Evolution vs. intelligent design: The debate continues

[eisenreich]

I don't think you "get it". Evo Devo supports Intelligent Design.

BTW, since Evo Devo is a design feature it means that within major types it supports YEC, since it would not take that long from the landing of the Ark for the amazing diversity in the world to redevelop. Ditto for the variety of extinct forms found buried in the mud by the Flood. :wave:

Have you actually read Carroll's book? How about this excerpt from page 299:

"Developmental genetics has been shedding new light on the making of complexity and the evolution of diversity for twenty years. Creationists just plain refuse to see it. How is such overt evidence ignored or dismissed? I can't pretend to understand the psychological mechanisms that allow humans to deny reality. But I do understand the desperate political and rhetorical tactics of those who, holding a losing hand, refuse to accept it."

He's talking about you, Bob. And I think pretending that Sean Carroll supports ID counts as one of those desperate rhetorical tactics.

 

[Gerald]

Have you actually read Carroll's book? How about this excerpt from page 299:



He's talking about you, Bob. And I think pretending that Sean Carroll supports ID counts as one of those desperate rhetorical tactics.

Is it just me, or has bob just been hoist on his own petard...? :chuckle:

I predict that he will abandon this thread soon...

 

[eisenreich]

I don't think you "get it". Evo Devo supports Intelligent Design.

BTW, since Evo Devo is a design feature it means that within major types it supports YEC, since it would not take that long from the landing of the Ark for the amazing diversity in the world to redevelop. Ditto for the variety of extinct forms found buried in the mud by the Flood. :wave:

This is from a review of Carroll's book, by Michael Ruse

The ID people argue that the world is just too complex to have come about through blind law — intelligence must have intervened. However, evo-devo today is starting to fill in the gaps — the gaps that, in the opinion of Michael Behe and his friends, demand miracles. Existence is a miracle and life is a miracle, but increasingly it seems that the gaps do not need special miracles. Regular science can do the job.

More generally, I would go back to where I came in. The best of all arguments against the critics of science is the wonderful world that the best science reveals and explains. Offense is the best defense. Richard Dawkins is surely right when he argues against the cramped little medieval world of Genesis taken literally, and for the wonderful land of evolutionary studies. Sean Carroll’s book on evo-devo is a great passport to that land."

 

[Real Sorceror]

Is it just me, or has bob just been hoist on his own petard...? :chuckle:

I predict that he will abandon this thread soon...

Good job guys. I think we totally owned this one.

 

[lowerlevel]

ok.... I could spend days going through all this material on Behe, and probably still wouldnt grasp the information to the point one would need to argue this stuff. It seems it all centers around the intelligent design issue? while the irreducible complexity is left largely unaddressed- in the form of "Its not as irreducible as Behe said it was... but it is still irreducible, let's wait a couple years and see if we can do away with irreducible complexity." It seems this still leaves a gaping hole in evolution theory. And No, bio 1 & 2 isnt sufficient for this stuff, at least mine (bio for science majors) wasnt, and I was awake the entire time --even got straight A's.... nope, not covered well enough for me. It seems we can pretend to understand this stuff all we want, but unless you have written a thesis I consider you knowledge to be severly lacking if you want to attack (or defend) this stuff.

 

[bob b]

This is from a review of Carroll's book, by Michael Ruse

Carroll has discovered that even simple forms of life have some of their genes similar to those of more complex life forms. He sees this as supporting evolution, but before this was known it was thought that the genes of complex forms would be far different due to the billions of years of evolution that supposedly separate them from the earliest forms.

So if genes differ a lot this points to evolution. If genes are similar, this also points to evolution.

So apparently evolution is so "plastic" that it is independent of whatever evidence is discovered.

On the other hand a clever human designer typically reuses proven subsystems (or subroutines for you computer geeks), and arranges them in different combinations to achieve his objectives. JAVA is a good example of this approach, and "blackbox" modular design is another.

 

[hatsoff]

Carroll has discovered that even simple forms of life have some of their genes similar to those of more complex life forms. He sees this as supporting evolution, but before this was known it was thought that the genes of complex forms would be far different due to the billions of years of evolution that supposedly separate them from the earliest forms.

So if genes differ a lot this points to evolution. If genes are similar, this also points to evolution.

So apparently evolution is so "plastic" that it is independent of whatever evidence is discovered.

