Welcome to Gaia! ::

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius. 0.12738853503185 12.7% [ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant! 0.28343949044586 28.3% [ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis. 0.063694267515924 6.4% [ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore. 0.14649681528662 14.6% [ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball. 0.37898089171975 37.9% [ 119 ]
Total Votes:[ 314 ]
<< < 1 2 ... 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ... 56 57 58 >

mrsculedhel
There, there. You really didn't miss anything. When I finish my readings you may be most helpful as all the others have been. I am not ready to throw in the towel yet. Thank the stars you arrived home in good health after so long a road trip and the gas prices being what they are. *huggles*

I will return with more information from the Discovery Institute.


Gas? Heh, safe drive I'm happy with, especially considering how often I'd be pelted with some rather bad rain on the trip (and my ipod broke so at points when nothing good was on XM I was going insane), but I was coming from Vancouver, the gas actually made me happy considering it was WAY cheaper than the gas up there in Canada.

And I've always wanted to ask a member of the discovery institute, see what they come up with... "can you provide a single testable falsifiable hypothesis in favor of ID for me?"

Lets see how they dodge that one ^^;
mrsculedhel
It turns out you may be right about creationism and ID. I heard it from the horses mouth.... I had a member of the Discovery Institute in my home last evening for cocktails...He confirmed a number of your suspicions.
Really? They were actually that candid? I'm wondering which suspicions you're referring to.

mrsculedhel
Evolution [assumes] that there is no first cause or unconditioned reality... and that everything happens by a serious of random chance.
NO! Evolution in no way rejects a first cause. It just says it's beside the point. And evolution is the exact opposite of random! There's a random component to it to be sure, but there's also the equally if not more important component of natural selection!

That's like saying that after giving all the yellow skittles to my mom (since I don't like them and she does), the distribution of Skittles she receives is random just because the ordinary selection I had in my bag was.

vipr230
And I've always wanted to ask a member of the discovery institute, see what they come up with... "can you provide a single testable falsifiable hypothesis in favor of ID for me?"

Lets see how they dodge that one ^^;
It's right on their website. Here's the important bit:
William Dembski
If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.
So apparently if we can falsify IC, ID falls with it. Except that I've shown already it doesn't. Because ID proponents can always do one of two things:

1) Pick a new system: We proved the eye is reducible, so they just picked a bunch of new ones out of the hat. Now instead of the eye, we hear about the flagellum. Same mistake, new context. How many systems do we need to show this works for before the principle is established as sound for ID proponents? They won't answer so they can continue moving the goalpost.

2) Say "It's not enough": No matter how many steps we show, ID proponents can just simply say "It's not good enough" and demand more. This is precisely what Dembski did. How many steps do we need to show before the principle is established as sound for ID proponents? They won't answer so they can continue moving the goalpost.

Thus, although it should be falsifiable, because ID proponents never nail down their actual hypothesis well enough to be put to an honest test, it's not.
VoijaRisa
It's right on their website. Here's the important bit:
William Dembski
If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.
So apparently if we can falsify IC, ID falls with it. Except that I've shown already it doesn't. Because ID proponents can always do one of two things:

1) Pick a new system: We proved the eye is reducible, so they just picked a bunch of new ones out of the hat. Now instead of the eye, we hear about the flagellum. Same mistake, new context. How many systems do we need to show this works for before the principle is established as sound for ID proponents? They won't answer so they can continue moving the goalpost.

2) Say "It's not enough": No matter how many steps we show, ID proponents can just simply say "It's not good enough" and demand more. This is precisely what Dembski did. How many steps do we need to show before the principle is established as sound for ID proponents? They won't answer so they can continue moving the goalpost.

Thus, although it should be falsifiable, because ID proponents never nail down their actual hypothesis well enough to be put to an honest test, it's not.


Which, again, makes IC not falsifiable and thus ID not falsifiable, it's the same old intellectual dishonesty we've come to know and loveath from the creationists
The lawsuits have begun. Yoko Ono has brought suit over the use of John Lennon's song, Imagine without her permission.

The person I interviewed last night over cocktails did admit that ID operates from the premise that God/Creator/Intelligence begat life on earth, also that there is no known falsifiable hypothesis as far as he knows.

