| Author |
 Topic  |
|
throughthelookingglass
Minister of the Sacraments of Jabootu
USA
47 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2008 : 7:18:48 PM
|
quote:
So God is probably more John Coltrane than Beethoven.
Probably the truest statement about the universe made in this thread :) |
 |
|
|
Asta Kask
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Sweden
263 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 12:55:34 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul LoJ
But that is an example of watch design, not blind watchmaking. The information is front-loaded, and every generation is evaluated in terms of progress towards an eventual desired outcome ("Methinks it's like a weasel"), with similarities retained and differences discarded. So sure, the example uses an evolutionary process as the manufacturing method, but the watchmaker isn't blindfolded; the process was simply designed to evolve the sentence "Methinks it's like a weasel." If an intelligent agent didn't alter the program, it would never and could never produce "Methinks it's like a genetically modified weasel" or "Methinks it's like a black-striped weasel."
It is indeed a model, and as such it is good in some respects and bad in others. It demonstrates the power of selection and mutation to produce an ordered sequence that would be extremely unlikely to occur by chance.
quote:
Originally posted by Paul LoJ
If you didn't know the formula for the Gettysburg address in advance and were mutating in the dark, so to speak, that would be more akin to what we're talking about here. To resemble biological history, not only would a series of mutations have to progress from a starting point towards the text of the Gettysburg address, but they would have to do it without knowing the Gettysburg address until they arrived at it, each change would have to survive against some odds of not being valuable enough on its own merits *at that time* to be retained by natural selection, each change would have to deal with the probability of the trait not being passed on, of the offspring with the gene surviving to reproduce, etc. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that the deeper we analyze the real scenario, the steeper the climb up Mount Improbable becomes
You could also look at Nilsson and Pelger's computer simulation of the evolution of the eye ([url]http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp[/url]. Starting from a flat layer of photo-receptors, they find that there is indeed a sequence to a vertebrate eye such that a) each step has better vision than the earlier (the eye is perfect, because it's quality can be measured by simple laws of optics), and b) each step is very similar to the earlier one. When they plugged in realistic-but-pessimistic assumptions about mutation rate, heritability, etc. they found that the time required to evolve an eye is actually rather small. In fact it's counter-intuitively small; some 400 000 generations. If we assume that a generation is one year (a reasonable assumption for the creatures we're dealing with) this would lead to the illusion of creation, since 400 000 years is generally too short a period of time for us to see it in the fossil record.
What we do see, however, is a proliferation of eyes in the animal kingdom. There's even fish who have developed another pair of eyes (set in the wall of the main two), allowing them to look into two directions at once. The second set of eyes is developed in a very different way from the first. Why do this if you are an intelligent designer? Why not simply cut-and-paste the first set of instructions onto the second pair of eyes?
quote:
Originally posted by Paul LoJ
Lastly, I'm aware of the point many make about the Design idea being the end of science, or of scientific inquiry into biological origins. In light of that point, I would like to ask two questions: (1) If you assumed for the sake of argument that life (or some aspect of it) *was* in fact designed or shaped by intelligence -- by whatever process -- how could science discover that fact? If it were true, would science be incapable of forensically determining it, and thus only be capable of leading us to erroneous conclusions? (2) If scientists were examining an engineered bioweapon trying to determine what it was, would it be possible for them, *scientifically*, to make the determination that the organism was designed? ...to make an educated guess?
(1) Michael Behe's irreducible complexity is a test of evolution. The only problem with his argument is that his examples are, in fact wrong (and it's not a new argument either; it is mentioned by Charles Darwin!). The Theory of Evolution makes a very large number of predictions, all of which have been borne out. If a prediction was wrong, we would have to amend or abandon the theory.
(2) There could be signs, depending on how clever the designer was. In the case of nature, the designer seems to have been both extremely clever and determined to give the illusion of evolution. And so we return to Ken Miller's argument: "I'm a Roman Catholic, so I suppose I believe in an Intelligent Designer in some way. But I don't believe in a deceitful one, and therefore I think that evolution is valid and that [human-ape chromosone synteny] tells us something about our ancestry.
