What if?
by MikeGeneImagine a school board faced with the ID debate coming up with its own creative solution to the dispute. The school board draws its inspiration from an editorial that appeared in Nature:
Scientists would do better to offer some constructive thoughts of their own. For religious scientists, this may involve taking the time to talk to students about how they personally reconcile their beliefs with their research. Secular researchers should talk to others in order to understand how faiths have come to terms with science. All scientists whose classes are faced with such concerns should familiarize themselves with some basic arguments as to why evolution, cosmology and geology are not competing with religion. When they walk into the lecture hall, they should be prepared to talk about what science can and cannot do, and how it fits in with different religious beliefs.
The school board thus draws the outlines of a lesson plan that will be used in 11th grade science classrooms.
1.Students shall learn the limitations of science.
a. Distinguish between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
b. Science cannot address the existence of God. People must rely on their own theological and philosophical inclinations to address this issue. Scientists are both theists and atheists.
c. Science has no method for detecting "Intelliegent Design", thus it cannot address this issue. If life was designed, science would say otherwise.
d. Science does not discover "The Truth." There are many aspects of our reality that science cannot answer and the nature of scientific discovery is inherently provisional.
2. Students shall learn that Science and Religion occupy separate magisteria
a. Science addresses the relationships between observable regularities.
b. Religion addresses our sense of meaning, purpose, and ethics.
Wouldn't it be interesting to watch who objects to this proposal?
September 26th, 2005 at 10:09 am
It doesn't go far enough, since it only mentions that the intelligent design of life cannot be addressed. There are so many other things which invisible intelligences could be manipulating that ought to be mentioned as well. For example, if an ID was intelligently designing the particles which enter our eyes and allow us to see, science could not detect that. If an ID was designing the messages coming from our nerve endings which tell us that we are touching something, science could not detect that. Shouldn't we tell our students that they may be nothing more than brains floating in vats being given false stimulus by an ID?
Comment by Aagcobb — September 26, 2005 @ 10:09 am
September 26th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Aacobb:
It doesn't go far enough, since it only mentions that the intelligent design of life cannot be addressed.
Right. It should also say:
"No matter what the data dictates you must come to the inference that life and the universe are the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, i.e. we are the result of random cosmic accidents, and chance collisions. And you will not have to defend that inference via any criterion or experimentation."
It is sad that people like Aacobb have to place their personal limits on to science. As Richard Bach once wrote:
"Argue for your limitations, and you are right, they are yours."
How about this Aacobb:
"If life is the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, science can not tell us."
"What is the reality behind our existence? Science can not tell us."
"What are/ is the origins of species? Science cannot tell us."
Comment by Joe G — September 26, 2005 @ 10:29 am
September 26th, 2005 at 10:54 am
JoeG says:
"No matter what the data dictates you must come to the inference that life and the universe are the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, i.e. we are the result of random cosmic accidents, and chance collisions. And you will not have to defend that inference via any criterion or experimentation."
I find it fascinating how IDists and creationist are always attributing the characteristics of creationism and IDism to scientists. Far from having any data which dictates that life cannot evolve naturally, JoeG, its the statement MikeGene posted which says that science cannot detect intelligent design of life. Scientists, otoh, are continually adding to the data which supports evolutionary theory.
I also read another article this morning, which I unfortunately cannot find right now, which explains how evolutionary theory predicts the number of harmful mutations one can expect to find in a species, and now that the chimp genome is available, chimps fall right into the range of harmful mutations expected. Why would an intelligently guided process produce harmful mutations in the exact proportion that an unguided process would produce, JoeG?
[Editor's note: URL length was causing formating problems. Added anchor instead]
Comment by Aagcobb — September 26, 2005 @ 10:54 am
September 26th, 2005 at 10:59 am
P.S. here is a link to the article on harmful mutations.
[Editor's note: URL length was causing formating problems. Added anchor instead]
Comment by Aagcobb — September 26, 2005 @ 10:59 am
September 26th, 2005 at 11:23 am
Aacobb:
I find it fascinating how IDists and creationist are always attributing the characteristics of creationism and IDism to scientists.
Who did that?
Aacobb:
Far from having any data which dictates that life cannot evolve naturally, JoeG, its the statement MikeGene posted which says that science cannot detect intelligent design of life.
Mike was being sarcastic. Also ID is natural. Both design and intelligence are natural phenomena.
Here is another thing we should tell our students:
(CS Lewis)
Ya see ID is NOT anti-evolution. It never has been. Once people (in general) see through the bullscorch that is the anti-ID rhetoric, all hope to keep ID out of the public school's science curriculum will be gone.
Comment by Joe G — September 26, 2005 @ 11:23 am
September 26th, 2005 at 11:30 am
Perhaps someday someone will have the data that shows a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms. But that day is not today. Neither is today the day anyone can demonstrate chimps and humans had a common ancestor. All we can do is to gather data and then based on the assumption we did, come to an inference about it.
We also have evidence that the chimps' biological clock has "ticked" 34 times, whereas humans have only "ticked" 13 (since the alleged divergence). The implication being that the alleged common ancestor was more human than chimp. Something evolutionists can't contend with.
Comment by Joe G — September 26, 2005 @ 11:30 am
September 26th, 2005 at 11:32 am
I don't think MikeGene was being sarcastic, I think he was seriously proposing that as an appropriate part of the outline of a lesson plan that Intelligent Design cannot be detected scientifically. Of course, Mike can speak for himself; what say you Mike?
Comment by Aagcobb — September 26, 2005 @ 11:32 am
September 26th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Joe G says:
"We also have evidence that the chimps' biological clock has "ticked" 34 times, whereas humans have only "ticked" 13 (since the alleged divergence). The implication being that the alleged common ancestor was more human than chimp. Something evolutionists can't contend with."
Do you have a link supporting that? What do you mean by a "tick" I'm not sure why you think science can't explain why chimps may have diverged more from the last common ancestor than humans have, if in fact that is the case.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 26, 2005 @ 11:36 am
September 26th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
I see no reason for believing that one
accident should be able to give a correct
account of all the other accidents.
Good point from C.S. Lewis. Can a fish know that it's wet if all it experiences is water? Don't think so.
In order to know disorder there must be order. In order to know design there must be randomness. If all that exists is randomness then you'd never be able to know that it was random. If human origins go beyond randomness to include some driving force then you can't help but ask where did this driving force come from?
Comment by Lurker — September 26, 2005 @ 3:53 pm
September 26th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Aagcobb,
Teaching kids about "brains floating in vats" would probably make for some interesting lessons, getting kids to question their assumptions about reality. But I was creatively musing about a possible school board solution to the ID debate.
And no, I did not say that ID cannot be detected scientifically. I said that Science has no method for detecting Intelligent Design. My claim is simply an observation about the sociological phenomenon known as "˜science.' It can be tested and verified by surveying the scientific literature. Your claim is more philosophical in nature, suggesting that ID cannot be detected, in principle, through empirical testing. That's an opinion that begs the question.
