Evolution is a Mechanism of Evolution and Other evoTARD Cowardice
-
Over AtBC, one Timothy Horton, ignorant coward extraordinaire, told me that evolution is a mechanism of evolution. And that giraffes evolved from non-giraffes via evolution! From there the moron moved to "evolution by common descent" as the alleged mechanism that can produce giraffes from non-giraffes.
And yet "evolution by common descent" can only produce more voles starting with populations of voles! It can only produce more bacteria starting with populations of bacteria!
Not only that, the mechanism of "evolution by common descent" is too vague and as such it is a coward's choice. It definitely isn't science. "Descent with modification" is also useless unless you can specify what gets modified. Merely saying "the genome is what gets modified" just proves that you don't know. Descent with modification gave us the voles. All voles have the same body plan. And yet the genomes have evolved "60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species".
Natural selection was Darwin's choice of an evolutionary mechanism that he alleged to have creative powers. It has FAILed, miserably, in that regard. And that brings us to my point- there isn't an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes starting with populations of bacteria (prokaryotes and archaea). Given single-celled eukaryotes there isn't a mechanism capable of producing metazoans. That list goes on and on.
So how do evos "test" their claims of universal common descent? Phylogenetics, which only looks at similarities. and the alleged divergence, ie range of differences. Similarities that are easily accounted for via a Common Design, and of course convergent evolution. From a Common Design point of view, the differences are due to different requirements of the organisms.
The main problem with phylogenetics is mechanisms dictate patterns. So without a mechanism any alleged evolutionary pattern generated by phylogenetics is bound to be incorrect, or not even wrong. And taking a look at the differences in genes that still produce the same protein will NEVER say anything about the obvious anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed between two species that are alleged to share a common ancestor. Phylogenetics assumes there is a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of bacteria. That means it assumes the very thing that requires a scientific explanation. And that is putting the horse before the cart.
Over AtBC, one Timothy Horton, ignorant coward extraordinaire, told me that evolution is a mechanism of evolution. And that giraffes evolved from non-giraffes via evolution! From there the moron moved to "evolution by common descent" as the alleged mechanism that can produce giraffes from non-giraffes.
And yet "evolution by common descent" can only produce more voles starting with populations of voles! It can only produce more bacteria starting with populations of bacteria!
Not only that, the mechanism of "evolution by common descent" is too vague and as such it is a coward's choice. It definitely isn't science. "Descent with modification" is also useless unless you can specify what gets modified. Merely saying "the genome is what gets modified" just proves that you don't know. Descent with modification gave us the voles. All voles have the same body plan. And yet the genomes have evolved "60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species".
Natural selection was Darwin's choice of an evolutionary mechanism that he alleged to have creative powers. It has FAILed, miserably, in that regard. And that brings us to my point- there isn't an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes starting with populations of bacteria (prokaryotes and archaea). Given single-celled eukaryotes there isn't a mechanism capable of producing metazoans. That list goes on and on.
So how do evos "test" their claims of universal common descent? Phylogenetics, which only looks at similarities. and the alleged divergence, ie range of differences. Similarities that are easily accounted for via a Common Design, and of course convergent evolution. From a Common Design point of view, the differences are due to different requirements of the organisms.
The main problem with phylogenetics is mechanisms dictate patterns. So without a mechanism any alleged evolutionary pattern generated by phylogenetics is bound to be incorrect, or not even wrong. And taking a look at the differences in genes that still produce the same protein will NEVER say anything about the obvious anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed between two species that are alleged to share a common ancestor. Phylogenetics assumes there is a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of bacteria. That means it assumes the very thing that requires a scientific explanation. And that is putting the horse before the cart.
posted by Joe G @ 8:48 AM
34 Comments:
At 11:03 AM,
JV said…
So how do evos "test" their claims of universal common descent? Phylogenetics, which only looks at similarities. and the alleged divergence, ie range of differences.
I don't think you 'test' universal common descent with phylogenetics. From Wikipedia:
:In biology, phylogenetics is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree)—a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms. The tips of a phylogenetic tree can be living organisms or fossils, and represent the 'end', or the present, in an evolutionary lineage. A phylogenetic tree can be rooted or unrooted. A rooted tree indicates the common ancestor, or ancestral lineage, of the tree. An unrooted tree makes no assumption about the ancestral line, and does not show the origin or "root" of the gene or organism in question. Phylogenetic analyses have become central to understanding biodiversity, evolution, ecology, and genomes."
