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…
To be fair, he accidentally omitted some words. He should have written “100% of our observations and experiences say codes created by intelligent agencies come from intelligent agencies only.” He could have gone on to say that 100% of all natural encoding mechanisms come from natural agencies only. And while we’re at it, 100% of all even integers are even.
Well, since that’s a creationist approach to understanding things, and since creationists tend not to understand the concept of entailments, it seems it doesn’t have any. It’s why science doesn’t use that phrase as an explanation.
So, that would be your long way of writing “no” huh Mung? Maybe it got lost after so much reproduction…
Mung,
Are you on Frankie’s side?
Well, except that actual science disagrees:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/universe20120911.html
ETA: This is actually a really good example of why ID is so worthless: it inherently limits what one can get to know about reality.
Robin,
I can imagine how this convo would go:
Creo: “ID predicts the Priviledged Planet, you’ll never find life elsewhere!”
Reasonable Dude: “Predictions must follow from the theory, bold prophetic assertions are not scientific predictions”
Creo: “ID is scientific! it makes predictions! ”
Reasonable Dude: “So if we ever find E. T. life, ID would be falsified, right? ”
Creo: “Noway! ID predicts that all life was designed! ”
Reasonable Dude: ‘”ugh”
That seems about right to me. I really wish Joe et al would re-read the Pauling quote and note the rejecting of dogma and revelation. That folks like Gonzales believe strongly that our planet is privileged doesn’t make it science.
They didn’t disagree- read the article. They are not talking about intelligent life, Robin. Try again
There aren’t any natural codes. Not any that actually meet the definition of a code.
Again there is a chance at 10.1 million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate natura can produce a code. Why hasn’t adapa applied?
Blah, blah, blah Robin- you have yet to show that you understand entailments. You have already demonstrated that you don’t understand science
What a asinine thing to say, Robin. Revelation never came up in our discussion or I would have highlighted it too. Revelation has nothing to do with ID but most likely applies to your position. Revelation was how Darwin “solved” the mystery of eye evolution.
It is what the scientific research says. No belief required. But then again having not read the book you can’t understand that.
ID is about the DESIGN and not how it came to be. That you are unable to grasp that simple fact reflects poorly on you. That you cannot support your position’s claims also reflects poorly on you.
Taking care of the nonsensical drivel:
Those are not codes. Obviously you have no idea what a code entails
The genetic code uses arbitrary symbols. The mRNA codons are symbols for the amino acids they encode. mRNA codons represent amino acids, they do not become them and that is what makes them a symbol. This is all in peer-review and biology textbooks. Even Larry Moran says the genetic code is a code the same as Morse code is a code.
Does Larry agree with you that the genetic code was intelligently designed?
By arbitrary wrt the genetic code it means that there is nothing that physically determines what codon will represent which amino acid.
Is it? What useful insights has ID produced then regarding what it considered to be designed?
So how was that determination made? Did the designer design it in? What does ID have to say about that?
Can Larry Moran show that blind and mindless processes produced the genetic code? No, of course not, no one can. I am sure that Larry could use millions of dollars so that should be enough incentive for him to actually do some work and figure it out one way or the other.
What is he waiting for?
His book was not peer reviewed. Do you have such a reference in the acutal scientific literature?
LoL! There isn’t anything in peer-review that supports blind and mindless processes producing living organisms nor any of the systems and subsystems they contain.
Why do evos bring up peer-review when there isn’t anything in peer-review that supports the claims of their position?
So, the answer to the question is there any peer reviewed work that supports the idea that the earth is somehow special and privilaged and created by design is no.
Why can’t you answer the question asked?
OM, when you ask of ID what you and yours cannot produce that is being a hypocrite.
But then again you wrote an OP and didn’t even know what it said.
You and Frankie both ignore the “refuted” criteria that constitutes a PRATT. The acronym you’re looking for is SLAM (Solid Logic Against Mendacity).
But he’ll insist that there are only half as many of those as there are all integers.
Joe, if you’re going to hamstring the idea of the “privileged planet” to simply “those planets where humans can arise”, then the concept becomes useless for predictions. Earth is the only place where humans could ever arise.
