, and speaking one's mind.zingzang · 12 June 2009
Eric stated unambiguously, "You’re just plain wrong. SETI considers possible pulsar origins and pulsar characteristics when assessing the origin of RF signals. They’d be fools not to. Similarly one would have to be incredibly, remarkably foolish to ignore the existence of TV factories when talking about TVs or reproduction and differential survival when talking about animals."
When I brought up the SETI example, Eric, I was making the point that SETI scientists would determine that a radio transmission of a long string of primary numbers was designed - NOT produced by random movement of objects in space. They would come to this conclusion because of the characteristics of the transmission - without reference to the source of that transmission. The characteristics of the transmission are that is highly complex (highly improbable) and it specifically matches an independently determined and identifiable pattern: primary numbers.
Another question they would ask is, of course, "Where is this intelligent agency that originated this transmission? Is it from a russian satellite we didn't know about? Is it some kind of radio interference from a radio station on earth? Is some highly evolved life form on a distant planet?"
Do you see how they could come to the conclusion that a long string of prime numbers is intelligently designed...just by looking at the long string of prime numbers?
Another analogy: you come to the breakfast table and there's a tipped over box of Alphabits® cereal. A bunch of the letters are arranged on the table to spell: g-o-o-d m-o-r-n-i-n-g d-a-r-l--i-n-g. Now, what runs through your mind? Do you yell to your significant other: "Come here and look at this! It's an amazing thing! These Alphabits spilled out of the box to form a sentence by chance! Wow!" No. You know that someone designed the pattern, right? You don't even need to know who placed the letters there to come to this conclusion, do you? That's another question altogether. The first and most important question is, "Was this designed?"
And Eric, you mentioned above that, "TV observed to be designed. Cuttlefish not observed to be designed, and also observed to arise from non-design means.”
I didn’t know that someone had actually “observed” the amazing body plan of the cuttlefish, complete with color-changing skin, “arising from non-design means”. Who was it? What’s her name? Where can I read the article? Did it take a long time?
Eric, would you answer when you get the chance?
Thanks!
zingzang · 12 June 2009
Has anyone seen the amazing body plan of the cuttlefish, complete with color-changing skin, arise by non-design means?
Dan responded, "It happens every time a cuttlefish goes from zygote to adult."
I should probably clarify. I was wondering if anyone has seen the cuttlefish body plan arise. By body plan, I mean the genetic blue print which carries all of the information needed to form each individual cuttlefish. Every zygote already contains many copies of this body plan in the form of DNA. Where did all of this amazingly complex information come from?
If we were talking about corvettes, my question would be - "Did anybody watch the development of the corvette?" The body plan for a corvette does not arise every time one rolls off the assembly line. The body plan has been developed by a bunch of engineers over a number of decades. Somewhere there exists a blueprint, a CAD drawing, of all the specs necessary to build a vette. There also exists a blueprint of all the specs needed to build a cuttlefish - in its DNA. The corvette information was painstakingly engineered and designed by intelligent agents. But the cuttlefish design just kinda fell together, right? The amazing design of the cuttlefish is only "apparent design", right?
Eric has asserted that the cuttlefish "arising by non-design means" has been observed. But he hasn't yet told me who observed this ... or what issue of what journal I could read about it. Stay tuned...
Rob · 12 June 2009
The troll jacob...bobby is back in the form of zingzang.
Dave Luckett · 12 June 2009
Lynn · 12 June 2009
As a non-scientist I am really enjoying this discussion.
It's so amazing to see how the creationist trolls try to "illogically logic" their way out of understanding your explanations.
Steve P and his comments about pressure really made me think of the simplest way I explain what I understand about evolution. Eric came close to this in one of his responses.
In simplest terms (you folks tell me if this is too simplistic or I'm off here) evolution simply happens because a change(s) in an organism doesn't keep that organism from reproducing. When it reproduces it may be able to pass on that change(s). No pressure needed, just chance. Then as long as that change doesn't keep the offspring from reproducing and they can pass the change on...ad infinitum. What on earth is wrong with that?
My typical example: A dog's tail. So often I hear people say a dog has a tail so it can express its feelings. BAH! Dogs have tails because having tails did not keep tailed dog ancestors from reproducing. That they found a "use" for tails eventually is a result of them having tails with which to do something.
It's such a simple non-teleological explanation. No plan, no design, just logic. So pressure to change or to "complexify"
seems illogical to me.
I think that in these scientific discussions this simple explanation is forgotten. Missing the forest for the trees, y'know. Again, please correct me if my explanation is not scientifically tenable.
fnxtr · 12 June 2009
fnxtr · 12 June 2009
BTW, when pulsars were discovered, there were some who thought they might be signals from alien civilizations. But the astrophysical community didn't just throw a parade, they did the work to find out what pulsars actually were.