So it's more of an analytic tool.
So, the basic 'threads' or areas of support for unguided evolution are: morphology, genomics, bio-geographic distributions and fossils.
Some biologists feel that the genomic evidence alone is convincing.
And some biologists have said you could disregard all the fossils and the evidence would still be compelling.
You may wish to say some of the observed data could just as easily have come from common design but then you have to be able to specify what aspect of design was satisfied with all the data observed in the above line of evidence.
I would guess that your response to that would be: we don't have to, design alone accounts for everything. Which I think is a double standard: unguided evolutionary proponents have to spell out every single step or you claim the case has not been made. But ID proponents don't have to explain any of the observed intermediate steps; it's all part of some unknown design plan.
There is no generally accepted evidence that mutations and other inheritable modifications are guided. If there is no guiding then all the evidence we see comes from an unguided processes. So, even if you think there is no 'mechanism' the processes observed must be capable of getting the job done.
At 11:10 AM,
Joe G said…
I don't think you 'test' universal common descent with phylogenetics
And yet evolutionary biologists do just that.
So, the basic 'threads' or areas of support for unguided evolution are: morphology, genomics, bio-geographic distributions and fossils.
Except that unguided evolution is incapable of producing the organisms that were fossilized. It definitely cannot account for bio-geographic distribution.
There isn't any genomic evidence that says bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria.
There is no generally accepted evidence that mutations and other inheritable modifications are guided.
There isn't any way to test the claims of unguided evolution. There aren't any predictions. There aren't any testable hypotheses.
All you have is your ignorance and wishful thinking.
At 11:15 AM,
Joe G said…
The paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" refutes the claims of unguided evolution. There isn't enough time in the universe for unguided evolution.
At 3:31 PM,
JV said…
All you have is your ignorance and wishful thinking.
I know you like to think so but you have yet to produce clear and unambiguous evidence that some kind of guiding mechanism or being exists.
The paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" refutes the claims of unguided evolution. There isn't enough time in the universe for unguided evolution.
You might think so but those with more background and experience in the field disagree.
Present the unarguable evidence that there is guidance and then we'll talk.
At 5:33 PM,
Joe G said…
You have failed to produce anything. Those who disagree don't have any science nor evidence to support them.
Present the unarguable evidence for unguided evolution producing multi-protein systems and structures and then we'll talk.
At 9:44 AM,
JV said…
You have failed to produce anything. Those who disagree don't have any science nor evidence to support them.
That is your severe minority opinion. I know you believe you are correct but that doesn't make it true.
Present the unarguable evidence for unguided evolution producing multi-protein systems and structures and then we'll talk.
Again, a vast majority of those knowledgable in the pertinent fields think the case has been made.
IF you really are interested in changing peoples' minds then you're going to have to do some more work 'cause what you're doing now ain't working.
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Dude, I have noticed that you have again FAILed to produce or present any science or evidence that supports unguided evolution. The case hasn't been made as the case is absent from peer-review.
Look, obviously you are just an ignorant and gullible troll. And I am having a good go at reaching high school students. So get stuffed, loser.
At 10:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Present the unarguable evidence for unguided evolution producing multi-protein systems and structures and then we'll talk.
If that was in peer-review then evos would have used it instead of being forced to bluff and lie at the over trial. That evidence would be brought up on every science blog on the internet. It would be shoved in the faces of the IDists. And yet none of that is happening?
Go figure...
At 11:06 AM,
JV said…
Dude, I have noticed that you have again FAILed to produce or present any science or evidence that supports unguided evolution. The case hasn't been made as the case is absent from peer-review.
What kind of evidence would you agree supports unguided evolution?
Look, obviously you are just an ignorant and gullible troll. And I am having a good go at reaching high school students. So get stuffed, loser.
That's interesting. How are you doing that?
If that was in peer-review then evos would have used it instead of being forced to bluff and lie at the over trial. That evidence would be brought up on every science blog on the internet. It would be shoved in the faces of the IDists. And yet none of that is happening?
