Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9047 total)
97 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, kjsimons, Pollux, xongsmith (5 members, 92 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Post Volume: Total: 887,574 Year: 5,220/14,102 Month: 141/677 Week: 26/90 Day: 2/1 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 196 of 264 (546271)
02-09-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by traderdrew
02-09-2010 4:18 PM


Re: perhaps missing the point?
Hi Drew,

Your original comment was;

traderdrew writes:

The more I debate Darwinists and atheists or whatever form of materialism any of you subscribe to, the more I am convinced that you all seem to be poor philosophers.

You claim that;

traderdrew writes:

Albert Einstein also beleived scientists are poor philosophers.

Note the difference. According to your claim, Einstein was talking about scientists (in general); you are talking about "Darwinists and atheists". In fact, you are talking about a specific group of people; those who you have been interacting with via this forum (and perhaps others).

I doubt that Einstein had an opinion of EvC Forum habitués.

Do I find Einstein condescending? I don't know. You didn't bother to provide a quotation. I do find it risible though that you should bring up Einstein, as though the mere mention of his name held some magical significance. Einstein may have been a very clever man, but he is not some kind of infallible idol. I'm sure he said a great many foolish things in his life.

Basically, you are calling everyone on this forum who disagrees with an you idiot and claiming that Einstein thinks so too. Insulting the intelligence of others isn't exactly the highest form of debate. I called it sanctimonious bullshit before and I stand by that judgement.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Fix last paragraph; thanks Bluejay!


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 4:18 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 6:11 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 197 of 264 (546275)
02-09-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by traderdrew
02-09-2010 4:18 PM


Poor Philosophy
Hi, Traderdrew.

I seem to have struck a nerve.

Let's stayed focused on the topic of biological evidence against intelligent design.

And, for the record, you do come off as sanctimonious.

traderdrew writes:

Albert Einstein also beleived scientists are poor philosophers.

Scientific philosophy has changed rather a lot sense Einstein's time. If Einstein said scientists were poor philosophers, he wasn't talking about their use of Popperian falsificationism, because scientists back then weren't doing that.

I'm not so sure Einstein would have said the same thing about post-Popperian scientists. But then, I never met the man, so I don't know for sure.

-----

traderdrew writes:

You know as well as I do intelligent designers have a certain amount of foresight.

I know no such thing!

Being able to design does not necessarily come with an ability to predict the future. We have seen countless applications of design by intelligent beings that have resulted in disaster: DDT, nuclear bombs, the Vasa, etc., which, in all cases, could have been avoidable if a little bit of foresight had been applied. These examples clearly demonstrate that design capacity does not always come with a side order of foresight, and/or that foresight is not necessarily implemented, even by those who may have it.

So, instead of arguing from the principle of intelligent design, which is plausible, you begin advocating for a specific form of intelligent design, applying specific attributes and intentions to your Designer. My arguments can’t defend that, and I won’t try to make them do so: it is clear that you are thinking of a specific flavor of intelligent design; and your particular flavor of ID very well might be falsifiable.

But, hypothetically speaking, if your flavor is falsified, you could easily slither over to a slightly different version of Intelligent Design, which has not been falsified, and stand there, proclaiming it to be falsifiable as well. And, you could do this infinitely, as the creationist/IDist movement has done ever since it was dethroned by naturalistic and evolutionary ideas.

And, you could get away with this, because the most fundamental core of ID, the basic concept of design, is unfalsifiable.

-----

traderdrew writes:

Think about that... Are tectonic plates not driven by radioactive isotopes? Are there not tidal forces such as the Gulf Stream that help regulate temperatures? Is the earth not fine-tuned? Are you going to blame the designer for the actions of people?

Here, you are arguing that, because the world functions, it must have been designed. What do you expect of your opponents? Must we demonstrate that the world is nonfunctional in order to generate evidence against your Intelligent Designer? That should be easy to recognize as nonsensical: all worldviews being discussed in this debate also revolve around the notion that the world functions.