Comment by MikeGene — September 26, 2005 @ 7:56 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 1:16 am
Lurker:
If human origins go beyond randomness to include some driving force then you can't help but ask where did this driving force come from?
And no one should stop you from asking nor from seeking an answer.
However even if that question wasn't asked, or was asked and never answered, it would not mean that the driving force did not or never existed.
But that is the beauty of ID- it does "force" us to ask such questions- who and why- two questions that would never be asked in the anti-ID scenario.
Comment by Joe G — September 27, 2005 @ 1:16 am
September 27th, 2005 at 9:06 am
MikeGene says:
"And no, I did not say that ID cannot be detected scientifically. I said that Science has no method for detecting Intelligent Design."
Well, I didn't mean to misstate your position, Mike, though I'm hard pressed to see how ID can be detected scientifically if science has no method to detect it.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 27, 2005 @ 9:06 am
September 27th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Aacobb:
Well, I didn't mean to misstate your position, Mike, though I'm hard pressed to see how ID can be detected scientifically if science has no method to detect it.
Could it be due to the fact that the "scientific community" will not allow 'science' to detect ID? Or is it that said community refuses to even allow 'science' to address the issue?
IOW that community is putting unwarranted limits on 'science'. Science shouldn't have any limits- except to limit our inferences to reality.
Comment by Joe G — September 27, 2005 @ 10:46 am
September 27th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Joe G says:
"IOW that community is putting unwarranted limits on "˜science'. Science shouldn't have any limits- except to limit our inferences to reality."
You're wrong, and the reason is that the so-called "unwarranted limits" are what make science science. It is because science is limited to testable hypotheses that it has been able to make so much progress in developing useful explanatory models of the universe. Controversies exist in science, and can rage for decades, but ultimately the evidence will come down on one side or the other, and falsified hypotheses fall by the wayside; in this way science progresses. If science was redefined to encompass untestable metaphysical notions, it would degenerate into a side branch of theology, and, as in theology, speculative notions would simply proliferate, and scientists would spin their wheels advocating for ideas which don't inspire research or make useful predictions concerning observable phenomenon.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 27, 2005 @ 2:19 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 2:15 am
Joe G said:
I've seen you say things like this many times, Joe. And yet you still say you don't deny that evolution happens. But I'm curious how you can reconcile the two. If you state that single-celled organisms can't "evolve" into anything other than single-celled organisms, how do we get to multicellular life? Since such life does in fact exist, you must have another theory as to how life got to be multicellular. I've been wracking my brains trying to figure out what you mean when you say you don't deny evolution happens, and the only thing I can think of is that you assume that single-celled organisms were somehow "helped" to evolve into multicellular forms. But that's not really evolution anymore, is it? At least, in the commonly-accepted meaning of the term. Isn't it, for all intents and purposes, special creation?
Or, alternatively, you could believe that evolution does in fact happen, but there is no "proof" that it happens. But I find it hard to square that with your obviously anti-NDE stance (hey, if I'm an "anti-IDist," isn't it fair to call you an "anti-NDEist")
But since you brought up chimps and humans, I thought I'd mention something I've mentioned here before. There are ~10^93^ different functional cytochrome c proteins. Humans and chimps have exactly the same cytochrome c proteins. The genes for the two differ by four nucleotides. Not codons; nucleotides. In general, the more distantly related an organism is from humans, the more differences there are in its cytochrome c. Most mammals differ from humans by about 10 amino acids, and yeast differ by about 50 (out of a bit more than 100).
If humans and chimps were not related by common descent, the chances that they would have the same cytochrome c protein is 10^-93^. The chances that human and chimp cytochrome c proteins that even resemble each other is not much higher.
Granted, this isn't "proof" that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. But I think it certainly demonstrates to a very high degree of confidence that they do. Do you disagree?
Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 2:15 am
September 28th, 2005 at 8:42 am
Joe G says:
"IOW that community is putting unwarranted limits on "˜science'. Science shouldn't have any limits- except to limit our inferences to reality."
Aacobb:
You're wrong, and the reason is that the so-called "unwarranted limits" are what make science science.
Care to substantiate what you say with a reference from someone who is a scientist?
Then please show us how we can test the "hypothesis" that (for example) cetaceans evolved from land animals that does NOT require that assumption. IOW show us the experiment that determined such a transformation is even possible.
Ya see Aacobb, ID can be tested and it can be falsified.
Comment by Joe G — September 28, 2005 @ 8:42 am
September 28th, 2005 at 8:49 am
ericmurphy:
I've seen you say things like this many times, Joe. And yet you still say you don't deny that evolution happens.
And I explained what I meant in the essay you said you read.
eric:
If you state that single-celled organisms can't "evolve" into anything other than single-celled organisms, how do we get to multicellular life?
Ummm that is not what I said. However do YOU have ANY evidence that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms? Now would be a good time to present it.
Genetic similarities is also evidence for a common design. Did you know that many organisms share similar genes and proteins? And that no matter the allged mutational differences the genes and proteins perform the SAME function. So you expect us to believe that mutations can change morphology yet still allow for the same functionality at the molecular level.
Comment by Joe G — September 28, 2005 @ 8:49 am
September 28th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Joe G:
You still don't think I've read your essay. Hmm. Well, since I already have read it, three times, and spent two hours responding to it, can you spare me the effort of wading through it all over again and tell me what your position really is? Because all I remember from your essay is the statement that ID does not deny evolution, at least at the speciation level. But that doesn't get you anywhere, because your own statements contradict that position.
We've been through this before. I can only assume that since you don't think there's any evidence that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into multicellular forms, that it therefore can't happen. Why do you refuse to be pinned down on this point? How am I supposed to interpret your constant request for evidence, which let the record show I have provided at least twice, other than to mean you don't think that single-celled organisms can evolve past the single-cell state without assistance, which as far as I can tell is an effective denial of evolution. How else can I interpret it?
It's true that genetic similarities are evidence for common design. Genetic dissimilarities would also argue for design, as opposed to common descent. I think you know what I'm getting at here. Does ID predict that related organisms should have more similar genotypes than more distantly related organisms, or does it make some other prediction? Does it make any prediction about similarity of genotype at all?
Did I know that many organisms share similar genes and proteins? Is this a trick question?
Yes, I do expect you to believe that mutations can cause morphological changes in some proteins which nevertheless maintain the same functionality. The same mutation? Doubtful. But I just gave you an example of one that changes morphology without changing function. Some mutations (the one that causes sickle-cell anemia) cause morphological changes that do not preserve functionality. Is this a difficult concept to believe? Some mutations don't cause any change in morphology or functionality, i.e., a mutation that converts a condon into another codon that codes for the same amino acid. Why the incredulity? These are well-established principles that I don't think any biologist has an issue with.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 12:27 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Joe G:
You've asked me several times to provide evidence that unicellular life can evolve into multicellular life. I've responded several times, giving links to articles that provide evidence, but you've never responded one way or another as to whether you accept the evidence, and have essentially acted as if I've never provided any evidence at all (I still suspect you're confusing "evidence" with "proof.")
