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…
Ummm…actually it does exclude parallel evolution on other planets. Evolutionary theory is actually kind of specific about that. There’s that little issue of evolution being the basis of adaption to the environment. So unless there’s a planet identical to Earth in elemental composition, atmosphere, tectonics (and layout), and so forth, it would be impossible for humans (or any other specific organisms found on Earth) to arise elsewhere.
As for convergence, that only applies to similarity of traits. So while some extraterrestrial out there might indeed have evolve five fingers, that’s not exactly all there is to being human.
Umm…actually it does. You might want to spend a little more time reading about evolution and less time arguing from ignorance. You might start with astrobiology.
LOL! Nice own goal there!
Uh huh…you keep repeating that Joe while ignoring my original response.
LoL! None of that has anything to do with blind and mindless processes producing the diversity of life. Read the OP and respond to it, Robin. Everything you just stated is OK within YEC.
Do you know what SETI stands for, Robin?
Wow, way to miss the point. They are search for extraterrestrial INTELLIGENCE. And they will only find it by using what TPP laid down. Or if they happen to luck upon it it will have the same characteristics that are found on earth, the sun and the rest of the SS
Nice projection, Robin. Every one of your comments contain first grade retorts along with absolute BS.
Except they are not, are they?
I mean, if you could demonstrate that they are you would!.
Reference please. Your say-so is meaningless.
There isn’t a scientific theory of evolution and what we do have isn’t specific at all.
That is only your opinion and those conditions are what TPP predicts we will find when/ if SETI locates what it is looking for. Ya see, Robin, all of those conditions make us a very lucky planet.
Wrong. It also corresponds to genetic sequences
That is because it doesn’t even address life on other planets.
Reference please. I learned about evolution by reading the works of evolutionary biologists starting with Darwin. Dozens of different authors from those involved in the modern synthesis down to Dawkins, Gould and many others. I have read textbook descriptions of it. And not one says anything about life on other planets.
I responded top that but of diatribe. You were wrong about science as science cannot be governed by dogma. You said otherwise. You lose.
Yes, your equivocation is duly noted- did you not read or do you not understand the OP?
Om, your selective reading skills are duly noted- you omitted the following:
Or if they happen to luck upon it it will have the same characteristics that are found on earth, the sun and the rest of the SS
The only way they will find an ETI is by sheer dumb luck if they don’t follow TPP’s guidelines.
What do we have and for what reason is that not scientific?
Then it looks like it will be by sheer dumb luck. And yet, recently, more interesting signals were discovered. So it seems TPP’s guidelines would restrict rather then increase the chances of finding something, as we’re already finding things.
Joe,
If bacteria can only evolve into bacteria then presumably nothing can evolve into anything else. So where did all the life we see around us and in the fossil record come from?
OM reference the scientific theory of evolution. It must make testable claims and say how to test them. I don’t care if you take my word for it. The evidence is in the fact no one can link to it.
For example if it says that vision systems evolved by means of natural selection, drift or and other blind and mindless process it has to say how to test that claim. And then find out why no one has done the test.
OM:
That is what science is for, OM. But we will never know until we start looking.
Robin’s original response to the OP was a posting of PRATT #!- defining IID out of science by saying methodological naturalism, a dogma, governs science.
Dogmas are the antithesis of science, Robin. Now try actually responding to the OP.
Has the debate started yet?
Who is “we”? If you want people to look they way you think they should it seems like either you do it or nobody does it.
How’s that working out for you?
It does not need to be linked to, it’s been written out in simple english for you several times already.
Well, we have an answer. You just don’t like it. So you don’t actually know what science is.
If you want to know what science says about the origin of the species we observe, well, if you’ve read the books you claim to have read you already know science’s answer.
You just can’t accept it.
This was Robin’s first post in this thread.
1- I am not religious and was a devote evo until I started looking closely at the evidence and starting asking questions- which remain unanswered
2- Robin’s bit of mind-reading of what I allegedly do not complain about, while entertaining, is totally meaningless and nothing but a distraction.
3- ID doesn’t require any divine influence
4- ID does argue against that the system is a product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes. See “The Privileged Planet”- it doesn’t matter what you think of it. It existence proves that you are dead wrong
5- evolution is different because what is involved. Gravity can be modelled and its effects placed in a formula. Biological evolution is nothing like that at all. And the OoL is all important. ID also says that was by design.
6- Trying to compare evolution to gravity and thermodynamics is nothing but a distraction. One is definitely not like the others
So Robin’s complaints are unwarranted and false. But I understand the tactic. It still remains that the OP has yet to be addressed.
