Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[randman]

Go back to my crude definition of a niche: "A set of obstacles that separate an organism from nutrients and energy it requires". By this definition, niches may definitely exist independent of if there is an organism at any given time that has the necessary tools to overcome these obstacles, yes. You will have to provide evidence that this is something evos deny, as that is such a self-evident statement that I will otherwise not believe you. If ID claims this as well, that still does not prove the existence of God.

However, it is true only for some niches. The set of obstacles that form a niche are only partially constant over time. Other obstacles, which are dependent on the structure of temporarily limited features are not constant over time, and may very well be lost in a major, or even minor, extinction. It may also be at least potentially possible to create your own niche.

Not sure what you are talking about here. It's pretty simple. The environment for an organism includes the living biota around it. When you wipe out biota, you change the niches.

From what you wrote, it's not clear whether you think niches exist as potentials prior to being filled, or are simply created when they are filled.

Which is it?

Be specific. Was the apex large ocean predator whether dinosaur or whales, a niche that existed waiting to be filled?

If not, why would you say whales refilled that niche and that dinos going extinct opened up room in that niche? When the dinosaurs went extinct, there was no niche there, right? Whales had not created that niche, right?

This really is something worth thinking on. I will await your response despite the needless smears and so forth.

 

[randman]

Evolutionary biologists made these discoveries. Not Intelligent Design proponents.

How do you know? Maybe, but creationists and IDers can be and are evolutionary biologists as well.

You confusing things via semantics. Someone can, for example, have MDiv and Phd in biblical studies and be an atheist that actually engages in, writes and maybe even teaches religion and theology.

 

[Krikkiter]

everything

What evidence do you have that your perceptions that the world around you are real?

Please provide definitive proof but you cannot use anything in the world around you to do that.

I actually believe there is clear specific evidence for God in details in the universe but suffice for this, you can't prove reality is real without assuming reality. Science STARTS with faith assumptions. So the proper thing to do is look at things with the assumption of a Designer and see if it works.

And guess what?

It does!

randman, what evidence is there of a designer?

 

[randman]

Kot, Davison includes what others before him wrote in order to show that all along, the tenets of NeoDarwinism have been shown to be false. There is good reason for doing this.

First, it's a real shock for many to find so many great scientists that reject mainstream evo theory when you've been told your whole life everyone accepted it a long time ago and only religious fundamentalists reject it.

Secondly, the vast majority of reasons for their rejecting it are still true today. In some ways, mainstream evo theory is stuck in a paradigm they created for themselves 100 years ago, and this is true for how they see data and their basic, Haeckelian attitude and approach. It's sad but the reason someone like Davison brings up prior good arguments is that they were never addressed and refuted.

 

[randman]

To me, the position Darwin assigns to Rütimeyer seems to be more one of a proponent of orthogenesis. Orthogenesis is not the same as creationism, and you will need to convince me that orthogenesis falls under the "wide range of views" in ID.

Except he specifically objected to "materialist" views of nature. If he was just saying physical, mechanistic principles dictated orthogenesis, you'd have a point but he objected to such materialist thinking in the first place, and imo, in that regard was correct.

Evos have to ignore a great many things to assert their views. It's not an accident that man appeared last and is the most, dare we say, advanced. Just for clarity, I am not saying man evolved here. But the evidence, even from the perspective of common descent, clearly show purpose and direction and divine guidance.

 

[randman]

randman, what evidence is there of a designer?

everything

What evidence do you have that your perceptions that the world around you are real?

Please provide definitive proof but you cannot use anything in the world around you to do that.

I actually believe there is clear specific evidence for God in details in the universe but suffice for this, you can't prove reality is real without assuming reality. Science STARTS with faith assumptions. So the proper thing to do is look at things with the assumption of a Designer and see if it works.

And guess what?

It does!

 

[Lowpro]

Except he specifically objected to "materialist" views of nature. If he was just saying physical, mechanistic principles dictated orthogenesis, you'd have a point but he objected to such materialist thinking in the first place, and imo, in that regard was correct.

