Comment #34061

Posted by Ron Zeno on June 7, 2005 10:41 AM (e) (s)

Doesn’t that quote end with, “But don’t quote me on that.”?  ;)

Comment #34076

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 7, 2005 11:37 AM (e) (s)

Funny. He makes this sound like the lack of any theory of ID is just an oversight, something they’ve been too busy to get around to. The real issue is that ID by its very nature will never have a theory. Not in any sense that a real scientist would recognize. Plugging in Jehovah to fill in bits you don’t like or can’t understand is their essential MO. No legitimate  ‘theory’ can start out hardwired to always have the same punchline, no matter what evidence comes along.

How long do you think it will be before some some IDer comes thru here, angrily denies that ID lacks a theory, then gets shown this quote by Lenny or someone like that, only to have him run away and change the subject? I’d say a couple days, max.

ID’s real problems will begin when/if they try to formulate a theory. They’ll become a much bigger, fatter, easier target. I think they know this. That’s why they prefer to do this hit-and-run thing of attacks on bogus flaws of evolutionary biology. It’s way easier, much less risky, and convinces gullible people just as much.

Comment #34080

Posted by Don on June 7, 2005 11:54 AM (e) (s)

I’m sure Dembski will jump on this fully contextual and proper quote as another example of how Darwinists “like to quote-mine too.”

… Five, Four, Three, Two ….

Comment #34094

Posted by john m. lynch on June 7, 2005 01:10 PM (e) (s)

Nelson attempts to defend himself at IDTF - from May 9th.

Comment #34114

Posted by steve on June 7, 2005 02:20 PM (e) (s)

They have not even attempted to create an ID theory. They have attempted, twice, to create disproofs of evolution. The first was IC:

P1: Anything with IC can’t have evolved
P2: Living things have IC
C: Living things didn’t evolve

P2 may be correct depending on  how you define IC, but P1 was shown to be wrong at least two ways.

attempt 2:

P1: Anything with CSI can’t have evolved
P2: Living things have CSI
C: Living things didn’t evolve

Again, P1 is totally wrong.

And that’s where ID stands. Two failed attempts to disprove ID. No theory to speak of.

Comment #34119

Posted by steve on June 7, 2005 02:32 PM (e) (s)

‘disprove evolution’, obviously.

Comment #34140

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 04:47 PM (e) (s)

How many scientists, when they’re in their labs, say to themselves:  What would Darwin do?  In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism?  (And I don’t mean “evolution”, because most IDers accept evolution.  We’re talking mechanisms here.)

Comment #34141

Posted by Henry J on June 7, 2005 04:47 PM (e) (s)

Re “‘disprove evolution’, obviously.”

But which hypothesis? When a theory is composed of several related hypotheses, doesn’t a “disproof” have to be aimed at one of them in particular?

Henry

Comment #34142

Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on June 7, 2005 04:50 PM (e) (s)

One thing I am curious about; Paul says

and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity

What other notions?  I’ve only ever seen these two.  Does two made a handful?

Comment #34144

Posted by Russell on June 7, 2005 05:03 PM (e) (s)

Blast wrote:

How many scientists, when they’re in their labs, say to themselves:  What would Darwin do?

I venture to guess, virtually none. Because the tools we have now, and the additional knowledge that has accumulated over the past 150 years makes that a not very interesting question.

In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism?  (And I don’t mean “evolution”, because most IDers accept evolution.  We’re talking mechanisms here.)

Do we predict that adaptations will occur in virtually any biological system as a result of mutation and selection? Does anyone doubt it?

Comment #34155

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 05:42 PM (e) (s)

How long do you think it will be before some some IDer comes thru here, angrily denies that ID lacks a theory, then gets shown this quote by Lenny or someone like that

I’m not a regurgiquoter, unlike the IDers.  I prefer my own words to anyone else’s, unlike the IDers.

To demonstate clearly, quickly and cleanly that IDers don’t have any scientific theory to offer, all that is necessary is to ASK THEM TO PRODUCE ONE.

They run away.  Every time.

Comment #34156

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 05:44 PM (e) (s)

Russell wrote:

Do we predict that adaptations will occur in virtually any biological system as a result of mutation and selection? Does anyone doubt it?

Aren’t you talking about “microevolution”—which is generally accepted by IDers—rather than “macroevolution”, which is precisely the argument IDers are addressing?  In other words, IDers concede the fact that adaptation occurs (I said as much in my post); but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise—or, as the IDers would say, where does this additional “information” come from?

Comment #34157

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 05:44 PM (e) (s)

How many scientists, when they’re in their labs, say to themselves:  What would Darwin do?  In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism?

Darwin has been dead fro over 100 years.  No oen CARES “what darwin would do”.

Are you going to tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, or aren’t you.

Or are IDers (like you) just lying to us when you claim to have one.  Just like IDers (like you) are just lying to us when you claim that Id isn’t religious apologetics.

Comment #34158

Posted by Scott Davidson on June 7, 2005 05:59 PM (e) (s)

BlastfromthePast wrote:

but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise

That’s a very good question.  There’s a relatively recent book titled “Speciation” by Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, which would be a good palce to start.  It talks about speciation and species concepts.
Maybe worth a look, ah?

Comment #34159

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 05:59 PM (e) (s)

Aren’t you talking about “microevolution”—which is generally accepted by IDers—rather than “macroevolution”, which is precisely the argument IDers are addressing?  In other words, IDers concede the fact that adaptation occurs (I said as much in my post); but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise—or, as the IDers would say, where does this additional “information” come from?

Let’s ask Behe:

Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism
Response to “Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore” by Eugenie C. Scott, Science (May 2000)

Michael J. Behe
Science Online
July 7, 2000

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.”

From “Darwin’s Black Box”
Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. (p. 5)

From “Darwin’s Black Box”
“I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent.” (p.176)

“I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent.” in Reply to My Critics, Biology and Philosophy 16, p697, 2001.

Christianity Today, August 12th 2002
“A Nuclear Bomb” For Evolution?: Critics of Darwinism say skull’s discovery isn’t all it’s cracked up to be

by Todd Hertz

Behe said ID is “several levels of biology removed from the hominid versus chimp distinction.” The point of contention between evolution and intelligent design is whether design or chance guided human development?not how humans developed.

“Darwin’s claim to fame was not so much that he thought that organisms might have evolved from common ancestors,” Behe said. “Other people had put forward other theories but had always invoked guiding intelligence. His main point was that it might happen by chance.”