What specifically do you think was a bluff or a lie given by the evo-crowd at the trial?
At 11:13 AM,
Joe G said…
What kind of evidence would you agree supports unguided evolution?
OK, so you don't have any. Got it.
That's interesting. How are you doing that?
With logic an reasoning, along with science and evidence.
What specifically do you think was a bluff or a lie given by the evo-crowd at the trial?
That has already been outlined and written about. Start with Behe refutes Judge Jones
At 4:05 PM,
JV said…
OK, so you don't have any. Got it.
Since we disagree about what is acceptable evidence it seems fair to ask you what you would find acceptable. How can someone address your concerns if you won't be more specific?
With logic an reasoning, along with science and evidence.
Right, of course. What I meant was in what venue? Since I don't think it would be in the school.
That has already been outlined and written about. Start with Behe refutes Judge Jones
I did read through that. I see some issues you (and Dr Behe) feel were misinterpretations of the data by the evo-crowd. But I'm not sure it could be categorised as bluffs or lies since the folks who espoused those views truly believed in what they were saying. A lie or a bluff implies they knew it was false and I don't think that's true.
At 5:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Since we disagree about what is acceptable evidence it seems fair to ask you what you would find acceptable.
What have you got? Peer-review is devoid of support for unguided evolution. You don't have any math to support unguided evolution.
What I meant was in what venue?
What does that matter? Minds are free, duh. And those free minds understand that the genetic code seals the deal with ID being the only possible explanation for its existence.
And bluffs and lies exist regardless of your semantic quibble. Ignorance is not an argument. And not one of those 58 references the lawyer bluffed with has any evidence for unguided evolution.
At 12:48 AM,
JV said…
What have you got? Peer-review is devoid of support for unguided evolution. You don't have any math to support unguided evolution.
What kind of evidence do you want? I don't want to waste your time.
What does that matter? Minds are free, duh. And those free minds understand that the genetic code seals the deal with ID being the only possible explanation for its existence.
I'm just curious. If I wanted to talk to teenagers about evolution I'm not sure how or where I could do that.
And bluffs and lies exist regardless of your semantic quibble. Ignorance is not an argument. And not one of those 58 references the lawyer bluffed with has any evidence for unguided evolution.
Well, I don't think the witnesses for the plaintiffs were ignorant and I do think they were not trying to lie or bluff.
Have you yourself read the 58 references?
At 9:43 AM,
Joe G said…
Again, what evidence do you have? Do you have any evidence or a way to test the claim that unguided evolution can produce multi-protein structures or systems? Present it.
I have a teenager. So it's easy for me to get in touch with others.
The fact remains that the witnesses lied and bluffed during the trial. And more qualified people have read those 58 references. There isn't any evidence for unguided evolution in them.
At 10:27 AM,
JV said…
Again, what evidence do you have? Do you have any evidence or a way to test the claim that unguided evolution can produce multi-protein structures or systems? Present it.
You know what evidence I think I have. I am asking you: what type of evidence would you accept does support unguided evolution what kind of test would you find pertinent? If I know what you want then I have a better chance of getting something right.
I have a teenager. So it's easy for me to get in touch with others.
And they listen to an adult? You must do some sweet talkin;.
The fact remains that the witnesses lied and bluffed during the trial. And more qualified people have read those 58 references. There isn't any evidence for unguided evolution in them.
So you haven't read them yourself. I'm only asking 'cause you sometimes chide people you disagree with for not thinking for themselves and letting others tell them what is true.
At 12:54 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, I know that you don't have any evidence to support the claim that unguided processes can produce multi-protein structures and systems. I also know that you don't have a methodology to test the claim that they can.
Yes, the kids listen to adults. Their teachers are all adults. And they are all curious as to how we came to be. It also helps when my kid is the best student in biology in the school and is also an IDist.
And I read the first three references of the 58. There wasn't anything in them to suggest unguided evolution can produce immune systems. The asshole lawyer, as well as the evos, think that "evolution" is being debated.
At 3:13 PM,
JV said…
Yes, I know that you don't have any evidence to support the claim that unguided processes can produce multi-protein structures and systems. I also know that you don't have a methodology to test the claim that they can.
