Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-23-2019 6:12 AM
120 online now:
caffeine, CosmicChimp, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tangle (4 members, 116 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 847,794 Year: 2,831/19,786 Month: 913/1,918 Week: 200/301 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
18NextFF
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3699
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 91 of 266 (847380)
01-21-2019 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by WookieeB
01-21-2019 7:14 PM


What is "design"?
That is a pretty broad definition of evolution. If it is simply change over generations, I don't think anyone would disagree with it, including Porkncheese. With that definition, design would apply as equally as M+NS or any other proposed material process.

As I see it, "intelligent design" is just another way of saying "theistic evolution". And apparently the "design" is God doing some genetic engineering (aka guiding evolution to some degree). Now, the question is, how does one tell the difference between a Godly genetic tweak and a non-Godly random mutation?

As I recall, Michael Behe (one of the big guns of "intelligent design") is a big believer in the bulk of mainstream biological evolutionary theory. He just thinks that God had his fingers in the operation in some subtle way.

Bottom line - "Design" is at best an undetected and probably undetectable detail in standard biological evolutionary theory.

God, the genetic engineer (or something like that).

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix typo.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 7:14 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-27-2019 11:03 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 92 of 266 (847382)
01-22-2019 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Tanypteryx
01-21-2019 9:12 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Tanypteryx writes:

There is no published research and no evidence for ID, whereas there has been 150+ years of research and evidence compiled for the processes of evolution. There is so much research and evidence that it fills libraries.

First, your response is irrelevant to the question at hand. The issue is what the supposed progression of skulls tells us as to the process for how they got that way. And the answer is "Nothing". Any plausible process could be the reason, whether that is mutation+natural selection, some other natural process, or ID (despite how you may feel about it).

Secondly, as to published research and evidence for ID, you appear to be quite unaware. There is quite a lot of research a out there (including peer-reviewed papers), as well as a number of books, websites, talks, etc. One was linked in the first post of this thread. More recently, there was a major mathematical paper released - http://bio-complexity.org/.../main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.4

Thirdly, you now seem to be using a more restricted definition of "evolution". I guess it is more than just "Evolution is change from generation to generation".

Generally, evolution will have one of the following definitions. Of course, this list is not exhaustive and context does matter:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms
have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited
descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random
variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended
from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended
from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent,
purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection,
random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of
design in living organisms.

ID has no issue with definitions 1-4, is somewhat agnostic on 5, and rejects the validity of 6. I suspect you are meaning 5 or 6.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2019 9:12 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 1:01 AM WookieeB has responded
 Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-22-2019 1:10 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 2:44 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14720
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 93 of 266 (847384)
01-22-2019 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 12:42 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
quote:

Secondly, as to published research and evidence for ID, you appear to be quite unaware. There is quite a lot of research a out there (including peer-reviewed papers), as well as a number of books, websites, talks, etc.

There really isn’t that much compared to the output of evolutionary science. Their vanity journal only publishes a few papers a year.

quote:

One was linked in the first post of this thread. More recently, there was a major mathematical paper released

In their vanity journal. And what I can see of it doesn’t look promising. Axe’s paper is pretty useless for supporting ID, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 12:42 AM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 12:11 PM PaulK has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16149
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 94 of 266 (847405)
01-22-2019 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by WookieeB
01-21-2019 7:14 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

That is a pretty broad definition of evolution. If it is simply change over generations, I don't think anyone would disagree with it....


Creationists don't disagree with evolution because of definitions or facts or logic. They disagree because they're anti-science. You may be too young to remember but creationists used to deny microevolution. I've even heard creationists say that dinosaurs never existed. They've been in headlong retreat from reality for decades and it doesn't look like they'll ever run out of ways to deny science.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 7:14 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 12:16 PM ringo has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 95 of 266 (847411)
01-22-2019 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by PaulK
01-22-2019 1:01 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
PaulK writes:

There really isn’t that much compared to the output of evolutionary science. Their vanity journal only publishes a few papers a year.


The amount is kinda irrelevant. All that really matters is whether it is true or not.
Aside from that, there are papers being released just about every week that by implication are more supportive of the ID perspective than the Darwinian one, without directly mentioning either.
ID itself is an idea, and thus doesnt have a "journal' of its own, any more than "evolution" has its own journal. If though you are referring to the Discovery Institute having its own journal, it does but that is irrelevant. ID topics are not only published there, as the Axe paper referenced in the first comment are.

In their vanity journal. And what I can see of it doesn’t look promising. Axe’s paper is pretty useless for supporting ID, too.

The Axe paper is not in the "vanity" journal.
And how can you say the Axe paper is useless?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 1:01 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 12:35 PM WookieeB has responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 96 of 266 (847412)
01-22-2019 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ringo
01-22-2019 11:13 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Creationists don't disagree with evolution because of definitions or facts or logic. They disagree because they're anti-science. You may be too young to remember but creationists used to deny microevolution.

I normally would not consider myself a "Creationist", but I guess that depends on your definition. I've found that the use of the term is usually an epitaph, and persons throwing it around have no consistency in the meaning.
Many pro-ID people would not consider themselves "Creationinsts", but assuming that is whom you are referring to, please provide an example of how they are anti-science, deny microevolution (I've never heard that), or even that dinosaurs existed (never heard that either).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 01-22-2019 11:13 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 01-22-2019 12:30 PM WookieeB has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16149
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 97 of 266 (847415)
01-22-2019 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 12:16 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

Many pro-ID people would not consider themselves "Creationinsts"...


Google "cdesign proponentsists".

WookieeB writes:

... please provide an example of how they are anti-science...


In Message 92 you said:
quote:
ID has no issue with definitions 1-4, is somewhat agnostic on 5, and rejects the validity of 6.
where point #6 was:
quote:
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended
from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent,
purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection,
random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of
design in living organisms.
If ID rejects what science concludes, that is anti-science.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 12:16 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 1:37 PM ringo has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14720
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 98 of 266 (847416)
01-22-2019 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 12:11 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
quote:

The amount is kinda irrelevant. All that really matters is whether it is true or not.

Productivity is important. If ID is scientifically sterile then it will be shunned for a paradigm that makes more sense of observations. Not that ID publications are exactly known for being true.

quote:

Aside from that, there are papers being released just about every week that by implication are more supportive of the ID perspective than the Darwinian one, without directly mentioning either.

In my experience the ID people say that, but it is rarely - if ever - true.

quote:

ID itself is an idea, and thus doesnt have a "journal' of its own, any more than "evolution" has its own journal. If though you are referring to the Discovery Institute having its own journal, it does but that is irrelevant. ID topics are not only published there, as the Axe paper referenced in the first comment are.

The Discovery Institute crowd are the heart of the ID movement. So in fact I do count their journal as an ID journal.

And the few papers the ID group get to pusblish elsewhere are generally unhelpful to ID, as Axe’s paper is.

quote:

And how can you say the Axe paper is useless?

I say that it is useless for supporting ID because it doesn’t contain any results that really support ID. I guess that it isn’t as bad as The Design Inference or Darwin’s Black Box turned out to be, but it’s still not much use.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 12:11 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 2:07 PM PaulK has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1964
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 99 of 266 (847417)
01-22-2019 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 12:42 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

There is no published research and no evidence for ID, whereas there has been 150+ years of research and evidence compiled for the processes of evolution. There is so much research and evidence that it fills libraries.

First, your response is irrelevant to the question at hand. The issue is what the supposed progression of skulls tells us as to the process for how they got that way. And the answer is "Nothing". Any plausible process could be the reason, whether that is mutation+natural selection, some other natural process, or ID (despite how you may feel about it).

Actually, my response was a direct answer to your question in Message 89.

My understanding is that the skulls in the image are arranged in chronological order but that there is no further data, in the image, as far as evolutionary ancestors and descendants relationships.

Secondly, as to published research and evidence for ID, you appear to be quite unaware. There is quite a lot of research a out there (including peer-reviewed papers), as well as a number of books, websites, talks, etc. One was linked in the first post of this thread. More recently, there was a major mathematical paper released

Oh, I am aware that ID proponents publish crap in their vanity journal that could never make it through peer review in an actual scientific journal.

ID is nothing but creationism dressed up in sciencey sounding words. Pretend science.

Thirdly, you now seem to be using a more restricted definition of "evolution". I guess it is more than just "Evolution is change from generation to generation".

I don't know what I said that you are basing that on. "Evolution is change from generation to generation" is the most basic, simplest definition. The processes of evolution that have been discovered and studied over the past 150+ years are very complex and fill libraries.

Generally, evolution will have one of the following definitions. Of course, this list is not exhaustive and context does matter:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms
have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited
descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random
variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended
from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended
from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent,
purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection,
random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of
design in living organisms.

I wouldn't use 1.
2 would be need more explanation.
I wouldn't use 3 or 4 or 5.
6 is is nothing but a bullshit creationist description.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 12:42 AM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 2:28 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 100 of 266 (847420)
01-22-2019 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ringo
01-22-2019 12:30 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
ringo writes:

Google "cdesign proponentsists"


LOL! Why wouldn't i just Google "Creationist"? cdesign proponentsists ≠creationist, unless you are now saying the term is limited to some old books change of terms between versions. Epitaph indeed!

If ID rejects what science concludes, that is anti-science.

LOL again. Some SCIENTISTS might conclude this. But SCIENCE doesn't necessarily conclude that an unguided, unintelligent process is 'sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms'
Disagreement with somebodies conclusion does not amount to anti-science. Science invites discourse and debate, it doesn't support dogmatic conclusions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 01-22-2019 12:30 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by ringo, posted 01-23-2019 11:20 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 101 of 266 (847422)
01-22-2019 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
01-22-2019 12:35 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
PaulK writes:

If ID is scientifically sterile then it will be shunned for a paradigm that makes more sense of observations. Not that ID publications are exactly known for being true.