Mike Elzinga · 12 June 2009
Steve P. is attempting to make the typical creationist argument that so-called “macroevolution” doesn’t occur because creatures have only some kind of “adaptive range” outside of which they cannot evolve.
What he and his cohorts are never able to elucidate is what that “barrier” is that constrains living organisms from just continuing to evolve to the point of becoming different species. They always imply but never explain that “hidden” mechanism. At what level of complexity does it turn on to prevent and limit further evolution?
Why are water molecules so different from oxygen and hydrogen molecules? Why are there oxygen and hydrogen molecules at all? Why are hydrocarbon compounds so different from each other? How can neutral atoms and molecules form so many varied forms and structures that have qualities and characteristics that are so different from the lower level structures from which they evolved? Why are there emergent phenomena and properties in condensed matter?
So according to Steve P’s arguments, he must also believe that atoms and molecules cannot form different or higher levels of complexity or even different structures (“species”) that look nothing like their predecessors. If he really believes this, then he denies all of chemistry and physics.
If he admits to the complexities found in chemistry and physics, then he must know of a heretofore undiscovered (by real scientists) phenomenon that always “kicks in” at some level to prevent further kinds of evolution from occurring despite the fact that we see this kind of behavior at every level of complexity in the universe. In other words, he has to explain why what we actually observe can’t and doesn’t happen.
I wonder when he is going to tell us what this mechanism is; instead of always being coy with his implications that it exists.
I think, however, he is not being truthful about what he knows (or doesn’t know). In fact, I think he is just fabricating crap as he goes; he really doesn’t know about any such “barrier” to evolution. It is, in fact, he who is making all the just-so assertions.
Dean Wentworth · 12 June 2009
Dean Wentworth · 12 June 2009
Oops, I accidentally hit submit instead of preview before I was done. I meant to add the third essay Fixation Within a Deme (One more is coming.) The statistics is out of my league, but they have been very informative for a lay person like me.
Dave Luckett · 12 June 2009
zingzang · 13 June 2009
Dave Lucket - When I quoted Eric as saying, "Cuttlefish ... observed to arise from non-design means." I wasn't lying, as you asserted. Scroll up to June 11, 4:29pm. I think you read another quote by Eric and thought I was intentionally twisting his words. I do lie sometimes but I wasn't in this case.
Nor was I using the "Ah, were you there?" argument against evolution. I was asking for someone to explain Eric's assertion that someone, in fact, WAS there to observe evolution occurring (see quote above).
Nor did I invoke the second law of thermodynamics.
You were partly correct in using the term "ignorance" to describe me. I don't know as much as I'd like to - but I would like to learn more about both sides of the debate. Perhaps my intellectual capacity will evolve. (Lighten up - that's a joke not a dig.)
You were correct, Dave, in identifying the "Information theory precludes evolution" argument. But you only identified the argument - you didn't respond to it. I'm new to this blog so it's possible that you've already thoroughly dismantled that argument previously and didn't want to rehash it. I can understand that - could you point to that thread? I like to read it.
Sidenote: I'm being quite sincere, gang! At this point in my life I'm an intelligent design proponent ("IDiot" in your vernacular). I'm well aware that there are tons of extremely bright evolutionists out there - Because I respect your thoughts, I sincerely want to know how you handle, for example, the argument of information. I'm OK with the name-calling, the edgy attitude, the flippant dismissal, etc...but what I'm looking for is a thoughtful response. I know you get lots of I.D. jerks on this blog...but not all I.D. proponents have the same attitude.
Or would you prefer on this blog NOT to entertain ideas with which you disagree? The tone of the responses gives me the impression that Panda's Thumbers would prefer not to be bothered with the thoughts of the I.D. community.
Thoughts?
Stanton · 13 June 2009
What we're trying to tell you, zingzang is that simply because cuttlefish and flatscreen tvs use very similar processes to produce color-change is not necessarily evidence that cuttlefish have been designed by an Intelligent Designer.
Furthermore, we're also trying to tell you that Intelligent Design proponents have never bothered to devise a method of detecting "Intelligent Design" beyond either "I don't understand it, therefor, DESIGNERDIDIT," or "this reminds me of a household appliance, therefor, DESIGNERDIDIT," nor have Intelligent Design proponents have ever bothered to discuss how to distinguish between "designed" and "not designed," nor have they ever bothered to discuss how identifying Intelligent Design will benefit people beyond making Science more Jesus-friendly.
zingzang · 13 June 2009
Mike,
The "adaptive range" of living things is pretty well documented, isn't it? This "limit to genetic change" applies to living organisms - not chemicals, molecules, planets, etc.
