Psience Quest

Ok. Forget about uneasy bedfellows. Do you see the difference between the third way approach and that of the DI?

(2017-11-19, 06:51 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. Forget about uneasy bedfellows. Do you see the difference between the third way approach and that of the DI?

Do you mean the DI or do you mean the individuals who do the work? I see politics behind the scenes on all sides but I suspect that those working towards third way alternatives and also some of those working for the DI would rather let their work speak for itself. For example, Denis Noble insists that he is not a supporter of ID yet, it seems, he's done enough to warrant similar attacks from the neo-darwinists.

Jerry Coyne Wrote:Famous physiologist embarrasses himself by claiming that the modern theory of evolution is in tatters

Here we go again: someone arguing that DARWIN WAS RONG  (well, he was, on several issues) and also that DARWIN’S INTELLECTUAL DESCENDANTS ARE RONG TOO. But this time it’s not a creationist but a card-carrying biologist, and a famous one, too.

... etc., etc...

[Noble claims] Scientists have not been able to create new species in the lab or greenhouse, and we haven’t seen speciation occurring in nature.  This is what really burns my onions, because Noble is flat wrong here, and the study of speciation is my specialty. I’m not even sure why Noble makes this argument, which resembles a creationist argument.  We haven’t seen new species arise before our eyes, ergo Jesus!

So clearly the difference you talk about is not great enough for Coyne. 

In Noble's own words:

Denis Noble Wrote:I was one of the few to argue against the reductionist case, and I expected two others to help me. One did, another didn’t, and he came up to me in the coffee break and said, "Denis, I would support you if I didn’t think that that brings God back in."

...

I know the word spirituality produces all kinds of notions of there being strange stuff out here. But you don’t have to suppose that at all. If you are dealing with the relationships and the processes, that’s spiritual only in the sense it’s not material, but that’s what spiritual means. If you go back to it, it comes from spiritus, which is breath and all the rest of it. It’s a natural process.

(2017-11-18, 10:59 PM)Sparky Wrote: [ -> ]Besides that, the doily analogy (not being a native English speaker, had to look up that word) illustrates another flaw in the ID logic.
They assume that the doily is the desired result, while there might be millions of other examples of complex things.
Things that would be equally impressive to have emerged from random interactions.
Meaning that the chance of getting to any one of these millions of complexities, is also millions of times greater than the chance of getting to a specific one.  

To step away from the analogy, cdesign proponentsists always come to these impossibly small numbers, if they make calculations for the chances of a specific organism evolving.
But why should we assume this specific organism has to evolve? That is already assuming teleology.
If, on the other hand, we calculate the possibility for any, non specific, similarly complex, organism to evolve, the numbers suddenly become many orders of magnitude larger.

The possibly self-assembled doily idea has to be one of the most ridiculous responses yet. The real-world probability of any doily at all much less one with a complicated symmetrical pattern appearing spontaneously by sheer chance of the random arrangement of molecules is beyond vanishingly low. And we know that the physical laws governing the component parts of the doily (wool or cotton yarn) do not determine the pattern of the doily. So as a practical matter where does the doily with the snowflake pattern come from? The inescapable inference is design. 

This was meant to be an analogy with the independence of the genetic code and the physics and chemical laws governing its component DNA base pairs. I notice you haven't tried to challenge that. 

What you have conveniently forgotten here is that any living organism at all is immeasurably improbable, compared to the vastly greater total number of possible random combinations and permutations of atoms and molecules. There being millions of kinds of living organisms doesn't put a dent in the improbability. This entire class of possible living forms is miniscule, immensely improbable, in the universe of all possible forms. If you disagree with that, please cite the numerous quasi-living and alternate living forms found in the oceans having been randomly assembled there by sheer chance out of organic molecules.

Darwinians love to point out that in their theory evolution has no goal, no vector - all it means is that some, any, new organism develops . It could have been anything. Sure. However, in most actual evolution it hasn't been just any living organism that arises, it has been one modified and adapted in a particular direction, a particular vector that has already been established by the form.  For instance, the whale series. Once that process began, it wasn't just any new forms that arose, it was ones with major biological engineering changes specifically aimed at greater ability to live in the ocean. And there is convergent evolution, adding another kind of vector. Finally, all of this is characterized by sudden appearances, the most prominent being the Cambrian Explosion, where there weren't even any precursors in the fossil record.

(2017-11-19, 08:01 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Do you mean the DI or do you mean the individuals who do the work? I see politics behind the scenes on all sides but I suspect that those working towards third way alternatives and also some of those working for the DI would rather let their work speak for itself. For example, Denis Noble insists that he is not a supporter of ID yet, it seems, he's done enough to warrant similar attacks from the neo-darwinists.


