timberlandko wrote:Beside the point, rl - what ultimately will be demonstrated, decided, and legislated is that Creation/ID is not legitimate science and has no place in any such curriculum. Social Studies, mebbe. Creative Writing night be a better fit. But whatever, the concept is not Circe of any description, its proponents are either dupes or frauds and charlatans, and that is what will be demonstrated and decided - largely on the basis of the patently absurd defense of the proposition offered by those dupes, frauds and charlatans.
Oh, BTW, to take just one of your purported "Obstacles" - "Irreducible Complexity" is a joke, the concept as applied in the Creationist/ID proposition is dismissed by the vast preponderance of the legitimate scientific and academic communities. Your revered Behe himself, who brought the term to the Creationist/ID camp, acknowledges that simply because scientists cannot currently see how an "irreducibly complex" organism could evolve, it does not prove that there is no possible way for it to have occurred. "Irreducibkle Complexity" proceeds from an illicit premise; it is an Argumentum ad Ignorantem fallacy, augmented with a Bifurcation, or False Dilema, Fallacy. It has no substance, it is invalid from its outset.
Aside from being forensically unsound, the Behe argument easily may be demolished through scientific means.
Here, for example, is a peer-reviewed, accepted, and published paper which does just that, and with specific reference to Behe. The paper's abstract:
Quote:Redundant Complexity:A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry.
Niall Shanks
Department of Philosophy
Department of Biological Sciences
East Tennessee State University
Johnson City, TN 37614 USA
Karl H. Joplin
Department of Biological Sciences
East Tennessee State University
Johnson City, TN 37614 USA
Published in PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 66 (June 1999): 268-298).
Abstract.
Biological systems exhibit complexity at all levels of organization. It has recently been argued by Michael Behe that at the biochemical level a type of complexity exists -- irreducible complexity -- that cannot possibly have arisen as the result of natural, evolutionary processes, and must instead be the product of (supernatural) intelligent design. Recent work on self-organizing chemical reactions calls into question Behe's analysis of the origins of biochemical complexity. His central interpretative metaphor for biochemical complexity, that of the well-designed mousetrap that ceases to function if critical parts are absent, is undermined by the observation that typical biochemical systems exhibit considerable redundancy and overlap of function. Real biochemical systems, we argue, manifest redundant complexity - a characteristic result of evolutionary processes. (We would like to thank George Gale for helpful comments, as well as the anonymous referees for Philosophy of Science.)
Where Creationists/IDers sense a hole - an unanswered question - in science, they seek to plug that hole by stuffing it full with the amorphous, undefined, one-size-more-or-less-fits-all sponge which is the The Creator/Designer concept. Where science senses a hole, it undertakes to look for the materials which comprise the puzzle pieces that may be assembled only in precisely the manner required to fit the hole, no gap, nothing left outside. And even then, science always is open to and looking for a piece which might fit even better. It takes time and effort to find and assemble the pieces, but then, that's what science is about - right answers, not easy, emotionally satisfying answers.
For those interested, Michael Behe has some interesting comments to criticisms such as this that are offered from the evolutionary side
from
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe08.asp
Of course Behe defends himself - he's in the business of selling books and delivering lectures. He defends himself, frequently and vigorously, but inably, however, and is accorded no respect outside the Creationist/ID circle. The man and his theories are a joke.
real life wrote:The scientists who built the foundation of our modern scientific world did not need to compartmentalize their views on science from their belief in God as the creator of the world and all that is in it. In your exclusive view, Ros, you part company with the ones on whose work your world was built. They did not consider one as 'unscientific' for believing that God is the creator of all.
You keep missing the point RL.
It's not the concept of god which is in conflict wth scientific knowledge, it never has been. It's specific [religious] assumptions about the nature of creation which are in conflict with scientific knowledge.
People who believe in god can still do valid science.
What was your point with this line of reasoning anyway?
real life wrote:Setanta wrote:Then it should be relatively simple for you to produce an unassailable statement of the circumstantial evidence for creation. You gonna talk all night, or are ya gonna ante?
I refer you back to my post concerning the lack of evidence for eternally pre-existent matter/energy, violation of the law of Entropy, Spontaneous Generation, the harmful nature of most mutations, irreducible complexity, etc.
These are just a few of the barriers to interpreting the evidence in favor of the Trinity of the God of Chance --Big Bang / Abiogenesis / Evolution.