For example: Galapagos finches demonstrate an amazing adaptability with regard to their finch beak size and shape. As environmental pressure (rain or drought) bears down on them, the average beak size varies - bigger during dry times to crack seeds - and smaller during rainy times.
The idea that this change in beak size could continue in one direction was an idea - an extrapolation. The actual scientific observations are contrary to this idea. The data suggests oscillation within limits.
The scientists who documented finch beak change in the Galapagos islands. wrote, "The population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth."
The kind of change that scientists observe is limited and cyclical - it doesn't create any kind of long-term net change as far as I can tell.
We don't know why this is the way it is. We don't know what this "barrier" is...as far as I know. But we DO observe the barrier. Observing that a phenomenon exists is the first step...the next step is to figure out why it is the way it is.
Note: I do NOT subscribe to the argument that "you don't see macroevolution in action so therefore it does not happen." My point is that Darwin's finches provides an excellent example of the limits of genetic variation.
zingzang · 13 June 2009
Stanton - Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I agree with you that "I don't understand it, therefore DESIGNERDIDIT" is absurd.
But there might be something to the "this reminds me of a household appliance" line of thinking. Go with me on this for just a minute, OK?
Would you agree that we can look at various objects and tell, with reasonable confidence, that they probably ARE or ARE NOT designed? You walk on a beach and see random ripples in the sand...then you come across an elaborate sand castle. Most reasonable people would identify the sandcastle as designed - and the random ripples in the sand as an accident of nature, right? Can we agree on this? Likewise, if you look up and see random puffy clouds and then you see white smoke that clearly spells out EAT AT JOE'S - most of us would acknowledge that the skywriting was designed and the random puffy clouds were an accident of nature.
Given that we make these distinctions intuitively on a daily basis - the question becomes, "On what basis are we making these distinctions?" - Or, put another way, "What characteristics do the sand castle and the skywriting share that the random ripples and clouds do not?"
The best answer I've found to this question has to do with "specified complexity". To be considered "designed" an object needs to satisfy 2 criteria. First, it must be specified - that is, must conform to a specific, independently established pattern or purpose ("castle" or "meaningful english sentence" in the above examples). Second, it must be complex - it must be highly improbable. In the above examples, it is certainly possible that waves and wind could form a big, intricate sandcastle. It is also conceivable that wind could blow clouds together to form a sentence like EAT AT JOE'S. But most of us would consider this highly unlikely.
A TV, for example, is not only complex (highly unlikely that its components fell together accidentally) - that's not enough. It's also specific - it conforms to an independently established purpose - the transmission of audio and video information.
Now here, Stanton, is where we probably part ways, right? When I observe the Cuttlefish, I see a complex, highly improbable arrangement of stuff. This complexity alone does not mean DESIGNERDIDIT. What really gets me is that it's arrangement is also specific - it conforms to an independently established purpose - camouflage for the purpose of hiding and attacking. It satisfies both criteria for a design inference.
Oh, and the Jesus thing...
Whether or not a theory fits nicely with any particular worldview should be beside the point, don't you think? Quantum physics fits nicely within a Buddhist framework - but that doesn't make it valid or not. The Big Bang fits comfortably within a Judeo-Christian framework - but that doesn't qualify or disqualify the theory. Evolution fits nicely within an atheist or agnostic worldview - but this does not make it wrong or right. This DOES, however, add a LOT OF EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE to the whole discussion, doesn't it? If evolutionists are right, then many (not all) Jesus-believer types will have to adjust their whole way of thinking. Oooh, scary! Likewise, if I.D. is accurate (RELAX everyone, this is only a hypothetical) then evolutionists would have to consider the existence of a Designer.
OK, shoot me down.
rward · 13 June 2009
“The “adaptive range” of living things is pretty well documented, isn’t it? This “limit to genetic change” applies to living organisms - not chemicals, molecules, planets, etc.”
Phenotypic change is limited in the sense that when the evolving phenotype reaches a state that reduces fitness selection will act on that expression. Limits to genetic change have not, to my knowledge, been demonstrated.
“The kind of change that scientists observe is limited and cyclical - it doesn’t create any kind of long-term net change as far as I can tell.”
Compare the Galapagos finches with their mainland progenitor species, from which they eveolved ~1 million years ago. Do you not see ‘net change’?
“We don’t know why this is the way it is. We don’t k
now what this “barrier” is…as far as I know. But we DO observe the barrier.”
“Endless forms most beautiful…” Doesn’t sound like a barrier to me.
Dave Luckett · 13 June 2009
fnxtr · 13 June 2009
zingzang,
First of all thank you for the effort to be sincere.
