Gibertson on debating

[TomS]

My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
by Karl W. Giberson

<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>


--
---Tom S.

[Kalkidas]

Boy, that's some sour grapes, right there.

The funniest part is where Gilbertson says

"...I objected that, as a physicist with a Ph.D who had studied some
real theories—quantum mechanics, classical mechanics,
electromagnetism—ID did not remotely resemble any other theory in the
natural sciences and was thus hard to see how it might work. "

Notice he doesn't include ToE as one of the "real" theories he says
he studied. It is unlikely that this was an oversight, since the
debate topic itself concerned the ToE. It is more likely that he knew
that ToE is no more a "real" theory than ID, and didn't want to open
that can of worms for Meyer to take advantage of.

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:25:24 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>>by Karl W. Giberson
>>
>><http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>
>
>Boy, that's some sour grapes, right there.
>
>The funniest part is where Gilbertson says
>
> "...I objected that, as a physicist with a Ph.D who had studied some

>real theories窯uantum mechanics, classical mechanics,
>electromagnetism悠D did not remotely resemble any other theory in the

>natural sciences and was thus hard to see how it might work. "
>
>Notice he doesn't include ToE as one of the "real" theories he says
>he studied. It is unlikely that this was an oversight, since the
>debate topic itself concerned the ToE. It is more likely that he knew
>that ToE is no more a "real" theory than ID, and didn't want to open
>that can of worms for Meyer to take advantage of.

Sorry, it's Giberson, not Gilbertson.

[TomS]

"On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:31:45 -0700, in article
<p00bl9d400au7thl6...@4ax.com>, Kalkidas stated..."
[...snip...]

>
>Sorry, it's Giberson, not Gilbertson.
>

Sorry, I made that typo in the title of the thread.


--
---Tom S.

[John Bode]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 3:25:24 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
> >by Karl W. Giberson
> >
> ><http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>
> Boy, that's some sour grapes, right there.
>
> The funniest part is where Gilbertson says
> "...I objected that, as a physicist with a Ph.D who had studied some
> real theories quantum mechanics, classical mechanics,
> electromagnetism ID did not remotely resemble any other theory in the
> natural sciences and was thus hard to see how it might work. "
>
> Notice he doesn't include ToE as one of the "real" theories he says
> he studied.

So? He's pointing out the weakness of ID, not the strength of evolutionary
theory. Hell, even according to its proponents, ID *isn't even a theory*:

> I quoted ID theorist Paul Nelson, who wrote: "Easily the biggest challenge
> facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological
> design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem ... we've
> got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as
> 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'--but, as yet, no general
> theory of biological design."

It's like the old saying, you don't have to be a good actor to recognize
a bad one. You don't need to point out the strengths of evolutionary theory
to identify the weaknesses in ID, the most glaring one being that there is no
general theory of biological design.

Biologists can explain how antibiotic resistance develops in a bacterial population (using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID
provides them with no explanatory power. Biologists can come up with
strategies to mitigate the effects of antibiotic-resistent bacteria (still
using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID provides them
with no predictive power.

If ID proponents want to be taken seriously by the scientific community,
they need to come up with *actual theories* that can be tested. ID will not,
*can not* replace evolutionary theory until it can explain everything that
evolutionary theory explains, along with anything that evolutionary theory
*can't* explain.

Until then, it's nothing more than what Paul Nelson calls it - a "grab bag"
of random arguments.

[TomS]

"On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:04:58 -0700 (PDT), in article
<cbcfaa3a-644d-450c...@googlegroups.com>, John Bode stated..."

cified complexity'--but, as yet, no general

[...snip...]

>
>It's like the old saying, you don't have to be a good actor to recognize
>a bad one. You don't need to point out the strengths of evolutionary theory
>to identify the weaknesses in ID, the most glaring one being that there is no
>general theory of biological design.
>
>Biologists can explain how antibiotic resistance develops in a bacterial
>population (using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID
>provides them with no explanatory power. Biologists can come up with
>strategies to mitigate the effects of antibiotic-resistent bacteria (still
>using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID provides them
>with no predictive power.
>
>If ID proponents want to be taken seriously by the scientific community,
>they need to come up with *actual theories* that can be tested. ID will not,
>*can not* replace evolutionary theory until it can explain everything that
>evolutionary theory explains, along with anything that evolutionary theory
>*can't* explain.
>
>Until then, it's nothing more than what Paul Nelson calls it - a "grab bag"
>of random arguments.
>

Just point to point out how poor the status of ID: ID will not, can not
explain *anything* that evolutionary does explain - and this is because
of a deliberate decision on the part of the adherents of ID.

It isn't just some difficulty in working through the equations, some
snag that maybe some theorist will sort out. And it isn't that ID has
prospect of explaining *something* (if not *everything*) in the world
of life.


--
---Tom S.

[Robert Camp]

On 4/21/14 1:25 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>> by Karl W. Giberson
>>
>> <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>
>
> Boy, that's some sour grapes, right there.

I actually agree with this observation. His piece was a bit too "Nobody
gave me the credit I deserve!" for my taste.

> The funniest part is where Gilbertson says
>
> "...I objected that, as a physicist with a Ph.D who had studied some
> real theories—quantum mechanics, classical mechanics,
> electromagnetism—ID did not remotely resemble any other theory in the
> natural sciences and was thus hard to see how it might work. "
>
> Notice he doesn't include ToE as one of the "real" theories he says
> he studied. It is unlikely that this was an oversight, since the
> debate topic itself concerned the ToE. It is more likely that he knew
> that ToE is no more a "real" theory than ID, and didn't want to open
> that can of worms for Meyer to take advantage of.

No, what is likely is that he was using personal experience with real
theories with which he was quite familiar to contrast with ID's
deficiencies.

Or maybe he was just envious of ID, eh?

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:25:24 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>>by Karl W. Giberson
>>
>><http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>
>
>Boy, that's some sour grapes, right there.
>
>The funniest part is where Gilbertson says
>
> "...I objected that, as a physicist with a Ph.D who had studied some

>real theories窯uantum mechanics, classical mechanics,

>electromagnetism悠D did not remotely resemble any other theory in the

>natural sciences and was thus hard to see how it might work. "
>
>Notice he doesn't include ToE as one of the "real" theories he says
>he studied. It is unlikely that this was an oversight, since the
>debate topic itself concerned the ToE. It is more likely that he knew
>that ToE is no more a "real" theory than ID, and didn't want to open
>that can of worms for Meyer to take advantage of.

I am amazed at the variety of posters to T.O. who wax eloquent about
what others don't say, to the exclusion of what they do say.

Giberson identified himself as a physicist, and so it's entirely
reasonable that he would mention topics about physics that he studied.
I daresay it's likely that he knows more about ToE and ID than you do.
More to the point, even if Giberson was as clueless about ToE as you
are, his reaction to ID is based on his aversion as a scientist. Even
though ID is usually presented as an alternative to ToE, its
fundamental concept flies in the face of the foundation of all
science, that explanatory theories be based on material evidence, as
contrasted to wishful thinking.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:25:24 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

Or not. Any other uninformed speculations you'd care to
offer? They don't even have to advance your agenda as do the
above ones. Go wild!

And for someone who has objected in the past to the use of
"likely" and "unlikely" in reasoned scientific hypotheses
you seem quite enamored of their use when it suits you. How
unlikely is that to be coincidence?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Kalkidas]

There is no general theory of evolution either. That is why it is
never cited as an example of a "real" theory by those who want to
claim ID is not. Real theories have mathematical models which can make
predictions which can be be tested against experimental results. That
entirely leaves out the wild claims of Darwinists about the origin of
species.

>
>Biologists can explain how antibiotic resistance develops in a bacterial population (using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID
>provides them with no explanatory power. Biologists can come up with
>strategies to mitigate the effects of antibiotic-resistent bacteria (still
>using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID provides them
>with no predictive power.

AFAIK ID proponents explain bacterial resistance the same way, by
evolution. I know of no ID theorist who claims ID is responsible for
microevolutionary changes like the development of antibiotic
resistance.

