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…
I will give dazz a certain amount of credit. He’s not one of the one’s arguing that tree rings and falling leaves are a code, right?
Frankie, when dazz is saying you have a negative argument he’s not saying that you don’t have a positive argument, because that would be a negative argument.
I think you have to convince him that you don’t don’t have a negative argument.
Depends on the definition, I guess.
And it doesn’t matter at all. Claiming that “codes” point to design is just as stupid and fallacious as claiming that “complexity” does too.
Arguments from analogy, ignorance, whatever…
I might believe you if you ever post an OP about arguments from analogy and give at least some reason to think you know what you’re talking about. And I think that’s fair.
Until then I think you read something on a milk carton and liked the way it sounds and so just repeat it. ad nauseam.
Do you really need someone to explain why claiming that “orderly parts”, “machine like”, “no one knows of anything capable of building codes other than intelligence” , etc.. points to design is an argument from analogy or ignorance?
Poor Mung
That, along with why argument from analogy ought not be allowed in courts of law and in science. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it to come from you.
dazz:
ID doesn’t say mere complexity points to design. And if it is such a fallacious argument then you should be able to demonstrate it is. And you should be able to point to naturally occurring codes. Otherwise all you have is whining and foot stomping
Dazz-a-PRATT!!
dazz is either unwilling or unable to learn-
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.
dazz focuses only on the negative aspect and thinks that is all there is to it. As if other people can’t see the POSITIVE part.
Sorry dazz, the jedi hand-wave mind trick doesn’t work over the internet.
Once again- all design inferences are going to contain a negative aspect. That is the nature of the beast and as it happens the way science mandates. However there must be a positive aspect also and Dr Behe laid it out and explained it. Others have also.
So the only argument from ignorance is the one dazz is posting
How does ID explain complexity in life then?
It’s one of the originals. The straw man is taking a beating though. But he seems to like it when one of the originals is recycled
I disagree. I’ve seen dazz admit to being wrong before, and I’ve seen him asking other for their opinion about whether he was right about something he wrote. Dazz I have hope for, which is why he’s not on Ignore.
[Don’t worry dazz, I’m not trying to convert you to a YEC.] <– LIAR Mung!
ID says that living organisms are the result of intelligent/ intentional design. And as such not reducible to physics and chemistry.
So under ID we would be looking for what else there is to living organisms besides the physics and chemistry that is so apparent. We would also be here for a purpose so that is something else we would figure out. Some have already determined that the universe is designed for scientific discovery. They have also figured out that the aspects for a habitable planet- for scientific discovery- also make for an excellent platform from which to make those discoveries.
Without our large moon we wouldn’t be here as it stabilizes our rotation. And without that moon being the size it is and the distance it is away from us and the sun we wouldn’t be able to make scientific discoveries during total eclipses. And we are the only planet in this system to have total solar eclipses
Yeah, not like those brilliant and original arguments for ID IDiots like FrankenJoker have been providing the last 15 years. Oh, wait… 😀
By that argument, rain is designed. It has an identifiable function (keeping the rivers flowing and the lakes and oceans filled). And it depends sharply on the components (the sun providing heat to evaporate water, etc.).
Logic is obviously as foreign a concept to Behe as it is to you.
Yes. We know that all human made codes are produced by humans. How do we get from there to DNA is intelligently designed? At best, all you can try to extrapolate to is that DNA is made by humans. But, since that is such a stupid inference, you try to extrapolate from a sample size of one, ignoring all other observable non human made codes (tree rings, spectroscopy, stable isotope ratios, ice cores, fish otolith and scale aging, geologic strata, etc).
It is not nice to misrepresent what I said , moderator trainee. Let’s see, give me your brief definition of code
Do you ever get sick of being wrong? Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus all experience solar eclipses. Would you like to qualify your claim. Might I suggest this approach?
Nope, they are the type of tree.
Not that I am aware.
Nope, you know the difference between weather and climate?
You know the moon is moving farther away from the Earth right?
What are the top 5 eclipse based scientific discoveries? What about our position in the Cosmos – optimized for discovery?
“By using the data of Chinese observations of five solar eclipses between 1161 BCE and 1226 BCE, modern astrologers were able to study the rate of rotation of the earth on its axis and have been able to determine that the length of a day in 1200 BCE was shorter by 0.047 seconds than a day is now.”
ETA Hope those are astronomers
newton,
That’s 1.