Does your unwillingness to tell me what kind of evidence you would find convincing mean you don't know? If you don't know that's fair; I'm just trying to have a more productive conversation.
And I was remembering a fairly common question to atheists from theists: is there any evidence that would convince you there is a god? I think it's a fair question; it's check to see that the person being asked is still open to evidence and isn't purely driven by ideology.
Anyway, if you don't want to answer that's your choice.
Yes, the kids listen to adults. Their teachers are all adults. And they are all curious as to how we came to be. It also helps when my kid is the best student in biology in the school and is also an IDist.
No dissenters at all?
And I read the first three references of the 58. There wasn't anything in them to suggest unguided evolution can produce immune systems. The asshole lawyer, as well as the evos, think that "evolution" is being debated.
Well, 3 out of 58 is a good start!! Is the basis for your disagreement that all the noted behaviour could be the result of guidance? And if so then how can you tell the difference between a phenomena that is guided and one that isn't? Are all beneficial modifications guided and all detrimental ones unguided?
At 10:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Does your unwillingness to present any evidence mean that you don't have any?
Do you have any evidence that unguided processes can produce biologically relevant replicators?
Do you have any evidence that given those replicators that unguided processes can then produce living organisms?
Yes, the kids are all dissenting from unguided evolutionary bullshit. They read the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" and see the task at hand and understand the bullshit.
And if there isn't anything in the first 3 then there isn't any sense going on. You, being a mathematician should understand the importance of the first 3.
The basis of my disagreement is it is all just a narrative. No one has actually carried out any experiments to show that unguided processes can produce a living organism. Given starting populations of prokaryotes no one can show unguided processes can produce eukaryotes.
And you want us to believe that sheer dumb luck just happened to produce an immune system in organisms it can't produce? Really?
The entire concept of unguided evolution is untestable. It doesn't produce any predictions.
At least guided evolutionary concepts are used and useful.
At 12:42 AM,
JV said…
Does your unwillingness to present any evidence mean that you don't have any?
I have lots and lots of evidence which you don't find compelling so, again, I'm asking you: what kind of evidence would you find compelling? You don't want to say for some reason.
Do you have any evidence that unguided processes can produce biologically relevant replicators?
Well, I've read some ideas but that work is ongoing.
Do you have any evidence that given those replicators that unguided processes can then produce living organisms?
If you have replicators are they not alive?
And if there isn't anything in the first 3 then there isn't any sense going on. You, being a mathematician should understand the importance of the first 3.
I'm not disagreeing. But I also have not seen any solid and widely accepted evidence of any kind of guiding process or mechanism.
Also, if life on earth was seeded from another world then some of the 'evidence' would be elsewhere. Perhaps.
The basis of my disagreement is it is all just a narrative. No one has actually carried out any experiments to show that unguided processes can produce a living organism. Given starting populations of prokaryotes no one can show unguided processes can produce eukaryotes.
Right . . . so, again, what kind of evidence would you find compelling?
And you want us to believe that sheer dumb luck just happened to produce an immune system in organisms it can't produce? Really?
Nope, it's not sheer dumb luck. Cumulative selection built upon random variation is a power process.
he entire concept of unguided evolution is untestable. It doesn't produce any predictions.
I disagree. But, again, I want to know what evidence you would find compelling.
At least guided evolutionary concepts are used and useful.
Health professionals are now realising that the ability of bacteria to evolve (via unguided processes) means we are having to change the way we prescribe antibiotics so as not to burn through all available treatments.
I'd like to know why you choose not to say what evidence you would find compelling. I believe you do know what would change your mind but you won't say. Why is that?
Your particular point of view could always claim that any positive change was guided which is kind of your trump card. But you don't think all variation was guided which means some is just random. But random can be good as well as bad.
At 8:33 AM,
Joe G said…
I have lots and lots of evidence
Bullshit.
Well, I've read some ideas but that work is ongoing.
Where?
If you have replicators are they not alive?
Nope
But I also have not seen any solid and widely accepted evidence of any kind of guiding process or mechanism.
More qualified people have.
what kind of evidence would you find compelling?
The kind that demonstrates unguided processes can do it.
Nope, it's not sheer dumb luck.
Yes, it is.
Cumulative selection built upon random variation is a power process.