Darwin’s Black Box, Reviewed by Kenneth R. Miller
(as published in Creation / Evolution Volume 16: pp, 36-40 [1996])

Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe’s “Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,” is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, “scientific creationists” should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had “much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us (1),” that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a “common ancestor.” In plain language, this means that Michael Behe and I share an evolutionary view of the natural history of the Earth and the meaning of the fossil record; namely, that present-day organisms have been produced by a process of descent with modification from their ancient ancestors. Behe is clear, firm, and consistent on this point. For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species.

My goodness, Behe says that new species come from common descent — i.e., from evolution.

Do you disagree?  Do you think he’s wrong about that?

What about abiogenesis:

drvr2hrdwr wrote:

Mr. Behe, may I get your comment or opinion on the theistic verses atheistic
nature of intelligent design theory?

It seems to me that ID proposes that all life requires an intelligence to
design it. So, if God did not design life on Earth, then some other intelligent
creatures (space aliens presumably) must have. These creatures would then
require an intelligence to their design, and so on for as many level of
regression as one my choose to suggest.

Since life could not have existed at the first instant of the Big Bang, there
must be a terminal point to this regression, requiring that the original
intelligent designer must have been God. Thus, ID theory is inherently
theistic.

Or would you and other ID proponents suggest that only life on Earth would
require an intelligent designer, but life elsewhere would not require an
intelligent designer? Would you suggest that a Godless abiogenesis could occur
elsewhere giving rise to extraterrestrial intelligence, which in turn designed
life on Earth, thus making ID theory potentially atheistic?

Neil Habermehl

From: Michael Behe
To: drvr2hrdwr
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: Atheistic ID?

Hi, Mr. Habermehl. Yes, perhaps life elsewhere doesn’t require irreducibly
complex structures. So maybe it arose naturally by chance and then designed us,
as I speculated in Darwin’s Black Box (“Aliens and Time Travelers”, pp.
248-250). I don’t think that’s the case, but it isn’t logically impossible. Best
wishes.

Mike Behe

Heavens to Betsy, it seems as if Behe sees NO REASON, none AT ALL, why life could not, in principle, form by itslef “naturally through chance”, and that no god or gods were encessary to produce any “information” to make life appear.

Do you disagree with Behe?

Comment #34161

Posted by Russell on June 7, 2005 06:06 PM (e) (s)

BftP wrote:

Aren’t you talking about “microevolution”—which is generally accepted by IDers—rather than “macroevolution”, which is precisely the argument IDers are addressing?

I don’t believe Darwin made this distinction. Just as Lenny has been unable to extract from any IDer what the “Theory” of Intelligent Design actually is, I have been unable to extract any sensible division between “microevolution” and “macroevolution”. So tell me: what is it that limits what you call “microevolution”? What prevents it, over billions of generations, from merging into “macroevolution”?

In other words, IDers concede the fact that adaptation occurs (I said as much in my post); but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise…

You asked about scientists in their labs. Personally, this lab scientist does not deal on a daily basis with new species arising. But he does deal with random mutation and selection. That’s my day-to-day “Darwinism”. What have the IDers proposed that could help me do my work?

Comment #34165

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 7, 2005 06:19 PM (e) (s)

I’m not a regurgiquoter, unlike the IDers.  I prefer my own words to anyone else’s, unlike the IDers.

I know. What I mean, tho, is that you have a good skill at throwing IDer’s embarrassing earlier statements back into their faces. Such as, for example, in comment #34159. This is handy, since it’s quite powerful to show the ID crowd that they can’t even be consistent with their own nonsense.

Comment #34168

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 7, 2005 06:56 PM (e) (s)

How many scientists, when they’re in their labs, say to themselves:  What would Darwin do?  In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism?  (And I don’t mean “evolution”, because most IDers accept evolution.  We’re talking mechanisms here.)

I don’t know where Blast is coming from on this, but the fact that anyone should even ask this question says a lot about how creationists think about science. In their way of ‘doing’ religion, the infallibility of the founder of the religion is central to everything. So if they see other people ‘doing’ something other than Christianity, they assume those people must have some other messiah. So they think biologists worship Darwin the same way they worship Jesus. And when they see biologists NOT agreeing with Darwin on some point, they act very gleeful, as tho they’ve ‘caught’ science in some sort of heresy. They think they’ve ‘disproven’ evolution when they see that the theory of evolution hasn’t simply stood still since its inception. (Since religions aren’t supposed to change, according to them.)

The urban legend about Darwin ‘recanting’ (note the word choice) on his death bed seems to show this same syndrome.  And it’s also why creationists can’t wrap their brains around a Christian believing in evolution. To them it’s the same as, for example, someone being a Southern Baptist and a Moslem at the same time.

This is a big part of why dialogues between scientists and creationists usually go nowhere. The two sides aren’t conceptualizing things the same at all. It’s like whole different parts of the brain are being used.

Comment #34174

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 07:17 PM (e) (s)

Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Heavens to Betsy, it seems as if Behe sees NO REASON, none AT ALL, why life could not, in principle, form by itslef “naturally through chance”, and that no god or gods were encessary to produce any “information” to make life appear.

Do you disagree with Behe?

Yes, and no.  I agree with Behe that the “logic” of ID, or of IC, doesn’t completely rule out the possibility of ET origins; but, the idea makes no sense to me either theologically or rationally.  (why IC life here and not there?)

Russell wrote:

You asked about scientists in their labs. Personally, this lab scientist does not deal on a daily basis with new species arising. But he does deal with random mutation and selection. That’s my day-to-day “Darwinism”. What have the IDers proposed that could help me do my work?

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system.  According to this logic then, the conclusion to be reached is that the “mutations” are a “built-in” part of the biological system.  Since there would be “built-in limits” to where selection can take the organism (only so much available “stored information”), I think I would look for “where” this potential for mutations is “located”, and what kinds of “regulatory mechanisms” either enhance or suppress it (if at all). {N.B. Scientist’s have just reported being able to “stop” mutations from occurring in bacteria (which have one of the highest—if not the highest—mutation frequencies of all organisms)}  If the “rate” of mutation could not be experimentally “shifted”, then I might look into whether there is a commonality between said mechanism and the mechanism of other organisms (sort of like a “box” gene)  In other words, I think good science flows, one way or the other.  That was my point from the beginning.  If we use the metaphor of a “search engine” trying to get through the probability space of where biological organisms might go—or have gone—I think ID is a better one for “macroevolution”, and RMNS for “microevolution,” with ID being the more important of the two.

Comment #34177

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 07:34 PM (e) (s)

Arden Chatfield wrote:

And it’s also why creationists can’t wrap their brains around a Christian believing in evolution.