>If ID proponents want to be taken seriously by the scientific community,
>they need to come up with *actual theories* that can be tested.

No they don't. The proof is that ToE is taken seriously by the
scientific community, but it hasn't come up with an actual theory that

can be tested.

>ID will not,
>*can not* replace evolutionary theory until it can explain everything that
>evolutionary theory explains, along with anything that evolutionary theory
>*can't* explain.

>Until then, it's nothing more than what Paul Nelson calls it - a "grab bag"
>of random arguments.

Exactly like ToE.

[Kalkidas]

So he had no personal experience or familiarity with ToE? Why was he
debating over it then?

>
>Or maybe he was just envious of ID, eh?

Out of the mouths of babes...

[Robert Camp]

How do you get that out of what either Giberson or I wrote?

He was talking about theories with which he had deep professional
experience. He has a PhD in physics, for god's sake. It's a painfully
obvious point.

In any case, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or even a biologist, to
debate ID creationism. In fact I'd argue you don't have to be all that
conversant in evolutionary theory. You just need to be familiar with
logical fallacies and ideologically motivated reasoning.

>> Or maybe he was just envious of ID, eh?
>
> Out of the mouths of babes...

Why, thank you, though I have to say I never thought you swung that way.

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:53:07 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>There is no general theory of evolution either. That is why it is
>never cited as an example of a "real" theory by those who want to
>claim ID is not.

<http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/statement-on-science.html>

"We are gravely concerned about current attempts to mandate the
teaching of “intelligent design” and other non-scientific accounts of
the origins of species and biological diversity in our nation’s
science classrooms. We are also troubled by the misleading
interpretations of scientific principles being used to discredit and
misrepresent the science of evolution."

This is a representative sample of about 300,000 hits from Google,
which should be sufficient to rebut your "never".

[TomS]

"On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:25:24 -0700, in article
<4dval9digt7m9bq6f...@4ax.com>, Kalkidas stated..."

>
>On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>>by Karl W. Giberson
>>
>><http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>
>
>Boy, that's some sour grapes, right there.
>
>The funniest part is where Gilbertson says
>
> "...I objected that, as a physicist with a Ph.D who had studied some

>real theories窯uantum mechanics, classical mechanics,

>electromagnetism悠D did not remotely resemble any other theory in the

>natural sciences and was thus hard to see how it might work. "
>
>Notice he doesn't include ToE as one of the "real" theories he says
>he studied. It is unlikely that this was an oversight, since the
>debate topic itself concerned the ToE. It is more likely that he knew
>that ToE is no more a "real" theory than ID, and didn't want to open
>that can of worms for Meyer to take advantage of.
>

Actually, he did not specifically did not list ToE by a ploy to get
Meyer to make a fool of himself. The plan was that Meyer take the bait
by something stupid like, "Aha! You did not mention ToE in the list
of theories that you have studied in your professional career. I win!"

It was a distinctly slim chance that Meyer would be that inept at
debating that he would take the bait, but there would be nothing loss
in making the ploy. And, as it turned out, for he was not that stupid.


--
---Tom S.

[chris thompson]

Really. I have seen the ToE mentioned in the same sentence- and in the same sense- as cell theory and germ theory (in its modern, modified form).

As for no mathematical models- you gave yourself away here. It's obvious from that one statement you've never bothered to read any primary literature at all, let alone cracked a journal like American Naturalist or the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

>
> >
>
> >Biologists can explain how antibiotic resistance develops in a bacterial population (using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID
>
> >provides them with no explanatory power. Biologists can come up with
>
> >strategies to mitigate the effects of antibiotic-resistent bacteria (still
>
> >using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID provides them
>
> >with no predictive power.
>
>
>
> AFAIK ID proponents explain bacterial resistance the same way, by
>
> evolution. I know of no ID theorist who claims ID is responsible for
>
> microevolutionary changes like the development of antibiotic
>
> resistance.

Nor do they explain the barrier they suppose exists between such microevolutionary changes and macroevolution.

>
>
>
> >If ID proponents want to be taken seriously by the scientific community,
>
> >they need to come up with *actual theories* that can be tested.
>
>
>
> No they don't. The proof is that ToE is taken seriously by the
>
> scientific community, but it hasn't come up with an actual theory that
>
> can be tested.
>

Did you leave the last clause off your statement there? You know, the one that goes "...except for where it has." Evolution has generated countless hypotheses (to use the correct term), some of which have been rejected while others have been supported, often by dozens or hundreds of experiments.

>
>
> >ID will not,
>
> >*can not* replace evolutionary theory until it can explain everything that
>
> >evolutionary theory explains, along with anything that evolutionary theory
>
> >*can't* explain.
>
>
>
> >Until then, it's nothing more than what Paul Nelson calls it - a "grab bag"
>
> >of random arguments.
>
>
>
> Exactly like ToE.

There's that pesky typing issue again: "Exactly like Toe except where it's not."

Oh dear. You really were making those wild, baseless, unsupported assertions, weren't you? My mistake.

Chris

[Mark Buchanan]

On 4/21/2014 7:53 PM, Kalkidas wrote:

>
> No they don't. The proof is that ToE is taken seriously by the
> scientific community, but it hasn't come up with an actual theory that
> can be tested.
>

ToE in it's simplest form: 'All life has one single common ancestor.'

The entire ToE can be tested and falsified with just one data point -
e.g. pull a rabbit out of the Cambrian.

[Burkhard]

Sorry, no, wouldn't work. No reasonably complex and well confirmed
theory can be falsified with just one data point. If we really found
one rabbit skeleton in the Cambrian, that would register as a
quirky anomaly that ideally needs explaining, but nothing more. Some prankster/fraudster put it there? Some other explanation why a fossil
from a younger layer got redeposited in an older? etc. We woudl
however in parallel start to look for more of these things, and if we
then were to find a systematic pattern of rabbit fossils in
Cambrian layers, then we'd indeed revisit our theories,

[John Bode]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:53:07 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:04:58 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
> <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

[snip]

> >
> >It's like the old saying, you don't have to be a good actor to recognize
> >a bad one. You don't need to point out the strengths of evolutionary theory
> >to identify the weaknesses in ID, the most glaring one being that there is no
> >general theory of biological design.
>
> There is no general theory of evolution either.

There most certainly is. You may not want to believe it, but that doesn't
mean it doesn't exist.

Random variation (through genetic mutation, recombination, and epigenetic
changes) coupled with various *non-random* forms of selection, lead to
changes in the distribution of inherited traits within a population.

That's it in a (grossly simplistic) nutshell.

Changes plus time plus separation (geographic, behavioral, physical) lead
to genetically distinct daughter populations, which are eventually distinct
enough from their parent population and each other to be labeled separate
species.

> That is why it is never cited as an example of a "real" theory
> by those who want to claim ID is not.

Even ID proponents admit that ID is not a theory.

> Real theories have mathematical models which can make
> predictions which can be be tested against experimental results.

Evolutionary biology currently uses a number of mathematical models
to make and test predictions, from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium model
to statistical models to game theory. Google Scholar returns several
hundred thousand hits on "mathematical models evolutionary biology".

>
> entirely leaves out the wild claims of Darwinists about the origin of
> species.
>
> >
> >Biologists can explain how antibiotic resistance develops in a bacterial
> >population (using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID
> >provides them with no explanatory power. Biologists can come up with
> >strategies to mitigate the effects of antibiotic-resistent bacteria (still
> >using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID provides them
> >with no predictive power.
>
> AFAIK ID proponents explain bacterial resistance the same way, by
> evolution. I know of no ID theorist who claims ID is responsible for
> microevolutionary changes like the development of antibiotic
> resistance.

So evolutionary theory *is* a valid and useful theory according to ID
proponents.

Good to know.

>
> >If ID proponents want to be taken seriously by the scientific community,
> >they need to come up with *actual theories* that can be tested.
>
> No they don't. The proof is that ToE is taken seriously by the
> scientific community, but it hasn't come up with an actual theory that
> can be tested.
>

It is tested *every time* somebody finds a new fossil. It is tested *every
time* a new genome is sequenced. It is tested *every time* a new living
species is discovered.