Evos have to ignore a great many things to assert their views. It's not an accident that man appeared last and is the most, dare we say, advanced. Just for clarity, I am not saying man evolved here. But the evidence, even from the perspective of common descent, clearly show purpose and direction and divine guidance.

Early homonids probably didn't share your enthusiam (or delusion, take your pick)

Hey, at least it's easier to spot you as a crank now

 

[Lowpro]

everything

What evidence do you have that your perceptions that the world around you are real?

Please provide definitive proof but you cannot use anything in the world around you to do that.

I actually believe there is clear specific evidence for God in details in the universe but suffice for this, you can't prove reality is real without assuming reality. Science STARTS with faith assumptions. So the proper thing to do is look at things with the assumption of a Designer and see if it works.

And guess what?

It does!

Hey, I started with the assumption that a designer isn't needed, and it works!

Long hard strokes randman, long. hard. strokes. Living proof that you can use bullcrap as lube

 

[Krikkiter]

everything

What evidence do you have that your perceptions that the world around you are real?

Please provide definitive proof but you cannot use anything in the world around you to do that.

I actually believe there is clear specific evidence for God in details in the universe but suffice for this, you can't prove reality is real without assuming reality. Science STARTS with faith assumptions. So the proper thing to do is look at things with the assumption of a Designer and see if it works.

And guess what?

It does!

Wow. "Everything" is evidence of a designer. Thanks.

 

[Mister Earl]

Randman, given that you were shown documentation that shows ID as a religious construct and not one borne of observation or testing, does that change your views on ID at all? And given that the creation of ID was an attempt at duplicity and violating law, does that detract from it in your eyes any?

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

I was referring to this in the link below since the subject was leukemia in general.

https://proimmune.com/ecommerce/page.php?page=abrahamsen

So you like to refer to articles without telling us what they are? Very thoughtful, I'm sure. OK, so I've read the article, and you know what? I get to repeat myself.

Randman, are you hallucinating?

The article you have linked to has nothing to do with genetics, except so far as it deals with cultured cell lines.

Ah, but it does contain the magic words "intelligent design". Specifically, it starts off

The intelligent design of immunotherapy for B cell leukemia represents a significant challenge.

You are aware, I hope, that in English a word or phrase can have different meanings depending on context? So I've got to ask: just how contextually challenged are you? When talking about Intelligent Design, the phrase with opposite meaning is Darwinian Evolution (or Neo-Darwinian Evolution, if you want to get picky.) In the article you linked, the opposite of "intelligent design" is "inefficient design". Did you actually read more than the first line?

Human beings evolving into more human beings? Who would have thought?

Who, indeed? The point was that if humans evolve to something else (let's say, mermen), the new species will not be humans, and there is no logical necessity to expect that the new species will replace people. Humans will remain humans.

As far as the OT, if you want to talk about YEC creationism and not ID, then you have to consider the claims of YECers honestly as potentially feasible

Oh my sweet lord

and those claims are based on different assumptions than evos and the data here is consistent with YEC claims because they don't claim mutational rates have stayed the same and so forth.

And let's not forget the other things that have to change: every single hard scientific discipline, including but not limited to physics (all branches), chemistry, biology, geology. And common sense, as well.

But we're talking about evolution versus ID here.

Really? As I've pointed out, the article you linked to is irrelevant to either subject, individually or in comparison.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

I actually believe there is clear specific evidence for God in details in the universe but suffice for this, you can't prove reality is real without assuming reality. Science STARTS with faith assumptions. So the proper thing to do is look at things with the assumption of a Designer and see if it works.

And guess what?

It does!

That, as it happens, is a perfectly rational statement. But it implies more than you seem to realise.

The Bible teaches us about God the Wise, God the Just, and God the Merciful.

If the Universe reflects the glories of God in its workings, we also see God the Distant, God the Uncaring, and God the Cruel.

And given your earlier posting about the evidence in nature of design flaws, we can glimpse God the Dullard, God the Ham-fisted and God the Bad Designer. Of course, if these flaws were done intentionally, them we see instead God the Deceiver and God the Practical Joker.

Take your pick.

 

[ehcks]

everything

Everything is only evidence for "everything." A supernatural designer isn't in this "everything."