I’m a Christian and I believe in the “fact” of evolution; i.e., that the fossil record shows that complex life-forms steadily built up over time.  Evolution is not a problem.  I’m not a “young-earth” creationist.  The Bible, it seems to me, doesn’t make those kinds of claim (although the “young-earthers” come up with some fascinating stuff at times).  I simply think Darwin was “dead-wrong”; not just wrong, but “dead-wrong” when it comes to the “origin of species”.  Had he written a book entitled, “Origin of Adaptations”, I’d be supporting him right now.  So, tell me, why this urge on your part to dismissively categorize me as a “creationist”, and assume that my faith is somehow shaken by the idea of “evolution”?  I haven’t had problems with the “fact” of evolution since High School.  Put it another way: I’ve NEVER had problems with the “fact” of evolution.  [Have I made my point yet, or do I have to repeat it again and again?] 

I hear this argument: well, gravity is a theory, does anyone NOT believe in gravity?  Gravity is a fact; that is, it is a given.  No one knows whence it comes from though.  And there are competing “theories” as to how it operates.  (They’re still testing Einstein’s theory—if it is “absolutely” true, why bother testing it?)  The same with evolution:  it’s a fact; but how did it come about?  No one knows; but there’s theories about how it did and how it might still operate.  I have thoroughly examined the Modern Synthesis and it just doesn’t stand up to critical analysis.  ID theory—which is more an “informational” theory than a “biological” theory, conforms with what biological systems give evidence of; i.e., it passes critical analysis.  But is it a fully-formed “biological” theory?  I think I’d have to agree with Paul Nelson, not quite yet.  Nonetheless, I think it useful in pointing out to scientists who, generally, have not read up on the “history” of evolutionary theory (nor have they likely even read the Origin of Species) the weaknesses, and failures, of the theory they so strongly defend.

Comment #34186

Posted by H. Humbert on June 7, 2005 09:02 PM (e) (s)

I hear this argument: well, gravity is a theory, does anyone NOT believe in gravity?  Gravity is a fact; that is, it is a given.  No one knows whence it comes from though.  And there are competing “theories” as to how it operates.

Just as there are no competing theories to Evolution to explain speciation.

Note: neither “goddidit” nor “Not Evolution” are theories.

Comment #34187

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 09:09 PM (e) (s)

H. Humbert wrote:

And it’s also why creationists can’t wrap their brains around a Christian believing in evolution.

I highly recommend you read the Material Basis of Evolution by Richard Goldschmidt.  He was light-years ahead of his peers.  He presents a highly intelligent (and dare say, probable) theory of evolution.  [N.B. notice it’s called the “material” basis.  Goldschmidt didn’t believe in metaphysical explanations.]

Comment #34189

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 09:13 PM (e) (s)

H. Humbert wrote:

And it’s also why creationists can’t wrap their brains around a Christian believing in evolution.

I highly recommend you read the Material Basis of Evolution by Richard Goldschmidt.  He was light-years ahead of his peers.  He presents a highly intelligent (and dare say, probable) theory of evolution.  [N.B. notice it’s called the “material” basis.  Goldschmidt didn’t believe in metaphysical explanations.]

Comment #34192

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 09:29 PM (e) (s)

BlastfromthePast wrote:

I hear this argument: well, gravity is a theory, does anyone NOT believe in gravity?  Gravity is a fact; that is, it is a given.  No one knows whence it comes from though.  And there are competing “theories” as to how it operates.

H. Humbert wrote:

Just as there are no competing theories to Evolution to explain speciation.

Note: neither “goddidit” nor “Not Evolution” are theories.

Please excuse having the wrong quote in the two prior entries above.  I think H. Humbert read my post too fast, just like I read his too fast.  [The answer I give above (Material Basis of Evolution) still remains the same.]  Apparently Humbert went from my saying there WERE competing theories to his reading that there WERE NO competing theories.  ID might not represent a completely “material” explanation of evolution, but Richard Goldschmidt does just fine—and it makes sense.

Comment #34193

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 09:31 PM (e) (s)

Heavens to Betsy, it seems as if Behe sees NO REASON, none AT ALL, why life could not, in principle, form by itslef “naturally through chance”, and that no god or gods were encessary to produce any “information” to make life appear.

  Do you disagree with Behe?

Yes, and no.  I agree with Behe that the “logic” of ID, or of IC, doesn’t completely rule out the possibility of ET origins; but, the idea makes no sense to me either theologically or rationally.  (why IC life here and not there?)

You once again miss the point (or are too dishonest to acknowledge it.

Here, let me remind you:

You:

as the IDers would say, where does this additional “information” come from?

Behe:

Yes, perhaps life elsewhere doesn’t require irreducibly
complex structures. So maybe it arose naturally by chance and then designed us

You again:

I agree with Behe that the “logic” of ID, or of IC, doesn’t completely rule out the possibility of ET origins

That’s not what I asked.  YOU asked “where does the ifnormation for life come from”?  BEHE answers “”it arose naturally by chance”.

I’m not asking about “extraterrestrial origins.  I am asking if you agree wiht Behe that life could have arisen WITHOUT ANY GOD OR DESIGNER and THEN DESIGNED US.

Do you agree with that, or don’t you.

Oh, and where, exactly, does Behe’s statement fit in with your blithering about “Darwinism is atheistic”.  It sure as heck sounds to me as if your very own ID hero is stating, plainly and without any prevarication, that LIFE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY GOD OR DESIGNER.

That sounds awfully atheistic to ME.  How does it sound to YOU?

Oh, and regarding:

the idea makes no sense to me either theologically or rationally.

and

I’m a Christian and I believe in the “fact” of evolution

I will ask once again:  what is the source of your religious authority?  What exactly makes your (or ANY person’s) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone else’s. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night.

It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise?  Other than  your say-so?

I look foward to your not answering any of my questions.  Again.

Comment #34194

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 09:34 PM (e) (s)

So, tell me, why this urge on your part to dismissively categorize me as a “creationist”, and assume that my faith is somehow shaken by the idea of “evolution”?  I haven’t had problems with the “fact” of evolution since High School.  Put it another way: I’ve NEVER had problems with the “fact” of evolution.

Um, then what is it, exactly, that you are bitching about?

Comment #34195

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 09:37 PM (e) (s)

I have thoroughly examined the Modern Synthesis

  And who the hell are you, again … . . ?

Comment #34196

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 09:39 PM (e) (s)

ID might not represent a completely “material” explanation of evolution, but Richard Goldschmidt does just fine—and it makes sense.

Um, how does Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” idea make evolution wrong … . . ?  After all, “hopeful monster” is a theory of … well … evolution.

So what the heck are you yammering about?

Comment #34200

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 7, 2005 10:02 PM (e) (s)

Blastfromthepast wrote:

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system

Good, we’ve moved into worthless Creationist rhetoric now. Define ‘information’ please.

