Sometimes atheists and Darwinists are just so stupid and hypocritical that it takes your breath away.
Darwinist fanatic Jeff Shallit blogs about a non-credit course titled "God and Reason" organized by four Christian professors at the University of Waterloo where Shallit is a math professor. The course addresses the questions of God's existence and the relation of theology to reason.
Shallit is skeptical that the course will address atheism fairly:
Free and open encounters are the heart and soul of scholarship. And I have no doubt that the professors will address atheist and theist arguments fairly and in some detail-- that seems to be the whole point of the course.
How about this, Dr. Shallit: let's apply the same enthusiasm for free and open encounters to evolutionary biology courses, offering students I.D. books and books on theistic and Thomistic evolution as well as the implicitly atheist Darwinist gruel.
'Teach the controversy' should apply to evolution as well as to apologetics.
Darwinist fanatic Jeff Shallit blogs about a non-credit course titled "God and Reason" organized by four Christian professors at the University of Waterloo where Shallit is a math professor. The course addresses the questions of God's existence and the relation of theology to reason.
Shallit is skeptical that the course will address atheism fairly:
In thinking about this course more, I think there is a big dilemma for the instructors. All four of them are respected and accomplished researchers and scholars. But a scholar, by definition, must explore the literature both for and against any point of view. If there are arguments with some merit against your thesis, you must address them.
On the other hand, a Christian evangelical usually feels no such obligation. Their primary goal is to convert you to their belief, not to explore themes with scholarly detachment.
So, which will it be in this course? So far I am not very optimistic that scholarship will win out over Christian apologetics. For one thing, the textbook is Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism which, at least judging from the reviews, is not an academic or scholarly text that addresses the other side fairly. Second, no opposing point of view is given as recommended reading. Third, the whole exercise is sponsored by "Power to Change Ministries". And finally, no one associated with the course is a skeptic, non-believer, or even non-Christian.
So here is a suggestion to the organizers. Live up to your obligations and reputations as scholars, and, for each session, list some suggested readings for "the other side". For example, for the next lecture, you might mention Jordan Howard Sobel's recent book, Logic and Theism: Arguments for and Against Beliefs in God, which is available here for free if you are a student or faculty member at the University of Waterloo. I could list many more.
After all, "who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?"
Free and open encounters are the heart and soul of scholarship. And I have no doubt that the professors will address atheist and theist arguments fairly and in some detail-- that seems to be the whole point of the course.
How about this, Dr. Shallit: let's apply the same enthusiasm for free and open encounters to evolutionary biology courses, offering students I.D. books and books on theistic and Thomistic evolution as well as the implicitly atheist Darwinist gruel.
'Teach the controversy' should apply to evolution as well as to apologetics.
No. To me, it seems as though the course is very light weight; a 20 minute talk, followed by student questions and discussions and the main part of the session - refreshments.
ReplyDeleteIt's only an Apologetics excuse for a social gathering. I can't see it appealing to any atheist or undecided person.
If you want ID or Thomistic evolution (whatever that is) treated at college level in a course, then write a college-level text book for it.
Evolutionary biology isn't atheistic. It's just science. Ken Miller and Francis Collins both reject ID as science. Ken Miller tries to include God in evolution by postulating that he directs radiation at a particular segment of DNA to produce desired mutations (a sort of theistic evolution, which is impossible to observe or verify).
There's no controversy with evolutionary biology. It's supported by facts, all of which are consistent with it.
"There's no controversy with evolutionary biology."
DeleteWhat you mean is that you wish there wasn't. It's as if you think that saying 'There is no controversy' over and over a thousand times will make it so.
Joey
If there is no controversy than they don't have to teach it. Therefor, they contend that there's no controversy.
DeleteAnd spare me the Holocaust denier comeback.
Ben
One mythology is derided as unsupported, when convenient. The other is supposedly factual. These facts include conclusions drawn by observations that stem from sciences still in their infancy and is compared/contrasted to a philosophical argument that has been developed over millennia. I should also note that the very same methods used to obtain the 'facts' in the Darwinian argument are discarded when they do not fit the desired conclusions. I am reminded of 19th century biblical archaeology.
ReplyDeleteThe argument put forth by Prof Shallit is a faith based argument fuelled by a contempt that has no place in academic discourse. He is a preacher of a doctrine.
Further, it is preaching to a choir.
It is a form of apologetics itself.
Darwinian apologetics.
Suitably self refuting to boot.
Liberals are all the same in this regard. They want their opponents to teach "both sides" but they don't have to, because there's no "legitimate" argument against them. They define what is legitimate and what is not.
ReplyDeleteThe course on the existence of God needs to have both sides represented but not the course on evolution, or really any subject for that matter. Homosexuality? Inborn. No debate. Global warming? Totally real and totally man-made. No debate. Bush? Dumbest president ever. No debate. The media? Skewed to the right by corporate ownership. No debate. Capitalism? A catastrophic failure. No debate.
Joey
Joey,
DeleteThat was essentially my experience at college. Most courses were highly political and most professors were quite proud of their politics. "No one is unbiased" I heard on several occasions.
"Both sides" were never represented. One course I took, I think it was called Media and Society, was about the supposedly right-wing media and the professor was an avowed communist. He drew heavily on Noam Chomsky and Robert McChesney. There was no "other side" in his mind and so the students got none. The media is a right-wing institution; there is no controversy about that because he says so and everyone else in the faculty lounge agrees with him. The experts have weighed in and that settles it.
At one point early in the course the professor took a couple of minutes to summarize the absurd arguments of those who insist that the media tilts to the left. His summary was a gross misrepresentation of what conservative critics actually believe. Then he dismissed the notion and carried on for the rest of the semester with the usual drivel.
TRISH
That was my college experience too, Trish. It's all one big echo chamber. They use the fact that everyone on the faculty marches in lockstep on a particular issue to make the point that there's no legitimate controversy. They all agree with each other, and that means they're right. It's like they've never heard of groupthink.
DeleteBen
"They all agree with each other, and that means they're right."
DeleteThat's how liberals argue, isn't it? I've noticed that whenever the theory of global warming is discussed, the very first line of defense is to say that scientists are in agreement on the issue. Not really a true fact, but they say it as if it means something. As if scientists can't be wrong. What they're saying (and this isn't even a good premise) is that all reputable scientists know this to be true. They all agree with each other and that means they're right.
Joey
Evolutionary biology isn't controversial becauses it's supported by the facts. If there are any facts that contradict evolution, in your opinion, then list them, and we can discuss whether they do or not.
ReplyDeletePolitics, religion or media bias are matters of opinion. There's no definite evidence favoring one viewpoint over another 100%. You can make arguments one way or another, but an opponent can make equally valid arguments for the opposite position. And the weight of the arguments can change over time, favoring one position at one time and then favoring the opposite later.
Science attempts to determine the reality in the Universe. It's a continual effort at approaching truth by a process of more exact model building. Errors in the models are continually searched for and the models modified or discarded, and newer better ones searched for.
bachfiend: "...any facts that contradict evolution, in your opinion, then list them..."
DeleteThey are all listed in this book. Read it and then come back.
bachfiend: "There's no definite evidence favoring one viewpoint over another 100%."
Wrong again (are you making an habit of being always wrong?) The best argument against you is what crusadeREX said:
"...sciences still in their infancy and is compared/contrasted to a philosophical argument that has been developed over millennia..."
Just (try to) think about that "fiend"!
"Evolutionary biology" isn't a theory, it's a field of study.
DeleteDarwinism is a theory, and its very controversial, even within the field of evolutionary biology (eg endosymbiosis, neutral theory, adaptationalism, teleological evolution, etc)
After all, if there is no controversy in evolutionary biology, why the heck are we funding so much research in evolutionary biology?
You Darwinists spend most of your time trying to suppress critical examination of Darwinian theory. It's a hoot that you demand that Christians "teach the controversy" in apologetics when you are such passionate censors and dogmatists in your creation myth.
Look, I don't know all that much about the theory of evolution. All I know is that people fight like cats and dogs over it. Ergo, it is controversial, ergo there is a controversy.
DeleteI don't care. It doesn't bolster or destroy my world view. It might be true.
"Politics, religion or media bias are matters of opinion."
Any argument that involves the weighing of evidence to determine whether a certain position is tenable is open to opinion. Some people think the evidence weighs more heavily on one side, some on the other.
If you read a science book from one hundred years ago you will find a lot of things in it that we "know" or think we know not to be true. The best scientists of their day, however, "knew" or thought they knew them to be factual.
Joey
Joey: Look, I don't know all that much about the theory of evolution. All I know is that people fight like cats and dogs over it. Ergo, it is controversial, ergo there is a controversy.
DeleteThat's the story peddled by Discovery Institute. In reality, there are controversies in evolutionary biology, but they are hardly what Discovery says they are. Ask some actual biologists about, say, common descent, and you will be hard pressed to find anyone who doubts it. Neutral drift is part of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.
Try again, guys.
Hoo
Geocentrism, like philosophy, developed over millennia too. We had no way of telling whether it was true or false. It's only when we have the ability to acquire facts, such as Gallileo observing the moons of Jupiter, that it could be determined to be incorrect.
DeleteThere are no controversies in evolutionary biology, just unanswered questions. Common ancestry, descent with modification, natural variation within populations and mechanism(s) for altering the relative frequency of the variations within the populations are all factually true beyond reasonable doubt of anyone who has studied biology in reasonable depth.
If you are aware of any facts that contradict the evolutionary model above, then list them. Luskin's book doesn't count. If you have an alternate theory, then what is it and how does it work?
"Common ancestry" is not established. Teleological evolution can explain commonalities, without the need for a single common ancestor.
Delete"Natural variation within populations" is a trivial observation, not a theory.
"mechanism(s) for altering the relative frequency of the variations within the populations"-- differential reproduction is trivial as well. The "mechanisms" aren't explanations, they are observations.
Your "theory" of Darwinism is banalities and other sciences dressed up to look like a real scientific theory. Darwinism is "proven" because it's not a theory. It's an ideology dressed up to look like a theory.
@Hoo:
Delete[That's the story peddled by Discovery Institute. In reality, there are controversies in evolutionary biology, but they are hardly what Discovery says they are. Ask some actual biologists about, say, common descent, and you will be hard pressed to find anyone who doubts it. Neutral drift is part of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.]
The most important controversy in recent times is the debate about Junk DNA.
Intelligent Design 1, Darwinism 0.
You Darwinians predicted that a large portion of the genome was functionless DNA, and for decades you invoked Junk DNA as strong evidence for Darwinism.
You are now repudiated, by the leading molecular geneticists and the leading journals. Your idiotic theory held molecular genetics back for decades.
Michael,
DeleteNo. Junk DNA wasn't a prediction of science. It's a fact that the size of the genome varies markedly across species, even very similar ones. The marbled lungfish has a genome consisting of 130 billion base pairs compared to the human one of 3.2 billion base pairs. It's a reasonable assertion that the difference in the genome size across species partly reflects differences in the amount of DNA that has little or no function, and which can be added or deleted without significant effect.
I've previously challenged you on many occassions to specify what percentage of the human genome could be without function and consistent with your assertion that almost all of the human genome is functional, and you've refused.
Whether ENCODE is actually verified is a matter of debate. The definition of 'function' was so broad that making a single transcript of a segment of DNA fitted the definition, even if it had no further effect.
Junk DNA didn't delay molecular biology one bit. The human genome was read when we had the computers and the technology, and even then it cost a billion dollars. With improvements in technology, it will soon be possible to have your possible genome read for less than $1000, and have an indication of your susceptibility to disease such as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease etc.
You haven't thought through the risks of having this information thoroughly enough. Did you miss reading the last chapter of 'War Against the Weak' (2012 update) in which the author discusses this very problem.
I suppose if people know their propensity to disease, it might lead to them being unable to purchase affordable medical or life insurance. It might even lead to a sort of informal eugenics in which people insist that their potential future marriage partners reveal their genomes to exclude a risk of disease.
A scientific theory doesn't consist of the parts. It consists of the whole. You don't have a coherent theory to replace evolution. Or do you? Expand upon your preferred theory.
Egnor: "Common ancestry" is not established. Teleological evolution can explain commonalities, without the need for a single common ancestor.
DeleteCommon ancestry is well established. Phylogenetic trees are much more consistent with common ancestry than with separate origins. D. L. Theobald, "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry," Nature 465, 219 (2010). doi:10.1038/nature09014
Egnor: "Natural variation within populations" is a trivial observation, not a theory.
Indeed. That was 150 years ago. The source of natural variation has been traced to random mutations of the genome. Have you been living under a rock, Dr. Egnor?
Egnor: "mechanism(s) for altering the relative frequency of the variations within the populations"-- differential reproduction is trivial as well. The "mechanisms" aren't explanations, they are observations.
Differential reproduction is not the mechanism of variations. Mutations provide a mechanism of variations. Some mutations result in advantage in survival. That gives rise to differential reproduction. A well-documented example of this was reported by Richard Lenski and his students. Certain mutations in one of their E.coli batches allowed the bacteria to digest citrate, which E.coli do not do normally. This ability led to differential reproduction: the mutants reproduced much faster than the bacteria lacking the mutations. The mutant strain spread through the population, thus altering the allele frequencies. A textbook example. Z. D. Blount et al., "Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population," Nature 489, 513 (2012). doi:10.1038/nature11514
Your knowledge of evolutionary biology is dismal, Dr. Egnor. You criticize that which you do not understand.
Hoo
@Hoo:
DeleteHow do you distinguish common ancestry from common design?
"Common design" is not a scientific hypothesis. It is not specific enough to make any testable predictions.
DeleteHoo
@Hoo:
Delete[Common ancestry is well established. Phylogenetic trees are much more consistent with common ancestry than with separate origins. D. L. Theobald, "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry," Nature 465, 219 (2010). doi:10.1038/nature09014]
"Much more consistent" is not proven. Common ancestry is a theory, for which there is evidence both for and against.
Why are you so dogmatic about your science? Perhaps it's not science, but ideology.
[The source of natural variation has been traced to random mutations of the genome. Have you been living under a rock, Dr. Egnor?]
"Random mutations of the genome" is genetics. Darwinism neither predicts molecular genetics nor explains it.
[Egnor: "mechanism(s) for altering the relative frequency of the variations within the populations"-- differential reproduction is trivial as well. The "mechanisms" aren't explanations, they are observations.
Differential reproduction is not the mechanism of variations.]
