[__ Science __ ] A Hill to Die On

[Tenchi]

Barbarian:

I linked to the Discovery Institute stuff on YouTube because I the Intelligent Design perspective is a very solid, very sensible alternative to the ToE. I did NOT offer the link to the Discovery Institute vids in endorsement of any particular person, or organization, associated with the perspective.

Nothing you've put forward actually diminishes, or rebuts, the Intelligent Design hypothesis. Your...insinuations about people and organizations connected to ID are, in essence, akin to suggesting that morally-failing theists somehow diminish, or negate, God's existence. But it simply doesn't follow that a view poorly represented, is therefore undone. Mozart's music played badly by a fifth-grade school band doesn't make his music, or his musical genius, worthy only of the dustbin.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Most religious schools know better than to add creationism to Christian belief.

Especially if they want to stay accredited.

You have it backwards. God binds the world to the physical laws He founded.

Exactly. The world, not himself.

It's directly observed.

I don know anyone who has seen one animal morph into another kind.

 

[Barbarian]

Especially if they want to stay accredited.

The state doesn't accredit religious schools.

I don know anyone who has seen one animal morph into another kind.

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. Populations evolve. Individuals don't. Remember when I said that most people who think they hate evolution, don't know what it is? Here's an example.

 

[Barbarian]

I linked to the Discovery Institute stuff on YouTube because I the Intelligent Design perspective is a very solid, very sensible alternative to the ToE.

Even fellows of the Discovery Institute disagree with you.

Michael Behe, for example, says he knows evolution is true.

Michael Denton says that the more support there is for ID, the less plausible, creationism becomes.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

The state doesn't accredit religious schools.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Funny how they were once Christian.

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. Populations evolve. Individuals don't. Remember when I said that most people who think they hate evolution, don't know what it is? Here's an example.

Your answer is an example of double talk, because populations are made up of the same kind of individuals, which will remain the same kind no matter how much time passes.

 

[Barbarian]

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. Populations evolve. Individuals don't. Remember when I said that most people who think they hate evolution, don't know what it is? Here's an example.

Your answer is an example of double talk

Nope. Just seems like that to you, because you have no idea what evolution is. It's defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

because populations are made up of the same kind of individuals

The genes of which will change over time as we repeatedly observe. How? Births and deaths change the population and the allele frequency. So new mutations, gene extinction and so on, is the way the population evolves.

 

[Barbarian]

The state doesn't accredit religious schools.

Funny how they were once Christian.

Religious freedom. First Amendment and all that. Not everyone likes that freedom. If you don't, there are lots of countries that don't have it.

 

[Tenchi]

Even fellows of the Discovery Institute disagree with you.

So? Many people of various affiliations and levels of expertise disagree with me (and I with them). In and of itself, their disagreement doesn't secure their views or rebut mine.

In any case, which "fellows" of the DI "disagree with me" and about what, exactly?

Michael Behe, for example, says he knows evolution is true.

Direct quotation, please. In context.

Michael Denton says that the more support there is for ID, the less plausible, creationism becomes.

Again, direct quotation, please. In context.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Nope. Just seems like that to you, because you have no idea what evolution is. It's defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
I don't care how it's defined. No one in history has ever observed minor gene changes causing a human being to become anything other than a human being.

The genes of which will change over time as we repeatedly observe. How? Births and deaths change the population and the allele frequency. So new mutations, gene extinction and so on, is the way the population evolves.

It's like the comment you made about dogs. I made a comment about dogs and you said your dog is nicer than most people or something like that. Like house pets have "evolved" into a new creature or something, instead of the dogs or cats they are.

 

[Barbarian]

It's like the comment you made about dogs. I made a comment about dogs and you said your dog is nicer than most people or something like that. Like house pets have "evolved" into a new creature or something, instead of the dogs or cats they are.

