tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7439453067814827331..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Five Myths (?) About Intelligent Design CreationismLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83686411045415788222012-11-03T20:16:30.844-04:002012-11-03T20:16:30.844-04:00Re Moo Moo
I think you'll find that scientist...Re Moo Moo<br /><br /><i>I think you'll find that scientists are willing to consider non-naturalistic explanations when it suits them: "Dark matter" is a classic example.</i><br /><br />Mr. Moo Moo is totally full of crap. There is nothing at all non-naturalistic about dark matter or dark energy. They have been proposed as possible explanations for the observed gravitational lensing of light by galaxies in the case of dark matter and the acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe in the case of dark energy. As we sit here today, the composition of dark energy and dark matter is not known. Referring to them as non-naturalistic is nothing but a god of the gaps argument, which will be negated eventually, as have all other god of the gaps arguments (see Newton's argument for god's intervention to maintain the stability of the solar system and Laplace's refutation of it). Quite obviously, Mr. Moo Moo's knowledge of cosmology is as empty as his knowledge of evolutionary biology.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48288747400515800122012-11-03T14:30:03.561-04:002012-11-03T14:30:03.561-04:00sez. dr. moran: "Random genetic drift is by f...sez. dr. moran: "Random genetic drift is by far the most common mechanisms of evolution (i.e. it causes a change in the frequency of alleles in a population). This is evolution by chance, or as I prefer to say it, evolution by accident."<br />If you're arguing that random genetic drift is one of the specific mechanisms that can fall under the descriptor of 'chance', I won't argue, mostly because I think you're right about that. But just as the map is not the territory, so is a specific instance of a class not the same thing as the class itself, which is why I still say that "chance' is not, itself, a mechanism.Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30346274108197785832012-11-01T12:28:27.516-04:002012-11-01T12:28:27.516-04:00Cubist says,
'Chance' isn't a mechani...Cubist says,<br /><br /><i>'Chance' isn't a mechanism. At absolute best, 'chance' can be considered a descriptor for a general class of mechanics; as such, it makes no more sense to say that 'chance' is a mechanism than it does to say that 'electricity' is a mechanism.</i><br /><br />Random genetic drift is by far the most common mechanisms of evolution (i.e. it causes a change in the frequency of alleles in a population). This is evolution by chance, or as I prefer to say it, <a href="http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Evolution_by_Accident.html" rel="nofollow">evolution by accident</a>.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17138713755581714292012-11-01T10:17:00.642-04:002012-11-01T10:17:00.642-04:00sez moo moo: "What mysterious other mechanism...sez moo moo: "What mysterious other mechanism is there to evolution other than chance (random mutation/drift) and necessity (natural selection)? "<br />'Chance' isn't a mechanism. At absolute best, 'chance' can be considered a descriptor for a <i>general class of</i> mechanics; as such, it makes no more sense to say that 'chance' is a mechanism than it does to say that 'electricity' is a mechanism.<br />Likewise, 'necessity' isn't a mechanism, either.<br />Thank you for mischaracterizing evolution in your attempt to demonstrate that you don't mischaracterize evolution, moo moo. This is the sort of bullshit which makes it very easy to demonstrate that ID-pushers are clueless about real science.Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34643918367863543082012-11-01T10:09:40.242-04:002012-11-01T10:09:40.242-04:00sez moo moo: "Even editors of journals that c...sez moo moo: "Even editors of journals that consent to review and publish such articles can be persecuted and eventually forced to quit - as with Richard Sternberg."<br />Are you ignorant of the facts about Sternberg, or are you just lying?<br />Fact: Sternberg wasn't forced out of a job, he resigned. As editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg gave that journal notice of his resignation <i>six months</i> before the publication of the Creationist-pushing article which is alleged to have sparked off a 'get Sternberg' campaign. Your claim that Sternberg lost his job as a result of 'persecution' just doesn't add up, moo moo.Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30441893429930417952012-11-01T09:57:13.747-04:002012-11-01T09:57:13.747-04:00Fact: When the Templeton Foundation called for ID-...Fact: When the Templeton Foundation called for ID-pushing papers, <i>no ID-pusher even bothered to <b>submit</b> any ID-pushing paper.</i> If ID-pushers genuinely are doing good work in support of ID, why is it that the Foundation's call for papers went unnoticed?<br />Fact: PCID (Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design), the ID-pushing journal of the ID-pushing International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, <i>has not published any issues since November 2005.