It is the mechanism of variation of phenotypes over time in populations.
[Mutations provide a mechanism of variations. Some mutations result in advantage in survival. That gives rise to differential reproduction. A well-documented example of this was reported by Richard Lenski and his students. Certain mutations in one of their E.coli batches allowed the bacteria to digest citrate, which E.coli do not do normally. This ability led to differential reproduction: the mutants reproduced much faster than the bacteria lacking the mutations. The mutant strain spread through the population, thus altering the allele frequencies. A textbook example. Z. D. Blount et al., "Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population," Nature 489, 513 (2012). doi:10.1038/nature11514]
Things vary and survivors survive. Some theory you've got there.
[Your knowledge of evolutionary biology is dismal, Dr. Egnor. You criticize that which you do not understand.]
I understand your crap theory quite well. That's the problem. When you cut through the sciencey-sounding jargon, Darwinism reduces to "things vary and survivors survive".
Darwinism is your creation myth.
@Hoo:
Delete["Common design" is not a scientific hypothesis. It is not specific enough to make any testable predictions.]
Darwinism is the theory that life evolved by random variation and natural selection, without design.
If design can't be tested scientifically, how is it that you claim that Darwinism is true?
But of course design is testable. Irreducible complexity is a test (as Darwin acknowledged). The presence of a code in the genome is a test-- there are no natural undesigned codes. The intricate nanotechnology in cells is a test of design.
Junk DNA is a test of design. In an undesigned system, randomness (junk) accumulates. A designed system would be expected to manifest less junk. That is in fact an argument made by Darwinists for decades.
ENCODE sort of blew you guys out of the water.
The score:
Design >>1, Darwinism 0.
Michael,
DeleteOK. What is the evidence against common ancestry? You assert that there is evidence for and against, so what is the evidence against?
And if there's evidence against, why doesn't that disprove it? You've wrongly asserted in the past that all theories have evidence for and against, which is just plain wrong. If there's evidence against a theory, definite verifiable evidence, then that means that the theory is either incorrect or incomplete.
Darwinism isn't a our 'creation myth'. It's the scientific theory explaining the origin of species, not the origin of life itself.
Michael,
DeleteNo. ENCODE hasn't blown us out of the water. It's still not clear whether the proportion of the human genome having a 'function' to the extent of being transcribed at least once per cell is 20%. Or 80%. Or something in between. You still refuse to specify what percentage of DNA in the human genome could be deleted without effect and still be consistent with your previous assertion that almost all of the human genome has a function.
Irreducible complexity isn't a test of design. Herman Muller discussed it decades ago long before Michael Behe claimed to have discovered it. Muller realized it wasn't a problem for evolution.
The genetic code isn't evidence of design. There are plenty of undesigned natural codes. Ten billion of them, in fact, in the 10 billion extant species, with perhaps 17 minor variations across species. If the genetic code was designed, then there wouldn't be anything stopping the designer from putting a different code in humans to distinguish us from every other species, to show how 'special' we are. But we're not. The code for E. coli is the same as for Homo sapiens, and everything in between.
'A designed system would be expected to exhibit less junk'. Do you accept the corollary; 'an undesigned system would be expected to exhibit more junk?'
Egnor: Darwinism is the theory that life evolved by random variation and natural selection, without design.
DeleteNo. Darwinism is the theory that life evolved by random variation and natural selection. There is no need to say "without design." You might as well say "no leprechauns were involved."
A design is not a specific hypothesis. A designer could do whatever he or she wants. A designer could plant a garden that mimics a wild forest. The designer God could have created all creatures from nothing 6,000 years ago and sprinkle around fake fossils. He could put junk in the genome just to throw future geneticists off the trail. The possibilities are endless. That is why a design hypothesis is in the same realm as Russel's teapot. It is not a serious scientific hypothesis.
Egnor: Junk DNA is a test of design. In an undesigned system, randomness (junk) accumulates. A designed system would be expected to manifest less junk. That is in fact an argument made by Darwinists for decades.
Wrong. A designer could put any amount of junk into a genetic code. There could be comments or even some Easter eggs in it that have nothing to do with passing genetic information. And in fact, we know full well that certain portions of a genome are junk. Pseudogenes are one example, endogenous retroviruses another. The junk that is called "functional" by ENCODE researchers is not necessarily functional: these portions of DNA are expressed, but the researchers do not know whether the resulting material is used.
So it is a bit premature to declare victory on junk. There is still much junk in the DNA. Your hypothesis of no junk DNA surely fails the onion test.
Hoo
Egnor: "Much more consistent" is not proven. Common ancestry is a theory, for which there is evidence both for and against.
DeleteDr. Egnor, you don't seem to understand the difference between science and mathematics. The former uses evidence, the latter deals with proofs. And what, prey tell, is evidence against common ancestry? Could you be a bit more specific?
Egnor: "Random mutations of the genome" is genetics. Darwinism neither predicts molecular genetics nor explains it.
You are some 70 years behind the curve. "Darwinism" has been replaced with neo-Darwinian synthesis, which includes genetics.
Egnor: [Differential reproduction] is the mechanism of variation of phenotypes over time in populations.
No, it isn't. Differential reproduction is a result of mutations being advantageous or deleterious to the organism. Mutations are the mechanism.
Egnor: Things vary and survivors survive. Some theory you've got there.
Did you read Blount's paper? The researchers determined the specific mutations that allowed the bacteria to digest citrate. Specific genetic variations enabled the bacteria to outcompete their relatives. And furthermore, Lenski and coworkers were able to replicate the advantageous mutations starting with the bacteria that did not have them yet. You are not interested in science, Dr. Egnor.
Egnor: I understand your crap theory quite well. That's the problem. When you cut through the sciencey-sounding jargon, Darwinism reduces to "things vary and survivors survive".
You do not understand the theory. You demonstrate your egnorance time and again.
Hoo
@Hoo:
Delete[You might as well say "no leprechauns were involved." A design is not a specific hypothesis. A designer could do whatever he or she wants.]
Is SETI science?
@Hoo:
DeleteThe inference to design is widely used in science. Engineering is design science. So is SETI, Forensic Science, cryptography, reverse engineering, etc. There are principles of design science applied everywhere everyday.
If we found a blueprint for building a complex structure that uses a code in a radio transmission from space, we would properly infer an intelligent designer of the blueprint/code.
Well, we did find a code and a blueprint-- inside cells. Why not infer design, as we would infer design in SETI?
The detection of design is central to science. Why, except for ideological reasons, exempt biology?
SETI isn't science. Nether is cryptography or "reverse engineering," whatever that means. If you wish to provide examples of design detection in actual sciences, such as physics or chemistry, be my guest.
DeleteHoo
Hoo,
DeleteReverse engineering is the process of stripping down a technology or machine in order to understand it's function often in order reproduce or inhibit that function.
In military spheres it usually deals with captured or otherwise procured vehicles, technologies, and weapons.
It is one of the prime functions of the facility at which I work. The technology is reduced to it's smallest components and examined so that we can come to understand the intent of the designer and learn the function of the subject of the engineering project.
An example? A drone is shot down over Iran. The Iranians reverse engineer the device and thereby learn how to mimic the stealth or control abilities of that drone.
The same concept has been applied to the 'nano machines' in cells by the ID folks.
It has produced some fascinating results.
Cryptography is indeed a science. A very complex one, at that.
Mr. crusadeREX,
DeleteCryptography may be a complex discipline, but complexity alone does not make it science. Mathematics is complicated enough, yet it isn't science. There is no experimentation and hypothesis building involved, just straight application of logic.
Same with cryptography. It is a discipline that fuses mathematics and engineering. You may say that it is applied mathematics. Science it is not.
Hoo
@Hoo:
Delete[SETI isn't science. Nether is cryptography or "reverse engineering," whatever that means. If you wish to provide examples of design detection in actual sciences, such as physics or chemistry, be my guest.]
I see. So you define science as excluding the study of designed things, and then you assert that design isn't science.
Pretty funny.
Obviously SETI, Forensic SCIENCE, genetic engineering, reverse engineering are sciences. It's amusing that you're so desperate to deny the obvious design in biology that you make ridiculous assertions.
I'll repeat my question: if you found a code for a blueprint transmitted by a radio signal from space, would you infer an intelligent source?
I use the standard definition of science. Under the standard definition, neither mathematics, nor SETI qualify as science.
DeleteNeither do theology or philosophy. This does not mean that these disciplines are somehow deficient. It simply means that they do not rely on the scientific method. Nothing else and nothing more.
Neurosurgery is not science, but there is no reason to take it personally, Dr. Egnor.
Hoo
@Hoo:
DeleteYour Wikipedia definition of science includes engineering and medicine, which are obviously sciences. Are you seriously claiming that medical researchers aren't scientists?
You Darwinists will go to bizarre ends to defend your ideology.
Answer my question: radio signal from space, code for blueprint. Would you infer intelligent cause?
Medicine and engineering are not themselves sciences. They are sometimes referred to as applied sciences, which means that they are concerned with applications of science (biological and physical).
DeleteTo be sure, there are people in medical schools who perform basic biological research and those in engineering departments who look at basic properties of, say, materials. These would qualify as scientists.
It is clear, however, where the line is drawn. If a field of human knowledge relies on the scientific method (a combination of experiments and testable theory) to advance knowledge then it is science. Fields that are concern with the application, but not the development, of basic scientific knowledge, are applied science. Much of engineering is applied physics. Much of medicine is applied biology. Forensic science is in the same category: it uses knowledge from biology, chemistry, and physics to solve crimes. It is not concerned with a theory of crime, it merely applies science to obtain practical results.
There is no question, however, that mathematics and philosophy are not sciences.
And Dr. Egnor, your example of a radio signal from space transmitting some blueprint is a naive fantasy. You are thinking of anthropomorphic aliens who would purportedly act in the same way we would. There is no science in that.
Hoo
@Hoo:
DeleteThere has never been a widely agreed-upon definition of science. In the philosophy of science, its called 'the demarcation problem'. I assure you that your personal definition is irrelevant to real world discussions of the demarcation of science.
But certain things are widely agreed. Science is the systematic study of the natural world. Medical research is obviously science, as is engineering. The scientific method is essential to experimental science, but many other kinds of science don't use the same empirical approach (eg historical sciences like cosmology and paleontology, applied sciences like engineering and medicine, etc). Some sciences are broadly theoretical (mathematical physics) and some are empirical with less theory (cladistics).
You are so desperate to protect your Darwinian religion that you even deny that medical research and forensic science are science.
You really are desperate. That's why debating with you guys is such fun. It's so easy to get you to say stupid things.
Michael,
DeleteYou've ignored my comment that the genetic code isn't evidence of design. It's an example of a natural code that wasn't deliberately designed. And there are 10 billion of them, in 10 billion species, with around 17 minor variations across species. Human mitochondrial DNA has a slightly different code for the few proteins it produces compared to the nuclear DNA.
What would indicate design? Perhaps if humans had a completely different genetic code to every other species on Earth, to indicate how special humans are? But we don't. The genetic code is the same from E coli to Homo sapiens and everything in between.
Theoretically, you could infer design if the system you're examining is perfect, but that would only apply if the design is competent. Non-design doesn't make any assumptions about whether there's more material than necessary to do the job. It just assumes that it's adequate to do the job.
Paul Davies made a similar point in 'the Goldilock's Zone'. 'Fine-tuning' of the Universe doesn't mean design unless it's absolutely perfect for life everywhere not just barely adequate for life just once, here on Earth. We don't know how perfectly the Universe is 'fine tuned' - we have only the one Universe to examine, and even that one in inadequate detail.
What is science? I'd personally define it as a human (or at least sentient - if there are ETIs) endevour, involving collecting information, devising a hypothesis to explain the information, making predictions about further observations that would either be consistent with the hypothesis or more importantly actually disprove the hypothesis, and going out to make the observations. Repeated as many times as necessary till such a time as the hypothesis has been confirmed as being 'true' so many times that it becomes a theory or it's disproved and discarded. Even successful theories can later be overthrown with new information.
A lot of what is called 'science' is just applied technology.
Hoo,
DeleteNo need for the MR, my friend.
But, IF we must stand on titles (and there no need at all) it is Capt.
Point taken on the actual cryptography itself. However, the science of cryptography comes in the form of inventing and testing various coding machines. I can see how the actual coding could be described as 'applied mathematics', but the building of those machines requires scientific experimentation.
Hence my clarified position is that any decent cryptography effort/dept (in the modern sense) involves sciences, mathematics, and engineering.
As for the anthropomorphic 'ETI' stuff: I will just have to bite my tongue on that one.
Sufficed to say that such a debate would require a definition of terms (ET & I).
Some points to consider: Do we mean by ET simply not of this earth? By intelligence do we mean equal or parallel to our own or are we referring to a technological level? One that is both similar and/or greater than our own?
The very terms themselves limit our capacity to discuss the subject intelligently.
I would liken SETI to an attempt at running before we have learned to walk. Or perhaps trying to complete a 1,000,000 piece puzzle with only a handful of the jig saw bits.
In that respect I see it as very much like so many of the life sciences we discuss here so frequently; especially the endeavours that try to apply these scraps of data we think are correct in the form of a history (ie Natural history).
Is that science? I don't know... it would depend (once again) on the definition of the term. But one thing is certain: Those that practice such imaginative exercises sure do think so, and they sure do take their imaginings very seriously as do their financial backers.
Definition of controversy: a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversy
You come to this blog specifically because Dr. Egnor is such a stubborn curmudgeon who continues to dispute what you think you know to be true. There is controversy. You think the controversy is a dumb one, which is really irrelevant to whether or not a controversy exists.
By the way, Galileo was "outside the mainstream", he did not give a crap about the "consensus", and he contradicted things that the most learned people of his time "knew" to be true. Which is to say that they believed they were true, but they were in fact in error.
"That's the story peddled by Discovery Institute. In reality, there are controversies in evolutionary biology, but they are hardly what Discovery says they are."
I'm not part of the Discovery Institute fan club. I know they think evolution is hooey but I've never delved into their materials, so I can't tell you if I find their arguments convincing.
Joey
Joey,
Delete'By the way, Galileo was 'outside the mainstream', he did not give a crap about the 'consensus', and he contradicted things that the most 'learned' people of his day believed'.
Copernicus had developed a heliocentric theory of the solar system in the previous century. Galileo just was able to make observations with his telescope that no one had previously been able to make. Many of the learned people of the day who were wedded to the geocentric model refused to look through the telescope and confirm the observations for themselves.