At any rate, I came across this link that might satisfy you. Unfortunately, it will cost you 20 bucks to read it, but I'm assuming that since you've asked me so many times for such evidence, it must be pretty important to you.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 1:33 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Joe G says:
"Care to substantiate what you say with a reference from someone who is a scientist?"
here [Editor note: URL too long. Please use the link tag]
"Then please show us how we can test the "hypothesis" that (for example) cetaceans evolved from land animals that does NOT require that assumption. IOW show us the experiment that determined such a transformation is even possible."
You are making the assumption that the only way to test the hypothesis is to devise an experiment that somehow demonstrates that a population of land mammals can evolve into a population of cetaceans. There is, of course, no such experiment possible which would satisfy a creationist. However, based on the hypothesis one can make predictions which can and have lead to research to validate or falsify those predictions. Based on the hypothesis, one would predict that organisms which share features of both cetaceans and land organisms existed, and in fact the fossils of such organisms have been found. One would also predict that, based on the morphological evidence that whales are related to artiodactyls, that molecular evidence would show they are more similar to them than to other land organisms. This prediction has also been confirmed by the evidence. For one who hasn't already decided that evolution is impossible, this is pretty substantive evidence. As for whether this evolution is possible, for a noncreationist the fact that random mutations, natural selection and genetic drift has been observed to result in variation and novel biological features is substantive evidence, which combined with the morphological and molecular evidence makes a coherent and convincing case. Creationists, otoh, have no explanation as to why a modern whale would be more similar genetically to an artiodactyl than to any other land mammal.
"Ya see Aacobb, ID can be tested and it can be falsified."
Great, why don't you make a research proposal which could falsify ID theory?
Comment by Aagcobb — September 28, 2005 @ 3:54 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
Aacobb:
Great, why don't you make a research proposal which could falsify ID theory?
Harvard already has. Also Dr. Behe has suggested at least one way but so far no one has done it.
Aacobb:
There is, of course, no such experiment possible which would satisfy a creationist.
That is false. For example any experiment demonstrating such a transformation is even possible would be a start.
Aacobb:
However, based on the hypothesis one can make predictions which can and have lead to research to validate or falsify those predictions. Based on the hypothesis, one would predict that organisms which share features of both cetaceans and land organisms existed, and in fact the fossils of such organisms have been found.
But that says nothing of a mechanism. Also I can just as easily "predict" that organisms would fill various eco-systems and therefore require a mixture of features in order to do so.
Aacobb:
As for whether this evolution is possible, for a noncreationist the fact that random mutations, natural selection and genetic drift has been observed to result in variation and novel biological features is substantive evidence, which combined with the morphological and molecular evidence makes a coherent and convincing case.
Standard fare and also refuted. What "novel biological features" are you talking about?
Is Mark Isaak a scientist? And please point out where he supports your claim. He seems to agree with me:
"The status of Intelligent Design as science has nothing whatsoever to do with its being natural or supernatural. As we have seen, simply being supernatural doesn't disqualify something from scientific study."
However like you he requires a face-to-face meeting with the designer before he will allow the design inference. IOW, like you, he isn't interested in science.
Comment by Joe G — September 28, 2005 @ 5:16 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Where is Joe's essay?
Comment by onething — September 28, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
ericmurphy:
I can only assume that since you don't think there's any evidence that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into multicellular forms, that it therefore can't happen.
My point is if there isn't any evidence then it is a belief.
As for your links- the last one didn't work and the others I didn't see. Sorry but your arguments are just rehashed and refuted attempts to falsify the design inference. But the bottom line is we exist. And there are only 3 options to that existence. Out of those 3 only one excludes the design inference. So instead of slamming the DI, why not just substantiate the option you chose?
Also we do have evidence mutations can converge. IOW species not directly related can have the same mutation at the same locus (loci).
Comment by Joe G — September 28, 2005 @ 5:33 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Why ID is scientific
The first two posts…
Comment by Joe G — September 28, 2005 @ 5:34 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Joe G:
Okay, you don't know my arguments because you haven't read the links I provided. You've just admitted you didn't read any of the links I sent you. There were 18 links in my responses to you (the first one, which for some reason doesn't work, is a duplicate of one of the other 17).
You can't just say my arguments have been refuted without giving any evidence for that statement. Until you can provide me with some argument other than that "they've been refuted," I have no choice but to assume that you cannot back up your assertion.
You're constantly asking evolutionists for evidence; I think it's time you presented some of your own. Until you can refute at least one of the points I made about how ID has been falsified, your assertion that all of them have been refuted is less than persuasive.
And please, please don't just provide a link to Why ID Is Scientific. again. Your argument is not quite as persuasive as you seem to imagine it is.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 6:12 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
Joe G:
If you believe that humans and chimps have the same exact cytochrome c proteins out of 10^93^ possibilities as a result of convergent mutations (convergent from where), I simply cannot understand why you have such a hard time believing that multicellular organisms can have evolved from unicellular organisms.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 6:22 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 8:15 am
ericmurphy:
If you believe that humans and chimps have the same exact cytochrome c proteins out of 10^93 possibilities as a result of convergent mutations (convergent from where), I simply cannot understand why you have such a hard time believing that multicellular organisms can have evolved from unicellular organisms.
That is not what I said. If that is what you think I said or implied I understand why you don't understand what is being debated.
The proteins are similar due to common design. That is what I said.
Any alleged "shared mutations" in any alleged lineage can be brought about via convergence as opposed to divergence.
But as for cytochrome c do you have any evidence that such a protein can come about via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?
BTW I didn't read the links because I haven't seen you post any. I stopped reading "the memory hole" once I realized that the ONLY evidence for ID that you will accept is a metting with the designer.
Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions
Comment by Joe G — September 29, 2005 @ 8:15 am
September 29th, 2005 at 8:36 am
Joe G says:
Harvard already has [made an ID research proposal]. Also Dr. Behe has suggested at least one way but so far no one has done it.
Why don't you provide a link or at least tell us what these ID research proposals which could falsify ID are? Any idea why the ever growing ID research community hasn't initiated research based on these proposals yet?
But that says nothing of a mechanism. Also I can just as easily "predict" that organisms would fill various eco-systems and therefore require a mixture of features in order to do so.
We know the mechanisms of genetic mutation, natural selection and genetic drift, for example. What you still can't explain, however, is why modern whales have many features which are only useful to land animals.
Standard fare and also refuted. What "novel biological features" are you talking about?
In an experiment, a random mutation to a bacteria resulted in it acquiring a novel method of making disulfide bonds which allowed it to move. The scientists didn't know how the bacteria acquired the ability to move until they studied it after the experiment; it was simply a lucky accident resulting from one of the many random mutations induced in the experiment, so you can't call the mutation an intelligent design.
Is Mark Isaak a scientist? And please point out where he supports your claim. He seems to agree with me:
Typical creationist tactic of quote mining an article; Mark Isaak, who is a scientist, clearly agrees with me that limitations are needed on what science can speculate about. From the article:
"Scientists and philosophers can disagree over other defining features of science, but at least one requirement is clear. For something to qualify as science, the observations must be independently verifiable by others. Perhaps the greatest strength of science is that all its findings are subject to testing, and verifiability of the raw data is foundational to such testing. The effect of this requirement is to remove from scientific consideration subjective impressions and unevidenced phenomena. This does not imply that subjective and unevidenced phenomena aren't important, merely that they cannot be used as the basis for scientific research.
Science has never claimed to be all-encompassing. The few people who say otherwise are usually people who want the good reputation of science to apply to their own ideas outside science. Intelligent design proponents fit in this group (Dembski, 1998b). What these people want is more akin to scientism than to science. They want the reputation of science without having earned it."
[Link anchor fixed - Kr]
Comment by Aagcobb — September 29, 2005 @ 8:36 am
September 29th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Joe:
I'm getting a little weary of being accused of not understanding the debate. Oh, well… My point was you said chimp and human mutations were similar because of common design. They're not similar; they're identical. And why do they need to be identical? Not because of common design, there are literally billions of functionally-identical cytochrome c proteins. Again, this is why common design lacks explanatory power. It can account for similarity, and equally well for differences.
I've also noticed that while you have huge problems for "divergent" evolution, you seem relatively okay with the statistically much less likely "convergent" evolution. You've used convergent evolution as a possible explanation for seeming relatedness many times. So let me as you this: you've got two copies of the New Testament that differ by, say, 2% of their text. Which is more likely? That they're both derived from the same original, which has been copied by hand many, many times, or that one started out as "Canterbury Tales" and the other started out as "Pilgrims Progress" and they've "converged" on each other?
Joe, if you want to find "evidence" for stuff, you're gonna have to read the links I posted. I can't post a 20,000-word essay here. And I wouldn't do so anyway, even if I could, because it's a waste of bandwidth. For you, "evidence" amounts to "proof."
And Joe, don't tell me you've refuted my arguments if you don't even know what they are.
No, I'll accept the same evidence that ID claims it already has: evidence that some biological structure cannot, even in principle, have evolved.
On the other hand, what evidence would you accept for "unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?" There doesn't seem to be any. I'm not even sure you would accept "proof," if such a thing were possible.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 12:16 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
ericmurphy:
No, I'll accept the same evidence that ID claims it already has: evidence that some biological structure cannot, even in principle, have evolved.
You imply you understand the debate and yet you post that. It isn't that some biological features couldn't evolve, it IS that there isn't any evidence that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for their evolution.
What evidence will I accept? The evidence that Harvard just starting looking for- the evidence that life can arise from non-living matter via those processes.
Convergent evolution- marsupials and their placental conterparts. Non-linked organisms that have the same nucleotide substitution in the same locus. IOW it is more frequent than you think. And there is NO way to tell the difference.
If you thinks that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor why doesn't someone come up with an experiment to verify that speculation?
Do we even know what makes a chimp a chimp? No.
Comment by Joe G — September 29, 2005 @ 2:18 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Joe G says:
Harvard already has [made an ID research proposal].
The brackets adeed by Cobb are unwarranted. Harvard has a research proposal that would/ could falsify the design inference. It proposes to find that life can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. If successful biological ID falls.
Harvard Pledges $1 Million Annually to Study Life's Origin
Aacobb:
Any idea why the ever growing ID research community hasn't initiated research based on these proposals yet?
Many ideas. One being there aren't enough resources. How many evos are currently researching a way to falsify the theory of evolution? What are their projects?
Aacobb:
What you still can't explain, however, is why modern whales have many features which are only useful to land animals.
Name these alleged features and we will see if I can explain them.
Mark Isaak is a scientist? Yeah right. However what he says would knock the theory of evolution out of the realm of science. There isn't any way to test or verify the claims made by evolutionists.
In the bacteria experiment- how was it determined the mutation was random- and did the bacteria remain a bacteria after the mutation? (yes it matters because as usual you bring up something that isn't even being debated- that individuals can vary)
Comment by Joe G — September 29, 2005 @ 2:29 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Joe G says: How many evos are currently researching a way to falsify the theory of evolution? What are their projects?
Thousands, in more projects than I can name. Every time a paleontologist starts a new dig, a geneticist maps a new genome, or a biologist describes a new species, the possibility exists that something will be discovered which evolutionary theory just can't explain because its a natural process with limits.
Name these alleged features and we will see if I can explain them.
Check 4. vestigial evidence. While I'm sure you can come up with baseless speculation to try to explain away this evidence, the problem is that sort of speculation looks increasingly specious when you have to explain away nine independent lines of evidence which all point to evolution as the most coherent, logical explanation.
In the bacteria experiment- how was it determined the mutation was random- and did the bacteria remain a bacteria after the mutation? (yes it matters because as usual you bring up something that isn't even being debated- that individuals can vary)
Another typical creationist tactic; you ask for evidence of the evolution of novel biological features, then when I provide it you change the subject, by, of all things, accusing me of changing the subject! You see, its pointless to discuss scientific evidence with creationists, because you've already decided evolution can't happen so you'll just demand the impossible, like that I change the bacteria into a toad, or something. BTW if you had read the article you would have leanred that the scientist knew the mutation was random because it was one of the random alterations he induced in the bacteria.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 29, 2005 @ 3:25 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Whoops, I'm just learning to use these quicktags here is the link to the whale article.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 29, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Joe G:
Yes, I posted that because I understand the debate and you don't. You're laboring under the typical Creationist misapprehension that if there were no evidence that "unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for their evolution" (which is preposterous), then ID would automatically win. A != B does not mean A = C. ID has never shown the slightest inclination of finding any evidence that intelligent, directed processes can account for evolution.
What is it about anti-evolutionists that makes them think they can construct a theory entirely out of criticisms of another theory?
You're laboring under the further misapprehension that there's no evidence that "unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for their evolution," despite the fact that I've given you multiple links to just that evidence, which you then claim doesn't exist!
Your statement that it's impossible to tell convergent evolution from divergent evolution is provably false. I could post you the link, but I know you won't read it anyway.
Your wearisome complaint that there isn't some "experiment" to prove the relationship between humans and chimps shows your ignorance of the way historical sciences work. Can you think of an "experiment" that would show that India is crashing into Nepal, thus pushing up the Himalyas?
This is exactly the reason most evolutionary biologists don't waste their time debating with creationists.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 4:05 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
Aagcobb:
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 4:08 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
Aacobb:
Thousands, in more projects than I can name. Every time a paleontologist starts a new dig, a geneticist maps a new genome, or a biologist describes a new species, the possibility exists that something will be discovered which evolutionary theory just can't explain because its a natural process with limits.
But something that fits that description has already been found. In the end the current theory will just be modified, as opposed to an out-right discarding.
For example for all you think we do know we still do not know why a fly is a fly and horse is a horse.
Name these alleged features and we will see if I can explain them.
Check 4. vestigial evidence. While I'm sure you can come up with baseless speculation to try to explain away this evidence, the problem is that sort of speculation looks increasingly specious when you have to explain away nine independent lines of evidence which all point to evolution as the most coherent, logical explanation.
Aacobb:
Another typical creationist tactic; you ask for evidence of the evolution of novel biological features, then when I provide it you change the subject, by, of all things, accusing me of changing the subject!
I apologize for not spelling it out in specific (yet obvious) detail. Knowing the opposition I should have known better.
Bacteria evolving into bacteria is NOT and NEVER was being debated. Therefore ANY and ALL references to such variation is a bullscorch deception tactic when asked to substantiate the claim made for what is being debated.
Vestigial structures- are you sure you want to go there? Because those structures could be vestigial, but in the "Created Kinds" concept of YEC, that could just mean they are rudiments from the originally Created Kinds. All that has to be done is some reasonable explanation for any apparent purpose. The alleged pelvic rudiments Also the argument is akin to a "top-down" approach- meaning the people using it think the part controls the information to create it (the arm imprints the information required to make it onto the human genome) as opposed to reality whichs demonstrates the genetic information controls the formation of the arm.
But anyway- from AiG:
Vestigial organs?
"These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females."
Comment by Joe G — September 29, 2005 @ 5:07 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
ericmurphy:
Yes, I posted that because I understand the debate and you don't. You're laboring under the typical Creationist misapprehension that if there were no evidence that "unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for their evolution" (which is preposterous), then ID would automatically win. A != B does not mean A = C. ID has never shown the slightest inclination of finding any evidence that intelligent, directed processes can account for evolution.
Excuse me, but that has NEVER been my position. My position is if there isn't any evidence for X and Y is a possibility, then we cannot reject Y just because.
IOW if there isn't any evidence for life arising from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, AND life exits, what other options are there are why are people preventing us from at least taking a look?
And the bottom line is all I am doing is asking of your position what you are demanding of ID. If you can't see or understand that, well that is another issue.
ericmurphy:
Can you think of an "experiment" that would show that India is crashing into Nepal, thus pushing up the Himalyas?
Yes I can. Computer simulations along with modeling would do the trick.
ericmurphy:
ID has never shown the slightest inclination of finding any evidence that intelligent, directed processes can account for evolution.
How would you know?
ericmurphy:
What is it about anti-evolutionists that makes them think they can construct a theory entirely out of criticisms of another theory?
Actually it would be more like "anti-blindwatchmakers". Evolution is much too broad of a word. Also most of us were at one time OK with the blindwatchmaker scenario. The criticisms didn't construct the theory, they merely allowed us understand that science has no place for dogma.
If you were right one would think that there couldn't be any biologists/ geneticists who are IDists and Creationists. Yet they exist.
Comment by Joe G — September 29, 2005 @ 5:21 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
Joe G:
Who's preventing you? What's stopping the ID community from looking? And again, you keep saying there's no evidence that life could arise from non-living matter "via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes" (which, for one thing, has nothing to do with neodarwinian evolution) as if it were a true statement. It isn't.
But computer simulations along with modeling don't do the trick for NDE? Why is that? Don't even say there aren't any.
Because I've looked. Care to give me a link to any papers?
So do flat-earthers. So do young-earth creationists. In approximately equal numbers to the number of biologists/geneticists who believe in ID/Creationism. The fact that some people espouse a belief doesn't make the belief valid. On the other hand, you're going to have assume that the tens of thousands of biological scientists who are persuaded as to the explicatory power of NDE are all either delusional, or victims of dogmatic thinking.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 5:50 pm
September 30th, 2005 at 9:32 am
IOW if there isn't any evidence for life arising from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, AND life exits, what other options are there are why are people preventing us from at least taking a look?
ericmurphy:
Who's preventing you? What's stopping the ID community from looking?
The people who are against ID in public schools are preventing us.
ericmurphy:
And again, you keep saying there's no evidence that life could arise from non-living matter "via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes" (which, for one thing, has nothing to do with neodarwinian evolution) as if it were a true statement. It isn't.
Then shut me up by presenting it or admit you cannot and I am correct. The FACT that Harvard just started a research program to do that demonstrates I am right.
Scienec isn't done via majority. If any of those thousands of biologists could substantiate the claims made by evolutionists ID would go away.
ericmurphy:
But computer simulations along with modeling don't do the trick for NDE? Why is that? Don't even say there aren't any.
Show us one computer simulation that shows (for example) that a land animal can evolve into a cetacean. There isn't such a program because no one knows what makes a cetacean a cetacean.
Comment by Joe G — September 30, 2005 @ 9:32 am
September 30th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Joe G:
Don't be such a victim, Joe. No one does original research in high school biology classes. The DI can and certainly does fund research into ID. If ID reseachers want more funding, or more research, they're going to have to come up with more results. The scientific community is impressed with results. So far ID researchers have come up empty.
I can lead the horse (or the fly) to water, but I can't make it drink. If you'd trouble yourself to read the multiple links I provided, which are still right where I put them, I think it would shut you up about it. Your constant, unsupported claims that there's no evidence simply won't fly until you read the links and tell me why they're not "evidence."
Will you read the article Aagcobb sent you? Then you can tell us all why the article doesn't provide conclusive evidence that whales evolved from land animals. You made me respond in detail to your essay, which I did. If you want to maintain any credibility outside of the ID community, you're going to have to do the same to some of the arguments people present to you.
We're waiting for your analysis…
Comment by ericmurphy — September 30, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
September 30th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
I was skimming through the Mike Isaak article, but the above paragraph is just beyond idiotic. This guy seems to think that IDists actually detest using the scientific method! Who's he trying to kid?
Joe-
Thanks. Good read. You mentioned the Hox genes. I read an article about something called imprinted genes, which sound similar. The author (he believes we were genetically engineered by aliens) claimed it was accidentally discovered in the 80s that certain genes turned on and off the embryonic development of various features, and that it turned out the genes from one sex parent might turn them on while the gene from the other parent was required to turn them off. Using mouse embryos, the researchers would sometimes use both genes for some feature from one of the parents instead of one from each. They thought this would be fine. It wasn't the point of the research. But the embryos died, and the male and female embryos died for opposite reasons. In some cases, a key development never got turned on, while in the other gender it didn't get turned off. The author stated this was the stake that would be driven through the heart of Darwinism. In other words, how can you get a mutation to spread in a population if the developmental switches require a combined cooperation from the genes of each parent. I've never seen anything further about this.
Comment by onething — September 30, 2005 @ 3:51 pm
September 30th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
onething:
Do you have a link to the article about the Hox genes? (I did a quick search using "imprinted genes parent developmental embryonic stake darwin" which didn't return any relevant hits.)
I'd be interested to see what the response of the scientific community was. A claim that research "was the stake that would be driven through the heart of Darwinism" is pretty strong stuff. But it's hard to respond to a claim when you don't have access to the original claim. Like Behe's claim about leaf insects appearing before leaves did, I'm always skeptical of such claims.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 30, 2005 @ 4:23 pm
September 30th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Eric,
Yeah, I have looked a bit on google to see if this problem has occurred to the mainstream but never found much. Like I said, the author has taken a side interest in evolution, and read Darwin's Black Box some years ago, and he is convinced that earth was terraformed by beings from elsewhere. Here's the link.
For some reason, the link will only bring you to the Home page of his site. then click on Essays over at the left of the page, and select the one called Carpenter Genes.
Comment by onething — September 30, 2005 @ 4:50 pm
September 30th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
onething:
Thanks for the link. I did a quick read through it, and one point jumped right out at me: Pye's arguments attempting to show just how unlikely unassisted abiogenesis is are pretty roundly refuted here.
I think he's also very, very wrong when he states that modern science is no closer to figuring out how life works than Darwin was, 150 years ago. Darwin didn't even know about genes, for crying out loud! There have been tremendous strides made in just the last 10 years, paramount of which is no doubt the sequencing of the human genome. Which isn't to say that there isn't plenty of work to do; what is known in any branch of science is dwarfed by what isn't known.
It looks to me like the (1984!) research Pye refers to disproves certain issues in classic Mendelian genetics, which is a long, long away from driving a "stake" through the heart of the Modern Synthesis.
Just to take an example: neither Mendel nor Darwin knew anything about mitochondria. Certainly they didn't know that all mitochondria came from the mother, nor did they know that mitochondrial reproduction was entirely separate from meiosis.
Not being a biologist myself, there's a lot of why Pye says that sounds distinctly fishy, which I can nevertheless confirm or deny. But based on his CV, he doesn't look like someone who has a great deal of credibility in the life sciences, and again, it's one thing to criticize 150-year-old science; it's another to criticize current research.
Poking holes in Darwin's thoughts seems to be pretty popular amongst IDists and creationists of all stripes. I wonder if part of the reason for this is that many of the texts they're used to analyzing haven't changed in hundreds of years. You can exhaust yourself just running in place, trying to keep up with current advances in the life sciences. Specialists have a hard-enough time doing it, let alone dillettantes.
It really makes a critic of evolution look weak when he's criticizing science from the next-to-last century. There are plenty of things Darwin (and Mendel) either got wrong or were unaware of. A claim that "Darwinism" (a term which, BTW, makes evolutionary biologists wince when they hear it) is "already weakened" is mostly wishful thinking. If anything the Modern Synthesis is on much firmer ground now than it was just 10 years ago, and it's an amazingly fertile area of inquiry. It seems the more scientists learn about biology and genetics, the better neodarwinian evolution looks.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 30, 2005 @ 5:16 pm
September 30th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
Joe G says: Bacteria evolving into bacteria is NOT and NEVER was being debated. Therefore ANY and ALL references to such variation is a bullscorch deception tactic when asked to substantiate the claim made for what is being debated.
I see we have virtually no disagreement at all then! Bacteria, of course, are one of the three major lineages of life provided here.
It then follows that eukaryotes evolving into eukaryotes should be equally uncontroversial (which, of course, covers virtually every lifeform we can see with the naked eye). About the only area of controversy left is whether one bacteria, out of a nearly infinite number, could evolve into a eukaryote given about two billion years.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 30, 2005 @ 10:44 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 12:23 am
eric,
Why is Harvard University setting up to research whether or not life can arise from non-living matter if the evidence already exists that it can?
Why can't I just Google on "origins of life" and find the evidence? Why hasn't that evidence been presented at the Dover trial? (because it doesn't exist)
As for the article AAcobb linked to about whales- I responded to it already.
Comment by Joe G — October 1, 2005 @ 12:23 am
October 1st, 2005 at 3:24 am
Joe G:
You say you have a background as an investigator. Surely you're familiar with different standards of proof in civil as well as criminal law. Standards run from "probable cause," to "preponderant evidence" to "clear and convincing" to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Are current theories of abiogenesis demonstrated "beyond reasonable doubt" Of course not. Surely much more research needs to be done.
Okay, here we go again. Follow the little blue link.
But I'm not sure why you're arguing this point in an ID vs. NDE debate anyway. NDE is an attempt to explain not the origin of life, but its subsequent evolution. Theories of abiogenesis are necessarily much more contingent, given that they're trying to elucidate possible mechanisms that were operative long, long before there was any kind of fossil record to guide researchers.
But since you've brought up the subject: what is ID's theory as to how life arose? That it was "designed" Okay, great. But how were those "designs" put into practice? Presumably at this point it was a little too early to invoke "built-in responses to environmental cues."
If you think your response to Aagcobb's post about cetacean evolution was even remotely adequate, you're kidding yourself. You're laboring under the common misperception that "vestigial" structures must necessarily be functionless. This is far from true. Bones from the reptilian jaw are vestigial in mammals; they make up the bones in the middle ear.
And if you'd actually read the entire article, you'd see that the evidence of relatedness between whales and land mammals goes way beyond physiology. The genetic and protein evidence needs to be explained as well, and claiming that similar proteins are not "useless" in cetaceans isn't going to get you far.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 1, 2005 @ 3:24 am
October 1st, 2005 at 3:26 am
Joe G:
Oops, screwed up that link.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 1, 2005 @ 3:26 am
October 1st, 2005 at 7:49 am
eric,
A link to a popularist evolutionist site is not evidence.
em:
But I'm not sure why you're arguing this point in an ID vs. NDE debate anyway.
Two points- 1) I am not using it as an ID vs. NDE argument and 2) f life didn't arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes there isn't any reason to infer its subsequent diversity is the result of those processes.
Vestigial organs- it is up to the person presenting the argument to provide evidence for the original function of the organ or structure in question.
em:
Bones from the reptilian jaw are vestigial in mammals; they make up the bones in the middle ear.
That is nothing but an assertion. IOW you can't verify it.
Comment by Joe G — October 1, 2005 @ 7:49 am
October 1st, 2005 at 7:52 am
Aacobb:
It then follows that eukaryotes evolving into eukaryotes should be equally uncontroversial (which, of course, covers virtually every lifeform we can see with the naked eye).
Reality says it doesn't follow at all. There still needs to be evidence that single-celled euks can "evolve" into metazoans.
Aacobb:
About the only area of controversy left is whether one bacteria, out of a nearly infinite number, could evolve into a eukaryote given about two billion years.
I understand that your only recourse is to throw vast amounts of time at the issue as if that resolves something. However you should be told that approach is not scientific.
Comment by Joe G — October 1, 2005 @ 7:52 am
October 1st, 2005 at 11:34 am
Joe G:
Oh my God, Joe, are you sure you really want to go there? Do you realize that you've just left ID with no evidence at all?
How many peer-reviewed articles are there on ID? So you're going into this debate completely unarmed? Well, it's your funeral…
Anyway, this is typical creationist moving-of-the-goalposts. So now I can't use any evidence except from peer-reviewed journals? That's such an utterly ridiculous ground rule I'm going to completely ignore it. For one thing, what do you think I am, made of money?
So, let's see…you're looking for evidence that vestigial limbs were once used as…limbs? Hmm.
Have a look here, here, and here.
Now that you've decided you won't believe anything that isn't peer-reviewed, I know you won't waste your time. But it's good a thing you don't feel the need to support your own assertions, because obviously I'm going to be pretty sceptical of any non-peer-reviewed sources you cite.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 1, 2005 @ 11:34 am
October 1st, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Joe G:
Why do I get the feeling that if Aagcobb provided evidence that simple eukaryotes could evolve into metazoa, you'd next ask for evidence that simple metazoans could evolve into bilateria? Bilateria into deuterostomia? Deuterostomia into vertebrates?
Reminds me of arguments about "transitional" fossils, where every time the evolutionists find a new transitional form, the ID guys say, "See? You've only made matters worse! Now you need two more transitional fossils!"
If you guys kept at it for the next 200 years, you could work your way all the way up to humans. But I think we already know what the result of that would be. "Where's the evidence that it actually happened that way?!"
Comment by ericmurphy — October 1, 2005 @ 7:57 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 9:03 pm
Eric,
You weren't supposed to give a critique of Pye's position on evolution! I gave that link for one reason - I am intrigued by the implications of developing embryonic features that require the input from both parents for the stop and start.
Lloyd Pye says it's a 4-horse race between Darwinists, creationists, intelligent design and (drum roll) interventionists. He's an interventionist, and boldly states he is closest to the truth. Certainly there is much intriguing evidence, not only from him. I was interested in the topic several years ago.
Yes, our ignorance has only deepened, but at least we now know we are ignorant.
Did you read it? If an organ development gets turned on by mom but dad's genes tell it when to stop, then how is that to be coordinated with new mutations?
Pye's essays (some of which are several years old) included the very latest research. Of course he is not an officially credited person in the life sciences. He's a journalist or something, and a damned good writer. What he is, is a person who has taken a very strong interest, otherwise known as an avocation, for the topic of human origins.
What are you talking about? What texts?
You must've got lost in some alley on his website. Perhaps he was going over the whole history. He is up to date.
The sad fact is Darwin was afraid to let God exist. He spoke of Christianity's "damnable doctine," in which his atheists father and grandfather would be consigned to hell. If only he knew. God couldn't possibly care less if you're an atheist.
Comment by onething — October 1, 2005 @ 9:03 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Onething:
Nevertheless, we're still less ignorant than we were 150 years ago. Everything we don't know now, we didn't know then, either, but we have, in fact, learned some new things in the interim.
I didn't read the original research paper, because Pye neglected to provide a link to it, and doing a search for it didn't turn it up either. But, even assuming that Pye's interpretation of the information is valid, it's possible that Pye might have failed to consider the possibility that the way the developmental embryology works now may be entirely different from how it worked when the original structure developed. Considering the lack of concern by the scientific community about this research, I can only assume that Pye is overinterpreting the results. But again, not having access to the original research paper, it's hard for me to guess what the problem might be.
Well, the bible, for one thing. The New Testament hasn't changed noticeably in the last fifteen hundred years, has it? Or have I missed something?
I don't think I was lost. I'm talking about the article you pointed to, where he seems to be mostly talking about how the developmental genes research contradicted Mendelian genetics and Darwin's own thoughts about inherited characteristics. I didn't see any mention of any research or currently held beliefs at all.
Darwin's own personal foibles or beliefs, rational or irrational, really don't impinge on the validity of a theory based on his research but with an additional 150 years of research on top of it. Criticisms of a proponent of a theory don't amount to a criticism of the theory itself at all.
I'm sure you're right about God not caring at all if someone's an atheist. But if you listen to the religious right in this country you'd certainly get the impression that he cares.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 1, 2005 @ 10:26 pm
October 2nd, 2005 at 8:06 am
Eric,
I know what the evidence for the alleged "evolution" of mammals (from non-mammals), reptiles (from non-reptiles) and just about every other alleged lineage. The evidence is circumstantial at best and is not verifiable.
IOW it is evidence (of evolution) based on the assumption (that said evolution occurred).
Transitional fossils- What you guys cal transitionals people like myself would call only possible intermediates. And there is a difference. Also fosils can't tell us anything about a mechainsm. Therefore using fossils cannot help the NDE until the4 biological/ genetic evidence comes to light that shows such transformations are even possible by the mechanism(s) proposed. Right now no one can demonstrate that. And as a matter of fact no one even knows whay makes a species what it is. Until we know that there is no way we can know whether or not such transformations are possible.
As for peer-reviewed articles that support ID the scientific literature has many references to what we observe inside the cell as molecular machines, assembly lines and factories. However there isn't any peer-review articles that demonstrate those molecular machines, assembly lines and factories can come about via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.
So sure I want to go there.
ericmurphy:
So, let's see"¦you're looking for evidence that vestigial limbs were once used as"¦limbs?
Since when did the pelvis become a limb? How about our appendix? Is that also a limb? What about nipples on men? Are nipples also limbs? Are the bones that make up a mammalian inner ear considered limbs to you?
IOW there are plenty of alleged vestigial structures that are not limbs. And even if they are limbs, my arms and a horse's forelimbs are both limbs but both serve different purposes- and there isn't any evidence human arms were once used for locomotion except if one assumes that the current history of life is indicative of reality. The same goes for any alleged "limb" found on whales- the only reason to call it a femur is due to the belief whales evlved from land animals.
Comment by Joe G — October 2, 2005 @ 8:06 am
October 2nd, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Joe G:
Could you explain to me how any conceivable evidence for the evolution of mammals could be anything other than circumstantial? Could we expect, e.g., eye-witness tesimony?
And when you say it's not "verifiable," you're totally wrong. The evolution of mammals from non-mammals (and reptiles from pre-reptiles, etc.) is confirmed from multiple lines of evidence, not just the fossil record. When you have multiple lines of inquiry all converging on the same explanation, that's what we mean when we say "verified."
Okay, Joe: let's hear what the difference is between "transitional" fossils and "possible intermediates" It sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. And to shut off one possible objection, no paleontologist believes that a particular fossil is actually "transitional" between two taxa, in that it is a direct ancestor of anything actually living today. The odds that any fossil has any descendants still alive today is vanishingly small. A "transitional" fossil is not likely to be an actual "father" or "grandfather"; more likely it is an "uncle" or "cousin."
You're right: there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles describing phenomena that could be interpreted to support design (more in a minute about why this doesn't matter). But you might have noticed that essentially none of these peer-reviewed articles were actually written by ID proponents. In other words, for reasons best known to themselves, ID proponents seem content to take evidence developed by evolutionary biologists and applying their own interpretation — spin, if you will — to evidence that everyone else thinks supports exactly the opposite interpretation.
Okay, with that out of the way: you've just named a bunch of vestigial structures. Not all of them are limbs. And what point are you leading up to, exactly? I'm trying to parse out your statement:
Hmm. Well, I do assume that the current history of life (if I'm interpreting what you mean by "current history" correctly) is indicative of reality, so I guess by your statement I'm entitled to believe there's evidence that human arms were once used for locomotion. I'm not sure where you're going with this exactly, but never mind.
It's not true that the only reason one would assume that a whale has a vestigial femur is if one "assumes" it evolved from land mammals. The evidence that whales evolved from land mammals is conclusive, and it's not just based on the fact that whales have bones that resemble femurs. You can't look at each piece of evidence in isolation, Joe. When you see evidence from ten different sources, and they all point in the same direction, it's crazy not to think there's something to that particular direction.
It's like this: the evidence for evolution is so utterly overwhelming, from multiple different lines of inquiry, that it takes deliberate opacity of mind not to see it. Which is why we talk about the fact of evolution. (After all, you claim that even you do not deny that evolution happens.) So what's left? Well, we need to determine exactly what causes evolution. NDE has proposed several, non-exclusive mechanisms for evolution. You've been calling these mechanisms "unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes," and no matter how many times I've shown you evidence demonstrating how wrong you are, you still claim there isn't any evidence that they can drive evolution.
But here's the problem, Joe. Any piece of evidence whatsoever can be used to support the notion that life was designed. Think about it for a moment: can you picture any kind of experiment, observation, inference, that can prove that life was not designed? There's no conceivable way to prove that life wasn't designed, especially if you're assuming that the "designer" isn't restricted to "naturalistic" mechanisms. This is exactly why ID is unfalsifiable. Sure, you can falsify things like the notion that IC structures cannot evolve, or that CSI proves the existence of design, or that the explanatory filter provides a design inference, but you cannot, even in principle, prove that life was not designed.
Hence, ID's final conclusion, that life was designed, is unfalsifiable.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 2, 2005 @ 7:05 pm
October 2nd, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Of course, which leads us right to intelligent design. We're out of the realm of myth and into the realm of detail - which is real.
But, even assuming that Pye's interpretation of the information is valid, it's possible that Pye might have failed to consider the possibility that the way the developmental embryology works now may be entirely different from how it worked when the original structure developed.
Well, he was talking about relatively recent animals, such as mice. The timing of embryonic development is very precise. Perhaps you are considering that the stop and start instructions are separate, although intimately involved with, the codes for the particular development phase or organ. Also, your idea indicates that evolution has stopped. If evolution is ongoing, and if each genome has dozens and hundreds of these imprinted genes (maybe more) then it does seem to present a problem. How could the original structure develop in the absence of stop start instructions that are now crucial?
Eric, the kindest thing I can do is give you a failing grade at reading comprehension. He gives an overview from Darwin to semi-modern ideas of how genetics works as a lead-in to go into detail about this recent research (1984). About half a page, and he does not argue against the Bible. Then the gist:
Until 1984, it was believed that all genetic function operated the same way. If a gene or suite of genes came from Dad's side of the mating process, then those genes managed their own affairs from birth until death. And the same held true for genes coming from Mom's side of the mating. But certain genes turned out to exhibit radical differences, depending on whose side of the mating process they came from. When the female mouse embryos died, it was found that genes vital to their growth had inexplicably never been turned on at all, while still others were never turned off (methylated) and spiraled unchecked into cancers. Even more baffling, the fatal processes in the all-male embryos were entirely different from those in the all-females. The embryos were dying for reasons that were clearly sex-biased. What could it possibly mean?
Imprinted genes were found to be the culprit. Imprinted genes, it turned out, could be expressed by either parent and, incredibly, methylated by the other parent!
Now, maybe he misinterpreted but 1984 science is right within the era of discoveries that leads up to intelligent design inference. You pass a bombshell and focus on some nitpicking over your decision that he was arguing against Darwin's understanding of heredity, which is not what he actually said.
You know that all other things being equal, you are correct. However, it pays to pay attention to the sad and dreary fact that men are often lead astry by their emotions and desires, sometimes hardly even acknowledging it to themselves. Sure, they construct a logical edifice, but the search for truth is not their real goal, and therefore not their destination.
Yes, on this I agree with Darwin. It is a damnable doctrine.
Comment by onething — October 2, 2005 @ 10:25 pm
October 2nd, 2005 at 10:57 pm
onething:
You might want to read my response to Joe G directly above your last one, to see if you still think that ID is somehow a better explanation for the "details" of evolution that NDE is.
Well, I have to admit that I didn't read Pye's article super-closely. It's kind of long, he doesn't provide a link to the research he was interpreting, and I have to say, after looking at the rest of his site, my crank-detection meter was pinging like crazy. But in any event, regardless of what grade you give my reading comprehension, I think you might want to look at the beam in your own eye.
For one thing, I never implied that Pye even mentioned the bible, let alone argued against it (although presumably he would argue against the literal truth of Genesis).
For another, if it's true, as it seems from the quote you pulled, that Pye believes the 1984 research contradicts evolutionary thinking from 1984, 1984 is ancient history when it comes to genetics, which is why I believe the evolutionary biology community has a different interpretation of the results than Pye does. 1984 was over 20 years ago, and if the research Pye cites really did overturn central tenets of neodarwinian evolution, I think everyone would know about it by now. My guess, which is only a guess, since I have yet to read the paper Pye is referring to nor have I read anyone else's interpretation of the results, is that evolutionary biologists have been able to accommodate those results without resort to a wholesale jettisoning of any of the central principles of neodarwinian evolution. After all, the Standard Model of particle physics leaves plenty of questions unanswered, but because the theory is as thoroughly confirmed as it's possible to be, no one seriously thinks the Standard Model will ultimately be tossed out the window and replaced with something entirely different. As I said before, you need to sprint just to keep up with advances in genetics and biology these days, and citing research from 1984 isn't much better than citing research from 1884. Hence my quip about the bible.
Also, I have to take issue with your statement that 1984 is about the time of the intelligent design inference. I honestly don't think ID really has much to add to the debate that William Paley didn't add in 1802, other than a lot of superfluous mathematic symbols.
If Darwin were the sole proponent (or the founder of a minority school) of a particular belief, I think your comment would have more weight. But since the vast, vast majority of evolutionary biologists believe that undirected, unplanned, undesigned mechanisms adequately account for the evolution and diversity of life on earth, I don't imagine that Darwin's personal beliefs and foibles add much weight to arguments on either side of the fence.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 2, 2005 @ 10:57 pm