DNA, Where did the code come from?

@FBM,

You mean the guppies are still guppies?

Who wouldda thought?

@layman,

First, Evolution doesnt displace Creationism by proposing an alternative. Evolution is a conclusion that has been based upon evidence, the participation by "Design Elements" doesnt seem to have any similar evidence.

I personally dont have any place for religious or supernaturally based "Science" because it doesnt fit all the rules in the disciplines involved and , no matter how much Nqgel protests, there is just no place to accomodate such studies (NO MATTER WHAT YOUR BOYS AT THE INSTITUTE CLAIM).
"designers" make it their total argument the creation of false dichotomies and "Earth shaking arguments among old guard and new thinking scientists" . That is just plain bullshit and its a smoked herring created by a minority of the religious to bolster their weak ass arguments.

Nagel says further down in the same article:

Quote:

.
Judge Jones is careful to say, “We express no opinion on the ultimate
veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation.”18 This is not the position of
most evolutionary scientists, however. They believe that there are no
supernatural explanations, and that trying to show that they are incompatiblethats just total bullshit because , if there were any way with which the supernatural could be meld into some ork plan, there would be thousands of scientsits who would pony up to join in the work . The "Institute's" been trying for 15 years to show us all these new ideas about design and so far its just a test pattern on the old TV set
with the evidence is a waste of time. It is part of their basic
epistemological and metaphysical framework, which either excludes the
existence of God or, at best, places him entirely outside the boundaries of
the natural universe. They do not think, Maybe there are supernatural
explanations, but if there are, science cannot discover them. Thats the first really correct thing he brings up.

.

Ok revrun, so science cant study the supernatural, can the supernatural make itself known for the audience of scientists who are eagerly doing their post docas on the "Inclusion of Woo Wistic mechanisms in the NAtural SCiences"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

First, Evolution doesnt displace Creationism by proposing an alternative.

First of all, Farmer, he didn't say a fuckin word about creationism. Can you understand that? You seems to treat every point a person tries to make as being one YOU want to make, while ignoring everything that was said.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

(NO MATTER WHAT YOUR BOYS AT THE INSTITUTE CLAIM).

Second, Farmer, Nagel is not the omyfuckinggoddiscoveryinstitute, nor am I. Nagel is a commited atheist. Can you even begin to understand that he's not trying to make a religious point?

2 Replies

@layman,

Design, Creationism,Suprnatural its all the same Papa isnt it?
Stop splitting a gut , its unhealthy.

You want to impose Intelligent Design as a "theory" then you guys gotta get working and get some damned evidence and a methodology (not to mention a better logo)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

theres hardly ANY oil coming from the precambrian. Weve only known about non metamorphosed deposits for about 30 years. SO I hope you didnt invest in any pC wells

That does make sense but of course it had to have been necessary to prepare the ground for the 'explosion' of oil in the next 2 Byr.

It's yet another dimension of 'fine tuning' POV that so amuses the anti ID side. Without all that petroleum, it would not have been possible for man to 'go forth and have dominion over the earth' as we have.

Related to this, I made an 'ID prediction' back in the 1970's during all the dire talk about 'peak oil' that plenty of oil would be discovered to last mankind until technology advanced enough to utilize renewable energy sources. Looks like we are on target for that. I'm sure that will be seen as 'force fitting' the data and the story but I see it as a natural fit - the data fits the story.

0 Replies

@layman,

whew, as I said before
If it quacks like a duck
If it walks like a duck
AND
If it hangs around other ducks...

On TOP OF THAT

I think Discovery Institute ought to give you a free family event ticket to their parks,

I gotta get to bed . Ive got early duty here at the farm . nite

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Nagel is really just making a rather simple logical point here, as I read him.

Quote:

If on the other hand he believes that a designer is possible, then he can argue that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the actions of such a designer, but he cannot say that someone who offers evidence on the other side is doing something of a fundamentally different kind. All he can say about that person is that he is scientifically mistaken.

If I propose that all life is a result of strictly random, purposeless chance, AND IF I say I am making a scientific claim, THEN

The negation of my claim must ALSO be a scientific claim, however mistaken it might be.

If evidence againt a proposition cannot be scientific, then the proposition itself can't be scientific. It's no longer a matter or science, just faith.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Nagel is not the ...(blah blah blah)

I never said he was. He just happens to be all wrong on this point. "

PS , do you have your docs bolded beforehand? Or are you that fst of a reader??

0 Replies

@layman,

Without saying a single word about god or creation or anything of the sort, guys like Behe, Denton (I'm not sure, but I think he's an atheist), and others have made arguments that certain biological developments could not possibly have been attained by sheer random chance. They delve deeply into known biological "laws" and current biological knowledge to support those claims. They may be wrong, but you can't say what they are doing "is not even science." If you do, then any claim to the contrary can't be science either.