Yes, no one would consider dogs to be wolves. The skulls are very different, even if you find the most primitive of dogs:

Genetically, it appears that dogs evolved from a species of wolf that no longer exists and may have give rise to at least one existing wolf species. Humans and dogs coevolved to exist with each other. We've even coevolved neurologically. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[journeymanisnothing]

The state doesn't accredit religious schools.

Religious freedom. First Amendment and all that. Not everyone likes that freedom. If you don't, there are lots of countries that don't have it.

I don't have to move. I live in the USA, where God is no longer honored in my over taxed State run school system.

 

[Vaccine]

So? Many people of various affiliations and levels of expertise disagree with me (and I with them). In and of itself, their disagreement doesn't secure their views or rebut mine.

In any case, which "fellows" of the DI "disagree with me" and about what, exactly?



Direct quotation, please. In context.



Again, direct quotation, please. In context.

Hi Tenchi,

You make excellent points about ID. Just thought I'd point out the bait and switch happening. The bait: evolution is observed, verified, as sure as gravity, etc. The switch: evolution accounts for all life we see. No ID scientist I know of rejects micro-evolution, the small changes we see within species. Behe specifically challenged macro-evolution, the idea natural selection acting on mutations accounts for all the features found in life.
Here's Behe in his own words:

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Yes, no one would consider dogs to be wolves. The skulls are very different, even if you find the most primitive of dogs:

Genetically, it appears that dogs evolved from a species of wolf that no longer exists and may have give rise to at least one existing wolf species. Humans and dogs coevolved to exist with each other.

I never disputed differnt types of dogs. Interbreeding dogs doesn't make a dog another life form. Domesticating an dog makes it a tamer dog.

We've even coevolved neurologically. Would you like to learn about that?

Not unless you can show how at one time, humans existed without nerves, brains, etc.

 

[Barbarian]

Michael Behe, for example, says he knows evolution is true.

In 2007, Behe's book The Edge of Evolution was published arguing that while evolution can produce changes within species, there is a limit to the ability of evolution to generate diversity, and this limit (the "edge of evolution") is somewhere between species and orders.

In this book Behe's central assertion is that Darwinian evolution actually exists but plays only a limited role in the development and diversification of life on Earth. To this aim, he examines the genetic changes undergone by the malaria plasmodium genome and the human genome in response to each other's biological defenses, and identifies that "the situation resembles trench warfare, not an arms race", by considering the hemoglobin-destroying, protein pump-compromising as a "war by attrition". Starting from this example, he takes into account the number of mutations required to "travel" from one genetic state to another, as well as population size for the organism in question. Then, Behe calculates what he calls the "edge of evolution", i.e., the point at which Darwinian evolution would no longer be an efficacious agent of creative biological change, arguing that purposeful design plays a major role in the development of biological complexity, through the mechanism of producing "non-random mutations", which are then subjected to the sculpting hand of natural selection.[32]

Michael Behe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Behe acknowledges the fact of Darwinian evolution, but says that there is an "edge" after which random mutations won't do what is needed, and some "designer" intentionally inserts necessary mutations to make the system work. He differs from Darwinians in that he suggests some mutations are not random, but "designed." Interestingly, he has conceded that it is theoretically possible for "irreducible complexity" to happen by Darwinian evolution, but he doesn't think it happens.

And Denton?

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science–that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world–that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton Nature's Destiny p. xi

"Intelligence Design" has evolved. Natural selection ( court decisions, new scientific findings, etc.) has not been kind to ID, but that process honed it to be smaller, but more fit than its original creationist version.

 

[Vaccine]

Behe acknowledges the fact of Darwinian evolution, but says that there is an "edge" after which random mutations won't do what is needed, and some "designer" intentionally inserts necessary mutations to make the system work. He differs from Darwinians in that he suggests some mutations are not random, but "designed." Interestingly, he has conceded that it is theoretically possible for "irreducible complexity" to happen by Darwinian evolution, but he doesn't think it happens.