Now: Many of us do not see a difference between simple molecules becoming complex under the right energy conditions (Mike's examples), and the chemistry that became self-sustaining, i.e., life. So the "john-loves-mary-written-in-the-sand" analogy just doesn't work.
Some ID'ers have been here spouting off about "genetic entropy", and there was one wacko claiming there was a "law of increasing complexity" (which would seem to negate entropy).
So far, (as far as I know, anyone confirm/correct) none of the ID assertions have been backed up with actual lab and field work. It's all Aristotlean mind-wanking. There's a simple task ID has to perform to be taken seriously:
Do some science.
"This looks designed" is not science, it's a bald, unsubstantiated assertion. Submit rigorous experiments to peer review. Until that happens, ID is not science, and never will be.
If you admit ID is a religious position and not a scientific one, fine, happy trails, just don't try teaching it in science class, it's against the law and forbidden by the consitution.
Clear?
fnxtr · 13 June 2009
addendum: many professional biologists ("evolutionists", in your slanted vernacular) who accept the fact of evolution, have accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts as their personal Saviour, and see no conflict between the two. So this claim that "evolutionists" are afraid of God is completely bogus.
Dave Luckett · 13 June 2009
Sandcastles and sand ripples, clouds and skywriting. Reverend Paley again. Oh well. Once more, with feeling.
Sandcastles and skywriting have traits selected to a prior purpose, which is specified in advance: the sandcastle to look like a building, the writing to spell out a message. The sand ripples or the clouds do not have such traits.
The traits of iving things are also selected, which is why they look designed. But the selection process is not intelligent, and the result is not specified in advance. It is simply survival to reproduce, nothing more, in competition with other living organisms. Successful traits survive and are inherited, unsuccessful ones don't and are not. Successful traits thus accumulate over generations. The organism tracks its environment, just as if designed for it. If successful traits add complexity - as is often the case - then they are still preserved. The organism thus becomes more complex, and seems to be designed. But this is not design, although the results seem to mimic it.
If the process of selection goes on long enough, say, three and a half billion years, then the result is extremely various (though not endless, Darwin's hyperbole notwithstanding) and complex beyond anything else in our experience. But it still isn't designed.
Stanton · 13 June 2009
Then there is the problem of how does one identify (let alone quantify) "specified complexity" beyond a vague similarity with household appliances? What IS "specified complexity"? How does one differentiate it between non-design? How does "specified complexity" add to scientific understanding? In fact, how does saying that something is "intelligently designed" without wondering who the Intelligent Designer was, and how he/she/it/they did it, and how to recognize he/she/it/they did/doing it?
Mike Elzinga · 13 June 2009
Eric Finn · 13 June 2009
Rilke's Granddaughter · 13 June 2009
There is the additional problem that NOBODY actually uses CSI to identify anything as designed. Humans have excellent built-in pattern recognition, to the extent that they can identify things that are 'human made'. That's why the sand-castle; Stonehenge; etc. are tagged as 'designed' (another weasel word, since there is a significant bait and switch going on on the part of the ID folks: they talk about 'design', but discuss 'construction'.). We know the watch is designed/constructed because we've seen watches. And because the watch isn't alive.
CSI is a meaningless piece of drivel that Dembski came up with; even HE can't make it work.
Stuart Weinstein · 13 June 2009
Stanton · 13 June 2009
zingzang · 13 June 2009
Mike, relax dude! Darwin's theory of evolution is securely established in the scientific community at large, in the halls of academia, in the pages of the peer-reviewed journals, and in forums like this one. It is the unrivaled reigning paradigm of science at this point in history, right? Surely "IDiots" like me cannot pose a threat!
This afternoon I was reading "The Language of God", written by a non-IDiot, Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project. He states, "The examples reported here from the studies of genomes, plus others that could fill hundreds of books this length, provide the kind of molecular support for the theory of evolution that has convinced virtually all working biologists that Darwin's framework of variation and natural selection is unquestionably correct." (p.141)
And Collins quotes Dobzhansky who states, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." (p. 141)
I'm reading this book, written by a highly credentialed scientist, so that I can better understand the reasoning behind evolution. And that's why I was dipping into this forum.
OK, I'm going to quote you here - and I'm trying not to "quote mine" or twist your meaning...you asked, "Why do you toss this bullshit around in forums where you imagine there are no experts looking on?" It's precisely BECAUSE I think there ARE experts looking on that I came to this forum to put forward my ideas. This way I can benefit from those responses which are thoughtful and cogent. What I'm trying to do is to interact with ideas with which I disagree. This way I can either A) adjust what I formerly thought to be true or B) re-affirm what I thought to be true.
