[HeavyDluxe]

One other thing... I should apologize for the ongoing threadjack, too. Sorry!

[Al_U_Card]

Evolution is rational, ID is mythical.

Remember my analogy with the sunrise? C'mon people, ID is the sun going 'round the earth POV except that the Sun is really a chariot pulled by winged steeds and the earth is a tabletop on the back of a turtle.... sheesh.

[mikeh]

Quote

*That's* my problem.  I'll admit to having a horse in the race re: how life came into being (I'm even more radical than the IDer, FTR), but my primary concern in this thread is the way both sides stab each other for the same sin.

Well, I think that this explains a lot about your posts. Let me go out on a limb and suggest that your thoughts on how life began are based in faith, not science

It seems to me that it is impossible for faith-based believers to engage meaningfully with scientific thinkers, and vice versa, for a simple reason.

A faith based believer starts with the proposition that the world and all of its manifestations have to accord with the faith. Any observation that contradicts the faith is in error (altho religious organizations have demonstrated the ability to have new truths revealed that account for the inconvenient and unavoidable reality that might, if not accomodated, cost the organization some of its power).

The faith remains, in the short term, constant and not susceptible to modification in the light of observed phenonema.

A thinker starts with the proposition that the world and the universe... our very existence... is a fascinating question, and that our opinions about these issues is going to be formed based on observations. As observations become more detailed, as evidence accumulates, our opinions change. We have no pre-conceived immutable view of how the world should be.. we take it as it really is, as best as we can determine it.

Thus it is that both Richard and I have stated that we would happily abandon our support of evolution through natural selection if the theory was falsified by observation. So far, that hasn't happened... the semi-literate ideas of the ID cult have been resoundingly rebuffed... shown to be based on inaccurate and misleading assumptions as to reality.

But, I suspect that your belief in the origin of life will prove and has proven so far resistant to the lack of verifiable, testable evidence in support of it. Of course, if you KNOW the 'truth' then evidence is unnecessary.

Oh, and claims, no matter how valid, and I accept yours without reservation, to scientific training does not make faith-based positions any more rational

On that note.. why not elucidate for us any of the 'possible explanations' that compete with evolution and that are or have been scientifically testable?

[HeavyDluxe]

Mike,

Based on your comments, you seem to say it is impossible for a rational person to interact (objectively) with scientific evidence and come to a 'faith-based' position on origins. Perhaps that's true, though I would at least claim there should be room for a rational mind to reach different conclusion.

To be sure, one is right and the other is wrong - at least as ultimate explanations of origins.

Quote

So far, {the refutation of evolution} hasn't happened... the semi-literate ideas of the ID cult have been resoundingly rebuffed...

No room for an "in my opinion" there? Is that really an absolute fact?

Quote

Oh, and claims, no matter how valid, and I accept yours without reservation, to scientific training does not make faith-based positions any more rational.

That's the point I've been trying to make all along. The difference is that I see an equally 'faith-based' position in much of evolutionary biology today.

Like I've said, two sides, same error.

Quote

But, I suspect that your belief in the origin of life will prove and has proven so far resistant to the lack of verifiable, testable evidence in support of it.

There's no way I can respond to that, you know. If I claim that I've considered (and will continue to consider) the "verifiable" evidence and still don't buy in, either I'm ignorant or I'm letting faith trump my reason. So, I'll just let you take your pick which one you think applies.

Quote

why not elucidate for us any of the 'possible explanations' that compete with evolution and that are or have been scientifically testable?

I really wasn't trying to make this a ID/Creation/Evolution debate. My original point was, at least loosely, on topic with Winston's post. In presenting evolution as the 'absolutely right' framework for processing all biological inquiry, scientists are guilty of the same error they claim "IDers" are trying to introduce into the classroom.

So, with that in mind: (Macro)Evolutionary theory - as an explanation for ultimate origin - is no more experimentally verifiable than so-called 'intelligent design'. That natural selection occurs or that particular mechanisms have 'evolved' is something I'm willing to concede. But I'm unwilling to state that this means taking evolutionary logic as our default paradigm is a good move.

