(2018-01-19, 11:50 PM)darkcheese Wrote: [ -> ]As far as alternative fruitful theories go, yeah, the ID community probably doesn't have a bulletproof logic, otherwise, we could all follow a flowchart to the 'better' belief. (or whatever the most popular belief is). Certainly, the mainstream process of evolution is 'good enough', in that it has a decent amount of evidence for certain components. Thus, filling in the other gaps with conventional wisdom works-ish. But the amount of brainpower, funding, dedicated to a materialistic bent, vs any others is lopsided, to say the least. Probably better than some scenarios, worse than others. Not sure how I'd practically change it.
I'm not sure how to change it, either. If not many people are interested in a supposedly fruitful new theory, then it's tough to get funding. The problem with ID is that it's purely based on probability ideas that have pretty much been trounced. There is no "intelligent designer" there.
Even its fundamental concepts, such as irreducible complexity and CSI, have been stomped pretty hard. It's tough even to get a consensus on the definition of IC. The CSI people agree that a CSI calculation has to include the calculation of the probability that the mechanism came about by evolution. That calculation is impossible to make.
What's funny is that the various complexifications and additions to "Neo-Darwinism" are used as examples of why the theory is broken, rather than being applauded as examples of the flexibility of science. "You're just patching a broken theory. If only you would include a designer, then poof! all the problems would disappear."
~~ Paul
Quote:Testing theories is one of the things science does.
Quote:I agree completely in principle, semi-agree in practice (science doesn't do anything by itself, people adhere to the scientific method to investigate phenomena/processes. But since people are involved, that brings in other factors (funding, becoming a pariah, etc.). )
However, what Karmarling, nbtruthman, and David want to do is undermine completely this theory and replace it with something
What specific theory are they undermining? And what do they want to replace it with? It seems the conversation is a little more granular, but perhaps I am trying to mine too much meaning from the thread?
P.S. Darkcheese, one of my favorite cheeses is Unikasse (sp?). It's a cheddar with salt bits in it from the fermentation process.
Will have to look that up.
Keep this in mind
Wherever scientists look in their experimentations even when something happens absolutely not predicted by theory things ultimately resolve to natural explanations.
Undermining TOE of course. Take a look at this Skeptiko thread to see where David's and nbtruthman's go regarding TOE.
David:
The more I think about it, the evolution by natural selection theory became invalid as soon as the DNA code was discovered.
Here's the link.
http:// http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/th...logy.4020/
Hi darkcheese - Welcome to the forum.
Just a point of procedure regarding quoting and replies. I think it is easier for the reader to determine which are the quotes and which are the responses if the quotes are self-contained and the responses are outside the "quote box".
You can use the tags to begin and end a quoted passage. These are typed thus when entering text:
Code:
[quote] ... some text ... [/quote]
I'm enjoying your posts so far and hope you continue to contribute.
(2018-01-20, 04:23 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Hi darkcheese - Welcome to the forum.
Just a point of procedure regarding quoting and replies. I think it is easier for the reader to determine which are the quotes and which are the responses if the quotes are self-contained and the responses are outside the "quote box".
You can use the tags to begin and end a quoted passage. These are typed thus when entering text:
I'm enjoying your posts so far and hope you continue to contribute.
Gotcha, but the tags don't appear when I hit reply to someone's post. I can do the tags manually though, as now edited. Thanks for the tip, and glad to contribute.
Thought of another piece evidence of evolution by neodarwinism, as opposed to a form of ID, the example of the nerves in a giraffes neck (as presented by this site's favorite person, Richard Dawkins)
(2018-01-20, 04:35 AM)darkcheese Wrote: [ -> ]Gotcha, but the tags don't appear when I hit reply to someone's post. I can do the tags manually though, as now edited. Thanks for the tip, and glad to contribute.
No - the tags don't appear automatically. If you want to see them, use the "View Source" button at the end of the toolbar.
Another tip, if you want to be more specific with your quotes: you can add the name of who you are quoting like so:
Code:
[quote="ThatGuy"] Some Text [/quote]
Which will look like:
ThatGuy Wrote:Some Text
(2018-01-20, 04:58 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]No - the tags don't appear automatically. If you want to see them, use the "View Source" button at the end of the toolbar.
Another tip, if you want to be more specific with your quotes: you can add the name of who you are quoting like so:
Which will look like:
Will get there eventually!
Quote:A couple of things in response
1) It should not be a surprise that materialist methods yield materialist results, especially when performed under the direction of materialist researchers.
2) We may agree that most things resolve to natural explanations. But we may differ on the definition of what is natural. Say, perhaps there are better alternatives than the story told by the current neo-darwinian theory with regards to instinct, or the evolution of odd life cycle things, like a liver fluke, or the other examples in the link of OP. Doesn't paint a pretty version of 'intelligence' from a human perspective certainly! But distatefulness doesnt make the idea any less likely.
What exactly is natural? Can ghosts be natural? Why or why not?
Quote:The thing with a term like Theory of Evolution is that it is a rats nest of smaller components. It seems they like the irreducible complexity idea. I havent looked into that in years to make an informed opinion.
How about this, what do you think the strongest evidences for Darwinian selection / natural selection are.
I find that most micro-> macro evolutionary explanations leave me wanting, as they have to my knowledge been demonstrated as reversible (say galapagos finches, color of birds during the coal era of industry).
Stronger evidences involve human chromosome 2 looking like fused ape chromosomes, or enzymes conserving amino acids at catalytic sites, while the genes that code for non-evolutionarily selected parts often have variants that (I have heard) appear at close to the basal mutation rate.
But what would you say is your ace in the hole?
Biology is not a science I find all that interesting so I can't rattle off an answer. But I can provide links.
However, I will state that for a 150 years no non natural means of species evolution has ever been shown.
Three sources for why TOE is a viable unimpeachable explanation. I think the first link is most interesting historically.
https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-o...evolution/
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar...e/lines_01
And yet Bem, Radin, Beischel...., all of which have experimented using materialistic scientific methods all claim to find evidence don't they.
Ghosts certainly could be natural as any phenomena currently falling under the category of immaterialism. By natural I mean phenomena amenable to the laws of physics and perhaps laws we've yet to discover.
Steve001 Wrote:Biology is not a science I find all that interesting so I can't rattle off an answer. But I can provide links.
However, I will state that for a 150 years no non natural means of species evolution has ever been shown.
Three sources for why TOE is a viable unimpeachable explanation. I think the first link is most interesting historically.
https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-o...evolution/
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar...e/lines_01
And yet Bem, Radin, Beischel...., all of which have experimented using materialistic scientific methods all claim to find evidence don't they.
As usual steve, this is a ridiculous thing to say on multiple levels. They're not looking for an "non-natural" (totally loaded term, as has been said to you a million times) means, so how would they have found one? How would they go about looking for it?
Unimpeachable? I mean honestly. That's dogmatic and inaccurate