Evolutionary theory could be falsified by demonstrating any one of the
following:

- That populations of living things do not change over time;
- That there is no differential reproductive success;
- That there is no correlation between genes and fitness;

etc., etc., etc. There are plenty of tests against which evolutionary
theory can be evaluated and found wanting; that it hasn't yet would
imply that it's a sound theory.

But this ignores the more fundamental fallacy in your argument; even if
evolutionary theory were shown to be invalid, that doesn't automatically
mean ID is valid. ID stands or falls on its own merits, not on the merits
of its competitors.

It's like arguing that if leprechauns aren't real, then that automatically
means pixies *are* real. That's not how it works; you have to provide evidence
*for* pixies, not just *against* leprechauns.

>
> >ID will not,
> >*can not* replace evolutionary theory until it can explain everything that
> >evolutionary theory explains, along with anything that evolutionary theory
> >*can't* explain.
>
> >Until then, it's nothing more than what Paul Nelson calls it - a "grab bag"
> >of random arguments.
>
> Exactly like ToE.

There is a central unifying prinicple (random variation + non-random
selection), around which everything else is built.

[Kalkidas]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bode

<jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:53:07 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:04:58 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
>> <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>> >
>> >It's like the old saying, you don't have to be a good actor to recognize
>> >a bad one. You don't need to point out the strengths of evolutionary theory
>> >to identify the weaknesses in ID, the most glaring one being that there is no
>> >general theory of biological design.
>>
>> There is no general theory of evolution either.
>
>There most certainly is. You may not want to believe it, but that doesn't
>mean it doesn't exist.
>
>Random variation (through genetic mutation, recombination, and epigenetic
>changes) coupled with various *non-random* forms of selection, lead to
>changes in the distribution of inherited traits within a population.
>
>That's it in a (grossly simplistic) nutshell.

No, that's not it. If it were, no one would be disputing it. You're
simply using the old Eugenie Scott bait-and-switch of presenting an
idea so general that it has no application to any specific instance
and calling it "the theory". Then you're going to bring in through
the back door ideas so wild that they cannot possibly be deduced from
the innocuous definition you've given. But no one can dispute them
because the definition is so general that there is no way to use it to
evaluate any specific instance.

It's like saying that the "theory of gravity" is that objects tend to
attract one another. So if an electron and a proton are attracting one
another, it must be due to gravity!

>Changes plus time plus separation (geographic, behavioral, physical) lead
>to genetically distinct daughter populations, which are eventually distinct
>enough from their parent population and each other to be labeled separate
>species.
>
>> That is why it is never cited as an example of a "real" theory
>> by those who want to claim ID is not.
>
>Even ID proponents admit that ID is not a theory.
>
>> Real theories have mathematical models which can make
>> predictions which can be be tested against experimental results.
>
>Evolutionary biology currently uses a number of mathematical models
>to make and test predictions, from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium model
>to statistical models to game theory. Google Scholar returns several
>hundred thousand hits on "mathematical models evolutionary biology".

A real theory will have one mathematical model (or several models
which can be *proved* to be mathematically equivalent) which
uniformly applies to all the phenomena the theory accounts for. If
there are multiple non-equivalent models, what you have is only a
hoped-for theory, in blatant violation of Occam's Razor.

ToE has no such mathematical model.

>> entirely leaves out the wild claims of Darwinists about the origin of
>> species.
>>
>> >
>> >Biologists can explain how antibiotic resistance develops in a bacterial
>> >population (using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID
>> >provides them with no explanatory power. Biologists can come up with
>> >strategies to mitigate the effects of antibiotic-resistent bacteria (still
>> >using evolutionary theory); ID proponents can't, because ID provides them
>> >with no predictive power.
>>
>> AFAIK ID proponents explain bacterial resistance the same way, by
>> evolution. I know of no ID theorist who claims ID is responsible for
>> microevolutionary changes like the development of antibiotic
>> resistance.
>
>So evolutionary theory *is* a valid and useful theory according to ID
>proponents.

Sure, populations of bacteria undergo natural selection and genetic
change over time, and have NEVER been observed to change into anything
other than bacteria.

If you had given the non-dumbed-down definition of ToE, you would be
in trouble with bacteria, what to speak of more complicated organisms.

>Good to know.

Oh right, like it's the first time you've ever heard that ID
proponents accept microevolution.

>> >If ID proponents want to be taken seriously by the scientific community,
>> >they need to come up with *actual theories* that can be tested.
>>
>> No they don't. The proof is that ToE is taken seriously by the
>> scientific community, but it hasn't come up with an actual theory that
>> can be tested.
>>
>
>It is tested *every time* somebody finds a new fossil. It is tested *every
>time* a new genome is sequenced. It is tested *every time* a new living
>species is discovered.

LOL! The only thing that is tested in those circumstances is the
ability of your dumbed-down definition to accomodate a new just-so
story.

Significantly lacking is any prediction about the future evolution of
presently existing organisms. If you have a real theory, with a real
mathematical model, then how many genetic changes will the human
genome undergo in the next 100 generations, or the next 10000 years?
How many changes had to occur to turn a homo Erectus into a homo
Sapiens?

But there is no real theory of evolution. Those questions will never
be answered, because the "theory" is only a bluff.

>
>Evolutionary theory could be falsified by demonstrating any one of the
>following:
>
> - That populations of living things do not change over time;

translation: that someone finally looks closely at the fake ToE and
realizes that populations do not change *very much*, no matter how
much time thay have. Thus the wild claims of ToE about fish being the
ancestors of land animals, etc, etc, etc...are seen to be what they
are, fantasies.

> - That there is no differential reproductive success;

translation: if the (real, not fake like ToE) theory of genetics is
refuted

> - That there is no correlation between genes and fitness;

translation: if pigs fly.

>etc., etc., etc. There are plenty of tests against which evolutionary
>theory can be evaluated and found wanting; that it hasn't yet would
>imply that it's a sound theory.

A real theory can be tested. ToE is not real, has no mathematical
model, and thus cannot be tested.

>But this ignores the more fundamental fallacy in your argument; even if
>evolutionary theory were shown to be invalid, that doesn't automatically
>mean ID is valid. ID stands or falls on its own merits, not on the merits
>of its competitors.

You're confusing me with someone who made that argument. I didn't.

>It's like arguing that if leprechauns aren't real, then that automatically
>means pixies *are* real. That's not how it works; you have to provide evidence
>*for* pixies, not just *against* leprechauns.
>
>>
>> >ID will not,
>> >*can not* replace evolutionary theory until it can explain everything that
>> >evolutionary theory explains, along with anything that evolutionary theory
>> >*can't* explain.
>>
>> >Until then, it's nothing more than what Paul Nelson calls it - a "grab bag"
>> >of random arguments.
>>
>> Exactly like ToE.
>
>There is a central unifying prinicple (random variation + non-random
>selection), around which everything else is built.

No. The central unifying principle is, life comes from life.

[Bob Casanova]

On 21 Apr 2014 19:04:19 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:

>"On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:25:24 -0700, in article
><4dval9digt7m9bq6f...@4ax.com>, Kalkidas stated..."
>>
>>On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>>>by Karl W. Giberson
>>>
>>><http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>>
>>
>>Boy, that's some sour grapes, right there.
>>
>>The funniest part is where Gilbertson says
>>
>> "...I objected that, as a physicist with a Ph.D who had studied some

>>real theories—quantum mechanics, classical mechanics,

>>electromagnetism—ID did not remotely resemble any other theory in the

>>natural sciences and was thus hard to see how it might work. "
>>
>>Notice he doesn't include ToE as one of the "real" theories he says
>>he studied. It is unlikely that this was an oversight, since the
>>debate topic itself concerned the ToE. It is more likely that he knew
>>that ToE is no more a "real" theory than ID, and didn't want to open
>>that can of worms for Meyer to take advantage of.
>>
>
>Actually, he did not specifically did not list ToE by a ploy to get
>Meyer to make a fool of himself. The plan was that Meyer take the bait
>by something stupid like, "Aha! You did not mention ToE in the list
>of theories that you have studied in your professional career. I win!"
>
>It was a distinctly slim chance that Meyer would be that inept at
>debating that he would take the bait, but there would be nothing loss
>in making the ploy. And, as it turned out, for he was not that stupid.

