Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Biological evolution- what is being debated revisited

Bringing this up top for Thought Provoker:

Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.


The debate isn't as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.

(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don't seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don't appear to understand the issue. The TE's I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE's are closet IDists.)

Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were.

With Creation vs. "Evolution #6" the 4 main debating points are clear:

1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)
2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).
3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from "simpler" bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)
4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process.

With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.

IDists understand that if life didn't arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose soley due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).

What does the data say? Well there isn't any data that demonstrates bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.

Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything:

Extrapolating from small change

If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don't know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don't truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).

Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.

One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a "black box" and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What's more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.

In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn't understand evolution.


However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process does make for an interesting trinity...

28 Comments:

  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G quoting Darwinism, Design and Public Education written by well-known Intelligent Design advocates, Campbell PhD Rhetoric and Meyer PhD Philosophy: "1.2.3.4.5.6"

    As I have mentioned repeatedly, one can't begin to discuss the mechanisms of evolutionary change unless the issue of broad organic changes over vast stretches of geological time is accepted; that is, Common Descent from one or a few ancestral populations, e.g. . the Common Descent of vertebrates.

    So until you accept Common Descent as a basic unifying theory to explain the nested hierarchy and the succession of fossils, there is not point in discussing the mechanisms of those changes.

    Joe G "With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5"

    And yet in other threads you have rejected Common Descent from one or a few ancestral populations, even in limited monophyletic groups such as vertebrates or mammals.

    Joe G: "And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively."

    You have the scientific method backwards. From evidence, we form generalizations (theory), and from the generalization, we make testable predictions (hypothesis). We then test these predictions, then either confirm, modify or discard our generalization. We publish our results so that others can replicate and extend our findings.

    So, when embryologists discovered that the same cells that led to jaw bones in reptiles led to ear bones in mammals, the prediction was that there should be intermediate ancestral organisms, unknown at that time. Such extinct organisms, such as therapsida and cynodonta have been identified showing the evolutionary path of these bones. (Of course, the strata are consistent with common ancestry.)

    So evidence of embryonic development — contrary to your implication that nothing is known of these developmental processes — amazingly predicts the content of geological strata.

    Joe G: "Extrapolating from small change"

    The prediction would be that the observed rate of evolutionary change in nature today must be greater than or equal to the evolutionary change observed in the fossil record. This has been confirmed by a variety of different observations, such as Gingerich (1983) and Reznick (1997). Once digesting this information, we can then discuss the observed mechanisms of this evolutionary change.

     
  • At 5:34 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Excuse the delay in responding but since you were going to be busy, I didn't see the need to rush. Besides, I look at it as doing you a favor, this way you didn't feel compelled to do anything until Saturday. ;)

    Joe wrote...
    The debate isn't as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.

    At this risk of repetition, it is easy to win an argument if you force your terms on your opponent(s). That is not a "level playing field". Even if it is obvious to you that "evolutionism" includes "unguided and unplanned" in its charter, you first need to show some reason "guided and planned" has scientific significance.

    To do that let's pit the various positions against each other on the Level Playing Field. All contestents get to enter on their own terms (pun intended). Allow me to help the process...

    JOE'S TEAM:
    1. The universe exists. No assumption is made on the method of the universe's creation but it may have involved a designer or designer(s).

    2. About 4.6 billion years ago the earth was formed. No assumption is made on the method of the earth's creation but it may have involved a designer or designer(s).

    3. Within the 1.5 billion years following earth's creation, life appeared via a process that involved a designer or designer(s).

    4. All indigenous, earth based organisms either descended from the original life describe in #3 or was directly created by the master designer(s) or both (direct modification of existing organisms). In other words, via a guided and planned process.

    5. The methods used to create and/or evolve living organisms were, and are, natural processes (not supernatural). At this time, we have limited understanding of the evolutionary processes and practically no understanding of the processes used for creating new organisms.

    DAVE'S TEAM: (BTW, my name is Dave)
    1. The universe exists. No assumption is made on the method of the universe's creation (before the Big Bang).

    2. About 4.6 billion years ago the earth was formed by natural processes generally agreed upon within the scientific community.

    3. Within the 1.5 billion years following earth's creation, living organisms appeared. Since there isn't a scientific consensus, the only assumption is that it occured via natural processes.