So here you are, Mike, in the extreme majority, convinced of the dominant biological paradigm, supported by 99.99% of the scientific community, undergirded by what nearly everyone agrees are gobs and gobs of water-tight evidence, commenting on an evolution-friendly blog which is dominated by intelligent scientific like-minded people...
Why all the vitriol?
Science Avenger · 13 June 2009
Science Avenger · 13 June 2009
Ray Martinez · 13 June 2009
Ray Martinez · 13 June 2009
Science Avenger · 13 June 2009
Ken Miller is a Catholic, and evolution says nothing about the existence of gods, though doubtless someone could define a god in a way that it would do so. However, that applies to any fact. For example, if I define my God as creating the universe so that Pi = 3.0, then the fact that Pi = 3.14159265... disproves my god.
Ray Martinez · 13 June 2009
Mike Elzinga · 13 June 2009
Rob · 13 June 2009
Zingzang is just the return of the sock puppet troll jacob..bobby from last year. He remains sadly stuck.
Science Avenger · 13 June 2009
Rob · 13 June 2009
Ray has his own twisted version of religion based on some Ray-specific quasi-literal interpretation of some version of the Bible. All who disagree with him, the Pope, Ken Miller and basically most Christians are atheists to Ray. So sad.
Ray Martinez · 13 June 2009
Ray Martinez · 13 June 2009
Science Avenger · 13 June 2009
I'd add that I see nothing zealous about Ken Miller's defense of evolution. He seems quite open to altering his views in the face of new evidence. As for Genesis, it's literal falseness stands fine independent of whatever verdict comes down on evolution.
Mike Elzinga · 13 June 2009
Science Avenger · 13 June 2009
zingzang · 13 June 2009
Mike,
Thanks for the response. If I met you in person I'd probably enjoy sitting down over a couple of beers and having a discussion with you.
I sincerely thought that Panda's Thumb would be a good place to be an "honest learner". Have you ever encountered anybody whose view of evolution opposes yours AND who is an "honest learner?"
But I think you're right. A forum is probably not the place. When I ask questions, the questions are dismissed (The Ole schtick, we've heard that one before, etc..) Or the person asking the question is berated - as if a questioner's qualifications have any bearing on the argument. Methinks you would be more comfortable with those who agree with you, no? You said, "[Honest learners] dig into the real literature and textbooks and read and reread until they comprehend." So I'll opt for real literature.
I've got a stack of books to work through - I'll take you're advice, Mike! I'm looking for the best arguments against information theory, the best examples of random variation that add genetic information, the best examples of macroevolution being observed, the most convincing transitional fossils, the best explanation for the Cambrian explosion, yada, yada. If you (or anyone else) have any book suggestions (No, I'm not bluffing! I'm not pretending to be interested! I'm not trying to be an expert even though I don't got no edjumacation) I'd be interested. What book makes the best case for Neo-Darwinian evolution - and against I.D? If you could suggest one book that would thoroughly decimate a dewy-eyed Creationist...what would it be?
Thanks, in advance, for your response.
Ray Martinez · 13 June 2009
Ray Martinez · 13 June 2009
Stanton · 13 June 2009
Mike Elzinga · 13 June 2009
Ray Martinez · 13 June 2009
Ray Martinez · 13 June 2009
Ray Martinez · 13 June 2009
zingzang · 13 June 2009
I question the explanatory power of neo-darwinian evolution.
(Having said that, I'll save everybody some time...) Clearly I'm an ignorant, dishonest, uneducated, unqualified, disingenuous, religiously motivated, lazy-minded, lying, quote mining, mind-yanking, bullshit spouting, disgusting, full of crap, unscientific, obnoxious, sock puppet troll.
I catch on quick, don't I?
All of that notwithstanding - Is there any chance that I might get some book suggestions? I'm looking a concise volume with the best arguments for evolution - and against I.D.
Titles, anyone?
Lynn · 13 June 2009
Stanton · 13 June 2009
fnxtr · 13 June 2009
Ray Martinez says Kenneth Miller isn't a True Christian.
WHO EFFING CARES 1) what Ray thinks, and 2) whether Miller is, in fact, a Christian, by whatever measure.
Miller does the science right. Let them have their sectarian squabble. It's irrelevant.
Eric Finn · 13 June 2009
Dale Husband · 13 June 2009
Flint · 13 June 2009
Science Avenger · 13 June 2009
Science Avenger · 13 June 2009
Science Avenger · 13 June 2009
Stanton · 14 June 2009
Rilke's granddaughter · 14 June 2009
Rilke's granddaughter · 14 June 2009
Rilke's granddaughter · 14 June 2009
Dave Luckett · 14 June 2009
Dean Wentworth · 14 June 2009
Mike Elzinga · 14 June 2009
zingzang · 14 June 2009
To my question: Have you ever encountered anybody whose view of evolution opposes yours AND who is an “honest learner?”
