(2025-01-25, 05:20 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: Even a partial response to just one of the key DI refutations (such as to the discovery of irreducible complexity and the many arguments formulated by the DI for just this aspect of ID theory being valid) would have sufficed for a partial response. And certainly a successful debunking of irreducible complexity would have to be admitted to be a strong blow against ID and the DI. But even such a partial response has been lacking, leading to the suspicion that there really aren't any plausible such debunkings .
I think you're underestimating how much time it takes to evaluate these claims.
Most of us don't have the requisite biology knowledge.
As I like to point out continuously, with Cosmic Fine Tuning the problem is agreed upon by different parties but the way to interpret those findings is in question.
With ID it seems that all sorts of debates occur about the fossil record, about the evolution of organs or even the forms of microbes.
But I will go through all the videos Farina made [in the series] and all the rebuttals, and we'll see what position is stronger [or] if agnosticism between the two is the best route.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(This post was last modified: 2025-02-10, 05:20 AM by Sciborg_S_Patel. Edited 2 times in total.)
(2025-01-25, 11:59 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: I think you're underestimating how much time it takes to evaluate these claims.
Most of us don't have the requisite biology knowledge.
As I like to point out continuously, with Cosmic Fine Tuning the problem is agreed upon by different parties but the way to interpret those findings is in question.
With ID it seems that all sorts of debates occur about the fossil record, about the evolution of organs or even the forms of microbes.
But I will go through all the videos Farina made and all the rebuttals, and we'll see what position is stronger [or] if agnosticism between the two is the best route. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ab9a3/ab9a3a33c9e3d42642bc59d705859ee259699766" alt="Thumbs Up Thumbs Up"
To reiterate: I think that I have at least barely enough scientific knowledge to adequately assess these issues in evolutionary biology. Accordingly I have done what I consider a due diligence and adequate survey of Farina's attempted debunkings of the primary claims of the DI for the bankruptcy of neoDarwinism. The most important DI claim is irreducible complexity, and I spent most of my time on it. I found that the Farina debunking of irreducible complexity is unequivocally rubbish.
All the claims of the DI for the falsity of neoDarwinism are logically linked together, so if irreducible complexity is valid, all the other claims of the DI such as the wait time problem and the fossil record problem are likely also valid, and Darwinism is indeed very likely bankrupt.
(This post was last modified: 2025-01-26, 04:34 PM by nbtruthman. Edited 1 time in total.)
(2025-01-26, 04:32 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: To reiterate: I think that I have at least barely enough scientific knowledge to adequately assess these issues in evolutionary biology. Accordingly I have done what I consider a due diligence and adequate survey of Farina's attempted debunkings of the primary claims of the DI for the bankruptcy of neoDarwinism. The most important DI claim is irreducible complexity, and I spent most of my time on it. I found that the Farina debunking of irreducible complexity is unequivocally rubbish.
All the claims of the DI for the falsity of neoDarwinism are logically linked together, so if irreducible complexity is valid, all the other claims of the DI such as the wait time problem and the fossil record problem are likely also valid, and Darwinism is indeed very likely bankrupt.
At least according to these Christians, Irreducible Complexity isn't valid...
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(2025-01-26, 07:34 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: At least according to these Christians, Irreducible Complexity isn't valid...
Then let these Christians deny that all of Farina's debunkings of intelligent design including its most important claims like irreducible complexity have been refuted by DI researchers and writers. If irreducible complexity and the other intelligent design arguments like the wait time and the fossil record arguments are all valid, then the opinions of these Christians are seriously mistaken and can be ignored.
(2025-01-26, 09:48 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: Then let these Christians deny that all of Farina's debunkings of intelligent design including its most important claims like irreducible complexity have been refuted by DI researchers and writers. If irreducible complexity and the other intelligent design arguments like the wait time and the fossil record arguments are all valid, then the opinions of these Christians are seriously mistaken and can be ignored.
They provide a variety of examples rebutting the claims of the Discovery Institute.
It's pretty convincing on a first read at the least.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(2025-01-26, 09:49 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: They provide a variety of examples rebutting the claims of the Discovery Institute.
It's pretty convincing on a first read at the least.
Convincing? I would like to see some of these examples. To turn things around here's a few excellently reasoned rebuttals of Farina's "debunkings" of ID (regarding irreducible complexity in particular):
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/06/irredu...n-of-life/
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/03/is-com...st-design/
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/03/a-misg...omplexity/
(2025-01-26, 11:06 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: Convincing? I would like to see some of these examples.
Already posted in that thread.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(2025-01-27, 12:28 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: Already posted in that thread. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ab9a3/ab9a3a33c9e3d42642bc59d705859ee259699766" alt="Thumbs Up Thumbs Up"
That thread was this: https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-b...od-s-world. This thread concerned Falk's Biologos article supposedly refuting intelligent design from the standpoint of a Christian evolutionary biologist. The Biologos article is at https://biologos.org/articles/return-of-...eflections .
A long series of articles in Evolution News written by DI researchers thoroughly refuted all the supposedly telling points made by Falk in his Biologos article. On close examination all of these "telling points" fall apart. Two of these articles:
On Falk's claims regarding the Cambrian Explosion:
- https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/darrel...explosion/
On Falk's claim that recent “RNA world” simulation experiments challenge Meyer’s claim that origin-of-life researchers have been unable to produce RNA molecules capable of copying more than 10 percent of themselves:
- https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/darrel...hen-meyer/
Before going into some detailed refutations from Evolution News, I think I need to point out that there is another reason why Falk's claims are invalid: the fact that all the mechanisms of genetic variation he and the article in Cell cites are, like mutations, random relative to reproductive fitness. That means the well-known wait time problem still applies regardless of the claims. This is a fundamental problem for claims that random genetic variations can build intricate irreducibly complex biological systems and subsystems in any reasonable evolutionary time consistent with the many sudden jumps in the fossil record like the Cambrian Explosion.
To limit this post to a manageable length for this forum, the following quotes are from a single one of these refutations by DI researchers, this one by Casey Luskin. Going into some detail is necessary. This refutation is of Falk's claim that it has been demonstrated that limb bones can rapidly emerge from random with respect to fitness genetic variations of various kinds:
- https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/reveal...fish-fins/
Quote:"In the Biologos article Falk writes:
"This is wonderfully illustrated by a paper that came out two months ago in the journal, Cell. The authors showed how two mutations changed the bones in the fin of a zebrafish into tiny bones which are likely the equivalent of the radius and ulna, two of the main bones in the limb of a land animal. With just those two mutations, not only were the bones produced, but they became attached to muscles — the beginning of functionality. Furthermore, their formation was influenced by a latent pattern of gene expression already present in fish. We know that this pattern is likely the same one used in the development of limbs in mice."
A key sample from this refutation in Evolution News:
Quote:"Lack of Homologous Bones in Fins and Limbs
The investigators in the study induced mutations in the developmental genes vav2 and waslb which are involved in regulating appendages in vertebrates — fins in fish and limbs in tetrapods. The investigators claimed that these mutations generated “new bones” in the fin, which “integrate into musculature, form joints, and articulate with neighboring elements.” Yes, they did produce a couple new bones in the fin of a zebrafish, but the authors did not say that they are homologous to bones in tetrapod limbs.
Mutating a Fin to Create…What?
For the paper in Cell, the researchers mutated developmental genes involved in fin growth and, in certain cases, were able to produce two new bones. But did they produce anything that looks like, functions like, or even resembles a vertebrate limb? Not at all.
Not What the Paper in Cell Says
Falk claims that those two new bones are “likely the equivalent of the radius and ulna” from a tetrapod limb. But that is not what the paper says. Nowhere does the Cell paper claim that these two bones produced by mutating fish developmental genes are the equivalent of the radius and ulna in tetrapod limbs. Rather, the authors acknowledge that these newly constructed “bones” lack clear homologues to real tetrapod limbs.
Falk further claims that these bones are “attached to muscles” and represent “the beginning of functionality.” Since muscles tend to grow around bones, the fact that the bones are attached to muscles isn’t strange. But “the beginning of functionality”? What kind of function are we talking about? Have any tests been done to see if fish with these mutations and extra bones have any new kind of functionality? No, they haven’t been done. These mutants were killed in the lab and studied. There is no evidence that there’s any new functionality added by these bones, much less any functionality that is like that of a tetrapod limb. In other words, there’s no evidence that these mutations would yield any kind of a functional advantage that could provide a benefit towards survival and reproduction, were they to occur in the wild.
The authors of the Cell paper aren’t saying that they’ve constructed bones found in vertebrate limbs. They’re saying that they’ve mutated genes to induce the creation of something that shares “deep homology” with unspecified bones in tetrapod limbs. But as the originators of the term “deep homology” point out, saying two structures have “deep homology” could be like saying they’re as different as a fly’s leg and a whale’s fin, but are nonetheless regulated by similar underlying genetic pathways. Citing “deep homology” does not mean you’ve actually accounted for the origin of a structure. It means that we’ve found that the same genes control the origin of very different structures — a reusage of genetic components “entirely unanticipated” under neo-Darwinism but unsurprising under ideas like common design.
"
(This post was last modified: 2025-01-28, 07:55 AM by nbtruthman. Edited 3 times in total.)
(2025-01-27, 05:07 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: That thread was this: https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-b...od-s-world. This thread concerned Falk's Biologos article supposedly refuting intelligent design from the standpoint of a Christian evolutionary biologist. The Biologos article is at https://biologos.org/articles/return-of-...eflections .
A long series of articles in Evolution News written by DI researchers thoroughly refuted all the supposedly telling points made by Falk in his Biologos article. On close examination all of these "telling points" fall apart.
..........................................
In looking for more excellent scientific articles in Evolution News addressing Farina's claimed debunkings of the fundamental claims of ID theory, I just ran across another excellent article by a DI researcher, which goes a long way to directly answer or deal with Farina's supposed debunkings of the fundamental claims of intelligent design. This article is by Dr. Casey Luskin and refutes the Darwinian dismissal of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is probably ID's most basic or founding claim, and Farina devoted a lot of effort to try to debunk it.
The title of the article is: "Step-by-Step Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Needed for Irreducible Complexity"
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_3_rando/
The following quote mostly sums up the gist of the article:
Quote:"In 2000 and 2004, protein scientist Douglas Axe published experimental research in the Journal of Molecular Biology on mutational sensitivity tests he performed on enzymes in bacteria. Enzymes are long chains of amino acids which fold into a specific, stable, three-dimensional shape in order to function. Mutational sensitivity experiments begin by mutating the amino acid sequences of those proteins, and then testing the mutant proteins to determine whether they can still fold into a stable shape, and function properly. Axe’s research found that amino acid sequences which yield stable, functional protein folds may be as rare as 1 in 1074 sequences, suggesting that the vast majority of amino acid sequences will not produce stable proteins, and thus could not function in living organisms.
Because of this extreme rarity of functional protein sequences, it would be very difficult for random mutations to take a protein with one type of fold, and evolve it into another, without going through some non-functional stage. Rather than evolving by “numerous, successive, slight modifications,” many changes would need to occur simultaneously to “find” the rare and unlikely amino acid sequences that yield functional proteins. To put the matter in perspective, Axe’s results suggest that the odds of blind and unguided Darwinian processes producing a functional protein fold are less than the odds of someone closing his eyes and firing an arrow into the Milky Way galaxy, and hitting one pre-selected atom."
(This post was last modified: 2025-01-31, 08:53 PM by nbtruthman. Edited 2 times in total.)
The following quote is a good summary of yet another excellent article in Evolution News by a DI researcher addressing Farina's claimed debunkings of the fundamental claims of ID theory, also in this case by Casey Luskin. It should be noted that this article covers the issue where the standard Darwinist objection to irreducible complexity is to claim that such biological structures can arise through slow accumulation of tiny adaptive random mutational changes filtered by natural selection, in conjunction with something the Darwinists call "co-option". The article explains why this is not a plausible mechanism and why design is the only plausible explanation.
From https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-to...-machines/ :
Quote:"One famous example of an irreducibly complex molecular machine is the bacterial flagellum. The flagellum is a micro-molecular propeller assembly driven by a rotary engine that propels bacteria toward food or a hospitable living environment. There are various types of flagella, but all function like a rotary engine made by humans, as found in some car and boat motors.
Flagella contain many parts that are familiar to human engineers, including a rotor, a stator, a drive shaft, a u-joint, and a propeller. As one molecular biologist wrote in the journal Cell, “[m]ore so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human.”
...........................................................................
What about the objection that molecular machines can evolve through co-option of pre-existing parts and components? Again, Discovering Intelligent Design explains why this proposition fails — and why molecular machines point to design:
Irreducibly complex structures point to design because they contain high levels of specified complexity — i.e., they have unlikely arrangements of parts, all of which are necessary to achieve a specific function.
ID critics counter that such structures can be built by co-opting parts from one job in the cell to another.
Co-option: To take and use for another purpose. In evolutionary biology, it is a highly speculative mechanism where blind and unguided processes cause biological parts to be borrowed and used for another purpose.
..................................................................
...there are multiple problems co-option can’t solve.
First, not all parts are available elsewhere. Many are unique. In fact, most flagellar parts are found only in flagella.
Second, machine parts are not necessarily easy to interchange. Grocery carts and motorcycles both have wheels, but one could not be borrowed from the other without significant modification. At the molecular level, where small changes can prevent two proteins from interacting, this problem is severe.
Third, complex structures almost always require a specific order of assembly. When building a house, a foundation must be laid before walls can be added, windows can’t be installed until there are walls, and a roof can’t be added until the frame complete. As another example, one could shake a box of computer parts for thousands of years, but a functional computer would never form.
Thus, merely having the necessary parts available is not enough to build a complex system because specific assembly instructions must be followed. Cells use complex assembly instructions in DNA to direct how parts will interact and combine to form molecular machines. Proponents of co-option never explain how those instructions arise.
.........................................................................................
“What is the one thing in our experience that co-opts irreducibly complex machines and uses their parts to build a new and more intricate machine? Intelligent agents.”"
(This post was last modified: 2025-02-02, 03:39 AM by nbtruthman. Edited 2 times in total.)
|