Why is ID so successful?

[Iacchus]

The second issue is Iacchus's understanding of statistics. Whether or not something is in principle unknowable a priori is irrelevant to Iacchus, because all his probability measurements are made a posteriori. For Iacchus, there is no probability but p = 1.00. Every event has the same probability, since every event is pre-ordained. (I could be wrong about this one, too, but Iacchus is pretty predictable, and I do not think so. I have offered him the opportunity to prove me wrong many times, though, and do so once more...)

What is certain here is that the future (a potential "event") proceeds from all those "preceding" events which happened prior to it, and that is most definitely predictable. So in that sense the outcome is not important, so long as there "is" an outcome ... which is the "reality" we see before us.

 

[Mercutio]

What is certain here is that the future (a potential "event") proceeds from all those "preceding" events which happened prior to it, and that is most definitely predictable. So in that sense the outcome is not important, so long as there "is" an outcome ... which is the "reality" we see before us.

Let me try another tack...

Do you, Iacchus, think that it is even in principle (thus, not bound by mere technological problems) for us to measure anything (even events which have already happened) exactly? Is it (even theoretically) possible for us (or anyone) to know the "preceding events" perfectly, in order to predict a future event?

 

[cyborg]

If everything I believe in is false, and I pose no threat,

It's false but that doesn't mean you pose no threat. Your religion is a threat to me and every other freethinker because it despises us. Christianity will settle for nothing less than total domination.

why does it effect you in a way that you have to be rude and hostile to me. Was I that way to you?

Hostile? Rude? Not really, just spirited - you're reading way too much into what I wrote if you think I've got anything against you personally - you are just another random Internet Christian to me after all. I only know you in so much as to where on the scale I can place your beliefs.

 

[pjh]

Does anyone have a description of ID as a theory as opposed to a description of how evolution is wrong?

It appears that ID thrives as the theory that dare not state itself and exists only in a series of badly thought out attacks on evolution.

So if you take Dawkin's 'An ancestors tale' as a reasonable explanation of how species evolved is there an equivalent work that sets out an ID explanation? What exactly would be taught in a ID science class?

 

[CplFerro]

Does anyone have a description of ID as a theory as opposed to a description of how evolution is wrong?

It appears that ID thrives as the theory that dare not state itself and exists only in a series of badly thought out attacks on evolution.

So if you take Dawkin's 'An ancestors tale' as a reasonable explanation of how species evolved is there an equivalent work that sets out an ID explanation? What exactly would be taught in a ID science class?

In emails, I've challenged ID proponents to produce a counter-theory, and they couldn't, because there is none.

All an ID science class would consist of would be a series of displays of natural wonders, with an explanation that each of them is really really complex and ergo either God or aliens must have created them ex nihilo.

As I mentioned earlier, creationism does a fine job at showing how pathetic the specific proposals for evolutionary mechanisms are. Just check out www.creationsafaris.com to read endless exposures of Darwinians' new clothes. But that just makes creationism scientific /criticism/, not science per se.

Creationism is Darwin's devil's advocate - and the devil doesn't create, he just tears down.

 

[ceo_esq]

It's false but that doesn't mean you pose no threat. Your religion is a threat to me and every other freethinker because it despises us. Christianity will settle for nothing less than total domination.

This freethinker is dubious. On what do you base this threat perception?

Originally posted by CplFerro
Creationism is Darwin's devil's advocate - and the devil doesn't create, he just tears down.

Good point. On the other hand, at least in the English-speaking world, we are accustomed to adversarial processes of truth-seeking (viz. our political and justice systems). There is a broad perception that such processes are of great potential utility for refining reasoning and argumentation, testing evidence, and ascertaining facts. Is our understanding of evolution arguably the better for the existence of "scientific" creationism?


(edited to fix quote attribution)

 

[CplFerro]

Is our understanding of evolution arguably the better for the existence of "scientific" creationism?

Yes, to the degree that such criticism jogs our minds into realising how inadequate radical reductionism is. As I wrote earlier, both creationism and modern Darwinism are both ultimately Aristotelian, they're both stuck in the empiricist, radical reductionist view of existence. That's why Darwinism can't come up with a sound specific mechanism of evolution, or of the origin of life, and that's also why creationism can't come up with any alternative.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

CplFerro said:
That's why Darwinism can't come up with a sound specific mechanism of evolution, ...

Whatever are you talking about?

~~ Paul

 

[CplFerro]

Whatever are you talking about?

~~ Paul

What specific principle has been proven to allow fish to turn into frogs? Induction based on observations of microevolution doesn't count.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why doesn't induction count? Is there a cellular mechanism that prevents the accumulation of changes past a certain point? The induction is supported by the fossil record. It is also supported by DNA analysis.

Are you sure you're not demanding actually to see a fish turn into a frog?

~~ Paul

 

[jjramsey]

On the other hand, at least in the English-speaking world, we are accustomed to adversarial processes of truth-seeking (viz. our political and justice systems). There is a broad perception that such processes are of great potential utility for refining reasoning and argumentation, testing evidence, and ascertaining facts. Is our understanding of evolution arguably the better for the existence of "scientific" creationism?

If so-called scientific creationism merely pointed out flaws and gaps, it would be a decent devil's advocate. The trouble with scientific creationism, however, is that it doesn't just pick nits, but rather distorts and obfuscates. This is more dangerous.

 

[CplFerro]

Why doesn't induction count? Is there a cellular mechanism that prevents the accumulation of changes past a certain point? The induction is supported by the fossil record. It is also supported by DNA analysis.

Are you sure you're not demanding actually to see a fish turn into a frog?

~~ Paul

On your first two questions: Observations of the artificial mutation of thousands of fruit fly generations has never shown transformation into a different species. Mutations as such merely reconfigure the information already present, not generate new information allowing for radically new, holistically functioning forms, such as fish to frog. The mutations seen are simply deformities.

Yes to your third question. Any principle's effects should be replicable. Once the principle of macroevolution is discovered we should be able to demonstrate it using successive generations of small organisms, like fruit flies, or bacteria. That is the only conclusive proof-of-principle experiment I can imagine.

 

[cyborg]

This freethinker is dubious. On what do you base this threat perception?

Anecdotally: the comments of well-meaning Christians who believe sincerely that I will go to hell and that I must be converted to save my soul.

More importantly: the Pope talking about fighting rising seccularism in Europe.

Even more importantly: the rising American fundamentalism that this thread is talking about that leads to such nonsense as ID being proposed for classrooms.

Do you not consider such things threats to freethought?

 

[Mercutio]

Yes to your third question. Any principle's effects should be replicable. Once the principle of macroevolution is discovered we should be able to demonstrate it using successive generations of small organisms, like fruit flies, or bacteria. That is the only conclusive proof-of-principle experiment I can imagine.

Re:replication--given that the same environmental selection pressure may be dealt with in very different ways (more than one way to skin a cat, or crack a nut, or out-reproduce your competitors, after all), and that we cannot guarantee which random mutation (cuz it's random, see) might occur to be selected, your criterion of replication might be a bit difficult. Frankly, if you are not convinced by the fossil and DNA evidence at this point, I begin to wonder if a demand for replication is not simply a movable goalpost.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by CplFerro
Observations of the artificial mutation of thousands of fruit fly generations has never shown transformation into a different species.

First, have a look at the examples of observed speciation listed in the talkorigins FAQ . This sample might be of particular interest:

---------------------------
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
---------------------------

Then maybe you can clarify whether you feel that the determination as to whether a 'transformation into a different species' has occurred should be made using the biological species concept, the morphological species concept, or perhaps even the folk species concept.

 

[hammegk]

...I begin to wonder if a demand for replication is not simply a movable goalpost.

Assuming the answer to be 'yes', it would then mirror the unresolved problem of an actual scientific definition of "species".

 

[CplFerro]

The fruit fly example posted by Dymanic is notable, but doesn't convince me. All they've done is created mules. The fruit flies still remain fruit flies, and have not become worms, or beetles, or dragonflies. Whatever the level of classification /that/ refers to, is the transformation that would convince me. Take those mutually sterile fruit flies and keep going, until you've got a fly that bites horses instead of nectarines.

Turn something into something radically different. The exact different thing doesn't have to conform to chance historical results, but it has to exhibit the same magnitude of change. It's really not a hard thing to imagine. Give me something that normally breathes air, that was scientifically selected to breathe water, or vice versa. Give me something that didn't have wings by nature, but was selected to grow and be able to use functional wings. Transform scales into feathers, or eyespots into usable eyes, and so forth.

 

[Iacchus]

Let me try another tack...

Do you, Iacchus, think that it is even in principle (thus, not bound by mere technological problems) for us to measure anything (even events which have already happened) exactly? Is it (even theoretically) possible for us (or anyone) to know the "preceding events" perfectly, in order to predict a future event?

No, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to speculate on the nature of "this reality" which seems to cohere from one moment to the next. This in fact is why we claim things are relative, because we can merely speculate on the matter. Which doesn't preclude us from saying reality doesn't exist as an absolute, however. Indeed, how could the Universe cohere, if that coherence wasn't absolute?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by CplFerro
It's really not a hard thing to imagine. Give me something that normally breathes air, that was scientifically selected to breathe water, or vice versa. Give me something that didn't have wings by nature, but was selected to grow and be able to use functional wings. Transform scales into feathers, or eyespots into usable eyes, and so forth.

So I take it that you part with the majority of biologists in rejecting the biological species concept, and it looks like you are trying to decide between the morphological and the folk definitions. Do you think the issue turns on such matters as whether the front appendage of the walrus should properly be considered a fin or a leg?

 

[Iacchus]

The fruit fly example posted by Dymanic is notable, but doesn't convince me. All they've done is created mules. The fruit flies still remain fruit flies, and have not become worms, or beetles, or dragonflies. Whatever the level of classification /that/ refers to, is the transformation that would convince me. Take those mutually sterile fruit flies and keep going, until you've got a fly that bites horses instead of nectarines.

Yes, but don't all lifeforms share the same basic DNA structure? Which in effect says they all share a common ancestor?