Comments on: Detecting Design? http://telicthoughts.com/detecting-design-2/ An independent blog about intelligent design Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:36:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Rock http://telicthoughts.com/detecting-design-2/#comment-24669 Rock Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:36:29 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=771#comment-24669 The problem with the notion of continuous evolution (as in "common descent") is that it depends upon a record, and records of events are imprecise, incomplete. But although the imprecision of the record is given, the incompleteness is not. (Not in physics.) Therefore every discontinuity in the record represents a gap in theory, and a gap that creationists will fill with God. The "gaps" are a theoretical artifact. Given that not all (evolutionary) theories require continuity. Not required by physics, e.g., and not required by alternative theories of biological evolution either. And if biological evolution must be grounded in physics then it simply is not a theoretical requirement. So we have to wonder, as has been wondered, why Darwin, and the Neo-Darwinists required it. There are a number of reasons, good and bad, few actually explored, because its usually stated as either a necessary assumption or a requirement. Either accepted as such, and requiring little if any further explication"¦ or not. The problem for creationists is that I can just as easily fill those gaps by qualifying the (theoretical, not empirical) requirement that evolution be continuous. It's not in any case. So it doesn't represent empirically a problem. It represents a problem only for Darwin's (and the Neo-Darwinists') particular theory. Many interesting questions and problems here. At least to me. None of which are addressed, at least directly, in the usual, "Did whales once walk on land?" arguments we have. There is a perfectly legitimate question asked here about detecting design in discontinuities. (Its kinda hrd to find the threads in this format.) The problem with the notion of continuous evolution (as in "common descent") is that it depends upon a record, and records of events are imprecise, incomplete. But although the imprecision of the record is given, the incompleteness is not. (Not in physics.) Therefore every discontinuity in the record represents a gap in theory, and a gap that creationists will fill with God.
The "gaps" are a theoretical artifact. Given that not all (evolutionary) theories require continuity. Not required by physics, e.g., and not required by alternative theories of biological evolution either. And if biological evolution must be grounded in physics then it simply is not a theoretical requirement. So we have to wonder, as has been wondered, why Darwin, and the Neo-Darwinists required it. There are a number of reasons, good and bad, few actually explored, because its usually stated as either a necessary assumption or a requirement. Either accepted as such, and requiring little if any further explication"¦ or not.
The problem for creationists is that I can just as easily fill those gaps by qualifying the (theoretical, not empirical) requirement that evolution be continuous. It's not in any case. So it doesn't represent empirically a problem. It represents a problem only for Darwin's (and the Neo-Darwinists') particular theory.
Many interesting questions and problems here. At least to me. None of which are addressed, at least directly, in the usual, "Did whales once walk on land?" arguments we have.
There is a perfectly legitimate question asked here about detecting design in discontinuities.

(Its kinda hrd to find the threads in this format.)

]]> By: Rock http://telicthoughts.com/detecting-design-2/#comment-23077 Rock Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:31:59 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=771#comment-23077 Charles Babbage, The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, 2nd edn London, 1838. http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/bridgewater/babbage_intro.htm (Thanks to Seth Bullock for the reference.) Charles Babbage, The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, 2nd edn London, 1838.

http://www.victorianweb.org/sc...

(Thanks to Seth Bullock for the reference.)

]]> By: Daniel http://telicthoughts.com/detecting-design-2/#comment-23065 Daniel Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:56:54 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=771#comment-23065 Mung, I was responding to Mike's reference to Wills' description of "sudden discontinuities," not Rock. I actually think that my response reflects Rock's (making mine superfluous, maybe) - in any case, I agree with what he said. <blockquote>Mendelian inheritance happens all the time. If it is indeed discrete and discontinuous, then there is nothing improbable at all about discrete and discontinuous events.</blockquote> Isn't that essentially what Rock and I were saying? Mung,
I was responding to Mike's reference to Wills' description of "sudden discontinuities," not Rock. I actually think that my response reflects Rock's (making mine superfluous, maybe) - in any case, I agree with what he said.

Mendelian inheritance happens all the time. If it is indeed discrete and discontinuous, then there is nothing improbable at all about discrete and discontinuous events.

Isn't that essentially what Rock and I were saying?

]]> By: Mung http://telicthoughts.com/detecting-design-2/#comment-23057 Mung Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:38:45 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=771#comment-23057 Daniel, I really do believe that you have completely missed Rock's point. If he has one, heheh! Mendelian inheritance happens all the time. If it is indeed discrete and discontinuous, then there is nothing improbable at all about discrete and discontinuous events. Daniel,

I really do believe that you have completely missed Rock's point. If he has one, heheh!

Mendelian inheritance happens all the time. If it is indeed discrete and discontinuous, then there is nothing improbable at all about discrete and discontinuous events.

]]> By: Daniel http://telicthoughts.com/detecting-design-2/#comment-22894 Daniel Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:34:10 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=771#comment-22894 Actually population genetics and evo-devo have gone a long way to elucidate and explain how "discontinuities in the history of life," are both not all that sudden (cambrian explosion occurring over 15million years, for example) and not so improbable. Actually population genetics and evo-devo have gone a long way to elucidate and explain how "discontinuities in the history of life," are both not all that sudden (cambrian explosion occurring over 15million years, for example) and not so improbable.

]]> By: Rock http://telicthoughts.com/detecting-design-2/#comment-22494 Rock Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:55:25 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=771#comment-22494 The history of life on Earth consists only of discontinuities, under the assumption that Mendelian genetics applies throughout the entire history of life on Earth. Mendelian inheritance is discrete and discontinuous. Which, of course, means that new structure and function (its not an "or" thing"”its always new structure and function) have indeed arisen w/o previous history"”which is why I suppose is why we call it "new." "Such new structures have not yet been found, by the way." Whaaat?! I shouldn't have believed in all those "evolutionary innovations" I've been hearing about?! I shouldn't have taken seriously the idea that evolution is a "creative" process?! The history of life on Earth consists only of discontinuities, under the assumption that Mendelian genetics applies throughout the entire history of life on Earth. Mendelian inheritance is discrete and discontinuous. Which, of course, means that new structure and function (its not an "or" thing"”its always new structure and function) have indeed arisen w/o previous history"”which is why I suppose is why we call it "new."
"Such new structures have not yet been found, by the way." Whaaat?!
I shouldn't have believed in all those "evolutionary innovations" I've been hearing about?! I shouldn't have taken seriously the idea that evolution is a "creative" process?!

]]>