(2018-12-25, 09:59 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Is that the best you can do? ...
To claim that ID is an appeal to "God Did It" thinking is deliberately misguided.
Anyone who took the trouble to look through this thread would know that nobody here is pushing the biblical view. It is the old tactic of lumping together ID and Biblical Creationism to make an easier target and a quick dismissal. Even a quick scan of the article in the very first post should make that clear. Here's a quote from that article (such a pity this needs repeating over and over)...
Quote:Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to Creationist ideas. Nobody does—except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions—overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism.
(2018-12-25, 09:59 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Is that the best you can do? Instead of addressing the research news item you bring up the old "God Did It" myth about ID. Instead of addressing the evidence that Darwinian evolution is incapable of explaining the Cambrian event, how all the new genetic information came about that was required for the almost 20 new body plans that appeared suddenly in Cambrian layers, you bring out the old "God Did It" canard.
To claim that ID is an appeal to "God Did It" thinking is deliberately misguided. For most ID advocates, God has little to do with the field of Intelligent Design. ID merely observes that mindless, materialistic processes simply fail to explain or adequately describe many aspects of living things, in particular their origin. It is recognizing the clear design inference based on the data. Meyer describes the foundation of ID quite clearly, “the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause — that is, by the conscious choice of a rational agent — rather than by an undirected process”.
This is merely an attempt to distract from the scientific debate that the Darwinists can't win on the merits.
I’m not sure what you think there is to address in the news article. There is substantial ongoing research in the field of evolution, and so new and sometimes surprising discoveries are to be expected. I’m also not sure why you concluded that Evolution is incapable of explaining the Cambrian event. Those people with knowledge and experience in the field don’t seem to have drawn that conclusion. The authors suggested some possibilities to explore:
“
The extremely short duration of the faunal transition from Ediacaran to Cambrian biota within less than 410 ka supports models of ecological cascades that followed the evolutionary breakthrough of increased mobility at the beginning of the Phanerozoic.”
It matters not whether the rational agent with the ability to create/direct life is named God or Harvey.
Linda
(2018-12-26, 03:40 AM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not sure what you think there is to address in the news article. There is substantial ongoing research in the field of evolution, and so new and sometimes surprising discoveries are to be expected. I’m also not sure why you concluded that Evolution is incapable of explaining the Cambrian event. Those people with knowledge and experience in the field don’t seem to have drawn that conclusion. The authors suggested some possibilities to explore:
“The extremely short duration of the faunal transition from Ediacaran to Cambrian biota within less than 410 ka supports models of ecological cascades that followed the evolutionary breakthrough of increased mobility at the beginning of the Phanerozoic.”
It matters not whether the rational agent with the ability to create/direct life is named God or Harvey.
Linda
This reveals a total unwillingness to rationally consider what these research results really mean - a blind RM + NS mechanism coming up with the massive amount of coherent genetic information corresponding to 20 new animal body plans including all the complex organ systems required and also the developmental programs, in 410,000 years (an eyeblink in the evolutionary time scale). I suspect that the magnitude of such a miracle of unlikelihood doesn't matter - you would still suspend your incredulity at the creation of these multiple complex machines from random events plus selection even if the time period the uranium dating researchers came up with was 40,000 years or even 4,000. Evidently ideology (or perhaps it should truly be called scientistic materialist religion) comes first ahead of any rational discussion.
(2018-12-26, 07:18 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]This reveals a total unwillingness to rationally consider what these research results really mean - a blind RM + NS mechanism coming up with the massive amount of coherent genetic information corresponding to 20 new animal body plans including all the complex organ systems required and also the developmental programs, in 410,000 years (an eyeblink in the evolutionary time scale). I suspect that the magnitude of such a miracle of unlikelihood doesn't matter - you would still suspend your incredulity at the creation of these multiple complex machines from random events plus selection even if the time period the uranium dating researchers came up with was 40,000 years or even 4,000. Evidently ideology (or perhaps it should truly be called scientistic materialist religion) comes first ahead of any rational discussion.
Huh? I don’t know if the research results mean any of that. I’m not an evolutionary biologist and neither are you. Those people with knowledge and experience in the field don’t seem to have come to those conclusions, even though it would be big news if that’s what these results necessitated.
I do know, as has already come up in this thread, that evolutionary biologists don’t think that RM+NS are the only mechanisms at play, so to continually refer to RM+NS, as though this is the only possible mechanism under consideration, is a straw man.