So clearly the difference you talk about is not great enough for Coyne. 

In Noble's own words:

You’re avoiding the question. We’re talking about an organisation that, before anything else, promotes a solution, ‘Intelligent Design’. That is it’s starting position and is not conducive to open and honest enquiry.

The Third Way may find evidence of ‘intelligence’ (whatever that means) but, from what I can see, they are starting from a more open minded position. They are not starting with a solution.

Do you see the difference?

(2017-11-19, 07:02 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]You’re avoiding the question. We’re talking about an organisation that, before anything else, promotes a solution, ‘Intelligent Design’. That is it’s starting position and is not conducive to open and honest enquiry.

The Third Way may find evidence of ‘intelligence’ (whatever that means) but, from what I can see, they are starting from a more open minded position. They are not starting with a solution.

Do you see the difference?

Yes of course. I've already said so. The DI as an organisation has an objective. A religious one. I don't deny that nor do I feel comfortable with it.  But you still have to confront what their scientists contend. If you don't your argument is still ad hominem. The equivalent would be to dismiss Dawkins because he is an aggressive atheist. I don't feel comfortable with that either but the only thing I, as a layman, can do is hear what each has to say and decide what to take away. Not dismiss either because I don't like their beliefs.

(2017-11-19, 07:32 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Yes of course. I've already said so. The DI as an organisation has an objective. A religious one. I don't deny that nor do I feel comfortable with it.  But you still have to confront what their scientists contend. If you don't your argument is still ad hominem. The equivalent would be to dismiss Dawkins because he is an aggressive atheist. I don't feel comfortable with that either but the only thing I, as a layman, can do is hear what each has to say and decide what to take away. Not dismiss either because I don't like their beliefs.

They are dismissable for the precise reason that their solution is God did it. They aren't nterested at all in finding out how TOE works. They are interested in getting rid of TOE.

(2017-11-19, 07:42 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]They are dismissable for the precise reason that their solution is God did it. They aren't nterested at all in finding out how TOE works. They are interested in getting rid of TOE.

It has been stated many times by DI and other Darwinism-doubting scientists that ID does not try to specify the designer. But of course you know this and you know that you are erecting another straw man. 

From an article in Evolution News, which is associated with DI (https://evolutionnews.org/2015/06/why_doesnt_inte/):

"There is no “Made by Yahweh” engraved on the side of the bacterial rotary motor — the flagellum. In order to find out what or who its designer is, one must go outside the narrow discipline of biology. Cross-disciplinary dialogue must begin with the fields of philosophy, sociology, history, anthropology, and theology. Design itself, however, is a direct scientific inference; it does not depend on a single religious premise for its conclusions.
(Thomas Woodward, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design, p. 15 (Baker Books, 2006).)
In other words, the empirical data — such as the information-rich, integrated complexity of the flagellar machine — may indicate that the flagellum arose by intelligent design. But that same empirical data does not inform us whether the intelligence that designed the flagellum was Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Yoda, or some other source of intelligent agency. There is no known way to use such empirical data to determine the nature or identity of the designer, and since ID is based solely upon empirical data, the scientific theory of ID must remain silent on such questions."

As to DI wanting to eliminate any TOE, that is ridiculous. As has been stated numerous times by numerous DI and other scientists, ID accepts that evolution in deep time has happened. They just have found overwhelming evidence that intelligent or teleological causes must be involved - the current Modern Synthesis neo-Darwinist evolution theory is incapable of explaining the most important characteristics of living organisms, and evolution as observed in the fossil record. They accept that the current TOE has a good model of microevolution, but not of macroevolution. 

This acceptance is expressed in another article in Evolution News (https://evolutionnews.org/2015/07/microevolution/):

"Microevolution (variation) takes place through genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, insertions/deletions, gene transfer, and chromosomal crossover, all of which produce countless observed variations in plant and animal populations throughout history. Examples include variations of the peppered moth, Galapagos finch beaks, new strains of flu viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and variations in stickleback armour. Each year, thousands of papers are published dealing with examples of microevolution/variation."

But of course, in this case also, you probably already know that - you just want to erect another straw man.

Speaking of Dawkins, I remember reading one of his books in the early days when I thought of Darwin in the same way that I thought of Einstein - one of my science heroes. I still have no problem with Darwin (apart from the fact that Wallace got sidelined and almost forgotten). At the time I read the book I was not aware that anyone - apart from Bible bashers - challenged Darwinism. Living in the UK, we were not exposed to much religious fundamentalism, especially in the circles in which I moved. 

It wasn't until fairly recent years that I gave much thought to Darwinism or ID or any other opposing theories. That interest was kick-started by the long running discussion on the Skeptiko forum with Paul and Lone Shaman, Michael, David B and a few others debating both sides. I learned a lot from that exchange. My mind was particularly blown by the videos of the intricate complexity of the DNA replication factory in the cell. Absolutely amazing - I challenge anyone to claim otherwise. Also the code in DNA had some remarkable similarities to the codes I was used to working with in my job in computers. Even down to what is called "stop bits" and (maybe) error correction*.

Considering that DNA is essential for any organic life (even a single cell life form) and must be present before natural selection kicks in, I found the arguments for random chance bringing forth DNA to be verging on the desperate. That was NOT a conclusion I reached because of a commitment to any religious dogma but it just seemed common sense to see that the whole thing could not have been random. As I said earlier, the fact that my mind is open to a reality which allows for mind to be omnipresent and fundamental, then the conclusion I came to seemed the most parsimonious.

* http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0036644

Quote:In a recent work, we showed that DNA sequences can be identified as codewords in a class of cyclic error-correcting codes known as Hamming codes. In this paper, we show that a complete intron-exon gene, and even a plasmid genome, can be identified as a Hamming code codeword as well. Although this does not constitute a definitive proof that there is an error-correcting code underlying DNA sequences, it is the first evidence in this direction.

(2017-11-19, 09:43 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]It has been stated many times by DI and other Darwinism-doubting scientists that ID does not try to specify the designer. But of course you know this and you know that you are erecting another straw man. 

From an article in Evolution News, which is associated with DI (https://evolutionnews.org/2015/06/why_doesnt_inte/):

"There is no “Made by Yahweh” engraved on the side of the bacterial rotary motor — the flagellum. In order to find out what or who its designer is, one must go outside the narrow discipline of biology. Cross-disciplinary dialogue must begin with the fields of philosophy, sociology, history, anthropology, and theology. Design itself, however, is a direct scientific inference; it does not depend on a single religious premise for its conclusions.
(Thomas Woodward, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design, p. 15 (Baker Books, 2006).)
In other words, the empirical data — such as the information-rich, integrated complexity of the flagellar machine — may indicate that the flagellum arose by intelligent design. But that same empirical data does not inform us whether the intelligence that designed the flagellum was Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Yoda, or some other source of intelligent agency. There is no known way to use such empirical data to determine the nature or identity of the designer, and since ID is based solely upon empirical data, the scientific theory of ID must remain silent on such questions."

As to DI wanting to eliminate any TOE, that is ridiculous. As has been stated numerous times by numerous DI and other scientists, ID accepts that evolution in deep time has happened. They just have found overwhelming evidence that intelligent or teleological causes must be involved - the current Modern Synthesis neo-Darwinist evolution theory is incapable of explaining the most important characteristics of living organisms, and evolution as observed in the fossil record. They accept that the current TOE has a good model of microevolution, but not of macroevolution. 

This acceptance is expressed in another article in Evolution News (https://evolutionnews.org/2015/07/microevolution/):

"Microevolution (variation) takes place through genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, insertions/deletions, gene transfer, and chromosomal crossover, all of which produce countless observed variations in plant and animal populations throughout history. Examples include variations of the peppered moth, Galapagos finch beaks, new strains of flu viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and variations in stickleback armour. Each year, thousands of papers are published dealing with examples of microevolution/variation."

But of course, in this case also, you probably already know that - you just want to erect another straw man.

I strongly encourage you to brush-up on the history and the religious political agenda of the Discovery Institute. While you're brushing-up, brush-up on what commonalities microevolution and microevolution have.

(2017-11-20, 12:44 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I strongly encourage you to brush-up on the history and the religious political agenda of the Discovery Institute.

I strongly suggest and encourage you to attempt to actually make a legitimate, scientific argument that addresses an actually contended issue with blind, random evolution rather than nonstop bashing the DI as if it is the only source of disagreement with your "TOE" or as if any of their individual or associated scientists have produced no legitimate or data based research at all. You've asserted next to nothing relating to actual arguments presented by other posters here having to actually do with the research behind evolution.

Over and over again it's the same exact thing. The DI this, the DI that. Your statements have so little substance. You are so utterly biased and convinced of your worldview and are so completely not open minded as to anything other than that worldview, it's astonishing that you toil along on a forum like this still.