Seanpit, ID and complexity
wf3h
unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
ID is codswallop...but that's another issue
seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with. it's a marshall
mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.
you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not. you can do that
because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.
but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure? DNA structure is not
radio waves. it's not based on radio waves. DNA is chemistry, not
electromagnetism. there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
validates or justifies the comparison.
we can not tell, for example, by examining the complexity of sequence
of nucleotides in a DNA sample, whether it was created by intelligent
humans in the lab, or whether it's natural. without some non
intelligent source of DNA to compare it to, we have no idea whether or
not its complexity was natural or not. even if seanpit is correct, and
evolution can't produce DNA changes that code for greater than
1000aa's, some other natural process can not be ruled out.
in this case, the medium is the message. radio waves communicate
information, but not process. DNA does both. DNA codes for
proteins...it causes an effect that radio waves do not. there is HUGE
difference in the ways DNA and radio waves handle info.
and even if he is correct in saying that DNA could not have been been
produced by evolution, how does this rule out DNA being subject to
evolution? if he has an alternative process that produces speciation,
if speciation is occurring today (and it is), then what is the
mechanism? again he doesn't say.
seanpit's use of SETI is misleading...primarily to himself. he has
confused radio waves with chemistry. he has confused the medium with
the message. he has confused content with structure. in short, his
analogy is so off base that it, in and of itself, is evidence of the
failure of ID to be legitimate.
Ray Martinez
Why are you after Sean?
In a recent exchange of messages he plainly indicated to me that he
accepts "low level Evolution" (= microevolution); species mutability;
random mutation and common descent or ancestry. He is on your side.
Ray
conrad
> seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
> unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
> ID is codswallop...but that's another issue
>
> seanpit's use of SETI is misleading...primarily to himself. he has
> confused radio waves with chemistry. he has confused the medium with
> the message. he has confused content with structure. in short, his
> analogy is so off base that it, in and of itself, is evidence of the
> failure of ID to be legitimate.
What are his qualifications on the subject of evolution?
I wouldn't take him seriously if he was not a researcher
with credible data to back up any of his claims(According
to the fellow "Ray Martinez" he is for micro-evolution.
Does that mean he denies macro-evolution?). Additionally,
if his work has not been peer-reviewed by other
credible researchers in the field, then I would see it
as a complete waste of time. An effective heuristic
for sorting bunkum from non-bunkum.
--
conrad
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd30e30a-6248-4a70...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...snip
..
>
>> seanpit's use of SETI is misleading...primarily to himself. he has
>> confused radio waves with chemistry. he has confused the medium with
>> the message. he has confused content with structure. in short, his
>> analogy is so off base that it, in and of itself, is evidence of the
>> failure of ID to be legitimate.
> Why are you after Sean?
Because he posts here, opposing evolution.
>In a recent exchange of messages he plainly indicated to me that he
>accepts "low level Evolution" (= microevolution); species mutability;
> random mutation and common descent or ancestry. He is on your side.
That means that practically all "creationists" are "evolutionists". The
only one who denies that microevolution happens, is you. And you do so for
no rational reason.
DJT
wf3h
> In a recent exchange of messages he plainly indicated to me that he
> accepts "low level Evolution" (= microevolution); species mutability;
> random mutation and common descent or ancestry. He is on your side.
>
there is no 'side'. there is simply science. religion should stay in
its own playpen.
wf3h
> On Oct 11, 7:31 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
> > unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
> > ID is codswallop...but that's another issue
>
> > seanpit's use of SETI is misleading...primarily to himself. he has
> > confused radio waves with chemistry. he has confused the medium with
> > the message. he has confused content with structure. in short, his
> > analogy is so off base that it, in and of itself, is evidence of the
> > failure of ID to be legitimate.
>
> What are his qualifications on the subject of evolution?
he's an MD from loma linda university...the 7th day group of folks who
got the creationist ball rolling early in the last century. in a
sense, his credentials are impeccable...
to be wrong.
> I wouldn't take him seriously if he was not a researcher
> with credible data to back up any of his claims(According
> to the fellow "Ray Martinez" he is for micro-evolution.
> Does that mean he denies macro-evolution?). Additionally,
> if his work has not been peer-reviewed by other
> credible researchers in the field, then I would see it
> as a complete waste of time. An effective heuristic
> for sorting bunkum from non-bunkum.
>
WRT to ray, i enjoy watching the creationists eat their own!....yeah
seanpit's got alot of of issues...
conrad
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
His reasoning might go something like this:
If you take the volume of the pyramids of Khufu,
Khafre, and Menkaure(The Great Pyramids at Giza)
and multiply them by the number of stones they
all are composed of and further multiply that
value by the sine of the angle subtended
the by the sun at 10AM in Giza, and divide
that by the number of nonsensical posts from
adman raised to the power of the
number of nonsensical posts by
sean pit, you'll have unearthed a
wonderful magical value. This value
comes out to:
69118105108117116105111110321051153210297108115101
That may seem like gibberish, but you have to employ
your "mental brain" to see that it's a message
from the gods using the decimal values of
ASCII characters.
When adjusted accordingly, it becomes:
69 118 105 108 117 116 105 111 110 32 105 115 32 102 97 108
115 101
Clearly, the superior power that such numerology
techniques offer, much like the ones Ray Martinez uses,
allow us to have great insight. The insight this
particular gem offers, when converting the decimal
values to their respective ASCII characters, is:
"Evilution is false"
--
conrad
Dana Tweedy
"conrad" <con...@lawyer.com> wrote in message
news:5d9379b6-061b-49cd...@l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Ah, it's all so clear now...
--
conrad
(M)-adman
To hell with truth, eh?
>
>> In a recent exchange of messages he plainly indicated to me that he
>> accepts "low level Evolution" (= microevolution); species mutability;
>> random mutation and common descent or ancestry. He is on your side.
>>
>
> there is no 'side'. there is simply science. religion should stay in
> its own playpen.
I was correct. Truth eludes you.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Steven L.
> seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
> unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
> ID is codswallop...but that's another issue
>
> seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
> waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
> mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
>
> but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with. it's a marshall
> mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.
>
> you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
> not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not. you can do that
> because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.
Actually, the SETI researchers don't even have the time to even analyze
signals for "intelligent design", since they're scanning thousands of
stars.
As Shostak has tried to explain, what they're really doing for the
initial scans is just looking at the bandwidth and the coherence of the
signal. An intelligent signal is likely to have a narrow bandwidth,
transmitting on just a single channel or frequency. As opposed to
random noise, like the radio static from an electrical storm, which is
spread out all along the AM band. And the alien signal should manifest
a Gaussian power curve, rising and then falling as the scanner sweeps by
it, suggesting it comes from a fixed point in the sky. It doesn't even
have to contain any coded message. Just a beacon consisting of such a
carrier wave would be enough to alert SETI researchers.
http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/search_for_life/seti/alien_signal.html
I have SETI@home on my computer. Its graphical display makes it easy to
distinguish a narrow-bandwidth signal from wide-spectrum noise.
> but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure? DNA structure is not
> radio waves. it's not based on radio waves. DNA is chemistry, not
> electromagnetism. there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
> validates or justifies the comparison.
Well, theoretically, there could be. Using a simple binary code in
which the nucleotide pairs A-T, G-C stand for 1 and 0, one could spell
out in this code the first 10 prime numbers, or a statement of some
algebraic theorem, or any number of other factoids that would suggest
artificial origin. Unfortunately, no such artificial sequence has ever
been identified. It would have to have been inserted into primate DNA
fairly recently (say by a retrovirus), because mutations and evolution
would have long since corroded such a signal left in the DNA of ancient
species. Or a species that went extinct and left no descendants would
bury that DNA sequence forever.
But that's not what the ID proponents are doing. They're not looking
for hidden messages encoded in DNA sequences. They're making this
flimsy argument that the delicate complexity of biological systems is
irreducible to natural means.
> seanpit's use of SETI is misleading...primarily to himself. he has
> confused radio waves with chemistry. he has confused the medium with
> the message. he has confused content with structure.
Evidently, he doesn't even understand SETI either.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Because he's a liar.
RF
(M)-adman
Because he disagrees with you
wf3h
for 2000 years you guys told us you had the lock on scientific truth
and for 2000 years it led nowhere.
Ray Martinez
The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
well explain his opinion, however. Sean accepts microevolution, common
ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection. There is
nothing creationistic about these facts. All of the former were
originally accepted on the basis of being caused by unguided material
causation (= absence of Guide). I assume Sean knows this. With this
now said: what exactly is he lying about?
In case you do not know----RF----many of your fellow evolutionists
have recently vehemently opposed the "proposition" that Darwinism-
Evolutionism denies God (= Intelligence and Design) to be absent from
nature and evolutionary theory. So based on *this* opposition to said
"proposition" (which I strongly disagree with, Darwinism explicitly
says that God is absent from nature-scientific reality, and so does
every scholar without exception) what possible conflict could you have
with Sean? He advocates nature and its phenomena as reflecting
Intelligence and Design and, like I have just pointed out, he accepts
micro, CD-CA, RM-NS. It seems to me that he is the total package.
Of course if we view the position of your fellow evolutionists, their
denial that evolution says God is absent from nature as attempted
protection of the feelings of committed Christian evolutionists, then
part of my main point falls apart completely. But if the position is
genuine then I see no validity in your opinion of Sean Pitman.
Arch-evolutionist Michael Shermer has a doctorate in the History of
Science. Recently he wrote a book titled: "Why Darwin Matters: The
Case Against Intelligent Design." It is inconceivable that a man who
has a doctorate in said subject to be confused about the main claim of
Darwinism in relation to nature-Creationism-ID. The position of your
fellow evolutionists, therefore, is explained as protecting Christian
evolutionists, TEists. The facts now dictate that Sean is confused
since he apparently accepts both unguided material causation and
Divine causation operating in nature simultaneously. Of course Sean
might actually reject unguided material, which means the
microevolution that he accepts and advocates is sourceless and
subjective.
The point is that Sean is anything but a liar. He is, in my opinion,
genuinely confused.
> RF
>
>
>
> > In a recent exchange of messages he plainly indicated to me that he
> > accepts "low level Evolution" (= microevolution); species mutability;
> > random mutation and common descent or ancestry. He is on your side.
>
> > Ray
Ray
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, because he tells lies.
Here's a list from a recent post:
1) You can carry out complex statistical analyses in your head.
2) You can carry out statistics without a numerical dataset.
3) You have a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
objects
4) You know what the outcome of that methodology is without having to
apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist on the
planet much easier if it could be demonstrated)
5) Organisms can be fossilised by "very rapid flash crystalisation in
a supersaturated environment"
6) "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other forms of
relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
*is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
7) "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic interpretation
for much of the geologic column".
8) "Most ichthyosaur fossils show evidence of rapid burial, such as
those found clustered together at places like the
Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada."
9) The adaptive landscape of evolutionary theory consists of a series
of isolated islands.
10) Evolution "stalls out" at a level arbitrarily set by Sean Pitman.
11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
12) Geologists don't have an explanation for concentrations of
fossils of carnivores.
13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
all present in the Cambrian "
14) "ancient channels of major rivers .. have not been found" in the
Morrison Formation.
15) That "uniformitarianism" means that geologists thought that *all*
sedimentary deposits were laid down gradually over millions of years.
It's worth noting that although he has accused me of misrepresenting
him and lying, he is not able to post any evidence to support this
claim.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
How do you know if I'm an atheist or not, Ray?:
I never express any views on religion, and my position on the issue of
creationism is no different from that of most Christians.
> and that Sean is a Theist could very
> well explain his opinion,
A much simpler explanation is that Sean tells lies.
It's easy enough to check.
> however. Sean accepts microevolution, common
> ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection. There is
> nothing creationistic about these facts.
On the other hand his insistence that the geological record is
evidence for a global flood, and that there are limits to the extent
of evolutionary change are.
That makes him a creationist.
Oh, and he tells lies. That's more evidence that he's a creationist.
> All of the former were
> originally accepted on the basis of being caused by unguided material
> causation (= absence of Guide). I assume Sean knows this. With this
> now said: what exactly is he lying about?
1) That he can carry out complex statistical analyses in your head.
2) That he carry out statistics without a numerical dataset.
3) That he has a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action
in
objects
4) That he knows the outcome of that methodology without having to
apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist on the
planet much easier if it could be demonstrated)
5) That organisms can be fossilised by "very rapid flash
crystalisation in
a supersaturated environment"
6) That "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other
forms of
relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
*is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
7) That "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic
interpretation
for much of the geologic column".
8) That "Most ichthyosaur fossils show evidence of rapid burial, such
as
those found clustered together at places like the
Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada."
9) That he the adaptive landscape of evolutionary theory consists of
a series
of isolated islands.
10) That evolution "stalls out" at a level arbitrarily set by Sean
Pitman.
11) That human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
12) That he gdon't have an explanation for concentrations of
fossils of carnivores.
13) That "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or
phyla)
of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
all present in the Cambrian "
14) That "ancient channels of major rivers .. have not been found" in
the
Morrison Formation.
15) That "uniformitarianism" means that geologists thought that *all*
sedimentary deposits were laid down gradually over millions of years.
How many more do you want?
> In case you do not know----RF----many of your fellow evolutionists
What's an "evolutionist", Ray?
I don't call myself an "evolutionist", and neither do any of my
friends who are evolutionary biologists.
> have recently vehemently opposed the "proposition" that Darwinism-
> Evolutionism denies God (= Intelligence and Design) to be absent from
> nature and evolutionary theory.
What on earth has this to do with Sean's honesty?
> So based on *this* opposition to said
> "proposition" (which I strongly disagree with, Darwinism explicitly
> says that God is absent from nature-scientific reality,
An outright and blatant lie by the way, Ray.
> and so does
> every scholar without exception) what possible conflict could you have
> with Sean?
The fact that he is deeply and systematically dishonest in how he
makes his claims for the scientific validity of his religious
convictions.
> He advocates nature and its phenomena as reflecting
> Intelligence and Design and, like I have just pointed out, he accepts
> micro, CD-CA, RM-NS. It seems to me that he is the total package.
It may seem that to you, Ray, but that is hardly a measure of
anything.
>
> Of course if we view the position of your fellow evolutionists, their
> denial that evolution says God is absent from nature as attempted
> protection of the feelings of committed Christian evolutionists,
They deny it because it is a lie.
> then
> part of my main point falls apart completely. But if the position is
> genuine then I see no validity in your opinion of Sean Pitman.
So how about addressing the evidence that he is a liar?
Do you think, for example, that he can carry out complex statistical
analyses in his head?
That he can produce statistical results without having a numerical
data set?
That he can know the outcome of a methodology without having to apply
it?
>
> Arch-evolutionist Michael Shermer has a doctorate in the History of
> Science. Recently he wrote a book titled: "Why Darwin Matters: The
> Case Against Intelligent Design." It is inconceivable that a man who
> has a doctorate in said subject to be confused about the main claim of
> Darwinism in relation to nature-Creationism-ID.
It's a lot more conceivable that you are an idiot and a liar who
doesn't have a clue about the nature of science or scholarship.
> The position of your
> fellow evolutionists, therefore, is explained as protecting Christian
> evolutionists, TEists. The facts now dictate that Sean is confused
> since he apparently accepts both unguided material causation and
> Divine causation operating in nature simultaneously. Of course Sean
> might actually reject unguided material, which means the
> microevolution that he accepts and advocates is sourceless and
> subjective.
>
> The point is that Sean is anything but a liar.
Well, I have posted a list of Sean's lies.
That makes him a liar.
> He is, in my opinion,
> genuinely confused.
>
Possibly, but then so are you.
That does not change the fact that both you and Sean are liars.
It seems to be a common failing of creationists.
RF
hersheyh
[snip]
> The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
> well explain his opinion, however. Sean accepts microevolution, common
> ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection.
Ray, could you define the following terms and tell us exactly why you
think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them
actually does not exist in nature?
microevolution
common ancestry
random mutation
natural selection
> There is
> nothing creationistic about these facts.
I certainly agree that they are all "facts", if by that you mean that
they are so well supported by empirical evidence that one would have
to be a deluded fool to claim that they don't exist in nature. But,
since creationism by a supernatural entity can perform that 'creation'
by whatever mechanism he chooses, it certainly makes sense that the
mechanism he used would be consistent with these "facts" rather than
inconsistent with them.
> All of the former were
> originally accepted on the basis of being caused by unguided material
> causation (= absence of Guide).
I think that should be *apparent* absence of a Guide and *apparently*
unguided material causation. Just like how God, if he exists, works
through the *apparently* unguided material causation we call
'gravity'. Denial of 'gravity', of course, is a cause of 'levity'.
[snip]
>
> The point is that Sean is anything but a liar. He is, in my opinion,
> genuinely confused.
Which, of course, could be why is a lying. But you are assuming that
your lies are better lies than Sean's lies, because your lies are
bigger and deny things like the (as far as we can tell) randomness of
mutation that even Sean cannot swallow. Which merely means that even
Sean has a tenuous grasp on empirical reality that you lack.
Max
considered an asset).
Max
Technically, I wouldn't call these lies as he actually may believe
some of this nonsense. That would make him more a fool. Of course
there's no point in pointing this out to adman as he thinks an 8th
grade students creationist science prize trumps all of science.
Ray Martinez
> On Oct 12, 2:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
> > well explain his opinion, however. Sean accepts microevolution, common
> > ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection.
>
> Ray, could you define the following terms and tell us exactly why you
> think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them
> actually does not exist in nature?
Two part question.
>
> microevolution
Definition (D): Continuous slight beneficial change produced by
unguided material causation.
Falsity (F): The appearance of design and organized complexity seen in
every aspect of nature corresponds directly to Divine power-causation
and not unguided material causation. Additional empirical evidence
includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
absence of descendants.
> common ancestry
D: horizontal connectedness of **species** via unguided material
causation ("horizontal" includes branching viewpoint).
F: Based on the appearance of design & organized complexity seen in
each species the same corresponds to vertical-Divine causation.
> random mutation
D: Darwinian voodoo taking the place of Mind.
F: Dembski 1999 says if specified or organized complexity is the
result then the same is caused by [I]ntelligence and not antonymic
phenomena (randomness). Of course all scholars agree that organized
complexity exists (Dawkins 1986).
> natural selection
D: unguided material causation, the main, but not the exclusive cause
of evolutionary change.
F: Nature and each species are directly comparable to a watch (but the
former, beyond all computation, exceeds a watch in organized
complexity, Paley 1802). Watches (= species) correspond directly to
the power of an invisible Watchmaker. Based on these condensed facts,
Michael Behe, in "Black Box," says no one has ever answered Paley 1802
much less refuted him. Of course I completely agree. Therefore this
analogy of nature by Paley obliterates any notion of unguided material
causation existing in nature.
>
> > There is
> > nothing creationistic about these facts.
>
> I certainly agree that they are all "facts", if by that you mean that
> they are so well supported by empirical evidence that one would have
> to be a deluded fool to claim that they don't exist in nature. But,
> since creationism by a supernatural entity can perform that 'creation'
> by whatever mechanism he chooses, it certainly makes sense that the
> mechanism he used would be consistent with these "facts" rather than
> inconsistent with them.
>
Non-sequitur.
My comment was directed at Sean, who apparently is considered a
Creationist. His acceptance of said evolution factS refutes the belief
that he is a Creationist.
> > All of the former were
> > originally accepted on the basis of being caused by unguided material
> > causation (= absence of Guide).
>
> I think that should be *apparent* absence of a Guide and *apparently*
> unguided material causation. Just like how God, if he exists, works
> through the *apparently* unguided material causation we call
> 'gravity'. Denial of 'gravity', of course, is a cause of 'levity'.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > The point is that Sean is anything but a liar. He is, in my opinion,
> > genuinely confused.
>
> Which, of course, could be why is a lying. But you are assuming that
> your lies are better lies than Sean's lies, because your lies are
> bigger and deny things like the (as far as we can tell) randomness of
> mutation that even Sean cannot swallow. Which merely means that even
> Sean has a tenuous grasp on empirical reality that you lack.
Howard has suddenly stopped debating or discussing and strayed away
from the issues of my post that he is supposed to reply to. His
parting shot of endorsing Sean and rejecting myself in contrast
supports my arguments that Sean is not a Creationist, but an
Evolutionist. The Atheists (secular Fundamentalists) and the YECs
(religious Fundamentalists) are conducting the same business on
opposite sides of the street. I am relieved to be disapproved by these
kind.
Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist, Paleyan-
Designist, species immutabilist.
Dana Tweedy
>> > Why are you after Sean?
>
>> Because he's a liar.
>
>The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
>well explain his opinion, however.
Do you have any evidence that Richard is an atheist? Even if he is, why
would that "explain" Richard's opinion?
>Sean accepts microevolution, common
>ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection.
As do anyone who is familiar with the evidence.
> There is
>nothing creationistic about these facts. All of the former were
>originally accepted on the basis of being caused by unguided material
>causation (= absence of Guide). I assume Sean knows this. With this
>now said: what exactly is he lying about?
His claims about evolution not being sufficient a mechanism, among others.
>In case you do not know----RF----many of your fellow evolutionists
>have recently vehemently opposed the "proposition" that Darwinism-
>Evolutionism denies God (= Intelligence and Design) to be absent from
>nature and evolutionary theory.
Actually, the claim that's being denied is that Evolution denies that God is
*present* in nature. You are the one who denies that Evolution denies
that God is absent from nature.
>So based on *this* opposition to said
>"proposition" (which I strongly disagree with, Darwinism explicitly
>says that God is absent from nature-scientific reality,
"Darwinism" says nothing about God either way.
>and so does
>every scholar without exception)
So, why are you unable to present a single "scholar" who makes that claim?
> what possible conflict could you have
> with Sean?
Sean's denial of evolution, and his YEC beliefs, to start with.
> He advocates nature and its phenomena as reflecting
>Intelligence and Design and, like I have just pointed out, he accepts
> micro, CD-CA, RM-NS. It seems to me that he is the total package.
Sean denies the evidence of the old earth, and that evolution is sufficient
to produce the diversity of life.
>Of course if we view the position of your fellow evolutionists, their
>denial that evolution says God is absent from nature as attempted
> protection of the feelings of committed Christian evolutionists,
Why would "comitted Christians" need to be protected? Evolution doesn't
say that God is absent from nature, it doesn't say God is present in nature.
I doesn't say anything about God at all. Christians can believe that God
uses evolution as his means of creation, if they so choose.
> then
>part of my main point falls apart completely. But if the position is
> genuine then I see no validity in your opinion of Sean Pitman.
Mr. Pittman isn't being honest about the evidence. That's why he's opposed.
>Arch-evolutionist Michael Shermer has a doctorate in the History of
>Science. Recently he wrote a book titled: "Why Darwin Matters: The
>Case Against Intelligent Design." It is inconceivable that a man who
>has a doctorate in said subject to be confused about the main claim of
>Darwinism in relation to nature-Creationism-ID.
Mr. Shermer isn't confused about the "main claim", as undoubtely he knows
that evolution doesn't make any claim about the existence of God. It's
Ray who is confused about this.
>The position of your
>fellow evolutionists, therefore, is explained as protecting Christian
>evolutionists, TEists.
Why should they need protected? If, as you claim, all atheists hate
Christians, why should they go around protecting them?
>The facts now dictate that Sean is confused
>since he apparently accepts both unguided material causation and
>Divine causation operating in nature simultaneously.
Maybe it isn't Sean who's confused.....
> Of course Sean
> might actually reject unguided material, which means the
> microevolution that he accepts and advocates is sourceless and
> subjective.
Ray, you own beliefs are sourceless and subjective as well.
>The point is that Sean is anything but a liar. He is, in my opinion,
> genuinely confused.
Why should anyone give any creedence to your own opinion, as you seem to be
the one confused?
DJT
(M)-adman
It would seem... neither did you
Dana Tweedy
On Oct 12, 4:06 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> > The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
>> > well explain his opinion, however. Sean accepts microevolution, common
>> > ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection.
>
>> Ray, could you define the following terms and tell us exactly why you
>> think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them
>> actually does not exist in nature?
>Two part question.
>
>> microevolution
>Definition (D): Continuous slight beneficial change produced by
>unguided material causation.
Your definition is flawed. Microevolution doesn't have to be beneficial
change. Also, in order for a change to be microevolution, it needs to be
inheritable. Only genetic change is inheritable. It also must take place
over generations.
>Falsity (F): The appearance of design and organized complexity seen in
>every aspect of nature corresponds directly to Divine power-causation
> and not unguided material causation.
This is an unsupported assertion. As such it can't falsify anything.
Also, since there has never been any objective observation of "divine
power-causation" one can't determine what corresponds directly to such
causation.
>Additional empirical evidence
>includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
> earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
> absence of descendants.
You'd have to show that this pattern can only be caused by 'divine
causation', and you'd also have to deal with the many fossil species that
don't fit this pattern.
>> common ancestry
>D: horizontal connectedness of **species** via unguided material
>causation ("horizontal" includes branching viewpoint).
Why "horizontal", and why would a branching pattern be "horizontal"?
>F: Based on the appearance of design & organized complexity seen in
> each species the same corresponds to vertical-Divine causation.
How would that prevent common ancestory? Again, you don't have any
observation of divine causation to see if it corresponds to anything.
> > random mutation
> D: Darwinian voodoo taking the place of Mind.
That's a rather odd definition for a phenomena that's been observed.
> F: Dembski 1999 says if specified or organized complexity is the
> result then the same is caused by [I]ntelligence and not antonymic
> phenomena (randomness).
Why should anyone accept Dembski's claim, even if you are representing him
correctly? Also, why would an "antonymic" process be a problem for random
mutations?
>Of course all scholars agree that organized
>complexity exists (Dawkins 1986).
Perhaps, but all don't agree that Dembski's claims are correct. Organized
complexity is quite capable of being produced by unguided processes.
> natural selection
>D: unguided material causation, the main, but not the exclusive cause
> of evolutionary change.
Again, Ray, your definition is flawed. Natural selection is more than just
"unguided material causation". Natural selection is differential
reproductive success in populations. It's the main mechanism of adpative
change, but not necessarily any evolutionary change. Mutations are what
produces changes in population, whereas natural selection provides direction
to these changes.
>F: Nature and each species are directly comparable to a watch (but the
>former, beyond all computation, exceeds a watch in organized
> complexity, Paley 1802).
Actually, Paley's analogy breaks down, because watches don't reproduce, and
don't self assemble, like living things do.
>Watches (= species) correspond directly to
>the power of an invisible Watchmaker.
Again, you don't have any observation of an "invisible Watchmaker" to
determine what corresponds to that assumption.
> Based on these condensed facts,
> Michael Behe, in "Black Box," says no one has ever answered Paley 1802
> much less refuted him.
Behe can say what he likes, but he's wrong.
>Of course I completely agree. Therefore this
>analogy of nature by Paley obliterates any notion of unguided material
>causation existing in nature.
Only if Paley's analogy were correct. Darwin showed that Paley was
incorrect. Therefore your claim fails.
snip
>
>> Which, of course, could be why is a lying. But you are assuming that
>> your lies are better lies than Sean's lies, because your lies are
>> bigger and deny things like the (as far as we can tell) randomness of
>> mutation that even Sean cannot swallow. Which merely means that even
>> Sean has a tenuous grasp on empirical reality that you lack.
>Howard has suddenly stopped debating or discussing and strayed away
>from the issues of my post that he is supposed to reply to. His
>parting shot of endorsing Sean and rejecting myself in contrast
>supports my arguments that Sean is not a Creationist, but an
>Evolutionist.
Or, you are just wrong.
> The Atheists (secular Fundamentalists) and the YECs
>(religious Fundamentalists) are conducting the same business on
>opposite sides of the street. I am relieved to be disapproved by these
> kind.
Ray, you are "rejected" because you are wrong, and for no other reason.
Making up reasons to ignore valid criticizim of your claims is just foolish.
DJT
Wombat
Since RF has never to my knowledge said what his stance on religious
matters is, I think it can be safely concluded that you are lying,
again.
This is a particularly offensive tactic you often use to excuse your
unsane views.
Added to the ever lengthening list of logical fallacies you engage in,
combined with the gaps in your knowledge you consistently display,
there is no reason why anyone should consider you to be any more than
a low grade moron with delusions of grandeur.
Wombat
snip more Rayspeak
richardal...@googlemail.com
Evasion noted.
Let's do this one at a time, shall we?
Do you think that Sean can know the outcome of applying a methodology
without actually applying it?
RF
Frank J
You know darn well that, unlike you, most anti-evolutionists do accept
"microevolution." The reason that they are not "on our side," is
because they play games with what happens beyond "microevolution," and
with where "microevolution" leaves off and that mysterious alternative
- that they refuse to test - takes over.
Some anti-evolutionists do offer a few vague hints - e.g. on one
extreme Biblical creationists assert that H. sapiens is a product of
its own origin-of-life event (then get more vague with defining other
"kinds"), and on the other extreme, a few concede common descent and
at least admit that the alternative to "macroevolution" occurs in
vivo. But a growing number refuse to even speculate on the whats,
wheres, and of course whens and hows. Why on earth would they do that
if their "theory" is supposedly thriving, while "Darwinism" is
supposedly dying.
I'll tell you why. Some are consumed by Morton's Demon and are
"programmed" to omit anything that's inconvenient to their fantasy
(including the paper that they desperately want to publish??). With
every passing day it becomes harder to defend YEC or OEC on their own
merits, so defenders keep backpedaling into vagueness and negative
argumentation. Others seem to know what's going on, but choose to sell
their snake oil anyway.
>
> Ray
Frank J
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fd30e30a-6248-4a70...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 5:31 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> snip
>
> ..
>
>
>
> >> seanpit's use of SETI is misleading...primarily to himself. he has
> >> confused radio waves with chemistry. he has confused the medium with
> >> the message. he has confused content with structure. in short, his
> >> analogy is so off base that it, in and of itself, is evidence of the
> >> failure of ID to be legitimate.
> > Why are you after Sean?
>
> Because he posts here, opposing evolution.
If someone came here opposing evolution with novel, testable
arguments, instead of the same old long refuted nonsense, no one would
be "after them."
Funny, fellow "Darwinists" often "go after" some of my arguments, but
I don't hear Ray whining that those "Darwinists" are after me.
hersheyh
> On Oct 12, 4:06 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 2:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
> > > well explain his opinion, however. Sean accepts microevolution, common
> > > ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection.
>
> > Ray, could you define the following terms and tell us exactly why you
> > think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them
> > actually does not exist in nature?
>
> Two part question.
>
>
>
> > microevolution
>
> Definition (D): Continuous slight beneficial change produced by
> unguided material causation.
Piss poor definition. It is obvious that you are merely making this
definition up out of your fevered imagination.
Microevolution can be defined as evolution (specifically and testably
defined, in this case, as a change in mean allele frequencies) within
a species. This evolutionary change in mean allele frequencies can be
either due to chance alone (neutral drift) or by environmental changes
that alter the selective pressures on different allele combinations
(aka, natural selection).
Note that this definition, unlike yours, makes clear how one can
actually determine if "microevolution" can or has happened. You look
at a species over time and observe if there is time-directed change in
1) the frequency of different alleles that have no selective benefit
or 2) the frequency of different alleles that have changed because of
an environmental change. Frequencies of alleles in a population are
quite measurable (in small populations) or estimateable (in large
ones). Moreover, one can set up experimental situations where one
either varies the environment or doesn't and follow whether or not
allele frequency changes occur as predicted.
> Falsity (F): The appearance of design and organized complexity seen in
> every aspect of nature corresponds directly to Divine power-causation
> and not unguided material causation.
The *appearance* of design is not sufficient to distinguish that
something was manufactured by an outside agency. Neither is, by
itself, organized complexity.
> Additional empirical evidence
> includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
> earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
> absence of descendants.
But the pattern *is* a pattern of massive change over time.
Geological layers can be identified by the different suite of fossils
they contain (a fact that oil companies take full advantage of). By
the very definition of "species" via the morphological definition one
must use with fossils, any fossil found that is identified as "species
x" must, of necessity, be very similar to other fossils called
"species x". In fact, the changes that *do* occur in fossils that
have an extensive record causes paleontologists to either be "lumpers"
or "splitters" wrt whether a new fossil find is a different species
from an earlier similar fossil or a different species.
> > common ancestry
>
> D: horizontal connectedness of **species** via unguided material
> causation ("horizontal" includes branching viewpoint).
Uh, Ray. You seem to be confusing "vertical" and "horizontal".
"Horizontal" is used for cases of transfer that are not due to the
vertical branching process that produces the bush. Mitochondria
(horizontal transfer of a bacterial genome) and cross-species plasmid
transfer are examples of horizontal transfer. If you are going to
present this argument as part of your "magnus opus" against evolution,
I would suggest you correct this before you put it into print.
> F: Based on the appearance of design & organized complexity seen in
> each species the same corresponds to vertical-Divine causation.
Isn't this the same meaningless drivel you claimed provided evidence
against microevolution? You still haven't provided a mechanism for
distinguishing between the hypothesized natural processes that can
produce the "appearance of design & organized complexity" and those
that *were* produced by some outside intelligent agent.
> > random mutation
>
> D: Darwinian voodoo taking the place of Mind.
I would define "random mutation" as the idea that "permanent changes
in the sequence of the genetic material" occurs at random wrt the need
for that mutation. Randomness, in this case, can be determined as a
rate of mutational sequence change that is unaffected by the need for
that mutation. The rate can be changed by the presence or absence of
'mutagens', but cannot be changed by the 'need' for that mutation.
This is a simple mathematically determinable genetic test. And, with
the possible exception of a very few sites where mutation has been
'domesticated' and 'localized', experimental tests (starting with the
Luria/Delbruck experiments in the 1940s) have demonstrated that
mutation is random in the sense described.
> F: Dembski 1999 says if specified or organized complexity is the
> result then the same is caused by [I]ntelligence and not antonymic
> phenomena (randomness). Of course all scholars agree that organized
> complexity exists (Dawkins 1986).
But all the experiments and scientific literature says that mutational
change of genome sequence is random wrt need. [There may be some rare
exceptions, like the a to alpha yeast mating type switch.]
> > natural selection
>
> D: unguided material causation, the main, but not the exclusive cause
> of evolutionary change.
Notice that word "selection"? It means that, *when* natural selection
is the cause of change (or conservation; one should never forget that
most natural selection is for conservation of sequence and function
and not for change) in allele frequencies, the change is "guided". It
is "guided" by features of the local environment and not by an outside
intelligent agent, but it is still guided.
Natural selection can be defined as the relative differential
reproductive success of different *phenotypes* in a local
environment. [Natural selection that has evolutionary implications
requires that the *phenotype* have a hereditary or *genotypic*
component that affects the phenotype.] This definition is
experimentally testable.
> F: Nature and each species are directly comparable to a watch (but the
> former, beyond all computation, exceeds a watch in organized
> complexity, Paley 1802). Watches (= species) correspond directly to
> the power of an invisible Watchmaker. Based on these condensed facts,
> Michael Behe, in "Black Box," says no one has ever answered Paley 1802
> much less refuted him. Of course I completely agree. Therefore this
> analogy of nature by Paley obliterates any notion of unguided material
> causation existing in nature.
How does this *test* whether or not "natural selection" occurs? Paley
clearly thought that "natural selection" occurred. Michael Behe
thinks that "natural selection" occurs. All you are doing is
presenting an analogy and asserting that a watch is directly the same
in its mode of manufacture as a worm is. Even simple observation
should disabuse you of the idea that worms are produced in worm
factories or in Swiss jeweleries by an outside manufacturer. Have you
never heard of reproduction? Were you home-schooled in sex ed? Yet
it is precisely at this point where you want the analogy between worms
and watches to be identical.
My definitions of these terms are much, much, much clearer and
accurate than yours, and, unlike you, I have pointed out how one can
(and, of course, it *has* been done) test the ideas experimentally and
by observation of nature. [Except for common descent, which you
botched so badly as to be 90 degrees off -- unable to distinguish
horizontal from vertical -- a problem you will need to fix before one
can even talk about how to test whether common descent is or is not
consistent with the empirical evidence in a predictive sense. And
whether your alternative explanation actually makes any predictions.]
There were issues in your post?
> His
> parting shot of endorsing Sean
Endorsed by saying that he is slightly less of an intellectual
disaster scene than you are. Some endorsement. Talk about killing
with faint praise.
Ray Martinez
Yes, I have never denied this enigma.
> The reason that they are not "on our side," is
> because they play games with what happens beyond "microevolution," and
> with where "microevolution" leaves off and that mysterious alternative
> - that they refuse to test - takes over.
>
Understood, but, of course, they nonetheless accept microevolution----
just like you do. Darwin never postulated anything but micro. In the
mid-nineteenth century immutability was an accepted scientific fact.
Ernst Mayr calls it "a fortress." When Darwin proposed that species
*could* change; and when this proposition was accepted, rather; when
it was instantly accepted it meant without any impediments or
barriers. "Evolution" means ***continuous*** slight change. The
historical scientific context of a fortress existing followed by its
"overnight" demolition by Darwin does not allow the 20th century YEC
position because the evolution that was accepted was macroevolution
accomplished incrementally by microevolution. In addition: Darwin's
micro was accepted as being caused by unguided material. The
significance is that the Creationist scientific establishment accepted
species to be the products of special creation, direct Divine
causation operating in reality. This is the view that was conquered by
Darwinism, that is, unguided material was accepted and Divine was
suddenly rejected.
The "antievolutionists" that we are talking about, which in this case
is Sean Pitman, do not understand the above facts which dictate that
their position is subjective and sourceless. Sean advocates the
existence of two mutually contradicting realities (Darwinian evolution-
Intelligence & Design) out of sheer ignorance. If low level change
occurs, which he says is undeniable, then it is caused by one or the
other. Both is not an option. If causation is unguided material then
the change is evolutionary, not Divine. If causation is Intelligent
then said change cannot be evolutionary because the latter says
causation is unguided material and not Divine. The only barrier that
exists is at the species level. This is why the fortress accepted
immutability caused by special creation of ***each species.*** If God
is involved in nature then this is called Creationism. If God is not
involved in nature then this is called Darwinism or Evolutionism. God
has no part IN Darwin's evolutionary scheme, that is, the
microevolution resulting in macroevolution (Darwin 1859:490).
Ray
SNIP....
hersheyh
Darwin proposed both speciation (which goes beyond the boundary
usually ascribed to 'microevolution') and common descent (which
definitely does).
> In the
> mid-nineteenth century immutability was an accepted scientific fact.
> Ernst Mayr calls it "a fortress." When Darwin proposed that species
> *could* change; and when this proposition was accepted, rather; when
> it was instantly accepted it meant without any impediments or
> barriers. "Evolution" means ***continuous*** slight change.
It requires change, but the change can be discontinuous for particular
traits, such as the loss of an adult morphologic stage for the
axolotl.
> The
> historical scientific context of a fortress existing followed by its
> "overnight" demolition by Darwin does not allow the 20th century YEC
> position because the evolution that was accepted was macroevolution
> accomplished incrementally by microevolution.
It has been pointed out that *speciation*, which is the key event in
the pattern of common descent, need not be a big change nor one that
is even visible. There are two *species* of Hyla (a treefrog genus)
that are respectively, diploid and triploid, and thus cannot produce
progeny with each other (meet the requirement of being separate
species by the BSC definition). There is no visible difference (to
human eyes) between them, only an auditory one (different mating
calls). But triploidy always happens in a discontinuous fashion and
can happen in a single generation suddenly. There is no obvious
barrier to such speciation events, and they have been re-created for
many allopolyploid plant species that also have ploidy number
differences. You need to re-think what you mean by species and what
causes reproductive isolation (it can be something as small as a
difference in timing).
> In addition: Darwin's
> micro was accepted as being caused by unguided material.
It couldn't be a *scientific* theory otherwise. Supernaturalism can
be a fall-back explanation in the absence of an alternative, but it
can never really be a scientific explanation.
> The
> significance is that the Creationist scientific establishment accepted
> species to be the products of special creation, direct Divine
> causation operating in reality. This is the view that was conquered by
> Darwinism, that is, unguided material was accepted and Divine was
> suddenly rejected.
In science, a real explanation always wins in the battle with a
pseudoexplanation.
> The "antievolutionists" that we are talking about, which in this case
> is Sean Pitman, do not understand the above facts which dictate that
> their position is subjective and sourceless. Sean advocates the
> existence of two mutually contradicting realities (Darwinian evolution-
> Intelligence & Design) out of sheer ignorance. If low level change
> occurs, which he says is undeniable, then it is caused by one or the
> other. Both is not an option. If causation is unguided material then
> the change is evolutionary, not Divine. If causation is Intelligent
> then said change cannot be evolutionary because the latter says
> causation is unguided material and not Divine. The only barrier that
> exists is at the species level. This is why the fortress accepted
> immutability caused by special creation of ***each species.***
How do you define "species"? Given that scientists have observed
speciation by the definitions that they commonly use.
