The Real Enemy of Reason
by BradfordGod is not the enemy of reason from The Jewish Chronicle and appearing at The Jewish Community Online was authored by Melanie Phillips. Melanie excoriates secular fundamentalists and the arrogance that is frequently displayed by them. She notes the irony that increased influence of secularism has coincided with increasing interest in astrology, the occult and other fringe movements. Phillip's linked article is a frontal assault on a counter-cultural movement that now finds itself very much part of the mainstream.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:23 am
So people realise mainstream religion is not all that it is cracked up to be, and so go and find alternatives. ome become atheists, some get into astrology, the occult, etc.
Is that a reason for us to question the success of atheism or mainstream religion do you think?
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 21, 2008 @ 4:23 am
October 21st, 2008 at 7:15 am
The Pixie Again wrote:
Success in what? Forcing an adherent to stay in the fold? Well yeah, that's a good point. It helps to have no criteria other than not believing in God. That's a nice big tent that covers all from Randians to anarcho-communists.
If you mean success in keeping people's minds away from "magical thinking", then only one side advertises that and it's a spectacular failure on that front. I wonder why that is?
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 21, 2008 @ 7:15 am
October 21st, 2008 at 10:19 am
That is an interesting survey. If you look at the actual responses, it is the "Not sure" group that is especially big for college students. Those who "Believe" is usually lower, and in some cases much lower (eg 28% stuidents believe in ESP compared to 50% of the general population). Maybe this shows how students have learnt to be open-minded?
Frankly, I find it amazing that so many people, students or otherwise, believe so many of these thing. However, I see nothing in the survey to suggest that this is a failure of atheism any more than a failure of mainstream religion.
Your second link provides us for a reason why religion has been so successful.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 21, 2008 @ 10:19 am
October 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
The Pixie Again wrote:
Open-minded to anything but Christianity or Judaism, you mean.
You find it amazing because you don't question the incorrect assertion by atheists that higher education erodes traditional religious beliefs by instilling skepticism.
Evidence continues to disprove the atheist assertion and reinforce the theist assertion that (as stated in the original article) "when people stop believing in God, they will believe in anything".
You will continue turning a blind eye to this failure, because it does not confirm your worldview.
Indeed it does.
From my second article (emphasis added):
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 21, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Melanie Phillips is a crackpot. She even blames "militant atheism" for the financial crisis.
Melanie:
People who believe in God already believe in anything. Palin apparently believes in witchcraft. Bill Dembski believes in faith healing and the bible code. Maybe God is not an enemy of reason, but belief in God certainly is.
Comment by Raevmo — October 21, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
You have it backwards. If there is no God there are no constraints on what is possible. Universes can come into existence willy nilly and infinite numbers of them at that. Mindless chemical reactions must lead to codes. It's not optional.
Untrue.
But a belief that reason is an emergent property of neural cells is rational.
Comment by Bradford — October 21, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Bradford:
No, you have it backwards. If God is omnipotent, then there are no constraints. But since gods are the product of human imagination, only human imagination constrains what gods can do.
Comment by Raevmo — October 21, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Bradford:
Then how do you explain this: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg
Comment by Raevmo — October 21, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Bradford:
That's right. We've been over this before. Neuronal networks process sensory information and build models of the environment. Reason is an emergent property of that. Why is that unreasonable?
Comment by Raevmo — October 21, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
fmm
I did not see the statistics that would lead one to conclude that. Are you thinking that all students are closed-minded with respect to Christianity and Judaism? I wonder why that would be? Do you think they are open-minded about Isman and Hinduism?
Actually I was thinking about the figures for the general population really. 50% of the population believe in ESP, 40% believe in haunted houses. According to Wiki, about 77% of the US population is Christian, so some of those who believe in hauted houses and ESP are presumably Christian.
Really we need to find statistics for belief in these things correlated with religious belief. However, I tend to agree that people do seem to need superstition.
I think that is just a part of it, but yes.
Bradford
"No constraints on wht is possible" AND "Mindless chemical reactions must lead to codes. It's not optional" Anyone else see the contradiction?
By the way, having watched the Palin video, I agree that claims she supports witchcraft are tenuous at best. I did find it disturbing that the Pastor was asking for a righteous America – is he hoping for a theocracy, or an end to religious freedom or what?
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 21, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Neuronal networks are the physical wiring through which abstract thinking is made possible. Equating the two as one is a category error. The relationship is associative but provides no substantive explanation as to why matter would confer capacity for abstract thought only when forming brain cells. It is no more rational to believe that rational thoughts arise from matter than it is to think that rational thinking could have preceeded it. The long debunked corrolary belief that thinking, rational beings could exist outside our universe now has some support from science itself.
Comment by Bradford — October 21, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 7:10 pm
The constraint of course would be that unguided chemical reactions do not generate codes. If that's so there is no way your mindset could ever get to the truth. It had to have happened that way. I might have better worded it no constraints on what you imagine to be possible. God may not be constrained but creation sure is.
Comment by Bradford — October 21, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Of course the fact that he is a pastor leads you to that but why is it not possible for you two to agree in principle that rightousness is better for America?
Comment by Bradford — October 21, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Raevmo:
Are you saying that Palin believes there are people who study the craft of witches (witchcraft)?
Because to believe such a thing would be a sign of intelligent reasoning and to not believe such a thing would be a sign of profound ignorance.
http://www.witchcraft.com.au/
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 21, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Is that a reason for us to question the success of atheism or mainstream religion do you think?
What success of atheism?
This just in
quote:
Baylor researchers also criticized a much-ballyhooed “new atheism” as a barely discernable trend, saying the number of Americans who are atheists has stayed at 4 percent since 1944.
End quote:
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 21, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Pixie:
even more good stuff:
quote:
The survey, which has a margin of error of four percentage points, also revealed that theological liberals are more apt to believe in the paranormal and the occult – haunted houses, UFOs, communicating with the dead and astrology – than do conservatives. Women (35 percent), blacks (41 percent), those younger than 30 (40 percent), Democrats (40 percent) and singles who are cohabitating (49 percent) were more likely to believe, the survey said.
end quote:
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 21, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 am
Bradford
How come you are such an expert on my mindset? You have no idea what it would take to convince me of the likelihood of a Designer. Sure, none of the so-called evidence presented around here is likely to do so, but that does not mean that good scientific evidence would not.
Because it sounds like he wants a Christian nation. Llisten to what he says, and remember that he is making this blessing to someone who is standing to be vice-president, and could easily end up being preident of the USA. Perhaps I read too much into it, but that is what I find concerning about the video.
What exactly do you mean by rightousness anyway? If you only mean people living good lives, then yes, that would be a good thing (but we would argue about what is a good life; two men living together in a loving relationship, for example, I imagine). If your righteousness is about getting closer to God, then yes, I have a problem with that.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 22, 2008 @ 5:12 am
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 am
A while back a critic wrote that if a code could be found within cells through which was spoken a narrative about the designer he would find that evidence convincing. I expressed doubt and his exasperation caused me to doubt my reply and reconsider. Then a fairly well known critic commented that he could conceive of a natural means (meaning non-telic) by which such a narrative would result. Some agreed and others disagreed but this only reinforced my view that for most people a telic or non-telic perspective preceeds conclusions about nature rather than being formed as a consequence of objectively evaluating data.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2008 @ 6:54 am
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:25 am
What? You can get from "for most people a telic or non-telic perspective preceeds conclusions about nature rather than being formed as a consequence of objectively evaluating data" – a general, and not unreasonable, statement about how people bring their preconceptions to the debate – to a specific statement about me, being rigidly confined in my "mindset" ("If that's so there is no way your mindset could ever get to the truth").
Talk about stereotyping…
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 22, 2008 @ 7:25 am
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:34 am
Pixie, my original comment, which you commented on, was directed at Raevmo, not you.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2008 @ 7:34 am
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Ah, right. It was actually my comment that you were responding to (though I was reponding to a comment you made to Raevmo), but yes, I see you attributed it to Raevmo.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 22, 2008 @ 10:52 am
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I got you mixed up with Raevmo. I'll change the attribution. Sorry about that.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:08 am
No problem. In fact, if you want to delete all the comments in our exchange, I would be happy with that; we ended up kind of polluting the thread.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 23, 2008 @ 4:08 am
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 am
Raevmo:
People who believe in God already believe in anything.