Let me loop to where we started. You asked for examples, but already said above that they've been "resoundingly rebuffed". Perhaps, "A[n evolutionary theory] believer starts with the proposition that the world and all of its manifestations have to accord with the [theory]."

Maybe we're not that different, despite your fervent arguments to the contrary.

[mikeh]

Quote

Quote

So far, {the refutation of evolution} hasn't happened... the semi-literate ideas of the ID cult have been resoundingly rebuffed...

No room for an "in my opinion" there? Is that really an absolute fact?

The resoundingly was, as I would have thought was obvious, an expression of opinion. As to its being rebuffed:

1. The court in the US case (I think it was in Ohio or Pennsylania) that struck down a local decision to teach ID did a very good job, imo, of describing the issues and the evidence.. yes, I read the judgement

2. I watched a lengthy documentary on PBS that allowed proponents and opponents of ID to speak... and, while I may be in error, the producer, director and editors of the documentary seemed to lean over backwards to be even-handed.. no narration critical of one school or the other, allowing each speaker to give fairly lengthy answers, rather than editing them down to sound bites. Again, I recognize my own bias, but I have to say that the opponents of ID seemed to have the stronger argument.

One argument was the issue about the development of flagellae... the ID'ers said that evolutionary theory could not explain how this happened in a particular lifeform. The evolutionists countered with specific examples of precursor mechanisms, and plausible modes of adaptation whereby this could happen. IOW, one school said: we are right because the other side has no explanation, while the other side said.. yes we do... here it is, in detail.

Another argument was that the organization behind ID had calculated the number of genetic evolutionary steps it would take for a single celled ancient bacterium to evolve into man.. and had calculated the probability of each step. The result was that the odds of man arising by random mutation mediated by natural selection was astronomically remote.. indeed, astronomically is an underbid. Since we are here, the argument went, it is SO unlikely, so improbable that we arose through chance, that ID was the far more plausible explanation.

Of course, the fallacy is that this argument depends on the assumption that in some manner we were an intended consequence.. that nature had us in mind all along. A more logical approach would be to say that chance mutation (and it is not actually purely random as to which parts of the genome are susceptible to mutation) mediated by natural selection was probably reasonably likely to give rise, ultimately, to lifeforms significantly more able to replicate and impact their environment than the original bacterium. It is maybe surprising but certainly not astronomically implausible that at some point on some planet with the same initial conditions as the earth, complex, semi-rational, thinking, conscious life forms would arise. That we are they is happenstance... we were not the 'intended' result.. there is no such thing as intentionality in evolution, which is why Freud said it would be so hard for it to be accepted.. it demotes us to the status of a contingent developement, rather than being 'created' by some god.

3. I have read a number of books, and articles, criticizing ID... based, so the authors write, on actual evidence.. either they are lying or ID has been shown, factually, to be based on illogic, and mis-information. These authors, generally, hold solid academic credentials... they are widely renowned, and not mouthpieces for religiously funded propaganda outlets... unlike the ID
ers.

So, it is not my opinion, alone, that ID has been resoundingly rebuffed.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Jan 27 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

What alternative theories??? Does anyone have one other than ID.. which is no theory at all..merely dogma dressed up to look (to illiterates or religious believers) like one?

Didn't I already talk about this?

It's environmentally-altered genetics. The oldest version of it was Lamark's Theorem, that giraffes that needed longer necks to survive would not only gain longer necks (through stretching), but their children would have longer necks (through genetics). That version has been disproven.

But there are others, such as if there is a village ravaged by an illness and one person has a genetic immunity, both the elders and the children are more likely to gain a genetic immunity from it, even though they aren't related to the person. That viruses can actually pass genetic material from one person to another.

How about the theory of deliberate selection? You may have noticed alpha dogs having sex with other dogs, male and female, even if the female isn't in heat. This could be altering the genetics of the subject, either through mixing (some of the actual parent, some of the alpha male), subborning (some of the father's sperm are effectively replaced by the alpha male), or randomizing (making mutations more likely in the parent). There's some interesting studies about foxes, where all of a vixen's kits will have the alpha male as the father even though foxes aren't all that choosy about mates. If there some magical power the vixen has to choose which male will actually fertilize her, or is this subborning in action?

