ID + CD: A Proposal
david ford
For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
hypothesis of common descent. I propose that the environment (i.e.,
the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact, weather, etc.) and
surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving to
extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
the other organisms. Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
common ancestors) to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
billion year existence. Experience with mutations in the laboratory
indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
Therefore, when I speak of alterations in organisms' genetic material,
I propose that one or more intelligent entities was/were responsible
for those alterations.
The alterations were not done in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step fashion,
but rather, were large sets of coordinated alterations that gave rise
to the sudden appearance of new organisms having new structures with
new functions. Some of the new organisms became extinct through
exposure to the environment and surrounding organisms. The most
prominent of the various sets of alteration events was when a very
large number of alterations were done to produce the "Cambrian
explosion," which began 543 million years ago.
Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
Steven J.
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com...
> Give me a week to see your reaction.
>
> For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
> hypothesis of common descent. I propose that the environment (i.e.,
> the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact, weather, etc.) and
> surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving to
> extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
> the other organisms. Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
> rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
> common ancestors) to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
> has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
> billion year existence. Experience with mutations in the laboratory
> indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
> arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
> Therefore, when I speak of alterations in organisms' genetic material,
> I propose that one or more intelligent entities was/were responsible
> for those alterations.
>
the idea, of course -- there are far more ways to be original and wrong than
original and right. But it's not some novelty we've never considered.
Indeed, Johnson in _Darwin on Trial_ suggests that common descent with with
miraculous saltations rather than accumulated micromutations and selection
as the producer of macroevolution would be acceptable to him. I think (Behe
is perhaps deliberately unclear on this) that Behe would like your
viewpoint.
Reaction the second: Common descent is accepted because it explains a great
deal of evidence -- the nested hierarchy of molecular and morphological
homologies, faunal succession in the fossil record, biogeography, etc. The
mechanisms of the modern synthesis are accepted because there is evidence
that they actually exist and would produce the results observed. You would
need to do more than suggest a "designer of the gaps" to explain what is
currently unexplained by known mechanisms; you would need to show that the
evidence confirmed falsifiable predictions of such a designer. If you could
provide such predictions (beyond the prediction that gaps of some sort will
be found, which is not a prediction distinct from those any "Darwinist"
would make), you would likely be the first ID proponent to do so. Can you
suggest anything testable and specific about the capabilities, methods and
purposes of these one or more intelligent designers?
Reaction the third: now, you may note that bacteria have not been observed
to evolve feathers in the laboratory, but known sorts of mutations, in
sequence, could in principle transform any genome into any other. Any
impassable barrier between "kinds" *can't* be based on any supposed limits
of mutations. You would have to argue either that genomes transitional
between "kinds" would not be adequately fit in any plausible environment, or
that changes to genotypes are insufficient to produce the phenotypes of a
new "kind," or both.
>
> The alterations were not done in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step fashion,
> but rather, were large sets of coordinated alterations that gave rise
> to the sudden appearance of new organisms having new structures with
> new functions. Some of the new organisms became extinct through
> exposure to the environment and surrounding organisms. The most
> prominent of the various sets of alteration events was when a very
> large number of alterations were done to produce the "Cambrian
> explosion," which began 543 million years ago.
>
So these one or more intelligent designers find that having chordates is
essential to their purposes, but, e.g. mammals, primates, apes, and homines
are just contingent minor details?
>
> Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
> intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
>
See reaction the second.
-- Steven J.
Ross Langerak
The Cambrian explosion occurred as a result of the development of hard body
parts (shells). Thus, when we look at the Cambrain explosion, we are seeing
two effects. First, hard body parts are more easily fossilized. So even if
the actual number of species had remained the same, we would still find more
fossil species in the Cambrian than in the Pre-Cambrian.
Second, the development of hard body parts openned up a wealth of new
ecological niches that were previously unavailable. You don't have to be
well adapted to a niche to take advantage of an empty one, so with no
competition for these niches, populations could evolve like crazy. This is
why we see a dramatic increase in species at the beginning of the Cambrian.
When the niches began to fill, competition increased, and the number of
species declined.
> Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
> intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
If we compare human design with what we see in nature, we find that this is
not true. For instance, if you walk into an auto parts store, you will find
a dashboard light that will fit a variety of makes and models of cars. They
don't just take similar lamps, they take identical lamps. Also, if you look
at just one make of car, Ford perhaps, you will find that different models
will often use different dashboard lamps.
Now compare this to what we see in nature. Our hemoglobin is similar to
that of other apes. Not the same, but similar. Our hemoglobin is a little
less similar to that of monkeys. And even less similar to that of other
mammals. This is not what we would expect from design. If life had been
designed, we would expect the hemoglobin of other apes to be identical to
ours. Hemoglobin transports oxygen; there is no reason for it to be
different in closely related species. Furthermore, we would expect to share
this same hemoglobin with other unrelated species. Horses for instance, and
perhaps one species of whales. If life followed the same pattern as design,
we would expect to see identical hemoglobin in a variety of distantly
related species, while more closely related species used completely and
dramatically different hemoglobin.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
> intelligence
Convince me.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Editor of EvilBible.com
> Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
> intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
Doesn't your intelligent designer also appear to be the product of
intelligence?
dkomo
It appears to be the product of human intelligence. Or more
precisely, human imagination. As are the other 99,000+ intelligent
designers (also known as gods and demons) in mythology, folklore and
religion. All the products of the childhood of mankind.
John Vreeland
>For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
>hypothesis of common descent. I propose that the environment (i.e.,
>the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact,
No one suggests that asteroid impacts have an effect on evolution.
They are too fatal and infrequent to adapt to. Any adaptation to them
might be evidence of ID
> weather, etc.) and
>surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving
to
>extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
>the other organisms. Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
>rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
>common ancestors)
I'll accept the possibility of intelligently designed anscestors for
the purposes of "argumentation."
> to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
>has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
>billion year existence. Experience with mutations in the laboratory
>indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
>arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
Cite? (What is a "structure", BTW?) Do you mean to say that cats
have not been observed evolving into dogs in the lab? I agree, but so
what? Give the labs a few dozen million years like the oceans had
during the "Cambrian Explosion"
>Therefore, when I speak of alterations in organisms' genetic
material,
>I propose that one or more intelligent entities was/were responsible
>for those alterations.
>The alterations were not done in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step
fashion,
>but rather, were large sets of coordinated alterations that gave rise
>to the sudden appearance of new organisms having new structures with
>new functions.
Structures that look like modified forms of pre-existing structures?
Why? Wouldn't it be easier to design from scratch using what you had
learned from previous mistakes? Even computer programmers don't take
the idea of re-use as far as your supposed designer. If automobile
designers were limited in that way we'd still be driving Stanley
Steamers, assuming the jump from steam engine to internal combustion
engine is "irreduceably complex" over the decade it took to make the
switch. (Given enough time, no change is "irreduceably complex".)
> Some of the new organisms became extinct through
>exposure to the environment and surrounding organisms. The most
>prominent of the various sets of alteration events was when a very
>large number of alterations were done to produce the "Cambrian
>explosion," which began 543 million years ago.
I am not so sure there is anything very special about the Cambrian.
Certainly there were body styles present then which do not exist now,
but the reverse is also true.
>Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product
of
>intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of NOT having been the
product of intelligence, and probably was NOT the product of
intelligence.
John Vreeland
Wakboth
> Give me a week to see your reaction.
>
> For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
> hypothesis of common descent. I propose that the environment (i.e.,
> the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact, weather, etc.) and
> surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving to
> extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
> the other organisms. Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
> rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
> common ancestors) to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
> has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
> billion year existence. Experience with mutations in the laboratory
> indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
> arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
Oh indeed? And why not, pray tell me?
Mutation followed by selection, repeated enough times, can and will
produce quite "new" features; of course, since evolution works on
existing material, these "new" features are usually co-opted and
altered structures that are found a new use.
Which pretty much invalidates the rest of your idea.
-- Wakboth (I wonder if I'm among the first fifty posters to point
this out?)
Michael Gregory
>
[Experience with mutations in the laboratory
> indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
Polypolidy has been 'observed' the end result being the creation of , true
breeding new species. And by new structures having new functions, are you
implying that the formation of a new species results in gross morphological
change? (new structures) and radical ecological or adaptive modification?
(new functions) This appears to assume that species are created by the
'hopeful monster' process.
<> snip
> Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
> intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
Perhaps we see purpose and cause in pattern, and complexity as a function of
some hardwired behavioural trait (the trace of adaptation past?). Pattern
and complexity can arise in stochastic systems, no cause required, no moving
finger of a cosmic engineer, or benevolent baby sitter.
R.Schenck
>
here, -but its not topposting so dont kill me-
I don't understand, are you presenting a hypothetical DesignWorld, one
that mimics much of the history of ours but has clear evidence of
design? It appears that way in so far as you have made it so that
mutations basically do not exist. Are you saying that this is a world
where the 'recovered history' indicates that sudden addition of large
and novel sets of genetic data to an organisms genome, and that this
is how evolution has occured? But this would be a SaltationWorld, not
a DesignWorld, or at least a world with evidence of supernatural
design.
Or are you saying that this is our actual world, and that you are not
working in hypotheticals? If you are, I dispute the characterisation
of this world, and will respond to the points with that assupmtion.
> For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
> hypothesis of common descent.
Then you realize that this can't be an arguement against common
descent right?
> I propose that the environment (i.e.,
> the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact, weather, etc.) and
> surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving to
> extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
> the other organisms.
Then you are accepting the logic of natural selection. Or do you now
deny that organisms are variable? If organisms vary, produce
offspring that resemble them (heritability of traits), and there are
an excess of individuals in a population, then evolution follows thru
a mechanism of natural selection and leads to adaptation.
> Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
> rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
> common ancestors) to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
> has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
> billion year existence.
Just to rephrase what I think is important here, you are saying that
there were a few originally created types and then the descendants of
these types have been modified. Why even postulate that there were a
few types? There is no logical reason for a multitude or even -two-
types, only one.
> Experience with mutations in the laboratory
> indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
> arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
I dispute this claim in its entirety. I am puzzled as to why you can
state this when the whole of modern biology indicates that mutations
play a vital role in the assumption of new traits.
> Therefore, when I speak of alterations in organisms' genetic material,
> I propose that one or more intelligent entities was/were responsible
> for those alterations.
You are contradicting your above claims, that there was a set of
original types and that evolution proceeded on them.
>
> The alterations were not done in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step fashion,
> but rather, were large sets of coordinated alterations that gave rise
> to the sudden appearance of new organisms having new structures with
> new functions.
The fossil record does not indicate this. It shows instances where
there is, at best, an appearance of this (or a lack of fossil data)
and instances where 'gradual' change -has- occured, meaning that there
is -reason- to think that those ambiguous cases really are instances
of lack of data.
>Some of the new organisms became extinct through
> exposure to the environment and surrounding organisms.
Since you are posutlating a scenario where organisms are changed thru
divine intervention, where is the evidence for extinction? All
instances of extinction could merely be situations where the organisms
are radically changed and no more of teh 'old type' exist. Infact,
this is exactly what will happen in the situations your entire idea
insists on having happened.
snip
Noctiluca
Many questions generated. A few that come to mind first,
- If, as you have stated elsewhere, you are an old earth
creationist/ID guy, and if my assumption is correct that you see the
current biome, and especially humans, as an intended goal of the
designers work, then could you explain the (conservatively speaking) 3
billion year delay in getting around to designing us?
- It would appear that you see your designer as a
"work-within-constraints-of-the-medium" kind of fella. I'm sure you're
aware there are those who suggest he is a "poof-it-into-existence"
guy, needing to care not at all for worldly limitations (a quote,
often attributed to Galileo makes this point quite nicely, "Surely,
God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid
gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier
than lead, and with wings exceeding small. He did not, and that ought
to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that
you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle."). Clearly
the evidence for common descent and the nested heirarchy does not
support this kind of creation. And Ross Langerak has pointed out very
lucidly why the evidence does not support a working-within-constraints
designer.
The evidence suggests something entirely non-teleological so I'm given
to ask, why do you suppose your designer/s attempted to camouflage
their creative process in this fashion? Is this consistent with what
we know of religious designers (deities), or even alien designers?
- Assuming your biological designer/s are the same as cosmological
designer/s (and if not this certainly opens a whole new can), I'm
going to try to look at this from a religious perspective, It seems to
me a designer who could begin the whole shmear with an initial moment
of creation/design and have all the intended consequences flow from
that moment with no need for intervention is an entity far more
thoughtful and capable and all-encompassing than one who must pop in
to tinker with his creations every now and then.
As you postulate him/her/them, it seems your designer/s are far from
perfect. Don't you think it does your designer/s, and the religion/s
they represent, a disservice to try to force-fit them into the natural
world as you have done with the above, and as ID does as a premise?
robert
howard hershey
david ford wrote:
> Give me a week to see your reaction.
>
> For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
> hypothesis of common descent. I propose that the environment (i.e.,
> the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact, weather, etc.) and
> surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving to
> extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
> the other organisms. Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
> rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
> common ancestors) to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
> has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
> billion year existence.
> Experience with mutations in the laboratory
> indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
> arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
Indeed, I, too, would expect mutations that poof new structures into
existence to be rare. OTOH, mutations that modify existing structures
so that they now perform altered or new functions should be much more
common.
> Therefore, when I speak of alterations in organisms' genetic material,
> I propose that one or more intelligent entities was/were responsible
> for those alterations.
Any evidence? Which one or more intelligent entities? By what mechanism?
>
> The alterations were not done in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step fashion,
> but rather, were large sets of coordinated alterations that gave rise
> to the sudden appearance of new organisms having new structures with
> new functions.
Could you give an example of what you mean by this at the all-important
level of speciation? It is rather facile to point out that jellyfish
are quite different from humans, but no biologist proposes a model of
evolution which starts with a human and, by a set of coordinated
alterations suddenly poof a jellyfish (a new organism having new
structures with new functions) into existence. Nor the reverse. Nor is
there the slightest evidence for such a sudden appearance *without
intermediate states* between the modern jellyfish and the modern human
(intermediate states such as fossil reptiles, for example -- the
jellyfish lineage has a somewhat poorer fossil record). They even
propose that the much smaller difference between modern human and
chimpanzee involved multiple intermediate speciation events in the
hominid lineage (the pan lineage has a less complete fossil record).
Let's take, for example, the difference between late H. erectus and
ancient H. sapiens. Which alteration inovled the sudden appearance of
new organisms having new structures with new functions rather than
alterations that involve modification of pre-existing structures?
> Some of the new organisms became extinct through
> exposure to the environment and surrounding organisms. The most
> prominent of the various sets of alteration events was when a very
> large number of alterations were done to produce the "Cambrian
> explosion," which began 543 million years ago.
>
> Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
> intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
>
Any evidence?
Greg G
Really? I thought we were only at the two year old level now. Or is
that just international politics?
>
>
> --dk...@cris.com
--
Greg G.