I say that the earth is not fine-tuned. The alignment of a given set of variables such that an interesting result is generated from the system does not equal “fine-tuning” and does not demonstrate that there was teleology involved. Really, all it demonstrates is that something interesting happened. And, I have seen very convincing arguments that unintelligent, non-designed processes can also generate “interestingness.” The universe, while admittedly very interesting, bears the marks of stochasticity, not of fine-tuning.

I submit that the lack of fine-tuning in the universe is evidence against your specific Intelligent Designer.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 4:18 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 7:02 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 198 of 264 (546276)
02-09-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Granny Magda
02-09-2010 5:19 PM


Re: perhaps missing the point?
Hi, Granny.

Granny Magda writes:

Basically, you are calling everyone on this forum who disagrees with an idiot and claiming that Einstein agrees with you.

You skipped the word "you" in the middle there: someone might misinterpret this and think you are calling Einstein an idiot.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Granny Magda, posted 02-09-2010 5:19 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 4170 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 199 of 264 (546284)
02-09-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Blue Jay
02-09-2010 6:09 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
And, for the record, you do come off as sanctimonious.

I do sometimes come across as challenging. I want you motivate you to prove me wrong. I am aware you are a scientist. If that was your best shot (I don't think it was) you haven't convinced me.

I do have a respect for science. I don't think ID would be possible without the scientific method. I respect your science but you all don't respect ID. So who is really being more sanctimonious?

I don't know of any human invention that didn't exist as a concept first before it came to be. Even the antenna RAZD posted existed as a basic concept before computer processing tinkered with the designs.

As far as things like nuclear bombs. The bomb just may have saved more lives than it took by bringing an early end to the war. DDT? I don't know if it is as bad as the press had painted it to be.

How do you falsify the statement, "All things were made by natural processes."? To disprove it you must go through an infinite number of possibilities in order to prove natural processes can explain life as we know it. Is this even possible? Science hasn't convinced me natural processes can produce a living replicating cell. There isn't even a scientific consensus on how it happened. That last sentence was not from my mind. It was paraphrased from Eugenie Scott.

Put it this way, if our solar system was in the wrong place in our galaxy, I would tend to agree with you that there is a design flaw but we are in no danger from gamma radiation.

After I end this post I will read about the stochastic process.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 6:09 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 02-09-2010 7:30 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 204 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 11:01 PM traderdrew has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 200 of 264 (546286)
02-09-2010 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by RAZD
02-08-2010 11:30 PM


Re: Side issue on Complexity
Would not greater complexity require more information to describe it?

I don't know. If I randomly splatter a canvas and then want to digitally send the result to someone else how much information might be required to do that? If I draw a circle on a canvas along with the equation for a circle and send that instead is that more or less information? Is it more or less complex?

I am not really making a point here beyond that I am not so sure that it is easy to define such things. But I may be conflating "meaning" with "information". I don't know.

Hey RAZ - We have found something to which I am happy to declare "I don't know". You should be happy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2010 11:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20323
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 201 of 264 (546289)
02-09-2010 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by traderdrew
02-09-2010 7:02 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
traderdrew writes:

I don't think ID would be possible without the scientific method.

Huh? The most prominent people in the ID movement are opposed to methodological naturalism, meaning that they want to violate the very first step of the scientific method and hypothesize mechanisms for which there is no evidence. If IDists truly followed the scientific method then ID would be impossible.

How do you falsify the statement, "All things were made by natural processes."? To disprove it you must go through an infinite number of possibilities in order to prove natural processes can explain life as we know it.

This is an example of induction (not proof) a core component of scientific reasoning, and by no means do you have to examine everything everywhere throughout the universe. By your logic the statement, "Water boils at 100oC at standard temperature and pressure," could only be falsified by testing every water molecule in the universe. This isn't how one does anything, whether one is attempting to support or disprove a hypothesis.