Unfortunately, this hadn't been studied much when I studied it in college, except in trees, who have different methods of sharing genetics.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jan 27 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

Another argument was that the organization behind ID had calculated the number of genetic evolutionary steps it would take for a single celled ancient bacterium to evolve into man.. and had calculated the probability of each step. The result was that the odds of man arising by random mutation mediated by natural selection was astronomically remote.. indeed, astronomically is an underbid. Since we are here, the argument went, it is SO unlikely, so improbable that we arose through chance, that ID was the far more plausible explanation.

Of course, the fallacy is that this argument depends on the assumption that in some manner we were an intended consequence.. that nature had us in mind all along.

i believe this line of reasoning is itself the fallacy of diversion (or even straw man)... even if man wasn't the consequence it in no way affects the reasoning behind why man *wouldn't* be the consequence

[helene_t]

HeavyDluxe, on Jan 27 2009, 09:10 PM, said:

[*]Evolution is the way it is, so any inferences of design must be explained away through evolutionary means (no matter how improbable).

Who says evolution "is the way it is"?

If you can find evidence that contradicts some established scientific idea, the scientific community as a whole is eager to look at your suggested revision of the theory. I don't believe the community of evolutionary biologists is different from other scientific communities in that respect. I can say that as someone who has published an article (in a peer-reviewed journal of course) where I argued against the (at that time) dominant hypothesis of a certain pattern in gene expression profiles as being explained by evolutionary theory.

If what you say is that there are people who believe dogmatically in scientific theories then I am sure you are right.

[hotShot]

I would like to see some practical use of the ID-theory.

How does ID explain that bacteria develop immunity to antibiotics.
How does ID explain that illnesses that only existed in animals, suddenly infect humans.

It should be noted that real scientists usually don't claim to have prove that god does not exist. They watch nature, and than they try to build the most simple experiment that can reproduce the watched effects. After that they try to make a model/theory that explains their experiment and they design experiments to challenge their model/theory. If their model can predict the outcome of the new experiments it gets an accepted theory.
Real scientists know the limits of their knowledge and answer that they don't know if necessary. They have no method to know anything about the time prior to the big bang or what is outside the expanding universe.

They are usually very specific about what their theory is about.

Evolution has life as precondition, it explains how a single living cell could evolve into millions of different species. Evolution does not explain the creation of that first cell.

[Lobowolf]

helene_t, on Jan 27 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

Who says evolution "is the way it is"?

The Greek God Tautologous.

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Jan 27 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 27 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

What alternative theories??? Does anyone have one other than ID.. which is no theory at all..merely dogma dressed up to look (to illiterates or religious believers) like one?

Didn't I already talk about this?

It's environmentally-altered genetics. The oldest version of it was Lamark's Theorem, that giraffes that needed longer necks to survive would not only gain longer necks (through stretching), but their children would have longer necks (through genetics). That version has been disproven.

But there are others, such as if there is a village ravaged by an illness and one person has a genetic immunity, both the elders and the children are more likely to gain a genetic immunity from it, even though they aren't related to the person. That viruses can actually pass genetic material from one person to another.

How about the theory of deliberate selection? You may have noticed alpha dogs having sex with other dogs, male and female, even if the female isn't in heat. This could be altering the genetics of the subject, either through mixing (some of the actual parent, some of the alpha male), subborning (some of the father's sperm are effectively replaced by the alpha male), or randomizing (making mutations more likely in the parent). There's some interesting studies about foxes, where all of a vixen's kits will have the alpha male as the father even though foxes aren't all that choosy about mates. If there some magical power the vixen has to choose which male will actually fertilize her, or is this subborning in action?

Unfortunately, this hadn't been studied much when I studied it in college, except in trees, who have different methods of sharing genetics.

I'm not sure that I understand you.