The gentleman is a member of the Discovery Institute and a retired professor (who was never tenured) from Evergreen.
I retrieved this from the weblink to Science and Culture that Voija gave us in his post above:

Quote:
Falsifiability

Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.


Everyone is throwing out "Occam's Razor" as their own defense. eek
Debonair Silver Dragonair
Methcalarjalope
He still posed it, nevertheless. I don't care if they secreted video cams into his 5 year old niece's boudoir where he told her a bed time story, he still said what he said.
I dearly hope that was hyperbole. I really do.
Yes, sorry. I am a hyperbole Queen. whee I am just making the point that his statements were musings and fantasy and I never took it to mean that this is what he truly believes. He was adorable when he said it. He repeated the question, blinked quite a bit and then as a good sport gave his imagination a chance to roam free. T'wasn't any indication that he he believed what he stated. The funny part was that his imagination could go so wild in speculating intelligent life from another world that also evolved by the same mechanisms, but had seeded life on this world. For deists, that is funny. He could imagine anything but first cause/unconditioned reality. cool
Westenblum
Methcalarjalope
It is still true that the fossil record lacks intermediary forms.


Do you even bother with research?


All of these are from the same dot org site and appear to be apologea. I am aware of the fossil record, unless something has happened since 1989 of which I am unaware.


Here is a quote from "Do"

Quote:
Why do gaps exist? (or seem to exist)
Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage. Many laypeople even have the (incorrect) impression that the situation is even worse, and that there are no known transitions at all. Why are there still gaps? And why do many people think that there are even more gaps than there really are?

Stratigraphic gaps
The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.

Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. These are rough estimates (from Gingerich, 1976, 1980) but should give an idea of the completeness required.

Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened.


There are problems with the fossil record.
VoijaRisa
mrsculedhel
Voija, may we have a link to your blog?
Angry Astronomer.

mrsculedhel
The current evidence for me is that ID is NOT creationism.
As I've seen thus far, your only source for this "evidence" is Expelled and we've already shown that it's not an entirely trustworthy source.

Methcalarjalope
It is still true that the fossil record lacks intermediary forms.
No. It is not.



I know all about little Eohippus. biggrin Darling, man! If you are so angry now, think of your health when you are my age. confused You will have the worst case of hypertension and risk the loss of your mind and memory. More exercise! Have you ever tried a martial art or boxing? Hitting objects made for that purpose are also worthwhile. This angry comes from being in Kansas. I doubt you would be so angry if you lived in Seattle where you would have the majority surrounding you who think as you do! I know how frustrating it can be to live in a community of persons that you wonder at while at the same time them looking at you as if you were a communist freak from outerspace.

This too shall pass! Trust me, I know about these things. Amazing things can happen to your disposition and reception of the world as you gain in age and have multiple experiences with a wide variety of people. Have you ever thought of taking your fiance to a third world country for an extended trip? I recommend Morocco. Just saying ... ninja

Feline Fatcat

6,775 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • First step to fame 200
mrsculedhel
A Confused Iguana
Not all "creationist" ideas revolve around an Adam and Eve as per a literal interpretation of the Bible. Broadly speaking, a creationist would be someone who believes that a god formed the universe creatio ex nihilo. Of course, this can be restricted into the kinds of Young- and Old-Earth creationism that is compatible with the Bible, but are we going to be ethnocentric about what is and is not a creation idea?

You know, it is hardy fair to chastise Vojia and me for our tone when you surreptitiously make sly digs at protestants. Do you not think?
I apologize for my sly digs at protestants. It turns out you may be right about creationism and ID. I heard it from the horses mouth.

Just to let you know, I have learned a lot about this subject from you, Voija, Iguana and ElectricTerra. I had a member of the Discovery Institute in my home last evening for cocktails and I could tell by his responses that he was not accustomed to laypersons knowing the controversies as well as I, due to the tutoring I've been getting from Gaia! Thank you so much for your continued patience.