Ray Martinez
You are describing a position that is immerse in confusion. First,
there is no such thing as "kind"----it is made up to avoid admitting
macroevolution. But the first mistake of the YEC is the acceptance of
microevolution. They do not have the courage to stand up to the
Emperor and say that mutability is false, that is, species have no
power to change into anything, but must remain as they are because
animals do not possess magical powers. Only God can speak and change
reality. No laws exist in nature that slowly change a species into
something else. Variation is not evolution. Darwinism is modern day
voodoo----idol worship of created things giving the finger to the
Creator-Designer. ***Species*** are immutable. Each species in nature
owe their existence to a fresh act of direct Divine creation.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14755-reef-search-turns-up-hundreds-of-new-species.html
> I'll tell you why. Some are consumed by Morton's Demon and are
> "programmed" to omit anything that's inconvenient to their fantasy
> (including the paper that they desperately want to publish??). With
> every passing day it becomes harder to defend YEC or OEC on their own
> merits, so defenders keep backpedaling into vagueness and negative
> argumentation. Others seem to know what's going on, but choose to sell
> their snake oil anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The vagueness and doubt are caused by accepting any evolution to begin
with. Genesis explains nature. Too bad the YEC does not believe the
Bible. Darwinism is an obscene pro-Atheism fantasy. There is no
evidence of evolution, as it has been defined by Darwin, ever
occurring on this planet. Darwin was an apostate who sought the
destruction of Christianity via "neutral objective science." Too bad
the YEC is too dumb understand this. Again, this is why there is no
evidence of evolution. Any changes seen in nature or phenomena are
caused by mechanisms built by Divine power, which then means said
changes cannot be described as evolutionary because Darwinism says
Divine power is absent from reality (Darwin 1859:490).
Ray
Frank J
Rather than ask you where you think "micro" leaves off and what
happens beyond that "edge," I recommend that you publish your paper as
soon as possible. Then we can ask the "don't ask, don't tell" types
(e.g. your DI buddies) whether they agree or not. And watch them find
cleverer ways to say "we don't need to connect no stinkin' dots."
> In the
> mid-nineteenth century immutability was an accepted scientific fact.
> Ernst Mayr calls it "a fortress." When Darwin proposed that species
> *could* change; and when this proposition was accepted, rather; when
> it was instantly accepted it meant without any impediments or
> barriers. "Evolution" means ***continuous*** slight change. The
> historical scientific context of a fortress existing followed by its
> "overnight" demolition by Darwin does not allow the 20th century YEC
> position because the evolution that was accepted was macroevolution
> accomplished incrementally by microevolution. In addition: Darwin's
> micro was accepted as being caused by unguided material. The
> significance is that the Creationist scientific establishment accepted
> species to be the products of special creation, direct Divine
> causation operating in reality. This is the view that was conquered by
> Darwinism, that is, unguided material was accepted and Divine was
> suddenly rejected.
>
> The "antievolutionists" that we are talking about, which in this case
> is Sean Pitman, do not understand the above facts..
My suspicion is that Sean understands much more than he lets on, and
probably knows that the above facts are nonsense.
> which dictate that
> their position is subjective and sourceless. Sean advocates the
> existence of two mutually contradicting realities (Darwinian evolution-
> Intelligence & Design) out of sheer ignorance. If low level change
> occurs, which he says is undeniable, then it is caused by one or the
> other. Both is not an option. If causation is unguided material then
> the change is evolutionary, not Divine. If causation is Intelligent
> then said change cannot be evolutionary because the latter says
> causation is unguided material and not Divine. The only barrier that
> exists is at the species level. This is why the fortress accepted
> immutability caused by special creation of ***each species.***
As you know most DI folk seem to disagree with the "each species"
part.
> If God
> is involved in nature then this is called Creationism. If God is not
> involved in nature then this is called Darwinism or Evolutionism. God
> has no part IN Darwin's evolutionary scheme, that is, the
> microevolution resulting in macroevolution (Darwin 1859:490).
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
He argues fanatical Atheism positions one hundred percent of the time.
This indicates to any honest person that he is an Atheist.
> This is a particularly offensive tactic you often use to excuse your
> unsane views.
> Added to the ever lengthening list of logical fallacies you engage in,
> combined with the gaps in your knowledge you consistently display,
> there is no reason why anyone should consider you to be any more than
> a low grade moron with delusions of grandeur.
>
> Wombat
> snip more Rayspeak- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
hersheyh
Finally, something we both agree on. Unfortunately for you, the
reason why these 'creationists' came up with the disingenuous term
'kind' is because they, unlike you, were willing to face empirical
reality and recognize that "species" is not the rigidly fixed fantasy
you envision.
> But the first mistake of the YEC is the acceptance of
> microevolution. They do not have the courage to stand up to the
> Emperor and say that mutability is false, that is, species have no
> power to change into anything, but must remain as they are because
> animals do not possess magical powers.
What, pray tell, would prevent genomic change in allele frequency in a
population? Are you claiming that genomes cannot change? That
mutation (random or not) doesn't happen? That environments do not
have any effect on organismal reproductive success? There are no
magical powers involved; the course of a river channel is determined
by the environment through which it flows and involves no magical
powers in the river. The genomic make-up of organisms is determined,
at least for selectively relevant features, by the environment in
which they live in the same way.
> Only God can speak and change
> reality. No laws exist in nature that slowly change a species into
> something else. Variation is not evolution.
Variation, specifically genetically based variation, is a necessary
component of evolution. Only when there is a *change* in the
frequency of variants, whether due to chance drift or selection, is
there evolution. But without variation, there would be no evolution.
> Darwinism is modern day
> voodoo----idol worship of created things giving the finger to the
> Creator-Designer. ***Species*** are immutable. Each species in nature
> owe their existence to a fresh act of direct Divine creation.
How is the below evidence of such acts of Divine creation rather than
local modification of similar ancestral species?
> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14755-reef-search-turns-up...
>
>
>
> > I'll tell you why. Some are consumed by Morton's Demon and are
> > "programmed" to omit anything that's inconvenient to their fantasy
> > (including the paper that they desperately want to publish??). With
> > every passing day it becomes harder to defend YEC or OEC on their own
> > merits, so defenders keep backpedaling into vagueness and negative
> > argumentation. Others seem to know what's going on, but choose to sell
> > their snake oil anyway.
>
> > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The vagueness and doubt are caused by accepting any evolution to begin
> with. Genesis explains nature.
Extemely poorly.
Dana Tweedy
>> > The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
>> > well explain his opinion, however.
>>
>> Since RF has never to my knowledge said what his stance on religious
>> matters is, I think it can be safely concluded that you are lying,
>> again.
>He argues fanatical Atheism positions one hundred percent of the time.
Can you point out anywhere Richard has argued that God does not exist?
>This indicates to any honest person that he is an Atheist.
Ray, you wouldn't know what an honest person would know. Unless Richard
is cliaming that God doesn't exist, he's not aruging as an atheist.
You, Ray argue that God must be scientifically observable in order to exist.
Why isn't that an atheist belief?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>
> > > In a recent exchange of messages he plainly indicated to me that he
> > > accepts "low level Evolution" (= microevolution); species mutability;
>> > random mutation and common descent or ancestry. He is on your side.
>
>> You know darn well that, unlike you, most anti-evolutionists do accept
>> "microevolution."
Yes, I have never denied this enigma.
It's hardly an enigma. Even most creationists aren't foolish enough to
deny the evidence of evolution, they just call it "microevolution". Also,
you've claimed that "Creationists" don't accept microevolution.
> > The reason that they are not "on our side," is
> > because they play games with what happens beyond "microevolution," and
> > with where "microevolution" leaves off and that mysterious alternative
> > - that they refuse to test - takes over.
>
>Understood, but, of course, they nonetheless accept microevolution----
>just like you do.
Because they realize that it's foolish to deny the plain evidence of
evolutionary change.
> Darwin never postulated anything but micro.
Actually, Darwin "postulated" common descent, which is more than "micro"
evolution.
>In the
>mid-nineteenth century immutability was an accepted scientific fact.
But that position was shown to be wrong.
>Ernst Mayr calls it "a fortress." When Darwin proposed that species
>*could* change; and when this proposition was accepted, rather; when
>it was instantly accepted it meant without any impediments or
>barriers.
Because there aren't any barriers that have been found.
>"Evolution" means ***continuous*** slight change. The
> historical scientific context of a fortress existing followed by its
>"overnight" demolition by Darwin does not allow the 20th century YEC
>position because the evolution that was accepted was macroevolution
>accomplished incrementally by microevolution.
Which is how evolution operates.
> In addition: Darwin's
> micro was accepted as being caused by unguided material.
Of course, Darwin also pointed out that humans could produce changes in
populations by selective breeding, so it's not always "unguided".
> The
> significance is that the Creationist scientific establishment accepted
>species to be the products of special creation, direct Divine
> causation operating in reality.
"Direct divine causation" is not a scientific mechanism, but rather a
religious belief. There wasn't a "creationist scientific establishment".
There were scientists who held religious beliefs.
>This is the view that was conquered by
>Darwinism, that is, unguided material was accepted and Divine was
> suddenly rejected.
The "divine" was not "suddenly rejected" by science, rather science never
accepted a divine explaination. What was realized was that a scientific
explanation was available, and that replaced the religious belief of
creationism.
>The "antievolutionists" that we are talking about, which in this case
>is Sean Pitman, do not understand the above facts which dictate that
>their position is subjective and sourceless.
First of all, Ray, your own position is "subjective and sourceless".
Second, the "antievolutionists" don't "understand" your "facts" because your
"facts" are you own private, unsupported fantasies.
>Sean advocates the
>existence of two mutually contradicting realities (Darwinian evolution-
>Intelligence & Design) out of sheer ignorance.
Sean advocates his beliefs due to his religious objection to evolution.
If anyone demonstrates "sheer ignorance" it's Ray.
>If low level change
>occurs, which he says is undeniable, then it is caused by one or the
>other. Both is not an option.
Why not, Ray?
> If causation is unguided material then
> the change is evolutionary, not Divine.
And why can't the "Divine" use evolution to cause changes? You've never
been able to answer this rationally.
>If causation is Intelligent
>then said change cannot be evolutionary because the latter says
>causation is unguided material and not Divine.
That too is your own error, that's been pointed out over and over.
Evolution does NOT say that God can't be involved. It simply doesn't have
the tools to detect God's presence.
> The only barrier that
>exists is at the species level.
There is no "barrier" at the species level. That's why speciation has been
observed.
>This is why the fortress accepted
>immutability caused by special creation of ***each species.***
The "fortress" was accepted because scientists didn't have the whole picture
at the time. More observations made them realize that there wasn't any
immutiblity, and there's never been any special creation of species
observed. "Special creation" was a religious belief, not a scientific
observation.
>If God
>is involved in nature then this is called Creationism.
That's simply a matter of semantics. If God is involved in nature, and
life evolves, it's still evolution. Science can't tell us if God is
involved, or not involved.
> If God is not
> involved in nature then this is called Darwinism or Evolutionism.
Again, that's just your own assertion. Evolution doesn't tell us if God
is, or is not involved. That's a religious belief, not a scientific one.
> God
> has no part IN Darwin's evolutionary scheme, that is, the
> microevolution resulting in macroevolution (Darwin 1859:490).
God can have a part in anything he wishes to have. Darwin's theory
doesn't require God, but it doesn't remove God either. That's what you
are so mistaken about.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>snip
>> Some anti-evolutionists do offer a few vague hints - e.g. on one
>> extreme Biblical creationists assert that H. sapiens is a product of
>> its own origin-of-life event (then get more vague with defining other
>> "kinds"), and on the other extreme, a few concede common descent and
>> at least admit that the alternative to "macroevolution" occurs in
>> vivo. But a growing number refuse to even speculate on the whats,
>> wheres, and of course whens and hows. Why on earth would they do that
>> if their "theory" is supposedly thriving, while "Darwinism" is
>> supposedly dying.
>
>You are describing a position that is immerse in confusion.
Then you should be right at home...
> First,
>there is no such thing as "kind"----it is made up to avoid admitting
> macroevolution.
Odd statement, as the Bible refers to species reproducing after their
"kind".
>But the first mistake of the YEC is the acceptance of
> microevolution.
Actually, that is the one area the YECs got right.
> They do not have the courage to stand up to the
>Emperor and say that mutability is false, that is, species have no
>power to change into anything, but must remain as they are because
>animals do not possess magical powers.
Actually, the aren't foolish enough to make the claims you do. Evolution
doesn't claim that species have magic powers, or that they are subject to
"magic". That's creationism. Species change by a particular mechanism,
mutation and selection over generations. Species don't "have" to remain
fixed, because the genetic make up of populations are always changing.
>Only God can speak and change
> reality.
So, do you really mean to deny that change happens in the world? Seasons
don't change? Organisms don't grow? Caterpillars don't change into
butterflies? Sunny days don't change to rainy ones?
>No laws exist in nature that slowly change a species into
> something else.
Genes do change in populations, by random mutations. Why do you assume
that "no laws exist in nature" that cause the change, when the mechanism is
well known?
> Variation is not evolution.
Variation is the raw material by which evolution operates, and variation in
populations contradicts your last claim.
>Darwinism is modern day
>voodoo----idol worship of created things giving the finger to the
> Creator-Designer.
That's your mistaken belief. You don't have any support for this claim,
or any rational reason to hold this belief.
>***Species*** are immutable. Each species in nature
> owe their existence to a fresh act of direct Divine creation.
Sorry, but just making assertions doesn't make this true. Species are not
immutable. That's been known for over 150 years. Why are you so far
behind the facts?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14755-reef-search-turns-up-hundreds-of-new-species.html
This seems to refute your claim. Why provide this link?
>> I'll tell you why. Some are consumed by Morton's Demon and are
>> "programmed" to omit anything that's inconvenient to their fantasy
>> (including the paper that they desperately want to publish??). With
>> every passing day it becomes harder to defend YEC or OEC on their own
>> merits, so defenders keep backpedaling into vagueness and negative
>> argumentation. Others seem to know what's going on, but choose to sell
>> their snake oil anyway.
>The vagueness and doubt are caused by accepting any evolution to begin
>with.
It would be foolish to deny the facts of evolution.
> Genesis explains nature.
But not in a scientific manner. Genesis is a religious writing, which
"explains nature" in the form of legend and myth. It may have been
sufficient for people living 2000 years ago, but modern people need an
explanation that can be tested, and confirmed.
>Too bad the YEC does not believe the
>Bible.
What's too bad is that the YEC doesn't have the faith to accept the Bible,
and science as well. Likewise for OECs like Ray.
> Darwinism is an obscene pro-Atheism fantasy.
"Darwinism" is a particular concept relating to the mechanism of evolution.
As such, it's not "pro atheism" or a fantasy.
> There is no
>evidence of evolution, as it has been defined by Darwin, ever
> occurring on this planet.
Ray, you know this claim is not true. You have admitted that there is
evidence, which you claim is not interpreted correctly. There is plenty of
genetic evidence, fossil evidence, biochemical evidence, and other forms of
evidence. Denial of this just shows your own foolish position.
>Darwin was an apostate who sought the
> destruction of Christianity via "neutral objective science."
There's no evidence that Darwin sought "destruction of Christianity" or that
Christanity could be destroyed by science.
>Too bad
> the YEC is too dumb understand this.
Why would YECs make the same mistake you make?
>Again, this is why there is no
> evidence of evolution.
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.
>Any changes seen in nature or phenomena are
>caused by mechanisms built by Divine power,
What evidence do you have that these mechanisms are "built by divine power"?
> which then means said
> changes cannot be described as evolutionary because Darwinism says
> Divine power is absent from reality (Darwin 1859:490).
Darwin never claimed that divine power is absent from reality. Such a
claim is beyond the ability of science to determine. Darwin knew this,
and would not have made such a claim. Neither do any of Darwin's writings
make such a claim.
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On Oct 12, 9:07 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 4:06 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 2:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
> > > > well explain his opinion, however. Sean accepts microevolution, common
> > > > ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection.
>
> > > Ray, could you define the following terms and tell us exactly why you
> > > think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them
> > > actually does not exist in nature?
>
> > Two part question.
>
> > > microevolution
>
> > Definition (D): Continuous slight beneficial change produced by
> > unguided material causation.
>
> Piss poor definition. It is obvious that you are merely making this
> definition up out of your fevered imagination.
>
Your ignorance explains your belief.
> Microevolution can be defined as evolution (specifically and testably
> defined, in this case, as a change in mean allele frequencies) within
> a species.
"Continuous slight beneficial change produced by unguided material
causation."
Your rendering then creates a new question: what is the definition of
evolution? My rendering does not. Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a
*continuous* process of slight-slow change. Dawkins 1986 laboriously
confirms. Species, in 1859, were suddenly seen as possessing the
*potential* to change. Accumulation of *these* changes, as the story
goes, results in speciation. These changes must be beneficial. The
acceptance of nature as reflecting adaptation, and the goal to explain
this phenomena, supports change to be beneficial (or "good" as Darwin
called it, 1859:84).
> This evolutionary change in mean allele frequencies can be
> either due to chance alone (neutral drift) or by environmental changes
> that alter the selective pressures on different allele combinations
> (aka, natural selection).
>
Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies. The same cannot be
falsified. Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is deduced to have
happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence.
Evolution is an interpretation of evidence; it says the similarities
between species is real, that they derive from one another (horizontal
causation).
Much genetic change can occur without a species changing in observed
macro-reality:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4749e2582f710
> Note that this definition, unlike yours, makes clear how one can
> actually determine if "microevolution" can or has happened.
The above link and its data falsifies your contention.
> You look
> at a species over time and observe if there is time-directed change in
> 1) the frequency of different alleles that have no selective benefit
> or 2) the frequency of different alleles that have changed because of
> an environmental change. Frequencies of alleles in a population are
> quite measurable (in small populations) or estimateable (in large
> ones). Moreover, one can set up experimental situations where one
> either varies the environment or doesn't and follow whether or not
> allele frequency changes occur as predicted.
>
> > Falsity (F): The appearance of design and organized complexity seen in
> > every aspect of nature corresponds directly to Divine power-causation
> > and not unguided material causation.
>
> The *appearance* of design is not sufficient to distinguish that
> something was manufactured by an outside agency. Neither is, by
> itself, organized complexity.
>
Design logically indicates that it was produced by a Designer. So does
OC. If similarity logically indicates evolution to have occurred then
you are accepting the same logic used to conclude that design =
Designer. Rejection of the latter is then based solely on the
restrictions of your Materialism-Naturalism philosophy. But the
evidence plainly supports the existence of a Designer.
> > Additional empirical evidence
> > includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
> > earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
> > absence of descendants.
>
> But the pattern *is* a pattern of massive change over time.
Counterfactual interpretation. Gould 2002 calls the pattern I
described "literal signal." It exists. To interpret said phenomena as
evidence of an antithetic concept (= evolution) is, once again, based
on the requirements of your interpretive philosophy. But the evidence,
at face value, says the exact opposite (= special creation).
This is why both Creationism and Evolutionism are interpretations of
the same scientific evidence.
> Geological layers can be identified by the different suite of fossils
> they contain (a fact that oil companies take full advantage of). By
> the very definition of "species" via the morphological definition one
> must use with fossils, any fossil found that is identified as "species
> x" must, of necessity, be very similar to other fossils called
> "species x". In fact, the changes that *do* occur in fossils that
> have an extensive record causes paleontologists to either be "lumpers"
> or "splitters" wrt whether a new fossil find is a different species
> from an earlier similar fossil or a different species.
>
> > > common ancestry
>
> > D: horizontal connectedness of **species** via unguided material
> > causation ("horizontal" includes branching viewpoint).
>
> Uh, Ray. You seem to be confusing "vertical" and "horizontal".
> "Horizontal" is used for cases of transfer that are not due to the
> vertical branching process that produces the bush. Mitochondria
> (horizontal transfer of a bacterial genome) and cross-species plasmid
> transfer are examples of horizontal transfer. If you are going to
> present this argument as part of your "magnus opus" against evolution,
> I would suggest you correct this before you put it into print.
>
Your comments plainly indicate that you did not understand what I said
or you lost track of the context.
I contrasted the main difference between Creationism (= vertical-
Divine casuation, God-did-it) and Darwinism (= horizontal-unguided
material causation, Evolution-did-it).
> disaster ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
"Everybody is an atheist except Ray, nobody is a Real Christian except
Ray, and Ray Speaks For God."
(yawn)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Dana Tweedy
>> > Definition (D): Continuous slight beneficial change produced by
>> > unguided material causation.
>
>> Piss poor definition. It is obvious that you are merely making this
>> definition up out of your fevered imagination.
>
>Your ignorance explains your belief.
Howard's not the one who is ignorant.
>> Microevolution can be defined as evolution (specifically and testably
>> defined, in this case, as a change in mean allele frequencies) within
>> a species.
>"Continuous slight beneficial change produced by unguided material
> causation."
Which is wrong.
>Your rendering then creates a new question: what is the definition of
>evolution? My rendering does not.
Your "rendering" however is incorrect.
> Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a
>*continuous* process of slight-slow change. Dawkins 1986 laboriously
> confirms.
Except that Dawkins would agree that not all changes are evolution.
>Species, in 1859, were suddenly seen as possessing the
>*potential* to change.
They were seen to have potental to change before that.
>Accumulation of *these* changes, as the story
>goes, results in speciation. These changes must be beneficial.
No, they don't have to be beneficial, just change.
>The
>acceptance of nature as reflecting adaptation, and the goal to explain
>this phenomena, supports change to be beneficial (or "good" as Darwin
> called it, 1859:84).
Adaptive change tend to favor beneficial changes, but not all changes need
to be beneficial to be evolution.
>> This evolutionary change in mean allele frequencies can be
>> either due to chance alone (neutral drift) or by environmental changes
>> that alter the selective pressures on different allele combinations
>> (aka, natural selection).
>
> Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.
That's how evolution is defined. Why do you make such a foolish assertion?
>The same cannot be
> falsified.
Of course it can be falsified. If you could show inheritable change that
didn't involve change in gene frequencies, that would falisfy the concept.
>Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is deduced to have
>happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence.
Such as direct observation of the changes happening.
>Evolution is an interpretation of evidence; it says the similarities
>between species is real, that they derive from one another (horizontal
> causation).
Of course similarities between species are real, or they wouldn't be
similarities. Similarities can derive from common descent, or by
convergent evolution. I don't think you know what the term "horizontal
causation" means.
>Much genetic change can occur without a species changing in observed
> macro-reality:
Which is irrelevant. Evolutionary change need not be morphological change.
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4749e2582f710
>> Note that this definition, unlike yours, makes clear how one can
> >actually determine if "microevolution" can or has happened.
> The above link and its data falsifies your contention.
No, it just shows you don't understand the concept.
snip
>>
>> The *appearance* of design is not sufficient to distinguish that
>> something was manufactured by an outside agency. Neither is, by
>> itself, organized complexity.
>
>Design logically indicates that it was produced by a Designer.
No, the appearance of design only indicates it looks like it was designed.
That same appearance can be caused by natural forces, without any designer.
>So does
> OC.
why?
>If similarity logically indicates evolution to have occurred then
>you are accepting the same logic used to conclude that design =
> Designer.
Similarity, by itself doesn't necessarily indicate evolution, and you aren't
using logic to determine what you are assuming.
> Rejection of the latter is then based solely on the
>restrictions of your Materialism-Naturalism philosophy.
Rejection of the "latter" is based on the fact that the appearance of design
doesn't reqire a "designer".
>But the
> evidence plainly supports the existence of a Designer.
What evidence, Ray?
> > > Additional empirical evidence
> > > includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
> > > earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
> > > absence of descendants.
> >
> > But the pattern *is* a pattern of massive change over time.
>Counterfactual interpretation.
How is it "counterfactual" when it's an obvious fact?
> Gould 2002 calls the pattern I
> described "literal signal." It exists.
Only on a smaller scale.
> To interpret said phenomena as
>evidence of an antithetic concept (= evolution) is, once again, based
>on the requirements of your interpretive philosophy. But the evidence,
> at face value, says the exact opposite (= special creation).
There isn't any observation of special creation, so it's impossible to know
what would say "special creation". Special creation is a religious belief,
not a scientific observation.
> This is why both Creationism and Evolutionism are interpretations of
> the same scientific evidence.
But creationism and evolution are not interpretations of the same scientific
evidence. Creationism is a religious belief, which ignores any contrary
evidence, and only accepts evidence which supports it's predetermined
conclusion. Evolution is a scientific theory, which explains and deals
with all the evidence.
snip of evidence Ray ignored
>> > D: horizontal connectedness of **species** via unguided material
>> > causation ("horizontal" includes branching viewpoint).
>>
>> Uh, Ray. You seem to be confusing "vertical" and "horizontal".
>> "Horizontal" is used for cases of transfer that are not due to the
>> vertical branching process that produces the bush. Mitochondria
>> (horizontal transfer of a bacterial genome) and cross-species plasmid
>> transfer are examples of horizontal transfer. If you are going to
>> present this argument as part of your "magnus opus" against evolution,
>> I would suggest you correct this before you put it into print.
>
>Your comments plainly indicate that you did not understand what I said
> or you lost track of the context.
Or that Ray's claims are wrong.
>I contrasted the main difference between Creationism (= vertical-
>Divine casuation, God-did-it) and Darwinism (= horizontal-unguided
> material causation, Evolution-did-it).
The evidence clearly shows a branching pattern of life, not individual
"vertical" patterns for species. "Goddidit" is a religious belief, not a
scientific concept.
snipping more of what Ray ignores
DJT
(M)-adman
There was no evasion. I clearly said "neither did you". You have
misrepresented and if i find you have lied, you win a trip to my list.
hersheyh
> On Oct 13, 6:55 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 9:07 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 4:06 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 12, 2:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > [snip]
>
> > > > > The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
> > > > > well explain his opinion, however. Sean accepts microevolution, common
> > > > > ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection.
>
> > > > Ray, could you define the following terms and tell us exactly why you
> > > > think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them
> > > > actually does not exist in nature?
>
> > > Two part question.
>
> > > > microevolution
>
> > > Definition (D): Continuous slight beneficial change produced by
> > > unguided material causation.
>
> > Piss poor definition. It is obvious that you are merely making this
> > definition up out of your fevered imagination.
>
> Your ignorance explains your belief.
I said what I did because the definition was piss poor.
>
> > Microevolution can be defined as evolution (specifically and testably
> > defined, in this case, as a change in mean allele frequencies) within
> > a species.
>
> "Continuous slight beneficial change produced by unguided material
> causation."
>
> Your rendering then creates a new question: what is the definition of
> evolution?
I, in fact, did define evolution: "specifically and testably defined,
in this case, as a change in mean allele frequencies." That
definition is quite testable. A significant change in mean allele
frequencies is the sort of quantitative test that science does
particularly well.
>My rendering does not. Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a
> *continuous* process of slight-slow change. Dawkins 1986 laboriously
> confirms.
I would say that evolution is an *inevitable* process of change that
is only slowed by the conservative nature of natural selection at some
loci. Given the reality of mutation, only conservative natural
selection can prevent evolution. And, even so, it can only do it
dynamically. That is, mutation occurs and selection selective and
detrimentally affects the reproductive success of individuals with
that mutation so that the frequency decreases or is eliminated.
> Species, in 1859, were suddenly seen as possessing the
> *potential* to change.
Even Paley recognized variation within a species. Are you claiming
that Paley was wrong and that there is NO variation at all within a
species? If you have genetic variation, you have the potential to
change allele frequencies.
> Accumulation of *these* changes, as the story
> goes, results in speciation.
At what point is there sufficient phenotypic difference to call
something, after 10,000 years of change, a new species compared to the
starting point? Bifurcating speciation can occur in the absence of
selection, but merely by the accumulation of enough change over time.
> These changes must be beneficial.
Not really. Selectively neutral changes also occur, just more
slowly. The only mechanism that prevents *change* is conservative
natural selection. When selection produces *change* it is natural
selection, just not conserving selection.
> The
> acceptance of nature as reflecting adaptation, and the goal to explain
> this phenomena, supports change to be beneficial (or "good" as Darwin
> called it, 1859:84).
Specifically, in biology, a change is called "good" or "better" or
"beneficial" when it results in greater relative reproductive success
than the alternative. If you think that changes that cause disease,
early death, or failure to reproduce are "good", "better", or
"beneficial", you are certainly free to make that argument.
> > This evolutionary change in mean allele frequencies can be
> > either due to chance alone (neutral drift) or by environmental changes
> > that alter the selective pressures on different allele combinations
> > (aka, natural selection).
>
> Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.
Yes it is. At base, all evolutionary changes are ultimately due to
changes in allele (not gene) frequencies.
> The same cannot be falsified.
You mean changes in allele frequencies could have been false, but
aren't. It could have been that mutations do not occur. It could
have been that the environment is indiscriminate wrt phenotypes it
would support. It could have been that phenotypes were not the result
of genotypes (and some aren't, which is why evolution only involves
the phenotypes are affected, to some degree, by hereditary factors).
Something that could have been false, but isn't, is exactly what
science requires of its hypotheses and theories.
> Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is deduced to have
> happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence.
That doesn't mean that evolution is not, at base, a change in allele
frequencies. And, since microevolution is defined as evolution within
a species, we need not concern ourselves with speciation processes and
events in discussing microevolution.
> Evolution is an interpretation of evidence; it says the similarities
> between species is real, that they derive from one another (horizontal
> causation).
Vertical, Ray, vertical. It is hard to argue with someone who does
not know if he is standing up or lying down. Vertical transmission of
genetic information is transmission from one generation to the next to
the next to the next. Horizontal transmission of genetic information
is transmission of genetic information from one species to another in
the the same generation.
> Much genetic change can occur without a species changing in observed
> macro-reality:
Microevolution, Ray, is evolution within a species.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4...
>
> > Note that this definition, unlike yours, makes clear how one can
> > actually determine if "microevolution" can or has happened.
>
> The above link and its data falsifies your contention.
>
The described change in the genome *is* evolution. It is
phenotypically, and probably selectively neutral, evolutionary
change. But the genome of the species has changed and the species has
evolved. There does not have to be a large *phenotypic* change for
evolution to have occurred. In fact, changes like those described in
the "best birds" above are what you would expect if evolution were
primarily a function of time and only secondarily one of phenotypic
change.
> > You look
> > at a species over time and observe if there is time-directed change in
> > 1) the frequency of different alleles that have no selective benefit
> > or 2) the frequency of different alleles that have changed because of
> > an environmental change. Frequencies of alleles in a population are
> > quite measurable (in small populations) or estimateable (in large
> > ones). Moreover, one can set up experimental situations where one
> > either varies the environment or doesn't and follow whether or not
> > allele frequency changes occur as predicted.
>
> > > Falsity (F): The appearance of design and organized complexity seen in
> > > every aspect of nature corresponds directly to Divine power-causation
> > > and not unguided material causation.
>
> > The *appearance* of design is not sufficient to distinguish that
> > something was manufactured by an outside agency. Neither is, by
> > itself, organized complexity.
>
> Design logically indicates that it was produced by a Designer.
Only if the object that appears to be designed was in fact
manufactured by an outside agent. For living things, you lack the
evidence that they are manufactured by an outside agent. In fact, it
is clear that living things imperfectly self-reproduce. There are
many objects that have the *appearance* of design that we know, as a
fact, are not designed and manufactured by outside agency but instead
are a consequence of natural processes. E.g., snowflakes.
> So does
> OC. If similarity logically indicates evolution to have occurred then
> you are accepting the same logic used to conclude that design =
> Designer. Rejection of the latter is then based solely on the
> restrictions of your Materialism-Naturalism philosophy. But the
> evidence plainly supports the existence of a Designer.
What evidence of manufacture by an outside agency do you have for
living things? Other than your repeated assertions, that is.
> > > Additional empirical evidence
> > > includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
> > > earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
> > > absence of descendants.
>
> > But the pattern *is* a pattern of massive change over time.
>
> Counterfactual interpretation. Gould 2002 calls the pattern I
> described "literal signal." It exists. To interpret said phenomena as
> evidence of an antithetic concept (= evolution) is, once again, based
> on the requirements of your interpretive philosophy. But the evidence,
> at face value, says the exact opposite (= special creation).
How can the pattern of fossil species, which appear and disappear in a
time-ordered fashion in the different geologic layers, get interpreted
as a *single* event of special creation? Multiple creations,
possibly. But a *single* creation event? No way.
>
> This is why both Creationism and Evolutionism are interpretations of
> the same scientific evidence.
>
Not those that accept the Bible's claim of a single creation event.
>
> > Geological layers can be identified by the different suite of fossils
> > they contain (a fact that oil companies take full advantage of). By
> > the very definition of "species" via the morphological definition one
> > must use with fossils, any fossil found that is identified as "species
> > x" must, of necessity, be very similar to other fossils called
> > "species x". In fact, the changes that *do* occur in fossils that
> > have an extensive record causes paleontologists to either be "lumpers"
> > or "splitters" wrt whether a new fossil find is a different species
> > from an earlier similar fossil or a different species.
>
> > > > common ancestry
>
> > > D: horizontal connectedness of **species** via unguided material
> > > causation ("horizontal" includes branching viewpoint).
>
> > Uh, Ray. You seem to be confusing "vertical" and "horizontal".
> > "Horizontal" is used for cases of transfer that are not due to the
> > vertical branching process that produces the bush. Mitochondria
> > (horizontal transfer of a bacterial genome) and cross-species plasmid
> > transfer are examples of horizontal transfer. If you are going to
> > present this argument as part of your "magnus opus" against evolution,
> > I would suggest you correct this before you put it into print.
>
> Your comments plainly indicate that you did not understand what I said
> or you lost track of the context.
>
> I contrasted the main difference between Creationism (= vertical-
> Divine casuation, God-did-it) and Darwinism (= horizontal-unguided
> material causation, Evolution-did-it).
That is not how "horizontal" and "vertical" are used. You are simply
making up terms.
> ...
>
> read more »
richardal...@googlemail.com
I posted a list of Sean's lies!
They are all taken from threads on this forum or his web site. If you
think that I have made them up, or that they are true statements,
provide evidence that I am wrong.
So, unlike Sean, I *have* posted evidence that he is a liar, and when
you snipped that evidence you were evading the issue - as you have
just done in accusing me of lying!
And why on earth do you think I care a flying fuck for your "list"?
RF
Contrary to his claims, I have *not* misrepresented Sean.
richardal...@googlemail.com
The position I argue consistently is an opposition to dishonesty. If
you think that this makes me a "fanatical atheist", it tells us more
about your moral values than mine.
As I have explained over and over again, I view the creation/evolution
"debate" not as a dispute between science and religion, or a dispute
within science over the interpretation of evidence, but as a much more
simple issue of honesty. It is about the way in which creationists
pursue their claims for the scientific legitimacy of their religious
convictions.
I have been reading creationist sources for over 30 years, and have
yet to come across any which is not riddled with misrepresentation,
distortion and outright falsehoods. I don't ask anyone to take my word
for this, which is why I have set aside a part of my web site
analysing several creationist sources to identify such dishonesty.
I have invited creationists on numerous occasions to demonstrate that
I am incorrect in any of the instances of dishonesty I identify, but
no creationist seems to have the slightest interest in doing so.
I've invited creationists on numerous occasions to post a link to a
creationist source which is *not* riddled with misrepresentation,
distortion and outright falsehoods, but no creationist seems to have
the slightest interest in doing so.
I've invited creationists on numerous occasions to post a link to any
"evolutionist" site which is riddled with misrepresentation,
distortion and outright falsehoods, but no creationist seems to have
the slightest interest in doing so.
From this I conclude not only that creationist sources are dishonest,
but that creationists know that they are dishonest but find such
dishonesty is acceptable provided it comes from their own kind. Coming
as it does from those claiming the moral high ground it is utter
hypocrisy.
> This indicates to any honest person that he is an Atheist.
So, in your world, someone who detests hypocrisy is an atheist.
What do you think that tells us about your moral values?
RF
Wombat
No, he argues against your, most times, insane ideas. Even the man on
the Clapham Omnibus would accept that you were lying about RF.
Wombat
Seanpit
> seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
> unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
Shostak doens't understand that the basic theory of ID is the same
that he is using in his search for ETI.
> seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
> waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
> mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
You forget that we humans also know how to form informationally rich
DNA. There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
various kinds of radiosignals. Turns out that SETI scientists propose
that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
> but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with. it's a marshall
> mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.
>
> you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
> not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not. you can do that
> because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.
>
> but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure?
Have you not heard of random mutations or non-functional DNA? No
intelligence required to form random non-functional DNA sequences.
> DNA structure is not
> radio waves. it's not based on radio waves. DNA is chemistry, not
> electromagnetism. there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
> validates or justifies the comparison.
Anyone who makes this argument is exceptionally dense. The comparison
is obvious. What is it about radiowaves that is somehow special when
it comes to the detection of intelligent design? Nothing. Nothing at
all except in those cases where the form of the radiosignal goes well
beyond anything any non-deliberate force of nature can achieve yet is
still within the realm of human creativity and production. The very
same argument can be used when it comes to any material or medium - be
that material granite rocks, paint on a canvas, or DNA. The material
itself doesn't matter when it comes to detecting intelligence.
> we can not tell, for example, by examining the complexity of sequence
> of nucleotides in a DNA sample, whether it was created by intelligent
> humans in the lab, or whether it's natural. without some non
> intelligent source of DNA to compare it to, we have no idea whether or
> not its complexity was natural or not. even if seanpit is correct, and
> evolution can't produce DNA changes that code for greater than
> 1000aa's, some other natural process can not be ruled out.
We do have unequivocally directly observed naturally produced DNA
sequences that are the result of random mutation and the influence of
non-intelligent non-directed natural selection - exactly like SETI
scientists have directly observed naturally produced radiowaves.
Understanding the limitations of these natural manipulations of the
material in question is very important to being able to tell when the
manipulation observed has gone far beyond anything that any known non-
deliberate force of nature is likely to achieve. Can this be done to
a degree of absolute perfection? - for SETI or for ID theories? No.
There is always the possibility that some unknown force of nature will
be discovered that could explain the particular type of radiosignal
SETI scientists are looking for. That possibility cannot be excluded
to 100% certainty. That is in fact what makes SETI science a real
science. If perfection could be achieved in this regard, science would
not be needed.
> in this case, the medium is the message. radio waves communicate
> information, but not process. DNA does both. DNA codes for
> proteins...it causes an effect that radio waves do not. there is HUGE
> difference in the ways DNA and radio waves handle info.
Radiowaves can be used to communicate information regarding directions
for a particular process - just like DNA. There is no inherent
difference in the potential for radiowaves to carry information vs.
DNA. Both can be used to carry the same information. The only
difference is how the reader is set up to read, understand/interpret,
and act upon that information.
> and even if he is correct in saying that DNA could not have been been
> produced by evolution, how does this rule out DNA being subject to
> evolution? if he has an alternative process that produces speciation,
> if speciation is occurring today (and it is), then what is the
> mechanism? again he doesn't say.
Speciation is not occurring today beyond very low levels of functional
complexity. No novel "species" are being produced that have any novel
functional advantages that their parents did not already have in their
gene pool - beyond the 1000aa level of complexity.
> seanpit's use of SETI is misleading...primarily to himself. he has
> confused radio waves with chemistry. he has confused the medium with
> the message. he has confused content with structure. in short, his
> analogy is so off base that it, in and of itself, is evidence of the
> failure of ID to be legitimate.
Ok, tell me, what is the fundamental difference between the ability to
detect ID behind a particular type of radiosignal vs. a particular
type of DNA sequence? Both can be made by human-level design while
not being able to be made by non-deliberate nature. What else is
there again that makes the difference? I seem to have missed that in
your ramblings here . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> No, because he tells lies.
You define everyone who doesn't agree with you as a liar. There's a
difference between being wrong and being a liar Richard. You, on the
other hand, are the one who deliberately misrepresents my position.
You're the liar here.
> Here's a list from a recent post:
>
> 1) You can carry out complex statistical analyses in your head.
The analyses in question aren't difficult or complex. You carry the
same ones out in your head all the time. That is why you know,
already, without even having to write anything down, that highly
symmetrical polished granite cubes are very unlikely to be produced by
any non-deliberate force of nature. Everyone, with even a little bit
of experience with the material of granite, knows that this is true.
> 2) You can carry out statistics without a numerical dataset.
I never said that . . .
> 3) You have a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
> objects
I do indeed proposed using a method to detect ID behind certain types
of phenomena. It's the same basic process that SETI scientists use in
their search for ETI.
> 4) You know what the outcome of that methodology is without having to
> apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist on the
> planet much easier if it could be demonstrated)
The methodology does have to be applied - obviously. It's applied
just like SETI scientists are applying it.
> 5) Organisms can be fossilised by "very rapid flash crystalisation in
> a supersaturated environment"
They can. Ask your friend Martill. The fish and other fossils were
in fact preserved very rapidly by very rapid crystallization in "less
than one hour." Even cellular turgidity was maintained. Your
arguments to the contrary are the ones without any tenable support.
> 6) "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other forms of
> relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
> *is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
Catastrophic burial and/or otherwise sudden or rapid forms of
preservation is clearly evident in the fast majority of fossils.
> 7) "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic interpretation
> for much of the geologic column".
It does . . .
> 8) "Most ichthyosaur fossils show evidence of rapid burial, such as
> those found clustered together at places like the
> Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada."
They do. Large articulated fossils found in the same local
orientation without significant scavenging, sometimes in the process
of giving birth, suggests large scale catastrophic death and rapid
preservation. Your argument for relatively slow death and burial in
under anoxic conditions is not an adequate explanation.
> 9) The adaptive landscape of evolutionary theory consists of a series
> of isolated islands.
It does - beyond very low levels of functional complexity. You have
yet to demonstrate that these functional islands in sequences space
are actually closely spaced beyond the 1000aa level of complexity.