Cumulative selection is telic. You have an issue with more than TWO specific, ie cumulative, mutations.
I disagree
Then say what it predicts and how to test it. No one else ever has.
Health professionals are now realising that the ability of bacteria to evolve (via unguided processes) means we are having to change the way we prescribe antibiotics so as not to burn through all available treatments.
Question-begging.
I'd like to know why you choose not to say what evidence you would find compelling.
It is up to YOU to present the evidence that you have and make your case. And you can't. Evolutionary biologists can't.
At 9:18 AM,
JV said…
Where?
If you're really interested you can look yourself. You're not a child that needs to be led by the hand.
Nope
What's your criteria for being alive then?
More qualified people have.
Many, many more qualified people have not.
The kind that demonstrates unguided processes can do it.
Sigh. Again, what kind of evidence would you find acceptable? Not genetic clearly. Not morphological. Not bio-geographic. Not fossils. You claim all those things could be the result of guided processes.
Your position is unfalsifiable: you cannot specify evidence that would refute it. You keep talking about evidence for unguided processes but you refute all the data presented and will not give an example of evidence that would challenge ID.
I don't think you can change your mind anymore. I don't think your personal position is scientific. I think now it's ideological.
Yes, it is.
Nope. Selection acts on random variation and builds new structures. Selection is not random.
Cumulative selection is telic. You have an issue with more than TWO specific, ie cumulative, mutations.
Natural selection is not telic. I don't have an issue; Dr Behe tried to make it an issue and a lot of people who don't understand the math bought it.
Then say what it predicts and how to test it. No one else ever has.
I've tried and you just pretend what I present doesn't exist.
It is up to YOU to present the evidence that you have and make your case. And you can't. Evolutionary biologists can't.
AGAIN, what kind of evidence would you accept? I can tell you what sort of evidence would make me question my position but you cannot or will not.
I don't think you're interested in science anymore. I think you're interested in fighting and winning.
At 9:51 AM,
Joe G said…
I have looked, Jerad. What you say doesn't exist. The criteria for being alive can be found on the internet.
The problem with your qualified people is they don't have anything beyond their personal biases and wishful thinking.
ID is falsifiable and we have said how to falsify it. So clearly you are just a willfully ignorant ass.
Selection does NOT act on anything. NS is passive. And NS is non-random in a trivial sense. Not all mutations have the same odds of being eliminated.
I know that YOU are not interested in science, Jerad. You never have been interested in science. You don't have the first clue as to how science operates.
The paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" proves that cumulative selection is bullshit.
At 10:06 AM,
JV said…
I have looked, Jerad. What you say doesn't exist. The criteria for being alive can be found on the internet.
So which criteria for 'being alive' do you agree with?
The problem with your qualified people is they don't have anything beyond their personal biases and wishful thinking.
So literally millions of working biologists are all blinded by their personal issues and can't see the truth. Right.
ID is falsifiable and we have said how to falsify it. So clearly you are just a willfully ignorant ass.
What you've always said is: you can falsify ID by showing that unguided processes are capable of doing such and such things. When evidence is presented that unguided processes have accomplished certain things you say nope, not good enough. So, I'm asking you: what is your criteria for good enough data that can falsify ID. What kind of evidence can be presented that you won't claim might be due to guidance?
If your stance is scientific then it must be falsifiable. So, please, state clearly and specifically data that would refute ID. Not just some large and vague statement, narrow it down to something simple.
Selection does NOT act on anything. NS is passive. And NS is non-random in a trivial sense. Not all mutations have the same odds of being eliminated.
Selection acts on variation between individuals. It's unguided. Not all mutations have the same odds of being eliminated: EXACTLY!! That's natural selection. The odds are partially determined by the local environmental conditions.
I know that YOU are not interested in science, Jerad. You never have been interested in science. You don't have the first clue as to how science operates.
We're talking about you and your stance and you not giving specific and concise ways ID can be refuted.
The paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" proves that cumulative selection is bullshit.
Why do you need to wait for two mutations? Why can't the two mutations crop up in separate individuals and then meet up when two individuals each with one of the mutations mate and create off-spring? Does that paper address that situation?
At 10:57 AM,
Joe G said…
So which criteria for 'being alive' do you agree with?