Fortunately, NASA, as an actual scientific organization, is more logical in its search for planets with life.
ETA: Of course, the whole point is that no one looking for extraterrestrial life bothers with Gonzales’ “privileged planet” concept anyway, so really your whole complaint is moot.
You and Frankie both ignore the “refuted” criteria that constitutes a PRATT.
That is your unsupported opinion. And you seem to be full of those
Wow, I said intelligent life- it doesn’t have to be human
The Privileged Planet did not make a case against microbial life not existing on other planets. Arguing from ignorance is not a good thing to do, Robin, so why do you?
Fine. But you can’t produce it for your position. And you just can’t seem to say that.
And that’s why ID is a failed project.
Then they will never find intelligent life. So your “argument” is ignorant.
And yet The Privileged Planet made such predictions
.
Cuz you say-so? Really?
Joe…I hate to break it to you, but I could care less what you think I understand or don’t understand. Your opinions on such matter about as much as lint in some stranger’s pocket.
LoL! And your opinions mean less to me. Yet that won’t stop you from spewing them and insisting they mean something.
Do you know what SETI stands for, Robin?
Sorry Joe, but as you and others have demonstrated, ID is nothing but revelation and dogma.
Sure it is Joe…Yawn…well you let me know when someone uses that “science” to try to find life on another world. LOL!
Yes you are sorry and no one has done what you say. Your opinions are meaningless and that is all you have.
Yawn, sigh- and let me know when someone uses evolutionism for anything.
OK, Robin’s opinion on the nature of science has been refuted. So now Robin doubles down on its other opinions.
Typical
And Gonzales’ concept is just as worthless for finding any type of intelligent life. Hence the reason no actual astrobiological group uses it.
I never said anything about the Privileged Planet arguing against microbial life Joe. But since the Privileged Planet doesn’t offer any insights actual life in the universe, no actual scientific organization uses it in any way.
LOL! Sure Joe…you go with that!
OH…OH…WAIT! I bet there’s some ID entailment that there can be no extraterrestrial intelligence found by us humans!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Again ,your opinions are meaningless, Robin.
The fact remains their equation is the only way we will ever find intelligent life.
Then why the link to NASA which only discussed microbial life? You thought it went against the book.
Your ignorant opinion is meaningless, Robin
No, because evolution sez so.
ETA: (Pssst…that would be one of those entailment things…)
Wrong again. Robin, your ignorance is neither an argument nor a refutation.
Evolution doesn’t say that. Again you offer your ignorant opinion and you think it means something. Strange
So humans could not have been on another planet first and then colonized earth and evolution covers that? Really?
What evidence is there for that?
Umm, OM, according to Robin evolution excludes the CONCEPT. But that is moot as evolution doesn’t even exclude parallel and convergent evolution on other planets. That is because it doesn’t even address life on other planets. Hence Robin is posting nonsense and trying to pass it off as fact in an attempt to “one-up” me.
And here we are approaching 300 comments with no one addressing the OP. But TSZ is a great place for open and intellectual discussion. All of the bullshit that you chumps hurl at Uncommon Descent and your actions prove that you are much worse than UD could ever be.
Congratulations
LOL!
You keep telling yourself that Joe.
Oh…you mean like antibiotic development? You mean like fish farm design improvements? You mean like artificial selection? You mean like gene treatments?
Uhh…yeah, I do Joe. I also know what it does. It doesn’t even remotely use anything from ID or from Gonzales’ claims. Because…wait for it…ID and Gonzales are just plain old not science and further, are just plain wrong.
Well, you let me know when anyone bothers to consider it, m’kay Pumpkin?
Joe…reread my post for comprehension: I posted it to point out what research actual scientists are using to find life in the universe and that the research they are using has nothing to do with Gonzales’ silly, unscientific concepts.
Yeah, yeah…and ‘I’m rubber and you’re glue…’
You might consider moving beyond your usual first grade retorts if you want to taken seriously. Just sayin’…
LOL!
HAHAHAHAHA!
Yes. Really.
Comparative anatomy, understanding biochemistry.
Well, really, making sense of biology altogether. Without evolution, biology is little more than ad hoc description and some biophysics.
Glen Davidson