I’m also not a materialist, so railing against that particular ideology is irrelevant. I haven’t followed you down the path because there’s no reason to think that your perspective is valid, not because I have some sort of loyalty to a particular ideology (unless an interest in validity is an ideology).
Linda
(2018-12-26, 12:25 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Huh? I don’t know if the research results mean any of that. I’m not an evolutionary biologist and neither are you. Those people with knowledge and experience in the field don’t seem to have come to those conclusions, even though it would be big news if that’s what these results necessitated.
Surely if you apply that criterion, you could close down just about all discussions and leave them to the experts, who may have lots of pressures on them not to reveal the unvarnished truth.
We can all think, and it seems to me that most evolutionary steps cannot be driven by natural selection. In terms of the paper you quoted, there simply aren't any peaks (or troughs) on the fitness surface until you get close to something useful.
If you are considering making 50 changes (say) to an existing gene to make a new one with a new function, then there are approx 4^50 ways that can fail. Natural selection (NS) can't possibly 'help' to keep that process on track, because until you get very close to a useful end product, the intermediate changes don't leave a functional gene.
Even if you postulate intermediates that are somehow useful (I guess that is what your linked paper does), unless they are useful in the same way as the end product, I can't see what that buys you. If you tried to evolve a car using 'usefulness' as your fitness criterion, and on the way you got something like a smoothing iron - how would that help you to end up with an evolved car.
The more I think bout it, the mechanism for evolution of life on earth is an unsolved problem. Maybe Darwin could think of traits and genes as fairly simple things, but now we know they require strings of hundreds of bases to define them, how the hell does it happen?
(2018-12-26, 01:37 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Surely if you apply that criterion, you could close down just about all discussions and leave them to the experts, who may have lots of pressures on them not to reveal the unvarnished truth.
1. I’m not sure where you see value in discussions among people who don’t know what they’re talking about. There are plenty of interesting discussions to be had by referring to useful/valid information.
2. The idea that scientists are under pressure not to reveal the unvarnished truth is incorrect. Whether or not “experts” are, speaks strongly as to whether or not someone can be regarded as an expert.
Quote:We can all think, and it seems to me that most evolutionary steps cannot be driven by evolutionary change. In terms of the paper you quoted, there simply aren't any peaks (or troughs) on the fitness surface until you get close to something useful.
If you are considering making 50 changes (say) to an existing gene to make a new one with a new function, then there are approx 4^50 ways that can fail. Natural selection (NS) can't possibly 'help' to keep that process on track, because until you get very close to a useful end product, the intermediate changes don't leave a functional gene.
Even if you postulate intermediates that are somehow useful (I guess that is what your linked paper does), unless they are useful in the same way as the end product, I can't see what that buys you. If you tried to evolve a car using 'usefulness' as your fitness criterion, and on the way you got something like a smoothing iron - how would that help you to end up with an evolved car.
The more I think bout it, the mechanism for evolution of life on earth is an unsolved problem. Maybe Darwin could think of traits and genes as fairly simple things, but now we know they require strings of hundreds of bases to define them, how the hell does it happen?
It is highly unlikely that someone with knowledge and experience would agree with your characterization of evolution. So where’s the value in discussing what would be considered a caricature of evolution?
Linda
(2018-12-26, 07:18 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]This reveals a total unwillingness to rationally consider what these research results really mean - a blind RM + NS mechanism coming up with the massive amount of coherent genetic information corresponding to 20 new animal body plans including all the complex organ systems required and also the developmental programs, in 410,000 years (an eyeblink in the evolutionary time scale). I suspect that the magnitude of such a miracle of unlikelihood doesn't matter - you would still suspend your incredulity at the creation of these multiple complex machines from random events plus selection even if the time period the uranium dating researchers came up with was 40,000 years or even 4,000. Evidently ideology (or perhaps it should truly be called scientistic materialist religion) comes first ahead of any rational discussion.
Remember this. This universal force you presume created a universe in an instant. Why did it take 410000 years? Why not 3000 or 500 years or in an instant of time? The "Cambrian Explosion" occured over several millions of years not 410000 years. About 37,000,000 million years to be rather precise. You may want to check non Christian based sites for accurate information.
(2018-12-26, 01:37 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Surely if you apply that criterion, you could close down just about all discussions and leave them to the experts, who may have lots of pressures on them not to reveal the unvarnished truth.
We can all think, and it seems to me that most evolutionary steps cannot be driven by evolutionary change. In terms of the paper you quoted, there simply aren't any peaks (or troughs) on the fitness surface until you get close to something useful.
If you are considering making 50 changes (say) to an existing gene to make a new one with a new function, then there are approx 4^50 ways that can fail. Natural selection (NS) can't possibly 'help' to keep that process on track, because until you get very close to a useful end product, the intermediate changes don't leave a functional gene.
Even if you postulate intermediates that are somehow useful (I guess that is what your linked paper does), unless they are useful in the same way as the end product, I can't see what that buys you. If you tried to evolve a car using 'usefulness' as your fitness criterion, and on the way you got something like a smoothing iron - how would that help you to end up with an evolved car.
The more I think bout it, the mechanism for evolution of life on earth is an unsolved problem. Maybe Darwin could think of traits and genes as fairly simple things, but now we know they require strings of hundreds of bases to define them, how the hell does it happen?
Lots of wiggle room to believe whatever suits ones fancy is what happens when not experts opine, such as yourself.
(2018-12-26, 01:37 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Surely if you apply that criterion, you could close down just about all discussions and leave them to the experts, who may have lots of pressures on them not to reveal the unvarnished truth.
Radin has mentioned this, that scientists will send him information about potential Psi effects in results they fear to mention for the sake of their careers. I can't help but look askance at such persons, given the stakes, but then how many have the courage of a Sheldrake to turn from the kind of lucrative consulting career a Cambridge/Harvard trained scientist might enjoy for the sake of Truth?
The pressures may simply be internal as well:
Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?
When a star scientist dies, outsiders often tackle mainstream questions in the field by leveraging new ideas that arise in other domains.
(2018-12-25, 11:45 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone who took the trouble to look through this thread would know that nobody here is pushing the biblical view. It is the old tactic of lumping together ID and Biblical Creationism to make an easier target and a quick dismissal. Even a quick scan of the article in the very first post should make that clear. Here's a quote from that article (such a pity this needs repeating over and over)...
I do think, in fairness, there is a strong motivation among some ID advocates to preserve a place for God.
However this to me seems like a great error, as elucidated by [Catholic theologian] Feser there is nothing [definitively] of God to be found in ID:
Signature in the cell?
Quote:Now, it doesn’t take much thought to see that we’d think the same thing about finding “Made by Quetzalcoatl” imprinted in every cell. I doubt that any Christian ID theorist would propose that “there is only one thing we could reasonably conclude” from this, viz. that we should renounce Christianity and take up Aztec religion. More likely such an ID theorist would conclude that someone, somehow -- a New Atheist biotech cabal, maybe, or the devil -- was trying to shake everyone’s faith in Christianity. Or he might just conclude that no intelligence at all was responsible for it, and that his cognitive faculties were massively malfunctioning. Whatever he would conclude, though, the occurrence in human cells of the phrase “Made by Quetzalcoatl” would not by itself be doing the main work.
But the same thing is true in the “Made by Yahweh” scenario. The reason the reader I was quoting thinks (like many other people no doubt think) that the “one thing we can reasonably conclude” in such a case is that Yahweh put the message there, is that he already believes on independent grounds that God exists, that he is the cause of living things, that he revealed himself to the ancient Israelites as Yahweh, etc. And those independent reasons are what's really doing the heavy lifting in the thought experiment, not the “Made by Yahweh” stuff. Some secularist who thought he had good independent reasons to think that Yahweh does not exist might conclude instead that the whole thing was a gag foisted upon us by Erich von Däniken’s extraterrestrials, or by a cabal of Christian biotech whizzes -- or maybe that it is just a massive cognitive malfunction on his part, caused by his excessive fear of the Religious Right.
“But those wouldn’t be reasonable interpretations of such an event!” you say. Well, maybe, and maybe not. The point, though, is that you’re not going to know from the event itself, considered in isolation. If we’re to judge that Yahweh, rather than extraterrestrial pranksters, hallucination, or some other cause, was behind such an event, it is considerations other than the event itself that will justify us in doing so. In short, we could take “Made by Yahweh” to be a sign from Yahweh only if we already have, on other grounds, good reason to think Yahweh exists and is likely to send us messages by leaving them in cells. And in that case the occurrence of the phrase in the cell would not be giving us independent reason to think Yahweh exists.
(See also
Where's God?)
OTOH, the nobel physicist Josephson did suggest we all read Signature in the Cell at the end of one of his lectures
about his own ideas...was years ago so but I'll try to find which one that was...