Or it may be shunned because it is not philosophically preferred and it has nothing to do with the science.
Whether it is "scientifically sterile" is yet to be demonstrated. What example can you provide that something said with regards to ID is not true?
In my experience the ID people say that, but it is rarely - if ever - true.

So you claim. But how about a recent article Parenteau, J. et al. (2019), “Introns are mediators of cell response to starvation,” Nature. that is more supportive of an ID view of things and puts another nail in the coffin for the 'Junk DNA' view that is common to Darwinian evolution.
I say that it is useless for supporting ID because it doesn’t contain any results that really support ID.

Then I guess you do not understand at all what Axe's paper is about. His paper provided a challenge to how Darwinian evolution is supposed to act. It estimates how rare amino acid sequences are that generate functional protein folds, and as a measure of the content of specified complexity within enzymes that is very relevant to questions of ID.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 12:35 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 2:35 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 3:03 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 114 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-22-2019 5:06 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 102 of 266 (847425)
01-22-2019 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Tanypteryx
01-22-2019 1:10 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Tanypteryx writes:

My understanding is that the skulls in the image are arranged in chronological order but that there is no further data, in the image, as far as evolutionary ancestors and descendants relationships.


Even if we accept that the pictures are in chronological order, you cannot make any inference that there is any ancestor/descendant relationship. You can infer a relationship based on homology, but you cannot state that is is due to any parent/child link. It might be parent/child, or it might be a distant cousin linkage, or it might be an experiment by aliens, or it might be some other form of ID. My point is you are assuming some evolutionary linkage, but you do not have enough data to do so.

Oh, I am aware that ID proponents publish crap in their vanity journal that could never make it through peer review in an actual scientific journal.

No True Scotsman fallacy
Besides and again, the Axe paper from the first post wasn't in an "ID" vanity journal.

6 is is nothing but a bullshit creationist description.

Funny. That's the first time I've heard of Richard Dawkins being described as a "creationist". You must know that it is basically the description from his book.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-22-2019 1:10 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 2:41 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 113 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-22-2019 4:43 PM WookieeB has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14720
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 103 of 266 (847427)
01-22-2019 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 2:07 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
quote:

Or it may be shunned because it is not philosophically preferred and it has nothing to do with the science.

As evolution was, until Darwin and Wallace made their case.

quote:

Whether it is "scientifically sterile" is yet to be demonstrated. What example can you provide that something said with regards to ID is not true?

How about Axe’s estimate of the proportion of protein sequences exhibiting enzymatic activity, since you listed that paper. And that’s one of the better pieces of ID work. See the critique [url=https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html]here[/quote] (though it is linked on the first page of this thread so you have had the chance to see it already.)

The idea that irreducible complexity cannot evolve is another common error (and one that Dembski has made). Behe didn’t make that mistake in Darwin’s Black Box, but he came very close to it.

As to the scientific sterility I have already pointed out the lack of papers. And really ID is so vague - encompassing everything from Young Earth Creationism to Behe’s naturalistic evolution with occasional help from God it really can’t offer the same understanding of nature that evolution succeeds in providing.

quote:

So you claim. But how about a recent article Parenteau, J. et al. (2019), “Introns are mediators of cell response to starvation,” Nature. that is more supportive of an ID view of things and puts another nail in the coffin for the 'Junk DNA' view that is common to Darwinian evolution.

The idea of Junk DNA is alive and well (and hated by some supporters of Darwinian evolution - hence the ENCODE fiasco). A small function for some introns doesn’t really do much to change that.

quote:

Then I guess you do not understand at all what Axe's paper is about. His paper provided a challenge to how Darwinian evolution is supposed to act. It estimates how rare amino acid sequences are that generate functional protein folds, and as a measure of the content of specified complexity within enzymes that is very relevant to questions of ID.

Since the estimate is orders of magnitude too low and since it isn’t actually useful for probability calculations in many evolutionary scenarios it isn’t as useful as you think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 2:07 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 3:37 PM PaulK has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7670
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 104 of 266 (847428)
01-22-2019 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

How does this....

demonstrate macroevolution?

It demonstrates intermediate forms between humans and other apes which is evidence for evolution and common ancestry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7670
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 105 of 266 (847430)
01-22-2019 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 2:28 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieB writes:

Even if we accept that the pictures are in chronological order, you cannot make any inference that there is any ancestor/descendant relationship. You can infer a relationship based on homology, but you cannot state that is is due to any parent/child link. It might be parent/child, or it might be a distant cousin linkage, or it might be an experiment by aliens, or it might be some other form of ID. My point is you are assuming some evolutionary linkage, but you do not have enough data to do so.

The theory of evolution predicts that there were species in the past who had a mixture of human and ape features, and these fossils fit those predictions. When a theory makes a prediction and the facts bear out those predictions then those facts are evidence for the theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 2:28 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 3:19 PM Taq has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
18NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019