No, it is the people who believe we are the product of genetic acidents who will believe anything. As a matter of fact their whole argument is a belief- the belief that the laws that govern the universe just popped into exitence. Belief that our planet and solar system is the result of so many cosmic collisions.
There you have it- no reasonable person would expect one acident to give a correct account of all the other accidents.
Comment by ID guy — October 23, 2008 @ 8:55 am
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
What appears to happen is that religions evolve to enable reasonable behavior while still satisfying spiritual needs. That's why the new religion of Scientology often appears bizarre to others, even though Christians and other religions often hold beliefs just as contrary to common experience.
Repeated use of the word "accident" doesn't properly represent what we know of the relevant science. The strongly patterned nature of biology and the cosmos strongly argues against everything being an "accident", though contingency is certainly an important factor.
Comment by Zachriel — October 23, 2008 @ 9:59 am
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
ID guy: No, it is the people who believe we are the product of genetic acidents who will believe anything.
Zachriel:
Repeated use of the word "accident" doesn't properly represent what we know of the relevant science.
Your position is nothing but accidents- happy accidents- that is acidents that were lucky enough to hang around.
Planet formation is nothing but cosmic collisions and atomic accidents. Biology is the accumulation of genetic acidents. And the laws that govern the universe just are (the way they are).
IOW your position is as I have stated. That you live in denial of this just further exposes your agenda.
Zachriel:
The strongly patterned nature of biology and the cosmos strongly argues against everything being an "accident", though contingency is certainly an important factor.
That's true and that is why ID is the better explanation.
Comment by ID guy — October 23, 2008 @ 10:09 am
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
That is not my position, so you are actually free to understand and respond to my actual position.
The primary mechanism is gravitational collapse.
Rainbows are a pattern, but teleology doesn't represent a valid scientific description. ID is not a better *scientific* explanation because it doesn't entail testable consequences.
Comment by Zachriel — October 23, 2008 @ 10:58 am
October 24th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
The Pixie wrote:
Wrong. That was me. Thanks.
Yes and yes. I'm assuming by "Isman" you meant "Islam", of course.
So you deny that atheists assert that higher education erodes traditional beliefs by instilling skepticism?
You seem to have missed the point of my emphasizing certain phrases in the text.
Do you believe in fairness, justice, or equality? If so, you believe in what you call "superstition". There is no fairness, justice, or equality in nature, so if you believe in any of these things, you do not truly believe in naturalism.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 24, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Your position is nothing but accidents- happy accidents- that is acidents that were lucky enough to hang around.
Well if you are against ID and Creation, what is left besides happy accidnts?
I would love to hear about it so please feel free to explain your position.
Planet formation is nothing but cosmic collisions and atomic accidents.
And how did gravity come to be in your scenario? I bet it is exactly how I stated- "gravity just is the way it is"- which isn't scientific.
That's true and that is why ID is the better explanation.
ID doesn't try to explain everything. However rainbows wouldn't appear if the dsign wasn't right.
Both irreducible complexity and complex specified information are testable concepts.
Your position of happy accidents, however, doesn't have any predictive power nor can it be tested.
Comment by ID guy — October 25, 2008 @ 9:18 am
October 25th, 2008 at 9:39 am
For Zachriel:
"Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."-Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod
"The main conclusion of Rare Earth is that Earth is a very special place. Many circumstances and events had to happen just right for Earth to remain a healthy habitat for advanced life. It appears that our planet won the comic lottery and we should cherish our very special place and time in the Universe." Scientists Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee
And in your position all mutations are genetic accidents.
Terrestrial Planet Formation
Disk-shaped nebula of dust and gas
Dust grains collide and merge
Large (1 mm) dust grains fall into a thin, dusty sheet
Collisions produce planetesimals 1 m to 1 km across
More collisions produce planets
Planets stir up the leftover planetesimals
Planetesimal then collide and fragment
A cascade of collisions reduces fragments to dust
Planets sweep up some of the dust
Radiation and a wind from the central star remove the rest
Comment by ID guy — October 25, 2008 @ 9:39 am
October 25th, 2008 at 10:57 am
The Theory of Evolution. I'm not against "Creation", by the way. I'm against people falsely claiming to have scientific support when they don't.
Saying we don't have a scientific explanation for something when we don't, is the correct scientific position. By the way, gravity is believed to be due to symmetries at a very deep quantum level.
I have no problem if people find rainbows to be meaningful. However, I object if they claim to have scientific support for the position.
Irreducible complexity was predicted by the Muller from the Theory of Evolution in 1918. Complex specified information is not a well-defined mathematical concept.
Comment by Zachriel — October 25, 2008 @ 10:57 am
October 25th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
The Pixie Again wrote:
I'd never heard of Muthee until Raevmo posted that video link, but I recognized what he was preaching about when I found a longer version of that video.
He, like many other conservatives and Christian fundamentalist pastors, was talking about returning America to what it was before the Marxist/Gramscian/Humanist "long march through the institutions". In other words, the America that Tocqueville saw.
You and Raevmo, being Europeans, have a valid excuse for being unduly frightened by a "theocratic" America. You were probably not taught about and have not experienced the America that preceded the Neo-Marxist infiltration and indoctrination in the 1960s.
Raevmo wrote:
My reply to Pixie above also applies to you.
With that said, Pixie did acknowledge something you did not – your connection is tenuous. If Palin receiving a prayer from an African man trying to protect her from witchcraft is the same thing as believing in it, then Hillary Clinton believed in Native American shamanism.
Something else you may not have considered is that Muthee has seen witches and witchcraft personally in his native Kenya. Given that, he's not talking about some nebulous hocus-pocus thing like we are when we discuss witchcraft; he's talking about a tangible evil he's witnessed.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 25, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Raevmo wrote:
My reply to Pixie above also applies to you.
With that said, Pixie did acknowledge something you did not – your connection is tenuous. If Palin receiving a prayer from an African man trying to protect her from witchcraft is the same thing as believing in it, then Hillary Clinton believed in Native American shamanism.
Something else you may not have considered is that Muthee has seen witches and witchcraft personally in his native Kenya. Given that, he's not talking about some nebulous hocus-pocus thing like we are when we discuss witchcraft; he's talking about a tangible evil he's witnessed.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 25, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Well if you are against ID and Creation, what is left besides happy accidnts?
Right which is all about the accumulation of genetic acidents. IOW my depiction of your position is spot on.
Then you should take that up with the Creation scientists who say they do.
Both irreducible complexity and complex specified information are testable concepts.
How could it have been? Muller didn't even know what was inside of a cell.
CSI is better defined than anything your position has to offer.
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2008 @ 8:26 am
October 27th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Irreducible Complexity- Has either Muller or anyone else been able to demonstrate that IC can arise via an accumulation of genetic accidents? No. And that means Muller's "prediction" is nonsense.
IOW he tried to make an explanation fit the data.
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2008 @ 9:08 am
October 27th, 2008 at 9:13 am
38 Nobel Laureates
Ya see Zachriel, your position is nothing but happy accidents so there is no reason to live in denial.
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2008 @ 9:13 am
October 27th, 2008 at 10:12 am
There are several other mechanisms involved, such as natural selection.
In other words, you can't or won't defend your position; but will continue to repeat your claim without providing any support.
Repeating your claim doesn't represent an argument.
I can provide you cites, but I can't make you read them.
Again, repeating a claim without support. This time with a florish.
Muller predicted it as a direct consequence of evolutionary processes.
Handwaving.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2008 @ 10:12 am
October 27th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Umm that would be included in the "accumulation" part- duh.
Umm, ID is NOT Creation. That you can't even make that distinction proves that you are ignorant of ID. Thanks.
And the genetic code- molecules directing the building of other molecules, which in turn build other molecules to carry out cellular and organ-level functions- is evidence for ID.
