Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Fast Eddie B]

Can this be formulated in a way so that it is not just an argument from personal incredulity?

Well, I think the attempt is made to show the improbability of certain biological systems arising, where each system is dependent on other systems already in place. I think it fails, but a case is made which is not, on its face, either fallacious or spurious.

The book is worth a read. Its level is far above the typical Hovind/Comfort silliness.

As far as I know, all examples that ID'ers have proposed as being of irreducible complexity have been shown to be quite reducible, and this does not bode well for this as a valid scientific argument.

Agreed.

 

[Wowbagger]

Well, I think the attempt is made to show the improbability of certain biological systems arising, where each system is dependent on other systems already in place. I think it fails, but a case is made which is not, on its face, either fallacious or spurious.

If you leave off the last chapter or so, I can also see how one might feel this way. Even though the arguments are factually wrong, they still sound intelligent to someone who doesn't know any better.

The problem is that, by the end of the book, Behe has to point out that all of his arguments rely on watering down science, to include ontological philosophical notions. By doing so, he renders all of his own arguments as foundationally fallacious and scientifically spurious.

Behe's ideas are incapable of ending with the sense of insight and innovation that a good science book would tend to bring out.

 

[Dinwar]

...having read "Darwin's Black Box"*, I do appreciate that a scientific, secular argument can be made for "irreducible complexity".

I disagree. A secular argument can be made, but not a scientific one. A scientific argument must take into account the known data--it doesn't have to agree, but it has to deal with the known data. And irreducible complexity simply fails to do this. There are many methods by which an organism can evolve irreducibly complex systems--double-crossovers, having support systems which have since disapeared, pure random chance, etc ("bridging" is a major problem in well installation, and consists of grains of sand poured from the top of a well forming arches, the epitome of an irreducibly compelx structure).

This is why I say that ID needs to provide at least a hypothetical designer before it can be taken seriously: unless they provide some mechanism (which would require a designer), they can't argue against evolutionary arguments. They're stuck at the level of "Gee, that looks really unlikely! It MUST be designed!"

 

[Fast Eddie B]

We're on the same side.

Proof:

And if that's not enough, Charles Darwin protects my books from his Fokker Tri-Plane:

 

[dogjones]

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.

Is it an intelligent cause or not? Does it have principles and order?

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. Every conspiracy theory in the world could be true and not hold a candle to this concept in terms of believability. By that, I mean almost anything else, no matter how fantastical, could be true, and yet wouldn't support this idea that the universe stemmed from nothing at all and has no intelligent cause.

This always amuses me. You say that the natural world itself must have a cause, and you think that this is a conclusion based on the observation that “all things within the natural world are subject to the principle of cause and effect”. For this to work, the natural world itself must be within the natural world; ie, it must be subject to the same laws as the things within it. So in this sense, it is subject to itself, and if you are comfortable with this level of self-reference, then I don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t be comfortable with the idea that it ‘caused’ itself.

But in any case, let’s go with it and say that ok, the natural world itself does need a cause. You say that the cause must be God. But if God caused the natural world, this implies that He himself is subsumed under the explanatory power of cause and effect, which would mean that, as well as being part of the natural world, he needs to have a cause himself. I regress to tell you that this presents the problem of when the buck stops with causality – it could just as easily stop with “the natural world” as “God” or “God’s cause” or “God’s cause’s cause”, etc. Your glib answer is that God is not caused. But if God is not caused, then he is not subsumed under the explanatory power of the principle of cause and effect, in which case the statement “God caused the natural world” is not, in fact, a conclusion based on an observation of the principle of cause and effect, but merely a faith statement, and a rather ad hoc one at that.

Seeya

 

[Dinwar]

We're on the same side.

I got that--sorry if I wasn't clear. I was merely objecting to the idea that ID can be scientific without presenting a designer. We both agree it's wrong, and I'm sure we agree on most reasons. I just disagree with you on this one. Doesn't matter as far as the validity of ID is concerned--if it's wrong for 976 or 977 reasons, it's still wrong.

Also, I have that exact same version of Carl Zimmer's "Evolution".

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Also, I have that exact same version of Carl Zimmer's "Evolution".

Does this mean we're both evos?

Six munths aggo i cudnt evin spel evo, now i ar one?

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

This always amuses me. You say that the natural world itself must have a cause, and you think that this is a conclusion based on the observation that “all things within the natural world are subject to the principle of cause and effect”. For this to work, the natural world itself must be within the natural world; ie, it must be subject to the same laws as the things within it. So in this sense, it is subject to itself, and if you are comfortable with this level of self-reference, then I don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t be comfortable with the idea that it ‘caused’ itself.

But in any case, let’s go with it and say that ok, the natural world itself does need a cause. You say that the cause must be God. But if God caused the natural world, this implies that He himself is subsumed under the explanatory power of cause and effect, which would mean that, as well as being part of the natural world, he needs to have a cause himself. I regress to tell you that this presents the problem of when the buck stops with causality – it could just as easily stop with “the natural world” as “God” or “God’s cause” or “God’s cause’s cause”, etc. Your glib answer is that God is not caused. But if God is not caused, then he is not subsumed under the explanatory power of the principle of cause and effect, in which case the statement “God caused the natural world” is not, in fact, a conclusion based on an observation of the principle of cause and effect, but merely a faith statement, and a rather ad hoc one at that.

Seeya

Nicely put, sir. I had meant the same thing a few pages ago when I suggested that randman had trotted out the Barber's Paradox, but I'm a lot lazier than you.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Show me an atheist IDer.

Purely in the interest of dispassionate reason, there is a possible ID Intelligent Agent which would fit the requirements without invoking a deity.

So long as ID confines itself to examining biological systems (of which we only know one - the earth's), there is a possible non-evolutionary, non-religious explanation for all we see.

Aliens.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Of course, accepting such an explanation invites bitter arguments about whether their tentacles are green or purple.

 

[Dinwar]

So long as ID confines itself to examining biological systems (of which we only know one - the earth's), there is a possible non-evolutionary, non-religious explanation for all we see.

Aliens.

Still don't buy it. I can see aliens starting events, and maybe hitting us with a few rocks over time--but for alien-design to be true we'd have to be dealing with aliens that never left any trash that we could discover (including chemical traces), who operated for millions of years, and who only acted in the most subtle manner imaginable. That, or Slartibartfast (ie, someone built the Earth to look exactly like it would if evolution was true).

ETA: I should add that even if alien did start life on Earth, it doesn't negate the idea of evolution. We could have evolved from those early designed bugs. Prof. Farsworth's trylobots were the product of evolution, even if his original nanobots were designed.

Does this mean we're both evos?

Six munths aggo i cudnt evin spel evo, now i ar one?

U r 1 of us!

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Still don't buy it. I can see aliens starting events, and maybe hitting us with a few rocks over time--but for alien-design to be true we'd have to be dealing with aliens that never left any trash that we could discover (including chemical traces), who operated for millions of years, and who only acted in the most subtle manner imaginable. That, or Slartibartfast (ie, someone built the Earth to look exactly like it would if evolution was true).

Dinwar, do I read you correctly?

Are you truly (as it seems) rejecting an argument on the grounds of incredulity? That you cannot imagine such a thing?

 

[Dinwar]

Not at all. I'm rejecting it based on the complete lack of evidence. In order to conclude that aliens designed life, there'd have to be some proof of aliens with sufficiently advanced technology to design and plant life here--some artifacts, or some landing site. And life should quite suddenly appear--it shouldn't gradually arises, in various directly related incarnations, throughout the fossil record. The only way around the complete lack of physical data and the tonnes of physical data contradicting the idea is to assume 1) aliens planted the original seeds of life (LUCA or thereabouts), after which we evolved (so it doesn't actually matter--evolution is still true), or 2) some alien constructed the world as we see it now, with the specific intent to fool us into believing evolution is true (which should still leave evidence behind--namely the construction facility). The only option that rules out evolution is #2, which lacks any semblance of support. I'll admit, if I saw Magarathia and spoke to Slartibartfast I'd conclude that yes, we were designed. But without that supporting data, this is no different than "What if God made the world five minutes ago, and you only THINK you remember your past?"

 

[Lowpro]

Rejecting a conclusion is not rejecting a hypothesis.

Oh and Dinwar:

http://www.myvidster.com/video/316851/Futurama_-_Evolution_Debate_

"We will not give into the thinkers!"

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Not at all. I'm rejecting it based on the complete lack of evidence. In order to conclude that aliens designed life, there'd have to be some proof of aliens with sufficiently advanced technology to design and plant life here--some artifacts, or some landing site. And life should quite suddenly appear--it shouldn't gradually arises, in various directly related incarnations, throughout the fossil record. The only way around the complete lack of physical data and the tonnes of physical data contradicting the idea is to assume 1) aliens planted the original seeds of life (LUCA or thereabouts), after which we evolved (so it doesn't actually matter--evolution is still true), or 2) some alien constructed the world as we see it now, with the specific intent to fool us into believing evolution is true (which should still leave evidence behind--namely the construction facility). The only option that rules out evolution is #2, which lacks any semblance of support.

If you recall, I never suggested that "Aliens did it" is true. I suggested that "Aliens did it" would fulfilll the ID claim of an Intelligent Designer without invoking a deity.

As for the rest, all you have done is to establish that no evidence has been discovered to confirm or disprove. Extraterrestial visitors might quite reasonably be claimed to operate from orbit, and I really have to ask: what would an alien landing site look like? Are you sure? What technology do you suppose an interstellar civilization might have developed? At the very least, they would presumably take pains to avoid accidental contamination of our Petri dish, I mean planet. And as for aliens trying to fool us, that is hardly a requirement. They might simply have been trying to leave the environment as pristine as possible. And please, arguing about alien psychology and motives is worse than pointless. It ignores that fact that (assuming such aliens exist) the thing about them is that they are, you know, aliens.

I did not quote Clarke's Law lightly.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Inadvertant duplicate post.

Again!

 

[Krikkiter]

If you recall, I never suggested that "Aliens did it" is true. I suggested that "Aliens did it" would fulfilll the ID claim of an Intelligent Designer without invoking a deity.

As for the rest, all you have done is to establish that no evidence has been discovered to confirm or disprove. Extraterrestial visitors might quite reasonably be claimed to operate from orbit, and I really have to ask: what would an alien landing site look like? Are you sure? What technology do you suppose an interstellar civilization might have developed? At the very least, they would presumably take pains to avoid accidental contamination of our Petri dish, I mean planet. And as for aliens trying to fool us, that is hardly a requirement. They might simply have been trying to leave the environment as pristine as possible. And please, arguing about alien psychology and motives is worse than pointless. It ignores that fact that (assuming such aliens exist) the thing about them is that they are, you know, aliens.

I did not quote Clarke's Law lightly.

Though the default position would, at this point in time be, "aliens didn't do it" because there's absolutely no evidence that they even exist... at all... in any form - intelligent or otherwise. Let alone that they have had contact with us or that they've done anything that would effect us (eta: or that they've had any contact with or effect on any life on the planet at any time).

 

[Dancing David]

Not at all. I'm rejecting it based on the complete lack of evidence. In order to conclude that aliens designed life, there'd have to be some proof of aliens with sufficiently advanced technology to design and plant life here--some artifacts, or some landing site. And life should quite suddenly appear--it shouldn't gradually arises, in various directly related incarnations, throughout the fossil record.

There was a poster Von Neumann who was enamored of the idea that some how aliens seeded life into our universe, I warn you this is strong stuff!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79256

 

[Dinwar]

If you recall, I never suggested that "Aliens did it" is true. I suggested that "Aliens did it" would fulfilll the ID claim of an Intelligent Designer without invoking a deity.

Yeah, I got that. I'm just saying that the data supports it about as well as the data support the notion of a deity.

I guess the confusion may stem from the assumption that I reject ID because it invokes a deity. That's not the case--I reject it because the data do not support it. If the data supported the existence of some supreme entity that fit the definition of God/a god, I'd conclude that there was such a being. I've got no problem with the religious nature of Creationism--I have a problem with the fact that it's not true.

As for the rest, all you have done is to establish that no evidence has been discovered to confirm or disprove. Extraterrestial visitors might quite reasonably be claimed to operate from orbit, and I really have to ask: what would an alien landing site look like? Are you sure? What technology do you suppose an interstellar civilization might have developed? At the very least, they would presumably take pains to avoid accidental contamination of our Petri dish, I mean planet. And as for aliens trying to fool us, that is hardly a requirement. They might simply have been trying to leave the environment as pristine as possible. And please, arguing about alien psychology and motives is worse than pointless. It ignores that fact that (assuming such aliens exist) the thing about them is that they are, you know, aliens.

And this is the other reason. An argument without ANY data to support it is not neither proven nor disproven; it's irrelevant. It's not even worthy of consideration. It's a farce to even consider such a notion. Farces can be a lot of fun, and I've spent a lot of nights considering even crazier notions, but until you have data you CANNOT pretend that the idea has merit. The whole point of science is that to be considered, an idea has to have at least SOME support. To postulate aliens who make the most observant environmentalist look like slobs and who's mechinations are indistinguishable from random evolution is nothing more than the same tired old theological arguments that we've been dealing with since Abulard's time.

 

[Lowpro]

Well allow me to postulate an idea then Dinwar.

All life is composed of (relatively) the same organic substances.

Humans are of these substances, and have learned to manipulate an organism's genetics in artificial selection (a broad term covering more than just pedigree).

Humans are also capable of leaving their planet, though have yet to master travel to another planet, but that may just be a factor of time; there is nothing that doesn't allow us to NOT move around in space (other than our very small lifetime versus space's enormous expanse)

All it takes is for humans to leave their planet and deliver life to other planets.

There is nothing to can prevent this as far as physics breaking (Though breaking physics admittedly may make the efforts much easier)

Why would aliens be limited then? For the moment it's a hypothesis, not a conclusion. Science can test this hypothesis against known data, but what data are you aware of that makes it untenable?

 

[Dinwar]

Why would aliens be limited then?

Who said they were? What I'm saying is that until you have data, the idea that aliens deposited life on Earth, or manipulated it so as to be indistinguishable from random evolution, has no more support than there is for a god, or there is for the celestial teapot. It's nothing more than conspiracy-theory thinking--finding a way to make the facts fit your pet idea.

Science can test this hypothesis against known data, but what data are you aware of that makes it untenable?

I think I dealt with that already...

The only option that rules out evolution is #2, which lacks any semblance of support. I'll admit, if I saw Magarathia and spoke to Slartibartfast I'd conclude that yes, we were designed. But without that supporting data, this is no different than "What if God made the world five minutes ago, and you only THINK you remember your past?"

Yup. There it is. I've already said that if someone shows me the data to support such a notion I'd agree. The reason I reject the idea thus far is that there's nothing to support it. The default position cannot be "agree with everything that isn't contradicted by data"--you'd agree with all manner of crazy ideas. The default setting inherent in science is "Unless the idea is supported by data, it is rejected".