    4. All indigenous, earth based organisms descended from the original life described in #3. ("Common Descent")

    5. Common Descent was, and is, achieved through changes in the properties of organism populations that are a result of natural processes such as natural selection, random variation and mutation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms. These processes are sufficient to account for the existence and function of all natural organisms on earth.

    TEAM CREATION:
    1. The universe exists and is less than 10,000 years old. God did it.

    2. The earth is less than 10,000 years old. God did it.

    3. The original organisms were created by God less than 10,000 years ago.

    4. All indigenous, earth based organisms are a direct result of God's master plan.

    5. The methods used to create and/or evolve living organisms are not fully understood other than they are part God's plan.

    TEAM LAST THURSDAY:
    1. The universe exists and is less than two weeks years old. No other assumptions are made.

    2. The earth is less than two weeks old. No other assumptions are made.

    3. Everything was created last Thursday.

    4. All indigenous, earth based organisms were created last Thursday with the exception of things born after that.

    5. The methods used to create and/or evolve living organisms are all illusionary. All evidence and memories of things prior to last Thursday were created last Thursday.

    Joe, you get to be the coach of your own team and I get to be the couch of mine. I will also take coaching responsibility for TEAM THURSDAY and, if you like, you can take over TEAM CREATION or create TEAM THEISTIC EVOLUTION.

    The first order of business is to redefine each team's position to their personal liking.

    We can then enter the Level Playing Field to test each team's strengths and weaknesses. This process may take a few rounds but the contest should flesh out which is the better proposal. If your team wins, or can manage to stay on the field, we can then discuss the political ramifications.

     
  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe wrote...
    The debate isn't as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.

    Thought Provoker:
    At this risk of repetition, it is easy to win an argument if you force your terms on your opponent(s).

    Umm again those terms were provided by evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins and Ernst Mayr.

    Thought Provoker:
    Even if it is obvious to you that "evolutionism" includes "unguided and unplanned" in its charter, you first need to show some reason "guided and planned" has scientific significance.

    Seeing there are several investigative fields into "guided and planned" I would say that is enough. And if science is about figuring out the reality to the existence to what we are studying then "guided and planned" are intefral in doing so, given the options.

    Then there is Dr Behe's caveat:

    “Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.

    Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important."


    Also Creationists do not say the universe is only 10,000 years old +/-.


    Natural processes are bogus because both design and intelligence are natural.

    More later...

     
  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    As I have mentioned repeatedly, one can't begin to discuss the mechanisms of evolutionary change unless the issue of broad organic changes over vast stretches of geological time is accepted; that is, Common Descent from one or a few ancestral populations, e.g. . the Common Descent of vertebrates.

    And as I have mentioned repeatedly one cannot talk about mechanisms of common descent unless one knows what makes an organism what it is. Until that time there is no way to objectively test the premise. Until that time all alleged confirming evidence such as nested hierarchies are bigus for the many reasons I have already blogged about.

    Zachriel:
    So until you accept Common Descent as a basic unifying theory to explain the nested hierarchy and the succession of fossils, there is not point in discussing the mechanisms of those changes.

    NH is explained by common design.

    Joe G "With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5"

    Zachriel:
    And yet in other threads you have rejected Common Descent from one or a few ancestral populations, even in limited monophyletic groups such as vertebrates or mammals.

    I am not ID. However until we know what makes an organism what it is EVERY objective person SHOULD reject common descent because it isn't science. It isn't science because it can't be objectively tested, repeated or verified.

    Zachriel:
    So evidence of embryonic development — contrary to your implication that nothing is known of these developmental processes — amazingly predicts the content of geological strata.

    Embryonic development is not evidence for CD. That is because CD does not even predict sexual reproduction!

    Perhaps you should read-

    Brian Hall, "Homolgy and Embryonic Development", Evolutionary Biology 25 (1995): 1-37; page 14.

    Dr Hall discusses alimentary canals which he states are homologous throughout verts yet are derived differently.

    Here is something someone could do. Take a reptilian embryo and manipulate it so that it devolops a mammalian ear.

    Also any first grader knows there is more differences betweem mammals and reptiles than just hearing.

    Zachriel:
    The prediction would be that the observed rate of evolutionary change in nature today must be greater than or equal to the evolutionary change observed in the fossil record.

    Where is it today that we observe any transitions like evolutionism requires? We do not. All we have observed and all we have ever observed are slight changes in traits. We have never observed changes in body plans.