- Who is John Galt? - |
Edited by - Asta Kask on 04/21/2008 12:56:50 AM |
|
|
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 01:28:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by EricbOne last thing. In the Expelled movie I read that they show Soviet footage to demonstrate the evils that "darwinism" can lead. That's really below the belt. If fact Stalin dismissed "darwinism" as "bourgeois science." Supporting it got you sent to the gulag. Lyshenko was the way to go.
From some of the reviews I've read they go further than that and lump Darwinism in with Hitler and the Holocaust.
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Foywonder.com: NEVER BACK DOWN - Much like the martial arts, the film's messages are also mixed
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 04:45:00 AM
|
I know about the Holocaust part but the thing that sticks out about Stalin is that he actually persecuted darwinists. Supporting evolution by natural selection got you a ticket to a gulag.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 06:23:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ericb
I know about the Holocaust part but the thing that sticks out about Stalin is that he actually persecuted darwinists. Supporting evolution by natural selection got you a ticket to a gulag.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp
Stalin was loyal only to himself.
If it was in his intrest to get ride of such people, he would. Some of them may have had intrests other then science...say, politics.
Marvin the Paranoid Android to Buzz Lightyear "Too infinity and beyond-i've been there, its rubbish!"
"Hoody Hoo, i waste 'em with my cross bow!" Bob Herzog- KODT
|
|
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 06:50:16 AM
|
Folks, thanks for the discussion but work is going to intrude for awhile and I'm not going to be able to continue the discussion. However, I would like to point out one article I stumbled across.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
Now, I know the pro-Darwinist side is going to, just like the article, trumpet evolution. However, a couple of questions are in order.
How did new digestive tract designs suddenly appear in a short 30 year period? These features appear in only 1-2% of reptiles. Yet, in this species they showed up in a short time. If the DNA already was already there, how did it suddenly become a dominant trait since it didn't exist at all in the current species? If it wasn't there, what are the odds of that mutation suddenly occurring? What is the possibility that DNA actually accepts feedback? In other words, what if DNA can receive feed back from the environment and then respond by turning back on certain features in following generations? And if DNA can act in such a manner, doesn't it speak more to someone designing DNA than some random process?
Notice, believing in ID, doesn't stop one from asking questions. ;-)
The head size and jaw strength items are simple natural selection and are limited by regression to the mean. It's the same principle that says that having two geniuses have babies does not result in even smarter kids. The kids are more likely to fall back towards the normal intelligence range.
- Si desea pulse 2 para español, encontrar un país diferente. - |
|
|
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 07:13:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ericb
quote:
Evolution has no answers for human kind.
Flange, I usually say that there is no moral message in evolutionary theory, it simply explains why the natural world is the way it is, but, personally speaking, I do get a moral from the history of life, and it's this: "The meek shall inherit the Earth." It kind of goes against the sterotype of "survival of the fitest" and all that but there is much more to the history of life than that. There has been a cycle repeated many times of dominant groups of life being wiped out by mass extinctions and what were once the little guys hiding in the shadows of giants taking over the world. So if you're a big and tough gorgonopsid or tyannosaur you may be tough now but eventually that little creature cowering behind the bush is going to take over from you. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
It often works in human history too.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp
Well, here is what I'm thinking of.
What good does it do for the dead?
A materialistic view has no answers. We live and die for no reason, except what we make up for our own.
The evolutionary view is cold and pointless. And pityless.
And, it views humans as only animals...yet, only humans have the ability to even concieve of such ideas. To say we are no better then 'the other animals' is its self based on the materialistic view...which is inherintly based on human reasoning limeted to the five sences, plus the sense of time.
We can see the Earth and what we taste, touch, hear and all that, defines our 'data imput'.
If there is other then what can be seen...our reasoning is flawed by ignorance of that other data.
What I mean is, what if...what if there are factors we can't understand on our own.
Scary, ain't it?