On the other hand a clever human designer typically reuses proven subsystems (or subroutines for you computer geeks), and arranges them in different combinations to achieve his objectives. JAVA is a good example of this approach, and "blackbox" modular design is another.

Are you sure Carroll claimed "support," or was he just speaking of compatibility?

 

[Real Sorceror]

Carroll has discovered that even simple forms of life have some of their genes similar to those of more complex life forms. He sees this as supporting evolution, but before this was known it was thought that the genes of complex forms would be far different due to the billions of years of evolution that supposedly separate them from the earliest forms.
So if genes differ a lot this points to evolution. If genes are similar, this also points to evolution.
So apparently evolution is so "plastic" that it is independent of whatever evidence is discovered.
On the other hand a clever human designer typically reuses proven subsystems (or subroutines for you computer geeks), and arranges them in different combinations to achieve his objectives. JAVA is a good example of this approach, and "blackbox" modular design is another.

I suppose this is your strategy. You ignore our earlier arguments and continue to attack genetics. Why have you ignored our earlier post? I want to see your answers.

 

[bob b]

I suppose this is your strategy. You ignore our earlier arguments and continue to attack genetics. Why have you ignored our earlier post? I want to see your answers.

Example of one of your questions: "Have you been around for a billion years?"

Is it any wonder no one takes you seriously?

 

[noguru]

Example of one of your questions: "Have you been around for a billion years?"

Is it any wonder no one takes you seriously?

I think that was a rhetorical question. He was pointing out that what you seem to require as evidence for "macro" evolution is either highly unlikely or impossible. I believe you like this situation, because it means you never have to admit that there is strong evidence for the naturalistic explanation of origins.

 

[bob b]

I think that was a rhetorical question. He was pointing out that what you seem to require as evidence for "macro" evolution is either highly unlikely or impossible. I believe you like this situation, because it means you never have to admit that there is strong evidence for the naturalistic explanation of origins.

There is essential zero evidence for a naturalistic explanation of origins, which is why evolutionists weasel out when the question of abiogenesis arises.

Carroll has done nothing to change this except to shift the argument from evolution of genes to evolution of the switches which turn the genes on or off during development.

In my opinion this makes the situation worse for the molecules to man fairytale, not better, because it has pushed all the complexity back into the first creatures which supposedly somehow just emerged..

But of course we never have to discuss that, because that is part of abiogenesis, and evolution does not include abiogenesis. :shocked:

 

[noguru]

There is essential zero evidence for a naturalistic explanation of origins, which is why evolutionists weasel out when the question of abiogenesis arises.

By origins I meant the origin of species, not the origin of life.

How can you say that Bob.You say that once many years ago you accepted evolution. So you accepted something that had absolutely no evidence?

Carroll has done nothing to change this except to shift the argument from evolution of genes to evolution of the switches which turn the genes on or off during development.

And?

In my opinion this makes the situation worse for the molecules to man fairytale, not better, because it has pushed all the complexity back into the first creatures which supposedly somehow just emerged..

Well since you seem to accept things for which you admit there is zero evidence, I cannot say I have much confidence in your opinion. :shocked:

And also I think you are missing the point. All the little DNA components for biological diversity were achieved early on in earth's history. However, we know from stem cell research that not all physiological aspects are expressed at all times.

But of course we never have to discuss that, because that is part of abiogenesis, and evolution does not include abiogenesis. :shocked:

Then why did you bring it up? :sigh:

 

[bob b]

By origins I meant the origin of species, not the origin of life.

Species in sexual creatures is supposedly defined by ability to interbreed, yet many "species" can interbreed, showing that the designation is somewhat subjective or arbitrary.

How can you say that Bob.You say that once many years ago you accepted evolution. So you accepted something that had absolutely no evidence?

Two things. I accepted evolution over a half century ago when virtually nothing was known about the complexity of a cell or about DNA, and second, the subject had not been that interesting to me.

So like many people today, I saw no compelling reason to change my view on something I rarely spent any time thinking about.

Much later (over 30 years) while reading about the latest advances in biology involving the newly discovered nature and role of DNA, I almost instantly recognized the inability (absurdity?) of such things to have arisen "naturally". It certainly helped my perception that by this time in my life I was highly versed in control systems and computers.

Well since you seem to accept things for which you admit there is zero evidence, I cannot say I have much confidence in your opinion. :shocked:

One hopefully grows in knowledge over a lifetime.