All you have to do is show that a functional system beyond this level
is actually within a few dozen residue differences of another uniquely
functional system at the same level or higher. So far, you haven't
been able to do this - - and neither has anyone else.
> 10) Evolution "stalls out" at a level arbitrarily set bySeanPitman.
The level is not arbitrary. It's based on a direct observation.
Evolution is observed in action all the time when it comes to
producing systems that have minimum structural threshold requirements
of only a few dozen fairly specified residues. It happens much less
commonly when the threshold under consideration moves up to a few
hundred specified residues. And, it doesn't happen at all beyond the
1000aa threshold. That's an observed fact. There are no examples of
evolution in action in literature beyond this threshold.
> 11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
They do. A fractal pattern is a NHP pattern - by definition. Humans
commonly produce fractal patterns in all kinds of creations. Humans
have even been known to produce the particular type of NHP seen in the
ToL - except on a smaller scale of course.
> 12) Geologists don't have an explanation for concentrations of
> fossils of carnivores.
I never said that they didn't have an explanation. What I said was
that the mainstream 'explanation' doesn't make as much sense given all
the available information - as least not to me.
> 13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
> of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
> all present in the Cambrian "
That's also true.
> 14) "ancient channels of major rivers .. have not been found" in the
> Morrison Formation.
I never said that. River channels have been found in the Morrison.
It is just that these have features of rapid downcutting as
catastrophically built runnoff channels rather than true long-standing
riverbeds.
> 15) That "uniformitarianism" means that geologists thought that *all*
> sedimentary deposits were laid down gradually over millions of years.
Uniformitarianism does in fact mean that the processes that are
observed today are essentially the same in character and degree as
what has occurred throughout history. In other words, geologic
processes are essentially uniform in rate and degree - hence the name
"uniformitarianism".
> It's worth noting that although he has accused me of misrepresenting
> him and lying, he is not able to post any evidence to support this
> claim.
Anyone at all familiar with our exchanges can see your
misrepresentations, exaggerations, and micharacterizations for his or
herself.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Mark VandeWettering
> On Oct 11, 5:31 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
>> unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
>> ID is codswallop...but that's another issue.
>
> Shostak doens't understand that the basic theory of ID is the same
> that he is using in his search for ETI.
It's incredibly condescending to claim that a researcher doesn't
understand his own research. Even more so when it is obvious that
you are blowing smoke. Shostak isn't searching for design. In
telecommunications, designed modulation schemes are indistinguishable
from AWGN (additive white gaussian noise) basically as a consequence
of Shannon's channel capacity theorems. Any intelligent race can't do
any better than that, but our ability to find and decode such messages
are essentially nil, because the space of possible messages are just as
large as the space of possible noise.
What SETI researchers are looking for are beacon transmissions: narrow
band emissions. There are a number of natural sources that can emit
relatively narrow bands, but they are rather uncommon and increasingly
well understood.
>> seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
>> waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
>> mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
>
> You forget that we humans also know how to form informationally rich
> DNA. There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
> various kinds of radiosignals. Turns out that SETI scientists propose
> that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
> require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
> comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
This is of course nonsense.
>> but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with. it's a marshall
>> mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.
>>
>> you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
>> not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not. you can do that
>> because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.
>>
>> but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure?
>
> Have you not heard of random mutations or non-functional DNA? No
> intelligence required to form random non-functional DNA sequences.
This argument is entirely circular.
>> DNA structure is not
>> radio waves. it's not based on radio waves. DNA is chemistry, not
>> electromagnetism. there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
>> validates or justifies the comparison.
>
> Anyone who makes this argument is exceptionally dense. The comparison
> is obvious. What is it about radiowaves that is somehow special when
> it comes to the detection of intelligent design? Nothing.
Except that our search for SETI is a search for simplicity, not
complexity.
SETI researchers aren't searching for ID. They don't know how. The
signals they are searching aren't being selected for their information
carrying: exactly the reverse is in fact true.
Ray Martinez
We have been through this very many times. There are several valid
definitions of "evolution." Your contention that the gene-centric
definition to be the only valid definition tells us that you are
ignorant.
> >My rendering does not. Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a
> > *continuous* process of slight-slow change. Dawkins 1986 laboriously
> > confirms.
>
> I would say that evolution is an *inevitable* process of change that
> is only slowed by the conservative nature of natural selection at some
> loci. Given the reality of mutation, only conservative natural
> selection can prevent evolution. And, even so, it can only do it
> dynamically. That is, mutation occurs and selection selective and
> detrimentally affects the reproductive success of individuals with
> that mutation so that the frequency decreases or is eliminated.
>
Congratulations! You have just said what Paley said: selection
prevents evolutionary change. There is nothing new under the sun.
> > Species, in 1859, were suddenly seen as possessing the
> > *potential* to change.
>
> Even Paley recognized variation within a species. Are you claiming
> that Paley was wrong and that there is NO variation at all within a
> species? If you have genetic variation, you have the potential to
> change allele frequencies.
>
Non-sequitur. You should actually read what was said before typing
your reply.
Of course variability exists within species. No two organisms are
identical, even so called "identical twins" are not identical. Darwin,
by no means, showed species to have evolved. He showed their
*potential* to change in a scientific context that accepted strict
immutability. Again, this is why evolution is an interpretation of
evidence. This is why evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.
Evolution is deduced to have happened after the alleged fact based on
several lines of evidence, which does not include the geological
fossil record. I will have no trouble in my paper showing many big
name evolutionary authorities plainly admitting the latter fact. There
is no pattern of evolutionary transitions in the fossil series. We can
establish this fact using secular scientists alone, employed by big
corporations, who do not care about the Creation-Evolution debate.
> > Accumulation of *these* changes, as the story
> > goes, results in speciation.
>
> At what point is there sufficient phenotypic difference to call
> something, after 10,000 years of change, a new species compared to the
> starting point? Bifurcating speciation can occur in the absence of
> selection, but merely by the accumulation of enough change over time.
>
My comment was made in the context of outlining the claims of
evolution. You are quibbling over nothing.
> > These changes must be beneficial.
>
> Not really. Selectively neutral changes also occur, just more
> slowly. The only mechanism that prevents *change* is conservative
> natural selection. When selection produces *change* it is natural
> selection, just not conserving selection.
>
> > The
> > acceptance of nature as reflecting adaptation, and the goal to explain
> > this phenomena, supports change to be beneficial (or "good" as Darwin
> > called it, 1859:84).
>
> Specifically, in biology, a change is called "good" or "better" or
> "beneficial" when it results in greater relative reproductive success
> than the alternative. If you think that changes that cause disease,
> early death, or failure to reproduce are "good", "better", or
> "beneficial", you are certainly free to make that argument.
>
We were talking about the Creation-Evolution debate and the origin of
species; specifically the claims of evolution. Since adaptation is
universally accepted phenomena, said changes *were* beneficial or
"good" as Darwin described them.
> > > This evolutionary change in mean allele frequencies can be
> > > either due to chance alone (neutral drift) or by environmental changes
> > > that alter the selective pressures on different allele combinations
> > > (aka, natural selection).
>
> > Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.
>
> Yes it is. At base, all evolutionary changes are ultimately due to
> changes in allele (not gene) frequencies.
>
You have evaded:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4
> > The same cannot be falsified.
>
> You mean changes in allele frequencies could have been false, but
> aren't. It could have been that mutations do not occur. It could
> have been that the environment is indiscriminate wrt phenotypes it
> would support. It could have been that phenotypes were not the result
> of genotypes (and some aren't, which is why evolution only involves
> the phenotypes are affected, to some degree, by hereditary factors).
> Something that could have been false, but isn't, is exactly what
> science requires of its hypotheses and theories.
>
Change at the genetic level is not evolution produced by unguided
material causation. It is designed change accomplished by a mechanism
built by Divine power and intelligence----just like IC systems.
> > Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is deduced to have
> > happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence.
>
> That doesn't mean that evolution is not, at base, a change in allele
> frequencies. And, since microevolution is defined as evolution within
> a species, we need not concern ourselves with speciation processes and
> events in discussing microevolution.
>
The *main claim* of Darwinism is that species change into a different
species over vast amounts of time by unguided material causation. They
are not produced by special creation. Darwin wrote the "Origin" to say
that special creation "is erroneous" (1859:6). A change is gene
frequencies does not support the *main claim.* What "supports" this
claim is interpretation of evidence seen in macro-reality, like
Linnaean hierarchal classification. Darwinists say the hierarchy
connectedness is real. Creationists know that it is an illusion or
delusion.
> > Evolution is an interpretation of evidence; it says the similarities
> > between species is real, that they derive from one another (horizontal
> > causation).
>
> Vertical, Ray, vertical. It is hard to argue with someone who does
> not know if he is standing up or lying down. Vertical transmission of
> genetic information is transmission from one generation to the next to
> the next to the next. Horizontal transmission of genetic information
> is transmission of genetic information from one species to another in
> the the same generation.
>
I was not talking about genetics. I was talking about the main
difference between Creationism and Darwinism. The former says
causation forces in nature are vertical or Divine. The latter says
causation forces in nature are horizontal-material-natural, not Divine
or supernatural.
> > Much genetic change can occur without a species changing in observed
> > macro-reality:
>
> Microevolution, Ray, is evolution within a species.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4...
>
> > > Note that this definition, unlike yours, makes clear how one can
> > > actually determine if "microevolution" can or has happened.
>
> > The above link and its data falsifies your contention.
>
> The described change in the genome *is* evolution. It is
> phenotypically, and probably selectively neutral, evolutionary
> change. But the genome of the species has changed and the species has
> evolved.
The penguins in the study in the link falsify your opinion.
Appearance-observation of design.
> > > > Additional empirical evidence
> > > > includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
> > > > earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
> > > > absence of descendants.
>
> > > But the pattern *is* a pattern of massive change over time.
>
> > Counterfactual interpretation. Gould 2002 calls the pattern I
> > described "literal signal." It exists. To interpret said phenomena as
> > evidence of an antithetic concept (= evolution) is, once again, based
> > on the requirements of your interpretive philosophy. But the evidence,
> > at face value, says the exact opposite (= special creation).
>
> How can the pattern of fossil species, which appear and disappear in a
> time-ordered fashion in the different geologic layers, get interpreted
> as a *single* event of special creation? Multiple creations,
> possibly. But a *single* creation event? No way.
>
> > This is why both Creationism and Evolutionism are interpretations of
> > the same scientific evidence.
>
> Not those that accept the Bible's claim of a single creation event.
>
Neither the Bible or Creationism accept a single species creation
event. Only YEC Fundamentalists accept this error riddled view. 19th
century Creationism accepted on-going real time special creation to
account for new species. New species owe their existence in nature to
direct creation. This is why mutability is not necessary. Besides,
mutability is impossible. Animals and nature do not have magical
powers.
Ridiculous.
Said terms have many legitimate meanings depending on context. You
simply cannot admit that you were not paying attention to the context
in which they were being used.
In fact most of your replies lost track of the fact that I was
answering your questions. You evaded most of my answers and embarked
upon a non-sequitur agenda.
> > > F: Based on the appearance of design & organized complexity seen in
> > > > each species the same corresponds to vertical-Divine causation.
>
> > > Isn't this the same meaningless drivel you claimed provided evidence
> > > against microevolution? You still haven't provided a mechanism for
> > > distinguishing between the hypothesized natural processes that can
> > > produce the "appearance of design & organized complexity" and those
> > > that *were* produced by some outside intelligent agent.
>
> > > > > random mutation
>
> > > > D: Darwinian voodoo taking the place of Mind.
>
> > > I would define "random mutation" as the idea that "permanent changes
> > > in the sequence of the genetic material" occurs at random wrt the need
> > > for that mutation. Randomness, in this case, can be determined as a
> > > rate of mutational sequence change that is unaffected by the need for
> > > that mutation. The rate can be changed by the presence or absence of
> > > 'mutagens', but cannot be changed by the 'need' for that mutation.
>
There is no such thing as *random* mutation. Results reflect
purpose----adaptation. Species were created to fit their environments.
Since very many different species occupy the same environment the same
is evidence of the work of one Mastermind.
> > > This is a simple mathematically determinable genetic test. And, with
> > > the possible exception of a very few sites where mutation has been
> > > 'domesticated' and 'localized', experimental tests (starting with the
> > > Luria/Delbruck experiments in the 1940s) have demonstrated that
> > > mutation is random in the sense described.
>
Phenomena is *called* random because evolutionists want to send a
message that Mind is absent. But your *explanation* defines "random"
to not hold its understood definition. This is an ordinary bait-and-
switch.
> > > > F: Dembski 1999 says if specified or organized complexity is the
> > > > result then the same is caused by [I]ntelligence and not antonymic
> > > > phenomena (randomness). Of course all scholars agree that organized
> > > > complexity exists (Dawkins 1986).
>
> > > But all the experiments and scientific literature says that mutational
> > > change of genome sequence is random wrt need. [There may be some rare
> > > exceptions, like the a to alpha yeast mating type switch.]
>
Only evolutionists say it is random. The results, that is, design,
organized complexity and adaptation evidence a mechanism reflecting
Intelligent causation. Again, this is why both Creationism and
Darwinism are interpretations of the same scientific evidence.
> > > > > natural selection
>
> > > > D: unguided material causation, the main, but not the exclusive cause
> > > > of evolutionary change.
>
> > > Notice that word "selection"? It means that, *when* natural selection
> > > is the cause of change (or conservation; one should never forget that
> > > most natural selection is for conservation of sequence and function
> > > and not for change) in allele frequencies, the change is "guided". It
> > > is "guided" by features of the local environment and not by an outside
> > > intelligent agent, but it is still guided.
>
Okay, so?
But no such mechanism exists. NS is a short list of truisms
euphemistically called a "mechanism."
> > > Natural selection can be defined as the relative differential
> > > reproductive success of different *phenotypes* in a local
> > > environment. [Natural selection that has evolutionary implications
> > > requires that the *phenotype* have a hereditary or *genotypic*
> > > component that affects the phenotype.] This definition is
> > > experimentally testable.
>
> > > > F: Nature and each species are directly comparable to a watch (but the
> > > > former, beyond all computation, exceeds a watch in organized
> > > > complexity, Paley 1802). Watches (= species) correspond directly to
> > > > the power of an invisible Watchmaker. Based on these condensed facts,
> > > > Michael Behe, in "Black Box," says no one has ever answered Paley 1802
> > > > much less refuted him. Of course I completely agree. Therefore this
> > > > analogy of nature by Paley obliterates any notion of unguided material
> > > > causation existing in nature.
>
> > > How does this *test* whether or not "natural selection" occurs? Paley
> > > clearly thought that "natural selection" occurred.
Preventing evolutionary change. You have agreed in principle, above.
> > > Michael Behe
> > > thinks that "natural selection" occurs. All you are doing is
> > > presenting an analogy and asserting that a watch is directly the same
> > > in its mode of manufacture as a worm is. Even simple observation
> > > should disabuse you of the idea that worms are produced in worm
> > > factories or in Swiss jeweleries by an
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »
You do not understand Paley's analogy. Read Dawkins 1986, he does.
Ray
wf3h
> On Oct 11, 5:31 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
> > unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
> > ID is codswallop...but that's another issue.
>
> Shostak doens't understand that the basic theory of ID is the same
> that he is using in his search for ETI.
and we know that's true because you said it.
uh huh.
>
> > seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
> > waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
> > mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
>
> You forget that we humans also know how to form informationally rich
> DNA.
we humans know how to imitate nature. that does not mean nature is
intelligent.
we can create lightening in a lab. that does not mean it takes
intelligence to make lightening...
>There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
> various kinds of radiosignals.
wrong. electromagnetism...radio waves...are not chemistry. they are
not DNA
> Turns out that SETI scientists propose
> that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
> require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
> comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
your SETI analogy is exactly that...an analogy. it is not a mechanism.
it is not an explanation for anything at all, except your failure to
specify a mechanism. and production of radiowaves is not chemistry.
the science is quite different.
>
> > but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with. it's a marshall
> > mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.
>
> > you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
> > not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not. you can do that
> > because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.
>
> > but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure?
>
> Have you not heard of random mutations or non-functional DNA? No
> intelligence required to form random non-functional DNA sequences.
non sequitur. prove that non functional DNA is created by a different
process than functional DNA. otherwise the cause of both is natural
and, again, we have no non intelligent source of DNA to compare
'intelligently designed' DNA with.
>
> > DNA structure is not
> > radio waves. it's not based on radio waves. DNA is chemistry, not
> > electromagnetism. there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
> > validates or justifies the comparison.
>
> Anyone who makes this argument is exceptionally dense.
says the creationist who thinks SETI researchers are stupid because
they dont' agree with him
> The comparison is obvious
wrong. it is an analogy. it is NOT a mechanism. you keep saying it is.
but chemistry is not electromagnetism.
.> What is it about radiowaves that is somehow special when
> it comes to the detection of intelligent design? Nothing.
wrong. we know that some radio waves are produced by natural non
intelligent sources. we can identify those sources and determine the
mechanism of creation
we know some radio waves are produced by intelligence because, inter
alia, wf3h produces some, being a ham radio operator
we have NO sources of non-natural DNA to compare intelligently
designed sources with. it's quite possible that the complexity in DNA
is produced entirely naturally.
we know this can be done because proteins...which are as complex as
DNA...are produced entirely naturally. we can prove that.
Nothing at
> all except in those cases where the form of the radiosignal goes well
> beyond anything any non-deliberate force of nature can achieve yet is
> still within the realm of human creativity and production. The very
> same argument can be used when it comes to any material or medium
wrong. absolutely wrong. totally wrong and unscientific.
DNA is chemistry. you are making the argument that, if i watch an
episode of the 'honeymooners', i can tell that a cow is intelligently
designed because it's complex.
that's nonsense.
- be
> that material granite rocks, paint on a canvas, or DNA. The material
> itself doesn't matter when it comes to detecting intelligence.
wrong. totally wrong. since material is based on chemistry, while
radiowaves are based on electromagnetism, the complexity of the
information they contain is ENTIRELY based on the mechanism used to
create them. there can be...and are...natural chemical processes that
form complexity.
again...that's why you use an analogy to SETI to avoid having to face
your failure to specify a mechanism for the formation of information
in DNA. it's a failed analogy. it's wrong.
>
> > we can not tell, for example, by examining the complexity of sequence
> > of nucleotides in a DNA sample, whether it was created by intelligent
> > humans in the lab, or whether it's natural. without some non
> > intelligent source of DNA to compare it to, we have no idea whether or
> > not its complexity was natural or not. even if seanpit is correct, and
> > evolution can't produce DNA changes that code for greater than
> > 1000aa's, some other natural process can not be ruled out.
>
> We do have unequivocally directly observed naturally produced DNA
> sequences that are the result of random mutation and the influence of
> non-intelligent non-directed natural selection
and that's all we've ever seen.
-> exactly like SETI
> scientists have directly observed naturally produced radiowaves.
and the ONLY source of intelligently produced radiowaves are produced
by humans. but radiowaves are not chemistry. the mechanisms of
chemistry are not those of radiowave production. there is no basis
whatsoever that allows you to compare the 2 types of information
formation.
> Understanding the limitations of these natural manipulations of the
> material in question is very important to being able to tell when the
> manipulation observed has gone far beyond anything that any known non-
> deliberate force of nature is likely to achieve. Can this be done to
> a degree of absolute perfection? - for SETI or for ID theories? No.
> There is always the possibility that some unknown force of nature will
> be discovered that could explain the particular type of radiosignal
> SETI scientists are looking for. That possibility cannot be excluded
> to 100% certainty. That is in fact what makes SETI science a real
> science. If perfection could be achieved in this regard, science would
> not be needed.
wrong. what makes SETI a science is that we know how an intelligently
designed radiowave signal is produced because we can produce them. we
don't know what an 'intelligently designed' DNA strand would be
because we've never seen one. the mechanisms of DNA formation are
based in chemistry, not electromagnetism. again, there can be sources
of creation of complex info in DNA that are entirely natural. we see
this in protein chemistry, for example.
that's why you can't tell us how an 'intelligent designer' works. you
keep falling back on an analogy because your 'science' of intelligent
design is a failure.
>
> > in this case, the medium is the message. radio waves communicate
> > information, but not process. DNA does both. DNA codes for
> > proteins...it causes an effect that radio waves do not. there is HUGE
> > difference in the ways DNA and radio waves handle info.
>
> Radiowaves can be used to communicate information regarding directions
> for a particular process - just like DNA.
you've missed the point. radio waves can COMMUNICATE information but
they can not PARTICIPATE in the process about which they communicate.
DNA necessarily does this. it is the engine of evolution. it is the
template on which mRNA is built to be transcribed into proteins. this
is a HUGE difference compared to your analogy of SETI radio waves.
that alone is evidence of a big, big difference between SETI and
'intelligent design'
it's one reason you analogy is simply wrong.
>There is no inherent
> difference in the potential for radiowaves to carry information vs.
> DNA. Both can be used to carry the same information. The only
> difference is how the reader is set up to read, understand/interpret,
> and act upon that information.
'other than that, mrs. lincoln, how did you like the play?'
DNA participates in the process that leads to its own creation..that
is, evolution. DNA, because it's chemistry, carries within itself,
its own mechanism of change.
radiowaves do not. this is ANOTHER reason why your analogy is wrong.
>
> > and even if he is correct in saying that DNA could not have been been
> > produced by evolution, how does this rule out DNA being subject to
> > evolution? if he has an alternative process that produces speciation,
> > if speciation is occurring today (and it is), then what is the
> > mechanism? again he doesn't say.
>
> Speciation is not occurring today beyond very low levels of functional
> complexity. No novel "species" are being produced that have any novel
> functional advantages that their parents did not already have in their
> gene pool - beyond the 1000aa level of complexity.
you have no proof of that whatsoever. none. it's, again, simply your
assertion.
and, without more proof of your mechanism of the formation of HOW DNA
is created and HOW it leads to speciation, your analogy with SETI is
simplistic and non-scientific...for reasons you yourself pointed out
above.
>
> > seanpit's use of SETI is misleading...primarily to himself. he has
> > confused radio waves with chemistry. he has confused the medium with
> > the message. he has confused content with structure. in short, his
> > analogy is so off base that it, in and of itself, is evidence of the
> > failure of ID to be legitimate.
>
> Ok, tell me, what is the fundamental difference between the ability to
> detect ID behind a particular type of radiosignal vs. a particular
> type of DNA sequence? Both can be made by human-level design while
> not being able to be made by non-deliberate nature. What else is
> there again that makes the difference? I seem to have missed that in
> your ramblings here . . .
we know how the information in intelligently designed radio waves gets
designed into those waves. we do it every day
we have NO proof or observations that leads to the conclusion that a
DNA segment is 'intelligently designed' or that the process in which
it participates is 'intelligently designed'. hell, our own best
efforts to do so...as in selective breeding of animals, etc., merely
mimic what nature itself produces.
the mechanism of forming DNA is different than that of making radio
waves.
radio waves do not participate in their own transcription nor do they
direct the process of their own change.
the mechanisms of DNA formation and transcription are SO different
than the SETI project that your analogy is inappropriate..and wrong
and the ONLY reason you use it is because you have no mechanism to
describe your theory of ID and how it works on DNA. that's why you
never discuss DNA...and confine yourself to radiowaves.
wf3h
> On Oct 12, 12:21 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > 3) You have a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
> > objects
>
> I do indeed proposed using a method to detect ID behind certain types
> of phenomena. It's the same basic process that SETI scientists use in
> their search for ETI.
no, it's not. the methods and mechanisms of chemistry are not those
used to produce radio waves
DNA participates in its own transcription. radiowaves do not
there are many, many differences between radiowaves and chemistry.
it's a specious...and wrong...argument to say that an analogy is a
mechanism. it's bad logic and it's not science
>
> > 4) You know what the outcome of that methodology is without having to
> > apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist on the>
> > 9) The adaptive landscape of evolutionary theory consists of a series
> > of isolated islands.
>
> It does - beyond very low levels of functional complexity. You have
> yet to demonstrate that these functional islands in sequences space
> are actually closely spaced beyond the 1000aa level of complexity.
and you have yet to prove that this level of 'complexity' is evidence
of intelligent design. so far all we see is chemistry. and chemistry
can, as the existence of proteins show, created tremendously complex
information.
you have ONLY an analogy. a poor one. one that leaves out HUGE
differences between your references
and that is the ENTIRETY of your argument
IOW you have no argument at all.
>
> The level is not arbitrary. It's based on a direct observation.
what's NOT based on direct observation is your definition of
intelligent design. you seem to think we chemists need radio waves to
mix acids and bases. we don't the mechanisms of chemistry are vastly
different than those of radiowave production.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Oct 12, 12:21 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Because he's a liar.
>
> > > Because he disagrees with you
>
> > No, because he tells lies.
>
> You define everyone who doesn't agree with you as a liar.
No, I don't. I call people liars if they make statements they know to
be false with the intent to deceive.
> There's a
> difference between being wrong and being a liar Richard.
Quite.
> You, on the
> other hand, are the one who deliberately misrepresents my position.
...and yet you are unable to produce any instance of my doing so.
> You're the liar here.
>
> > Here's a list from a recent post:
>
> > 1) You can carry out complex statistical analyses in your head.
>
> The analyses in question aren't difficult or complex.
Statistical analyses of shape are.
> You carry the
> same ones out in your head all the time.
No, I don't. That's why I use sophisticated statistical tools and
large numerical datasets.
> That is why you know,
> already, without even having to write anything down, that highly
> symmetrical polished granite cubes are very unlikely to be produced by
> any non-deliberate force of nature. Everyone, with even a little bit
> of experience with the material of granite, knows that this is true.
I suggest that if you think your silly "granite cube" argument has any
weight, you need to read the posts on the subject in which your empty
assertions have been thoroughly eviscerated.
>
> > 2) You can carry out statistics without a numerical dataset.
>
> I never said that . . .
You just did in this very post! You claim that we carry out
statistical calculations in our heads "all the time".
>
> > 3) You have a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
> > objects
>
> I do indeed proposed using a method to detect ID behind certain types
> of phenomena.
...and yet, when pressed to set out your "methodology", you are unable
to do so. Telling people it's up to them to chose what to measure, as
you have done, shows that you have no such methodology.
> It's the same basic process that SETI scientists use in
> their search for ETI.
Bullshit.
SETI scientists are looking for signals of a type they know to be
artificial because they can be produced by known human technologies.
>
> > 4) You know what the outcome of that methodology is without having to
> > apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist on the
> > planet much easier if it could be demonstrated)
>
> The methodology does have to be applied - obviously.
...and as you are unable to set out your methodology, you evidently
haven't applied it.
> It's applied
> just like SETI scientists are applying it.
It is? SETI is using distributed computer networks to analyse the data
they have collected from radio telescopes. That's applying their
methodology.
You don't even have any data to analyse.
>
> > 5) Organisms can be fossilised by "very rapid flash crystalisation in
> > a supersaturated environment"
>
> They can.
So where does *any* scientific paper refer to "very rapid flash
crystalisation in a supersaturated environment"?
> Ask your friend Martill.
He does not refer to "very rapid flash crystalisation in a
supersaturated environment" in any of his papers. Nobody does,. It's a
term you have invented.
> The fish and other fossils were
> in fact preserved very rapidly by very rapid crystallization in "less
> than one hour."
Possibly - though the jury is out on whether or not it could take
place in an hour.
What has this to do with "very rapid flash crystalisation in a
supersaturated environment"?
> Even cellular turgidity was maintained. Your
> arguments to the contrary are the ones without any tenable support.
What arguments to the contrary? This is about "very rapid flash
crystalisation in a supersaturated environment", not how quickly
fossils can form under exceptional circumstances.
>
> > 6) "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other forms of
> > relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
> > *is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
>
> Catastrophic burial and/or otherwise sudden or rapid forms of
> preservation is clearly evident in the fast majority of fossils.
Nonsense.I've provided you with many references, some of which I have
quoted from which show that this is not the case. I've referred you to
the relevant chapters in "Palaeobiology", but evidently you can't be
bothered to read them.
What is "catastrophic preservation"?
>
> > 7) "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic interpretation
> > for much of the geologic column".
>
> It does . . .
Not according to the scientists who have studied it, it doesn't.
I posted a link to a photograph of Siccar Point, one of the key bits
of evidence which showed the pioneers of the science of geology that
the earth is very ancient, and has a long history of depostion and
erosion. You have not explained how the evidence of this single
exposure, , let alone the vast evidence from the rest of the
geological record is compatible with a "catastrophic interpretation".
>
> > 8) "Most ichthyosaur fossils show evidence of rapid burial, such as
> > those found clustered together at places like the
> > Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada."
>
> They do.
No, they don't Sean. I've been collecting ichthyosaur fossils for over
40 years, and most are disarticulated fragments. Even in Berlin
Ichthyosaur Park most of the material is in the form of disarticulated
elements. Substantially complete specimens are found in one of the
sedimentary stuctures, but these were laid down in a low energy
environment - ie. there was *not* a rapid build-up of sediment, and
there was *no* "catastrophic fossilisation".
> Large articulated fossils found in the same local
> orientation
...in one of the beds. In others the skeletons are disarticulated and
scattered.
> without significant scavenging,
There is significant scavenging on the material which is
disarticulated and scattered. Actually, many isolated elements of
marine reptiles we find show signs of scavenging.
> sometimes in the process
> of giving birth,
Not in Berlin Ichthyosaur Park they ain't! Those specimens come from
the Lias of Germany and Southern England.
> suggests large scale catastrophic death and rapid
> preservation.
I've posted links to the papers, and explained the "soupy substrate"
scenario to you several times. The evidence shows clearly that there
was *not* a large scale mortality in the case of the Liassic
ichthyosaurs.
>Your argument for relatively slow death
Where have I argued for a "relatively slow death"? I study predation
patterns in marine reptiles, and have recently reported on the death
of several specimens which was most certainly *not* "relatively
slow", but sudden and savage.
> and burial in
> under anoxic conditions is not an adequate explanation.
According to whom? You refuse even to read the papers on taphonomy in
'Palaeobiology', let alone address the evidence and argument presented
there.
>
> > 9) The adaptive landscape of evolutionary theory consists of a series
> > of isolated islands.
>
> It does - beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
...and empty assertion you are unable to support with so much as a
shred of evidence.
> You have
> yet to demonstrate that these functional islands in sequences space
> are actually closely spaced beyond the 1000aa level of complexity.
No, what you have to demonstrate is of what possible relevance this
fantasy number of yours is.
> All you have to do is show that a functional system beyond this level
> is actually within a few dozen residue differences of another uniquely
> functional system at the same level or higher.
> So far, you haven't
> been able to do this - - and neither has anyone else.
The evidence shows that humans evolved from lobe-finned fish.
Presumably this involves changes beyond your silly number. If you
disagree with the conclusion reached by the scientists who study the
subject, I suggest that you address the evidence from comparative
anatomy, genetics and the fossil record which supports this
conclusion.
>
> > 10) Evolution "stalls out" at a level arbitrarily set bySeanPitman.
>
> The level is not arbitrary.
So where are the calculations by which your determined the level?
> It's based on a direct observation.
Bullshit.
> Evolution is observed in action all the time when it comes to
> producing systems that have minimum structural threshold requirements
> of only a few dozen fairly specified residues.
..as anyone with any knowledge of evolutionary theory would expect.
> It happens much less
> commonly when the threshold under consideration moves up to a few
> hundred specified residues.
...which, as such changes come about by the accumulation of smaller
changes accounts for the larger scale evolutionary trends we see.
> And, it doesn't happen at all beyond the
> 1000aa threshold.
What "1000aa threshold"?
> That's an observed fact.
No, it's an unfounded assertion.
> There are no examples of
> evolution in action in literature beyond this threshold.
What about the evolution of humans from lobe-finned fish?
>
> > 11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
>
> They do.
...and yet, in spite of being repeatedly challenged to do so, you are
unable to produce any example of a nested hierarchy in the products of
a human designer.
> A fractal pattern is a NHP pattern - by definition.
Not in the sense the term is used in biology, in which the nested
hierarchy is a product of the characteristics of the organisms which
form it.
> Humans
> commonly produce fractal patterns in all kinds of creations.
So freaking what? They also make things out of wood. That doesn't mean
that the objects they produce are always in the form of trees.
> Humans
> have even been known to produce the particular type of NHP seen in the
> ToL - except on a smaller scale of course.
So freaking what?
>
> > 12) Geologists don't have an explanation for concentrations of
> > fossils of carnivores.
>
> I never said that they didn't have an explanation. What I said was
> that the mainstream 'explanation' doesn't make as much sense given all
> the available information - as least not to me.
Your web site says this on the subject:
Many layers also have only a limited number of preserved creatures -
far too limited an array to support a viable ecosystem. For example,
the fossils of some layers consist primarily of large meat eating
dinosaurs. Yet, there simply aren't near the number of preserved
creatures that could serve as prey for these very large carnivores.1
What on Earth did they live on for millions of years? How did they
get preserved in abundance in certain layers while other creatures did
not? "
No mention of predator traps. No mention that there is *any*
mainstream explanation. No reference to any such explanation not
making sense.
>
> > 13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
> > of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
> > all present in the Cambrian "
>
> That's also true.
>
> > 14) "ancient channels of major rivers .. have not been found" in the
> > Morrison Formation.
>
> I never said that. River channels have been found in the Morrison.
> It is just that these have features of rapid downcutting as
> catastrophically built runnoff channels rather than true long-standing
> riverbeds.
From your web site again:
" It has been suggested that it was distributed by widespread flowing
water. The fossils found within it, millions upon millions of them,
are generally oriented with respect to flow - confirmed by GPS mapping
(Arthur Chadwick). However, ancient channels of major rivers that
would help distribute the sediments over such a wide area have not
been found."
>
> > 15) That "uniformitarianism" means that geologists thought that *all*
> > sedimentary deposits were laid down gradually over millions of years.
>
> Uniformitarianism does in fact mean that the processes that are
> observed today are essentially the same in character and degree as
> what has occurred throughout history. In other words, geologic
> processes are essentially uniform in rate and degree - hence the name
> "uniformitarianism".
>
From your web site "The uniformitarian notion of slow deposition over
millions of years of time is no longer accepted by scientists."
> > It's worth noting that although he has accused me of misrepresenting
> > him and lying, he is not able to post any evidence to support this
> > claim.
>
> Anyone at all familiar with our exchanges can see your
> misrepresentations, exaggerations, and micharacterizations for his or
> herself.
And yet you have not identified any instance in which I misrepresented
you, or where I have lied.
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
John Stockwell
> On Oct 11, 5:31 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
> > unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
> > ID is codswallop...but that's another issue.
>
> Shostak doens't understand that the basic theory of ID is the same
> that he is using in his search for ETI.
There isn't any basic theory of ID. Shostak is modeling manufacture
in an attempt to detect signals of the variety that we make,
in the hopes that postulated alien signals will look like those.
>
> > seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
> > waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
> > mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
>
> You forget that we humans also know how to form informationally rich
> DNA. There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
> various kinds of radiosignals. Turns out that SETI scientists propose
> that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
> require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
> comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
As near as we can tell, the "informationally rich" DNA sequences
that we see in nature are the result of duplication, transposition,
and other mutational mechanisms subjected to natural selection.
>
> > but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with. it's a marshall
> > mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.
>
> > you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
> > not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not. you can do that
> > because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.
>
> > but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure?
>
> Have you not heard of random mutations or non-functional DNA? No
> intelligence required to form random non-functional DNA sequences.
>
No "intelligence" what ever that is supposed to mean seems
to be needed to form "functional" sequences either.
> > DNA structure is not
> > radio waves. it's not based on radio waves. DNA is chemistry, not
> > electromagnetism. there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
> > validates or justifies the comparison.
>
> Anyone who makes this argument is exceptionally dense. The comparison
> is obvious. What is it about radiowaves that is somehow special when
> it comes to the detection of intelligent design? Nothing. Nothing at
> all except in those cases where the form of the radiosignal goes well
> beyond anything any non-deliberate force of nature can achieve yet is
> still within the realm of human creativity and production. The very
> same argument can be used when it comes to any material or medium - be
> that material granite rocks, paint on a canvas, or DNA. The material
> itself doesn't matter when it comes to detecting intelligence.
First of all, are we talking about modulated radio waves? If
so, then we have ways of doing that that reflect our technology.
In short, modeling manufacture is the heart of any "radio signals
from aliens" discussion.
>
> > we can not tell, for example, by examining the complexity of sequence
> > of nucleotides in a DNA sample, whether it was created by intelligent
> > humans in the lab, or whether it's natural. without some non
> > intelligent source of DNA to compare it to, we have no idea whether or
> > not its complexity was natural or not. even if seanpit is correct, and
> > evolution can't produce DNA changes that code for greater than
> > 1000aa's, some other natural process can not be ruled out.
>
> We do have unequivocally directly observed naturally produced DNA
> sequences that are the result of random mutation and the influence of
> non-intelligent non-directed natural selection - exactly like SETI
> scientists have directly observed naturally produced radiowaves.
> Understanding the limitations of these natural manipulations of the
> material in question is very important to being able to tell when the
> manipulation observed has gone far beyond anything that any known non-
> deliberate force of nature is likely to achieve. Can this be done to
> a degree of absolute perfection? - for SETI or for ID theories? No.
> There is always the possibility that some unknown force of nature will
> be discovered that could explain the particular type of radiosignal
> SETI scientists are looking for. That possibility cannot be excluded
> to 100% certainty. That is in fact what makes SETI science a real
> science. If perfection could be achieved in this regard, science would
> not be needed.
Since there isn't any such thing as "ID theory" that paragraph
could mean anything. Basically, no, we have to know something
about the mechanism of manufacture before we can say that
something is "manufactured". (The whole "design" thing is just
a smoke screen.)
>
> > in this case, the medium is the message. radio waves communicate
> > information, but not process. DNA does both. DNA codes for
> > proteins...it causes an effect that radio waves do not. there is HUGE
> > difference in the ways DNA and radio waves handle info.
>
> Radiowaves can be used to communicate information regarding directions
> for a particular process - just like DNA. There is no inherent
> difference in the potential for radiowaves to carry information vs.
> DNA. Both can be used to carry the same information. The only
> difference is how the reader is set up to read, understand/interpret,
> and act upon that information.
DNA acts as a template for the formation of other chemicals.
It does not act as a "medium for the transmission of information".
The whole "genetic code" thing is just a misnomer. Basically,
genetics seem to be templates upon templates. There is no
"message transmitter" and "message receiver". There is no
"architect writing a blueprint" and no "workmen following that
blueprint".
>
> > and even if he is correct in saying that DNA could not have been been
> > produced by evolution, how does this rule out DNA being subject to
> > evolution? if he has an alternative process that produces speciation,
> > if speciation is occurring today (and it is), then what is the
> > mechanism? again he doesn't say.
>
> Speciation is not occurring today beyond very low levels of functional
> complexity. No novel "species" are being produced that have any novel
> functional advantages that their parents did not already have in their
> gene pool - beyond the 1000aa level of complexity.
That's always true. Evolution reuses what is there and simply
shifts the "function". If you are expecting a "novel structure"
to pop into existence, that simply is not an expectation of evolution.
>
> > seanpit's use of SETI is misleading...primarily to himself. he has
> > confused radio waves with chemistry. he has confused the medium with
> > the message. he has confused content with structure. in short, his
> > analogy is so off base that it, in and of itself, is evidence of the
> > failure of ID to be legitimate.
>
> Ok, tell me, what is the fundamental difference between the ability to
> detect ID behind a particular type of radiosignal vs. a particular
> type of DNA sequence? Both can be made by human-level design while
> not being able to be made by non-deliberate nature. What else is
> there again that makes the difference? I seem to have missed that in
> your ramblings here . . .
We don't "detect design" we "model manufacture". (Of course
creationists like Sean Pitman simply "misrepresent science".)
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
-John
Dana Tweedy
>> I, in fact, did define evolution: "specifically and testably defined,
>> in this case, as a change in mean allele frequencies." That
>> definition is quite testable. A significant change in mean allele
>> frequencies is the sort of quantitative test that science does
>> particularly well.
>
>We have been through this very many times. There are several valid
>definitions of "evolution."
But not valid scientific definitions of the term.
>Your contention that the gene-centric
>definition to be the only valid definition tells us that you are
> ignorant.
Since evolution involves changes in genes, any correct definition is going
to be "gene centric".
>> >My rendering does not. Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a
>> > *continuous* process of slight-slow change. Dawkins 1986 laboriously
>> > confirms.
>
>> I would say that evolution is an *inevitable* process of change that
>> is only slowed by the conservative nature of natural selection at some
>> loci. Given the reality of mutation, only conservative natural
>> selection can prevent evolution. And, even so, it can only do it
>> dynamically. That is, mutation occurs and selection selective and
>> detrimentally affects the reproductive success of individuals with
>> that mutation so that the frequency decreases or is eliminated.
>
>Congratulations! You have just said what Paley said: selection
> prevents evolutionary change.
That's not what either Howard, or Paley said. Howard stated that "only
conservative natural selection can prevent evolution". Obviously, not all
natural selection is conservative.
> There is nothing new under the sun.
Well, your misunderstanding is nothing new......
>> > Species, in 1859, were suddenly seen as possessing the
>> > *potential* to change.
>>
>> Even Paley recognized variation within a species. Are you claiming
>> that Paley was wrong and that there is NO variation at all within a
>> species? If you have genetic variation, you have the potential to
>> change allele frequencies.