Put another way (for the third time) it would seem that one of these two claims must be accurate:

1. All biological development and change is a product of mere random chance, or
2. Not all biological development and change is a product of mere random chance.

If either of those two is a "scientific" claim, then so is the other.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

ANother example has been the anadromus fish that got "caught" behind rising dams built for undershot mill wheels on the Connecticut River . ...

Bingo. I read about a similar example a few weeks ago, but can't find the story now. Will look further when I get home.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

You mean the guppies are still guppies?

Who wouldda thought?

Everybody who knows the difference between adaptation and speciation, maybe? Wink

2 Replies

@FBM,

Everybody who knows the difference between adaptation and speciation, maybe?

But does anybody know the difference between adaptation and evolution? I had a dog who got a leg chopped off when he was a puppy (I was pretty hungry, ya know). That boy adapted pretty good and could run around on 3 legs. What I could never understand is why all of his pups had 4 legs, insteada just 3 like him.

1 Reply

@layman,

At last, someone has finally disproved evolution.

The proof I was given in the 5th grade was that men always have one less rib than women. Goes back to Adam & Eve. I devoutly hope I acquired this wisdom from a fellow student, and not our teacher, but South Florida? Can't be sure. And no, it did not occur to me to do a physical inventory of ribs.

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

And no, it did not occur to me to do a physical inventory of ribs.

Check'n out a girl's rib cage is something not to be missed! Anything for science ya know.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Putting aside what is possible for the moment, and focusing instead on what is more probable, I would like to ask whether you think it is more likely (probable) that abiogenesis occurred through an as yet unidentified natural process, or whether it was the direct result of an "un-natural" process, be it a super-intelligence (which might still have arisen naturally) or a super-natural process?

1 Reply

@layman,

I posed this question to Leadfoot above, but I was interested in your viewpoint as well.

rosborne979 wrote:

Putting aside what is possible for the moment, and focusing instead on what is more probable, I would like to ask whether you think it is more likely (probable) that abiogenesis occurred through an as yet unidentified natural process, or whether it was the direct result of an "un-natural" process, be it a super-intelligence (which might still have arisen naturally) or a super-natural process?

What I'm trying to understand with each of you is whether you are trying to make a point about what is possible, or what is probable. And I'm also trying to understand what criteria you each use to determine what is probable.

1 Reply

@layman,

I can now see where you were going all along with your claim that a big "Argument has destroyed adaptationalist evolutionary hegemonies because neutral theory guys have claimed victory">

In science no real argument destroys a part of that science, it merely redirects visons and workplans.(and sends us trying to rerun the first evidence that started the argument)
BUT if it turns out that all science is but a leap of faith, then anything (like ID) can rise to the level of a scientific theory. I dont think Gould, Dawkins, Timura or Mayr would see your point as valid, it'd benothing more than "Frankies argument" (Peace be upon him) just worded slightly differently to sound a bit more pompous and convincing perhaps?

I may be slow , but so is my rock polisher.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Without saying a single word about god or creation or anything of the sort, guys like Behe, Denton (I'm not sure, but I think he's an atheist), and others have made arguments that certain biological developments could not possibly have been attained by sheer random chance.

And Behe bases his opinions on discovering the "Irreducible Complexities" tht signal the burst of Creative Intelligence. So far, because there is always an organismal hulk to carry the "enzymatic process" (In his case blood clotting), hes been unsuccessful at finding this an his enzyme "Cascade" has always been found to have an even simpler and less complex cascade.

Hes lost his "Limulus blood clotting cascade" into the fossil record where sny enzymes have been degraded about 350 million years ago.

________________________

Back to Nagel- hes made clims of a scientific nature bout Judge Jons' incoorrect headedness wrt the Kitzmiller decision. HAve ypou (or has he) even read Kitzmiller? before giving such assertions (I assume that, since you presented and bolded the initial part of his paper, that you agree with him?)

Otherwise why present it?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Putting aside what is possible for the moment, and focusing instead on what is more probable, I would like to ask whether you think it is more likely (probable) that abiogenesis occurred through an as yet unidentified natural process, or whether it was the direct result of an "un-natural" process, be it a super-intelligence (which might still have arisen naturally) or a super-natural process?

I may have to answer that from two points of view, one from the scientific and one from the full range of human experience. I have offered opinions from both perspectives during this and similar threads so I can understand why you might ask.

I do want to know the best answer from the scientific POV but that of course has to always be open to revision. At this point I have not been able to convince myself that natural causes could account for abiogenesis in the time available so an external intelligence (non-human) or 'un-natural cause' seems more probable but not proven.

From the POV of my entire life experience, I am convinced there exists an intelligence external to myself but that still does not prove abiogenesis could not have occured from the well understood natural causes but does increase the likelihood that external intelligence was involved.

1 Reply

DNA, Where did the code come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know