Or perhaps he knew that others *would* be just that stupid
and would take the heat for it in his place. And sure
enough, they did; see above. ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:04:46 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
><jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:53:07 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:04:58 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
>>> <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> >
>>> >It's like the old saying, you don't have to be a good actor to recognize
>>> >a bad one. You don't need to point out the strengths of evolutionary theory
>>> >to identify the weaknesses in ID, the most glaring one being that there is no
>>> >general theory of biological design.
>>>
>>> There is no general theory of evolution either.
>>
>>There most certainly is. You may not want to believe it, but that doesn't
>>mean it doesn't exist.
>>
>>Random variation (through genetic mutation, recombination, and epigenetic
>>changes) coupled with various *non-random* forms of selection, lead to
>>changes in the distribution of inherited traits within a population.
>>
>>That's it in a (grossly simplistic) nutshell.

>No, that's not it. If it were, no one would be disputing it.

Of course they would, since the unavoidable implication is
that special creation of species is unnecessary to explain
the diversity of life, there being no discovered limits
regarding the mentioned "changes in the distribution of
inherited traits", up to and including speciation, which is
all that's required.

> You're
>simply using the old Eugenie Scott bait-and-switch of presenting an
>idea so general that it has no application to any specific instance
>and calling it "the theory". Then you're going to bring in through
>the back door ideas so wild that they cannot possibly be deduced from
>the innocuous definition you've given. But no one can dispute them
>because the definition is so general that there is no way to use it to
>evaluate any specific instance.

And yet that is exactly what is done by actual scientists.
Go figure...

>It's like saying that the "theory of gravity" is that objects tend to
>attract one another. So if an electron and a proton are attracting one
>another, it must be due to gravity!

Interesting that you chose gravity as a counter example to
evolution, since unlike evolution there is indeed no general
theory of gravity.

Better quit while you're behind.

<snip>

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:04:46 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
><jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>There is a central unifying prinicple (random variation + non-random
>>selection), around which everything else is built.
>
>No. The central unifying principle is, life comes from life.

John Bode's comes closer to ToE. In theory, life can happen without
evolving, but it's almost certain that it evolves in practice.

[John S. Wilkins]

Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
> <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:53:07 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:

...

> >> Real theories have mathematical models which can make
> >> predictions which can be be tested against experimental results.
> >
> >Evolutionary biology currently uses a number of mathematical models
> >to make and test predictions, from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium model
> >to statistical models to game theory. Google Scholar returns several
> >hundred thousand hits on "mathematical models evolutionary biology".
>
> A real theory will have one mathematical model (or several models
> which can be *proved* to be mathematically equivalent) which
> uniformly applies to all the phenomena the theory accounts for. If
> there are multiple non-equivalent models, what you have is only a
> hoped-for theory, in blatant violation of Occam's Razor.
>
> ToE has no such mathematical model.
>

...

w \DELTA z = cov(w_i, z_i) + 1/w E (w_i \DELTA z_i)

--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[John S. Wilkins]

John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
> > <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:53:07 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
> ...
> > >> Real theories have mathematical models which can make
> > >> predictions which can be be tested against experimental results.
> > >
> > >Evolutionary biology currently uses a number of mathematical models
> > >to make and test predictions, from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium model
> > >to statistical models to game theory. Google Scholar returns several
> > >hundred thousand hits on "mathematical models evolutionary biology".
> >
> > A real theory will have one mathematical model (or several models
> > which can be *proved* to be mathematically equivalent) which
> > uniformly applies to all the phenomena the theory accounts for. If
> > there are multiple non-equivalent models, what you have is only a
> > hoped-for theory, in blatant violation of Occam's Razor.
> >
> > ToE has no such mathematical model.
> >
> ...
>
> w \DELTA z = cov(w_i, z_i) + 1/w E (w_i \DELTA z_i)

I did this wrong:
w \Delta z = cov (w_i, z_i) + \frac{1}{w} E(w_i \Delta z_i)

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 4/22/2014 10:34 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
>>> <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:53:07 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> Real theories have mathematical models which can make
>>>>> predictions which can be be tested against experimental results.
>>>>
>>>> Evolutionary biology currently uses a number of mathematical models
>>>> to make and test predictions, from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium model
>>>> to statistical models to game theory. Google Scholar returns several
>>>> hundred thousand hits on "mathematical models evolutionary biology".
>>>
>>> A real theory will have one mathematical model (or several models
>>> which can be *proved* to be mathematically equivalent) which
>>> uniformly applies to all the phenomena the theory accounts for. If
>>> there are multiple non-equivalent models, what you have is only a
>>> hoped-for theory, in blatant violation of Occam's Razor.
>>>
>>> ToE has no such mathematical model.
>>>
>> ...
>>
>> w \DELTA z = cov(w_i, z_i) + 1/w E (w_i \DELTA z_i)
>
> I did this wrong:
> w \Delta z = cov (w_i, z_i) + \frac{1}{w} E(w_i \Delta z_i)

Your mistake is priceless.

Mitchell

[John S. Wilkins]

It was related to my ignorance.

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:34:09 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
>> > <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:53:07 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>> ...
>> > >> Real theories have mathematical models which can make
>> > >> predictions which can be be tested against experimental results.
>> > >
>> > >Evolutionary biology currently uses a number of mathematical models
>> > >to make and test predictions, from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium model
>> > >to statistical models to game theory. Google Scholar returns several
>> > >hundred thousand hits on "mathematical models evolutionary biology".
>> >
>> > A real theory will have one mathematical model (or several models
>> > which can be *proved* to be mathematically equivalent) which
>> > uniformly applies to all the phenomena the theory accounts for. If
>> > there are multiple non-equivalent models, what you have is only a
>> > hoped-for theory, in blatant violation of Occam's Razor.
>> >
>> > ToE has no such mathematical model.
>> >
>> ...
>>
>> w \DELTA z = cov(w_i, z_i) + 1/w E (w_i \DELTA z_i)
>
>I did this wrong:
>w \Delta z = cov (w_i, z_i) + \frac{1}{w} E(w_i \Delta z_i)

Well of course, now that you point it out...

[Walter Bushell]

In article <lj5rfm$ikk$1...@dont-email.me>,

Mark Buchanan <marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/21/2014 7:53 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> >
> > No they don't. The proof is that ToE is taken seriously by the
> > scientific community, but it hasn't come up with an actual theory that
> > can be tested.
> >
> ToE in it's simplest form: 'All life has one single common ancestor.'

That's stronger than it needs to be. Having more than one ancestor for
extant forms of life would not necessarily be fatal to the TOE.

>
> The entire ToE can be tested and falsified with just one data point -
> e.g. pull a rabbit out of the Cambrian.

Or prove that Trilobites are mammals.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:37:35 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <lj5rfm$ikk$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Mark Buchanan <marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/21/2014 7:53 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > No they don't. The proof is that ToE is taken seriously by the
>> > scientific community, but it hasn't come up with an actual theory that
>> > can be tested.
>> >
>> ToE in it's simplest form: 'All life has one single common ancestor.'
>
>That's stronger than it needs to be. Having more than one ancestor for
>extant forms of life would not necessarily be fatal to the TOE.

Yes and no. On the one hand, biological evolution is about how new
species originate, and not how life itself originated. The principles
of random mutation and natural selection would remain valid regardless
of the number of originating forms.

On the other hand, that all life on Earth has one single common
ancestor is a working axiom. It's what the evidence suggests. To
presume otherwise would require, at the very least, some explanation
as to how any observed differences could not have evolved, and whether
new species are not now forming without prior ancestors.

>> The entire ToE can be tested and falsified with just one data point -
>> e.g. pull a rabbit out of the Cambrian.
>
>Or prove that Trilobites are mammals.