Unless the designer evolved enough intelligence to genetically engineer the first life on Earth. That wouldn't answer any questions, but it would fit your claim.

A god-like being would not, because it does not exist in the "everything."

 

[Dinwar]

everything

What evidence do you have that your perceptions that the world around you are real?

randman has finally officially decended to the level of pure sophistry and the philosophical equivalent of nhilism. The answer to this challange, of course, is that NO ONE believes this load of horse dung, not even the person proposeing it--they look both ways before they cross the street.

randman, if this is your idea of a valid epistemology, no wonder science is so confusing ot you!

Science doesn't simply assume that reality exists. It CONCLUDES that reality exists, based on the fact that it offers all appearance of existing, in every test ever done since the begining of human intellignece. NOT ONE has failed. NO theory has greater support.

As for "everything" providing evidence for a designer, thanks for showing your biase clearly and for all to see. Evolution, in contrast, has no such biase. The first people to propose evolution were Creationists--the people who they had to convince were Creationists--THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY was Creationists. There wasn't anything else one could be. So evolution started out proving that it worked better than Creationism. It's not a set of assumptions, as the history of the theory clearly shows--it's evidence and data that support the conclusion even to people who are biased AGAINST evolution. Evolution wasn't universally accepted when it came out of Darwin's voyage--it had to convince a fairly hostile audience (Darwin wouldn't have needed a bulldog otherwise). So you fail, yet again.

Did you actually read more than the first line?

You got him to read an article? Last time I tried (and the last time I'll waste my time looking for articles for him) he just looked at the picture, one clearly intended to look pretty. Getting him to read a line is a major accomplishment.

 

[randman]

Unless the designer evolved enough intelligence

Is evolution your concept of God?

 

[randman]

That, as it happens, is a perfectly rational statement. But it implies more than you seem to realise.

The Bible teaches us about God the Wise, God the Just, and God the Merciful.

If the Universe reflects the glories of God in its workings, we also see God the Distant, God the Uncaring, and God the Cruel.

And given your earlier posting about the evidence in nature of design flaws, we can glimpse God the Dullard, God the Ham-fisted and God the Bad Designer. Of course, if these flaws were done intentionally, them we see instead God the Deceiver and God the Practical Joker.

Take your pick.

Why is it in the end that evos always fall back on theological arguments? I think it's because their beliefs are more a matter of faith and theology than science.

 

[randman]

Science doesn't simply assume that reality exists.

Yes, it does. In fact, all reason starts with assumptions.

Reason, of course, is not the same as science but science has to accept some basic premises to do it's work, and that's fine. But you should be aware of that.

 

[randman]

As for "everything" providing evidence for a designer, thanks for showing your biase clearly and for all to see. Evolution, in contrast, has no such biase. The first people to propose evolution were Creationists--the people who they had to convince were Creationists--THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY was Creationists. There wasn't anything else one could be. So evolution started out proving that it worked better than Creationism. It's not a set of assumptions, as the history of the theory clearly shows--it's evidence and data that support the conclusion even to people who are biased AGAINST evolution. Evolution wasn't universally accepted when it came out of Darwin's voyage--it had to convince a fairly hostile audience (Darwin wouldn't have needed a bulldog otherwise).

So "evolution", eh? That's your problem. The word "evolution" has a lot of meanings even within science and one definition being true does not prove the others true, no matter how hard you try.

Darwin needed a propagandist because his theory was not so well-supported. Still isn't today. Parts of it are. Things evolve no doubt but extrapolating the evolution we observe into macroevolution and that without purpose and design is not supported by the evidence.

 

[randman]

Randman, given that you were shown documentation that shows ID as a religious construct and not one borne of observation or testing,

Since when is a religious concept not borne of observation or testing? I reject the idea that ID is exclusively religious in the first place, but religion entails observation and reason though precedes modern science and so, of course, is not necessarily "testing" under scientific standards. Then again, neither is the evo mythology.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Why is it in the end that evos always fall back on theological arguments? I think it's because their beliefs are more a matter of faith and theology than science.

Why is it that IDers and other types of Creationists are incapable of distinguishing between an argument and an editorial comment?