Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@layman,

Quote:

That doesn't mean you have to turn toward ID theory. But more and more recognize that biology must turn away from outdated mechanical models like neo-darwinism if further progress of any real substance is to be made.

Roger that. I don't expect or even want 'mainstream science' to turn toward ID. I'm perfectly happy to wait for the scientific method to plod along.

My guess is that there will never be evidence beyond doubt on either side but I'm pretty clear on where what we have is pointing.

On another note, I really loved farmer's elegant statement about life being the only example in the universe contrary to entropy. Its so unnatural!

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

If you wont answer my last question re: Kimura Im just going to ignore your mixed characterizations nd references because I believe you just blindly quote and dont think about a thing other than your nwxt meal and how you can just be a dimwitted PITA

It doesn't do a damn bit of good to answer your questions, Farmer, because you can't or won't read them. I already responded to this, scroll up.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I would have stated it as "Was intelligence required for life to emerge: Yes or No?"

Really? What exactly is your intelligence without life? It can only be intelligence without life if it is supernatural.

What is your evidence of this God you speak of?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Heh, leave it to Parry to think that "God" is synonymous with "alive," eh? Language aint never been that boy's strong suit.

Leave it to you to agree with me that Lead Foot is arguing that only a God could have created life. (You don't understand much of what you post about, do you?)

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Leave it to you to agree with me that Lead Foot is arguing that only a God could have created life. (You don't understand much of what you post about, do you?)

With respect to the post in question, no I don't agree that's what he said at all. Up you your usual tactics of trying to rewrite posts to say what you want them to say, I see.

2 Replies

@layman,

How can something be intelligent if it isn't alive?

0 Replies

@layman,

Not to get ganging up on religion, Im done with Leadfoot's fantasies .
Lamont-Id suggest that you bone up on today's issues on evolution as are taught to college bio majors. You seem to be taking an "All or nothing" approach re neutral theory. You seem to be posting Kimurea when you need him but fail to discuss the fact that Nei, Kimura, Lynch, and the IDers are only intrested in the molecular level an the only evidence they propose is from a level that you dont seem to be "getting". Yet several of them, including Kimura dont ignore natural selection like Nei.

Posting blogs and quote mining, just to rattle cages is balogna. The entire concept of neutrality v phenotypic selection (all kinds of selection including sexual) is subject of debate, research, an no "consensus" that is claiming Victory. By reading blogs and Sandwalk, Pndas thumb etc and concluding that "its all over" may be good enough for your block but , as I say over an over--"science doesnt work that way dude". We dont "buy into sides" we test em all to see what works. SInce my contributions have all been in the stratigraphic /paleo fields, Ive seen NO compelling arguments AGAINST natural selection's role (which is, of course a lab for adaptation). Its easy to read blogs, quote mine, and take a side. It is , of course silly science but its fun screaming at me and calling people names.

Your only means of answering my last question says nothing. Yes Nei followed Kimura but Kimura recognized the importance ef nat selection at the phenotypic level. Nei is a bit of an evo- extremist IMHO.
Id suggest you enroll in a team taught evo-devo course among the molecular biologists- genetcists in evo/devo , paleontologists-and paleoanatomists.

U of Chi has a good one (in the medical school, and the director of the anatomy dept is a paleontologist)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Nei, Kimura, Lynch, and the IDers are only intrested in the molecular level an the only evidence they propose is from a level that you dont seem to be "getting".

After that statement, Farmer, it's obvious that you should be doing the reading.

2 Replies

@layman,

Kimura acknowledged the overall function of natural selection at the species level . I think, with your stated position its kinda hard to see otherwise. If youre in the West Coats--Berkely has a really neat evolution science program. Its accessible, open, and not caught with its head up its ass (IMHO)

0 Replies

@layman,

I was just reading a rather exhaustive paper by Nei, but I can't find it now. Here's his (partial) summary of his new book (2013), "Mutation-Driven Evolution" however:

Quote:

A brief history of the principal evolutionary theories (Darwinism, mutationism, neo-Darwinism, and neo-mutationism) that preceded the theory of mutation-driven evolution is also presented in the context of the last 150 years of research. However, the core of the book is concerned with recent studies of genomics and the molecular basis of phenotypic evolution, and their relevance to mutation-driven evolution. In contrast to neo-Darwinism, mutation-driven evolution is capable of explaining real examples of evolution such as the evolution of olfactory receptors, sex-determination in animals, and the general scheme of hybrid sterility. In this sense the theory proposed is more realistic than its predecessors, and gives a more logical explanation of various evolutionary events.

He's interested in phenotypic evolution (and it's molecular basis). In the paper I was looking for, he said the evidence for "mutation-driven evolution" at the phenotypic scale was much stronger than it is for new-darwinsim.

By the way, did you find my answer to your question about Kimura?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

That sounds to me like you are saying that the 'designers' came into being by the same method which you argue against as the way the 'designed' came into being.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Your only means of answering my last question says nothing.

Sure it does, read it again. I have probably told you this 20 times, Farmer, but let me say it again. I don't deny evolution. I don't subscribe to an "intelligent design" theory, at least not in any form that you try to tell me I do.

That said, I have long felt that neo-darwinism was inconsistent and incomplete. I can't see "natural selection" as being the "creative force" it's adherents claim it to be. Variation does not, and can not, "come from" natural selection. It "selects" (to one degree or another); it does "create" any variation whatsoever.