</i> If real scientists' dogmatic rejection of IS is the reason for no ID-pushing papers in real science journals, what accounts for no ID-pushing papers in an ID-pushing journal?Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68901872350837566852012-10-30T20:34:16.668-04:002012-10-30T20:34:16.668-04:00Same Anonymous from Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:...Same Anonymous from Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:49:00 AM ?<br /><br />Come on, ask about a specific example already and I'll talk all about how a Darwinian mechanism could produce it.Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2638904174805664842012-10-30T12:23:56.886-04:002012-10-30T12:23:56.886-04:00Geez the noe-darwinist just so stories are metaphy...<i>Geez the noe-darwinist just so stories are metaphysical and is utterly stupid.</i><br /><br />Did I tell you a story? I don't think so. This stupidity must be in the eye (and the brain) of the beholder.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74676906585258881162012-10-30T11:23:28.028-04:002012-10-30T11:23:28.028-04:00Piotr
Why did they not flap therir hands instead ...Piotr<br /><br />Why did they not flap therir hands instead of jumping in the water? O yes its random.... unlucky whales they could have been flyers hey! Geez the noe-darwinist just so stories are metaphysical and is utterly stupid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13262540971449536722012-10-30T02:01:58.858-04:002012-10-30T02:01:58.858-04:00I see. So you are an evolutionary computational sc...<i>I see. So you are an evolutionary computational scientist?</i><br /><br />No.<br /><br /><i>And I think you'll find that, according to evolutionary biologists, the ancestors of whales did direct their own evolution by jumping into the Indus river.</i><br /><br />No. I'll find nothing of the kind. This is another straw man. No biologits imagines evolution to work like that, with the possible exception of some neo-Lamarckians from the scientific fringe.<br /><br /><i>That was an act of need in the sense of looking for new resources.</i><br /><br />No. Do you think that if they'd jumped up and flapped their hands instead, they would've learnt to fly? With such misconceptions in your head, no wonder you are a creationist.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57738504557595124812012-10-29T21:09:17.141-04:002012-10-29T21:09:17.141-04:00There is room here for other options.
God did com...There is room here for other options. <br />God did command biology to fill the earth and so the means to do so was given.<br />One can imagine innate triggers being behind rapid and great adaptation.<br />This YEC creationist believes marine mammals are from land creatures.<br />So creatures finding a empty niche in the seas had their bodies DNA change to adapt to the seas.<br />the great observation is people.<br />Behold all the different looks of people who have these differences for important reasons back in the day.<br />Yet surely it was quick change within a generation and not evolving generations.<br />If you needed the change theres no time for immediate stages.<br /><br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69908395122632917952012-10-29T20:27:03.853-04:002012-10-29T20:27:03.853-04:00I see. So you are an evolutionary computational sc...<br />I see. So you are an evolutionary computational scientist?<br /><br />And I think you'll find that, according to evolutionary biologists, the ancestors of whales did direct their own evolution by jumping into the Indus river. That was an act of need in the sense of looking for new resources.Moo Moonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72002160953926181242012-10-29T15:36:13.971-04:002012-10-29T15:36:13.971-04:00PS. Invention is usually teleological (goal-orient...PS. Invention is usually teleological (goal-oriented), adaptation is not. Ancestors of birds did not invent feathers because they needed to fly. No organism says to itself "I gotta be fit". In fact, if it's alive at all, it's <b>already</b> quite fit to begin with (what else can it be, with an unbroken chain of billions of generations of ancestors behind it, every single of which has proved fit enough to survive)?Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58542621851889830172012-10-29T15:29:42.444-04:002012-10-29T15:29:42.444-04:00So what? I'm not a biologist and I don't m...So what? I'm not a biologist and I don't make a secret of it. I've read enough to know what I'm talking about without claiming to be an expert. In my discipline I also deal with evolutionary phenomena (in a non-biological domain), so I actually need those insights to understand them.<br /><br />Dark matter is as naturalistic as other matter. It has mass, for example. The fact that we don't know what exactly it is doesn't make it supernatural. Self-organisation is naturalistic too (unless you ascribe a mystical significance to it).Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13983049662282001482012-10-29T14:59:22.371-04:002012-10-29T14:59:22.371-04:00@Piotr:
Natural selection denotes the necessity o...@Piotr:<br /><br />Natural selection denotes the necessity of reproductive fitness, and it follows that need is the mother of invention (in this case adaptation).<br /><br />I think you'll find that scientists are willing to consider non-naturalistic explanations when it suits them: "Dark matter" is a classic example. "Self-organization" is also a term used to describe ordering principles in Nature that are not easily reducible the laws of physics and chemistry.<br /><br />Btw, your Pubmed record came out blank:<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Piotr%20GasiorowskiMoo Moonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80247075562756720212012-10-29T13:55:31.632-04:002012-10-29T13:55:31.632-04:00@Moo Moo. Natural selection is not "necessity...@Moo Moo. Natural selection is not "necessity". It's non-random, OK, but that's about it. I suppose you are deliberately alluding to Democritus, or Monod, or whoever else has circulated this slogan, but neither a classical quote nor a catchy book title are good substitutes for a correct definition. By trivialising the issue in this way you put up a straw man.<br /><br />Yes, biologists (like physicists, astronomers, linguists, historians and all other kinds of researchers) are aware of gaps in their knowledge and of not having a ready answer to every possible question. And yes, they only regard naturalistic explanations as worth looking for because super-naturalistic explanations have never worked for anything in science so far. Gaps are there to be filled, not to be worshipped. You said, however, that most biologists didn't really accept evolution in private -- they just had to pretend they did. That's simply a lie.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86688609332774283422012-10-29T13:45:28.264-04:002012-10-29T13:45:28.264-04:00One would think that, having shown (if they had, w...<i>One would think that, having shown (if they had, which they haven't) that life requires a designer, the IDists would get cracking on figuring out the details of who and when and how.</i><br />I heard some speeches by Behe at a religious college nearby, and that was exactly his argument for why ID isn't a science stopper. Well, if we found machines on Mars, we'd study into how they made them, and if possible, who they were. As best as I recall, that was his analogy.<br /><br />So, uh, Behe, I was kinda wondering why you're not studying how, and by whom, life was created/evolved. Could it be because you "already know" Who (or the ineffable not-Who, whatever gibberish you might spout), and how--the infamous poofing that you mentioned once?<br /><br />Yes, they like to mention "possibilities of ID" that they clearly know are meaningless, due to the fact that they're magical causes without identifiable effects--the latter being their only excuse for no really identifiable rational thinking behind life's forms and processes.<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p" rel="nofollow">Glen Davidson</a>Glen Davidsonhttp://electricconsciousness.tripod.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79328288080192388982012-10-29T12:54:03.061-04:002012-10-29T12:54:03.061-04:00@Piotr:
You misunderstand and mischaracterise the...@Piotr:<br /><br /><i>You misunderstand and mischaracterise the process of evolution</i><br /><br />Oh, please do enlighten me. What mysterious other mechanism is there to evolution other than chance (random mutation/drift) and necessity (natural selection)? <br /><br />The fact is that most evolutionary biologists acknowledge that there is a big gap in their knowledge but are unwilling to countenance the idea that anything other than naturalistic processes could be responsible. It is like finding some hieroglyphs in some sandstone and trying to work out how erosion by rain, wind or heat could have shaped the rock in such a way as to produce the hieroglyphs.Moo Moonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57993034429415163862012-10-29T08:26:03.529-04:002012-10-29T08:26:03.529-04:00It is obvious you have never been through the peer...<i>It is obvious you have never been through the peer review system yourself. Referees are supposed to be kept anonymous so they aren't harassed for their comments. An editor is under no obligation to reveal the reviewers he selected.</i><br /><br />I've done anonymous reviews of scholarly articles many times as well as having my own articles peer-reviewed. I'm not afraid that I could be harassed for expressing my considered opinion. I would have voluntarily waived my anonymity any time if the editor who had ordered the review had been accused of making up a non-existent reviewer. I certainly wouldn't leave a colleague in the lurch like that, even if he wanted to be a martyr.<br /><br /><i>I doubt most evolutionary biologists honestly believe that the intricate complexity invested in living organisms is the simply result of chance and necessity, accidence and environmental pressure.</i><br /><br />You misunderstand and mischaracterise the process of evolution (but that's to be expected), and of course you are completely wrong about "most evolutionary biologists" (but that's simply wishful thinking on your part, also expected). You also insult them by insinuating that they are hypocrites and craven conformists (but then insults from a fool only richochet on himself, showing clearly how ridiculous he is).Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34080476228971882212012-10-29T06:14:42.354-04:002012-10-29T06:14:42.354-04:00... and thus we are actually studying evolution. N...... and thus we are actually <i>studying</i> evolution. Not just complaining about the alternate theories. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74603371136734480362012-10-29T06:01:27.946-04:002012-10-29T06:01:27.946-04:00@Piotr:
It is obvious you have never been through...@Piotr:<br /><br />It is obvious you have never been through the peer review system yourself. Referees are supposed to be kept anonymous so they aren't harassed for their comments. An editor is under no obligation to reveal the reviewers he selected.<br /><br />Creationism and intelligent design is rejected by an exclusionary elite <b>within</b> mainstream science. But things are changing. I doubt most evolutionary biologists honestly believe that the intricate complexity invested in living organisms is the simply result of chance and necessity, accidence and environmental pressure. They are just afraid to openly admit it as that would be injurious to their interests.Moo Moonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34196577137552477332012-10-29T00:14:05.434-04:002012-10-29T00:14:05.434-04:00Prof. Gasiorowski “So where is the explicit part?”...Prof. Gasiorowski “So where is the explicit part?”<br /><br />I tried to explain that I’m not here to debate the scientific merits of a particular case. Why? Because I’m not a proponent of ID and don’t have the learning necessary to discuss the scientific data.<br /><br />Steve Oberski:<br /><em> “Your claims are what you desperately hope are true but are in no way supported by evidence or rationality.”<br /> “Trying to distance yourself from your religiously motivated claims by using weasel terms like "describing (but not advocating)" and "hypothetical" is dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith.” </em><br /><br />If you re-read my comments, there is nothing in them that implies I’m a proponent of ID, because I’m not. In my first comment, I wrote “one could, <strong> in theory </strong>, hold that both of these statements are true” . Furthermore, with regard to the bacterial flagella, what I said was “in his table at the front of Edge, Behe includes “molecular machines” under the category “The Surprising Depth of Fine-Tuning of Nature for Life on Earth”. As I explained to Prof. Gasiorowski in my previous comment, I mentioned the example of the bacterial flagella not to defend or attack it, but for the purpose of philosophical clarification. Your analysis here is mistaken.<br /><br /><em> “#1 sez ID has happened.<br /><br />#2 sez it hasn't. <br />Pick one of them and run with it.” </em><br /><br />The very point I’m trying to make is that this is a false dilemma. Behe thinks it’s a very real possibility that a designer might, via their foreknowledge, ensure that certain otherwise unlikely events come to pass. The relevant section in the Edge of Evolution is under the heading “No Interference”. (In my copy, it’s pages 229-232.) <br /><br />On this state of affairs, the finely tuned event(s) would be identified as designed (proposition 1.) but the chain of non-miraculous causation would be uninterrupted (proposition 2.)Thus, 1. and 2. aren't logically contradictory.<br />Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5372337896002912252012-10-28T20:17:25.367-04:002012-10-28T20:17:25.367-04:00@Cale: So where is the explicit part?@Cale: So where is the explicit part?Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18595900504660286752012-10-28T16:46:05.129-04:002012-10-28T16:46:05.129-04:00Continuous and monotonous restating of your origin...Continuous and monotonous restating of your original contradictory premises do not constitute "getting somewhere" and most definitely are in no sense an answer.<br /><br />Trying to distance yourself from your religiously motivated claims by using weasel terms like "describing (but not advocating)" and "hypothetical" is dishonest. <br /><br />You are not arguing in good faith.<br /><br />Your claims are what you desperately hope are true but are in no way supported by evidence or rationality.<br />steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36567559269631569302012-10-28T13:14:29.354-04:002012-10-28T13:14:29.354-04:00Even editors of journals that consent to review an...<i>Even editors of journals that consent to review and publish such articles can be persecuted and eventually forced to quit - as with Richard Sternberg.</i><br /><br />Why not, if they fail to follow the rules? Sternberg personally "reviewed" a paper he <b>wanted</b> to publish and we only have his word that there were other peer reviewers as well. He's refused to identify them and they have never spoken out for themselves.<br /><br />Creationism is rejected not by an exclusionary elite but by <b>mainstream</b> science. There are some sympathisers on the fringe, as usual in such cases. You will also find scientists who take dowsing, extrasensory perception and cold fusion seriously. Most don't, and with reason.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.com