All of the criteria must be met, duh.
So literally millions of working biologists are all blinded by their personal issues and can't see the truth.
LoL! As if there are millions of biologists who accept blind watchmaker evolution.
When evidence is presented that unguided processes have accomplished certain things …
That has never happened
So, please, state clearly and specifically data that would refute ID.
Demonstrating that blind and mindless processes are sufficient.
Selection acts on variation between individuals.
No, it doesn't.
Why do you need to wait for two mutations?
Wow. Cumulative selection, duh.
Why can't the two mutations crop up in separate individuals and then meet up when two individuals each with one of the mutations mate and create off-spring?
Sheer dumb luck. Sexual reproduction ended universal common descent.
At 11:04 AM,
Joe G said…
The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ‘ s Black Box: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
He goes on to say: ” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”
At 11:12 AM,
JV said…
All of the criteria must be met, duh.
From Wikipedia: There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids.
So, again, which criteria of being alive do you agree with? Are viruses alive? Why or why not?
LoL! As if there are millions of biologists who accept blind watchmaker evolution.
How many high school and university biology teachers, lecturers and professors are there do you think? Across the whole world.
Demonstrating that blind and mindless processes are sufficient.
How can anyone do that when you just claim the process was guided? AGAIN, please state specific and clear ways that ID can be falsified.
No, it doesn't.
Okay, what do you think selection acts upon?
Sheer dumb luck. Sexual reproduction ended universal common descent.
Part of the reason you keep harping on about sheer dumb luck is because you're convinced the whole process was guided, i.e. that there was a goal in mind.
If there was no goal, no target, then the only way to speak about luck is from the perspective of one of the species who 'won'.
Anyway, you keep dancing away from answering a simple, basic, fair question: what specific, clear way (that you cannot over-ride) can ID be falsified?
If you think anything can be explained as by design then ID is not falsifiable. If your viewpoint is science then you have to accept a valid, ojective falsification standard. Unguided evolutionary proponents are quite clear in their statement of things that could absolutely refute their view. What could absolutely refute ID? You've been ducking and diving, time to be clear.
Another way to say it: how can it be demonstrated that blind and mindless processes are sufficient? Remembering that your typical retort is to say what we observe could all be part of design. What experiment could I do that might falsify ID?
At 11:18 AM,
JV said…
Dr Behe's comments do not answer the question I am asking you: what experiment could be conducted that would refute ID or what data when presented would refute ID?
Also, just as an aside, the second Dr Behe comment is a clear case of arguing from ignorance. We've never seen such a thing so it's foolish to suppose it could exist. And DNA is not a computer or computer code. This kind of argument didn't work with continental drift and it doesn't work now. Your own personal experience illuminates only a very, very small slice of the universe.
At 1:19 PM,
Joe G said…
what experiment could be conducted that would refute ID or what data when presented would refute ID?
Demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can produce what Dr. Behe described, duh.
And no, Dr Behe is not arguing from ignorance. His is an argument from observations and experience, ie knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. He wasn't comparing DNA to computer code. He was saying that nature has as good of a chance at producing computers as it does producing a living organism.
Nature can't even produce a simple structure like Stonehenge.
At 1:26 PM,
Joe G said…
There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.
So biology is a clueless science? Biologists don't know what they are studying? Really?
Can a virus reproduce without a host?
How many high school and university biology teachers, lecturers and professors are there do you think?
That doesn't mean they all promote blind watchmaker evolution.
How can anyone do that when you just claim the process was guided?
Umm, it's up to you to make your case.
Okay, what do you think selection acts upon?
Again- natural selection is merely a process of elimination. The only "action" is the non-reproduction of individuals who couldn't survive and reproduce.
From The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:
Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)
At 1:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Is Intelligent Design Falsifiable?
At 3:29 PM,
JV said…
Demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can produce what Dr. Behe described, duh.
It doesn't work that way. You don't falsify one hypothesis by verifying another. Each hypothesis must stand on its own. It must have some test that shows it to be true or false independent of other hypotheses. So, again, how can you falsify ID? And, again, what evidence would you accept in support of unguided evolution?