Creationists often lament that ToE isn't falsifiable, that no matter
what apparent exception appears, "evolutionists" gen up some just-so
explanation without questioning their assumptions. I suppose that's
one reason why some Creationist refuse to let go of their favorite
fantasies, like the Paluxy footprints, or polystrate trees.

I recall that when Mary Schweitzer first described the extraction of
biological material from dinosaur fossils, there was much expressed
skepticism from other scientists, that it wasn't possible for such old
fossils to preserve original material. And there was a shout of
avaricious glee from the Creationists, that it proved that some
dinosaurs lived more recently than scientists previously thought. Of
course, the consensus has shown that both claims are incorrect. Mary
Schweitzer's evidence just enlarged our understanding of taphonomy.

But I have to say, to reclassify trilobites as mammals would
rightfully be regarded as something of a cheat.

[Mark Buchanan]

On 4/23/2014 7:37 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <lj5rfm$ikk$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Mark Buchanan <marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/21/2014 7:53 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No they don't. The proof is that ToE is taken seriously by the
>>> scientific community, but it hasn't come up with an actual theory that
>>> can be tested.
>>>
>> ToE in it's simplest form: 'All life has one single common ancestor.'
>
> That's stronger than it needs to be. Having more than one ancestor for
> extant forms of life would not necessarily be fatal to the TOE.

I thought about qualifying my statement but wanted to keep is simple for
Kalkidas.

[Mark Buchanan]

You are right - should have said 'confirmed (in the sense you describe)
rabbits'. A little more reading up on this on my part would have helped:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit

There is disagreement about the amount and quality of evidence needed to
falsify the ToE.

There seems to be a Wikipedia article about everything.

[Mitchell Coffey]

[Hint: Price equation.]

Mitchell

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:34:09 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):

>John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
>> > <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:53:07 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>> ...
>> > >> Real theories have mathematical models which can make
>> > >> predictions which can be be tested against experimental results.
>> > >
>> > >Evolutionary biology currently uses a number of mathematical models
>> > >to make and test predictions, from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium model
>> > >to statistical models to game theory. Google Scholar returns several
>> > >hundred thousand hits on "mathematical models evolutionary biology".
>> >
>> > A real theory will have one mathematical model (or several models
>> > which can be *proved* to be mathematically equivalent) which
>> > uniformly applies to all the phenomena the theory accounts for. If
>> > there are multiple non-equivalent models, what you have is only a
>> > hoped-for theory, in blatant violation of Occam's Razor.
>> >
>> > ToE has no such mathematical model.
>> >
>> ...
>>
>> w \DELTA z = cov(w_i, z_i) + 1/w E (w_i \DELTA z_i)
>
>I did this wrong:
>w \Delta z = cov (w_i, z_i) + \frac{1}{w} E(w_i \Delta z_i)

Now you've gone and fanned his galloping Math Envy...

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:20:04 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

>> You're
>>simply using the old Eugenie Scott bait-and-switch of presenting an
>>idea so general that it has no application to any specific instance
>>and calling it "the theory". Then you're going to bring in through
>>the back door ideas so wild that they cannot possibly be deduced from
>>the innocuous definition you've given. But no one can dispute them
>>because the definition is so general that there is no way to use it to
>>evaluate any specific instance.
>
>And yet that is exactly what is done by actual scientists.
>Go figure...

[Crickets...]

>>It's like saying that the "theory of gravity" is that objects tend to
>>attract one another. So if an electron and a proton are attracting one
>>another, it must be due to gravity!
>
>Interesting that you chose gravity as a counter example to
>evolution, since unlike evolution there is indeed no general
>theory of gravity.

[Crickets...]

>Better quit while you're behind.

Guess you took my advice...

[John Bode]

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:04:46 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
> <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:53:07 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:04:58 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
> >> <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >
> >> >It's like the old saying, you don't have to be a good actor to recognize
> >> >a bad one. You don't need to point out the strengths of evolutionary theory
> >> >to identify the weaknesses in ID, the most glaring one being that there is no
> >> >general theory of biological design.
> >>
> >> There is no general theory of evolution either.
> >
> >There most certainly is. You may not want to believe it, but that doesn't
> >mean it doesn't exist.
> >
> >Random variation (through genetic mutation, recombination, and epigenetic
> >changes) coupled with various *non-random* forms of selection, lead to
> >changes in the distribution of inherited traits within a population.
> >
> >That's it in a (grossly simplistic) nutshell.
>
> No, that's not it. If it were, no one would be disputing it.

So what's missing, in your opinion?

[Kalkidas]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:51:02 -0700 (PDT), John Bode

That all organisms that ever existed on earth up to the present, no
matter how different they may be in physiology or genetics, are the
products of descent with modification from a common ancestor, where
"descent" means by known processes of biological reproduction, and
"modification" means by unplanned, unguided, accidental changes in the
genome.

That is the ToE rightly objected to by people who are disparagingly
called "anti-evolution" in talk.origins.

[numerous]

On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>by Karl W. Giberson
>
><http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>

Strawman: "They insist that their "Intelligent Designer” is not the
God of the Bible..."

No, they just don't find it relevant to put a name on the designer
since this isn't necessary to establish design. Just as it isn't
necessary to know who designed your computer to establish it's
designed.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:16:06 +0200, numerous
<nume...@address.invalid> wrote:

>On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>>by Karl W. Giberson
>>
>><http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>
>
>Strawman: "They insist that their "Intelligent Designer� is not the
>God of the Bible..."
>
>No, they just don't find it relevant to put a name on the designer
>since this isn't necessary to establish design. Just as it isn't
>necessary to know who designed your computer to establish it's
>designed.

I can't recall that I ever had to establish who designed my computer.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <28ahl9pm4h8b7aaso...@4ax.com>,

numerous <nume...@address.invalid> wrote:

> No, they just don't find it relevant to put a name on the designer
> since this isn't necessary to establish design. Just as it isn't
> necessary to know who designed your computer to establish it's
> designed.

I'm not so sure. One would think software was designed, but a close
examination of Microsoft software raises considerable doubt about the
putative designers, for example.

[Mark Isaak]

Except that is not the theory of evolution. In fact, it is a rejection
of the theory of evolution. You did fine up to "from a common
ancestor", but you blew it with your caveats. "Descent" includes
symbiotic joining and perhaps unknown processes of reproduction, and
"modification" includes any modification; planned and guided
modifications are explicitly *included* as part of the evolutionary process.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Robert Camp]

On 4/23/14 11:16 PM, numerous wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>> by Karl W. Giberson
>>
>> <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>
>

> Strawman: "They insist that their "Intelligent Designer� is not the
> God of the Bible..."

How is that a strawman?

> No, they just don't find it relevant to put a name on the designer
> since this isn't necessary to establish design. Just as it isn't
> necessary to know who designed your computer to establish it's
> designed.

Now *that* is a strawman. No one's asking for a name. But for non-human,
and especially non-natural, design it *is* necessary to establish the
existence of the designer in question (through any of a number of
evidential avenues). The designer of computers is well-known and
understood, and his existence is therefore legitimately assumed as a
causal agent. An argument which posits a designer of universes cannot be
issued similar dispensation. That would be begging the question.

[TomS]

"On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:59:30 -0700, in article <ljbcd3$8k5$1...@dont-email.me>,
Robert Camp stated..."

>
>On 4/23/14 11:16 PM, numerous wrote:
>> On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>>> by Karl W. Giberson
>>>
>>><http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>>
>>

>> Strawman: "They insist that their "Intelligent Designer” is not the

>> God of the Bible..."
>
>How is that a strawman?
>
>> No, they just don't find it relevant to put a name on the designer
>> since this isn't necessary to establish design. Just as it isn't
>> necessary to know who designed your computer to establish it's
>> designed.
>
>Now *that* is a strawman. No one's asking for a name. But for non-human,
>and especially non-natural, design it *is* necessary to establish the
>existence of the designer in question (through any of a number of
>evidential avenues). The designer of computers is well-known and
>understood, and his existence is therefore legitimately assumed as a
>causal agent. An argument which posits a designer of universes cannot be
>issued similar dispensation. That would be begging the question.
>

I suggest that it would be appropriate to tell us something about the
agency of "Intelligent Design". Whether omnipotent, or subject to
some restrictions (for example, limited by the raw material given, or
by some laws); whether supernatural, preternatural, or natural; or
just how many there are (zero, one, many). Such matters would be
relevant to whether "Common Design" makes any sense, for example; or
why the there are conflicting designs (vision to both predators and
prey).