You answered, "NO - I never have. Every single person who claimed otherwise turned out to be a liar."
This should give any scientist cause for pause. When you are convinced that everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the data is a dishonest liar (or religiously motivated, or stupid, or ignorant...) the warning bells should be going off. Advances in science are made by those who are open to possibilities.
Is it possible that the earth revolves around the sun? Shut up, you stupid liar.
Is it possible that there is no such thing as the "ether"? Silence, you dishonest ignoramus.
Is it possible that bleeding patients is counter-productive? Away with you, uneducated sloth.
Is it possible that space curves? No one in the scientific community believes that. Silence!
You wrote: "You said that vitriol didn’t bother you - so why bring it up?" I bring it up because when someone exhibits an overabundance of vitriol, it usually means that they've got issues. In debate, in sports, in personal relationships, and even in science - when someone gives off a disproportionate amount of anger, it's a sign of weakness. My original question "Why all the vitriol" points out the incongruity between being an evolutionist (a position of strength at this time in the scientific community - and on this forum) and the anger Mike and others were displaying when interacting with those who differ (I.D. proponents - an extreme minority position at this time in history).
Stanton · 14 June 2009
Dave Luckett · 14 June 2009
Look, zingy, whoever you are:
Your questions have been pretty politely answered, in a reasonable way, by me and others. Your idea that living things were designed, because they're (a) 'way complex, (b) superbly fitted to their environment and (c) look designed is so much elephant gravy. It doesn't follow. It's a non-sequitur. It is also a non-idea. It got blown sky-high before 1900. The horse is dead. Stop flogging it, already. Complexity arises spontaneously, selection explains fitness and parsimony, and design is a appearance that follows from the first two. That's down and dusted this century and more.
But here you are, still trying for a zinger. Maybe that's where you got your handle from. Telling us we should be more open-minded. Open-minded, my foot. Open-minded people deal in evidence. Present your evidence, zingy. Show us what you got. Give it your best shot. For instance, tell us how we can test for design. What should we look for that's different from what we can see and explain by descent with modification?
I predict that you won't be able to tell us that, zingy, and I'll tell you what you got. You got nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. No evidence, not a scrap, not a jot. No theory, no specifics, no explanation, nothing.
Prove me wrong, zingy.
Mike Elzinga · 14 June 2009
Mike Elzinga · 14 June 2009
And you might also go back over this thread and try to reread your own cocky challenges and arguments. You apparently have no concept of how your own attitudes and anger come through in your snarky "rebuttals" to points made by experts here.
Dan · 14 June 2009
Dan · 14 June 2009
zingzang · 14 June 2009
Stanton, I appreciate your response. I'm sure there's been plenty of damage done by evolution-deniers. I'd like to apologize if I've been part of that - I'm not "hellbent on maligning you with lies and slander" - and I can understand that interacting with people who SAY they are open to learning new things but, in fact, are NOT - this does get wearisome, doesn't it?
When surveying the interactions on The Panda's Thumb, it appears as though an evolution-denier is BY DEFINITION dishonest (or ignorant, or religiously motivated). It goes like this: Because we all know that evolution has been determined to be factual by everyone that matters in the scientific community, IT FOLLOWS LOGICALLY that anyone who denies this fact must BY DEFINITION be uninformed OR they know just enough to be obnoxious and are willfully denying reality because of religious motivations, or a disrespect for science, etc.
Hopefully, this is only "apparent" and not actually the case.
Thanks for the book suggestions. Thanks, everyone (especially Science Avenger) for your time and interaction - it's been very challenging and thought-provoking for me! I've learned a little bit about evolution - and a lot about evolutionists.
Now I'll take Stanton's advice and "get the fuck out of here." ( I wonder if Madame Curie ever said that? Or Albert Einstein? What a hoot.)
(Pssst. Mike, Stanton, et. al. - that's your cue. Let the vitriol fly!)
Stanton · 14 June 2009
Dan · 14 June 2009
Keelyn · 14 June 2009
Dan · 14 June 2009
Rob · 14 June 2009
zingzang...bobby...jacob of the many troll posts. i see you still have that passive aggressive disease. i doubt you will read any of the books suggested by the fine people here, but do let me thank you for leaving.
Stanton · 14 June 2009
Mike Elzinga · 14 June 2009
Science Avenger · 14 June 2009
Science Avenger · 14 June 2009
Science Avenger · 14 June 2009
Stanton · 14 June 2009
And there's zingzang's problem of how he makes stupid analogies: I mean, what sort of moronic fantasy world does he live in where people would be satisfied simply with knowing someone was murdered, and have no desire to see the murderer identified, let alone apprehended and brought to justice?