Neutral theory, and population genetics in general, involves highly technical and obscure (to me) math which is based upon premises which are constantly disputed. I'm not interested in those technical details, per se.

Nor do I even agree with the fundamental mechanistic assumptions of a guy like Lynch. That said, "mutation driven evolution" makes much more inherent sense to me than "natural selection driven evolution." Variation comes from mutations, and it is precisely variation that evolution attempts to explain.

Nor can I buy the dogma that all mutations are strictly random. For one thing research shows otherwise. For another, neo-darwinists themselves, while ostensibly insisting that there is absolutely no teleology involved in evolution, routinely invoke an implicit teleology with their never-ending "just so" stories and other aspects of their "theory." But all that is another issue, apart from neutral theory.

In short, I don't like neo-darwinism, period. To me it is much more of an a priori philosophy, or religion, that it is a valid "scientific theory."

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

. I can't see "natural selection" as being the "creative force"

.
No matter how we define it "creative force" was never limited to natural selection by Darwin himself.
Nat selection , sexual selection, and other forms not well understood by the man, were clearly discussed by him in increasing clarity as he rewrote and edited his 6 editions of "Origins...". Sean Carrolls comment I gave you a few pages back is actually a clip made by Goldschmidt paraphrased from a statement DArwin wrote. The neutral theory guys have NEVER been able to discuss how "neutrality" is constrained by naturl selection and how the rise of new species so often cpmfprtably fits the changes in temporal (geological) environment.
I may be what Max Planck said of scientists
"They never become convinced of a radical new idea, they just die off". That may be, but theres no way that neutrality can be shown to work with constraint unless its done with huge numbers of species of a particlular genera. RAUP made a similar (and more cogent argument IMM) that extinction is the giant sweeper that selects against and it appears that selection is quite sensitive to whole numbers of species in a genera (qs is fecundity and the schema by which offspring are emitted and reared)

What you deny as "creative force" is not to be denied as exemplified by whales, bears, canids, molluscs, arthropods, gymnosperm and angiosperm plants.

When I was in school, Id seen the argument about genetic drift in the 1970's, actually drift back and forth between Kimura, Mayr, Gould, and Ehrlich fter hich I developed an attitude of "you guys settle it and dont let me worry about minutae".
On a2k, amost 10 years ago, we (mostly I recall it was Roswell, Monterey Jack, another geneticist, and myself ) who "MAINSTREAMED" the discussion genetic drift as a no longer localized mechanism.

Creative Force" is a matter of degree. What may be merely "preservation of a tool" to you, is a "Creative force" to me. I see the gradual evolution of a perrisodactyl into Moby Dick (or the return to the ocean by a previousl lndlubber) as a creative force.

As far as blogs, like Pndas Thumb, Sandwalk, NCSE etc, there are ALWAYS long seriatal sequences of posts arguing for and against the bloggers own self published stuff. I get as much out of the ords of ome of the varied cientists there as I do from published juried literature.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Nor can I buy the dogma that all mutations are strictly random. For one thing research shows otherwise. For another, neo-darwinists themselves, while ostensibly insisting that there is absolutely no teleology involved in evolution, routinely invoke an implicit teleology with their never-ending "just so" stories and other aspects of their "theory." But all that is another issue, apart from neutral theory

You seem to want to have it all ways. By "no teleology" you mean causes or directions??
All I can say is you should broaden your viewfinder and take in some of the evidence that the changing geological environment of the planet provides us.

Avoiding all but molecular biochem and our "neutrality" hypothesis becomes nothing more than "slow Creation" (My new favorite snarky term)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I really loved farmer's elegant statement about life being the only example in the universe contrary to entropy. Its so unnatural!

Unless you are not too bright, you must realize that all biological reactions 9of the living state) MUST defy entropy.
The scientific method actually gets a lot more done than does scientific chaos.

At least you and Lamont are reading (but do not be so easily convinced by elegant phraseology , which is the prime gimmick of the Discovery Boys)

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You should read some of Discovery Inst or Hank Morris's III writing style suggestions where they've recommended the use of"Neo-Darwinian and Darwinian "as a synonym for Evolution or Evolution by Nat selection . Evolution, (we dont call Physics Neo-Newtonism or Lavoisireism ). The terms keep Evolution as an axiom so it becomes equal to a "religion", thus taking away the sciences calls for an equivalent amount of "evidence" for the religion of ID and reation "Science"

0 Replies

@hingehead,

Quote:

That sounds to me like you are saying that the 'designers' came into being by the same method which you argue against as the way the 'designed' came into being.

If you are referring to the post I think you are, that was only to refute the Dawkins/atheist argument that there is no rational explanation for how a God could exist. I was merely pointing out that their explanation for life here could apply equally well to non-carbon based life forms.

I was not espousing that as my personal belief.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

you must realize that all biological reactions 9of the living state) MUST defy entropy.

Of course I do. That only reinforces how very un-natural it is and all the more likely that intelligence was required to set it in motion. Until it's alive, all the forces of nature are trying to unravel it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Oh oh

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

What is your evidence of this God you speak of?

No self respecting man or woman would accept evidence from another for the existence of a supernatural being.

I sought my own. I suggest you do the same you lazy boy.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know