--
---Tom S.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:16:06 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by numerous
<nume...@address.invalid>:

>On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>>by Karl W. Giberson
>>
>><http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>
>
>Strawman: "They insist that their "Intelligent Designer” is not the
>God of the Bible..."

>No, they just don't find it relevant to put a name on the designer
>since this isn't necessary to establish design.

No, all that is required to "establish design" is an
objective definition of design which can be used for
evaluation. That's a *definition*; examples need not apply.
Although this has been requested on numerous occasions the
ID proponents have been inexplicably silent. Care to try
your luck?

> Just as it isn't
>necessary to know who designed your computer to establish it's
>designed.

Irrelevant (and also a bit of a strawman); we already know
computers are designed, so establishing that fact is
unnecessary.

[John Bode]

Common descent does not define evolutionary theory; it's a *consequence*
of it, but not the definition of it.

Evolutionary theory doesn't stipulate that all life forms *must* share
a single common ancestor (or, more accurately, a single ancestral
population). It's not a problem for evolutionary theory if we can identify
multiple trees of life with different "roots".

As far as we have been able to determine, all life on Earth *does* share
common ancestry. It's possible that we're wrong, but given the evidence
found so far I think that's unlikely. There *may* have been multiple trees
of life early on, with only ours surviving the very earliest geological
periods. I think it's generally accepted that the "root" of our
tree was pretty tangled, with lots of horizontal genetic transfer between
otherwise unrelated organisms and no clear lines of descent between them.

But again, that's not what defines *evolution* or evolutionary theory.

[Mark Isaak]

In fairness to Kalkidas, "evolution", in common parlance even among
scientists, encompasses multiple concepts, and common descent is
prominent among them.

[Kalkidas]

LOL. Mark Isaak playing the "goddidit" card by citing " perhaps
unknown processes of reproduction" and "planned and guided
modifications"

Can't wait to see what ToE says about "perhaps unknown processes of
reproduction". (Hint: nothing at all, since if there were any evidence
for them, they would not be "unknown")

Can't wait to see what ToE says about "planned and guided
modifications" that were taking place, say, a hundred million years
ago. (Hint: nothing at all, since according to ToE there was nobody
around 100 million years ago to "plan" or "guide" anything).

In summary, my characterization of the ToE is spot-on. Yours is just a
pitiful attempt at spin-control.

[Kalkidas]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:29:34 -0700 (PDT), John Bode

I was giving a characterization, not a definition.

In any case, even if there are "multiple trees", those trees,
according to ToE, must themselves have descended from something.
Sooner or later you're going to come to a single common ancestor,
unless you want to claim that the trees popped into existence fully
formed and have no relation to one another.

[chris thompson]

That's correct. But "planned and guided modifications" certainly are included in the ToE. What you ate for dinner last night was almost certainly a result of those "planned and guided modifications"- or did that whole "Green Revolution" thingy slip by you?

Chris

[chris thompson]

Nonsense. Consider "life" (i.e., something you would consider to be alive, but an extremely simple organism) in existence early in the planet's history. It reproduces. Meanwhile, a different life form arose 3 slime ponds over. There's a slime flood and these 2 are thrown into contact for the first time. They manage to coexist for a time, even exchanging some hereditary material, but the direct descendants of one primordial slimer die off, while the other lineage carries on and on and on, leading, eventually, to...you. Thus, there isn't really a single common ancestor- we've all got genes from different slimes.

Chris

[Kalkidas]

But that's exactly what I said: two "ancestors" or "trees" popped into
existence in different slime ponds, fully formed with no relation with
one another.

Or, since the "common ancestor" is usually thought of as "a single
ancestral population" (stated by John Bode above) rather than an
individual organism, the common ancestor in your scenario is simply a
population consisting of the two organisms in the two slime ponds.

[Mark Isaak]

When Darwin wrote, it was unknown how the human sperm penetrated to the
nucleus of the egg to fertilize it, so even human reproduction was an
unknown process, to some degree. No doubt there are still unknowns in
human reproduction and reproduction of other species. Only one
suffering from faithless hubris would make knowledge a delimiter.

> Can't wait to see what ToE says about "planned and guided
> modifications" that were taking place, say, a hundred million years
> ago. (Hint: nothing at all, since according to ToE there was nobody
> around 100 million years ago to "plan" or "guide" anything).
>
> In summary, my characterization of the ToE is spot-on. Yours is just a
> pitiful attempt at spin-control.

Suit yourself. Just know that what you call the ToE has very little to
do with the theory of evolution as described by Darwin and evolutionary
scientists since. You are not alone in rejecting what you call the ToE;
every evolutionary biologist also rejects what you consider evolution,
especially the "unguided, accidental" part.

[Chris Thompson]

I guess I don't consider a single population a "tree". YMMV.

> Or, since the "common ancestor" is usually thought of as "a single
> ancestral population" (stated by John Bode above) rather than an
> individual organism, the common ancestor in your scenario is simply a
> population consisting of the two organisms in the two slime ponds.
>

But if the two organisms (or populations, more correctly as you point
out) are not the same, how can one there be a single common ancestor?

This is, AIUI, the current thinking (as someone else pointed out). A
group of different organisms, swapping hereditary material all over the
place (rather like bacteria swap plasmids today), resulting in an
amalgamation of many ancestors' contribution. In that scenario, there's
no single common ancestor.

Chris

[TomS]

"On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:16:08 -0700, in article
<3ukil9tmbs8baaajr...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova stated..."

>
>On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:16:06 +0200, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by numerous
><nume...@address.invalid>:
>
>>On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>>>by Karl W. Giberson
>>>
>>><http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>>
>>
>>Strawman: "They insist that their "Intelligent Designer” is not the
>>God of the Bible..."
>
>>No, they just don't find it relevant to put a name on the designer
>>since this isn't necessary to establish design.
>
>No, all that is required to "establish design" is an
>objective definition of design which can be used for
>evaluation. That's a *definition*; examples need not apply.
>Although this has been requested on numerous occasions the
>ID proponents have been inexplicably silent. Care to try
>your luck?

Whenever ID advocate bothers to respond to a question about the
6 W's, it is to say that for the sake of their pure science, they
wouldn't sully it with petty details.

How can that attitude become famous as well as silly?

>
>> Just as it isn't
>>necessary to know who designed your computer to establish it's
>>designed.
>
>Irrelevant (and also a bit of a strawman); we already know
>computers are designed, so establishing that fact is
>unnecessary.


--

---Tom S.

[Bob Casanova]

On 25 Apr 2014 09:49:47 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:

>"On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:16:08 -0700, in article
><3ukil9tmbs8baaajr...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova stated..."

>>On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:16:06 +0200, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by numerous
>><nume...@address.invalid>:

>>>On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>>>>My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>>>>by Karl W. Giberson
>>>>
>>>><http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>

>>>Strawman: "They insist that their "Intelligent Designer� is not the
>>>God of the Bible..."
>>
>>>No, they just don't find it relevant to put a name on the designer
>>>since this isn't necessary to establish design.

>>No, all that is required to "establish design" is an
>>objective definition of design which can be used for
>>evaluation. That's a *definition*; examples need not apply.
>>Although this has been requested on numerous occasions the
>>ID proponents have been inexplicably silent. Care to try
>>your luck?

[Crickets...]

>Whenever ID advocate bothers to respond to a question about the
>6 W's, it is to say that for the sake of their pure science, they
>wouldn't sully it with petty details.

Monty Python would characterize that as "Run away! Run
away!"

But I'm interested in numerous' definition of design, the
one we can use for evaluation of objects and processes whose
provenance is unknown.