Comment #34202

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 10:15 PM (e) (s)

Rev Dr'Lenny Flank wrote:

And who the hell are you, again … . . ?

Why don’t you go first?

Comment #34205

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 10:24 PM (e) (s)

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

Good, we’ve moved into worthless Creationist rhetoric now. Define ‘information’ please.

So first you ask, how can ID help me in the lab.  Then when I indicate a way in which it might, then you simply dismiss the whole thing: define ‘information’ please.  (Do you really mean you don’t know what information is?)

This is a classic example of close-mindedness.

Comment #34206

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 10:27 PM (e) (s)

Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Um, how does Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” idea make evolution wrong … . . ?  After all, “hopeful monster” is a theory of … well … evolution.

So what the heck are you yammering about?

Instead of displaying your ignorance, why don’t you read the book and then read my quotes.  You might be in for an education.

Comment #34207

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 7, 2005 10:33 PM (e) (s)

So first you ask, how can ID help me in the lab.  Then when I indicate a way in which it might, then you simply dismiss the whole thing: define ‘information’ please.  (Do you really mean you don’t know what information is?)

Again, define information because until then it is absolutely worthless. Please give a solid, TESTABLE definition of information or I’ll assume it’s just more creationist rhetoric.

In all the time I’ve debated creationists not ONE has ever defined ‘information’ except as some meaningless term that, when you prove demonstrate it they then ‘shift’ the goalposts all over the place. Until YOU provide a definition it’s just rhetoric.

This is a classic example of close-mindedness.

I think it’s just a classic example of calling bullshit when I see it :)

Comment #34219

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 11:47 PM (e) (s)

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

I think it’s just a classic example of calling bullshit when I see it :)

I stand by my statement.  “when I see it.”  That’s the problem: if you want to remain the final arbiter of all things, then you don’t have to entertain any ideas you don’t want to.  As I said:  “classic close-mindedness!”

If you want a definition of “information” you can check here for Shannon information: [html]http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Shannon_Information… [/html]—which is not as powerful a definition of information as Dembski’s:[html]http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey…[/html] or in chapter six of Dembski’s Intelligent Design.  But, of course, why consult any of this since, obviously, you have all the answers.

Panda’s Thumb has now officially become the equivalent of liberal AM Radio: a bunch of like-minded people who talk only to themselves in some kind of grandiose lovefest while fulminating and cutting off anyone who differs with them.  And we all know the fate of Liberal AM Radio!

Comment #34222

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 8, 2005 12:16 AM (e) (s)

That’s the problem: if you want to remain the final arbiter of all things, then you don’t have to entertain any ideas you don’t want to.  As I said:  “classic close-mindedness!”

Nope and I asked YOU to define “information”. You’re using the pointless terms you define them.

information as Dembski’s:[html]http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey……[/html] or in chapter six of Dembski’s Intelligent Design.  But, of course, why consult any of this since, obviously, you have all the answers.

The informational argument there however has already been shown to not really stand up to any real scrutiny.

It’s also rather irrelevant because you specified (for lack of a better word)

so I asked you to ‘define’ information. You see, neither of those ‘definitions’ you have provided answers at all what you meant here. I can show numerous cases where ‘information’ or new functions, alterations or similar have been made to proteins or systems, nylonase genes for an example or numerous pathogenicity factors. Again, you are asking for the ADDITION of new information that neither of the theories you quote attempt to answer in this context (just another demonstration of the uselessness of ID).

Again, specify ‘information’, as in the ACTUAL unit of information. Not blither blather as ‘aaaaaa’ or ‘blahjehaj’ or whatever. What the actual, testable experimentally unit of information is.

Care to show me?

But, of course, why consult any of this since, obviously, you have all the answers.

I don’t, that is why I am asking you. Why you keep running around and avoiding the question is quite odd.

Comment #34224

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on June 8, 2005 12:47 AM (e) (s)

Whoever wrote:

Had he written a book entitled, “Origin of Adaptations”, I’d be supporting him right now.  So, tell me, why this urge on your part to dismissively categorize me as a “creationist”, and assume that my faith is somehow shaken by the idea of “evolution”?  I haven’t had problems with the “fact” of evolution since High School.  Put it another way: I’ve NEVER had problems with the “fact” of evolution.  [Have I made my point yet, or do I have to repeat it again and again?]

Ah, but the (your) problem is, how then, did the species observed today come to be? And how did all extinct species come to be..? Quoth Behe: “In a puff of smoke..?” Eeeh? Sounds pretty much creationist to me. Look what you´re saying again:

but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise—or, as the IDers would say, where does this additional “information” come from?

There are millions, quite possibly billions of species altogether, to account for by any scientific theory. How has the (unspecified) Intelligent Designer created (sic!) each and every one of these different species, according to the theory of ID? Hmmmm..? Anyone? I thought so. And while you´re (not) at it, please define “species” in as many relevant ways you may have to, to accomodate sexually/non-sexually reproducing organisms, eukaryotes/prokaryotes, virii etc. Then repeat and rinse.

And by the way, you somehow “forgot” to ask the (obvious) question about body plans. Lost your edge?

Comment #34225

Posted by Air Bear on June 8, 2005 12:48 AM (e) (s)

Hey.

BFTP wrote:

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system.  According to this logic then, the conclusion to be reached is that the “mutations” are a “built-in” part of the biological system.  Since there would be “built-in limits” to where selection can take the organism (only so much available “stored information”), I think I would look for “where” this potential for mutations is “located”, and what kinds of “regulatory mechanisms” either enhance or suppress it (if at all).

and

I highly recommend you read the Material Basis of Evolution by Richard Goldschmidt.  He was light-years ahead of his peers.  He presents a highly intelligent (and dare say, probable) theory of evolution.

Doesn’t this sound suspiciously like the Directed Evolutionary Hypothesis of our dear departed friend from the University of Vermont who was always recommending Goldschmidt?  Maybe he’s come back as a “Blast from the Past”.  If it’s him, he’s certainly toned down

Comment #34227

Posted by Air Bear on June 8, 2005 12:58 AM (e) (s)

While I wasn’t looking, BFTP wrote:

Panda’s Thumb has now officially become the equivalent of liberal AM Radio: a bunch of like-minded people who talk only to themselves in some kind of grandiose lovefest while fulminating and cutting off anyone who differs with them.  And we all know the fate of Liberal AM Radio!

It’s him!  If BFTP ever runs for Governor of Vermont, I’ll be sure and send in my unofficial absentee ballot.

How do you like them apples?

Comment #34228

Posted by Red Right Hand on June 8, 2005 01:58 AM (e) (s)

“How do you like them apples?”