"Many of the learned people of the day who were wedded to the geocentric model refused to look through the telescope and confirm the observations for themselves."
ReplyDeleteI think you see my point. The experts weren't right because they were experts and they weren't right because they were all in agreement with each other. They weren't right at all.
Joey
Joey,
DeleteNo, I don't 'see' your 'point'. They were 'learned', but not 'experts'. They refused to look at the evidence offered. Theories aren't proved. They are just failed to be disproved. Refusing to look at evidence that might disprove a favorite theory, such as geocentrism, isn't a sign of expertise. It's a sign of ignorance.
And yes, I've looked at the evidence for the existence of god(s), and I don't find it anyway near to be convincing.
"Refusing to look at evidence that might disprove a favorite theory, such as geocentrism, isn't a sign of expertise. It's a sign of ignorance."
ReplyDeleteSure. So is ignoring the Climategate emails.
"Theories aren't proved. They are just failed to be disproved."
I agree one hundred percent. Albert Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Which is why we can't speak of science being "settled" or the debate being "over" or that someone is denying facts or hating science. All scientific theories are debatable; if they aren't, they aren't scientific. Nothing in science is beyond question. No, not even gravity.
"And yes, I've looked at the evidence for the existence of god(s), and I don't find it anyway near to be convincing."
Good luck with that. Keep looking. I think you'll find that the metaphysical is quite different from the physical, the supernatural is quite different from the natural. You might find that one doesn't conform to the rules of the other.
The point I tried to make with Galileo is that Galileo was right, despite being in the minority. That's the most frequent retort liberals use to bat away ideas they want to grapple with: there's no controversy here. The experts are in agreement. Shut up. Go away. "Experts" being "in agreement" is pretty irrelevant.
Joey
Joey,
DeleteNo. Galileo wasn't in the minority. He was in the majority of astronomers with access to a telescope allowing them to make the appropriate observations of the Jovian moons and the phases of Venus and hence arrive at the correct conclusion that the Sun is the centre of the solar system, not the Earth.
All right, Bachfiend. Here's what Wiki says on the matter: "Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[9] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[9] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could be supported as only a possibility, not an established fact.[9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[9] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[11][12]"
DeleteI see that you argue that Galileo was in the majority of astronomers with access to telescopes. And how many were they? Why was only only Galileo imprisoned and forced to recant?
You're missing the forest for the trees. If you prefer, then can we both agree that Copernicus was in the minority and he was right? When are you going to cede the point that everyone being in agreement isn't the same as everyone being right?
Joey
Bach,
DeleteYou're being extremely unscientific in your approach.
Your straw man re junk DNA bares little resemblance to the ID predictions. Your assertion that a telescope (or equipment) is what makes consensus is equally silly.
You should really welcome ID with open arms. It is a lifeboat for evolutionary theory. What I see here instead is you re arranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
ALL the sciences are now beginning to see the underpinning of design in the physical structure of the universe. From particle entanglement to nano machines in the cell, to the information storage nature of the double helix and beyond. Stuff, apparently, happens for a reason and forms patterns when it does.
It's time for you to decide which valuables you want to take on the raft and which raft to take.
So, why not join fellow mechanistic evolutionists in the ID boat?
She may not be the perfect vessel, but if you're at the oars you could help - and at least she is not headed to the bottom.
Is evolutionary theory your prized jewel? If so, you had best leave behind your several tonnes of nihilism. The ID folks are much more limited (scientific?) in the aims, you see. They prefer ideas to ideology, and if you want to help row there is little or no room for the dogma of 'consensus'.
...and the band played on.
It appears that in fact Galileo was in the minority, just like Joey said, and Galileo was right. That's the conclusion I draw from the Wikipedia quote.
DeleteHe met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.
The experts thought he was wrong. I can hear them now. "All reputable astronomers...blah, blah, blah," "The scientific consensus, blah, blah, blah," "There is no controversy among experts in the field, blah, blah, blah."
If we had listened to those people we would still believe in the geocentric model today. It's a good thing science allows dissenting voices. True science, I mean, not this stifling dogma that passes for science these days.
Ben
Galileo was the first person to produce a telescope for astronomical use, and the first thing he did was to look at the sky with it. So when he was making his observations of the Jovian moons, and observing them orbiting Jupiter, and observing the phases of Venus, and drawing the conclusion that Venus was orbiting the Sun, he was in the majority in the population (one) of astronomers with a telescope.
DeleteThe learned people of his day who refused to look through his telescope to confirm his observations for themselves weren't astronomers. A consensus to be significant has to consist of the majority of people who have access to enough of the necessary information.
Actually, Galileo didn't prove the heliocentric theory first. Who did?
How about this, Dr. Shallit: let's apply the same enthusiasm for free and open encounters to evolutionary biology courses, offering students I.D. books and books on theistic and Thomistic evolution as well as the implicitly atheist Darwinist gruel.
ReplyDeleteI think that would be fine. Just as soon as the ID, theistic and Thomistic evolution folks come up with some reasonable, tested, scientific basis for the claims they make, then this could happen, in the same way that neutral drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc made their way into biology.
Why is it folk seem always to be trying to short circuit the normal processes of science. It's almost as if you know your claims don't stand up scientifically :-)
Here's a few testable ID claims:
DeleteCellular and physiological processes will be increasingly be found to adhere to engineering principles-- pieces of a living system connect and inter-operate with other parts of the system and with external living systems, organelles of cells operate along principles of nanotechnology, the transmission of genetic information be accomplished by the use of a simple code, and that most of the control and regulation mechanism in a living cell be functional components and not junk.
Oh... wait... that is stuff that ID already predicted, that has been verified...
Havok,
DeleteAgreed. Made in my very first comment on this thread. Evolution is supported by facts. ID and Thomistic evolution (whatever that is, I think it has something to do with teleology and desired targets, like the dodo on Mauritius deciding in the 17th century that it would be a very good idea to reacquire flight - and we know how well that turned out) have nothing to do with facts - just ignorance and ideology.
ID and Thomistic evolution are evolution. Evolution is a field of study, not a theory.
DeleteDarwinism is a theory. It is supported by facts, if you consider "things change and survivors survive" a meaningful fact.
A good example of an ID prediction confirmed is the genetic code and the ENCODE research's demonstration that rather little of the genome is junk.
A good example of a Thomistic evolution prediction confirmed is convergent evolution, which is obviously an example of teleological evolution, which is extremely difficult to explain if one invokes random variation as the source for adaptive change.
mregnor, the "components" of living cells don't appear to be based on engineering princples.
DeleteIt's my understanding that complex interoperations are generally avoided in engineering, because of the complexity and unintentional side effects that result. Molecules would seem to be "nano" by definition.
Transmission of information is done using fairly compelx codes to handle error detection and correction, flow control, routing etc (see TCP/IP for an example).
The whole "Junk DNA" thing seems to be a postdiction by ID folk.
Given ID proponents avoidance of claiming anything about the designer(s), we can't state anything about the expected design - we don't know if a designer capable and desiring the "design" was even around to do the design (and implementation).
Havok:
DeleteMy points stand. ID has predicted many things that have been extensively confirmed. Postdictions are valid as well, if the postdiction is a logical consequence of the theory.
Living things are packed with evidence for design. "Things vary and survivors survive" predict and explain pitifully little.
Care to provide the Darwinian explanation-- with supporting evidence-- for the genetic code?
ID and Thomistic evolution are evolution. Evolution is a field of study, not a theory.
DeleteThere are no scientific theories of Thomistic evolution.
A good example of an ID prediction confirmed is the genetic code and the ENCODE research's demonstration that rather little of the genome is junk.
The ENCODE results have been resoundingly criticised, as you should well know.
A good example of a Thomistic evolution prediction confirmed is convergent evolution, which is obviously an example of teleological evolution,
For a Thomistic theory of evolution to even get off the ground, the dubious metaphysical principles it requires need be granted.
which is extremely difficult to explain if one invokes random variation as the source for adaptive change
What rubbish.
There are constraints on what evolutionary paths a population of organisms might take. Those constraints can be physical (ie. constraints imposed by physics and chemisty), environmental, historical, etc.
given those constraints, it's not surprising that populations of organisms evolve similar traits when faced with similar problems.
Postdictions are valid as well, if the postdiction is a logical consequence of the theory.
DeleteWhich makes ID's postdictions invalid, since there's no hypothesis to speak, and therefore no consequences which derive from it.
You'd need to put forward some attributes of the designer, provide independant evidence that the designer existed at the time the design was implemented, that the designer had the desires and capabilities to design things as we find them, and on and on.
Given ID's allergy to saying anything about the nature or attributes of the designer, we can't claim that anything is a logical consequence of ID.
Living things are packed with evidence for design.
DeleteSo, please demonstrate it mregnor. Describe what being or beings you think designed, demonstrate that it/they were/are willing and able to design things as we find them, and then provide evidence that they actually did so.
"Things vary and survivors survive" predict and explain pitifully little.
If that's the limits of your understanding of modern evolutionary theory (or even of the evolutionary tehory of Darwin's time), then it's little wonder that you make such ridiculous claims.
Care to provide the Darwinian explanation-- with supporting evidence-- for the genetic code?
DeleteSee ongoing research in abiogenesis.
Care to provide your own explanation, in the detail you would require of a non-design hypothesis before you would accept it?
Ps. Why are you unwilling to back up your accusations over on Recursivity? :-)
DeleteMichael,
DeleteAnd the genetic code isn't just a long sequence of As, Gs, Ts and Cs, arbitrary and without meaning. It represents a three dimensional molecule, composed of nucleotide base pairs, occupying space and with physicochemical properties.
The best popular science book of 2009 (and it wasn't 'Signature in the Cell') explained it extremely well. It's chapter 2 in 'Life Ascending' by Nick Lane. The triplet codon for each amino acid encoded also preferentially binds by electrochemical forces to the same amino acid. So the code, the particular triplet that specifies which amino acid is specified, isn't arbitrary, as you continue to insist.
And RNA (and its feasible precursors) can act as enzymes. DNA is just the template for RNA and acts as a storage mechanism. Many enzymes and many proteins are metalloproteins, with cations such as ferric/ferrous or cupric/cuprous bound to the protein. The protein just exists to bind the metallic ions in the right position. Respiratory enzymes rely on transfer of electrons in a chain of reactions - which the metallic ions accomplish with their different stable charges. And before protein or RNA, the same function could have been done by metallic ions bound to crystals or clays.
An artificial code, an intelligently designed code, means nothing on its own, without knowing the basis upon which it is constructed. If a message means something undeciphered then it's not a code. An encrypted message in the Enigma Code meant nothing - it was just a jumble of letters of the alphabet. Even decoded, it still meant nothing. It still had to pass through the brain of someone who understood German and who had some concept of military strategy.
The genetic code is real and substantial, and means something on its own.
@Havok:
Delete[There are no scientific theories of Thomistic evolution.]
The approach to evolutionary theory is much more teleological in Continental Europe than in the Anglo world, which has been infested with Darwinian ideology. A good example of a teleologist/Aristotelian/Thomist is renowned biologist Guiseppe Sermonti in Italy. His book "Why is a Fly not a Horse" is superb and argues for a teleological perspective. You need to read more widely. That Dawkins stuff is limiting.
[The ENCODE results have been resoundingly criticised, as you should well know.]
Of course ENCODE has been criticized. It is a mortal threat to your ideology-- if junk DNA goes, your creation myth is badly discredited. But ENCODE is excellent work by the best investigators in molecular genetics, backed by Nature. Good luck enforcing your orthodoxy.
[For a Thomistic theory of evolution to even get off the ground, the dubious metaphysical principles it requires need be granted.]
No. The evidence speaks for itself. Teleology is obvious in nature. Speaking of dubious metaphysical principles, let's discuss Darwinism.
[There are constraints on what evolutionary paths a population of organisms might take. Those constraints can be physical (ie. constraints imposed by physics and chemisty), environmental, historical, etc.
given those constraints, it's not surprising that populations of organisms evolve similar traits when faced with similar problems.]
Convergent evolution is a catastrophe for "random variation and survival of survivors". Darwinism offers no explanation for virtually identical forms of placental and marsupial mammals evolved independently. Teleology naturally explains them.
Your "constraint" isn't nature. It's your idiot theory, and your idiot ideology.
@Havok:
Delete[Ps. Why are you unwilling to back up your accusations over on Recursivity?]
I want our discussion to be read by more than five people.
@Havok:
Delete[You'd need to put forward some attributes of the designer, provide independant evidence that the designer existed at the time the design was implemented, that the designer had the desires and capabilities to design things as we find them, and on and on.]
No, I don't. You make the same error Hume made, because you use his idiot argument. The detection of intelligent agency does not require knowledge of the agent. A code transmitted from space would be recognized as intelligent (SETI) even though we know nothing at all about the sender of the code. For goodness sake, even your idiot co-atheist Carl Sagan made that point, in Contact.
Intelligent agency has hallmarks. We need know nothing of the agent to recognize the hallmarks. We are inherently capable of detecting design (we have high specificity for design detection), although we may miss design if we don't understand the designer (low sensitivity).
Design has hallmarks-- purposeful arrangement of parts, non-random direction to an end, representative codes and languages.
We need to apply the same inferences to biology that we apply to astronomy and SETI. If we find codes and blueprints and purposeful arrangement of parts, we should infer intelligent agency.
In neither SETI nor ID do we have empirical information about the intelligent agent. Yet we can identify intelligent agency.
mregnor: The approach to evolutionary theory is much more teleological in Continental Europe than in the Anglo world, which has been infested with Darwinian ideology.
DeleteThat sounds like rubbish, Mr Egnor, especially as there doesn't seem to be any evidence for agent teleology (or even any forward planning) in biology.
mregnor: A good example of a teleologist/Aristotelian/Thomist is renowned biologist Guiseppe Sermonti in Italy. His book "Why is a Fly not a Horse" is superb and argues for a teleological perspective.
Wow. A single example.
From a brief search, Sermonti has written for AiG, and the book you mention was published by the DI and edited by J. Wells.
It sounds like it's just another piece of ID propaganda to me.
mregnore: You need to read more widely. That Dawkins stuff is limiting.
You have no idea how widely read I am. Perhaps it's you who needs to read more widely - perhaps you could try the primary literature rather than a popular book?
mregnor: Of course ENCODE has been criticized. It is a mortal threat to your ideology-- if junk DNA goes, your creation myth is badly discredited.