>How can that attitude become famous as well as silly?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

>>> Just as it isn't
>>>necessary to know who designed your computer to establish it's
>>>designed.
>>
>>Irrelevant (and also a bit of a strawman); we already know
>>computers are designed, so establishing that fact is
>>unnecessary.
--

[alias Ernest Major]

On 22/04/2014 18:04, Kalkidas wrote:
> A real theory will have one mathematical model (or several models

> which can be*proved* to be mathematically equivalent) which

> uniformly applies to all the phenomena the theory accounts for. If
> there are multiple non-equivalent models, what you have is only a
> hoped-for theory, in blatant violation of Occam's Razor.

Are you adding chemistry to the fields which you are excluding from the
remit of science?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Kalkidas]

No plans to add it at this time.

[alias Ernest Major]

In which case you need a different excuse to pretend that evolutionary
biology isn't science.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:03:42 +0100, alias Ernest Major

<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:

>On 26/04/2014 15:21, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:00:21 +0100, alias Ernest Major
>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/04/2014 18:04, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> A real theory will have one mathematical model (or several models
>>>> which can be*proved* to be mathematically equivalent) which
>>>> uniformly applies to all the phenomena the theory accounts for. If
>>>> there are multiple non-equivalent models, what you have is only a
>>>> hoped-for theory, in blatant violation of Occam's Razor.
>>>
>>> Are you adding chemistry to the fields which you are excluding from the
>>> remit of science?
>>
>> No plans to add it at this time.
>>
>In which case you need a different excuse to pretend that evolutionary
>biology isn't science.

There's no such field as "evolutionary chemistry". Ever wonder why?

[Josko Daimonie]

I don't know. Could you give me a mathematical model for chemistry?

[Nick Roberts]

In message <iptsl9p2vn883ohgq...@4ax.com>

Because the rules that govern chemical reactions aren't based on
differential reproduction, maybe?

You know, you really don't have to keep telling us you have no idea how
the universe works. The stuff you've already given is more than enough.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[J. J. Lodder]

No?

> Ever wonder why?

Have you ever tried to probe the bottom of your ignorance?

Jan

[John Bode]

Because chemists aren't biologists?

At some point during abiogenesis, some form of variation and selection
must have taken hold, even if all you had was a bunch of autocatalytic
processes and not "life" as we'd define the term. But even so, some
reactions were more efficient than others, some were more energetic than
others, some configurations were more stable than others, etc.

At that point, though, you're kind of leaving the "chemistry" discipline
behind and getting more into molecular biology.

[Burkhard]

Here's the website for the Centre of chemical evolution
http://centerforchemicalevolution.com/research

Here a couple of papers from the field
Weber, Lutz. "Multi-component reactions and evolutionary chemistry." Drug Discovery Today 7.2 (2002): 143-147.

Bräuer, Silke, et al. "Evolutionary chemistry approach toward finding novel inhibitors of the type 2 diabetes target glucose-6-phosphate translocase." Journal of combinatorial chemistry 7.2 (2005): 218-226.

Joyce, Gerald F. "Evolutionary chemistry: getting there from here." Science 276.5319 (1997): 1658-1659.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <ljlv54$4gg$1...@dont-email.me>,

Sure the quantum mechanical equations. It's just that solving them for
real cases can be very difficult. Paul Gans does that kind of
chemistry.

[alias Ernest Major]

Many people confuse the set of things that they don't know about with
set of things that don't exist.

But that is tangential to the irrelevance of his observation. He might
as well ask why there is no such field as relativistic chemistry or
statistical chemistry. (Or, for a field which google finds no direct
evidence of its existence, somewhat to my surprise, phycological chemistry.)

>
>> Ever wonder why?
>
> Have you ever tried to probe the bottom of your ignorance?
>
> Jan
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:42:04 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Monday, April 28, 2014 5:50:21 PM UTC+2, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:03:42 +0100, alias Ernest Major
>>
>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 26/04/2014 15:21, Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:00:21 +0100, alias Ernest Major
>>
>> >> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>> On 22/04/2014 18:04, Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>> >>>> A real theory will have one mathematical model (or several models
>>
>> >>>> which can be*proved* to be mathematically equivalent) which
>>
>> >>>> uniformly applies to all the phenomena the theory accounts for. If
>>
>> >>>> there are multiple non-equivalent models, what you have is only a
>>
>> >>>> hoped-for theory, in blatant violation of Occam's Razor.
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> Are you adding chemistry to the fields which you are excluding from the
>>
>> >>> remit of science?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> No plans to add it at this time.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >In which case you need a different excuse to pretend that evolutionary
>>
>> >biology isn't science.
>>
>>
>>
>> There's no such field as "evolutionary chemistry". Ever wonder why?
>
>Here's the website for the Centre of chemical evolution
>http://centerforchemicalevolution.com/research

I like this one. Thank you for pointing it out.

>Here a couple of papers from the field
>Weber, Lutz. "Multi-component reactions and evolutionary chemistry." Drug Discovery Today 7.2 (2002): 143-147.
>

>Br�uer, Silke, et al. "Evolutionary chemistry approach toward finding novel inhibitors of the type 2 diabetes target glucose-6-phosphate translocase." Journal of combinatorial chemistry 7.2 (2005): 218-226.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:19:25 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

He tried, but he fell in and nearly drowned.

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:42:04 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

The phrase "evolutionary chemistry" is indeed used in some of the
papers. I'll grant that.

From the website:

"The scientific objective of the Center for Chemical Evolution is to
demonstrate small molecules within a model inventory of prebiotic
chemistry can self-assemble into polymers that resemble RNA and
proteins."

"Finding molecules with the ability to self-assemble into RNA- or
protein-like polymers, regardless of whether these can be proven to be
the ancestors, would undoubtedly create considerable excitement among
scientists and the general public, represent a major advancement in
the field of molecular self-assembly, and prove abundantly useful to
synthetic chemists."

Notice the phrase "...*would* undoubtedly create considerable
excitement..." In other words, there are as yet NO RESULTS confirming
their stated goal.

They are indeed trying to put a Darwinian spin on the results of their
work, () but since the results have so far been ZERO in the light of
their stated goal, it's just another bluff.

So, similar to the field of "evolutionary biology" where there is a
lot of biology but little Darwinian evolution, in "evolutionary
chemistry" there is a lot of chemistry, but no Darwinian evolution at
all.

[Burkhard]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 8:29:41 PM UTC+2, Kalkidas wrote:
<snip>

> >>
>
> >> There's no such field as "evolutionary chemistry". Ever wonder why
>

> >Here's the website for the Centre of chemical evolution
> >http://centerforchemicalevolution.com/research
>
> >
>
> >Here a couple of papers from the field
> >Weber, Lutz. "Multi-component reactions and evolutionary chemistry." Drug Discovery Today 7.2 (2002): 143-147.
>
> >
>
> >Bräuer, Silke, et al. "Evolutionary chemistry approach toward finding novel inhibitors of the type 2 diabetes target glucose-6-phosphate translocase." Journal of combinatorial chemistry 7.2 (2005): 218-226.
>

> >Joyce, Gerald F. "Evolutionary chemistry: getting there from here." Science 276.5319 (1997): 1658-1659.
>
>
> The phrase "evolutionary chemistry" is indeed used in some of the
> papers. I'll grant that.
>
> From the website:
>
> "The scientific objective of the Center for Chemical Evolution is to
> demonstrate small molecules within a model inventory of prebiotic
> chemistry can self-assemble into polymers that resemble RNA and
> proteins."
>
>
> "Finding molecules with the ability to self-assemble into RNA- or
> protein-like polymers, regardless of whether these can be proven to be
> the ancestors, would undoubtedly create considerable excitement among
> scientists and the general public, represent a major advancement in
> the field of molecular self-assembly, and prove abundantly useful to
> synthetic chemists."
>
>
>
> Notice the phrase "...*would* undoubtedly create considerable
> excitement..." In other words, there are as yet NO RESULTS confirming
> their stated goal.

That is why it is called "research". Research is all about finding out things we do
not know yet, it is not a repository of authoritative statements from the past.

As for the "no results", you only need to go to the links where they
have the results, in particular here:

http://ww2.chemistry.gatech.edu/hud/node/4

>
>
> They are indeed trying to put a Darwinian spin on the results of their
> work, () but since the results have so far been ZERO in the light of
> their stated goal, it's just another bluff.