Ha! You may be right!

Is that you John?

The “Blast From The Past” name raised my suspicions of a disguised troll as well, but when he started mumbling about “Shannon information” I was leaning toward Jerry (aka DonkeyKong)

Comment #34243

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on June 8, 2005 07:10 AM (e) (s)

Nah, ny money is on this particular instance of “NavyDavisonKong” (or whoever) not being our friend Salty. Or, alternatively, someone upped his…you know.

And hey, BFTP, where did you run anyway? There are about 500 questions for you to answer here, you know, scientific ones. Don´t be shy.

Comment #34249

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 8, 2005 07:20 AM (e) (s)

And who the hell are you, again … . . ?

Why don’t you go first?

Why don’t you answer my goddamn questions?

Comment #34250

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 8, 2005 07:22 AM (e) (s)

Um, how does Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” idea make evolution wrong … . . ?  After all, “hopeful monster” is a theory of … well … evolution.

  So what the heck are you yammering about?

Instead of displaying your ignorance, why don’t you read the book and then read my quotes.  You might be in for an education.

I notice you didn’t asnwer my question.  I;ll ask again:

Goldschmidt;s ideas were based on evolution.

So how do any of them make evolution wrong, or help ID “theory” in any way, shape, or form?

It’s a simple question.  Why won;t you answer it?

Comment #34292

Posted by PvM on June 8, 2005 11:16 AM (e) (s)

Paul Nelson defends his quote

Only with the publication of books such as Darwin’s Black Box (1996) or The Design Inference (1998) do hints of a positive theory of design begin to emerge.

Too bad that Paul provides no examples since neither DBB nor TDI present a positive theory of design. DBB relies argues that there exist irreducibly complex systems in nature which cannot be explained by direct Darwinian processes. Nothing in DBB presents a positive scientific theory for ID. The leap from not explained by direct Darwinian processes, to ‘intelligently designed’ is an argument from ignorance, an argument based on faith not science. TDI tries to make the argument of DBB more rigorous but fails in many areas, unable to avoid the argument from ignorance or God of the Gaps argument.
In other words, theer is no positive theory of design, and if Paul believes that DBB or TDI have contributed to even a hint of positive theory of design then let him present his arguments. Paul seems to confuse the refutations of IC and CSI as evidence of them being scientific hypothesis, conflating conveniently the scientific arguments versus the theological ad hoc arguments.

Comment #34293

Posted by bcpmoon on June 8, 2005 11:25 AM (e) (s)

BTFP wrote:

How many scientists, when they’re in their labs, say to themselves:  What would Darwin do?  In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism?

Do you mean that the ID-people currently working in their labs are constantly mumbling “What would Jesus do?”?
This connotation was also noticed in post #34168, and I wonder if those people really close their eyes and, to quote Behe, say “Poof”…
No wonder that no results are forthcoming…

Comment #34294

Posted by Russell on June 8, 2005 11:28 AM (e) (s)

One “BlastFromThePast” (around 18th century, as nearly as I can tell) has posted this classic bit of ID gobbledegook. Let’s take a close look at it, just as an exercise in seeing through creationist fog. (Now, bear in mind, this all is supposed to be in answer to the question, “what have IDer’s proposed that can help me in my work?”.)

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system.

First of all, what’s with all the “quotes”? (other than the first set, of course, which I can understand.) Genetic material is known to occasionally, just randomly, get duplicated within a genome - all the way from one nucleotide up to the entire genome. That’s new information. It can be selected. These are facts. This is not a question of opinion.

According to this logic then, the conclusion to be reached is that the “mutations” are a “built-in” part of the biological system.

(First note: the fact that mutation is an inevitable consequence of replication in all biological systems bears absolutely no relationship to the “logic” in question.)But since we just saw this logic, excuse me, “logic”, is, in fact, nonsense pulled out of thin air, we can safely ignore what follows. Oh, what the heck? Let’s have a look anyway.

Since there would be “built-in limits” to where selection can take the organism (only so much available “stored information”),

What “built-in limits”? Let’s take a mammalian genome for instance. About 3 billion base pairs per haploid genome. Given that mutations can be point mutations, insertions, deletions, duplications, what would be that built-in limit, numerically? [Hint: you have no clue] 

I think I would look for “where” this potential for mutations is “located”, and what kinds of “regulatory mechanisms” either enhance or suppress it (if at all).

No “need”. We already know that. Mutation can happen to any nucleotides, anywhere in a genome.

{N.B. Scientist’s have just reported being able to “stop” mutations from occurring in bacteria (which have one of the highest—if not the highest—mutation frequencies of all organisms)}

N.B. Total “B.S.”
(Of course, you can prove me wrong by offering a citation.)

If the “rate” of mutation could not be experimentally “shifted”, then I might look into whether there is a commonality between said mechanism and the mechanism of other organisms (sort of like a “box” gene)

WTF? Can anybody reading this make any sense out of that at all???

In other words,

Yes, please!

I think good science flows, one way or the other.  That was my point from the beginning.  If we use the metaphor of a “search engine” trying to get through the probability space of where biological organisms might go—or have gone—I think ID is a better one for “macroevolution”, and RMNS for “microevolution,” with ID being the more important of the two.

Oh, well. Heck, why didn’t I think of that? Perhaps because it makes no sense whatsoever! Remember the question this is all supposed to be addressing? “What have IDer’s proposed that can help me in my work?”

But having provided such a clear and convincing answer to that question, Blast, are you going to tackle the question I posed before? Knowing, as we do, the considerable change that can result from “microevolution” even during the infinitesimal length of time humans have been observing it, what imposes an upper limit on that, preventing “microevolution” from blending into “macroevolution” over billions of generations?

Comment #34300

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 8, 2005 12:55 PM (e) (s)

Do you mean that the ID-people currently working in their labs are constantly mumbling “What would Jesus do?”?

Um… do ID-people have labs?

What would they even do in them?

Comment #34305

Posted by SEF on June 8, 2005 01:16 PM (e) (s)

Do you mean that the ID-people currently working in their labs are constantly mumbling “What would Jesus do?”?

If I believed they genuinely thought much at all, let alone about that in particular, it would say a lot about those creationists’ version of Jesus if they had decided he would think it a good idea to lie about the intent of their mission (ie ID wedge), to deny aspects of reality, to misrepresent scientists’ work, to lie about their own work or lack of it, to lie, bully and cheat their way into museums, journals and PhDs etc etc.

Comment #34327

Posted by John Wendt on June 8, 2005 05:28 PM (e) (s)

From BFTP:

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system

Comparison of genomes gives patterns that seem best explained by the hypothesis that various genes have at some point been duplicated in the transcription process. Indeed, in some cases it seems that whole genomes have been duplicated. If the original gene can supply the required protein, then the duplicate gene is free to mutate. This is new information.