You're not answering the question. In fact, you're attempting to dodge the question.
Here, the charitable assumption would be that you were confused and didn't understand the nature of the question, so i'll repeat it for you:
What circumstantial evidence do you have, of an unassailable character, for a creation? What circumstantial evidence do you have for a creator?
Gracious me. I go out to cut and split sum farwood for a coupla days and I miss out a whole bushel Of stuff
Ive actually been in a panel with Behe and he is quite comfortable to have it both ways. Believe it or not, He does not deny natural selection , he tries only to keep his main points at the level of microbio and molecular bio.
. When confronted with clear fossil evidence (which, Im sad to admit does require the minutest amount of creativity and ability at inferential reasoning), he sharply stands and supports natural selection. He doesnt try to make it a "one size fits all" . He is that much of a scientist. He takes a lot of criticism for that because, in the field of evolutionary bio, the rule is "If I can show it happening once, Ive proved my point" He feels that his data support hissown concept of Irreducible Complexity in the 2 cases (used to be 3) he uses as proofof intelligent design. Jon Mcdonald from U Del has often taken his biochem quite apart and left Behe with no door in his corner. Mcdonald has a web page but if yer interested, yer smart enougfh to google it.
You really need to see him(Behe) in person, not as a result of pussied up responses from Discovery Institutethat RL posted. Behe is not that much of a lout to use words like "The erroneous system of Darwinian evolution" That is not him talking. That must be an "imprimatur' from Disc Inst. Behe is sometimes irreverant, has a good mind, is highly qualified, and, of course, in this area , we think hes dead wrong. But to make him a dumass satan, hes worth more than that. In some areas that Behe will resort to natural selection is where we have proof uncontested from the geologic record. Behe stands firmly behind the data that shows that species are not immutable , and that mammals and dinosaurs rose from reptiles and birds and dinosaurs are related (with the only argument, who came first). RL , if he understood Behe better would steer clear of his science because it refutes most of what RL tries to convince us of.
BEHE has no possible way to explain lifes re-appearance as a result of catastrophic environmnetal events and resultant mass extinctions during prehistory. He cannot honestly lay that upon an Intelligent Designer, he has no evidence. Hes honest enough to recognize that "the Designer" would then be an impish constant "fiddler" that uses cataclysm as his test tube. He cant support that with any evidence. Right now his remaining evidence is the cascade of enzymes in blood clotting and cilia and flagella. His response to these points is that Irreducible complexity adds some other options to origins of life. Thats about all hes adding to the debate. Hes like Hoyle in that respect. However, I know for a fact that Behe is totally flummoxed by having to deal with all these remora -like hangers on who have turned his attempt at "science" into another gospel.
His responses to the above cited critiques that RL posted are weak responses wherein, because theyve been spruced up by the Discovery Institute, he uses the "citing the citation" argument rather than dealing with the subject at large. If youve ever read "letters to the editor" in some small town papers, A discussion and rebuttal and sur-rebuttal can go on unchecked for weeks and the readers, peripheral to the subject, and who are reading the letters expecting to learn something, are, instead, treated to a waterfall of "names and dates with little substance. Alas , Behes responses to Ken Miller are like that (and he mostly misses the point about how the mousetrap grew (of course as an invention) from a simple snare to a snap snare, to a trap. Behe was just a little miffed at Miller and Raups "beerfest" critique of a mousetrap going from a doorstop to a papreweight, toa tie clip, to a mousetrap. Each stage providing a jumping off point to the next.Youd have to follow the details of the very debate and , most of us cant (and truly dont give a rats ass) to follw . After all, its not NASCAR.
fm-
You seem to have become almost quite carried away.
Did you put my main point to him that he is totally missing the point.That would explain why he's "flummoxed".Enzymes and cilia and flagella are not what most people are bothered about.Money and power are what most people are bothered about.But fancy "totally flummoxed" eh?
Einstein was a bit flummoxed himself with what they did with his science.
Einstein, like many "sacred Cows" sat on his ass and let science pass him by IMHO.
ps. Did I sound like Im carried away?, must be all the dopamines and all that other crap we exude from heavy exercise. We ct and split 3 cords of farwood. Then stacked it today.
CMON WINTER. Gimme yer best shot.
My wife got me one of those timer driven sunlight lamps that come on early so I dont get really depressed and go out an kill somebody.
Ill be doin some work in Argentina come January, so maybe my seasonal SAD wont be so bad this year.Until then I can put up with you and whatever the hell your talkin about at the moment.