Whether or not it is a "mortal threat to my ideology", the criticisms have merit. The definition that ENCODE used to decide whether some DNA was functional or not was not whether it had some function in the cell/organism, but rather whether it was read at all.
But ENCODE is excellent work by the best investigators in molecular genetics, backed by Nature. Good luck enforcing your orthodoxy.
As far as I understand it, ENCODE is good work. But claiming that their 80% applies to the amount of DNA that contributes to the actual function of a cell and/or organism is silly, since that is not what they were measuring.
You, and others like you, are simply equivocating between different uses of the term "functional".
No. The evidence speaks for itself. Teleology is obvious in nature.
You can assert that teleology is obvious, but you need to show it. And the evidence in biology shows no forward planning, or directedness.
Speaking of dubious metaphysical principles, let's discuss Darwinism.
As long as you're willing to concede that Thomism is a non-starter, then we can do this.
Darwinism offers no explanation for virtually identical forms of placental and marsupial mammals evolved independently.
mregnor, I just gave you a perfectly legitimate sketch of a non-teleological explanation for convergent evolution. Please point out where your problems lie with it, or accept it as a reasonable possibility.
Teleology naturally explains them.
Then please, offer your explanation, don't simply assert that there is one.
Your "constraint" isn't nature.
Really?
So you're saying that the constraints I pointed out don't actually exist?
Physics and chemistry don't constrain possible permutations of organisms?
That current DNA and development don't constrain future DNA and development?
Is your understanding of biology really that poor, or are you being dishonest?
It's your idiot theory, and your idiot ideology.
Since you don't seem to actually understand biology, nor have I said anything about any ideology I hold, the problem seems to be yours.
Dr. Egnor's argument boils down to naive anthropomorphism. The only "intelligent agency" we know of is human beings. Let us not pretend otherwise.
DeleteHoo
I want our discussion to be read by more than five people.
DeleteThen why make accusations over there that you had no intention of backing up?
Seems somewhat cowardly to me.
The detection of intelligent agency does not require knowledge of the agent. A code transmitted from space would be recognized as intelligent (SETI) even though we know nothing at all about the sender of the code. For goodness sake, even your idiot co-atheist Carl Sagan made that point, in Contact.
DeleteEgnor, you're even more foolish than I'd thought.
Detection of agency requires that we make some assumptions about the agent(s) in question.
The SETI project assumes some intelligence roughly like human intelligence. SETI looks for codes that we humans might send out (like TV signals).
Intelligent agency has hallmarks. We need know nothing of the agent to recognize the hallmarks.
Absolute rubbish. The hallmarks we recognise are for human intelligence or human like intelligence (in the case of other animals).
We are inherently capable of detecting design (we have high specificity for design detection), although we may miss design if we don't understand the designer (low sensitivity).
So on the one hand you're saying we can detect design without knowledge of the designer, and on the other you're saying if we don't have knowledge of the designer we might not detect design.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Design has hallmarks--
Whenever you write design, you would be better to write "Human design", since we're the only designers we have knowledge of.
purposeful arrangement of parts,
This doesn't seem indicative of design, since non designed things can also have "purposeful" arrangements, like ice crystals. Any stronger meaning to "purposeful" to rule out the sort of spontaneous self assembly we find in nature would seem to me to presuppose design, rather than be indicative of it.
non-random direction to an end,
Well this counts biology out, since there is no evidence to support a non-random direction to an end.
I suppose your Catholic faith forces you to assert this.
representative codes and languages.
As bachfiend pointed out, an actual DNA molecule is not a code in the standard sense. If we represent DNA using a string of A's, C's, G's and T's, then that IS a code.
We need to apply the same inferences to biology that we apply to astronomy and SETI.
As I pointed out above, SETI assumes a human like intelligence.
If we find codes and blueprints and purposeful arrangement of parts, we should infer intelligent agency.
Well, we don't find codes, blueprints, or purposeful arrangements of parts. We find complex chemistry.
And of course, if we're applying the same inferences to biology as we do to SETI, then we should make some reasonable assumptions about the designer - but that is something you seem loathe to do.
In neither SETI nor ID do we have empirical information about the intelligent agent. Yet we can identify intelligent agency.
In SETI we know what sorts of signals humans have been sending out, what sort of signals humans might send out, and we look for those.
In ID, we know the sort of genetic engineering that humans can do, and what humans might do in the future. But we have good reasons to think that humans weren't around when DNA came on the scene, nor does there seem to be evidence of another human like intelligence around at that time, and so we can conclude that ID is bunk.
Of did you mean we should apply some other inferences from SETI? If so, what would they be?
Oh, we should also realise that SETI tries to eliminate any possible natural sources for any signals they might receive. Since we're applying the same inferences from SETI to biology, shouldn't ID people be doing the real work, trying to find out whether a natural explanation might suffice, before claiming victory?
DeleteMr Egnor, if you refuse to provide any information concerning the attributes of a designer, then how do you know whether such a designer could design and implement what you're claiming it did?
DeleteWithout being more specific, your claims of ID are completely unfalsifiable. If ALL of DNA was found to be functional, then the designer must have wanted that. If 10% of it was functional, then the designer wanted that. If cells were deterministic, then the designer designer them that way. If cells were stochastic in the way they went about their business, well, that's just how the designer made them.
And on, and on, and on, and on...
Havok,
DeleteI suggest you go back and read some of the previous posts and comments. All of your questions can be addressed by that simple effort of research.
Then, perhaps, you will have some background on which to base your inquiry.
Try and be at least superficially rational, for goodness sake!
Perhaps you or Mr. Egnor could provide some links where my questions are answered, or provide a brief response, rather than simply waving them away?
DeleteREX, I'm basing my arguments on the primary literature for biology, which doesn't support Mr. Egnor's claims.
Perhaps he (and you) ought to consult it further?
If you'd care to point out where you think I'm being irrational, then we can address it.
Havok,
DeleteIt's pointless discussing ID with CrusadeRex. He's actually a creationist, and I suspect a YEC (although I find it difficult to actually pin him down as to his impression of the age of the Earth and Mars), who regards ID as a radical theory.
It's also pointless having a debate with Michael Egnor, unless you have a lot of time. No matter how many times you correct him, he will persist in making the same bogus arguments time and time again.
He also refuses answering direct questions, such as how much of the human genome could be junk to be consistent with his assertion that almost all of the human genome is functional.
If you do have the time, then it's quite fun.
Thanks bachfiend, I'd assumed as much about Michael Egnor, as I've read this blog on and of for a while (and even commented in the dim past).
DeleteThis discussion gave me the excuse to refresh my memory about the ENCODE findings (which don't support Egnor's case, since the definition of "functional" is so looseas to include basically anything that is transcribed).
I guess I've got time (for now), and I type quickly, and as you observe, it is entertaining :-)
Bach,
DeletePlease do not attempt to describe my position.
You clearly have NO idea where I stand.
Yes, I am a creationist / theist.
However, I do not see either Darwinian or ID models as 'radical'. Quite the contrary.
As I have attempted to explain to you a dozen or more times: They seem to me to be parallel examinations of scraps of data that project a history of life/nature.
The only real difference I see between them is that ID appears to have far more future potential.
It is a more robust concept. The Darwinian model is so flawed it is, quite simply put, well past it's due date.
As for the age of the cosmos (that includes the Earth, BTW), I am open on this.
The nature of time-space is the key element in that position. We simply do not understand it enough to guess. We may never be able to.
So I refuse to say if the 'universe' is 13 billion years old, or simply appears to be from our perspective in the force/flow we call 'time'.
My interest is in the WHY, not the WHEN.
When time began, as I have stated many times, is a very silly question.
Havok,
DeleteIt is never pointless to debate or discuss issues anyone.
Such suggestions should be seen for what they are: Censorship.
If you're interested in chatting with me on here in a civil manner, you will get a civil response. We may not agree, or even understand each other perfectly - but we just may BOTH learn something.
Behave like a dismissive child and reciprocity will rule the day.
Fair, non?
CrusadeRex,
DeleteWell, I was right. You are a creationist and you are difficult to pin down.
Even Lord Kelvin attempted to estimate the age of the Earth (he finally settled on 40 million years) and concluded it was insufficient time for evolution. Hence creationism was true.
Darwin told him he was wrong. Darwin was right in asserting that the Earth was much older than Lord Kelvin's estimate, although his estimate was much less than the true figure.
mregnor: The approach to evolutionary theory is much more teleological in Continental Europe than in the Anglo world, which has been infested with Darwinian ideology.
ReplyDeleteThe European Society for Evolutionary Biology has a congress which is one of the largest scientific meetings in broadly defined evolutionary biology." If your claims about evolution being more teleological in Europe are true, then this organisation should probably show signs of this being the case.
This group have prepared a document called Evolution Matters which they tout "A Guide to the Creationism/Evolution Controversy".
Searching through this, the terms "teleology" or "teleological" are used 3 times. Once talking about the ID movement in a non-approving fashion, once while discussing the myth of complex features being unevolvable, and once in the references.
The rest of the document appears to endorse the "standard" evolutionary picture, which is undirected and shows no evidence of design, planning, or foresight.
So, a bit of investigation shows that your claim is most likely false. You appear to have based your claims upon a single data point - that being a book published by an organisation which promotes ID, and with which you appear to be associated.
@Harvok:
DeleteThe analogy between SETI and ID is precise. Both are the search for human-like intelligent agency in nature. The inference to intelligent agency has high specificity-- we know it when we see it. It has low sensitivity-- there may be intelligent agency that we don't recognize, because it is not enough like human intelligence that we would recognize it for what it is.
But human-like intelligent agency is recognizable. In SETI, we haven't found any. In biology, we have found it everywhere.
Your frantic denial of the obvious is pitiful.
Except, as I pointed out, in biology we don;t find evidence for human like design.
DeleteIt is interesting that you're admitting that your designer is human like - don't you think it is the Christian god, whose intelligence is very unlike ours (being unlimited and perfect, etc). It seems that your ID variant is "Aliens like us made us", rather than the normal (for Christians like yourself) "God made us".
Also, unlike in the SETI project, ID advocates like yourself declare design before trying to exhaust alternative natural explanations.
Please point out where I'm frantic, or what it is, exactly, that I'm denying?
I'm afraid that since you've claimed 2 things that have turned out to be false (ENCODE's 80% "functionality" and teleological explanations being more commong in Europe) I'm not inclined to accept anything else you claim without further justification :-)
Havok:
Delete[Except, as I pointed out, in biology we don;t find evidence for human like design.]
The genetic code, which is a blueprint for proteins, and the extraordinarily complex and intricate intracellular organelles, are remarkably like human design. That's why we can quite accurately apply human design motifs (code, blueprint, nanotechnology) to the cell.
[It is interesting that you're admitting that your designer is human like - don't you think it is the Christian god, whose intelligence is very unlike ours (being unlimited and perfect, etc). It seems that your ID variant is "Aliens like us made us", rather than the normal (for Christians like yourself) "God made us".]
This is not a discussion of theology. It is a discussion of biology and the detection of intelligent agency.
[Also, unlike in the SETI project, ID advocates like yourself declare design before trying to exhaust alternative natural explanations.]
ID does not claim that every aspect of nature manifests design. It claims that design is the best explanation for some aspects of nature, particularly in biology. Examples would be the genetic code, etc.
[Please point out where I'm frantic, or what it is, exactly, that I'm denying?]
Your denial that SETI and ID are analogous is pitiful. They are obviously fundamentally the same endeavor, carried out in different fields of science.
If a code from space were found in astronomy, it would be the biggest scientific discovery in history.
A code in living things was in fact found in biology, and you atheists have spent the past half-century spinning like tops to deny it.
Michael,
DeleteWhy don't you address my comment about the genetic code for a change? Or actually give an answer to the question I have posed you many times; what percentage of the human genome would you accept as being junk, consistent with your assertion that almost all of the human genome is functional?
Agreed. SETI and ID are analogous. But then again, neither are science.
Both SETI and ID are science, obviously. The difference is that SETI hasn't found evidence for intelligence, and ID has.
DeleteRegarding your question about junk DNA, I'm not a molecular geneticist, so providing a quantitative answer would be beyond my purview.
This is within my purview: Darwinists claimed for decades that the overwhelming majority of DNA in the genome was junk, and ENCODE presents powerful evidence that the Darwinist prediction, which was the opposite of the ID prediction, was very wrong.
Except cells are not like humans designs, DNA isn't like human codes - I pointed this out to you above.
DeleteIt is a discussion of biology and the detection of intelligent agency.
Ok. So you're claiming that aliens with human like created life on earth?
It claims that design is the best explanation for some aspects of nature, particularly in biology.
And as I said, unlike SETI, you declare design prior to ruling out other alternatives. For SETI, detection of an interesting signal that can't be explained is just the beginning. For ID advocates, it seems to be the end - X was designed, case closed.
Examples would be the genetic code, etc.
Which isn't a code, unless you want to claim that we can alter the symbols used (ie bases) and still arrive at the same result?
Your denial that SETI and ID are analogous is pitiful
Michael, your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. I think ID should be like SETI. I'm pointing out what would result from ID research if it were approached like SETI (assumptions about designers being made, etc). You're the one who denied any need to make assumptions about designer(s), and claimed that design can be detected without any knowledge of the putative designer.
A code in living things was in fact found in biology, and you atheists have spent the past half-century spinning like tops to deny it.
This is false.
For a start, we have natural explanations for how DNA evolves over time - it's called the modern theory of biological evolution, and I suggest you read up on it, since you seem obviously ignorant about what it actually explains and entails.
Secondly, Organic chemistry has been found in biology, not an "arbitrary code" as you've claimed earlier. We represent it with a code, consisting of the letters 'A', 'C', 'G', 'T'. When it is stored on your computer it is a code. But what that code represents - an actual DNA molecule, is not itself a code.
It seems that you ID folk have spent the last 20+ years making the same tired old claims, with nothing really new to add to the conversation.
You also have not admitted your errors on the 2 points (ENCODE and teleology in European biology) that I've now shown you were mistaken - perhaps you could do so? :-)
and ENCODE presents powerful evidence that the Darwinist prediction, which was the opposite of the ID prediction, was very wrong.
DeleteThe definition of functional that ENCODE uses is basically anything that is transcribed. I'm sure you know this. I mentioned it above. It's the criticism that has been leveled at the 80% figure.