That’s simpler than the biological reality, in which change in control mechanisms is more important to evolution than simple mutation. And there’s no selection at this level of analysis, although a new mutation may change the organisms “fitness” for good or ill. The only point here is that “ID ‘logic’” is not necessarily a very good guide to biological thinking.

Comment #34360

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on June 8, 2005 09:31 PM (e) (s)

Nelson writes: “we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet…”

Wow. Where does he go for trick or treat…?

Comment #34361

Posted by steve on June 8, 2005 09:44 PM (e) (s)

When I go to that link, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/blogs/htsrv/trackback.php?t… , I get a blank page.

Comment #34369

Posted by Steven Laskoske on June 8, 2005 10:32 PM (e) (s)

If I believed they genuinely thought much at all, let alone about that in particular, it would say a lot about those creationists’ version of Jesus if they had decided he would think it a good idea to lie about the intent of their mission (ie ID wedge), to deny aspects of reality, to misrepresent scientists’ work, to lie about their own work or lack of it, to lie, bully and cheat their way into museums, journals and PhDs etc etc.

Of course, if they DID actually ask “What Would Jesus Do?” then they might actually stop trying to push ID into the schools.  After all, the chasing out the moneychangers and merchants from the temple and the “Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s” portion of the Bible very clearly show that Jesus was all for separation of church and state. 

Heck, when Peter (upon whom was built the church) tried to push the idea of getting people to respect Jesus, all he got from Jesus was a “Get thee behind me, Satan!” and a complaint that he was thinking of kingdoms of men instead of the Kingdom of God. 

If we assume the IDers are right, then they might have a pretty tough time on Judgement Day…

Comment #34383

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 01:04 AM (e) (s)

BftP wrote:

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system.

To refute this:

Russell wrote:

Genetic material is known to occasionally, just randomly, get duplicated within a genome - all the way from one nucleotide up to the entire genome. That’s new information. It can be selected. These are facts. This is not a question of opinion.

It’s amazing how easily and quickly a dismissive tone is taken by those who post here.  Look at the obvious non sequitor in the above quote: so “two” copies (oops—more quotes; how awful) of the same gene, or two copies of the same genome is “new information”?  So, if I have two copies of Encyclopedia Britannica I have “more” information than if I have one copy?  Do you see how quickly you arrogate? 

At least in the 18th century we didn’t make these kinds of mistakes in logic.

Comment #34386

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 01:45 AM (e) (s)

BftP wrote:

{N.B. Scientist’s have just reported being able to “stop” mutations from occurring in bacteria (which have one of the highest—if not the highest—mutation frequencies of all organisms)}

Russell wrote:

N.B. Total “B.S.”
(Of course, you can prove me wrong by offering a citation.)

But it’s so easy to prove you wrong:
N.B. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050518175350.ht… 

When you’re stuck in the 18th century, there’s a lot of catching up to do, so you read journals and such as they come out.

Comment #34388

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 02:01 AM (e) (s)

Russell wrote:

Knowing, as we do, the considerable change that can result from “microevolution” even during the infinitesimal length of time humans have been observing it, what imposes an upper limit on that, preventing “microevolution” from blending into “macroevolution” over billions of generations?

Darwinists love tautolgies.  What you assume to be true, you present as proof for what you assume. (I can take you through this a step at a time if the “logic” overwhelms you.)  You don’t “know” any such thing as “microevolution” leads to “macroevolution.”  If that was so obvious and well-documented, then no one would be questioning Darwinian theory.
[We all know about Ernst Mayr and the various websites: but again, not convincing.]

I see no reason to respond to the other parts of your post since you make it quite evident that you’re unwilling to think “outside of the Darwinian Black Box.”  Your attitude makes discussion pointless.

Comment #34389

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 02:15 AM (e) (s)

Lenny wrote:

Um, how does Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” idea make evolution wrong … . . ?  After all, “hopeful monster” is a theory of … well … evolution.

  So what the heck are you yammering about?

BftP wrote:

Instead of displaying your ignorance, why don’t you read the book and then read my quotes.  You might be in for an education.

Lenny wrote:

I notice you didn’t asnwer my question.  I;ll ask again:

Goldschmidt;s ideas were based on evolution.

So how do any of them make evolution wrong, or help ID “theory” in any way, shape, or form?

It’s a simple question.  Why won;t you answer it?

Dr Lenny: Goldschmidt readily admits “microevolution”—it’s likely he INVENTED the distinction between it and “macroevolution.”  The entire book is an argument that the kinds of mutations that characterize “micro” from “macro” are entirely disparate.  He introduces the idea of a “systemic mutation”, which is, basically, a changing around of chromosomal “patterns”.  He observes the obvious:  the phylogenetic difference between males and females in higher animals is generally at the level of “macroevolution”; and, of course, the difference between them is strictly chromosomal.

So your assertion that “it’s evolution”, etc., etc., is pointless given Goldschmidt evidence and analysis.

In addition, Goldschmidt was way ahead of his contempories in thought, already seeing the chromosomes as templates for protein formation (he doesn’t use that language, but the idea lays somewhat implicit within them).  Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material—it just simply gets shifted about.  I think the implications for ID are rather clear…..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can.

Comment #34390

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 02:25 AM (e) (s)

John Wendt wrote:

Comparison of genomes gives patterns that seem best explained by the hypothesis that various genes have at some point been duplicated in the transcription process. Indeed, in some cases it seems that whole genomes have been duplicated. If the original gene can supply the required protein, then the duplicate gene is free to mutate. This is new information.

But, John, is it “information” or is it just gibberish?  In other words, is all that you end up with no more than a slightly garbled protein.  Kimura’s Neutral Theory arose because of the extraordinary amount of protein isomers that gel electrophoresis turned up in the 60’s and 70’s.  The only way to explain the vast number of isomers is to interpret them as being “neutral” relative to selection.  If, indeed, new “information” is added via this mechanism, wonderful.  But I think it’s simply “plausible”, and not “probable.”  Again, if this mechanism can be shown to operate as you suggest, fine, then I’ll be happy to rethink my position.

Comment #34391

Posted by PaulP on June 9, 2005 02:26 AM (e) (s)

Says BlastFromThe Past:

We all know about Ernst Mayr and the various websites: but again, not convincing

That’s your problem. The only interesting question is whether they are right. The close-minded, like you, will never be convinced of anything.

Comment #34392

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 02:44 AM (e) (s)

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

I can show numerous cases where ‘information’ or new functions, alterations or similar have been made to proteins or systems, nylonase genes for an example or numerous pathogenicity factors.