You just need basic ability to navigate a website, then you can find the
results too

> So, similar to the field of "evolutionary biology" where there is

> lot of biology but little Darwinian evolution, in "evolutionar

> chemistry" there is a lot of chemistry, but no Darwinian evolution at
> all.

There may well be little "Darwinian evolution: the way you use the term.
Fortunately enough, nobody is bound by your idiosyncratic use of
scientific terms.

[jillery]

There are no biological molecules that haven't been synthesized via
abiotic chemical pathways. Not one. That shows there is nothing
supernatural about molecular biology. What's still unknown is the
processes of self-assembly, which isn't surprising, considering it
happened so long ago in an environment that remains unspecified. You
find your magical creator in an ever shrinking circle of ignorance,
because that's the only place it can hide.

[alias Ernest Major]

The term "evolutionary biochemistry" exists, and is about twice as
commonly used as "evolutionary chemistry". The existence of a "Journal
of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology" no doubt ups the number of
records in Google's database.

--
alias Ernest Major

[chris thompson]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
>
> There are no biological molecules that haven't been synthesized via
>
> abiotic chemical pathways. Not one.

That's an awfully strong statement. Do you mean it in general terms, i.e., we've produced some proteins, some lipids, some carbohydrates and some nucleic acids in vitro? Or are you stating the stronger case that all known proteins, for example, have been produced abiotically? I would say the latter is just wrong, especially if you toss in proper folding.

Chris

[alias Ernest Major]

In principle chemistry is quantum mechanics (and thermodynamics). In
practice, as I understand the matter, several different models are in
use. (For small molecules the major groups are modern valence bond
theory and molecular orbital theory; I presume that other techniques are
used for metals and lattice compounds.)

These techniques model molecules. I don't know how reactions are modelled.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Josko Daimonie]

Yes, for small parts, there are indeed mathematical formulations. I
think my point wasn't that clear.

Let's put it like this. Chemistry has a basis in quantum theory, as the
TOE has a basis in genetics. There isn't an exact derivation to go from
there to other things on the macroscopic scale - like speciation.

My point was that Kalkidas' arbitrary criteria aren't even met for
chemistry. I'd argue that they aren't met for physics either - at least,
I have yet to learn how quantum mechanics connect to arbitrary
macroscopic physical problems.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:46:26 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 28, 2014 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are no biological molecules that haven't been synthesized via
>>
>> abiotic chemical pathways. Not one.
>
>That's an awfully strong statement. Do you mean it in general terms, i.e., we've produced some proteins, some lipids, some carbohydrates and some nucleic acids in vitro? Or are you stating the stronger case that all known proteins, for example, have been produced abiotically? I would say the latter is just wrong, especially if you toss in proper folding.
>
>Chris

Yes, I had in mind classes of chemicals. However, to the best of my
knowledge, there's nothing in principle that stops someone from
duplicating any specific instance of a class of molecules. In
practice, one reason is that it's composition isn't completely
identified. Another reason is there's no particular point to
duplicating it synthetically, as it can be manufactured biologically
far more cheaply, and/or purely, or the demand for it is too low to
make it worthwhile to do so.

[alias Ernest Major]

That was my point as well, a few posts further back, so we seem to be in
agreement.

> I have yet to learn how quantum mechanics connect to arbitrary
> macroscopic physical problems.
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[J. J. Lodder]

alias Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:

> On 28/04/2014 18:19, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:03:42 +0100, alias Ernest Major
> >> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 26/04/2014 15:21, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:00:21 +0100, alias Ernest Major
> >>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 22/04/2014 18:04, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>>>> A real theory will have one mathematical model (or several models
> >>>>>> which can be*proved* to be mathematically equivalent) which
> >>>>>> uniformly applies to all the phenomena the theory accounts for. If
> >>>>>> there are multiple non-equivalent models, what you have is only a
> >>>>>> hoped-for theory, in blatant violation of Occam's Razor.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you adding chemistry to the fields which you are excluding from the
> >>>>> remit of science?
> >>>>
> >>>> No plans to add it at this time.
> >>>>
> >>> In which case you need a different excuse to pretend that evolutionary
> >>> biology isn't science.
> >>
> >> There's no such field as "evolutionary chemistry".
> >
> > No?
>
> Many people confuse the set of things that they don't know about with
> set of things that don't exist.

Politicians in particular.

> But that is tangential to the irrelevance of his observation. He might
> as well ask why there is no such field as relativistic chemistry or
> statistical chemistry. (Or, for a field which google finds no direct
> evidence of its existence, somewhat to my surprise, phycological chemistry.)

Just stringing some buzzwords together isn't likely to produce
the title of a college course.
OTOH chemical evolution is a well know subject of study,
(just statistical mechanics, really)

Jan

[Steven L.]

On 4/24/2014 1:58 PM, TomS wrote:
> "On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:59:30 -0700, in article <ljbcd3$8k5$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Robert Camp stated..."

>>
>> On 4/23/14 11:16 PM, numerous wrote:
>>> On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>>>> by Karl W. Giberson
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>>>
>>>

>>> Strawman: "They insist that their "Intelligent Designer� is not the
>>> God of the Bible..."
>>
>> How is that a strawman?

>>
>>> No, they just don't find it relevant to put a name on the designer

>>> since this isn't necessary to establish design. Just as it isn't

>>> necessary to know who designed your computer to establish it's
>>> designed.
>>

>> Now *that* is a strawman. No one's asking for a name. But for non-human,
>> and especially non-natural, design it *is* necessary to establish the
>> existence of the designer in question (through any of a number of
>> evidential avenues). The designer of computers is well-known and
>> understood, and his existence is therefore legitimately assumed as a
>> causal agent. An argument which posits a designer of universes cannot be
>> issued similar dispensation. That would be begging the question.
>>
>
> I suggest that it would be appropriate to tell us something about the
> agency of "Intelligent Design". Whether omnipotent, or subject to
> some restrictions (for example, limited by the raw material given, or
> by some laws); whether supernatural, preternatural, or natural; or
> just how many there are (zero, one, many). Such matters would be
> relevant to whether "Common Design" makes any sense, for example; or
> why the there are conflicting designs (vision to both predators and
> prey).

On another forum, I have had some discussions with an agnostic who also
believes in Intelligent Design.

He's the first person I've ever met who is positive that there was an
Intelligent Designer who was probably not the Abrahamic God.

Maybe he should convert to Raelism.


--
Steven L.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:21:27 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net>:

>On 4/24/2014 1:58 PM, TomS wrote:
>> "On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:59:30 -0700, in article <ljbcd3$8k5$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Robert Camp stated..."
>>>
>>> On 4/23/14 11:16 PM, numerous wrote:
>>>> On 21 Apr 2014 12:50:17 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My Debate With an "Intelligent Design" Theorist
>>>>> by Karl W. Giberson
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html#url=/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Strawman: "They insist that their "Intelligent Designer� is not the

At least as an agnostic he recognizes that it *is* a belief,
whether religion-based or otherwise, and that it is very
unlikely to ever be more.

>Maybe he should convert to Raelism.

....or any other belief unsupported by objective evidence,
which appears at this time, and likely to remain so, to be
all of them.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 28/04/2014 22:12, Josko Daimonie wrote:

There is also the notorious use of both quantum mechanics and general
relativity in physics.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:51:08 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by alias Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl>:

....a situation fraught with gravity.

[J. J. Lodder]

Are you sure?

Jan

[Josko Daimonie]

Aye, I hope that is solved in my lifetime. Don't know if it will be my
area of expertise, but I will definitely choose the subject of general
relativity during my master in physics.

It's kind of interesting what Kalkidas says. He seems to draw on the
fear most people have of mathematics, combines it with the lack of
mathematics taught on high school, in particular for biology, and
formulates an argument that then sounds extremely likely. This is posted
as an observation, I am not going to say anyone is a liar or whatsoever.
I just found it interesting.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:58:28 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

Of course, although the nature and source of the gravity
differs between them.