Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Sideroxylon]

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!

The evidence bar seems to have fallen on the ground.

 

[Aridas]

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.

Yay, solipsism! Solipsism is fun! Utterly useless, except to demonstrate a very specific truth that is ultimately useless to advance any understanding of reality, but fun!

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.

Pssh. Even you admit it! It's just a theory.

Is evolution your concept of God?

Funny. Potentially, though, depending how, exactly, you define "God." There's many, many, many versions of "God" that it wouldn't remotely fit, though, including, I'm sure, your version.

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.

As usual, you're an amusing fellow. Let's rephrase. "Why is it that evos respond to theological arguments with opposing theological arguments?" *I* think that that's because the theology's what's in question in the first place, there, not the science or anything else.

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.

Yup! Solipsism is great, isn't it? And yes, quite true for the second part, too. Doesn't mean... just about anything at that level of explanation, but very true.

Why would you assume God would need to be designed? A juvenile question on your part if I ever heard one.

It's actually poking at one of the gaping holes in the logic that is proclaimed as reason for why an uncreated creator is necessary. Sadly, rhetorical solutions don't work, when they violate the premises that they're trying to solve for.

This is a lie. The fossil record quite clearly shows that there's no designer, that we all evolved from the accumulation of minor alterations through time.

Ehh. It depends on what kind of designer. Certainly not an omniscient one that was being at all efficient, though.

Evolution does not exist within a vacuum. If the universe suggests there is a God, a Designer, a Creator, then we have to start with that assumption.

Therefore, evolution (which definition) can be true but should rightly be viewed within an ID paradigm.

So, basically, you're arguing that "existence exists, therefore God." Then proceeding to say that "because God, ID."

Do I really need to dissect how bad this logic is?

 

[Wowbagger]

Everyone accepts microevolution, period. Young Earth Creationists embrace that.

This confirms what I said: Young Earth Creationists have no choice but to become evolutionists, when it comes to the lab, if they want productive or innovative results. YEC is not useful to the work of working scientists.

So it's really just a bunch of crap to say every discovery has been made by evos; that if you are an Intelligent Design theorist or creationist or alternative evolutionist, that you are not even a scientist.

I am NOT claiming every discovery was made by evos. But, I am claiming I.D. advocates have made no discoveries that actually use I.D.

It IS definitely possible for an Intelligent Design advocate to be a productive scientist. They just wouldn't be using I.D. in their productive work.

That is unless, of course, you can offer some examples of how I.D. can be productive to science. Be as specific as possible.

everything

Allow me to introduce a new Theory of Life's Origins: The Law of Functionality. (legal disclaimer: I do not think the following law is genuine science. I am offering it only to make a point, so please bear with me.)

The Law of Functionality (LOF) states that we should find function in everything, because the Universe itself is ultimately a function of the Universe.

It is important to note that LOF Theory is different from Intelligent Design in several ways: ID implies that there was a cognizant, conscious designer of life, of some sort. LOF claims no actual Designer is to be expected: The Universe is simply its own function of itself. There is no grand plan of a consciousness. There is only the grand plan of a physical universe that has to have a plan, by natural law (that I made up).

If a Designer were proven to exist, then LOF would claim that that Designer could only have come about from a first-cause that was not Designed, but rather the emergence of the unconscious function of physics, which would be a non-designed source. But LOFers don't think an Intelligent Designer is very likely, and that looking for one is probably a waste of time.

LOF also contradicts Evolutionary Theory, in a few ways: As a "natural theory", Evolution has no ultimate goal or plan in mind. LOF claims that we should always be hunting for some ultimate function of everything.
More specifically, and not surprisingly, LOFers would laugh at the old Evo claims that Junk DNA serves no purpose.

LOF would argue, perhaps in more detail than I have time to write in this summary, that life started as a function of the physics of the Universe, itself, which is not directed by neither chance, nor design, nor purposeless natural algorithms.

If we look at Junk DNA, we find it does have functions, as would be expected and predicted by the Law of Functionality. Finding no reason to insist that Junk DNA is the product of a Designer, it seems that LOF is really the superior Theory of Life's Origins!!!

Clearly "everything" is not evidence of Intelligent Design.

 

[Kotatsu]

He didn't just oppose a Darwinist view of the world. He opposed adopting a mechanistic, materialist assumption and rule in science. That makes him an IDer whether you want to waste time continuing to deny it.

So you continue to claim. However, you have not shown this.

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.

I would have thought that the line "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" would have provided you with the answer. Certainly some niches, using the definition that I provided, exist independent of if there are organisms filling those niches at any given time. I would not state that all niches exist independent of organisms, but certainly some do.