>
> Non-sequitur.
Why do you suppose this doesn't follow, or is "non sequitur" another term
you don't understand?
>You should actually read what was said before typing
> your reply.
I doubt that Howard has a problem with that. Howard was pointing out that
even Paley understood that species with variation have the potential to
change.
> Of course variability exists within species.
Which means they aren't immutable.
>No two organisms are
>identical, even so called "identical twins" are not identical. Darwin,
>by no means, showed species to have evolved.
He did show that species do change over time.
> He showed their
>*potential* to change in a scientific context that accepted strict
>immutability.
Of course, "strict immutablity" had been abandoned before Darwin wrote.
>Again, this is why evolution is an interpretation of
>evidence.
A scientific interpretation of the evidence, which showed that species do
change.
> This is why evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.
Now, there's a non sequitur. Your statement doesn't follow from the above.
>Evolution is deduced to have happened after the alleged fact based on
>several lines of evidence, which does not include the geological
> fossil record.
Of course, the "geological fossil record" does show that evolution has
happened. It's one of the lines of evidence of evolution.
>I will have no trouble in my paper showing many big
>name evolutionary authorities plainly admitting the latter fact.
Quoting genuine scientists out of context doesn't support your claims.
>There
>is no pattern of evolutionary transitions in the fossil series.
Except the pattern of "evolutionary transitions" that are found in fossil
series. The horse series is one of the best known. Human evolution
shows many transitional fossils.
>We can
>establish this fact using secular scientists alone, employed by big
>corporations, who do not care about the Creation-Evolution debate.
Only by taking statements out of context, or totally misunderstanding what
they wrote.
>> > Accumulation of *these* changes, as the story
>> > goes, results in speciation.
>
>> At what point is there sufficient phenotypic difference to call
>> something, after 10,000 years of change, a new species compared to the
>> starting point? Bifurcating speciation can occur in the absence of
>> selection, but merely by the accumulation of enough change over time.
>
>My comment was made in the context of outlining the claims of
> evolution. You are quibbling over nothing.
What Howard is doing is pointing out that speciation is plainly shown by the
evidence. You are claiming that speciation doesn't happen, when the
evidence clearly shows you are wrong.
> > These changes must be beneficial.
>
> Not really. Selectively neutral changes also occur, just more
> slowly. The only mechanism that prevents *change* is conservative
> natural selection. When selection produces *change* it is natural
> selection, just not conserving selection.
>
> > The
> > acceptance of nature as reflecting adaptation, and the goal to explain
> > this phenomena, supports change to be beneficial (or "good" as Darwin
> > called it, 1859:84).snip
>>
>> Specifically, in biology, a change is called "good" or "better" or
>> "beneficial" when it results in greater relative reproductive success
>> than the alternative. If you think that changes that cause disease,
>> early death, or failure to reproduce are "good", "better", or
>> "beneficial", you are certainly free to make that argument.
>
>We were talking about the Creation-Evolution debate and the origin of
> species; specifically the claims of evolution.
Something you don't show any sign of understanding.
> Since adaptation is
>universally accepted phenomena, said changes *were* beneficial or
> "good" as Darwin described them.
As Howard pointed out, however, not all evolutionary changes are adaptive.
Since you claim that adaptation is "universally accepted", again your claims
of immutability of species is absurd.
>> > > This evolutionary change in mean allele frequencies can be
>> > > either due to chance alone (neutral drift) or by environmental
>> > > changes
>> > > that alter the selective pressures on different allele combinations
>> > > (aka, natural selection).
>
>> > Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.
>
>> Yes it is. At base, all evolutionary changes are ultimately due to
>> changes in allele (not gene) frequencies.
>
> You have evaded:
No, he's corrected your error.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4
What do you think this examples shows, except for change in allele
frequencies?
> > > The same cannot be falsified.
>
>> You mean changes in allele frequencies could have been false, but
>> aren't. It could have been that mutations do not occur. It could
>> have been that the environment is indiscriminate wrt phenotypes it
>> would support. It could have been that phenotypes were not the result
>> of genotypes (and some aren't, which is why evolution only involves
>> the phenotypes are affected, to some degree, by hereditary factors).
>> Something that could have been false, but isn't, is exactly what
>> science requires of its hypotheses and theories.
>
>Change at the genetic level is not evolution produced by unguided
> material causation.
That's exactly what evolution is, Ray. There isn't any other known
mechanism of change at the genetic level in a population.
> It is designed change accomplished by a mechanism
> built by Divine power and intelligence----just like IC systems.
Ray, how do you test that assertion on your part? You seem to be saying
that microevolution is a mechanism produced by God to cause changes in a
population. Why isn't this the same position as theistic evolution?
Nevermind your sematic games, explain why it would be different?
Also, no "IC" systems have been identified, and even if they were, they
aren't a problem for evolution to produce.
>> > Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is deduced to have
>> > happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence.
>>
>> That doesn't mean that evolution is not, at base, a change in allele
>> frequencies. And, since microevolution is defined as evolution within
>> a species, we need not concern ourselves with speciation processes and
>> events in discussing microevolution.
>
>The *main claim* of Darwinism is that species change into a different
>species over vast amounts of time by unguided material causation.
Ray, this shows where you go wrong. Evolution doesn't always require vast
amounts of time. It's populations that change over time, until they are no
longer able to breed with their parent population.
>They
> are not produced by special creation.
Since "special creation" has never been observed, and it's a religious
belief, Darwin had to propose some kind of mechanism to account for the
changes seen in populations. Natural selection acting on variations in
the populations was the mechanism he recognized.
> Darwin wrote the "Origin" to say
>that special creation "is erroneous" (1859:6).
Because it's never been observed, and natural mechanism explains what's
observed much better.
>A change is gene
> frequencies does not support the *main claim.*
Actually, a change in gene frequencies is what the "main claim" is all
about. Change in gene frequencies in a population over time, is evolution,
by definition. That change is a result of natural selection acting on
variations (ultimately produced by mutations).
>What "supports" this
> claim is interpretation of evidence seen in macro-reality, like
> Linnaean hierarchal classification.
The Linnaean classification system is explained by evolution, (much better
than the religious belief of special creation) but it's not the best support
for the theory. Evolution can be seen directly in genetic changes in
populations over time. It also can be seen in the fossil record, the
genetic comparisons, the biochemcial makeup of individuals, and many other
lines of evidence. Your claim that evolution is only seen "after the
fact" is wrong.
> Darwinists say the hierarchy
>connectedness is real.
And it can be tested, to see if it's real. The genetic record was
discovered long after Linnaeus classified his organisms, and it confirmed
the pattern, and evolution as the cause.
> Creationists know that it is an illusion or
> delusion.
If so, creationists are wrong.
>> > Evolution is an interpretation of evidence; it says the similarities
>> > between species is real, that they derive from one another (horizontal
>> > causation).
>>
>> Vertical, Ray, vertical. It is hard to argue with someone who does
>> not know if he is standing up or lying down. Vertical transmission of
>> genetic information is transmission from one generation to the next to
>> the next to the next. Horizontal transmission of genetic information
>> is transmission of genetic information from one species to another in
>> the the same generation.
>
>I was not talking about genetics. I was talking about the main
>difference between Creationism and Darwinism.
The main difference between Creationism and evolution, is the first is a
religious belief, the second is a scientific theory.
>The former says
>causation forces in nature are vertical or Divine.
Without a shred of supporting evidence.
>The latter says
>causation forces in nature are horizontal-material-natural, not Divine
> or supernatural.
Since natural "causation forces" are the only thing that science can study,
it's no wonder that religious beliefs such as "divine or supernatural" are
excluded. That has nothing to do with "horizontal" connections.
>> > Much genetic change can occur without a species changing in observed
>> > macro-reality:
>
>> Microevolution, Ray, is evolution within a species.
Ray, you seem to have neglected to realize you have just admitted that
microevolution happens.
>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4...
>
>> > > Note that this definition, unlike yours, makes clear how one can
>> > > actually determine if "microevolution" can or has happened.
>
>> > The above link and its data falsifies your contention.
>
>> The described change in the genome *is* evolution. It is
>> phenotypically, and probably selectively neutral, evolutionary
>> change. But the genome of the species has changed and the species has
>> evolved.
>The penguins in the study in the link falsify your opinion.
How so? The penquins have undergone gene frequency change in the population
over time. That's evolution.
>> There does not have to be a large *phenotypic* change for
>> evolution to have occurred. In fact, changes like those described in
>> the "best birds" above are what you would expect if evolution were
>> primarily a function of time and only secondarily one of phenotypic
>> change.
Ray, why did you ignore this? It's an important demolishing of your cliam?
snip
>> What evidence of manufacture by an outside agency do you have for
>> living things? Other than your repeated assertions, that is.
>
>Appearance-observation of design.
Ray, appearance of design is not observation of design. Merely appearing
to be designed is NOT evidence of design, as natural processes can produce
the same appearance. You'd have to actually have an observation that life
was manufactured by some kind of "divine" process.
snip
>> > This is why both Creationism and Evolutionism are interpretations of
>> > the same scientific evidence.
>
>> Not those that accept the Bible's claim of a single creation event.
>
>Neither the Bible or Creationism accept a single species creation
> event.
Care to support this claim? Where, in the Bible is there any indication of
a second, or third, or X number of creation events?
> Only YEC Fundamentalists accept this error riddled view.
Your own view is "error riddled" too. Why should they (the ones you depend
on for your claim that majority of the US population as creationist) be
wrong, and you right?
>19th
> century Creationism accepted on-going real time special creation to
> account for new species.
Because the fossil record showed that a single creation event, as described
in the Bible was unsupportable.
>New species owe their existence in nature to
> direct creation.
Then why has this never been observed? Why is it that all new species that
have been observed to have started, came from an already existing population
by the process of evolution?
> This is why mutability is not necessary.
It is necessary, however to match observations. Calling in multiple,
unsupported miracles to explain nature is just special pleading.
>Besides,
>mutability is impossible. Animals and nature do not have magical
> powers.
Since "magical powers" aren't needed for "mutability" that's hardly a
problem. Also, Ray, you are the one who is claiming that new species come
about by magic. Species change by entirely natural, non magical forces,
acting on the animals and plants, not by the animals or plants having any
special powers themselves.
snip
>> > I contrasted the main difference between Creationism (= vertical-
>> > Divine casuation, God-did-it) and Darwinism (= horizontal-unguided
>> > material causation, Evolution-did-it).
>>
>> That is not how "horizontal" and "vertical" are used. You are simply
>> making up terms.
> Ridiculous.
Ray, considering you claim that new species simply pop into existence,
calling someone else ridiculous is rather ironic.
>Said terms have many legitimate meanings depending on context.
Perhaps, but not the way you are using them.
>You
>simply cannot admit that you were not paying attention to the context
> in which they were being used.
Why can't you admit you are just wrong, in your assertions?
>In fact most of your replies lost track of the fact that I was
>answering your questions. You evaded most of my answers and embarked
> upon a non-sequitur agenda.
Ray, Howard isn't the one ignoring, or 'evading' the questions here.
snip
>> > > > D: Darwinian voodoo taking the place of Mind.
>
>> > > I would define "random mutation" as the idea that "permanent changes
>> > > in the sequence of the genetic material" occurs at random wrt the
>> > > need
>> > > for that mutation. Randomness, in this case, can be determined as a
>> > > rate of mutational sequence change that is unaffected by the need for
>> > > that mutation. The rate can be changed by the presence or absence of
>> > > 'mutagens', but cannot be changed by the 'need' for that mutation.
>
> There is no such thing as *random* mutation.
Why not, Ray? Random mutations are changes in the DNA, and there isn't
any sign they are deliberate.
> Results reflect
> purpose----adaptation.
The vast majority of mutations don't reflect any kind of purpose, they are
entirely neutral. Some mutations are actually harmful to the organism.
Only a very small percentage are beneficial, and allow for adaptation.
> Species were created to fit their environments.
But species tend to show remnanats of their past, not purpose built designs.
Birds wings are built out of dinosaur forearms. Fish jaws are built out of
gill arches. Etc. If species were created to fit their environments,
why do so many display less than perfect adaptations?
>Since very many different species occupy the same environment the same
> is evidence of the work of one Mastermind.
Actually, if creatures were made to fit their environments, there would be
no need for so many different species to occupy the same environment. Why
would the "mastermind" use different solutions for the same problem?
Why, instead of the same wing, would insects, birds, pterosaurs, and bats
have different wings?
> > > > This is a simple mathematically determinable genetic test. And, with
>> > > the possible exception of a very few sites where mutation has been
>> > > 'domesticated' and 'localized', experimental tests (starting with
the
>> > > Luria/Delbruck experiments in the 1940s) have demonstrated that
>> > > mutation is random in the sense described.
>
> Phenomena is *called* random because evolutionists want to send a
>message that Mind is absent.
No, it's called "random" because it's random in respect to the needs of the
organism. "Evolutionists" don't want to, or need to send any such
message.
>But your *explanation* defines "random"
>to not hold its understood definition. This is an ordinary bait-and-
> switch.
Just because you don't understand the term, that doesn't mean it's being
used incorrectly.
>> > > > F: Dembski 1999 says if specified or organized complexity is the
>> > > > result then the same is caused by [I]ntelligence and not antonymic
>> > > > phenomena (randomness). Of course all scholars agree that organized
>> > > > complexity exists (Dawkins 1986).
>
>> > > But all the experiments and scientific literature says that
>> > > mutational
>> > > change of genome sequence is random wrt need. [There may be some rare
>> > > exceptions, like the a to alpha yeast mating type switch.]
>
> Only evolutionists say it is random.
Only those who understand science say it's random. Do you have any
evidence that mutations are directed?
>The results, that is, design,
>organized complexity and adaptation evidence a mechanism reflecting
> Intelligent causation.
However the "results" involve many more mutations that aren't adaptive, than
the few that are. Evolution involves many players and only a few
"winners". Any appearance of design is due to the natural process acting
over time.
> Again, this is why both Creationism and
> Darwinism are interpretations of the same scientific evidence.
But they aren't. Creationism is a religious belief, that does not consider
all the evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory, which considers and
explains all the evidence.
>> > > > D: unguided material causation, the main, but not the exclusive
>> > > > cause
>> > > > of evolutionary change.
>>
>> > > Notice that word "selection"? It means that, *when* natural selection
>> > > is the cause of change (or conservation; one should never forget that
>> > > most natural selection is for conservation of sequence and function
>> > > and not for change) in allele frequencies, the change is "guided". It
>> > > is "guided" by features of the local environment and not by an
>> > > outside
>> > > intelligent agent, but it is still guided.
>
> Okay, so?
Selection itself is not change, but "choosing" particular variants.
> But no such mechanism exists. NS is a short list of truisms
> euphemistically called a "mechanism."
Natural selection is part of the mechanism, one that provides a direction to
which variants in a population survive. The mechanism exists, even if you
can't understand it.
snip
>
>> > > How does this *test* whether or not "natural selection" occurs? Paley
>> > > clearly thought that "natural selection" occurred.
>Preventing evolutionary change. You have agreed in principle, above.
Paley didn't know about evolutionary change. He thought that natural
selection only prevented more variation. He didn't understand that it could
also provide direction for changes in the population.
>>> > > Michael Behe
>> > > thinks that "natural selection" occurs. All you are doing is
>> > > presenting an analogy and asserting that a watch is directly the same
>> > > in its mode of manufacture as a worm is. Even simple observation
>> > > should disabuse you of the idea that worms are produced in worm
>> > > factories or in Swiss jeweleries by an
> You do not understand Paley's analogy.
You don't seem to understand that Paley's analogy is flawed.
> Read Dawkins 1986, he does.
But Dawkins also understands that Paley was wrong. Watches don't
reproduce, and produce imperfect copies of each other. Watches aren't
subject to natural selection, so Paley's analogy fails.
DJT
Seanpit
> On Oct 14, 12:35 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 5:31 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
> > > unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
> > > ID is codswallop...but that's another issue.
>
> > Shostak doens't understand that the basic theory of ID is the same
> > that he is using in his search for ETI.
>
> and we know that's true because you said it.
>
> uh huh.
>
>
>
> > > seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
> > > waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
> > > mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
>
> > You forget that we humans also know how to form informationally rich
> > DNA.
>
> we humans know how to imitate nature. that does not mean nature is
> intelligent.
So, are SETI scientists simply looking for an imitation of nature?
Can nature really produce the radiosignal SETI scientists are looking
for? No - according to SETI scientists.
So, the question is, can nature produce the information of DNA beyond
very low levels of functional complexity. The answer to that question
is no. Non-deliberate natural processes can copy that information,
but they cannot produce it de novo - i.e., without it already being
there ahead of time.
Ah, but you argue that evolution can produce such information. That's
what this whole argument is about. The question here is: If it can
be demonstrated that your proposed naturalistic mechanism of RM/NS
cannot do the job beyond very low levels of functional complexity,
what does that say about the likely origin of said information?
According the SETI logic, the likely origin probably involved ID of
some sort.
> we can create lightening in a lab. that does not mean it takes
> intelligence to make lightening...
SETI scientists can create radiosignals of all kinds in the lab.
Doesn't take intelligence to make radiosignals either. But, it does
take intelligence to make certain kinds of radiosignals.
How on Earth do you not see the difference here?
> >There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
> > various kinds of radiosignals.
>
> wrong. electromagnetism...radio waves...are not chemistry. they are
> not DNA
Doesn't matter. Making certain features within radiowaves requires ID
just as much as making certain features with granite, water molecules,
DNA, or whatever other medium or material you can think of.
Understanding the potential and limits of that material as it
interacts with various forces of nature can be used to accurately
predict if ID was likely required to do the job.
> > Turns out that SETI scientists propose
> > that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
> > require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
> > comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
>
> your SETI analogy is exactly that...an analogy. it is not a mechanism.
The SETI mechanism is a proposal that certain known ID mechanisms for
producing certain types of radiosignals could have done the job while
no non-deliberate force of nature comes close. That's the SETI
argument. That's also the IDist argument.
> it is not an explanation for anything at all, except your failure to
> specify a mechanism. and production of radiowaves is not chemistry.
> the science is quite different.
Then SETI isn't a real science I suppose? ; )
>
>
>
> > > but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with. it's a marshall
> > > mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.
>
> > > you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
> > > not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not. you can do that
> > > because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.
>
> > > but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure?
>
> > Have you not heard of random mutations or non-functional DNA? No
> > intelligence required to form random non-functional DNA sequences.
>
> non sequitur. prove that non functional DNA is created by a different
> process than functional DNA. otherwise the cause of both is natural
> and, again, we have no non intelligent source of DNA to compare
> 'intelligently designed' DNA with.
Prove that naturally produced radiowaves are produced by a different
process than the types of radiowaves SETI scientists are looking
for . . .
> > > DNA structure is not
> > > radio waves. it's not based on radio waves. DNA is chemistry, not
> > > electromagnetism. there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
> > > validates or justifies the comparison.
>
> > Anyone who makes this argument is exceptionally dense.
>
> says the creationist who thinks SETI researchers are stupid because
> they dont' agree with him
>
> > The comparison is obvious
>
> wrong. it is an analogy. it is NOT a mechanism. you keep saying it is.
> but chemistry is not electromagnetism.
>
> .> What is it about radiowaves that is somehow special when
>
> > it comes to the detection of intelligent design? Nothing.
>
> wrong. we know that some radio waves are produced by natural non
> intelligent sources.
Yep, and we know that some types of DNA are produced by natural non-
intelligent sources. The same so far . . .
> we can identify those sources and determine the
> mechanism of creation
Same with certain types of DNA . . .
> we know some radio waves are produced by intelligence because, inter
> alia, wf3h produces some, being a ham radio operator
We also know that some types of informationally rich DNA are produced
by intelligence because scientists have done it.
No difference yet . . .
> we have NO sources of non-natural DNA to compare intelligently
> designed sources with.
What are you talking about? Human-designed DNA is just as non-natural
as human-designed radiowaves which are not produced by non-deliberate
natural forces.
> it's quite possible that the complexity in DNA
> is produced entirely naturally.
That's not the question here. The question is: If it could be
adequately demonstrated that certain forms of DNA are beyond the
likely production of any non-deliberate force of nature, is it
reasonable to propose an intelligent cause as the sort for that
particular type of DNA? That's the question here.
Now, if you actually wish to try and falsify the ID hypothesis for
certain types of DNA, all you have to do is actually show a non-
deliberate force of nature doing the job. The very same thing is true
of SETI. All you have to do to falsify the SETI hypothesis is show a
non-deliberate source of radiowaves in nature producing essentially
the same type of signal SETI scientists are looking for. Such a
demonstration would clearly falsify the SETI position. Essentially
the same demonstration from the DNA world would also falsify the ID
position. Both SETI and ID theories are therefore subject to the same
form of falsification.
> we know this can be done because proteins...which are as complex as
> DNA...are produced entirely naturally. we can prove that.
Proteins are not produced without pre-existing information. That's
what you are trying to explain here. Where did the information for
protein production come from? - beyond the 1000aa threshold? If you
can explain that one, from a non-deliberate perspective, you will
indeed have falsified ID Theory. It is that potentiality, the
potential for falsification, that makes ID Theory a real science.
< snip rest of repetitive stuff >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
heekster
Short answer is that adman is suffering delusions of adequacy.
Seanpit
wrote:
> On 2008-10-14, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 5:31 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >> seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
> >> unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
> >> ID is codswallop...but that's another issue.
>
> > Shostak doens't understand that the basic theory of ID is the same
> > that he is using in his search for ETI.
>
> It's incredibly condescending to claim that a researcher doesn't
> understand his own research.
I didn't say that he Shostak doesn't understand his own research. He
understands his own research just fine. In fact, I agree with the
basis of his research. I think it is based on a very good and valid
scientific idea. What Shostak clearly does not understand, however,
is the basis of ID theory. He doesn't understand that it is the very
same basis as the SETI research he himself is doing. There is no
fundamental difference aside from the medium being studied (i.e.,
radiosignals vs. DNA).
> Even more so when it is obvious that
> you are blowing smoke. Shostak isn't searching for design.
Need I ask this question again? What do the letters SETI stand for?
Hello?
> In
> telecommunications, designed modulation schemes are indistinguishable
> from AWGN (additive white gaussian noise) basically as a consequence
> of Shannon's channel capacity theorems. Any intelligent race can't do
> any better than that, but our ability to find and decode such messages
> are essentially nil, because the space of possible messages are just as
> large as the space of possible noise.
>
> What SETI researchers are looking for are beacon transmissions: narrow
> band emissions. There are a number of natural sources that can emit
> relatively narrow bands, but they are rather uncommon and increasingly
> well understood.
Seth Shostak himself said that if one were to find a signal tagged
with a long series of prime numbers or the Fibonacci series, that this
would obviously indicate an intelligent source for such a
radiosignal. Beyond this, the type of narrow-band spectrum that SETI
scientists are looking for is thought to be well beyond the powers of
natural production. That is why they most certainly would associate
such a signal with likely artifactual production - i.e., intelligent
design.
> >> seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
> >> waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
> >> mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
>
> > You forget that we humans also know how to form informationally rich
> > DNA. There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
> > various kinds of radiosignals. Turns out that SETI scientists propose
> > that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
> > require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
> > comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
>
> This is of course nonsense.
How is that? What part, in particular, do you disagree with?
> >> but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with. it's a marshall
> >> mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.
>
> >> you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
> >> not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not. you can do that
> >> because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.
>
> >> but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure?
>
> > Have you not heard of random mutations or non-functional DNA? No
> > intelligence required to form random non-functional DNA sequences.
>
> This argument is entirely circular.
How is that? Do you even understand the concept of a circular
argument?
> >> DNA structure is not
> >> radio waves. it's not based on radio waves. DNA is chemistry, not
> >> electromagnetism. there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
> >> validates or justifies the comparison.
>
> > Anyone who makes this argument is exceptionally dense. The comparison
> > is obvious. What is it about radiowaves that is somehow special when
> > it comes to the detection of intelligent design? Nothing.
>
> Except that our search for SETI is a search for simplicity, not
> complexity.
No. Your search for SETI is based on looking for something nature is
though to be unlikely to achieve. That's the basis of SETI. A highly
symmetrical polished granite cube is "simple", but is also well beyond
the realm of non-deliberate natural production in that it would take
high-level information to do the job (i.e. informationally rich or
complex systems on the level of human-type intelligence). The same
thing is true of certain types of informationally rich DNA. Such a
feature, if demonstrably beyond the powers of non-deliberate forces of
nature, to the same degree that SETI shows certain types of
radiosignals to be beyond natural powers, ID is a reasonable
hypothesis in both cases.
SETI researchers are looking for ID - i.e., ETI. It is the search for
ETI, after all, that forms the very name SETI. This search is based,
not on the detection of high-level information, but on the detection
of something non-deliberate nature cannnot due, but human-level ID can
do. The very same thing is true of the detection of ID in the medium
of DNA. Nature can produce certain levels of information in DNA, as
it can produce certain types of radiosignals. However, nature cannot
produce information beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
Human-level ID can do this.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Oct 14, 10:35 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 5:31 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
> > > unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
> > > ID is codswallop...but that's another issue.
>
> > Shostak doens't understand that the basic theory of ID is the same
> > that he is using in his search for ETI.
>
> There isn't any basic theory of ID. Shostak is modeling manufacture
> in an attempt to detect signals of the variety that we make,
> in the hopes that postulated alien signals will look like those.
Right . . . and what happens to Shostak's theories if some non-
intelligent force of nature an be shown to be producing essentially
the same types of signals Shostak is looking for? Obviously, the
basis for his whole theory would be falsified.
Therefore, Shostak is obviously looking for something that he thinks
non-deliberate nature is very unlikely to be able to produce while
still being within the power of at least human-level creativity.
That is also the basis of all ID theories, to include those looking
for ID behind certain types of DNA.
> > > seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
> > > waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
> > > mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
>
> > You forget that we humans also know how to form informationally rich
> > DNA. There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
> > various kinds of radiosignals. Turns out that SETI scientists propose
> > that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
> > require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
> > comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
>
> As near as we can tell, the "informationally rich" DNA sequences
> that we see in nature are the result of duplication, transposition,
> and other mutational mechanisms subjected to natural selection.
This is an attempt to falsify the ID position. It's the same thing as
arguing that "as near as we can tell, radiowaves of the type Shostak
is looking for are the result of certain types of non-deliberate
natural processes. Such a demonstration would certainly falsify
Shostak's position. This of course means that since SETI science is
clearly open to the potential for such falsification, that it is in
fact a real scientific hypothesis. The same thing is true for ID. By
your very attempt to falsify the fundamental basis for ID Theory, you
acknowledge that it is in fact a true scientific theory - despite
yourself.
The real question then isn't over if ID Theory is or is not a valid
scientific position, but if or if this valid scientific hypothesis/
theory has or has not been falsified. That's an entirely different
question. You are trying to conflate the two, but they aren't the
same question or challenge.
Remember, you can't even try to falsify a truly non-scientific
notion. That wouldn't be possible. So, because you think you can
falsify ID Theory, you essentially admit that it is at least set up as
a valid scientific proposition.
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> On Oct 14, 12:27 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> > we humans know how to imitate nature. that does not mean nature is
> > intelligent.
>
> So, are SETI scientists simply looking for an imitation of nature?
> Can nature really produce the radiosignal SETI scientists are looking
> for? No - according to SETI scientists.
it doesn't matter what they do. unless you can prove that nature CANT
produce DNA as we see it in nature...unless you can PROVE your analogy
is EXACT, then your analysis is simply wrong.
you're the one asserting it is a proven...a given...that the
mechanisms of chemistry are IDENTICAL to those used to produce
'intelligent' radio signals
as a scientist, i say, go ahead. prove it. give me the mechanism
whereby intelligence is demonstrated in DNA and that can not be
produced by nature.
your analogy to SETI is the ONLY argument you have because you have NO
mechanism to produce the type of chemical processes you say exist to
produce evidence of intelligence in DNA.
>
> So, the question is, can nature produce the information of DNA beyond
> very low levels of functional complexity. The answer to that question
> is no.
wrong. the existence of complex proteins is itself evidenced that
nature can, and does, produce very high levels of complexity using
natural processes.
you have not told me ANYTHING about how nature DOES produce
information in DNA. until you do, you are simply arguing god of the
gaps. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Non-deliberate natural processes can copy that information,
> but they cannot produce it de novo - i.e., without it already being
> there ahead of time.
and since you could argue the same thing about proteins if the
existence of DNA were not known, again, you're arguing god of the
gaps. since we KNOW mechanisms exist to produce...de novo...complex
info using the laws of chemistry, your argument has a big hole in it.
>
> Ah, but you argue that evolution can produce such information.
wrong. i argue such mechanisms exist. protein chemistry is a great
example.
you argue such processes do not exist. fine. then show me what
mechanism DOES cause this to happen. without such a mechanism, you
simply are arguing against a process you have no knowledge of.
that's not science. it's magic.
That's
> what this whole argument is about. The question here is: If it can
> be demonstrated that your proposed naturalistic mechanism of RM/NS
> cannot do the job beyond very low levels of functional complexity,
i am a chemist, not a biologist. i dont care whether evolution
produces this info or not. that's the difference between you and me. i
am objective. you are a 7th day adventist and are, by definition,
biased.
all you have to do is show me the chemistry of how complex information
gets coded for in DNA without the laws of chemistry. all you have to
do is show me how changes in DNA occur.
i am a scientist. every day i work with mechanisms. every day i have
to run tests to demonstrate the existence of these mechanisms and show
how they work
i am simply asking you to show, like every 5th grader is supposed to
do...his work. how does your mechanism work? it's useless to say that
it works 'like' SETI when chemistry is not radio waves.
i have a fairly good background in BOTH chemistry and radio waves.
they are not identical. your analogy does not make them so.
>
> > we can create lightening in a lab. that does not mean it takes
> > intelligence to make lightening...
>
> SETI scientists can create radiosignals of all kinds in the lab.
> Doesn't take intelligence to make radiosignals either. But, it does
> take intelligence to make certain kinds of radiosignals.
>
SETI does not apply. the mechanisms of SETI are not based on the laws
of chemistry.
>
> > >There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
> > > various kinds of radiosignals.
>
> > wrong. electromagnetism...radio waves...are not chemistry. they are
> > not DNA
>
> Doesn't matter.
yes, it does matter. in fact it's the ONLY thing that matters.
Making certain features within radiowaves requires ID
> just as much as making certain features with granite, water molecules,
> DNA, or whatever other medium or material you can think of.
wrong. absolutely wrong. radio waves can not make a salt. radio waves
can not, in and of themselves, form proteins. only chemistry can do
that.
> Understanding the potential and limits of that material as it
> interacts with various forces of nature can be used to accurately
> predict if ID was likely required to do the job.
no it can't. not unless you can demonstrate HOW such a mechanism is
implemented. unless you do THAT you are arguing god of the gaps. it's
obvious that the laws of chemistry allow tremendously complex systems
to develop and to change. differences in bonding energy, for example,
allows thresholds to be reached and passed which allow change
so tell me: how do these laws allow your system to develop? what is
the mechanism?
>
> > > Turns out that SETI scientists propose
> > > that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
> > > require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
> > > comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
>
> > your SETI analogy is exactly that...an analogy. it is not a mechanism.
>
> The SETI mechanism is a proposal that certain known ID mechanisms for
> producing certain types of radiosignals could have done the job while
> no non-deliberate force of nature comes close. That's the SETI
> argument. That's also the IDist argument.
since these deal with radio waves, and not with chemistry, this is an
analogy. it is NOT a mechanism. it is NOT testable. it is NOT
scientific. it is not something any chemist in any lab in the world
would accept as science.
>
> > it is not an explanation for anything at all, except your failure to
> > specify a mechanism. and production of radiowaves is not chemistry.
> > the science is quite different.
>
Then SETI isn't a real science I suppose? ; )
you're the only one who thinks it isn't...even when SETI scientists
disagree with you.
>
> > non sequitur. prove that non functional DNA is created by a different
> > process than functional DNA. otherwise the cause of both is natural
> > and, again, we have no non intelligent source of DNA to compare
> > 'intelligently designed' DNA with.
>
> Prove that naturally produced radiowaves are produced by a different
> process than the types of radiowaves SETI scientists are looking
> for . . .
i am not a radio engineer. i am a chemist. the mechanisms of chemistry
have nothing to do with SETI. you have an analogy. you do not have a
mechanism OR an argument.
>
> > wrong. we know that some radio waves are produced by natural non
> > intelligent sources.
>
> Yep, and we know that some types of DNA are produced by natural non-
> intelligent sources. The same so far . . .
only because WE created them. and we can not tell by looking at a raw
piece of DNA whether or not it was 'intelligently designed'.
>
>
> > we have NO sources of non-natural DNA to compare intelligently
> > designed sources with.
>
> What are you talking about? Human-designed DNA is just as non-natural
> as human-designed radiowaves which are not produced by non-deliberate
> natural forces.
?? how would you differentiate between a 'natural' piece of DNA and an
intelligently designed piece of DNA?
> > it's quite possible that the complexity in DNA
> > is produced entirely naturally.
>
> That's not the question here. The question is: If it could be
> adequately demonstrated that certain forms of DNA are beyond the
> likely production of any non-deliberate force of nature, is it
> reasonable to propose an intelligent cause as the sort for that
> particular type of DNA? That's the question here.
wrong. DNA is CHANGED by evolution but it is CREATED by the laws of
chemistry. unless, and until, you can rule out processes in nature
creating DNA, you have no argument for intellligent design since it's
obvious that complex systems can be created by the natural processes
of chemistry
>
> Now, if you actually wish to try and falsify the ID hypothesis for
> certain types of DNA, all you have to do is actually show a non-
> deliberate force of nature doing the job. The very same thing is true
> of SETI.
wrong. SETI is not chemistry. the processes of SETI are not chemically
based. you are trying a circular argument. you are trying to state as
a PROVEN what is not proven at all: the processes of producing radio
waves are IDENTICAL to those used to created chemical systems.
but that is WRONG. chemical systems can be QUITE complex and also
QUITE natural.
your analogy has led you to a circular argument.
All you have to do to falsify the SETI hypothesis
SETI does not apply to chemistry.
\
>
> > we know this can be done because proteins...which are as complex as
> > DNA...are produced entirely naturally. we can prove that.
>
> Proteins are not produced without pre-existing information.
you're engaging in special pleading, and you're begging the question.
if you are admitting...and you ARE admitting...that complex systems
can be produced naturally then you have to tell me the mechanism of
DNA formation that is deliberative.
otherwise the LOGICAL assumption is that some NATURAL process...like
that of protein formation...underlies the process of DNA formation and
change.
why? because that's what the EVIDENCE shows. no handwaving is needed.
That's
> what you are trying to explain here. Where did the information for
> protein production come from? - beyond the 1000aa threshold? \
it ONLY comes from the laws of chemistry as expressed by DNA. thus
chemistry ALONE is sufficient to explain complexity.
If you
> can explain that one, from a non-deliberate perspective, you will
> indeed have falsified ID Theory. It is that potentiality, the
> potential for falsification, that makes ID Theory a real science.
the ONLY 'real' science is a testable mechanism. not an analogy. NOT
an analogy. ONLY a testable mechanism
and you don't have that. so you do NOT have a scientifically
defensible position.
hersheyh
I never said it was the only valid definition. It is, however, the
most appropriate one for describing "microevolution" which is
evolution within a species. One cannot use the definitions involving
speciation or common descent beyond the species boundary.
> > >My rendering does not. Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a
> > > *continuous* process of slight-slow change. Dawkins 1986 laboriously
> > > confirms.
And a change in the frequency of different alleles in a population is
not "a *continuous* process of slight-slow change"? Would a dog giving
birth to a cat be what you would call "a *continuous* process of
slight-slow change"? Or would the change in finch beak shape in
response to a change in environmental resources be "a *continuous*
process of slight-slow change"? Or the change in the size and
coloration of male guppy tails? Or the change, under selective
pressure applied by humans, of the wolf into the teacup chihuahua?
All but the first (which has never happened) involve "a *continuous*
process of slight-slow change" by a *continuous* process of change in
allele frequencies in a population within a species.
> > I would say that evolution is an *inevitable* process of change that
> > is only slowed by the conservative nature of natural selection at some
> > loci. Given the reality of mutation, only conservative natural
> > selection can prevent evolution. And, even so, it can only do it
> > dynamically. That is, mutation occurs and selection selective and
> > detrimentally affects the reproductive success of individuals with
> > that mutation so that the frequency decreases or is eliminated.
>
> Congratulations! You have just said what Paley said: selection
> prevents evolutionary change. There is nothing new under the sun.
I have never said otherwise. But the same process, selection, that
*can* prevent evolutionary change under conditions of environmental
stasis (albeit a dynamic stasis) can lead to rapid *change* under
conditions of environmental change. And *change* will always occur in
the absence of selection. In fact, *most* evolution involves
selectively neutral or near-neutral change.
> > > Species, in 1859, were suddenly seen as possessing the
> > > *potential* to change.
>
> > Even Paley recognized variation within a species. Are you claiming
> > that Paley was wrong and that there is NO variation at all within a
> > species? If you have genetic variation, you have the potential to
> > change allele frequencies.
>
> Non-sequitur. You should actually read what was said before typing
> your reply.
I did. The existence of variation is evidence that species have the
*potential* to change. Your claim is that before 1859, science denied
that species have the *potential* to change. If that were the case,
then prior to 1859, scientists would have had to deny that organisms
vary (or only vary in a non-hereditary fashion).
> Of course variability exists within species. No two organisms are
> identical, even so called "identical twins" are not identical. Darwin,
> by no means, showed species to have evolved.
We were talking about the definition of microevolution, not
speciation. Microevolution is evolution below the level of new
species formation. If you want to talk about speciation and how
impossible speciation is, then you have to use the term 'speciation'
and not 'microevolution'. Otherwise you will simply come off as
merely another in a very long line of ignorant creationists rather
than the soon-to-be author of the brilliant text that destroys
Darwinism.
> He showed their
> *potential* to change in a scientific context that accepted strict
> immutability. Again, this is why evolution is an interpretation of
> evidence. This is why evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.
It is when you are discussing microevolution.
> Evolution is deduced to have happened after the alleged fact based on
> several lines of evidence, which does not include the geological
> fossil record. I will have no trouble in my paper showing many big
> name evolutionary authorities plainly admitting the latter fact.
Quote-mining 'evolutionary authorities' yet again so that they appear
to be saying stuff that they really don't believe will not win you
converts. It will just put you further into the long and dishonorable
coterie of creationist liars-for-Jeebus quote-mine regurgitators [if
truth were food, they would all die bulemics]. If you want to be the
author of the first really good critique of Darwinism, I would suggest
that you rely on evidence rather than quotes (mined or not) from
authors who would think you are full of it.
> There
> is no pattern of evolutionary transitions in the fossil series.
This is irrelevant when it comes to microevolution, Ray.
Microevolution is evolution within a species. Besides, do you know
how much change in phenotype can occur in only a few hundred years
(think pooches) or even less (think finch beaks). Unless you have a
fossil record that can sample time with at least that frequency, you
will get a historical record that looks like the one we see for most
fossils (which are often separated by 10s of thousands if not millions
of years).
> We can
> establish this fact using secular scientists alone, employed by big
> corporations, who do not care about the Creation-Evolution debate.
Really? Can you tell me where they have published this refutation of
evolutionary expectations? But, again, to repeat, we were talking
about microevolution, which is not a level of evolutionary change in
which the fossil record has any relevance. But allele frequencies in a
population and changes in that certainly does.
> > > Accumulation of *these* changes, as the story
> > > goes, results in speciation.
Not all evolutionary changes result in speciation, Ray. Speciation
has its own set of requirements that differs from those of
microevolution; the latter is evolutionary change within a species.
> > At what point is there sufficient phenotypic difference to call
> > something, after 10,000 years of change, a new species compared to the
> > starting point? Bifurcating speciation can occur in the absence of
> > selection, but merely by the accumulation of enough change over time.
>
> My comment was made in the context of outlining the claims of
> evolution. You are quibbling over nothing.
No. We were talking about the definition of *micro*evolution, not
*all* evolutionary processes. Specifically, we were talking about
whether or not *micro*evolution happens. If you want to ask if
*speciation* happens, we have to analyse that. You apparently seem to
think that all these terms: microevolution, natural selection, common
ancestry, and random mutation mean the same thing. That is because
your test of them is the same appeal to personal ignorance and
asserted 'design' by an invisible and undetectable 'designer'.
> > > These changes must be beneficial.
>
> > Not really. Selectively neutral changes also occur, just more
> > slowly. The only mechanism that prevents *change* is conservative
> > natural selection. When selection produces *change* it is natural
> > selection, just not conserving selection.
>
> > > The
> > > acceptance of nature as reflecting adaptation, and the goal to explain
> > > this phenomena, supports change to be beneficial (or "good" as Darwin
> > > called it, 1859:84).
>
> > Specifically, in biology, a change is called "good" or "better" or
> > "beneficial" when it results in greater relative reproductive success
> > than the alternative. If you think that changes that cause disease,
> > early death, or failure to reproduce are "good", "better", or
> > "beneficial", you are certainly free to make that argument.
>
> We were talking about the Creation-Evolution debate and the origin of
> species; specifically the claims of evolution.
So I take it you have no problem with relative differential
reproductive success being used as a quantitative measure of "good" or
"better" or "beneficial"? Nor that if one trait is more "beneficial"
by that measure, that the frequency of that trait will increase in the
population?
No. We were talking about the definitions of microevolution, random
mutation, natural selection and common descent. You decided to
respond only to the first of these, but obviously do not understand
why the prefix *micro* is present, since you are ranting about things
that are not the provenance of microevolution. If you want to test
microevolution, the fossil record is irrelevant, speciation is
irrelevant. But if you cannot even tell the difference between
microevolution, random mutation, natural selection, and common
descent, and somehow think the same unsupported assertion can falsify
all of them, I have magnus doubts that your opus magnus will be
magnus.
> Since adaptation is
> universally accepted phenomena, said changes *were* beneficial or
> "good" as Darwin described them.
Except we are specifically talking about 'adaptations' that are a
consequence of genetic differences. The only way that that type of
'adaptation' can increase is by a change in the genetic composition of
the population via (or leading to) differential reproductive success.
We are not talking about the non-genetic 'adaptations' that can occur
in individuals in a population.
> > > > This evolutionary change in mean allele frequencies can be
> > > > either due to chance alone (neutral drift) or by environmental changes
> > > > that alter the selective pressures on different allele combinations
> > > > (aka, natural selection).
>
> > > Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.
>
> > Yes it is. At base, all evolutionary changes are ultimately due to
> > changes in allele (not gene) frequencies.
>
> You have evaded:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4
No I didn't. You failed to notice that there *was* genetic change; it
was just not reflected in visible phenotypes (at least those that can
be seen in fossils).
> > > The same cannot be falsified.
>
> > You mean changes in allele frequencies could have been false, but
> > aren't. It could have been that mutations do not occur. It could
> > have been that the environment is indiscriminate wrt phenotypes it
> > would support. It could have been that phenotypes were not the result
> > of genotypes (and some aren't, which is why evolution only involves
> > the phenotypes are affected, to some degree, by hereditary factors).
> > Something that could have been false, but isn't, is exactly what
> > science requires of its hypotheses and theories.
>
> Change at the genetic level is not evolution produced by unguided
> material causation. It is designed change accomplished by a mechanism
> built by Divine power and intelligence----just like IC systems.
So, are you claiming that mutation does not occur or that all
mutations are due to divine intervention? Mutations that occur
naturally cannot produce any useful change? What? Do you have
evidence for some magical poofer that I have not seen? BTW, "change
at the genetic level" is indeed not "evolution". It is "mutation".
The two terms are not identical.
> > > Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is deduced to have
> > > happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence.
>
> > That doesn't mean that evolution is not, at base, a change in allele
> > frequencies. And, since microevolution is defined as evolution within
> > a species, we need not concern ourselves with speciation processes and
> > events in discussing microevolution.
>
> The *main claim* of Darwinism is that species change into a different
> species over vast amounts of time by unguided material causation.
Yes. But that is not what we are discussing. We were defining
microevolution. And selection is guided by the local environment.
> They
> are not produced by special creation. Darwin wrote the "Origin" to say
> that special creation "is erroneous" (1859:6).
If evolution is correct, creation by direct magical poofing is
erroneous.
> A change in gene
> frequencies does not support the *main claim.*
Again, we were defining *microevolution*. If you want to discuss the
mechanisms of and evidence supporting *speciation*, we are not
discussing *microevolution*. If you want to discuss *common descent*
and the evidence that supports it, we are not discussing
*microevolution*. If you want to discuss *random mutation* and the
evidence that supports it, we are not discussing *microevolution*. If
you want to discuss *natural selection* and the evidence that supports
it, we are not discussing *microevolution*. You are suffering a huge
case of muddled thinking where you cannot even distinguish that these
terms are not the same thing.
> What "supports" this
> claim is interpretation of evidence seen in macro-reality, like
> Linnaean hierarchal classification. Darwinists say the hierarchy
> connectedness is real. Creationists know that it is an illusion or
> delusion.
Well, they *assert* that it is an illusion or delusion. They have
nothing but boringly repeated assertion as evidence. But I am just
trying to get you to focus on the specific terms you mention, not some
muddled 'whatever'.
>
> > > Evolution is an interpretation of evidence; it says the similarities
> > > between species is real, that they derive from one another (horizontal
> > > causation).
>
> > Vertical, Ray, vertical. It is hard to argue with someone who does
> > not know if he is standing up or lying down. Vertical transmission of
> > genetic information is transmission from one generation to the next to
> > the next to the next. Horizontal transmission of genetic information
> > is transmission of genetic information from one species to another in
> > the the same generation.
>
> I was not talking about genetics.
Evolution is all about genetics. Evolution *requires* genetic
change. The reason we can generate the formation of a tree or bush of
life (or a Linneaean nested hierarchy if you are looking at current
morphology) is precisely because almost (but not quite) all genetics
(at least since the last ur-organism) is vertical rather than
horizontal.
> I was talking about the main
> difference between Creationism and Darwinism. The former says
> causation forces in nature are vertical or Divine. The latter says
> causation forces in nature are horizontal-material-natural, not Divine
> or supernatural.
>
I have NEVER EVER heard of anyone but you just now saying that Divine
intervention is "vertical" and natural causation is "horizontal". In
what way is divine intervention "vertical"? Can you post a citation
that is not yourself where this useage is presented? To be blunt, I
think you are lying or confused. Neither bodes well for your (always)
future masterwork.
> > > Much genetic change can occur without a species changing in observed
> > > macro-reality:
>
> > Microevolution, Ray, is evolution within a species.
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4...
>
> > > > Note that this definition, unlike yours, makes clear how one can
> > > > actually determine if "microevolution" can or has happened.
>
> > > The above link and its data falsifies your contention.
>
> > The described change in the genome *is* evolution. It is
> > phenotypically, and probably selectively, neutral evolutionary
> > change. But the genome of the species has changed and the species has
> > evolved.
>
> The penguins in the study in the link falsify your opinion.
No. The genome has changed. Visible phenotypes have not. Again, the
nature of the genetic system is such that the only mechanism that can
prevent change is *when* "natural selection" prevents change rather
than causes it. In the absence of selective direction, drift will
invariably lead to change.
*Apparent* appearance-observation of design is not proof or even
evidence of *actual* design.
> > > > > Additional empirical evidence
> > > > > includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
> > > > > earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
> > > > > absence of descendants.
>
> > > > But the pattern *is* a pattern of massive change over time.
>
> > > Counterfactual interpretation. Gould 2002 calls the pattern I
> > > described "literal signal." It exists. To interpret said phenomena as
> > > evidence of an antithetic concept (= evolution) is, once again, based
> > > on the requirements of your interpretive philosophy. But the evidence,
> > > at face value, says the exact opposite (= special creation).
>
> > How can the pattern of fossil species, which appear and disappear in a
> > time-ordered fashion in the different geologic layers, get interpreted
> > as a *single* event of special creation? Multiple creations,
> > possibly. But a *single* creation event? No way.
>
> > > This is why both Creationism and Evolutionism are interpretations of
> > > the same scientific evidence.
>
> > Not those that accept the Bible's claim of a single creation event.
>
> Neither the Bible or Creationism accept a single species creation
> event.
Really? The Bible, in Genesis, talks about a single week-long event
in which *all* creation (not just the immutable species) occurs.
Where does it talk about any degree of creation and subsequent
exitinction of species at quite different times?
> Only YEC Fundamentalists accept this error riddled view. 19th
> century Creationism accepted on-going real time special creation to
> account for new species.
So, *if* your designer is manufacturing new species right now, where
is the evidence that such a designer is even present?
> New species owe their existence in nature to
> direct creation. This is why mutability is not necessary. Besides,
> mutability is impossible. Animals and nature do not have magical
> powers.
Are you saying that mutation does not occur? That genomes are
incapable of undergoing sequence change? Do you have any evidence for
that wild claim? Why do you think that mutation (a permanent change in
a genome sequence) is a "magical power"?
Yes. Using those terms the way you are certainly is ridiculous.
> Said terms have many legitimate meanings depending on context. You
> simply cannot admit that you were not paying attention to the context
> in which they were being used.
I have NEVER EVER seen those terms used to describe the difference
between divine and natural mechanisms. Feel free to point me to a
source other than yourself.
> In fact most of your replies lost track of the fact that I was
> answering your questions. You evaded most of my answers and embarked
> upon a non-sequitur agenda.
No. *I* am the one trying to stick to the point: the definition of
microevolution, common descent, random mutation, and natural
selection. *You* are the one who conflates all those terms into a
meaningless mush. Microevolution is not *all* evolution. Common
descent is not *all* evolution. Random mutation is not *all*
evolution. Natural selection is not *all* evolution. Focus on the
terms and what *they* mean, golden drop of sun. Don't ramble all over
the map with fossils and speciation (when microevolution doesn't
involve those) or claim that the same unsupported mantra ("It looks
like design to me.") is evidence against all of them.
>
> > > > F: Based on the appearance of design & organized complexity seen in
> > > > > each species the same corresponds to vertical-Divine causation.
>
> > > > Isn't this the same meaningless drivel you claimed provided evidence
> > > > against microevolution? You still haven't provided a mechanism for
> > > > distinguishing between the hypothesized natural processes that can
> > > > produce the "appearance of design & organized complexity" and those
> > > > that *were* produced by some outside intelligent agent.
>
> > > > > > random mutation
>
> > > > > D: Darwinian voodoo taking the place of Mind.
>
> > > > I would define "random mutation" as the idea that "permanent changes
> > > > in the sequence of the genetic material" occurs at random wrt the need
> > > > for that mutation. Randomness, in this case, can be determined as a
> > > > rate of mutational sequence change that is unaffected by the need for
> > > > that mutation. The rate can be changed by the presence or absence of
> > > > 'mutagens', but cannot be changed by the 'need' for that mutation.
>
> There is no such thing as *random* mutation. Results reflect
> purpose----adaptation. Species were created to fit their environments.
> Since very many different species occupy the same environment the same
> is evidence of the work of one Mastermind.
You are confused and/or ignorant of literally mountains of research,
done by Nobel winners and beginning college students alike that 1)
mutation occurs and 2) occurs at random wrt need. Perhaps you are
confusing the combination of mutation (which is random) and selection
(which is not) for mutation alone. That's the kindest interpretation.
> > > > This is a simple mathematically determinable genetic test. And, with
> > > > the possible exception of a very few sites where mutation has been
> > > > 'domesticated' and 'localized', experimental tests (starting with the
> > > > Luria/Delbruck experiments in the 1940s) have demonstrated that
> > > > mutation is random in the sense described.
>
> Phenomena is *called* random because evolutionists want to send a
> message that Mind is absent. But your *explanation* defines "random"
> to not hold its understood definition. This is an ordinary bait-and-
> switch.
I am using standard methods for determining that two variables (mutant
or not mutant is one variable; needed or not needed the other)are
independent variables. It is no different than determining randomness
in throwing two dice (die A and die B as one variable; face pips as
the other). If you don't believe that randomness exists, I will be
happy to play a 1000 games and let you pray that you get snake eyes
all the time rather than only 1/36th of the time at a dollar a
throw.
The test for the randomness of mutation wrt need is very simple with
bacteria. Grow a large number colonies (each colony is grown from a
single genetically identical bacteria and the starting culture is also
grown from a single genetically identical bacteria) on a plate where
both new mutants and the original strain can grow. Replica plate to a
plate where only the mutant can grow. Compare that to the number of
mutants when you plate the same number of bacteria directly on the two
types of plates. If mutation occurs more frequently when needed, the
number of mutant colonies to non-mutant will be higher when you plate
the bacteria directly on the plate where only the mutant can grow. It
isn't.
> > > > > F: Dembski 1999 says if specified or organized complexity is the
> > > > > result then the same is caused by [I]ntelligence and not antonymic
> > > > > phenomena (randomness). Of course all scholars agree that organized
> > > > > complexity exists (Dawkins 1986).
>
> > > > But all the experiments and scientific literature says that mutational
> > > > change of genome sequence is random wrt need. [There may be some rare
> > > > exceptions, like the a to alpha yeast mating type switch.]
>
> Only evolutionists say it is random.
Obviously that must include everyone that has the simplest
understanding of statistics. We are not using some special kind of
math in biology. Standard statistics are what we use. I think you
must be confusing the result of *both* random mutation and
*selection*.
> The results, that is, design,
> organized complexity and adaptation evidence a mechanism reflecting
> Intelligent causation. Again, this is why both Creationism and
> Darwinism are interpretations of the same scientific evidence.
>
> > > > > > natural selection
>
> > > > > D: unguided material causation, the main, but not the exclusive cause
> > > > > of evolutionary change.
>
> > > > Notice that word "selection"? It means that, *when* natural selection
> > > > is the cause of change (or conservation; one should never forget that
> > > > most natural selection is for conservation of sequence and function
> > > > and not for change) in allele frequencies, the change is "guided". It
> > > > is "guided" by features of the local environment and not by an outside
> > > > intelligent agent, but it is still guided.
>
> Okay, so?
The local environment is not a supenatural divinity.
> But no such mechanism exists. NS is a short list of truisms
> euphemistically called a "mechanism."
Do you have *any* evidence that natural selection, as described, does
not exist? Every time a student lays a millions of bacteria on a
plate with streptomycin, he or she is observing natural selection of
random mutations.
I understand Darwin's analogy (what happens in nature to biological
organisms in the absence of man is analogous to what man has done in
agriculture for his own purposes). Both have modified species by
selection among variants. That analogy is much more apt than an
analogy of living organisms to dead watches that must be manufactured.
>
> Ray
wf3h
> On Oct 14, 10:35 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You forget that we humans also know how to form informationally rich
> > DNA. There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
> > various kinds of radiosignals. Turns out that SETI scientists propose
> > that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
> > require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
> > comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
>
> As near as we can tell, the "informationally rich" DNA sequences
> that we see in nature are the result of duplication, transposition,
> and other mutational mechanisms subjected to natural selection.
EXACTLY. these are all CHEMICAL processes and they can produce
EVERYTHING we see in DNA. in fact, that's how biochemists change DNA
structure. they insert nucleotides in the structure of DNA...they
remove them...move them...duplicate them...just as nature does
yet seanpit says these do not exist.
>
>
wf3h
> On Oct 14, 10:23 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net>
> > understand his own research.
>
> I didn't say that he Shostak doesn't understand his own research. He
> understands his own research just fine. In fact, I agree with the
> basis of his research. I think it is based on a very good and valid
> scientific idea. What Shostak clearly does not understand, however,
> is the basis of ID theory. He doesn't understand that it is the very
> same basis as the SETI research he himself is doing.
IOW he's not a 7th day adventist and doesnt share my religious
beliefs, so he's wrong.
There is no
> fundamental difference aside from the medium being studied (i.e.,
> radiosignals vs. DNA).
hey seanpit. i'm a chemist. trust me. i get my hands dirty every day
with chemicals. in fact, there's an old joke about chemists being
people who wash their hands BEFORE they go to the bathroom
yes, there is a difference...LOTS of them...between radio signals and
DNA.
in fact you haven't proven they're ANYTHING like you say they are.
> > What SETI researchers are looking for are beacon transmissions: narrow
> > band emissions. There are a number of natural sources that can emit
> > relatively narrow bands, but they are rather uncommon and increasingly
> > well understood.
>
> Seth Shostak himself said that if one were to find a signal tagged
> with a long series of prime numbers or the Fibonacci series, that this
> would obviously indicate an intelligent source for such a
> radiosignal. Beyond this, the type of narrow-band spectrum that SETI
> scientists are looking for is thought to be well beyond the powers of
> natural production. That is why they most certainly would associate
> such a signal with likely artifactual production - i.e., intelligent
> design.
which has nothing to do with DNA.
>
> > This argument is entirely circular.
>
> How is that? Do you even understand the concept of a circular
> argument?
says the man who assumes his argument about SETI is true...then uses
it to try and prove his argument about SETI is true.
>
> > Except that our search for SETI is a search for simplicity, not
> > complexity.
>
> No. Your search for SETI is based on looking for something nature is
> though to be unlikely to achieve. That's the basis of SETI.
which has what to do with chemistry? you yourself admitted protein
chemistry is complex and that it is COMPLETELY natural and COMPLETELY
determined by transcription from ANOTHER chemical called DNA. that's a
smoking gun that complexity in chemical systems is based on
chemistry.
it's ALSO why you need a MECHANISM before you can say one DOESNT
exist.
wf3h
> On Oct 14, 2:06 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > As near as we can tell, the "informationally rich" DNA sequences
> > that we see in nature are the result of duplication, transposition,
> > and other mutational mechanisms subjected to natural selection.
>
> This is an attempt to falsify the ID position. It's the same thing as
> arguing that "as near as we can tell, radiowaves of the type Shostak
> is looking for are the result of certain types of non-deliberate
> natural processes.
wrong. because ALL the mechanisms john proposes are those carried out
by nature and which lead to the structure of DNA.
Such a demonstration would certainly falsify
> Shostak's position. This of course means that since SETI science is
> clearly open to the potential for such falsification
SETI does not involve the laws of chemistry. the mechanisms are NOT
comparable. we know how radio waves are generated and, presumably,
what mechanisms can cause radio waves
in addition we KNOW protein chemistry is complex and THAT is coded for
completely by DNA through an entirely natural non intelligent process.
ID is not testable because there is no mechanism.
wf3h
> understands his own research just fine. In fact, I agree with the
> basis of his research. I think it is based on a very good and valid
> scientific idea. What Shostak clearly does not understand, however,
> is the basis of ID theory. He doesn't understand that it is the very
> same basis as the SETI research he himself is doing. There is no
> fundamental difference aside from the medium being studied (i.e.,
> radiosignals vs. DNA).
there is ANOTHER...among many...problem with your ID assertion. let's
use your comparison to SETI, shall we?
your assertion is that we can look at nature and see radio signals
that are natural and we SHOULD be able to tell, if SETI researchers
are right...if we encounter a non natural signal.
BUT...it's your assertion that ALL DNA is intelligently designed due
to the fact that it contains complex information like SETI could
detect.
obviously this is false. the mechanisms of information creation in
radio waves is so vastly different than the laws of chemistry that
this analogy is false.
but tell me: where do we find a NON intelligently designed piece of
DNA to compare with your intelligent designer's work in nature since
you think ALL DNA is ID? how do we know?
Mark VandeWettering
> wrote:
>> On 2008-10-14, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 11, 5:31 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> >> seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
>> >> unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
>> >> ID is codswallop...but that's another issue.
>>
>> > Shostak doens't understand that the basic theory of ID is the same
>> > that he is using in his search for ETI.
>>
>> It's incredibly condescending to claim that a researcher doesn't
>> understand his own research.
>
> I didn't say that he Shostak doesn't understand his own research. He
> understands his own research just fine. In fact, I agree with the
> basis of his research. I think it is based on a very good and valid
> scientific idea. What Shostak clearly does not understand, however,
> is the basis of ID theory. He doesn't understand that it is the very
> same basis as the SETI research he himself is doing. There is no
> fundamental difference aside from the medium being studied (i.e.,
> radiosignals vs. DNA).
>
>> Even more so when it is obvious that
>> you are blowing smoke. Shostak isn't searching for design.
>
> Need I ask this question again? What do the letters SETI stand for?
> Hello?
They call it "Computer Science" too, but it isn't.
>> In
>> telecommunications, designed modulation schemes are indistinguishable
>> from AWGN (additive white gaussian noise) basically as a consequence
>> of Shannon's channel capacity theorems. Any intelligent race can't do
>> any better than that, but our ability to find and decode such messages
>> are essentially nil, because the space of possible messages are just as
>> large as the space of possible noise.
>>
>> What SETI researchers are looking for are beacon transmissions: narrow
>> band emissions. There are a number of natural sources that can emit
>> relatively narrow bands, but they are rather uncommon and increasingly
>> well understood.
>
> Seth Shostak himself said that if one were to find a signal tagged
> with a long series of prime numbers or the Fibonacci series, that this
> would obviously indicate an intelligent source for such a
> radiosignal.
But they aren't looking for those.
> Beyond this, the type of narrow-band spectrum that SETI scientists
> are looking for is thought to be well beyond the powers of natural
> production. That is why they most certainly would associate such a
> signal with likely artifactual production - i.e., intelligent design.
Such signals carry no information. They aren't complex.
>> >> seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
>> >> waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
>> >> mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
>>
>> > You forget that we humans also know how to form informationally rich
>> > DNA. There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
>> > various kinds of radiosignals. Turns out that SETI scientists propose
>> > that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
>> > require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
>> > comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
>>
>> This is of course nonsense.
>
> How is that? What part, in particular, do you disagree with?
SETI researchers aren't looking for informationally rich radio signals.
>> >> but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with. it's a marshall
>> >> mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.
>>
>> >> you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
>> >> not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not. you can do that
>> >> because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.
>>
>> >> but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure?
>>
>> > Have you not heard of random mutations or non-functional DNA? No
>> > intelligence required to form random non-functional DNA sequences.
>>
>> This argument is entirely circular.
>
> How is that? Do you even understand the concept of a circular
> argument?
Yes. Apparently you do not.
>> >> DNA structure is not
>> >> radio waves. it's not based on radio waves. DNA is chemistry, not
>> >> electromagnetism. there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
>> >> validates or justifies the comparison.
>>
>> > Anyone who makes this argument is exceptionally dense. The comparison
>> > is obvious. What is it about radiowaves that is somehow special when
>> > it comes to the detection of intelligent design? Nothing.
>>
>> Except that our search for SETI is a search for simplicity, not
>> complexity.
>
> No.
Yes.
> Your search for SETI is based on looking for something nature is
> though to be unlikely to achieve.
Something which in fact carries no information at all.
> That's the basis of SETI. A highly
> symmetrical polished granite cube is "simple", but is also well beyond
> the realm of non-deliberate natural production in that it would take
> high-level information to do the job (i.e. informationally rich or
> complex systems on the level of human-type intelligence). The same
> thing is true of certain types of informationally rich DNA. Such a
> feature, if demonstrably beyond the powers of non-deliberate forces of
> nature, to the same degree that SETI shows certain types of
> radiosignals to be beyond natural powers, ID is a reasonable
> hypothesis in both cases.
Except DNA aren't granite cubes. Arguing by analogy isn't valid if
the things aren't actually analogous.
Their search procedures have nothing to do with design. How could it,
since ID theorists can't tell you how to find design either?
> This search is based,
> not on the detection of high-level information, but on the detection
> of something non-deliberate nature cannnot due, but human-level ID can
> do. The very same thing is true of the detection of ID in the medium
> of DNA. Nature can produce certain levels of information in DNA, as
> it can produce certain types of radiosignals. However, nature cannot
> produce information beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
Of course it can.
Ray Martinez
Since you argue pro-Atheism positions faithfully, denying Atheism
makes you dishonest. Said denial and its motivation recognizes the
need to conceal Atheism because acknowledgement refutes your anti-
Biblicism.
Ray
SNIP....
DJT
snip
>
> > > He argues fanatical Atheism positions one hundred percent of the time.
>
> > The position I argue consistently is an opposition to dishonesty. If
> > you think that this makes me a "fanatical atheist", it tells us more
> > about your moral values than mine.
>
> Since you argue pro-Atheism positions faithfully, denying Atheism
> makes you dishonest.
He doesn't argue "pro atheism" positions. He argues pro science
positions. Claiming someone is an atheist, just because he accepts
science makes you not only dishonest, but a fool as well.
> Said denial and its motivation recognizes the
> need to conceal Atheism because acknowledgement refutes your anti-
> Biblicism.
Ray, you advised Howard to read his words before posting. Perhaps
you should do the same... Even if Richard were an atheist, that
would not "refute" his scientific position, and standing. Claims of
Biblical literalism should be evaluated on their own, not by applying
the fallacy of ad hominem.
DJT
Ray Martinez
The "agree with me or you are dishonest" card.
Your crusade to paint Creationists as dishonest is explained instantly
when we remember that you are an Evolutionist. In addition: we are
relieved to be considered dishonest by a person who thinks that apes
morphed into men over the course of millions of years and that design
in nature indicates mindless process and not Mind.
> I have been reading creationist sources for over 30 years, and have
> yet to come across any which is not riddled with misrepresentation,
> distortion and outright falsehoods.
This predictable opinion says that when a person accepts evolution
said acceptance also *guarantees* honesty. Of course this absurdity is
explained instantly when we remember that RF is a Evolutionist.
> I don't ask anyone to take my word
> for this, which is why I have set aside a part of my web site
> analysing several creationist sources to identify such dishonesty.
>
> I have invited creationists on numerous occasions to demonstrate that
> I am incorrect in any of the instances of dishonesty I identify, but
> no creationist seems to have the slightest interest in doing so.
>
Why didn't you paste the link? Maybe that has something to do with not
receiving any corrections?
> I've invited creationists on numerous occasions to post a link to a
> creationist source which is *not* riddled with misrepresentation,
> distortion and outright falsehoods, but no creationist seems to have
> the slightest interest in doing so.
>
Child psychology.
Ray
SNIP....
John Stockwell
Actually no. Nonscientific theories can be falsified. Falsificationism
is not a solution to the problem of demarcation. A good example is
astrology. Astrology makes predictions galore, many of which
are falsifiable, and are in fact falsified.
The astrologer is not in the business of
investigation, so he or she does not recognize the weight of
falsifications as undermining the validity of his/her discipline.
This is because the implied mechanism of astrology is
some sort of "cosmic correspondence principle" that, in
the mind of the astrologer, is an _a priori_ truth.
So to, in the mind of the (c)design proponent(ist) is the notion
of the origin of life being divine creation. The cosmic correspondence
principle is that "creation of life <= high improbability of origin
by known natural processes". So, the ID proponent collects
improbably looking structures and creates ad hoc explanations
to support these notions. For example, consider the idol
of the ID movement, which is the bacterial flagellum. This
structure is taking as being "improbable" and any evidence
from genetics that shows that this item is neither evolutionarily
isolated, nor unique. 90% of the argument of the ID movement
regarding this structure as being "improbable" has just vanished,
yet the ID movement still embraces this item as being "designed".
>
> The real question then isn't over if ID Theory is or is not a valid
> scientific position, but if or if this valid scientific hypothesis/
> theory has or has not been falsified. That's an entirely different
> question. You are trying to conflate the two, but they aren't the
> same question or challenge.
>
> Remember, you can't even try to falsify a truly non-scientific
> notion. That wouldn't be possible. So, because you think you can
> falsify ID Theory, you essentially admit that it is at least set up as
> a valid scientific proposition.
You can falsify a lot of stuff that is non-scientific. However, a
pseudoscientist will not, in fact, recognize that what they are
doing is pseudoscience and accept the falsification. They will
keep on cranking out their anti-science arguments.
In fact, that
is what *you* do Sean. You don't accept any criticism that is
leveled against you. You keep cranking your anti-science crap,
no matter how many times you are shown to be wrong. This
is because you cannot possibly admit that your young-earth
global-flood-ism is wrong. You have no interest in scientifically
evaluating the idea, only supporting it any way you can.
>
> < snip rest >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
-John
Ray Martinez
> On Oct 13, 10:05 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 10:58 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
> > > On 12 Oct, 20:20, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 12, 1:20 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > On Oct 11, 5:31 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
> > > > > > > unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
> > > > > > > ID is codswallop...but that's another issue
>
> > > > > > > waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
> > > > > > > mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
>
> yet to come across any which is not riddled with misrepresentation,
> for this, which is why I have set aside a part of my web site
> analysing several creationist sources to identify such dishonesty.
>
> I have invited creationists on numerous occasions to demonstrate that
> I am incorrect in any of the instances of dishonesty I identify, but
> no creationist seems to have the slightest interest in doing so.
>
> creationist source which is *not* riddled with misrepresentation,
> distortion and outright falsehoods, but no creationist seems to have
> the slightest interest in doing so.
>
> "evolutionist" site which is riddled with misrepresentation,
> distortion and outright falsehoods, but no creationist seems to have
> the slightest interest in doing so.
>
> but that creationists know that they are dishonest but find such
> dishonesty is acceptable provided it comes from their own kind. Coming
> as it does from those claiming the moral high ground it is utter
> hypocrisy.
>
[TEXT BELOW IS A CORRECTED VERSION; ORIGINAL WAS DELETED DUE TO ERRORS
- R.M.]
Refusing to jump through your hoops does not indicate dishonesty.
These hoops and their phraseology announce your conclusions
beforehand. The fact that you have no takers indicates intelligence;
and the same recognizes that you are a kook who is not to be taken
seriously.
Your entire tactic of self-appointed moral policeman reminds us of
Jerry Falwell. If you actually care about any scientific reputation
that you think you might have I suggest that you drop this ridiculous
charade. Everyone already knows that Creationists and Evolutionists
think the other is dishonest. You are also proving that Evolutionists
are not very bright.
Ray
SNIP....
DJT
snip
> > As I have explained over and over again, I view the creation/evolution
> > "debate" not as a dispute between science and religion, or a dispute
> > within science over the interpretation of evidence, but as a much more
> > simple issue of honesty. It is about the way in which creationists
> > pursue their claims for the scientific legitimacy of their religious
> > convictions.
>
> The "agree with me or you are dishonest" card.
I thought it was the "lie to me and you are dishonest" card......
>
> Your crusade to paint Creationists as dishonest is explained instantly
> when we remember that you are an Evolutionist.
That doesn't change the fact that creationists are dishonest.
> In addition: we are
> relieved to be considered dishonest by a person who thinks that apes
> morphed into men over the course of millions of years and that design
> in nature indicates mindless process and not Mind.
Well, the evidence shows that humans are apes, and that they did
evolve from ape ancestors. The appearance of design in nature is
more logically the result of natural processes that can be observed,
than ascribing it to a "mind" without any observable mechanism. You
being considered dishonest has nothing to do with Richard accepting
reality, and more to do with your being dishonest.
>
> > I have been reading creationist sources for over 30 years, and have
> > yet to come across any which is not riddled with misrepresentation,
> > distortion and outright falsehoods.
>
> This predictable opinion says that when a person accepts evolution
> said acceptance also *guarantees* honesty.
Actually, Richard didn't say that, or imply that. He simply pointed
out that creationists tend to be dishonest.
> Of course this absurdity is
> explained instantly when we remember that RF is a Evolutionist.
Whether or not it's "explained", one still has to face the fact that
creationist sites tend to be dishonest, and are full of distortions,
misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods. This would be true
even if Richard weren't an "evolutionist".
>
> > I don't ask anyone to take my word
> > for this, which is why I have set aside a part of my web site
> > analysing several creationist sources to identify such dishonesty.
>
> > I have invited creationists on numerous occasions to demonstrate that
> > I am incorrect in any of the instances of dishonesty I identify, but
> > no creationist seems to have the slightest interest in doing so.
>
> Why didn't you paste the link? Maybe that has something to do with not
> receiving any corrections?
Are you too lazy to find it for yourself?
>
> > I've invited creationists on numerous occasions to post a link to a
> > creationist source which is *not* riddled with misrepresentation,
> > distortion and outright falsehoods, but no creationist seems to have
> > the slightest interest in doing so.
>
> Child psychology.
Applicable when one is dealing with children, no matter what their
age.
DJT
DJT
snip
>
> > From this I conclude not only that creationist sources are dishonest,
> > but that creationists know that they are dishonest but find such
> > dishonesty is acceptable provided it comes from their own kind. Coming
> > as it does from those claiming the moral high ground it is utter
> > hypocrisy.
>
> [TEXT BELOW IS A CORRECTED VERSION; ORIGINAL WAS DELETED DUE TO ERRORS
> - R.M.]
Ray, if you are going to delete all your posts that contain errors,
you will have to delete your entire posting history.
>
> Refusing to jump through your hoops does not indicate dishonesty.
But showing dishonesty does.
> These hoops and their phraseology announce your conclusions
> beforehand. The fact that you have no takers indicates intelligence;
> and the same recognizes that you are a kook who is not to be taken
> seriously.
Or that creationists can't support their claims. The latter seems
more likely.
>
> Your entire tactic of self-appointed moral policeman reminds us of
> Jerry Falwell.
Falwell, of course was a creationist.
> If you actually care about any scientific reputation
> that you think you might have I suggest that you drop this ridiculous
> charade.
What "charade" Ray? Maybe Richard really doesn't like
dishonesty.....
> Everyone already knows that Creationists and Evolutionists
> think the other is dishonest.
But everyone also knows that creationists are actually dishonest.
Creationists simply give in to name calling, as they don't have any
evidence.
> You are also proving that Evolutionists
> are not very bright.
Well, Ray, you are showing yourself to be not very bright, but that
was already well known.
DJT
Seanpit
So SETI scientists aren't really looking for ETI? - even though that
is what their name says they're doing? Fascinating . . .
>
> >> In
> >> telecommunications, designed modulation schemes are indistinguishable
> >> from AWGN (additive white gaussian noise) basically as a consequence
> >> of Shannon's channel capacity theorems. Any intelligent race can't do
> >> any better than that, but our ability to find and decode such messages
> >> are essentially nil, because the space of possible messages are just as
> >> large as the space of possible noise.
>
> >> What SETI researchers are looking for are beacon transmissions: narrow
> >> band emissions. There are a number of natural sources that can emit
> >> relatively narrow bands, but they are rather uncommon and increasingly
> >> well understood.
>
> > Seth Shostak himself said that if one were to find a signal tagged
> > with a long series of prime numbers or the Fibonacci series, that this
> > would obviously indicate an intelligent source for such a
> > radiosignal.
>
> But they aren't looking for those.
That's beside the point. The point is how does one detect an artifact
when one sees one?
> > Beyond this, the type of narrow-band spectrum that SETI scientists
> > are looking for is thought to be well beyond the powers of natural
> > production. That is why they most certainly would associate such a
> > signal with likely artifactual production - i.e., intelligent design.
>
> Such signals carry no information. They aren't complex.
What is so special about a simple signal? Why is a simple signal
"special"? Don't you think that nature is capable or producing
informationally simplistic stuff? What about a rounded pebble?
Simple? Certainly. Naturally designable? Yep. So, where is this
inherent magic of simplicity when it comes to detecting ETI?
Surprise surprise surprise - - the detection of intelligent activity
is not based on either the detection of simplicity or complexity
alone. The detection of deliberate artifact is based on finding stuff
that non-deliberate nature cannot do, but that at least human-level
creativity can do. That's it.
> >> >> seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
> >> >> waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
> >> >> mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
>
> >> > You forget that we humans also know how to form informationally rich
> >> > DNA. There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
> >> > various kinds of radiosignals. Turns out that SETI scientists propose
> >> > that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
> >> > require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
> >> > comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
>
> >> This is of course nonsense.
>
> > How is that? What part, in particular, do you disagree with?
>
> SETI researchers aren't looking for informationally rich radio signals.
Why are they looking for very simple radiosignals? - do you think?
Why is a simple highly symmetrical polished granite cube an obvious
artifact - even if it were found on an alien planet? Again, it's not
about simplicity alone here. It is about knowing the limits of what
nature can do with a particular type of material - like granite,
radiosignals, or DNA.
> >> >> but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with. it's a marshall
> >> >> mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.
>
> >> >> you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
> >> >> not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not. you can do that
> >> >> because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.
>
> >> >> but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure?
>
> >> > Have you not heard of random mutations or non-functional DNA? No
> >> > intelligence required to form random non-functional DNA sequences.
>
> >> This argument is entirely circular.
>
> > How is that? Do you even understand the concept of a circular
> > argument?
>
> Yes. Apparently you do not.
Ok, teach me something. Describe how me argument here is
"circular" . . .
> >> >> DNA structure is not
> >> >> radio waves. it's not based on radio waves. DNA is chemistry, not
> >> >> electromagnetism. there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
> >> >> validates or justifies the comparison.
>
> >> > Anyone who makes this argument is exceptionally dense. The comparison
> >> > is obvious. What is it about radiowaves that is somehow special when
> >> > it comes to the detection of intelligent design? Nothing.
>
> >> Except that our search for SETI is a search for simplicity, not
> >> complexity.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Your search for SETI is based on looking for something nature is
> > thought to be unlikely to achieve.
>
> Something which in fact carries no information at all.
Does a highly symmetrical polished granite cube carry any
"information"? - according to your own definition of "information"?
Again, the presence or lack of "information" is irrelevant in and of
itself. The only thing that is relevant are the questions, 1) Can
nature produce the particular phenomenon in question? and 2) Can at
least human-level intelligence do the job?
> > That's the basis of SETI. A highly
> > symmetrical polished granite cube is "simple", but is also well beyond
> > the realm of non-deliberate natural production in that it would take
> > high-level information to do the job (i.e. informationally rich or
> > complex systems on the level of human-type intelligence). The same
> > thing is true of certain types of informationally rich DNA. Such a
> > feature, if demonstrably beyond the powers of non-deliberate forces of
> > nature, to the same degree that SETI shows certain types of
> > radiosignals to be beyond natural powers, ID is a reasonable
> > hypothesis in both cases.
>
> Except DNA aren't granite cubes. Arguing by analogy isn't valid if
> the things aren't actually analogous.
Why is such a granite cube an obvious artifact? Hmmmm? The answer to
that question is what is analogous here. It is also the basis behind
Shostak's statement that an informationally complex message, like a
mathematical sequence, would clearly indicate a true artifact.
If their search procedures have nothing to do with the detection of
design, how on Earth do you think they will actually be able to find
ETI? - vs. some a hypothesis of some unusual non-deliberate process of
nature?
> > This search is based,
> > not on the detection of high-level information, but on the detection
> > of something non-deliberate nature cannot due, but human-level ID can
> > do. The very same thing is true of the detection of ID in the medium
> > of DNA. Nature can produce certain levels of information in DNA, as
> > it can produce certain types of radiosignals. However, nature cannot
> > produce information beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
>
> Of course it can.
> Human-level ID can do this.
Human activity is not a non-deliberate force of nature. We are trying
to distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate forces of nature
here. I shouldn't have to type out the whole thing each and every
time I present this concept - especially within the same paragraph.
Can't you remember the topic from one sentence to the next?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > > As near as we can tell, the "informationally rich" DNA sequences
> > > that we see in nature are the result of duplication, transposition,
> > > and other mutational mechanisms subjected to natural selection.
>
> > This is an attempt to falsify the ID position. It's the same thing as
> > arguing that "as near as we can tell, radiowaves of the type Shostak
> > is looking for are the result of certain types of non-deliberate
> > natural processes. Such a demonstration would certainly falsify
> > Shostak's position. This of course means that since SETI science is
> > clearly open to the potential for such falsification, that it is in
> > fact a real scientific hypothesis. The same thing is true for ID. By
> > your very attempt to falsify the fundamental basis for ID Theory, you
> > acknowledge that it is in fact a true scientific theory - despite
> > yourself.
>
> Actually no. Nonscientific theories can be falsified. Falsificationism
> is not a solution to the problem of demarcation. A good example is
> astrology. Astrology makes predictions galore, many of which
> are falsifiable, and are in fact falsified.
If the flasifiable testable predictions of astrologists turned out to
be exceptionally reliable, not only would astrology be a valid
science, it would be a very useful science as well. It is only
because the predictions of astrologists are notoriously unreliable
that the whole field has been rejected as a falsified science.
You need to read up a bit more on the philosophy of science, to
include the importance of testability and falsifiability.
Falsifiability is at the very root of science itself.
> The astrologer is not in the business of
> investigation, so he or she does not recognize the weight of
> falsifications as undermining the validity of his/her discipline.
> This is because the implied mechanism of astrology is
> some sort of "cosmic correspondence principle" that, in
> the mind of the astrologer, is an _a priori_ truth.
>
> So to, in the mind of the (c)design proponent(ist) is the notion
> of the origin of life being divine creation. The cosmic correspondence
> principle is that "creation of life <= high improbability of origin
> by known natural processes". So, the ID proponent collects
> improbably looking structures and creates ad hoc explanations
> to support these notions. For example, consider the idol
> of the ID movement, which is the bacterial flagellum. This
> structure is taking as being "improbable" and any evidence
> from genetics that shows that this item is neither evolutionarily
> isolated, nor unique. 90% of the argument of the ID movement
> regarding this structure as being "improbable" has just vanished,
> yet the ID movement still embraces this item as being "designed".
If you could actually show good evidence in support of your assertion
that the flagellum is not significantly isolated as far as its minimum
structural requirements are concerned, you would essentially falsify
ID Theory. It would no longer be a valid scientific position if you
were to actually do this. Short of actually doing this, however, they
ID hypothesis regarding the flagellar system remains - and so does ID
Theory.
What you are doing is confusing falsification of a valid scientific
position with the notion that the original hypothesis was never a
valid scientific hypothesis to begin with. There is a big difference
between falsifying a valid scientific hypothesis and arguing that it
was never a valid hypothesis to begin with. You don't seem to grasp
this essential difference.
> > The real question then isn't over if ID Theory is or is not a valid
> > scientific position, but if or if this valid scientific hypothesis/
> > theory has or has not been falsified. That's an entirely different
> > question. You are trying to conflate the two, but they aren't the
> > same question or challenge.
>
> > Remember, you can't even try to falsify a truly non-scientific
> > notion. That wouldn't be possible. So, because you think you can
> > falsify ID Theory, you essentially admit that it is at least set up as
> > a valid scientific proposition.
>
> You can falsify a lot of stuff that is non-scientific. However, a
> pseudoscientist will not, in fact, recognize that what they are
> doing is pseudoscience and accept the falsification. They will
> keep on cranking out their anti-science arguments.
Again, you confuse the situation where someone does not recognize your
falsification as being valid with the idea that the original
hypothesis was in fact set up as a valid scientific hypothesis. Just
because someone does not agree that you have in fact falsified their
hypothesis does not mean that the original hypothesis wasn't a valid
scientific hypothesis.
> In fact, that
> is what *you* do Sean. You don't accept any criticism that is
> leveled against you. You keep cranking your anti-science crap,
> no matter how many times you are shown to be wrong.
Again, this is an entirely different argument. You are saying that
you have in fact falsified my arguments. If you have in fact done
this, then you are saying that my original arguments were in fact
valid scientific argument that have subsequently been shown to be
false. That is in fact what you're argument implies here.
Beyond this, no one in this forum or elsewhere has shown that any of
the proposed steps in the supposed pathways toward the evolution of
the flagellum are close enough to cross this side of trillions of
years of time via RM/NS. If you know of any such direct genetic
evidence, by all means present it. Otherwise, what do you have but
bald assertions and hot air behind your supposed "falsification" of my
position? Where are all of these counter-examples that you speak of?
There isn't even a single example of observable evolution in action
producing any novel system of function that requires more than 1000
fairly specified amino acid residues working together at the same time
- not one example. If you actually know of such an observable example
of evolution in action, by all means present it. Until then all you
have is your fairytale just-so story nonsense - - not science.
> This
> is because you cannot possibly admit that your young-earth
> global-flood-ism is wrong. You have no interest in scientifically
> evaluating the idea, only supporting it any way you can.
I can admit it just fine. Show me the money. I'm not much for the
talk-only approach. Show me some real evidence that actually
falsifies my positions.
Also, try to keep your arguments strait. Don't confuse trying to
falsify a theory with showing that it never was a valid theory to
begin with. That's not the same thing. You're confused here as
well . . .
> -John
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ray Martinez
I am glad to see you finally recognize the fact that 'evolution' has
more than one valid meaning.
Next: I disagree that variation and variability within species is
evidence of microevolution. Said facts are evidence of 'designed
change.'
> One cannot use the definitions involving
> speciation or common descent beyond the species boundary.
>
I have done no such thing. I have described Darwin's proposal, that
is, the proposal that was accepted instantly by scientific men in
1859. This proposal remains accepted and unaltered by science, unlike
other of Darwin's auxiliary ideas. This description was a response to
your request concerning microevolution. This request was made in the
original context of my desire to discuss Sean Pitman's alleged
contradictions. This is why I said evolution is a *continuous* process
of slight-slow beneficial change by unguided material causation.
Asterisk emphasis was deployed to imply that Sean's acceptance of
microevolution is sourceless and subjective SINCE evolution was
accepted, and is accepted, on the basis of being continuous, or
unimpeded. Sean cannot call the evolution that he accepts "evolution"
or "microevolution" because the evolution that he accepts does not
exist scientifically. He is, of course, free to postulate his own
original ideas and support them. But my point is that he did not
indicate or stipulate or account for any of these important facts in
our brief exchanges. He, without hesitation, used the word "Evolution"
and emphatically stated its veracity. Said usage indicates plainly,
absent any reservations, acceptance of Darwin's evolution. But as I
just pointed out Sean does not accept Darwin's evolution. Sean's
"evolution" is counterfeit since the evolution that has been accepted
by science was accepted, and is accepted, without impediment. Sean
needs another term to differentiate his "evolution" from accepted
evolution. Since Sean is a staunch supporter of nature reflecting
Intelligence & Design I would suggest that he identify these
"undeniable low level" evolutionary changes (as he describes them) to
be "designed change." This description would then support and
correspond to Intelligence & Design, otherwise to advocate the
veracity of low level evolution is to also advocate the veracity of
unguided material causation (UMC) since evolution was accepted as
being produced or driven by UMC. Of course this front side of the same
coin (causation and effect) exposes another apparent egregious
contradiction: his vehement support of Intelligence & Design IN nature
along with UMC. The latter says the former is absent (or not present)
in nature. Of course Sean *might* say that his evolution is not caused
by UMC. If so then his evolution is not evolution but pre-"Origin Of
Species" Owenian modified Creationism because the evolution that was
accepted, and is accepted, says Mind, along with His intelligence and
power, is not seen in mindless natural selection (= unguided material
causation). But in defiance of Dembski 1999, Sean accepts random
mutation and I assume natural selection.
Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent
Design" (2006).
Of course, Howard, you and all evolutionists exist to say any
interpretation of nature and evidence to support Intelligence and
Design (= Divine causation) is false. Of course you don't seem to
mind Sean's evolution advocacy just his ID advocacy. If God has any
direct role in biological phenomena then the same is not evolution,
but Creationism-Design. I see Sean's position awash in egregious
contradiction and/or confusion, exactly what 'subjective' implies.
> > > >My rendering does not. Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a
> > > > *continuous* process of slight-slow change. Dawkins 1986 laboriously
> > > > confirms.
>
> And a change in the frequency of different alleles in a population is
> not "a *continuous* process of slight-slow change"? Would a dog giving
> birth to a cat be what you would call "a *continuous* process of
> slight-slow change"?
Now you agree that my definition is accurate?
All I am fighting for is for evolution to be defined outside of the
microscopic world----like Darwin did. If you say that a change in gene
frequencies is harmonious with "a continuous process of slight-slow
change" then I must agree----you have me trapped since the latter is
my own definition based on
scholarship, however. I am only trapped in this context and I have
never denied gene-centricism. I must reiterate that the definition of
evolution, even with a prefix attached, has more than one valid
meaning----this is the only thing I am saying and it is the only thing
that I have ever said. Do you understand my position?
> Or would the change in finch beak shape in
> response to a change in environmental resources be "a *continuous*
> process of slight-slow change"? Or the change in the size and
> coloration of male guppy tails? Or the change, under selective
> pressure applied by humans, of the wolf into the teacup chihuahua?
> All but the first (which has never happened) involve "a *continuous*
> process of slight-slow change" by a *continuous* process of change in
> allele frequencies in a population within a species.
>
Your commentary incorporates my definition in a context of
agreement----good. This means that it is not "piss poor....making this
definition up out of [my] fevered imagination"?
> > > I would say that evolution is an *inevitable* process of change that
> > > is only slowed by the conservative nature of natural selection at some
> > > loci. Given the reality of mutation, only conservative natural
> > > selection can prevent evolution. And, even so, it can only do it
> > > dynamically. That is, mutation occurs and selection selective and
> > > detrimentally affects the reproductive success of individuals with
> > > that mutation so that the frequency decreases or is eliminated.
>
> > Congratulations! You have just said what Paley said: selection
> > prevents evolutionary change. There is nothing new under the sun.
>
> I have never said otherwise. But the same process, selection, that
> *can* prevent evolutionary change under conditions of environmental
> stasis (albeit a dynamic stasis) can lead to rapid *change* under
> conditions of environmental change. And *change* will always occur in
> the absence of selection. In fact, *most* evolution involves
> selectively neutral or near-neutral change.
>
Howard, you cannot have NS preventing and causing evolutionary change?
Show me a citation by a evolutionist where NS is recognized to prevent
evolutionary change? Of course you are probably referring to some
aspect of Punctuated Equilibria? Are you saying that NS is simply
dormant during environmental stasis? Or are you saying that NS is a
positive force preventing evolutionary
change during environmental stasis?
When you say: "And *change* will always occur in the absence of
selection" what causes *this* change?
> > > > Species, in 1859, were suddenly seen as possessing the
> > > > *potential* to change.
>
> > > Even Paley recognized variation within a species. Are you claiming
> > > that Paley was wrong and that there is NO variation at all within a
> > > species? If you have genetic variation, you have the potential to
> > > change allele frequencies.
>
> > Non-sequitur. You should actually read what was said before typing
> > your reply.
>
> I did. The existence of variation is evidence that species have the
> *potential* to change. Your claim is that before 1859, science denied
> that species have the *potential* to change. If that were the case,
> then prior to 1859, scientists would have had to deny that organisms
> vary (or only vary in a non-hereditary fashion).
>
That was *part* of Darwin's argument. I think history of science
scholars generally credit Darwin as establishing the fact of
variation. Before Darwin essentialism was predominant. Existence of
variation does not support evolution since each organism is already
born unique. Darwin, as you know, did not postulate individual
evolution, but transmutation of populations. Variation is simply a
component, a truism. *In and by itself* it does not support evolution.
No historian denies that science overwhelmingly accepted immutability
before the rise of Darwinism. Prior to 1859 essentialism ruled.
Essentialism means that similar species were held to be the same
species because in "essence" they were the same or "essentially the
same." Darwin's Beagle data ultimately proved that very similar
appearing species were actually separate species and not the same.
Creationist scientist, orthinologist John Gould, was instrumental in
establishing this fact for Darwin.
> > Of course variability exists within species. No two organisms are
> > identical, even so called "identical twins" are not identical. Darwin,
> > by no means, showed species to have evolved.
>
> We were talking about the definition of microevolution, not
> speciation. Microevolution is evolution below the level of new
> species formation. If you want to talk about speciation and how
> impossible speciation is, then you have to use the term 'speciation'
> and not 'microevolution'. Otherwise you will simply come off as
> merely another in a very long line of ignorant creationists rather
> than the soon-to-be author of the brilliant text that destroys
> Darwinism.
>
Non-sequitur; or quote mine.
> > He showed their
> > *potential* to change in a scientific context that accepted strict
> > immutability. Again, this is why evolution is an interpretation of
> > evidence. This is why evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.
>
> It is when you are discussing microevolution.
>
> > Evolution is deduced to have happened after the alleged fact based on
> > several lines of evidence, which does not include the geological
> > fossil record. I will have no trouble in my paper showing many big
> > name evolutionary authorities plainly admitting the latter fact.
>
> Quote-mining 'evolutionary authorities' yet again so that they appear
> to be saying stuff that they really don't believe will not win you
> converts. It will just put you further into the long and dishonorable
> coterie of creationist liars-for-Jeebus quote-mine regurgitators [if
> truth were food, they would all die bulemics]. If you want to be the
> author of the first really good critique of Darwinism, I would suggest
> that you rely on evidence rather than quotes (mined or not) from
> authors who would think you are full of it.
>
They plainly admit to stasis. There are two major interpretations of
stasis. They subscribe to the interpretation that I reject.
Establishing stasis, using pro-evolution authorities, is not a quote
mine.
> > There
> > is no pattern of evolutionary transitions in the fossil series.
>
> This is irrelevant when it comes to microevolution, Ray.
> Microevolution is evolution within a species. Besides, do you know
> how much change in phenotype can occur in only a few hundred years
> (think pooches) or even less (think finch beaks). Unless you have a
> fossil record that can sample time with at least that frequency, you
> will get a historical record that looks like the one we see for most
> fossils (which are often separated by 10s of thousands if not millions
> of years).
>
> > We can
> > establish this fact using secular scientists alone, employed by big
> > corporations, who do not care about the Creation-Evolution debate.
>
> Really? Can you tell me where they have published this refutation of
> evolutionary expectations?
Yes, I can.
Are you denying stasis to be the predominant fact seen in
paleontology?
Ray
Will finish reply ASAP....
SNIP....
richardal...@googlemail.com
I have never argued a pro-Atheism position here or on any other forum.
> denying Atheism
> makes you dishonest.
Saying something about me which is clearly untrue makes you a liar.
> Said denial and its motivation recognizes the
> need to conceal Atheism because acknowledgement refutes your anti-
> Biblicism.
I have never expressed any anti-Biblical views either.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
What do you think it tells us about you that you are unable to address
the issue of creationist dishonesty, preferring to bear false witness?
Do you think that the injunction against bearing false witness does
not apply to creationists?
RF
Mark VandeWettering
Nothing at all about it is magic. They are searching for narrow band
emitters exhibiting Doppler shift being characteristic of having been
emitted from a planetary body in orbit around a star. We have no
explanation for how a powerful narrow band transmission could originate
from a planetary body, so it seems reasonable to conclude that if we
find one, it's pretty interesting, but it doesn't tell us anything about
the intelligence that creates it (if any) even if we do find it.
If the SETI project "succeeds" in their current effort, they will not
have confirmed intelligent origin for the signals they are after. Their
current methodology has no way to to ascertain intelligent origin of
radio signals.
> Surprise surprise surprise - - the detection of intelligent activity
> is not based on either the detection of simplicity or complexity
> alone. The detection of deliberate artifact is based on finding stuff
> that non-deliberate nature cannot do, but that at least human-level
> creativity can do. That's it.
We don't know what non-deliberate nature can do. Back in 1967, when
Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish detected the "LGM-1", they had no idea
what could cause the 1.337 second period signal that they observed.
They considered the possibility that it was intelligently designed.
Upon later study, it was determined that this was radio emissions from a
pular. Nature could do what nobody considered before.
>> >> >> seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
>> >> >> waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
>> >> >> mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure.
>>
>> >> > You forget that we humans also know how to form informationally rich
>> >> > DNA. There is therefore a "mechanism" as much as there is for forming
>> >> > various kinds of radiosignals. Turns out that SETI scientists propose
>> >> > that the mechanism for forming the radiosignals they are looking for
>> >> > require the input of ID - exactly the same claim as IDists when it
>> >> > comes to informationally rich DNA and biomachines.
>>
>> >> This is of course nonsense.
>>
>> > How is that? What part, in particular, do you disagree with?
>>
>> SETI researchers aren't looking for informationally rich radio signals.
>
> Why are they looking for very simple radiosignals? - do you think?
> Why is a simple highly symmetrical polished granite cube an obvious
> artifact - even if it were found on an alien planet?
Nobody is looking for granite cubes. When you see one, bring up the
subject again.
> Again, it's not about simplicity alone here. It is about knowing the
> limits of what nature can do with a particular type of material - like
> granite, radiosignals, or DNA.
But we don't know what nature can do.
>> >> >> but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with. it's a marshall
>> >> >> mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.
>>
>> >> >> you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
>> >> >> not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not. you can do that
>> >> >> because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.
>>
>> >> >> but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure?
>>
>> >> > Have you not heard of random mutations or non-functional DNA? No
>> >> > intelligence required to form random non-functional DNA sequences.
>>
>> >> This argument is entirely circular.
>>
>> > How is that? Do you even understand the concept of a circular
>> > argument?
>>
>> Yes. Apparently you do not.
>
> Ok, teach me something. Describe how me argument here is
> "circular" . . .
You are arguing that the intelligently designed parts of DNA are
obviously designed and the non-functional parts are obviously not. This
is just a restatement of the original question. There is nothing obvious
about either statement, and you present no argument to justify either
statement.
>> >> >> DNA structure is not
>> >> >> radio waves. it's not based on radio waves. DNA is chemistry, not
>> >> >> electromagnetism. there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
>> >> >> validates or justifies the comparison.
>>
>> >> > Anyone who makes this argument is exceptionally dense. The comparison
>> >> > is obvious. What is it about radiowaves that is somehow special when
>> >> > it comes to the detection of intelligent design? Nothing.
>>
>> >> Except that our search for SETI is a search for simplicity, not
>> >> complexity.
>>
>> > No.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > Your search for SETI is based on looking for something nature is
>> > thought to be unlikely to achieve.
>>
>> Something which in fact carries no information at all.
>
> Does a highly symmetrical polished granite cube carry any
> "information"? - according to your own definition of "information"?
We were talking about radio signals. Why don't you put down those
goalposts and take a rest?
> Again, the presence or lack of "information" is irrelevant in and of
> itself. The only thing that is relevant are the questions, 1) Can
> nature produce the particular phenomenon in question? and 2) Can at
> least human-level intelligence do the job?
>
>> > That's the basis of SETI. A highly
>> > symmetrical polished granite cube is "simple", but is also well beyond
>> > the realm of non-deliberate natural production in that it would take
>> > high-level information to do the job (i.e. informationally rich or
>> > complex systems on the level of human-type intelligence). The same
>> > thing is true of certain types of informationally rich DNA. Such a
>> > feature, if demonstrably beyond the powers of non-deliberate forces of
>> > nature, to the same degree that SETI shows certain types of
>> > radiosignals to be beyond natural powers, ID is a reasonable
>> > hypothesis in both cases.
>>
>> Except DNA aren't granite cubes. Arguing by analogy isn't valid if
>> the things aren't actually analogous.
>
> Why is such a granite cube an obvious artifact?
I don't know why your imaginary granite cube is an obvious artifact, or
even why we should consider it to be an obvious artifact.
> Hmmmm? The answer to that question is what is analogous here. It
> is also the basis behind Shostak's statement that an informationally
> complex message, like a mathematical sequence, would clearly indicate
> a true artifact.
But the signals he's looking for aren't informationally complex, and he's
not looking for them. How could he?
They won't. They'll discover something fascinating, something that will
expand the boundaries of human understanding, but to actually discover
intelligence requires dialogue. Rocks might be intelligent, but we can't
tell because we don't know how to ask rocks if they are. Ditto for ETs.
>
>> > This search is based,
>> > not on the detection of high-level information, but on the detection
>> > of something non-deliberate nature cannot due, but human-level ID can
>> > do. The very same thing is true of the detection of ID in the medium
>> > of DNA. Nature can produce certain levels of information in DNA, as
>> > it can produce certain types of radiosignals. However, nature cannot
>> > produce information beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
>>
>> Of course it can.
>> Human-level ID can do this.
>
> Human activity is not a non-deliberate force of nature. We are trying
> to distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate forces of nature
> here. I shouldn't have to type out the whole thing each and every
> time I present this concept - especially within the same paragraph.
> Can't you remember the topic from one sentence to the next?
I certainly can. I shouldn't have to remind you that SETI researchers
aren't looking for design or information or complexity or any of the other
harbingers that ID theorists typically claim as signatures of intelligent
activity, nor are they looking for granite cubes. But apparently I still
do, so don't try to make me feel sorry for you.
Mark
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
John Stockwell
Falsifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for
a theory to be scientific. FYI, the root of science is actually
the notion of "natural law", without which we would have nothing
to test or to theorize about.
Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ. (2006). “From The Origin of Species to the
origin of bacterial flagella.” Nature Reviews Microbiology, 4(10),
784-790. October 2006.
The problem, of course, is that ID theory did not predict the
flagellum, so there is no line item of ID theory that predicts that
a flagellum should be thus and such. The flagellum could
be anything, and simply because it looks like a little machine,
it would be accepted as being "designed" by the ID community.
From the vantage point of evolution, the expectation is that
any apparently novel structure will be compose largely of
recycled parts. That's what's there. Now, if the flagellum
were genetically isolated, made of truly novel genetic structures,
unrelated to any other structure, and unique in makeup, then
that would be harder to fit into the evolutionary framework.
If furthermore, that fact were predicted by ID theory, then that
would score a big point for ID theory over evolution. But that
is not the way it went.
That is not to say that people understand the flagellum completely.
It's just that something that was a 100% mystery in the ID
world is maybe a 25% mystery in the world of mainstream science.
ID is a very fragile claim, which is refuted with even the slightest
bit of knowledge. (Indeed, ID is really a measure of ignorance.)
>
> What you are doing is confusing falsification of a valid scientific
> position with the notion that the original hypothesis was never a
> valid scientific hypothesis to begin with. There is a big difference
> between falsifying a valid scientific hypothesis and arguing that it
> was never a valid hypothesis to begin with. You don't seem to grasp
> this essential difference.
I would agree ID is _ab initio_ an unscientific hypothesis.
Indeed, ID is dead, yet, (c)design proponent(ists) such as yourself
will deny this to your own graves.
Suppose a necessary condition of ID being true was that
young-earth-global-floodism is false? What would you do
then, Sean?
>
> > > The real question then isn't over if ID Theory is or is not a valid
> > > scientific position, but if or if this valid scientific hypothesis/
> > > theory has or has not been falsified. That's an entirely different
> > > question. You are trying to conflate the two, but they aren't the
> > > same question or challenge.
>
> > > Remember, you can't even try to falsify a truly non-scientific
> > > notion. That wouldn't be possible. So, because you think you can
> > > falsify ID Theory, you essentially admit that it is at least set up as
> > > a valid scientific proposition.
>
> > You can falsify a lot of stuff that is non-scientific. However, a
> > pseudoscientist will not, in fact, recognize that what they are
> > doing is pseudoscience and accept the falsification. They will
> > keep on cranking out their anti-science arguments.
>
> Again, you confuse the situation where someone does not recognize your
> falsification as being valid with the idea that the original
> hypothesis was in fact set up as a valid scientific hypothesis. Just
> because someone does not agree that you have in fact falsified their
> hypothesis does not mean that the original hypothesis wasn't a valid
> scientific hypothesis.
If you can't convince other scientists of your position, then you
have failed in the scientific enterprise. You have a lot to learn
about science, Sean. You aren't doing science if you aren't
out there trying to convince other scientists of your position.
Pseudoscientists always play directly to the unwashed masses,
because they don't have the knowledge to see through the crap.
>
> > In fact, that
> > is what *you* do Sean. You don't accept any criticism that is
> > leveled against you. You keep cranking your anti-science crap,
> > no matter how many times you are shown to be wrong.
>
> Again, this is an entirely different argument. You are saying that
> you have in fact falsified my arguments. If you have in fact done
> this, then you are saying that my original arguments were in fact
> valid scientific argument that have subsequently been shown to be
> false. That is in fact what you're argument implies here.
Falsification is necessary, but not sufficient. To have
science the individual must participate in the
scientific enterprise. That individual must communicate
with the community
of scientists, and their ideas must achieve a connection to
the body of knowledge of the mainstream community.
Eventually, the individual must be able to convince
other scientists of the validity of his/her position.
Take your case in particular. You are a bright guy, but basically
you have been shoveling a pile of garbage for years. You may
even believe the crap you are shoveling. The problem for you
is that none of what you do is science, because you don't
have any success in floating it out in the mainstream community.
You take information out of context and pasted it together
to try to shore up your worldview. You don't accept even the
smallest criticism. Of course, since your ideas are DOA,
I don't suppose there would be much point.
I am sure it plays will with the other SDA cultists. Do you have
the adulation of women, Sean? Are you a kind of Adventist
rock star? Lot's of hero worship?
>
> Beyond this, no one in this forum or elsewhere has shown that any of
> the proposed steps in the supposed pathways toward the evolution of
> the flagellum are close enough to cross this side of trillions of
> years of time via RM/NS. If you know of any such direct genetic
> evidence, by all means present it. Otherwise, what do you have but
> bald assertions and hot air behind your supposed "falsification" of my
> position? Where are all of these counter-examples that you speak of?
> There isn't even a single example of observable evolution in action
> producing any novel system of function that requires more than 1000
> fairly specified amino acid residues working together at the same time
> - not one example. If you actually know of such an observable example
> of evolution in action, by all means present it. Until then all you
> have is your fairytale just-so story nonsense - - not science.
You have made up your own high bar, and claim that the world
has to be able to jump it. Yet, as far as I can tell, you haven't
tried to publish this highbar, Sean? Why is that? Your high
bar doesn't mean anything until you convince other scientists
of its validity. What are you waiting for, Sean?
>
> > This
> > is because you cannot possibly admit that your young-earth
> > global-flood-ism is wrong. You have no interest in scientifically
> > evaluating the idea, only supporting it any way you can.
>
> I can admit it just fine. Show me the money. I'm not much for the
> talk-only approach. Show me some real evidence that actually
> falsifies my positions.
Basically, all you need is a mainstream education in geology,
and you would find that just about anythiing you believe about
geology, which is not in accordance with mainstream geology
falsifies your position. Your ideas are DOA from the getgo.
>
> Also, try to keep your arguments strait. Don't confuse trying to
> falsify a theory with showing that it never was a valid theory to
> begin with. That's not the same thing. You're confused here as
> well . . .
These are two sides of the same coin. A person who persists
treating a grossly falsified idea (such as young-earth-global-
floodism)
as being valid is engaging in non-scientific (crank) behavior.
>
> > -John
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
-John
DJT
snip
> > I never said it was the only valid definition. It is, however, the
> > most appropriate one for describing "microevolution" which is
> > evolution within a species.
>
> I am glad to see you finally recognize the fact that 'evolution' has
> more than one valid meaning.
Are you willing to admit that it has the one valid meaning in
biology?
>
> Next: I disagree that variation and variability within species is
> evidence of microevolution. Said facts are evidence of 'designed
> change.'
Why would there need to be "designed change"? If God can simply
change things to his liking, why would he have to design in change?
And more importantly, how do you distinguish between "designed change"
and microevolution?
>
> > One cannot use the definitions involving
> > speciation or common descent beyond the species boundary.
>
> I have done no such thing.
Then why dud you insist that evolution is not allele frequency
change?
> I have described Darwin's proposal, that
> is, the proposal that was accepted instantly by scientific men in
> 1859.
I really doubt you know what was accepted by scientific men in 1859.
> This proposal remains accepted and unaltered by science, unlike
> other of Darwin's auxiliary ideas. This description was a response to
> your request concerning microevolution. This request was made in the
> original context of my desire to discuss Sean Pitman's alleged
> contradictions. This is why I said evolution is a *continuous* process
> of slight-slow beneficial change by unguided material causation.
Which is wrong. Evolution is change, not necessarily "slight slow
beneficial change".
> Asterisk emphasis was deployed to imply that Sean's acceptance of
> microevolution is sourceless and subjective SINCE evolution was
> accepted, and is accepted, on the basis of being continuous, or
> unimpeded.
Remember your own beliefs are sourceless and subjective too.
Evolution is 'impeded' in species that go extinct.
> Sean cannot call the evolution that he accepts "evolution"
> or "microevolution" because the evolution that he accepts does not
> exist scientifically.
Of course it exists. It can be directly observed.
> He is, of course, free to postulate his own
> original ideas and support them. But my point is that he did not
> indicate or stipulate or account for any of these important facts in
> our brief exchanges. He, without hesitation, used the word "Evolution"
> and emphatically stated its veracity.
Because it is true. Even Sean isn't daft enough to claim evolution
doesn't happen.
> Said usage indicates plainly,
> absent any reservations, acceptance of Darwin's evolution. But as I
> just pointed out Sean does not accept Darwin's evolution. Sean's
> "evolution" is counterfeit since the evolution that has been accepted
> by science was accepted, and is accepted, without impediment.
Except, of course when the species goes extinct.
> Sean
> needs another term to differentiate his "evolution" from accepted
> evolution.
Why, considering it's exactly the same thing.
> Since Sean is a staunch supporter of nature reflecting
> Intelligence & Design I would suggest that he identify these
> "undeniable low level" evolutionary changes (as he describes them) to
> be "designed change."
There isn't any evidence of "designed change" as such. Changes in
populations appear to be due to random mutations, and either drift or
selection. If you feel the changes are being caused by God directly,
that's the same as a form of theistic evolution.
> This description would then support and
> correspond to Intelligence & Design, otherwise to advocate the
> veracity of low level evolution is to also advocate the veracity of
> unguided material causation (UMC) since evolution was accepted as
> being produced or driven by UMC.
As are all scientific concepts to explain phenomena. Ascribing
things to supernatural causes is religious, not scientific.
> Of course this front side of the same
> coin (causation and effect) exposes another apparent egregious
> contradiction: his vehement support of Intelligence & Design IN nature
> along with UMC. The latter says the former is absent (or not present)
> in nature.
That's where you make your most common error. You are claiming
things on behalf of "UMC" that "UMC" doesn't make.
> Of course Sean *might* say that his evolution is not caused
> by UMC. If so then his evolution is not evolution but pre-"Origin Of
> Species" Owenian modified Creationism because the evolution that was
> accepted, and is accepted, says Mind, along with His intelligence and
> power, is not seen in mindless natural selection (= unguided material
> causation).
That's again, your own belief, not one that's "accepted" by anyone
else.
> But in defiance of Dembski 1999, Sean accepts random
> mutation and I assume natural selection.
Because the evidence of such is too strong to deny.
>
> Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent
> Design" (2006).
This appears to be a book you've badly misunderstood.
>
> Of course, Howard, you and all evolutionists exist to say any
> interpretation of nature and evidence to support Intelligence and
> Design (= Divine causation) is false.
That's false. Any "interpretation" of such would be religious, not
necessarily false. There's no way to test such a belief, and no way
to falsify it.
> Of course you don't seem to
> mind Sean's evolution advocacy just his ID advocacy. If God has any
> direct role in biological phenomena then the same is not evolution,
> but Creationism-Design.
If God is involved, science has no way to tell. Such a belief is
theistic evolution, not "creationism-design".
> I see Sean's position awash in egregious
> contradiction and/or confusion, exactly what 'subjective' implies.
Ray, perhaps you should get that log of confusion and contradiction
out of your own eye, before picking at Sean.
>
> > > > >My rendering does not. Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a
> > > > > *continuous* process of slight-slow change. Dawkins 1986 laboriously
> > > > > confirms.
>
> > And a change in the frequency of different alleles in a population is
> > not "a *continuous* process of slight-slow change"? Would a dog giving
> > birth to a cat be what you would call "a *continuous* process of
> > slight-slow change"?
>
> Now you agree that my definition is accurate?
That's not what he said.
>
> All I am fighting for is for evolution to be defined outside of the
> microscopic world----like Darwin did.
Darwin defined it as "descent with modification", which places it in
the "microscopic" world, as all inheritable modification takes place
in the genes. Darwin didn't know about genes, but he did know that
variations were due to some process within the population.
> If you say that a change in gene
> frequencies is harmonious with "a continuous process of slight-slow
> change" then I must agree----you have me trapped since the latter is
> my own definition based on
> scholarship,
Ray, your "scholarship'' is substandard, at best. Change in gene
frequencies in a population over time, MAY produce slight slow change
(for some values of slow) in morphology, or it may simply be change in
the genes.
> however. I am only trapped in this context and I have
> never denied gene-centricism.
Actually, you've denied it many times.
> I must reiterate that the definition of
> evolution, even with a prefix attached, has more than one valid
> meaning
Not in biology, though.
>----this is the only thing I am saying and it is the only thing
> that I have ever said. Do you understand my position?
Yes, your position is wrongheaded, like usual. The word
"evolution" can be defined in several ways, but if you are talking
about biological evolution, there's really only one pertinent
definition.
>
> > Or would the change in finch beak shape in
> > response to a change in environmental resources be "a *continuous*
> > process of slight-slow change"? Or the change in the size and
> > coloration of male guppy tails? Or the change, under selective
> > pressure applied by humans, of the wolf into the teacup chihuahua?
> > All but the first (which has never happened) involve "a *continuous*
> > process of slight-slow change" by a *continuous* process of change in
> > allele frequencies in a population within a species.
>
> Your commentary incorporates my definition in a context of
> agreement----good.
Except that your "definition" is lacking. the continuous change
happens in the genes, not necessarily in the morphology.
> This means that it is not "piss poor....making this
> definition up out of [my] fevered imagination"?
Calling it "piss poor" is being kind.
snip
>
> > > Congratulations! You have just said what Paley said: selection
> > > prevents evolutionary change. There is nothing new under the sun.
>
> > I have never said otherwise. But the same process, selection, that
> > *can* prevent evolutionary change under conditions of environmental
> > stasis (albeit a dynamic stasis) can lead to rapid *change* under
> > conditions of environmental change. And *change* will always occur in
> > the absence of selection. In fact, *most* evolution involves
> > selectively neutral or near-neutral change.
>
> Howard, you cannot have NS preventing and causing evolutionary change?
Why not? Natural selection is SELECTION. Change itself is caused
by random mutations.
> Show me a citation by a evolutionist where NS is recognized to prevent
> evolutionary change?
Ray, look up 'stabilizing selection". For someone who claims to be
writing a paper that will destroy evolution, you display an amazing
ignorance of the basics of the subject.
http://bama.ua.edu/~ksuberkp/bsc114/Lectures/B28NATSEL.htm
"Stabilizing selection - most common phenotype favored, extreme
phenotypes selected against"
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Evolution.html
"Natural selection often works to weed out individuals at both
extremes of a range of phenotypes resulting in the reproductive
success of those near the mean. In such cases, the result is to
maintain the status quo."
also see:
http://www.cbc.yale.edu/old/cce/papers/AppSel/AppSel.html
http://www.starsandseas.com/SAS%20Evolution/SAS%20natselection/natselec_stabilizing.htm
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/rapidpdf/genetics.107.077057v1.pdf
>Of course you are probably referring to some
> aspect of Punctuated Equilibria?
Why would he be?
> Are you saying that NS is simply
> dormant during environmental stasis?
No, natural selection is ACTIVE during stasis, which is why the
morphology of a well adapted organism (such as penguins) doesn't
change radically, when the environment is the same. Natural
selection is ALWAYS active, on any population.
> Or are you saying that NS is a
> positive force preventing evolutionary
> change during environmental stasis?
It's and active force, not necessarily a "positive" force. Natural
selection, in cases where the environment stays the same, favors those
morphologies that work well, and discourages changes too far outside
the norm. When the environment changes, however, natural selection
can favor change in morphologies.
>
> When you say: "And *change* will always occur in the absence of
> selection" what causes *this* change?
Random mutations, and genetic drift. Remember, selection doesn't
cause change by itself, it gives direction to variations in the
population. Sometimes that direction is "right down the middle".
snip
>
> > I did. The existence of variation is evidence that species have the
> > *potential* to change. Your claim is that before 1859, science denied
> > that species have the *potential* to change. If that were the case,
> > then prior to 1859, scientists would have had to deny that organisms
> > vary (or only vary in a non-hereditary fashion).
>
> That was *part* of Darwin's argument. I think history of science
> scholars generally credit Darwin as establishing the fact of
> variation.
That would be wrong. Scientists knew about variation in populations,
even before there were scientists.
>Before Darwin essentialism was predominant. Existence of
> variation does not support evolution since each organism is already
> born unique.
huh? Does that make any sense to you? Existence of variation
provides the raw material for selection to work with. Each
organism is "born unique" but it's still a member of a particular
group, called a species. That species tends to gather around a
"norm". How large that norm is, depends on natural selection.
> Darwin, as you know, did not postulate individual
> evolution, but transmutation of populations.
Actually, he demonstrated that evolution didn't involve individuals
changing, but rather change in populations over time. Whole
populations of individuals don't change either. The populations
change as they get replaced by offspring bearing mutations.
> Variation is simply a
> component, a truism. *In and by itself* it does not support evolution.
It does, however provide the pool of different phenotypes which are
acted on by selection. If there were indeed no microevolution,
species would be immutable, and each individual would be identical.
As long as individuals in the population vary, and they reproduce
imperfectly, and the offspring are subject to selection,
microevolution is inevitable. You are foolish to deny this.
>
> No historian denies that science overwhelmingly accepted immutability
> before the rise of Darwinism.
No "historian" also denies that the belief that species were immutable
was shown to be utterly wrong.
> Prior to 1859 essentialism ruled.
And was shown to be an error.
> Essentialism means that similar species were held to be the same
> species because in "essence" they were the same or "essentially the
> same."
This sounds like another of Gene Scott's folk etymologies. The term
"essentialism" as seen in 18th and 19th centuries was the belief that
something could be reduced to it's "essence".
http://www.answers.com/topic/essentialism
"essentialism"
"The philosophical notion that every phenomenon can be broken down
into primary, inalterable properties—essences—which determine its
nature; if these essences are fully understood, then the phenomenon
will be fully understood. But description and knowledge are socially
constructed, and therefore flexible, and conceptualized in terms
informed by theory."
The idea was that a species could be described by a single "essential"
example, like the "essential dog". or the "essential cat". The
concept failed in comparison to real observation, as species didn't
resolve themselves into neat categories, but were, instead fuzzy, and
difficult to classify exactly.
> Darwin's Beagle data ultimately proved that very similar
> appearing species were actually separate species and not the same.
More importantly, he showed that some species, which may appear quite
similar, are actually only distantly related. For example the
Thalycine ,or "Tasmanian Wolf", while appearing to be a caind, was
actually a marsupial.
> Creationist scientist, orthinologist John Gould, was instrumental in
> establishing this fact for Darwin.
Which is one of the reasons why scientists ultimately rejected
unscientific creationism, in favor of the scientific concept of
evolution. . Gould's work showed that species did vary, and weren't
immutable. Gould may have held onto this belief, but his work was
instrumental in showing that species change. See:
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~jonsmith/gould.html
>
> > > Of course variability exists within species. No two organisms are
> > > identical, even so called "identical twins" are not identical. Darwin,
> > > by no means, showed species to have evolved.
>
> > We were talking about the definition of microevolution, not
> > speciation. Microevolution is evolution below the level of new
> > species formation. If you want to talk about speciation and how
> > impossible speciation is, then you have to use the term 'speciation'
> > and not 'microevolution'. Otherwise you will simply come off as
> > merely another in a very long line of ignorant creationists rather
> > than the soon-to-be author of the brilliant text that destroys
> > Darwinism.
>
> Non-sequitur; or quote mine.
This demonstrates you don't understand either term.
snip
> > Quote-mining 'evolutionary authorities' yet again so that they appear
> > to be saying stuff that they really don't believe will not win you
> > converts. It will just put you further into the long and dishonorable
> > coterie of creationist liars-for-Jeebus quote-mine regurgitators [if
> > truth were food, they would all die bulemics]. If you want to be the
> > author of the first really good critique of Darwinism, I would suggest
> > that you rely on evidence rather than quotes (mined or not) from
> > authors who would think you are full of it.
>
> They plainly admit to stasis.
The "admit" that stasis and change are the patterns seen in the fossil
record. You are ignoring the examples of change.
> There are two major interpretations of
> stasis. They subscribe to the interpretation that I reject.
Because you are ignorant, and refuse to learn.
> Establishing stasis, using pro-evolution authorities, is not a quote
> mine.
It is, if you simply try to suggest that Steven Jay Gould, and
Eldredge didn't accept that change is also seen in the fossil
record.
>
> > > There
> > > is no pattern of evolutionary transitions in the fossil series.
>
> > This is irrelevant when it comes to microevolution, Ray.
> > Microevolution is evolution within a species. Besides, do you know
> > how much change in phenotype can occur in only a few hundred years
> > (think pooches) or even less (think finch beaks). Unless you have a
> > fossil record that can sample time with at least that frequency, you
> > will get a historical record that looks like the one we see for most
> > fossils (which are often separated by 10s of thousands if not millions
> > of years).
>
> > > We can
> > > establish this fact using secular scientists alone, employed by big
> > > corporations, who do not care about the Creation-Evolution debate.
>
> > Really? Can you tell me where they have published this refutation of
> > evolutionary expectations?
>
> Yes, I can.
So, why don't you?
>
> Are you denying stasis to be the predominant fact seen in
> paleontology?
I suggest that Howard is denying that stasis is the only "fact" seen
in paleontology. Stasis is seen, along with the pattern of
branching change. You are just ignoring the obvious examples of
change.
DJT
Seanpit
The scientific method does not presuppose non-deliberate natural
processes as being responsible for all phenomena. All that science
demands is that the predictions of the hypothesis be testable in a
falsifiable manner.
Please do quote the part of the paper that specifically demonstrates a
close *genetic* gap between any of the proposed steps in flagellar
evolution - or even one of the steps that has actually been observed
to be crossed by RM/NS.
I specifically respond, in detail, to Matzke's arguments at:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > What is so special about a simple signal? Why is a simple signal
> > "special"? Don't you think that nature is capable or producing
> > informationally simplistic stuff? What about a rounded pebble?
> > Simple? Certainly. Naturally designable? Yep. So, where is this
> > inherent magic of simplicity when it comes to detecting ETI?
>
> Nothing at all about it is magic. They are searching for narrow band
> emitters exhibiting Doppler shift being characteristic of having been
> emitted from a planetary body in orbit around a star. We have no
> explanation for how a powerful narrow band transmission could originate
> from a planetary body, so it seems reasonable to conclude that if we
> find one, it's pretty interesting, but it doesn't tell us anything about
> the intelligence that creates it (if any) even if we do find it.
SETI will say that such a signal is the result of deliberate
intelligence. That is what makes it "interesting" even without
knowing anything else about the intelligence. That's irrelevant to
the basic hypothesis of ETI.
> If the SETI project "succeeds" in their current effort, they will not
> have confirmed intelligent origin for the signals they are after.
If you are talking 100% confirmation, you're correct. But no
scientific hypothesis demands this level of "confirmation". The SETI
hypothesis is in fact that if they detect the signal they are looking
for and confirm that it is actually coming from outer space that this
signal will in fact be presented as very good evidence ETI.
> Their
> current methodology has no way to to ascertain intelligent origin of
> radio signals.
Not according to SETI scientists. They do in fact hypothesize that
the signal they are looking for would be very good evidence of ETI if
ever found.
> > Surprise surprise surprise - - the detection of intelligent activity
> > is not based on either the detection of simplicity or complexity
> > alone. The detection of deliberate artifact is based on finding stuff
> > that non-deliberate nature cannot do, but that at least human-level
> > creativity can do. That's it.
>
> We don't know what non-deliberate nature can do. Back in 1967, when
> Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish detected the "LGM-1", they had no idea
> what could cause the 1.337 second period signal that they observed.
> They considered the possibility that it was intelligently designed.
> Upon later study, it was determined that this was radio emissions from a
> pular. Nature could do what nobody considered before.
We don't know what non-deliberate nature can do with 100% certainty.
But, again, that's not needed before a scientific hypothesis can be
adequately proposed based on what we do know. That is, after all, the
whole point of science - i.e., to be able to predict stuff to at least
some level of usefulness over completely random guessing when less
than perfect information is available. The fact that previous
hypotheses have in fact been falsified in science does not remove the
usefulness of science. Real science is always risky because of the
constant possibility of being wrong.
hersheyh
Ray, in science we try to use *appropriate* and testable definitions
that allow us to test what is being defined. Since *microevolution*
is evolution within a species, it makes sense (at least in science) to
restrict the definition of evolution to processes that occur within a
species. Which is why I used the definition of evolution involving
"change in the genome" and not "speciation" or "fossil record" or
other things that, while important when we are talking about evolution
beyond the level of species, are not relevant to *microevolution*.
I used the words "valid definition", not "valid meaning". Since we
were not talking about *all* of the aspects of "evolution"; we are
talking about those aspects of "evolution" that are relevant to
*microevolution*. Since *microevolution* is evolution *within* a
species, aspects of "evolution" that involve speciation or common
descent are irrelevant. However, change in the nature of the genome
over time is not irrelevant to *microevolution*.
> Next: I disagree that variation and variability within species is
> evidence of microevolution. Said facts are evidence of 'designed
> change.'
In order for that to be the case, *mutation* (random or not) must not
exist. That would be inconsistent with much experimental evidence and
everything we know about genetics. If *mutation* occurs, then
variation is not "designed change", it is change which is an
inevitable consequence of the chemical nature of genetic systems.
Certainly there is no evidence at all that there is some designer who
creates mutations when they occur. And no evidence that all variation
always existed. Instead, there is massive evidence that mutation
occurs, occurs in the absence of the necessity for even an invisible
supernatural designer, and is the source of all genetic variation.
> > One cannot use the definitions involving
> > speciation or common descent beyond the species boundary.
>
> I have done no such thing. I have described Darwin's proposal, that
> is, the proposal that was accepted instantly by scientific men in
> 1859. This proposal remains accepted and unaltered by science, unlike
> other of Darwin's auxiliary ideas. This description was a response to
> your request concerning microevolution.
Darwin was not describing microevolution in his books. And you
specifically said that you were claiming that *microevolution* did not
happen. *You* were trying to inappropriately use and bring in fossil
stasis as evidence against *microevolution*. That tells me you don't
know what *microevolution* is.
> This request was made in the
> original context of my desire to discuss Sean Pitman's alleged
> contradictions. This is why I said evolution is a *continuous* process
> of slight-slow beneficial change by unguided material causation.
And that is inadequate as a description of *microevolution*. It is
even inadequate as a description of *macroevolution* or just plain
*evolution*. Although Darwin, because he thought genetics was
*continuous* rather than discrete and particulate, looked at traits
like leg length or the camera eye and saw (quite reasonably)
continuous variation by a slight-slow process of selection for
"benefit" (aka, greater relative reproductive success), modern
evolutionary ideas understand a role for qualitative genetic variation
as well. But we were talking about *microevolution*, not evolution as
Darwin saw it nor evolution in general. And the terms are not to be
conflated into a big muddle, like you do.
> Asterisk emphasis was deployed to imply that Sean's acceptance of
> microevolution is sourceless and subjective SINCE evolution was
> accepted, and is accepted, on the basis of being continuous, or
> unimpeded. Sean cannot call the evolution that he accepts "evolution"
> or "microevolution" because the evolution that he accepts does not
> exist scientifically.
I did not define *microevolution* as "evolution that Sean Pitman can
accept". If that is *your* definition of *microevolution*, I
respectively disagree with that definition. No scientist would define
*microevolution* as the level of "evolution that Sean Pitman can
accept". For one thing, he is not important enough, other than, like
yourself, being an object of mild amusement. For another, such a
definition of *microevolution* is far too subjective. It can only be
tested by asking Sean Pitman if this is a level of evolution he can
accept.
Seems to me that your problem is that you think that I give a shit
what Sean Pitman thinks. Trust me, the definition of *microevolution*
that I presented did not take into account *anything* that Sean Pitman
believes. The only question is if you think that my definition is a
reasonable definition of *microevolution* and is testable.
>
> Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent
> Design" (2006).
>
> Of course, Howard, you and all evolutionists exist to say any
> interpretation of nature and evidence to support Intelligence and
> Design (= Divine causation) is false. Of course you don't seem to
> mind Sean's evolution advocacy just his ID advocacy. If God has any
> direct role in biological phenomena then the same is not evolution,
> but Creationism-Design. I see Sean's position awash in egregious
> contradiction and/or confusion, exactly what 'subjective' implies.
>
> > > > >My rendering does not. Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a
> > > > > *continuous* process of slight-slow change. Dawkins 1986 laboriously
> > > > > confirms.
>
> > And a change in the frequency of different alleles in a population is
> > not "a *continuous* process of slight-slow change"? Would a dog giving
> > birth to a cat be what you would call "a *continuous* process of
> > slight-slow change"?
>
> Now you agree that my definition is accurate?
Not if you think the idea of a dog giving birth to a cat is
*microevolution* or even "a *continuous* process of slight-slow
change"? And I do NOT think that your definition is a good definition
of *microevolution* *specifically*. It is far too vague to be a good
definition of "evolution within a species" (in addition to being
inaccurate to a modern understanding of evolution: evolution need not
always be "continuous" and need not always be "slight-slow". But
evolution within a species must always be
> All I am fighting for is for evolution to be defined outside of the
> microscopic world----like Darwin did.
My testable definition of microevolution (change in allele frequencies
in a population) applies equally well to organisms of the microscopic
world and the large organisms of the macroscopic world. Or perhaps
you have some personal definition of "microscopic" that differs from
"organisms you need a microscope to see".
> If you say that a change in gene
> frequencies is harmonious with "a continuous process of slight-slow
> change" then I must agree----you have me trapped since the latter is
> my own definition based on
> scholarship, however.
It certainly is your own definition. If you based it on
"scholarship", that scholarship must not have an understanding of
modern biology. Evolution is certainly a "process of change -- in
phenotype and genotype of a population." For many specific features,
that change can be "continuous" (but only if there is continued
*selection for change*) and it can be "slight-slow". But neither of
those are necessary requirements. Perhaps you have only read 19th
century sources?
> I am only trapped in this context and I have
> never denied gene-centricism. I must reiterate that the definition of
> evolution, even with a prefix attached, has more than one valid
> meaning----this is the only thing I am saying and it is the only thing
> that I have ever said. Do you understand my position?
Not really. I think your 'position' is muddled, not to the point
(which is *specifically* microevolution), and, at best, fixated on the
evolution of 1860 and not evolution of 2008. Science is not what
fundamentalist theology claims to be (but isn't, really). Science
revels in change.
> > Or would the change in finch beak shape in
> > response to a change in environmental resources be "a *continuous*
> > process of slight-slow change"? Or the change in the size and
> > coloration of male guppy tails? Or the change, under selective
> > pressure applied by humans, of the wolf into the teacup chihuahua?
> > All but the first (which has never happened) involve "a *continuous*
> > process of slight-slow change" by a *continuous* process of change in
> > allele frequencies in a population within a species.
>
> Your commentary incorporates my definition in a context of
> agreement----good. This means that it is not "piss poor....making this
> definition up out of [my] fevered imagination"?
Notice that all three of the above represent changes in the allele
frequencies in populations of these species, not speciation to
different species. The first is something that happened over 20
years. Is that "slight-slow"? The second can happen in a generation
or two. Is that slight-slow? The last was a process over 10,000
years. Is that slight-slow? In *geological* time-frames, all of
these are incredibly fast changes. Were the changes "continuous"? My
guess is that in the case of wolf to chihuahua, the pattern was one of
rapid change in one feature, such as a loss of "wildness" (one of the
first domesticated features bred for), then a long period of stasis,
then another period of change in another feature, say hair length or
color, then another period of stasis, then... I guess that wouldn't
be "continuous" by some definitions. But all are certainly
*microevolution* because they all are evolution within a species and
involve a change in allele frequency in a population of organisms
either constituting the species or a population within the species.
> > > > I would say that evolution is an *inevitable* process of change that
> > > > is only slowed by the conservative nature of natural selection at some
> > > > loci. Given the reality of mutation, only conservative natural
> > > > selection can prevent evolution. And, even so, it can only do it
> > > > dynamically. That is, mutation occurs and selection selective and
> > > > detrimentally affects the reproductive success of individuals with
> > > > that mutation so that the frequency decreases or is eliminated.
>
> > > Congratulations! You have just said what Paley said: selection
> > > prevents evolutionary change. There is nothing new under the sun.
Selection is selection. Selection can be selection *for* change or
selection *against* change. Both can be selected for. The opposite
of selection is not *stasis*, since stasis requires selection nor is
it selection for change. The opposite of selection is *non-selection*,
which leads to random drift and fixation. Both selection for change
and non-selection have the same observable and testable consequence: a
change in allele frequency (and any phenotype affected by that change
in allele frequency).
> > I have never said otherwise. But the same process, selection, that
> > *can* prevent evolutionary change under conditions of environmental
> > stasis (albeit a dynamic stasis) can lead to rapid *change* under
> > conditions of environmental change. And *change* will always occur in
> > the absence of selection. In fact, *most* evolution involves
> > selectively neutral or near-neutral change.
>
> Howard, you cannot have NS preventing and causing evolutionary change?
Sure it can. Not at the same time, of course. But selection is
selection and not direction. You can *select* to have the same meal
at McDonald's you always get, or you can *select* a change in the meal
you decide to eat. [Note. This analogy involves selection by an
intelligent agent, not a dumb blind environmental condition. But that
is not the point. The point is that selection is selection and not
direction. The geography of a landscape can select or determine the
channel a river will run in. The direction of the river may be in the
same direction it was headed before it encountered that new geography,
or in a different direction. But the selection of the river's
direction is still due to the nature of the geography in that
location.]
> Show me a citation by a evolutionist where NS is recognized to prevent
> evolutionary change? Of course you are probably referring to some
> aspect of Punctuated Equilibria? Are you saying that NS is simply
> dormant during environmental stasis? Or are you saying that NS is a
> positive force preventing evolutionary
> change during environmental stasis?
Look up the terms "stabilizing selection", "directional selection",
and, if you want to really blow your mind, "diversifying selection" in
genetic textbooks, evolution texts, or even some college-level
introductory biology texts. They will pretty much all describe it.
And, yes, the stasis phase of Punctuated equilibria would be when, at
least for those features identified in fossils, there is stabilizing
selection. Typically, this is during times when the environment is
stable. No, NS is not "dormant" during environmental stasis. It is
actively reducing the relative fitness of individuals who are born
with, say, heights that are far away from the population mean in
either direction. As a consequence, the variance in height may
decrease between birth and reproductive age, but the mean height does
not. Then the next generation will have the same mean but more
variance at birth and selection will again weed out the outliers.
That is "stabilizing selection". In "directional selection", the
environment favors taller individuals and selectively removes shorter
ones. This changes the population mean height between birth and
reproduction. And the next generation, although it will "regress
toward the mean" will be taller than the one before.
Natural selection is not a "force". It is a description of a type of
interaction between a population of organisms wrt phenotypes expressed
and its local environment.
> When you say: "And *change* will always occur in the absence of
> selection" what causes *this* change?
Drift. Chance alone. If you start with a population with 30% allele
b and 70% allele B and there is absolutely no selective difference
(measured by relative reproductive success) with any combination of
these alleles, the next generation should (according to the Hardy-
Weinberg rule) have 30% b and 70% B. But that assumes that population
size is infinitely large. In a smaller than infinite population, the
next generation might have 31% b and 69% B by chance alone. But, as
many a gambler has learned to his detriment, chance has no memory.
The expected values for the next generation, according to H-W, would
be 31% and 69%, NOT the original 30% and 70%. Basically, the % b and
% B will wander like a drunk by chance alone across possible %s
*until* the drunk, by chance, hits the ditch of either 0% b and 100% B
or the opposite ditch of 100% b and 0% B. About 30% of the time the
drunk will wind up in the 100% b (given our start of 30% b). Such
change is due to chance alone and, in the absence of selection, is
unpreventable.
> > > > > Species, in 1859, were suddenly seen as possessing the
> > > > > *potential* to change.
>
> > > > Even Paley recognized variation within a species. Are you claiming
> > > > that Paley was wrong and that there is NO variation at all within a
> > > > species? If you have genetic variation, you have the potential to
> > > > change allele frequencies.
>
> > > Non-sequitur. You should actually read what was said before typing
> > > your reply.
>
> > I did. The existence of variation is evidence that species have the
> > *potential* to change. Your claim is that before 1859, science denied
> > that species have the *potential* to change. If that were the case,
> > then prior to 1859, scientists would have had to deny that organisms
> > vary (or only vary in a non-hereditary fashion).
>
> That was *part* of Darwin's argument. I think history of science
> scholars generally credit Darwin as establishing the fact of
> variation.
Variation was known well before Darwin.
> Before Darwin essentialism was predominant. Existence of
> variation does not support evolution since each organism is already
> born unique. Darwin, as you know, did not postulate individual
> evolution, but transmutation of populations. Variation is simply a
> component, a truism. *In and by itself* it does not support evolution.
When you believed that the world was only 6000 years old, variation
would, by itself, not necessarily lead one to transmutation (aka
speciation). But even Linneaus was recognizing that species were
perhaps not immutable. But the science of evolution did not stop with
Darwin. The new geology was a crucial change that allowed bold new
thinkers to think in terms of variation leading to speciation. But,
for *microevolution*, it doesn't matter whether one is or isn't an
essentialist still, since microevolution is evolution within a
species. One can reject the idea of speciation and still recognize
that there is evolution within each species. And one can understand
the mechanisms by which that microevolution within a species occurs.
> No historian denies that science overwhelmingly accepted immutability
> before the rise of Darwinism. Prior to 1859 essentialism ruled.
> Essentialism means that similar species were held to be the same
> species because in "essence" they were the same or "essentially the
> same."
Nope. That is not what "essentialism" is. Essentialism is a
philosophical idea in which variation is merely trivial changes in an
essential idea of an object. A table may be wood or metal or have four
legs or six. But it still has the "essence" of tableness. In
population thinking, the variation is more important in classifying
and the "essence" of tableness can be pretty hard to find in some of
the variations.
> Darwin's Beagle data ultimately proved that very similar
> appearing species were actually separate species and not the same.
> Creationist scientist, orthinologist John Gould, was instrumental in
> establishing this fact for Darwin.
>
> > > Of course variability exists within species. No two organisms are
> > > identical, even so called "identical twins" are not identical. Darwin,
> > > by no means, showed species to have evolved.
>
> > We were talking about the definition of microevolution, not
> > speciation. Microevolution is evolution below the level of new
> > species formation. If you want to talk about speciation and how
> > impossible speciation is, then you have to use the term 'speciation'
> > and not 'microevolution'. Otherwise you will simply come off as
> > merely another in a very long line of ignorant creationists rather
> > than the soon-to-be author of the brilliant text that destroys
> > Darwinism.
>
> Non-sequitur; or quote mine.
Huh? Where is the above either a non-sequitur or a quote mine? There
is a difference between microevolution and speciation. That they are
muddled concepts in your mind is your problem, not mine.
>
> > > He showed their
> > > *potential* to change in a scientific context that accepted strict
> > > immutability. Again, this is why evolution is an interpretation of
> > > evidence. This is why evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.
>
> > It is when you are discussing microevolution.
>
> > > Evolution is deduced to have happened after the alleged fact based on
> > > several lines of evidence, which does not include the geological
> > > fossil record. I will have no trouble in my paper showing many big
> > > name evolutionary authorities plainly admitting the latter fact.
>
> > Quote-mining 'evolutionary authorities' yet again so that they appear
> > to be saying stuff that they really don't believe will not win you
> > converts. It will just put you further into the long and dishonorable
> > coterie of creationist liars-for-Jeebus quote-mine regurgitators [if
> > truth were food, they would all die bulemics]. If you want to be the
> > author of the first really good critique of Darwinism, I would suggest
> > that you rely on evidence rather than quotes (mined or not) from
> > authors who would think you are full of it.
>
> They plainly admit to stasis. There are two major interpretations of
> stasis. They subscribe to the interpretation that I reject.
> Establishing stasis, using pro-evolution authorities, is not a quote
> mine.
What are the two major interpretations of "stasis"? In mine, the
stasis is dynamic and requires stabilizing selection. What is your
interpretation? And, more importantly, what evidence do you have for
yours?
> > > There
> > > is no pattern of evolutionary transitions in the fossil series.
>
> > This is irrelevant when it comes to microevolution, Ray.
> > Microevolution is evolution within a species. Besides, do you know
> > how much change in phenotype can occur in only a few hundred years
> > (think pooches) or even less (think finch beaks). Unless you have a
> > fossil record that can sample time with at least that frequency, you
> > will get a historical record that looks like the one we see for most
> > fossils (which are often separated by 10s of thousands if not millions
> > of years).
>
> > > We can
> > > establish this fact using secular scientists alone, employed by big
> > > corporations, who do not care about the Creation-Evolution debate.
>
> > Really? Can you tell me where they have published this refutation of
> > evolutionary expectations?
>
> Yes, I can.
>
> Are you denying stasis to be the predominant fact seen in
> paleontology?
No. But stasis (or stabilizing selection) in biology is a dynamic
stasis by the nature of our genetic system. It is, typically, a
consequence of a stable environment. And, again, paleontological
stasis is certainly irrelevant to whether or not microevolution can
occur.
wf3h
> On Oct 14, 5:59 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > They call it "Computer Science" too, but it isn't.
>
> So SETI scientists aren't really looking for ETI? - even though that
> is what their name says they're doing? Fascinating . . .
SETI has nothing to do with evolution. evolution is based on chemistry
whereas SETI is not. the mechanisms are not even REMOTELY related
in addition, SETI looks for intelligence by comparing 'intelligent'
radio signals to natural ones
but seanpit claims ALL DNA is intelligently designed...so he takes as
a conclusion what he's trying to prove...there's no basis for
comparison since there's no 'natural' DNA to compare.
that's why his SETI analogy is nonsense.
> >
> > But they aren't looking for those.
>
> That's beside the point. The point is how does one detect an artifact
> when one sees one?
by comparing it to a natural one.
since you think ALL DNA is supernatural, such a comparison is
impossible.
>
> Surprise surprise surprise - - the detection of intelligent activity
> is not based on either the detection of simplicity or complexity
> alone. The detection of deliberate artifact is based on finding stuff
> that non-deliberate nature cannot do, but that at least human-level
> creativity can do. That's it.
unfortunately, this leaves out seanpit's SETI analogy. SETI is not
chemistry. chemistry can, and does create complex systems, as seanpit
has admitted.
in addition, seanpit thinks there is no natural DNA. his argument is
like saying you can detect the difference between a natural piece of
granite and an intelligently designed one if the ID one is highly
polished, is a cube, etc. but if ALL granite were highly polished
cubes, no comparison would be possible.
.
>
> Why are they looking for very simple radiosignals? - do you think?
> Why is a simple highly symmetrical polished granite cube an obvious
> artifact - even if it were found on an alien planet?
and if ALL granite were highly polished cubes? if nature could produce
those? how would you detect design?
Again, it's not
> about simplicity alone here. It is about knowing the limits of what
> nature can do with a particular type of material - like granite,
> radiosignals, or DNA.
so tell me where is there a piece of DNA that is natural?
>
> Again, the presence or lack of "information" is irrelevant in and of
> itself. The only thing that is relevant are the questions, 1) Can
> nature produce the particular phenomenon in question? and 2) Can at
> least human-level intelligence do the job?
seanpit seems to think nature can NOT produce DNA at all. how does he
know this?
he doesn't. not at all. it's why he keeps bringing up the false
analogy with SETI...he has no mechanism of his own and when he DOES
compare chemistry to radiowaves, he has to admit chemistry CAN and
DOES create complex systems.
thus he has no argument except a failed one.
>
> > Except DNA aren't granite cubes. Arguing by analogy isn't valid if
> > the things aren't actually analogous.
>
> Why is such a granite cube an obvious artifact? Hmmmm? The answer to
> that question is what is analogous here. It is also the basis behind
> Shostak's statement that an informationally complex message, like a
> mathematical sequence, would clearly indicate a true artifact.
so tell me where is there a NATURAL piece of DNA similar to a piece of
unpolished granite...that i can compare intelligently designed DNA to.
you argument is based on an analogy
it's faulty: it compares chemistry to radio waves. they are NOT
comparable
your argument has, as a CRUCIAL component...being able to compare
natural to non natural objects...you yourself talk about polished
cubes of granite vs. rough granite.
but you can not tell us where to find NATURAL DNA to compare
intelligently designed DNA to.
and you've admitted protein chemistry is completely natural even
though it's very complex
your argument has collapsed. it's not science
wf3h
> On Oct 15, 2:18 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
it's pretty interesting, but it doesn't tell us anything about
> > the intelligence that creates it (if any) even if we do find it.
>
> SETI will say that such a signal is the result of deliberate
> intelligence. That is what makes it "interesting" even without
> knowing anything else about the intelligence. That's irrelevant to
> the basic hypothesis of ETI.
the basic hypothesis is that we can compare and differentiate a
natural radio signal to one that's created by intelligence
but seanpit has eliminated any concept of natural DNA. he thinks it's
ALL intelligently designed. how does he know?
he doesn't. he made it up. since ALL DNA is ID, there's no natural DNA
to compare it to. thus his argument is circular. DNA is ID and ID
proves DNA is ID.
very creationist indeed.
>
> > If the SETI project "succeeds" in their current effort, they will not
> > have confirmed intelligent origin for the signals they are after.
>
> If you are talking 100% confirmation, you're correct. But no
> scientific hypothesis demands this level of "confirmation". The SETI
> hypothesis is in fact that if they detect the signal they are looking
> for and confirm that it is actually coming from outer space that this
> signal will in fact be presented as very good evidence ETI.
SETI is a bad analogy for DNA. DNA is chemistry. chemistry, as seanpit
has admitted, can NATURALLY create complex systems...such as proteins.
so seanpits argument is:
1. we can tell when something is ID by comparing it to something
that's natural
2. there is NO natural DNA. it's ALL ID.
3. nature can produce complex systems without intelligence
and this proves DNA is intelligently designed
how is this proved? seanpit is rather coy in the details, it seems.
>
> > Their
> > current methodology has no way to to ascertain intelligent origin of
> > radio signals.
>
> Not according to SETI scientists. They do in fact hypothesize that
> the signal they are looking for would be very good evidence of ETI if
> ever found.
the mechanisms of chemistry are not those of creating radiowaves
seanpit focuses on SETI to hide his lack of scientific rigor in
asserting that DNA is intelligently designed. if he HAD a mechanism
for the intelligent design of DNA he'd tell us.
but he doesn't. so he tries to hide this by use of a failed and bad
analogy.
it's like saying that, if i watch the 'honeymooners' i can tell a cow
is intelligently designed.
its' garbage.
John Stockwell
Indeed, science does not presuppose "non-deliberate natural
processes". It presupposes that observed regularity can be
separated from regularity induced by observational method. That is
what "natural law" is. Indeed, it is a necessary condition that
hypotheses generated by theories be testable. This is a
necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition for science.
Type III secretory structures contain a sufficient genetic
similarity to conclude common ancestry. That pretty much
kills the ID claim, because ID does not propose an alternate
mechanism. You can claim we don't understand how the
exact path of evolution occurred, but unless you propose
a mechanism, you have nothing. ID does not even have
a speculation as to how these structures originated. Indeed,
ID does not have the capacity for generating any scientific
hypotheses about mechanisms, only naysaying.
>
> < snip >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
-John
Seanpit
> On Oct 15, 9:52 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 15, 2:18 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> it's pretty interesting, but it doesn't tell us anything about
>
> > > the intelligence that creates it (if any) even if we do find it.
>
> > SETI will say that such a signal is the result of deliberate
> > intelligence. That is what makes it "interesting" even without
> > knowing anything else about the intelligence. That's irrelevant to
> > the basic hypothesis of ETI.
>
> the basic hypothesis is that we can compare and differentiate a
> natural radio signal to one that's created by intelligence
>
> but seanpit has eliminated any concept of natural DNA. he thinks it's
> ALL intelligently designed. how does he know?
It's not DNA in question here. It is the information carried by DNA
that is in question here. What is the origin of that information? -
of the order of DNA upon which it is based? As I've explained to you
many times before, non-deliberate nature can in fact produce many
different kinds of DNA sequences without the need for pre-existing
high-level information. However, when it comes to producing
informationally complex systems beyond the 1000aa threshold, no non-
deliberate force of nature can do that without relying on the same pre-
existing information.
> he doesn't. he made it up. since ALL DNA is ID, there's no natural DNA
> to compare it to.
Not all DNA sequences are the result of ID. That's your strawman
mischaracterization of my position. I've specifically told you, over
and over again, that low-levels of functional complexity, below the
1000aa threshold, can in fact be produced de novo, by non-deliberate
forces of nature, without the need to invoke ID.
> thus his argument is circular. DNA is ID and ID
> proves DNA is ID. very creationist indeed.
Your strawman is what's circular here . . .
> > > If the SETI project "succeeds" in their current effort, they will not
> > > have confirmed intelligent origin for the signals they are after.
>
> > If you are talking 100% confirmation, you're correct. But no
> > scientific hypothesis demands this level of "confirmation". The SETI
> > hypothesis is in fact that if they detect the signal they are looking
> > for and confirm that it is actually coming from outer space that this
> > signal will in fact be presented as very good evidence ETI.
>
> SETI is a bad analogy for DNA. DNA is chemistry. chemistry, as seanpit
> has admitted, can NATURALLY create complex systems...such as proteins.
>
> so seanpits argument is:
>
> 1. we can tell when something is ID by comparing it to something
> that's natural
We can tell when something is ID by comparing it to the known limits
of non-deliberate natural forces working with the same material. Non-
deliberate forces working with information in DNA have very clear
limitations when it comes to producing novel functional forms of DNA
beyond very low levels of functional informational complexity - well
shy of what humans can do when it comes to producing informational
complexity in the material of DNA.
> 2. there is NO natural DNA. it's ALL ID.
Not true. There are lots of non-deliberately naturally produced DNA
sequences. You keep misrepresenting my position here despite being
corrected time and again.
> 3. nature can produce complex systems without intelligence
> and this proves DNA is intelligently designed
> how is this proved? seanpit is rather coy in the details, it seems.
Non-deliberate nature can only produce low levels of informational
complexity with the material of DNA. It has not been observed to
produce functional informational complexity beyond the 1000aa
threshold. That's a directly observable fact.
> > > Their
> > > current methodology has no way to to ascertain intelligent origin of
> > > radio signals.
>
> > Not according to SETI scientists. They do in fact hypothesize that
> > the signal they are looking for would be very good evidence of ETI if
> > ever found.
>
> the mechanisms of chemistry are not those of creating radiowaves.
The mechanism of creating non-deliberate naturally produced radiowaves
is also not the same as the mechanism to produce artifactual
radiowaves. That is why SETI scientists think they can detect ETI by
looking at radiowaves. That is also the very same basis for detecting
intelligence by looking at any other material that goes beyond the
known limitations of non-deliberate natural processes which are still
within at least human-level creativity.
> seanpit focuses on SETI to hide his lack of scientific rigor in
> asserting that DNA is intelligently designed. if he HAD a mechanism
> for the intelligent design of DNA he'd tell us.
You keep forgetting that humans have producing high-level functional
information within the material of DNA that goes far beyond anything
non-deliberate natural mechanisms have been observed to achieve.
> but he doesn't. so he tries to hide this by use of a failed and bad
> analogy.
> it's like saying that, if i watch the 'honeymooners' i can tell a cow
> is intelligently designed.
> its' garbage.
Or that a particular radiosignal is intelligently designed? Come on
now. . . think just a little bit before making statements like this.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > > Falsifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for
> > > a theory to be scientific. FYI, the root of science is actually
> > > the notion of "natural law", without which we would have nothing
> > > to test or to theorize about.
> > The scientific method does not presuppose non-deliberate natural
> > processes as being responsible for all phenomena. All that science
> > demands is that the predictions of the hypothesis be testable in a
> > falsifiable manner.
>
> Indeed, science does not presuppose "non-deliberate natural
> processes". It presupposes that observed regularity can be
> separated from regularity induced by observational method. That is
> what "natural law" is. Indeed, it is a necessary condition that
> hypotheses generated by theories be testable. This is a
> necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition for science.
The observational method of research "concerns the planned watching,
recording, and analysis of observed behavior as it occurs in a natural
setting. The observational method is a non-experimental design. The
absence of an independent variable does not allow any cause-effect
conclusions to be drawn from observational research."
So, you see, there is no inductive conclusion achievable via
observational method. Observational method is simply a description of
the process of collecting raw data. Interpreting that data via the
rest of the scientific method is what turns raw data into actual
science - a science that produces a hypothesis to explain the data
that actually makes testable potentially falsifiable predictions about
the future.
Your conclusion of CD based on sequence similarities says nothing at
all about the likely mechanism responsible for the functional
differences between your proposed steppingstones. The hypothesis of CD
does not by itself go against the hypothesis of ID when it comes to
the proposed mechanism used to produce the phenomenon in question.
The question is, do you have a known non-deliberate mechanism that can
actually cross the gap of functional differences? The answer to that
question, at this level of complexity, is no. The other question is,
can human-level intelligence cross these gaps. The answer to that
question is demonstrably yes - we have indeed crossed such gaps at
such levels of functional complexity.
Consider also that the actual mechanism extraterrestrial intelligences
would necessarily use to produce the radiosignals SETI scientists are
looking for isn't actually known. The only thing SETI scientists know
for sure is how such signals could have been produced since humans
produce such signals. A potential mechanism is also known for
producing high-level biosystems since humans have in fact produced
such systems - far beyond the observed limitations for the non-
deliberate force of RM/NS.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Earle Jones
<54a52b0f-bb39-487b...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 5:05 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Everybody is an atheist except Ray, nobody is a Real Christian except
> Ray, and Ray Speaks For God."
>
> (yawn)
>
*
Lenny:
Actually Ray speaks for God only indirectly. Ray speaks for Gene Scott,
who speaks for God.
earle
*
wf3h
>
> Consider also that the actual mechanism extraterrestrial intelligences
> would necessarily use to produce the radiosignals SETI scientists are
> looking for isn't actually known. The only thing SETI scientists know
> for sure is how such signals could have been produced since humans
> produce such signals. A potential mechanism is also known for
> producing high-level biosystems since humans have in fact produced
> such systems - far beyond the observed limitations for the non-
> deliberate force of RM/NS.
>
although seanpit's analogy between ID and SETI is wrong, he doesn't
realize why it's wrong
it's wrong because radiowaves are not chemistry. chemistry can create
amazingly complex systems...as seanpit has admitted.
in addition, seanpit presumes ALL DNA is intelligently designed. his
argument is like saying you can walk into a field covered with highly
polished granite cubes and determine which of them is intelligently
designed.
without a natural background to compare it with, saying DNA is
intelligently designed is a circular argument. it's not even bad
science; it's not science at all.
Ray Martinez
Your conclusion assumes that the identification of similarity
indicates common ancestry produced by unguided material causation (=
horizontal causation, Mind not involved). ID says similarity phenomena
indicates the work of one Mastermind (which presupposes Vertical
causation, Mind directly involved).
> That pretty much
> kills the ID claim, because ID does not propose an alternate
> mechanism.
This is why species are immutable. Divine power intrudes into reality
causing each one to exist. There is no such thing as "unguided
material causation" operating in biological reality. UMC is a short
list of truisms euphemistically called a "mechanism." Cellular level
mechanisms, or IC systems, are systems or mechanisms that reflect
Intelligent design because of their organized complexity. If UMC
produced biological systems or mechanisms then unorganization
phenomena would result since UMC is mindless, unconscious. We see no
evidence or effects of mindless processes or forces operating in
nature based on the overwhelming predominant results of organized
complexity and adaptation seen in every level of biological reality.
> You can claim we don't understand how the
> exact path of evolution occurred, but unless you propose
> a mechanism, you have nothing.
I completely agree.
Are you reading this John Harshman?
It works *both* ways. Darwin refused to postulate transmutation
without a mechanism. This is why in his autobiography he says that he
embarked upon a 15 month systematic enquiry, then while reading
Malthus "for amusement" he suddenly obtained his insight. Harshman:
nested hierarchy phenomena is an illusion; without "a mechanism, you
have nothing" (to borrow from Stockwell). Right here is another place
where evolution is falsified in its tracks. Common ancestry (=
"connectedness" of species) and nested hierarchy phenomena is an
illusion. Each species, each new species, Linnaean hierarchal
classification, nested hierarchy phenomena correspond directly to
Divine power, expressions of Vertical causation, the work of one
Mastermind.
It doesn't matter if Darwin was wrong about the total efficacy of the
various mechanisms that he proposed in his lifetime to account for the
full panoply of biological phenomena. The point is that he thought he
had enough valid mechanisms. Mechanism is important because otherwise
God-did-it. Darwin was attempting to refute Creationism (1859:6). So
when John Harshman admits that he has no mechanism to account for the
production of NH, that is, phenomena that is touted as the best
evidence of evolution, he is transported right back to where Darwin
was before he read Malthus. Forget 15 months; the clock is still
ticking. 150 years and evolutionists are still searching. Without
mechanism transmutation is false. The "connectedness" of nature and
its similarities remain explained as the work of one Mastermind (=
Creationism).
> ID does not even have
> a speculation as to how these structures originated.
Paleyan ID does. You are, of course, referring to the current "ID"
movement.
> Indeed,
> ID does not have the capacity for generating any scientific
> hypotheses about mechanisms, only naysaying.
>
In fairness, *their only claim* is that nature and reality reflects
Intelligence, and not unguided material causation (= Materialism).
Ray
John Stockwell
Oh, I see, you took the words "obervtional method' out of
context and goodled it. No, I am not talking about
the "observational method of research", nor am I talking
about "inductive conclusions". You will have to reread my
paragraph and try again.
The claim that there are "gaps of functional differences" is
a Sean Pitmanism that would be more impressive if you
published your gap stuff. As it is now, it is merely a conjecture.
If there were such gaps, I would expect that the literature
would be full of them. A good test of the Sean Pitman gap
hypothesis would be to look for gaps of the Pitman Critical
Size in the genetics of members of the same species. If
members of the same species have similar size gaps, then
Pitman's hypothesis is dead.
As to the basic mechanism:
1) reproduction
2) with variation
3) natural selection.
So, apparent relatedness is real. Yes, Sean just as you and
I are related, we are both related to apes, and everything else.
>
> Consider also that the actual mechanism extraterrestrial intelligences
> would necessarily use to produce the radiosignals SETI scientists are
> looking for isn't actually known. The only thing SETI scientists know
> for sure is how such signals could have been produced since humans
> produce such signals. A potential mechanism is also known for
> producing high-level biosystems since humans have in fact produced
> such systems - far beyond the observed limitations for the non-
> deliberate force of RM/NS.
Actually, the assumed mechanism is the same mechanisms
that we use to produce radio signals here on earth. The model
of the manufacturer, who has to have
1) the ability to make and use tools as humans do
2) the ability to engage in mathematics at a level comparable
with that needed to command (remember that algorithms are
manufactured items).
3) high enough technology that allows radio equipment to be
constructed
4) with sufficient power as to send signals that we can
receive (but not so strong as to be physically unlikely)
5) has sufficiently similar communication styles, thought
processes and all of that to make signals that fit the test.
This is totally unlike ID. The SETI researcher has a
restrictive model for the manufacturer of the signals,
and a relatively restrictive range of what the signals should
look like. The IDer is just has a 'cosmic correspondence
principle, and a pocket full of naysaying'.
I mean, look at your gap hypothesis. It is a "a gap of this size
is impossible for evolutionary mechanisms to cross". It is
an arbitrary line in the sand, drawn with no real understanding
of how evolution actually operates being drawn on to draw
that line. Where are your statistical studies of massively
parallel genetic systems? How do you account for transpositons
and all of that?
Also, are you sure that we know all of
the evolutionary mechanisms? What I read of Sean B. Carroll's
evo devo stuff, there are major discoveries made quite recently
that have changed the picture of evolutionary mechanisms.
Do you really think that the era of discovery of biology is
over?
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
-John
heekster
wrote:
Your ignorance of the scientific method, and your semantic strawman
quibbling, is duly noted.
Isaac Newton invented a scientific method which was truly universal in
its scope. Newton presented his methodology as a set of four rules for
scientific reasoning. These rules were stated in the Principia and
proposed that
(1) we are to admit no more causes of natural things such as are both
true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
(2) the same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes,
(3) qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal, and
(4) propositions deduced from observation of phenomena should be
viewed as accurate until other phenomena contradict them.
wf3h
> On Oct 16, 4:56 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > the basic hypothesis is that we can compare and differentiate a
> > natural radio signal to one that's created by intelligence
>
> > but seanpit has eliminated any concept of natural DNA. he thinks it's
> > ALL intelligently designed. how does he know?
>
> It's not DNA in question here. It is the information carried by DNA
> that is in question here. What is the origin of that information? -
> of the order of DNA upon which it is based?
unfortunately YOU are the one who keeps comparing DNA to SETI. and
SETI researchers compare natural to non natural radio signals
so where's the non natural DNA?
As I've explained to you
> many times before, non-deliberate nature can in fact produce many
> different kinds of DNA sequences without the need for pre-existing
> high-level information. However, when it comes to producing
> informationally complex systems beyond the 1000aa threshold, no non-
> deliberate force of nature can do that without relying on the same pre-
> existing information.
and you know that how? unless you can tell us the mechanism, you're
handwaving. you're mistaking absense of evidence as evidence of
absence
you've confused DNA with protein. DNA is simply DNA. whether it codes
for 1, 10, 1000 or 10E6 aa, it's still chemistry
you've confused CHANGES in DNA caused by evolution with the STRUCTURE
of DNA caused by chemistry.
protein chemistry is just as complex as DNA chemistry and it is
ENTIRELY determined by DNA. thus complex systems can, and are, created
by the laws of chemistry.
there is no need at all to invoke a designer for any DNA structure
whatsoever. none. just like there is no need to invoke a designer for
protein chemistry. all that is needed are the laws of chemistry.
we can watch a cell divide and we can watch DNA being created in the
cell by the laws of chemistry
no designer is needed. none.
t>
> > he doesn't. he made it up. since ALL DNA is ID, there's no natural DNA
> > to compare it to.
>
> Not all DNA sequences are the result of ID. That's your strawman
> mischaracterization of my position. I've specifically told you, over
> and over again, that low-levels of functional complexity, below the
> 1000aa threshold, can in fact be produced de novo, by non-deliberate
> forces of nature, without the need to invoke ID.
and how does ID resolve this issue, especially in view of the fact
that nature itself produces equally complex systems in protein
chemistry? how do you KNOW that, even assuming you're right, that DNA
which codes for 1000aa sequences is NOT produced naturally?
you should be able to observe the process of forming DNA that codes
for >1000aa sequences. the chemistry stares you in the face every day.
where's the mechanism?
>
> > thus his argument is circular. DNA is ID and ID
> > proves DNA is ID. very creationist indeed.
>
> Your strawman is what's circular here . . .
says the man who invokes houdini as a natural mechanism of chemistry.
> >
> > so seanpits argument is:
>
> > 1. we can tell when something is ID by comparing it to something
> > that's natural
>
> We can tell when something is ID by comparing it to the known limits
> of non-deliberate natural forces working with the same material.
and where are the limits of chemistry in the cell? where do you look
at a cell, after division, and say "AHA...THERE'S where design takes
over!"?
because it never happens. all we see inside the cell...when the
complexity of DNA is being formed...is chemistry. and that alone is
sufficient to explain the structure of DNA just like it is sufficient
to explain the structure of proteins.
as to the origin of the information in DNA since ALL we EVER see is
chemistry, it's apparent that the laws of chemistry TOTALLY explain
the structure of ALL the information in EVERY DNA sequence in nature.
it doesn't matter how long, or how complex the DNA chain is. chemistry
is all that's needed.
your 'elan vitale' is a dead, 19th century idea.
Non-
> deliberate forces working with information in DNA have very clear
> limitations when it comes to producing novel functional forms of DNA
> beyond very low levels of functional informational complexity - well
> shy of what humans can do when it comes to producing informational
> complexity in the material of DNA.
here again you're confused STRUCTURE with CHANGE. the structure of DNA
is completely determined by chemistry. CHANGES in DNA are ALSO
determined by chemistry and can lead to radical changes in proteins.
you're an MD and you've confused proteins with DNA. amazing.
and...again...how do you KNOW that a NATURAL mechanism can't do what
you say? without natural DNA to compare it to, you're dead in the
water.
>
> > 2. there is NO natural DNA. it's ALL ID.
>
> Not true. There are lots of non-deliberately naturally produced DNA
> sequences. You keep misrepresenting my position here despite being
> corrected time and again.
and you somehow think the laws that govern the information in DNA
sequences that code for <1000aa is different than that which codes for
>1000aa.
that's nonsense. it doesn't matter HOW long the DNA chain is. its
origin is chemistry. it doesn't matter if it codes for an AA chain of
10 or 100000000 units. it's still chemistry.
if your theory is so powerful it should be observable. where is it?
where can we look in the cell and see a mechanism at work that
differentiates DNA as you say it does? where is the DNA structure that
does NOT rely on chemistry?
>
> > 3. nature can produce complex systems without intelligence
> > and this proves DNA is intelligently designed
> > how is this proved? seanpit is rather coy in the details, it seems.
>
> Non-deliberate nature can only produce low levels of informational
> complexity with the material of DNA.
prove it. go ahead. look at a cell undergoing division and specify the
mechanism that differentiates DNA structure as you say it does.
It has not been observed to
> produce functional informational complexity beyond the 1000aa
> threshold. That's a directly observable fact.
absolutely wrong. dead wrong. DNA is quite capable of producing AA's
having a length of 10, 1000, or 10E6 units long. it doesn't matter HOW
long the protein chain is: DNA can produce it based ONLY on the laws
of chemistry
and since protein complexity exists, and is determined by entirely
NATURAL processes, the logical conclusion is that the info in DNA is
also determined naturally
we have SEEN natural processes at work. we've NEVER seen an
intelligent process acting in nature. ever. not once
you guys have cried wolf so often you must be hoarse by now...
>
> > the mechanisms of chemistry are not those of creating radiowaves.
>
> The mechanism of creating non-deliberate naturally produced radiowaves
> is also not the same as the mechanism to produce artifactual
> radiowaves.
actually..it is. you've confused yourself. the INFORMATION contained
in an ID radiowave is different than a natural one but the MECHANISM
of generation is IDENTICAL.
That is why SETI scientists think they can detect ETI by
> looking at radiowaves. That is also the very same basis for detecting
> intelligence by looking at any other material that goes beyond the
> known limitations of non-deliberate natural processes which are still
> within at least human-level creativity.
except, of course, we can WATCH DNA being written in a cell. it's as
if we could go back in time and watch a radio wave being created.
all we see are natural processes. all we see are the laws of
chemistry.
we do not see intelligence. we do not see a designer. we do not see
some force that we do not recognize.
in short, by DIRECT OBSERVATION your need for an ID fails.
>
> > seanpit focuses on SETI to hide his lack of scientific rigor in
> > asserting that DNA is intelligently designed. if he HAD a mechanism
> > for the intelligent design of DNA he'd tell us.
>
> You keep forgetting that humans have producing high-level functional
> information within the material of DNA that goes far beyond anything
> non-deliberate natural mechanisms have been observed to achieve.
and that proves my point. we KNOW what an ID piece of DNA looks like.
we've created them. all we see when we look at nature is
nature. chemistry. natural laws.
and nothing...nothing...else.
you invoke an intelligent designer. but one has never been observed in
nature.
you invoke processes that are never observed in a cell to form DNA.
you say these forces are there...but don't tell us HOW to observe
them, what they look like, how they work or how we can test for them
that's not science. it's magic.
DJT
snip
> > Type III secretory structures contain a sufficient genetic
> > similarity to conclude common ancestry.
>
> Your conclusion assumes that the identification of similarity
> indicates common ancestry produced by unguided material causation (=
> horizontal causation, Mind not involved).
It's not an assumption. Common ancestry is known to produce genetic
similarity, which is why DNA testing is done to establish paternity in
court.
> ID says similarity phenomena
> indicates the work of one Mastermind (which presupposes Vertical
> causation, Mind directly involved).
The problem with that is that there's no evidence that a "one
Mastermind" exists, or that a "one Mastermind" is capable of producing
genetic similarity. If "vertical" causation is involved, it appears
that this "mastermind" is trying to make it look like evolution.
>
> > That pretty much
> > kills the ID claim, because ID does not propose an alternate
> > mechanism.
>
> This is why species are immutable.
Ray, this is an example of "non sequitur". It really doesn't follow
from the premise. Besides the fact that the evidence clearly shows
species are 'mutable', nothing in the statement that ID doesn't have a
mechanism leads to the assumption that species are immutable.
> Divine power intrudes into reality
> causing each one to exist.
Exactly what mechanism does "divine power" use when it "intrudes into
reality"? Why for that matter, does "divine power" make each new
species look very much like an old species?
> There is no such thing as "unguided
> material causation" operating in biological reality.
Here's another assertion that gets you onto the "loon lists". Of
course there is "unguided material causation" going on in "biological
reality". It can't be directly observed, and is directly observed
every day...
> UMC is a short
> list of truisms euphemistically called a "mechanism."
If it's a "truism" then it exists. All causation that is known is
material. Mutation in populations is unguided, and random in respect
to the needs of the individual. The mechanism of evolution is a
combination of random mutations, and natural selection.
> Cellular level
> mechanisms, or IC systems, are systems or mechanisms that reflect
> Intelligent design because of their organized complexity.
Again, doesn't follow. None of the cellular systems have been found
to be "IC", and "organized complexity" can be produced by natural
processes, without any "intelligent design" Therefore it's wrong to
assume they must "reflect intelligent desgin". Even if "irreducibly
complex" systems were found, they can be produced by evolution.
Behe's mistake was in assuming that systems can only be constructed by
addition of part. Actual systems are constructed by adding,
subtracting, and modifying already existing parts.
> If UMC
> produced biological systems or mechanisms then unorganization
> phenomena would result since UMC is mindless, unconscious.
Ray, what, exactly is "unorganization phenomena"? And why do you
assume that 'mindless" and "unconscious" can't produce complex
constructions? There are many examples of such systems being
produced by "mindless" and "unconscious" processes. Weather
systems, crystals, storms, ocean currents, etc, etc...
> We see no
> evidence or effects of mindless processes or forces operating in
> nature based on the overwhelming predominant results of organized
> complexity and adaptation seen in every level of biological reality.
Since complexity and adaptation can be produced by "mindless"
processes and forces, the evidence is all around you. There is no
evidence that an "invisible designer" is responsible for the nature we
see.
>
> > You can claim we don't understand how the
> > exact path of evolution occurred, but unless you propose
> > a mechanism, you have nothing.
>
> I completely agree.
But you don't understand what you are agreeing with.
>
> Are you reading this John Harshman?
If he is, so what?
>
> It works *both* ways. Darwin refused to postulate transmutation
> without a mechanism.
That's irrelevant, as "transmutation" is in evidence, even without a
mechanism.
> This is why in his autobiography he says that he
> embarked upon a 15 month systematic enquiry, then while reading
> Malthus "for amusement" he suddenly obtained his insight. Harshman:
> nested hierarchy phenomena is an illusion; without "a mechanism, you
> have nothing" (to borrow from Stockwell).
Ray, you got it wrong yet again. The phenomena of nested hierarchy
exists, even without a mechanism to explain it. Linnaeus didn't
pull his system of classification out of thin air. He based it on
direct observation of nature, but didn't have a scientific mechanism
to explain it. Darwin found the mechanism that explains the nested
hierarchy, but even without it, it's still there.
> Right here is another place
> where evolution is falsified in its tracks.
Once again, doesn't follow. Nothing about the hierarchy of life
refutes evolution.
> Common ancestry (=
> "connectedness" of species) and nested hierarchy phenomena is an
> illusion.
No, it's a real phenomena, one that requires an explanation.
> Each species, each new species, Linnaean hierarchal
> classification, nested hierarchy phenomena correspond directly to
> Divine power, expressions of Vertical causation, the work of one
> Mastermind.
Yet there isn't any evidence of such a "mastermind". "Vertical
causation" is refuted by the branching pattern of life, and the
genetic links between species. More to the point, why would a
single "mastermind" use different solutions for the same problems?
>
> It doesn't matter if Darwin was wrong about the total efficacy of the
> various mechanisms that he proposed in his lifetime to account for the
> full panoply of biological phenomena.
But Darwin is not wrong about the mechanism of evolution.
> The point is that he thought he
> had enough valid mechanisms.
And he was right, although incomplete.
> Mechanism is important because otherwise
> God-did-it.
Actually as far as science is concerned, "goddidit" is not a
mechanism, but rather an excuse for ignorance. If scientists don't
know how something happened, "goddidit" isn't an acceptable answer.
"I don't know, but let's keep looking" is the scientific answer.
Even if one believes that God did do it, a scientist is going to want
to know how, and is going to keep looking for the answer.
> Darwin was attempting to refute Creationism (1859:6).
No, he was attempting to find a scientific explanation for the
diversity of life. Creationism was never a scientific theory, and as
such didn't need to be refuted.
> So
> when John Harshman admits that he has no mechanism to account for the
> production of NH, that is, phenomena that is touted as the best
> evidence of evolution, he is transported right back to where Darwin
> was before he read Malthus.
John Harshman didn't claim he didn't have a mechanism to account for
nested hierarchies. He's was pointing out that even without a
mechanism nested hierarchies exist. They require an explanation,
something that ID can't give. As John pointed out before the
mechanism that produces nested hierarchy in living things is common
descent.
> Forget 15 months; the clock is still
> ticking. 150 years and evolutionists are still searching.
Where do you get that idea? The mechanism that produces nested
hierarchy is well known. It's common descent, with modification.
Darwin himself used the term "descent with modification" to describe
evolution.
> Without
> mechanism transmutation is false.
Again, the evidence for "transmutation" stands on it's own, even
without a known mechanism. That the mechanism is known is a
bonus. "Transmutation" is produced by genetic changes in
populations over generations. Natural selection provides adaptive
focus to these changes.
> The "connectedness" of nature and
> its similarities remain explained as the work of one Mastermind (=
> Creationism).
That's not an explanation. In fact, it's a lack of explanation. The
similarities of living things, as well as their differences is
explained by descent with modification from a common ancestor. The
'one mastermind" doesn't begin to explain why birds have feathers, and
bats don't. It doesn't explain why both humans and other apes have
the same disabled vitamin C gene. It doesn't begin to explain why
one species of frog won't breed with another, almost identical one in
the same area.
>
> > ID does not even have
> > a speculation as to how these structures originated.
>
> Paleyan ID does.
"Paleyan" ID is just as unable to explain those structures as modern
"ID" is.
> You are, of course, referring to the current "ID"
> movement.
Both are unscientific.
>
> > Indeed,
> > ID does not have the capacity for generating any scientific
> > hypotheses about mechanisms, only naysaying.
>
> In fairness, *their only claim* is that nature and reality reflects
> Intelligence, and not unguided material causation (= Materialism).
Then their 'only claim' is refuted by observation of 'unguided
material causation'. No observation of "divine intelligence" has
ever been made.
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
Snip material already addressed in previous posts....
>
> No. We were talking about the definitions of microevolution, random
> mutation, natural selection and common descent. You decided to
> respond only to the first of these, but obviously do not understand
> why the prefix *micro* is present, since you are ranting about things
> that are not the provenance of microevolution. If you want to test
> microevolution, the fossil record is irrelevant, speciation is
> irrelevant. But if you cannot even tell the difference between
> microevolution, random mutation, natural selection, and common
> descent, and somehow think the same unsupported assertion can falsify
> all of them, I have magnus doubts that your opus magnus will be
> magnus.
>
You have misunderstood just about everything, having conflated many of
my replies and imagined that they were provided in a context defining
microevolution.
> > Since adaptation is
> > universally accepted phenomena, said changes *were* beneficial or
> > "good" as Darwin described them.
>
> Except we are specifically talking about 'adaptations' that are a
> consequence of genetic differences. The only way that that type of
> 'adaptation' can increase is by a change in the genetic composition of
> the population via (or leading to) differential reproductive success.
> We are not talking about the non-genetic 'adaptations' that can occur
> in individuals in a population.
>
> > > > > This evolutionary change in mean allele frequencies can be
> > > > > either due to chance alone (neutral drift) or by environmental changes
> > > > > that alter the selective pressures on different allele combinations
> > > > > (aka, natural selection).
>
> > > > Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.
>
> > > Yes it is. At base, all evolutionary changes are ultimately due to
> > > changes in allele (not gene) frequencies.
>
> > You have evaded:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4
>
> No I didn't. You failed to notice that there *was* genetic change; it
> was just not reflected in visible phenotypes (at least those that can
> be seen in fossils).
>
The study showed much genetic change but very little, if any,
morphological change. Once again: the point is that genetic change
occurred but these changes were not reflected externally. So called
microevolution did not occur. Stasis continued while genetic change
flourished. This is one reason why the Naturalist position rejects
evolution *to be defined* at the genetic level----***my only point.***
> > > > The same cannot be falsified.
>
> > > You mean changes in allele frequencies could have been false, but
> > > aren't. It could have been that mutations do not occur. It could
> > > have been that the environment is indiscriminate wrt phenotypes it
> > > would support. It could have been that phenotypes were not the result
> > > of genotypes (and some aren't, which is why evolution only involves
> > > the phenotypes are affected, to some degree, by hereditary factors).
> > > Something that could have been false, but isn't, is exactly what
> > > science requires of its hypotheses and theories.
>
> > Change at the genetic level is not evolution produced by unguided
> > material causation. It is designed change accomplished by a mechanism
> > built by Divine power and intelligence----just like IC systems.
>
> So, are you claiming that mutation does not occur or that all
> mutations are due to divine intervention?
Since organized complexity is the result, whether in micro or macro
domains, we know that mutation is not random. They are, in fact,
produced my a mechanism that reflects Divine power and intelligence. I
doubt seriously that you have the will to understand what I just said.
> Mutations that occur
> naturally cannot produce any useful change? What? Do you have
> evidence for some magical poofer that I have not seen? BTW, "change
> at the genetic level" is indeed not "evolution". It is "mutation".
> The two terms are not identical.
>
But you define evolution at the genetic level.
Random mutation is modern men, in their suits and ties, or lab coats,
advocating the essence of Materialism (= voodoo). It is a magical wand
needed by Atheism. The mutations that we are talking about *cannot* be
random since the result is design, organized complexity and
adaptation.
> > > > Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is deduced to have
> > > > happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence.
>
> > > That doesn't mean that evolution is not, at base, a change in allele
> > > frequencies. And, since microevolution is defined as evolution within
> > > a species, we need not concern ourselves with speciation processes and
> > > events in discussing microevolution.
>
> > The *main claim* of Darwinism is that species change into a different
> > species over vast amounts of time by unguided material causation.
>
> Yes. But that is not what we are discussing. We were defining
> microevolution. [SNIP....]
>
Which was accepted, and is accepted, as continuous or unimpeded. This
is the only aspect that I am interested in, Howard. In view of this
fact: the low level evolution that Sean Pitman accepts is not
Darwinian, do you agree?
> > They
> > are not produced by special creation. Darwin wrote the "Origin" to say
> > that special creation "is erroneous" (1859:6).
>
> If evolution is correct, creation by direct magical poofing is
> erroneous.
>
I completely agree.
> > A change in gene
> > frequencies does not support the *main claim.*
>
> Again, we were defining *microevolution*. If you want to discuss the
> mechanisms of and evidence supporting *speciation*, we are not
> discussing *microevolution*. If you want to discuss *common descent*
> and the evidence that supports it, we are not discussing
> *microevolution*. If you want to discuss *random mutation* and the
> evidence that supports it, we are not discussing *microevolution*. If
> you want to discuss *natural selection* and the evidence that supports
> it, we are not discussing *microevolution*. You are suffering a huge
> case of muddled thinking where you cannot even distinguish that these
> terms are not the same thing.
>
I never said any such things. I am only interested in discussing the
"low level evolution" that Sean Pitman accepts.
> > What "supports" this
> > claim is interpretation of evidence seen in macro-reality, like
> > Linnaean hierarchal classification. Darwinists say the hierarchy
> > connectedness is real. Creationists know that it is an illusion or
> > delusion.
>
> Well, they *assert* that it is an illusion or delusion. They have
> nothing but boringly repeated assertion as evidence. But I am just
> trying to get you to focus on the specific terms you mention, not some
> muddled 'whatever'.
>
>
>
> > > > Evolution is an interpretation of evidence; it says the similarities
> > > > between species is real, that they derive from one another (horizontal
> > > > causation).
>
> > > Vertical, Ray, vertical. It is hard to argue with someone who does
> > > not know if he is standing up or lying down. Vertical transmission of
> > > genetic information is transmission from one generation to the next to
> > > the next to the next. Horizontal transmission of genetic information
> > > is transmission of genetic information from one species to another in
> > > the the same generation.
>
> > I was not talking about genetics.
>
> Evolution is all about genetics. Evolution *requires* genetic
> change.
And those penguins ruin your fantasy. Gene-centricism is like a
submarine, Howard. It must eventually surface and re-join reality
where life has its relationship with environment.
Ray
The reason we can generate the formation of a tree or bush of
> life (or a Linneaean nested hierarchy if you are looking at current
> morphology) is precisely because almost (but not quite) all genetics
> (at least since the last ur-organism) is vertical rather than
> horizontal.
>
> > I was talking about the main
> > difference between Creationism and Darwinism. The former says
> > causation forces in nature are vertical or Divine. The latter says
> > causation forces in nature are horizontal-material-natural, not Divine
> > or supernatural.
>
> I have NEVER EVER heard of anyone but you just now saying that Divine
> intervention is "vertical" and natural causation is "horizontal". In
> what way is divine intervention "vertical"? Can you post a citation
> that is not yourself where this useage is presented? To be blunt, I
> think you are lying or confused. Neither bodes well for your (always)
> future masterwork.
>
> > > > Much genetic change can occur without a species changing in observed
> > > > macro-reality:
>
> > > Microevolution, Ray, is evolution within a species.
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4...
>
> > > > > Note that this definition, unlike yours, makes clear how one can
> > > > > actually determine if "microevolution" can or has happened.
>
> > > > The above link and its data falsifies your contention.
>
> > > The described change in the genome *is* evolution. It is
> > > phenotypically, and probably selectively, neutral evolutionary
> > > change. But the genome of the species has changed and the species has
> > > evolved.
>
> > The penguins in the study in the link falsify your opinion.
>
> No. The genome has changed. Visible phenotypes have not. Again, the
> nature of the genetic system is such that the only mechanism that can
> prevent change is *when* "natural selection" prevents change rather
> than causes it. In the absence of selective direction, drift will
> invariably lead to change.
>
> > > There does not have to be a large *phenotypic* change for
> > > evolution to have occurred. In fact, changes like those described in
> > > the "best birds" above are what you would expect if evolution were
> > > primarily a function of time and only secondarily one of phenotypic
> > > change.
>
> > > > > You look
> > > > > at a species over time and observe if there is time-directed change in
> > > > > 1) the frequency of different alleles that have no selective benefit
> > > > > or 2) the frequency of different alleles that have changed because of
> > > > > an environmental change. Frequencies of alleles in a population are
> > > > > quite measurable (in small populations) or estimateable (in large
> > > > > ones). Moreover, one can set up experimental situations where one
> > > > > either varies the environment or doesn't and follow whether or not
> > > > > allele frequency changes occur as predicted.
>
> > > > > > Falsity (F): The appearance of design and organized complexity seen in
> > > > > > every aspect of nature corresponds directly to Divine power-causation
> > > > > > and not unguided material causation.
>
> > > > > The *appearance* of design is not sufficient to distinguish that
> > > > > something was manufactured by an outside agency. Neither is, by
> > > > > itself, organized complexity.
>
> > > > Design logically indicates that it was produced by a Designer.
>
> > > Only if the object that appears to be designed was in fact
> > > manufactured by an outside agent. For living things, you lack the
> > > evidence that they are manufactured by an outside agent. In fact, it
> > > is clear that living things imperfectly self-reproduce. There are
> > > many objects that have the *appearance* of design that we know, as a
> > > fact, are not designed and manufactured by outside agency but instead
> > > are a consequence of natural processes. E.g., snowflakes.
>
> > > > So does
> > > > OC. If similarity logically indicates evolution to have occurred then
> > > > you are accepting the same logic used to conclude that design =
> > > > Designer. Rejection of the latter is then based solely on the
> > > > restrictions of your Materialism-Naturalism philosophy. But the
> > > > evidence plainly supports the existence of a Designer.
>
> > > What evidence of manufacture by an outside agency do you have for
> > > living things? Other than your repeated assertions, that is.
>
> > Appearance-observation of design.
>
> *Apparent* appearance-observation of design is not proof or even
> evidence of *actual* design.
>
> > > > > > Additional empirical evidence
> > > > > > includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
> > > > > > earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
> > > > > > absence of descendants.
>
> > > > > But the pattern *is* a pattern of massive change over time.
>
> > > > Counterfactual interpretation. Gould 2002 calls the pattern I
> > > > described "literal signal." It exists. To interpret said phenomena as
> > > > evidence of an antithetic concept (= evolution) is, once again, based
> > > > on the requirements of your interpretive philosophy. But the evidence,
> > > > at face value, says the exact opposite (= special creation).
>
> > > How can the pattern of fossil species, which appear and disappear in a
> > > time-ordered fashion in the different geologic layers, get interpreted
> > > as a *single* event of special creation? Multiple creations,
> > > possibly. But a *single* creation event? No way.
>
> > > > This is why both Creationism and Evolutionism are interpretations of
> > > > the same scientific evidence.
>
> > > Not those that accept the Bible's claim of a single creation event.
>
> > Neither the Bible or Creationism accept a single species creation
> > event.
>
> Really? The Bible, in Genesis, talks about a single week-long event
> in which *all* creation (not just the immutable species) occurs.
> Where does it talk about any degree of creation and subsequent
> exitinction of species at quite different times?
>
> > Only YEC Fundamentalists accept this error riddled view. 19th
> > century Creationism accepted on-going real time special creation to
> > account for new species.
>
> So, *if* your designer is manufacturing new species right now, where
> is the evidence that such a designer is even present?
>
> > New species owe their existence in nature to
> > direct creation. This is why mutability is not necessary. Besides,
> > mutability is impossible. Animals and nature do not have magical
> > powers.
>
> Are you saying that mutation does not occur? That genomes are
> incapable of undergoing sequence change? Do you have any evidence for
> that wild claim? Why do you think that mutation (a permanent change in
> a genome sequence) is a "magical power"?
>
> > > > > Geological layers can be identified by the different suite of fossils
> > > > > they contain (a fact that oil companies take full advantage of). By
> > > > > the very definition of "species" via the morphological definition one
> > > > > must use with fossils, any fossil found that is identified as "species
> > > > > x" must, of necessity, be very similar to other fossils called
> > > > > "species x". In fact, the changes that *do* occur in fossils that
> > > > > have an extensive record causes paleontologists to either be "lumpers"
> > > > > or "splitters" wrt whether a new fossil find is a different species
> > > > > from an earlier similar fossil or a different species.
>
> > > > > > > common ancestry
>
> > > > > > D: horizontal connectedness of **species** via unguided material
> > > > > > causation ("horizontal" includes branching viewpoint).
>
> > > > > Uh, Ray. You seem to be confusing "vertical" and "horizontal".
> > > > > "Horizontal" is used for cases of transfer that are not due to the
> > > > > vertical branching process that produces the bush. Mitochondria
> > > > > (horizontal transfer of a bacterial genome) and cross-species plasmid
> > > > > transfer are examples of horizontal transfer. If you are going to
> > > > > present this argument as part of your "magnus opus" against evolution,
> > > > > I would suggest you correct this before you put it into print.
>
> > > > Your comments plainly indicate that you did not understand what I said
> > > > or you lost track of the context.
>
> > > > I contrasted the main difference between Creationism (= vertical-
> > > > Divine casuation, God-did-it) and Darwinism (= horizontal-unguided
> > > > material causation, Evolution-did-it).
>
> > > That is not how "horizontal" and "vertical" are used. You are simply
> > > making up terms.
>
> > Ridiculous.
>
> Yes. Using those terms the way you are certainly is ridiculous.
>
> > Said terms have many legitimate meanings depending on context. You
> > simply cannot admit that you were not paying attention to the context
> > in which they were being used.
>
> I have NEVER EVER seen those terms used to describe the difference
> between divine and natural mechanisms. Feel free to point me to a
> source other than yourself.
>
> > In fact most of your replies lost track of the fact that I was
> > answering your questions. You evaded most of my answers and embarked
> > upon a non-sequitur agenda.
>
> No. *I* am the one trying to stick to the point: the definition of
> microevolution, common descent, random mutation, and natural
> selection. *You* are the one who conflates all those terms into a
> meaningless mush. Microevolution is not *all* evolution. Common
> descent is not *all* evolution. Random mutation is not *all*
> evolution. Natural selection is not *all* evolution. Focus on the
> terms and what *they* mean, golden drop of sun. Don't ramble all over
> the map with fossils and speciation (when microevolution doesn't
> involve those) or claim that the same unsupported mantra ("It looks
> like design to me.") is evidence against all of them.
>
>
>
> > > > > F: Based on the appearance of design & organized complexity seen in
> > > > > > each species the same corresponds to vertical-Divine causation.
>
> > > > > Isn't this the same meaningless drivel you claimed provided evidence
> > > > > against microevolution? You still haven't provided a mechanism for
> > > > > distinguishing between the hypothesized natural processes that can
> > > > > produce the "appearance of design & organized complexity" and those
> > > > > that *were* produced by some outside intelligent agent.
>
> > > > > > > random mutation
>
> > > > > > D: Darwinian voodoo taking the place of Mind.
>
> > > > > I would define "random mutation" as the idea that "permanent changes
> > > > > in the sequence of the genetic material" occurs at random wrt the need
> > > > > for that mutation. Randomness, in this case, can be determined as a
> > > > > rate of mutational sequence change that is unaffected by the need for
> > > > > that mutation. The rate can be changed by the presence or absence of
> > > > > 'mutagens', but cannot be changed by the 'need' for that mutation.
>
> > There is no such thing as *random* mutation. Results reflect
> > purpose----adaptation. Species were created to fit their environments.
> > Since very many different species occupy the same environment the same
> > is evidence of the work of one Mastermind.
>
> You are confused and/or ignorant of literally mountains of research,
> done by Nobel winners and beginning college students alike that 1)
> mutation occurs and 2) occurs at random wrt need. Perhaps you are
> confusing the combination of mutation (which is random) and selection
> (which is not) for mutation alone. That's the kindest interpretation.
>
> > > > > This is a simple mathematically determinable genetic test. And, with
> > > > > the possible exception of a very few sites where mutation has been
> > > > > 'domesticated' and 'localized', experimental tests (starting with the
> > > > > Luria/Delbruck experiments in the 1940s) have demonstrated that
> > > > > mutation is random in the sense described.
>
> > Phenomena is *called* random because evolutionists want to send a
> > message that Mind is absent. But your *explanation* defines "random"
> > to not hold its understood definition. This is an ordinary bait-and-
> > switch.
>
> I am using standard methods for determining that two variables (mutant
> or not mutant is one variable; needed or not needed the other)are
> independent variables. It is no different than determining randomness
> in throwing two dice (die A and die B as one variable; face pips as
> the other). If you don't believe that randomness exists, I will be
> happy to play a 1000 games and let you pray that you get snake eyes
> all the time rather than only 1/36th of the time at a dollar a
> throw.
>
> The test for the randomness of mutation wrt need is very simple with
> bacteria. Grow a large number colonies (each colony is grown from a
> single genetically identical bacteria and the starting culture is also
> grown from a single genetically identical bacteria) on a plate where
> both new mutants and the original strain can grow. Replica plate to a
> plate where only the mutant can grow. Compare that to the number of
> mutants when you plate the same number of bacteria directly on the two
> types of plates. If mutation occurs more frequently when needed, the
> number of mutant colonies to non-mutant will be higher when you plate
> the bacteria directly on the plate where only the mutant can grow. It
> isn't.
>
> > > > > > F: Dembski 1999 says if specified or organized complexity is the
> > > > > > result then the same is caused by [I]ntelligence and not antonymic
> > > > > > phenomena (randomness). Of course all scholars agree that organized
> > > > > > complexity exists (Dawkins 1986).
>
> > > > > But all the experiments and scientific literature says that mutational
> > > > > change of genome sequence is random wrt need. [There may be some rare
> > > > > exceptions, like the a to alpha yeast mating type switch.]
>
> > Only evolutionists say it is random.
>
> Obviously that must include everyone that has the simplest
> understanding of statistics. We are not using some special kind of
> math in biology. Standard statistics are what we use. I think you
> must be confusing the result of *both* random mutation and
> *selection*.
>
> > The results, that is, design,
> > organized complexity and adaptation evidence a mechanism reflecting
> > Intelligent causation. Again, this is why both Creationism and
> > Darwinism are interpretations of the same scientific evidence.
>
> > > > > > > natural selection
>
> > > > > > D: unguided material causation, the main, but not the exclusive cause
> > > > > > of evolutionary change.
>
> > > > > Notice that word "selection"? It means that, *when* natural selection
> > > > > is the cause of change (or conservation; one should never forget that
> > > > > most natural selection is for conservation of sequence and function
> > > > > and not for change) in allele frequencies, the change is "guided". It
> > > > > is "guided" by features of the local environment and not by an outside
> > > > > intelligent agent, but it is still guided.
>
> > Okay, so?
>
> The local environment is not a supenatural divinity.
>
> > But no such mechanism exists. NS is a short list of truisms
> > euphemistically called a "mechanism."
>
> Do you have *any* evidence that natural selection, as described, does
> not exist? Every time a student lays a millions of bacteria on a
> plate with streptomycin, he or she is observing natural selection of
> random mutations.
>
> > > > > Natural selection can be defined as the relative differential
> > > > > reproductive success of different *phenotypes* in a local
> > > > > environment. [Natural selection that has evolutionary implications
> > > > > requires that the *phenotype* have a hereditary or *genotypic*
> > > > > component that affects the phenotype.] This definition is
> > > > > experimentally testable.
>
> > > > > > F: Nature and each species are directly comparable to a watch (but the
> > > > > > former, beyond all computation, exceeds a watch in organized
> > > > > > complexity, Paley 1802). Watches (= species) correspond directly to
> > > > > > the power of an invisible Watchmaker. Based on these condensed facts,
> > > > > > Michael Behe, in "Black Box," says no one has ever answered Paley 1802
> > > > > > much less refuted him. Of course I completely agree. Therefore this
> > > > > > analogy of nature by Paley obliterates any notion of unguided material
> > > > > > causation existing in nature.
>
> > > > > How does this *test* whether or not "natural selection" occurs? Paley
> > > > > clearly thought that "natural selection" occurred.
>
> > Preventing evolutionary change. You have agreed in principle, above.
>
> > > > > Michael Behe
> > > > > thinks that "natural selection" occurs. All you are doing is
> > > > > presenting an analogy and asserting that a watch is directly the same
> > > > > in its mode of manufacture as a worm is. Even simple observation
> > > > > should disabuse you of the idea that worms are produced in worm
> > > > > factories or in Swiss jeweleries by an
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > read more »
>
> > You do not understand Paley's analogy. Read Dawkins 1986, he does.
>
> I understand Darwin's analogy (what happens in nature to biological
> organisms in the absence of man is analogous to what man has done in
> agriculture for his own purposes). Both have modified species by
> selection among variants. That analogy is much more apt than an
> analogy of living organisms to dead watches that must be manufactured.
>
> > Ray
Ray Martinez
CORRECTION POST:
CORRECTION: should read ***by*** a mechanism, and not "my."
Ray
DJT
snip
>
> > No. We were talking about the definitions of microevolution, random
> > mutation, natural selection and common descent. You decided to
> > respond only to the first of these, but obviously do not understand
> > why the prefix *micro* is present, since you are ranting about things
> > that are not the provenance of microevolution. If you want to test
> > microevolution, the fossil record is irrelevant, speciation is
> > irrelevant. But if you cannot even tell the difference between
> > microevolution, random mutation, natural selection, and common
> > descent, and somehow think the same unsupported assertion can falsify
> > all of them, I have magnus doubts that your opus magnus will be
> > magnus.
>
> You have misunderstood just about everything, having conflated many of
> my replies and imagined that they were provided in a context defining
> microevolution.
I'm sure someone misunderstood, but it's not Howard.
snip
> The study showed much genetic change but very little, if any,
> morphological change.
Since evolution is defined as genetic change it doesn't matter if
little morphological change resulted.
> Once again: the point is that genetic change
> occurred but these changes were not reflected externally.
That doesn't matter. It's still evolution.
> So called
> microevolution did not occur.
On the contrary, microevolution did occur. What didn't happen was
speciation.
> Stasis continued while genetic change
> flourished. This is one reason why the Naturalist position rejects
> evolution *to be defined* at the genetic level----***my only point.***
Then your "only point" is utterly wrong. "Stasis" only occurs in
morphology, because in this case, natural selection acted as a
stabilizing factor. Genetic change happened, which means evolution
happened.
snip
> > So, are you claiming that mutation does not occur or that all
> > mutations are due to divine intervention?
>
> Since organized complexity is the result, whether in micro or macro
> domains, we know that mutation is not random.
That doesn't follow, Ray. Organized complexity can be the result of
random mutations, as long as there is a non random selection acting on
the mutations. You don't "know" the mutations are not random, you
simply assume, because you don't know any better.
> They are, in fact,
> produced my a mechanism that reflects Divine power and intelligence. I
> doubt seriously that you have the will to understand what I just said.
Ray, I doubt you understand it yourself. What "mechanism" is that
which "reflects Divine power and intelligence" and why is it so
wasteful? Most of the mutations that occur are neutral, with no
effect at all. Some of the mutations are harmful, and only a few in
any generation are beneficial. Why not make all mutations
beneficial?
>
> > Mutations that occur
> > naturally cannot produce any useful change? What? Do you have
> > evidence for some magical poofer that I have not seen? BTW, "change
> > at the genetic level" is indeed not "evolution". It is "mutation".
> > The two terms are not identical.
>
> But you define evolution at the genetic level.
Because that's where microevolution happens. It in the genetic level
of the population, not the individual.
>
> Random mutation is modern men, in their suits and ties, or lab coats,
> advocating the essence of Materialism (= voodoo).
Ray' "voodoo" is a religious belief, not "materialism". Science
uses methodological naturalism, as a matter of necessity. Without
naturalistic methodology, science can't rule out useless ideas.
Random mutation is what is observed in any population. There are no
observation of any directed mutations. =
> It is a magical wand
> needed by Atheism.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. In any case, it's YOU who
is claiming that magic is a scientific mechanism.
> The mutations that we are talking about *cannot* be
> random since the result is design, organized complexity and
> adaptation.
Ray, as explained before the mutations are random. Selection is
not. It's the combination of random mutations and non random
selection which produces the "organized complexity" and appearance of
design.
snip
> > > The *main claim* of Darwinism is that species change into a different
> > > species over vast amounts of time by unguided material causation.
>
> > Yes. But that is not what we are discussing. We were defining
> > microevolution. [SNIP....]
>
> Which was accepted, and is accepted, as continuous or unimpeded.
That's not correct. Mutations are continuous, but selection means
that morphological change is not.
> This
> is the only aspect that I am interested in, Howard. In view of this
> fact: the low level evolution that Sean Pitman accepts is not
> Darwinian, do you agree?
What Sean Pitman accepts is entirely irrelevant to what science
accepts. Microevolution is "darwinian" evolution.
>
> > > They
> > > are not produced by special creation. Darwin wrote the "Origin" to say
> > > that special creation "is erroneous" (1859:6).
>
> > If evolution is correct, creation by direct magical poofing is
> > erroneous.
>
> I completely agree.
Do you understand what you are agreeing with? Howard is telling you
that "magic" ("divine power") is not acceptable as a scientific
mechanism.
snip
> > Evolution is all about genetics. Evolution *requires* genetic
> > change.
>
> And those penguins ruin your fantasy.
No, the penguins confirm that genetic change is evolution.
> Gene-centricism is like a
> submarine, Howard. It must eventually surface and re-join reality
> where life has its relationship with environment.
Ray, do you imagine that genes are not real? Genes are the units
of heredity, the exist, and are intimately connected with the
relationship of a population to it's environment. However genes
change due to random mutation which is constantly happening.
Natural selection is also always happening in a population. If
natural selection favors one particular morphology, as in the
penguins, it will tend to stabilize morphology, even as the genes
themselves are undergoing change. You will see changes in the non
coding regions of the genome, or see alternate alleles which don't
affect morphology a great deal.
Again, your claims demonstrate quite clearly you don't really
understand evolution, or how it works.
snip all that Ray ignored
DJT
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Refusing to jump through your hoops does not indicate dishonesty.
But doing/saying a lot of the things that YOU do does show dishonesty.
Don't you remember inventing that brother of yours just to give you an
excuse to post? Well we do Dishonest Ray.
--
Bob.
Seanpit
>
> Oh, I see, you took the words "obervtional method' out of
> context and goodled it. No, I am not talking about
> the "observational method of research", nor am I talking
> about "inductive conclusions". You will have to reread my
> paragraph and try again.
You will need to explain what you mean by "observational method" since
you evidently have your own private definition.
> > Your conclusion of CD based on sequence similarities says nothing at
> > all about the likely mechanism responsible for the functional
> > differences between your proposed steppingstones. The hypothesis of CD
> > does not by itself go against the hypothesis of ID when it comes to
> > the proposed mechanism used to produce the phenomenon in question.
> > The question is, do you have a known non-deliberate mechanism that can
> > actually cross the gap of functional differences? The answer to that
> > question, at this level of complexity, is no. The other question is,
> > can human-level intelligence cross these gaps. The answer to that
> > question is demonstrably yes - we have indeed crossed such gaps at
> > such levels of functional complexity.
>
> The claim that there are "gaps of functional differences" is
> aSeanPitmanism that would be more impressive if you
> published your gap stuff. As it is now, it is merely a conjecture.
> If there were such gaps, I would expect that the literature
> would be full of them. A good test of theSeanPitmangap
> hypothesis would be to look for gaps of thePitmanCritical
> Size in the genetics of members of the same species. If
> members of the same species have similar
> size gaps, thenPitman'shypothesis is dead.
Why would members of the same species have novel functional
differences beyond the 1000aa threshold level of complexity? I don't
think you understand the concept of a level of functional complexity
or a gap size. What you need to look for is a novel system of
function that is within a few dozen residue changes of any other
functional system. That's what you look for. Good luck finding such
a thing beyond the 1000aa threshold level. It doesn't exist.
> As to the basic mechanism:
> 1) reproduction
> 2) with variation
> 3) natural selection.
>
> So, apparent relatedness is real. Yes,Seanjust as you and
> I are related, we are both related to apes, and everything else.
This is the basic suggested mechanism, and it does indeed work - -
just not beyond the 1000aa threshold. There are lots of examples of
it working below this threshold, but not a single example beyond it.
Why not? Because of the exponentially expanding gap problem with
increasing system complexity.
> > Consider also that the actual mechanism extraterrestrial intelligences
> > would necessarily use to produce the radiosignals SETI scientists are
> > looking for isn't actually known. The only thing SETI scientists know
> > for sure is how such signals could have been produced since humans
> > produce such signals. A potential mechanism is also known for
> > producing high-level biosystems since humans have in fact produced
> > such systems - far beyond the observed limitations for the non-
> > deliberate force of RM/NS.
>
> Actually, the assumed mechanism is the same mechanisms
> that we use to produce radio signals here on earth. The model
> of the manufacturer, who has to have
That's the potential mechanism. The actual mechanism isn't known. All
that is known is what the actual mechanism could be. The very same
thing is true of biosystem production. The potential mechanism is
known since humans can and have produced higher level biosystems.
> 1) the ability to make and use tools as humans do
Same thing for ID Theory.
> 2) the ability to engage in mathematics at a level comparable
> with that needed to command (remember that algorithms are
> manufactured items).
Same for ID.
> 3) high enough technology that allows radio equipment to be
> constructed
Same for ID except regarding the production of equipment to build
biosystems.
> 4) with sufficient power as to send signals that we can
> receive (but not so strong as to be physically unlikely)
Same for ID except with sufficient power to build biosystems.
> 5) has sufficiently similar communication styles, thought
> processes and all of that to make signals that fit the test.
Again, the same for ID except for producing similar biosystems with
the same genetic code.
> This is totally unlike ID.
Not at all . . .
> The SETI researcher has a
> restrictive model for the manufacturer of the signals,
> and a relatively restrictive range of what the signals should
> look like. The IDer is just has a 'cosmic correspondence
> principle, and a pocket full of naysaying'.
Basic ID theory proposes exactly the same restricted model for
manufacture of biosystems that are known to be within the range of
human-type manufacture. There is no difference here.
> I mean, look at your gap hypothesis. It is a "a gap of this size
> is impossible for evolutionary mechanisms to cross". It is
> an arbitrary line in the sand, drawn with no real understanding
> of how evolution actually operates being drawn on to draw
> that line. Where are your statistical studies of massively
> parallel genetic systems? How do you account for transpositons
> and all of that?
All kinds of mutations happen all the time, small and large. None of
them, transpositions or whatever, ever produce a novel system of
function that requires at least 1000aa working together at the same
time. It just doesn't happen. Not a single example in all of
literature. This is not some arbitrary line in the sand. It is a real
observation. I have no idea what you are talking about when you
mention "massively parallel genetic systems"? What is that suppose to
mean and how is that suppose to help produce novel higher and higher
level systems of complexity? So far, it hasn't worked - - whatever it
is.
> Also, are you sure that we know all of
> the evolutionary mechanisms? What I read ofSeanB. Carroll's
> evo devo stuff, there are major discoveries made quite recently
> that have changed the picture of evolutionary mechanisms.
> Do you really think that the era of discovery of biology is
> over?
Are you proposing that some new as yet unknown mechanism could do the
job that RM/NS cannot do? We are only talking about the proposed
mechanism of RM/NS here since that is the only suggested mechanism
that might be able to do the job according to the mainstream ToL.
Obviously, if you find some other non-deliberate mechanism that can do
a better job, by all means present it and falsify my ID Theory.
That's the risk of real science. The same thing is true of SETI by the
way. If you could find any non-deliberate as yet unknown force of
nature that could produce the type of radiosignal they are looking
for, you'd falsify their hypothesis too.
SETI and ID theory are one in the same. The only difference is the
material under investigation.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com