Is the process of evolution goal driven?
Certainly--the goal is successful reproduction.
Fm-
I forgot to ask you before but did you not offer to unflummox Dr Behe.
I made my first real money with firewood.On the estate where I grew up they knocked trees down for various reasons and they used to burn all the smaller branches.So me and a pal started turning them into fire logs and selling them.We sold all we could make.Damn-we should have charged more but I was young and innocent then and all the old ladies we sold them too were so nice and they'd give us home made pies and ginger beer.An old guy once told me that if you are working too hard you're not charging enough.
But two days at it ain't nuthin' man.We did it all the time when school finished and homework done and choir practice over and some other stuff.Did you find that every time you split a log another wonder is revealed.It's a great job.
How many trees do you reckon there is in America.
There's a hell of a lot here.
No need to get depressed old chap.Life's just a bowl of cookies.
There are 87,654,790,264 trees in AMerica not including alaska.
Yep, we do have a lot
How many you have in the UK?
neologist wrote:Setanta wrote:Certainly--the goal is successful reproduction.
That's it?
That ain't good enough fer ya, eh?
Theistic elitist . . .
Neologist, No...Evolution is NOT goal driven. This is one of the points that has been hit home throughout my semester taking Human Evolution for my last natural science credit. Mutations occur randomly. And many unsuccessful mutations occur. But there is a reason that they are unsuccessful as Setana articulated (though with the reference to reproduction as being a goal), which is that they are outreproduced by other organisms. Reproduction is not the goal; it is merely the device by which species continue. The reason that progress happens is that new changes in phenotype (outward manifestation of genetic makeup) can make an organism better equipped to produce offspring. This in turn propagates the new mutation. In the same organism with a different mutation that is not favored by either natural or sexual selection, the organism will not produce more offspring and the mutation will fade into history. So, long answer, but basically, no -evolution does not have a goal.
So if it were to happen all over again?
Nobody could say "lets get it right this time"
neologist wrote:So if it were to happen all over again?
... you would probably get different results at the fine level, but might get similar results at the grand level.
Convergent evolution shows that certain beneficial designs tend to crop up repeatedly in the biosphere. For example, eyes have developed several diffferent times, with a wide range of structure.
Insect eyes are compound and function differently than Mamalian eyes.
Cephalopod eyes function very similarly to Mamalian eyes, but evolved from a completely different starting point (no common morphological ancestor).
If we ran the evolutionary process over again, we would probably not get eyes of exactly the same structure we see today, but we would probably still get eyes in various forms.
ros. Weve had 5 major calamities and maybe 10 or more (according to Wylie Poag ofthe USGS) minor ones where weve lost anywhere from 10 up to 90 % of the species that were around at the time. Imagine if those cataclysms didnt occur or , at least were not cataclysms but mere environmental disasters. Subsequent species , who were not rising or dominant species may not have had their "chance at bat"
like, for example, mammals. Until the late Paleocene, mammals were pretty much the rat-like or small ungulate type of forms, wjith placentals being a minor player even in the mammal parade.
Dinosaurs were already in decline by late Cretaceous and along with a bolide swipe and some additional vulcanism that was possibly caused by the meteor, we as a class of vertebrates, "lucked out". We lucked out even more when at the end of the PErmian nearly 200 million years earlier, over 90+% of all species were extinguished by (the latest theory is severe acid atmospherics from all the sulphites in the volcanic dust and vapor and O2 levels were reduced to about <10%) So most of the animals (including sea dwellers , were wiped out and our earliest mammal like reptile ancestors made it (latest hypothesis on that is that many of the lucky ones were lucky just because they lived in tectonically stable areas in swampy terrains with acid adapted gymnopserms).
Raups book on "Extinction" makes one glad that one had properly chosen ones ancestoral species. In the grand cardgame 99.9999% of all animals that EVER lived are extinct species. Feelin lucky enough to play the powerball?
daniellejean, You seem to have a good grasp of evolution. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
fm wrote-
Quote:There are 87,654,790,264 trees in AMerica not including alaska.
Yep, we do have a lot
How many you have in the UK?
I don't know.We were driving to York races one day and somebody said-after gazing out of the window for some miles-"how many effing trees are there in this effing country?"I remembeer a short discussion but I don't know if any estimates as good as yours were offered.An effing lot was the nearest we managed to agree on before returning to more important matters.