He confirmed a number of your suspicions. I am not finished my other readings and cannot make a complete statement on my findings and conclusions yet. Just letting you know that you have been successful in informing me. Keep up the good work.
Wow, someone actually visited you at home to talk about this! I think that's actually pretty cool. Let us know what else you hear from them in the future, okay? smile
mrsculedhel
Valtiel the Watcher
First off Evolution only can explain how the various creatures of this planet have adapted to their environment, not how they were created.

Now the reason Intelligent design has been outright stomped on by the scientific community is the fact that a few creationists felt threatened, thinking that godless biology teachers were sending their children to hell. Basically, it dug it's own grave. It was exposed as entirely non science and stepped on by scientists and rightfully so. You can't deny the fact that Intelligent design was created to make people who translate the bible literally. feel better. The majority of evidence supporting ID consists of "that part's so complicated, it must be created" Where everything from genetics to the fossil record, to what we can see in the world around us all support evolution in it's entirety.

But let's take a look back at intelligent design. what if we take all of the religious bull out of it. What would scientist need to find to support their argument? What if scientist found evidence of intelligence before we existed, before intelligence existed at all? Maybe if some evidence comes to light intelligent design may be brought back on the table, but until someone treat's it as science, it will just be that annoying thing that won't shut up.


Evolution also has ontological arguments and operates from a given that there is no first cause or unconditioned reality (which is bad metaphysics) and that everything happens by a serious of random chance.

Evolutionary science is not Metaphysics and being a feild of science cannot assume an unnatural first cause. Supernatural things cannot be tested by natural means, whether they exist or not, and as such have no place in science. They may hold ground in phiosophy, religions, ect, but they have no place in science as by definition, science only deals with the naural. As evolution (also by definition) only deals with dissent with modification, it can only cover the variation of life, not the origin of it, let alone the "first cause". Further, evolution is hardly random as the main mechanism for evolution to occur is natural selection. The only random process within evolution is mutation. Most mutations are neutral and have no significant effect on the individual as 90% of DNA is "Junk" or non-protein coding DNA. Only 10% of your DNA actually codes for what makes you, you biologically. Only mutations that occur in the gametes (or sex cells) are passed on to offspring. If a mutation occurs, it is most likely to be neutral, though it may also increase or decrease the fitness of the individual. Fitness is simply one's ability to survive in a given environment. One very interesting mutation that occured around 10,000BP (Before present) was the mutation for blue eyes. Somehow, this mutation was selected for (meaning over 1% of the population had it), therefor increasing the fitness of individuals born with blue eyes. Mutations don't necissarily have to make you stronger or faster to be naturally selected for, they can simply make you more sexually appealing, increasing the likelyhood that you will have children, passing on the trait for blue eyes. If a mutation made you less sexually appealing, the likelyhood of you reproducing and passing on your mutations is less likely. The main mechanism for evolution( natural selection) is not random, only the mutations are.
mrsculedhel
I retrieved this from the weblink to Science and Culture that Voija gave us in his post above
That's the exact same part I quoted and already showed why it's wrong.
mrsculedhel
Westenblum
Methcalarjalope
It is still true that the fossil record lacks intermediary forms.


Do you even bother with research?


All of these are from the same dot org site and appear to be apologea. I am aware of the fossil record, unless something has happened since 1989 of which I am unaware.


Here is a quote from "Do"

Quote:
Why do gaps exist? (or seem to exist)
Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage. Many laypeople even have the (incorrect) impression that the situation is even worse, and that there are no known transitions at all. Why are there still gaps? And why do many people think that there are even more gaps than there really are?

Stratigraphic gaps
The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.

Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. These are rough estimates (from Gingerich, 1976, 1980) but should give an idea of the completeness required.

Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened.


There are problems with the fossil record.

No one will ever find all intermediate forms, that is simply impossible. In order to accomplish that you would need the remains of everything that has ever lived, including every person who has ever roamed this earth. Many areas, like South America, have acidic soild, which is horrible for bone preservation as it makes them cheese-like (which makes excavations and identification of individuals difficult to say the least). However, this does not mean fossil evidence is somehow less valid. Aside from that, the strongest cases for evolution are not from the fossil record, but come through genetic topics including endogenous retroviruses and throwback genes.
mrsculedhel
Valtiel the Watcher
First off Evolution only can explain how the various creatures of this planet have adapted to their environment, not how they were created.