As far as the transmittal of genetic information by viruses, that is, afaik, a well-recognized mechanism for the creation of mutations. It is only one mechanism, altho I gather that it is considered quite important. We use similar ideas, I think, in creating genetically modified plants, and lab animals.

There are other mechanisms, including inaccurate copying of genes when chromosomes replicate. Or when radiation impacts a string of DNA. I don't pretend to know a great deal beyond that mutations can arise from a number of distinct causes. Including environmental factors or deliberate breeding (see racehorses, see dogs, see cattle, see corn, etc etc)

None of that invalidates evolutionary theory. Simplistically put, which may be all I can do, it is my understanding that the insight first formulated by Darwin, and since refined and expanded, is that evolution requires, firstly, that the genetic structure of the lifeform in question undergo a mutation... something that happens all the time... else we would all be clones of the first homo sapiens... or still be the first lifeform that ever evolved.

Most mutations either have no appreciable impact on the viability of the next generation (perhaps more accurately..on the reproductive success thereof.. the two concepts are linked but not identical). or will have a detrimental impact. Those that reduce the organism's ability to reproduce, compared to the non-mutated variety, will tend to die out.

A few will bestow an advantage, and that mutation would tend to spread.

I appreciate that this is simplistic... that interactions between genes are complex, and that the mathematics that reflect how genes spread is way beyond my abilities, but my understanding is that this is a reasonable starting point. BTW, the fact is that there (apparently) has been a lot of work done on these issues, and that is why I have previously referred to mathematics supplanting fossil discovery as a prime investigative tool.

It is the question of reproductive success or failure that is the winnowing of natural selection.

Natural selection operates to remove, from the gene pool, those mutations that compromise the organism's ability to reproduce... regardless of HOW the mutation arose.

So whether the mutation arose because of viral gene-hopping, or cosmic rays, or copying errors... the mutations are grist to the mill, and the grindstone is natural selection.

As for foxes, and alpha dogs, I am unfamiliar with your propositions, but I don't see anything in what you say that casts any doubt on the validity of evolutionary theory. Maybe I misunderstand you.

[JLOL]

I don't really read watercooler so I didn't read any of this thread so sorry if this is a dumb question but...

My friend Joe went to a bridge tournament yesterday in Iceland. Is it likely or possible that any of this will effect him or his safety, or the tournament?

[mike777]

I expect many issues will effect Iceland tourney ...today. The government fell. The banks fell.

[matmat]

JLOL, on Jan 27 2009, 10:32 PM, said:

I don't really read watercooler so I didn't read any of this thread so sorry if this is a dumb question but...

My friend Joe went to a bridge tournament yesterday in Iceland. Is it likely or possible that any of this will effect him or his safety, or the tournament?

well, if he is a good bridge player and has the flu, he may pass on some of the virus to other people and cause their brains to mutate to be good bridge players as well.

[hrothgar]

JLOL, on Jan 28 2009, 06:32 AM, said:

I don't really read watercooler so I didn't read any of this thread so sorry if this is a dumb question but...

My friend Joe went to a bridge tournament yesterday in Iceland. Is it likely or possible that any of this will effect him or his safety, or the tournament?

if he's at the Icelandair Open, make sure he tries some of the smoked lamb tounge in the breakfast buffet...

Its very good

[Gerben42]

Quote

I expect many issues will effect Iceland tourney ...today. The government fell. The banks fell.

So, was the government in a doubled contract? It won't affect the tournament at all. There will be a new government. And next year, there will be a new tournament too where people can try to do better than last time

[y66]

Lobowolf, on Jan 27 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jan 27 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

Who says evolution "is the way it is"?

The Greek God Tautologous.

Not Bruce Hornsby?

[Codo]

It was def. not Bobby Fisher in Iceland.

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmmnnn, let's see....ID, theory of evolution, high school algebra, differential equations, integral calculus.......yup, haven't used any of them lately (I suppose the diffy Q's get to me thru electronics etc. but since I throw them away when they stop working...)

Much ado about nothing and quite Shakespearian.

[Winstonm]

Dover Board of Education, Dover, Pennsylvannia.

Quote

A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said (Judge) Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.