Hi OM- The OP remains unaddressed. You could start there, please.
1- Yes the actual scientific theory needs to be .linked to. What is posted here is meaningless without it. And what has been posted here did not include the testability part
2- Your “answers” are nothing but a story without any scientific support. You can’t even say how vision systems evolved. You don’t even have a mechanism capable of producing anything but prokaryotes and you had to be given starting populations of prokaryotes
So bluff all you want. It just makes my point for me
You’ve already had your splainations with scientific merit.. What use would repeating them be? You can’t or won’t learn.
If there was a better, more productive way then it would be eagerly grasped. You are unable to provide that.
Keep repeating your catchphrases. What actual difference has it made the past decade?
Whereas you, of course, can say how vision systems were designed.
I look forward to all of the papers published by you and KF, and Batshitcrazy77, and WJM and Barry and Behe, and Axe, and Mapou on this search. Will they be published in BioComplexity? Or a real science journal?
Energy is mass times speed of light squared.
And more blah, blah, blibiddy, blibiddy, blah. No scientific theory of evolution though. More complaining, whining and foot stomping. And still no one has addressed the OP.
TSZ has proven to be far worse than UD when it comes to good faith discussions. I am not sure that is what Lizzie was shooting for, though.
Frankie,
Go peddle you wares there to that leaned crowd, then. Here you are simply an object of amusement. 😉
I peddle the wares where they need to be peddled, Richie. And by your avoidance of the topic I would say I am in the right spot. Why go to UD and tell them what they already know? I am here because you guys seem unaware.
Now that might amuse you but ignorance isn’t funny. It isn’t something you should be proud of.
Oh Richie, in case you have forgotten you made a bullshit claim about the parking lot story. Do you have the integrity to retract it or try to support it?
Hmmm. Who else do I know who doesn’t have the integrity to support a claim or retract it? Frequency = Wavelength. Ice <> water.
Frankie,
What claim was that, my portly friend?
What bullshit story was that? Lots of us remember the incident. As usual you were running your mouth and making physical threats. You got called on it and offered to meet and “teach us a lesson”. You then gave out an address and told everyone they could go there and “ask for Joe”. Being the true Internet Tough Guy you are it turns out you gave a bogus address in an empty parking lot 30 miles from your real location. We laughed over that bit of cowardice by you for weeks! 😀 😀 😀
LoL! adapa will never be able to support one bit of what it just posted. Too funny the lengths desperate people go to to try to score some imaginary points.
And Richie your bullshit claim was that what I posted was far from the truth. You just spewed that and never supported it.
But I would rather you address the OP or not post anything
But you’re just a porn posting troll so I think we’ll laugh at you.
You know that the internet remembers, right? It’s all still there…
Well, yes! It is! And you are that desperate person!
I strongly encourage you to spend more of your valuable time there, then.
Why would they? Do aeronautical electronics companies say anything about “blind and mindless gravity” when they design and launch satellites into orbit? No? Well then, no actual scientist is going to use those terms when using evolution processes either.
I did. Your “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes” is a special pleading strawman of biological science. All scientific explanations and models are going to focus on “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes” because that’s the foundation of science. Don’t like it? Well, you’ll just have to find a different universe to live in then.
Well, that’s not all they do. They are also search for extraterrestrial life in general.
In any event, their search for intelligence focuses on looking for specific types of MATERIAL products. And they have NEVER – NOT ONCE – looked for a “privileged planet”; they look for specific types of radio waves crossing deep zones of space. Do you not even bother to read their literature?
Once again…nice own goal there Joe! LOL!
HAHAHAHAHA!! You might want to actually read what their search algorithms are based on some time!
Here’s a pretty good lecture on some new methodologies based on new civilization development and expansion hypotheses.
http://www.seti.org/weeky-lecture/wise-search-large-extraterrestrial-civilizations-complementary-approach-traditional
Here’s another that provides an explanation for why Gonzales’ concepts are bunk:
http://www.seti.org/seti-institute/weeky-lecture/statistical-equation-habitable-seh-and-statistical-fermi-paradox
Oooo…I’m sorry…you likely won’t like it though. Nothing about your silly “Privileged Planet”…
A pretty good illustration of why you are not a scientist.
Yeah Joe…you go with that! HAHAHAHAHA!!
Already provided. Your inability to grasp concepts is not my problem…
…speaking of meaningless. Yet again, this would be a pretty good illustration of why you are not a scientist. And again, that you can’t grasp such concepts is not my problem…
Nope. That’s actually the overall implication of the science. It’s as solidly understood and factual as heat distribution through fluids and light scattering when encountering gasses.