And also I think you are missing the point. All the little DNA components for biological diversity were achieved early on in earth's history. However, we know from stem cell research that not all physiological aspects are expressed at all times.

If everything was there at the beginning, it points to creation not evolution.

BTW, I do not expect those who are committed to evolution to easily change their minds.

It takes courage to buck "what everybody knows is true", especially when we are told (and naively believe) the "big lie" that evolution is supported by the same science which invented computers and got us to the Moon.

 

[avatar382]

Actually, IT IS the same science that invented computers and got us to the Moon. The very same. The only difference is that those particular results do not collide with your literal interpretation of the Bible.

(Except maybe for Gravity... now with 'intelligent falling' on the horizon :chuckle

 

[hatsoff]

It takes courage to buck "what everybody knows is true"

No, it takes foolishness. Speaking of the moon, "everyone knows" we got there. Should I then believe the conspiracy theorists who tell me it was all a hoax?

Let me put it another way: Mainstream science tells me that life developed naturally, then evolved over a long period of time. You tell me God created it all, and that natural development of life is impossible, anyway.

If I choose to believe you, is that wise? Even if you turn out to be right, I will have believed in error. If I choose fiat over science, I may by some random coincidence turn out to be correct--but it will have been for the wrong reason!

 

[bob b]

Actually, IT IS the same science that invented computers and got us to the Moon. The very same.

When I was active in the aerospace field I sometimes had an assignment to try to determine what went wrong in a failed test of a system at White Sands. It was a different animal trying to reconstruct a past event compared to being able to put a device on a test stand and seeing how it performed in the laboratory.

The only difference is that those particular results do not collide with your literal interpretation of the Bible.

23 years ago, when I first discovered that molecules to man could not possibly be true, I had a low opinion of scripture: I was essentially a pagan, even though my wife dragged me to church on Christmas and Easter. But when I realized that molecules to man was a lie, I very slowly over the years began to get more acquainted with the Bible that I had rejected in my youth. I was quite surprised as I gradually began to realize that it was not as "dumb" as I had previously believed, despite the many strange and fanciful stories it contained.

 

[eisenreich]

Bob, just to clarify: does Evo-Devo (evolutionary developmental biology) support or undermine the theory of ID/creationism?

Second question: do most in the 'field' of ID believe in a young earth? If so, could you provide a few quick references?

 

[bob b]

Bob, just to clarify: does Evo-Devo (evolutionary developmental biology) support or undermine the theory of ID/creationism?

There are two parts to Evo Devo.

The Devo part involves determining how developmental biology operates from the egg and embryo to the adult creature. This is sound "operational" science.

The Evo part involves speculation providing explanations of how, when and why such things originated in the past. This is highly speculative.

Devo is consistent with intelligent Design, but also consistent with young Earth creationism, because small changes to "switches" can have large effects during development.

The Evo part is highly speculative and does not really address how such sophistication originated in the first place, akin to how abiogenesis could have occurred to create the first cells.

Second question: do most in the 'field' of ID believe in a young earth? If so, could you provide a few quick references?

This is never discussed in the ID literature that I am aware of, although we do know from non-technical material that Behe is a Catholic who, despite his rejection of neo-Darwinism, still believes in some form of "evolution". Ditto for Michael Denton of Darwinism: A Theory in Crisis fame. Phillip Johnson is a believer, but seems to reject the young Earth idea. I don't know about Dembski, even though I did have an e-mail exchange with him regarding mutual university faculty friends, but I suspect he wants nothing to do with YEC and YECers.

It is ironic that YECers complain bitterly about the ID position and their main "thrust" while at the same time embracing information from IDers which falsifies "molecules to man" evolution and "random mutations plus natural selection" as being "all powerful".

 

[ThePhy]

When I was active in the aerospace field I sometimes had an assignment to try to determine what went wrong in a failed test of a system at White Sands. It was a different animal trying to reconstruct a past event compared to being able to put a device on a test stand and seeing how it performed in the laboratory.

How does it compare with applying elementary physics and mathematics to understand vectors and angular momentum? Your willingness to pontificate on these ideas followed by your abject refusal to back your ideas shows you are far better at self-aggrandizement than at doing fundamental science.

 

[Real Sorceror]

All right bob b, lets work backwords for a minute. Why do modern animals stop appearing in the fossil record after a certian point? Do you believe all animals where created at the same time? How do new animals appear?