     
  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "However until we know what makes an organism what it is EVERY objective person SHOULD reject common descent because it isn't science. It isn't science because it can't be objectively tested, repeated or verified."

    As I said, you reject Common Descent. Do you also reject the basic principles of geology, such at the Principle of Superposition?

    joe g: "We have never observed changes in body plans."

    This is incorrect. The succession of fossils gives clear evidence of changes in body plans in vertebrates and other phylogenic groups over geological timescales, and specific morphological changes can be observed in many extant organisms, such as guppy populations. The specific prediction is that the observed morphological changes in extant populations must be greater than or equal to the observed morphological changes in extinct populations. This prediction has been borne out (Gingerich 1983, Reznick 1997, and others).

    Nor did you explain how an observation of embryos in the early twentieth century can predict the characteristics of fossils found decades later, how data from embryos predicts the content of rocks.

     
  • At 1:04 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Perhaps you should read ... Brian Hall"

    This Brian Hall? Professor of Biology, specializing in the study and teaching of evolutionary developmental biology. Here are a few of Brian Hall's recent articles:

    * Fins and Limbs: Evolution, Development and Transformation.
    * Homoplasy and homology: Dichotomy or Continuum? In Homoplasy in Primate and Human Evolution
    * Transitional skeletal tissues in vertebrate evolution and development
    * A system for interpreting features in studies integrating ecology, development and evolution
    * Homology of the reptilian coracoid and a reappraisal of the evolution and development of the amniote pectoral apparatus.
    * Human cell type diversity, evolution development classification with special reference to cells derived from the neural crest.

    A few quotes:

    * We are also interested in how the mechanisms that control embryonic development have changed during the evolution of the various classes of vertebrates, especially fishes, amphibians and birds. This bringing together of developmental and evolutionary biology is a rapidly growing field known as evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo").

    * Our evolutionary interest lies chiefly in understanding the nature of the changes in embryonic development associated with the evolution of structures.

     
  • At 2:45 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    An additional cite from your recognized expert, Dr. Brian K Hall.


    Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution: Homology is at the foundation of comparative studies in biology at all levels from genes to phenotypes. Homology is similarity because of common descent and ancestry, homoplasy is similarity arrived at via independent evolution. However, given that there is but one tree of life, all organisms, and therefore all features of organisms, share some degree of relationship and similarity one to another.

    Excellent choice, by the way. Hall has been crucial in the modern unification of developmental biology with common descent.

     
  • At 8:05 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe G wrote...
    "Umm again those terms were provided by evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins and Ernst Mayr."

    Joe, I have checked out your blog and have run across old posts of yours in other places. You have been at this for a while. If you had a quote from either Richard Dawkins or Ernst Mayr defining the term "evolution" in a way you liked, I suspect you would have posted it and I would be looking at it right now.

    I will tell you what, if you can provide a verifiable quotation of Richard Dawkins defining the term evolution, I will run with it. But note, I will not consider the playing field level and I would certainly not claim the position as mine. The only reason I am not making the same offer for Ernst Mayr is because his quote would be around 80 years old and I am not that familiar with his views.

    Joe G wrote...
    "Seeing there are several investigative fields into "guided and planned" I would say that is enough. And if science is about figuring out the reality to the existence to what we are studying then "guided and planned" are intefral in doing so, given the options."

    Excuse me if I am misunderstanding what you said but as I read it, I disagree with your logic. Let me reuse your quote and substitute the terms "guided and planned" to illustrate why.

    Seeing there are several investigative fields into animal husbandy I would say that is enough. And if science is about figuring out the reality to the existence to what we are studying then understanding giant space goats is integral in doing so, given the options."

    Seeing there are several investigative fields into food preparation I would say that is enough. And if science is about figuring out the reality to the existence to what we are studying then understanding the flying spaghetti monster is integral in doing so, given the options."

    I strongly suggest that you attribute scientific significance to "planned and guided" because you, the Discovery Institute and many others are sure it is important. However, it doesn't matter who, or how many, think it is important, you must first put forward a set of assumptions and hypotheses that logically explains observable phenomenon and include “planned and guided”.

    Coach, you need to assemble your team and walk out onto the playing field.

    Your quote from Behe was interesting, but I am not asking your team to defend something my team is not. This isn't "Who has all the answers?" this is "Who has the most complete set of answers without making any unnecessary assumptions?"

    Time for more blunt talk.