To support a hypothesis ("The universe is natural") you gather evidence to see if the hypothesis is supported. If sufficient evidence is gathered then the hypothesis becomes accepted and might even become theory. In order to falsify this hypothesis or theory one only needs observations of the non-natural. Examining everything everywhere is not part of any facet of the scientific process.

Beyond IDs unnaturalistic tendencies and claims, the difficulty with falsifying ID lies with its malleability. We can't offer the nested hierarchy of life as evidence of ID, because an IDist could always respond, "The designer chose to create in a nested hierarchy." This is actually the same response offered by creationists, except they don't try to hide the fact that the designer is God.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 7:02 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 10:03 PM Percy has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 4170 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 202 of 264 (546313)
02-09-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Percy
02-09-2010 7:30 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Huh? The most prominent people in the ID movement are opposed to methodological naturalism, meaning that they want to violate the very first step of the scientific method and hypothesize mechanisms for which there is no evidence. If IDists truly followed the scientific method then ID would be impossible.

When you have one cause for a known phenomenon or an object, it is easy to infer it as an explanation. Such an example would be an equisitely designed arrowhead. When there is more than one cause or factor for something such as the evolution of biological forms, it is much more difficult to narrow down the causes of the results. So when the past is reconstructed, science infers the best explanation. This explanation isn't always the same thing as the truth.

I believe the scientific explanation for the flagellum involves horizontal gene transfer. It apparently serves as a work around for a "flagellum first - ID position" saying both the TTSS and the flagellum evolved independently. Scientific explanations sometimes have hidden problems their proponents or participants on the evcforum do not wish to see. The models may appease their emotions but what good does it do if they don't wish to see things another way.

Water boils at 100 celcius is one of those explanations where one cause is responsible. The Big Bang is one of those theories, although not perfect, is the best explanation for the origin of the universe and if you wish to ask, my ID side is satisified with it because whatever comes into existence must have a cause.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 02-09-2010 7:30 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2010 10:14 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 7:05 AM traderdrew has responded
 Message 208 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 11:12 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1122 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 203 of 264 (546315)
02-09-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by traderdrew
02-09-2010 10:03 PM


Is this any way to run a universe?
So when the past is reconstructed, science infers the best explanation. This explanation isn't always the same thing as the truth.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

So you go ahead and find truth, Truth, TRUTH, and even TRVTH. Proclaim it from the soapboxes, pulpits and rooftops.

But watch out for the tens of thousands of other sects, denominations, and religions that claim that they and they alone have the one true truth, Truth, TRUTH, and TRVTH. (Is this any way to run a universe?)

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to science and the pretty good explanations that science provides.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 10:03 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 204 of 264 (546322)
02-09-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by traderdrew
02-09-2010 7:02 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Hi, Traderdrew.

traderdrew writes:

I do sometimes come across as challenging.

I don’t think so. You do come across as if you think you come across as challenging, though. That’s what I meant when I said you come across as sanctimonious.

-----

traderdrew writes:

I don't know of any human invention that didn't exist as a concept first before it came to be. Even the antenna RAZD posted existed as a basic concept before computer processing tinkered with the designs.

I’m not sure I see the point here. Is it “foresight” to be able to envision an idea before you implement it? So, thinking about the peanut butter sandwich I want before I make it is foresight?
You seem to be setting the bar for “foresight” quite low. I think even cockroaches could be said to have that kind of foresight.

And, for the record, DDT was as bad as they say it was. And, I mentioned the nuclear bomb because the full array of side effects from the bombs was not known before the bombs were released, not because it killed lots of people.

-----

traderdrew writes:

How do you falsify the statement, "All things were made by natural processes."?

By finding one thing that wasn’t.

It’s actually easy to falsify a claim that begins with the word “all.”

-----

traderdrew writes:

Science hasn't convinced me natural processes can produce a living replicating cell.