So why do you insist on trotting this out as evidence for ID, when it's been estimated that only about 20% is involved in the organism itself, while muh of the rest is useless (to the organism) transposable elements (such as Alu)?
It's ok to admit you were mistaken Mr. Egnor - everyone is from time to time, and you are concerning ENCODE (and teleological evolutionary biology in Europe).
So we have some few percent of the genome which codes for proteins, some ~20% or so which regulates the coding DNA, some 60% which is mostly transposable elements (which are recognised in the ENCODE project as "functional", though they do not contribute to the organism. And some 20% which is still "junk".
DeleteYou're happy to claim that ID predicted all of this - please explain how ID predicted this?
Ps. that remaining 20% "non-functional", even by ENCODE's definition, is longer than the entire puffer fish genome. I wonder what the human like intelligence you claim is responsible for all of this, included that for? Why is the puffer fish's genome so efficient, and humans not (and other organisms, like onions even less so)?
DeleteWhat does ID predict there, Mr. Egnor?
@Havok:
Delete[So we have some few percent of the genome which codes for proteins, some ~20% or so which regulates the coding DNA, some 60% which is mostly transposable elements (which are recognised in the ENCODE project as "functional", though they do not contribute to the organism. And some 20% which is still "junk".]
We don't know to what extent the 60% contribute to the organism. There is much to be learned.
ID predicts that most of that will contribute-- design is imperfect but is usually not massively wasteful.
Darwinists has predicted for decades that the vast majority of the genome is junk. That prediction has already been proven to be junk, unlike the genome.
@Havok:
Delete[Which isn't a code, unless you want to claim that we can alter the symbols used (ie bases) and still arrive at the same result?]
A code is a physical entity that maps to another structure, without having the function of that other structure. It is the manifestation of the form of another structure in a representation, using the Aristotelian sense of "form".
Genes that code for proteins map to the proteins, yet the genes themselves lack the funtion of the proteins. The hemoglobin gene maps to the hemoglobin molecule, and serves as a partial template for the synthesis of hemoglobin, although the gene does not bind oxygen like hemoglobin does.
The genetic c-o-d-e is obviously a code. The genetic c-o-d-e is transcribed and translated-- i.e. it's a code. It has reading frames, punctuation, etc, because it's a... code.
You make a mockery of your "science" by denying the obvious. That's why I love debating Darwinists. It's so easy to get you to say stupid things.
@Havok:
DeleteWhile you're panicking about the fact that the genetic code is a code, add this to your list of "questions to suppress".
How can the mechanism of heredity (the genetic code) evolve by a Darwinian mechanism, when heredity is a prerequisite for evolution by a Darwinian mechanism?
I don't think it did. Darwinian evolution began after early life crossed the Darwinian threshold. Prior to that, evolution had a communal character and gene flow was primarily horizontal.
DeleteLearn that which you criticize, Dr. Egnor, or look stupid.
Hoo
[Darwinian evolution began after early life crossed the Darwinian threshold. Prior to that, evolution had a communal character and gene flow was primarily horizontal.]
DeleteJust fairy tales. You guys don't have a shred of real science here, just stories and dissembling and fantasizing.
No wonder you censor criticism of your "theory".
Michael,
DeleteYou still refuse to address my point that the genetic code isn't an artificial intelligently designed code. It represents an actual physically existent 3-dimensional molecule with physicochemical properties. The triplet codons representing each amino acid by physical forces alone preferentially binds to the corresponding amino acid, so it's not arbitrary, as you repeatedly claim.
RNA and its possible precursors can also act as an enzyme, doing two functions. DNA is just the storage form of RNA.
All of this was discussed well in the best popular science book of 2009 (and it wasn't 'Signature in the Cell', though that is where you seem to be getting all your genetics). It's in chapter 2 of Nick Lane's 'Life Ascending'.
A real intelligently designed code doesn't have meaning, without knowing how it's constructed. DNA has meaning. You don't even need to know how it works; just put it into a cell and see what comes out in the end - as Avery et al did in 1943, with rough non-virulent colonies of Pneumococcus, which he was able to transform to virulent smooth colonies with an extract of the smooth colonies (eventually shown to be DNA, though everyone up to then had thought that protein was the genetic material).
Agreed, you're not a molecular geneticist. But that hasn't stopped you from making definitive statements about it. And it should surely be within your purview of being able to define what percentage would be consistent with 'almost all' - its just a matter of meaning of words. Oh, right, that's one of your weaknesses too, after you defined imaginary as the process of forming images in the mind, which might be true or false.
'Darwinists' didn't make any prediction about junk DNA. The only prediction that could be made is that the genetic material would be adequate for the job, not necessarily perfect. Similar to all the vestigial organs and structures. And a vestigial structure isn't something that doesn't have a function; it's one that doesn't have the function it originally had. So the ostriches wing is vestigial, because it's useless in flight, but it's become important in display. The human appendix is vestigial, because it's no longer involved in digestion of plant material, but may have acquired immune functions and also become a refuge for useful gut bacteria.
ID is the perfect example of 'stories and dissembling and fantasizing'.
Michael,
DeleteAnd you still can't make up your mind and decide whether ID made a 'prediction' or a 'postdiction' about junk DNA. Which is it?
Prediction. ID inherently predicts that biological design will minimize waste. Darwinists have predicted that RM +NS will be characterized by quite a bit of waste.
DeleteThe ID critique of the junk DNA theory antedates the ENCODE research by many years.
See Jonathan Wells' work. He has an entire book summarizing the ID approach to "junk DNA" detailing the predictions. Jonathan's book was published in May 2011. Encode was published in fall of 2012.
Darwinists have used junk DNA to argue for Darwinism and against ID for decades. Now you guys are scurrying like cockroaches.
[You still refuse to address my point that the genetic code isn't an artificial intelligently designed code. It represents an actual physically existent 3-dimensional molecule with physicochemical properties.]
DeleteThe genetic code is a code.
The closest analogy to information storage in DNA-- it's so close it's eerie-- is information storage on a disc (a CD or a DVD). The information for the movie or whatever is stored in physical configurations on the disc. The disc can be filled with data from one computer, replicated, stored, and replayed on another computer repeatedly. "Mutations" can occur to the data stored on the disc, surviving disc survive, the whole Darwinian thing.
The information stored on the disc is a code-- a computer code. It is highly analogous to DNA.
The genetic code is a code. Deal with it.
Egnor: Prediction. ID inherently predicts that biological design will minimize waste.
DeleteNot necessarily. A human-like designer might add elements that have aesthetic value and no functionality. Or comments in the code. Or Easter eggs. Or a designe could be as sloppy as Microsoft programmers and write code that barely works and is certainly not efficient. In fact, designers are unpredictable.
Hoo
Mr. Egnor, why are you avoiding addressing my points?
DeleteThe ENCODE definition for functional includes A LOT of DNA which contributes nothing to the organism. Do you actually understand that?
The puffer fish has less of this than the human genome, an onion has more than the human genome. What is the ID explanation for this?
A DNA molecule is not like storage on a CD. It is a chemical process that transcribes DNA. It is not such a thing for a CD. When we store DNA as C's, G's, A's and T's on a CD, that is a code. The moleculeitself, however, is not a code. At least, not a code like a human code. Since you're claiming that a human like intelligence created DNA, why is it not like a human code, Michael?
And while we're at it, why are cells not representative of human design (being sloppy, imprecise, with complex interwoven "function" which leads to unexpected results)?
Hoo,
DeleteI would have to agree with you on the coding.
ID would not prove who or what a designer was/is any more than the Darwinian model disproves theism.
I think you make a very valid point.
This is why I could never see calling myself 'ID'.
I do see ID as a more modern and open model than Darwinism, but I think evolutionary studies have a long way to go yet, and expect to see further schisms before the end of my days.
Michael,
DeleteWells published his book in May, 2011. ENCODE released their preliminary results in 2011, which created a lot of excitement in creationist cycles. You've reversed the order of events.
And the genetic code isn't an artificial intelligently designed code. DNA is a real physical 3-dimensional molecule with a real non-arbitrary 'meaning'. RNA similarly, and RNA is also multifunctional, able to act as an enzyme too.
Heredity does presuppose that you have to start with DNA. All you need is a molecule simple enough to form reasonably spontaneously (and don't forget, the length of time available is from 4 billion years ago - when conditions on Earth were possible for life after the early bombardment of the Earth by numerous asteroids and comets- and 3.8 billion years ago - the age of rocks with the chemical signature of life - a period of 200 million years), over the entire surface of the Earth, and to have the properties of being able to catalyze some chemical reaction such as creating copies of itself. A simple molecule bound to clay would do it.
Where do you get your knowledge of genetics. Repeating that the genetic code is a code is just nonsense. That doesn't allow you to state that its an artificial intelligently designed code.
Argh, typo'. ENCODE released their preliminary results in 2010, not 2011, the year before Wells' book.
DeleteCrusadeRex,
You agree, in contrast to Michael, that the human genome says nothing about the existence of God? DNA could be intelligently designed. It could be very unintelligently designed. It could have arisen naturally. It could have been a huge experiment by God to see what would happen in a huge Universe, given enough time. Anything is possible for a God, so anything could be consistent with his existence.
Theists are going to have to find better evidence than DNA, which no matter how efficiently constructed, is consistent with any concept of what God can or cannot do.
Bach,
DeleteI agree that the DNA sequence in and of itself is not evidence for God. Sure. If by 'naturally' you mean in accordance with the forces that govern the universe (ie God), then yes again.
It is indicative of a pattern we see through out the cosmos of 'fine tuning' for life, and THAT may be considered a physical trace of the Creator - but the actual molecule itself does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God.
But then I do not see that as the mission of the ID movement. I think their focus is a much smaller one. Essentially to prove that there is intelligent forces at work within biology.
As for Mike's opinion, I would let him state that himself. I don't see him claiming evidence for God's existence. I see him refuting atheistic claims to the contrary - which are are equally as invalid as those we just discussed.
[and 3.8 billion years ago - the age of rocks with the chemical signature of life - a period of 200 million years), over the entire surface of the Earth, and to have the properties of being able to catalyze some chemical reaction such as creating copies of itself. A simple molecule bound to clay would do it.]
DeleteNice creation myth ya got there bach.
I defend the ID view, because I think that they are right to assert design is a much better explanation for many aspects of biology than is RM + NS. They are right to point out that the genetic code is a code, and that the only source of codes is intelligent agents.
DeleteMy own view is Thomist, as I have often pointed out, and I believe that the salient "design" aspect of nature that points to God is teleology-- the directedness of natural change. A simple electron obeying quantum mechanics is as much a manifestation of the Lord's Word as is the genetic code.
I believe that "design" as understood in ID theory is real, but it is actually only a minute fraction of the evidence for God's agency.
Michael,
DeleteIt's not a creation myth. It works on facts. The solar system and the Earth are 4.54 billion years old. Rocks 3.8 billion years old have the chemical signature of life. You can do the arithmetic.
It's much better than your creation myth. God did something, somewhere, somewhen, for completely unknown reasons and by completely unknown mechanisms. Apparently many times.
Now you're claiming quantum mechanics as proof go God's existence?
The genetic code isn't an artificial intelligently designed code, unlike the data on a CD -ROM, which consists of pits representing zeroes and ones. DNA consists of real molecules, with real properties, similar to RNA and protein. The zeroes and ones on a CD-ROM have nothing in an analogous sense to do with the data encoded, whether a .jpeg or an mp3 or mp4 file. And if the physical pits are damaged, often the disc is unreadable, so the analogy with mutations in DNA isn't valid.
Mutations can be neutral, deleterious or advantageous, unlike damage to a CD-ROM, which never improves the data. RM + NS is an inadequate summary of evolution.
You don't have any evidence for teleology in evolution. Otherwise, events such as the dodo on Mauritius deciding in the 17th century that it was a very good idea to redevelop the power of flight would be happening all the time.
You're arguing for a ridiculous tautology. Survivors (if God for some unknown reason and by some unknown mechanism wills some new function or structure to meet a future set of circumstances, not presently existing) survive (otherwise they go extinct, as has happened to 99.9% of the species, because God - for some completely unknown reason- decided not to bless them with teleology).
Yeah, right, makes a lot of sense...
mregnor: How can the mechanism of heredity (the genetic code) evolve by a Darwinian mechanism, when heredity is a prerequisite for evolution by a Darwinian mechanism?
DeleteThat's irrelevant to modern evolutionary theory - however DNA came about, evolution is a fact, and a well established scientific theory. Your bleating to the contrary doesn't change that, it just shows up your own ignorance.
mregnor: inherently predicts that biological design will minimize waste. Darwinists have predicted that RM +NS will be characterized by quite a bit of waste.
Why does design minimise waste? As others and myself have noted, design doesn't necessarily aim for effficiency - it seems you're making more assumptions about the designer, without making those assumptions explicit.
Also, why do we find various amounts of "waste"? The pufferfich genome is rather more efficient than the human genome, which is more efficient than the onion gemone. What is the ID explanation for this (and try to keep our assumptions about the designer(s) consistent)?
mregnor: I defend the ID view, because I think that they are right to assert design is a much better explanation for many aspects of biology than is RM + NS.
I've highlighted the part of your sentence which is telling - ID people doo indeed assert this. ID people fail when it comes time to back up this assertion.
mregnor: They are right to point out that the genetic code is a code, and that the only source of codes is intelligent agents.
Another assertion that ID people are unable to defend.
mregnor: My own view is Thomist, as I have often pointed out, and I believe that the salient "design" aspect of nature that points to God is teleology
Above you said "The genetic code, which is a blueprint for proteins, and the extraordinarily complex and intricate intracellular organelles, are remarkably like human design..
Now you're saying the design points to the god of Thomism. Which is it Michael? Does DNA contain evidence for design by human-like intelligence, or for design by something utterly alien such as the god of Thomism?
Or are you again trying to have your cake and eat it too?
And still you are unwilling to admit you were mistaken regarding the ENCODE findings, and teleological evolution in Europe.
Your willingness to promote falsehoods like these speaks volumes of your intellectual honesty on this topic.
[Your willingness to promote falsehoods like these speaks volumes of your intellectual honesty on this topic.]
DeleteI've made my views on ENCODE and teleological views within biology quite clear. You've offered nothing by way of refutation that is worth my time in response.
But rest assured that your opinion of my honesty matters a lot to me.