I think that the information contained in chromosomes/DNA is on a parallel with binary code.  The latest edition of The Scientist is dedicated to this very theme.  My intuition is that what have been commonly called “genes”, are nothing more than “code” for proteins.  With the rise in understanding of microRNAs, it becomes clear that chromosomal code interacts with itself, much like a computer program, using binary code, is designed to interact with the various “parts” of the computer and with the data being processed.

Now, getting to your quote above, isn’t it entirely possible that the “new function” you’re talking about is no more than the un-silencing of part of the code for the particular protein involved.  Thus, there’s no NEW information; just the loss of suppression of information.

Here is an ID prediction:  as the human (and other) genome becomes more amenable to analysis, then we will find that huge amounts of information is stored in the genome, common to most species, but that through such physical rearrangements (like recombination/insertions/translocation, etc) and through different forms of microRNA control, different phenotypes result.

Comment #34393

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 02:52 AM (e) (s)

BftP wrote:

We all know about Ernst Mayr and the various websites: but again, not convincing.

PaulP wrote:

That’s your problem. The only interesting question is whether they are right. The close-minded, like you, will never be convinced of anything.

Yes, Paul, maybe your right.  I’m close-minded.  On the other hand, when Morgan worked with his flies and brought about who knows how many mutations, did he end up with anything other than a fly?  Even Thomas Huxley, in the 1890’s, said that the fact that no known example of transpeciation had been observed was a knock on Darwin’s theory—this from Darwin’s bulldog.  Huxley also seriously differed with Darwin over “hopeful monsters”: he was in favor of this idea, and Darwin opposed.  All of the 28 or 29 examples of “transpeciation” are either trivial or involve ( and this is true of most of them) chromosomal changes.  Well, let’s face it, the Modern Synthesis—and I’m talking here of its mathematical basis—does not deal with chromosomal rearrangements, but, instead, with “point mutations.”  So, where does that leave us?  Now, Paul, how open-minded are you?

Comment #34394

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 02:58 AM (e) (s)

Nelson writes: “we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet…”

Well, Galileo and Newton and Einstein all started with rather simple intuitions.  But in the end, they proved very powerful.  Having said that, I think, however, that in short-term ID will be mildly helpful; but that in the long-term it will not; simply because I think science is moving so quickly forward that ID will simply become subsumed into the analysis of genomes that has already begun.  And, of course, Darwinism will quickly become entirely discredited at the transpeciation level.

Comment #34395

Posted by 386sx on June 9, 2005 03:10 AM (e) (s)

And, of course, Darwinism will quickly become entirely discredited at the transpeciation level.

More predictions. Boy you sure do got a lot of predictions. That, and a whole lot of “Darwins.” Dawrin this, and Darwin that…

Comment #34396

Posted by PaulP on June 9, 2005 03:26 AM (e) (s)

BlastFromThePast writes:

Even Thomas Huxley, in the 1890’s, said that the fact that no known example of transpeciation had been observed was a knock on Darwin’s theory

From the fossil record we can deduce that there are now life forms that did not exist in the distant past. I wonder how they arose?

Darwin wrote that he did not know the mechanism of inheritance. They were honest, not like the “wedge strategy” people who talk about a non-existent “controversy”.

Comment #34397

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 04:05 AM (e) (s)

Scott Davidson wrote:

There’s a relatively recent book titled “Speciation” by Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, which would be a good palce to start.  It talks about speciation and species concepts.
Maybe worth a look, ah?

I will give it a look and try to be as open-minded as I can.

Here’s what I found in the Introduction:
(p. 4) As the Modern Synthesis progressed, evolutionary geneticists grew increasingly obsessed with measuring and explaining genetic variation within species (Lewontin 1974).  In retrospect, this shift in emphasis was unfortunate in at least one way: understanding speciation, it turns out, may not depend critically on how genetic variation is maintained.

As a result, more work on speciation has been performed over the last two decades than over the entire period from 1859 to 1980.  This latest phase has involved reexamining nearly every conclusion about speciation reached during the Modern Synthesis.  Debate about species concepts—virtually quashed by Mayr’s forceful arguments in Animal Species and Evolution—was revived as biologists not only introduced dozens of new concepts, but even questioned whether species exist.  Geneticists who accepted the importance of reproductive isolating barriers performed more rigorous genetic analyses of these barriers….  (p.5)  It thus seemed clear that natural and sexual selection are the main engines of speciation.  But given our almost complete ignorance about how these forms of selection give rise to new species, this conclusion was based more on intuition than on data.”

“In our view, recent progress in speciation largely reflects a shift from a fascination with nebulous and untestable ideas to empirically tractable ones.  It is this shift, we believe, that has allowed the field to attain scientific maturity.”

“…understanding speciation, it turns out, may not depend critically on how genetic variation is maintained….It thus seemed clear that natural and sexual selection are the main engines of speciation….But given our almost complete ignorance about how these forms of selection give rise to new species, this conclusion was based more on intuition than on data.”  What devastating admissions.  Having read the introduction, I don’t see what it is I’m going to learn since they almost admit that they don’t know what the mechanism for speciation is.  So, I guess I’ll pass until they can marshal more information—like “what is a species.”  Are you sure you want to recommend this book to others?

Let me add that this introduction only reinforces my sense that since the time of Goldschmidt’s seminal work on evolution, biology has wasted its time.  Sixty years down the tubes.  What a shame.

Comment #34398

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 04:11 AM (e) (s)

PaulP wrote:

From the fossil record we can deduce that there are now life forms that did not exist in the distant past. I wonder how they arose?

Much time would be saved if those who want to support Darwin would stop the silly allegations that anyone who favors ID is a creationist—this is simply setting up a straw man.  Yes, the fossil record supports the idea of common descent—no one is arguing that.  Yes, natural selection can be seen operating in nature: we call it adaptation.  No one is arguing that either.  So, let’s get rid of the straw men, and argue the merits of the neo-Darwinian explanation of speciation. (You might want to look at my last post.)

Comment #34400

Posted by PaulP on June 9, 2005 05:42 AM (e) (s)

BlastFromThePast:

Can you define transpeciation from me please?

Comment #34401

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 9, 2005 06:03 AM (e) (s)

Now, getting to your quote above, isn’t it entirely possible that the “new function” you’re talking about is no more than the un-silencing of part of the code for the particular protein involved.  Thus, there’s no NEW information; just the loss of suppression of information.