It hasn’t convinced me, either. However, it has convinced me that God didn’t create humans specially a few thousand years ago: there is biological evidence against that version of intelligent design.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 7:02 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 11:37 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 4170 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 205 of 264 (546323)
02-09-2010 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Blue Jay
02-09-2010 11:01 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
By finding one thing that wasn’t.

It’s actually easy to falsify a claim that begins with the word “all.”

Yes you are correct and I was way to vague. I should have stated something such as "How do you falsify the claim natural processes created the first living cell on earth?" How about this one, how do you falsify the claim that an unintelligent process evolved the flagellum? You have to run through an infinite amount of possible unintelligent senarios could have produced either life on earth or the flagellum.

To falsify intelligent design, you have to find an unambiguous example of natural causes that would show how life or the flagellum was generated. The ID senarios are theoretically easier to falsify.

I'm not going to respond to any further posts for now. If you have any unanswered comments on gene regulatory networks or if you produce a natural explanation for the flagellum other than the HGT or the silly pilus model then fill us in.

However, it has convinced me that God didn’t create humans specially a few thousand years ago: there is biological evidence against that version of intelligent design.

I'm not there either.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 11:01 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2010 9:58 AM traderdrew has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20323
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 206 of 264 (546336)
02-10-2010 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by traderdrew
02-09-2010 10:03 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
traderdrew writes:

When there is more than one cause or factor for something such as the evolution of biological forms, it is much more difficult to narrow down the causes of the results. So when the past is reconstructed, science infers the best explanation. This explanation isn't always the same thing as the truth.

In other words, you think abandoning methodological naturalism and inferring non-natural and unevidenced causes would have a better chance of leading you to the truth. What kind of truth are you talking about? Scientific truth? I don't think so. I think you're seeking answers that confirm your religious beliefs.

But for the sake of argument let's say that you're scientifically motivated. Do you have a single example of including the possibility of non-natural and unevidenced causes yielding scientifically valid answers?

The entire history of science is one of studying phenomena of unknown origin or mechanism and figuring them out. Can you name any phenomena which ever resolved to non-natural causes?

Technology developed under naturalistic assumptions surrounds you. Look around you. See anything developed under non-naturalistic assumptions?

But just for a moment let's say the abandonment of methodological naturalism would yield better scientific answers. In that case let IDists go ahead and abandon it and show the world the better scientific answers they come up with. The next generation of scientists will beat a path to their door, because after all who doesn't want to win a Nobel.

Of course, this experiment was already performed in the pre-Renaissance. It was called the Dark Ages.

ID is merely an effort to protect the religious sensibilities of Christian evangelicals. Those of them who are scientifically savvy enough to know that the world couldn't possibly be only 10,000 years old become IDists. And those who haven't a clue about science claim to be IDists because its the new thing that appears to be their only chance of displacing evolution from the classroom.

The only way we can discuss valid scientific biological evidence against ID is if ID is scientific. If ID isn't scientific then it isn't possible to even have this discussion. And if ID rejects methodological naturalism then it isn't scientific.

I believe the scientific explanation for the flagellum involves horizontal gene transfer. It apparently serves as a work around for a "flagellum first - ID position" saying both the TTSS and the flagellum evolved independently. Scientific explanations sometimes have hidden problems their proponents or participants on the evcforum do not wish to see. The models may appease their emotions but what good does it do if they don't wish to see things another way.

You're as confused as a mad hatter. If there's valid evidence for horizontal gene transfer in the evolutionary history of the bacterial flagellum, why on earth would science have any objection to it? So, is there valid evidence of this? Or, in the grand tradition of ID, are you proposing solutions for which there is no evidence?

The reality is that you're proposing solutions for which you have no idea whether there is any evidence or not. As it happens, horizontal gene transfer in the evolutionary history of the bacterial flagellum is already the topic of scientific study, e.g., this research paper published a few years ago in the journal BMC Evolutionary Biology: Phylogenomics of the archaeal flagellum: rare horizontal gene transfer in a unique motility structure

Gee, how about that, you're wrong again!