It appears you might reconciter a part of vour view. Its not the 'meek' that inherit the earth, just the luckey.
Power is used by people as the definer of a lot that we do. Political influance-(Who you know), raw muscle-( Look at this six pack,baby!) technology enhancing the body-( Cars and guns). Power is misused by both side of the issue at hand.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were all athiests, and look at what they did.
And other man made social concepts fail, hence the Crusades and the Muslem advance in Europe in the middle ages, as well as the Sudan then and now.
Man matters. He does things the animals do, in terms of the physical conctruct of flesh we live in...but is that all?
I ask again...what of the dead?
We are mortal. Why?
We think. Why?
We change how we do things, based on learned behavior. Why?
We believe in a great number of things that we think explain Life, The Universe, and Everything.
Why?
These questions are part of the puzzle.
The ability to question, is the key.
And I am proud that you guys are indeed, keeping it civil. Its intresting to me, reading both sides of this issue.
It no more changes my view then it does yours, but at least, it is stimulating.
Foy : Hitler did take concepts from darwin, and use them to forge his plans. Margret Sanger, creator of planned Parenthood, was another inspiration. Its not P.C. to mention it...but those too, are facts.
Its part of the puzzle.
Asta Kask : Eyes are in such varied form, because they are not the product of an assembly line, but the creation of a being who has only given man a small portion of his mental ability...we are creative children, because he is. And its what makes us different.
Evolutionary theory has adapted its reasoning to accomidate new information. Its amending the theory as we speak...er, type...and it will not be abandoned, as its the foundation that its adherints are comfortable standing on.
So...what of the dead?
Marvin the Paranoid Android to Buzz Lightyear "Too infinity and beyond-i've been there, its rubbish!"
"Hoody Hoo, i waste 'em with my cross bow!" Bob Herzog- KODT
|
Edited by - Flangepart on 04/21/2008 07:18:49 AM |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 09:29:31 AM
|
quote:
Yet, in this species they showed up in a short time. If the DNA already was already there, how did it suddenly become a dominant trait since it didn't exist at all in the current species? If it wasn't there, what are the odds of that mutation suddenly occurring? What is the possibility that DNA actually accepts feedback? In other words, what if DNA can receive feed back from the environment and then respond by turning back on certain features in following generations? And if DNA can act in such a manner, doesn't it speak more to someone designing DNA than some random process?
Terrahawk, so you believe that the current narrative of evolution accepted by most scientists is correct and the only way that you believe differently is that you think that DNA has some built in mechanism to help a group of organisms respond more quickly to the environment than simple random mutation would. That's a very interesting and utimately testable hypothesis. Unfortunately that's not what most of the ID people are saying. William Debmski and most IDers reject common decent. They believe that every species was specially designed.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
|
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 09:53:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ericb
Flange, there is a long history of Anti-Semetism in Germany. would you say that Darwin had a greater influence than this guy:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp
[font=Arial]No, I said one of many. Its a long struggle with reason.[/font=Arial
Marvin the Paranoid Android to Buzz Lightyear "Too infinity and beyond-i've been there, its rubbish!"
"Hoody Hoo, i waste 'em with my cross bow!" Bob Herzog- KODT
|
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 10:07:46 AM
|
quote:
No, I said one of many. Its a long struggle with reason
Yes, but do you think Martin Luther's raving anti-semitism invalidates the Protestant Reformation?
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 10:09:26 AM
|
A madman's abuse of an idea doesn't invalidate the idea itself nor does it make it any less true.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 4:19:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ericb
quote:
No, I said one of many. Its a long struggle with reason
Yes, but do you think Martin Luther's raving anti-semitism invalidates the Protestant Reformation?
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp
I don't know enough about the the P.R. to say, so I'll let that part go. I would wager, that what good it did, was in spite of such thoughts, not because of them.
Marvin the Paranoid Android to Buzz Lightyear "Too infinity and beyond-i've been there, its rubbish!"
"Hoody Hoo, i waste 'em with my cross bow!" Bob Herzog- KODT
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked