8 ms·

I've been trying to sit this one out, but I've got to be blunt with YOU: how can anyone with a "sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science" draw the

I've been trying to sit this one out, but I've got to be blunt with YOU: how can anyone with a "sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science" draw the conclusion that evolution works?! Simply put, the scientific process is supposed to be: observe -> hypothesize -> test -> revise. If life is supposed to have arisen by purely natural processes, then the information-building, error-checking and correcting code system that is our DNA must have somehow constructed itself. I am not aware of any experiments following the scientific process that have demonstrated that such a thing is even remotely possible. Instead you have a bunch of "just so" stories about the distant past that are untestable ancient history that we are supposed to believe because we are told to do so by "people who are smarter than you". Smacks more of religion than "science" to me. And don't tell me about any experiments that demonstrate rapid speciation as evidence of evolution - that is NOT the same thing and is an equivocation I see proponents of evolution use all the time. They are instead examples of genetic isolation and information LOSS and are incapable of generating more complex, "higher" organisms. It is for this reason that some scientists have adopted the idea of intelligent design: information can only be created by an intelligent designer. I would expect a forum populated by people who write code to see that. I think that the idea of even a simple computer being able to construct AND program itself would be preposterous to most people here. And yet that is what the GTE proposes. Perhaps that points too much in the direction of a god for some people to accept, but the evidence seems to be clearly on the side of ID, IF you are truly following a "scientific" process.

iterationx 12y ago
An organism made out of 100 trillion machines? "Science" says it happened by accident. Not much point in arguing though. I'll just leave people with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE
t__r 12y ago
Evidence is not on the side of ID. ID is not a scientific theory. It cannot be confirmed or falsified. It does not explain anything. Its premise is flawed (I don't know how X happened therefore Y must be true). Believe in ID if you want but don't confuse it with science.
harshreality 12y ago
Indirect evidence, at least beyond the step of abiogensis, is overwhelming. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ There are probably no documented examples of macroevolution that would satisfy you because what you're looking for are systemic functional changes in non-microscopic species, in the wild, which then forms a stable population as a separate species. Such changes are the accumulation of minor changes (which have been observed), but are not observable in aggregate in modern times because there has not been enough time to observe them. And if such examples were given, you'd say that's just a variation of an existing species. The perspective required to judge a separate species in your view is longer than the time phylogeny has been rigorously undertaken by scientists. You are asking for the impossible and using that to declare a theory you don't like as invalid. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html The GTE as you call it is not a finished theory. There have been significant changes in the past few decades (Lynn Margulis's work on endosymbiosis, for example), and there will be more changes in the future. Intelligent Design is not based on evidence. It is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a quasi-theory-of-the-gaps based on the assumption that the progress of evolution is too small and too slow to have resulted in humans. It ignores the mountains of indirect evidence pointing to macroevolution. ID rejects the theory of evolution on the grounds that there is too little direct evidence, or that the probability (not that anyone can calculate it properly, but Creationists pretend they can) of evolution is too low, and posits an alternate "theory" of a designer, for which there is no evidence, nothing that allows calculating a probability of such a designer, and which completely ignores where the designer came from, typically by punting and declaring the designer God, and stating that God exists inherently, which is riddled with assumptions, and regardless of whether it's true says nothing about the nature of that God or what it might want or do.
- HillOBeans 12y ago
  The changes you refer to are examples of the equivocation I was speaking of. One cannot simply point to "changes" in an organism, micro- or not, call that evolution, and then say it must be true. And just because there are similarities evident in different types of organisms, it does not necessarily follow that they are of common descent. If they were designed by the same designer, would you not expect to find some features in common? But this does not mean there is a natural mechanism to turn molecules into a genetic code that can in turn be read by a a decoding system (after all, what good is a code without the decoder?) which can then construct an organism. Even the simplest of organisms must have intricate, complex machinery inside for it to exist. I know of no method whereby this machinery can come into existence without intelligent direction. And even this simplest of organisms has no means of improving upon itself to create a "higher" organism. You say that the accumulation of minor changes (via mutations, perhaps?) is the mechanism whereby evolution works. I posit to you that such changes are examples of broken genetics whereby information is LOST, not gained, and are incapable of building a higher organism. See works such as Michael Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" for a more in-depth look at such changes. To use your turn of phrase: Evolution is not based on evidence. It is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a quasi-theory-of-the-gaps based on the assumption that there is no higher intelligence that created anything, and all we see HAS to be the result of natural processes. It ignores the mountains of indirect evidence pointing to design. My point is: we see cars, computers, planes, etc. around us all the time, but we would never dream of suggesting that they are the result of natural processes. They are the obvious result of SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY, which requires some intelligence for its existence. The more we learn about the inner workings of cells, even at the molecular level, the more obvious it is that we are dealing with a SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY.
PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago
Well said, HillObeans. I would like to ask permission to quote you in my forthcoming book, Darwin's Knickers (or maybe I'll call it, Knickers to Darwin - I haven't really decided yet [see one of my earlier posts on this deliberation]). I could really learn from you. I have a lot of respect for ID people, as well as for creationists. At least they have taken the trouble to learn and understand the science they're commenting on. Unlike most others.

iterationx 12y ago

An organism made out of 100 trillion machines? "Science" says it happened by accident. Not much point in arguing though. I'll just leave people with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE

t__r 12y ago

Evidence is not on the side of ID. ID is not a scientific theory. It cannot be confirmed or falsified. It does not explain anything. Its premise is flawed (I don't know how X happened therefore Y must be true). Believe in ID if you want but don't confuse it with science.

harshreality 12y ago

Indirect evidence, at least beyond the step of abiogensis, is overwhelming. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ There are probably no documented examples of macroevolution that would satisfy you because what you're looking for are systemic functional changes in non-microscopic species, in the wild, which then forms a stable population as a separate species. Such changes are the accumulation of minor changes (which have been observed), but are not observable in aggregate in modern times because there has not been enough time to observe them. And if such examples were given, you'd say that's just a variation of an existing species. The perspective required to judge a separate species in your view is longer than the time phylogeny has been rigorously undertaken by scientists. You are asking for the impossible and using that to declare a theory you don't like as invalid. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html The GTE as you call it is not a finished theory. There have been significant changes in the past few decades (Lynn Margulis's work on endosymbiosis, for example), and there will be more changes in the future. Intelligent Design is not based on evidence. It is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a quasi-theory-of-the-gaps based on the assumption that the progress of evolution is too small and too slow to have resulted in humans. It ignores the mountains of indirect evidence pointing to macroevolution. ID rejects the theory of evolution on the grounds that there is too little direct evidence, or that the probability (not that anyone can calculate it properly, but Creationists pretend they can) of evolution is too low, and posits an alternate "theory" of a designer, for which there is no evidence, nothing that allows calculating a probability of such a designer, and which completely ignores where the designer came from, typically by punting and declaring the designer God, and stating that God exists inherently, which is riddled with assumptions, and regardless of whether it's true says nothing about the nature of that God or what it might want or do.

HillOBeans 12y ago
The changes you refer to are examples of the equivocation I was speaking of. One cannot simply point to "changes" in an organism, micro- or not, call that evolution, and then say it must be true. And just because there are similarities evident in different types of organisms, it does not necessarily follow that they are of common descent. If they were designed by the same designer, would you not expect to find some features in common? But this does not mean there is a natural mechanism to turn molecules into a genetic code that can in turn be read by a a decoding system (after all, what good is a code without the decoder?) which can then construct an organism. Even the simplest of organisms must have intricate, complex machinery inside for it to exist. I know of no method whereby this machinery can come into existence without intelligent direction. And even this simplest of organisms has no means of improving upon itself to create a "higher" organism. You say that the accumulation of minor changes (via mutations, perhaps?) is the mechanism whereby evolution works. I posit to you that such changes are examples of broken genetics whereby information is LOST, not gained, and are incapable of building a higher organism. See works such as Michael Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" for a more in-depth look at such changes. To use your turn of phrase: Evolution is not based on evidence. It is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a quasi-theory-of-the-gaps based on the assumption that there is no higher intelligence that created anything, and all we see HAS to be the result of natural processes. It ignores the mountains of indirect evidence pointing to design. My point is: we see cars, computers, planes, etc. around us all the time, but we would never dream of suggesting that they are the result of natural processes. They are the obvious result of SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY, which requires some intelligence for its existence. The more we learn about the inner workings of cells, even at the molecular level, the more obvious it is that we are dealing with a SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY.

PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago

Well said, HillObeans. I would like to ask permission to quote you in my forthcoming book, Darwin's Knickers (or maybe I'll call it, Knickers to Darwin - I haven't really decided yet [see one of my earlier posts on this deliberation]). I could really learn from you. I have a lot of respect for ID people, as well as for creationists. At least they have taken the trouble to learn and understand the science they're commenting on. Unlike most others.