…except that SETI doesn’t look for TPPs…
LOL! Not according to actual astronomers, astrophysicists, and astrobiologists…
HAHAHAHAHA!!! Could you be any more obtuse? What do you think traits are in a biological context?
BZZZZZT!!! I’m smacking the BS button here. Both Gould and Dawkins go into detail on the evolution of extraterrestrial life. Did you bother even a second of Googling before you posted that obviously erroneous statement? Heck, Gould had a program called…wait for it…Life Beyond Earth!
Seriously Joe…don’t you get tired of being so, so wrong all the time?
LOL! The only one shown to be embracing dogma here is you, Joe.
Yep.
Irrelevant to my point. That you only occasionally like being lumped in with creationists does not change the fact that the argument’s you keep repeating are old, worn-out creationist complaints.
I’m not mind reading Joe; I’m noting that you and other creationists only apply the silly complaint of “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes” to biology (and specifically, evolution) and don’t seem to recognize or care that it’s the foundation of ALL science. So once again…why no complaints about “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material gravity”? Why no complaints about “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material thermodynamics”? Because your beef isn’t with science, it’s that your superstitions aren’t supported by reality.
Irrelevant to my comment.
Well, that would be one reason that ID and “The Privileged Planet” are not science then. Science can only deal with analyzing, testing, and modeling systems that are “a product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes” ‘cuz no one has a) come up with any evidence for anything else and b) no one’s come up with a way of analyzing, testing, and modeling anything else.
LOL! I’m sorry Joe, but the criteria for scientific modeling is not, “it’s effects can be placed in a formula”.
Even still, it’s not like evolution isn’t modeled using formulas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle
No it isn’t. They are all science for exactly the same reasons: they all are models of natural phenomena. And they all rely on “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes” as the basis of their operation.
No, you’ve simply offered an erroneous rebuttal.
LOL! No, it’s been addressed and oddly, you can’t come up with a valid way to rebut my points.
There’s no need for me to define ID out of science; ID did that to itself by A) refusing to actually establish a testable hypothesis and B) testing it and C) modeling it.
Until ID engages in those things, it isn’t science.
That is your opinion and meaningless.
But you are very wrong and you are wrong about the foundation of science.
It is part of your comment
Coming for you that is meaningless. It refutes your claim, Robin
That is totally wrong. Science cannot be governed by dogma
Yes, you are sorry Robin-I didn’t say it was. Obviously you have reading comprehension issues
Again genetic algorithms model evolution by means of intelligent design
Design is a natural phenomena
OK Robin’s bullshit about the foundation is science has been refuted. Yet Robin keeps spewing it as if it means something- Typical but still pathetic.
And yet you are trying to but too bad you aren’t any type of authority and can only speak from your ass.
<
blockquote>ID did that to itself by A) refusing to actually establish a testable hypothesis and B) testing it and C) modeling it.
Except ID has all of those. OTOH no one knows how to model blind and mindless process producing irreducible complexity.
Robin,
LoL! None of that has anything to do with blind and mindless processes producing the diversity of life.
Because they have to as that is what is being debated. Read the OP
<
blockquote>Do aeronautical electronics companies say anything about “blind and mindless gravity” when they design and launch satellites into orbit?
Irrelevant
Then why did Dawkins write a book about it? Why does Coyne espouse it? Methinks you don’t know anything about it
They can’t do that by looking for radio signals and that is why they are looking for
Or if they happen to luck upon it it will have the same characteristics that are found on earth, the sun and the rest of the SS
LoL! You don’t even know what science entails. You make shit up and spew it out as if it means something.
Bullshit and you failed to reference the scientific theory of evolution- what happened you couldn’t find it so you revert to your childish taunts and playground bullshit.
Then you should be able to reference it
Yes, Patrick I am sure you have had enough of your ignorance exposed
So Robin continues to spew nonsense about the foundations of science- science cannot be governed by dogma, Robin. And Robin doesn’t know jack about ID and science.
The OP stands unaddressed.
Assuming your conclusion
What dogma am I embracing? The dogma of open science?
Try making a case that I embrace dogma, Robin, I dare you.
OTOH methodological naturalism is a dogma and Robin embraces it with open arms.
The evidence is against you, Robin.
What I said is based on observations and experiences. You can refute it by showing that blind and mindless process can be modelled producing IC.
That bit of nonsense is proven false by the very existence of “The Privileged Planet”, the writings of walter Bradley and the book “the Nature of Nature”.
Robin’s is an argument from ignorance and it appears to be willful