No, Nylonase genes ARE novel and have arisen from alterations of certain sites in duplicated genes- absolutely no ‘loss’ of information as the protein has been expanded to begin with (which is still meaningless babble, you STILL have not given me a satisfactory experimentally measurable unit of information). So the nylonase gene is bigger, has a novel function the original didn’t and arose purely by selection- unless you are going to argue Nylon has existed in the environment for years before humans. In addition to this it fails to explain certain mechanisms of genomic regulation, such as ‘slippery’ microsatellite repeats, which expand or contract, with different ramifications on protein synthesis.

Again this whole information stuff just reeks of AiGs meaningless babble and not any real science.

I’ll repeat my question you ignored the first time:

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

so I asked you to ‘define’ information. You see, neither of those ‘definitions’ you have provided answers at all what you meant here. I can show numerous cases where ‘information’ or new functions, alterations or similar have been made to proteins or systems, nylonase genes for an example or numerous pathogenicity factors. Again, you are asking for the ADDITION of new information that neither of the theories you quote attempt to answer in this context (just another demonstration of the uselessness of ID).

Again, specify ‘information’, as in the ACTUAL unit of information. Not blither blather as ‘aaaaaa’ or ‘blahjehaj’ or whatever. What the actual, testable experimentally unit of information is.

Care to show me?

Comment #34402

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 06:59 AM (e) (s)

Darwinists love tautolgies.

How dreadful.

What, again, did you say the scientific theory of ID is?

Oh, that’s right — you DIDN’T say, did you … . .

Comment #34403

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 07:01 AM (e) (s)

Much time would be saved if those who want to support Darwin would stop the silly allegations that anyone who favors ID is a creationist—this is simply setting up a straw man.

How many, again, of the 23 supporters of ID who testified in Kansas were creationists … . ?

How many, again, argument have been made by IDers that weren’t made 20 years ago by ICR’s minions?

Comment #34404

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 07:05 AM (e) (s)

Dr Lenny: Goldschmidt readily admits “microevolution”—it’s likely he INVENTED the distinction between it and “macroevolution.”  The entire book is an argument that the kinds of mutations that characterize “micro” from “macro” are entirely disparate.  He introduces the idea of a “systemic mutation”, which is, basically, a changing around of chromosomal “patterns”.  He observes the obvious:  the phylogenetic difference between males and females in higher animals is generally at the level of “macroevolution”; and, of course, the difference between them is strictly chromosomal.

So your assertion that “it’s evolution”, etc., etc., is pointless given Goldschmidt evidence and analysis.

It IS evolution.  Common descent.  Descent with modification.

Goldschmidt also did NOT argue that ALL speciaitons are the result of such macromutations.  And NONE of this supports ID in any wayh shape or form.

So I’m still not sure what it is that you are bitching about.

By the way, there have been well over 100 examples of observed macroevolution events (speciations) in the past fiew decades.  Can you cite one of them that followed Goldschmidt’s hypothesis?  Just one will do.

Comment #34405

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 07:08 AM (e) (s)

Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same

Huh?  Salamanders have several times more DNA than humans do.

he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material—it just simply gets shifted about.

Huh?  Where can we find “information for making clorophyll” anywhere in the human genome?

You’re blithering again.

Comment #34406

Posted by GCT on June 9, 2005 07:37 AM (e) (s)

BftP wrote:

Here is an ID prediction:  as the human (and other) genome becomes more amenable to analysis, then we will find that huge amounts of information is stored in the genome, common to most species, but that through such physical rearrangements (like recombination/insertions/translocation, etc) and through different forms of microRNA control, different phenotypes result.

Please explain how this prediction was derived from ID?  It doesn’t seem to follow the precept that, “Life is the result of an intelligent design.”  Also, please give your assumptions.

Comment #34408

Posted by Russell on June 9, 2005 07:56 AM (e) (s)

blast wrote:

But it’s so easy to prove you wrong:
N.B. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050518175350.ht…

Oh, I see. How embarrassing for me. The article is titled:

To Stop Evolution: New Way Of Fighting Antibiotic Resistance Demonstrated By Scripps Scientists

Did you get around to actually reading the article, Blast? No, I didn’t think so. Here let me help you. First of all, you’ll notice the article was a summary, for the general public, of primary scientific literature. (Did you check into that? No, I don’t suppose so.) They blocked one enzyme (LexA) involved in one specialized DNA recombination pathway. Now let’s see how Blast characterizes that finding:

{N.B. Scientist’s have just reported being able to “stop” mutations from occurring in bacteria

Now, if you don’t detect the substantial quantities of egg on your face, there is no help for you.
Let’s take a look at the next bit of nonsense:

It’s amazing how easily and quickly a dismissive tone is taken by those who post here.  Look at the obvious non sequitor in the above quote [in which it is pointed out that duplicated genetic material constitutes new information]: so “two” copies … of the same gene, or two copies of the same genome is “new information”?  So, if I have two copies of Encyclopedia Britannica I have “more” information than if I have one copy?  Do you see how quickly you arrogate?

Do you see how quickly you lose focus? Here. Let’s recap. Your assertion was:

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system.

Fact 1 - uncontested by anybody - Additional genetic material occasionally, just randomly, comes into being by various copying glitches.
Fact 2 - uncontested by anybody - Genetic material is subject to molding by selection (what evophobes like to call “microevolution”)
Put Fact 1 and Fact 2 together: what do you think? Has new information been added to the system?

Now how about this:

Russell wrote:
Knowing, as we do, the considerable change that can result from “microevolution” even during the infinitesimal length of time humans have been observing it, what imposes an upper limit on that, preventing “microevolution” from blending into “macroevolution” over billions of generations?

Darwinists love tautolgies.  What you assume to be true, you present as proof for what you assume…. You don’t “know” any such thing as “microevolution” leads to “macroevolution.”

OK, now hold it right there. Where is the tautology? What am I assuming to be true? I’m asking you a question, which you seem intent on dodging:
What mechanism limits the degree to which the microevolution, that even creationists acknowledge, can effect change over billions of generations?

Now unless you can address that question, if I might just borrow your words:

I see no reason to respond to the other parts of your post since you make it quite evident that you’re unwilling to think […]  Your attitude makes discussion pointless.

Comment #34412

Posted by PaulP on June 9, 2005 08:25 AM (e) (s)

Can nayone else here tell me what BlastFromThePast means by transpeciation?

Comment #34418

Posted by Flint on June 9, 2005 09:06 AM (e) (s)

Let me see if I’ve got this straight. The claim under discussion seems to be that all of the information necessary to produce every species that ever has existed or ever will exist, was present in the very first DNA, and exists today in the DNA of every living creature. Unstated (at least I haven’t seen it stated) is the presumption that this original omniplastic DNA didn’t itself evolve, but was created de novo by supernatural means.

Now, we present in evidence strong indications of a