[That's irrelevant to modern evolutionary theory - however DNA came about, evolution is a fact, and a well established scientific theory. Your bleating to the contrary doesn't change that, it just shows up your own ignorance.]
DeleteIt would seem to me that the origin of the genetic code would have some bearing on evolution. I guess you find the topic boring.
And just what is it about "evolution" that is well established?
SO if some stretch of DNA is transcribed at all, even useless (to the organism) transposons like ALU, then that section of DNA is functional, even though that is not what functional is generally taken to mean (and is not what scientists, talking about "junk DNA" mean when they have said "junk DNA" is not functional)?
DeleteYou're more than happy to equivocate between 2 different meanings of a term to support your position, which seems to be a serious problem for your intellectual honesty.
I don't actually care about your intellectual honesty or not Egnor. I'm simply pointing out problems for you own interest. I'm sure these problems have been pointed out to you before, and am fairly confident that you've ignored them in the past as well.
As for your claims of teleological evolution in Europe, well, just more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty, and the lengths you're willing to go to to defend your unjustified beliefs :-)
It would seem to me that the origin of the genetic code would have some bearing on evolution. I guess you find the topic boring.
DeleteThe first cell(s) on earth could have been poofed into existence by a god, or cooked up by some alien in a lab and seeded, or indeed resulted through complex organic chemistry, and modern evolutionary theory would not be impacted.
I find the subject of abiogenesis very interesting, but evolutionary theory does not rise of fall upon it's findings.
And just what is it about "evolution" that is well established?
Common descent for a start. The capability of the various mechanisms which have been observed to account for change and adaption in organisms over time. You know, a lot of the things you seem to deny as being well established :-)
@Havok:
DeleteYou do admit that Darwinists assert that most of the genome is non-functional junk. That's a start.
You quibble on what "non-functional means", and you assert that transcription is not sufficient to demonstrate function.
You assert that most of the transcribed DNA serves no function to the organism. Time will tell.
So let's see how your prediction, based on solid Darwinian principles, works out. Wanna take bets?
[The first cell(s) on earth could have been poofed into existence by a god, or cooked up by some alien in a lab and seeded, or indeed resulted through complex organic chemistry, and modern evolutionary theory would not be impacted.
DeleteI find the subject of abiogenesis very interesting, but evolutionary theory does not rise of fall upon it's findings.]
The origin of the genetic code is of central importance to evolutionary theory, because the manner in which life arose almost certainly has bearing on the manner in which it evolves. Unless, that is, if your theory of how life evolves is just banality and tautology.
["And just what is it about "evolution" that is well established?" Common descent for a start.]
DeleteThere are all sorts of problems with cladistics and molecular phylogenetics. There is much ambiguity, especially about the earliest life. Tell me, how would the evidence be different if life arose simultaneously via different organisms?
(You can't argue the universality of the genetic code, because you have just asserted that we have no knowledge of whence it came, and that it doesn't matter anyway. Therefore, life could have emerged independently with the same code)
[The capability of the various mechanisms which have been observed to account for change and adaption in organisms over time. You know, a lot of the things you seem to deny as being well established :-)]
Are you referring to the massive war ongoing in evolutionary biology over adaptationalism, neutral drift, etc? What about that is "well established"?
mregnor: You do admit that Darwinists assert that most of the genome is non-functional junk. That's a start.
DeleteIt's not an assertion Michael, it's an observation.
mregnor: You quibble on what "non-functional means", and you assert that transcription is not sufficient to demonstrate function.
I don't quibble - I'm pointing out that you're equivocating.
mregnor: You assert that most of the transcribed DNA serves no function to the organism. Time will tell.
I don't assert it, it's an observation.
Most of the "junk DNA" is composed of transposons like Alu. What is their function (for the organism)?
mregnor: So let's see how your prediction, based on solid Darwinian principles, works out. Wanna take bets?
Gladly. We can already see the results of this "prediction". It's my understanding that the puffer fish has very little in the way of this "junk DNA". Humans more, other organisms like the onion even more.
So, transposon "junk DNA" doesn't at all appear to do anything other than insert itself, since it appears in various degrees in various amounts in different organisms, and has been seequenced and observed doing so.
I've asked you for an ID explanation for this, since on your view ALL of this stuff should be functional. I've also asked you about the 20% of the human genome which encode found was not transcribed?
Also, many biologists have noted that you could insert random bases into DNA (or random DNA) and it would likely to be transcribed by the celullar mechanisms, and would therefore be "functional" by ENCODE and your standards, even though all it did was get transcribed.
mregnor: because the manner in which life arose almost certainly has bearing on the manner in which it evolves.
Well, as long as you're happy to assert things without any evidence, then go right ahead.
mregnor: Unless, that is, if your theory of how life evolves is just banality and tautology.
Since your understanding of evolutionary theory is rather lacking, perhaps you should look into if further before characterising it in such a simplistic and mistaken manner?
mregnor: There are all sorts of problems with cladistics and molecular phylogenetics.
I'm sure there are all sorts of unresolved problems within these fields. Given your demonstrated lack of understanding, and demonstrated intellectual dishonesty, I'll defer to experts rather than your own opinion.
mregnor: There is much ambiguity, especially about the earliest life.
I wouldn't expect it to be partiularly clear, due to the vast gulf of time between when it arose and now, and also since the term "life" is somewhat ambiguous.
mregnor: Tell me, how would the evidence be different if life arose simultaneously via different organisms?
Well, that's a definite possibility, Michael, since there would likely have been a population fo molecules.
mregnor: You can't argue the universality of the genetic code, because you have just asserted that we have no knowledge of whence it came, and that it doesn't matter anyway.
Since all life we have found shares much the same genetic code (with some differences, such as that between Archeabacteria and Eubacteria), we can argue from the fact of the near universality of the genetic code.
mregnor: Therefore, life could have emerged independently with the same code)
Indeed it could have. Or it could have been poofed into existence. What is your point?
mregnor: Are you referring to the massive war ongoing in evolutionary biology over adaptationalism, neutral drift, etc? What about that is "well established"?
The arguments are over the size of the roles played by the various mechanisms, not their existence. So you're appeals to some "war" is irrelevant Michael.
Mr. Egnor, you seem to have forgotten to address a few points.
DeleteYour claim that biology shows evidence for human like design, but also claim that biology is due to an infinite, immaterial designer. Those 2 claims are not compatible.
You also have continued to claim that the ENCODE findings trash claims regarding junk DNA, but have failed to address the faact that "functional" according to the ENCODE project, and functional as used by most biologists discussing junk DNA are not equivalent, and therefore the ENCODE findings do not actually bear directly on junk DNA (contrary to your assertions otherwise).
Mike,
ReplyDelete"I believe that "design" as understood in ID theory is real, but it is actually only a minute fraction of the evidence for God's agency."
Well put!
I suspect that we are much closer on this than Bach would like to believe.
For my own part it is all about the forest AND the trees, not a single tree or seed. No single tree makes the forest, which is already vast and growing. As I have stated previously, I see ID as a much better model than RM/NS, also. As you note, it conforms to the teleological reality we experience every day. That alone is enough to put it miles ahead of any sort of random nonsense.
It is, in my view, the future of evolutionary biology - at least in immediate terms.
But, as I have stated before, TIME is key. Until and if we ever understand time properly, evolution will remain mysterious; as it operates WITHIN time.
Well stated, Doctor.
This is exactly why I haunt your blog :P
Thanks, crus. I don't really see ID as apologetics. Many folks have pointed out that there is a huge gulf from "designer" to "Lord".
DeleteI do see ID as devastating to Darwinian junk science, because the ID interpretation is obviously so much closer to the truth than is Darwinism.
ID is, I believe, merely a scientific inference, albeit a very good one. Knowing God involves a personal relationship, which of necessity must be leagues beyond any inference to a designer. I must say, though, that ID did help me in my Christian journey, in that it demolished Darwinism, in which I foolishly believed.
The gulf from 'designer' to 'Lord' was deliberately designed (but not intelligently designed) to avoid an infringement of the First Amendment and allow it to be to be taught in American public schools. Which didn't work, as shown in Dover.
DeleteNow it's academic freedom, to present whatever nonsense you want in schools.
ID proponents are cunning in presenting the intelligent designer as a possible ETI to secular audiences and as God in church.
Mike,
Delete"ID is, I believe, merely a scientific inference, albeit a very good one."
That humility, ever present in the ID crowd, is another reason I find it to be a more rational approach.
"I must say, though, that ID did help me in my Christian journey, in that it demolished Darwinism, in which I foolishly believed."
Well, if it served no other function than to open your eyes - it has served you well thus far. Luckily, I was never a believer in Darwinism. I was lucky enough to have a dad who's academic career was founded in philosophy. Consequently the ideas that Darwin pushed never appealed to my sense of reality.
It always seemed kooky and half baked to me.
Sophomoric would probably be the best descriptive I could use.
Bach,
If indeed that is the purpose behind ID, you're still wrong. Tennessee districts have passed a bill allowing ID to be taught in school. ID is oft mentioned as 'another theory of evolution' here in Canada. My son actually did a paper on it and Darwinism a few years back, when it was causing all that controversy in the states.
He got great grades on it too.
But it is not about God.
It is about biology.
It is based on a different interpretation of the SAME data.
Consider: Is Darwinism a trojan horse for atheism in the schools? Some sort of communist plot? Has it failed because some schools (entire boards, actually) teach ID and creationism?
If we follow your logic down the rabbit hole, that would be exactly where we end up.
ID for theistic bible bumpers, and Darwinism for atheistic ideologues. Is it that simple?
I highly doubt it....
I do not see either as being intended for that use, even if that is what some people intend to use it for.
CrusadeRex,
DeleteNo. Teachers in Tennessee aren't allowed to teach Intelligent Design. But they are allowed to objectively analyse (I suppose using Michael's definition of 'objective' that means using their religion tinted spectacles) biological evolution, the chemical origin of life, global warming and human cloning. Anything that's on the syllabus. It's all part of the 'academic freedom' for teachers ploy.
God did something, somewhere, somewhen for unknown purposes and by unknown means or (Michael's preferred theory) survivors (if God for some unknown reason and by some unknown mechanism wills some new structure or function to cope with some changed circumstances, not presently existing) survive (unless God, again for unknown reasons, decides not to favor the species with teleology - as he did with around 99.9% of previous species) wouldn't have enough detail to take up much time in a school course.
Bach,
DeleteThe law in Tennessee here:
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=HB0368&ga=107
The door is open. Call it what you want, but the folks in Tennessee are now allowed to compare Darwinism with ID the class room. That means TEACH them what the difference is between these two mechanistic evolutionary models.
No longer can school boards remove a teacher for showing up the shortfalls of Darwinism and the strengths of other models.
Teachers cannot be FIRED for discussion the controversy.
A good move in a free state. A little less like China, and a little more like America.
It is a clear win for academic freedom and a blow for the dogmatic censors in that State.
BTW You butcher teleology. Read up on it, and you may understand the argument at least superficially.
That means TEACH them what the difference is between these two mechanistic evolutionary models.
DeleteID is not a mechanistic evolutionary model. That IS the difference. ID just asserts that a designer did it somehow, somewhere, sometime, without ever going into mechanistic details.
Indeed, Dr. Troy. William Dembski, one of the leading cdesign proponentsists, wrote this:
DeleteAs for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”
Hoo
troy:
Delete[ID is not a mechanistic evolutionary model. That IS the difference. ID just asserts that a designer did it somehow, somewhere, sometime, without ever going into mechanistic details.]
What if evolution is not mechanistic?
What if evolution is not mechanistic?
DeleteNot sure what you mean. Evolution, broadly speaking, is the change in the genetic/phenotypic composition of populations over time. Can you give me an example of such change occurring in a non-mechanistic manner?
Dr. Michael Behe offered perhaps the most specific ID non-mechanistic model of evolution. In the words of Larry Arnhart,
DeleteA few years ago, I lectured at Hillsdale College as part of a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design debate. After Michael Behe's lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how the intelligent designer created the various "irreducibly complex" mechanisms that cannot--according to Behe--be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking, he finally answered: "A puff of smoke!" A physicist in the group asked, Do you mean a suspension of the laws of physics? Yes, Behe answered. Well, that's not going to be very persuasive as a scientific answer. And clearly Behe and other ID proponents prefer not to answer the question.
Hoo
@troy:
Delete["What if evolution is not mechanistic?" Not sure what you mean.]
You presume mechanism-- bastardized by your non-sensical RM + NS-- and then claim that only a mechanistic "theory" can explain evolution.
What if evolutionary changes in fact take place in a saltatory fashion by direct Divine intervention?
What if that is merely a fact?
That's what the pseudoscience of intelligent design boils down to. Direct divine intervention.
DeleteTell us again, Dr. Egnor, in what way ID differs from creationism.
Hoo
What if evolutionary changes in fact take place in a saltatory fashion by direct Divine intervention?
DeleteWhat if that is merely a fact?
That would be quite amazing. What's your most convincing example of such Divine intervention?
I'm not talking now about evidence for or against any particular theory.
DeleteI am merely asking: is it good science to insist on a mechanistic theory, if in fact (for the sake of argument) evolution occurs by saltatory Divine intervention?
Another way to put it:
DeleteMust science invoke only mechanistic theories?
Science as we know it simply cannot incorporate direct divine intervention. There is no scientific theory that contains a line "Then a miracle occurs."
DeleteHoo
[There is no scientific theory that contains a line "Then a miracle occurs."]
DeleteThe Big Bang theory posits a supernatural cause, given that it is the cause of nature, and cannot therefore be natural.
[Science as we know it simply cannot incorporate direct divine intervention.]
DeleteSo evolutionary biology cannot provide any evidence whatsoever against God's agency?
[Science as we know it simply cannot incorporate direct divine intervention.]
DeleteBut what if Divine intervention did, in fact, occur? By your paradigm, "science" would necessarily lead to a lie about nature, and would merely serve an ideological, not factual, purpose.
Hmmm....
Science knows its limitations, Dr. Egnor. Solid-state physics can describe the process of crystal growth, but it does not have an account of the origin of this atomic pattern.
DeleteNote that we know the designer of that atomic pattern. If you would like to convince people that biological entities are designed directly by God, you ought to have some positive evidence of that. Just saying that nature by itself can't is not a very convincing argument.
Hoo
So evolutionary biology cannot provide any evidence whatsoever against God's agency?