Stanton · 14 June 2009
Mike Elzinga · 14 June 2009
Lynn · 14 June 2009
Dave Luckett · 15 June 2009
oleg · 15 June 2009
Dave Luckett · 15 June 2009
I dunno. I don't trust my own perceptions of text, exclusively. Maybe somebody can explain to me what, if anything, the post from oleg means.
At first I thought he was channelling Mercutio, "A plague on both your houses!", but repeated parsing leads me to doubt it.
He could be saying that he thinks the arguments from analogy and ignorance, since they outnumber the argument from evidence, are of more weight. He does appear to refer to the former as "arguments" but to the latter as "one little argument/belief", implying that it isn't really an argument - but that, of course, would mean that oleg is barking mad, and proud of it. Depending on who he means by "they" in the fifth paragraph, he could be repeating the idiotic assertion that evolution is a religious belief - but that would mean that oleg lives in a personal reality, pristinely unviolated by actual, you know, facts. Which is to say, again, that he's actually crazy.
He appears to be saying that the lack of apparent conscious direction to the processes of evolution is a reason for rejecting it as an explanation for the origin of species. I know, I know, that's so... so... coherent. oleg, from his discourse, doesn't do coherence, and imposing it on him might be a serious mistake.
Like I said, I dunno.
Oleg · 15 June 2009
Wow Dave, have some straw to perpetuate and build some more straw man arguments... While you are at it, why don't you break down those straw man argument and then say.. Oh I donno...
Like I said, rinse and repeat for infinity. I do, after all think you are the result of never ending s**t that happens for no reason at all and anything that does come from you can't really be considered to be more or less than s**t.
Dave Luckett · 15 June 2009
Well, that's some sort of confirmation. We have a room out here for crazy people, oleg. It's called the bathroom, and it has a wall. You get to write anything you want on it...
Oleg · 15 June 2009
ROFL, more s**t from Dave. Tell me are you an IDer? Keep it coming. BTW, labeling others crazy is absolutely hilarious coming from you. Could you please elaborate why anyone should believe you when you argue/assert someone else is crazy when it is argued that they are the result of never ending s**t that happens for no reason at all anyway?
Come now Dave, throw us with more TARD. Make an argument, give a point, be concstructive, say something "ought to be", like "ought to be sane", instead of "everything just is"...
Waiting Dave...
Dave Luckett · 15 June 2009
DNFTT
oleg · 15 June 2009
Guess DaveTARD can make a point without draw up straw men. Shame...
oleg · 15 June 2009
Guess DaveTARD can't make a point without drawing up straw men. Shame...
Science Avenger · 15 June 2009
OK Oleg,
I've read your last three posts now three times each, and despite my best efforts I cannot extract meaning from them. Maybe its the heavy sleep medication I took last night, or maybe you are doing the best you can in a second language, I don't know. But would it be too much trouble to ask you to express your view succinctly, and clearly, using short declarative sentences, so that understanding may follow?
Just a thought.
Lynn · 15 June 2009
Keelyn · 15 June 2009
Oleg · 15 June 2009
Oleg · 15 June 2009
Science Avenger · 15 June 2009
Ah, I get it, Oleg's playing the "if there's no divine plan, then nothing matters" game. Of course, then he belies this by coming onto a website to tell us so.
Borrrrrrrrrring.
Oleg · 15 June 2009
Huh? You sure your meds are not stronger than prescribed?
Science Avenger · 15 June 2009
That's a good little troll, keep posting nonsense. I'm sure your friends are very impressed.
Oleg · 15 June 2009
Sure, it is not like you are making any sense anyway, the meds must be affecting your.. uhm "reasoning" skills, whatever you think "reasoning" means to you...
Dan · 15 June 2009
Oleg · 15 June 2009
Hey Dan, now that you have shown you think you are capable of recognizing "complete lack of reasoning", how about you show some consistency there old chop?
fnxtr · 15 June 2009
Cut to the chase, Oleg.
Why are you here?
Dan · 15 June 2009
Stanton · 15 June 2009
Keelyn · 15 June 2009
Dave Luckett · 16 June 2009
You won't get anything intelligible back from oleg, Keelyn. He hasn't the faintest idea what a strawman argument is. It's a phrase he's picked up somewhere, and he's using it as dressing to his word-salad. And fnxtr, the reason he's here is babble incoherently and throw poo.
Like I said, DNFTT.