    What is your idea of having no double standards and competing on a level playing field? Right now, you are asking me to walk out onto the field hands tied, blindfolded with a target pinned to my chest inscribed with the words "designed by Discovery Institute" while you throw darts from the side lines.

    The worst part is that you think such an exercise would mean something.

     
  • At 1:55 AM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    FYI,

    I took some time out to see if I could find Dawkins' definition for evolution. I found it in multiple places...

    Dawkins can define evolution in a sentence: "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

    http://books.guardian.co.uk/authors/author/0,,-50,00.html

    I believe I can work with that definition.

     
  • At 8:47 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    And as I have mentioned repeatedly one cannot talk about mechanisms of common descent unless one knows what makes an organism what it is. Until that time there is no way to objectively test the premise. Until that time all alleged confirming evidence such as nested hierarchies are bigus for the many reasons I have already blogged about.

    Bwahahaha.

    Talk about insulating oneself from criticism. Let me guess you want the "step by step list of mutations that created the organism" correct? Are we going all the way back to the "primordial ooze" or just a few steps back to earlier organisms?

    Of course, since you can't tell us what makes an organism via design. Please, list in detail what makes an organism, say the Zebra, using your design hypothesis/theory.

     
  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    Dawkins can define evolution in a sentence: "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

    You need to define the definition. What is "non-random survival"? Dawkins tells us that natural selection is blind and purposeless. Then there is the fact that random acts can & do wipe out individuals and populations.

    Thought Provoker:
    I strongly suggest that you attribute scientific significance to "planned and guided" because you, the Discovery Institute and many others are sure it is important.

    Yup only the people interested in reality would say what I did.

    Thought Provoker:
    However, it doesn't matter who, or how many, think it is important, you must first put forward a set of assumptions and hypotheses that logically explains observable phenomenon and include “planned and guided”.

    And in every design-centric venue that is what how it is done. We have assumptions, besed on direct observations, of what intelligent agencies are capable of. We couple that with our knowledge, based on direct observation, of what nature, operating freely, is capable of.

     
  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    As I said, you reject Common Descent.

    And as I said every objective person should- that is given what we do know.

    Zachriel:
    Do you also reject the basic principles of geology, such at the Principle of Superposition?

    I reject it as having anything to do with biology. Ya see I am a firm believer that a biological theory stands or falls on BIOLOGICAL data.

    joe g: "We have never observed changes in body plans."

    Zachriel:
    This is incorrect.The succession of fossils gives clear evidence of changes in body plans in vertebrates and other phylogenic groups over geological timescales, and specific morphological changes can be observed in many extant organisms, such as guppy populations.

    The fossil record tells you what you want it to. Period. Fossils do NOT leave behind genetic data. Fossils do not tell us anything about a mechanism. Fossils show stasis.

    And guess what? There still isn't any experiments that demonstrate what you see in the fossil record and how you interpret it is indicative of reality.

    IOW your view of the fossil record is warped by your view of life's history. What happens to that view once it is demonstrated that organisms cannot "evolve" the way you have imagined?

    As for Brian Hall, I know who he is and I also know what he cannot demonstrate. He "assumes" homology based on his world-view. However he demonstrated homoplasy in the example I gave.

    IOW he may be a die-hard evolutionists but he cannot demonstrate anything beyond variation- ie microevolution.

     
  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To THought Provoker:

    Ernst Mayr has a recent book out titled "What Evolutioin Is". In it he makes it perfectly clear that teleology is NOT allowed.

    And again if one doesn't hold to evolution #6 then what exactly is your issue with ID? And what exactly is your PoV?

    DAVE'S TEAM: (BTW, my name is Dave)
    1. The universe exists. No assumption is made on the method of the universe's creation (before the Big Bang).

    2. About 4.6 billion years ago the earth was formed by natural processes generally agreed upon within the scientific community.

    3. Within the 1.5 billion years following earth's creation, living organisms appeared. Since there isn't a scientific consensus, the only assumption is that it occured via natural processes.

    4. All indigenous, earth based organisms descended from the original life described in #3. ("Common Descent")

    5. Common Descent was, and is, achieved through changes in the properties of organism populations that are a result of natural processes such as natural selection, random variation and mutation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms. These processes are sufficient to account for the existence and function of all natural organisms on earth.


    First I will say (again) that both intelligence and design are natural.