Water boils at 100 celcius is one of those explanations where one cause is responsible. The Big Bang is one of those theories, although not perfect, is the best explanation for the origin of the universe and if you wish to ask, my ID side is satisified with it because whatever comes into existence must have a cause.

Not content with the number of unevidenced solutions you've already proposed, you just had to propose one more. The best evidence against ID is that you can only seem to propose answers for which you have no evidence and which are based solely upon your intuitive and probably religiously based beliefs.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 10:03 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by traderdrew, posted 02-10-2010 1:54 PM Percy has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 207 of 264 (546341)
02-10-2010 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by traderdrew
02-09-2010 11:37 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Hi, Traderdrew.

traderdrew writes:

To falsify intelligent design, you have to find an unambiguous example of natural causes that would show how life or the flagellum was generated.

This would not falsify intelligent design. Remember, most IDists allow for some things to have happened naturally, so proving that some certain thing happened naturally does not technically falsify the concept.

It might falsify intelligent design of the first life form or of the bacterial flagellum, but there are still hundreds of millions of other things for which intelligent design could technically be regarded as still a viable explanation.

And, we have all seen that the ID movement is willing to continually increase the amount of natural causation that their model can permit, and thereby allow the movement to pretend it is still vibrant and thriving while it recedes into ever smaller and weaker versions of its former glory.

It's unfalsifiable, because you can revive the idea by simply adjusting its parameters every time it is beaten down. You can change your perspective on what mechanisms are used to design, the purpose or reason for designing certain things, the timeframe of the design process, even the ability of the process to mimic natural processes... AND, history shows that this is exactly how the creation/ID movement has operated since its fall from the scientific mainstream.

It's the poster child for unfalsifiability.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 11:37 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by traderdrew, posted 02-10-2010 2:04 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 208 of 264 (546347)
02-10-2010 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by traderdrew
02-09-2010 10:03 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
When you have one cause for a known phenomenon or an object, it is easy to infer it as an explanation. Such an example would be an equisitely designed arrowhead.

The difference here is that we can infer HOW the arrowhead was made by observing the design. We can infer the method of knapping that was used and the quarry where the flint or obsidian was harvested from. We can even find areas where poorly designed arrowheads have been discarded along with the bits of flint and obsidian that were flaked off during the manufacture of the arrowheads.

So HOW was the flagellum made? What in the design of the flagellum tells us the steps in the design process?

I believe the scientific explanation for the flagellum involves horizontal gene transfer. It apparently serves as a work around for a "flagellum first - ID position" saying both the TTSS and the flagellum evolved independently. Scientific explanations sometimes have hidden problems their proponents or participants on the evcforum do not wish to see. The models may appease their emotions but what good does it do if they don't wish to see things another way.

Every single scientific model has problems. That's why scientists do this thing called "research". The one thing that scientists love above all else is problems. They want to look at something and wonder "How did that happen?".

This is the opposite of ID. In intelligent design the answer is "The Designer did it and we can't know how it happened". All research stops there. It is a dead end. If you don't believe me, please cite research being done by scientists using ID. I know of none. The Discovery Institute has millions of dollars that could be used for research, but none is being done. Instead, they spend that money on propoganda.

Ultimately, the goal of the ID movement is to stop research into origins. This is why they overtly call for the end of methodological naturalism. They want to stop scientific research and replace it with religious beliefs that are safe from challenges.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 10:03 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 4170 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 209 of 264 (546382)
02-10-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
02-10-2010 7:05 AM


Re: Poor Philosophy
In other words, you think abandoning methodological naturalism and inferring non-natural and unevidenced causes would have a better chance of leading you to the truth. What kind of truth are you talking about? Scientific truth? I don't think so. I think you're seeking answers that confirm your religious beliefs.

