Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Foundations of ID
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 181 of 213 (207695)
05-13-2005 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-30-2005 1:46 AM


quote:
This greatly frustrated Eldredge and Gould who would just openly admit that there is not a shred of evidence in the fossil record to support the gradual evolution proposed by Darwin. Instead, we find in the record long periods of stasis interupted by bursts of sudden speciation as in the Cambrian explosion. So, again, with not a shred of evidence, one mathematical formula or a single lab experiment, they invented punctuated equilibrium as their new "theory."
No evidence?
What do you think that the pattern in the fossil record you just mentioned is?
Gould writes:
link to full test of essay.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record?geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)?reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species?more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Also, why do you assert that there has to be mathematics or lab experiments for a historical, inferred science to be valid?
Are there lots of equations in Archaeology, for example, and if there are not, then does that mean that Archaeology is not valid science?
Gould again:
The second and third arguments for evolution?the case for major changes?do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-30-2005 1:46 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 182 of 213 (207704)
05-13-2005 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Limbo
05-01-2005 10:32 AM


quote:
Pulling secular humanistic religion out of science needs to be done
NO!!!
That will NEVER HAPPEN!
I'm going to write a letter to ALL of my fellow members of the Church of the Secular Scientist to rally the many millions of us to oppose this blasphemy!
Better yet, when we all convene this year at the National Synod of the Church of the Secular Scientist held in Virginia near the National Science Foundation, our holiest of holy sites, I will alert the rest of the faithful to the threat you pose to us.
We will also attend workshops such as: "Reading Published Literature in a Pure and Moral way", "How to Write a Grant Proposal in Today's Sex, Drugs, and Roc n Roll Culture and not Lose Your Way", and Statistical Analysis; Is it a Tool of Satan?".
We will not have our FAITH defiled and destroyed by you evildoers!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 10:32 AM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 213 (207709)
05-13-2005 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 9:54 AM


Re: the point
quote:
I suppose one could pick one of several billion speciations, each or at least most more complex than its predecessor species over a massive period of time. Isn't that poofs?
Modern horses have only one toe on the end of each limb, but their predicespors had multiple toes.
Modern horse legs are therefore less complex, because they have fewer toes, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:54 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 10:36 PM nator has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 213 (208248)
05-14-2005 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by nator
05-13-2005 9:25 AM


Re: the point
quote:
Also, why do you assert that there has to be mathematics or lab experiments for a historical, inferred science to be valid?
Ahhh.....Did you know that if you guys could come together admitting that this is a historical, inferred science and not a science based on empirical experimentation, much less something BEYOND a theory of science even to the level as to be FACTS of science setting Darwinism as above the other theories that your problems might dissipate? Many Darwinists (picture Eugenie Scott) simply do not tell the truth. The public is on to this and wouldn't trust her any further than they could throw her on ANYTHING in science.
quote:
Modern horses have only one toe on the end of each limb, but their predicespors had multiple toes.
Modern horse legs are therefore less complex, because they have fewer toes, right?
Not necessarily. It would depend on our approach.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 05-13-2005 9:25 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 10:46 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 189 by nator, posted 05-15-2005 7:57 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 190 by nator, posted 05-15-2005 8:01 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 213 (208250)
05-14-2005 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-14-2005 10:36 PM


Re: the point
quote:
It would depend on our approach.
Jerry, in the end is there anything specific to Darwinism and/or ID that DOESN'T depend on the particular approach scientists decide to take a priori?
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-14-2005 10:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 10:36 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-15-2005 3:12 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 213 (208288)
05-15-2005 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Limbo
05-14-2005 10:46 PM


Re: the point
quote:
Jerry, in the end is there anything specific to Darwinism and/or ID that DOESN'T depend on the particular approach scientists decide to take a priori?
I thought about that.
I think maybe that above it all IDists are in general agreement that naturalists do not take an honest approach to science. It's almost that they see things they want to see in science and draw unwarranted conclusions where a science purest would just never draw a conclusion at all.
One could even begin to question if there could be some religious motivation in that. I liked Ooooks very honest statement to me. I think he probably is a scientist as his words are fairly wise. He mentioned something and compared it as being: "Similar to the Atheist/Agnostic Agenda you get handed once you start researching evolutionary biology."
That is a right-on statement, but why is it that when one begins researching evolutionary biology they must agree to be fed an atheist/agnostic agenda? I feel this is because atheists and agnostics have taken over academia and we need look no further than the National Academy of Science to see why.
"When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism."
Page not found - American Atheists
The NAS is not representative of real people at all. 93% of them are atheists or agnostics.
There I think we find why they cannot look at science as science. They must use their science to push a religionist agenda.
ID wants science to be science again. No religion anywhere in it. Just science, and there may be the difference in our approach.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 10:46 PM Limbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by nator, posted 05-15-2005 8:08 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 196 by Ooook!, posted 05-16-2005 8:47 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 213 (208292)
05-15-2005 3:31 AM


Ok. Thank you for your posts! I am out of here people, as I think I have had made my case. If any of you care to take the discussion further, you can easily find me at my home page linked at the bottom of each of my posts.
To those readers who perhaps lean toward ID or are even neutral that have been following these posts closely, it is easy to see the bias on this forum and why I am not welcome, nor is anyone else who can actually argue the ID issue actually welcome here. (Follow Nitwit Ned's posts to me, lol)
Among my points:
1) ID has been directly tied into science. One example of this is the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood based on his conception it was designed and 'here is how I would have designed it, had I been the designer'. Scientists Robert Boyle and Newton used teleological technique similarly.
2) There is no such thing as an ID biology, ID chemistry or an ID physics. We study science just as anyone else does using the methodological naturalism inherent in the scientific method. It does not make anymore sense to ask to see scientific papers on ID than it does to demand to see scientific papers on dualism. There is no such thing as ID research because we research biology just as other biologists do.
3) I pointed out that most of the science we use today in the lab was brought to that lab by teleologists, many of them Christian creationists. These creationists consist of such notable scientists as Lord Kelvin, Faraday, Harvey, Boyle, Pasteur and Newton.
4) I have noted that ID has not a thing to do with "gods" and have shown this concept to go back at least 300 years before Christ to the great debates of ancient Greece. Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Diogenes, were just a few philosophers to see design in certain systems.
Socrates (who held no beliefs of a personal god as none of them did) once commented:
"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"
5) I introduced the work of Ludvig Boltzmann who formulated the formula S = K log W, where S is the entropy of a given system, K is Boltzmann’s constant, 1.38 x 10^-23, and W is the total number of possible microstates in a given system.
Although S here can certainly be used to quantify the states of energy, it can also be used to quantify the states of matter. In fact, this was what Boltzmann designed the formula to do. He was an atomist (rare in his day) and developed the formula to show the entropy of the arrangement of atoms (matter) in a gas. It would be Max Planck who would later tie this formula into energy.
6) A genome works at its "best" when it is new and right after initial design just as in the design of an automobile--this is when geneA translates ProteinA perfectly--consisting of the right amino acids in the right sequence where it will fold with the right conformational entropy to be a cause of the effects that govern the organism at its maximum efficiency.
Deleterious mutations encode for different proteins than the original gene and the genome deteriorates when this happens because the new translated protein may not be able to do what the old translated protein did. Since harmful mutations destroy useful information in the genome, mutational meltdown is sometimes the result of this. Thus, we can view this phenomenon as maximum information degrading to the point where information = 0.
7) I pointed out that Darwin's notion of macroevolution is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics in that: Mathematically, S represents entropy and 2LOT states as a tendency that spontaneous events yield S2 > S1. But Darwin was a science flunk-out and he was so silly as to assert that with spontaneous speciations the tendency is bass ackwards: S2 < S1.
8) I then detailed WHY Darwin was wrong and introduced a testable hypothesis unique to ID:
As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it.
In other words, since genes are loose information (information that is not "fixed" in a manner it cannot change as it diffuses, like a library book or video tape) we do not expect to see macroevolution via increasing information content due to random mutations in a population of organisms over time as Darwin asserted.
In fact, we would expect to see just the opposite: a devolving genome by the increase of harmful mutations and that species headed toward extinction as we have observed 98% of the species doing in the fossil record.
9) I then introduced a paper from Nature by evolutionary biologists Eyre-Walker and Keightley showing a study where the human genome has done exactly this over a period of about 6 million years. The genome has deteriorated at the rate of 1.6 accumulating deleterious mutation each generation.
10) I then introduced the mathematics to show this deterioration of the human genome in order to quantify it: I began by throwing out a formula from The University of New South Wales, physics department:
This states that W will equal a factorial relationship of the differences of what we are considering (accumulating deleteriously mutated genes as opposed to the rest of the genome) or W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! ~ (So let's just calculate our weight and then we can go to Boltzmann's math to calculate entropy.
W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7
Now we can do Boltzmann's math:
S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7)
S = 9.98 x 10^-23
There is more than one way to skin a cat, of course. I can stick joules and degrees Kelvin in Boltzmann's formula for the math purest, but most no longer do this.
This math shows the macroevolution inherent in Darwinism standing refuted both scientifically (the study) and mathematically because our final calculation shows increasing entropy in the human genome and therefore disorganization in that genome for the last 6 million years. There is no evidence it has been any different in the annals of human history.
11) Additionally, I discussed CSI (complex specified information and showed how to calculate it and introduced another tenet unique to ID:
Specified information is inversely proportional to the probability of an event occurring.
Once the specificity reaches 1 chance in 10^150, or 500 bits if expressed in information content, it is simply impossible that nature could have caused the event.
Finally, I introduced positive evidence of ID not one tenet of which was refuted. Now this forum can go right back to their intellectual discussions of ID without one IDist on here to actually refute anything. Cool. Catch you on the flip-flop! Jerry

Design Dynamics

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Limbo, posted 05-15-2005 3:51 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 193 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2005 10:34 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 194 by Admin, posted 05-15-2005 11:27 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 195 by mick, posted 05-15-2005 5:04 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 213 (208293)
05-15-2005 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-15-2005 3:31 AM


Take care Jerry
quote:
One could even begin to question if there could be some religious motivation in that. I liked Ooooks very honest statement to me. I think he probably is a scientist as his words are fairly wise. He mentioned something and compared it as being: "Similar to the Atheist/Agnostic Agenda you get handed once you start researching evolutionary biology."
Once the American people sift through the NAS and media spins and realize that the philosophically bankrupt approach mainstream science takes is forcing them down a long, dark road to a philosophical dead-end, things may change. One can only hope.
Thanks for the great posts Jerry!
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-15-2005 04:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-15-2005 3:31 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by nator, posted 05-15-2005 8:12 AM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 189 of 213 (208317)
05-15-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-14-2005 10:36 PM


Re: the point
quote:
Ahhh.....Did you know that if you guys could come together admitting that this is a historical, inferred science and not a science based on empirical experimentation,
Careful, I never said that Biology wasn't empirical.
It most certainly is emperical, and we can certainly do plenty of experiments.
Are there lots of equations in Archaeology, for example, and if there are not, then does that mean that Archaeology is not valid science?
quote:
much less something BEYOND a theory of science
Wha?
quote:
even to the level as to be FACTS of science
That evolution occurs is a fact.
The explanitory framework which describes the facts and ties them together is the Theory of Evolution. The minutae of exactly how evolution occurs is constantly under examination, revision and discussion by scientists, but no real scientist disputes that allele frequencies of populations change over time.
So, Evolution is both fact and theory.
quote:
setting Darwinism as above the other theories
Do you mean the Modern Synthesis, which combined Darwinism with genetics?
quote:
that your problems might dissipate?
Set above?
What problems?
quote:
Many Darwinists (picture Eugenie Scott) simply do not tell the truth.
How so?
Please be specific.
quote:
The public is on to this and wouldn't trust her any further than they could throw her on ANYTHING in science.
Why should I care what "the public" thinks about anything, considering "the public" is largely ignorant of science?
Modern horses have only one toe on the end of each limb, but their predicespors had multiple toes.
Modern horse legs are therefore less complex, because they have fewer toes, right?
quote:
Not necessarily. It would depend on our approach.
So, an organism can gain OR lose limbs and both outcomes could be considered more complex or less complex?
How does that make any sense?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-15-2005 07:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 10:36 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 190 of 213 (208318)
05-15-2005 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-14-2005 10:36 PM


Re: the point
I guess youmissed the first half of my reply to you, so I'll repost it here.
quote:
This greatly frustrated Eldredge and Gould who would just openly admit that there is not a shred of evidence in the fossil record to support the gradual evolution proposed by Darwin. Instead, we find in the record long periods of stasis interupted by bursts of sudden speciation as in the Cambrian explosion. So, again, with not a shred of evidence, one mathematical formula or a single lab experiment, they invented punctuated equilibrium as their new "theory.
No evidence?
What do you think that the pattern in the fossil record you just mentioned is?
Gould writes:
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record?geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)?reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species?more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
So, please support your claim that there is "no evidence" for PE, or withdraw it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 10:36 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 191 of 213 (208321)
05-15-2005 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-15-2005 3:12 AM


Re: the point
quote:
ID wants science to be science again. No religion anywhere in it. Just science, and there may be the difference in our approach.
Again?
When are you refering to?
When do you think "science was science", and when did science become religious?
Surely, this "creeping religosity" must have damaged inquiry and the progress of scientific knowledge, so could you please point out at what point on the timeline of science did this decline in productivity and advancement take place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-15-2005 3:12 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 192 of 213 (208322)
05-15-2005 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Limbo
05-15-2005 3:51 AM


Re: Take care Jerry
Limbo, maybe you can explain how scientific inquiry has been stifled and damaged and held back due to this encroaching religiousness of scientists.
Can you show where medical advancements, for example, have ground to a halt because of secular humanism, or perhaps the space program has been adversely stymied due to influence by Agnosticism?
How has scientific inquiry been slowed or damaged?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Limbo, posted 05-15-2005 3:51 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 193 of 213 (208342)
05-15-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-15-2005 3:31 AM


I am out of here people...
...
...it is easy to see the bias on this forum and why I am not welcome
Well, take care Jerry. You are welcome here but you have to expect anything that goes against the grain of current scientific thinking to be attacked from all angles...it is the nature of things. If the argument can stand up after all the attacks, then it gains strength and popularity, until so many people accept it it becomes the norm. It really doesn't help this fledgling discipline (which is still in its infancy I know, despite being older than Christianity), when its proponents are non-committal. It really hurts the credibility of the movement when instead of direct answers, silly 'witty' come backs are used and the admins are insulted. I would happily visit your site and debate or discuss there, but it looks very empty at the moment, and if insulting the admins is acceptable to you here, I dread to think what the style of discussion is likely to become there.
I was hoping you'd post the other 5 categories of evidence for ID you have. The first five were unfortunately thoroughly refuted so I was hoping to see what was next. Perhaps you'd post them to Design Dynamic so I can at least see them? Thanks anyway.
I repeat, take care Jerry! And I hope your quest for truth doesn't end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-15-2005 3:31 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 194 of 213 (208348)
05-15-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-15-2005 3:31 AM


Jerry Don Bauer writes:
To those readers who perhaps lean toward ID or are even neutral that have been following these posts closely, it is easy to see the bias on this forum and why I am not welcome, nor is anyone else who can actually argue the ID issue actually welcome here.
Any and all views are permitted at EvC Forum. That has to be so else debate wouldn't be possible. You are more than welcome here, Jerry, it is only your Forum Guidelines violations that are not, e.g.:
(Follow Nitwit Ned's posts to me, lol)
Your behavior reminded me that I signed up to update the Forum Guidelines a few months ago, and I finally did so earlier today. Take a peek when you get a chance. Hope we see you back soon.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-15-2005 3:31 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 195 of 213 (208422)
05-15-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-15-2005 3:31 AM


Hi Jerry,
Thanks for being here for a while. I think it was at least an interesting interlude. Hope you will consider coming back at some point.
Best wishes,
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-15-2005 3:31 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024