Your only explanation is "it just happened".
It's a statement of fact, not an argument.
How about that demonstartion? It is also a direct prediction of intelligent design.
And guess what? We have DIRECT observations and experience with intelligent designers assembling irreducibly complex systems on a daily basis.
We have NEVER observed mother nature doing the same.
YOU are handwaving if you deny it. But that appears to be all you can do.
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2008 @ 10:51 am
October 27th, 2008 at 10:53 am
That's pretty good considering that was before evolutionary processes were defined. IOW his "prediction" is nothing more than a "just-so" story to try to account for something no one could account for.
Also ID includes "evolutionary processes". Now what?
Comment by ID guy — October 27, 2008 @ 10:53 am
October 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
That's your repetitive claim, but while irreducible complexity was predicted from the Theory of Evolution (Muller, 1918), you have yet to provide a cite to any reputable journal of mathematics concerning complex specified information.
Darwin's seminal proposal of the Theory of Evolution, Origin of Species, was published in 1858. Muller's Genetic Variablity was published in 1918. Muller won the 1946 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on genetics.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2008 @ 11:41 am
October 27th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
angryoldfatman
Sorry it has taken so long to respond; not too sure how this thread slipped past me the last few days.
Opps, sorry.
Your link to the article about a Hindu being named dean of religious life at USC; how does that support the claim that students are more open-minded to Hinduism? Also, how does the establishment of a single Muslim prayer room substantiate the claim that students are open-minded towards Islam? What you are providing is anecdotal evidence, as opposed to statistics, and these anecdotes at best tell us about college authorities, not college students.
Where did I say that?
Mankind is a part of nature (as opposed to the supernatural), and mankind has fairness, justice and equality, so these things are perfectly compatible with naturalism.
The three things that worry me about an American theocracy are (1) the implications for the American people (I may not be American, but I still want American children to get a good education, for instance); (2) its influence in the UK (a lot of American ideas end up over here, some good and some bad; ID is a typical example); and (3) the though of a fundamentalist Christian in charge of the only remaining superpower, keen to see the apocalyse.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 27, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Zachriel wrote:
I'm pretty sure ID guy is referring to genetic processes known since Watson and Crick's work in the 1950s, not Darwin's little sacks of protoplasm or even Muller's chromosomes. If anything, Muller's observations of the overwhelmingly deleterious nature of genetic mutation presents a barrier to Darwinism.
Here was Mike Gene's response to the TalkOrigins talking point about Muller's so-called prediction:
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 27, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
As I said, basic "evolutionary processes were defined" as variation, selection and divergence from common ancestors by Darwin. Crick and Watson's work did not change this.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
The Pixie Again wrote:
Mea culpa. I couldn't find a good Hinduism link in a reasonable time. I was trying to convey how the most influentual campuses no longer define "theology" as Western but as study in world religions, usually dominated by Hinduism and Buddhism.
It's widely known that since the 1970s Eastern religions have been much more accepted on American campuses than in the general population, and this of course includes Hinduism.
No less than Dr. Martin Marty, whose name adorns a center in the University of Chicago's Divinity School, has stated that collegiate interest in Eastern religions is at an all-time high. Political philosopher Eric Voegelin noted in 1985 what he called the "craze for Eastern mysticism" in college bookstores, telling his interviewer the two largest, best organized sections in the Stanford University bookstore consisted of "Eastern mysticism and pornography".
But really and truly, you only need to read anything Sam Harris writes about his own spirituality to see why I say what I do.
That page had many more examples linked that you didn't follow.
Such statistics are hard to come by, and you would simply wave them off or try to change the subject anyway, much like you're doing now. I'm not going to do hours of research for an internet debate, especially if it has the same impact as copypasting the word "WRONG" several hundred times.
As far as authorities versus students, in blindly opposing what I wrote you now imply that school policies have no effect on student beliefs. If that's true, then you should have no problem with criticisms of Darwinism being taught or even ID being taught, since students can make up their own minds.
You rarely say anything that has a smidgen of conviction, truth be told. It'd be too easy to nail you down if you did. Better to bob and weave to avoid difficult questions and conclusions.
I stated:
You find it amazing because you don't question the incorrect assertion by atheists that higher education erodes traditional religious beliefs by instilling skepticism.
You dodged confirming or denying my statement with a tangential paragraph. Instead of letting you pull this overused rhetorical trick, I decided to shortcut the process by attributing to you the choice you most likely didn't want.
Your second non-answer (a pedantic avoidance) is the confirmation I wanted. Thanks.
Show me fairness, justice, and equality. Quantify them for me.
According to the weak definitions of theocracy I've seen from the authors influencing your viewpoint, America has already been a theocracy from its founding until the early 1960s, with relatively no ill effects.
American education was extremely good until the aforementioned Marxist/Gramscian social engineers took it over.
The influence most disturbing in the UK currently is the one that nearly destroyed it around fifty years ago – radical pacifism. If anything is going to end the world as we know it, it'll be glassy-eyed, unthinking devotion to "peace in our time".
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 27, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Zachriel wrote:
And as I said, Muller's work actually presents a barrier to Darwinism.
The "variation" portion of Darwinian evolution has always presented a problem, and even Muller acknowledged this. You're correct that Watson & Crick's work didn't help solve the problem; if anything, it made it worse.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 28, 2008 @ 9:34 am
October 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
angryoldfatman
I had no idea "theology" was ever defined to be limited to Western religion. And I think you need to find more than one or two examples to show it is "usually dominated by" Hinduism and Buddhism. And still these does nothing to address the original claim that students are close-minded to Christianity, but open minded to Hinduism and Islam, but you continue..
You will match my waving off with your own hand waving, I see. I thought that as we you had statistics for superstious belief, you might have then for other beliefs (and I would still like to know how many Christians believe in the superstitions you listed). If we do not have the data, then any claim is going to look dubious to me.
Is it possible that the rise in Hinduism is due primarily to immigration by Hindus?
Oh, please. School and college policies on curriculm have an effect on students. Are school and college policies on appointments and room allocations really to be included as having a suimilar impact on students? I think not.
I know for a fact that we cannot be certain about many of the issues we discuss, and I phrase my comments accordingly. Indeed, I agree with Mike Gene about intellectual honesty: "Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. Put another, I know I could be wrong, so I post accordingly.
Perhaps we should loo back at the exchange…
Look at my first statement, the bit that goes "so many people, students or otherwise". I was not finding amazement at student figures, but at the figures for everyone – as I clearly said. For whatever reason, you twisted that around as though I was expressing amazement at some issue related to education. I point out that this was erroneous. Now you seem to be getting on your high horse, by claims that I did not address your misunderstanding!
Let me be quite clear here. I do deny your statement. I find the figures amazing for reasons other than the one you gave. Have you got that now?
Now maybe there was some other question buried in there about whether the assertions are correct or not, feel free to ask that question. But your statement was wrong, and I stated it was wrong.
Do you believe things have to be quantified for them to be real and nature? I doubt either of us does.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 28, 2008 @ 11:15 am
October 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Muller discusses how mutations can cause changes in complex systems, how mutations can result in irreducibly complex systems, and even how mutations can cause the continued evolution of existing irreducibly complex systems. As a consequent of that argument he further predicts that most mutations with a phenotypic effect will be deleterious. But that is a far cry from saying that "variation" is a problem for the Theory of Evolution in the sense you mean.
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
The Pixie Again wrote:
There are more than two examples. I've done plenty to support my position, it's time for you to do some work now.
Sam Harris and the confessions of Bora Zivkovic prove you wrong.
Yes. Your tangents are a tiresome tactic that I wish to discourage. Rather than indulging you, I'll ask you the pointed question: why doesn't higher education stifle superstitious beliefs?
Anything's possible. You could try backing up your hypothesis.
It still doesn't answer the question: why doesn't higher education stifle superstitious beliefs?
Let me be quite clear here. I do deny your statement. I find the figures amazing for reasons other than the one you gave. Have you got that now?
Now maybe there was some other question buried in there about whether the assertions are correct or not, feel free to ask that question. But your statement was wrong, and I stated it was wrong.