Dean Wentworth · 16 June 2009
Keelyn,
When Michael Ventris deciphered Linear B the key was realizing it was Mycenaean Greek. The key to appreciating Oleg's intellectual prowess is to realize that he exclusively uses 3rd grade-level argumentative gibberish, mainly spoken in elementary schoolyards.
Based on his writing to date, I will compose a cogent retort to your last comment in Olegese.
"Way to draw up straw man, KeelynTARD, pfff. Wow, guess your...uhm... meds are stronger than prescribed. Perpetuated s**t...well...is still s**t, and what comes from s**t can only throw us with more TARD. Rinse and repeat for infinity."
Albeit crude, perhaps even grotesque, this form of sophistry is utterly unassailable. Hence, I fully expect it to start showing up in the primary scientific literature.
Keelyn · 16 June 2009
Dan · 16 June 2009
Dean Wentworth · 16 June 2009
Dan,
Your point is well taken. I apologize to 3rd graders everywhere.
Keelyn · 16 June 2009
Well, I meant to say last night that Oleg had until I fed my horse this morning to provide specifics - that was 5:45 am. He has had that and more - so, I would say you are vindicated, Dave. The third graders are vindicated as well. One more troll for the menu.
Ray Martinez · 16 June 2009
Stanton · 16 June 2009
Flint · 16 June 2009
Well, I guess Miller isn't a Real Christian. He's been corrupted by too much reality.
fnxtr · 16 June 2009
Dale Husband · 16 June 2009
Dave Luckett · 17 June 2009
Oddly enough, I have no interest at all in "debate" with Ray.
See, the problem with being a literalist is that you still have to pick and choose what bits of the Bible you consider literal. Even literalists agree that the parables of Jesus are metaphors - He Himself said as much. But when He said that He stood at the door and knocked, did He actually mean He was doing that, right now? No? When He said He was the true vine, did He mean He put out new leaves every spring? Um...another metaphor, then. Only He didn't say that those were metaphors, so some of the Bible's metaphors are unannounced. So... what else is metaphor?
What about the Revelation of St John? Is there really going to be a, you know, actual Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes at the center of the Throne, or is that another figure of speech, using magic numbers? The story of Lot's wife, maybe, considering that "salted" is metaphorical for "purified"? Did Balaam's ass actually talk, or is that really a metaphor for his conscience? Did Samson's strength really come from his hair, of which he had seven locks, (there's that number again) or is that another metaphor?
And if those are metaphors, what else might be? Is it possible that the people who first wrote down the creation stories in Genesis were perfectly well aware that they conflicted in details, but were not concerned with that, because the stories made a point? That is, they knew that they were stories. Stories, told to make a point.
Somewhere along that continuum, Ray draws a line. A hard, bright, sharp, uncrossable line. On one side, metaphor, on the other side, literal fact. The only problem is, that line exists in his mind, and nowhere else. And here's the reason I'm not going to debate with Ray: he thinks he can't possibly be wrong about it.
Oliver Cromwell, no secular humanist, wrote to the Elders of the Church of Scotland: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you might be mistaken."
But Ray couldn't be mistaken. The idea that he might be is intolerable, an affront, an impossibility. Sadly, even other literalists disagree with him on just exactly where you draw that line, so they must be wrong. They can't be real literalists, real Bible-believers, thinks Ray. They're apostate heretics, just as bad as non-literalists, just as bad as the Pope and Bishop Spong, and anybody else who doesn't draw the line exactly where Ray Martinez wants it drawn. Just like humanists, agnostics, atheists - they all differ only over which particular circle of Hell they'll end up in.
So Ray's a monster, with an ego the size of a planet that's as fragile as a soap bubble. He's got a monster for a god, too, being a projection of himself on the face of the Universe. Debate with that? You have to be kidding.
Stanton · 17 June 2009
Dave Luckett · 17 June 2009
Dan · 17 June 2009
fnxtr · 17 June 2009
My God told me Ray isn't a True Christian (tm) because he denies the signs of His work, and scorns His gift of reason. Ray doesn't worship God or Christ, he worships scriptures written by fallible men. Have fun in Hell, Ray, that's where my God says you're going.
eric · 17 June 2009
eric · 17 June 2009
Stanton · 17 June 2009
Sylvilagus · 18 June 2009
Stanton · 18 June 2009
Chris Ashton · 19 June 2009
Chris Ashton · 19 June 2009
In other words, random, nondirected, chance, "blind" evolution at it again.
Dan · 19 June 2009
DS · 19 June 2009
zingzang wrote:
"I question the explanatory power of neo-darwinian evolution."
Fine. I question the explanatory power of any alternative proposed so far. They are all a distant second, if they offer any explanations at all.
Lynn · 23 June 2009