DeleteNot in general of course, but science can provide evidence against specific claims about God's agency. For example, science shows that there was in all likelihood no original couple of humans (like Adam and Eve), so that undermines some major claims made by many Christians.
But what if Divine intervention did, in fact, occur? By your paradigm, "science" would necessarily lead to a lie about nature, and would merely serve an ideological, not factual, purpose.
Science works with approximate models. They are not supposed to be the "truth". The truth is the intersection of many independent lies, as a famous biologist once wrote.
[Note that we know the designer of that atomic pattern. If you would like to convince people that biological entities are designed directly by God, you ought to have some positive evidence of that. Just saying that nature by itself can't is not a very convincing argument. ]
DeleteIf you can rule out non-intelligent cause to a reasonable degree of certainty, it is reasonable to infer intelligent cause.
This is the principle of SETI, ID, Forensic Science, cryptography, etc.
["So evolutionary biology cannot provide any evidence whatsoever against God's agency?"
DeleteNot in general of course, but science can provide evidence against specific claims about God's agency. For example, science shows that there was in all likelihood no original couple of humans (like Adam and Eve), so that undermines some major claims made by many Christians."]
Science, which is the study of nature, can certainly test certain interpretations of biblical claims that involve natural events, like Adam and Eve.
There are interpretations of Genesis and Adam and Eve that are quite consistent with our knowledge of nature, human evolution, etc.
["But what if Divine intervention did, in fact, occur? By your paradigm, "science" would necessarily lead to a lie about nature, and would merely serve an ideological, not factual, purpose."
"Science works with approximate models. They are not supposed to be the "truth". The truth is the intersection of many independent lies, as a famous biologist once wrote."]
"The truth is the intersection of many independent lies"
Heh.
Egnor: If you can rule out non-intelligent cause to a reasonable degree of certainty, it is reasonable to infer intelligent cause.
DeleteThat is easier said than done. In practice one does not rule out "non-intelligent cause" for some phenomenon. Rather, one fails to explain that phenomenon in the framework of an existing scientific theory. There are plenty of examples of that.
Isaac Newton, for example, could not find an explanation for the structure of the solar system; having failed to describe it within the existing natural framework, he ascribed its formation to God. Centuries later, scientists have constructed a natural theory of star and planet formation. Newton's early science was simply not up to the task.
The lesson of Newton's failure should give pause to people pushing creationism.
Hoo
I didn't ask a question about ID or creationism.
ReplyDeleteI asked: what if evolutionary changes in fact take place in a saltatory fashion by direct Divine intervention?
Should science ignore the truth (granting for the sake of argument that that is the truth), even if the truth is not mechanistic?
I asked: what if evolutionary changes in fact take place in a saltatory fashion by direct Divine intervention?
DeleteIt would change the models from
change = selection + drift + recombination + mutation + unexplained stuff
to
change = selection + drift + recombination + mutation + unexplained stuff + Divine intervention
The last term in the new model would be treated as noise without additional knowledge about the Designer's means, motives and opportunities.
Does that answer your question?
Should science ignore the truth (granting for the sake of argument that that is the truth), even if the truth is not mechanistic?
No, of course not. But, (1) why do you think Divine intervention is non-mechanistic? (2) do you know of an example of such "saltatory" Divine intervention?
BTW, Dr Egnor, one of your heroes, Prof Ed Feser, writes
ReplyDeleteThis is why the Aristotelian-Thomistic position is, as I have argued many times, fundamentally incompatible with Paleyan “design arguments” and “Intelligent Design” theory.
That seems to contradict what you wrote above. Where did Feser go wrong?
Feser, unlike you, has cogent arguments against ID theory. It is an argument shared by many Thomists, and I think that they are right.
DeleteTheir argument is that ID theory implicitly accepts mechanistic philosophy, which admits only material and truncated efficient causation. They argue that material, efficient, formal, and final causation are necessary to understand nature.
They believe that ID is a tactical error, in that it accepts Darwinian metaphysical principles even though it refutes Darwinism.
I think that ID is right and defensible on the ground that modern science accepts only mechanistic metaphysics, and that even on the basis of mechanistic metaphysics, Darwinism fails miserably.
ID is true, but not the whole truth. Design is detectable in nature. But Thomism is much closer to the whole truth, that all of nature manifests Divine agency.
Feser, unlike you, has cogent arguments against ID theory. It is an argument shared by many Thomists, and I think that they are right.
DeleteLet me get this straight. You support ID 'theory', but you also agree that it is incompatible with Thomism, which you also support. In other words, you hold mutually exclusive opinions. That's irrational, by definition.
They believe that ID is a tactical error, in that it accepts Darwinian metaphysical principles even though it refutes Darwinism.
What principles are those?
Design is detectable in nature.
How?
You seem a bit reluctant to answer my question about an example of Divine intervention in evolution. Please give your best shot at an example.
Delete["Feser, unlike you, has cogent arguments against ID theory. It is an argument shared by many Thomists, and I think that they are right."
DeleteLet me get this straight. You support ID 'theory', but you also agree that it is incompatible with Thomism, which you also support. In other words, you hold mutually exclusive opinions. That's irrational, by definition.}
I thought I was pretty clear. ID and Thomism aren't mutually exclusive. ID is a refutation of Darwinism on Darwinism's erroneous metaphysical terms (mechanical philosophy). Thomism is an explanation for evolution based on stronger metaphysics.
["They believe that ID is a tactical error, in that it accepts Darwinian metaphysical principles even though it refutes Darwinism."
What principles are those?]
The denial of formal and final causation, and the inference to only material and truncated efficient causation. That metaphysical error is traditionally called Mechanical Philosophy. It is a bastardization of the work of enlightenment scientists and of Francis Bacon.
["Design is detectable in nature."
How?]
Example of how: you are reading this on your computer, instead of trying read it on a rock in your yard.
[You seem a bit reluctant to answer my question about an example of Divine intervention in evolution. Please give your best shot at an example.]
DeleteI think that evolution is teleological, and occurs by principles not inherent to physics and chemistry. I believe that speciation in particular is a relatively rapid event, and not gradual.
Such teleology could be called "Divine intervention", although I see it as mere secondary causation in nature in which all four causes (Aristotle) are operative.
God is the ground of all existence, so it's all Divine intervention, in that sense.
Egnor: I think that evolution is teleological, and occurs by principles not inherent to physics and chemistry. I believe that speciation in particular is a relatively rapid event, and not gradual.
DeleteI do not think that evolution reduces to physics and chemistry. It is a biological process to describe which one needs principles that go beyond physics and chemistry. You are trying to box science to silly reductionism, which does not exist in practice.
Hoo
I thought I was pretty clear. ID and Thomism aren't mutually exclusive.
DeleteWell, they are according to Feser, as the quote above shows. If you disagree about that with Feser, please point out why.
["They believe that ID is a tactical error, in that it accepts Darwinian metaphysical principles even though it refutes Darwinism."
What principles are those?]
The denial of formal and final causation, and the inference to only material and truncated efficient causation.
Ok, let's assume that formal and final causation exist (whatever that means). How would that change the models currently in use by evolutionary biologists?
["Design is detectable in nature."
How?]
Example of how: you are reading this on your computer, instead of trying read it on a rock in your yard.
No, seriously. How do you detect design in nature? Are there even non-designed things in nature according to your ideology?
I think that evolution is teleological, and occurs by principles not inherent to physics and chemistry. I believe that speciation in particular is a relatively rapid event, and not gradual.
DeleteSpeciation can occur in many different ways. Gradual and non-gradual. Fast and slow. Your non-expert opinion is irrelevant.
God is the ground of all existence, so it's all Divine intervention, in that sense.
Right. So no example?
[Well, they are according to Feser, as the quote above shows. If you disagree about that with Feser, please point out why.]
DeleteI've already explained. My explanation is based on Feser's detailed discussion of the issue in Last Superstition and Aquinas. He's also discussed the issue in great detail on his blog.
He's right, but I believe that there is benefit to refuting Darwinism even on its own foolish metaphysical grounds.
[Ok, let's assume that formal and final causation exist (whatever that means). How would that change the models currently in use by evolutionary biologists?]
Variation that leads to major net evolutionary change is not random. Organisms evolve in the direction (teleology) of a form.
It is a much better explanation for convergent evolution, for example, than the Darwinian explanation.
[No, seriously. How do you detect design in nature? Are there even non-designed things in nature according to your ideology?]
I am serious. Every waking moment of our lives is devoted to distinguishing intelligent from non-intelligent causation.
The inability to do so is a hallmark of autism.
Michael,
DeleteSo where is your proof that teleology ever occurs in nature? That your position can't just be summarized as 'Survivors survive'?
Adding teleology to speciation with your preferred worldview that 'God is the ground of all existence';
Survivors (if God for some unknown reason and by some unknown mechanism wills some new function or structure to meet a future set of circumstances, not presently existing) survive (otherwise they go extinct, as has happened to 99.9% of previous species, because God - for some completely unknown reason- decided not to bless them with teleology).
So why isn't that an enormous tautology, far greater than any you purport to be existing in 'Darwinism', which actually argues that species don't have to be perfect, just adequate, at least better marginally than their competitors?
'I believe that speciation in particular is a relatively rapid event, and not gradual'. And your proof for that? Oh, yeah Punctuated Equilibrium, which is due to the rapid replacent of species, due to rapid (in geological time) environmental change, including climate change, as in the K-T mass extinction event.
[Are there even non-designed things in nature according to your ideology?]
DeleteThat warrants a more detailed answer. By design we mean evidence for an act of human-like intelligence. The concept is obvious, but it is imprecise, because one can always use sophistry to question 'exactly what is human-like intelligence'? In everyday life we recognize it with ease, but ideologues have room to deny it, as they do in biology.
In Thomist metaphysics, nearly all change is formal and teleological (obeys natural laws). Thomism makes no distinction between 'design' and other types of teleology. To the Thomist, design is simply teleology that reminds us of what humans do.
So all change in nature is teleological to the Thomist, except for coincidence, which we believes occurs without teleology. The classic Aristotelian example of coincidence that is not teleological is a farmer plowing his field who finds buried treasure. Everything in the event is teleological (the farmer plows on purpose, the person who buried the treasure buried it on purpose, etc) except for the actual finding of the treasure, which is a coincidence, and manifests no purpose at all.
Variation that leads to major net evolutionary change is not random. Organisms evolve in the direction (teleology) of a form.
DeleteIt is a much better explanation for convergent evolution, for example, than the Darwinian explanation.
A standard example of convergent evolution is the similar body shape of sharks (fish) and dolphins (mammals). The Darwinian explanation is that the laws of hydrodynamics determine what is a good shape to swim fast and minimize drag. Random modifications of body shape and selection of the most streamlined ones seems a good explanation to me. How does your teleological explanation differ from the Darwinian?
Egnor: In Thomist metaphysics, nearly all change is formal and teleological (obeys natural laws). Thomism makes no distinction between 'design' and other types of teleology. To the Thomist, design is simply teleology that reminds us of what humans do.
DeleteThis is why the Thomistic framework is completely useless in science. A Thomist attempting to study viruses is immediately thrown off the trail by asking irrelevant questions such as: What is the goal of the HIV? Why did the creator made it? Who made it, God or Satan? Etc.
Michael,
DeleteSo how is teleology a much better explanation of convergent evolution than Darwinian Natural Selection? Dolphins and sharks have a similar streamlined structure to make movement in the oceans more energy efficient, but otherwise their structures are completely different. Why didn't dolphins develop side to side movement of their tails in swimming, like sharks do, instead of the up and down motion, which must lose energy at the surface because their tails at some time will be out of the water? Or why didn't they redevelop gills? Or the skin denticules existing in sharks, which cuts down water resistance enormously and increases speed?
bach:
Delete[So where is your proof that teleology ever occurs in nature?]
Teleology is a metaphysical theory, not an empirical finding in science. It is a basis on which one makes sense of empirical findings.
All laws of nature are examples of teleology, as well as examples of formal cause. The "law" is the formal cause, and the hew of nature to the law is teleology.
Teleology isn't a tautology. It is a metaphysical theory.
The rest of your comment is gibberish.
The astonishing similarity between some marsupial and placental mammals, which evolved independently from a primitive ancestor, is striking evidence for teleology in evolution.
DeleteGiuseppe Sermonti makes a fascinating case for teleology in evolution in 'Why is a Fly Not a Horse?' Required reading if you want to discuss this intelligently.
@Anon:
Delete[This is why the Thomistic framework is completely useless in science. A Thomist attempting to study viruses is immediately thrown off the trail by asking irrelevant questions such as: What is the goal of the HIV?]
One need not include teleological explanations, if it does not advance the research. One can study the sequence of nucleotides in a gene without invoking teleology. Teleology may at times provide a deeper explanation, but it is not always relevant to a particular experiment.
Here's my question for you: explain the function of the heart, without invoking explanations of what it is for-- without invoking teleology.
The astonishing similarity between some marsupial and placental mammals, which evolved independently from a primitive ancestor, is striking evidence for teleology in evolution.
DeleteWhy? Similar selection pressures can give rise to similar solutions. What does teleology add to the explanation?
[Why? Similar selection pressures can give rise to similar solutions. What does teleology add to the explanation?]
DeleteThe similarities go far beyond traits that can reasonably be ascribed to selection pressures. Body plan and habitus, fur, structure of limbs, tail, ears, etc.
The animals are virtually identical, except for the pouch. Your assertion that all of these identical features are mandated by selection pressures is a radical assertion of adaptationism, something that many-- perhaps most-- evolutionary biologists would reject.
Do you really think that the identical shape of the marsupial and placental squirrels' tail is a necessary adaptation caused by selection pressure? What exactly is being selected by the tail shape, and what about it is so critical to the animal's survival that it would occur twice in completely independent lines?
Teleological evolution is a much simpler explanation.
Michael,
DeleteBut where is your evidence that teleology actually occurs in evolution? What is its mechanism? Thylacines had similar skulls and teeth to wolves, because they were eating similar foods (ie dead animals). Better explained by natural selection.
Why doesn't teleology reduce to 'Survivors survive'.
The giant panda is the best argument against teleology in speciation. It's a bear, with carnivore teeth and a carnivore digestive system, and largely subsists on bamboo, one of the least nutritious plant foods around (and as a consequence poops an enormous amount of undigested plant material each day), providing inadequate calories to store to allow it to hibernate. Why didn't teleology provide it with better grinding teeth and a more efficient gut? Although, the false massively enlarged sesamoid bone thumb was a nice touch.