Pretty amazing, innit? Here’s our position in a nondescript corner of our galaxy the Milky Way, one of an estimated two trillion galaxies in the observable universe. But FrankenJoe’s Designer made it all for us, because hey, we’re special.
Leaves are not a type of tree, newton. Try again.
Having solar eclipses is not the same as having total solar eclipses, acartia, try again. Read this first- wonderful eclipses
Adapa, if we were situated closer to the galactic center or in the middle of a spiral arm we wouldn’t be able to make as many astronomical discoveries as we do now. Try again.
Einstein’s equation on relativity was confirmed by a solar eclipse. Experiments pertaining to the Sun’s corona can be conducted during a total eclipse. Tests on the spectra can be conducted- and much more
Except those are not codes as they don’t fit the definition of a code and they don’t pass the litmus test. Look, acartia, it’s obvious that you don’t have any idea what a code is.
Your comments are full of desperation and ignorance
newton:
Yup:
A solar eclipse was responsible for the discovery of helium- See also The science of the eclipse
I’ve done at least three OP’s on the subject.
And I have posted the accepted definition of a code in this thread. Use google to look up the word “Code”- read the wikipedia article, that would be a good start. See if it lists tree rings as a code.
I will look back and find them ,thanks
That is not what I wrote.
LoL! newton, read it for yourself:
“Nope, they [leaves] are a type of tree”
Wow, my car was designed and built at exactly the best time for me to drive it home
Wow, that doesn’t even follow. Your posts are getting more desperate, newton.
Lol back,read your link
Nope, they are the type of tree.
Leaves are not the type of tree. Leaves are the symbol for the type of tree.
If leaves are not a tree then they cannot be the type of tree
Think of all the worlds human beings will never visit. Think of the hundred billion people who lived before us, who never went anywhere but their local tribal village.
The idea that this entire cosmos was created for us, or just so that we can exist, is preposterous and self-centered to a degree I could never do justice with words.
rumrat:
It is also a straw man. Picking up and running with an adapa argument is the dumbest thing someone can do.
A significant portion of the night-sky is obscured by the disc of the milky way galaxy, which is almost totally opaque to radiation emanating from whatever lies behind it.
No, the cosmos was not deliberately arranged for human discovery.
These kinds of arguments about the universe and our position in it, being somehow designed for us can only get by through ignorance of total evidence. If something being discoverable is evidence for a deliberate arrangement of that entity, any obscuring factor is evidence against it. On balance, considering total evidence, the true nature of the universe is painfully difficult to elucidate. It has taken the combined effort of humanity over a hundred centuries to get to an understanding of less than 5% of the matter and energy of the observable part of the universe. And most humans utterly fail at understanding the physical theories build to try to make sense of it. How many of us here can really say we are competent in the relevant fields of physics and math? Never mind having a really good intuitive grasp of what it all means?
Anyone who thinks this fact can be reimagined as part of an argument for the universe’s design for ease of discovery and rational understanding, has lost their fucking mind.
rumrat:
It is was designed for scientific discovery. And the evidence supports that claim. However you will never read “The Privileged Planet” and because of that yours will always be an argument from ignorance.
BTW if ID is right the odds for other intelligent beings rose dramatically. ID does not say we are alone.
So the tree encodes( convey symbolically, converts into a coded form ) the leaves ? Ok you convinced me
Trees are living organisms which are intelligent agencies. However it could be just the way trees were designed
So once life starts there is no need for an outside intelligence for design?
That is new, how do you figure that probability? I agree ID says there is a greater intelligence in the universe than humans.
newton:
Read the OP. Understand the OP.
BTW if ID is right the odds for other intelligent beings rose dramatically. ID does not say we are alone.
You mean new to you because you don’t know what ID says. Chapter 16 of The Privileged Planet offers a “Skeptical Rejoinder” answering the 14 objections- here is #14:
Well, yeah…
Nice read. So there are at least 34 moons in our solar system that can totally eclipse the sun, as seen from the planet’s “surface”.
…
I did not realize the Privileged Planet was the ” Origin of the Species” for ID. Sorry but this” You haven’t shown ET don’t exist” was not the question ,my question about your claim the the odds were dramatically better, not for ET but for intelligent beings if ID is true, how do you figure the odds before and the odds after?
The book says” might”, you said if ID is right they rose “dramatically” you mean “might” rise dramatically if we knew something about the designer?