Is that clear enough?

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

For large stretches of evolutionary time, yes. However, I would like to add the tentative proviso that this niche did not necessarily exist at times when no organisms existed for an apex large predator to predate on. In a world where all organisms were unicellular, I don't think it is reasonable to say that such a niche existed, for instance.

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.

Then why does he not include the data these scientists of older generations based their conclusions on? He merely quotes what their conclusions were, or more typically what their opinions were, without mentioning what sort of data they based these opinions on. I could agree that he shows adequately that the tenets of Darwinism or NeoDarwinism has been questioned over time, which I don't think is a surprise to anyone, and hardly a point that needs to be belaboured. But without an analysis of what the holders of these opinions based their opinions on, as well as an analysis of what school of thought they represented, Davison does not show anything worthwhile.

Secondly, the vast majority of reasons for their rejecting it are still true today.

Such as? You may refer to "What X is quoted as saying in Davison's Y", as I have all the articles I could found before me on the desk, so you needn't quote the whole thing if that makes it easier.

It's sad but the reason someone like Davison brings up prior good arguments is that they were never addressed and refuted.

Please give one or more specific examples of arguments Davison raises that you feel has never been addressed or refuted, and I'll see what I can do. Otherwise, this claim of yours will have to be considered as baseless as most of your other claims.

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.

What is your evidence that even all forms of orthogenesis which are directed by "nonmaterialist" forces fall under the umbrella of creationism/ID?

Note the first: I am not necessarily saying that Rütimeyer was an evolutionist. I am saying that the fact that someone is not an evolutionist does not instantly make that person a creationist/IDer.

Note the second: You seem, again, to be referring to a vaster amount of evidence for your views than the Hopwood article and the Darwin letter. Is this the case? If so, please provide your evidence.

Evos have to ignore a great many things to assert their views.

Please list these things, or a subset of them. Remember: your idol Davison have to ignore the fact that quotations of someone's opinions given 50 years before molecular mechanisms started to be explored does not trump actual data.

It's not an accident that man appeared last and is the most, dare we say, advanced.

Really? So man appeared after the nylon-eating bacteria, that is, after 1935?

Also: culturally we may be the most advanced, but biologically we certainly are not.

But the evidence, even from the perspective of common descent, clearly show purpose and direction and divine guidance.

And then you will have to show that there is actually anything divine guiding it, otherwise we are back to you misunderstanding the difference between "similar" and "identical" again. Let me explain:

We would both agree, I assume, that the history of computers undoubtedly show "purpose and direction and guidance", and that this, while arguably not having a proximal divine source, is nevertheless achieved through a process dependent on an intelligent creator. We can show this by giving evidence of the existence of such a creator.

We do not agree that the history of the human organism show "purpose and direction and guidance", whether divine or mundane, nor that even an evolutionary history that would show these features would have been achieved through a process dependent on an intelligent creator. For you to convince me of this, you would have to show evidence of the existence of such a creator, and this evidence would need to be independent of the features of anything you claim it has created.

You are, again, confusing "similar" with "identical". If computers and humans are said to have had similar histories of changes throughout time, in that they gradually morph into what we see today, then this does not in any way imply that these two histories have identical causes.

The idea that intelligence is not involved in the origination of the universe is just wacked; maybe one of the wackiest things man has ever come up with.

On what base of knowledge and data do you establish your insights into the workings of the way things were before the universe existed? That is, what data do you use to so unequivocally rule out the pre-Universe existence of a non-intelligent cause?

Why would you assume God would need to be designed? A juvenile question on your part if I ever heard one.

On what base of knowledge and data do you establish your implied claim that your statement:

Nothing in the natural world violates this principle; hence the natural world has a cause.

does not extend to the supernatural world?

 

[Mojo]

randman has finally officially decended to the level of pure sophistry and the philosophical equivalent of nhilism.

That would make him the second poster in this thread, after Patrick1000, to have gone nuclear.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Just look at the principle of cause and effect. You cannot have the universe without a cause. Nothing in the natural world violates this principle; hence the natural world has a cause.

Maybe a false dichotomy, but for the life of me I can only think of two possible explanations for a statement such as this.

Explanation #1: randman is an obvious troll who's just playing us, or...

Explanation #2 : randman is so blinded by ideology/theism/whatever, that he can ignore about a century of quantum physics and how the universe really works.

Things DO happen without cause, again and again and again. In spite of Einstein's deepest intuitions, "God" does play dice with the universe.