The idea a "some 'designer' intentionally inserts necessary mutations to make the system work." is a mischaracterization of intelligent design theory. Do you want to know what ID theory actually states?

"Intelligence Design" has evolved. Natural selection ( court decisions, new scientific findings, etc.) has not been kind to ID, but that process honed it to be smaller, but more fit than its original creationist version.

Again, another mischaracterization. While the Dover court decision was not kind. New scientific findings have vindicated Behe many times. Would you like to learn about them?

 

[Barbarian]

You make excellent points about ID. Just thought I'd point out the bait and switch happening. The bait: evolution is observed, verified, as sure as gravity, etc.

No one rejects micro-gravity. Sure things fall to the ground but many people object to macrogravity, denying round Earth, orbit of planet, or organizations of galaxies by gravity. No one has ever seen a solar system form or a galaxy rotate even once. In fact evolution is more certain than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works.

But now, even creationist organizations like AIG admit that new species, genera, and manybe families come from existing populations.

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

AIG doesn't want to call it "evolution", but it is macroevolution:

Macroevolution ​

Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.

Macroevolution

Definition noun, plural: macroevolutions Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups. Supplement Macroevolution involves variation of allele

www.biologyonline.com

I'll grant you that Michael Denton is trying to distance ID from it's creationist roots and form a science where teleological principles can be applied in a rational way:

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

But that teleology, the assumption of an unobserved "designer" remains the problem for him. Sounds like theistic evolution, um?

 

[Barbarian]

The idea a "some 'designer' intentionally inserts necessary mutations to make the system work." is a mischaracterization of intelligent design theory.

It's what Behe says. He admits macroevolution to some degree, but he supposes an "edge of evolution", where a designer must "design" further evolution.

Do you want to know what ID theory actually states?

ID is not a scientific theory. It's a theistic philosophy. From the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document:
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
...
Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education

(Note - This is the text of the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document," prepared in 1998.

ncse.ngo

That's philosophy, perhaps a new religion. But it's not science. This is why a federal court found it to be a religion, not a science, and therefore not to be taught in public school science classes. A huge problem was the Of Pandas and People textbook which was a creationist textbook, hastily edited to change a few words to avoid connection to creationism. Too hastily, it turns out...

And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally."[22] In a new draft of Pandas prepared shortly after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design.[31] The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency":

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.[23]

The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".[25][28]

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.[24][28]

Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Barbarian]

I never disputed differnt types of dogs.

It's not about breeds. Even the most primitive domestic dogs are anatomically very different than wolves. It's not just anatomy. They are biochemically different, being more able to digest grains, for example. And they have a mutation that makes them more inclined to respond to humans.

We've evolved to get along with them, too. Neurologically, we are attuned to dogs.

 

[Barbarian]

We've even coevolved neurologically. Would you like to learn about that?

Not unless you can show how at one time, humans existed without nerves, brains, etc.

You're a little confused. Humans and dogs didn't interact until long after humans came to be.

Humans and Dogs Use Same Brain Area to Get Others' Emotions​

Humans and Dogs Use Same Brain Area to Get Others' Emotions

Human and dog brains process sounds in similar ways, and this may allow the two species to understand each other's emotions, new research shows.

www.livescience.com

It's interesting that both species used existing structures and processes to develop the emotional communication that make humans and dogs a symbiotic pairing. It's an example of exaption, the recruitment of existing traits to new uses.
It's interesting to consider that while other apes can't figure out what we mean when we point at things, dogs seem to immediately get it without training. Pretty much the way we immediately get it when a dog suddenly freezes and stares off in a specific direction.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't have to move. I live in the USA, where God is no longer honored in my over taxed State run school system.

No, that's wrong, too. My daughter and her friends often did "at the flagpole" prayers and their FCA club met on school time. The key is the students initiated this on their own, without the direction of school employees. You see, all that's perfectly legal in public schools. Only thing is, the state (school employees) can't direct it.