    Next Dave's points 1-3 are bogus in that they are left open. And we know that if the universe and life did not arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes there would be no reason to infer that either's subsequent diversification was solely the result of such processes.

     
  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "And as I said every objective person should- that is given what we do know."

    Of course, the vast majority of biologists and paleontologists disagree with you on your rejection of Common Descent.

    joe g: "I reject [geology] as having anything to do with biology."

    As there is a succession of fossil life buried in the rocks, that makes geological evidence relevant.

    joe g: "Ya see I am a firm believer that a biological theory stands or falls on BIOLOGICAL data."

    The evidence for common descent is available in the nested hierarchy of genomes, the nested hierarchy of biological forms, and the succession of fossils. That's all biological data regardless of any handwaving.

    joe g: "Fossils show stasis."

    Nonsense. Any kid that sees a dinosaur fossil knows that life has changed over the eons.

    joe g: "There still isn't any experiments that demonstrate what you see in the fossil record and how you interpret it is indicative of reality."

    I've provided multiple cites to specific empirical predictions. That you refuse to acknowledge them is irrelevant.

     
  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe G wrote...
    "And in every design-centric venue that is what how it is done. We have assumptions, besed on direct observations, of what intelligent agencies are capable of."

    Hmmm, apparently I am still not making my "even playing field" request clear enough. I have been asking for you to articulate your set of assumptions in this venue.


    Joe G wrote...
    "First I will say (again) that both intelligence and design are natural."

    Great, then I won't be surprised when I see it as part of the set of assumptions you will be articulating in this venue.

    Joe G wrote...
    "Next Dave's points 1-3 are bogus in that they are left open. And we know that if the universe and life did not arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes there would be no reason to infer that either's subsequent diversification was solely the result of such processes."

    Are you talking about my set of assumptions or yours? A claim that the "Universe exists", while incomplete, hardly qualifies as "bogus". If you want to present a more comprehensive set of assumption, please do. Right now, my team is the only one on the field. You are still trash talking from the sidelines.

     
  • At 4:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Here it is AGAIN:


    ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", pg. 92):

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    1-3 are the assumptions. 4 is the inference based on 1-3.

    As for why your "assumptions" are bogus, what part of my explanation don't you understand?

     
  • At 4:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel- right now all you have is "data" based on the assumption. However it is the assumption that is being questioned.

    As of today we can't even demonstrate that bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. We cannot demonstrate that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms.

    Nested hierarchies can be acheived via a common design. Everybody knows that.

    A dinosaur fossil just shows that a dinosaur once existed on this planet. Nothing more.

    I really don't care who disagrees with me. I do care what those people can demonstrate. Right now it appears that minor variations are the best anyone can muster. And we also know that those variations oscillate- IOW no net gain is ever observed.

     
  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Excuse me for missing this as your proposal. It got lost when a new thread was created.

    JOE'S proposal...
    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.


    DAVE'S proposal...
    1. The universe exists. No assumption is made on the method of the universe's creation (before the Big Bang).

    2. About 4.6 billion years ago the earth was formed by natural processes generally agreed upon within the scientific community.

    3. Within the 1.5 billion years following earth's creation, living organisms appeared. Since there isn't a scientific consensus, the only assumption is that it occured via natural processes.

    4. All indigenous, earth based organisms descended from the original life described in #3. ("Common Descent")

    5. Common Descent was, and is, achieved through changes in the properties of organism populations that are a result of natural processes such as natural selection, random variation and mutation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms. These processes are sufficient to account for the existence and function of all natural organisms on earth.


    Ok, both teams have entered the field. Joe, may I suggest we start a new thread with these two positions as the central point of discussion?

     
  • At 9:44 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Nested hierarchies can be acheived via a common design."

    I know you are not interested, but almost any record of design will consistently violate the nested hierarchy. In biology, the nested hierarchy of morphological characteristics *predicts* the nested hierarchy of genomes. But in design, though we might arrange chairs by shape into a nested hierarchy, if we arrange them by material, they will form a different nested hierarchy. Design results in multiple ambiguous and overlapping nested hierarchies of arbitrary characters.

    Consider a centaur. We know that this creature cannot be a long-lost organism. It violates the nested hierarchy of descent. It could have no conceivable phylogeny. Likewise, any newly discovered organism, whether extant or extinct will fit the nested hierarchy. Even further, we can predict the existence of intermediate organisms.

    That's why people spent years searching among the exposed strata in distant wastelands in a successful effort to find a fish with limb bones, or whales with legs. I have cited these previously, but you ignored the implication of these successful predictions.

     
  • At 9:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Nested hierarchies can be acheived via a common design."

    Zachriel:
    I know you are not interested, but almost any record of design will consistently violate the nested hierarchy.

    Try reading what I post and then respond to that. I specifically stated COMMON DESIGN. And with many designs we can and do form nested hierarchies. You may not be interested in that bit of reality but I really don't care. I will go with reality every day.

    There aren't any "whales with legs" and fish with alleged "limb bones" does not mean it was evolving into a land organism.

    Think about it what would the first land animal eat? Especially if it was the size of Tiki...

    And I take it with Tiki the tired old story about the first land animals being scared out of the water by predators gets flushed down the toilet.

     
  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "I specifically stated COMMON DESIGN. And with many designs we can and do form nested hierarchies."

    Yes, I understood. You clearly do not understand what constitutes a nested hierarchy, nor why life forms a single nested hierarchy, while designed artifacts can be arranged in multiple nested hierarchies depending on what characters are chosen. That's because designers always examine and borrow from other designers. That's the hallmark of design.

    joe g: "There aren't any 'whales with legs'" and fish with alleged 'limb bones' does not mean it was evolving into a land organism."

    You have your inferences backwards, of course. These intermediate organisms were predicted to exist in specific strata and to have a specific range of plausible characteristics. That scientists can successfully validate these predictions by conducting expeditions to the far corners of the Earth is strong confirmation of Common Descent. And that every single metazoan ever discovered, extinct or extant, fits this single nested hierarchy is a profound fact of biology.

     
  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "I specifically stated COMMON DESIGN. And with many designs we can and do form nested hierarchies."

    Zachriel:
    Yes, I understood.

    Clearly you do no as evidenced by the following:

    Zachriel:
    You clearly do not understand what constitutes a nested hierarchy, nor why life forms a single nested hierarchy, while designed artifacts can be arranged in multiple nested hierarchies depending on what characters are chosen.

    Ya see army ranking forms a single nested hierarchy. Yet non one in that hierarchy needs to be related. Yes it is true that designed objects can be arranged into multiple nested hierarchies but a COMMON DESIGN would fit neatly into one. And also NH's are a construct of man's mind.

    IOW life forms a nested hierarchy only if we cherry pick.

    If evolutionism were correct there wouldn't be any reason to observe any nested hierarchy.

    joe g: "There aren't any 'whales with legs'" and fish with alleged 'limb bones' does not mean it was evolving into a land organism."

    Zachriel:
    You have your inferences backwards, of course.

    Let's see this alleged "whale with legs" then.

    Let's see the genetic engineering results that took a normal fish, without limb-bones, made some genetic mods for a resulting fish with limb-bones. For without that ALL you have is speculation based on an untestable and non-repeatable assumption. And every eductaed person knows that ain't how science wins the field.

     
  • At 11:12 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Ya see army ranking forms a single nested hierarchy."

    The vast majority of biologists use the nested hierarchy to infer common descent and to make predictions in far-ranging fields such as paleontology and genomics. That you can't even understand the argument is revealing.

    joe g: "Let's see this alleged 'whale with legs' then."

    Research on the Origin and Early Evolution of Whales

    Now how did Gingerich and crew know where to look for these organisms? Do you really believe they just happened to be stumbling around in Egyptian wastelands? (Clue: It has to do with the age of the strata and evidence pointing to a common ancestor 40 million years ago.)

     
  • At 8:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Ya see army ranking forms a single nested hierarchy."

    Zachriel:
    The vast majority of biologists use the nested hierarchy to infer common descent and to make predictions in far-ranging fields such as paleontology and genomics.

    Paleontologists don't use NH. Even they know if they tried that with fossils the best you could hope for is a bush with no definite hierarchy.

    Zachriel:
    That you can't even understand the argument is revealing.

    I understand the argument. I understand that it is a post-hoc accomodation of the data.

    Then I asked for a "whale with legs"- the link shows pictures of Basi- for example- with what are said to be ankle and foot bones. However without the fleshy part the ONLY reason to label them as such is to already have them as some intermediate. And the reality is after all the huffing & puffing is over there should be at least 50,000 intermediates and no one, I repeat NO ONE, even knows if such a transformation is even possible.

    The reason we don't know is our ignorance of what makes an organism what it is, coupled with the fcat that although genes may influence development they do NOT determine it.

     
  • At 9:46 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Paleontologists don't use NH."

    Regardless of what you claim, phylogeny (the patterns of lineage branching resulting from the evolutionary history of descent) is the organizing principle for all paleontological research and observations.

    Google Scholar lists 11600 articles with paleontology and phylogeny, including such titles as

    American Journal of Science: Paleontology and phylogeny; patterns of evolution at the species level in early Tertiary mammals.

    Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: The Importance of Fossils in Phylogeny Reconstruction

    Journal of Paleontology: Stratigraphy in phylogeny reconstruction

    And so on. There are a variety of conferences of the Paleontological Society just on phylogeny, as well as cladistics.

    joe g: "Even they know if they tried that with fossils the best you could hope for is a bush with no definite hierarchy.

    Um, a bush is a nested hierarchy.

    joe g: "Then I asked for a 'whale with legs'- the link shows pictures of Basi- for example- with what are said to be ankle and foot bones."

    Gee, I don't suppose an expert could recognize an ankle bone. Maybe if they had lots of them and compared them, maybe they could be arranged in categories, maybe even a nested hierarchy.

    The cite was to that of a working paleontologist, replete with peer reviewed scientific publications including over a dozen with phylogeny in the title.


    --
    You never answered the direct question. Now how did Gingerich and crew know where to look for these organisms? Do you really believe they just happened to be stumbling around in Egyptian wastelands?

     
  • At 8:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Then I asked for a 'whale with legs'- the link shows pictures of Basi- for example- with what are said to be ankle and foot bones."

    Zachriel:
    Gee, I don't suppose an expert could recognize an ankle bone.

    Seeing that ankle bones lie between a leg and a foot it is obvious that what is observed on a whale cannot be an ankle bone. That is unless one wants to redefine ankle- which is par for the course with evos- redifining words to suit their agenda.

     
  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Seeing that ankle bones lie between a leg and a foot it is obvious that what is observed on a whale cannot be an ankle bone."

    It doesn't matter what you call the bones. They are the bones that were predicted and found in the appropriate strata on a cetacean. They don't go away because you don't want to call them ankle bones. Gingerich was just lucky I suppose. As were generations of other paleontologists who made such discoveries.

    You may call me Terry,
    you may call me Timmy,
    You may call me Bobby,
    you may call me Zimmy,
    You may call me R.J.,
    you may call me Ray,
    You may call me anything
    but no matter what you say.

    Open your eyes! You turn your back on the true beauty of the world. John Horner loved duck-billed dinosaurs since he was a kid. When he grew up, he became a geologist and went looking for dinosaur eggs. He knew that organisms related to dinosaurs (birds) layed eggs near the shores of seas. Being a geologist, he knew that parts of Montana were once the shore of a great inland sea. So he went looking.

    Horner found not just eggs, but nests. Not just nests, but nesting colonies. Not just nesting colonies, but groups of toddlers still in the nest. And as their bones were not completely formed, that means someone was feeding them in the nest. Maiasaura, Good Mother Lizard.

     
  • At 9:57 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Seeing that ankle bones lie between a leg and a foot it is obvious that what is observed on a whale cannot be an ankle bone."

    It doesn't matter what you call the bones. They are the bones that were predicted and found in the appropriate strata on a cetacean. They don't go away because you don't want to call them ankle bones. Gingerich was just lucky I suppose. As were generations of other paleontologists who made such discoveries.

    You may call me Terry,
    you may call me Timmy,
    You may call me Bobby,
    you may call me Zimmy,
    You may call me R.J.,
    you may call me Ray,
    You may call me anything
    but no matter what you say.

    Open your eyes! You turn your back on the true beauty of the world. John Horner loved duck-billed dinosaurs since he was a kid. When he grew up, he became a geologist and went looking for dinosaur eggs. He knew that organisms related to dinosaurs (birds) layed eggs near the shores of seas. Being a geologist, he knew that parts of Montana were once the shore of a great inland sea. So he went looking.

    Horner found not just eggs, but nests. Not just nests, but nesting colonies. Not just nesting colonies, but groups of toddlers still in the nest. And as their bones were not completely formed, that means someone was feeding them in the nest. Maiasaura, Good Mother Lizard.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home