Being a pilot isn't very exciting if you do it right.
John Harshman
david ford wrote:
> Give me a week to see your reaction.
>
> For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
> hypothesis of common descent.
Why just for purposes of argumentation? Do you think it's not strongly
enough supported by the evidence to accept for all purposes?
Perhaps, but it's a strange sort of intelligence not resembling the
Christian God in the slightest.
This intelligence is a tinkerer who can't get anything right the first
time. He designs a filter feeding mechanism, turns it into an
oxygen-uptake system, then takes part of that and makes a jaw, and
finally throws most of that jaw away in favor of a jaw made from other
parts entirely and keeps only two little pieces that he puts in the
middle ear. Thus the transition from primitive chordate to mammal. If
that's not incompetence and lack of foresight I don't know what is.
Periodically, he gets so confused that he wipes the slate nearly clean
and starts over. But he ends up making the same sort of thing over and
over. It's as if he never learns from his mistakes, or as if all his
focus is so limited in space and time that he can see only a species'
immediate ancestors when deciding what to do next. Three times he nearly
wiped out the ammonoids, only to start again from the few survivors and
build the same set of morphotypes. He kills off the ichthyosaurs only to
build dolphins a bit later. And so on.
It seems to me that real acceptance of ID, in combination with the
history of life, is a huge problem for belief in the Christian God. How
do you reconcile this? My bet: some noise about how God works in
mysterious ways, we can't understand his purposes, yadda yadda yadda.
Which of course means that ID can't be studied at all, since anything is
compatible with it.
AC
Oh that's not important. Why would you try to hold David to his standards
on the issue?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
EjP
Yes, "biology" is the product of intelligence; namely, human
intelligents, just like all the other "-ogies" out there. The
question is, whether what it studies is the product of intelligence.
Contrary to the standard creationist rhetoric, most biologists
I've talked to have confirmed that biological mechanisms, while
amazing and elegant, are usually very elaborate Rube Goldberg
mechanisms, i.e. not the sort of solution an "intelligent
designer" would employ. An example that comes to mind is
the human nervous system. A designer who was setting out
to distribute electrical signals would probably design a system
capable of conducting them. In contracs, human nerves are
actually fairly good insulators, which transmit signals
by means of a serious of what are effectively regenerating
amplifiers. It's an incredibly complex system that ultimately
performs a fairly simple task - exactly the sort of thing
one would expect from random mutation and natural selection.
-E
dkomo
Most observers think that mankind is in its adolescence right now. At
the Britney Spears stage. To see this, just take a close look at
American pop culture.
AC
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>
> david ford wrote:
>>
>> Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
>> intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
>>
> Any evidence?
What? You don't consider assuming your conclusion is evidence? You
evolutionists are all the same.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Hank
> Give me a week to see your reaction.
<snip>
> Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
> intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
Please explain what gives you the impression that biology "strongly
exhibits the appearance of having been the product of intelligence." How
do you propose to determine whether something was or was not the product
of intelligence? In what way can your hypothesis be tested?
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
eNo
And this would be because a designer, presumably smart enough to design
_our_ brain, would be constrained by the same limitations and/or
inclined to the same thought process we as human designers follow? Why
is this _necessarily_ so? Faulty assumption, whatever else we may say
about the validity or lack thereof of ID. Second faulty assumption: that
hemoglobin design must necessarily be constrained by the same
considerations, i.e., standardization, as dash-board lights. What if
hemoglobin among species, for some hitherto unknown reason must be
different, for [theoretical] example, to enhance immune systems by
raising obstacles to cross-specie disease transmission?
--
øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪøĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš
eNo
"If you can't go fast, go long."
øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪøĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš
John Harshman
eNo wrote:
This is just a way of claiming that we can't possibly study nature to
find out anything about a designer, including whether or not one exists.
If you think that, fine. But then you can't also try to engage in any
sort of rational argument about what we can infer from nature. We can't,
under that theory, infer anything.
> Second faulty assumption: that
> hemoglobin design must necessarily be constrained by the same
> considerations, i.e., standardization, as dash-board lights. What if
> hemoglobin among species, for some hitherto unknown reason must be
> different, for [theoretical] example, to enhance immune systems by
> raising obstacles to cross-specie disease transmission?
That's easy to refute. If that were so, then the species that were most
likely to transmit diseases to each other would have the most different
hemoglobin. Since we get most of our diseases from other mammals, then
we would expect mammals, of all organisms, to have the hemoglobin most
different from human hemoglobin. Care to guess what the actual pattern is?
No, you have to come up with an explanation that requires a nested
hierarchy in hemoglobin sequence. And you have to come up with an
explanation that makes that nested hierarchy the same one that you get
from other sorts of data, i.e. one that makes mammals form a group no
matter what data you use. I have an explanation that fits this
observation quite well: all these characters evolved from common
ancestors on a branching tree. But perhaps you don't like that one. If
you don't, feel free to come up with another one that fits the facts.
I'll wait here for you.
eNo
Again, not *necessarily* so. Simply because we do not think like fish
when it comes to sex (i.e., what? fish don't use pickup lines?), does
not mean we can't study them and learn how they go about their fun? And
certainly flower "sex" is far more bizarre! How can we possibly
understand it? Why do we need to paint ourselves into corners like
these? What happened to an open-minded examination of the natural world?
>>Second faulty assumption: that
>>hemoglobin design must necessarily be constrained by the same
>>considerations, i.e., standardization, as dash-board lights. What if
>>hemoglobin among species, for some hitherto unknown reason must be
>>different, for [theoretical] example, to enhance immune systems by
>>raising obstacles to cross-specie disease transmission?
>
> That's easy to refute. If that were so, then the species that were most
^^
Huh? Did you mean to say "least"? That's what my cooked up (and not
meant to be thesis) example conveyed? But see more below on this...
> likely to transmit diseases to each other would have the most different
> hemoglobin. Since we get most of our diseases from other mammals, then
> we would expect mammals, of all organisms, to have the hemoglobin most
> different from human hemoglobin. Care to guess what the actual pattern is?
>
> No, you have to come up with an explanation that requires a nested
> hierarchy in hemoglobin sequence. And you have to come up with an
> explanation that makes that nested hierarchy the same one that you get
> from other sorts of data, i.e. one that makes mammals form a group no
> matter what data you use. I have an explanation that fits this
> observation quite well: all these characters evolved from common
> ancestors on a branching tree. But perhaps you don't like that one. If
> you don't, feel free to come up with another one that fits the facts.
> I'll wait here for you.
<Sigh> You missed my point wading through my made up, and clearly
stated, theoretical example. The point? Hemoglobin need not obey the
same design rules--if indeed there are any--that headlights must obey.
Again, let's avoid painting ourselves into corners. It's rather
embarrassing.
John Harshman
eNo wrote:
Make up your mind. Can we think like the designer or not?
>>>Second faulty assumption: that
>>>hemoglobin design must necessarily be constrained by the same
>>>considerations, i.e., standardization, as dash-board lights. What if
>>>hemoglobin among species, for some hitherto unknown reason must be
>>>different, for [theoretical] example, to enhance immune systems by
>>>raising obstacles to cross-specie disease transmission?
>>>
>>That's easy to refute. If that were so, then the species that were most
> ^^
> Huh? Did you mean to say "least"? That's what my cooked up (and not
> meant to be thesis) example conveyed? But see more below on this...
No, I meant most. Presumably hemoglobin is not the only line of defense
under your theory. Under your theory, species otherwise at greatest risk
of exchanging diseases (evaluated before we look at their hemoglobins)
should have the most different hemoglobins. If your evaluation of risk
just involves looking at the hemoglobin, your argument is hermetically
sealed and circular. Look at it this way: under the theory of evolution,
we have the greatest change of exchanging diseases with organisms that
are more closely related to us. Under that theory, these organisms will
also have the most similar hemoglobin to ours. So if all you're saying
is that organisms with similar hemoglobin are more likely to exchange
diseases, you are not making a prediction in any way different from that
of common descent.
But why, under the defensive hemoglobin theory, would the designer be
protecting you from catching diseases from lampreys, but not from
monkeys? That's some weird designer.
>>likely to transmit diseases to each other would have the most different
>>hemoglobin. Since we get most of our diseases from other mammals, then
>>we would expect mammals, of all organisms, to have the hemoglobin most
>>different from human hemoglobin. Care to guess what the actual pattern is?
>>
>>No, you have to come up with an explanation that requires a nested
>>hierarchy in hemoglobin sequence. And you have to come up with an
>>explanation that makes that nested hierarchy the same one that you get
>>from other sorts of data, i.e. one that makes mammals form a group no
>>matter what data you use. I have an explanation that fits this
>>observation quite well: all these characters evolved from common
>>ancestors on a branching tree. But perhaps you don't like that one. If
>>you don't, feel free to come up with another one that fits the facts.
>>I'll wait here for you.
>
> <Sigh> You missed my point wading through my made up, and clearly
> stated, theoretical example. The point? Hemoglobin need not obey the
> same design rules--if indeed there are any--that headlights must obey.
> Again, let's avoid painting ourselves into corners. It's rather
> embarrassing.
The question is what design rules hemoglobin should obey, and why. My
point, which you seem to have missed, is that theories about the design
of life have to make sense when thrown up against the data. Your made up
example does not, and I then go on to contend that there is only one
theory (common descent) that *does* make sense of the data. You are then
free to refute me by suggesting an alternative theory that works as
well. I'll still wait here.
Frank J
>
> For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
> hypothesis of common descent.
So does Michael Behe. And since none of the major players in the ID
movement have refuted him directly on it, it's safe to say that it's
the official position of ID.
> I propose that the environment (i.e.,
> the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact, weather, etc.) and
> surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving to
> extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
> the other organisms. Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
> rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
> common ancestors)
The "intelligently designed" part is irrelevant since evolution never
rules it out in the first place. But do I interpret correctly that you
think that the critical part of the "design" occurred via abiogenesis?
> to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
> has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
> billion year existence.
So far so good.
> Experience with mutations in the laboratory
> indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
> arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
Well, experiments with modern organisms do not replicate exactly what
occurred in the Precambrian, if that's what you mean, but they do
provide clues about the "arrival" of new functions. I hope you're not
going to play the "information" semantic shell game.
> Therefore, when I speak of alterations in organisms' genetic material,
> I propose that one or more intelligent entities was/were responsible
> for those alterations.
By pre-programming or by intervention? And please provide direct
evidence that does not degenerate into an argument from incredulity.
Hint: Behe thinks "pre-programmed." If you disagree I look forward to
your debate with Behe.
>
> The alterations were not done in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step fashion,
> but rather, were large sets of coordinated alterations that gave rise
> to the sudden appearance of new organisms having new structures with
> new functions.
In vivo? IOW saltation. Or are you trying to gravitate toward
in-vitro. You know, the "independent abiogenesis" that
anti-evolutionists refuse to call by name?
> Some of the new organisms became extinct through
> exposure to the environment and surrounding organisms. The most
> prominent of the various sets of alteration events was when a very
> large number of alterations were done to produce the "Cambrian
> explosion," which began 543 million years ago.
Didn't I just read this from Dembski? You know, the guy who said that
ID can accommodate all the results of "Darwinism."
>
> Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
> intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
OK I'll play along: You surely know, is that many people who agree
that biology suggests intelligent design, know that evolution is the
only explanation of how that design was actuated (after the first
abiogenesis). So how does the last sentence follow from the rest of
your discussion?
eNo
news:408462EE...@pacbell.net...
<snip of much needless acrimony>
>
> eNo wrote:
> > <Sigh> You missed my point wading through my made up, and clearly
> > stated, theoretical example. The point? Hemoglobin need not obey the
> > same design rules--if indeed there are any--that headlights must obey.
> > Again, let's avoid painting ourselves into corners. It's rather
> > embarrassing.
>
>
> The question is what design rules hemoglobin should obey, and why. My
> point, which you seem to have missed, is that theories about the design
> of life have to make sense when thrown up against the data. Your made up
> example does not, and I then go on to contend that there is only one
> theory (common descent) that *does* make sense of the data. You are then
> free to refute me by suggesting an alternative theory that works as
> well. I'll still wait here.
Wow. Embarrassing indeed. Whatever gave you the idea that I am a proponent
of ID? I was merely pointing out the lack of logic in Langerak's refutation,
namely that the alleged designer must follow the same design rules we humans
follow, or else we can't observe or verify the alleged design process. You,
on the other hand, are far too frothy for a confrontation. Let's try this
again, shall we, with a less controversial example?
Can engineers from a company employing one design methodology observe, study
and perhaps even learn from another company's design process and techniques
even if the latter follows entirely different design criteria? Of course!!!
It's done every day. The engineers from the first company would be foolish
to rule out as non-sensical and unverifiable any design process that
deviates from their own. Get it now? This neither proves nor disproves ID,
which was never my intention. It merely shows, I'm afraid, in both you and
Langerak's argumentation, the inability to openly and fairly consider
anything that deviates from your pre-designed way of thinking. And that,
fella, is mondo embarrassing.
--
eNo
"Why am I here?"
Ross Langerak
"eNo" <ab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ndYgc.10$b9...@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com...
The only design we have to compare with is human design. If supernatural
design is different, then how would we recognize it?
> Second faulty assumption: that
> hemoglobin design must necessarily be constrained by the same
> considerations, i.e., standardization, as dash-board lights.
We're not talking about a constraint here; we're talking about convenience.
When engineers design an automobile, they look for an existing lamp to go
into the dashboard. Within the same company, several different lamps may be
chosen. And since different companies will have the same options, identical
lamps may be used by different manufacturers. This is an example of a basic
rule of engineering: don't reinvent the wheel; or in this case, the
dashboard lamp.
> What if
> hemoglobin among species, for some hitherto unknown reason must be
> different, for [theoretical] example, to enhance immune systems by
> raising obstacles to cross-specie disease transmission?
HIV was acquired as a mutation of SIV. If differences in biochemistry are
intended to act as a barrier to the transimission of disease, then why is
the hemoglobin of other apes similar to ours, rather than totally different?
If life were designed, we would expect much of our biochemistry to be either
identical, or very different. We would not expect to see the patterns that
we see in life today.
Ross Langerak
I have an open mind, just not so open that my brains fall out.
We have fish available to us, so we can study fish sex. We have flowers
available to us, so we can study flower sex. How do we go about studying
supernatural deity sex? Likewise, how do we investigate how supernatural
deity design? The only way we can do that is by making a comparison with
human design.
> >>Second faulty assumption: that
> >>hemoglobin design must necessarily be constrained by the same
> >>considerations, i.e., standardization, as dash-board lights. What if
> >>hemoglobin among species, for some hitherto unknown reason must be
> >>different, for [theoretical] example, to enhance immune systems by
> >>raising obstacles to cross-specie disease transmission?
> >
> > That's easy to refute. If that were so, then the species that were most
> ^^
> Huh? Did you mean to say "least"? That's what my cooked up (and not
> meant to be thesis) example conveyed? But see more below on this...
If differences in biochemistry were intended to block the transmission of
disease, then you would design the species that were most likely to transmit
disease with the greatest differences in biochemistry.
> > likely to transmit diseases to each other would have the most different
> > hemoglobin. Since we get most of our diseases from other mammals, then
> > we would expect mammals, of all organisms, to have the hemoglobin most
> > different from human hemoglobin. Care to guess what the actual pattern
is?
> >
> > No, you have to come up with an explanation that requires a nested
> > hierarchy in hemoglobin sequence. And you have to come up with an
> > explanation that makes that nested hierarchy the same one that you get
> > from other sorts of data, i.e. one that makes mammals form a group no
> > matter what data you use. I have an explanation that fits this
> > observation quite well: all these characters evolved from common
> > ancestors on a branching tree. But perhaps you don't like that one. If
> > you don't, feel free to come up with another one that fits the facts.
> > I'll wait here for you.
>
> <Sigh> You missed my point wading through my made up, and clearly
> stated, theoretical example. The point? Hemoglobin need not obey the
> same design rules--if indeed there are any--that headlights must obey.
> Again, let's avoid painting ourselves into corners. It's rather
> embarrassing.
You mean the design rule that says that you don't need to reinvent something
every time you want to use it? Why not use the same hemoglobin for all
apes? Or, if you think you need the hemoglobin to be different, why not
very different? Why would hemoglobin be designed slightly different amoung
the apes, and a little more different between apes and other primates, and
even more different between primates and other mammals? If life were
designed, wouldn't we expect to see the same degree of difference across all
species?
You've also (inadvertently?) introduced another characteristic of design
that is not exhibited by life. When we look at the design of automobiles,
we may find that two different models may use the same headlamp, but
different dashlamps. Likewise, we may find that these two models share
identical dashlamps with other models, but use different headlamps. The
same is true for turn signals, brake lights, interior lights, side markers,
air filters, oil filters, fuel filters, etc. In fact, the same parts may be
used for applications other than automobiles. When engineers design
something, they use existing parts whenever possible so they won't have to
go to the extra effort of designing something that already exists. This is
not what we see in the design of life.
Ross Langerak
"eNo" <e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7y%gc.23162$G_.1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Notice that you are assuming that one company has access to the other
company's design process. If they don't have access to the other company's
design process, then the only process they can base their decisions on are
their own.
> It's done every day. The engineers from the first company would be foolish
> to rule out as non-sensical and unverifiable any design process that
> deviates from their own. Get it now?
No, I don't. Suppose the Ford Motor Company were to find an automobile that
was not one of their own. If they knew absolutely nothing about the design
processes at Bavarian Motor Works, how would they determine whether or not
the automobile in their possession was a BMW? The only design process
FoMoCo has for comparison is their own, and all that can tell them is that
the automobile is not their own.
Of course, the difference between the product of human design and life is
far greater than the difference between two makes of automobile. It's
greater even than the difference between a toaster and a space shuttle.
Based upon our knowledge of human design, we can recognize the design in the
space shuttle. The same is not true for life.
> This neither proves nor disproves ID,
> which was never my intention. It merely shows, I'm afraid, in both you and
> Langerak's argumentation, the inability to openly and fairly consider
> anything that deviates from your pre-designed way of thinking. And that,
> fella, is mondo embarrassing.
What I have demonstrated is that life does not conform to the only design
process that is known to us: human design. What would be embarrassing,
would be to think that I could recognize design based upon an unknown design
process. You can't recognize design based upon an unknown design process.
You can't demonstrate design by appealing to an unknown design process. If
life exhibits characteristics of design, the only design process we have
available for comparison is human design.
Tuvok Malawi
vicki_...@croydon.gov.uk
cynthia...@croydon.gov.uk
Vree...@hotmail.com (John Vreeland) wrote in message news:<c66035b2.04041...@posting.google.com>...
dkomo
I think I'll play the devil's advocate this morning to relieve the
boredom since the posts appearing on t.o. lately have been so utterly
banal. ID'iots aren't claiming that the Intelligent Designer had a
direct hand in fashioning life as in the examples you cite above.
Rather, they conveniently hide the main design event back in the
period of abiogenesis, about which science knows little, and they
would say that the Designer fashioned the process of evolution at that
time. Thus what you were describing is simply evolution at work as
the Designer intended it.
Why does evolution appear to be so chaotic and irrational? The
Designer intended it that way to hide His/Her/Its handiwork. The
Designer *wants* nature to appear undesigned.
> My bet: some noise about how God works in
> mysterious ways, we can't understand his purposes, yadda yadda yadda.
The Designer's purpose is to test Man's faith by creating a world that
appears to work along natural principles and to be self-organizing.
The Designer wants to see how many will still believe in Him/Her/It
despite the seeming overwhelming evidence to the contrary, with only a
very few people of unusual intuition and discernment like William
Dembski and our own David Ford recognizing His/Her/Its design role
underneath it all.
> Which of course means that ID can't be studied at all, since anything is
> compatible with it.
Yes, and I took advantage of this large number of degrees of freedom
in my devil's advocacy. Plus there are also many more arguments that
can made from the ID'iot's point of view.
This is like arguing theology. You can make anything up regarding the
supernatural and carry on arguments ad infinitum. Nothing ever gets
resolved. Of course, this is a large part of t.o.'s raison d'etre.
John Harshman
eNo wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:408462EE...@pacbell.net...
> <snip of much needless acrimony>
>
>>eNo wrote:
>>
>>><Sigh> You missed my point wading through my made up, and clearly
>>>stated, theoretical example. The point? Hemoglobin need not obey the
>>>same design rules--if indeed there are any--that headlights must obey.
>>>Again, let's avoid painting ourselves into corners. It's rather
>>>embarrassing.
>>>
>>
>>The question is what design rules hemoglobin should obey, and why. My
>>point, which you seem to have missed, is that theories about the design
>>of life have to make sense when thrown up against the data. Your made up
>>example does not, and I then go on to contend that there is only one
>>theory (common descent) that *does* make sense of the data. You are then
>>free to refute me by suggesting an alternative theory that works as
>>well. I'll still wait here.
>>
>
> Wow. Embarrassing indeed. Whatever gave you the idea that I am a proponent
> of ID?
Doesn't matter. You raised a claim, and I refuted it, which restores the
logic in Langerak's refutation.
> I was merely pointing out the lack of logic in Langerak's refutation,
> namely that the alleged designer must follow the same design rules we humans
> follow, or else we can't observe or verify the alleged design process. You,
> on the other hand, are far too frothy for a confrontation. Let's try this
> again, shall we, with a less controversial example?
>
> Can engineers from a company employing one design methodology observe, study
> and perhaps even learn from another company's design process and techniques
> even if the latter follows entirely different design criteria? Of course!!!
> It's done every day. The engineers from the first company would be foolish
> to rule out as non-sensical and unverifiable any design process that
> deviates from their own. Get it now?
I get it, but this just isn't relevant to the matter at hand. Nobody is
suggesting that no deviations are possible. But we must characterize the
design process in some fashion in order to have any way to study it.
Let me try to salvage your claim. We can never refute the statement "x
was designed" because "design" is not a well-formed hypothesis. There
are no features by which we can recognize design or its lack; we can
only recognize the presence or absence of particular sorts of design. We
can refute the statement "x was designed in a way that resembles the way
humans design things" (i.e. the only means we have to recognize design).
This is just like the argument that it's impossible to prove the
non-existence of God, the reason being that God too is not a well-formed
hypothesis. We can only disprove the existence of particular sorts of gods.
> This neither proves nor disproves ID,
> which was never my intention.
To the extent that ID is a testable hypothesis, the original post tests
it and finds it incompatible with the data. To the extent that the
original post didn't do that, ID may not be testable. If you can come up
with an alternative and testable form of design that makes a different
prediction about hemoglobin, ID will become testable, but until that
time it's not.
> It merely shows, I'm afraid, in both you and
> Langerak's argumentation, the inability to openly and fairly consider
> anything that deviates from your pre-designed way of thinking. And that,
> fella, is mondo embarrassing.
The way to show that your claim about our inability is correct would be
to present that testable hypothesis involving hemoglobin. I can't think
of one, which either shows my inability (and you can do your superior
dance if so) or shows that there is none. Which is it?
John Harshman
dkomo wrote:
This is not the usual ID position. There are two positions taken by
IDiots (when they leave the big tent behing and accept common descent,
which position they usually hide). 1) Go--er, the designer frequently
intervened during the history of life to produce directed
transformations in species or 2) the designer created a control system
hidden in the DNA that caused particular transformations to occur at
particular times, all programmed into the original ur-genome. The idea
that God just created life and let it go, knowing (because he knows
everything) how it would turn out is just Deist evolution, which is
generally anathema to IDiots. That's why they deny that natural
processes are sufficient to produce innovation.
> Why does evolution appear to be so chaotic and irrational? The
> Designer intended it that way to hide His/Her/Its handiwork. The
> Designer *wants* nature to appear undesigned.
That argument is not refutable. I think it's been generally acknowledged
that a trickster god can't be tested by any conceivable sort of data. Of
course this is no comfort to fundamentalists, because it gives God a
serious character flaw.
>>My bet: some noise about how God works in
>>mysterious ways, we can't understand his purposes, yadda yadda yadda.
>
> The Designer's purpose is to test Man's faith by creating a world that
> appears to work along natural principles and to be self-organizing.
> The Designer wants to see how many will still believe in Him/Her/It
> despite the seeming overwhelming evidence to the contrary, with only a
> very few people of unusual intuition and discernment like William
> Dembski and our own David Ford recognizing His/Her/Its design role
> underneath it all.
Serious character flaw. I would consider such a personality to be
dangerously disturbed. Especially if we add in the idea that hell is the
reward for those of intermediate discernment (able to see the evidence,
unable to look beyond it).
>>Which of course means that ID can't be studied at all, since anything is
>>compatible with it.
>
> Yes, and I took advantage of this large number of degrees of freedom
> in my devil's advocacy. Plus there are also many more arguments that
> can made from the ID'iot's point of view.
>
> This is like arguing theology. You can make anything up regarding the
> supernatural and carry on arguments ad infinitum. Nothing ever gets
> resolved. Of course, this is a large part of t.o.'s raison d'etre.
Thanks. The creationists who are even as reasonable as the one you are
simulating are quite rare in this group (and in nature?).
eNo
<SIGH, AND DOUBLE SIGH> Ever heard of black-box analysis and
reverse-engineering? Man, you guys are obstinately close-minded.
eNo
Can you cite me a quote where Behe, Demski or anyone else in the ID camp
assert that this, that or the other biological widget must be designed
because it exhibits traits that evidence a _human_ design process?
>
>
>>This neither proves nor disproves ID,
>>which was never my intention.
>
>
>
> To the extent that ID is a testable hypothesis, the original post tests
> it and finds it incompatible with the data. To the extent that the
> original post didn't do that, ID may not be testable. If you can come up
> with an alternative and testable form of design that makes a different
> prediction about hemoglobin, ID will become testable, but until that
> time it's not.
Ah, yeah, hemoglobin again. The one and only needed proof against ID.
Ergo, Viva la Evolucion! Uncle. Okay, so hemoglobin did not come from
ID, but rather developed through Darwinian mechanisms. Happy now? Now,
does that _necessarily_ mean that every other biological sub-system
arose from strictly Darwinian mechanisms? Your honest answer to this
question will demonstrate whether your methodology is cast in stone.
eNo
Again, because whoever this designer is must design the way we do.
Otherwise, we can't possibly study or learn anything. Because we're too
stupid to learn anything from anyone who might do things a bit
differently--perhaps better--than us. Because the designers of Ferraris
and Masserattis must reuse head lamps, dashboards and other components
the same way Yugo and Chevy designers do. Because the design of a
defense-application satellite can be done with the same off-the-shelf
parts used for commercial satellites, and we would save sooo much money.
Because no need for customization or innovation exists anywhere. Just
use the cookie cutter. And besides, we have this other way of looking at
things that describes and explains _everything_, so don't bother me, I'm
evolving.
John Harshman
eNo wrote:
No.
>>>This neither proves nor disproves ID,
>>>which was never my intention.
>>>
>>
>>
>>To the extent that ID is a testable hypothesis, the original post tests
>>it and finds it incompatible with the data. To the extent that the
>>original post didn't do that, ID may not be testable. If you can come up
>>with an alternative and testable form of design that makes a different
>>prediction about hemoglobin, ID will become testable, but until that
>>time it's not.
>
> Ah, yeah, hemoglobin again. The one and only needed proof against ID.
> Ergo, Viva la Evolucion! Uncle. Okay, so hemoglobin did not come from
> ID, but rather developed through Darwinian mechanisms. Happy now? Now,
> does that _necessarily_ mean that every other biological sub-system
> arose from strictly Darwinian mechanisms? Your honest answer to this
> question will demonstrate whether your methodology is cast in stone.
Nothing like putting the pressure one. The answer would be no. Happy?
But anyway, nobody is saying anything about Darwinian mechanisms here.
The question is about design or no design. And it's also implicitly
about fiat, separate creation of "kinds" vs. common descent. The two
issues are of course separable, but they haven't been separated in this
thread yet. Hemoglobin shows signs of common descent, signs that its
evolution follows no particular plan, and signs of belonging to a larger
family of globin proteins whose evolution also follows no particular plan.
Now, if hemoglobins are related by common descent, it would take a
fairly odd form of creation for other genes not to be also related by
common descent.
As for design, other genes/body parts could be designed even if
hemoglobin weren't. But the more parts we sample that turn out not to be
designed, the more inductive evidence we gather that none of the parts
are designed. Especially if we lack any strong candidates for parts that
do appear to be designed.
eNo
Here's an interesting quote I found while weighing the merits and
demerits of ID. It succinctly addresses whether we need to know "the
mind of the designer" or "his/her ways" in order to discern design at all:
> Can we determine whether an object is designed without identifying or knowing anything
> about its designer? For instance, can we identify an object as an ancient artifact without
> knowing anything about the civilization that produced it?
>
> As the science that studies signs of intelligence, intelligent design investigates the
> effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such. A sign, after all, is not the
> thing signified. Intelligent design does not try to get into the mind of a designer or
> speculate about the characteristics of a designer. Its focus is not on the identity of
> a designer (the thing signified) but on the artifacts due to a designer (the sign). A
> designer’s identity and characteristics are, to be sure, interesting questions, and
> one may be able to infer something about what a designer is like from the
> designed objects that a designer produces. But the identity and characteristics of a
> designer lie outside the scope of intelligent design.
> That’s as it should be. The fact is that we infer design repeatedly and reliably
> without knowing anything about the underlying designer. Some biologists, before
> they permit intelligent design into biology, require getting into the mind of the
> designer and knowing what sorts of biological systems we should expect from the
> designer. But, as Stanford philosopher of biology Elliott Sober admits, “To infer
> watchmaker from watch, you needn’t know exactly what the watchmaker had in
> mind; indeed, you don’t even have to know that the watch is a device for
> measuring time. Archaeologists sometimes unearth tools of unknown function,
> but still reasonably draw the inference that these things are, in fact, tools.”
--
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
eNo
"If you can't go fast, go long."
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
Generic Consumer
Perhaps I am barging in, but that is a peculiarly anthropocentric
statement for an evolutionist. All manner of non-humans design, from
beavers to bower birds. If we take design to be an alteration of the
environment to suit an end, then my dog frequently redesigns my
backyard to his liking. And we can go on like this down the chain:
spiders design webs, bees hives, osteocytes lamella of bone, &tc.
John Harshman
eNo wrote:
Right. I think this is bullshit. We know all this because we know what
the tools made by human beings look like as distinguished from all the
other stuff we might find on the beach. This says nothing about such a
concept as general design, divorced from all knowledge of a designer.
To put my argument still another way: For any theory at all, any theory
whatsoever about anything, you can always make the generic objection
"what if something else is causing the effects you see, something you
know nothing about and have not considered?", but this objection is
vacuous: it leads nowhere because it can always be used, regardless of
the support for the theory. In order to object to a theory you have to
come up with something specific. So "what if the designer designs some
way other than the way humans do?" isn't useful; you have to specify a
possibility that can be tested against the data to determine if it fits
better than the alternative theory. You tried that with the hemoglobin
example, and it didn't work. Nobody so far has ever managed to come up
with an alternative theory that works. This is not to say that somebody
won't do it tomorrow, but until that happens there is zero force to your
argument.
John Harshman
Generic Consumer wrote:
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<408539DF...@pacbell.net>...
[snip]
>>Let me try to salvage your claim. We can never refute the statement "x
>>was designed" because "design" is not a well-formed hypothesis. There
>>are no features by which we can recognize design or its lack; we can
>>only recognize the presence or absence of particular sorts of design. We
>>can refute the statement "x was designed in a way that resembles the way
>>humans design things" (i.e. the only means we have to recognize design).
>>This is just like the argument that it's impossible to prove the
>>non-existence of God, the reason being that God too is not a well-formed
>>hypothesis. We can only disprove the existence of particular sorts of gods.
>>
>
>
> Perhaps I am barging in, but that is a peculiarly anthropocentric
> statement for an evolutionist. All manner of non-humans design, from
> beavers to bower birds.
I think you have to redefine design in order to take that position. As I
see you do below.
> If we take design to be an alteration of the
> environment to suit an end, then my dog frequently redesigns my
> backyard to his liking. And we can go on like this down the chain:
> spiders design webs, bees hives, osteocytes lamella of bone, &tc.
If. I think you have removed all useful meaning from the concept of
design. Most of the behaviors you have described are hard-wired into the
organisms. It is generally supposed that "design" as a concept requires
that the designer be intelligent. I don't want to argue the definition
of intelligence, but I think we would all agree that osteocytes at least
do not display it. In the sense you mention, I suppose we would all
agree that the universe designed life.
[snip]
eNo
But we can't discern whether something came about through Darwinian
mechanisms (i.e., Natural Selection) vs. some sort of design process.
How sad for us.
> This says nothing about such a
> concept as general design, divorced from all knowledge of a designer.
>
> To put my argument still another way: For any theory at all, any theory
> whatsoever about anything, you can always make the generic objection
> "what if something else is causing the effects you see, something you
> know nothing about and have not considered?", but this objection is
> vacuous: it leads nowhere because it can always be used, regardless of
> the support for the theory. In order to object to a theory you have to
> come up with something specific. So "what if the designer designs some
> way other than the way humans do?" isn't useful; you have to specify a
> possibility that can be tested against the data to determine if it fits
> better than the alternative theory. You tried that with the hemoglobin
> example, and it didn't work. Nobody so far has ever managed to come up
> with an alternative theory that works. This is not to say that somebody
> won't do it tomorrow, but until that happens there is zero force to your
> argument.
So why, exactly, do Masseratti and Ferrarri engineers use less
"standard" parts than Yugo and Chevy engineers? Hmm. We can't tell that
either, I suppose. Oh, well. Darwin and Darwin alone forever.
--
øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪøĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš
eNo
"If you can't go fast, go long."
eNo
Yes, but does your dog produce "irreducibly complex" designs? I must
say, mine (and I have two pooches) do produce a great degree of
variability in their designs. ;)
--
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
eNo
"If you can't go fast, go long."
John Harshman
eNo wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>>eNo wrote:
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>>eNo wrote:
[snip]
No, I think we can, unless you make "some sort of design process" a
catchall for any sort of process you can or can't imagine. Of course the
ones you can't imagine are untestable and therefore can't be refuted.
But so what?
>>This says nothing about such a
>>concept as general design, divorced from all knowledge of a designer.
>
>>To put my argument still another way: For any theory at all, any theory
>>whatsoever about anything, you can always make the generic objection
>>"what if something else is causing the effects you see, something you
>>know nothing about and have not considered?", but this objection is
>>vacuous: it leads nowhere because it can always be used, regardless of
>>the support for the theory. In order to object to a theory you have to
>>come up with something specific. So "what if the designer designs some
>>way other than the way humans do?" isn't useful; you have to specify a
>>possibility that can be tested against the data to determine if it fits
>>better than the alternative theory. You tried that with the hemoglobin
>>example, and it didn't work. Nobody so far has ever managed to come up
>>with an alternative theory that works. This is not to say that somebody
>>won't do it tomorrow, but until that happens there is zero force to your
>>argument.
>
> So why, exactly, do Masseratti and Ferrarri engineers use less
> "standard" parts than Yugo and Chevy engineers? Hmm. We can't tell that
> either, I suppose.
Don't know, and don't care. It's not relevant.
> Oh, well. Darwin and Darwin alone forever.
Until someone presents a viable alternative, yes. How else could science
possibly work?
(And once again, in case you missed it the first time, nobody is talking
about Darwin or darwinian mechanisms, unless you are using that,
wrongly, as shorthand for anything that isn't design.)
Generic Consumer
Not at all. I don't think the universe designed life per my
definition. In order to alter the environment to suit an end one must
have an end in mind, and a mind to hold it. Of course osteocytes do
not have one, but we can make a strong case for intelligence in other
animals, from orangs to dogs to bower birds, &tc, all the way down to
osteocytes.
You say intelligence is the critical factor in design but do not want
to argue it. That's fine. This was not my discussion, and I agree
it's not worth it to begin a tangent. I only wished to point out that
ID'ers need not be limited to a human-like-design model (especially
given their assertion that the universe is not in fact human-designed)
and that there are plenty of examples of non-human design right here
on Earth. The question, as you rightly pointed out, is what we would
expect a divinely-designed universe to look like.
John Harshman
Generic Consumer wrote:
No we can't. I don't think any of your particular examples actually has
an end in mind, at least in a way that has any resemblance to what we
mean when we say that about humans. These are just behaviors that the
organisms (and cells) do as a response to stimuli. You can thank natural
selection for making that response useful, not any intent on the part of
the organism. Beavers don't "intend" to build dams. They just find that
putting sticks in particular places satisfies an urge they have. And
supposing that osteocytes have intentions or minds or intelligence is
patently absurd; once again you have to completely redefine intelligence
to make that true. These may be fuzzy concepts, but they're not *that*
fuzzy.
> You say intelligence is the critical factor in design but do not want
> to argue it. That's fine. This was not my discussion, and I agree
> it's not worth it to begin a tangent. I only wished to point out that
> ID'ers need not be limited to a human-like-design model (especially
> given their assertion that the universe is not in fact human-designed)
> and that there are plenty of examples of non-human design right here
> on Earth. The question, as you rightly pointed out, is what we would
> expect a divinely-designed universe to look like.
That's my point. ID doesn't need to be limited to a human design model,
but it does have to have *some* specific model in order to make testable
predictions. Without a model, all you have is that universal argument
"well, maybe there's some theory you haven't thought of that works
better". But I think a non-intelligent design model (as with the
beavers, osteocytes, etc.) is not something any ID advocate would
consider. God creates as an evolved, unthinking response to stimuli?
Generic Consumer
Hmmm, I think you are reading assertions into my arguments that aren't
there. I am not a creationist. (I used to teach college biology and
history of science in fact, until I went into the private sector.)
Obviously you understand there to be a much greater divide between the
animal and human mind than I do, and as we are both avoiding a long
discussion of intelligence and its measures, we should just end it
here.
John Harshman
Generic Consumer wrote:
It doesn't matter. We were talking about what sorts of things qualify as
design, and it was in the context of the "intelligent design" movement.
Note the thread title. If you were just doing some topic drift, never
mind. But if it's not about creationism, you have the wrong topic.
> (I used to teach college biology and
> history of science in fact, until I went into the private sector.)
> Obviously you understand there to be a much greater divide between the
> animal and human mind than I do,
Some animals. There's a continuum between osteocytes (none) and humans
(maximum as far as we know). You have to get pretty near the high end of
the list before you get anything I would construe as design. Look at it
this way. Beavers build two excellent structures: dams and lodges. If
they were actually designing anything, i.e. making a planned product in
response to a perceived requirement, wouldn't they make other things
too? Or are ponds and shelters their only possible needs? And why do
they always make them in exactly the same ways? Are their needs that
invariant? This is not design. Some animals do seem to exercise design
of a sort. Some crows make tools that differ a bit based on need.
Chimpanzees and Japanese macaques sometimes seem to come up with
solutions for new problems in ways that might possibly reflect
intention. But not beavers.
> and as we are both avoiding a long
> discussion of intelligence and its measures, we should just end it
> here.
Or here. Or not.
Robin Levett
...both of which both *assume* that the object under consideration is
designed, and are used by people who have a fairly good idea of how the
object was designed, generically if not specifically. That rather
invaldiates the example, doesn't it? </SIGH>
--
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Stanley Friesen
> ...
>The Cambrian explosion occurred as a result of the development of hard body
>parts (shells). Thus, when we look at the Cambrain explosion, we are seeing
>two effects. First, hard body parts are more easily fossilized. So even if
>the actual number of species had remained the same, we would still find more
>fossil species in the Cambrian than in the Pre-Cambrian.
>
>Second, the development of hard body parts openned up a wealth of new
>ecological niches that were previously unavailable. You don't have to be
>well adapted to a niche to take advantage of an empty one, so with no
>competition for these niches, populations could evolve like crazy. This is
>why we see a dramatic increase in species at the beginning of the Cambrian.
>When the niches began to fill, competition increased, and the number of
>species declined.
Indeed the wide variety of body forms, especially among arthropods and
arthropod-like species, supports this. It was a time of broad
"experimentation", as it were. Most of the "odd" body forms were
extinct by Late Cambrian, showing that they were less effective in their
niches and could not survive *real* competition.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> > Give me a week to see your reaction.
> >
> > For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
> > hypothesis of common descent. I propose that the environment (i.e.,
> > the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact, weather, etc.) and
> > surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving to
> > extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
> > the other organisms. Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
> > rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
> > common ancestors) to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
> > has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
> > billion year existence. Experience with mutations in the laboratory
> > indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
> > arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
> > Therefore, when I speak of alterations in organisms' genetic material,
> > I propose that one or more intelligent entities was/were responsible
> > for those alterations.
> >
> > The alterations were not done in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step fashion,
> > but rather, were large sets of coordinated alterations that gave rise
> > to the sudden appearance of new organisms having new structures with
> > new functions. Some of the new organisms became extinct through
> > exposure to the environment and surrounding organisms. The most
> > prominent of the various sets of alteration events was when a very
> > large number of alterations were done to produce the "Cambrian
> > explosion," which began 543 million years ago.
> >
> > intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
>
>
> - If, as you have stated elsewhere, you are an old earth
> creationist/ID guy, and if my assumption is correct that you see the
> current biome, and especially humans, as an intended goal of the
> designers work, then could you explain the (conservatively speaking) 3
> billion year delay in getting around to designing us?
Our universe, which began to exist in the big bang creation event, is
about 15 billion years old. Heavy elements essential to carbon-based
life, e.g., carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, and nitrogen, are only
produced by about 10 billion years of star burning.[a] Thus, the
universe must be at least 10 billion years old if we humans are to
exist. An at-least 10 billion year old universe translates into, in
the case of our universe's expansion ever since the big bang,
translates into an extremely large universe. In the words of
astrophysicists John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "No one should be
surprised to find the Universe to be as large as it is. We could not
exist in one that was significantly smaller. ....the Universe has to
be as big as it is in order to support just one lonely outpost of
life."[a]
a. Barrow & Tipler, _The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_ (NY:
Oxford University Press, 1986), 706pp., 18.
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The earth's early
"atmosphere consisted of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and carbon
monoxide. Over billions of years, biological and geological activity
removed most of the carbon from the atmosphere and replaced it with
the free oxygen that now provides sustenance for all animal
life."(Robert Naeye, "Okay, Where Are They?" _Astronomy_ (July 1996),
38-43, 41.)
In short, the biology-designing intelligence(s) waited billions of
years for life-essential elements, and for human-sustaining oxygen
levels, to appear.
The designer(s) of biology waited billions of years for life-essential
elements to appear through the process of star-burning; before
creating humans, the designer(s) of humans waited billions of years
for oxygen levels to become sufficient through biological and
geological processes for sustaining humans. It is conceivable that
the designer(s) of humans had both the ability and the desire to
create life-essential elements, human-sustaining oxygen levels, and
humans 12 billion years ago. Such did not occur, so I conclude that
the designer(s) of biology and of humans either lacked the ability to
do that creating 12 billion years ago or lacked the desire to do such,
or both.
> - It would appear that you see your designer as a
> "work-within-constraints-of-the-medium" kind of fella.
The designer(s) of physics, and the designer(s) of biology, chose to
work with the material world of which we are aware, and in making that
choice, was/were thereupon constrained in terms of what it/they could
make to reside in the material world.
> I'm sure you're
> aware there are those who suggest he is a "poof-it-into-existence"
> guy, needing to care not at all for worldly limitations (a quote,
> often attributed to Galileo makes this point quite nicely, "Surely,
> God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid
> gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier
> than lead, and with wings exceeding small. He did not, and that ought
> to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that
> you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.").
I wasn't aware that there were individuals that thought the
intelligent designer/s of the biological world weren't constrained by
any of the material world's constraints/limitations in creating
biological creatures for existence in that material world. Within the
gold bones sentence, was Galileo describing a position that was held
by him, or by any of his knowledgeable contemporaries or predecessors?
> Clearly
> the evidence for common descent and the nested heirarchy does not
> support this kind of creation.
Study of the organisms around us provides evidence against the
possibility that those organisms exist outside of the constraints of
physics.
> And Ross Langerak has pointed out very
> lucidly why the evidence does not support a working-within-constraints
> designer.
I looked at 3 of his posts in this thread, and didn't see what you
refer to. Which post(s) exactly did you have in mind?
> The evidence suggests something entirely non-teleological so I'm given
> to ask, why do you suppose your designer/s attempted to camouflage
> their creative process in this fashion? Is this consistent with what
> we know of religious designers (deities), or even alien designers?