Now the reason Intelligent design has been outright stomped on by the scientific community is the fact that a few creationists felt threatened, thinking that godless biology teachers were sending their children to hell. Basically, it dug it's own grave. It was exposed as entirely non science and stepped on by scientists and rightfully so. You can't deny the fact that Intelligent design was created to make people who translate the bible literally. feel better. The majority of evidence supporting ID consists of "that part's so complicated, it must be created" Where everything from genetics to the fossil record, to what we can see in the world around us all support evolution in it's entirety.

But let's take a look back at intelligent design. what if we take all of the religious bull out of it. What would scientist need to find to support their argument? What if scientist found evidence of intelligence before we existed, before intelligence existed at all? Maybe if some evidence comes to light intelligent design may be brought back on the table, but until someone treat's it as science, it will just be that annoying thing that won't shut up.


Evolution also has ontological arguments and operates from a given that there is no first cause or unconditioned reality (which is bad metaphysics) and that everything happens by a serious of random chance.

Nobody is actually saying say of it is random, just that the level your view it at usually obscures the cause.
Mutations random? No, they're the result of DNA being jostled around by all the other molecules it's bumping into and rays of light that are the result of electrons emitting energy to drop down to low energy configurations. When you look at this at a large enough scale to be worried about the order of the DNA where it's been jostled around to and the source of that light is so far away that it's simply too much effort to try and keep track of it all (not to mention we wouldn't really be capable of being accurate enough and precise enough about all of that to predict the results of this if only due to not being able to measure the initial conditions well enough.)
...and that's pretty much only looking at the physics (some classical mechanics and light,) without really going into any of the chemistry of it.

So mutations are effectively random but there's another problem with saying that evolution is just a serious (now you've got me doing it too- series I mean,) of random chances is ignoring the entire process of selection, which is anything but random.

[chemistry]
Now, I can only really begin to understand the basic concepts that lead chain of amino acids to do all of those complicated things they do but I do understand it well enough to say that it's all very orderly.
[/chemistry]

*I could keep going but this is probably already a going past laymen material and I think I've said enough anyway.


Oh, one more thing. Are you lumping all of the 'science that Biblical creation is an "alternative" to' into one thing and calling it evolution when you say that evolution rejects a first cause?
Even if that's what you meant it's still wrong. Just because Big Bang theory doesn't tell you about the conditions prior to it doesn't mean it's saying that there weren't any. We don't have the ability to test any predictions about what came before it so we don't say _____ caused the big bang.
If you want to know about the ideas of how it might have happened go ahead and ask but there's no way to back those ideas up just yet.
mrsculedhel
Evolution also has ontological arguments and operates from a given that there is no first cause or unconditioned reality (which is bad metaphysics) and that everything happens by a serious of random chance.
Again, no; it does not! Evolutionary theory is entirely decoupled from Big Bang theory. That kind of linking should be left with "Dr." Kent Hovind. Evolutionary theory could operate in exactly the same way irrespective of how the universe came into existence. There is no metaphysical statement made by evolutionary theory: you can have theistic evolution or atheistic evolution. Both are entirely consistent with evidence. Choosing whether it is atheistic or theistic does presume a certain ontology but evolution in itself does not choose.
A Bemused Iguana
mrsculedhel
Evolution also has ontological arguments and operates from a given that there is no first cause or unconditioned reality (which is bad metaphysics) and that everything happens by a serious of random chance.
Again, no; it does not! Evolutionary theory is entirely decoupled from Big Bang theory. That kind of linking should be left with "Dr." Kent Hovind. Evolutionary theory could operate in exactly the same way irrespective of how the universe came into existence. There is no metaphysical statement made by evolutionary theory: you can have theistic evolution or atheistic evolution. Both are entirely consistent with evidence. Choosing whether it is atheistic or theistic does presume a certain ontology but evolution in itself does not choose.
Depending on what exactly you're referring to with theistic evolution you may need to restrict the scope of evidence being considered to call it consistent...
-but ya, everything prior to the existence of life in our solar system is irrelevant to evolution. That stuff would be important to a creation myth but evolution is just a process.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum