DNA, Where did the code come from?

When a theory becomes part of the common working knowledge of an entire community it becomes the context within which that community understands the world...Specifically, I mean the belief that random variation can, when subjected to selective pressure for long periods of time, culminate in new forms, and that it therefore provides an explanation for the origins of morphological diversity, adaptation, and when extended as far as Darwin proposed, speciation.

Theories become empirical by seeking empirical support...The target of the critics... has been... [one] of submitting them, and the general theory behind them, to empirical test. The critics imply that we simply do not know enough about the organic realm to understand what would bring our hypotheses into question.... A test is of no value if it cannot call the theory being tested into question.

But when we come to Darwin's theory the real point of his warning about the difficulties inherent in identifying fitness emerge. Darwin did not put forward a comprehensive theory of the organism. He had, in fact, no way of summing the effect of traits. Nor have we, until we have a theory of the total organism...until the organism is reduced to a determinate system, we have not the knowledge to mount a good test of optimalization theory—that is, we cannot question it. If that is so, it follows that the theory has no empirical support.

A theory may be accepted for more than one reason. It may be judged, for example, to be better supported than its competitors, and therefore be acceptable if no serious objections are known. It may, on the other hand, be believed, which is an entirely different matter.

If our aim is empirical investigation, any belief that can set up shop as 'knowledge' is always a fatal possession, for it undermines the basic project. The biologist who 'knows' that any differential can lead to new types is admitting that no empirical support is sought or needed for that proposition, which thereby becomes an a priori truth.

Whatever we actually believe we take to be identical with reality, and therefore not part of hypothesis that stands in need of support. Those who believe the Darwinian theory apply it, or parts of it, to their observations as a known parameter. Their results are artifacts of their belief, but this fact can hardly be visible to them until they are willing to question what they have previously taken for granted.


Theories, qua theories, simply cannot be given predictive credit for everything they agree with...We are speaking here, of course, of theories as postulations whose relation to the world is yet to be determined.

Once we are convinced that we know that relation, however, and that the theory in question is true, we may indeed assign it complete responsibility for the canon, discarding all other explanations, for it is now identified with reality....Once we have become convinced by our theory, for whatever reason, artifacts of that belief are bound to emerge, for we see the world in the context of our belief.

If we are in the position of saying "Since we now know the theory is correct, what follows?", the item under investigation here is not the world of experience, but the theory, for experience no longer has the power to question that belief. The addition of empirical evidence at this point changes nothing, because whatever evidence we include will be interpreted by our theory, producing such artifacts as the illusory 'confirmation' and 'correction' above. There should be no confusion about this. A firm conviction precludes any possibility of learning from experience—learning, that is, about the relation of the idea to evidence, or to empirical support.

At the moment, the critics of Darwinian theory are turning in rather profitable work for those interested in empirical investigation. They are clearing the ground for new questions, new investigations—questions which could not be heard in a dogmatic context because their area of inquiry was preempted by the Darwinian answer. While that answer was believed, there was nothing to inquire about.

"The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that ain't so." (Samuel Clemens)

sounds a bit like
"we definitely know something is not true but we do not have any evidence at this moment, with which to support this knowledge".

. It's an article of faith, either way, not a matter of persuasive evidence.

Quote:

. It's an article of faith, either way, not a matter of persuasive evidence.

Then I say that youve got your eyes purposely averted so it doesnt interfere with your game .

You stated above that the IDers dont argue with EVOLUTION but with neo-Darwinian thinking. You know that is a bullshit stttement.

Everything the IDers pose is religiously based and evolution is an anathema to all they stand for.

Quote:

Dawkins and Dennett sometimes seem fixated upon design, presumably as a result of their severely constraining preoccupation with religion and with the “creationism” or “intelligent design” promulgated by some religious folks. Although the word has its legitimate uses, you will not find me speaking of design, simply because — as I’ve made abundantly clear in previous articles — organisms cannot be understood as having been designed, machine-like, whether by an engineer-God or a Blind Watchmaker elevated to god-like status. If organisms participate in a higher life, it is a participation that works from within — at a deep level the ancients recognized as that of the logos informing all things. It is a sharing of the springs of life and being, not a mere receptivity to some sort of external mechanical tinkering modeled anthropocentrically on human engineering.

both he and you seem to be the ones that are incorrectly dwelling on "design"

EVolution is not a design, if youve failed to absorb that then youre not reading widely enough

To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffe’s long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought. It sounds eminently reasonable, as such stories usually do.

Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. My colleague Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this:

First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, “so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.” Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed “at belly height or below.” And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches — a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.

So-called "intelligent design" is a proposition for which there is no evidence. Therefore, anyone who does not accept it the proposition can hardly be called an "anti-ID fanatic."

B y the way, Frank was, far from being an "anti-ID fanatic," constantly ranting his line that if a god were possible, then "intelligent design" were possible.

Of course, were we all suddenly infected with honesty (which i don't expect from the theists),

[if we were honest] we'd all acknowledge that were so-called intelligent design a reality, there would have to be said intelligence.

Being honest, we'd have to acknowledge that the whole thing is a scam for theistic creation under false colors, given that they will never describe or posjit the designer.

The passion in these 'new religions' was my point.

8 thumbs down on a post in mere HOURS!

And if you were interested, I'd be happy to describe or discuss my thoughts/conclusions about the designer, charges of 'off topic' be damned.