What is meant by [r]"non-teleological"?
What are 3 things [r]"we know of religious designers (deities), or...
alien designers"?
> - Assuming your biological designer/s are the same as cosmological
> designer/s (and if not this certainly opens a whole new can),
Yes, it is possible that the designer(s) of physics wasn't/weren't the
same as the designer(s) of biology.
> I'm
> going to try to look at this from a religious perspective, It seems to
> me a designer who could begin the whole shmear with an initial moment
> of creation/design and have all the intended consequences flow from
> that moment with no need for intervention is an entity far more
> thoughtful and capable and all-encompassing than one who must pop in
> to tinker with his creations every now and then.
Possibly, though I don't know what is meant by [r]"thoughtful" and
[r]"all-encompassing," and instead of [r]"is an entity far more" would
say 'is an entity that could be inferred to possibly be far more.'
The material/physical existence/realm of which we are aware began to
exist in the big bang creation event. In your view, does physics have
the inherent capacity of giving rise to life? If "yes," what are 2
experiments demonstrating this?
> As you postulate him/her/them, it seems your designer/s are far from
> perfect. Don't you think it does your designer/s, and the religion/s
> they represent, a disservice to try to force-fit them into the natural
> world as you have done with the above, and as ID does as a premise?
What is meant by [r]"perfect"? What religion/s does the designer(s)
of which I spoke in my opening post represent?
I don't know what is meant by 'doing a disservice to designer/s,' nor
what is meant by 'doing a disservice to religion/s.' Remind me, what
are 2 instances where I [r]"force-fit" designer/s into the worlds of
physics and/or biology?
david ford
> > intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
>
> intelligence?
However the intelligent designer(s) of biology and of physics might or
might not have a particular appearance to someone, I postulate that
it/they existed yet never began to exist, in which case, it is
logically impossible for it/them to have itself/themselves been the
product of intelligent design.
david ford
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 02:32:45 +0000, david ford wrote:
>
> > Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
> > intelligence
>
Bell notes design inference is "entirely reasonable"
http://tinyurl.com/yj6z
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311192117140.25662-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
Waddington and Simpson grant that biology has appearance of design
http://tinyurl.com/yj70
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9910140924580.1802084-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Dawkins vs. an atheist philosopher
http://tinyurl.com/yj72
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9908291722070.260132-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
M.J. French on the buttercup and the locomotive
http://tinyurl.com/yj75
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.31L.02.0107172257430.21584-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
Robert Dorit
http://tinyurl.com/yj78
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980627001309.6929A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
discussion of Big Bang creation event, which implies that biology
began to exist, and Jacques Monod, in
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://tinyurl.com/ygqj
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Jim07D4
>seeingis...@VolcanoMail.com (robert/ Noctiluca) wrote in message news:<14069514.04041...@posting.google.com>...
...
Isn't it true that for *any* universe that had a beginning and
systematic regularities that can be codified in something like physics
and/or biology, the speculation that there were designers who intended
that world, would be unfalsifiable?
And if a world could be observed that began, had no regularity, and
snuffed out before any elements formed, the speculation that there
were designers who intended the world to be exactly as it was, would
be unfalsifiable.
Finally, if our universe snuffs out one hour from now, or snuffs out
100 billion years from now, wouldn't it be the same situation -- the
speculation that there were designers that intended that this happen,
would be unfalsifiable.
So it seems that positing the designers is unassailable, which makes
it non-scientific in a Popperian sense. Posting that their intention
be that whatever is, is, seems well, tautological, given that whatever
they intend, is, and whatever is, they intend.
Not to say that such speculation is uninteresting or should be so, it
just seems that science can get no purchase on it.
...
Jim07D4
John Harshman
david ford wrote:
Can the reference really say that? It's certainly not true. Red giants
produce these elements by fusion when they start to go off the main
sequence, and many of them (the more massive ones) are only a few
million years old.
> Thus, the
> universe must be at least 10 billion years old if we humans are to
> exist. An at-least 10 billion year old universe translates into, in
> the case of our universe's expansion ever since the big bang,
> translates into an extremely large universe. In the words of
> astrophysicists John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "No one should be
> surprised to find the Universe to be as large as it is. We could not
> exist in one that was significantly smaller. ....the Universe has to
> be as big as it is in order to support just one lonely outpost of
> life."[a]
How can they say that? Is my understanding of stellar evolution that far
off?
> a. Barrow & Tipler, _The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_ (NY:
> Oxford University Press, 1986), 706pp., 18.
>
> The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The earth's early
> "atmosphere consisted of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and carbon
> monoxide. Over billions of years, biological and geological activity
> removed most of the carbon from the atmosphere and replaced it with
> the free oxygen that now provides sustenance for all animal
> life."(Robert Naeye, "Okay, Where Are They?" _Astronomy_ (July 1996),
> 38-43, 41.)
>
> In short, the biology-designing intelligence(s) waited billions of
> years for life-essential elements, and for human-sustaining oxygen
> levels, to appear.
I missed the part where the existence of a "biology-designing
intelligence" was shown. Could you do it again?
> The designer(s) of biology waited billions of years for life-essential
> elements to appear through the process of star-burning; before
> creating humans, the designer(s) of humans waited billions of years
> for oxygen levels to become sufficient through biological and
> geological processes for sustaining humans. It is conceivable that
> the designer(s) of humans had both the ability and the desire to
> create life-essential elements, human-sustaining oxygen levels, and
> humans 12 billion years ago. Such did not occur, so I conclude that
> the designer(s) of biology and of humans either lacked the ability to
> do that creating 12 billion years ago or lacked the desire to do such,
> or both.
OK, go on. Then what happened? Why did the designer wait another 500
million years before getting to humans? Did the oysters have to be ready
first? I'm reminded of Mark Twain's exposition in "The Damned Human
Race", the one that ends with the film of paint on the tip of the Eiffel
Tower being the reason for the tower's existence. (I guess so, I dunno.)
[snip]
>>- Assuming your biological designer/s are the same as cosmological
>>designer/s (and if not this certainly opens a whole new can),
>>
>
> Yes, it is possible that the designer(s) of physics wasn't/weren't the
> same as the designer(s) of biology.
Once again I missed the part where you demonstrated that there were any
designers at all.
[snip]
AC
You can postulate "it" likes jelly donuts for all it really matters, David.
Since the above is nothing more than a jolly little bit of handwaving, why
don't you say "he" wears kilts and enjoys bowling with "his' friends on a
Saturday afternoon?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> > Give me a week to see your reaction.
> >
> > For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
> > hypothesis of common descent. I propose that the environment (i.e.,
> > the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact, weather, etc.) and
> > surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving to
> > extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
> > the other organisms. Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
> > rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
> > common ancestors) to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
> > has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
> > billion year existence. Experience with mutations in the laboratory
> > indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
> > arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
>
Yes, indeed. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please do
share.
> And why not, pray tell me?
One individual did a particular literature search for "mutation" and
came up with 225,000 articles. Searching for articles dealing with
beneficial mutations turned up a total of only 250 articles. He read
all 250 abstracts, and is reading the full texts. The beneficial
mutations he has read about appear only in highly-unique situations,
mainly mutations that provide bacteria in high-antibiotic environments
(but not out-in-the-wild environments), and mutations that provide
commercial breeders and growers a more saleable product such as
seedless watermelons.
a) Mutation does not occur in all areas of genomes uniformly, but
rather, there are "hot spots" of mutations.
b) Mutations from one nucleotide into some other nucleotide tend to go
to a particular other nucleotide. I don't recall the specifics, but
it goes along these purely-illustrative lines: in mutation events, As
tend to become Ts, and Gs tend to become Cs.
The result of a) and b) is that starting with a sequence of
nucleotides, after mutation events (mainly occurring in the hot
spots), the hot spot locations will have tended to go to particular
nucleotides. Far from all conceivably-possible nucleotide sequences
will have been happened upon, and judging by laboratory experiments,
no sequences plausibly said to contribute to the arrival of new
structures having new functions have been discovered.
> Mutation followed by selection, repeated enough times, can and will
> produce quite "new" features;
In science, if an allegation is repeated often enough-- which the one
you mentioned has-- reality conforms to the allegation. Let me help
you shape reality:
Dawkins, Richard. 15 April 1982. "The necessity of Darwinism" _New
Scientist_, 130-2. On 130:
Darwin's theory [of natural selection] is now supported by all
the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by
any serious modern biologist.
> of course, since evolution works on
> existing material, these "new" features are usually co-opted and
> altered structures that are found a new use.
>
> Which pretty much invalidates the rest of your idea.
>
> -- Wakboth (I wonder if I'm among the first fifty posters to point
> this out?)
>
> > Therefore, when I speak of alterations in organisms' genetic material,
> > I propose that one or more intelligent entities was/were responsible
> > for those alterations.
> >
> > The alterations were not done in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step fashion,
> > but rather, were large sets of coordinated alterations that gave rise
> > to the sudden appearance of new organisms having new structures with
> > new functions. Some of the new organisms became extinct through
> > exposure to the environment and surrounding organisms. The most
> > prominent of the various sets of alteration events was when a very
> > large number of alterations were done to produce the "Cambrian
> > explosion," which began 543 million years ago.
> >
david ford
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:29:13 +0000 (UTC),
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<udOdnQcGS_0...@adelphia.com>...
> >> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> > Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
> >> > intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
> >>
> >> Doesn't your intelligent designer also appear to be the product of
> >> intelligence?
> >
> > However the intelligent designer(s) of biology and of physics might or
> > might not have a particular appearance to someone, I postulate that
> > it/they existed yet never began to exist, in which case, it is
> > logically impossible for it/them to have itself/themselves been the
> > product of intelligent design.
>
> You can postulate "it" likes jelly donuts for all it really matters, David.
> Since the above is nothing more than a jolly little bit of handwaving,
In that case, you should have no problem taking what I said apart.
Or counter-postulate that physics and/or biology existed yet never began to exist.
Noctiluca
They also say this,
"We should emphasize once again that the enormous improbability of the
evolution of intelligent life in general and Homo sapiens in
particular does not mean we should be amazed we exist at all. This
would make as much sense as Elizabeth II being amazed she is Queen of
England. Even though the probability of a given Briton being monarch
is about 10-8, someone must be. Only if there is a monarch is it
possible for the monarch to calculate the improbability of her
particular existence. Similarly, only if an intelligent species does
evolve is it possible for its members to ask how probable it is for an
intelligent species to evolve. Both are examples of WAP self-selection
in action."
Can you please produce the full text of your quote, including the part
deleted for the ellipses. I am interested. Especially because Barrow
and Tipler were not arguing for the point of view in service of which
you used their words.
> The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The earth's early
> "atmosphere consisted of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and carbon
> monoxide. Over billions of years, biological and geological activity
> removed most of the carbon from the atmosphere and replaced it with
> the free oxygen that now provides sustenance for all animal
> life."(Robert Naeye, "Okay, Where Are They?" _Astronomy_ (July 1996),
> 38-43, 41.)
>
> In short, the biology-designing intelligence(s) waited billions of
> years for life-essential elements, and for human-sustaining oxygen
> levels, to appear.
>
> The designer(s) of biology waited billions of years for life-essential
> elements to appear through the process of star-burning; before
> creating humans, the designer(s) of humans waited billions of years
> for oxygen levels to become sufficient through biological and
> geological processes for sustaining humans. It is conceivable that
> the designer(s) of humans had both the ability and the desire to
> create life-essential elements, human-sustaining oxygen levels, and
> humans 12 billion years ago. Such did not occur, so I conclude that
> the designer(s) of biology and of humans either lacked the ability to
> do that creating 12 billion years ago or lacked the desire to do such,
> or both.
Can you agree with my observation that the above is a wordy equivalent
of "just because"? Don't you realize that you are offering nothing
that allows critical evaluation? If you offer an explanation that is
consistent with every possible observation then it explains no
observation whatsoever.
> > - It would appear that you see your designer as a
> > "work-within-constraints-of-the-medium" kind of fella.
>
> The designer(s) of physics, and the designer(s) of biology, chose to
> work with the material world of which we are aware, and in making that
> choice, was/were thereupon constrained in terms of what it/they could
> make to reside in the material world.
This, to me, only makes sense if your designers are incapable of doing
otherwise. If this is the case then we are clearly dealing with
natural entities detectable by natural means. Can you help by pointing
us in the right direction toward accomplishing this?
Alternately, if your designers do actually "chose" to work with the
material world, then there must exist reasons for which they would
chose to do so. Could you provide a bit of discourse on the purposes
and characteristics of these designers then, paying special attention
to the logic behind their choice to self-limit? As well, I would be
especially interested in whether this choice is consistent with goals
stated elsewhere, e.g. if said designer/s is the Christian deity how
does this choice jibe with what theologians already know of this
deity's purposes?
> > I'm sure you're
> > aware there are those who suggest he is a "poof-it-into-existence"
> > guy, needing to care not at all for worldly limitations (a quote,
> > often attributed to Galileo makes this point quite nicely, "Surely,
> > God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid
> > gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier
> > than lead, and with wings exceeding small. He did not, and that ought
> > to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that
> > you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.").
>
> I wasn't aware that there were individuals that thought the
> intelligent designer/s of the biological world weren't constrained by
> any of the material world's constraints/limitations in creating
> biological creatures for existence in that material world. Within the
> gold bones sentence, was Galileo describing a position that was held
> by him, or by any of his knowledgeable contemporaries or predecessors?
I'm not sure whether you're playing the "I never mentioned God" game
here or not so I'll simply respond by saying I do not know of
Galileo's intent. As I implied previously, the quote may be
apocryphal.
> > Clearly
> > the evidence for common descent and the nested heirarchy does not
> > support this kind of creation.
>
> Study of the organisms around us provides evidence against the
> possibility that those organisms exist outside of the constraints of
> physics.
>
> > And Ross Langerak has pointed out very
> > lucidly why the evidence does not support a working-within-constraints
> > designer.
>
> I looked at 3 of his posts in this thread, and didn't see what you
> refer to. Which post(s) exactly did you have in mind?
It was very early in the thread. I'm surprised you missed it. This is
the relevant section,
"If we compare human design with what we see in nature, we find that
this is not true. For instance, if you walk into an auto parts store,
you will find a dashboard light that will fit a variety of makes and
models of cars. They don't just take similar lamps, they take
identical lamps. Also, if you look at just one make of car, Ford
perhaps, you will find that different models will often use different
dashboard lamps.
Now compare this to what we see in nature. Our hemoglobin is similar
to that of other apes. Not the same, but similar. Our hemoglobin is
a little less similar to that of monkeys. And even less similar to
that of other mammals. This is not what we would expect from design.
If life had been designed, we would expect the hemoglobin of other
apes to be identical to ours. Hemoglobin transports oxygen; there is
no reason for it to be different in closely related species.
Furthermore, we would expect to share this same hemoglobin with other
unrelated species. Horses for instance, and perhaps one species of
whales. If life followed the same pattern as
design, we would expect to see identical hemoglobin in a variety of
distantly related species, while more closely related species used
completely and dramatically different hemoglobin."