And no, Dr Behe is not arguing from ignorance. His is an argument from observations and experience, ie knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. He wasn't comparing DNA to computer code. He was saying that nature has as good of a chance at producing computers as it does producing a living organism.
He said: it would go against all human experience. In other words: we haven't seen it so it's not likely.
Nature can't even produce a simple structure like Stonehenge.
Stonehenge is inanimate. But one could argue that, since Stonehenge was made by humans who are the result of natural, unguided processes, that nature did produce Stonehenge.
So biology is a clueless science? Biologists don't know what they are studying? Really?
Why are you avoiding the question? I asked what criteria you accept as indicating life.
Can a virus reproduce without a host?
Probably not. But they can survive outside a host.
That doesn't mean they all promote blind watchmaker evolution.
A vast majority of them do. How many do you think that is then? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
Umm, it's up to you to make your case.
Upon what criteria do you judge whether or not the case has been made? AGAIN, what evidence would you accept?
Obviously you don't want to answer the question. Why is that?
Again- natural selection is merely a process of elimination. The only "action" is the non-reproduction of individuals who couldn't survive and reproduce.
Sounds like you agree selection works with individuals.
You do realise that William Provine was a critic of intelligent design? Just saying.
At 6:46 PM,
Joe G said…
You don't falsify one hypothesis by verifying another.
That all depends. If the two are contrary to each other than demonstrating one would falsify another.
Science mandates that all design inferences first clear the hurdles of necessity and chance. That means if we observe what Dr. Behe described AND unguided processes cannot account for it, we infer Intelligent Design.
He said: it would go against all human experience.
Right, KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships.
Stonehenge is inanimate.
And THAT is what you have to work with. You can't even get biologically relevant molecular replicators.
The case is made when you can demonstrate what you claim. And yet no one is inserting one bacteria into another to see if they can get some version of mitochondria started. There isn't any way to test the claim that blind and mindless processes can produce biologically relevant molecular replicators.
Start there. Yes, Provine was a critic of ID. He also knew his position had very weak arguments.
At 12:53 AM,
JV said…
That all depends. If the two are contrary to each other than demonstrating one would falsify another.
You can falsify unguided evolution without verifying ID!
Anyway, we're back to the same question you're not answering: what form of evidence verifying unguided evolution would you accept as compelling considering you always consider all data presented as due to guidance?
Science mandates that all design inferences first clear the hurdles of necessity and chance. That means if we observe what Dr. Behe described AND unguided processes cannot account for it, we infer Intelligent Design.
Dr Behe did NOT say "cannot account"; he said it was highly improbable. In other words, you cannot 'prove' a negative, i.e. that unguided processes cannot do the job.
And THAT is what you have to work with. You can't even get biologically relevant molecular replicators.
Evolutionary theory starts AFTER life gets going as well you know.
The case is made when you can demonstrate what you claim. And yet no one is inserting one bacteria into another to see if they can get some version of mitochondria started. There isn't any way to test the claim that blind and mindless processes can produce biologically relevant molecular replicators.
'There isn't any way'? You see, you assume what you ask for cannot be done. Which is why when anyone presents any data or information you reject it because you've already decided. You're not considering new data because your mind is made up. Which is why you cannot think of a way for unguided evolution to be verified. That's why you cannot answer the question I keep asking you. You can't think of any way to find data to support unguided processes.
I would also guess that if someone was 'inserting one bacteria into another' etc and showed a plausible path you would still claim we don't know the original occurrence wasn't guided. Your version of ID is unfalsifiable because you think anything can be guided.
Start there. Yes, Provine was a critic of ID. He also knew his position had very weak arguments.
I guess the arguments weren't weak enough to get him to change camps though.
At 6:57 PM,
Joe G said…
You can falsify unguided evolution without verifying ID!
ID has been verified and that isn't how science operates, anyway. You don't have a positive case whereas ID does.
In other words, you cannot 'prove' a negative, i.e. that unguided processes cannot do the job.
Science requires POSITIVE evidence and you don't have any.
Evolutionary theory starts AFTER life gets going as well you know.
How life started dictates how it evolved.
'There isn't any way'?
There isn't
You see, you assume what you ask for cannot be done.
No assumption required.
And yes, Provine's faith was strong. Too bad he died before anyone could help him with that
Post a Comment
<< Home