Yes, you are correct but you could have known that from a previous post of mine. And adding to a previous comment, I am the type of person who has to know the realities of life and why we are here. It is an interesting topic. It seems to me people try to evade the truth painting the picture of reality they wish to see. I don't think reality works like that and in my opinion, it severely foolish and unwise to do want things a certain way.

Can you name any phenomena which ever resolved to non-natural causes?

It really depends on points of view or what you wish to believe. I thought I gave you some the flagellum, the cilium, the fine-tuning of the terrestrial environment, ususual patterns in the fossil record. I have already pointed out that chaos tends to blurr the ability to reconstruct the past. So why do I continue to debate this stuff when you don't even wish to consider it as a possibility?

Here is another thing I have been thinking about. Maybe a new thread? I am wondering a little bit about the "Electric Universe" theory as opposed to the Big Bang theory. Which theory is right?

And if ID rejects methodological naturalism then it isn't scientific.

I don't think ID is truely scientific. It is empirically based and it has scientific roots. It seems to be each branch of science to metascience to metaphysics has tentacles and ties with each or other branches. Could they all be connected?

If there's valid evidence for horizontal gene transfer in the evolutionary history of the bacterial flagellum, why on earth would science have any objection to it?

Gee, how about that, you're wrong again!

It is not that they have an objection to it. It is that some people don't necessarily wish to see the flaws in it. I believe HGT is very possible and probable. To be fair I don't know enough about it to criticize it. I will tell you one thing, it is becoming abundantly clear to me HGT has more potential than a neo-Darwinian explanation for the flagellum. However, I still I remain unconvinced for some of the following reasons:

I read the link you provided. I see the have the archaeal flagellum and the bacterial flagellum but, where is the process described under HGT to put together both humpty dumptys together in the first place???

This quote from the article was wrong.

The bacterial flagellum is a complex rotary structure made up of as much as 20 proteins and composed of three major parts -the basal body, the hook, and the filament.

The bacterial flagellum has 42 proteins.

The link belows documents failures in attempt to transfer a large amount of genes into E. coli.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1147112v1

If this is the case then why would I expect a bunch of genes from different biological sources to suddenly and randomly come together in a coherent and perhaps integrated way to miraculously create a flagellum?

The other paper (not linked) expects the flagellum and the TTSS evolved independently and refutes the TTSS evolved with loss of function or maybe devolved from the flagellum. You still have to believe both were able to somehow evolve independently.

If they both evolved independently, what were the precursors to both the TTSS and the flagellum(s)??? HGT works with what already exists right?

Maybe it is not clear where my position is but once again, I do have respect for science and maybe science has the answer for a natural explanation for the flagellum. I will go half way because of my own ignorance on the subject but I think I have given some strong support for my ID - flagellum position here.

Where am I wrong?

Technology developed under naturalistic assumptions surrounds you. Look around you. See anything developed under non-naturalistic assumptions?

Let me ask you this... Are there any technological inventions around me that have been developed without or outside of a design paradigm???

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 7:05 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 2:42 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 2:45 PM traderdrew has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 4170 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 210 of 264 (546387)
02-10-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Blue Jay
02-10-2010 9:58 AM


Re: Poor Philosophy
And, we have all seen that the ID movement is willing to continually increase the amount of natural causation that their model can permit, and thereby allow the movement to pretend it is still vibrant and thriving while it recedes into ever smaller and weaker versions of its former glory.

I would assume you are referring to Creationism? There are plenty of those who insist ID = Creationism and I have successfully debated Dr. Adequate on it but many of you still shut your eyes to it. It is another example of painting a view of ID proponents the way some of you wish to see it.

Creationism just don't hold up. When science goes against Creationism, science will win in every or almost every debate every time or almost every time. Creationism doesn't have much flexiblity because it is a materialistic based explanation of the book of Genesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2010 9:58 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2010 12:30 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021