> > The evidence suggests something entirely non-teleological so I'm given
> > to ask, why do you suppose your designer/s attempted to camouflage
> > their creative process in this fashion? Is this consistent with what
> > we know of religious designers (deities), or even alien designers?
>
> What is meant by [r]"non-teleological"?
Not of "A doctrine explaining phenomena by their ends or purposes"
> What are 3 things [r]"we know of religious designers (deities), or...
> alien designers"?
You play this game far too often.
You offered the scenario. You are more familiar with your view of the
designer than I. Why not do your best to answer the questions you've
elicited?
> > - Assuming your biological designer/s are the same as cosmological
> > designer/s (and if not this certainly opens a whole new can),
>
> Yes, it is possible that the designer(s) of physics wasn't/weren't the
> same as the designer(s) of biology.
Do you believe this is the case?
> > I'm
> > going to try to look at this from a religious perspective, It seems to
> > me a designer who could begin the whole shmear with an initial moment
> > of creation/design and have all the intended consequences flow from
> > that moment with no need for intervention is an entity far more
> > thoughtful and capable and all-encompassing than one who must pop in
> > to tinker with his creations every now and then.
>
> Possibly, though I don't know what is meant by [r]"thoughtful" and
> [r]"all-encompassing," and instead of [r]"is an entity far more" would
> say 'is an entity that could be inferred to possibly be far more.'
That almost comes close to being within earshot of a position that is
not in conflict with the possibility of maybe being something of a
tentative answer.
> The material/physical existence/realm of which we are aware began to
> exist in the big bang creation event. In your view, does physics have
> the inherent capacity of giving rise to life? If "yes," what are 2
> experiments demonstrating this?
My view is that we follow where the evidence leads. Right now there is
no choice other than to investigate natural abiotic origins. If you
can suggest a scientific alternative then I'm sure some enterprising
researcher somewhere will be eager to work on this potential Nobel.
robert
<snip>
Bennett Standeven
The level of these heavy elements is constantly rising through these
processes. (This is how we can recognize how old a star is.) Some time
would therefore be required for the levels to rise high enough to
support life; but I doubt anyone really knows how much.
[...]
>
> > a. Barrow & Tipler, _The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_ (NY:
> > Oxford University Press, 1986), 706pp., 18.
> >
> > The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The earth's early
> > "atmosphere consisted of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and carbon
> > monoxide. Over billions of years, biological and geological activity
> > removed most of the carbon from the atmosphere and replaced it with
> > the free oxygen that now provides sustenance for all animal
> > life."(Robert Naeye, "Okay, Where Are They?" _Astronomy_ (July 1996),
> > 38-43, 41.)
> >
> > In short, the biology-designing intelligence(s) waited billions of
> > years for life-essential elements, and for human-sustaining oxygen
> > levels, to appear.
>
>
> I missed the part where the existence of a "biology-designing
> intelligence" was shown. Could you do it again?
Be sure to explain how it can exist without sufficient heavy elements
to support life. Is it not alive?
Von Smith
That doesn't answer the question. Does the designer you describe
*look* designed by ID theory criteria, or not? You may postulate all
you like, but have you examined the evidence to see if your postulate
is supported by it?
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Stanley Friesen
>The designer(s) of biology waited billions of years for life-essential
>elements to appear through the process of star-burning; before
>creating humans, the designer(s) of humans waited billions of years
>for oxygen levels to become sufficient through biological and
>geological processes for sustaining humans. It is conceivable that
>the designer(s) of humans had both the ability and the desire to
>create life-essential elements, human-sustaining oxygen levels, and
>humans 12 billion years ago. Such did not occur, so I conclude that
>the designer(s) of biology and of humans either lacked the ability to
>do that creating 12 billion years ago or lacked the desire to do such,
>or both.
>
sole, or even primary, purpose in His universe. [C.S. Lewis states this
explicitly].
Stanley Friesen
>
>Can the reference really say that? It's certainly not true. Red giants
>produce these elements by fusion when they start to go off the main
>sequence, and many of them (the more massive ones) are only a few
>million years old.
As has already been pointed out - this process causes a *gradual*
increase in heavy elements.
Here is an interesting observation: among the nearby stars with known
planets, all but one or two are at or above the median value in heavy
element concentration. That is, almost all planets appear to be
orbiting stars less than half the age of the Milky Way.
John Harshman
david ford wrote:
I think he missed a few. Perhaps his search criteria weren't very good.
> a) Mutation does not occur in all areas of genomes uniformly, but
> rather, there are "hot spots" of mutations.
True. But this is merely a difference in degree. Mutations occur
everywhere, just at somewhat different rates in different locations.
> b) Mutations from one nucleotide into some other nucleotide tend to go
> to a particular other nucleotide. I don't recall the specifics, but
> it goes along these purely-illustrative lines: in mutation events, As
> tend to become Ts, and Gs tend to become Cs.
This is known as transition bias, since the A-T and G-C mutations are
called transitions. Other point mutations are called transversions. The
ratio between the two is, however, not all that extreme. It's around 2-3
to 1 in most nuclear loci, and around 5-10 to 1 in amniote mitochondria.
Again, a difference in degree.
> The result of a) and b) is that starting with a sequence of
> nucleotides, after mutation events (mainly occurring in the hot
> spots), the hot spot locations will have tended to go to particular
> nucleotides.
Sorry, just not true. The distribution of mutations will have a peak at
hot spot transitions, but not enough of a peak to dominate the distribution.
> Far from all conceivably-possible nucleotide sequences
> will have been happened upon, and judging by laboratory experiments,
> no sequences plausibly said to contribute to the arrival of new
> structures having new functions have been discovered.
I'm sure you would find a way to weasel out of any examples I would give
you. But here's one of my favorites: Hayashi, Y., H. Sakata, Y. Makino,
I. Urabe, and T. Yomo. 2003. Can an arbitrary sequence evolve towards
acquiring a biological function. J. Mol. Evol. 56:162-168.
Further, even though we don't observe mutations happening in nature
(i.e. we're not there when it happened), we certainly have enough data
to infer that they happened, and we can see quite a few adaptive
mutants; to take a common example, melanistic Biston betularia. Finally,
we do see changes over the history of life that are clearly adaptive,
and clearly arise by fairly small steps from previous conditions. Until
you have another explanation for this that works, mutation and selection
remains the best hypothesis to explain these events.
[snip]
John Harshman
Stanley Friesen wrote:
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Can the reference really say that? It's certainly not true. Red giants
>>produce these elements by fusion when they start to go off the main
>>sequence, and many of them (the more massive ones) are only a few
>>million years old.
>
> As has already been pointed out - this process causes a *gradual*
> increase in heavy elements.
Mostly carbon and oxygen, with gusts up to iron. But by the time of a
supernova, much of the core of a big star should consist of these
elements. There should be at least major local enrichment after one such
event. If you get a lot of early supernovae in the near neighborhood of
some star formation, there should be lots more of these medium-heavy
elements in the new star system than the universal average.
> Here is an interesting observation: among the nearby stars with known
> planets, all but one or two are at or above the median value in heavy
> element concentration. That is, almost all planets appear to be
> orbiting stars less than half the age of the Milky Way.
Or are we just in a young area? How many population II (or is it I? I
mean the old, heavy-element-poor) stars are close enough to us to detect
planets if they existed?
John Harshman
Noctiluca wrote:
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>seeingis...@VolcanoMail.com (robert/ Noctiluca) wrote in message news:<14069514.04041...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> Now compare this to what we see in nature. Our hemoglobin is similar
> to that of other apes. Not the same, but similar. Our hemoglobin is
> a little less similar to that of monkeys. And even less similar to
> that of other mammals. This is not what we would expect from design.
> If life had been designed, we would expect the hemoglobin of other
> apes to be identical to ours. Hemoglobin transports oxygen; there is
> no reason for it to be different in closely related species.
> Furthermore, we would expect to share this same hemoglobin with other
> unrelated species. Horses for instance, and perhaps one species of
> whales.
Not whales. This is a case in which there actually is a functional
difference. Mammals that dive deep for long periods have hemoglobin
that's specially adapted to hold onto oxygen more strongly than human
hemoglobin, and to give it up under conditions of lower oxygen tension.
But the general point remains: Most of the pattern of difference among
mammal hemoglobins makes no functional sense. But it does make
phylogenetic sense.
> If life followed the same pattern as
> design, we would expect to see identical hemoglobin in a variety of
> distantly related species, while more closely related species used
> completely and dramatically different hemoglobin."
[snip]
Jim07D4
>
>
>Noctiluca wrote:
>
>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>seeingis...@VolcanoMail.com (robert/ Noctiluca) wrote in message news:<14069514.04041...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com>...
>[snip]
>
>
>> Now compare this to what we see in nature. Our hemoglobin is similar
>> to that of other apes. Not the same, but similar. Our hemoglobin is
>> a little less similar to that of monkeys. And even less similar to
>> that of other mammals. This is not what we would expect from design.
>> If life had been designed, we would expect the hemoglobin of other
>> apes to be identical to ours. Hemoglobin transports oxygen; there is
>> no reason for it to be different in closely related species.
>> Furthermore, we would expect to share this same hemoglobin with other
>> unrelated species. Horses for instance, and perhaps one species of
>> whales.
>
>
>Not whales. This is a case in which there actually is a functional
>difference. Mammals that dive deep for long periods have hemoglobin
>that's specially adapted to hold onto oxygen more strongly than human
>hemoglobin, and to give it up under conditions of lower oxygen tension.
>
>But the general point remains: Most of the pattern of difference among
>mammal hemoglobins makes no functional sense. But it does make
>phylogenetic sense.
I think it is more appropriate to say that we have not determined the
functional value of some differences. While I don't buy the conscious
designer concept of evolution, it seems to me that if there were no
functional difference in the situation of the ape and human as a
species, then whichever hemoglobin was more efficiently produced would
be present in common in both species, according to current evolution
theory, since they had a common ancestor. IOW, while there is no
scientific validity to the notion of conscious design, the current
theory presumes that differences in phenotype and the underlying
genotype of corresponding structures in two species exist because each
structure is (or was, at one time) better adapted to its situation
than the common structure would have been.
Jim07D4
John Harshman
Jim07D4 wrote:
This would be true if *every* variation were subject to selection. But
they aren't. Some differences in amino acid sequence make no difference
to the function of the protein, or in the efficiency of its translation
or even transcription. (And other differences are too small to be
selected in a population of moderate size.) So I would be very surprised
if any of the differences among apes turned out to have any functional
significance at all.
howard hershey
Jim07D4 wrote:
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> said:
>
>
>>
>>Noctiluca wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>seeingis...@VolcanoMail.com (robert/ Noctiluca) wrote in message news:<14069514.04041...@posting.google.com>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>>Now compare this to what we see in nature. Our hemoglobin is similar
>>>to that of other apes. Not the same, but similar. Our hemoglobin is
>>>a little less similar to that of monkeys. And even less similar to
>>>that of other mammals.
Anyone interested in taking a little net quiz (designed for high school
honors courses) that deals specifically with the number of differences
in a hemoglobin beta-chain ortholog set among the primates (from lemur
to human-chimp) can do so at:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/simulation_molecular.html
For the alpha chain, I will mention that the number of aa differences
between human and chimp = 0. Human and Rhesus = 4.
Rich Mathers
david ford wrote:
Your designer(s) postulate is really nothing but your attempt to justify
a religious view of the world. Nothing new there. Your
counter-postulate is silly as usual. I leave it as an excise for you to
decern why (I'll provide a partial answer below).
Your designer is of course central to your theology. What is absent
however is how IDers science explains when, how, where, who and/or what
was designed. Since you espouse Iders science as ascendent over physics
and biology and since you are constant in your ineffective criticism of
evolutionary thought, could it be that you are also ineffective in
understand the science of IDers.
To demonstrate your superior view of the world provide us with some
scientific IDers postulates about the beginning existence of physics or
biology or some central feature of physical or biological phenomena. So
that I and others may assess it scientifically, please provide for this
presumptively superior scientific IDers theory: the central dependent
variable(s),(and its [their] metric[s]), the major control variable(s)
(one of which would be I assume the number of "designers" and another
their respective skills) (and its [their] metric[s]) and the major
independent variable(s) (and its [their] metric[s]). This is a
reasonable request given your presumptions.
Should you be able to do this I envision a tome of revolutionary
proportions. Somewhere in it I hope you would address when matter came
into existance and when each element appeared and of primary concern
would be the first self reproducing organism. May I suggested the title
- "Intelligent Design: The Science of the Origins of the Physical and
Biological" with a subtitle being - "Why Christian Theology is always
Right."
Again I don't expect much from you; but show something that demonstrates
you are not fundamentally ignorant of IDers science. And that your
efforts are not solely to engage in antiscience dogmas based on your
irrational religious commitments. Or are they?
Jim07D4
Good point, lots of junk DNA, lots of minor differences that have not
been "challenged" by the environments. It seems to me that any
genotype that is expressed in a phenotype will be at least vulnerable
to selection. Thanks for the reply.
Jim07D4
Stanley Friesen
>
>
>Or are we just in a young area? How many population II (or is it I? I
>mean the old, heavy-element-poor) stars are close enough to us to detect
>planets if they existed?
The range of "metallicities" was fairly large, ranging from very low to
higher than the Sun's. Let's see, log(Fe/H) (apparently scaled)
ranging from -0.8 to +0.3. With one exception, all planets known at the
time the book was written were in stars at or above -0.3 (which was the
mode, and close to the median).
[The values must be scaled somehow, as I cannot imagine a main sequence
star with Fe = H, let alone *higher*: Unfortunately the graph is from
another source, and the details are not explained].
John Harshman
Stanley Friesen wrote:
How does this correlate with distance from us?
Stanley Friesen
All of the stars in this graph are local - close enough to so we could
potentially have found planets of they were there. (Let's see, the
caption reads "metallicities of G and K stars in the solar
neighborhood").
John Harshman
Stanley Friesen wrote:
Very interesting. It suggests that planet formation needs a mineral or
metallic seed, even for a gas giant. Which is odd. What's the difference
between a double star and a star with a big gas giant companion? Or does
the frequency of multiple star systems also increase with "metallicity"?
Stanley Friesen
>
>
>Very interesting. It suggests that planet formation needs a mineral or
>metallic seed, even for a gas giant.
That is indeed one of the conclusions in the book that contains this
graph.
> Which is odd. What's the difference
>between a double star and a star with a big gas giant companion? Or does
>the frequency of multiple star systems also increase with "metallicity"?
The conclusion seems to be that stars and planets form by different
mechanisms. Multiple star systems may form by fragmentation of the
nebula, while planets form later as secondary concretions within the
nebula.
[Note, I do not agree with the author in all of his conclusion - such as
earth-like planets being rare, since I do not think his own data support
that conclusion].
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
david ford
I can look at/ see and study biology. I can see and study physics.
I cannot see the intelligence(s) responsible for biology. I cannot
see the intelligence(s) responsible for physics.
david ford
The complete absence of any intelligent designer(s) of physics and
biology is of course central to your religious beliefs.
> What is absent
> however is how IDers science explains when, how, where, who and/or what
> was designed. Since you espouse Iders science as ascendent over physics
> and biology
I don't know what you're talking about. The intelligent design
hypothesis doesn't, as far as I know, make predictions. Also, I don't
consider it to be "science." It provides for a "metaphysical research
program," to borrow Popper's apt characterization of what the
evolution hypothesis provides for, the evolution hypothesis and the
intelligent design hypothesis both being unfalsifiable.
> and since you are constant in your ineffective criticism of
> evolutionary thought, could it be that you are also ineffective in
> understand the science of IDers.
>
> To demonstrate your superior view of the world provide us with some
> scientific IDers postulates about the beginning existence of physics or
> biology or some central feature of physical or biological phenomena. So
> that I and others may assess it scientifically, please provide for this
> presumptively superior scientific IDers theory: the central dependent
> variable(s),(and its [their] metric[s]), the major control variable(s)
> (one of which would be I assume the number of "designers" and another
> their respective skills) (and its [their] metric[s]) and the major
> independent variable(s) (and its [their] metric[s]). This is a
> reasonable request given your presumptions.
>
> Should you be able to do this I envision a tome of revolutionary
> proportions. Somewhere in it I hope you would address when matter came
> into existence
Matter-energy, the spatial dimensions of length, width, and height,
and the dimension of time came into existence in the Big Bang creation
event; the universe is about 15 billion years old.
> and when each element appeared and of primary concern
> would be the first self reproducing organism.
Some life-essential elements appeared through a process of several
generations of star burning. I do not know when those or other
elements for that matter appeared.
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The oldest evidence of life
existing on earth that I'm aware of is 3.9 billion years old. I
recall discussions of life possibly appearing on earth multiple times
prior to 3.9 billion years ago, but being driven to extinction by
meteorite impacts.
> May I suggested the title
> - "Intelligent Design: The Science of the Origins of the Physical and
> Biological" with a subtitle being - "Why Christian Theology is always
> Right."
>
> Again I don't expect much from you; but show something that demonstrates
> you are not fundamentally ignorant of IDers science. And that your
> efforts are not solely to engage in antiscience dogmas based on your
> irrational religious commitments. Or are they?
"Science" really is such a lovely word. I sprinkle it liberally on my
eggs and ham every morning.
Stanley Friesen
>Rich Mathers <R-Ma...@wiu.edu> wrote in message news:<c6mg55$hd0$1...@mail1.wiu.edu>...
>> david ford wrote:
>> Your designer is of course central to your theology.
>
>The complete absence of any intelligent designer(s) of physics and
>biology is of course central to your religious beliefs.
You may well be inferring something untrue. Denying the validity of the
ID "approach" does not, in itself, deny the existence of a God.
>
>> What is absent
>> however is how IDers science explains when, how, where, who and/or what
>> was designed. Since you espouse Iders science as ascendent over physics
>> and biology
>
>I don't know what you're talking about. The intelligent design
>hypothesis doesn't, as far as I know, make predictions. Also, I don't
>consider it to be "science." It provides for a "metaphysical research
>program," to borrow Popper's apt characterization of what the
>evolution hypothesis provides for, the evolution hypothesis and the
>intelligent design hypothesis both being unfalsifiable.
In that case what is the point of bringing in supposed *evidence*.
Evidence is only meaningful if the model makes predictions to which the
evidence can be compared.
>Some life-essential elements appeared through a process of several
>generations of star burning. I do not know when those or other
>elements for that matter appeared.
They appeared gradually, starting from the very first stars.
They apparently became sufficiently abundant to regularly form larger
planets about 7 billion years ago in *this* galaxy.
>The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The oldest evidence of life
>existing on earth that I'm aware of is 3.9 billion years old. I
>recall discussions of life possibly appearing on earth multiple times
>prior to 3.9 billion years ago, but being driven to extinction by
>meteorite impacts.
This is mostly speculation. [Well, the meteorite impacts aren't, but
there is no evidence *either* way as to the earlier presence of life].
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
>
> >Rich Mathers <R-Ma...@wiu.edu> wrote in message news:<c6mg55$hd0$1...@mail1.wiu.edu>...
> >> david ford wrote:
> >> Your designer is of course central to your theology.
> >
> >The complete absence of any intelligent designer(s) of physics and
> >biology is of course central to your religious beliefs.
>
> You may well be inferring something untrue.
Rich should be responding any day now.
> Denying the validity of the
> ID "approach" does not, in itself, deny the existence of a God.
>
> >> What is absent
> >> however is how IDers science explains when, how, where, who and/or what
> >> was designed. Since you espouse Iders science as ascendent over physics
> >> and biology
> >
> >I don't know what you're talking about. The intelligent design
> >hypothesis doesn't, as far as I know, make predictions. Also, I don't
> >consider it to be "science." It provides for a "metaphysical research
> >program," to borrow Popper's apt characterization of what the
> >evolution hypothesis provides for, the evolution hypothesis and the
> >intelligent design hypothesis both being unfalsifiable.
>
> In that case what is the point of bringing in supposed *evidence*.
> Evidence is only meaningful if the model makes predictions to which the
> evidence can be compared.
During prosecutions of individuals accused of crimes, the prosecution
brings forward in court evidence in support of its contention that the
accused is guilty. In your view, is court room evidence only
meaningful if there is a model that makes predictions to which the
court room evidence can be compared?
[snip]
David Jensen
<b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com>:
Of course. Evidence is meaningless without a context.
Rich Mathers
david ford wrote:
Thus, I have no insipidly dull and mythological ax to grind wrt biology
and physics
>
>> What is absent
>>however is how IDers science explains when, how, where, who and/or what
>>was designed. Since you espouse Iders science as ascendent over physics
>>and biology
>
>
> I don't know what you're talking about.
The real question is do you know what you are talking about wrt IDers?
The intelligent design
> hypothesis doesn't, as far as I know, make predictions.
What? Or better yet "Chez Watt?"
Also, I don't
> consider it to be "science."
Then all your previous threads by you are just blather!
You offer no real oposition to science with your obviously qualitatively
driven "metaphyscial" research program. Data (empirical evidence) is
only important as a metaphysical exercise? Tell us how this works!
It provides for a "metaphysical research
> program," to borrow Popper's apt characterization of what the
> evolution hypothesis provides for, the evolution hypothesis and the
> intelligent design hypothesis both being unfalsifiable.
>
Reread Popper after he corrected himself.
>
>> and since you are constant in your ineffective criticism of
>>evolutionary thought, could it be that you are also ineffective in
>>understand the science of IDers.
>>
>>To demonstrate your superior view of the world provide us with some
>>scientific IDers postulates about the beginning existence of physics or
>>biology or some central feature of physical or biological phenomena. So
>>that I and others may assess it scientifically, please provide for this
>>presumptively superior scientific IDers theory: the central dependent
>>variable(s),(and its [their] metric[s]), the major control variable(s)
>>(one of which would be I assume the number of "designers" and another
>>their respective skills) (and its [their] metric[s]) and the major
>>independent variable(s) (and its [their] metric[s]). This is a
>>reasonable request given your presumptions.
>>
>>Should you be able to do this I envision a tome of revolutionary
>>proportions. Somewhere in it I hope you would address when matter came
>>into existence
>
>
> Matter-energy, the spatial dimensions of length, width, and height,
> and the dimension of time came into existence in the Big Bang creation
> event; the universe is about 15 billion years old.
>
Where are the IDers metaphysical assertions for this? Oh, did you just
pull a Dembski and thus assert IDers metaphysical assertions can
encompass all of physics?
>
>> and when each element appeared and of primary concern
>>would be the first self reproducing organism.
>
>
> Some life-essential elements appeared through a process of several
> generations of star burning. I do not know when those or other
> elements for that matter appeared.
> The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The oldest evidence of life
> existing on earth that I'm aware of is 3.9 billion years old. I
> recall discussions of life possibly appearing on earth multiple times
> prior to 3.9 billion years ago, but being driven to extinction by
> meteorite impacts.
>
See above.
>
>> May I suggested the title
>>- "Intelligent Design: The Science of the Origins of the Physical and
>>Biological" with a subtitle being - "Why Christian Theology is always
>>Right."
>>
>>Again I don't expect much from you; but show something that demonstrates
>>you are not fundamentally ignorant of IDers science. And that your
>>efforts are not solely to engage in antiscience dogmas based on your
>>irrational religious commitments. Or are they?
>
>
> "Science" really is such a lovely word. I sprinkle it liberally on my
> eggs and ham every morning.
>
You really don't know IDers theories even if they insist they are
scientific or even their general ideas, but every thing you have read
about them attacks largely biological sciences and they are therefore to
be thrown in as evidence for a non scientific alternative. Is
incoherence one of the wedge strategies or just your own?
Be honest! You have never consumed science. You don't understand it,
indeed you seem to find it emotionally alienating. I think you
liberally sprinkle on your ham and eggs metaphysical strawmen. Empty
calories, perchance?
Stanley Friesen
>
>During prosecutions of individuals accused of crimes, the prosecution
>brings forward in court evidence in support of its contention that the
>accused is guilty. In your view, is court room evidence only
>meaningful if there is a model that makes predictions to which the
>court room evidence can be compared?
>
intrinsically implies certain evidence will be present, that is it
predicts the sorts of evidence to be expected.
Indeed, this is a basic tenet of US courtroom procedure. *All* evidence
must be specifically germane to the prosecution's allegations (aka
theory), as described in the formal charges. Evidence not pertaining to
that theory is regularly *excluded* as immaterial (or is that
irrelevant, I can never remember the legal distinction here).
tra...@askme.net
Likewise, if the defense wishes to present a defense, i.e. an alibi
defense, a lack of knowledge dfense, the evidence has to be relevant
to the theory of the defense. Theories lacking evidentiary support may
be excluded.
That's what many pretrial motions are about: refuting or backing a
theory, usually a prosecution theory but certainly also defense
theories. A fact in isolation is not proof without some sort of
framework to give it relevance, meaning, significance. The jury is
instructed on that point.
German
Stanley Friesen
>
>That's what many pretrial motions are about: refuting or backing a
>theory, usually a prosecution theory but certainly also defense
>theories. A fact in isolation is not proof without some sort of
>framework to give it relevance, meaning, significance. The jury is
>instructed on that point.
>
catshark
<sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
[...]
>Indeed, this is a basic tenet of US courtroom procedure. *All* evidence
>must be specifically germane to the prosecution's allegations (aka
>theory), as described in the formal charges. Evidence not pertaining to
>that theory is regularly *excluded* as immaterial (or is that
>irrelevant, I can never remember the legal distinction here).
Relevance means that there is a logical connection between the evidence and
the point to be proved. Materiality is a broader concept having to do more
with whether its probative value is worth the time of introducing it. A
witness to show that the accused in a forgery case knew that the check he
cashed was not intended for him is relevant. The 37th witness introduced
to show that he knew that it wasn't intended for him is still relevant, but
may no longer be material. In practice, the distinction is not often made.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce -
Stanley Friesen
>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:36:30 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
><sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Indeed, this is a basic tenet of US courtroom procedure. *All* evidence
>>must be specifically germane to the prosecution's allegations (aka
>>theory), as described in the formal charges. Evidence not pertaining to
>>that theory is regularly *excluded* as immaterial (or is that
>>irrelevant, I can never remember the legal distinction here).
>
>Relevance means that there is a logical connection between the evidence and
>the point to be proved. Materiality is a broader concept having to do more
>with whether its probative value is worth the time of introducing it. A
>witness to show that the accused in a forgery case knew that the check he
>cashed was not intended for him is relevant. The 37th witness introduced
>to show that he knew that it wasn't intended for him is still relevant, but
>may no longer be material. In practice, the distinction is not often made.
>
Oops, then I got it wrong. I clearly meant irrelevant.
The judge in one of the cases I was on the jury for took a very strict
view of relevancy and materiality. Mind it was often hard to tell the
on which grounds a question was excluded, as the sequence was often
"Objection" - "Sustained" with no other words spoken. [Actually, I think
a fair number of them were excluded on "assumes facts not in evidence"].
I can only think that David Ford has never actually been involved in a
court case in any significant capacity to have made the implication he
did.
tra...@askme.net
<cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:36:30 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
><sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Indeed, this is a basic tenet of US courtroom procedure. *All* evidence
>>must be specifically germane to the prosecution's allegations (aka
>>theory), as described in the formal charges. Evidence not pertaining to
>>that theory is regularly *excluded* as immaterial (or is that
>>irrelevant, I can never remember the legal distinction here).
>
>Relevance means that there is a logical connection between the evidence and
>the point to be proved. Materiality is a broader concept having to do more
>with whether its probative value is worth the time of introducing it. A
>witness to show that the accused in a forgery case knew that the check he
>cashed was not intended for him is relevant. The 37th witness introduced
>to show that he knew that it wasn't intended for him is still relevant, but
>may no longer be material. In practice, the distinction is not often made.
>
The opposing counsel will object on the groundst hat the testimony is
cumulative. I have heard objections on materiality, and usually where
a stipulation as to facts would solve the objection. I have heard
attorneys question prospective jurors on whether they would be able to
convict on the word of only one witness, in sexual assoult cases.
There was physical proof IIRC in such cases but the only percipient
witness was the victim.
German
catshark
>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:13:44 +0000 (UTC), catshark
><cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:36:30 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
>><sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>Indeed, this is a basic tenet of US courtroom procedure. *All* evidence
>>>must be specifically germane to the prosecution's allegations (aka
>>>theory), as described in the formal charges. Evidence not pertaining to
>>>that theory is regularly *excluded* as immaterial (or is that
>>>irrelevant, I can never remember the legal distinction here).
>>
>>Relevance means that there is a logical connection between the evidence and
>>the point to be proved. Materiality is a broader concept having to do more
>>with whether its probative value is worth the time of introducing it. A
>>witness to show that the accused in a forgery case knew that the check he
>>cashed was not intended for him is relevant. The 37th witness introduced
>>to show that he knew that it wasn't intended for him is still relevant, but
>>may no longer be material. In practice, the distinction is not often made.
>>
>The opposing counsel will object on the groundst hat the testimony is
>cumulative. I have heard objections on materiality, and usually where
>a stipulation as to facts would solve the objection.
Indeed. Irrelevance, immateriality and cumulativeness are all related
concepts that overlap at the edges. Lawyers will never use one word when
three can be used. ;-)
I was giving an easy example. Another would be if something is already
admitted. In the above, if the accused admits/stipulates that he cashed a
check he knew wasn't intended for him but claims he had the authority to do
so from the intended recipient, then proving he knew it wasn't intended for
him, while still technically relevant, is immaterial.
> I have heard
>attorneys question prospective jurors on whether they would be able to
>convict on the word of only one witness, in sexual assoult cases.
>There was physical proof IIRC in such cases but the only percipient
>witness was the victim.
That is more a tactical position by the lawyers. Incidently, the reason
for doing that is related to t.o. In your example, the prosecutors are
trying to overcome the attitude in the general public that gives greater
credence to eyewitness testimony than almost any other evidence, even
though lawyers know that it is among the weakest forms of evidence, if not
*the* weakest. The prosecutors were just hearing echos of Ken Ham chanting
"Were you there?"
>
>German
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
A concise definition of legal ethics:
" . . . having been bought a lawyer is supposed to stay bought."
-- Louann Miller --
catshark
<sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
>catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:36:30 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
>><sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>Indeed, this is a basic tenet of US courtroom procedure. *All* evidence
>>>must be specifically germane to the prosecution's allegations (aka
>>>theory), as described in the formal charges. Evidence not pertaining to
>>>that theory is regularly *excluded* as immaterial (or is that
>>>irrelevant, I can never remember the legal distinction here).
>>
>>Relevance means that there is a logical connection between the evidence and
>>the point to be proved. Materiality is a broader concept having to do more
>>with whether its probative value is worth the time of introducing it. A
>>witness to show that the accused in a forgery case knew that the check he
>>cashed was not intended for him is relevant. The 37th witness introduced
>>to show that he knew that it wasn't intended for him is still relevant, but
>>may no longer be material. In practice, the distinction is not often made.
>>
>Oops, then I got it wrong. I clearly meant irrelevant.
>
>The judge in one of the cases I was on the jury for took a very strict
>view of relevancy and materiality. Mind it was often hard to tell the
>on which grounds a question was excluded, as the sequence was often
>"Objection" - "Sustained" with no other words spoken.
Shhh! I'll tell you a deep secret that you must not share with anyone
else. Most lawyers and judges wouldn't know (at that exact moment) what
the objection really is. On the fly, they are probably just going by
instinct based on experience. One lawyer I knew, when questioned as to the
basis of his objection, snapped back "I didn't like the question".
>[Actually, I think
>a fair number of them were excluded on "assumes facts not in evidence"].
Which is another form of immateriality/irrelevance. Until some issues are
raised by the evidence, evidence on those points is *neither* material nor
relevant. A simplistic example would be expert testimony that the
signature on the back of the check was by the defendant before there was
any evidence that there was any attempt to cash it (simply writing on
something is no crime).
>
>I can only think that David Ford has never actually been involved in a
>court case in any significant capacity to have made the implication he
>did.
As far as I can tell, none of David's implications have a discernible basis
in anything.
>
>The peace of God be with you.
>
>Stanley Friesen
---------------
Stanley Friesen
>>[Actually, I think
>>a fair number of them were excluded on "assumes facts not in evidence"].
>
>Which is another form of immateriality/irrelevance. Until some issues are
>raised by the evidence, evidence on those points is *neither* material nor
>relevant. A simplistic example would be expert testimony that the
>signature on the back of the check was by the defendant before there was
>any evidence that there was any attempt to cash it (simply writing on
>something is no crime).
>
evidence that a fire occurred, and that the defendant owned the business
operating at the location, and only then did they introduced evidence it
was deliberate.
Stanley Friesen
>*the* weakest. ...
As do I. Heck, I voted guilty on the arson case with no eyewitnesses at
all.
A rape case is one I hope to *never* be on. The evaluation of the
evidence in such a case is very, very difficult.
howard hershey
david ford wrote:
> drea...@hotmail.com (Von Smith) wrote in message news:<8d74ec45.04042...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<udOdnQcGS_0...@adelphia.com>...
>>>
>>>>"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>>>>news:b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
>>>>>intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of being the product of a
*process* that leads to organisms that exhibit high levels of adaptation
to local conditions. [Specifically, organisms show genetic adaptations
to the local environments their *parents* lived in. They are adapted to
the *current* local conditions only to the extent that those conditions
are the same as that their parents faced. This is particularly obvious
in cases of frequency-dependent selection, and rules out teleology in
selection.]
River channels also exhibit the appearance of being the consequence of a
*process* that leads to rivers exhibiting adaptation to local
conditions. If I know the lay of the land, a topographic map, geology
and meteorology, I can predict where water will go (with high certainty
in cases where the topography is dramatic and selection for a specific
route is strong; in a probabilistic pattern, meanders, in cases where
there is no local selection). In neither case do I *need* to invoke a
supernatural intelligence as a causitive agent. I, of course, *may* do
so as a matter of faith, but religious belief is not science.
>>>>Doesn't your intelligent designer also appear to be the product of
>>>>intelligence?
>>>
>>>However the intelligent designer(s) of biology and of physics might or
>>>might not have a particular appearance to someone, I postulate that
>>>it/they existed yet never began to exist, in which case, it is
>>>logically impossible for it/them to have itself/themselves been the
>>>product of intelligent design.
>>
>>That doesn't answer the question. Does the designer you describe
>>*look* designed by ID theory criteria, or not? You may postulate all
>>you like, but have you examined the evidence to see if your postulate
>>is supported by it?
>
>
> I can look at/ see and study biology. I can see and study physics.
> I cannot see the intelligence(s) responsible for biology. I cannot
> see the intelligence(s) responsible for physics.
>
Nor can you see *empirical* evidence that necessitates such
intelligences. You believe in them (or don't) solely as a matter of
'faith'. However, it is foolish to repeatedly assert that God works by
miracle to produce a particular observable result in the material world
when the evidence supports His working through the medium of natural law
mechanisms capable of being described by the scientific method
(regardless of how badly that mechanism distresses you). St. Augustine
had something to say about this -- namely that asserting things contrary
to observable reality made the believer and his religion look foolish,
and Christians should avoid being so foolish. Alas, American
fundamentalist Christians seem to take pride in their ignorance of
reality (and probably don't even recognize the name of St. Augustine
other than as a city in Florida).
tra...@askme.net
In an essay by J L Borges he tells the story of an early writer who
postulated that Adan and Eve were created with memories of their life
up to the point of creation. the theory was condemned as anathema
because it made God a liar. Bout a millennium later another writer (in
the late eighteenth, early nineteenth century?) wrote that God created
the earth with a 'memory' of life up to the point of creation, unaware
that he was repeating the earlier heresy. I can't recall the essay
and don't have time to look it up, and since some French philosopher
once based an early essay on deconstruction on a completely fictional
Borges statemet, I cannot vouch for the historical accuracy of his
essay; he often wrote stories cloaked as essays, complete with
footnotes and references to real and imagined sources.
German
tra...@askme.net
<cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hence, all the instructions on circumstancial evidence; I often
wonder if the defendants I interpret for ever understand anything
about the criminal process, with all the cultural/linguistic context
differences. I catch looks of complete disbelief when i translate the
standard example of waking up to see a wet pavement and concluding it
must have rained last night. E.T. Hall divided cultures into low and
high context, putting the Hispanic and French cultures in the high
context camp, in which examining magistrates could receive even gossip
as testimony, because they are trained to differentiate rumor from
fact and treat it accordingly, whereas the Anglo-American system
excludes hearsay and opinion (unless expert, in context) from the
evidence the jury hears. In some ountries the right to confrontation
is farmore direct: in some, you get to sit down with your accusers and
directly confront them with questions, face to face, and not through
ypur attorneys or examining magistrates. Usually the question boils
down to 'were you there?'.
catshark
[...]
>In an essay by J L Borges he tells the story of an early writer who
>postulated that Adan and Eve were created with memories of their life
>up to the point of creation. the theory was condemned as anathema
>because it made God a liar. Bout a millennium later another writer (in
>the late eighteenth, early nineteenth century?) wrote that God created
>the earth with a 'memory' of life up to the point of creation, unaware
>that he was repeating the earlier heresy. I can't recall the essay
>and don't have time to look it up,
You (and Borges) are probably thinking of Philip Gosse and his book
_Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot_ from 1857:
Gosse . . . [pointed] out that life ran in cycles: birth and
death and birth again; rain to river to ocean to cloud to rain.
Chicken and egg. If one assumed a creation from nothing, there
must always be traces of previous existence that never actually
existed, otherwise certain things would not work. The name
Omphalos hearkened back to the earlier Christian debate over
Adam's navel, the existence of which would have implied his
non-existent birth from a non-existent mother -- Omphalos is
Greek for "navel". Gosse compiled several hundred pages of
examples of similar thoughts, then tied it all together by
stating that when creation occurred, apparent records of events
occurring that did not -- he called them "prochronic", meaning
"outside time" -- must have been rife throughout the world. Was
it not reasonable to argue that fossils and geologic strata and
so on were merely prochronic artifacts of a non-existent time
pre-dating the actual Creation several thousand years before?
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/philip_henry_gosse>
>and since some French philosopher
>once based an early essay on deconstruction on a completely fictional
>Borges statemet, I cannot vouch for the historical accuracy of his
>essay; he often wrote stories cloaked as essays, complete with
>footnotes and references to real and imagined sources.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Matt Silberstein
[snip]
>In an essay by J L Borges he tells the story of an early writer who
>postulated that Adan and Eve were created with memories of their life
>up to the point of creation. the theory was condemned as anathema
>because it made God a liar. Bout a millennium later another writer (in
>the late eighteenth, early nineteenth century?) wrote that God created
>the earth with a 'memory' of life up to the point of creation, unaware
>that he was repeating the earlier heresy. I can't recall the essay
>and don't have time to look it up, and since some French philosopher
>once based an early essay on deconstruction on a completely fictional
>Borges statemet,
Do you have any more information about that? It sounds
interesting.
> I cannot vouch for the historical accuracy of his
>essay; he often wrote stories cloaked as essays, complete with
>footnotes and references to real and imagined sources.
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arsonists who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
tra...@askme.net
<matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>In talk.origins I read this message from tra...@askme.net:
>
>[snip]
>
>>In an essay by J L Borges he tells the story of an early writer who
>>postulated that Adan and Eve were created with memories of their life
>>up to the point of creation. the theory was condemned as anathema
>>because it made God a liar. Bout a millennium later another writer (in
>>the late eighteenth, early nineteenth century?) wrote that God created
>>the earth with a 'memory' of life up to the point of creation, unaware
>>that he was repeating the earlier heresy. I can't recall the essay
>>and don't have time to look it up, and since some French philosopher
>>once based an early essay on deconstruction on a completely fictional
>>Borges statemet,
>
>Do you have any more information about that? It sounds
>interesting.
By now you must have read Catshark's link to the Gosse article. The
Borges essay is available in his Collected Essays, which was about
five feet from me lat night, but I was so sleepy I forgot it was
there.
German
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> > Give me a week to see your reaction.
> >
> > For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
> > hypothesis of common descent.
>
> So does Michael Behe. And since none of the major players in the ID
> movement have refuted him directly on it, it's safe to say that it's
> the official position of ID.
One key ID individual, Dembski, speaks of a big tent. That big tent
includes those that accept the hypothesis of common descent (for
example, Michael Behe), and those that find it problematic (for
example, Paul Nelson, who I believe did his doctoral thesis on the
topic).
> > I propose that the environment (i.e.,
> > the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact, weather, etc.) and
> > surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving to
> > extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
> > the other organisms. Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
> > rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
> > common ancestors)
>
> The "intelligently designed" part is irrelevant since evolution never
> rules it out in the first place. But do I interpret correctly that you
> think that the critical part of the "design" occurred via abiogenesis?
I don't understand. What is the definition of [F]"evolution"?
Your interpretation is incorrect: in my scenario, organisms' genomes
are altered at various points in the earth's history by one or more
intelligences.
> > to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
> > has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
> > billion year existence.
>
> So far so good.
>
> > Experience with mutations in the laboratory
> > indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
> > arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
>
> Well, experiments with modern organisms do not replicate exactly what
> occurred in the Precambrian, if that's what you mean, but they do
> provide clues about the "arrival" of new functions. I hope you're not
> going to play the "information" semantic shell game.
I don't understand.
> > Therefore, when I speak of alterations in organisms' genetic material,
> > I propose that one or more intelligent entities was/were responsible
> > for those alterations.
>
> By pre-programming or by intervention? And please provide direct
> evidence that does not degenerate into an argument from incredulity.
> Hint: Behe thinks "pre-programmed." If you disagree I look forward to
> your debate with Behe.
Behe's version of intelligent design + common descent involves
pre-programming. My version of ID + CD involves interventions in
organisms' genomes at various points in the earth's history.
Scientists today engaged in biotechnology are providing hints as to
possible ways that the intelligent entity/entities responsible for the
interventions in my scenario might have gone about its/ their work.
> > The alterations were not done in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step fashion,
> > but rather, were large sets of coordinated alterations that gave rise
> > to the sudden appearance of new organisms having new structures with
> > new functions.
>
> In vivo? IOW saltation. Or are you trying to gravitate toward
> in-vitro. You know, the "independent abiogenesis" that
> anti-evolutionists refuse to call by name?
I'll say that in my hypothesis, the intelligence-directed alterations
in genomes occurred through altering the germline cells of male and
female members of a particular sort of animal.
The resulting changes appeared quickly, so if by saltation you mean
'quick changes,' then yes, saltation.
I don't know what is meant by [F]"'independent abiogenesis.'"
> > Some of the new organisms became extinct through
> > exposure to the environment and surrounding organisms. The most
> > prominent of the various sets of alteration events was when a very
> > large number of alterations were done to produce the "Cambrian
> > explosion," which began 543 million years ago.
>
> Didn't I just read this from Dembski? You know, the guy who said that
> ID can accommodate all the results of "Darwinism."
I don't know what you have read.
If you are aware of any, please identify 2 well-demonstrated
conclusions of neo-Darwinian thought that you think ID cannot
accommodate.
> > Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
> > intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
>
> OK I'll play along: You surely know, is that many people who agree
> that biology suggests intelligent design, know that evolution is the
> only explanation of how that design was actuated (after the first
> abiogenesis). So how does the last sentence follow from the rest of
> your discussion?
What is meant by [F]"evolution"?
Von Smith
I believe the answer you were looking for is: "No, the evidence does
not support my postulate."
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Richard Forrest
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
> I don't understand. What is the definition of [F]"evolution"?
> Your interpretation is incorrect: in my scenario, organisms' genomes
> are altered at various points in the earth's history by one or more
> intelligences.
>
<snipped>
> Behe's version of intelligent design + common descent involves
> pre-programming. My version of ID + CD involves interventions in
> organisms' genomes at various points in the earth's history.
> Scientists today engaged in biotechnology are providing hints as to
> possible ways that the intelligent entity/entities responsible for the
> interventions in my scenario might have gone about its/ their work.
>
<snipped>
> I'll say that in my hypothesis, the intelligence-directed alterations
> in genomes occurred through altering the germline cells of male and
> female members of a particular sort of animal.
> The resulting changes appeared quickly, so if by saltation you mean
> 'quick changes,' then yes, saltation.
> I don't know what is meant by [F]"'independent abiogenesis.'"
>
Are you suggesting this as a hypothesis subject to scientific investigation?
If so, please suggest how it can be falsified?
RF