@bach:
Delete[Thylacines had similar skulls and teeth to wolves, because they were eating similar foods (ie dead animals).]
So there is only one kind of tooth that can be adapted to eating dead animals?
[The giant panda...]
Teleology does not mean 'purpose' in a human sense. It means directedness-- change that tends to a goal. The direction may or may not be one that makes sense to us.
And teleological evolution does not mean that there can be no accidents or coincidence in evolution. Teleology means a trend, and does not constrain every event.
Michael,
DeleteExactly which 'marsupial squirrel' are you referring to? There are a lot of them. Anyway, the squirrel habitat is (largely) within trees. The bushy squirrel tail is an adaptation allowing it to be used as an extra limb, easily explained by natural selection. All vertebrates have tails, even humans in vestigial form. It's not a matter of developing bushy tails independently in the placental squirrel and marsupial squirrel lines - its just a matter of selecting for more hair.
The animals are virtually identical, except for the pouch. Your assertion that all of these identical features are mandated by selection pressures is a radical assertion of adaptationism, something that many-- perhaps most-- evolutionary biologists would reject.
DeleteThey aren't virtually identical. That's like saying that tuna and shark are virtually identical. They aren't.
How does teleology explain the geographical distribution of marsupials? Evolutionary theory has a good explanation.
[Evolutionary theory has a good explanation. ]
DeleteThe geographical distribution of marsupials has traditionally been very difficult to explain.
Please do.
The geographical distribution of marsupials has traditionally been very difficult to explain.
DeleteThe simplest model is that marsupials originated once in Gondwanaland. Subsequent continental drift and migration explains the rest.
What's your theory?
What is exactly the problem with marsupials?
DeleteHoo
[The simplest model is that marsupials originated once in Gondwanaland. Subsequent continental drift and migration explains the rest.]
DeleteMarsupial fossils, along with placental fossils, are found is North and South America, which derived from Laurasia. Laurasia sutured from Gondwana (which includes Australia) 180 mya.
The fossils date to 75 million years ago, which means that Marsupials can be placed in North and South America after the land masses split-- ie the marsupial-placental divergence occurred prior to the Laurasia-Gondwana split.
Therefore, the divergence wasn't the result of the split.
Oops.
No, your story appears to be incorrect. See here.
DeleteNow that we know how evolution and continental drift can explain the marsupial distribution, how about telling us how teleology shines any light on the distribution?
Troy,
DeleteDid you really think that Michael wasn't ignorant enough not to know that South America wasn't originally part of Gondwana? That the fact that South America and Africa appeared to fit together like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle wasn't noticed in the 17th century by cartographers and was one of the evidences used by Wegener in his continental drift theory?
Michael Egnor is a fact free zone, don't forget.
No, actually, I've got that wrong. Marsupials and placental mammals evolved (or split) when Pangea was intact. There were marsupials and placental mammals on both Gondwana and Laurasia after the breakup of Pangea. The placental mammals went extinct on Gondwana. The marsupials went extinct on Laurasia (neither a big deal - neither group of mammals were particularly successful or diverse, since the dinosaurs ruled the roost).
DeleteThen the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct at the K-T event 65 MYA. And the marsupials and placental animals underwent their adaptive radiation to fill all the niches the dinosaurs had left vacant. And 3 MYA, North and South America joined at Panama allowing marsupials to move into North America and placental animals to move into South America.
What is the teleological explanation?
What would disprove this explanation would be if there were marsupial fossils in North America after the breakup of Pangea and before the joining of North and South America, not explained by rafting.
The oldest known marsupial fossils (found in China) are from 125 million years ago. Gondwana and Laurasia broke up about 130 million years ago.
DeleteThe commonly accepted theory is that marsupials dispersed from Asia to North and South America and from there to Australia via Antarctica.
Hoo
Hoo,
DeleteBasically agreeing what I wrote in my correction. The 125 MYA figure has to be taken with caution. The oldest fossil discovered doesn't mean the oldest fossil possible. There could be older fossils not discovered predating the breakup of Pangea.
The fossil gives lie to Michael's claim that marsupials and placental mammals are identical save for the marsupial pouch. Paleontologists know that it's a marsupial, based on skeletal and particularly dental features.
I wonder when Michael will note that the echidna and the porcupine are identical, except for the echidna laying eggs?
The multiple independent evolution of the camera eye in vastly different lineages is another excellent example of convergent evolution in which teleology is a better explanation than a radical adaptationalsim.
ReplyDeleteThere are molecular convergences as well-- independent evolution of identical molecules (lysozyme is monkeys and cows)-- which are much more plausibly explained by teleology than by adaptationism.
The multiple independent evolution of the camera eye in vastly different lineages is another excellent example of convergent evolution in which teleology is a better explanation than a radical adaptationalsim.
DeleteWhy? How do you quantify that teleology (whatever that means) is better?
The explanation is either teleology or adaptation.
DeleteAdaptation means that you have to explain the adaptive necessity of essentially every minute macroscopic and microscopic and even molecular component of the eye. Even batshit Darwinists generally choke on adaptationalism that is that radical (haven't you followed all of the adaptationalism wars in evolutionary biology?)
The obvious, and much simpler explanation, is that evolution tends to certain specific forms, such as the camera eye.
The obvious, and much simpler explanation, is that evolution tends to certain specific forms, such as the camera eye.
DeleteI had to chuckle a bit. Your teleological explanation for convergent evolution is that evolution tends to certain specific forms, which is just a different way of saying that evolution tends to converge. That's hardly an "explanation", is it? Repeating in different words doesn't count as explanation in science.
Adaptation means that you have to explain the adaptive necessity of essentially every minute macroscopic and microscopic and even molecular component of the eye.
Of course it doesn't mean that at all. What makes you think so? You need to study some post-19th century evolutionary biology if you want to prevent yourself from making such silly claims in the future. Reading Shubin's popular "Endless Forms most Beautiful" might do you some good.
Michael,
DeleteWhat makes you think that lysozyme independently evolved in monkeys and cows? It didn't. It's a much older enzyme.
Anyway, you're becoming increasingly incoherent, arguing that teleology is applied only when you want to do so. How do you make the decision?
At least RM + NS can considered in all cases. Your example, of teleology not being necessary to study HIV, because it's only a matter of sequence of nucleotides in genes, is just nonsense. RM + NS explains the considerable and increasing number of HIV types in a coherent fashion.
And how is teleology not just 'Survivors survive'?
Teleology means that a structure develops before it's necessary for the organism. A structure such as the heart is necessary for any organism larger than one able to supply all its component cells with food and oxygen and to remove waste products by simple diffusion. And vary from simple muscular tubes to increasingly complex 2, 3, or 4 chamber hearts. A teleological explanation of the heart would mean that you'd have a complex 4 chamber heart in an earthworm for example.
Do you have any examples of species which have an organ larger and more complex than necessary? I can predict your response if you answer, and if you do answer all my question for a change.
Mr. Egnor, you continue to assert that things "are much more plausibly explained by teleology than by adaptationism." or similar statements, but you are yet to provide or point to such an explanation.
DeleteDo you have anything other than your assertions to support your position? :-)
I suspect Michael gets most if not all his 'knowledge' of evolution from the 'Discovery Institute's 'Explore Evolution'. His objections seem to follow its outline of chapters.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps from the Disco wunderkind Jonathan Mclatchie who writes at Evolution News & Views when he is not too busy with Christian apologetics.
DeleteHoo
Don't forget to mention the Disco Tute's "Why is a fly not a horse?" to explain the state of Evolutionary Biology in Europe :-)
Delete[Don't forget to mention the Disco Tute's "Why is a fly not a horse?" to explain the state of Evolutionary Biology in Europe]
DeleteWhy the French Ignore Darwin (http://www.isteve.com/2001_why_french_ignore_darwin.htm)
Darwinism had a big run in Germany until 1945, and then enthusiasm waned, for some reason.
Italy has never been a hotbed of Darwiniana.
Darwinism is a plague of the Anglo world. Atheism's creation myth is of much less interest elsewhere.
Oh, and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has never awarded a Nobel Prize for work primarily in evolutionary biology.
DeleteNot everyone gets a thrill up their leg when the Darwin bell rings, Havok.
I am afraid you are wrong again, Dr. Egnor. The Nobel lecture of Jules Hoffmann (2011 prize in physiology and medicine) is entitled "Evolutionary Perspectives of Innate Immunity: Studies with Drosophila."
Deletewww.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2011/hoffmann-lecture.html#
@Anon:
DeleteOh! I didn't realize that Nobel Prizes were given for the lectures delivered at the ceremony. Foolish me. I thought the Prizes were awarded for the research that preceded the ceremony.
Here's the Nobel Committee's press release:
"Bruce Beutler and Jules Hoffmann discovered receptor proteins that can recognize such microorganisms and activate innate immunity, the first step in the body's immune response. Ralph Steinman discovered the dendritic cells of the immune system and their unique capacity to activate and regulate adaptive immunity, the later stage of the immune response during which microorganisms are cleared from the body.
The discoveries of the three Nobel Laureates have revealed how the innate and adaptive phases of the immune response are activated and thereby provided novel insights into disease mechanisms. Their work has opened up new avenues for the development of prevention and therapy against infections, cancer, and inflammatory diseases."
No evolution there.
Ilion is right. I really have to get a higher quality of Darwinist commentors.
Apparently the Nobel laureate disagrees with you if he chose to highlight the evolutionary aspects of his work in his Nobel lecture. He looked at specific mutations that are responsible for the presence or absence of innate immune response in fruit flies. Have a look at the lecture, doc.
DeleteHoo
You're pretty desperate, Hoo.
DeleteThe Nobel is awarded for years/decades of work, not for the lecture that follows the award. The recipient can speak of whatever he chooses.
The basis for Hoffman's Nobel is explained quite nicely by the Nobel Committee. No evolution there.
Care to tell me, Hoo, which of the 103 awards in physiology or medicine (to 201 recipients) was awarded for research in evolutionary biology, as noted in the official announcement/explanation that accompanies the award.
You have painted yourself into a corner, Dr. Egnor. A Nobel lecture summarizes the research for which the prize is given. And here we have a Nobel laureate describing, in his own words, how evolutionary theory guided his prize-winning work. I understand that you do not like the sound of it, but be a gracious loser and acknowledge that you were wrong.
DeleteHoo
Hoffman discusses the implications of his work in insects for understanding human immunity. His work is entirely immunology and molecular biology. The implication can be drawn of course that mechanisms in insects could be relevant to mechanisms in other organisms, including humans.
DeleteThat inference which is drawn from comparative biology, of course, has nothing to do with Darwinism. Comparative biology began with Aristotle, and was the basis for nearly all of biology for 2300 years prior to Darwin.
Hoffman didn't win the Nobel Prize for research in evolutionary biology, and his Nobel lecture doesn't suggest that he did.
You're really an asshole, Hoo.
Reduced to spewing random insults, Dr. Egnor? Hahaha! Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!
DeleteGo back to Hoffmann's Nobel lecture and tune in to the 10th minute or so. Pay attention and you will see a discussion of genes and mutations responsible for innate immune response in fruit flies.
Hoo
In the 36th minute, Hoffmann shows a phylogenetic analysis of certain cascades found in fruit flies and mammals. That's evolutionary biology staring you squarely in the eye.
DeleteYou are a loser, Dr. Egnor. And a sore one at that.
Hoo
[you will see a discussion of genes and mutations responsible for innate immune response in fruit flies... In the 36th minute, Hoffmann shows a phylogenetic analysis of certain cascades found in fruit flies and mammals. That's evolutionary biology staring you squarely in the eye.]
DeleteThat's comparative biology, which dates to 2300 YBD (years before Darwin). Hoffman's research was in immunology and molecular genetics, and in his Nobel lecture he drew inferences from his Nobel work that could be applied to other species.
In his lecture he's continuing Aristotle's work of comparing and contrasting species.
He won the Nobel Prize for his work in molecular biology and genetics and immunology.
Dr. Egnor,
DeletePermit me to explain to you what a phylogenetic analysis does. Here is a Wikipedia entry for molecular phylogenetics:
Molecular phylogenetics /məˈlɛkjʊlər faɪlɵdʒɪˈnɛtɪks/ is the analysis of hereditary molecular differences, mainly in DNA sequences, to gain information on an organism's evolutionary relationships. The result of a molecular phylogenetic analysis is expressed in a phylogenetic tree.
I hope this helps. If anything seems unclear, don't hesitate to ask!
Hoo
And when this instance of butthurt subsides, kindly return to the discussion of marsupials, from which you ran away like a little girl.
DeleteHoo
mregnor: Why the French Ignore Darwin
DeleteFrom your link:
"Our intellectuals know nothing about science. What is prized by them is humanistic knowledge."
"Much has changed over the past ten years or so, however. There is much interest in the subject of human evolution and the average French citizen is probably better informed than the average North American."
I don't see any mention of teleology in that article Michael - just another example of intellectual dishonesty - assert something, and back it up with something unrelated.
Michael,
DeleteSome people (usually lawyers) have argued that if the Nobel Prize had existed in Darwin's day, he wouldn't have won it. I think he would have. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren eventually won the Nobel Prize for their work on Helicobacter pylori gastritis, which was actually a very simple idea and blatantly obvious - to the prepared mind. Einstein didn't win the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics in (in 1922) for Relativity, either Specific or General, because it was considered too controversial. Instead, he won it for the photoelectric effect.
Evolution is a cornerstone in biology. Nothing makes sense without it. Looking at different species would be pointless for humans, unless you accept, without any evidence, common design, which can't be assumed because that's 'limiting God's power - God can do anything he wants' (it's in inverted commas because I don't believe it, I'm just paraphrasing theists).
Science would be going off evolutionary biology if an ID proponent ever wins a Nobel Prize for ID research. And surely, if that's the case, then it should have happened by now, going on the self congratulation of ID proponents. Michael Behe's reckons with irreducible complexity that he's made the greatest discovery since sliced bread (Herman Muller discussed it decades ago and found it no problem for evolutionary biology). William Demski reckons he's the Newton of information science, with his CSI.
bachfiend: Science would be going off evolutionary biology if an ID proponent ever wins a Nobel Prize for ID research.
DeleteID proponents seem to generally avoid doing any research, so this seems rather unlikely :-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete