In an earlier post I showed that ID is not anti-evolution. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/
So is ID is not anti-evolution then what is being debated?
Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:
- Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
- Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
- Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
- The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
- Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
- “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. see Coyne- https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/natural-selection-and-evolution-material-blind-mindless-and-purposeless/
The debate isn’t as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.
(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don’t seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don’t appear to understand the issue. The TE’s I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE’s are closet IDists.)
Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were.
With Creation vs. “Evolution #6” the 4 main debating points are clear:
1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)
2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).
3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from “simpler” bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)
4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process.
With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.
IDists understand that if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).
What does the data say? Well there isn’t any data that demonstrates bacteria can “evolve” into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.
Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything:
If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don’t know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don’t truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).
Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.
One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a “black box” and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What’s more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.
In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn’t understand evolution.- Mike Gene
However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process does make for an interesting trinity…
Wow, what a waste of bandwidth. I doubt your credentials, Robin. And you sure as hell cannot make a case. If your research is as sloppy and unthoughtful as your posts someone is wasting money.
What a bullshit comment. I know my claims, Robin. I want to know which claims have been refuted. So state my claim that you think you have refuted and then show us how you refuted it
And more bullshit.
They definitely do NOT support the claim that ” blind, mindless process concepts within evolution are valid and do indeed lead to the diversity of life on this planet”- not even close.
Scientist, my ass
Really? Then what part of:
did you not understand?
C’mon Joe…really push on that diaphragm. Helps really project that whining.
LoL! Alleged TRANSITIONS are not tetrapods
You’re the whiner, here, Robin
When you resort to insults Frankie, I take that as you no longer have any logic behind your argument.
It isn’t an insult, newton. It fits if you think tree rings are a code. And the way you are going about it cements the fact.
Also, if what you say is true then evolutionists don’t have any logic behind their arguments
Again, had Shubin be aware that tetrapods existed 395 million years ago he would not have went looking for evidence of the transition- ie a transitional form- 365=385 years ago. You look for evidence of the transition between the time tetrapods existed and the time fish did but tetrapods didn’t. And Shubin explained that in the book and the article explains that.
That is why I doubt Robin is a scientist because Robin cannot grasp that simple fact
Depends if the variation of. leaves have a way of to encode the variation in the climate.
I said the climate encoded( conveyed symbolically) the data in the tree rings. If something can be encoded and not be a code, please explain.
Does that mean that at one point there was?
Which argument is that?
possibly
newton:
I don’t care what you say. The experts who examine the tree rings don’t say tree rings are a code. The experts do not say “climate encoded( conveyed symbolically) the data in the tree rings”.
Besides you said the tree rings are the symbol so tell us how “the climate encoded( conveyed symbolically) the data in the tree rings”. What is the system of rules used?
And leaves encode the kind of tree they are from too.
Wow. FrankenJoe is having a major meltdown and it’s only Monday. What will the rest of the week bring for everyone’s favorite ID expert / internet tough guy / toaster repairman?
OK, one last push to 1000 comments. I am sure that evos have more off-topic spewage to add.
Perhaps Robin or Patrick will come back and try to support their unsubstantiated claims. Perhaps adapa will continue to whine and stomp its feet. maybe acartia will slither back now that it is being very limited on Hunter’s blog. Maybe newton will persist with the tree ring circus.
Who knows but I would love to see Patrick and Robin at least try to support their claims.
I think they need to change the quote at the top of the page because sure as hell no one here thinks it possible they are mistaken.
I once thought I was mistaken, but I was wrong.
So you weren’t mistaken, you were just wrong. Got it
It should be replaced with Not Even Wrong 😎
On the contrary ,I am sure I am mistaken, what is uncertain is whether other people are even more mistaken.
Since you have the most comments most of the spewage is yours.
Good question, actually since the leaves are part of the tree they would not be a symbolic representation.
newton:
That doesn’t follow. Try again.
newton:
So tree rings are not part of the tree? Really?
I was thinking it should be changed to this:
“When you resort to insults you no longer have any logic behind your argument.”
Aye
Take a look at dazz’s ignorant spewage:
Seriously dazz doesn’t seem to realize that once something is determined to be an artifact it means that blind and mindless processes did NOT produce it. When a fire is determined to be an arson it means it was NOT an accident.
It also means that dazz is clueless about negative evidence
Hahaha,
So if there was negative evidence against stochastic processes (there isn’t) it would still NOT support ID
Joe, Joe, Joe. Your failures are always entertaining
dazz:
LoL! There isn’t any positive evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce living organisms or their systems and subsystems. There isn’t any way to test the claim. But yes eliminating all other possible causes does support ID but the EF still mandates the positive side:
“Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” M Behe DBB
It is very telling that dazz refused to address the following:
Seriously dazz doesn’t seem to realize that once something is determined to be an artifact it means that blind and mindless processes did NOT produce it. When a fire is determined to be an arson it means it was NOT an accident.
LoL! @ dazz- just because the ELIMINATION of necessity and chance are the basis for any design inference that does not mean that positive evidence isn’t also mandatory. And the positive evidence for ID has been presented.
Way to double-down on your dumbass comments, dazz
Did you miss this part from your own link, retard?
That’s not all that fails to line up with reality…
Mung,
What has Frankie said that you think should be given serious consideration? Is it anything in particular?
I believe they are but they are symbolic representations of the climate.
dazz obviously has reading comprehension issues- tell us dazz, what part of the link refutes or even addresses what you quoted of me:
LoL! @ dazz- just because the ELIMINATION of necessity and chance are the basis for any design inference that does not mean that positive evidence isn’t also mandatory. And the positive evidence for ID has been presented.
Way to double-down on your dumbass comments, dazz
Also if there are several options for how something came to be the way it is and you have eliminated all but one, I would say that would be support for that remaining explanation, especially if that remaining position was mandated to first have the others eliminated.
I prefer the original version
newton:
Leaves are a symbolic representation of the type of tree. And tree rings are really vague at the climate thing- they don’t have built-in storage thermometers. The don’t say if the days were cloudy, partly cloudy or sunny
Take a look at dazz’s ignorant spewage:
And dazz “supports” that ignorant spewage with more ignorant and cowardly comments.
Really? But it mentions Frankie.
Again. What positive arguments does ID make Joey?
dazz- ID makes the following positive argument, for one:
“Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” M Behe DBB
And that is one more than evolution by means of blind and mindless processes makes
How do you test the claim that “the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components, points to design”?
The same way we test the hypothesis that your post was the result of blind, mindless, chemically induced thought processes.
dazz,
We start with our knowledge of cause and effect relationships and go from there. So if it is unexplainable by means of blind and mindless processes AND it meets that criteria, we safely infer it was intelligently designed.
As Behe continued:
” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”
Now I know that you are going to say that computers and Stonehenge don’t reproduce but biological reproduction is just one more thing yours cannot explain- and The cell division processes required for bacterial life are irreducibly complex
Negative argument.
Another fail on your part.