Show me fairness, justice, and equality. Quantify them for me.
Do you believe things have to be quantified for them to be real and nature? I doubt either of us does.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 28, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
I hit the post comment button too quickly. Let me see if I can remember where I left off, because my comments are constantly being held when I post from this computer.
Zachriel wrote:
There was no misunderstanding.
You questioned the figures because you cannot question the narrative you've been fed – that higher education is supposed to erode all "magical thinking" by instilling skepticism.
There have been many observations and even confessions that higher education erodes traditional religious beliefs (i.e. religious beliefs instilled by parental influence), but my original linked article shows that "oogy-boogy" superstition is not affected at the same level.
Darwinism, Marxism, etc., are all narrative-driven and everything must be shoehorned into the narrative, because the narrative is never wrong.
I believe some things that can't be quantified can be real, but I'm a silly theist. You are not bound by such goofy superstition, or at least I thought you weren't until you made that statement.
The existence of fairness, justice, or equality is as provable as the existence of God. If anyone says God does not exist, then I say that fairness, justice, and equality don't exist, for the same reasons.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 28, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Zachriel wrote:
No it doesn't, because I haven't stated in what sense I mean. You may need to talk to Pixie up there about your ESP abilities.
Never fear, though, I won't be deliberately obtuse, obstructive, and evasive about what sense I meant. I meant it in the exact sense that Muller states, that Haldane had a "dilemma" over, that Berlinski so astutely points out, that Mike Gene hints at, and that many math-phobic biologists avoid like the plague – the low probability of beneficial variations causing the observed morphological changes in the observed timeframes.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 28, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Again IC wasn't predicted it was retro-fitted.
Darwin's seminal proposal is a moot subject as it has been replaced. Darwin didn't even understand what was in a cell.
Sure he could discuss it but he NEVER did demonstrate it. And what is on paper does not necessarily translate to the real world.
IOW if one cannot demonstrate what they discuss it is meaningless babble.
Comment by ID guy — October 29, 2008 @ 7:00 am
October 29th, 2008 at 7:02 am
I also have some information that supports my claim that Zachriel's position is nothing but an accumulation of genetic accidents:
ScienceWeek:
Related Material:
What causes DNA Mutations
Page 87 of “Evolution in Four Dimensions”:
Let Zachriel's handwaving begin…
Comment by ID guy — October 29, 2008 @ 7:02 am
October 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Dear thread moderator,
Could you please release the two comments I posted last night? Thanks.
Also, could you see what's causing my comments to be held? Thanks again.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 29, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
angryoldfatman
Oh, I could only see two examples. For the benefit of casual readers, your claim was: "I was trying to convey how the most influentual campuses no longer define "theology" as Western but as study in world religions, usually dominated by Hinduism and Buddhism." What would be good supporting evidence that influential campuses define theory as the study of world religions, dominated by Hinduism and Buddism would be links to pages at those influentual campuses, showing what the theology courses actually involve.
I am not sure what you would call an influential campus. I had a look on Google, and found several colleges offering theology courses that were very much Christian-orientated. However, most of the ones I found were Christian colleges of one sort or another, and so I will accept will be less likely to be Hinduism and Buddhism dominated. However, this page at Harvard says:
Berkeley offers this list of course for religious studies, and again it is not dominated by Hinduism and Buddhism (though they are certainly present).
So having done my work, I think I have given pretty good evidence that you are wrong in your claim that the most influentual campuses define theology "as study in world religions, usually dominated by Hinduism and Buddhism."
Are you claiming that "Sam Harris and the confessions of Bora Zivkovic" prove that students are close-minded to Christianity, or that they prove that students are open minded to Hinduism and Islam, or both? Can you elaborate, as I am not getting your point at all here or what your logic is here.
Now if you had not wrapped the question up in culture war point scoring, we might have made some progress. Instead you chose to tell me what it is that amazes me, and then get all prissy when I tell you that you are wrong about what amazes me
So, to your so important question. First, here are the statistics, from a page entitled "Higher Education Fuels Stronger Belief in Ghosts". So, what are the figures for strong belief in ghosts? Students, 34%, general population 44%. How bizarre! Despite the title, it seems that students are less likely to have a strong belief in ghosts.
That is just one figure, and in other instances students do not do so well. Why not? Why do you imagine I should have the answer? I notice that students score particular highly in "not sure", so perhaps they are more open-minded, but beyond that I could not say.
Oh, I thought I did, but it looks like the link got lost. Sorry about that. Try here.
You end your post quoting me, though not in quotes. Did you mean to add more?
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 29, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
problem
1 a: a question raised for inquiry, consideration, or solution b: a proposition in mathematics or physics stating something to be done
2 a: an intricate unsettled question b: a source of perplexity, distress, or vexation c: difficulty in understanding or accepting
You say you won't be obtuse, obstructive or evasive, but you don't provide a simple definition. And indeed, you appear to be conflating different definitions.
Reading Muller, his use of the term "problem" appears to be in the first sense. Reading your comment, "the 'variation' portion of Darwinian evolution has always presented a problem …" appears to be in the second sense. Then your sentence ends, "and even Muller acknowledged this conflating the definitions.
Any fair reading of Muller on evolution indicates that he thought deeply about the process, had extensive knowledge the evidence, and showed how irreducible complexity can evolve, and how irreducibly complex systems can continue to evolve. This certainly doesn't indicate he saw any falsifying problem for evolution.
We can observe mutations and sequence genomes. Mutations and selection have been extensively studied. There is no known falsification there.
Comment by Zachriel — October 29, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Do you really think "meaningless babble" is a fair characterization of Muller's position?
No one has stated that mutations are not an important mechanism in evolution. Only that it's not "nothing but accidents". I corrected you on this above, and asked you to not continue mischaracterizing my position.
Did you even read the article by Wagner. Contrary to your claim that evolution is "nothing but accidents", he discusses how phenotypes can become robust against small genetic changes.
Comment by Zachriel — October 29, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Did he demonstyrate that IC is directly tied to evolution? No.
Learn how to read, please. I said NOTHING BUT AN ACCUMULATION OF GENETIC ACCIDENTS- and that is all your position is. I provided valid references that support what I stated.
So what we have is the typical Zachriel bloviation.
Comment by ID guy — November 3, 2008 @ 10:24 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Yes we can.
And nothing to date demonstrates that mutations plus selection can do anything except cause variations within a population.
There isn't anything which shows those mechanisms can do what evolutionists require of them.
Comment by ID guy — November 3, 2008 @ 10:29 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
That is incorrect. For instance, we can show that random mutations can lead to beneficial traits, that the observed rate of morphological evoluton is faster, much faster, than required to explain the historical record (Gingerich 1983) and that populations can diverge and become reproductively isolated (Futuyma 1998).
Comment by Zachriel — November 3, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am
What was the experiment which demonstrated mutations plus selection can do more than cause variations within a population?
I already know evolutionists have a ton of "just-so" stories, but without the scioentific data to back those stories they are meaningless to science.
For example there isn't any data which demonstrates the changes required to get a whale from a land mammal can be achieved via an acumulation of genetic accidents.
All anyone has is a speculation based on the assumption.
And as far as Muller goes- it is funny how Darwin said that IC would break-down his theory and Muller comes back and sez IC is expected.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 10:13 am
November 5th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
That what evolution is, variation over time.
Sure there is. For instance, we can predict the placement of intermediate organisms in geological strata.
Using Behe's definition of IC, IC systems are not only evolvable, but an expected pattern.
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Here is a non-Wiki site describing Ilamic influences on early chemistry:
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 5, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
And you are the queen of equivocation.
All that variation over time has given us is oscillating populations. That is some traits survive better because of the conditions but when those conditions change other traits will be more suitable. Never has the body plan been changed.
Even Lenski with all the generations of bacteria he has cultured- no novel IC systems.
Only if you have already assumed there is. Otherwise there isn't any way to check that assumption against the genetics.
But there is still that lack of biological data. IOW fossils are only as good as the people viewing them. If one wants to see a pattern one will based on one's assumptions.
Again the equivocation. And DARWIN said IC systems would break-down his theory. Behe even discusses what Darwin said and based IC on that.
However if someone could demonstrate an IC system arising via unguided processes, that would go a long way to supporting your claim.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
That's the definition of evolution. If we could demonstrate "more than variations in a population", then it wouldn't be evolution.
We observe directional change when populations are under selection.
Yes, that's the expected pattern, and that is what we observe.
In fact, we know that mammals share a common ancestry, meaning there has been enough changes in body plan to turn a primitive shrew-like organism into elephants and humans. We also know the observable rate of evolution is much, much faster than that required to explain the historical record.
If we can predict that we'll find intermediate cetaceans in the middle of the Egyptian wastelands, then it adds support to the theory. However, genetics predicted an ankle bone in Pakistan resolving the link between whales and terrestrial mammals.
We can look at fossils and make a lot of determinations. We can then test these determinations by proposing new tests. That's why paleontologists keep looking for more fossils. To deny that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, breathed, walked, ate, laid eggs, is not supportable.
That's why scientists test their assumptions. Turns out that dinosaur protein resemble chicken protein, a finding that supports the ancestry of birds within dinosauria.
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Let's put Darwin's statement and Behe's definition together.
Notice that Behe defines IC in terms of removing parts. He then argues incorrectly that such a system can't plausibly evolve. We can easily see how such an IC system might very well evolve. For instance, a system A with a helper B may become, though gradual optimization, become dependent on B.
This is somewhat different. While A+B might evolve to the IC system A'B', this is still stepwise evolution, so would not meet Darwin's falsification.
In any case, they are not the same definition. The equivocation is yours.
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
You did not answer his question Zach. The question was not what is the definition of evolution but rather he asked you to cite experiments evidencing that selection does more than produce variations within a population. Why not give a straightforward answer?
Comment by Bradford — November 5, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I'm not sure the question is properly phrased. From what I can gather of its meaning, I know of no experiment that "demonstrates mutations plus selection can do more than cause variations within a population". Perhaps it is meant to be a question about the separation of a population. If so, we could talk about mechanisms of speciation. Otherwise, I'm not sure what "more" means in this context. Or maybe it's not even about *a* population, but diverging populations. Who knows.
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Zachriel:
You answered his question when you indicated that you know of no experiment that "demonstrates mutations plus selection can do more than cause variations within a population". In a chess game it would now be his move.
Comment by Bradford — November 5, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I'm not sure I answered the intended question. A 'population' has a specific meaning in biology, a group of interbreeding organisms in a specific region. Even the use of the term 'variation' appears unclear.
Indeed, the question appears to ask if I can provide evidence contrary to evolution. That why I answered as I did—evolution is variation. I'm not even sure what "more than cause variation" I'm supposed to demonstrate. I think it might mean something other than gradual change. But again, who knows.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 8:34 am
November 6th, 2008 at 10:20 am
In fact yopu don't know any such thing. You may ASSUME it but you don't know it.
As a matter of fact no one knows whather such transformations are even possible via selection/ mutation mechanisms.
Umm there isn't anything in genetics which demonstrates the changes required are even possible.
Again one views fossils under one's preconceived bias. And any scientist needs genetic data that would verify the changes observed can be had via mutation/ selection.
So far n o one has been able to do that.
IOW universal common descent is first assumed and then all data is viewed under that framework.
ID guy: If one wants to see a pattern one will based on one's assumptions.
Zachriel: That's why scientists test their assumptions. Turns out that dinosaur protein resemble chicken protein, a finding that supports the ancestry of birds within dinosauria.
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2008 @ 10:20 am
November 6th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Behe: By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
If one only has the structure to work with than all one has is to remove parts. Also Behe does NOT say an IC system could not have evolved. Behe's argument is all about the MECHANISM.
But thanks for once again demonstrating your dishonesty.
Zachriel: We can easily see how such an IC system might very well evolve. For instance, a system A with a helper B may become, though gradual optimization, become dependent on B.
Zachriel:This is somewhat different. While A+B might evolve to the IC system A'B', this is still stepwise evolution, so would not meet Darwin's falsification.
In any case, they are not the same definition. The equivocation is yours.
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2008 @ 10:32 am
November 6th, 2008 at 10:50 am
page 39 of Darwin's Black Box:
(bold added)
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2008 @ 10:50 am
November 6th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Morphological evolution over long time spans calculated from fossils is low, on the order of one millionth (10^-6) of a haldane per generation, but morphological evolution over short time spans are thousands of times faster. This seems incredibly fast—except that we can directly observe evolution and confirm rates even higher than what we see in the fossil record. There is a great deal of research into quantitative measures of the rates of evolution. For morphological rates, you might start these:
Gingerich, Rates of evolution: effects of time and temporal scaling, Science 1983
Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population: The Large Cactus Finch of the Galapagos, Grant & Grant, University Of Chicago Press 1989.
While you wave your hands, scientists propose and test hypotheses. Based on the Theory of Evolution, scientists mounted an expedition to the Egyptian desert and dug up a cetacean with reduced hind limbs and toes. Lucky guess? Just happened to be walking around the Saharan wastelands?
Handwaving. Predicting the existence and characteristics of a heretofore unknown organism is strong confirmation.
Um, no. Darwin didn't have a theory of genetics, but could propose perfectly valid and testable hypotheses. In any case, the genomic data indicated that cetaceans evolved from artiodactyla. Another expedition, this time to Pakistan, found ankles bones confirming the link. In other words, the genetic data *predicted* the what scientists would find in rocks in Pakistan.
A hypothesis is a tentative assumption. But the data isn't merely viewed. Rather, entailed predictions are made and tested.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 11:27 am
November 6th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Umm the fich is still a finch, even after all that "evolution" And Gingerich did not demonstrate anything.
YOU are the hand waver. I am stating facts.
One mopre time- Without the genetic data to suuport the alleged hypothesis you don't have anything beyond speculation based on the assumption.
Not until someone can determine if accumlating mutations can cause such a transformation.
A biological theory requires BIOLOGICAL data.
You can't test it without the genetics. For without the genetics all you have is a speculation based on the assumption.
That is the speculation based on the assumption.
The theoy of evolution can only "predict" change, and perhaps stasis. Nothing more.
The bottom line is fossils are viewed under one's preconceived bias. And unless one can demonstrate the genetics fits the transformations then one is not conducting science.
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2008 @ 11:35 am
November 6th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Oh and what about that hypothesis built on genetic accidents? You have failed to provide one. Why is that?
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2008 @ 11:36 am
November 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I said "plausibly evolve" to account for Behe's handwaving. But that has nothing to do with your equivocation on the definition.
No we don't. Because the point wasn't whether or not an IC system could evolve, but your equivocation of Behe's definition of IC, and Darwin's proposed falsification. They are not the same.
That's the claim, not the definition. Behe defines IC, then argues it fulfills Darwin's proposed falsification. This is what you said,
Darwin did not say that IC systems would break down his theory. Rather, Behe is arguing that IC systems meet Darwin's requirements. That is a different claim.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 11:39 am
November 6th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
The Grants' spent a professional lifetime observing the Galápagos Finches. That is the expected result for such a short observational period.
What is interesting, though, is that since these Finches migrated to the Galápagos Islands, they have evolved so much that some resemble wrens, blackbirds, grosbeaks, woodpeckers and warblers.
As I said, while you wave your hands, scientists predict and then discover heretofore unknown fossil organisms buried in geological strata millions of years old. Lucky guess?
Rejecting the evidence doesn't constitute an argument. Take a look at any issue of the journal Genetics. It's all about evolution.
There are a number of excellent examples that show transitionals, such as in equine evolution. Each step of the transition is well within observable limits of genetic variation.
Of course you can. In any case, the genetics strongly supports the Theory of Evolution.
So we test it! And that is exactly what they did. And the genetic data *predicted* the fossil data.
Genetic mutations are highly scrutinized. Any issue of the journal Genetics will have ample examples. You might start with the basics, such as the Lederberg Experiment.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
What handwaving? Please be specific. And that misses the point. "Evolution" isn't being debated. The MECHANISM(s) is(are).
What definition?
Thank you.
IC is what Darwin was referring to. That much is so obvious a 6 year old would understand it.
First Behe quotes Darwin's falsification. And IC does fullfill it.
If an IC system requires ALL of its parts to be in place to function that is the complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Duh…
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
LoL!! I have conducted the "Lederberg Experiment" and it really didn't tel;l us much.
IOW as far as we know there could be a genetic algorithm that induces mutations- IOW most mutations are not accidents, rather they are designed to ocur via the genetic algorithm with environmental feedbacks.
Again the equivocation with the word "evolution". Neither the Grants nor anyone else has demonstrated the variety arose via an accumulationm of genetic accidents.
And if all you have is to throw father time at an issue then once again you are not conducting science.
I don't reject te evidence. I just know it doesn't support your case. And once again your equivocation of the word "evolution" is duly noted.
BTW there are geneticists who disagree with your claim the genetics suports UCD. ALL of the genetic evidence used to claim UCD can also be accounted for via design and convergence.
IOW there isn't any genetic evidence that accounts for the changes necessary- the suite of genes or sequences of DNA that determines the type of organism or body part, has eluded us.
Science by assertion!! Isn't life grand!!!
Why is it then, that there are geneticists and other biologists who disagree with the theory of evolution as it is currently presented?
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
And yet it eludes the vast majority of scientists, including Muller. Let's leave your equivocation aside and address the biological issue.
Behe makes an impossibility claim. To refute this only requires that we show it is possible.
Behe assumes that we have to add parts to conclude "cannot". Instead, IC can evolve by modification of existing parts. For instance, we have a system A and a helper B, then through optimization or happenstance A becomes dependent on B.
It demonstrates that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
There will always be crackpots. Have these "other biologists" had any luck convincing their peers?
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 9:21 am
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Charles Darwin
An irreducibly complex system needs all the parts to be in place before functionality is realized. Therefore it does not have any functional precursors to be modified. And that means it either had to come together in one fell swoop, or it was derived from some indirect root.
If it is derived indirectly from some other structure, then the focus shifts to that structure. For example the type three secretory system (TTSS) was once thought to be a precursor to the bacterial flagellum. Yet it too is irreducibly complex!
Evolutionists talk of scaffolding and cooption yet they have failed to provide a demonstration.
So the bottom line is if Behe’s irreducible complexity is not the complexity that Darwin was talking about, although fifth grader could see that it is, then what is? Or is the theory (now) un-falsifiable?
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 9:21 am
November 7th, 2008 at 9:32 am
That is false:
Page 203,4, Darwin’s Black Box:
(emphasis added)
Show means to demonstrate. It does not mean that one can put something down on paper and with imagination "show" it.
Only a real-life demonstration can falsify IC. Anyone can put something down on papewr but that means it is only worth the paper it is printed on.
That is false and here is why (again):
As far as we know there could be a genetic algorithm that induces mutations- IOW most mutations are not accidents, rather they are designed to ocur via the genetic algorithm with environmental feedbacks.
And still there isn't any genetic evidence that accounts for the changes necessary- the suite of genes or sequences of DNA that determines the type of organism or body part, has eluded us.
However you could prove me wrong by providing a peer-reviewed paper that refutes what I said.
Hoiwever it has become obvious that all you will do is bloviate and deficate.
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 9:32 am
November 7th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Have those peers any luck with demonstrating their claims? Absolutely not. And THAT is why there are scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 10:10 am
November 7th, 2008 at 11:27 am
The Lederberg Experiment:
Seeing that variation is the key to survival, and therefore reproductive success, the variation exhibited by the Lederberg experiment is directly related to the fitness of the population. IOW it is not random with respect to fitness, it ensures it.
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 11:27 am
November 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am
We're not talking about some undiscovered natural process. Behe claims that evolutionary processes themselves *cannot* result in an IC system.
Yes, and as Behe is making an abstract claim, it only requires demonstrating that he has overlooked some possibility.
The Lederberg Experiment shows that there is no correlation between mutation and fitness.
We can observe the process of evolution, including novel adaptations. But, evolution is generally a slow process. To substantiate the historical pattern, we have many examples of evolutionary transitions.
Of course they have. I've provided numerous cites of testable hypotheses. You haven't even bothered to provide a theory, nothing but a vague claim of teleology. You haven't even raised a clear objection to the Theory of Evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — November 7, 2008 @ 11:36 am
November 7th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
No he does not. And again your equivocation is duly noted- “Evolutionary” processes are not being debated. Undirected, goal-less processes are.
No it requires an actual demonstration. Imagination is not a substitute.
Experimental scutiny applies to your side too. And if you ndon't have ten you don't have anything.
There are thousands of papers that demonstrate the minmal complexity required for certain protein machines.
Minimal complexity and IC are directly correlated.
That is false and here is why (again):
Seeing that variation is the key to survival, and therefore reproductive success, the variation exhibited by the Lederberg experiment is directly related to the fitness of the population. IOW it is not random with respect to fitness, it ensures it.
And even more equivocation. And another obtuse response.
Not one novel body plan. Not one novel multi-component molecular machine.
Funny I have asked YOU several times to provide a hypothesis based on the accumulation of genetic accidents and you never have.
All you do is link to papers that have to be purchased to be read. That is a sure sign of bluffing.
OR you could just cut-n-paste these alleged hypotheses and then we can determine if they are based on blind, undirected processes.
That is your opinion. And knowing how dishonest and deceptive you are it doesn’t have any merit.
Both IC and CSI are testable concepts. The fact that evolutionists have been trying to refute the premises is a good indication of that.
You can't have it both ways.
Yes I have- there isn’t any data which would show the changes required are do-able via an accumulation of mutations.
Not one paper on genetics discusses how the types of body plans are determined.
IOW we don’t know if we have non-human ancestors because we don’t even know what makes us human, that is besides the obvious that a human is the result of successful mating between a man and a woman.
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Behe responds
But that will not happen because handwaving, arm-flailing and table pounding are much easier.
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Zachriel,
You forgot to address the following:
So the bottom line is if Behe’s irreducible complexity is not the complexity that Darwin was talking about, although fifth grader could see that it is, then what is? Or is the theory (now) un-falsifiable?
Please do so or admit that you are blowing smoke. Thanks…
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Sure he does. Behe says, "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."
Behe calls it "Darwinian evolution", but the modifier "Darwinian" has its own problems. Most everyone uses the term "evolution" to refer to the evolutionary processes described in the Theory of Evolution.
It does not require empirical demonstration to show why the logic of someone's argument is fallcious. In this case, Behe equates "slight, successive modifications" with adding parts. That is not necessarily the case, so his argument fails.
Behe's argument fails on logical grounds.
Most university libraries have copies of scientific journals. However, you said you performed the Lederberg Experiment. That experiment shows that the mutations that occur are not correlated with the fitness of the particular organism. In other words, the mutations occur whether they increase fitness or not.
IC is explained by evolutionary processes. CSI is not a well-defined mathematical concept. In any case, they only supposedly refute the Theory of Evolution and do not constitute theories in their own right.
Let's start with simpler cases. Do you accept the Theory of Evolution with regards to vertebrate evolution?
Nevermind. You apparently reject Common Descent. We have to start with the nested hierarchy.
Comment by Zachriel — November 7, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
There is no scientific Theory of Design. Such a demonstration would not refute the general concept of design. And we do have scientific evidence that complex biological systems have evolved.
Darwin's particular objection is considered a weak falsification as it relies on a negative argument. The power of the theory is in positive predictions. But there really isn't much to talk about if you reject Common Descent. If ferrets and falcons don't share a common ancestor, then there isn't much for evolution to explain. Again, we start with the nested hierarchy.
Comment by Zachriel — November 7, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Zachriel: We're not talking about some undiscovered natural process. Behe claims that evolutionary processes themselves *cannot* result in an IC system.
ID guy: No he does not.
ZAchriel: Sure he does. Behe says, "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."
Again we are talking about undirected, blind processes vs directed goal-oriented processes.
Your argument fails for lack of substance.
ID guy: Funny I have asked YOU several times to provide a hypothesis based on the accumulation of genetic accidents and you never have.
All you do is link to papers that have to be purchased to be read.
Zachriel: Most university libraries have copies of scientific journals. However, you said you performed the Lederberg Experiment. That experiment shows that the mutations that occur are not correlated with the fitness of the particular organism. In other words, the mutations occur whether they increase fitness or not.
Zachriel: You haven't even bothered to provide a theory, nothing but a vague claim of teleology.
ID guy: Both IC and CSI are testable concepts.
ZAchriel: IC is explained by evolutionary processes.
ID guy: Not one paper on genetics discusses how the types of body plans are determined.
Zachriel: Let's start with simpler cases. Do you accept the Theory of Evolution with regards to vertebrate evolution?
ID guy: we don’t know if we have non-human ancestors because we don’t even know what makes us human, that is besides the obvious that a human is the result of successful mating between a man and a woman.
Zachriel: Nevermind. You apparently reject Common Descent. We have to start with the nested hierarchy.
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Is there a scientific theory of archaeology? How about forensics?
We do know and understand the capabilities of designers. They can do things that mother nature alone couldn't.
They leave signs behind.
You don't have any such evidence. Just a bunch of stories.
For example had you the evidence that the bac flag could "evolve" yoiu would have presented it.
However even Prof Lenski with his 40,000+ generations of bacteria couldn't even muster a novel complex protein machine.
You can't start with nested hierarchy because obviously you don't have a clue about the topic.
Also Zachriel, neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate the concept of UCD.
EVERY piece of evidence that you think confirms UCD can also be used to confirmn alternative scenarios. And that is a fact.
You have nothing in genetics which demonstrates we know what determines body form.
The changes required cannot be tested and all you have is that there is a complex interaction between genes. Nothing more.
And not onlky that you can't even explain that interaction in terms of genetic accidents.
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Zachriel,
I have asked you repeatedly for the hypotheses that support your claims and you have failed to provide one.
What are you afrad of?
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
For Zachriel:
Peer-reviewed Intelligent Design
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
The mechanism being discussed by Behe is "slight, successive modifications of a precursor system". This is normally called "evolution".
Yes, I am aware of the distinction you are drawing. Perhaps you should find a unique term to describe it.
Generations of geneticists disagree. The Lederberg Experiment shows exactly what it means to show. Mutations occur in organisms regardless of whether those mutations are beneficial or not.
You didn't answer the question.
Archeaology, biology and forensics are entire fields. Being scientific fields, they encompass scientific theories.
There is no reason to discuss the mechanisms involved in biological divergence and adaptation if you reject that life diverged and adapted. So we have to start with Common Descent. The term "nested hierarchy" apparently confuses you, so let's define a pattern.
Let Pattern T be an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.If we group twigs on an archetypal tree by their associated branch and limb, we will notice they form
Pattern T. If we group organisms by traits, we will notice they also formPattern T—even if we include extinct organisms. If we group artifacts, though, they will form many differentPatterns T, depending on the trait used for analysis. Furthermore, if we take any uncrossed lines of descent, and group the endpoints according to that descent, they will form aPattern T.Comment by Zachriel — November 7, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 9:54 am
The mechanisms being debated are randm mutations plus natural selection.
Richard Dawkins calls it "the blind watchmaker".
Reference please.
Also you keep ignoring the reasons I provided.
That is a sure sign of an intellectual coward.
Again with an obtuse non-response.
Zachriel,
YOU claimed that twigs on a tree repesent a nested hierarchy.
Until you substantiate that claim there is no reason to discuss this any further.
Support your claim or admit that you do not know what you are talking about.
Comment by ID guy — November 8, 2008 @ 9:54 am
November 8th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Nested and Non-Nested Hierarchies
However before we can continue Zachriel needs to provide a VALID reference that twigs on their respective branches forms a nested hierarchy.
Failure to do so cements Zachriel as an intellectual coward and a very dishonest one at that.
Comment by ID guy — November 8, 2008 @ 9:56 am
November 8th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Modern evolutionary biology proposes a somewhat more complex panoply of mechanisms than what is encapsulated in your statement. We still refer to the process as "evolution". Perhaps you could find a unique term to describe ID's proposed mechanism.
I already provided the reference. University of California. The experiment is very easy to follow. Some bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, and some are not. But whether they are exposed to antibiotics or not, some mutate to become antibiotic resistant. This shows that the mutations are uncorrelated with respect to their fitness to the environment. However, those that find themselves in antibiotic environments are subject to natural selection. This particular experiment is replicated every day in universities around the world. And it is only one of many such experiments that have scrutinized mutation.
That is what you said, but that is exactly what the experiment showed does not happen. The is no detectable environmental feedback. The mutations happen regardless of the environment. The same small percentage become resistant to antibiotics regardless of whether they are exposed to antibiotics or not. (By the way, this aspect of evolution is not a component of Darwin's original theory, but a discovery of genetics.)
I have provided several references that not only discuss trees and nested hierarchies, but provide pictures that we can see are topologically equivalent to a tree. But, as you are uncomfortable with the term, I have revised my claim as twigs on a tree when grouped by associated branch and limb form
Pattern T, that is, an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 10:21 am
November 8th, 2008 at 10:39 am
You are lying again.
The "tree" in phylogenetic tree is a METAPHOR.
YOU need to provide a valid reference that demonstrates on a typical tree the twigs represent a nested hierarchy.
Until you do that we have nothing to discuss.
But thanks for proving that you are a coward.
As for the Lederberg experiment:
Seeing that variation is the key to survival, and therefore reproductive success, the variation exhibited by the Lederberg experiment is directly related to the fitness of the population. IOW it is not random with respect to fitness, it ensures it.
And thnose mechanisms could be telic.
IOW only coying errors- ie point mutations- can be said to be undirected. Other mechanisms may very well be direceted by the organisms internal programming.
But none of that matters if you cannot provide a valid reference that a typical tree forms a nested hierarchy.
I know you will not because there is no such reference.
So stop being so obtuse and admit that you don't know what you are talking about.
Comment by ID guy — November 8, 2008 @ 10:39 am
November 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am
BTW Zachriel, You are linking to the U of BERKLEY, not California.
Seeing you can't even get that right why trust you can get anything else right?
And they have a page that says there is no scientific method!:
There is no such thing as “THE Scientific Method.”
Comment by ID guy — November 8, 2008 @ 10:43 am
November 8th, 2008 at 10:45 am
You can revise all you want to but without a valid reference you don't have squat.
Comment by ID guy — November 8, 2008 @ 10:45 am
November 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Evidence please. We know there is always an environmental feedback. Other bacteria in a colony release waste products. These can be detected by other bacteria. And in the absence of such feedback the bacteria starts producing variation to ensure the survival of the population.
Comment by ID guy — November 8, 2008 @ 10:47 am
November 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Koestler's holons. I don't think that supports your position.
Keller and Golly are defining their hierarchy as a system of communication, which they point out may be a non-nested hierarchy. This is appropriate to a study of ecology, the subject of their book, wherein species have important interrelationships (connections across lineal descent). After providing a description of the basics of the Theory of Evolution, they do say this:
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 10:48 am
November 8th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Hmm.
Now, reread what you just wrote and tell us whether that reflects on your own trustworthiness.
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 10:56 am
November 8th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Zachriel,
I see you still failed to provide a valid reference that twigs on a typical tree represent a nested hierarchy.
But anyway we don't need it. Your position is easy to refute:
Start with poopulation A.
Population A gives rise to two different populations B1 and B2.
In order for there to be a nested hierarchy population A must consist of and contain populations B1 and B2.
However all 3 populations are SEPARATE entities. meaning population A does not consist of nor contains populations B1 and B2.
Comment by ID guy — November 8, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I didn't say it supported anything.
I was merely providing the standard accepted definition of a nested hierarchy.
Then I demonstrated how UCD does not match the definition.
IOW your claim is soundly refuted.
So let your handwaving begin.
And BTW as you mentioned the phylogenetic tree the following is very relevant:
The Phylogenetic Tree Topples
And the alleged tree actually resembles a bush, or more like a web.
Comment by ID guy — November 8, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
These are the sets that make up the (trivial) nested hierarchy, and how it might be applied in a taxonomy. Each organism is grouped with its descendents.
Amniotes = {A, B1, B2}
Birds (diapsids) = {B1}
Mammals (synapsids) = {B2}
Mammals is strictly contained in Amniotes. Birds is strictly contained in Amniotes.
Let's consider a slightly more complex example. As before, A gives rise to B1 and B2, but B2 also gives rise to C1 and C2
Amniotes = {A, B1, B2, C1, C2}
Birds (diapsids) = {B1}
Mammals (synapsids) = {B2, C1, C2}
Carnivora = {C1}
Primates = {C2}
As before Birds and Mammals are strictly contained in Amniotes. Carnivora and Primates are strictly contained within Mammals and within Amniotes.
Here's a representation as a tree (with a few extra nodes).
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Start with poopulation A.
Population A gives rise to two different populations B1 and B2.
In order for there to be a nested hierarchy population A must consist of and contain populations B1 and B2.
However all 3 populations are SEPARATE entities. meaning population A does not consist of nor contains populations B1 and B2.
So Zachriel chimes in and moves the goalposts with:
Now you are basing the nested hiewrarchy on CHARACTERISTICS not descent.
IOW once again you prove your dishonesty. Thank you.
But anyway:
No hierarchy expected from evolution
The network of liofe:
Are these scientists the crackpots you were talking about?
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 9:58 am
November 10th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Amniotes are a concept based on CHARACTERISTICS, as are birds, mammals, carnivores and primates.
Zachriel's claim was that nested hierarchy would result from DESCENT ONLY.
And Zachriel has failed to support that claim and I have refuted it.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 10:01 am
November 10th, 2008 at 10:32 am
As I said, we define the sets by taking each organism with its descendents. The set under consideration would be {A, {{B1}, {B2}}}.
No. As I said, I was giving names to the sets to show how they might apply to a taxonomy, but the sets are defined strictly by descent regardless of characteristics.
He is not referring to the nested hierarchy, but a hierarchy of 'better' or more 'advanced'. Most biologists reject the so-called ladder of biological progress.
This has nothing to do with your previous misunderstandings. In order to discuss the exceptions, you have to grasp the general pattern.
When we group each organism with its descendents, we get this nested hierarchy {A, {B1, {B2, {{C1},{C2}}}}.
Joe, did you ever reflect on your own trustworthiness?
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2008 @ 10:32 am
November 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Once again:
Start with population A.
Population A gives rise to two different populations B1 and B2.
In order for there to be a nested hierarchy population A must consist of and contain populations B1 and B2.
However all 3 populations are SEPARATE entities. meaning population A does not consist of nor contains populations B1 and B2.
Now either Zachriel will addres THAT example or he will continue his deceptive practice of changing what I posted.
Does population A consist of and contain populations B1 and B2? No.
So why does Zachriel ignore that part?
He is referring to HIERARCHY and NOT which is "better" or "more advanced".
That much is obvious from "evolution wanders aimlessly, and is as likely to go down as up".
No hierarchy means no nested hierarchy.
The names are based on CHARACTERISTICS. And taxonomy is based on characteristics, not descent.
And my name is Jim. If you want to meet I will prove it to you. And if you have a problem with meeting me well that just proves you are a coward.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 10:53 am
November 10th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Zachriel,
Does a family tree also represent a nested hierarchy?
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 11:06 am
November 10th, 2008 at 11:17 am
We construct the set by taking each population with its descendents. When we do this, it constitutes a nested hierarchy.
You said "In order for there to be a nested hierarchy population A must consist of and contain populations B1 and B2." This is incorrect. Though A does not contain B1 and B2, there is an evident and clear nested hierarchy which consists of each population grouped with its descendents, {A, {{B1},{B2}}}.
Klyce's comment explicitly refers to the way phylogenetic trees have been traditionally drawn, saying "The height of the tree has come to represent the level of biological organization, so higher branches would represent 'higher' forms of life." As for Gould, he repeatedly refers to the "evolutionary tree of descent".
In sexually reproducing organisms, there is crossing between lineages, so that would not be a nested hierarchy.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2008 @ 11:17 am
November 10th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Nested Hierarchies are built on CHARACTERISTICS not descent.
That is correct and abides by the definition of a nested hierarchy.
The DEFINITION of a nested hierarchy MANDATES that A conssist of and contain boith B1 and B2.
YOU do not get to change the rules of nested hierarchy to suit your needs.
Thank you for agreeing that UCD does not expoect a nested hierarchy- UCD is a family tree.
Or didn't you realize that? It is a very simple premise.
As for Gould he states the truth- evolution does not have a direction. that means traits and characteristics can be lost as well as gained in the evolutionary scheme of things. and that alone refutes the premise that a nested hierarchy is expected.
However I don't expect you to understand any of that.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 11:34 am
November 10th, 2008 at 11:55 am
That's a taxonomy. A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
A is not a nested hierarchy. We're defining the sets under consideration. A, grouped with its descendents, is a nested hierarchy.
It's not a change in the rules of a nested hierarchy. This is what you said,
In order for A to be a nested hierarchy, A must consist of its descendents. A is not a nested hierarchy. But that is not what you said. You said "in order for there to be a nested hierarchy". If we group each population with its descendents, then {A, {{B1},{B2}}} is a nested hierarchy.
The nested hierarchy does not apply within sexually reproducing populations. Nor does it apply to hybridization between species. But populations that diverge into reproductively isolated populations do form a nested hierarchy.
Why would you misrepresent Gould's position when it's easy enough to check.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2008 @ 11:55 am
November 10th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Nested hierarchies are also built on characteristics. And I know what a nested hierarchy is.
You, apparently, do not.
I did NOT say it was. I said in order for there to be a nested hierarchy population A must consist of and contain populations B1 and B2. It does not.
Last I checked mammals and birds are sexually reproducing organisms.
Not just based on the divergence.
I didn't misreprent Gould's position and you didn't provide any information that shows that I did.
"Evolution" isn't being discussed. Nested hierarchies based on evolution are.
But thanks for once again proving that nyopu are a dishonest nut case.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
By searching for "nested hierarchy" I also found the following:
Principles of Hierarchy:
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. In this case, we group each population with its descendents.
We agree. A is not a nested hierarchy. However, each population grouped with its descendents are.
That's right. The nested hierarchy does not apply *within* sexually reproducing populations. However, it does apply to the divergence of reproductively isolated populations.
If we group each population with its descendents, and those descendents are reproductively isolated (uncrossed), then we have a nested hierarchy.
Gould: Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
Gould: We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Did you ever reflect on your own trustworthiness?
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Based on what definition(s)?
The nested hierrachy we observe is so because of sets of definitions that lock organisms into place.
I never said A was a nested hiearchy. You are being dishonest again.
Based on what definitions/ criteria?
If nested hierarchy does not apply within then it does not apply at all.
UCD is just another family tree.
Nothing you posted demonstrates I misrepresented Gould.
Gould said that evolution does NOT have a direction. In order for there to be a hierarchy and thereforee a nested hierarchy there must be ONE direction.
Stop comparing my one little mistake to your suite of lies.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2008 @ 9:21 am
November 12th, 2008 at 9:24 am
In order for there to be a nested hierarchy based on descent all populations after the first must be contained by and be consisted of that first population.
So if we start with a population "A" and from there we get "B1" and "B2" we ask Does population "A" consist of and contain the other two? The answer, of course, is it does not.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2008 @ 9:24 am
November 12th, 2008 at 11:45 am
In the end the best UCD can expect is a lineage. And a lineage is not a nested hierarchy.
The best that can be expected of divergnce is branching lineages. Again lineages do not make a nested hierarchy whether they are branching or forming a spiral.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2008 @ 11:45 am