Here, randman is, I think, parroting Aquinas. Like raising Haekel ad nauseum in another thread, my disappointed response remains, "Is that all you've got?"

 

[Dancing David]

Absolutely wrong. What the quote says is that non-functional DNA is stronger evidence for evolution than functional DNA because there is not the alternate explanation of function causing homologous sequences. He's wrong in that there are other explanations but that's the evo argument.

He uses the argument of written records having errors in them which enables copywrighters to know if they've been copied since someone could say they just listed phone numbers too, but why would they list the errors.

Go back and read it.

You know that is a rather poor debate tactic, you can make your argument better than that. try actual citations and reasoning, that way it will look less like the "I already said that, but I can't tell you where, why or how"

try actually using citations.

 

[Dancing David]

everything

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

The universe does not look designed , it looks chaotic and rather random, what is your line of reasoning that it is designed?

And please read http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf before presenting any silly Penrose style of 'fine tuning' for us.

the universe does not look designed, so what is your line of reasoning?

 

[Dancing David]

He didn't just oppose a Darwinist view of the world. He opposed adopting a mechanistic, materialist assumption and rule in science. That makes him an IDer whether you want to waste time continuing to deny it.

Oh my, magic fairy dust, science is a form a naturalism, it makes no assertion of materialism.

But please spin some fairy tale for us of dualism and undetectable events having an influence.
Science does not rule out immaterial events, it just says "show your work".

 

[Dancing David]

I don't assume it. The evidence says it is. Just look at the principle of cause and effect. You cannot have the universe without a cause. Nothing in the natural world violates this principle; hence the natural world has a cause.

Cause does not imply design, rocks fall off mountains and crush things, that does not imply design.

 

[Dancing David]

Evolution does not exist within a vacuum. If the universe suggests there is a God, a Designer, a Creator, then we have to start with that assumption.

Therefore, evolution (which definition) can be true but should rightly be viewed within an ID paradigm.

And how does the universe suggest that?

 

[Mojo]

Evolution does not exist within a vacuum. If the universe suggests there is a God, a Designer, a Creator, then we have to start with that assumption.

Therefore, evolution (which definition) can be true but should rightly be viewed within an ID paradigm.

As you state, only IF the universe suggests there is a God or designer. For the assumption to be accepted, and for evolution to "be viewed within an ID paradigm", you'll need to present evidence for it.

 

[randman]

As you state, only IF the universe suggests there is a God or designer. For the assumption to be accepted, and for evolution to "be viewed within an ID paradigm", you'll need to present evidence for it.

I have. Cause and effect. The universe exists and is ordered; hence it has an intelligent cause.

 

[randman]

Cause does not imply design, rocks fall off mountains and crush things, that does not imply design.

The principles involved such as gravity, chemistry, physics, etc,....all do indicate design. The issue is not whether there is a Designer. That's abundantly evident.

The issue is how the Designer acts, acted or continues to act, or not.

 

[randman]

Oh my, magic fairy dust, science is a form a naturalism, it makes no assertion of materialism.

But please spin some fairy tale for us of dualism and undetectable events having an influence.
Science does not rule out immaterial events, it just says "show your work".

Define natural.

Is math natural, for example?

 

[randman]

You know that is a rather poor debate tactic, you can make your argument better than that. try actual citations and reasoning, that way it will look less like the "I already said that, but I can't tell you where, why or how"

try actually using citations.

Already cited it and provided the link.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I have. Cause and effect. The universe exists and is ordered; hence it has an intelligent cause.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

 

[Wowbagger]

I have. Cause and effect. The universe exists and is ordered; hence it has an intelligent cause.

Cause and effect. The universe exists and is ordered; hence it has a universal Law of Functionality, (without a Designer).

Every argument you make is equally valid evidence for support of LOF. In fact, LOF is the better theory, because it predicts that hunting for the Designer will always be a waste of time.

 

[Dancing David]

I have. Cause and effect. The universe exists and is ordered; hence it has an intelligent cause.

Nope, you have not shown the the universe has evidence of an order which would demonstrate an intelligent cause. It could be a pile of rocks crashing down a mountain...

 

[Wowbagger]

(I thought I posted this response earlier. But, I don't see it. Let me know if a rouge copy pops up somewhere.)

Ahem -.-

Molecular Biologists made these discoveries (probably) they're actually not always twin disciplines (Mol. Bio. and Evolutionary Biology), even if they use the ToE.

I stand corrected on who made the discoveries.

But, they used some aspects of the ToE to do it, and they certainly did not use ID at all. And, that's the more important point.