The secular inquisition

Michael B

Thou shalt not think a thought beyond the narrow confines of Dawkins' dictatorial and highly prescriptive orthodoxy.

Winston Smith

I had to laugh when I saw the name Charles Johnson of LGF being mentioned here. It seems that you are on the long line of many people whom he has fallen foul with. I would wear this as a badge.
No doubt like the many other people whom he has banned from his website, you will also be a mention on one of his attacks to his apostles on LGF.

One thing that has drastically changed here in the UK and to a point the West is that we are no longer allowed to believe how we will. Offending people seems to be the new ideology, or should I say, if people are being offended on a daily basis, then something is amiss and needs to be done.

People have disagreed since time immemorial, but it is only of late that those who manage the climb into the limelight, now have the ability to oppress and shut out free speech and free thought. Big Brother society? Hmm...I'd say more like a society of lots of Big Brothers, all with their own totalitarian beliefs.

Don't worry Melanie. Most people here know that you are a fact and truth finder and post what you believe(and find out) to be the truth. It's just those people out there, so fixed on their own beliefs that any opposition to those, has to be wrong.

The West is changing as the World outside the West is beginning to impose its archaic belief system on us and in our stupidity(or should I say our governments) are allowing this to happen.

Ergo, the death of Western Civilisation, truth and reasoning.

Ray Ingles

Epistemologically, the 'unknowable' is a troublesome concept. How can we, in practice, distinguish between something 'currently unknown but comprehensible' and something 'forever unknowable'? From a practical perspective, the only way to tell which category something falls into is to try to understand it; if you succeed, then it was knowable. The problem is, if you fail, you can't conclude that it's unknowable. It might be... but it also might be the case that you just didn't happen to figure out something knowable, and you or someone else might have better luck on a subsequent attempt.

If you decide that something is fundamentally incomprehensible, you will stop trying to understand it. Accepting that there are things that we don't know is not the same as accepting that there are things that we cannot, even in principle, know. As discussed above, the notion of 'the unknowable' adds nothing from a practical perspective. There is no way we can tell the difference between 'something we can never understand' and 'something we can eventually understand but do not understand yet.' We've seen plenty of cases where giving up on ever understanding something turned out to be unjustified. From a practical perspective, I can't see what the notion of 'unknowable' buys you. Unless you're trying to justify not even attempting to understand something.

Andre

Gradually we are being subsumed by the tyranny of the liberal secular consensus. As invidious and reminiscent as the knock on the door in the night and the barbed wire camps and klieg lights. In this way is ultimate truth and the freedom it brings us obfuscated.

Tony Jackson

Oh please, I don't believe this!

Mel, you've forgotten the first rule of holes - when you're in one, stop digging!

Kittler

Is it a secular inquisition when we ask for EVIDENCE.
And, just because there are some Flat Earthers about, should we also be having a discussion on the geometry of our Planet?

Chase N

Thanks for another honest column on these issues! Very thankful for your diligence.

JohnB

Much has been made here and in other forums of the secret and leaked 'wedge' strategy. Is this the same strategy as outlined by Phillip Johnson in his book, 'The Wedge of Truth' published by IVP in 2000? If so, it's hardly a secret. John

Kittler

Steve Fuller, a sociologist, argues that science and religion are compatible. Science beleives in a rational Universe, governed by consistant perpetual natural laws, as with the laws of mathematics, where 2+2=4.Religion would have us believe, along with many other strange things, that those immutable laws can be arbitrarily changed by a transcendent Deity. No, I think not.

Mike Smith

I wonder where the author got her stats from. She says: "But few religious believers in the west subscribe to this literalism, as opposed to belief in a Creator which is common to all of them"...yet every Gallup polls for the last several decades shows that almost half the respondents agree with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago" How does that not deny evolution? How is that not unscientific? It's simply a myth that "most" religious believers don't deny evolution. She should have hedged her bets and just said "some", because when 45% of people agree with the statement above, that suggests that almost half the US population is clueless with regards to evololution. A simple Google search will bring this info up. It's no secret.

Nancy Pearcey

Historically, it is a fact that most of the early modern scientists were Christians, guided by a biblical worldview. The British philosopher Mary Midgley recognizes this. “Science does have its own worldview that includes guiding presuppositions about the nature of the world,” she points out. “The founders of modern science expressed these very plainly for their time. Cosmic order (they said) flows wholly from God, so science redounds to his glory.”

But if this is science’s “own worldview,” why is it often said that it is invalid or illegitimate to bring God back into science?

jodyb

Any discussion of this topic on the internet provokes the arrival of hordes of atheist harpies, flapping and screeching their discontent. Hopefully, their laughable displays of ignorance and hubristic intolerance will scupper any chance of making converts to their fundamentalist materialist faith!

For a good book on this, see 'Why us?' by James Le Fanu, and a good article, "Religion of Hatred" by AN Wilson (a neat description of fundamental secular materialism, I feel)

hadrian

I am amused to see proponents of intellectual freedom getting so hot under the collar over 'creationism', even you , Mel, it seems. Humanistic, materialistic, cosmic impersonalism reigns supreme in our predominantly sceptical age and , it seems, woe betide any who threaten its hegemony of interpretation.
Well, I for one, am an unrepentant Creationist who dares believe we do have a Creator and Redeemer who relates personally with man through that uniquely personal thing called Language. And what He reveals in His Word is how we in faith are to interpret and understand our enviroment and the created order around us. That is my intellectual presupposition, prior commitment.
Those who rebel against God, against being personally responsible to Him for their life, and the very idea of Him not unnaturally must reject such Revelation and confront the raw reality of their enviroment with some other plausible explanaition of how we are as we are. To some the evidence of incredible complexity suggests design, and so I.D.
One can quite predict the utter uproar amongst PRIOR COMMITTED atheists to this horror of Personalism creeping back to theaten thie world view. And let's not beat about the bush- this IS not about 'objectuve science' v prejudice but about a clash of basic world views. The squealing itself indicates the depth of metaphysical investment at stake here.
Interestingly, theologian Keith Ward had an intersting article in the April Issue StandPoint monthly magazine Prof Keith Ward, retired Divinity prof at Oxford observes:

...In the history of Western thought, virtually all major philosophers, atheists and theists alike, have rejected materialism. In quantum physics the very idea of matter has become so obscure that it is hard to know what being a materialist would amount to. If our space time originates by quantum fluctuations in a vacuum and if matter is stuff in space-time, then matter is dependent upon some supra-material reality that seems to be elegantly intelligible, almost Platonic in nature( Roger Penrose thinks it is Platonic)
'Many qunatum theorists, like John von Neumann, regard the whole material world as dependent upon consciousness..and all real things are contents of consciousness.'
Not quite Biblical Cosmic Personalism but maybe too close for comfort for some!
And before you dismiss Young Earth creationists as ignorant obscurantists who annot deal with the evidence, I suggest you look at the fascinating work of Dr Russell Humphreys on starlight and time to see the perfectly sober but just as sophisticated way a creationist can reseach the evidence.

Finally for a Jewish non-poetic approach to Genesis I strongly recommend the Work of Umberto Cassuto such as his 'Commentary on the Book of Genesis' and 'The Documentary Hypothesis and Composition of the Pentateuch'

Derek BLADES

Ms Phillips writes "What [ID proponents¨] don’t accept is that random, blind-chance evolution accounts for the origin of all species and the origin of life, the universe and everything." Two errors for the price of one! First, evolution is not random or blind-chance. It follows a logical path determined by a simple principal commonly referred to as survival of the fittest. Second, the theory of evolution has nothing to say about "the origin of life, the universe and everything." What sparked the big bang remains a mystery but it is one that physicists and other scientists are working on and they will gradually answer pieces of the puzzle without necessarily solving it all. That is the very nature of scientific enquiry.

jerry

Melanie
You are missing the point. Although an aethiest, as a biologist I recognise that there are limits to the explanatory power of my scientific discipline. The limits are not within evolutionary biology but more to do with the origins of our universe and the formation of planet(s) with a chemistry conducive to the evolution of life. This limit marks the boundary between the knowable and unknowable in science.
For people of faith (for whom I have respect) this limitation does not exist, but as others have pointed out there is a probably unbridgeable epistemological chasm between scientific knowledge based on reason and religious knowledge based on revelation.
The problem with ID is that it is a second rate attempt to bridge this gap, attempting to inject a supernatural explanation for a process (evolution) that may be entirely accounted for by naturalistic phenomena. Scientists of any merit know that uncertainty is fundamental to scientific "knowledge" and that science progresses through the chipping away of the edges of that uncertainty. The chipping away is based on observation and evidence and that has continued to totally validate darwinian theory. ID by contract postulates supernatural forces which are beyond such testing. In other words ID is completely inconsistent with the scientific method.
So by all means use your position as a respected commentator to challenge scientism as manifest by the militant materialists such as Dawkins and Dennet, but also get yourself a tutorial on the scientific method and please stop fueling this unnecessary culture war.

Alan Staley

Melanie, I would ask that you step back from this a bit and consider what you are stating. These appear to be the current talking points of the Discovery Institute itself, which at bottom line is trying create a false dichotomy: That you can't believe in God and Science at the same time. They constantly move the goal posts as they lose court cases, so please be careful and research what you are talking about. Their current campaign is that they believe in Micro but not Macro evolution. In other words they will deny in many cases that whales were once land animals, even though the proof is pretty conclusive. They will deny that fish evolved to amphibian even though the proof of the progression is out there with tiktaalik. Please do some more reading on the subject before you carry on more about this, they've laid a very meticulous minefield of falsity. Please do not confuse biogenesis or cosmology with Evolution, they love it when you do. Evolution does not state where or how life originated, only how species have changed.

Alan Fox

Just a few points regarding Ms. Phillips article:

Ms Phillips writes:
“I hold no particular brief for ID, but am intrigued by the ideas it raises and want it to be given a fair crack of the whip to see where the argument will lead.”

Behe published “Darwin’s Black Box” in 1996, since when there has been no scientific research exploring intelligent design, nor have any genuinely testable hypotheses been proposed. Intelligent design currently remains philosophy. Science is limited to studying the real world. The study of supernatural intelligence is not possible by scientific methods.

“What they [ID proponents] don’t accept is that random, blind-chance evolution accounts for the origin of all species and the origin of life, the universe and everything.”

You are listing two important factual errors (I am not sure if you are attributing them to ID proponents or they are your own.) 1) Evolution is based on the idea that random variation within species is acted on by non-random selection, resulting in the accumulation of small changes over time. It is not pure chance. 2) Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life on Earth. This is a separate subject, abiogenesis, where, unless evidence is found of life elsewhere, theories are likely to remain speculative.

“ID proponents say the idea that science can account for everything – the doctrine known variously as materialism or scientism – flies in the face of reason and evidence and seeks to commandeer the space previously reserved for the unknowable, or religion, which can sit very comfortably alongside science, as it does for so many.”

ID proponents categorize their critics as materialists, theists and atheists alike. In fact, most critics are scientists, whose criticism is generally a variation on the theme; ID theories, inasmuch as they exist, are, so far, outside the scope of science.

“Shouting from the rooftops that ID is not science but camouflaged religion, they react so viscerally precisely because ID does come out of science and talks its language.”

I am sorry but claiming ID comes out of science is just wrong. ID is a philosophical argument. It makes claims that are untestable scientifically. Critics say ID is not science because ID is not science.

“Refusing to accept that science and religion can be complementary…”

I think most critics would agree that science and religion can only be complementary.

”… -- and indeed feed each other --because religious faith is out to lunch, they cannot grasp that ID is a metaphysical idea that comes out of but stands separate from science, in that science leads here to an idea with which by definition it must abruptly part company. Instead they insist that the two must be fused – and when that proves impossible, they cry victory.”

This is wrong. No one is demanding ID must fuse with science. Critics accept that ID is philosophy. They accept that ID is entitled to provide hypotheses to suggest avenues for scientific enquiry. But no such hypotheses have emerged from ID proponents. We still await developments.

“[quote]Where are the experimental proofs that can be duplicated by other scientists? Answer: nonexistent[quote].
Well of course they are non-existent -- because ID is not in itself a scientific discovery. It is rather an inference from scientific discoveries.
But it is obviously no more possible to prove the existence of an ‘intelligent designer’ than it is to prove the existence of the Biblical God.”

Well, exactly. This is why scientists are irritated when ID proponents want ID to be given equal status as a scientific theory along with modern evolutionary theory.

“If there was an intellectual begetter of this movement, it was surely the biochemist Professor Michael Behe, whose book Darwin's Black Box in 1996 expounded the theory of irreducible complexity.” His best example, the bacterial flagellum, did not fare well at the Dover v Kitzmiller trial. Behe had not kept himself informed about subsequent developments in finding evolutionary pathways showing that flagella are not irreducibly complex. “He is not a Creationist.” He’s catholic.

“To be sure, he and others at the Discovery Institute (which says it promotes religious pluralism rather than Creationism, and which refused to get involved in the Kitzmiller fight)

But the DI says it was prepared to support the Dover school board. Their website says:

“Meyer, Dembski and Campbell were all willing to testify as expert witnesses. They simply requested that they have their own counsel present at their depositions in order to protect their rights. Yet Thomas More [Dover school board counsel] would not permit this.”

“…were excited by what they thought were the prospects this would open up for a new stage in the culture wars. But while there is room for debate over that agenda, it is dishonest and really quite irrational to claim that this showed ID was invented as a pretext to wage it and smuggle back Christianity into the public sphere.”

There is enough evidence to suggest ID was indeed invented as a pretext to refute your suggestion of dishonesty and irrationality.

“It’s the fact that it did come out of science that prompted the philosopher and celebrated former atheist Antony Flew to became a deist -- because, as he said in his book There is a God, the laws of nature presuppose an infinite intelligence; ‘...this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science’.”

But ID is a philosophy and Flew is a philosopher!

“Dogma is certainly what is on the other side of ID in this fight – a materialist dogma which, posing as the standard-bearer of reason against obscurantism, actually embodies irrationality and a kind of intellectual fascism. It is a secular inquisition – as the reaction to my post makes all too plain.”

This is just hyperbole. If ID has anything to offer science, it will emerge. It may emerge more quickly if ID proponents do the hard work of showing ID can be useful to science.

Roddy Bullock

Bingo! You got it, Melanie. Your last paragraph nails it perfectly. The materialist dogma needs exposing, and the number of journalists who have the guts to do so can be counted on one hand. Thanks for taking the heat!

Rose

Beautifully explained.

Tas Walker

Archaeology, forensics and SETI are just three scientific disciplines that are built on the belief that we can objectively/scientifically recognize design. ID applies the same principles in other areas, especially microbiology, and objectively concludes that certain systems have the hallmarks of design. In other words, ID is legitimate science.

ID does not address questions such as "Who is the designer?" and "What about harmful designs". IDers rightly say that these go beyond the limits of ID. To answer those questions you need a coherent worldview and ID does not provide that.

Melanie said "Creationism ... flies in the face of the fact that the universe is billions of years old."

It is interesting to consider this question, "How do they know that the universe is that old?" It turns out that the age of the universe is not a scientific measurement but a deduction from the worldview of philosophical naturalism--i.e it's a religious position.

The biblical creationist worldview provides a valid starting point for scientific research. In our culture people think it is ridiculous ... until they start to investigate it. Here's one good place to start (e.g. http://creation.com/answers).

Herbert Thornton

Scientists seem more or less satisfied (at least at present) that the Big Bang was the moment when the universe came into existence. They calculate that it happened something like 13 to 15 billion years ago, though what existed 'before' the Big Bang is unknown and unexplained.

One assumption is that there was 'nothing' and that there was no 'before' because without the universe the phenomenon of time does not exist.

If there was no 'before' then it seems to me that this theory of the Big Bang is in itself a form of creationism - one moreover for which there is at least some evidence because it is obvious that the universe exists.

So did the Big Bang happen by design or was it some strange and inexplicable phenomenon? It seems to me to be a question somewhat weightier than ill-tempered quibbles about evolution on this minuscule speck of a planet called Earth.

Matteo

Derek Blades says:

"First, evolution is not random or blind-chance. It follows a logical path determined by a simple principal commonly referred to as survival of the fittest."

Next you are going to tell me that because payouts are guaranteed when certain conditions are met, then what is going on in a casino is not gambling.

Just what generates "the fittest" in the Darwinist scenario? Are you telling me that the variations that selection acts upon are generated by something other than chance?

Mike LaSalle

Frank Tipler's Omega Point Theory is the smoking gun for God. Oxford physicist David Deutsch In chapter 14 of his seminal book, The Fabric of Reality, discussed Tipler's Omega Point Theory in great detail. Look it up on Wiki. The only question is: does the universe cool to a heat death, or does it collapse to a black hole singularity? If the latter, then God is inevitable. (No one questions Tipler's math -- it's his conclusion that makes people crazy.)

ALSO - the DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT is the smoking gun for the multiverse. Put these two smoking guns together, and God is a slam-dunk.

Cosmology, not biology, is the future of ID.

Thanks for writing the article, Melanie.

Apostle's Cred

Charles @ LGF has an approach whereby if you do not agree with him you cannot post at his site, and he will mock you while complaining about people mocking him. Can someone please point me to a commenter who disagrees with him on major issues who has been a member for over a year?

He treats controversial subjects like evolution and global climate change like there is no argument to be had and if you disagree then he treats you as if you are for slavery. I completely agree that he's unhealthily obsessed with this topic and he conflates ID and creationism so often that there is really no point in engaging him.

Just another good reason to ignore a moderate (because he's a bigot).

Stephen

For an insightful view on the Science vs Religion debate and how they can be fully reconciled please read The Marriage of Sense and Soul by Ken Wilber.

Leigh Jackson

Michael Behe and Ken Miller are both Catholic scientists. One says ID is bona fide science, the other says it is repackaged Creationism.

Creationism claims to provide a scientific basis to show that the biblical account of the creation of life is literally true. ID claims to provide a scientific explanation for life's complexity which evolution is unable to do.

The Vatican's position appears to be that ID is a truth of faith, not of science.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901168.htm

And one of the Vatican's top academics recently said, "Intelligent design "is not a scientific theory even if it tries to pass itself off as one."
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900998.htm

It isn't only atheists who say that ID isn't science - the Catholic Church would appear to say it too.

Escovado

Good for you Ms. Phillips!

Augustus

For the last 150 odd years it has been commonplace to present the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection as an alternative to intentional design as a means of explaining the functional organization of living organisms. The evidence for this theory is supposed to be evidence for the absence of purpose in the causation of the development of life-forms on this planet. The theory does not just cover the evolvement of
life over billions of years, and that all species are developed from primordial matter, its defining element is the claim that all this happened as the result of the appearance of random and purposeless mutations in the genetic material, followed by natural selection due to the resulting inherited variations in reproductive fitness. It purports to displace design by proposing an alternative.

Nobody dares to suggest that the theory is not science, even though the historical process it describes cannot be directly observed, but can only be inferred from available data to date. Is it therefore not puzzling that the denial of the inference, i.e. the claim that the evidence offered for the theory does not fully support the kind of explanation it proposes, and that a purposeful alternative has not been displaced, should be dismissed as not science? The contention seems to be that, although science can demonstrate the falsehood of the design hypothesis, no evidence against that demonstration can be regarded as scientific support for the hypothesis. Only the falsehood, and not the truth of ID may ever count as a scientific claim. Something always about the nature of the conclusion; that it involves the purposes of a supernatural being, is doomed to rule it out as a science. Perhaps it's just that the idea of a designer is too vague, and that nothing is ever said about how he works. When Darwin first proposed his theory of natural selection, neither he, nor anyone else, had any idea of how heredity worked, or what could cause a mutation that was observable in the phenotype and was inheritable. His proposal was simply that something purposeful was going on that had these effects permitting natural selection to operate. this is no less vague than the hypothesis that the mutations available for selection are influenced by the forces or actions of design. so it must be the element of purpose that is the real offender. The premise that the purposes and actions of God (if there is one)
are not themselves, and could never possibly be, the object of a scientific theory in a way that the mechanisms of inheritance have become the object of a scientific theory since Darwin. We do not have that much understanding of creative processes even when the creator is human. Perhaps such creativity too is beyond the reach of science. The purposes and intentions of God (if there is a god), and the nature of his will, are not possible subjects for scientific
explanation. But that does not imply that there cannot be scientific evidence for or against intervention of non-law governed causes in the natural order. The fact alone that no scientific theory can explain the divine mind is itself consistent with it being largely a scientific question as to whether divine intervention provides a more likely explanation of all the empirical data than an explanation in terms of physical law alone.

Rathtyen

“Poetic Metaphor’ pretty much says it all about creationism. Divine Creation might be right or might not, but to adhere to a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis is a bit silly. Taken in context, thousands of years ago when modern scientific concepts mostly didn’t exist (although astronomy does seem to have been quite advanced), and when the poetic style of speech appears to have been more common, it takes almost heroic stupidity to not at least acknowledge the possibility the creation story in Genesis is a metaphor.

Equally, it takes a major head-in-the-sand attitude to deny the reality of Evolution. You only need to be vaguely objective to realise the universe is a pretty dynamic place, and is in a state of continual change. That change effects ultimately everything, and that is the broad brush of evolution. The sharp end is what we normally think about, being the change process in individual species.

Evolution on every level is completely compatible with the idea of Divine Creation (ie done by God), and/or Intelligent Design (ie done by something that isn’t God).

What it comes down to then is purely a matter of faith or opinion, because there simply is no proof. Its what we believe or choose to believe. That the Universe came into being through a natural process, or that it was created by God (or Gods). When it comes to the Earth, we can throw in the Intelligent Design option (I’m not sure that works for the whole Universe and surely its “creator” would by our definition, and perspective, be divine).

Ultimately, the whole argument is a red herring. It comes down to the simple divide: was the Universe created without intent (ie as a natural process) or with intent (ie by a process we define as divine). But neither answer is the end of the matter: a natural process could also result in the creation of beings capable of their own creations, and it doesn’t matter whether we call them divine or intelligent: the difference is semantics. If the creation of the universe was divine, we can hardly be sure that every detail was planned (ie that we were planned), or that it was as a starting roll to see what happened, thereafter with its own growth and development dynamics. Who knows, the universe might just be a fantastic musical symphony for beings utterly beyond our comprehension, and the earth and everything on it just a side melody.

Creation could be almost anything, but because our perspective of it is so limited, we are likely to never (or it’ll at least be a long, long time) to understand why it exists. For all we know, life is just a mistake: something that happens when the afroementioned beings-beyond-our-comprehension don’t put things back in the fridge!

Science however is about getting to the truth, or at least it should be. The only honest position that science generally can adopt is the say Evolution looks to be an absolute certainty, but that it is impossible to say whether or not it (and creation etc) are natural processes or divinely or otherwise intelligently initiated and/or guided. The best people can do is have an opinion, but acknowledge that it is only an opinion.

Tex Taylor

Very nice and well written article Ms. Phillips. Though we would have little in common philosophically, it is nice to read from someone who has given consideration to both sides of the debate with no axe to grind.

I think the problem that many proponents of atheistic Darwinism or whatever is appropriate name, where there is a complete and hostile denial of any Creator though one must conveniently ignore or skip the forgone conclusion of a finite universe, is that your detractors are ill equipped to face the ramifications of this one simple question.

What if they are wrong and science can provide no answers?

Thank you and I look forward to reading more.

shezza

I will look for the exact statistics, however, I do remember that there is a statistical problem for random evolution to be scientifically possible. The earth, by any measure is not old enough to produce life as it is today only through random mutation leading to variation of the initial bacteria found in the primordial soup to the complex life forms that we see today. That being the case several theories have been advanced to explain this. This is what Charles Johnson in his blog conveniantly leaves out of his "discussions". The most reasonable of all the thoeries to explain this statistical issue is Intelligent Design. There is off course the life being transported here from another planet theory and the radioactive Meteorite theory just to name two. As far as theories go ID is just as good as any. Effectively for the theory of evolution to be held to be true, the statistical issue has to be resolved. To date it has not.

Sammy Jankis

hadrian: "And if evolution cops out of even explaining the start of life its subsequent power as an explanatory theory/framework has to seriously questioned..."

In that case, let us discard laws of physics and chemistry since, for all their explanatory power, they "cop out" of explaining the origin of the matter they act upon.

journeyman

I read all the comments from both the previous I.D articles and did notice a shrill,impolite tone in many of them that was perhaps not all that inducive to debate and perhaps restricting it.
I plead guilty to being a spiritual atheist,and having taken the side of the Darwinists,in my last comments,having developed a "knee jerk" karate like suspicion reflex that becomes activated almost instinctivly,in the vicinity of alternative creator theories.
However your stature, in my view, as a brilliant,relentless and invaluable journalist in these strange and troubled times,has not decreased one iota.
It is clear, and it seems most people understand that I.D differs from Creationism in that I.D. accepts evolutionary theory, physics and cosmological science and wishes to go further,where science fears to tread.That being- beyond the boundaries to where it has no explanations.
I give my blessings to all those who wish to venture there,because I don,t have the excess energy to bend my comprehension that far.
Meanwhile down on planet Earth,I wouldn,t give to much credence to LFG,who has been throwing inquisitions around with the gleefull abandon of a kindergarden snowball fight.
Nobody knows who is going to be the next victim.
In the end I suppose I prefer the spiritulaism of compassion,morality,country,community,family,kids,friends,dogs,nature,trees,sea,sky and the appreciation of a civilization worth defending and preserving,and to that last part you seém to have contributed enourmously.
Regards

Palapala

That was a compelling column, Ms. Phillips Thank you. Your LGF references made me laugh though, as I'm sure isn't unusual among Johnson's former readers. It has become a bizarre cult over there, with an imperious autocrat at its head and a coterie of fawning followers worshipping on bended knee. They don't need a deity; they believe they've found one in Johnson, even though he rules in the fashion of your garden-variety martinet. Too bad. Used to be an interesting place to visit for insights about the Middle East.

Ronnie

So, if I get this right, ID's role is to prove scientifically that there are things that can't be proved scientifically. And when we get to that point in the study of our existence then faith takes over.

However, we can't know that what can't proved scientifically at the moment, won't become proveable in the future.

Scientific enquiry has not simply stopped, leaving the gap in our understanding that can be filled by faith. Perhaps that gap will continue to narrow as we learn more, maybe because we travel further beyond earth in the future, who knows?

The problem seems to be that the ID people are trying to use the scientific method to prove that there are things we can't prove, and it isn't working. Partly because they need scientific enquiry to stop right now and for the gap in knowledge to remain exactly as it is. But that's not going to happen.

However, peoples' faith is based on far, far more than the issue of the origins of the universe. I'm not really sure why everyone is so het up or even what they are trying to prove. Some scientists are atheist, some are not. Some ID proponents are paranoid and rude, some are not. Some people on both sides are simply dogmatic, some are not. Some people care, many people don't...

I do feel that if Melanie had written this piece first, we would have had a much better discussion of this issue. This is much clearer, thank you.

Ronnie

I have a question for ALL the scientists here, both ID proponents and others.

In light of the change in climate that the earth seems to be experiencing now, regardless of its causes, do they think that evolutionary developments in nature might take place (actually be taking place) and be observable now and in the near future?

Michael B

Alan Fox,

It is not true that Behe and others have done no appreciable work relevant to ID as applied to biological systems. He maintains a blog at Amazon and some of his work in biological systems is commented upon there.

I am not a proponent of ID as commonly conceived - i.e. as reflecting a proposed scientific theoretical architecture, a la Einstein's relativity, the standard model or one of the supersymmetry models in physics, evolution (the latter, however, as conceived in strictly empirical/rational and scientific terms - not in ideological or quasi-philosophical terms), nonetheless, enormous and seemingly inexplicable complexity is a salient fact within various scientific disciplines, physics, cosmology and biology most notably.

However, ID applied to biological systems is viable in a more restricted sense. As with the complexity and design reflected in cosmological anthropic arguments, it serves as a highly indicative expression of design and of intelligence - of intelligent design. "Indicative" is not synonymous with proof in a mathematical/deductive sense, nor can such profoundly indicative evidence per se be conceived as expressing a scientific theoretical architecture (reflecting, imo, the overreach of IDers), but it is strongly indicative of design and of mind behind it all nonetheless.

Btw, the progressive development, in theoretical physics, of the standard model and the three supersymmetry models, the latter based in part upon findings in string theory, reflects even more elaborate and more problematic anthropic "coincidences" at various junctures. For example, as one writer put it, at the "grand unified theory (GUT) scale, the parameters of the standard model have to be tuned to an astounding precision of 1 part in 10ł˛." The different supersymmetry models overcome this particular issue, but then present other anthropic issues of their own.

davidrev

The catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that God created the world, the universe and everything in it, but does not say what mechanism He used. Because God created matter and the laws that govern its actions and interactions it should not be surprising that scientists can understand the mechanism of creation, but are unable to explain its purpose. If that amounts to ID, I plead guilty.

Leigh Jackson

The Catholic Church's position, to paraphrase you, Melanie, is that faith makes space for ID. What evolutionary science does is make space for metaphysical naturalism. Spinoza said that Nature is God - nothing exists except God or Nature. From this perspective science reveals truths about the nature of God. Perhaps pantheism can provide the common ground. Take Einstein for example...

Alan Fox

Michael B writes: (May 5th, 2009 8:02am)

"Alan Fox,

It is not true that Behe and others have done no appreciable work relevant to ID as applied to biological systems. He maintains a blog at Amazon and some of his work in biological systems is commented upon there."

I am quite aware of Professor Behe, and that he is a tenured biochemist at Lehigh University.

Whilst he has published peer-reviewed research in his field, none of this work can be said to be related to ID hypotheses.

Perhaps his paper "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" written jointly with physicist, David Snoke could be argued to have implications or ID, but it has been heavily criticized on scientific grounds notably by John Lynch.

Behe's ID output has been through his popular books, which are not subject to peer review, and Behe seems somewhat reluctant to develop his arguments beyond his 1996 "Darwin's Black Box" in the light of further scientific developments, such as the proposed evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum.

So, I am unaware of any new work from Behe that could be said to provide support for ID hypotheses.

Perhaps you could post a reference?

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Ms. Phillips: I agree with you wholeheartedly about Charles Johnson having a bee in his bonnet about intelligent design. I read his postings on Israel faithfully, but I now skip his postings on intelligent design and evolution.

Miranda Rose Smith

I dislike the title of this otherwise excellent article: "The Secular Inquisition." Nobody is putting anybody on a rack.

Richard Forrest

Melanine Phillips wrote:

MP: "The first thing to note is that the distinction I was drawing was not between ID and religion but between ID and creationism. Creationism holds that the universe was literally created in six days or -- through ’young earth’ Creationism -- that it was created in a few thousand years; either way, it flies in the face of the fact that the universe is billions of years old. "

I suggest that this is not a good description of creationism. There are almost as many different creationist beliefs as there are creationists, and they encompass the full spectrum from flat-earthers to theists who accept the findings of science. The reason why this debate exists is that some of those creationists insist that their particular variety of creationism is supported by science and should be taught as science in science classes. If they were not making that demand there would be no issue.

Any investigation of the history of the ID movement shows that it arises from "scientific" creationism, and is clearly an attempt to sneak religious belief into the science classroom. This was demonstrated clearly during the Dover v. KItzmiller trial, and is documented in the "Wedge Document". I fail to see how anyone can interpret the evidence in any other way. The fact that ID proponents almost always bring religious belief into any discussion on the subject - and the responses to this and the previous article are typical of this - shows the vacuity of the claim that it has nothing to do with religion.

MP: "Since ID holds that some vague kind of intelligent force must have been behind the creation of the universe, there’s surely very little difference (and considerable overlap) between ID proponents and the vast majority of mainstream religious believers – amongst whom are numbered many scientists who have no difficulty reconciling their scientific knowledge about the universe, and the evolution of life within that universe, with belief in an ultimate Creator who kick-started the whole process."

That is not why science rejects and opposes ID. Many scientists, including many evolutionary biologists believe in a creator. ID claims that the actions of this creator can be detected using the tools of science - a position which is as inimical to faith as it is to science. That ID proponents equate their "intelligent designer" with God is clear simply from reading the posts of ID proponents in these comments!

MP: "So what’s the big hullabaloo about?"

When it boils down to basics, it's that creationists seem incapable of promoting their case honestly.

MP: "ID proponents are said by the Charles Johnsons of this world to deny evolution. But this is not so."

Quite so. Evolution is a phenomenon we can observe in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory. To deny that it exists would be bizarre.

MP: "Creationists deny evolution."

No, they don't. What creationists do is to make a distinction between micro- and macroevolution, and claim that only microevolution has been observed. However, they use their own particular definition of macroevolution - which is evolution which has not been directly observed - rather than the definition of the term used by scientists working in the field (who coined the term), which is evolution at the level of speciation and beyond.

MP: "But ID proponents say over and over again they are not Creationists and accept many aspects of evolution, in particular that organisms develop and change over time."

ID proponents may say that, but as the responses to this and the previous article show, the fact that they bring religious belief into the subject shows that they are creationists. If this were a scientific matter, religion would be irrelevant.

MP: "What they don’t accept is that random, blind-chance evolution accounts for the origin of all species and the origin of life, the universe and everything. "

1) Evolution is not "random, blind-chance". The word "selection", as in the term "natural selection" is a bit of a clue
2) Evolutionary theory - in the sense that biologists use the term - does not address the question of how life originated, let alone the origin of the universe. It is a theory which describes the mechanism whereby life on this planet has diversified over time, and accounts for much of what we find in biology.

MP: "ID proponents say the idea that science can account for everything – the doctrine known variously as materialism or scientism – flies in the face of reason and evidence and seeks to commandeer the space previously reserved for the unknowable, or religion, which can sit very comfortably alongside science, as it does for so many."

That is NOT the claim made by ID proponents which leads to the opposition from science! In fact, it is a straw man argument: I don't know any scientist who thinks that "science can account for everything". What ID proponents are claiming is that their position is supported by science - but then go on to demand that we should change the basic rules of science to allow them to justify that claim.

MP: " the suggestion that science might itself arrive at the conclusion that there are limits to what it can understand is a heresy that directly threatens the materialist fundamentalist closed thought-system"

This is simply nonsense. Scientists are well aware of the limits of science: science deals with phenomena which can be observed and measured, and investigates those phenomena by formulating hypotheses which limit possible outcomes and can be tested by the acquisition of further evidence. This is NOT "materialist fundamentalism", only a description of science. Many scientists believe in God, many don't'. Such beliefs do not change the way in which scientists go about their investigations. Science *cannot* test the assertion that God exists because there are no possible limitations on what God can do.

MP: " But it is obviously no more possible to prove the existence of an ‘intelligent designer’ than it is to prove the existence of the Biblical God."

But that is exactly what ID proponents claim! They want their "theory" to be accorded the status of science. If they were not promoting that claim there would be no issue! They are demanding that we abandon the assumption of naturalism which underlies *ALL* science to accommodate that claim. Just read the responses to the articles.

Roy

It is useless to go on down this precipitous road. People will believe what they believe, so let them go their blind indifferent paths unmolested, and hopefully don't try to persuade the likes of myself to whatever it is. We will join a club, read a book or look in on a blog to find like minded people, thats enough for me.

Richard Forrest

Nancy Pearcey wrote:

"Historically, it is a fact that most of the early modern scientists were Christians, guided by a biblical worldview."

Well, no. Science owes much to the Islamic world and to Classical Greece. Islamic scientists made great advances in our knowledge at at time when Christian Europe was backward and illeducated, and it was the discovery of that work, and the work of the Greeks which Islamic scholars had preserved which led to the burgeoning development of science in the West.

NP: "The British philosopher Mary Midgley recognizes this. “Science does have its own worldview that includes guiding presuppositions about the nature of the world,” she points out. “The founders of modern science expressed these very plainly for their time. Cosmic order (they said) flows wholly from God, so science redounds to his glory.”

But if this is science’s “own worldview,” why is it often said that it is invalid or illegitimate to bring God back into science?"

The simple fact is that this is no longer science's "worldview". The early scientists - who called themselves Natural Philosophers - saw God as presiding over a Universe operating under Laws which he had created, and that their role was to uncover those ultimate, unchanging Laws.

Modern science arose because the concept of such ultimate, unchanging Laws was rejected.

Science embraces uncertainty. All theories in all branches of science are held to be provisional, and subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. This is reflected in the language used by scientists. Newton referred to "laws of motion", believing them to be the ultimate truth of God's handiwork. Einsteins theory of relativity provides a better description of the behaviour of objects in motion, yet is held to be provisional. In Newton's day, scientists made their reputations by discovering what they believed to be fundamental and unchanging laws. For the past century, scientists have made their reputations by discovering flaws in those "laws", and providing better models to explain the behaviour of systems.

The reason why it is "illegitimate" to bring God back into science is that the existence and actions of God cannot be tested using the tools of science. Beliefs in divine interaction were rejected as scientific explanations not because all scientists are atheists - clearly this is not the case - but because such "theories" are unfruitful. Scientific theories set constraints on possible outcomes, and it is by investigating those constraints that they are strengthened or rejected. "God did it" sets no constraints.

Richard Forrest

Ronnie wrote:

"I have a question for ALL the scientists here, both ID proponents and others.
In light of the change in climate that the earth seems to be experiencing now, regardless of its causes, do they think that evolutionary developments in nature might take place (actually be taking place) and be observable now and in the near future?"

We observe evolutionary events taking place in nature all the time. Evolution is a constant process affecting all populations of organisms.

The problem climate change presents for the natural world is that the rate of change is very high, and that natural habitats have become fragmented. World climate has changed dramatically in the past, and species have been able to cope with those changes by migration, and by evolving adaptations to new conditions. In a world of fragmented natural habitats migration is frequently no longer an option. Given time, evolutionary changes to population will adapt them to new conditions, but only at the cost of mass extinction.

The evidence from the fossil and geological record shows that there have been five major extinction events over the past half billions of years. The dinosaur extinction event is the most recent, though not the most extreme of these events. Many scientists think that we are now in the middle of the sixth such event. In the past, it took the ecological systems of earth ten to twenty million years to recover from these disasters. That does not bode well for our future and the future of the earth.

Richard Forrest

Tas Walker wrote:
"Archaeology, forensics and SETI are just three scientific disciplines that are built on the belief that we can objectively/scientifically recognize design."

No, they are not. They are disciplines which use the tools of science to investigate how things are made. They don't recognise "design", they look for ways in which things are made.

Taking archaeology as an example: If an archaeologists finds a piece of flint, he looks for clues as to how it was made in the object itself. Flint knapping, for example, leave a characteristic pattern which can be replicated by experiment. Natural processes such as frost action also leave a characteristic pattern. If there are no clues on the object as to how it was made, he'll conclude that we don't know if it is an artifact or not.

"I don't know" is a good answer in science. It leads to further research.
"I don't know, therefore the only possible explanation is that an 'intelligent designer', possibly using supernatural agencies did it" is not a good answer. It leads nowhere.

It's worth noting that SETI scientists have very specifically distanced themselves from the ID movement. They are looking for radio signals with characteristics of those we know to be made by our own technology - i.e. they are testing hypotheses of how they were made.

TS : " ID applies the same principles in other areas, especially microbiology, and objectively concludes that certain systems have the hallmarks of design."

So what work have ID scientists done to analyse the characteristics of objects and systems which are know to be designed to identify those "hallmarks of design"?

"Irreducibly complexity" is clearly not a "hallmark of design" - after all, it was predicted by evolutionary theory over 80 years ago. Moreover, human designers try to make systems as simple as possible. They don't overload them with unnecessary complexity, which is the hallmark of biological systems. Just look at the weird routes nerve fibres take in the human bodies for an example.

Oh, and by the way:

An article which you coauthored on AiG's web site (which has incidentally now been taken down) contains the following passage:
"The scientist who discovered it, Dr Achim Reisdorf, was interviewed in depth in a German-language publication that is sympathetic to the Bible. It is fascinating to watch him wrestle with the evidence, while trying to hold that the sediments were deposited over a million years."
The facts of the case are:
1) The AiG authors of the article - Tas Walker and Carl Wieland did not interview Achim Reisdorf.
2) The article in "Faktum" to which this refers makes no mention of his "wrestling with the evidence".
3) Achim Reisdorf has co-authored a paper in which he gives a detailed account of how this specimen came to be preserved. It presents no problem for geology or palaeontology.
4) The sediments were not laid down over "millions of years" - as the 'Faktum' article explains.
Perhaps you can explain why you felt it necessary to invent something to support your case?

Conservative Cabbie

Ronnie

"ID's role is to prove scientifically that there are things that can't be proved scientifically."

My understanding (admittedly extremely limited) is that ID is an attempt to justify religion in a rational world. Personally I think that's a pointless aim. Religious faith is a way of interpreting the unknowable and I find that to be a laudable aim. It provides us with a common bond and mitigates against the anomic impulse in society. I'm not suggesting that religious faith should be the only way to interpret the unknowable, other methods of inquiry will offer their own interpretations, but belief in a deistic or theistic supreme being has provided society with a purpose and a cohesivness.

Let science do what it does best, exploring the wonders of a materialistic universe and let faith do what it does best by interpreting the wonders of the metaphysical world for a willing flock.

You are right, this is a much better piece by Melanie and so far it has resulted in a much better more informative level of debate. I love these threads!

JohnB

Richard Forrest states '..creationist beliefs....encompass the full spectrum from flat-earthers to theists..' Perhaps he can supply the details of the oft cited Creationist flat-earthers about whom we read regularly but who never actually seem to have written or published anything. Of course it is possible that the term is just another form of low-level abuse against Creationists.

Richard Forrest

Conservative Cabbie wrote:

"Let science do what it does best, exploring the wonders of a materialistic universe and let faith do what it does best by interpreting the wonders of the metaphysical world for a willing flock."

I couldn't agree with you more.

The problem is that creationists - and this includes the ID crowd - want to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand they claim that they have a scientific theory - in which case they should be carrying out research and publishing their findings in the scientific literature - and on the other they claim that we should change the basic assumptions of science to accommodate their "theory".

Mike Jefferson

I certainly don't have any issues with ID, as it is a legitimate attempt to reconcile the secular and religious perspectives in a rigorous fashion. Staunch "evolutionists" are no more scientists than strict "creationists"

Ronnie

Cabbie.

We agree! I think...

Dave

Cabbie: But this is what scientist find so frustrating. No one denies religion can be a force for good. But it's this bizarre need for ID and its defenders to plant their tanks on Science's lawn that really grates.
I don't march into church and insist the Holy Trinity might also be the various quarks and we need to have a "debate" about it.

Conservative Cabbie

Richard Forrest

"The problem is that creationists - and this includes the ID crowd - want to have their cake and eat it."

But that only applies to activist creationists and ID advocates, not the vast majority of religious people.

Progressive activists employ a similar fraud. For progressivism to achieve it's ultimate goal, the notion of a transcendental God has to be eliminated. Man cannot be supreme whilst God exists in the minds of the people. The supremacy of science as an interpretative function has become their weapon of choice because, of course, science and God are antithetical. It's a skilful strategy but still a fraudulent one.

Duncan Marr

Richard Forrest - many thanks for your posts, which are all 'bang-on'. I do hope that Melanie Phillips has read them.

Conservative Cabbie

Ronnie

"We agree! I think..."

That can't be right. Have you double checked that? :-)

Richard Forrest

Mike Jefferson write:
"I certainly don't have any issues with ID, as it is a legitimate attempt to reconcile the secular and religious perspectives in a rigorous fashion. "

But that isn't what ID actually *is*! It's an attempt to acquire scientific status for religious belief, and to do so by demanding that the basic assumptions of science be changed to accommodate the "theory"!

There is a perfectly healthy debate on how religion and science can coexist in the modern world. The Templeton Foundation, for example, actively encourages such debates and funds academic research on the subject. Many of the harshest critics of ID are those who hold strong religious beliefs - Simon Conway Morris and Francis Collins for starters.

If ID were not making any claim for scientific legitimacy, this would not be an issue. It's the fact that ID proponents *are* making such a claim that this whole issue exists.

Conservative Cabbie

Dave

"I don't march into church and insist the Holy Trinity might also be the various quarks and we need to have a "debate" about it."

But you do say that God doesn't exist, or is as real as the "spaghetti monster". In other words, you take your values and use it to diminish the values of others. "Debate" isn't even an option. All the ID'ers are doing is accepting your values as a way of supplementing theirs. I don't think they need to do it, on that we can agree, but I'm not sure you should feel threatened by it.

I realise that our dialogue tends to be one of disagreement. That is not a personal thing on my part. I respect your passion for science. Who could not? The unravelling of the mysteries of the Universe through science has been a wondous thing (and far beyond my limited comprehension). It is only your dogmatic position towards towards the equally wondrous possibilities of the unknowable that I take issue with.

Richard

P.S. Far from scientific basis for intelligent design, scientific method suggests specifically that there is no intelligent design. You all know about the blind spot in your eye. There are thousands of known features of physiology that are obvious design flaws but are caused by the route evolution has followed.

The fact that sudden, beneficial changes do not happen in one step is the basis of the argument about irreducable complexity. The error made there is in failing to recognise the intermediate steps and their benefits. However the inability of evolution to make large leaps suggests that certain sub-optimal arrangements of the organism will be found in evolved organisms, and that is exactly what we find.

Michael B

Alan Fox,

Respectfully, I'm a humble layman who reads some of the directly derivative material in publications such as New Scientist (and generally avoid more PC tending and influenced publications such as Scientific American). Also, I'm better at sifting through physics and cosmology related data than I am sifting through the data relevant to biological systems. (Though in substantial part due to the vastly greater PC, Dawkinsesque orthodoxy and attendant obfuscations the biological systems material is filtered through, from the point of administration and budgeting control on through to publishing phases - though for technical reasons as well: physics and cosmology more readily lends itself to essentially mathematical comprehensions.)

Also, I specifically outlined my own more limited appreciation for what ID within biological systems reflects (broadly suggestive, not reflective of a scientific theoretical architecture). It remains a positive appreciation for the previously stated reasons, but it is also a more limited appreciation than a theoretical structure would allow.

So, with that additional perspective and framing in mind, no, beyond the link (to Behe's Amazon blog) already provided I have no additional material to point to, relevant to Behe. Though I am (very broadly) read in additional biological systems complexity issues at cellular, genetic and epigenetic levels, all of which continue to reveal still more, not less, degrees and types of complexity.

Leigh Jackson

Listen to Ken Miller explaining why he thinks ID is a form of Creationism. (Press the arrow.)
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/FAR266%20Miller1.mp3

simone bacchini

I have to congratulate Melanie on this truly excellent posting: the explanation of her position is fool-proof and should be the starting point for ID (Intelligent Debate) on intelligent design vs. purely materialistic science.
Well done Melanie - you've truly helped the debate!!!

Richard Forrest

JohnB asks: "Perhaps he can supply the details of the oft cited Creationist flat-earthers about whom we read regularly but who never actually seem to have written or published anything"

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
and here:
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/flatearth.html

Of course, with the death of Charles Johnson there may not be many of them left, but there seems little doubt that such a belief exists or existed, and that its proponents were serious.

Ronnie

Cabbie, yes. I've given it a lot of thought and I'm sticking to my guns, we agree. Although I have started shaking uncontrollably in the last two hours...

Dave and Richard Forrest, you can't stop the Creationists, ID people and anyone else making their case. You simply have to make yours as best you can.

It's just unfortunate that the debate seems to have become polarised with competing 'orthodoxies' being defended to the death.

It's a pity that humans have to do that because solutions to problems could be found more quickly. On climate change for example. We'd rather argue about whether it is man-made or not instead of seriously looking at what we might do to understand it and try to manage its very serious effects.

Boris Krofsky

ID is NOT science. Science rightly says nothing about the idea of a creator. If people want to infer from scientific discoveries that there is a creator because they cannot believe that such complexity can arise by chance, then that's just fine but ID is NOT a concept that can be studied scientifically. It's unfalsifiable, it's immeasurable.

ID is an opinion, and a flawed one at that, which basically boils down to an argument from personal incredulity - "Because I cannot imagine that this happened, therefore it didn't" - a very poor, closed-minded, and fruitless method of reasoning indeed.

It's worth mentioning, too, that each example given of "irreducible complexity" (a cornerstone concept in ID) to date has been satisfactorily debunked - the bacterial flagellum, the eye, the "747 in a junkyard" argument, etc: all easily and logically explainable without the need to invoke a creator.

John R

Another excellent response Mel. However, the strength of feeling (and sometimes misunderstanding) in the Comments shows the extent to which some find it very hard to accept, as legitimate, any views outside of their own paradigm. T S Kuhn said it all.

Dave

Ronnie: Agreed. But I can understand why Dawkins gets so annoyed. ID is just such a feeble scrap of an idea.

Ann

"Science owes much to the Islamic world and to Classical Greece. Islamic scientists made great advances in our knowledge at at time when Christian Europe was backward and illeducated"

That's a bit of a myth on both counts. Islam did much more preserving and transmitting (the usefulness of which nobody denies) than original science. And the idea of a European Dark Age when nothing much happened has been debunked by recent and not-so-recent archesological work.

Rich

Johnsons arguments on the matter stem from creationist hijacking ID to land in public school science courses. Once that rock was overturned Johnson draws the connection between ID and the stacking of state school boards with members that will vote to place ID in science books. Keep it in philosophy class, not science.

Thom

The essential question being debated here is whether the physical Universe had a beginning, or has the physical Universe always existed with no beginning or prior causation?

Modern scientists rely on the principle of causation as a pillar of the scientific method.

For example, the theory of evolution is based on the premise that everything in existence (life in particular) can be attributed to a prior cause. Biologists trace the origin of a chicken not to hatching from a magical egg that always physically existed forever in time and had no beginning, but to evolution from primordial one-celled amoebic life-forms. (Biologists still haven’t discovered the origin of life.)

The critical question for scientists (and really for everybody): IF there is a cause for the existence of the Universe (just like everything else in the Universe has a prior cause), what could create existence from non-existence?

And why?

I don’t think Melanie Phillips deserves to be pilloried for daring to imagine the Universe may also have a cause, just like every other physical object in existence.

Richard Forrest

Ann wrote:

"That's a bit of a myth on both counts. Islam did much more preserving and transmitting (the usefulness of which nobody denies) than original science."

I suggest that the myth is rather that European science came straight from the Ancient Classical world, and that the Islamic civilization contributed little. Many of the key concepts which make science possible, not least the decimal system of numbers came from Islam. They made many contributions to medicine, astronomy, physics, chemistry and other fields of science.

A: "And the idea of a European Dark Age when nothing much happened has been debunked by recent and not-so-recent archesological work."

Well no, not really. The collapse of Roman Civilisation in the West led to a general breakdown in the structure of society in Western Europe, exacerbated by plague and climate change. Literacy was not common, and confined largely to monastic institutions. It was a matter of note that some Dark Age monarchs such as Alfred and Charlemagne could read. Of course, this was not a world of universal doom and gloom. The Byzantine Empire flourished in the East (and was the source from which Islam got hold of classical Greek texts), but never managed to regain control of Western Europe.

Sergey

Do educated Brits know the best 20th methodologist of science Carl Popper? He solved the so-called problem of demarcation: what type of assertion can be called scientific, and what can not. All scientific assertions, proven or unproven, must be falsifiable, that is, indicate a possible set of observable facts that disprove them. Philosophy and religion are not restricted by this rule, and should not be. This criterion shows us that there are limits to what kind of problems any science can attempt to solve and why there is not and can not be any true conflict between science and religion, only failure of one of them or both to stay in their proper ground.

Conservative Cabbie

Thom

"I don’t think Melanie Phillips deserves to be pilloried for daring to imagine the Universe may also have a cause, just like every other physical object in existence."

Nicely put.

Micky Mollallegn

For those who repeat the mantra 'ID is religion disguised as science', what is your proof?

Richard Forrest

Thom wrote:

"The essential question being debated here is whether the physical Universe had a beginning, or has the physical Universe always existed with no beginning or prior causation?"

Emm...no. It isn't. That is a question which can be debated by theologians and philosophers, but is not one which can be addressed by science.

T: "The critical question for scientists (and really for everybody): IF there is a cause for the existence of the Universe (just like everything else in the Universe has a prior cause), what could create existence from non-existence?"

Whatever the personal views of scientists, that is not a question which can be addressed by the tools of science. Some scientists are devout believers in their particular religion, others atheist or agnostic. Their personal beliefs do not affect the way they use the tools of science to investigate the workings of the universe. The answer a scientist might give to this question has no more value than the the answer anyone else might give to that question.

This whole debate exists because ID proponents claim scientific support for their religious convictions, and use flawed arguments to make their case.

Sergey

These debates about where ID actually belongs - science, philosophy or religion - are bogus. Every holistic worldview, including materialism, consists of scientific, philosophic and religious component. Each can be discussed separately, if proper rules of discussion are established. In scientific dispute it is prohibited to envoke as an argument some unprovable philosophic speculation, however popular. That is why materialists argue that there nothing in universe exept mater, they defend not some provable hypothesis, but a philosophical speculation dear to them and hostile to others. Such arguments make no sense.

Richard Forrest

Micky Mollallegn asked:
"For those who repeat the mantra 'ID is religion disguised as science', what is your proof?"
Well, there's the ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial for starters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

Then there's the "Wedge Document":
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Then there's the behaviour of ID supporters in these comments: Note the way in which they bring religion in what is supposed to be a scientific issue:
jodyb: "Any discussion of this topic on the internet provokes the arrival of hordes of atheist harpies, "
Tas Walker: "The biblical creationist worldview provides a valid starting point for scientific research."
Tex Taylor: "I think the problem that many proponents of atheistic Darwinism or whatever is appropriate name,"
Tas Walker: "The whole strategy of these clowns, the atheistic media and the atheistic scientific elite "
hadrian: "Granted I.D. is a form of creationism just what is the problem with that? Design does after all hint at a designer!!!
Atheists are free to interpret the evidence in line with their world-view presuppositions"
hadrian: "This thread vividly proves what a massive investment /reliance the atheist has in/on evolution to oust theism from the public forum. "
VMartin: "only to find out that darwinism is a myth their atheistic supporters hold to like a rescue wheel."
John A. Davison (and this is one of many such references) :" congenital atheist mentality which is central to the Darwinian scheme"

If this is supposed to be a scientific issue, why all the references to atheism, and the claim that ID opponents are atheist?

JohnB

Richard Forrest: Thank you for coming up with an example of one flat earther who apparently existed some years ago. From an interview on his website I quote 'He contends that sensible people all over the world, not just Bible believers, realize that the earth really is flat'. It seems a feeble premise to tar all Creationists with. Don't you agree? John

Brian Jordan

Goodness, Melanie, you don't even know what Young Earth Creationism is! It doesn't argue that the Earth was created over a few thousand years, it argues that it all happened over six day but only a few thousand years AGO.
(sorry if someone's pointed this out already)

Leigh Jackson

Thom, if we understand what causes everything in the universe, then to talk about the cause of the universe is nonsense.

Not that this has the slightest bearing on ID as a "scientific" alternative to evolution.

Michael B

"Science rightly says nothing about the idea of a creator." Boris Krofsky

Science as such, science qua science and within its formal disciplines, arguably says nothing. But individual scientists (e.g., Dawkins) do say things, pro or con. An example follows, one that has already been alluded to in this thread:

When it was discovered that the standard model of physics, at the level of the GUT, required the parameters of physics to be fine-tuned to an infinitesimal degree of 1 part in 10ł˛, in the words of one writer "this extreme fine-tuning [made] many theorists uneasy." Why did it make these "many" theorists uneasy? Almost entirely because it greatly added to the anthropic arguments.

Iow, it isn't merely at budgetary and administrative levels that certain (predetermined and extra-scientific) agendas begin to evidence themselves. Individual scientists - because they are prepossessed as anti-theists or atheists, for other reasons as well - say a great deal, both openly and covertly, about the idea - of a creator, that's why.

Ergo, people are naive in the extreme to believe that scientists (real, individual scientists) are ideal, unbiased, cut-out figures, for example as represented in some literature and in popular publications.

Locker

Intelligent Design is rebranded Creationism NOT science. This isn't an opinion, a guess or an attack... it's a fact backed up by solid evidence and proven in court.

Check the PBS documentary on the Dover trial by a conservative judge who still wasn't swayed by the BS:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

SAMIZDAT

Furthermore: Science is not decided by "debate". It is decided by the presentation of evidence. ID is a hypothesis and thus must present peer-reviewed research in its favour. It's not "paradoxical". It's just wrong. Debate has not been shut down; the arguments were refuted, and not ignored. Irreducable complexity was *shown* to be bunkum.

The only place people are forbidden from discussing ID is in science lessons, and that's because it isn't the place for debate. Kids do not have the resources to decide between the hypotheses.

You will find that NO unproven theories are taught in science classes. Even abiogenesis is notably absent from the curriculum. When ID presents its peer-reviewed research disproving evolution and demonstrating that all the evidence points towards an ID, then it will be admitted to the classroom, and not before.

Erik Lidström

Ronnie,

"I have a question for ALL the scientists here, both ID proponents and others..."

A fair guess is that there are (almost) no practicing (or "retired" in my case) here that are proponents of ID.

Richard Forrest and Ann:
There is a new book out for those who read French that I can strongly recommend, "Aristote au Mont St Michel" by Sylvain Gouguenheim.
http://www.amazon.fr/Aristote-mont-Saint-Michel-grecques-chr%C3%A9tienne/dp/2020965410/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241553443&sr=8-1

It makes a few interesting points. First of all, western Europe did never loose contact with Greek learning, because of the existence of Byzantium. A lot was forgotten, but there was always trade an attempts to renew what had been lost.
Secondly, there was quite a bit of science in the Muslim world, and quite a bit of it was Arab. However, the scientists and doctors were mainly Christians and Jews. Works were translated from Greek to Syriac and then to Arabic (or directly to Arabic). Indian numbers were transmitted to us by Arabs (but they were not Arabic). Then later in the 12th century, translations came from Spain that were made into Latin. They had then gone through three or four languages and two or three different cultures that decided what was acceptable or not.

30-50 years before these translations appeared, ALL of Aristotle was translated directly from Greek into Latin at the Mont St Michel monastery and distributed throughout western Europe.

The Muslim culture was furthermore not particularly receptive to Greek culture. The works that were translated from Greek into Arabic were only works that were considered "useful", like medicine and mathematics. Literature was never translated. Homer has yet to be translated into Arabic!
Contributions were of course made by Muslim Arabs, but quite a few of their discoveries were not transmitted and later made independently in Europe.

Arab science then died in the chaos around 1100 and has not been revived since. By 1200, European scientific and technological knowledge exploded and left the rest of the world largely behind.

David Cosandey provides an explanation for this, that is blindingly obvious to an engineer or other "hard" scientist.

http://www.amazon.fr/secret-lOccident-th%C3%A9orie-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale-scientifique/dp/2081218712/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241554486&sr=1-1

Donald

Melanie writes: "...precisely because ID does come out of science..."
This is hugely misleading, Melanie.
ID may "come out" of science in the sense of talking about the discoveries of DNA structures made by science.
But ID is not science, in the sense of being part of science.
ID makes no significant predictions. It's just an old familiar argument - "gosh that's so complicated it must have had a designer" - well known to scientists as the "argument from personal incredulity".
In fact, the complexity of DNA and how that complexity evolved is well explained by evolutionary theory, and no "Intelligent Designer" is required.
Belief in ID is merely incredulity at the wonders that natural selection creates.

hadrian

Well, the airy dismissal by evolutionists that the origin of life is no concern of their theory IS indeed a convenient cop out. After all, it purports to explain life as arising from purely naturalistic evolutionary processes. And I think the common man would be rather surprised, not to say astonished, to find their evolutionist gurus suddenly turning around and disclaiming interest in how lifeless matter evolved into life- a pretty crucial step in the whole process. If it is of so little interest in evolution just how come Dawkins and co get so hot under the collar at the very idea of God and utlise their evolutionary credentials to prove 'there probably isn't a deity' ?! At the very least he should be able to coexist with theistic evolutionists if this origin question ( how did it get started?) is of no great shakes. What's at work here is prejudice- PRE-judice, presuppositions!
We are told by another poster that it is pretty poor science to say 'I cannot imagine this happening by chance, so it didn't.' Er, couldn't the tables be exactly turned on this? The evolutionist atheist saying 'I cannot imagine intelligent design behind this, so there isn't.' ?! However as Dawkins type science shows, its tendency is radical naturalistic- and so science indeed MUST explain everything and will not rest at any 'boundary' where the philosopher and theologian take over.
To the poster who objects to Mel's phrase about 'secular inquisition' , there may not be the rack but there IS the sack for those who dare to question the evolutionary game!
Dr Nancy Darrall (Ph.D., botanist, M.Sc., Speech pathology/therapy from London Univ.)makes a very cogent point. She has written that in ecological courses the complex webs of interaction is explored and their evolution merely asserted as fact.
' In no subject area was experimental or observational evidence provided to support such statements. In other subjects- plant taxonomy, biochemistry, physiology, crops of agriculture, plant breeding, crop pests, and diseases- no reference was made to the topic of evolution in courses. Clearly the complexities of all these fields of study can stand alone and develop without the evolutionary basis that is claimed to undergird all areas of biological science.
Indeed in some cases trying to impose evoluionary pattern with speculative attempts to produce phylogenetic trees and systems without much valid evidence actually hinders progress of taxonomy.

hadrian

One further point- the poster who made so much about the physical law that states the universe will inevitably end in a heat death( the entropy law) so that God is in effect powerless really needs to recall God is the Almighty, the universe His creature, and He can do what He will with it and we are not at the 'mercy' of impersonal forces. As the Psalmist reminds us: 'The moon by night thee shall not smite, nor yet the sun by day...' Ps. 121. Dr Gary North has an incisive study of this from a Scriptural viewpoint-
'Is the World Running Down?'
10 digit ISBN-0930462521

Erik Lidström

There is a very interesting article about the swine flu virus in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/health/05virus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Suppose for a moment that DI is science. What exactly would the DI version of this article look like??

Researcher believes that the virus evolved 6-11 months ago, that the various strains shared a common ancestor at that time.

At what time during the evolution of the virus would some "intelligent design" have taken place?

Raymond in DC

Mel, since you describe yourself as an "agnostic, if traditionally minded Jew", let me suggest Natan Slifkin's "The Challenge of Creation". Widely known as the "Zoo Rabbi", he's also a naturalist of some note. He analyzes evolution, cosmology, ID and more from both classical Jewish sources and the latest science. It's a worthwhile read.

Bottom line - at least for today's discussion - is that intelligent design doesn't advance our understanding, and ends up relegating the Creator/Designer to the margins. Science keeps probing.

Given that our civilization is daily under increasing assault, ID is not an issue we should be wasting our time arguing about.

hadrian

Incidentally, the attitude of the Roman Church towards evolution has altered dramatically since the early days of last century.
Pope PiusX, arch reactionary, fulminated against evolutionary ideology and hounded any with the least suspicion of 'modernist' tendencies. He issued solemn Encyclicals against these twin evils and set up a Pontifical Biblcal Commission to report on the matter. It did so in 1909 ( or thereabouts) and manifestly rejects evolution of humanity.
How this squares with more recent papal pronouncements is a theological mystery. There are pockets of anti-evolutionists in the R.C. Church just as there are R.C.s who blithely accept the 'science'!

Tim

Great article Melanie - thanks for writing it. Just one point. Creationists do believe in dinosaurs. I know many creation science advocates and not one denies that dinosaurs existed. I would add that no mainline (ICR, AIG etc) creation science organisation or literature denies dinosaurs either to my knowledge.

EscapeVelocity

Bravo, once again Melanie.

Melanie said: "What I have also seen, however, is an attempt to shut down that argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents."

Yes, they are censors and excommunicators of heretics to their beliefs.

Melanie said: "ID proponents are said by the Charles Johnsons of this world to deny evolution. But this is not so."

Right once again. They are fighting windmills that look like totalitarian Christian fascists...or some other fantastical frightful creature of their own imaginings.

Melanie said: "ID makes space -- as the result of science -- for belief in a creator...And that’s the incendiary point. For the idea that faith might actually be informed by science sends the materialist fundies totally and completely ape "

Bingo! You are hittin on all cylinders Melanie. Atheists cannot abide heresy to their beliefs. Thus the excommunication, censoring, and trampling of free iquiry and thought via reason and observation.

Melanie said: "Dogma is certainly what is on the other side of ID in this fight – a materialist dogma which, posing as the standard-bearer of reason against obscurantism, actually embodies irrationality and a kind of intellectual fascism. It is a secular inquisition – as the reaction to my post makes all too plain."

You hit that one out of the park. The anti ID crowd is the mirror of what they claim to be opposing. They are projecting.

The ID isnt science argument is a distraction, and facade for their agenda to silence anyone or any scientific evidence or reason who/which may challenge their metaphysical beliefs.

Richard Forrest

JohnB wrote: "It seems a feeble premise to tar all Creationists with. Don't you agree? "
I don't tar all Creationists as flat earthers. The point is that creationists hold a wide spectrum of beliefs. Flat earthers are simply an extreme end of that spectrum.

Richard Forrest

hadrian wrote: "Well, the airy dismissal by evolutionists that the origin of life is no concern of their theory IS indeed a convenient cop out."

In what way is explaining that evolutionary theory does not provide an answer to a question it does not address a cop-out?

H: " After all, it purports to explain life as arising from purely naturalistic evolutionary processes."

Evolutionary theory does nothing of the sort. It's a theory which explains what happens to populations of replicating organism over successive generations.
As for "purely naturalistic" - ALL science in ALL fields provides ONLY naturalistic explanations. It's a fundamental assumption of science!

H: "And I think the common man would be rather surprised, not to say astonished, to find their evolutionist gurus suddenly turning around and disclaiming interest in how lifeless matter evolved into life- a pretty crucial step in the whole process."

As an evolutionary biologist I'm very interested in how life originated. However, I understand that it's not an area of research which is addressed by evolutionary biology. There is plenty of scientific research in the field of abiogenesis, and is the case with ALL research in ALL fields of science, it is carried out under the assumption of naturalism.

H: "However as Dawkins type science shows, its tendency is radical naturalistic- and so science indeed MUST explain everything and will not rest at any 'boundary' where the philosopher and theologian take over."

So perhaps you can identify any field of any science which is not based on the premise of naturalism? There's nothing "radical" about that. It's simply the nature of science.

If you want to reject science, fine. It's your prerogative. However, asserting that science should change its fundamental assumptions so that your particular religious belief can be taught as science in science classes is not a persuasive argument.

Richard Forrest

Tim wrote: "Creationists do believe in dinosaurs."
Quite so. Bearing in mind that we dig up their bones in large numbers and that mounted dinosaur skeletons can be found as major exhibits in many museums, to deny their existence would be bizarre to say the least.
However, many creationists insist that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans - an assertion for which there is not a scrap of evidence.

Emmet Sweeney

Evolution was not Darwin’s idea. It existed long before him. But his theory of how it happened – natural selection – was his. It was not a good theory, but it was at least a genuine scientific theory: it was falsifiable; and it was in fact quickly falsified. If Darwin had been right, it should have been possible to produce new species on farms and in laboratories. That such new species cannot be produced is proof that natural selection (as an explanation for evolution) is false.
Haldane and co, whose “Neo-Darwinism” introduced the concept of random genetic mutations, changed Darwin’s original theory, which was falsifiable, into a genuine psuedo-science, which was not falsifiable. The concept of beneficial genetic mutation is a classic deus ex machina – a wholly miraculous intervention introduced to save the plot. It cannot be falsified because it cannot be observed or repeated. If an opponent argues that useful mutations seem pretty hard to come by, the Neo-Darwinist inkoves ever-lengthening spans of time in which they “could have” occurred. And attempts to reproduce such mutations have proved wholly ineffective. Over the past three quarters of a century fruit flies and other unsuspecting laboratory creatures have been bombarded with more sub-atomic particles than your avergae Klingon Battle Cruiser. Yet their offspring remain stubbonly fruit-flies.
The simple fact is, no amount of time, and no amount of accidental mutations, can account for what we see in nature. Arctic animals, for example, which turn white in the winter, would have needed an accidental mutation (or many such accidents) every bit as miraculous as those proposed by the exponents of Intelligent Design. Consider the evolution of arctic foxes, as an example. If we assume that all foxes were originally of a brownish colour, Neo-Darwinist theory suggests that, in a region of increasingly cold winters, some foxes were (accidentally) born with a mutation which turned their fur white. These, enjoying the protection of camouflage, survived better and bred more effectively. Eventually, all arctic foxes had the gene. Yet we note that the gene was one which didn’t just change the fox’s coat white: it changed it white in the winter and back to brown again in the summer – all by pure accident!
The improbability of such a mutation occurring by accident hardly needs to be stressed. By way of comparison, consider the fact that the human population of the earth is now around six billion. How many of these have hair which turns white in the winter? Throughout human history, with all the many billions of people who have ever lived, has such a “mutation” occurred even once? I think not.
Neo-Darwinism is therefore a dead duck. Evolution happened. How it happened, no one knows. What is wrong (or unscientific) about admitting that?

Polly Gamma

Thank you Melanie.

Leigh Jackson

EscapeVelocity,

"Melanie said: "ID makes space -- as the result of science -- for belief in a creator...And that’s the incendiary point. For the idea that faith might actually be informed by science sends the materialist fundies totally and completely ape "

Bingo! You are hittin on all cylinders Melanie. Atheists cannot abide heresy to their beliefs. Thus the excommunication, censoring, and trampling of free iquiry and thought via reason and observation."

And what of non-atheists? What does it matter whether one is religious or not when it comes to wishing to protect science from subversion? I supplied a link to a recording of Ken Miller's address to Cambridge University in an earlier post.

He tells his audience that he is himself a creationist and believes in intelligent design - and believes evolution is God's chosen method of creating life's diversity. He also explains that the Catholic Church has long emphasised the importance of ensuring that faith and science do not conflict. It is for that reason that he works so hard to inform people that ID is not science.

Is the Catholic Church also part of Melanie's inquisition?

Sergey

"ALL science in ALL fields provides ONLY naturalistic explanations. It's a fundamental assumption of science!"
Absolutely true. But this does not automatically make this assumption a truth: it simply indicate where science can work, and where it can not. It still is not clear whether biological evolution is purely natural process, or it is not. In other fields picture is more transparent: biopoesis, that is origin of life itself, is not assessible by scientific method and is doomd to stay a subject of philosophic speculation. This is even more clear for origin of Universe: no physics can exist to describe emergence of space, time and matter from nothing. The best modern mathematician, Roger Penrose, demonstrated this very convincingly.

Richard Forrest

Emmet Sweeney wrote
"If Darwin had been right, it should have been possible to produce new species on farms and in laboratories. That such new species cannot be produced is proof that natural selection (as an explanation for evolution) is false."

What about the numerous instance of speciation reported in the scientific literature? There are hundreds of examples. Here are just a few:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

If you don't think that these represent genuine speciation events you need to address the evidence and argument presented in all of these papers.

ES: "Haldane and co, whose “Neo-Darwinism” introduced the concept of random genetic mutations, changed Darwin’s original theory, which was falsifiable, into a genuine psuedo-science, which was not falsifiable."

In what sense is the finding that mutations occur at random in respect of fitness not falsifiable? One can carry out statistical tests on the incidence of mutations. Such tests have been carried out and they support the hypothesis that they are random. If the statistical tests showed that they are non-random, the hypothesis would be falsified.

ES:
"The concept of beneficial genetic mutation is a classic deus ex machina – a wholly miraculous intervention introduced to save the plot."
It is? Here are a very few instances of the large numbers of such mutations: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Please explain in what way these are a "wholly miraculous intervention"? Are you claiming that they are not beneficial, or that they don't exist?

ES: " If an opponent argues that useful mutations seem pretty hard to come by, the Neo-Darwinist inkoves ever-lengthening spans of time in which they “could have” occurred."

As we have observed the occurence of beneficial mutations, tracked them in populations by analysis of the genomes of organisms effected, and observed their increasing frequency in natural and laboratory populations perhaps you can explain why anyone needs to invoke "ever-lengthening spans of time"? The primary evidence for evolution has always come from studies of existing organisms. There is no need to invoke "ever-lengthening spans of time".

ES: "Over the past three quarters of a century fruit flies and other unsuspecting laboratory creatures have been bombarded with more sub-atomic particles than your avergae Klingon Battle Cruiser. Yet their offspring remain stubbonly fruit-flies."

Those experiments have also led to speciation to the extent that fruit fly experiments have been carried out to test different models of speciation. Evolutionary theory *predicts* that the offspring of fruit flies will show characters which identify them as fruit flies. Humans carry characters which identify them as tetrapods, synapsids, mammals, primates, apes and hominds. This concept, referred to as the nested hierarchy, is central to biological classification and was identified long before evolutionary theory provided an explanatory mechanism.

ES: "The simple fact is, no amount of time, and no amount of accidental mutations, can account for what we see in nature."

Well, the people who have actually *studied* such phenomena disagree with you. What do you know that they don't?

ES: "Arctic animals, for example, which turn white in the winter, would have needed an accidental mutation (or many such accidents) every bit as miraculous as those proposed by the exponents of Intelligent Design."

Such mutations are relatively common. We used to have a strain of blackbirds living in our garden which showed a range of colour variation from those with the odd patch of white to a few completely white individuals. In an environment in which such colour patches make them stand out and make them a target for cats this is not a beneficial mutation. In a snow-covered environment it would be highly beneficial.

Perhaps you can explain what is miraculous about this.

ES: "Neo-Darwinism is therefore a dead duck. Evolution happened. How it happened, no one knows. What is wrong (or unscientific) about admitting that?"

Has it never occurred to you that if you were to educate yourself in the subject you might be able to make comments which reveal more than just your ignorance of evolutionary theory and the evidence which supports it?

Leigh Jackson

Sergey,

""ALL science in ALL fields provides ONLY naturalistic explanations. It's a fundamental assumption of science!"
Absolutely true. But this does not automatically make this assumption a truth: it simply indicate where science can work, and where it can not. It still is not clear whether biological evolution is purely natural process, or it is not. In other fields picture is more transparent: biopoesis, that is origin of life itself, is not assessible by scientific method and is doomd to stay a subject of philosophic speculation. This is even more clear for origin of Universe: no physics can exist to describe emergence of space, time and matter from nothing. The best modern mathematician, Roger Penrose, demonstrated this very convincingly."

You are correct Sergey, scientific naturalism is a reflection of the limits of the power of unaided reason to interpret physical evidence. To go beyond science is not the business of science. When you say that it is still not clear whether evolution is a purely natural process it all depends on what you mean. Within the limits of science evolution is considered to be a fact of nature. Whether something else underpins nature - and therefore evolution - is a question which goes beyond the power of science to answer.

Whether religion can answer that question is a philosophical question.

In no way would I want to compare myself with Roger Penrose but I studied quantum mechanics as part of my degree. One can interpret many aspects of modern physics and cosmology in various speculative ways - scientific and philosophical - but the same limiting principles of the capacities of science apply as they do in the case of evolution. Philosphy can speculate and religion can appeal to faith on the question of ultimate metaphysical reality but science can only speak with authority on that which is not metaphysical.

Leigh Jackson

Sergy,

"In other fields picture is more transparent: biopoesis, that is origin of life itself, is not assessible by scientific method and is doomd to stay a subject of philosophic speculation. This is even more clear for origin of Universe: no physics can exist to describe emergence of space, time and matter from nothing. The best modern mathematician, Roger Penrose, demonstrated this very convincingly.""

One needs to be very careful when predicting that we will never have a scientific understanding of some particular natural phenomenon. Such predictions have been proved wrong many, many times. In mathematics nothing is represented by the integer 0. Division by 0 cannot be defined in mathematics but physics is more than pure maths. "Nothing" from the physical as opposed to mathematical point of view is not properly defined in physics either, as far as I am aware. The vacuum is certainly no longer considered to be physically nothing.

When I studied physics I became acutely conscious of the temptation to interpret puzzling modern discoveries in ways which favourable to one's philosophical temperament - a natural enough temptation indeed. If one is going to do this it is best to be aware of it!

My own bet is that we will one day be learn how to create basic life from scratch.

Leigh Jackson

Sergy,

"In other fields picture is more transparent: biopoesis, that is origin of life itself, is not assessible by scientific method and is doomd to stay a subject of philosophic speculation. This is even more clear for origin of Universe: no physics can exist to describe emergence of space, time and matter from nothing. The best modern mathematician, Roger Penrose, demonstrated this very convincingly.""

One needs to be very careful when predicting that we will never have a scientific understanding of some particular natural phenomenon. Such predictions have been proved wrong many, many times. In mathematics nothing is represented by the integer 0. Division by 0 cannot be defined in mathematics but physics is more than pure maths. "Nothing" from the physical as opposed to mathematical point of view is not properly defined in physics either, as far as I am aware. The vacuum is certainly no longer considered to be physically nothing.

When I studied physics I became acutely conscious of the temptation to interpret puzzling modern discoveries in ways which favourable to one's philosophical temperament - a natural enough temptation indeed. If one is going to do this it is best to be aware of it!

My own bet is that we will one day be learn how to create basic life from scratch.

Richard Forrest

RF: "ALL science in ALL fields provides ONLY naturalistic explanations. It's a fundamental assumption of science!"

Serge: "Absolutely true. But this does not automatically make this assumption a truth:"

Of course it doesn't. Science doesn't deal with truth, only provisional explanations for phenomena which can be observed or measured. However, the fact that science has been very successful in uncovering the workings of the universe suggests that it's a pretty good assumption.

Serge: " it simply indicate where science can work, and where it can not. It still is not clear whether biological evolution is purely natural process, or it is not."

If biological evolution is not a purely natural process, how can science discover that? If you want to believe that there is more to evolution than purely naturalistic processes, fine. Just don't pretend that your belief is supported by science and should be taught as science in science classes.

Serge: "In other fields picture is more transparent: biopoesis, that is origin of life itself, is not assessible by scientific method and is doomd to stay a subject of philosophic speculation."

Why on earth is it *not* accessible to science? We can look at the evidence and formulate hypotheses which can be tested by acquiring further evidence. That's how science works. In what way is that "philosophic speculation"?

Serge: "This is even more clear for origin of Universe: no physics can exist to describe emergence of space, time and matter from nothing."

Ever heard of quantum physics? It does just that.

Serge: "The best modern mathematician, Roger Penrose, demonstrated this very convincingly."

...and other mathematicians and physicists have argued that he is wrong.

None of which, of course, has anything whatsoever to do with biological evolution.

Sergey

Sometimes science can clearly indicate its own limitations of principle nature, like in case of deterministic chaos theory. No prognosis can be made of a weather patterns 3 weeks from now, since all correlation of to-day observation and future would be lost in 3 weeks. The same limitation is clearly obvious in quantum mechanics: no science ever will predict the result of two particle interaction, since this is forbidden by science itself. The same situation can easily arise in any natural science, since unstable systems with unpredictable behaviour are ubiquitous. Such "no go" principles are not imposed on science externally, they are in themselves very important pieces of science itself. And, of course, I knew about quantum physics, I studied it for 3 semesters in Moscow University and wrote a diploma on it. But emergence of particles from vacuum fluctuations is another problem than emergence of vacuum itself (and also space and time): there is not and never will be any physical theory explaining this, since all science can work only on assumption the universe already exists. That is, its emergence is a methaphysical, not a physical problem.

Sergey

I found it very helpful to teach in schools the basics of scientific method itself, not only results of its application, which also naturally includes basic limitations of this method. A lot of people now believe that science potentially can know everything, which simply is not true. Naturalistic determinism is now debunked, this philosophy is incompatible with modern science, but it is still alive and kicking, as seen on this thread.

Roger Stanyard

Leigh Jackson claims that "Atheists cannot abide heresy to their beliefs. "

Oh no, not that old canard again. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief.

Given that you are an atheist yourself, your comment is astonishing. (We're all atheists when it comes to religion.)

I'll repeat it yet again. Science does not give a stuff about atheism or any other set of religious beliefs.

That's exact;y what creatioists have to the courts, under oath, in ever one of the last eight cases where their attempts to get it taught in science lessons has resulted in legal action.

Sergey

What makes historical sciencies much less convincing than physics, for example, is that history is not reproducible and in some sense not observable: there are so many events to notice that one have to select which events are important and which are not. Such observational selection is a very subjective, and importance of any event dependent on its future consequencies, that can not be known beforehand. Natural history is a history, too, and many different narratives are possible. So let us not pretend that biological evolution can be studied impartially and objectively: no, it can not. It is also partly science, partly metaphysics. That is why attempts to impose a specific materialistic worldview on study of biological evolution under disguise of objective knowledge are so obnoxious.

Roger Stanyard

"Well, the airy dismissal by evolutionists that the origin of life is no concern of their theory IS indeed a convenient cop out."

Why? the theory of evolution by natural selection is not a theory about the origins of life. It's an explanation why each species differs.

That it doesn't explain the orgins of life is irrelevent. It never claimed to be an explanation of origins.

Time and time again we get this muddled thinking. "there are flaws in the big bang theory therefore Darwinism is wrong" (and, by implication, this proves the world is 6,000 years old and fundies are right, Goddidit).

WGUK

Unfortunately for your argument, you have basically stated yourself exactly why ID is not science: "...the essence of the ID idea is that there is a limit to science beyond which it cannot go..."

This is profoundly unscientific. As explained earlier in the comments, science consists of "chipping around the edges" of the unknown, not sticking a big wodge of filler in the gap.

Sure, we can have a debate about whether the scientific method is always the best way of thinking about things. But there is no debate as to whether ID is scientific - it isn't, and your article clearly states the reason why.

Sergey

RF:"Evolutionary theory *predicts* that the offspring of fruit flies will show characters which identify them as fruit flies. Humans carry characters which identify them as tetrapods, synapsids, mammals, primates, apes and hominds."
A nice description of biology as it was in 19 century. But no modern biologist will base definition of a species on morphology only, since such characters and their differencies can be deeply misleading. Nowdays, species are identified by karyotype, and phylogeny by molecular biology. And it has led to revolution in systematics, it was profoundly revised. Dolphins and whales were classified into the same group as cows and behemoths, even hierarchy of all bilateria is now quite different from what it used to be 20 years ago. So much for "characters". Your understanding of biology is hopelesly obsolete.

Richard Forrest

Sergei wrote: "A nice description of biology as it was in 19 century. But no modern biologist will base definition of a species on morphology only, since such characters and their differencies can be deeply misleading. "
Actually, it's a description of biology as it was for much of the 20th century. Character-based cladistic techniques were not developed until the 1950s. In my field of vertebrate palaeontology the only way to define a species is by morphology.
S: " Nowdays, species are identified by karyotype, and phylogeny by molecular biology."
...if such information is available. Not every biologist has access to gene-sequencing tools, and many still work on the basis of character analysis. However, genomes of species show the same pattern of nested hierarchy as earlier studies based on morphology, which demonstrates the robustness of that nested hierarchy.
S: "And it has led to revolution in systematics, it was profoundly revised. Dolphins and whales were classified into the same group as cows and behemoths, even hierarchy of all bilateria is now quite different from what it used to be 20 years ago."
The broad outlines of the phylogeny have remained the same, and many major clades are unchanged. Primates are a good example. The ancestry of some groups had been revised but the major clades have proved to be very robust. It's worth noting that the ancestry of bilateria has always been a subject of much discussion and dispute, and the modern genetic analyses have thrown up some conflicting results.
S: "So much for "characters".
Are you suggesting that genes aren't characters which can be subjected to systematic analysis? Or that only genetic analyses have any validity?
S: "Your understanding of biology is hopelesly obsolete."
So, do tell me: bearing in mind that I'm a vertebrate palaeontologist, how do you propose that I describe a new species other than by morphological characters?

Leigh Jackson

Roger, check out my post again. I was responding to what EscapeVelocity said; the first two paragraphs (in quotes) are EV's words not mine.

Dave

@Michael B "When it was discovered that the standard model of physics, at the level of the GUT, required the parameters of physics to be fine-tuned to an infinitesimal degree of 1 part in 10ł˛, in the words of one writer "this extreme fine-tuning [made] many theorists uneasy." Why did it make these "many" theorists uneasy? Almost entirely because it greatly added to the anthropic arguments."

Really? Because the obvious point is had the physics of the universe NOT been as you note then life wouldn't have arisen to question it.
Coincidence. Nothing more.

Leigh Jackson

Sergey,

"Naturalistic determinism is now debunked, this philosophy is incompatible with modern science, but it is still alive and kicking, as seen on this thread."

I'm not sure what you mean by "naturalistic determinism". Newtonian determinism is of course long gone. You will have to give a specific example of what you mean.

Sergey

Yes, paleontology necessary limited to classical approach of morphologic classification. That is why its contribution to understanding speciation is so limited. In some sense, genes are characters, too, but they tell us quite a different story than morphology. All morphologic traits are subject to selective pressures, and there are lots of convergence, repeatedly emerging traits that have nothing to do with common ancestry. Molecular phylogeny works with non-selected neutral mutations and any sequence homology is real, it can not arise accidentally. That is why it is much more reliable than phylogeny derived from paleontology. But both sources, paleontology and genetics, can not give us real record of evolution process or mechanisms, only its end results. In this sense, evolution is not observable, and speciation even less so.

Leigh Jackson

Sergey,

"What makes historical sciencies much less convincing than physics, for example, is that history is not reproducible and in some sense not observable"

Ever directly observed an atom? Or the charge on an electron, ever directly observed that? Certainly, in some sense the stuff of physics is not observable.

Sergey

Actually, taxonomic revision due to molecular phylogeny was profound. Arthropoda for 150 years were believed to originate from Annelida, but now they are derived from Nematoda. A new supra-type taxon Ecdysozoa was introduced to accomodate change; Lophophorata and Trochozoa were combined in another supra-type, Lophotrochozoa. Only Deuterostomia (your group) left largely unchanged. I still am amazed at brilliant work of classical biologists of morphologic school and their insights, but all this is no guarantee of gross misunderstanding. And evolution schemes proposed by Neo-Darwinian theoreticians are even less convincing.

Eric O

I realize it's very difficult to separate the emotion from the actual discussion in such arguments, especially on the internet, but regardless, the discussion about the last article hardly qualifies as an inquisition.

One of the most commonly forgotten facts of modern debate is that when someone can demonstrate that you are incorrect about something (i.e. arguing from a false premise, making a logical error, conflating dissimilar facts, etc), this may indeed mean your argument is in fact incorrect, not that you are necessarily being persecuted by a vast conspiracy.

ID is dismissed as crackpottery by the vast majority of scientists. Perhaps that means it's wrong. That wasn't sufficient to the movement, so they took it to the courts, who said it was creationism warmed-over and bereft of useful ideas. Even the pope says it's crap, and he was skittish about pardoning Galileo.

So that either means a) there's something inherently wrong with ID as a theory or b) there's an enormous conspiracy of millions of scientists worldwide, bipartisan judicial appointees, and the roman catholic papacy.

Which one do you think is more likely?

The theory of gravitation as far more unfilled holes in it than the theory of evolution (we don't have demonstrable evidence of quantum behavior, for example) and yet I rarely see anyone suggesting Intelligent Falling as an alternative.

James Hodson

This is a matter of belief and and from now I put my faith in Schroedinger's Cat.

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/ardlouis/dissipative/Schrcat.html

hadrian

Well, Mr Forrest, at least we have confirmed your radical scientism that ASSUMES as a RELIGIOUS PREMISE that design is out. That is YOUR 'science' but it is most certainly not a shared scientific universal. Your search to explain present life forms by unconscious material processes alone is itself a prejudicial stance. Many other fields of science can operate quite happily without addressing this issue. Evolution's raison d'etre however IS precisely this focus so for an evolutionist to refuse to explain the continuity between the lifeless-to-life evolutionary step is indeed an utter evasion. Anyway if Darwin himself even with all his Victorian ignorance of simple cell complexity conceded that the first step was very possibly best explained as 'breathed in by the Creator..' Most folk will I repeat be genuinely taken aback that evolution proudly disclaims interest in that first vital step to get the rest of the whole chain going!
God denying man inevitably will come up with every feint to escape the clarity of evidence of design. They have to. Scripture tells us the created order cries out to us of the Creator- and that that truth has to be suppressed and evaded. The premise is not 'neutral' at all. It is loaded atheism as you admit.

Michael B

So, Dave, that's your response to the fact that the standard model of physics, at the level of the GUT (essentially, time zero-plus, relative to the big bang), would require the parameters of physics to be fine-tuned to a precision of 1 part in 10ł˛? To that fact, you offer a glib, uncomprehending dismissiveness?

I'll give you this, you do have Dawkins & Co.'s script down pat. Then again, the "Stepford Wives" type commentary in this and the other related threads is abundantly on display, so you're far from alone. Party on, dude.

(The only sense in which such a fact could be considered mere "coincidence" is if the multiverse theory is true - i.e. if there are an infinite or near-infinite number of universes.)

Leigh Jackson

Sergey,

"But emergence of particles from vacuum fluctuations is another problem than emergence of vacuum itself (and also space and time): there is not and never will be any physical theory explaining this, since all science can work only on assumption the universe already exists. That is, its emergence is a methaphysical, not a physical problem."

If you mean that we do not have a TOE capable of describing the universe at t=0 and never will have, my response is: watch this space. Until we have a generally accepted scientific account of why this cannot be done, we can work towards achieving it.

Leigh Jackson

Sergey,

"Natural history is a history, too, and many different narratives are possible. So let us not pretend that biological evolution can be studied impartially and objectively: no, it can not. It is also partly science, partly metaphysics. That is why attempts to impose a specific materialistic worldview on study of biological evolution under disguise of objective knowledge are so obnoxious."

Nonsense. Darwin said that he would consider his theory to be nothing if it required one miracle at any point. It doesn't and that's exactly what ID people cannot stomach. They would have biology become metaphysics. If you support ID then it's you who is propounding backward science.

Richard B

Nancy Pearcey: "Historically, it is a fact that most of the early modern scientists were Christians...."

Historically, it is a fact that (in England and much of Europe) it was dangerous not to be a practising Christian. At the dawn of modern science not to cloak your scientific endeavours in the language of the official religion would be to invite death for heresy or witchcraft. Even if you were religious you kept any doubts about the orthodoxy to yourself (as Newton did). Up to the 19th century not being an Anglican excluded you from the English universities.

That's the reality of religion, and we owe the advance of science in the 19th and 20th centuries to the secular world view.

DLH

Rephrasing Richard Forrest's assertion: "The reason why it is "illegitimate" to bring "an intelligent cause" back into science is that the existence and actions of "an intelligent cause" cannot be tested using the tools of science."

Forrest asserts that his markings and actions cannot be distinguished by any scientific tools from the random acts of monkeys typing on a keyboard!

Intelligent Design seeks to develop methods to distinguish evidence of intelligent causes from those of the four laws of nature. Evidence of coded information is a scientific test distinguishing stochastic effects from an intelligent cause.

Could Forrest's markings exhibit coded information?

EscapeVelocity

Leigh Jackson said: And what of non-atheists? What does it matter whether one is religious or not when it comes to wishing to protect science from subversion? I supplied a link to a recording of Ken Miller's address to Cambridge University in an earlier post. --- Leigh Jackson

As I mentioned on the other thread in response to a similar proposition. There is certainly proper argumentation to be made...as a matter of course that is what science is about. The effort to ban ID from classrooms however is based on nonsense, paranoia, and nefarious agendas.

Additionally the persecution and excommunication of scientists and academics who have produced supporting evidence or published pro ID work is dispicable. It was wrong when the Darwinists were persecuted and silenced and its wrong that Darwinists are now the persecutors.

Nobody is arguing that String Theory isnt science and should be excluded from discussion in science classes....or that mysterious dark matter....though string theory is hotly contested by the theoretical physics crowd, and no dark matter has ever been found. One wonders why ID is singled out for such persecution. < Err...No they dont.

Tom the Redhunter

Thank you for a thoughtful and insightful post, Melanie. Too bad some commenters can't get past their own prejudice.

Steven Moyse

The idea that ID is scientific is just plain wrong. ID Does not propose any method to tell whether an object or system is designed or not. Until such a method is proposed(Don't hold your breath) ID cannot be considered scientific.

Richard Forrest

Sergei wrote: "But both sources, paleontology and genetics, can not give us real record of evolution process or mechanisms, only its end results. In this sense, evolution is not observable, and speciation even less so."
Palaeontology is not and has never been the primary evidence for evolution. However, palaeontology shows us a history of life on this planet, and only evolutionary theory gives us the cognitive framework which makes sense of this record.
Genetic studies of populations of existing populations of organisms in their natural habitat and in the laboratory have given us direct evidence of evolution in action, including speciation events. In what sense is this not observable?

Leigh Jackson

EscapeVelocity,

"The effort to ban ID from classrooms however is based on nonsense, paranoia, and nefarious agendas.

Additionally the persecution and excommunication of scientists and academics who have produced supporting evidence or published pro ID work is dispicable."

You accuse Ken Miller - who says he is a creationist and believer in intelligent design - of these things? He is talking nonsense about the evidence presented at trial that ID comes from the Creationist cookbok? A Bush appointed judge didn't think so. Michael Behe continues to work at Lehigh University and the University defends his right to express his opinion about ID even though they disagree with it. Hardly excommunication. He has isolated himself scientifically, but if he can demonstrate the usefulness of ID by progressing biological understanding then his ideas will start to catch on amongst other scientists. Over time new ideas which produce better understanding and practical results replace old ideas. If there is scientific value in ID it is up to Behe et al to start proving it. Thus far, there is much handwaving but conspicuous lack of progress.

It certainly looks like nothing more than a religiously inspired attack on science to me. ID must prove that it is not that by producing scientific results.

Richard Forrest

DLH wrote: "Rephrasing Richard Forrest's assertion: "The reason why it is "illegitimate" to bring "an intelligent cause" back into science is that the existence and actions of "an intelligent cause" cannot be tested using the tools of science.""

There is no need to rephrase what I wrote, especially not when the rephrasing distorts my meaning.

What I explained is that scientists do not look for "intelligent cause". They look for evidence of how something was made, and infer "intelligent cause" (though few would actually use such a vague term) from an understanding how something was made.

DLH: "Forrest asserts that his markings and actions cannot be distinguished by any scientific tools from the random acts of monkeys typing on a keyboard!"

What nonsense! I asserted nothing of the sort. Why this need to invent a position I clearly do not hold.

DLH "Intelligent Design seeks to develop methods to distinguish evidence of intelligent causes from those of the four laws of nature."

So what work have ID proponents done to analyse characters of objects and systems which are known to be designed so that by looking for such characters in objects and systems of unknown origin we can infer that they are designed?

"Irreducible complexity" - which ID proponents claim as a hallmark of design -was predicted by evolutionary theory over 80 years ago, so we can reject that criterion.

What other criterion does ID have to offer?

"Evidence of coded information is a scientific test distinguishing stochastic effects from an intelligent cause."

It is? And how has this assertion been tested?

Ronnie

Leigh Jackson

'My own bet is that we will one day be learn how to create basic life from scratch.'

Do you think this is such a great idea? At least then we really could claim to have 'intelligent' design.

'

Emmet Sweeney

Dear Richard Forrest, you completely ignore the crucial point. What do blackbirds with a patch or two of white have to do with Arctic animals who change their colour in accordance with the seasons? The point is, a random, accidental mutation would need to be such that the animal changed from brown in the summer to white in the winter to brown again in the summer. How many blackbirds in your garden have that mutation? In fact, if the mutation is entirely accidental, then the animal (or person) should perhaps change to white in the summer, or the autumn, or any other time of the year. If it's a pure accident, we should find such things happening. And, since human beings aren't subject to predation, we should find such changes occurring, and even flourishing, in human populations - which, being many billions strong, should surely supply numerous examples of such mutations. I'm afraid you have not explained the evolution of Arctic creatures, or of any other creatures for that matter. Neo-Darwinism is a faith, no more or no less than any other.

Emmet

Sergey

RF: "Palaeontology is not and has never been the primary evidence for evolution."
Wrong. Always was and still is, and in days of Darwin or Lamarck it was the only source.
Neither field observations nor laboratory experiments ever gave us evidence of evolution, unless you use a false definition of evolution as a shift of gene frequencies adopted by Neo-Darwinists. This has nothing to do with evolution as understood by paleontologists and taxonomists and nothing to do with origin of species.

Sergey

"only evolutionary theory gives us the cognitive framework which makes sense of this record."
What evolutionary theory do you refer to? Lamarckian? Darwinian? Neo-Daewinian? Some general notion that more advanced forms originated from less advanced? That last option is accepted by everybody, ID included, except for Biblical literalists (creationists). Any mental construction is proposed to make sense from observable facts, even mythology. The question is whether it is scientific. Darwinism is not; it is a mythology. Personal reluctance by Darwin of any metaphysics has nothing to do with history of his doctrine: the most ardent proponents of it, like Spencer and Haeckel, were big on metaphysics (a materialist one). This is another clue that any idea can become popular only if has both scientific and metaphysical component, the first being a vechicle for the second.

Michael B

Richard B,

The reality of anti-theistic "secularism" in the 20th century was that 100 million were killed by Marxist/Leninist regimes alone, not to mention Mussolini's fascist offshoot, Mussolini having previously been a highly dedicated Marxist for well over a decade.

By contrast, the two most seminal Enlightenment thinkers in the social/political arena are arguably Locke and Montesquieu. In terms of the fruit they bore, the prosperity/stability in the social, political, national and inter-national arena, it's with us to this day. They both appreciated human nature for what it is and, significantly, were both highly favorable toward religion, Locke crafting his own extensive theological system. Then there's Leibniz, one of the most acute intellects in all of history, Pascal ... many, many others.

You evidence a simplistic, misbegotten, tendentious, agenda-driven conception of the history of science and its highly problematic relationship to "secularism" and "religion" - little or nothing more.

Billy Hippo

There are, as Melanie Phillips states in her article, more than two positions to take in the evolution debate, and here are some of them:

Position 1) (the BBC view) evolution is a fact
Position 2) 7 day creation

------ You would think, if your only source of information was the BBC, that the above are the only two possible positions to take. People who believe in evolution as a fact, please do not read any further, it will not be good for your blood pressure---

Position 3) Creation where the days are not literal days, but geological ages of thousands or millions of years.
Position 4) Evolution guided by God at various stages..
Position 5) There is some kind of intelligent design, the nature of which is not known, but possibly one day we will work it out.
Position 6) Aliens from another planet arranged it all - there was a book in the 60s about this and a cinema film ('Chariots of the Gods').
Position 7) Something to do with other dimensions and concepts which our brains cannot cope with. Similar to 5) but this one involving concepts beyond our brains' capacities.
Position 8) 'Like everyone else, I have no idea how the realm of Nature took its present form'.

You have to rank the ideas for yourself.
In my opinion:

The award for the most close-minded position goes to number '1' (evolution is a fact)

The award for the position which has followers with the strongest faith, a faith which can reach amazing proportions, goes to position 1 again.

The position which attracts the most abusive and fanatical and emotional and angry supporters goes to.... yes! position 1 wins again.

If you are an agnostic, like Melanie Phillips is, you are in the best position to have an open mind on the subject.

If you are an atheist, your options are immediately reduced, so you have in effect put your hands over your ears and declared that you are unable to consider all the options.

Finally, if you are an angry atheist, you are in the most close-minded position of all, because your emotions completely obliterate any possibility of scientific discussion, and you are therefore able to accept statements like 'fossils prove evolution' even though you know nothing about them. You are able to grasp this kind of statement made by other evolution believers and cling to it as if it came from the mouth of some objective seeker of scientific truth, and not just another evolution believer like youself.

The strident, angry, and emotional atheists in the end can display an amazing level of faith in the certainty of their position. 'I KNOW there is no God. I KNOW evolution is a fact' they declare. Sometimes I even admire the strength of their faith, which is often stronger than followers of other religions. Their certainty in the absolute truth of their beliefs is truly to be admired. An agnostic can only look on with awe at their displays of faith.

Billy Hippo

Richard Forrest May 6th, 2009 9:22am writes:
'However, many creationists insist that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans - an assertion for which there is not a scrap of evidence.'

Dinosaurs are still fully represented today. A crocodile, for example, is defined as different from a dinasaur only by virtue of its legs sticking out instead of underneath. Some difference. Might I suggest that is something to do with its weight and life style. The crocodile should be reclassified as a dinosaur, albeit one that annoyingly did not go extinct when it was supposed to.

Billy Hippo

Emmet Sweeney May 6th, 2009 9:32am says:
'If Darwin had been right, it should have been possible to produce new species on farms and in laboratories. That such new species cannot be produced is proof that natural selection (as an explanation for evolution) is false.'

Good point. Suppose, for one minute, that man kept dogs 10,000 years ago and suppose we have always bred them to be more intelligent, in fact, to be more like us. If a dog has offspring in a period one tenth that of a human, it should evolve 10 times as fast. So in dogs we observe the equivalent of 100,000 years of human 'evolution'. And yet after all that time and effort we still just have variations of a dog. When a collection of mixed breeds such as dalmations, boxers, alsations, poodles and terriers etc are released into the wild, as often happens, after a few generations the pack ends up looking like a pack of wolves. This is natural selection of the best genes from a set, but not evolution.

Maya

Melanie - Science means looking at the evidence, coming up with ideas and testing them against that evidence and revising your ideas. It is not about proving anything.

I am still confused about whether you are saying ID is based on this scientific method or not.

You say, "looking at the complexity of the created world, [ID] says the evidence points inescapably to a guiding intelligence as the cause of that complexity." That is a scientific proposition and ought to be able to stand up to testing, the rigors of peer reviewed publication etc...

But then you say that ID is not in itself a scientific discovery and couldn't possibly be investigated through the scientific method.

Then you go back again and quote Steve Fuller approvingly as saying that' the way ID's practitioners approach the debate means they are actually engaged in a scientific enterprise.'

Do you see why people suspect that ID is an idea that puts on the scientific cloak of being based on evidence when if suits it, and takes it off shouting 'yaa-boo, materialist dogma!' when it doesn't? You can't have it both ways

Glen Davidson

On the chance that Spectator simply has an appalling computer system, and is not censorious as it appears to be, I'm trying here again to post the comments I made yesterday and have not been posted:

Melanie made a remarkable admission, basically contradicting her previous positions. The following excerpt begins with Charles Johnson, then Melanie comments:

If ‘intelligent design’ is really based on science, why have their advocates failed to produce any scientific evidence for that claim, despite millions of dollars worth of funding and years in which to do it? Instead, ‘intelligent design’ proponents spend all their time on public relations. Where are the peer reviewed studies? Where are the experimental proofs that can be duplicated by other scientists? Answer: nonexistent.

Well of course they are non-existent -- because ID is not in itself a scientific discovery. It is rather an inference from scientific discoveries. Looking at the complexity of the created world, it says the evidence points inescapably to a guiding intelligence as the cause of that complexity. It is an idea, a conclusion to a chain of observation and thought. When people demand proof of this idea, what they are actually demanding is proof that an ‘intelligent designer’ exists. The fact that there are no peer-reviewed studies (!) demonstrating the existence of such a cosmic ‘designer’ provokes this yah-boo response. But it is obviously no more possible to prove the existence of an ‘intelligent designer’ than it is to prove the existence of the Biblical God.

Well, isn't that we said? And how could she possibly have told us that ID stands against creationism, when she's telling us now that the impossibility for "proving" the existence of the "designer" is the same as the impossibility of proving the Biblical god?

Her present claim doesn't square with her earlier statements regarding ID:

Intelligent design...holds that the complexity of science suggests that there must have been a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter

To be sure, this is another issue which she clearly doesn't understand, since ID is generally far more concerned about the origin of life than of matter. The sentence isn't written properly either, but what really matters is that any educated person would understand that statement to be claiming that ID is science. Especially since she is defending "intelligent design," which most frequently is claimed to be science.

This is taken right off of William Dembski's website, "Uncommon Descent":

Intelligent design [ID] – Dr William A Dembski, a leading design theorist, has defined ID as “the science that studies signs of intelligence.” That is, as we ourselves instantiate [thus exemplify as opposed to “exhaust”], intelligent designers act into the world, and create artifacts

If Melanie really believes that the "designer" cannot be "proven," then we win, because it's back to the same pseudoscientific status as "scientific creationism" is.

As an aside, Dembski is completely wrong in comparing our investigation of the designs of humans, which nearly always betray rational thought behind them, and the structures and functions of life, which never demonstrate the rational planning of designed objects (other than when we have intervened).

Regarding the charge of a "Secular Inquisition," it makes no sense if we're merely saying that ID isn't science, Melanie admits that it isn't science, and yet the ID proponents demand that it be treated and taught as science.

Furthermore, we have this from prominent ID proponent Michael Behe:

If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished. Despite comparing sequences and mathematical modeling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be. In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p.186

He's the one who wants to banish science. The boilerplate about evolutionary theory providing no explanation is complete nonsense, and his knowledge of the literature documenting such investigations and explanations was shown to be highly inadequate during the Dover trial. Yet ID has provided no explanation for anything at all, and should, by this IDist's demands, be banished.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Sergey

For those who are really interested in ID, I can assert that the problem of irreducible complexity is not new, it is known as long as Darwinism exists, and has in scientific literature the name of "Mivart problem", after British zoologist St. George Mivart. His book "On the Genesis of Species" is in Internet here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20818
Another seminal book on the same subject is by Russian zoologist Leo Berg "Nomogenesis" here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/164/3880/684-a.pdf
These are science classic and must read for everybody interesting in evolution theory.

Leigh Jackson

Ronnie,

"Leigh Jackson

'My own bet is that we will one day be learn how to create basic life from scratch.'

Do you think this is such a great idea? At least then we really could claim to have 'intelligent' design."

Fair point.

The ID being discussed in this thread suggests that some complex biological systems found in nature cannot have arisen by evolution. They must therefore have been created by an intelligent agent in the same way that human machines are created. Science requires not just an hypothesis but a research programme to investigate and test the idea. One obvious research programme for ID would be to try to build similarly complex systems from scratch - to prove that it is possible for an intelligent agent, with sufficient scientific understanding, to create such systems.

That would be a significantly more difficult undertaking than abiogenesis - which is what I was talking about. Until we can achieve this I don't see how the above research programme is conceivable. Remember that ID is proposed as an alternative to evolution not abiogenesis. Successful human abiogenesis would be a demonstration that intelligence can create proto-life, not a demonstration that intelligence can create the kind of complex biological systems given by Behe.

The idea of intelligent life (us for example) creating new forms of life is speculative. Mere speculation gets us nowhere however. Some scientists are actually working on the idea. If the Discovery Institute can achieve abiogenesis - or aid progress towards that aim, we can then take them seriously as scientists, and will be able to push on in the direction of creating more complex biological forms, and perhaps achieve success in my proposed ID research programme. Yes, then we certainly would have intelligent design - as science.

If ID is about science, let them get on and do science. By their fruits thou shall ye know them.

mostly harmless

MF "What they don’t accept is that random, blind-chance evolution accounts for the origin of all species and the origin of life, the universe and everything."

No evolutionary biologist has ever said or believed that either. How many more times does it have to be said. Evolution is a process of random mutations being selected for by the completely non-random process of natural selection.I struggle to see how seemingly intelligent people seem to repeatedly miss this important point.I suggest you read a good book on the subject, like Climbing Mount Improbable or Why Evolution is True.

Leigh Jackson

Ronnie,

The ID being discussed in this thread suggests that some complex biological systems found in nature cannot have arisen by evolution. They must therefore have been created by an intelligent agent in the same way that human machines are created. Science requires not just an hypothesis but a research programme to investigate and test the idea. One obvious research programme for ID would be to try to build similarly complex systems from scratch - to prove that it is possible for an intelligent agent, with sufficient scientific understanding, to create such systems.

That would be a significantly more difficult undertaking than abiogenesis - which is what I was talking about. Until we can achieve this I don't see how the above research programme is conceivable. Remember that ID is proposed as an alternative to evolution not abiogenesis. Successful abiogenesis would be a demonstration that intelligence can create proto-life, not a demonstration that intelligence can create the kind of complex biological systems given by Behe.

The idea of intelligent life (us for example) creating new forms of life is speculative. Mere speculation gets us nowhere however. Some scientists are actually working on the idea. If the Discovery Institute can achieve abiogenesis - or aid progress towards that aim, we can then take them seriously as scientists, and will be able to push on in the direction of creating more complex biological forms, and perhaps achieve success in my proposed ID research programme. Yes, then we certainly would have intelligent design - as science.

If ID is about science, let them do science. By their fruits shall ye know them.

Leigh Jackson

Billy Hippo,

"Emmet Sweeney May 6th, 2009 9:32am says:
'If Darwin had been right, it should have been possible to produce new species on farms and in laboratories. That such new species cannot be produced is proof that natural selection (as an explanation for evolution) is false.'"

"Good point. Suppose, for one minute, that man kept dogs 10,000 years ago and suppose we have always bred them to be more intelligent, in fact, to be more like us. If a dog has offspring in a period one tenth that of a human, it should evolve 10 times as fast. So in dogs we observe the equivalent of 100,000 years of human 'evolution'. And yet after all that time and effort we still just have variations of a dog. When a collection of mixed breeds such as dalmations, boxers, alsations, poodles and terriers etc are released into the wild, as often happens, after a few generations the pack ends up looking like a pack of wolves. This is natural selection of the best genes from a set, but not evolution."

Anatomically modern humans have been around for about100,000 years. Only superficial variations - different racial characteristics - have evolved in that time, as with the case of dogs over a comparable period. Go back 8 million years, however, and we discover that we and chimps had a common ancestor.

These are just the sort of questions which interested Darwin. Have you read him, by any chance?

Richard Forrest

Billy Hippo: "Dinosaurs are still fully represented today."
No, they are represented only by birds. No non-avian dinosaurs survived the K/T extinction event (well, not for more than a few hundred thousand years: a recent paper describes a relict fauna of dinosaurs which survived for a while.)

BH: " A crocodile, for example, is defined as different from a dinasaur only by virtue of its legs sticking out instead of underneath. "

What rot! There is a whole suite of characters which separate dinosaurs from crocodiles. Incidentally, improved gait - i.e. pulling the legs in under the body to give an upright stance - is not one of them: crocodiles are capable of such as stance, and modern crocodiles are descendants of lightly built, fast-running crocodilians. Crocodiles are archosaurs, like dinosaurs, and in the early stages of divergence of the lineages in the Triassic they were similar. However, the took rather different evolutionary pathways during the Jurassic and later.

BH: "Might I suggest that is something to do with its weight and life style."

You can suggest anything you like, but as you evidently know very little about the subject what you suggest is of no consequence.

BH: "The crocodile should be reclassified as a dinosaur, albeit one that annoyingly did not go extinct when it was supposed to."

If you think that this is the case, do the research, collect your character set, put it through PAUP, and provide the output which confirms this assertion. Mind you, as many scientists have already been through this exercise and found that crocodiles are not dinosaurs, perhaps a bit of education on your part might be a good start.

Richard Forrest

Billy Hippo:" Emmet Sweeney May 6th, 2009 9:32am says:
'If Darwin had been right, it should have been possible to produce new species on farms and in laboratories. That such new species cannot be produced is proof that natural selection (as an explanation for evolution) is false.'
Good point. "

If it's such a good point, perhaps you can address the evidence and argument in the numerous papers describing the creation of new species by evolutionary mechanisms which have been published in the scientific literature.

The simple fact is that we *have* produced new species in farms and laboratories. We have also observed the emergence of new species in the natural world.

Why not educate yourself in evolutionary theory rather than presenting arguments which demonstrate only that you know little about science in general and evolutionary biology in particular?

DrGaryHurd

I have collected some examples of speciation that are handy to have available when a creationist falsely claims there are none.

We have of course directly observed the emergence of new species, conclusively demonstrating common descent, a core hypothesis of evolutionary theory. This is a much a "proof" of evolution as dropping a bowling ball on your foot "proves" gravity.

A large review of multiple species is, Sergey Gavrilets and Jonathan B. Losos "Adaptive Radiation: Contrasting Theory with Data" Science 6 February 2009 323: 732-737

Some specific examples for plants, insects, fish, birds, lizards and mammals follows.

Here are five examples sampled from: "Observed Instances of Speciation" by Joseph Boxhorn, 1995

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.

Drosophila paulistorum

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).

Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case(Rhagoletis pomonella). It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation).

What is fascinating is that the increasing genetic isolation of the two races of R. pomonella has led to the reproductive isolation/speciation of the parasitic wasp Diachasma alloeum (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) which feeds on the rapidly evolving fly. "Sequential Sympatric Speciation Across Trophic Levels" Andrew A. Forbes, Thomas H.Q. Powell, Lukasz L. Stelinski, James J. Smith, Jeffrey L. Feder, Science 6 February 2009 323: 776-779

So, even when there might still be limited inter-fertility in the diverging, R. pomonella, there is already a related speciation in an associated insect.

Here are two speciation examples sampled from: "Some More Observed Speciation Events, 1992-1997" by Chris Stassen, James Meritt, Anneliese Lilje, L. Drew Davis

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Reference: Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Reference: Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

There is a large literature on new species emerging among newly introduced colonies of Anole lizards. Here are just a few examples:

Anolis oculatus undergoes rapid subpopulation isolations following drought, or the introduction of a preditor, Anolis sagrei. Reference: Roger S. Thorpe "Population Evolution and Island Biogeography" Science 16 December 2005 310: 1778-1779

New species of Anolis on Indian Ocean Islands. Reference: Marguerite A. Butler, Stanley A. Sawyer, Jonathan B. Losos "Sexual dimorphism and adaptive radiation in Anolis lizards" Nature 447, 202 - 205 (10 May 2007)

Anurag A. Agrawal "Phenotypic Plasticity in the Interactions and Evolution of Species" Science 12 October 2001 294: 321-326

One more on fish;

Andrew P. Hendry, John K. Wenburg, Paul Bentzen, Eric C. Volk, Thomas P. Quinn "Rapid Evolution of Reproductive Isolation in the Wild: Evidence from Introduced Salmon" Science 20 October 2000: Vol. 290. no. 5491, pp. 516 - 518

So, common descent is established by direct observation of speciation, and various selective pressures are seen to be effective. Depending on population size, and starting variability, selective pressures can be strongly acting resulting in rapid emergence of new species.

benjamin

Thank God for Richard Forrest !!!!

EscapeVelocity

This thread is an example of exactly the kind of discussions we should be having in Science Classes.

And FTR, this mythology about Christianity being anti science and the Enlgihtenment a rejection of religion and specifically Christianity is pernicious simplistic factually wrong, unenlightened drivel. Anyone who pushes it while debating ID and Evolution immediately discredits their selves.

Greg

I'll try again but for some strange reason my posts don't seem to be getting through. Anyway, I would like to suggest that when an article is written that is not above criticism from a scientific standpoint, a reaction that deconstructs it is not "a secular inquisition". Science is evidence-based, whether non-scientists like it or not.

I am still confused by Melanie's stance here. Is she saying ID is science or is not science? She contradicts herself several times on this point.

Emmet Sweeney

Dear Richard Forrest, I'm not sure if your last remarks were directed at me or at "Billy Hippo", but I have to say, they were rather sneering and condescending, which is not what I expected from a man of your obvious intelligence. You did not, I see, address the point of my last entry about the colour-changes of Arctic creatures. Please answer this. As to the new species which you claim are emerging all the time, there are two points I wish to make. I personally do not disagree with evolution, and therefore have no problem with the emergence of new species in nature. I only contend that they do not emerge in the way the Neo-Darwinists claim. It seems to me that something else is involved, and that the process is much quicker than generally envisaged. Domesticated pigs, for example, when released into the wild, alter the share of their heads - even the bone-structure changes - to become more like that of a wild pig. And this all occurs within the life of a single creature. No one really knows why this happens, but I feel it is very significant. Also, the very few cases of children raised by animals (and I know this is an extremely controversial topic) indicate that the children had a full covering of body-hair - like a monkey - as long as they lived with the animals; yet this dropped off when they entered human society. Again, this seems very significant to me.
As regards the supposed breeding of new species (usually of microscopic life) in laboratories by scientists, which you mention, I'm afraid I'm rather sceptical of this. When farmers or scientists can produce a new species of horse, or cat, or dog - through the process of selective breeding and random mutation - then their arguments will carry more weight.
Anyway, could you please, as a priority, explain how the appearance of Arctic animals can be explained by Neo-Darwinist theory?

Richard Forrest

Emmet Sweeney wrote:

"Dear Richard Forrest, I'm not sure if your last remarks were directed at me or at "Billy Hippo", "

As my comments started with "Billy Hippo wrote", and each of the extracts from his post I used is prefixed with "BH", I don't understand how there can be any confusion over who the remarks were addressed to.

ES: "but I have to say, they were rather sneering and condescending, which is not what I expected from a man of your obvious intelligence."

In what way are they "sneering and condescending"?

ES: "You did not, I see, address the point of my last entry about the colour-changes of Arctic creatures. "

To be frank, why should I? I'm not an expert in that particular area of evolutionary biology - I'm a plesiosaur palaeontologist - but if you do a search using google scholar you will find several scientific paper which go into this in detail. If, having read the relevant papers, there are aspects of the explanations offered with which you disagree, or don't understand I'd be quite happy to help you to the best of my ability. However, I don't see why you should expect me to do such research for you.

ES: " and therefore have no problem with the emergence of new species in nature. I only contend that they do not emerge in the way the Neo-Darwinists claim."

Well bully for you. If you think that the "Neo-Darwinists" have got it wrong, address the evidence and arguments presented in the papers which describe speciation events.

ES: " Domesticated pigs, for example, when released into the wild, alter the share of their heads - even the bone-structure changes - to become more like that of a wild pig. And this all occurs within the life of a single creature."

I'd be surprised if this were the case - i.e that there are radical changes to the bone structure. Do you have a citation?

ES: "No one really knows why this happens, but I feel it is very significant."

Morphological plasticity in response to environment is common in many taxa. The genetic and epigenetic factors which control the phenomenon are well-known.

ES: "Also, the very few cases of children raised by animals (and I know this is an extremely controversial topic) indicate that the children had a full covering of body-hair - like a monkey - as long as they lived with the animals; yet this dropped off when they entered human society."

I doubt that these children had a full covering of body hair which they subsequently lost. Do you have a citation which supports this assertion?

ES: "Again, this seems very significant to me."

If this actually happened, of course, and is not simply an urban myth. Some children are born with thick body hair, and a few of them retain it to adulthood. There are cases of children who have been raised by animals whose cranial hair was very long, but I suspect that the two different phenomena have been incorrectly associated.

ES: "As regards the supposed breeding of new species (usually of microscopic life) in laboratories by scientists, which you mention, I'm afraid I'm rather sceptical of this."

Well bully for you. If you disagree with the conclusions reached by the scientists feel free to address the evidence and argument they offer in their publications. Oh, and by the way: many of these experiments have been on multicellular organisms, most commonly fruit flies. Defining species in organisms such as bacteria which are not sexually reproducing is a tricky business. In sexual organisms it's much more clear-cut.

ES: "When farmers or scientists can produce a new species of horse, or cat, or dog - through the process of selective breeding and random mutation - then their arguments will carry more weight."

Selective breeding has produced domestic sheep which are a different species from their wild ancestors. They are no longer capable of interbreeding.

ES: "Anyway, could you please, as a priority, explain how the appearance of Arctic animals can be explained by Neo-Darwinist theory?"

See above.

Sergey

RF: Examples in Mayr 1970 book "Populations, Species and Evolution" only show phenotypical plasticity of species under sudden isolation, like these occuring in domestication. These are analogs of Galapagos finches. Under modern taxonomic criteria they are not considered as separate species, but as morphologic varieties of self-segregated races. In his later works Mayr himself conceded that they are not species. See his polemics with Australian enthomologist M.D.J.White ("Modes of Speciation", 1978) and Mayr, 1988 "Toward a new philosophy of biology. Observations of an evolutionist. Essay 26, Speciational evolution through punctuated equilibria. - Harvard University Press, p.457-487.

Billy Hippo

1) Dinosaurs are still fully represented today:

Within the archosaur group, dinosaurs are differentiated most noticeably by their gait. Dinosaur legs extend directly beneath the body, whereas the legs of lizards and crocodylians sprawl out to either side.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

2) One contributor above says 100,000 years is no way nearly enough to show a demonstrable chunk of evolution.

Another contributor claims we can see many examples of evolution within a few decades happening in front of us.

A bit of a contradiction there - make your minds up. If we can see lots in a few decades, why can't we see any in 100,000 years?

Regarding new species - like poverty, how much you get depends on how you want to define it. Hardly anything in biology is neat and tidy, and this includes identifying what constitutes a different species. A lion is a different species from a tiger, and yet they can breed together to make a stripey lion. So the process of categorising is not black and white. It is even more difficult in microbiology, with viruses even changing a significant part of their genes.

3) Some contributors above have illustrated for me my previous point above, namely that some evolutionists can become emotional and angry when you question their belief in evolution. Possibly because it is part of their wider belief system, which they defend as faithfully as followers of other religions do when you question their belief systems. Do they seriously expect people to think they are impartially observing the data and drawing conclusions? Just look at their replies. I think their replies show that quite the opposite is the case. To me, the angry ones come across as fervent supporters of a belief system.

4) As for the KT boundary mentioned just above, that is actually one of the best examples of how the evolutionists can reinterpret the same data when required. When I was at school I was told 'fossils demonstrate gradual evolution' - and this was a 'fact'. Now we are told 'fossils demonstrate sudden extinction at the KT boundary' - and this is a 'fact'. How embarrassing to have to move species extinction dates by millions of years up to the KT boundary! One minute the fossils prove this, the next minute the same fossils prove the opposite. That is why I attach little credibility to their claims.

I can see how easily many who claim to be scientific in their approach can slide so smoothly into that other area of bogus science, global warming. Make the data fit the theory is their motto also. We can all see the dedication of its followers to the global warming cause, and a similar or even more intense dedication to their cause is displayed by evolution fanatics.

Emmet Sweeney - I suggest that the extra hair on children raised by animals could be due to the lack of friction normally caused by clothing. Or it could be a side effect of the diet.
As for the pigs, one in the wild would often press its head forcibly into the ground searching for food, and so strengthen the bones of the skull. In England the skeletons of archers show the right arm and shoulder bones are stronger and larger than those on the non string-pulling side. At one time archery practice was compulsory for all men.

Sergey

The most convincing rebuttal of possibility of speciation due to isolation and environmental selection pressures is the natural history of our own species. Both isolation and environment diversity was extremal by any criterion, but no new species were produced. How it was possible to make a new species of sheep during 6000 years of domestication and no new species of humans during 100 000 years of self-domestication? Tribal taboo against miscegenation provide more perfect isolation than habits of anamal breeding. Unless you consider human races as separate species, no explanation of this fact except impossibility of speciation by selection alone, without some extraordinary circumstances, can be proposed.

Michael B

Richard Forrest,

This is not about syntax and definitions, it's about substance and it's about science more rigorously conceived. Tinkering with the definition of "species," defining speciation down and applying it to herbs, microorganisms and fruitfly variations in such a manner that it is little different from the inter-generational changes in the beaks of finches and other "micro-evolutionary" events is less interesting - and less probative - than you're attempting to suggest. Seemingly, it's an attempt to reason from authortiy, rather than a transparent explication based upon the evidence.

E.g., in lieu of those litanies, condense one or two examples and explain why you're suggesting a speciation event is occurring.

I'm an undaunted believer in science, more rigorously and more rationally/empirically (e.g., the fossil record) understood and shorn of ideological and pseudo-philosophical pretense. Defining speciation down for purposes of gamesmanship and point-scoring is not science.

Can we next expect you to label something that happens in the lab, in a petri dish, as reflecting abiogenesis by virtue of manipulating some syntax and definitions; or are you going to suggest something occurring in a microorganism as reflecting a rise of self-consciousness; or perhaps you'll next be pointing to an experiment with apes that indicates a movement in the direction of human consciousness?

If so, fine, perhaps, but explicate it openly and transparently, not via recourse to a litany of wouldbe "authorities" or by manipulating syntax and definitions. Stick to science more properly conceived; leave linguistic machinations to the linguists, the semioticians, the media types, etc.

Richard Forrest

Billy Hippo: "Dinosaurs are differentiated most noticeably by their gait. Dinosaur legs extend directly beneath the body, whereas the legs of lizards and crocodylians sprawl out to either side.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur"

The wikipedia article is a bit misleading in that case. There is a substantial scientific literature on extinct crocodilians, and on the various gaits they were capable of. Even modern crocs can gallop - something no lizard can do.

BH: " One contributor above says 100,000 years is no way nearly enough to show a demonstrable chunk of evolution."

It all depends on what you mean by a "demonstrable chunk". The simple fact is that we have observed speciation events in nature and replicated them in the laboratory. This is evolution at the level of speciation and above - which is what biologists call macroevolution.

BH: "Regarding new species - like poverty, how much you get depends on how you want to define it. "

Biologists use several different species definitions, depending on the biology of the organisms they are studying and the context in which they are being studied. By most such definition, speciation has been observed. If you are not going to accept the definitions of species used by the people who actually *study* such phenomena, whose definition are you going to use?

Frankly, I don't need lectures from you on species concepts in biology. I suggest that I know rather more about the subject than you do.

BH: "Some contributors above have illustrated for me my previous point above, namely that some evolutionists can become emotional and angry when you question their belief in evolution. "

Bearing in mind that the attacks on evolution are based on ignorance, dogma, misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods, don't you think a bit of anger is justified?

BH: "Do they seriously expect people to think they are impartially observing the data and drawing conclusions? "

No, but I expect people who accuse evolutionary biologists of *not* being impartial to provide evidence that this is the case, not to go off at a completely different tangent and accuse them of being atheists, or wedded to "evolutionist dogma". If all that the critics of evolution can do is to make unfounded assertions rather than providing any evidence to support their position, what do you think that tells us about the validity of their claims?

BH: " When I was at school I was told 'fossils demonstrate gradual evolution' - and this was a 'fact'. Now we are told 'fossils demonstrate sudden extinction at the KT boundary' - and this is a 'fact'. How embarrassing to have to move species extinction dates by millions of years up to the KT boundary! "

I suggest that you must have been asleep when those classes were being taught. We have known for over a century that there was a major extinction event at the end of the cretaceous. Research has produced ever more detailed evidence of the nature of this event. Why you imagine this has anything to do with the rate of evolutionary change is beyond me.

BH: "I can see how easily many who claim to be scientific in their approach can slide so smoothly into that other area of bogus science, global warming."

Oh, for crying out loud! Is there no junk science you won't embrace? The case for anthropogenic global warming has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.

Dr. Gary Hurd

BillyHippo apparently missed the my concluding paragraph;

"So, common descent is established by direct observation of speciation, and various selective pressures are seen to be effective. Depending on population size, and starting variability, selective pressures can be strongly acting resulting in rapid emergence of new species."

Richard Forrest

Sergey: "Examples in Mayr 1970 book "Populations, Species and Evolution" only show phenotypical plasticity of species under sudden isolation, like these occuring in domestication. These are analogs of Galapagos finches. Under modern taxonomic criteria they are not considered as separate species, but as morphologic varieties of self-segregated races."

Well, the scientists working in the field disagree with you. In fact, they consider the Galapagos finches as good models to test hypothesis of speciation.

Here's a 2005 paper on the subject which I suggests represent current thinking rather better than your 30-year old references.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1599867

You realise, I hope, that there have been greater advances in our understanding of evolutionary processes over the past two decades than in the previous two centuries?

Paul McLaughlan

I'm a Creationist. By faith, but if someone produces that irrefutable evidence of evolution I will have to look into it. However. Melanie, I do believe in dinosaurs, I know of no creations who don't. I even accept variation within a species due to natural selection. I just refuse to believe that any of the huge jumps in evolution are possible. Evolution has never explained how we jumped from nothing to a perfect cell that replicates perfectly and which has mutations which ADD genetic code. We've only seen it lost. Creationism came first the burden of proof in on Evolution and it's been found wanting.

(I disagree with IDers, they have seen the big issues with evolution but instead hide behind a vague idea of an intelligence and reject the personal infinite God of the bible. They are closer to evolutionists than creationists.

Paul McLaughlan

Perhaps the IDers should be honest. If they are scientists they should simply say;-

"We have seen complexities that evolution cannot account for. Therefore evolution has failed as a theory for the existence of life here. Let's start over."

Richard Forrest

Paul McLaughlan: "I'm a Creationist. By faith, but if someone produces that irrefutable evidence of evolution I will have to look into it."

This page lists numerous instances of observed speciation events both in nature and in the laboratory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation
So does this one:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

There are many other sources out there. This is, according to the scientists who study such phenomena evolution, and as it is at the level of speciation and beyond it is correctly termed macroevolution. This looks like irrefutable evidence to me - after all, to refute it you would need to go through every single one of all the papers which describe speciation events, and demonstrate an alternative testable explanation for the evidence.

You may chose to reject it because it conflicts with your religious prejudices, but if that is the case it makes your assertion that " if someone produces that irrefutable evidence of evolution I will have to look into it" look rather empty.

If such evidence is *not* irrefutable evidence for evolution, just what *would* you accept as evidence?

Richard Forrest

Paul McLaughlan: "Perhaps the IDers should be honest. If they are scientists they should simply say;-
"We have seen complexities that evolution cannot account for. Therefore evolution has failed as a theory for the existence of life here. Let's start over."

Actually, if they were to say that they would *not* be honest. "Irreducible complexity" was predicted by evolutionary theory over 80 years ago.

If they were to be honest, they would say

"We have no scientific basis on which to criticise evolutionary theory, but as it conflicts with our religious predjudices we want to reject it. We have therefore formulated what looks like a scientific theory, but because it presents no testable hypothesis will pretend that if we can falsify evolutionary theory, our theory should be accepted as the only possible alternative."

Michael B

"... they consider the Galapagos finches as good models to test hypothesis of speciation." Richard Forrest

Why? In spending perhaps fifteen minutes reviewing your "Habitat selection and ecological speciation in Galápagos warbler finches" it's by no means apparent to an informed layman why this is suggestive of "macroevolutionary" events, of speciation. I primarily focused on the 'abstract' and the 'discussion' sections of the paper, and while some of the arcane language was obscure, it seems to boil down to an emphasis upon habitat differentiation rather than "distance dispersal" differentiation - but why that in turn is suggestive of speciation as such, even hypothetically conceived, is not in the least apparent.

Again, I'd suggest taking a single event you regard as a macroevolutionary or speciation event, and explicate it as such, transparently, openly, and in essentially layman oriented terms.

Sergey

"You realise, I hope, that there have been greater advances in our understanding of evolutionary processes over the past two decades than in the previous two centuries?"
Of course I do. And all these advances tend to demolish one Darwinian assumption after another. First, assumption of gradualism; second, assumption of randomness of mutations; than, the type of mutation involved (in case of microevolution, it is now gene duplication or amplification, often directly induced and goal-specific to factor applied, as in drug resistance in bacteria or insecticide resistance in insects; for speciation, it is chromosomal or genomic mutations, rather than point mutations of Morgan school). In macro- and mega-evolution the most important discovery are trends and other nomogenetic phenomena, often preceeding the environmental change to which they "respond" - so-called prophetic mutations and preadaptations. Modern evolutionism paint a picture much more resembling that of Berg, Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, Lamarck and Cuvier than that of Darwin: saltationist, catastrophist, Lamarckian and nomogenetic.

Sergey

"scientists working in the field disagree with you. In fact, they consider the Galapagos finches as good models to test hypothesis of speciation."
These scientists working in the field are not geneticists. And without genetical analysis (kariotype, hybrides fertility) no claims of observing speciation event can be taken seriously.

Billy Hippo

Richard Forrest says 'No, but I expect people who accuse evolutionary biologists of *not* being impartial to provide evidence that this is the case'

Okay:
1) Evidence number one:
In the last 30 years:
Number of programmes on the BBC giving a fair hearing to the evolution theory - 1000s.
Number of programmes on the BBC giving a fair hearing to the sceptics - none
Number of mocking comments on the BBC misrepresenting the sceptics and portraying them as flat earthers - 1000s

Incidentally, you cannot say evolution sceptics are not allowed on the BBC because of the principle that 'unscientific' ideas are not allowed, as we have all sorts of programmes about ESP, fortune telling, UFOs, time travel, life on other planets etc. Not that I am including evolution sceptics with those groups as they believe in something, whereas the evolution sceptics merely doubt a theory. I am just making the point that these groups are allowed to air their odd views, but evolution sceptics are not. Hmmm it always seems to me that if a group is shouted down and not allowed to speak it is usually because the shouters are worried that they will be defeated by fair debate. For the same reason, the 'Galileo treatment', consisting of silencing opposition by the establishment, is similarly applied to AGW sceptics. Just wait for some warm weather - we will be bombarded by one-sided closed-minded agenda-driven AGW propaganda.

2) Evidence number two:
If I understand you correctly, you are an academic in a depatment of Biology. Would you accept an application for a PhD thesis at your university with the subject: 'An investigation into inconsistencies and contradictions in the fossil record'?

As Mellanie Phillips said in her article:
'What I have also seen, however, is an attempt to shut down that argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents.'

Junk science
Yes I do consider AGW to be 'junk science'. One of the main reasons I am suspicious of it is because of the way it is linked to another belief system - a whole industry will be built around carbon trading and political control of energy. If this were not the case, the AGW crowd would embrace nuclear power. Evolution is similarly not standing on its own; it is linked to a belief system.

As Mellanie Phillips says above:
'Dogma is certainly what is on the other side of ID in this fight - a materialist dogma which, posing as the standard-bearer of reason against obscurantism, actually embodies irrationality and a kind of intellectual fascism. It is a secular inquisition - as the reaction to my post makes all too plain.

Alan Fox

MichaelB asks:

"Again, I'd suggest taking a single event you regard as a macroevolutionary or speciation event, and explicate it as such, transparently, openly, and in essentially layman oriented terms."

Here is some information about the rapid speciation of Lake Malawi cichlids. The natural history of the Rift Valley lake cichlids is fascinating and there is a huge amount of literature available.

Billy Hippo

Regarding the claims by the evolutionists that the fossil record at first proved gradual change, then later demonstrated sudden extinction, even if I was asleep in the classroom like you suggest, it was also written in the textbooks. Plus, it is described in the programme you can hear in the BBC radio 4 archives of 'In our Time' about the KT boundary, and you cannot get more establishment than that.

Here is the full quote from the programme (about 17 minutes in)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20050623.shtml

The Professor of Paleontology on the programme says:
'The fact is that many many major groups of organisms did die out at that time, rather catastrophically, and I've observed this over the last 10 or so years as people have looked at the fossil records ever more closely, certain records, for example the ammonites, this major group of marine organisms, used to look rather gradualistic, meaning species disappeared step by step, one at a time for many many meters below the boundary, but when people have gone back to the sections and collected more intensely, they're filling the gaps, so a lot of these records that used to look gradual stepwise dropping off, become more and more catastrophic with time and more and more species go up to the boundary, and that's true of the dionosaurs as well.'

Sergey

RF: The paper you linked has nothing to do with speciation - nothing whatsoever! - only found in island races the usual genetic variation of the same type which observable in human races. You can find the same if you compare Chinese and Japanese mithochondrial DNA.

Leigh Jackson

Paul McLaughlan,

"I'm a Creationist. By faith, but if someone produces that irrefutable evidence of evolution I will have to look into it."

The irrefutable is not the undeniable. Irrefutable evidence for evolution exists - which is why science considers it to be a fact of nature.

Billy Hippo

contributor 'mostly harmless' says: May 7th, 2009 9:46pm
MF "What they don’t accept is that random, blind-chance evolution accounts for the origin of all species and the origin of life, the universe and everything."
No evolutionary biologist has ever said or believed that either. How many more times does it have to be said. Evolution is a process of random mutations being selected for by the completely non-random process of natural selection.I struggle to see how seemingly intelligent people seem to repeatedly miss this important point.
--end of quote of 'mostly harmless'---

I think maybe the point MF was making, and which perhaps you missed, was that certain steps are difficult to attribute to blind-chance, irrespective of the input of non-random selection. For example, the evolution of flight in birds. What use is a half wing that does not enable you to fly? How could it evolve gradually over millions of years until one day it is enough like a wing to enable the animal to suddenly glide off? Millions of years of being in the way, then suddenly a use for it.

Leigh Jackson

Billy Hippo,

"One contributor above says 100,000 years is no way nearly enough to show a demonstrable chunk of evolution.

Another contributor claims we can see many examples of evolution within a few decades happening in front of us.

A bit of a contradiction there - make your minds up. If we can see lots in a few decades, why can't we see any in 100,000 years?"

You are jumping to conclusions. What you are saying I said is a false interpretation of what I actually said. I was not suggesting that 100,000 years is a trivial timescale for significant evolutionary changes to take place for all species at all periods of evolutionary time in all physical environments. The rate at which evolutionary changes take place obviously varies.

You responded to my post but not to my question. You appear to have a keen interest in the subject of evolution and ask some very good questions. The kind of questions which Darwin asked. Have you read him?

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "These scientists working in the field are not geneticists."
So freakin' what! They are taxonomists. Taxonomists set up new species.
" And without genetical analysis (kariotype, hybrides fertility) no claims of observing speciation event can be taken seriously."

Setting that aside, there has been genetic analysis, and the researchers have used that evidence to investigate the processes of speciation.
Comparative landscape genetics and the adaptive radiation of Darwin's finches: the role of peripheral isolation
K. PETREN*, P. R. GRANT†, B. R. GRANT† and L. F. KELLER
Molecular Ecology

Volume 14 Issue 10, Pages 2943 - 2957
Published Online: 7 Jul 2005

"We use genetic divergence at 16 microsatellite loci to investigate how geographical features of the Galápagos landscape structure island populations of Darwin's finches. We compare the three most genetically divergent groups of Darwin's finches comprising morphologically and ecologically similar allopatric populations: the cactus finches (Geospiza scandens and Geospiza conirostris), the sharp-beaked ground finches (Geospiza difficilis) and the warbler finches (Certhidea olivacea and Certhidea fusca). Evidence of reduced genetic diversity due to drift was limited to warbler finches on small, peripheral islands. Evidence of low levels of recent interisland migration was widespread throughout all three groups. The hypothesis of distance-limited dispersal received the strongest support in cactus and sharp-beaked ground finches as evidenced by patterns of isolation by distance, while warbler finches showed a weaker relationship. Support for the hypothesis that gene flow constrains morphological divergence was only found in one of eight comparisons within these groups. Among warbler finches, genetic divergence was relatively high while phenotypic divergence was low, implicating stabilizing selection rather than constraint due to gene flow. We conclude that the adaptive radiation of Darwin's finches has occurred in the presence of ongoing but low levels of gene flow caused by distance-dependent interisland dispersal. Gene flow does not constrain phenotypic divergence, but may augment genetic variation and facilitate evolution due to natural selection. Both microsatellites and mtDNA agree in that subsets of peripheral populations of two older groups are genetically more similar to other species that underwent dramatic morphological change. The apparent decoupling of morphological and molecular evolution may be accounted for by a modification of Lack's two-stage model of speciation: relative ecological stasis in allopatry followed by secondary contact, ecological interactions and asymmetric phenotypic divergence."

Richard Forrest

Billy Hippo wrote:
"Regarding the claims by the evolutionists that the fossil record at first proved gradual change, then later demonstrated sudden extinction, even if I was asleep in the classroom like you suggest, it was also written in the textbooks"

Sudden extinction is not evolutionary change! It's sudden extinction. Extinct organisms don't evolve, because if you're dead you can't reproduce. The organisms which survived the K/T boundary event evolved slowly to fill the niches which had been left empty. It took about 20 million years for the biodiversity of the planet to reach its earlier level.

Sergey

See the following study on hybridization of cichlids "species":
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1580
There is no reduction in hybrids fecundity, so, as I argumented before, they are not species, but racial color variants.

Sergey

See also
http://fdocc.blogspot.com/2006/01/cichlid-variation.html
"Speciation" of cichlids is a hoax. In all hybridization experiments involving these fishes (many of which are cited in this link) no decline of fertility were found. It the same as to claim that fox-terrier and a hound are different species because a huge difference in appearance.

Sergey

RF:"there has been genetic analysis, and the researchers have used that evidence to investigate the processes of speciation."
Yes, they used - but found NO proof that speciation occured, as the quote you cited clearly shows. Moreover, they found that there is no parallelism between phenotypical and genetical divergence. Just what I asserted: no phenotypical change is an indication of speciation without IRREVERSIBLE GENETICALLY FIXED REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION. All attempts of the authors to rationalize away their own findings are just hot air.

Michael B

Alan Fox,

Yes, thank you. Though that example serves to underscore the emphases made in my prior two comments.

We both know why Richard Forrest and others run from the request - and the responsibility - to explain what they mean by "speciation," especially so in a more popular forum such as this where the common conception very often involves more decisive and dramatic changes (e.g., to be overly simplistic, from fish to quadroped), perhaps unaware of how the definition of the term itself ("species") has changed over time, in fact is not static to this day. Yet they trade in litanies, they trade in terminology, they trade in posing as being far more authoritative than they in fact are.

True science is a rigorous and demanding enterprise and true scientists don't shy away from basic responsibilities; pretenders and poseurs and ideologues, by contrast, do. Hence, the Dawkins & Co. phenomenon, often conflating science with extra-scientific interests.

Basic epistemic clarity and responsibilities too often have given way to presumption, not to mention to some real nastiness as well. Unfortunate, but a prominent, big-time fact. Hence, the increasing relevance of the current discussion.

Sergey

I clearly stated what type of genetic analysis I want: karyotype rearangement, sterility of hybrides. (These are equivalent.) Any other genetic differencies may be interesting in themselves, but for the problem of speciation are irrelevant. They are commonly found in different populations of the same species.

Billy Hippo

Leigh Jackson May 8th, 2009 6:11pm - Ok, I take your point about different species evolving at different rates.

No, I have not read Charles Darwin. I completed a BSc in Biology, and I can confirm what
Hadrian May 5th, 2009 10:33pm refers to, which is that you can complete a three year degree course in biology with hardly any reference to evolution, except for the odd mention when it is simply accepted as a fact beyond any doubt, for example 'We don't know why this feature evolved'. It is just an alternative way of saying 'We don't know why this feature is present.' In genetics we looked at how genes pass on, interact, and translate into features, and this was complicated enough without the lecturer having to speculate on how he thought they evolved. As far as dinosaurs were concerned, the only time they came up was to calculate how fast a huge dinosaur could walk/trot before its legs would snap (I think 12mph is the answer). Evolution was just mentioned incidentally as a fact and no evidence was ever presented.

There were a few characters like Richard Forrest, although to be fair to the lecturers, I would say most were more tolerant of dissent than he seems to be. Imagine being an undergraduate in one of his classes and questioning one of his statements of fact. It must be like being in Mr Gradgrind's class in the Dicken's novel 'Hard Times'.

I mentioned in one seminar at university some reservations about the fossil record after reading a book called 'Evolution - the fossils say No!'. The next week another lecturer said he had heard on the grapevine that I had some strange views. I was left in no doubt that those kinds of opinions were not welcome. At the end of the course another student mentioned that she too had some doubts but she had thought it wise to keep them to herself. I can assure you that an open enquiring mind is NOT what they are looking for in students on my course.

What annoys me is people who have an agenda which drives them to aggressively block alternative views, but deny it and pretend they are fair minded and acting from logical scientific principles. They are intolerant of debate, and act like bullys to prevent dissent, and are embodied by that bastion of the current establishment thinking: the BBC.
What a horrible, 1984 type society the BBC is busily trying to take us towards.

There are many unanswered questions about why we are here. Is there a scheme of things which can explain why I am currently occupying this particular body for this small period in history, after which I will disappear? If I had not entered life on this planet a few decades ago in this body, would my self awareness never have happened? Do all humans have self awareness or are some just like animals? Has God spoken through one or more religions? Why does he not state his wishes more clearly? A dog will never work out 7x6. Likewise, is the meaning of the soul also beyond the ability of our brains to ever comprehend? Why should we not discuss these things? Why should someone have the right to shout loudly and say 'I am a paleontologist so all doubters just SHUT UP, as I know the answers to life, the universe and everything, which is that there is nothing else apart from what you see.'

From what he says in his post, Leigh Jackson likes interesting questions, so here is what I think is a challenging question, and I am genuinely interested in his reply as this is a debating blog as well as an insult-hurling blog: if evolution is like a sort of ladder, with the lower forms of the life at the bottom rungs, and humans at the top rung, how is it that so many of the lower rungs are still going strong. Eg molluscs, ferns, starfish, scorpions, and, dare I say it, crocodiles, lizards and turtles to represent the dinosaurs. Surely they should have been out-evolved? And the lower rungs are not only going strong, they even form the vast majority of life forms on the planet. The odd lower rung hanging on I can accept as being consistent with evolution, but we have representatives of all the rungs present today, with the lower ones having greater representation than the more recent ones, and therefore being the most successful. All extinct animals, whatever rung position, have their representatives going strong today, stubbornly refusing to be out-evolved.

Billy Hippo

Richard Forrest - in your post above you have made a brief statement to inform us that dead animals are not able to reproduce, and you have given us some information about the KT boumdary. People who read my original post just above at 5:17 will observe that you are avoiding the point I made - how the paleontologists cannot be trusted because they are able to revisit the same group of fossils, and then tell us that the fossils which one minute demonstrated gradual evolution, the next minute can be moved (on the scheme of things), one by one to the KT boundary when they 'looked at them ever more closely' as the professor of paleontology says in the quote from 'In Our Time'.
You seem to be using the tactic of avoiding answering a point by simply making some statement about the topic in question.

Alan Fox

Sergey.

The generally accepted definition for a (sexually reproducing)species is that it is genetically isolated from related breeding groups. Speciation follows from geographical separation, allopatry, but also by sympatry where behavioral differences can result in separation in the same habitat, as has happened in some species of cichlid.

I find it amazing that Lake Victoria was dry less than 14,000 years ago, and since then, from one ancestral population of cichlid, there have evolved several hundred genetically separate populations. It seems ironic and unfortunate that this diversity is now rapidly disappearing under the effects of introduced species of fish, overfishing and pollution.

Leigh Jackson

Billy Hippo,

Thanks for your reply. Darwin is worth reading. Once one has properly grasped what he is saying, one sees that evolution cannot NOT happen. After that it becomes a question of working out the implications. That is far harder than Darwin's (and Wallace's) initial insight. But the insight is a thrilling and astonishing thing to experience for oneself. A new vista opens up before one.

Once you genuinely understand the principle of natural selection you will understand the answer to your own question. I could tell you the answer, but why not find out from the first man in history to understand it? Consider this: Darwin was not an atheist and like you he asked penetrating questions. Unlike you he had nobody else to tell him the answers. Of course there are plenty of questions which we still don't have answers to and no doubt some which we never will. We don't know which are which. Someone once said that science was the art of asking answerable questions. I quite like that idea.

EscapeVelocity

Perhaps the IDers should be honest. If they are scientists they should simply say;-

"We have seen complexities that evolution cannot account for. Therefore evolution has failed as a theory for the existence of life here. Let's start over."

Why?

Evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive.

Richard Forrest

Billy Hippo wrote: "People who read my original post just above at 5:17 will observe that you are avoiding the point I made - how the paleontologists cannot be trusted because they are able to revisit the same group of fossils, and then tell us that the fossils which one minute demonstrated gradual evolution, the next minute can be moved (on the scheme of things), "

Actually, it's not a matter of palaeontologists looking at the same "group of fossils". It's a matter of palaeontologists looking at the evidence, formulating hypotheses, and then testing them by acquiring more evidence. Our knowledge of the K/T boundary extinction event has increased greatly because of research in the field which added to our knowledge of the the changes in the biotas associated with the extinction. I suggest that you can trust palaeontologists because they don't cling to theories which the evidence shows to be wrong.

Furthermore, and to repeat: such extinction events have nothing to do with gradual evolution. They are something completely different, and you are still conflating them for some reason. Fossils in general *do* demonstrate gradual evolution. We have many transitional series which show how major groups originated, and the predictions made by evolutionary theory have been verified by the discovery of new specimens.

Richard Forrest

Michael B writeS:

"We both know why Richard Forrest and others run from the request - and the responsibility - to explain what they mean by "speciation," especially so in a more popular forum such as this where the common conception very often involves more decisive and dramatic changes (e.g., to be overly simplistic, from fish to quadroped), perhaps unaware of how the definition of the term itself ("species") has changed over time, in fact is not static to this day."

In what way am I running away from anything? Speciation means the origination of a new species. However, the term species can be difficult to define and as I have explained, several different species concepts are used by biologists because no single such concept is universally applicable. Our understanding of species concepts changes as we acquire new evidence. For example, Mayr's "biological species concept", which defines species in sexually reproducing organisms by sterility of hybrids has been found to be unreliable. Research has found that hybridisation is far more common in nature than we thought, and that many pairs of species can produce hybrids capable of reproduction. In plants especially such hybridisation is one of the mechanisms for speciation.

Speciation does not involve "decisive and dramatic changes" - obviously, as any new species is very similar to its parent species. In sexually reproducing species it can involve only behavioural changes which lead to reproductive isolation. If species habitat is divided into isolated pockets, genetic drift - the steady accumulation of genetic changes - can lead to the reproductive isolation of populations. It can be driven by differences in food preferences in populations occupying the same territory, with a subset of the population accumulating changes in morphology associated with feeding behaviour which leads to the founding of a new species.

Speciation is a complex phenomenon which can't be explained in a few easily digestible paragraphs. I can refer you to sources which explain the different species concepts used by biologists and how they are applied, but to repeat: it's not my responsibility to educate you or anyone else in biology with long explanatory posts on this forum, especially as the content of my posts is usually either simply ignored or denied.

Sergey

"The generally accepted definition for a (sexually reproducing)species is that it is genetically isolated from related breeding groups."
This definition is too broad and ambiguous, there are many borderline cases when it hard to know is the isolation genetical or behavioral, because genetics of behavior is in its infancy.
That is why purely genetical criterion of speciation is now used by taxonomists for extant species. This makes sense since the most numerous group of species - insects - often can be studied only by identifying chromosomes homology. There are many sibling species in this group (especially Diptera) perfectly isolated but morphologically identical. I supect that this obsolete and ambiguous definition of species still used only to prolong agony of Darwinism.

Sergey

"several hundred genetically separate populations."
What does this mean? Any population has some genetical difference from another. This is almost a tautology, by the very definition of a population. Are these separate population species? I cited many sources showing that they are not.

Richard Forrest

Billy Hippo wrote: "I mentioned in one seminar at university some reservations about the fossil record after reading a book called 'Evolution - the fossils say No!'. The next week another lecturer said he had heard on the grapevine that I had some strange views. I was left in no doubt that those kinds of opinions were not welcome. At the end of the course another student mentioned that she too had some doubts but she had thought it wise to keep them to herself."

"Evolution - the Fossils say No!" was my first introduction to creationism. At the time I was in my late teens, and a member of a Pentecostal Church. I already had a keen interest in collecting fossils, and was handed the book by another member of the Church who told me that it proved that the Biblical story of creation was supported by science. When I read the book I was shocked. I already had a good enough knowledge of geology, gained less from reading books on the subject than actually scrabbling about in the rocks themselves to recognise that many of the arguments presented there were based on distortion, highly selective use of evidence and even outright falsehoods. I had expected that the arguments presented would be honest and factual, especially as the authors were apparently such devout Christians. I couldn't find a single argument in that book which stood up to any scrutiny, and was not easily shown to be wrong simply by the evidence from the rocks themselves.

When I raised doubts as to the scientific validity of this book I was harangued, and told that I would burn in hell if I didn't accept the arguments presented there. I was presented with an ultimatum - tell the church members that the Bible is supported by science, or leave the church. I left the church because I could not accept the blatant dishonesty, which exploits the genuine faith but scientific ignorance of its target readers, of "Evolution - the Fossils say No!"

My interest in creationism was revised when I published a web site (plesiosaur.com) on my particular field of vertebrate palaeontology, plesiosaurs. Not long after I first put the site up on the web, I was subjected to flaming - bombarding with emails - by creationists. I was told that I was a liar, that I worship Darwin, that I am an atheist, and that I will burn in hell while worms eat my living flesh. The reason? I said on my site that I was not interested in stories of rotting shark carcases which have been wrongly interpreted as plesiosaurs. As a plesiosaur palaeontologist I would love the chance to look at a living, breathing plesiosaur, and the survival of such an animal would pose no problem whatsoever for evolutionary theory, contrary to the strident assertions of creationists.

Following this, I started to research creationist web sites, and found them to be as deeply and systematically dishonest as Gish's book. I found no site which did not build its arguments on misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods. I don't expect anyone simply to take my word for this, which is why I analysed several such sites and posted my analysis on my web site. Please note that I am not talking about differences in interpretation of evidence, but in many cases of statements made on such sites which are demonstrated by evidence to be clearly and categorically false. In fact, one of the common falsehoods promoted in such sites is that creationists look at the same evidence but interpret it within a different, but scientifically equally valid framework.

I have approached the authors of all the sites I analysed and invited them to demonstrate with evidence that my analyses are unsound. None of them has tried to do so, and only one of the authors even bothered to respond at all. I have published the full correspondence on the site.

So if any creationist thinks I am wrong when I claim that creationists sources are deeply and systematically dishonest, address the evidence. If you think that there are honest creationist sources, provide a link to an such a source. If you think that "evolutionist" sites as deeply and systematically dishonest, post an analysis of any such site. If you don't have access to a web site on which you can publish it, send it to me and I'll publish it for you.

I've posted this challenges on many occasions on many discussion forums. No creationist seems to have the slightest interest in defending the honesty of their sources. From this evidence it seems an inescapable conclusion that they condone such dishonesty and find it an acceptable way of promoting their agenda.

I don't.

When it comes down to basics, I oppose creationism - which includes ID, of course - because I detest dishonesty, especially when it comes from those claiming the moral high ground as creationists do.

Ronnie

Jesus! You guys still here?

Richard Forrest

Sergei wrote: "That is why purely genetical criterion of speciation is now used by taxonomists for extant species."
This is simply not true!
Many species are described taxonomists based on morphological or other criteria.
Here's one published in 2003: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4120629
And another in 2005: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5725/1161
and another in 2004: http://www.springerlink.com/content/96v731w1153r074n/
and another in 2003: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4120630and
and another in 2002: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14427974
and another in 2005: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1581/2587.abstract

How many more do you want? Hundreds of such papers are published every year. Are you telling us that you know more about how species are defined than the authors of all those papers, the editors of the journals in which they are published and the universities and other organisations which fund the research?

Genetic criteria of speciation may be useful, and in the case of bacterial organisms are the only way of setting species boundaries. However, gene sequencing technology is not available to many biologists, especially those working in the field. Many of the biologists I have talked to hate the idea that a species can be defined purely by genetic bar coding because such a definition tells us virtually nothing about the biology of the organism - how it feeds, how it reproduces, how it interacts with its environment, its morpholology, its relationship to other species and so on. It reduces biology to stamp collecting.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote:
"What does this mean? Any population has some genetical difference from another."
Why?
S: "This is almost a tautology, by the very definition of a population."
By whose definition of a population? A population, in biology, is a collection of interbreeding organisms. There is no requirement that they are genetically distinct from every other population.
S: "Are these separate population species? I cited many sources showing that they are not."

The only sources which I can find that you have cited (and by all means show that I am wrong) are:

St. George Mivart 1871 "On the Genesis of Species"
Leo Berg 1922 "Nomogenesis"
Mayr 1970 "Populations, Species and Evolution"
M.D.J.White 1978 "Modes of Speciation"
Mayr 1988 "Toward a new philosophy of biology. Observations of an evolutionist."

Bearing in mind that none of these is less than 20 years old (and that is an essay, not a scientific paper), and that your principle references are much older than that, perhaps you can explain why you think that they are relevant today? I've provided you with many references to papers published within the past few years. Your main response seems to be the assertion that the authors don't understand the nature of speciation. How about some citations which support that assertion which take into account the huge advances in biology which have occurred over the past couple of decades?

Leigh Jackson

Billy Hippo,

"I think maybe the point MF was making, and which perhaps you missed, was that certain steps are difficult to attribute to blind-chance, irrespective of the input of non-random selection. For example, the evolution of flight in birds. What use is a half wing that does not enable you to fly? How could it evolve gradually over millions of years until one day it is enough like a wing to enable the animal to suddenly glide off? Millions of years of being in the way, then suddenly a use for it."

This shows that you have not grasped the full import of natural selection. Gene mutation may be utterly random - blind chance - but natural selection ensures that evolution is ***not*** blind chance. Keep on thinking about this. It's vitally important to grasp that evolution is not about blind chance - only gene mutation is. Gene mutation is not evolution, it is the necessary but not sufficient ground of it. Natural selection "guides" evolution, ensuring that creatures tend to become better adapted to their environments - so long as they have sufficient time available for them to evolve.

You ask a reasonable question about the bird's semi-wing. Ostriches have lost the ability to fly and adapted to a permanently bipedal life. One basic function of feathers is to provide insulation. They are the fastest biped and second fastest animal. Their wings have diminished as their legs have grown. In other words arms and legs, hands and feet and feathers can take on different functions - as you will know.

The evolution of flight - a beautiful problem to solve. What we see in the fossil record is the accumulation of the physical attributes required for flight in birds. Let's suppose that the species with these accumulating attributes didn't evolve. How and why did they come into existence in such an orderly fashion? An order which evidences a progression towards a species which is able to fly? Evolution supplies a simple answer to these questions. What is the answer if not evolution?

Does saying a creator made these species explain how and why the creator made them? Not that I can see - correct me if I am wrong. Can science say anything at all about this supposed creator? You tell me.

Emmet

Richard Forrest, I see that you continue to use sneering condescension as a method of argument. Bully for you, too. Your refusal to even look at the question of Arctic animals, on the grounds that it isn't your speciality, is typical of the evasiveness of such self-appointed "experts" as yourself. Your claim that some species of sheep now exist which cannot interbreed with their wild ancestors. Citation, please!

Richard Forrest

Emmet writes:

"Your refusal to even look at the question of Arctic animals, on the grounds that it isn't your speciality, is typical of the evasiveness of such self-appointed "experts" as yourself."
My speciality is vertebrate palaeontogy, especially that of marine reptiles, and even more especially that of plesiosaurs. If you want to ask me any questions on that, I'd be very happy to answer. I'm not being evasive, I'm simply being clear about the limitations of my detailed knowledge of subjects in which I have done no research. I have a knowledge of genetics because it is relevant to my specialised area of interest, in particular hox gene expression.

When it comes to the evolution of colour changes in Arctic animals, I can search using google and google scholar to find articles on the subject, but this something you are perfectly capable of doing yourself. If, having done such a search and read the relevant articles you are unclear, by all means come back with questions and I will do my best to answer them. It's not "sneering condescension" to refuse to do your research for you. if you genuinely want to find out how such colouration changes could evolve, the information is out there on the internet. If you are only raising the issue because you imagine that it falsifies evolutionary theory, I see little point in my providing a detailed explanation which my experience of dealing with creationists shows will simply be ignored.

E: "Your claim that some species of sheep now exist which cannot interbreed with their wild ancestors. Citation, please!"

Hiendleder S., et al. (2002) "Molecular analysis of wild and domestic sheep questions current nomenclature and provides evidence for domestication from two different subspecies" Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269:893-904

It's easy to find such citations by using google. Just search for "speciation".

Sergey

RF: source I cited is
http://fdocc.blogspot.com/2006/01/cichlid-variation.html. This is hub to many more links on this topic. And the type of analysis I am talking does not need gene sequencing. Karyotype analisis can be done even in the field. As for genetic differences between populations, this, of course, is not a requirenment, but an empirical fact. It would be a big surprize to find two different populations with identical genetic composition - such thing simly does not exist. I know, of course, that most new species are first described morphologically, but this is only a first step. There is a lot of things to be done before these description became recognized, and now some type of genetic fingerprint is a requirement. A very small portion of material is needed for PCR reaction - less than milligramm - and PCR is now routinely done in hundred labs.

John D.

What a load of crap. Go back to school. Take a science course. Anything. Just do something to actually learn the difference between ID and science. There are kids and teenagers out there who get the difference. Surely it is not beyond your grasp?

Sergey

RF: domestication from two different subspecies is possible, of course, but it is not a prove or even indication of speciation event. Just the contrary. A sheep still is a sheep is a sheep, wild or domesticated.

Sergey

"Can science say anything at all about this supposed creator? You tell me."
Once exactly this question was asked. It took place in one of these wasteful conferences of peace movement whose participants were politicians, clergy, scientists and pop celebrities. An anglican bishop from Pennsylvania asked a British enthomologist what his studies of insects told him about character of Creator. And the scientist replied: An inordinate affectation with bugs. (Bugs comprise almost a half of all insect species, numbered 6 mln.)

Sergey

There is no two field in biology more far away from each other than genetics and paleontology. So this is not a surprise for me that a paleontologist demonstrated so full ignorance in genetics. If paleontology can offer some insights on evolution above level of gender, it has nothing to say about speciation. Stephen Gould was, may be, the last widely educated biologist to understand both.

Sergey

Ancestry of any domesticated animal species is always a guesswork, and I can not imagine how this can be traced to the level of a species. These "wild ancessors" are only hypothetical. It still is not clear if dogs were domesticated from wolves or jackals.

Sergey

The book of Mivart is relevant because it demonstrates that ID-type arguments are not a new invention, they were proposed by a distingished zoologist in response to Darwin's book almost immediatelly. Book by Berg is relevant because it was cited by Gould as an important source of his theory. Gould also published in 1980 book of Richard Goldshmidt with his preface, and this was first published in 1940. Some books are classics, they are always relevant, especially when the problems the posed never were adequately answered and were simply ignored by Darwinists as too inconvenient to their dogmats.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "source I cited is
http://fdocc.blogspot.com/2006/01/cichlid-variation.html."

I see. So I provide citations from peer-reviewed scientific journals which show clearly and categorically that you are wrong, and you cite a web site which simply regurgitates the false assertion that different species cannot produce viable hybrids. They can, and it is a phenomenon which has been widely reported in the scientific literature. So either we should believe that you know more than all the authors of those papers, and the editors of the journals which published them and the reviewers who reviewed them about how we recognise species, or you are simply wrong.

Which do you think the more likely explanation?

Leigh Jackson

Richard Forrest,

"When it comes down to basics, I oppose creationism - which includes ID, of course - because I detest dishonesty, especially when it comes from those claiming the moral high ground as creationists do."

We are as one Richard. This is not really about science versus religion; it is about honesty and integrity versus mendacity and duplicity.

You are prodigious. Salute.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "The book of Mivart is relevant because it demonstrates that ID-type arguments are not a new invention, they were proposed by a distingished zoologist in response to Darwin's book almost immediatelly."

Actually, they were proposed by William Paley long before Darwin was born. That doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make them testable.

S: "Book by Berg is relevant because it was cited by Gould as an important source of his theory."

It is? Funny thing, but Gould and Eldridge's paper on punctuated equilibrium (is this what you mean by Gould's theory?) does not cite Berg. To which of Gould's theories are you referring?

S: "Gould also published in 1980 book of Richard Goldshmidt with his preface, and this was first published in 1940. Some books are classics, they are always relevant, especially when the problems the posed never were adequately answered and were simply ignored by Darwinists as too inconvenient to their dogmats."

...all of which is pretty well irrelevant to modern evolutionary theory, of course. Do you have any idea how much impact the discovery of hox genes has had? Or the development of phylogentic systematics? Why not read Neil Shubin's "Your inner fish" - and please note that Shubin, a palaeontologist, has also been active in the field of genetics.

Leigh Jackson

Nancy Pearcy,

"Historically, it is a fact that most of the early modern scientists were Christians, guided by a biblical worldview. The British philosopher Mary Midgley recognizes this. “Science does have its own worldview that includes guiding presuppositions about the nature of the world,” she points out. “The founders of modern science expressed these very plainly for their time. Cosmic order (they said) flows wholly from God, so science redounds to his glory.”

But if this is science’s “own worldview,” why is it often said that it is invalid or illegitimate to bring God back into science?"

Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and Newton all had cause to be careful where religion was concerned. Their brilliant and challenging minds made them dangerous to the established churches. Certainly, they were all devoutly religious individuals for whom science and faith were indissoluble. It was not just religious faith that was merged with science during this time but metaphysics in general. The argument between Leibnitz and Newton over the nature of space and time was as much about metaphysics as physics. Leibnitz's concept of the monad vied with Descartes' dualism and Spinoza's monism. Gradually science has disengaged from religion and metaphysics and focused in on nature. The disciplines have become specialisations. That is not to say that they do not have things to say to one another, just that a de facto demarcation has opened out between them. ID wishes to forcibly compel science to go into reverse in order to serve the interest of God again. It's absurd. It was science's worldview; it isn't any more. Newton left the greatest legacy to science but he also left a pile of junk science also - all resulting from his religious obsessions. His metaphysical time and space was shown to be a mirage by Einstein. Does ID wish to reinstate them - to leave space for God again?

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

You are adding a pinch of sense to several pounds of confusion and nonsense, hoping it passes muster, hoping the little bit of sense you add leavens the whole loaf. It fails to do so.

Mary Midgley's quaint summation of how various founders of modern science viewed the world has a kernel of truth to it, but it is little more than a quaint summation nonetheless. Mary Midgley knows this, so I suspect a wider and more interesting context informs your excerpt. Further, Midgley herself has written against the conflation of science and ideology - at times pointedly singling out the Dawkins & Co. strain of that conflation. Those are two indications of the wider fact that your commentary is historically, philosophically and scientifically confused and conflated throughout.

Your invocation of the "god of the gaps" theme does have some resonance and does point to a weakness inherent in (some of) the IDers, but the scientism that Midgley herself criticizes is an ideology and pseudo- or quasi-philosophical outlook itself, often invoking a wide ranging science-of-the-gaps set of assumptions (essentialy, that ALL knowledge is assertainable ONLY via science). In philosophical lingo, at least one strain of it, it's known as a strong physicalism or, a more general strain, a metaphysical materialism. I'm not a philosopher, but those interests and movements serve as general indicators nonetheless - and they serve to refute your "de facto" assumption about science as well.

Michael B

Richard Forrest,

To answer your question, what you are running from is the reason and rationality Melanie expressed in her post. It would require a thousand-plus words to reply to the entirety of your commentary, but, for example, it's interesting how you wish to allow for all manner of nuance and subtlety and on-going development of what constitutes "speciation" (and rightly so, since the concept itself has been evolving at least since the time of Linnaeus and volumes are written on the subject to this day). Nonetheless, without applying any reason whatsoever, you dogmatically insist that young-earth creationism is the same thing as 14 billion year old universe and 4.5 billion year old earth oriented ID. You insist upon subtlety, nuance, deft handlings, on-going development, etc. when it comes to one concept - yet require a univocal dogmatism when it comes to another concept.

As explained in this and one of the earlier threads on the subject, I'm not an IDer, I believe the IDers are biting off more than they can chew (as is Dawkins & Co., though in a different, ideological or pseudo-philosophical direction).

Nonetheless, increasing revelations (knowledge) of biological complexity at the cellular, genetic and epigenetic levels is giving rise to the complexity issue per se - in a manner that can be conceived similarly to fine-tuning arguments in the area of physical cosmology and physics in general. (I.e. as being broadly indicative, though not conclusive, of both design and mind behind it all - of intelligence and design.)

And what is all the discussion about speciation for in the first place?

Sergey

RF: "false assertion that different species cannot produce viable hybrids"
This is your fantasy, a strawman. Everybody know that mules are viable, even more viable than parent species. They are just infertile. And the site I cited has lots of references to peer-reviewed journals, not about non-viability, but about fertility of cichlid hybrids - an acid test of being races, not species. Darwinism can not survive without blurring the lines between species and races, that is because we see so many papers with very frivolous definition of speciation. I will not further answer your posts: you have your own inner fish not inside, but too close to surface. And this fish is rotten.

RickK

(Editor - if you decide not to post this, please at least send me an email briefly explaining why.)

First, a note of thanks to Richard Forrest and Leigh Jackson for refusing to let the anti-science comments go unchallenged. It is a thankless task to speak out against people whose ideology prevents actual rational argument, and who continuously demand evidence when no evidence would EVER shake them from their faith.

Sergey - ID-type arguments are not a new invention, you are right. Neither is astrology. And both "Intelligent Design" and astrology have EXACTLY the same amount of supporting evidence, the same level of explained mechanism, and the same legal standing. If you don't believe me, just look at Michael Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v Dover where he states ID is as scientific as astrology.

Michael B: I'm not really sure where you're going with your "philosophical lingo", but the simple fact is we can spend all day listing natural phenomena that were once attributed to divine or supernatural causes which were later positively determined to have natural causes.

And we can't find a single example of a natural phenomena for which a natural cause was positively replaced with a divine or supernatural cause.

So, with a to-date-perfect track record, we are safe in starting from the position that, however complex or subtle the answer, we should assume natural causation for speciation.

And given the results of science to date, a non-scientific explanation - whether Young-Earth or "Divine Designer" - requires MUCH more evidence than any scientific explanation would require. Supernatural causations have ALWAYS been either unproven or proven wrong. So for an extraordinary claim like ID to be right, it requires extraordinary evidence.

The spinning whip on the bum of some germ is NOT extraordinary evidence of divine intervention.

Until such evidence arises, ID deserves no more scientific consideration than Young-Earth Creationism, white hole cosmology, astrology, the healing power of pyramids, alien involvement in crop circles, geocentrism, homeopathic dilutions, or Nessie.

Melanie and the pro-ID commentors in this thread must ask themselves - is there ANY evidence that would convince them that evolution is a completely natural process? If they search their hearts and decide that there MUST be a supernatural or divine element to evolution, then they should walk off the stage because they have abandoned the intellectual honesty of the scientific method.

And they have proven (once again) that Intelligent Design has nothing at all to do with science.

Sergey

"the same amount of supporting evidence, the same level of explained mechanism, and the same legal standing"
ID is not a scientific theory, so it does not need any mechanism: it is a critique of another theory. As for legal standing, since when any discourse, philosophical or scientific, needs any legal standing? Courts of law are not supposed to solve scientific disputes and can not do it. Neither I need to believe you or anybody else about scientific matters: I am a scientist, not a layman, and can judge claims by their merits, not relegate this to some external authority. The very essence of ID claims is that creative evolution can not be explained by any mechanisms, being non-mechanical by its nature. This is a philosophical position, of course, as is explained in famous book of Henri Bergson. You can admit or reject it, as any other philosophy. What you can not do is to demand a scientific proof of a philosophy. But accumulated facts eventually make some philosophies more plausible than others. And facts indicating irreducible complexity are accumulated really fast. What we really need is a some rigorous measure of complexity; now we have none. This is a very hard mathematical problem, but I hope it is solvable. When this will be achieved, all ID would become a science, not just its critical component, which is already a legitimate scientific discourse.

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

I would object as much to an attempt to smuggle scientism into science classes as I do to the attempt to smuggle in religion. If you have evidence that is a movement abroad dedicated to making it happen, convince me and I will join you in fighting it.

Leigh Jackson

Sergey,

"The very essence of ID claims is that creative evolution can not be explained by any mechanisms, being non-mechanical by its nature. This is a philosophical position, of course, as is explained in famous book of Henri Bergson. You can admit or reject it, as any other philosophy. What you can not do is to demand a scientific proof of a philosophy. But accumulated facts eventually make some philosophies more plausible than others. And facts indicating irreducible complexity are accumulated really fast."

I thought that the essence of ID was supposed to be that it left open the possibility of an entirely natural mechanic. Who is demanding scientific proof of a philosphy? Science demands physical evidence to corroborate claims about nature - that's the way science presently works. If the scientific hypothesis is that irreducible complexity requires a creator then physical evidence of the creator must be supplied. Or alternatively show that intelligent design is at the very least capable of creating such irreducible biological complexity - by doing so. Till evidence of the creator is supplied ID remains an hypothesis - under present rules of science. If you want to write new rules which allows ID not to have to supply the same kind of evidence that is required everywhere else in science - why should you be allowed such a priviledge?

RickK

Sergey said: "ID is not a scientific theory"

Thank you, Sergey. So therefore it should not be taught in school science classes, and will only be valid if and when it can produce sufficient scientific evidence and merit to clear the same hurdles every other valid scientific theory must clear.

ID should not get a "free pass" through the scientific process just because has the potential to "affirm the reality of God" (to quote The Wedge).

So we're all in agreement. ID is not science, and Melanie Phillips is wrong.

EscapeVelocity

Is everyone in agreement that Einsteins Theory of Relativity was not science until some way of testing it was invented?

What a hoot?

String Theory....not science.

Dark Matter....not science.

You guys are a riot.

Leigh Jackson

Escape Velocity,

Relativity would not be science if suggested supernatural causes were the explanation of the natural phenomena which it seeks to understand. Ditto string theory and dark matter. Nor would it be science if it suggested that the phenomena themselves are supernatural in nature - so to speak.

Rabscuttle

The awesome power of propaganda -- who would believe in evolution if they hadn't had it taught them incessantly?
Paley was right. Forget watches -- when did so much as a tin-opener or mousetrap ever assemble itself by pure accident from its constituent parts?
Someone like Dawkins wants to believe that the the most complex entity in the Universe did it. His proof is his starting pro[position that "IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN GOD"
In other words, a totally circular argument

Allan Morton

The comments on this article have been as interesting as the article itself. My field is not science but I feel nonetheless that I can make two useful observations:

1. It is reasonably clear that this is primarily a US issue since the separation of Church and State in their Constitution has led to a prohibition on the teaching of religion in schools. There have been repeated attempts to recast the acuality of God as a science based phenomenon and thus allow individual schools to introduce those teachings that support the concept of God. Many cases going back to the Scopes trial with the great Clarence Darrow have ensured that only a perceived valid science based theory will get up in US schools.

2. I suspect that all commenters here are already strongly fixed in their opinions and while clearly engaging with contrary opinions to argue against them, are also just as clearly not going to change their own.

Richard Forrest

EscapeVelocity wrote: "Is everyone in agreement that Einsteins Theory of Relativity was not science until some way of testing it was invented?"

Einstein's theory made very precise predictions about the behaviour of systems which could be tested. It set limits on possible outcomes. So does string theory, and although we don't have the technology which means that we *can* test it, it is potentially testable. The existence of dark matter is a conclusion drawn from the evidence, and theories of the nature of dark matter can and have been tested. That's one of the reasons we the Large Hadron Collider was built.

The ID assertion that if we cannot explain the evolution of certain systems the only possible alternative explanation is that an "intelligent designer", possibly using supernatural means is responsible is *not* testable. It sets no constraints on possible outcomes, and there is no potential observation or measurement which could *NOT* be "explained" by such an entity. If rainbow-striped pigs with huge golden wings appeared out of nothing over Trafalgar Square and flew in complex geometric patterns, ID "theory" could "explain" it. If a dog gave birth to a cat, ID could "explain" it. In fact, if a dog gave birth to a new and previously unseeen shade of purple, ID could "explain" it.

That's why ID has nothing of any scientific value to offer. That's why ID proponents are demanding that we reject the assumption of naturalism which underlies all science. That's why ID proponents want to revert to a pre-scientific paradigm which accommodates the supernatural as an explanation for phenomena.

And that's why scientists are so opposed to ID. It undermines science education at a very fundamental level. It cannot have any impact on science, because it offers nothing which can be tested using the tools of science. However, if taught in schools it will produce a generation of students who think that "God did it" is an acceptable scientific explanation. Universities already have problems in bringing students up to speed in scientific and mathematical subjects as the quality of science education at A level has declined. This can only make matters worse. As a society we rely on the findings of science to drive technology, and the growing problems of an ever-increasing global population and climate change will not be solved by abandoning science.

Sergey

"So we're all in agreement. ID is not science, and Melanie Phillips is wrong."
No, we are not. Science consists not only from established theories, but also from unresolved problems and critique of existing theories, and this latter component is more important for science than theories themselves. It is also of prime pedagogic value, because it stimulates critical thinking and prevent a dismal present situation when any modish scientific hypothesis is accepted as a gospel, and everybody is convicted that science is "settled". Science is never settled. 90% of these "peer-reviewed" articles 10 years from now will be considered a junk. 20 years from now 95% of now "settled" science will be a junk, and 30 years from now - 99%.

Billy Hippo

Re the comments of Leigh Jackson May 9th, 2009 2:09am re Natural Selection -
If the evolutionists are happy with all the earlier stages still being present and also being the most successful, eg ferns, how is it they get so excited when they find what they believe to be a missing link, such as the archaeopteryx? It seems to me they would love to find examples of primitive types that went extinct because they were out-evolved. As it is, they have to put up with the primitive stages winning, which must be a source of frustration to them.
I contend that if alive today the archaeopteryx would live quite happily in the rain forest. It might meet the hoatzin, which is also alive today and is also referred to as a 'primitive bird'. Its wings are still small even after '65 million years of evolution'. But in the case of the hoatzin, the small wings are not due to its being a missing link, they are due to its lifestyle, ie living amongst dense forest trees and eating leaves, so it has a very large crop to digest them, plus a limited ability to fly as it only has to fly from tree to tree with its heavy crop. No soaring in the clouds for him, but nevertheless a pleasant lifestyle if you like leaves. If the archaeopteryx joined him, I doubt that he would need larger wings either.

Michael B May 10th, 2009 5:57pm -Good post, including the amusing point about the concept of speciation itself evolving.

Sergey

"Who is demanding scientific proof of a philosophy?"
You. It is you who demand that ID produced a scientific proof of existence of Creator. This, of course, is impossible. But science has much more in it than "corroborate claims about nature". If you make an effort and read Karl Popper's works, you would understand that no amount of corroborating evidence is a proof: science works not by accumulating corroborative evidence for existing explanations, but building, testing and disproving these hypotheses. It is 90% destructive, not constructive work, and its object is not nature itself, but its explanations. Attacks on scientific theories are not attacks on science: they are the essence of science itself. Most of commenters here hold very obsolete notions what science is, directly from 19 century.

Sergey

"I thought that the essence of ID was supposed to be that it left open the possibility of an entirely natural mechanic."
No, quite the contrary. The view of the nature as an mechanical automaton is called mechanistic determinism, a debunked and discredited philosophy (only Dawkins now expound such Neanderthal views). ID is the opposite to it.

Sergey

What makes Lamarckian theory of evolution more sound that Darwinian is his understanding of importance of a spontaneous activity of individuals in framing the fate of their progeny. This accent on free choice blows up the mechanical worldview. Not only humans have their wishes and preferences. Animals also are actors, not just subjects of selection. By chosing new habitats and environments they frame the course of their phylogenetic development. And who, do you suppose, can influence free choice, unrestricted by laws of nature? The answer is inavoidably philosophical, not scientific. Some think this is the free will as an ultimate reality. Some think this is God. Whatever you chose, this is not any science to "settle" such questions.

Billy Hippo

Richard Forrest - First of all, completely separate from the arguments in question, I offer genuine congratulations on being interested in something as a boy and then being able to follow it for a career. This is not something that most people achieve, although many aim for it. And how disgraceful that you were told you would burn in hell if you did not accept creationism. For a start, most Christians in this country do not accept it. Even if the Genesis account includes the events which actually happened, it is mixed in with a talking snake, so how are we meant to know which parts are events and which are metaphors?
Religious people can be quite irresponsible sometimes, usually unintentionally, for example talking to children about the devil trying to influence their thoughts. Okay for most children who do not think deeply about anything, but not okay for the 1% who do, and for whom these ideas can be quite alarming to say the least.

When people tell a teenager that he will burn in hell for this or that specific thing, these people are extending/adapting Christian doctrine to generate fear, like they have done for centuries. Even by their own doctrine and if they believe in hell, they should not say xyz leads to hell, they should say xyz, or looking at a woman with lust, lead to hell, both equally, and in BOTH cases repent and believe leads to heaven. You cannot isolate one sin and say that one leads to hell.

I also would not suggest that a biology undergraduate should stand up and question evolution at university as a way of defending God, especially when God does not really pull his weight by intervening a bit to help His own cause. It is like a rugby team with a few 7-stone players and a 25 stone giant as captain, who says 'off you go boys, do your best for me. Today I will stand here at the back and watch, although I could join in if I wanted to, as I have done on many occasions in the past.' In addition, after each match the players have to sing songs to praise the captain for all his power and strength, even though he did not help.

Therefore my motive in questioning evolution is not to defend God, but to challenge the arrogance of an establishment group who have decided that scientific debate is not allowed, and furthermore, they will not tolerate any views other than their own, like they tried to do in the case of Galileo.

Billy Hippo

----quote---
Richard Forrest says 'As a plesiosaur palaeontologist I would love the chance to look at a living, breathing plesiosaur, and the survival of such an animal would pose no problem whatsoever for evolutionary theory, contrary to the strident assertions of creationists.'
---end quote----

I agree with you here. As all stages of 'evolution' are represented today and fossils of animals and plants at the first stages match those present today, I see no problem with another animal surviving. And one is more likely to survive in water than on land, as the environment is more stable. The coelacanth and the horseshoe crab survived, plus starfish and molluscs, so why not the plesiosaur? It would be as exciting to find as was the finding of the giant land iguanas lizards on the island of Fernandina.

What I would like to see is a proper investigation of the fossil record, and academic grant research money used to finance it. I do not believe we will gain much by giving merely to the committed evolutionists, as they have shown from the posts above that they have already closed their minds to the possibility of other explanations.

It is like giving a research grant to global warming believers - the research will not be very useful because we already know what they will conclude, irrespective of what data they might encounter during their 'researches'.

Grants to support academics who hold views like Richard Forrest will have amounted, over the years, to hundreds of millions of pounds. I suspect that grants to investigate the extent to which imagination and hope play a part in current evolutionary thinking amount to.... zero. Surely, in the name of fairness and in the spirit of scientific investigation, the other side should be looked at? What about 3 grants per year out of the 100s handed out? Then Richard Forrest could get more informed contributions to his plesiosaur website for him to debate with. I contend that this approach will take us nearer the truth than the current one.

I am not saying Richard Forrest does or does not personally approve grants for PhD theses, however, academic professionals like Richard Forrest who deny the grants I describe above display an unscientific attitude which Richard Forrest despises in others, but cannot see in himself.

StephenB

Ronnie says May 9th, 2009 10:36am
'You guys still here?'

And now it is 11 May.
The interest in this debate suggests it would be an interesting topic to be given a fair hearing on the BBC. Any chance? The day they give an airing to AGW sceptics' views and ID views will be a great day for people who like to consider more than one side of an argument.

Graham P

Sergey says 'May 11th, 2009 10:48am What makes Lamarckian theory of evolution more sound that Darwinian is...'
It is interesting to note that the communists in the early Soviet Union used to embrace Lamarckism as at the time they thought it was more compatible with their political ideology. They did not like genetics as it implied that some people might have a better, more advanced set of genes than others, and so be better than others, ie we are not all equal. (I mean within a race). The irony is that even though current thinking in communist and non-communist countries now accepts the idea of different sets of genes, it is almost forbidden now in the West to merely hint that a criminal who stabs and murders for fun and pleasure might have faulty or missing genes. No, crime is all due to poverty, ie the environment, we are told. How curious to observe the influence of political ideology on what we are allowed to say in relation to genetics, first in the Soviet Union when ideas were banned, and now in the West as ideas about criminals are banned by political correctness.

To clarify - I am refering to criminals in our midst having faulty or missing genes in relation to moral behaviour.

Dave M

I finished reading Dawkin's God Delusion where the theme of I.D. is addressed. I must say I did find Dawkin's book to be a very well argued analysis of atheism vs religion. The main point I differed, however, is over Dawkin's insistance atheism is the only alternative to religion while agnostics (such as myself) are viewed as "fence sitters". On I.D., Dawkins main and unyielding line is it's as equally improbable for, say, a clock to appear seemingly out of nowhere as for the designer of the clock to do the same. Who created or designed the designer, so to speak? He calls this "regression" where the mystery of life is regressed to an assumed source, diverting the mystery elsewhere.
However, having read Dawkin's book thoroughly I do concede his somewhat aggressive attack on religion and creationism in the light of science and evolution is powerfully and logically sustained. One other important point is Dawkins does sympathise with those people who adhere to, say, Judaism or Christianity out of a sense of cultural heritage and belonging.
Personally, I would differ with Dawkins mainly that I.D. doesn't necessarily mean someone sat down and "created" the cosmos. Dawkins mentions Einstein in his book and I suspect although Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, he probably did link some kind of intelligent force to the order of the cosmos. Where I do agree with Dawkins is the idea of humanising this creative force by the term God is ridiculously simplistic. The problems really get started when whole cultures of people believe God is on their side alone and is somehow prepared to condone outright violence, hatred and intolerance.

Leigh Jackson

Billy Hippo,

"my motive in questioning evolution is not to defend God, but to challenge the arrogance of an establishment group who have decided that scientific debate is not allowed, and furthermore, they will not tolerate any views other than their own, like they tried to do in the case of Galileo."

You are telling me that I have been wasting my breath in answering your questions about evolution. It matters not whether you understand the theory. This is an irrelevance. You question evolution not so that you may understand it but in order to challenge the arrogance of scientists who have decided that scientific debate is not allowed. Well since this is your purpose in asking these questions, there is no point in me or anyone else engaging with you and trying to answer them in good faith.

Michael B

RickK and Leigh Jackson,

Not one of your comments reflects an apprehension of what was said, beyond what was necessary to revert to script - which is precisely what you've done, chapter and verse - entirely unaware of the irony reflected in that fact.

Billy Hippo,

That the subject of speciation has itself "evolved" is not a blemish in the least upon the science. It's only natural that it has done so, since the time of Linnaeus and reflecting the difficulties inherent in the subject. The point made had (literally) nothing to do with making a wisecrack about that fact.

Leigh Jackson

Sergey,

I don't know which ID it is that you are talking about but it's not the same one which Melanie, I and others are discussing. I have read Popper, and one or two other philosophers of science. Did I claim that corroboration meant proof? No. Did I ask for scientific proof of a philosophical theory. No, despite what you say. No corroboration of a scientific hypothesis is far less "proof" than no amount of corroboration.

There is no corroborative evidence to back up the claims of ID in respect of a creator rather than evolution being the explanation of irreducible complexity in biology.

None.

There is corroborative evidence, however, for evolution being the explanation.

Richard Forrest

Billy Hippo wrote:

"What I would like to see is a proper investigation of the fossil record, and academic grant research money used to finance it"

No, you wouldn't. What you want is to impose your views on the way in which science operates to conform with your religious dogma.

The fossil record has been investigated by science for over 200 years. Lessons learned from that investigation have contributed to the development of science in general, and what that investigation has revealed is a consistent and coherent history of the evolution and diversification of life over billions of years. Your implication that generations of scientists have been incompetent in how they go about their work is breathtakingly arrogant. You don't have a clue about the fossil record or the way in which scientists investigate it. You don't have a clue about the amount of money which goes to finance such investigations. "Millions of pounds"? You must be joking! Research in palaeontology, especially vertebrate palaeontology gets a pitance in grants. I fund myself, and other colleagues of mine to the same. This is not because we have private wealth - I most certainly don't - but because we are passionately interested in the subject.

Get an education, learn about science in general and palaeontology in particular, talk to the scientists, attend the conferences, do research of your own and get it published, and then you might be qualified to comment on how the fossil record is investigated. But empty pontification on a subject about which you know nothing shows only that you have no argument to offer.

Frankly, it's pathetic.

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

Perhaps I have failed to understand you. You have a certain penchant for opacity. I thought you were saying that there are people espousing scientism who are every bit as ideological in their way as IDers are in theirs.

But are they surreptitiously attempting to push scientism into the school curriculum?

If I haven't understood you, maybe you could spell it out for me. What are you saying?

Leigh Jackson

Allan Morton,

Agreed.

Michael B

Richard Forrest,

You have chosen a prudent tactic - that of evading any more rational and problematic engagement.

That tactic reflects the deliberations and decisions of a politician, administrator or ideologue - not a scientist and not any thinker who is more genuinely interested in epistemic rigor and validity, and in truth in a broader and more problematic sense still. But yours is a prudent choice nonetheless from a tactical perspective: ERM - Evasion, Retreat and Misdirection. I'll substantiate those charges as follows:

It was noted that without applying any reason whatsoever, you dogmatically insist that creationism is equivalent to 14 billion year old universe and 4.5 billion year old earth oriented ID. You insist upon deft handlings, nuance and on-going developments when it comes to speciation - yet demand a (literally) mind-numbing dogmatism when it comes to the conflation of creationism with 4.5 billion year old earth oriented ID. That there are sockpuppets who mimic that refrain is one prominent reason why you do so - a chorus, oft repeated, begins to sound like a consensus, which in turn begins to sound like some type of authority. In politics, yes; in the field of science and philosophy, not remotely so.

Another area of note that you've avoided is the fact that metaphysical materialism is decisively different from the methodological materialism a better scientist needs to adhere to. So, on that broader and underlying scale as well, you distance yourself from any more rational and problematic - and truer - engagement.

A bit more specifically now. You've also avoided the cosmological and physics based parallels (to ID in the biological arena). A notable subset of the anthropic arguments has been presented in that vein. As an addendum to that sizeable list of anthropic arguments it was noted that the "Standard Model" in physics, at the time of the GUT (grand unified theory, time zero-plus), requires that the parameters of physics be fine-tuned to an infinitesimal degree of 1 part in 10ł˛. To all of that - which in fact reflects a parallel or analogy to the complexity based reasoning applied to cellular, genetic and epigenetic biological strata - you likewise avoid any serious, rational/empirical based engagement: more ERM.

In sum, in deploying ERM, so common among the Dawkins & Co. clan, their claques and their polemics, you promote yourself as a wouldbe authority in order to speak from that position, as presumptive authority - rather than engage on a more closely reasoned and therein more responsible basis.

You can fool some, perhaps many, and occasionally most people - but you and others among Dawkins' cliques and claques cannot fool all the people all the time. You may be a proper and even a rigorous scientist within your narrower field, your specialization, but as with Dawkins you are not an authority beyond that specialization and sphere - to the contrary and decidedly so.

Leigh Jackson

Sergey,

I don't know which ID it is that you are talking about but it's not the same one which Melanie, I and others are discussing. I have read Popper, and one or two other philosophers of science. Did I claim that corroboration meant proof? Did I ask for scientific proof of a philosophical theory. No, I asked for evidence to corroborate what is claimed to be a scientific hypothesis. No corroboration of a scientific hypothesis is far less "proof" than no amount of corroboration.

There is no corroborative evidence to back up the claim of ID that a creator rather than evolution is the explanation of irreducible complexity in biology.

None.

There is corroborative evidence, however, for evolution being the explanation.

EscapeVelocity

Leigh said:

Relativity would not be science if suggested supernatural causes were the explanation of the natural phenomena which it seeks to understand. Ditto string theory and dark matter. Nor would it be science if it suggested that the phenomena themselves are supernatural in nature - so to speak.

EV says:

Then we both can agree that ID is in the clear as science.

QED

D J Wray

Has anyone considered that ID only applies to the brain?

Richard Forrest

Michael B wrote:

"You have chosen a prudent tactic - that of evading any more rational and problematic engagement."

I haven't evaded anything!

MB: "It was noted that without applying any reason whatsoever, you dogmatically insist that creationism is equivalent to 14 billion year old universe and 4.5 billion year old earth oriented ID."

I gave you a detailed reason! Which part of it didn't you understand?

MB: " yet demand a (literally) mind-numbing dogmatism when it comes to the conflation of creationism with 4.5 billion year old earth oriented ID."

In what way is it dogmatic to think that religious dogma masquerading as science has no place in science teaching?

MB: "Another area of note that you've avoided is the fact that metaphysical materialism is decisively different from the methodological materialism a better scientist needs to adhere to."

As nobody has raised the subject, how on earth can I be accused of avoiding it? Mind you, as ID proponents are demanding that we reject methodological materialism it's clear that you don't think that they are "better scientists".

MB: "A bit more specifically now. You've also avoided the cosmological and physics based parallels (to ID in the biological arena)"

No, I've addressed them quite specifically and explained why there is no equivalence. ID is premiated in the notion that complexity is the hallmark of "intelligent design". There is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion, and plenty of evidence - not least the prediction by evolutionary theory of "irreducible complexity" - to show that it is unsound.

NB: " A notable subset of the anthropic arguments has been presented in that vein."

And it's completely irrelevant to the arguments presented by the ID crowd for the reasons I have given.

MB: "In sum, in deploying ERM, so common among the Dawkins & Co. clan, their claques and their polemics, you promote yourself as a wouldbe authority in order to speak from that position, as presumptive authority - rather than engage on a more closely reasoned and therein more responsible basis."

What complete and utter rot! I suggest that you read my posts. I've addressed all the issues you claim that I have evaded, or introduced completely new questions which have not been raised previously.

Dave

I can't quite believe that the author of "All must have prizes" seems unwilling to accept she doesn't understand this issue and isn't qualified or able to debate it with any insight at all.

Dave

@Michael B. I know phyics. There's no evidence for any religious significance in any of the physical laws for our universe. You can fling this one around all you like. But the obvious fact is if those are the rules needed to produce life then those are the rules life will discover when it arises. To think these rules are somehow special is the 21st Century equivalent of putting Earth at the centre of the universe.

Richard Forrest: Keep up the good work!

Sergey

"There is no corroborative evidence to back up the claim of ID that a creator rather than evolution is the explanation of irreducible complexity in biology."
Again, you are confusing metaphysics of ID and its scientific contents. The scientific (and logical) claim is that something irreducible, indeed, can not be reduced, contrary to what evolution by natural selection implies. This is not a hypothesis which needs corroboration, but a falsification of existing hypothesis - the most powerfull tool to do the science. A metaphysical claim of some adherents of ID - existence of Creator - is not a scientific hypothesis, for which evidence is required, and is largely independent from the scientific arguments. For example, Roger Penrose is not a theist, rather he is a Platonic idealist, as many mathematicians are, and his cosmogony is more like Hinduist; but he makes a typical ID argument about impossibility of random emergence of Universe as we know it. Another claim of conventional Darwinism is that new species can be prodused by accumulation of selected random mutations. This claim is falsified by unobservability of speciation in natural populations, failure to produce new species by hybridization and selective breeding in 8000 years of domestification and logical impossibility to produce a new karyotype by accumulation of point mutations. This is another example of irreducibility.

Sergey

"There is corroborative evidence, however, for evolution being the explanation."
Nobody here argues that evolution is not the explanation.
What is disputed is what is the explanation for evolution. Are the proposed mechanisms of evolution enough to explain its results? - this is the question.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: " This claim is falsified by unobservability of speciation in natural populations,"

But I've posted links to dozen of papers which describe speciation events in natural populations!

S: " failure to produce new species by hybridization and selective breeding in 8000 years of domestification"

Here's a paper in 'Nature' describing speciation by hybridization:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7095/abs/nature04738.html

Here's a review paper published in 2008 which details many such instances:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2453525

I've already posted a link to the paper describing speciation in sheep.

What do you know that all the authors of these papers, the editors of the journals in which they are published and the reviewers of the papers don't?

S: "and logical impossibility to produce a new karyotype by accumulation of point mutations."

Well, the authors of this paper don't seem to think that it's a "logical impossibility".

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/17/9493.full

Why do you persist in making assertions which are so easily falsified by a quick check through the scientific literature? It's perfectly clear that the creationist sources on which you evidently rely have let you down again and again. What do you think that tells us about the reliability of those sources?

Or do you expect people to believe that your unadorned assertion is more authoritative than published papers in highly respected scientific journals by scientist who are engaged in research in the field?

Billy Hippo

Leigh Jackson - if I am an agnostic, how can I defend God?

Richard Forrest
Re millions of pounds of grants.
I was referring to grants supporting current evolutionary thinking, not just palaeontology, and if you go back several decades and include other countries, I think the score will be pretty close to hundreds of millions to one side, and zero to the other side, from state grants. I call this 100% bias, and a close-minded approach by any standards. If you include the campaigning by the BBC, that will bump up the figure even more, including the recent major campaign to promote Darwin. And if you include the cost of teaching of biased views in schools and universities, you will easily get to the billions.

A similar pattern is emerging with regard to man-made global warming, although 100% bias has not been achieved in the normal establishment channels due to that Channel 4 programme a while ago. The establisment bias is possibly in the 98% region for this topic. Within the BBC, of course, 100% has been achieved for this particular issue. When we get a bit of warm weather, they will probably unleash a torrent of documentaries and news items upon us. For PR reasons, it is better to show these programmes during hot weather.

You say I don't know how the fossil record is investigated, but I gave an example above that shows how a consensus view is reached amongst the converted (May 8th, 2009 5:17pm) then the data is fitted to the consensus view. Stage one: form a consensus that the fossils demonstrate gradual change and tell the world that this is supported by the evidence. Stage two: in the light of the KT boundary, change the consensus so now the same fossils demonstrate sudden extinction. Yes, but what about all the evidence for the previous consensus? Oh never mind about that now. As the professor in the quote at 5:17 above says, they looked at them more closely the second time, and now the data supports the second consensus.

This is how science operates, we join it at a certain stage, eg when doctors bled patients, accept the consensus, then a few individuals challenge the consensus by examining the actual evidence. In this way we can move on. Everyone cannot go back to basics each time. It is the only practical way to proceed. For example, you yourself accept AGW theories because you have accepted a certain consensus, not because you have personally measured CO2 in the atmosphere or checked all the data for yourself. Similarly, probably something like 99% of biology graduates in the UK accept the consensus that the fossils support evolution, but out of those who accept it, 99% have not gone back to basics and checked the evidence. I believe an open and enquiring mind should lead to a questioning of the establishment consensus, particularly when it is linked to a belief system.

Your plesiosaur studies are still extremely fascinating, whatever scheme of things you fit them in, and whatever combination you use from gradual extinction or sudden extinction, or one evolving into another. You wonder at how the creature moved and caught its prey, and why its neck was so long, but these are the same interesting questions whether they evolved or not, and whether they went extinct together or gradually.

Billy Hippo

As a general rule, when the BBC achieves a bias level on a particular subject of 100%, it suggests to me even more strongly that the view they push needs challenging.
Here are examples of consensus views held by professionals in various fields, which have been supported by the BBC and where the professionals scoff at people who question them:

Establishment consensus view 1) Evolution: BBC bias level:100%. Linked belief system: materialistic.

Establishment consensus view 2) AGW: BBC bias level: 100%. Linked belief system: setting up a carbon trading taxation empire so we can live in a society regulated by officials and experts who claim to know best, and can regulate capitalist activity, some getting very rich in the process.

Establishment consensus view 3) Crime is caused by poverty: BBC bias level: close to 100%. Linked belief system: no-one is better than anyone else, so if someone is a criminal and stabs people for fun, it must be caused by poverty and lack of opportunities.

Establishment consensus view 4) Trendy 60s teaching methods for reading: this is an interesting example because we can observe an establishment consensus view at the stage where it is actually in the process of collapsing. Linked belief system: education professionals who think that learning should be child-driven exploration not teacher-driven teaching.

Three questions for Richard Forrest -
- do you think the BBC does not give ID a fair hearing?
- is that an approach you agree with?
- Are you open-minded?

Billy Hippo

Richard Forrest
I see some interesting fossils on your website which you have found.
- how do you personally date the ones you find?

RickK

Billy Hippo,

ID has received a fair hearing. It has been "heard" in many evidence-based courts - both scientific and legal - and it has failed every time. It has failed because it offers no mechanisms, is not observable, is not falsifiable, and makes no predictions.

As Michael Behe himself admitted, ID has no more scientific merit than astrology.

You talk about changing the scientific consensus. Yes, science gives its highest awards to those who successfully change the consensus. But those people don't do it by getting a "fair" hearing on the BBC. They do it by producing better science.

This is where ID fails - it produces no science. Yes, its proponents criticize evolution. But ID never produces any science as an alternative.

And day by day, bit by bit, fossil by fossil, gene by gene, experiment by experiment our understanding of NATURAL evolution improves, and creationism/ID fades steadily further into the background.

The ONLY venue where ID still holds ground is in certain parts of public opinion. ID's presence in public opinion combined with its complete lack of scientific merit places it in the same camp as:
- alien abduction
- 200C homeopathic dilutions
- the healing power of pyramids
- ancient astronauts
- Atlantis
- Flood geology
- and so on...

The DIFFERENCE is that ID has more money for advertising. Intelligent Design "theory" is very beneficial to certain well-heeled religious groups, as documented irrefutably in "The Wedge".

You and others can argue "fairness" until you're blue in the face, but until you produce some actual science (mechanisms, falsifiability, tests, predictions), ID will remain just another flavor of divine intervention creationism, and will not rise above the level of pseudoscience.

Richard Forrest

Billy Hippo wrote: "I see some interesting fossils on your website which you have found.
- how do you personally date the ones you find?"
By referring to the scientific literature on the subject which has been built up by testing hypotheses and acquiring more evidence over centuries of research. It's called "science". We use it because it works. You need to learn something about it.

Sergey

RF: You are absolutely dishonest person. You repeatedly give links to papers ostensibly asserting something, which, after inspection, turn out do not asserting anything even remotedly like. Your link about speciation in sheeps has nothing to do with speciation; an article ostensibly about forming a new karyotype by accumulation of point mutations does not even mention any point mutations. It is about Robertson's translocations and small pericentric inversions, which are chromosome rearangements, not point mutations, and exactly of the kind that do not disrupt meiosis and so have no relation to speciation. Why do you persist in making assertions which are so easily falsified by a quick check through the scientific literature that you linked? These two examples is enough to expose you as either a pathetic liar or ignoramus incapable to understand the sources you cite.

Michael B

Dave,

After stating "[you] know physics," you proceed, absent any reasoning process whatsoever, to assert your conclusion is true, followed by a preemptive display of contempt.

Succinctly put, you have an unargued commitment to your conclusion.

And I didn't argue the anthropic considerations are evidence of "religious" qualities, I argued they reflect a priori evidence - evidence on behalf of design, and thus evidence of intelligence.

From premise, to conclusion. That's how serious physicists and philosophers, among others, are trained to argue.

Sergey

The review paper (2008) linked by RF ostensibly about speciation does not mention speciation at all. It is about introgression and its (hypothetical) role in evolution. Conclusions? Only this: "The unambiguous detection of introgression is not trivial since processes such as lineage sorting (i.e. retention of ancestral polymorphisms) can result in identical patterns of genetic differentiation (Alves et al. 2008). However, it is even more difficult to determine the evolutionary importance of introgression among species (Futuyma & Shapiro 1995)." In short, nothing is known and hardly can be acnowledged in the future. I invite everybody capable to understand genetic literature to compare RF assertions about papers he linked and the actual content of these papers. See for themselves that these two things are worlds apart. You will see distortions, obfuscations, abuse of language and outright lies combined with arrogance and condescending sneers - all trademarks of present day Darwinists.

Leigh Jackson

EscapeVelocity,

"Then we both can agree that ID is in the clear as science."

Michael Behe allows that God could be the intellignt designer behind irreducible complexity. Not simply as a consequence of his Catholic faith, but as a claimed scientific inference. ID is therefore not science. QED.

Richard Forrest

Sergey: "You are absolutely dishonest person"

Then as an honest person, perhaps you can confirm
1. That you are wrong in your assertion that speciation events have not been observed.
2. That you are wrong in your assertion that new species cannot be created by hybridisation.

I've posted links to scientific publications which report on both these phenomena and as you are unable to demonstrate the authors are wrong in how they interpret the evidence to form their conclusions, it would be the action of an honest person to concede that you are wrong.

S: "Your link about speciation in sheeps has nothing to do with speciation"

From the article: "Although European
mouflon (O. musimon) is now considered a neolithic feral
domesticate introduced to Corsica and Sardinia ca. 6000
BC (Poplin 1979; Vigne 1999), it should nevertheless
closely resemble wild sheep ancestral to both O. aries and
O. musimon in cluster B. Likely candidates for truly wild
ancestors of cluster B are mouflon populations found in
Turkey and western Iran. These sheep are currently
referred to as O. orientalis anatolica and O. orientalis gmelini,
although their subspecies status is debatable. The other
major O. aries mtDNA branch with haplogroup cluster A
does not, as expected from the domestication hypothesis
of Zeuner (1963), contain urial (O. vignei ssp.) or any
other investigated wild sheep sequences. The urial (O. vignei
bochariensis) considered in phylogenetic reconstructions is
placed in a different branch (figure 4a) and shows distances
and divergence times (table 2) incompatible with
any contribution to domestic sheep matrilines."

If this is not to do with the origin of domestic sheep - Ovies ares - from hybridisation of other species of sheep - O.vignei and O.orientalis - what on earth do you think that the article is about? Or are you claiming that the authors lack your understanding of the nature of species concepts in biology (which evidently you gained from reading creationist web sites).

3. So are you going to concede that you are wrong in asserting that this paper has, and I quote "nothing to do with speciation", or are you going to persist in denying the content of the paper?

S: " an article ostensibly about forming a new karyotype by accumulation of point mutations does not even mention any point mutations. "

You are quite correct. I made a mistake. If I find a link to a paper which describes chromosonal changes occuring as a consequence of point mutations, will you concede that you are wrong in this assertion? Bear in mind that such changes can occur as a consequence of a single mutation.

S: " and exactly of the kind that do not disrupt meiosis and so have no relation to speciation."

"The fission model of evolution depicts radiations of diverse karyotypes supplemented by the accumulation of random mutations generally assumed, by themselves, to underlie speciation. Recent advances in cell-cycle regulation, chromosome behavior, fossil record, and phylogenetic inferences dispute that the primary direction of karyotypic evolution by sequential fusion of chromosomes is toward an arbitrary reduction in diploid number. Rather the tendency of kinetochores to reproduce, of telomerases to cap newly synthesized chromosome ends, and of mitotic checkpoints to regulate disjunction and generate freshly fissioned karyotypes in ancestral animals supports Todd's concept of saltatory chromosomal evolution. Increases up to nearly doubling of smaller derivative chromosomes throughout the Cenozoic underlie adaptive radiations, at least in artiodactyls, carnivores, lemurs, Old World monkeys, and apes."

It's actually about evolutionary processes at a wider scale which involve numerous instances of speciation - or do you think that adaptive radiations of mammalian families can occur without speciation?

4. So will you concede that you are wrong in asserting that this paper describes nothing which bears any relation to speciation?

I don't think it's my honesty which is in question, by the way.

Leigh Jackson

Billy Hippo and Sergey,

Your tendency to switch randomly between coherence and incoherence renders rational communication impossible.

Michael B

Btw, even dedicated evolutionary biologists, while using well crafted prose at times to help support their presuppositions, are increasingly acknowledging the complexity factor itself. A condensation of one recent example follows, from "Evolution in Four Dimensions" (Jablonka, et al., 2005):

"... DNA is not the be all and end all of heredity. Information is transferred from one generation to the next by many interacting inheritance systems. Moreover, contrary to current [evolutionary] dogma, the variation on which natural selection acts is not always random in origin or blind to function: new heritable variation can arise in response to the conditions of life. Variation if often targeted ...

"Some biologists have great difficulty in accepting this "Lamarckian" aspect of evolution. To them it smacks of teleology ..."

The authors then go on to argue (at length and on the basis of other studies and interpretations and inferences thereof, additional hypotheses, their own suppositional posits, empirical support, etc) against teleology in the manner that would be of concern to a metaphysical materialist. But that additional argument is in fact suppositional; it relies, for example, upon intriguing statements about "... the origins of the systems that introduce instructive elements [into evolutionary processes]"

Iow, these particular evolutionary biologists, more honest and transparent than many, introduce discussions of complexity at genetic, epigenetic and other levels (though they don't really tackle another level, the cellular, which also is an area wherein increasing complexity is being evidenced as research proceeds).

Ergo, absolute bare minimum, the notion complexity qua complexity within biological systems at various, interdependent levels is not itself a factor worthy of exhaustive, scientific examination is perforce absurd, nonsensical and, more to point, runs counter to more serious and more completely honest and transparent forms of scientific inquiry.

Which is the very point, the most basic point, of this set of discussions. Truncating, pre-editing, pre-determining scientific inquiry - and the irony here is supreme - is itself a teleological enterprise.

Dave

@Michael B; Let me see your "argument" is because the laws of physics are so finely tuned the "chance" of us being here is trillions to one and that's how the hand of God reveals itself.
My argument, is the life is only possible in a universe set up this way. So for us to be asking the question means that's the physics we find. Probability effectively one.
No need for magic man in the sky or even a flying spaghetti monster.

Michael B

Dave,

You are formidably uncomprehending and intellectually incurious as applied to the subject in question. Likewise, your sniff about probability is backward looking and tendentiously conceived in the extreme. You're also not representing what I stated very well at all.

The considerations can be explicated at some length, yes, but this is a popular blog only. Still, here's one response.

RickK

Michael B:

Why do you keep arguing against pure, classical Darwinian evolution. Nobody is refuting that there may be other factors than pure natural selection.

Jablonka et al. appear to be arguing there are other NATURAL factors at work in evolution. Ok, fine - science admits freely admits it doesn't know everything about evolution. Science freely admits it doesn't know everything about ANYTHING.

But none of that means there is one single reason why we should surrender the quest for knowledge of natural causes, and declare the "Divine Designer did it!".

Plain and simple. Evolution happened and continues to happen. We are descended from the same early life as alligators and turnips. And just like every other phenomena ever explained by science, evolution will ultimately be explained without any need whatsoever for supernatural intervention.

Michael B

Richard Forrest,

I have read all your comments herein and, no, you have not argued your case in any more rigorous or forceful sense. Too often, you have made bald assertions, such as the following: "When it comes down to basics, I oppose creationism - which includes ID, of course ..."

That "of course," Mr. Forrest, is not an argument, it's an assertion and only an assertion.

And you might read my own comments if your intention is to reply to my position, rather than a strawman you imagine and impute to me. Another bald assertion of yours: "... it's [the anthropic considerations] completely irrelevant to the arguments presented by the ID crowd for the reasons I have given."

Excepting you haven't given any reasons that can withstand critical review. None. By contrast and for re-emphasis, the increasing evidence of complexity within biological systems at various levels is in fact precisely that: evidence - in much the same manner the anthropic arguments are: evidence.

Evidence ≠ conclusion, but it is substantial and profoundly indicative evidence nonetheless - of design, broadly conceived, thus of mind, aka intelligence.

EscapeVelocity

Now Michael Behe is the final word on ID.

LOL!

EscapeVelocity

Ill try this one more time politely.

Just as modern man's technology is ancient man's magic. Modern man's supernatural causation, may be future man's natural causation.....or supernatural causation redifined as such with greater knowlege and ability to ascertain the facts about the universe.

Leigh Jackson

Melanie considers Behe to be the "intellectual begetter" of ID (not Phillip Johnson) which would make him the first if not the last word. I would describe Behe as being an arch-apostle of ID. At any rate we are both agreed that his version of ID is not science. We are making progress.

"Just as modern man's technology is ancient man's magic. Modern man's supernatural causation, may be future man's natural causation.....or supernatural causation redifined as such with greater knowlege and ability to ascertain the facts about the universe."

I have no problem with this up to the ellipsis. What comes after needs some clarification. If it is supposed carry the same meaning as what came before, then fine. If it is meant to add to or qualify what came before then please explain yourself more clearly.

Richard Forrest

EscapeVelocity wrote:
"Just as modern man's technology is ancient man's magic. Modern man's supernatural causation, may be future man's natural causation.....or supernatural causation redifined as such with greater knowlege and ability to ascertain the facts about the universe."

Perhaps.

However, ancient man did not have science as a tool for investigating the universe. I we use science, supernatural causation is not an option. This is fundamental to the nature of science. It seeks to explain phenomena we can observe and measure under the assumption of naturalism. Faced with an alien technology which we don't understand, a scientific investigation may conclude that we don't know the principles on which it is based, but could not conclude that it is magic. "We don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific conclusion. It's the answer which drives the imagination and creativity of researchers in trying to think of ways in which an answer can be found. "It must be supernatural causation" isn't, because that is a dead end.

Richard Forrest

Michael B wrote: "That "of course," Mr. Forrest, is not an argument, it's an assertion and only an assertion."

Actually, if you read my posts you will find that I have made an argument that ID is creationism based on the evidence.

In case you missed it: " Any investigation of the history of the ID movement shows that it arises from "scientific" creationism, and is clearly an attempt to sneak religious belief into the science classroom. This was demonstrated clearly during the Dover v. KItzmiller trial, and is documented in the "Wedge Document". I fail to see how anyone can interpret the evidence in any other way. The fact that ID proponents almost always bring religious belief into any discussion on the subject - and the responses to this and the previous article are typical of this - shows the vacuity of the claim that it has nothing to do with religion."

So the evidence is
1. The history of the ID movement itself, and the fact that most of its support comes from right-wing Christian fundamentalists.
2. The evidence and arguments presented at the Dover trial which demonstrated clearly the link between ID and "scientific" creationism, and the fact that ID has no scientific theory to offer.
3. The evidence of the 'Wedge Document' which makes it clear that the motivation behind the movement is political and religious, not scientific.
4. The behaviour of ID proponents on this and other forums in bringing religious belief into what they claim is a scientific issue.

I could add to that
5. That there is no scientific theory of ID - according to Phillip Johnson, the lawyer who founded the movement.
6. ID is routinely invoked by creationists as a scientific theory.

MB: "Excepting you haven't given any reasons that can withstand critical review. "

Actually, I have.

1. Complexity of the sort ID proponents claim to be evidence for "intelligent design" was predicted by evolutionary theory over 80 years ago. That fact alone blows their arguments out of the water.

2. Evolutionary theory provides an excellent explanation for biological complexity, whereas the assertion that it is evidence for design does not. Complexity, irreducible or not, is not a hallmark of design.

3. We have a robust mathematics of complexity which shows that complex systems can be produced by simple algorythms, demonstrating that there is no need for any intelligent agent in the creation of complexity.

4. ID proponents have made no effort whatsoever to investigate the nature of designed systems to determine if there are any characteristics of such systems which can be used to distinguish them from systems known not to be designed.

Why not address this evidence?

Sergey

RF:"If this is not to do with the origin of domestic sheep - Ovies ares - from hybridisation of other species of sheep - O.vignei and O.orientalis - what on earth do you think that the article is about?"
It is about breeding of a new subspecies from two existing subspecies. It is you who call O.vignei and O.orientalis species, but the authors correctly classify them as subspecies: "These sheep are currently
referred to as O. orientalis anatolica and O. orientalis gmelini,
although their subspecies status is debatable." So, in the present nomenclature, they are geographical races, not species, and since no evidence of them being true species is given, this all has nothing to do with speciation. I do not deny the content of the paper, only yours demonstrably wrong interpretation of its content.
"It's actually about evolutionary processes at a wider scale which involve numerous instances of speciation - or do you think that adaptive radiations of mammalian families can occur without speciation?"
Strawman. I never denied that speciation events occure in nature or that they are crucial to adaptive radiation in families. I just asserted that they are very rare, unobservable, unreproducible, unexplainable by natural selection and instanteneous - the last assertion the author also agrees: "Rather ... supports Todd's concept of saltatory chromosomal evolution". Saltations are not evolutionary events, they are revolutions, so using the term "evolution" in this context is abuse of language. And never natural selection can produce instantaneous chromosome rearrangements. This is my point, and this article only supports it. The whole article is purely speculative, though, and provide no real evidence. I recommend you to stop teach me genetics: I studied it, you don't. The title of my Ph.D thesis was "Stability of species and population genetics of chromosomal speciation". Its text is accessible in internet and I can provide link, if you want, but it is in Russian.

Michael B

Richard Forrest,

Again, I did so. You're not representing my position - so you might first take your own advice and read and respond to my own position, not your pre-set arguments and strawmen.

It's as if you're addicted to your mobius-strip endless loop and script, and cannot or will not diverge from that script.

So no, you have yet to respond to my position, you have yet to diverge from your pre-scripted material.

A good place to start, should you ever be interested in a more conscientious and faithful and rationally based engagement, one that actually does reflect my position, is my initial, more lengthy comment in this very thread (May 5th, 8:02am) and subsequent comments.

And, for more pointed emphasis, I didn't state complexity in the abstract is a hallmark of design, I cited physics, specifically the standard model, I cited the anthropic consideration more broadly, and I cited evidence as applied to genetic, epigenetic and other, interdependent levels within biological systems.

Your glib, pre-fabricated and strawman set-pieces are precisely and only that.

RickK

OK, Sergey, I'm not sure where you're going in arguing over what is a species and what isn't.

The fact is, speciation occurred.

The fact is, we don't know every aspect of evolution yet.

The fact is, every natural phenomena ever explained has been explained from natural causation, including thousands of examples that were originally thought to be of divine/supernatural causation.

The fact is, you don't need to define the origin of the first life to validate evolutionary biology any more than you need to describe the origin of the elements to make chemistry work.

The fact is, there is no reason to give up the scientific research on evolution and speciation just because a few religiously-motivated people wish to claim "God did it."

And while you make think these discussions are "bogus", the fact is that opinions like Melanie's are directly affecting how school children are taught science. If demonstrably religious, evidence-free philosophies like "Intelligent Design" are given equal treatment in school science class, then why not Flood Geology or Biblical Creationism or white hole cosmology?

More and more our lives are dependent upon the output from the scientific process, and yet we steadily become less and less scientifically literate, unable to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience.

You stated in an early post that we will never understand how life originated. Why? Why do you surrender so easily?

Why do you see arguments and investigation and scientific curiosity as things to be avoided?

RickK

EscapeVelocity:

"Just as modern man's technology is ancient man's magic. Modern man's supernatural causation, may be future man's natural causation"

EXACTLY!

When people say "species could only happen by divine magic", history tells us that they will be proven wrong, and that natural explanations will be found (have already been found).

When people say "only divine magic can create life from non-life", history tells us that they will be proved wrong, and that natural, material explanations will be found through inspiration and good science.

That's why those arguing in favor of an intelligent designer are no different than those that believed witches and demons walked upon a flat Earth. Their ideas may be popular as well as quaint, but they have no place in science education or policy.

Sergey

"We have a robust mathematics of complexity which shows that complex systems can be produced by simple algorythms, demonstrating that there is no need for any intelligent agent in the creation of complexity."
No, we have not a theory with so broad claims. Those systems you refer to only look complex, but because they can be generated by iteration of a simple algorithm, they are not considered complex in mathematical theory of complexity. And such theory actualy exists, and its most important theorems are about NP-complexity: these theorems provide rigorious proof that no algorithm can exist to solve these problems faster than some estimated number of steps (defined as number of moves of a Turing machine - a mathematical formalization of concept of algorithm). This number grows really fast with dimensionality of a problem, for NP-full problems exponentially fast. Examples include traveler-salesman problem, Byzantine general's problem and many others with funny names. In short, they are problems of combinatorial optimization. Transforming of a string of genes to another string of genes by a random walk (Darwinian model of evolution) falls to this category, and for an average gene size (1000 b.p.) unsolvable for a time comparable to the time of existing of Universe.

Billy Hippo

RickK May 12th, 2009 2:25pm mentions:

- alien abduction
- 200C homeopathic dilutions
- the healing power of pyramids
- ancient astronauts
- Atlantis
- Flood geology
- and so on...
and he says:
'The DIFFERENCE is that ID has more money for advertising.'

---end of quote---

plus, in the category of odd ideas I would like to add:

- fortune telling using crystal balls, tea leaves etc
- ESP
- conspiracy theories about not landing on the moon and G.Bush being behind 9/11
- contacting the dead
- photographs of ghosts
- publishing people's fortunes in the newspapers under the heading 'your stars'
- paganism
- UFOs
- life on other planets
- magic crystals

Selections from your list of topics above plus the ones which I have added are aired quite often and quite freely on the BBC because no-one in the current establishment feels threatened by them. This is not the case with AGW or evolution scepticism. Hence, unlike the others, these two topics are not aired. To me, a hostile attitude to fair debate suggests a weak case on the part of those trying to prevent debate. If evolution could be defended against scrutiny, they would be happy to make similar programmes for this topic like they do quite willingly for the others on the lists above.

And the same applies to AGW, which took a thrashing in the Channel 4 programme from which it has never recovered, despite a reply programme against the original being made, followed by.... well..., followed up by silence, as the debate was successfully quashed on the TV at that stage. But the damage to the establishment line had been done, and the debate continues on the internet and in some newspapers. How distressing it must be for the current establishment to have full control the BBC but then watch all its hard work become undermined by the internet. Free speech on the internet must be a source of great frustration to them. What delays it is causing on the great journey to a 1984 type world! However, we are still going there, and you can see the country deteriorating as we proceed downhill.

I have not seen the ID adverts which RickK refers to, unless he means a couple of Google ads which were next to an article in a newspaper on an evolution topic, but if they do have to advertise to get a hearing, how disgraceful; they should get a hearing without having to do so. Don't you think a discussion about why we are here is valid? Would you like it stopped? What does this say about your attitude to scientific discovery and fair enquiry?

I don't like dishonest science, and I don't like the establishment imposing a ban on proper debate, whether it is this issue, AGW, or the causes of crime, or other topics on which we have to endure the BBC never deviating from being 'on message'. This is summarised in relation to ID by Melanie Phillips in her concise but accurate phrase: 'a secular inquisition'.

By the way, why do active members of the inquisition think flat earthers are more aligned with creationists than with themselves? Surely the flat earthers were part of the establishment of the time. And they would not like anyone to question the establishment views of the time. Now the establishment is hostile to ID, and, like their flat earth comrades, today's establishment also does not like anyone to oppose them.

Re predictions from ID
ID predicts that we will have hints that there is another level beyond what can be understood by our brains, as the Creator must be at a higher level in order to create us. Anti-ID predicts that there is no such higher level, and everything can be explained by the laws of physics. I suggest that when you consider self-awareness this supports the ID prediction more than the other. Your self-awareness has entered your body. When you die it will leave. That is a great mystery which is extra on top of the world we live in as animals seeking food and status.

There is another prediction, for future generations to consider. In 5 million years time, humans could find themselves somewhere between two scenarios:
a) We will have basically the same plants and animals as today, except half as many due to extinctions.
b) At last Drosophila will have developed into something else, and the first talking dog will have appeared (we select them to be like ourselves), and other animals and plants will have changed significantly - and I don't just mean the percentage of brown moths increasing in a population.

Scenario a) will suggest that evolution did not happen and there was some ID input into life on this planet
Scenario b) will weaken the creationist case, although not disprove God or ID as many theists think God could have used evolution.

Finally, if the fossil record was examined properly instead of by the converted, and the evidence against evolution became overwhelming, this would be in line with creationist-type ID predictions.

Billy Hippo

Richard Forrest - re dating your fossils - so you referred to the consensus of the converted. And they referred to each other.
By the way - you invite contributions to you plesiosaur site. Do you welcome minor corrections? If you say 'no' I won't bother.

Sergey

"You stated in an early post that we will never understand how life originated. Why? Why do you surrender so easily?"
Because I understand how science works. It can tackle only problems for which it has a methodological approach. Now we have not such approach to the problem of origins of life, and most of biologists with whom I discussed this also doubt that we ever would have such approach. This is like to investigateing a crime commited decades ago, when all possible evidence is destroyed.
As for mathematical theory of complexity, yes, it has some very meaningful results about irreducible complexity: for example, no NP-complete problem can be reduced in polynomial time to lesser complex class of problems solvable in polynomial time (see Wiki). It is not a theorem yet, but all attempts to do so during last 4 decades failed, so most mathematicians believe that this is not possible.

Richard Forrest

Michael B: wrote: "Again, I did so. You're not representing my position - so you might first take your own advice and read and respond to my own position, not your pre-set arguments and strawmen"

Well, let's try to clarify your position, shall we?

1. You assert that I describe ID as creationism without evidence. To quote (in reference to my description of ID as creationism) " "That "of course," Mr. Forrest, is not an argument, it's an assertion and only an assertion."

I've reposted the evidence from which I think it is reasonable to conclude that ID is "scientific" creationism repackaged to evade US laws against teaching religion in schools. So are you conceding that ID *is* creationism, or do you have an alternative explanation for the evidence?

MB: "And, for more pointed emphasis, I didn't state complexity in the abstract is a hallmark of design, I cited physics, specifically the standard model, I cited the anthropic consideration more broadly, and I cited evidence as applied to genetic, epigenetic and other, interdependent levels within biological systems."

2. Re: complexity.
I refer to your initial post: "However, ID applied to biological systems is viable in a more restricted sense. As with the complexity and design reflected in cosmological anthropic arguments, it serves as a highly indicative expression of design and of intelligence - of intelligent design. "

Cosmological anthropic arguments do not refer to complexity: they refer to the precise mathematical relationship of the fundamental forces of nature which make a universe like ours possible. It is only the ID proponents who use the argument that complexity is evidence for design.

So if you are not arguing that complexity is evidence for design, why did you introduce as a "highly indicative expression of design and of intelligence"?

Cosmological anthropic arguments have nothing to do with "intelligent design" as proposed for biological systems. They are based on the fact that a universe such as ours can exist only if a handful of fundamental constants are in a very precise relationship. Some physicists think that it is no more than a philosophical question, others are trying to formulate hypotheses which yield testable predictions. It is an issue which, if accepted as science, will be treated as science by the scientific community and does not propose to demonstrate the need for any external agency *as a scientific proposition*. The physicists who think that it is potentially testable by science are not demanding that science should be redefined to accommodate the supernatural. Above all, it is not an issue which arises from an attempt by religious fundamentalists to evade US laws against teaching religion in schools.

I have read your posts, and it looks as if you are arguing that the complexity of some biological systems is evidence for the existence of a designer. If any of this is a straw man version of your argument, please explain why it is.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "I never denied that speciation events occure in nature or that they are crucial to adaptive radiation in families. I just asserted that they are very rare, unobservable, unreproducible, unexplainable by natural selection and instanteneous "

Then you need to address the evidence and argument presented in numerous papers published in the scientific literature which describe observed instances of speciation events. They include detailed genetic analysis of parent and daughter populations, many instances of speciation by hybridisation, and are accepted as genuine instances of speciation by biologists working in the field.

" And never natural selection can produce instantaneous chromosome rearrangements."

No, but natural selection can act on the variation introduced by chromosomal rearrangements. In any case, no biologist thinks that natural selection is the only mechanism for evolution.

S: ". The whole article is purely speculative, though, and provide no real evidence."

In what way is the molecular analysis of the mitochondrial DNA control regions "no real evidence"? In what way is a dataset which includes 63 unique CR sequences "no real evidence"? In what way is the result of phyologenetic analysis of this dataset "purely speculative"?

S: " The title of my Ph.D thesis was "Stability of species and population genetics of chromosomal speciation". Its text is accessible in internet and I can provide link, if you want, but it is in Russian."

This may be the case, but from reading your posts it looks as if you stopped studying the subject in about 1980.

Sergey

The most important scientific results are not about how something can be done, but about why something can not be done. Examples are:
1) You can not create energy from nothing or invent perpetuum mobile of the first kind: The First Principle of Thermodynamics.
2) You can not extract mechanical energy from thermal reservoir without heating some other reservoir, or construct perpetuum mobile of the second kind: The Second Principle of Thermodynamics
3) You can not change one chemical element into another chemical element by any chemical reaction: The foundation of chemistry. Transmutation - a dream of alchemists - is not possible.
4) You can not create matter from nothing - The law of conservation of matter.
5) You can not construct a circle of the same area as a given square by geometrical means (transcendency of Pi number)
6) You can not find a common measure for a side and diagonal of a square (irrationality of the square root of 2).
I can make this list as long as you wish by including in it the most important results of mathematics and natural sciences; I only want to extent it by the following assertion: You can not create a new species by natural selection or selective breeding. This will be just as scientific and important as the abovementioned Laws of Nature. Modern day Darwinists remind me medieval alchemists, trying turn lead to gold or find a panacea. Species are like chemical elements: they are not transmutable. This does not mean, of course, that transmutation is not possible in principle, but this need atotally other type of reactions: not chemical, but nuclear. They occure in star cores, in nuclear bombs, in atomic reactors, or in billion-dollar-worth particle accelerators. Not in retorts of alchemists.

Michael B

Richard Forrest,

Once again, a total absence of engagement and coherence, instead opting for the standard, mobius-strip, pre-scripted responses, the very nearly Pavlovian trained tricks.

Given the subject matter, contemptible, but also revealing and more than a little predictable.

Sergey

Yes, no evidence of the claims of introgression (the theme of the article) were presented. And authors were decent enough to accept this: "The unambiguous detection of introgression is not trivial since processes such as lineage sorting (i.e. retention of ancestral polymorphisms) can result in identical patterns of genetic differentiation (Alves et al. 2008).
Even less all the evidence you cited is relevant to the role of hybridisation or introgression in speciation. As for my book, it was published in 2002, and nothing contradicting its assertions emerged in literature since then.
Previously, you claimed that cromosomal rearrangements can result from accumulation of random point mutations, and even promissed to find a paper with such claimes. Now you conceded that it is not possible and that "no biologist say that natural selection is the only driving force of evolution". Sorry, but this exactly what Dawkins asserts, and what is taught in schools. This is the essence of Neo-Darwinist orthodoxy. But he is not a biologist, right?

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: " I only want to extent it by the following assertion: You can not create a new species by natural selection or selective breeding. "

Well, there are numerous papers in the scientific literature which describe speciation both in nature and in the laboratory, they have been published in the most prestigious journals in science, that speciation occurs is accepted as a fact by virtually every biologist, it is taught as a fact in most biology courses, and nobody, including you, has addressed the evidence that it occurs.

Why should we take your word against that of virtually the whole scientific community in the field of biology?

Sergey

"Then you need to address the evidence and argument presented in numerous papers published in the scientific literature which describe observed instances of speciation events. They include detailed genetic analysis of parent and daughter populations, many instances of speciation by hybridisation, and are accepted as genuine instances of speciation by biologists working in the field."
For Darwinists, search of observable speciation proceses are like search of Holy Grail for paladins or philosophers' stone for alchemists. A lot of triumphalist reports, but no confirmed cases. Either species are not species, but races, or no genetical analisis, or criteria of speciation watered down to some easily aquired morphological changes, as in case of Galapagos finches, or something else go wrong. I specifically searched for such reports for several years, untill got convicted by experience that all such papers are junk.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "The most important scientific results are not about how something can be done, but about why something can not be done."

Actually, the most important scientific results are when we find that something we thought could not be done can be done.
Such as :

S: "1) You can not create energy from nothing "

Actually, we can. Or rather, according to quantum theory, energy is being created and destroyed all the time.

S: "2) You can not extract mechanical energy from thermal reservoir without heating some other reservoir, or construct perpetuum mobile of the second kind: The Second Principle of Thermodynamics"

This, rather clumsily expressed, appears to be the idea that the entropy of a closed system always increases. This has held up very well to testing. and seems fundamental to the nature of the universe. However, if any physicist could falsify this principle they'd ha ve their Nobel prize in the bag.

S: "3) You can not change one chemical element into another chemical element by any chemical reaction: The foundation of chemistry."

A good example of what was once thought to be an absolute about what could not be done turned out to be wrong. As originally proposed, chemical theory held that atoms were immutable and indivisible. This turned out not to be the case.

"Transmutation - a dream of alchemists - is not possible."

Actually, it is. In fact, lead has been transformed into gold - quite literally the dream of alchemists.

S: "4) You can not create matter from nothing - The law of conservation of matter."

Actually, as matter and energy are the same thing, and energy is created and destroyed all the time, this is wrong as well.

S:
"5) You can not construct a circle of the same area as a given square by geometrical means (transcendency of Pi number)
6) You can not find a common measure for a side and diagonal of a square (irrationality of the square root of 2)."

Do you not understand the difference between science and mathematics?

Sergey

Another load of obfuscations, distortions and playing semantic games with the truth from RF. Everybody understands that I meant the classical physics, not relativistic one, and specifically mentioned it in my post. And no, energy is not created and is not destroyed in quantum mechanics: it is conserved. I also was careful to say "You can not". Yes, you can not. God can: He can even create the whole Universe from nothing, and did it, but this is not in realm of physics. And in Russia, at least, mathematics is a science, even more: it is the most reliable science. Also, I specified that transmutation is not possible by CHEMICAL REACTION, but is possible by nuclear reaction, which is totaly another game. And, of course, being both a matematician AND a geneticist, I understand the difference. Most of biologists are significantly more stupid than mathematicians and lack, with few exeptions, a philosophical perspective. They stumble at simple logic and hardly can know the difference between neccessary and sufficient conditions.

Sergey

"Well, there are numerous papers in the scientific literature which describe speciation both in nature and in the laboratory"
A citation, please. Just one. All your previous attempts to produce examples failed. And do not include botany examples: I know too well that hybridization of plants with subsequent duplication of the whole genome produce amphipolyploid species, and many cultivars were derived just this way. I mean animals, from insects to primates, with sexual reproduction and meiosis. (Not parthenogenetic populations - they are not species.) They can not duplicate whole genome, so this only path is closed for them. And stop to pose yourself as scientific community: you are not community, only an individual.

Billy Hippo

Sergey, I have enjoyed reading your contributions. You say 'As for my book, it was published in 2002, and nothing contradicting its assertions emerged in literature since then'
Can you tell me what is the name of your book and the link to your PhD thesis?

RickK

Sergey,

OK, so you don't accept taxonomic definitions of species.

You don't accept the changes seen in nature and in labs like the Lenski experiment as evidence of evolutionary processes.

You don't accept any evidence of evolution from the plant kingdom.

You will only believe evolution happens when somebody shows you a new genus evolve.

When you see one, where will you move the goalposts to then? Will you say "ok, evolution can make a genus, but it can't make a new KINGDOM!"

Life evolves - we see it happen all the time.

Species evolve from earlier species - we see the proof in a constantly increasing set of fossils of intermediate species: cynodonts, Tiktaalik, feathered dinosaur, Odontochelys semitestacea, ... the list is endless.

We are all the result of common descent - DNA demonstrates that more clearly with every new fact we learn.

There is no reason to think that divine/supernatural forces are needed for evolution, not only because the evidence supports natural evolution, but also because divine/supernatural has never been the explanation of ANYTHING.

That natural evolution happened and continues to happen is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The only people who don't accept that:

1) don't understand the evidence, or
2) have *unreasonable doubt* because of their ideology - whether religious, political, cultural or just because of a need to fight the "establishment".

When someone who is not dug into an ideological position hears the evidence, they accept that
1) evolution is science; and
2) Intelligent Design is religion.

Just ask Judge Jones.

Sergey

RickK: You either do not understand or misinterpret my position.
There is no such thing as commonly accepted taxonomic definition of species. Different school have different understanding of notion of species and, accordingly, suggest different taxonomies. See Wiki for "speciation" and discussion here: there are morphologic definition, biologic definition, genetic definition and others. They are not equivalent and generate taxonomic disputes.
I do not deny neither the fact of evolution nor the fact of speciation. But they are two different animals, and gradual evolution within species boundaries never results in speciation. Actually, the notion that natural selection which operates within species, is the explanation of speciation and all trends and nomogenetic phenomina above species level, is the cornerstone of Darwinism, and this is demonstrably false. We really need to look for another mechanisms for speciation events, and a false assumption that "Natural selection did it!" prevents these explorations. Speciation in plants is already understood, and it is saltational - by polyploidisation or amphypolyploidisation, that is, not evolutional. For animal kingdom another explanation is needed, since these species they almost never can undergo polyploidisation and their kariotypes differ from each other by multiple chromosome rearangements. I have an explanation for this, too technical to expound it here (I did it in my book, which can be found on a site of Moscow State University), and it is completely naturalistic: no supernatural forces are involved.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "Everybody understands that I meant the classical physics, not relativistic one, and specifically mentioned it in my post."

...which rather neatly underlines my point. Classical physics was developed and defined before our modern ideas of science developed. Scientists such as Newton thought that their job was to uncover the immutable laws of nature put in place by the creator. They thought that they were discovering the absolute truths which underly the workings of the universe. Modern science rejects the idea of absolute truth, and considers all scientific theories to be provisional, and subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. Newton's absolute truths were shown not to be absolute by Einstein, and modern physicists do not treat Einstein's relativity theory as absolute truth, but as a theory subject to revision or rejection on the basis of evidence.

S: "And no, energy is not created and is not destroyed in quantum mechanics: it is conserved."

Well, you'd better tell the physicists that vaccum energy doesn't exist and provide an alternative explanation for the various experiments which demonstrate its existence.

S: ". I also was careful to say "You can not". Yes, you can not. God can: He can even create the whole Universe from nothing, and did it, but this is not in realm of physics."

...though it seems that you are determined to drag God into biology. You deny that any of the evolutionary processes we have observed and described in populations of existing organisms can lead to speciation, yet accept that adaptive radiations have occurred in the past which involve many instances of speciation. It seems that you think that God must be responsible.

S: "Also, I specified that transmutation is not possible by CHEMICAL REACTION, but is possible by nuclear reaction, which is totaly another game"

...which also rather underlines my point. When the natural philosophers thought that they were describing ultimate truths, they thought that it is an ultimate truth that atoms are the indivisible and fundamental building blocks of chemistry. They turned out to be wrong when radioactivity was discovered.

Your idea of how science works seems to be fixed somewhere in the middle of the 19th century. Science does not advance because scientists lay down the law on what can and what can't happen. It advances because scientists demonstrate that there are flaws in the accepted theories of how things happen.

Billy Hippo

Sergey says: 'For animal kingdom another explanation is needed, since these species they almost never can undergo polyploidisation and their kariotypes differ from each other by multiple chromosome rearangements. I have an explanation for this, too technical to expound it here (I did it in my book, which can be found on a site of Moscow State University), and it is completely naturalistic: no supernatural forces are involved.'

As I understand it, you believe evolution is a fact, and you believe new species of animals evolve, but you don't believe that random mutations in genes together with natural selection provides the mechanism, and you also do not believe that any ID needs to be involved in the production of new species or in evolution. Is that a correct summary of your position?

In addition, if I understand you correctly, you have thought of another possible method for the way new species evolve, as an alternative to natural selection, which you have explained in your book. I accept that the full explanation is too technical to expound here, and the book is in Russian, but would it be possible for you to make an attempt to summarise it or outline it without going into detail? Possibly in the region of about 200 words?
Are you saying gene sequences are destined somehow to follow a built-in procedure which has predetermined them to change in certain ways, as if they are seeking goals?
Also, do you expect the animal kingdom to continue to evolve and to be be significantly different in a million years time by your theory?

John A. Davison

I have no intention of entering this instant replay of my last Spectator venture exposing the bankruptcy of the Darwinian hoax.

Richard Forrest is to Spectator what Allen MacNeill is to Uncommon Descent, a sort of "House Darwinian" essential to keeping the "debate" alive whatever the cost. MacNeill and Forrest are living testimony to the well established fact that each human being is predisposed genetically as to whether or not he is able to accept a higher power in his perception of the world. The extremes of this incurable malaise are on continuing display with the pronunciamentos of their most visible champions, Richard "blind mountaineering" Dawkins and his New World clone Paul Zachary "random biological ejaculations" Meyers.

I say bring on the A team if you expect any further response from me.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "I do not deny neither the fact of evolution nor the fact of speciation. "
Perhaps, but you have your own private definitions for both terms.
S: " But they are two different animals, and gradual evolution within species boundaries never results in speciation."
Well, there was a review article published in 'Nature' (12 March 2009, Andrew P Hendry; 'Speciation') which states: "Speciation is best thought of not as a specific endpoint (the above answers highlight the difficulty of establishing an appropriate threshold), but rather as an accumulation of reproductive isolation and of morphological/genetic differences through time. This emphasis on speciation as a process has helped to refocus research towards the factors that promote and constrain ‘progress’ towards (or from) speciation."
Evidently Hendry disagrees with you.
S: "Actually, the notion that natural selection which operates within species, is the explanation of speciation and all trends and nomogenetic phenomina above species level, is the cornerstone of Darwinism, and this is demonstrably false"
It's also a straw man bearing little resemblance to modern understanding of the processes of evolution. It's a field in which there is a great deal of dispute over the details of the processes involved.

From the article:
"For most of the twentieth century, the dominant view of speciation was that random genetic differences accrue gradually between allopatric populations, eventually causing genetic incompatibilities that prevent successful interbreeding. More recently has come the realization that most of these differences evolve by selection. Moreover, selection can cause reproductive barriers other than strict genetic incompatibilities, and this can occur in sympatry or allopatry (more about this later). Of particular recent interest is how adaptation to different environments drives reproductive isolation, a process now called ‘ecological speciation’."

From the same article:
"Sympatric speciation remains one of the most conspicuous current battlegrounds, and that debate might not wrap up soon. For me, however, the most refreshing voices are those arguing for less concern over the geography of speciation and for more emphasis on its specific drivers. Here, future work will increasingly examine the role of natural selection, including that driven by competition, and also sexual selection (selection to improve the chances of mating). Sexual selection clearly contributes to speciation, but the question is how often it does so without the collaboration of natural selection (or vice versa). Finally, genome studies are sure to increase our understanding of how natural selection acts on regions of the genome that contribute to speciation."

Hendry seems to think that natural selection is an important factor in speciation. What makes him wrong and you correct?

S: "We really need to look for another mechanisms for speciation events, and a false assumption that "Natural selection did it!" prevents these explorations."

Just as well that no biologist takes that position then, isn't it?

S: "Speciation in plants is already understood, and it is saltational - by polyploidisation or amphypolyploidisation, that is, not evolutional."

Are you asserting that saltation cannot be considered to be an evolutionary process?

Mind you, Hendry writes; "This ‘hybrid speciation’ is certainly important in plants, where
more than 10% of species, perhaps many more, may have a hybrid origin. Hybridization is also increasingly implicated in the origin of some animal species. Many cases of hybrid speciation involve differences in ploidy (as mentioned above), but others do not."

S: " For animal kingdom another explanation is needed, since these species they almost never can undergo polyploidisation and their kariotypes differ from each other by multiple chromosome rearangements"

...and yet speciation occurs in animals. It seems that your understanding of the process is deeply flawed.

Here's a 'Nature' paper on speciation in sticklebacks:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6989/full/nature02556.html

There are links to more here: http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

Please note: I have cited only references from a single journal, 'Nature'. This is only a tiny fraction of the papers available on the subject, but as this is arguably the most prestigious journal in science it demonstrates rather clearly that you set yourself against almost every other scientist in the field. Of course, everyone else may be wrong, but you will need to demonstrate with solid and substantial evidence that everyone else is wrong rather than simply making assertions.

Graham P

RickK seems to support the 'establishment' views.
To me, the establishment today is shown in its worst form by the BBC, with all its political agendas.
Personally I think the society they are helping to create is showing itself to be very disagreable to say the least. It is surprising how fast a society can decline. I suppose it is easier to destroy than to create.

Richard Forrest

John A. Davison wrote:

"I have no intention of entering this instant replay of my last Spectator venture exposing the bankruptcy of the Darwinian hoax."

By "exposing the bankruptcy of the Darwinian hoax" I presume you mean "making assertions which are easily demonstrated to be wrong by reference to the evidence and going off into a rant rather than addressing the evidence."

I posted links to numerous papers describing observed speciation events, something you declare is impossible.

JAD: "MacNeill and Forrest are living testimony to the well established fact that each human being is predisposed genetically as to whether or not he is able to accept a higher power in his perception of the world."

Wow! So you are now telling us that belief in God is genetically determined!

As I make it a particular point not to refer to my religious beliefs in what is supposedly a scientific argument I fail to see how this is relevant. I have expressed no views which have not also been expressed by scientists with strong religious beliefs, and in many cases by the leaders of many Christian chuches.

Mind you, the response of creationists to any criticism of their "theories" shows very clearly that their assertion that they have a scientific argument is just another of the falsehoods on which they rely to build their arguments.

Sergey

Here is the English summary as it presented in the book:
Abstract

Different mathematical models of microevolution and speciation processes in natural populations are reviewed. The ability of these models to reproduce some empirical trends established by cytology, paleontology and biogeography is evaluated. The conclusion is drawn that the statistical Malthusian approach inherent to synthetic evolution theory is inadequate for description of speciation and explanation of the above-mentioned trends, and an alternative ecologically-cybernetic approach is proposed, based on a new concept of genocenosis. In the framework of this approach a new notion of species is formulated in order to bridge a gap between typological and population concepts of species and promote a new evolutionary synthesis.

Michael B

Richard Forrest,

You're continuing in an absolutely contemptible manner: applying thought - i.e. true, premise-to-conclusion thought - as long as it's convenient to do so, but as soon as the subject matter risks veering off the prescribed format, you immediately revert to prescripted, formulaic, sophistical patter.

All in the name of "science," or so you'd have readers believe. Problem is, that's very much what science is NOT about.

John A. Davison

The best way to understand ones motivations and personality is to examine his own words. It is especially useful when a person has his own website at I do. both Allen MacNeill and Richard Forrest have websites, "The Evolution List" and "The Plesiosaur Site" respectively. Each speaks volumes as to the nature and purposes of its host. That is the way it is supposed to be, the way it was "prescribed" to be.

jadavison.wordpress.com

Leigh Jackson

The necessary and sufficient condition for being an IDC is to claim that certain biological phenomena are too complex to have evolved and must have been created by an intelligent designer.

Someone who claims that cosmological fine tuning is suggestive of design in nature but who fully accepts the modern theory of evolution as the explanation for all complex biological phenomena, is not an ID creationist.

The two arguments for design are separate, distinct and quite different in kind. IDCs espouse Creation Science 2. The creator is no longer limited to six days but periodically comes along with a new recipe, some new ingredients and bakes a new biological pie. That is the basic gist.

All of this is a world away from the anthropic argument for design.

This involves no challenge to the heart and soul of physics and cosmology. All the scientific laws and principles are accepted in their entirety. The interpretation of the Anthropic Principle is genuinely controversial – within science as well as without.

Cosmological fine tuning should not be conflated with biological complexity. Biology already has its grand unified theory - evolution. We await further developments in physics and cosmology which might shed further light on fine tuning.

EscapeVelocity

So now that we all can agree that supernatural causation may be ascertained someday...we can all agree that supernatural causation is a valid pursuit of knowlege. We dont have to turn away when faced with it, and shun it like frightened little children.....or keep others from thinking about these questions in science class...as if to keep the bogeyman away.

Richard Forrest

John A. Davison writes: " Richard Forrest ha(s) website... "The Plesiosaur Site" .., speaks volumes as to the nature and purposes of its host"

Quite so. It says that I am fascinated by plesiosaurs and that they are my main research interest in the field of vertebrate palaeontology.

Your point?

RickK

EscapeVelocity - we agreed no such thing (as you would know if my answers weren't regularly withheld by the editor). You said yourself that what a less advanced society may view as magic turns out to have natural explanations.

The moment we say "God did it" is the moment that we stop trying to learn.

Science has a perfect record of providing natural explanations for things once thought supernatural or divine. To name but a few examples:

The Sun - was a God, now explained by science
The Moon - was a God, now understood by science
The stars - were God, now science
The tides - were attributed to God, now science
The seasons - attributed to God, now science
Earthquakes - were God, now science
Lightning - was God, now science
Rain & drought - was God, now science
Health & disease - was God, now science
Schizophrenia - was demonic possession, now science
Epilepsy - was divine possession, now science
Origin of species - was God, now science (evolution)
Identity & personality - was the soul, now neuroscience

The record is perfect because the opposite has never happened - a natural explanation has never been replaced by divine/supernatual cause.

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
— Isaac Asimov

RickK

Awww, Leigh Jackson, you took all the fun out of it.

I was quite enjoying the picture of the creator of universes, the grand being that establishes physical laws, getting down on his knees one day to work out a new design for a spinning whip on a germ's bum.

But you had to go and point out that the two are separate, and that anthropic design of the cosmos (which sets physical laws) has nothing at all to do with Intelligent Design Creationism (which breaks them).

*sigh* I guess we'll just have to go back to the understanding that the concept of biological irreducible complexity is completely without merit.

Billy Hippo

I have looked at John A Davison's interesting site in which he includes his Prescribed Evolution Hypothesis (PEP). Sergey - do you agree with him, and is something along these lines described in your PhD thesis? Richard Forrest - what is your response to the PEH? (If you decide to read it in full.)

I have never encountered the PEH before, but I have just read it and summarise it as follows:
The genetic information for all plants and animals including humans was present at the start of evolution in the chromosomes of the earliest organisms. Over millions of years the chromosomes experienced small random rearrangements which revealed and activated fully formed segments. This explains why the fossil records do not show gradual changes, as large jumps were possible. That is why we differ from apes by the arrangement of our common chromosomes-they use this piece, we use that piece-, and by the activation of different sections, rather than by the accumulation of Darwinian small gene mutations which would have led to the alternative scenario of us having sections of completely new and different gene sequences. Over millions of years most chromosome information has been lost in the earlier organisms which could not use it. Corals, for example, have no use for sabre teeth. But corals appear to possibly still have genetic material used by vertebrates which has not yet been discarded.

The disgraceful tale of John A Davison's banned course (his biology course was banned from the University of Vermont) shows that all the anti-discrimination laws against this and that which we have in the UK and the US only apply to selected types of discrimination. (And he does not even doubt evolution, just the mechanism). His case also shows how the scientific establishment often behave in a disgraceful way contrary to all the principles they pretend to stand for, such as having an enquiring mind and being open to new ideas. They really are a closed-minded bunch of sheep on the whole, and I hope that some of them find time to reflect on how they are behaving and feel ashamed.
It reminds me of the dentist who stood before a gathering of distinguished doctors in Boston, on the occasion when he presented the results of his experiments with laughing gas. He was dismissed and no follow up trials of the anaesthetic took place. It was decades before the gas became accepted by the medical establishment. Closed minds, office politics, jealousy and ideology have always delayed scientific progress.

As for Richard Forrest, to be fair to him, he does write about the scientific points being discussed. And his interest in plesiosaurs seems to be about the anatomy, classification, and fossils of the animals rather than their evolution. With or without natural selection evolution, the important parts of his site would remain the same.

On the other hand, there are other contributors who come to blogs with a completely different approach, and who just shout 'You must believe in a flat earth' and who clearly have a very strong conviction in their atheist beliefs. Atheism is a part of their belief system, and they support evolution by chance alone because it fits into their belief system. That is why they embrace it, and it is nothing to do with consideration of evidence for or against. Atheism has closed their minds. Some of them also seem to have linked political views into their belief system too. Some of them really would enjoy working in a 1984 type world, and they would particularly like to do the job of cutting bits out of the newspapers which the establishment no longer think we should read.

Sergey

"the modern theory of evolution as the explanation for all complex biological phenomena"
There is no such thing as modern theory of evolution. So-called Synthetic Theory is debunked, and nothing has replaced it. And no scientific theory ever can explain everything, neither in biology nor in anything else. Only heresies and ideologies (the same things) could make such broad claims. Nothing is more anti-scientific than ascribe such powers to any theory.

John A. Davison

This is my secomd attempt to respond to Richard Forrest's -

"Wow! So you are now telling us that belief in God is genetically determined!"

I already pointed out that there is well documented evidence for a predisposition toward a Creator as there also is for atheism. Apparently that message got lost. So I will try again. Based on interviews with identical twins which had been separated as infants and reunited as adults -

The twins might follow different faiths, but if one was religious, his or her twin more often than not was religious as well. Conversely, when one was a non believer, the other generally was too."
William Wright, Born That Way, page 40.

The question I pose is -

What human characteristics, physical or psychological, have been shown NOT to have a congenital component?

I answer -

none to my knowledge.

"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.

Ted Herrlich

I believe Melanie Phillips is wrong, again. My comment is too long for this, look here if you are interested.
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2009/05/melanie-phillips-is-still-wrong.html

Ted Herrlich

JohnB wrote "Much has been made here and in other forums of the secret and leaked 'wedge' strategy. Is this the same strategy as outlined by Phillip Johnson in his book, 'The Wedge of Truth' published by IVP in 2000? If so, it's hardly a secret. John"

No John, that is the later effort to spin what the Wedge Document originally said. The letter was made public several years before and was not nearly as benign as his book.

Leigh Jackson

Sergey,

You have missed the point of my post, or else you are avoiding it. You are spinning the fluff from your navel into your favourite bizarre fantasy again. I shall try to make my point in such a way as to preclude the fluffy stuff. Thus:

The necessary and sufficient condition for being an IDC is to claim that certain biological phenomena are too complex to have evolved and must have been created by an intelligent designer.

Someone who does not believe this to be true but believes that cosmological fine tuning is suggestive of design in nature is not an ID creationist.

Leigh Jackson

Yes, RickK. Nothing but faith demands that the creator of the universe and the creator of earthly creatures be one and the same - unless perhaps we find something like an encoded signature in DNA giving the values for all the fine tuning constants. There may be a creator of one but not the other, or perhaps no creator at all - from the scientific point of view. And ID purports to be science.

Leigh Jackson

Or... do the anthropic constants code for a stretch of DNA? There's another scientific hypothesis for the Discovery Institute to chase down.

There is excellent precedent for this kind of approach - Newton did a pile of this kind of stuff.

Billy Hippo

John A Davison says 'The question I pose is - What human characteristics, physical or psychological, have been shown NOT to have a congenital component?'

I say none, and that includes political beliefs in addition to religious ones.
Many individuals, including wealthy and privileged ones, seem to have a strong inner desire to promote the interests of the people who display bad behaviour, whether it is disruptive pupils in schools, or gangs of youths with knives. This urge can be so strong that it leads them to get involved in politics or the media or teacher training, where they can satisfy their inclination to promote the groups they feel affinity with, and to lessen the influence of groups they feel antagonistic towards. They shudder at the thought of a disruptive bully being expelled from school. Just look at the number of groups set up to stop criminals being punished. It seems to be a life's devotion for some. I suggest there is a strong genetic component to this behaviour of the supporters of criminals.

In prehistoric times, certain types of moral behaviour would be strongly selected for, such as being 'good' and cooperating and farming together. These groups would be highly successful. On the other hand, certain other types of bad behaviour would also be selected for, such as pillaging and raping of the 'good' people by 'bad' people, which would also be highly successful, provided they could find victims and provided the bad ones did not become too numerous. A struggle would have existed therefore between different types of behaviour: cooperative versus parasitic, ie making things versus stealing things.

Is it possible that we can see these bad genes in criminals today, and in respectable supporters of criminals? Are the criminals inclined genetically to have a low moral code, to take risks and to think only of the present? Some individuals' moral code is so low it consists of punching anyone who insults their football team or of punching a teacher who admonishes their children.

Do our genes influence which choice of political ideology we find attractive? At the back of our minds are we attracted by notions of security, work, and wealth creation, or does taking what others have seem a better idea, irrespective of whether we are already rich?

In my brain, when I read the statement 'gang of local youths causes misery for local residents', it triggers a set of electrical impulses in my brain which comes back with: 'danger', 'society should stop them being anti-social', 'they are bad' and 'they are not like me'.
In another person's brain, the same initial statement seems to trigger off: 'help them', 'transfer resources to them' and 'they are basically just the same as everyone else apart from they are suffering from poverty and lack of opportunities' and 'we must stop anyone from suggesting they are genetically different'.
To me it seems likely that these opposite responses have a genetic basis, as I cannot conceive of myself under any environmental conditions ever having sympathetic feelings towards the type of person who, for example, tortured and stabbed the two French students to death for fun in their flat recently in London.

Sergey

"I have cited only references from a single journal, 'Nature'."
And what actually does it show? That editorial board of "Nature" prefer to use non-genetical definition of speciation, as most ichtiologists do. But ask enthomologists, and they accept only data about chromosomes homology, since lots of Diptera species can by identyfied only by this criterion, being morphologically identical in everything else. The most authoritative specialist in speciation in animals, M.J.D White (Rectangularity, speciation and chromosome architecture.//Mechanisms of speciation, New York, 1982) accepts only this definition.

Leigh Jackson

EscapeVelocity,

In the context of the present discussion, modern man's "explanation" for life's variety, order and complexity up to Darwin was to say "God did it." With the advent of the theory of evolution we see that GDI really meant "we can't explain it". Science won't accept supernatural explanations because they aren't; because of this they cannot be tested. What was once considered to be supernatural has been shown by science to be natural many times. Never once the other way round. So you are wrong again I'm afraid. Do keep trying though. Laws of probability are in your favour.

Leigh Jackson

To spell it out for those who haven't really got it yet: it's not any old creator that ID believes in. It's not a namby pamby kind of creator whose only discernible presence in creation consists of leaving cryptic mathematical clues intelligible only to those who understand the laws of physics. Hell that ain't like what the bible says now, is it?

John A. Davison

There is not a word in Origin of Species that ever had anything whatsoever to do with the title of that book, not a word. The same can be said for every other book or paper that rests on the notion that there was a role for chance in phylogeny. Like the development of the individual (ontogeny), evolution proceeded (past tense) determined ENTIRELY by information present at the very beginning. The number of such beginnings is not known nor is the number of times each sequence may have been further guided by supernatural intervention. Those who believe it was intrinsic in the nature of prebiotic matter to assemble into a living, evolving entity even once are living in a fantasy world for which not a shred of evidence exists.

"Here I stand. I can do no otherwise."
Martin Luther

DeterminedToProceed

ID is design detection, not designer detection. Sub-hypothesis of ID include but are not limited too irreducible complexity (Micheal Behe), FCSI/CSI (Durston and Dembski) etc..

ID friendly explanations that override current and past Darwinian evolutionary thinking include but are not limited to John A. Davisons PEH, Mike Genes Front-loading etc...

DeterminedToProceed

Billy Hippo,

You're dancing around the facts.

If a born-that-way Darwinist grew up with a bunch of Intelligent Design proponents (under influence as you say), he will undoubtedly believe in Intelligent Design until his prescribed reactive roots kick in (and they will come as they are determined too - guaranteed), this is when Mr. ID proponent dumps IDeas for Darwinism over night. It probably works that way in reverse too. Nature kicks in sooner or later my friend, Nurture is useless to apprehend it.

A simple analogy should illustrate the point - someone could look you in the eyes with a smile and then stab you in the back the first instance you turn your back.

So Darwinism is indeed what John A.Davison says it is. It is a disease (as per the definition of it) - living in a Darwinian fantasy world. They may be seeing goblins and spaghetti monsters for all we know.

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

You are obtuse and silly in the extreme, you are uncomprehending, perhaps willfully so or perhaps due to other motivations.

No one "conflated" the fine-tuning argument reflected in physical cosmology and physics in general with complexity issues in biology - I overtly and specifically indicated they serve analogous purposes, they serve roughly or proximately similar, not equivalent, purposes; they serve as indicators. You are likewise utilizing misdirection in the form of strawman arguments: some subtle and some not so subtle mischaracterizations. Again, you are tendentiously simplistic in the extreme.

You would have been more prudent, in the manner of others in this thread, to simply ignore difficulties you're unable to cope with and respond to in a more coherent/cogent and intellectually responsible fashion. I.e. stick with the rhetorical and argumentative tactics that appeal to your cliques and claques - stay "on message" - there's no better a practitioner than R. Dawkins himself, though R. Forrest emulates the master rather well herein.

Richard Forrest

DeterminedToProceed wrote:
"ID is design detection, not designer detection."
It is?
A scientific approach to detecting design would be to study objects and systems which are known to be designed, draw up a list of characters they all share, and compare them to objects and systems which are known not to be designed. If there are chararcters shared by all designed objects which are never found in non-designed objects, one would have a valid test of whether or not something is designed. I've never come across any study ever carried out by any ID proponent which seeks to detect design in this or any other way. Perhaps you have.

How can one detect design without studying the nature of designed objects and systems?

John A. Davison

Once again I agree with Sergey, this time about the contributions of M.J.D White to our understanding of the role that chromosome restructuring has played in phylogeny. I refer to my "An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change" and section V-2 "The Evidence from cytogenetics." There you will find White in effect denying that sexual reproduction could not possibly have been the mechanism for speciation in a number of taxonomic groups. His conclusions were instrumental in leading me to the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) I published in 1984.

White, a great scholar, like so many other non Darwinians has been ignored by the "establishment," the followers of the most ridiculous proposal ever presented to a naive audience, a phylogeny driven by random change and natural selection.

That has always been the Darwinian way but it is no longer taken seriously by enlightened investigators of the real biological world.

We will soon be speaking of Bergian evolution, a process for which Berg realized that there was never any role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny.

"Neither in the one or in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 134.

Trust me or better yet - don't. It is much more gratifying that way.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

John A. Davison

Billy Hippo

You are mostly correct but the rearrangements of chromosomes have not been random at all. It is clear that there are certain preferred "hot spots" which favor breaking and relocation of some sites over others. There WAS never any random evolution. That is just one more facet of the Darwinian fantasy.

James

You don't understand why they are one and the same? I suggest research on the Dover trial and this phrase "cdesign proponentsists" in particular.

Honestly, some ID proponents may not be creationists. Such as Behe. However, neither are his claims or the claims of ID scientific. (That being adherence to the exploration of natural causes, not ruining the whole scientific process with preemptive claims of a final cause).

This is why ID is not science. It can't be science. Without proof of a designer there is no basis for making the claim of subsequent design. An very intricate argument from personal incredulity is no substitute for science.

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

The biological complexity argument for intelligent design is a fabrication. The only people who say that it isn’t are the people who have fabricated it: the IDCs. Anthropic fine tuning is an undisputed fact. The significance of it is controversial – to say the least. Many cosmologists think that it indicates that the universe is designed for life. Many don’t.

IDC’s creator performs inexplicable tricks with matter. Anthropic fine tuning emerges from the laws of nature themselves. Similar in character? No: fundamentally different.

RickK

Michael B said: "You are obtuse and silly in the extreme"

DeterminedtoProceed said: "So Darwinism is indeed what John A.Davison says it is. It is a disease"

Davison said: "There is not a word in Origin of Species that ever had anything whatsoever to do with the title of that book, not a word."

None of these carefully considered arguments change the simple fact that Melanie Phillips is wrong in her article.

Intelligent Design IS based on faith, as demonstrated by so many people defending ID by attacking the "atheism" of evolution in this thread.

Intelligent Design is NOT science as it offers no mechanisms, no falsifiability, no predictions and no observability.

While some in this thread may have written papers with alternate theories to evolution, they have failed to gain acceptance. None has achieved even as much credibility as Blondlot and his N-Rays.

Why is that? Not because of some great worldwide scientific conspiracy.

They're not accepted because their ideas simply didn't work. They weren't supported by good science. They weren't well argued. In short, they failed. Whether it is ID, or PEH, or whatever, the foundations of biology, chemistry, genetics, geology, paleontology and physics remain uncracked, unrocked, and unaffected.

Meanwhile, scientists following the discipline of a rational method, driven by curiosity and inspiration contine, day by day, bit by bit to fill in the remaining gaps in the model of natural evolution.

DeterminedToProceed

"None of these carefully considered arguments change the simple fact that Melanie Phillips is wrong in her ..."

Not sure if she is wrong, I haven't read it yet.

"Intelligent Design IS based on faith, as demonstrated by so many people defending ID by attacking the "atheism" of evolution in this thread."

Same can be said in reverse, so your argument fails.

"Intelligent Design is NOT science as it offers no mechanisms, no falsifiability, no predictions and no observability."

True, ID is design detection which is not a science by itself. This is like saying engineering does not have anything to do with science, when it does. Your argument fails.

"While some in this thread may have written papers with alternate theories to evolution, they have failed to gain acceptance. None has achieved even as much credibility as Blondlot and his N-Rays."

Failing to gain acceptance by popularity could mean a variety of different things. Your argument fails yet again.

"Why is that? Not because of some great worldwide scientific conspiracy."

Maybe not a purely scientific conspiracy since these alternative papers are entirely scientific. I suggest you ask John himself why these papers have not been "accepted".

"They're not accepted because their ideas simply didn't work. They weren't supported by good science. They weren't well argued. In short, they failed. Whether it is ID, or PEH, or whatever, the foundations of biology, chemistry, genetics, geology, paleontology and physics remain uncracked, unrocked, and unaffected."

After all these years I have been keeping track of this nobody has come even close to refuting JAD's healthy science. I don't expect Darwinists to have the ability to decipher good logic.

"Meanwhile, scientists following the discipline of a rational method, driven by curiosity and inspiration contine, day by day, bit by bit to fill in the remaining gaps in the model of natural evolution."

Rational does not mean Darwinian by default. Your argument fails yet again.

F

Leigh Jackson

The IDC argument for design in biology is not only obtuse and silly, it is deceitful.

John A. Davison

Einstein's dictum - "Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control," is one of the most difficult concepts to accept. It means that we do not have a free will, that we are not able to be objectve students of the world around us. I cannot imagine a better demonstration of that realty than this forum. It is little more than a Tower of Babel, polarized from beginning to end with unshakable convictions presented with absolute certainty. Fortunately, the real world pleads in no uncertain terms for a phylogeny in which chance has played no role whatsoever. All the rants from the atheist Darwinian camp are powerless against what the experimental laboratory and the fossil record continue to disclose. The only question is when, not if, will the Darwinian fantasy finally be discarded in its entirety. I cannot imagine a better time than right now as its disciples celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of "On the Origin of Species," a book which contains absolutely nothing which supports its grandiose title.

The congenital prejudices which afflict us all render rational dialogue impossible except between those who share the same congenital defects. This is perfectly demonstrated by such "groupthinktanks" as Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes and Panda's Thumb where dissent is virtually non-existent. P.Z. Myers has even gone to the extent of placing his adversaries in the "Dungeon" which he proudly displays on his opening page to the wild approval of his hundreds of rabid fans. I am one of the charter members of that revealing distinction, an honor for which I am grateful beyond words.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

DeterminedToProceed

Anything non-Darwinian is said to be unscientific.

That argument fails yet again.

John A. Davison

I goofed in my May 17, 12:48 am response to Sergey.

White indicated that sexual reproduction could NOT have been the agency for chromosome restructuring. White's position was instrumental in leading me to the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis, a presexual mechanism for organic evolution involving only the first meiotic division. Meiosis is a two stage process so it is reasonable that the first division is the more primitive. It is my conviction that the first division is the one that provided (past tense) the mechanism for creative change. Once the second division has taken place, sexual reproduction becomes mandatory to restore the diploid condition. In my opinion sexual reproduction is entirely anti-evolutionary, serving to ensure species stability and ultimate extinction without which progressive evolution could never have taken place.

I hope this serves to clarify my position.

RickK

VMartin (sorry, DeterminedToProceed) said: "Not sure if she is wrong, I haven't read it yet."

This thread is about that article. Do you often jump into arguments without knowing the topic?

DTP said: "Same can be said in reverse" No, it can't. There are thousands of papers and books on evolutionary biology that present good science without any mention of the religious beliefs of the authors. Simply compare the number of devoutly religious biologists to the number of atheist ID proponents. The science of evolutionary biology can exist separate from the religion of the biologists. The concept of Intelligent Design cannot.

DTP said: "True, ID is design detection which is not a science by itself. This is like saying engineering does not have anything to do with science, when it does"

OK, so we agree that ID is not science. But the engineering analogy is incomprehensible. Certain qualities define a science. ID lacks them.

If you're trying to equate ID with engineering, this too fails as engineering is repeatable, predictable, methodical, and does not require faith to operate.

DTP said: "Failing to gain acceptance by popularity could mean a variety of different things."

In this case, it is a failure of the idea due to lack of scientific merit. Good, groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting science convinces detractors and changes the consensus based on the strength of the idea. Common descent, a heliocentric planetary system, a constant speed of light, a bacterial cause for ulcers - good science wins.

A failure to change concensus is not due to conspiracy, it is due to the failure of the idea. A good scientist walks away from a failed hypothesis. A bad scientist, a crank, or someone with an alternative agenda will continue to promote a failed idea.

DTP said: "I suggest you ask John himself why these papers have not been "accepted"

I know nothing about John other than several immoralized blog rants so extreme they make Don Quixote look like a couch potato. That is not how Nobel-prize winning ideas are presented and defended.

But I do know that THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT JOHN DAVISON - it is about Melanie Phillips's article.

Perhaps you should read it.

DTP said: "Rational does not mean Darwinian by default."

I was referring to the scientific method. Perhaps you should read about it.

DTP said: "I don't expect Darwinists to have the ability to decipher good logic."

Evolutionary biology has moved well beyond Darwin. I never mentioned Darwin. Why do you keep attacking Darwin?

Please read the original article. I'm very interested to hear what you have to say about the actual topic of this thread rather than just your fawning over JAD and your attacks on others.

John A. Davison

RiskK, another cowardly alias I see.

Ordinarily I do not respond to those who must hide behind the veil of anonymity while they snipe at others, but in this case I will make an exception.

Why do you mention my friend and ally VMartin? He has made no comment on this thread.

Why do you accuse me of being an Idist? I have been a severe critic of the ID camp to the extent that I have been banished from their forum on four separate occasions. That will never happen again.

I have never mentioned God in any of my several publications either. Neither did any of my distinguished sources except for one passing comment by Pierre Grasse which I have cited elsewhere. The failure of the Darwinian fairy tale has nothing to do with religion and never did have. That does not detract from Darwin's atheism however. Only a sincere atheist could possibly claim that chance was the driving force for what has obviously been an ascending, goal seeking process which I believe is now complete.

Here are the historical facts. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace independently proposed the same mechanism of a phylogeny driven by variation and natural selection. Darwin stubbornly persisted with this fantasy even as St. George Mivart destroyed it in Darwin's own day. By way of contrast, Wallace eventually abandoned the Darwnian model completely in favor of a guided evolution as is so obvious in the title of his last book (1911) -

"THE WORLD OF LIFE: A MANIFESTATION OF CREATIVE POWER, DIRECTIVE MIND AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE."

Furthermore, Wallace was a vastly superior naturalist and general scientist than Darwin who, after returning from the Galapagos, never ventured into the field again. He went to his grave convinced of his thesis, something even his stalwart defender Thomas Henry Huxley never accepted himself.

The Darwnian hoax, and a hoax it has always been, is nothing more than the necessary posture of those afflicted with congenital atheism, a condition impotent to recognize a planned universe even as everything about them pleads for exactly that. That position, initiatd by Darwin and Wallace has been perpetuated by six generations of like minded atheists all suffering from the same congenital defect.

My sources which have led me to my own conclusions, are in chronological order as follows -

St. George Mivart, William Bateson, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Reginald C. Punnett, Leo Berg, Otto Schindewolf, Robert Broom, Richard B. Goldschmidt and Pierre Grasse, not a prefessed atheist or religious fanatic in the lot. They comprise a veritable honor role of the finest biologists of the post Darwinian era.

It is the Darwinians who are the religous fanatics, blindly adhering to the most absurd notion ever to appear in print, an evolution guided only by chance and selection.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

RickK

John, DTP's attacks on Darwinism, lack of any alternatives, and his deference to you were indistinguishable from VMartin.

And you are an IDist. Maybe a different variant than Melanie Phillips, but an IDist nonetheless. These are your words:

"Everything we know with certainty demands one or more original creators with an intelligence far beyond our present powers to comprehend."

It's a matter of record. And while it may be a philosophy, it's not science.

Billy Hippo

John A. Davison says: 'Here are the historical facts. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace independently proposed the same mechanism of a phylogeny driven by variation and natural selection. Darwin stubbornly persisted with this fantasy even as St. George Mivart destroyed it in Darwin's own day. By way of contrast, Wallace eventually abandoned the Darwnian model completely in favor of a guided evolution as is so obvious in the title of his last book (1911) -...'

Now bearing in mind the number of programmes recently shown by the BBC about Darwin, I would like to ask any of the contributors who strongly support Darwin's evolution by chance and selection, and who seem to claim a scientific attitude, the following questions:

1) Look at the quote just above. Can you confirm that the BBC would not make a programme to expand on the ideas in the paragraph above. They could not claim that it would not be an interesting programme.
2) If you can confirm that the BBC would not make such a programme, do you apporove of this attitude?
3) Are you open-minded?

and:

4) Can you confirm that the BBC do not give ID a fair hearing?
5) Do you approve of this attitude?
6) Are you open-minded as regards scientific enquiry?

StephenB

The BBC is effectively the state broadcaster in the UK, funded by the tv licence, and it has achieved a complete ban on documentaries sympathetic to ID. This is despite a majority in this country who pay for the BBC believing in God.

And yet this is not called a conspiracy.

Yet when ID tries to put its own position across in the face of a Soviet style ban, this must be a conspiracy. If you compare the current establishment with the old Soviet Union, then by 'wedge' do you mean like 'counter revolutionaries', ie people who oppose or undermine the establishment view? What is wrong with that when you consider the current establishment?

Or by 'wedge' do you mean 'sneaky promoters' like when a drinks manufacturer gets its product placed in a film - ie not using the official channels of promotion? If the official channels refuse to air valid ideas about ID, this is a disgrace, especially when the majority of viewers believe in God, and the banned views are therefore connected with the majority view.

And what word shall we use for those who imposed the ban on ID in the first place? What about 'Thought Police Executives'?

John A. Davison

RickK

If postulating a higher power means one is not a scientist, than Einstein was no scientist either. Nor was Newton, Faraday or countless other distinguished pioneers in the field we call science. You sir, have, with your own words, identified yourself as a bigot.

That is not an ad hominem comment.

"bigot - one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
American Heritage Dictionary

Your group, which is also a religion, is Darwinian atheism.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all it is a matter of record.

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

"Anthropic fine tuning is an undisputed fact."

True, enough so for this discussion.

"The significance of it is controversial – to say the least."

Nearly everything within these discussions is "controversial" and your "to say the least" is nothing more than rhetorical excess, to say the least.

"Many cosmologists think that it indicates that the universe is designed for life. Many don’t."

Given your ad hoc excesses, I doubt you're acquainted with the arguments of "many" cosmologists. However, as my own earlier comments in this thread substantiate (May 5, 8:02am; May 5, 7:24pm), it's clear that prominent cosmologists are variously bothered by the bare facticity of anthropic fine-tuning or do in fact deduce that those anthropic indicators are precisely that: indicative, even highly indicative, of design, thus of mind, aka intelligence, behind it all.

"IDC’s creator performs inexplicable tricks with matter."

Still again, you are not representing my own position faithfully, not remotely so. (You're not even representing what the IDers are variously attempting, but since I'm not an IDer in the manner you're depicting, it matters little.)

"Anthropic fine tuning emerges from the laws of nature themselves."

This is a stellar example of your incoherence; it's little or nothing more than a tautology, yet you present it as if it demonstrates something. For purposes of this general discussion, the "laws of nature" and "anthropic fine-tuning" are synonymous.

"Similar in character? No: fundamentally different."

Given the failure of your preceeding premises, your conclusion fails. Syllogisms are not your forte, to say the least.

Here's why they are roughly analogous, are similar, for purposes of a general discussion:

The anthropic considerations as reflected in physical cosmology and in physics in general are part and parcel of the basic laws of nature, e.g., various arcane constants physicists are acquainted with. There are also incredibly complex, abstruse factors reflected in physics (e.g., hence the need for ever larger and more costly/complex colliders to continue exploring the realm of particle physics and quantum mechanics, Einstein's relativity) and theoretical physics (e.g., ten or eleven dimensions associated with M-theory; the complexity reflected in supersymmetry models and multiverse conceptions).

Biological complexity (e.g., see my comment herein, May 12, 9:04pm, the excerpt from Jablonka & Lamb's "Evolution in Four Dimensions"), reflected at cellular, genetic, epigenetic and still other, inter-dependent levels does not reduce to your depiction. Indeed, and to employ your own tautology against you: "biological complexity emerges from the laws of nature themselves."

(The revealing irony in all of this is that you and others fail to evidence an ability to reason in a basic, rudimentary fashion, yet you purport to reflect upon and defend science.)

Richard Forrrest

Billy Hippo wrote: "Look at the quote just above."

As I have pointed out previously, this is an appeal to the authority of biologists whose contributions to the field date to the 1930s and before. Bearing in mind that evolutionary biology is a rapidly developing field, and that more advances in our understanding of the processes involved have been made in the past couple of decades than in the previous two centuries, perhaps you can explain why you think that they are a challenge to modern evolutionary theory?

BH: "Can you confirm that the BBC would not make a programme to expand on the ideas in the paragraph above. They could not claim that it would not be an interesting programme."

The BBC might if it was part of a historical review of the development of evolutionary theory. It might well be an interesting programme showing how science puts theories to the test and by rejecting failed hypotheses develops a more robust theoretical understanding. The ideas of the authors to which Davison refers were rejected.

BH: " If you can confirm that the BBC would not make such a programme, do you apporove of this attitude?"

Why this obsession with the BBC? Do you think that the BBC sets the agenda for research in evolutionary biology. Having been involved with making a couple of programmes with the BBC, I don't care if they make such a programme or not. I'm not impressed by the quality of their science programming. Their current output seems more obsessed with clever camera work and fancy graphics than with the robustness of the science.

BH: "Can you confirm that the BBC do not give ID a fair hearing?"

What would you consider to be a "fair hearing" for ID? The BBC has given much more than a fair hearing for "scientific" creationism in the past by portraying it as presenting as scientific alternative to evolutionary theory in a programme about the fish/tetrapod transitional series of fossils.

BH: "Do you approve of this attitude?"

In the case of "scientific" creationism - and bear in mind that ID is "scientific" creationism repackaged to evade US law - I don't. They have given too scientific credence to a movement which is fundamentally anti-science. Mind you, I don't expect the BBC to take a blind bit of notice of such objections. Scientists don't control the output of the BBC.

BH: "Are you open-minded as regards scientific enquiry?"

I'm very open-minded when it comes to scientific enquiry. However, I expect scientific propositions to be scientific propositions which can be tested using the tools of science, and I think that if people are demanding that we change the fundamental assumptions of science so that their particular religious convictions can be taught as science in science classes we should reject that demand.

Richard Forrest

StephenB wrote: "The BBC is effectively the state broadcaster in the UK, funded by the tv licence, and it has achieved a complete ban on documentaries sympathetic to ID. "

Perhaps that's because there is no science to ID, and even the BBC can recognise religious conviction masquerading as science when it sees it.
Why should they make a programme sympathetic to a movement which has shown itself to be deeply and systematically dishonest?

SB: " This is despite a majority in this country who pay for the BBC believing in God."
What on earth has this to do with ID?

ID supporters claim that their "theory" is scientific. Why are you now introducing religious belief into the equation? Many evolutionary biologists believe in God, and they reject ID for the same reason as any other scientist, which is that it has nothing of any scientific value to offer.

SB: "And yet this is not called a conspiracy."

That's because it isn't. ID has had no impact in science because it has nothing of any scientific value to offer.

SB: "Yet when ID tries to put its own position across in the face of a Soviet style ban, this must be a conspiracy."

What complete and utter nonsense! There is no "Soviet style ban" and neither the BBC nor the government exercise monopoly control over the media.
The reason why nobody is making programmes sympathetic to ID is probably that whenever programme makers have investigated ID they have found that it is no more than "scientific" creationism repackaged, promoted dishonestly and with nothing of any scientific value to offer.

John A. Davison

It is my opinion that "The Press" generally, including the BBC, is left of Lenin politically, ethically and morally and will never give voice to the conservative element whether it be in science, culture, literature or the arts. Like nearly all pure white cats, they are stone deaf to what Einstein called "the music of the spheres."

They were "born that way" and there is absolutely nothing that can be done either with them or for them. As near as I can tell Godless ultra-liberals generally are the handiwork of Satan, the second God that I have been forced to assume so profoundly influenced Homo sapiens, the ultimate product of a planned evolution no longer in progress.

Now just what are you going to do about it? Banish me? I'm worried sick at the prospect.

John A. Davison

RickK

If I am an Idist then so was Albert Einstein who said much the same thing. -

"My comprehension of God comes from the deeply felt conviction of a superior intelligence that reveals itself in the knowable world."
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 195.

You have your heros, I have mine.

Enjoy!

Sergey

There is an ironic symmetry in argumentation of orthodoxal Darwinists and orthodoxal creationists. The first conceded that there are no observable facts to support working of natural selection, but we still must postulate its omnipotence due to lack of better explanation. See the following quote from S.J.Gould:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is in-ference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
That is, natural selection works in so subtle and mysterious ways that we should simply believe in it and do not demand explicit evidence. Creationists postulate the same about Creator. But their case is more sound, since in religious context inscrutable ways of Lord are staple and natural assumption. In context of science, though, this logic is far more conspicuous failure.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote:

"The first conceded that there are no observable facts to support working of natural selection, but we still must postulate its omnipotence due to lack of better explanation. "

Few biologists would argue that natural selection is the only process driving evolution, and it surprises me that you, as someone who claims an academic knowledge of evolutionary theory would make such a fundamental error. Moreover, the nature of the fossil record is such that it cannot show natural selection in action, which is why the primary evidence for natural selection has always come from studies of existing populations of organisms.

That evolution occurs is a fact. We can observe it in action. Evolutionary theory seeks to explain *how* evolution happens, and natural selection is one of the processes involved. How much it contributes to the process is a matter of heated debate between evolutionary biologists, some holding that it is the only significant element, others that it is relatively unimportant, and that processes such as genetic drift are more significant. Evolution provides the only scientific explanation for much of what we find in the fossil record, and it makes robust predictions which have been tested over and over again. The recent discovery of Tiktaalik by Neils Shubin's team is an excellent example of such predictions, but it is by no means the only example. Incidentally, I can recommend Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" as an excellent read on the subject.

S: "See the following quote from S.J.Gould: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the ..."

Oh dear. I can see you've been at the creationist quote mines, and have been hoodwinked by the way in which the compilers of those quotations present them out of context to give a meaning not intended by the author.

From Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

"The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices."

Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote:

"The first conceded that there are no observable facts to support working of natural selection, but we still must postulate its omnipotence due to lack of better explanation. "

Few biologists would argue that natural selection is the only process driving evolution, and it surprises me that you, as someone who claims an academic knowledge of evolutionary theory would make such a fundamental error. Moreover, the nature of the fossil record is such that it cannot show natural selection in action, which is why the primary evidence for natural selection has always come from studies of existing populations of organisms.

That evolution occurs is a fact. We can observe it in action. Evolutionary theory seeks to explain *how* evolution happens, and natural selection is one of the processes involved. How much it contributes to the process is a matter of heated debate between evolutionary biologists, some holding that it is the only significant element, others that it is relatively unimportant, and that processes such as genetic drift are more significant. Evolution provides the only scientific explanation for much of what we find in the fossil record, and it makes robust predictions which have been tested over and over again. The recent discovery of Tiktaalik by Neils Shubin's team is an excellent example of such predictions, but it is by no means the only example. Incidentally, I can recommend Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" as an excellent read on the subject.

S: "See the following quote from S.J.Gould: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the ..."

Oh dear. I can see you've been at the creationist quote mines, and have been hoodwinked by the way in which the compilers of those quotations present them out of context to give a meaning not intended by the author.

From Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

"The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices."

Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

RickK

John Davison said: "If I am an Idist then so was Albert Einstein who said much the same thing."

No John. Please try and understand the difference. Newton, Einstein, Spinoza saw divinity in the laws of the universe. Essentially they believed that a divine presence set the universe in motion with an elegant harmony of natural laws, and then did not need to intervene further.

By contrast, your writings indicate you (and the Discovery Institute) believe that one or more intelligent supreme beings directly intervened in the creation of species. You indicate that specific saltation events were made to happen a key points in evolutionary history. You even go further and say that these events happened, but that the supreme beings are no longer active. So you believe in "hands on" ID, rather than the "hands off" universe of the scientists mentioned above.

In the Einstein/Spinoza/Newton universe, natural effects have natural causes within natural laws. In their universe, disciplined, naturalistic, materialistic science is HOW one discovers the glories of the universe.

In the Davison/Behe/Phillips universe, naturalistic, materialistic science is a dogmatic, evil, atheistic enterprise.

Do you understand the difference?

RickK

Sergey,

SHAME on you for quote-mining Gould. Not only did you quote-mine him, but you used EXACTLY the set of non-contiguous sentences that so many other creationists quote. So you purposely try to mislead people by leaving out what Gould said later in the same paragraph:

"The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

Sergey, if you have to give misleading data to support your argument, your argument fails.

Leigh Jackson

We agree that fine tuning is a controversial subject with cosmologists having a variety of opinions on the question. Nobody denies that nature is complex.

I am contrasting the argument for design (not necessarily intelligent design) as an inference from fine tuning, as expressed in the laws of nature which govern the evolution of the cosmos, with the argument that certain biological phenomena are too complex to have evolved by means of the mechanisms of evolutionary theory, and that intelligent design is the only alternative explanation.

The fine tuning argument is an argument from improbability not complexity.

You are now saying that Jablonka & Lamb say that "biological complexity emerges from the laws of nature themselves."? Evolutionary biology would obviously agree with that. Do they suggest that the laws of nature contradict evolutionary theory?

If not I fail to see what relevance Jablonka & Lamb has for your contention that such forms of biological complexity indicate intelligent design.

Leigh Jackson

Ah, I have it now. If the laws of nature imply intelligent design and complexity arises from the laws of nature then complexity implies intelligent design.
So everything hinges on fine tuning. Although the IDCs won’t be happy that the method used to produce life could still be entirely mechanistic – unless there is evidence that the laws of nature do not allow this.

John A. Davison

Richard Forrest is wrong again.

While the series which culminated with Homo sapiens involved reproductive continuity (evolution), there were no gradual transformations whatsoever. No species in the series gradually transformed into the next. That is true for every evolutionary series of which we are aware, whether for the horse, the elephant the giraffe or any other organism including ourselves. What we know is that there were a series of discrete intermediates some of which were more human like than others. Homo sapiens, the most recent of this sequence is not a transformed Neanderthal and there is not a shred of evidence that he is. It is quite impossible to gradually transform any species into another through sexual, Mendelian processes.

There is only one way to make a new species and that is to reorganize the karyotype of one or more of a female's germinal cells. The only cytogenetic mechanism that can produce a new species is the parthenogentic, semi-meiotic device I first proposed in 1984. I have explained this cytogenetic process in detail elsewhere so I will not burden this discussion by repeating the details here.

Sexual reproduction and the gradual accumulation of micromutations through natural selection is INCOMPETENT as an evolutionary process. That assumption, the heart of the Darwinian model is without foundation and cannot be demonstrated experimentally.

Those that still believe it are chasing a phantom, wasting their lives and destroying their reputations as serious students of the real world.

Sexual reproduction was independently invented several times during the millions of years of phylogenetic change. Its function each time was to put a FULL STOP to further evolution of that lineage, thereby ensuring its ultimate extinction.

Without extinction there could never have been evolution.

All creative evolution was saltational, instantaneous and without gradual transformation. Gradualism is one more fatal flaw in the Darwinian fairy tale. It played no role in evolution.

I do not expect this message to be favorably received by Richard Forrest or by any other Darwinian advocate. It neverthless remains my position, a position yet to be demonstrated as without foundation. I will abandon it when I must and not a moment before. That is the way science is supposed to be, the way it has always been. Every hypothesis remains viable until it is proven to be wrong. Mine is no exception. Both the Lamarckian and the Darwinian fantasies were fully discredited years ago. The reality that anyone could still believe either of them constitutes an ideologically driven scandal unprecedented in the history of science.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

Leigh Jackson

One can go further. For the purposes of this discussion fine tuning is synonymous with complexity. IDCs cannot appeal to fine tuning as implying intelligent design and leave open the possibility of miracles in the process which creates life. For the purpose of this discussion we can say that the laws of nature create life. Exactly how is not known.

Who or what creates the laws of nature is the big question.

Here’s a link to several prominent cosmologists’ views on [url=http://www.counterbalance.org/cqinterv/cq1-64-body.html?b=transcript/design-body.html]scientific inference to design.[/url]

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

Could you share the secret of how to embed links in the text?

Here's the url for several cosmologists' opinions on scientific inference for design.

http://www.counterbalance.org/cqinterv/cq1-64-body.html?b=transcript/design-body.html

Richard Forrest

John A Davison wrote: "Richard Forrest is wrong again."
Actually, you are claiming that virtually every biologist on the planet is wrong.

Bearing in mind that you offer nothing but unfounded assertion rather than evidence and that your main argument is an appeal to the authority of biologists whose contributions to evolutionary theory ended almost a century ago I suggest that it's rather more likely that you are wrong and that most biologists know rather more about the subject of speciation than you do. We have learned rather a lot about the processes of evolution in the past couple of decades.

Sergey

The quote from Gould is so self-contained and unambiguous, that in ANY context it would mean just the same. I accept it as a statement of fact, as it is, from the best authority in the field. As for Gould's opinions and philosophies, I am not interested in them, not a bit. I have enough experience in dealing with Marxists to know that they can spin ANY facts to fit their ideology. There is some almost clinical deformation of thought process in Marxists. They torture logic and call it dialectic, and Gould is one the best preserved fossils of Marxist genus.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "The quote from Gould is so self-contained and unambiguous, that in ANY context it would mean just the same. "

Well, Gould didn't think so. I suggest that he knew what he meant rather better than you do. Did you read the last paragraph of the section of his essay which I quoted?

S: "Gould is one the best preserved fossils of Marxist genus."
As he has been dead for several years, I doubt that he is particularly well-preserved.

Billy Hippo

If you divide people into two groups, atheists and everyone else, you will get the following:

a) convinced atheists. The debate is over. Because we say so.

b) agnostics, creationists, ID believers - personal God, ID believers - non-personal intelligence; nature unknown. There are other variations: PEH evolution, no evolution
and other open minded people who simply say 'I have no idea how the Realm of Nature in its present form came into being'.

- Group a) is the minority, and yet all the science programmes on the BBC present their position. They refuse to let anyone else have a say. The only time they even mention group b) is when they say that group b) believe in a flat earth. It is as if the majority, group b), are not allowed to watch a programme which can contemplate the existence of ID because group a) have managed to manoeuvre themselves into the jobs of Thought Police.

As I have not watched every BBC programme, I am prepared to concede to Richard Forrest that the bias is not 100%, but even he will agree it is between 99.5% and 99.999% I base my views on the sample I see.

The reason I am 'obsessed' with the BBC as you put it, is because as we all pay for it, it has an obligation to 'educate and entertain' and that includes the majority, not just the atheist minority. What right have they to inflict their narrow views on everyone else? Just because you are convinced that you are right, we do not all have to agree.

In other topics also, including politics, they do the same, ie follow a narrow path compatible with their agenda. Every programme about crime says it is caused by poverty and lack of opportunities. Look at the dreadful country they are helping to create, where criminals are practically VIPs and schools are supervised by bullies instead of teachers.

Richard Forrest says: 'they have found that it is no more than "scientific" creationism repackaged, promoted dishonestly and with nothing of any scientific value to offer.'

You say 'they have found' - but it is not really up to them to decide these things for us. It is up to them to commission a programme, let both sides on the programme have their say, and let the viewers make up their own minds.

As for the quality of their science programmes, I can agree with Richard Forrest there - not only about camera angles, but another annoying habit of TV serious programmes generally is the way keep repeating a question for most of the programme, then rush through the important bits in a few seconds, then back to the presenter saying, in effect, 'look at me in various amusing situations'.

Those were interesting points that Sergey made about the fossil record.

As for the involvement of 'Satan' in the scheme of things, I am not sure what John A. Davison meant exactly, but I think 'wicked' or 'evil' people merely have very little programming in their brains as regards moral behaviour. For every million neurons which a normal person has that says "don't do that", they have about 23 neurons.

That explains how they are able to collect their child from school, the child tells them that the teacher told them off, and without asking if the child did anything wrong, they proceed to search for the teacher to punch them. In their 23-neuron collection, they are actually behaving in a moral way - they would say they are defending their children. Of course when they get home they think nothing of punching the same child if the child insults the father's football team - there again, with their 23 neurons they are displaying 'loyalty to their team'. They also do not think about consequences, so they take drugs, and they admire brute strength, as is present in their pit bull terrier pets. But it has nothing to do with God wanting them to do good and Satan telling them to do bad. It is simply that the wiring in their brain as regards morals is faulty or missing or just inadequate. Our current society for some reason treats these kinds of people with reverence and encourages them to have more children.

Richard Forrest

Billy Hippo wrote: "If you divide people into two groups, atheists and everyone else, "

...you will find scientists, including evolutionary biologists, in both groups."

BH: "you will get the following:
a) convinced atheists. The debate is over. Because we say so."

Actually, I'd argue that atheists say that if you want to persuade them to believe in God you need to offer evidence to support your position. My experience of atheists in general is that they are quite happy if other people believe in God, but see no reason why they should do so themselves. Some are rather stridently anti-religion, but I suggest that to most religion is an irrelevance.

BH "b) agnostics, creationists, ID believers - personal God, ID believers - non-personal intelligence; nature unknown. There are other variations: PEH evolution, no evolution
and other open minded people who simply say 'I have no idea how the Realm of Nature in its present form came into being'.
- Group a) is the minority, and yet all the science programmes on the BBC present their position."

What complete and utter nonsense!

Many of the participants in such programmes may hold strong religious beliefs, or they may be atheists. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the science. Some scientists are atheists, some are not, including many evolutionary biologists.

If the BBC are making a science programme I expect the programme to be about science, not the religious beliefs of its participants. Science is atheistic only in the sense that it does not allow "God did it" as an explanation. This is not because all scientists are atheists, but because such an explanation is unfruitful. If there are no constraints on what God can or can't do, there is no way in which such an explanation can be tested using the tools of science. Scientists may believe that their research is uncovering the wonders of God's creation, or they may think that they are finding out how the universe operates. Their attitude towards what they are doing does not affect the way in which they do it, or the constraints under which they operate.

You are setting up a false (and, frankly, rather dishonest) dichotomy between religion and science.

Billy Hippo

Richard Forrest - You are correct and I accidentally omitted from list b) the category of those who believe in God AND natural selection evolution who should also be in the second group. There will be other sub-categories too, like creationists who believe in 7 days and those who believe in 7 eons. But however many possible stances there are in the non-atheist group, can you agree that the BBC deliberately excludes ID even though the majority would like to see a documentary about it?
Especially as even amongst Christians who believe in natural selection evolution, many still believe God was involved in the earlier creation of the universe.

John A Davison and Sergey -
- Do you think the original DNA codes were put on the earth by a temporary suspension of the laws of physics (ie a miracle) once the earth had cooled down, or do you think they came from another dimension or by some subset of laws in such a way that the DNA information arrived and at the same time the prevailing laws of physics were not violated? (The same laws we have today.)
- Do you think the ID or God was for some reason attempting to keep the amount of miracles to a minimum? It is as if 7-day creation was 'too much' but depositing a set of DNA was 'acceptable'.

Billy Hippo

Leigh Jackson, rickK, Richard Forrest and others-

Suppose in the future mankind achieves advancements in genetic engineering and decides to establish life on another planet in another galaxy where there is water and a reasonable temperature. Suppose they cannot not make a rocket big enough for all life forms to fit in, so instead they decide to send a fleet of small rockets to accomplish their objective by either Plan A or Plan B beloe. Which plan would you advise the Life on Other Planets Programme to adopt out of these two plans? Which sounds more plausible?

Plan A) Send 1000 small rockets, of which 900 will land, and they will each release some bacteria, or even amoeba, into ponds. Hope that life evolves spontaneously, eventually leading to mankind. Remember, you have a head start with your natural selection evolution, as you are already past the hardest stage - the first one.

Plan B) Get the geneticists to use viruses to construct some chromosomes containing all the DNA needed for all life forms we see today, including man. Include 'breaking points' so the chromosomes can release new segments. Implant in amoeba/bacteria and release 1000 rockets as with plan A to land in ponds on various continents the other planet.

Richard Forrest

. But however many possible stances there are in the non-atheist group, can you agree that the BBC deliberately excludes ID even though the majority would like to see a documentary about it?

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

You miss a critical point, mine is not a positive claim of proof, mine is an indicative claim. That it is "controversial" means little given the conflation of extra-scientific and scientific material by the Richard Dawkins cum Elmer Gantry class of true believers and apostles.

And, how to embed links.

Michael B

"Few biologists would argue that natural selection is the only process driving evolution, and it surprises me that you, as someone who claims an academic knowledge of evolutionary theory would make such a fundamental error." Richard Forrest

Your conflation, conscious or otherwise, of what is known and epistemically sound with what is unknown and less sound continues apace.

One of the reasons evolutionary biologists have "grown" in their understanding is because they've had no choice - e.g., due to the increasing evidence of complexity and teleology found within various, inter-dependent strata of biological systems. (**) You've avoided other difficulties as well. (***)

** E.g., see my citation and excerpt in this thread of evolutionary biologists who themselves acknowledge "current [evolutionary] dogma" (in a 2005 volume) along with acknowledgements of increasing awareness of complexity and teleology.

*** E.g., 1) the critical difference between a metaphysical materialism vs. a methodological materialism; 2) your incapacity or unwillingness, even at a suppositional level, to come to terms with the difference between creationists and 14 billion year universe and 4.5 billion year earth oriented inquirers (even in the marginal and indicative sense in which I've presented complexity and teleology in relation to physical cosmology, physics in general and biological systems). But those are two examples only.

True science and the rational enterprise in general doesn't need to cloak itself in a pretense of pseudo- and quasi-authority in order to evade scrutiny. True science can look at all the evidence and then, more transparently and more honestly, admit what that evidence reflects, both in terms of positive claims and in terms of what cannot be more assertively claimed. That's what science - true science - is about.

Practice what you preach, Mr. Forrest. The over-reach of ideological presumptives, whether motivated out of anti-theistic, theistic or still other interests needs to be resisted on ALL fronts.

Then, teach others among the Richard Dawkins cum Elmer Gantry class to follow suit.

Richard Forrest

Michael B writes: "Your conflation, conscious or otherwise, of what is known and epistemically sound with what is unknown and less sound continues apace."
Excuse me? I was merely pointing out that, contrary to Sergey's assertion, few evolutionary biologists argue that natural selection is the only driving mechanism for evolution. This is a matter of record, and can be checked by reading any basic textbook in evolutionary biology.
What on earth am I conflating here?
MB: "One of the reasons evolutionary biologists have "grown" in their understanding is because they've had no choice - e.g., due to the increasing evidence of complexity and teleology found within various, inter-dependent strata of biological systems."
Evolutionary biology is a science, and "grows" by the same processes as any other science, which is looking at the evidence, forming hypotheses, and testing them by acquiring more evidence. Complexity is evidence for nothing other than complexity. How that complexity can arise is a subject which can and has been investigated using the tools of science, and is explained largely by known processes. It is not, as ID proponents assert, a reason for rejecting the assumption of naturalism on which all science is based.

MB: "You've avoided other difficulties as well."

No, I haven't. I've addressed all the issues you've raised. Evidently you don't like my responses. That doesn't mean that I haven't addressed them. Mind you, as you express yourself in such convoluted terms that it is hard to understand just *what* you mean, perhaps I misunderstand you. I've tried to clarify your position, but as you have ignored my post I fail to see what else I can do. I give detailed response which you ignore, or accuse me of " Pavlovian trained tricks", or behaving in an "absolutely contemptible manner".

I have made no unfounded assertions, I am not trying to play any tricks, I am not simply reguritating dogma, and I am not refusing to address any issue you or anyone else has made.

MB: " 1) the critical difference between a metaphysical materialism vs. a methodological materialism;"

You haven't raised this previously, and frankly I fail to see why it is relevant. ALL science is based on the premise of methodological naturalism. It's a premise which defines the nature of science. Some people may adopt a philosophy of metaphysical materialism, but that is irrelevant to science. Nobody as far as I know is trying to have metaphysical materialism taught as science in science classes. Teaching that methodological materialism is one of the foundations of science is teaching about the nature of science.

MB: "2) your incapacity or unwillingness, even at a suppositional level, to come to terms with the difference between creationists and 14 billion year universe and 4.5 billion year earth oriented inquirers (even in the marginal and indicative sense in which I've presented complexity and teleology in relation to physical cosmology, physics in general and biological systems)."

But I've given you a detailed explanation of why I describe ID as "scientific" creationism! Which part of my explanation do you not understand?

MB: "True science and the rational enterprise in general doesn't need to cloak itself in a pretense of pseudo- and quasi-authority in order to evade scrutiny."

I haven't done so - in fact, the contributors to this discussion who have done so over and over again are Sergey and John A Davison. I have cited published scientific papers not as authority, but as the means whereby evidence and argument are presented. There is no authority in science other than the evidence.

MB: "True science can look at all the evidence and then, more transparently and more honestly, admit what that evidence reflects, both in terms of positive claims and in terms of what cannot be more assertively claimed. "

Are you are saying that science goes where the evidence leads and does not make claims which are not supported by evidence? Quite so. It doesn't, and any claims made by science are held to be provisional, and subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands.

MB: "That's what science - true science - is about."

""True science", eh?

MB: "Practice what you preach, Mr. Forrest."

I do. I study the evidence, form hypotheses, test them by acquiring more evidence, publish my findings in scientific journals, and address the objections and criticisms raised by other scientists.

MB: " The over-reach of ideological presumptives, whether motivated out of anti-theistic, theistic or still other interests needs to be resisted on ALL fronts."

Quite so. That's why I object to ID. It has no place in science.

Richard Forrest

Billy Hippo wrote: ". But however many possible stances there are in the non-atheist group, can you agree that the BBC deliberately excludes ID even though the majority would like to see a documentary about it?"

No, I wouldn't agree.

I doubt that the majority would like to see a documentary about it - after all, it's not widely known about in the UK - and I suspect that many ID supporters share that view. After all, any decent documentary would expose its origin as "scientific" creationism, and plot the deceits and sheniagans ID promoters use to promote the movement. Personally, I'd love to see such a documentary. It would clear up many of the misconceptions about the origin and purposes of the ID movement, as exemplified by the distorted understanding presented by Melanie Phillips.

Sergey

"Do you think the original DNA codes were put on the earth by a temporary suspension of the laws of physics (ie a miracle) once the earth had cooled down, or do you think they came from another dimension or by some subset of laws in such a way that the DNA information arrived and at the same time the prevailing laws of physics were not violated?"
Miracle is not neccessary violation of laws of nature. In most cases big things can be done by very small and subtle means, like concatenation of unlikely accidents. Ever heard the saying "accidence is a nickname of providence"? I do not know how life emerged, and do not want to speculate; probably, we would never know for sure, but some miracle was certainly needed. My teacher in genetics and evolution, Nikolay Vladimirovich Timofeev-Resovsky (who together with Delbruck experimentally found a size of a gene using radiation-induced mutations), was a deeply religious man. When beeing asked the same question, he answered: "Only two know how life originated: our Lord and professor Oparin. I do not know: these time I was too small".

RickK

Michael B:

You apparently look at a complex phenomenon and see evidence of design. I look at a complex phenomenon and see something not yet explained naturally.

I base the assumption that the world was once made entirely of phenomena which humans explained by invoking a higher power/being/designer. And one by one, through investigation, inspiration and materialistic science each has been explained naturally. Chemistry, physics, biology, geology... millions of questions answered via comprehensible, predictable, natural mechanisms.

We still have before us some big questions: the origin of the universe and natural laws, the origin of DNA and the first life, the nature of self-awareness.

These are big questions, but they're only the latest questions. All the preceeding questions have been answered by natural causation. There are so many solid data points indicating that natural phenomena have natural causes within a knowable set of physical laws. And there is not one single data point proving supernatural causation/intervention/design.

Science is never certain. Science deals in probabilities - there is ALWAYS an error bar.

Given the utter and historic failure of the supernatural as an explanatory mechanism, science can be completely comfortable dismissing it going forward and putting all efforts into delving into the rich and productive world of NATURAL causation.

As for your panspermia question, I think if the Earth were seeded, it wouldn't have taken ~3 billion years to get to the first multi-cellular life.

Others can look at DNA and dismiss it as "impossible" to have developed naturally, without supernatural/divine intervention. But I'm not so proud as to think I can completely comprehend what natural processes can do over such a time period. Others on this thread may be blessed with such self-confidence, but I'm inclined to think that there's much we don't yet know, and that a LOT can happen in 3 billion years.

It was just as premature 2500 years ago to say Zeus caused the lightning as it is today to say a divine designer created DNA. And now we have the benefit of 2500 years of evidence demonstrating that the divine has never been the answer.

Is it certain the divine never WILL be the answer, no. It's also not certain that if I drop a pencil it won't fall up. But until that pencil falls up, it is reasonable and correct for science to stick to its "materialist dogma" that Ms. Phillips dislikes so much.

Sergey

I did not mislead anybody by quoting Gould. I already stated many times that I know that Gould was a Darwinist. But I am not interested in his opinions or philosophies, only in his expert witness about facts. As for your quote
"The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]"
it only shows his complete inability to understand the significance of his own findings. By jettisoning gradualism, Darwinists irreparably damaged their case: they left to magnificient works of natural selection only 5% of time, 5% of space and 1% of material it would have otherwise.
150 years ago Darwinism was a scientific hypothesis. Now it is not anymore, but a secular religion based on belief in miracles, - pagan and primitive.

Sergey

To John A. Davison
"The only cytogenetic mechanism that can produce a new species is the parthenogentic, semi-meiotic device I first proposed in 1984."
Your mechanism is, probably, workable, but not unique and not universal. In 2002 I suggested another mechanism of producing homozigotic chromosome rearrangements: by mutations in precursors of sex cells giving rise to many mature sex cells with identical rearrangements, and subsequent mating of siblings of different sex. I also derived equations for spreading of such homozigotes and heterozigotes in populations, and found that conditions for fixation of homozigous chromosome mutations exactly match those for "genetic revolutions" described by Mayr, that is, a sudden isolation of a small group of founders in extremal conditions with high mortality. That is why my book has a title "Stability of species and population genetics of chromosomal rearrangements". This still requires lots of good luck, but is not ridiculosly improbable. This is based on statistical fluctuations, whose probabilities can be estimated. In large contiguous populations they quickly tend to zero, but are not negligible in small isolated populations with high level of inbreeding.

John A. Davison

I thought I underwtood Sergey's position but I guess I was mistaken.

There was never a role for gradualism just as there was never a progrssive role for sexual reproduction or natural selection in phylogeny. Those factors have now been thoroughly discredited and should ba abandoned as creative factors in phylogeny. Both sexual reproduction and natural selection are anti-evolutionary, serving only to stabilize each species and by so doing ensuring its ultimate extinction. Planned extinction would have occurred with or without environmental catastrophes. Without extinction there could never have been evolution.

Leo Berg, unquestionably the greatest Russian biologist of his generation, was absolutely correct when he stated -

"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Nomogenesis, page 406.

So you see the Darwinian scheme is entirely upside down, natural selection PREVENTS change. That is why in nature, every chckadee looks like every other chickadee and even sounds like every other chickadee - chickadeedeedee,chickadeedeedee,the sound from which it gets its name! It is the same reason that with very rare exceptions every organism known to science can be readily identified with a simple binary key, typically with fewer than a dozen steps. Often a simple photograph or rudimentary sketch is all that is required, sometimes only a verbal desription. In a Darwinian world there could be no taxonomic keys because everything would be a gigantic blur. It is no wonder that Linnaeus was a creationist as were Cuvier, Agassiz and Owen and of course Adam Sedgwick as well, Darwin's geology professor.

Those all too many congenital atheists, the sine qua non for the Darwinian sect are obviously not only stone deaf to Einstein's "music of the spheres" but also blind as the proverbial bat to the world around them.

I am developing a callous on my right thigh from slapping myself with hilarity as I read here and elsewhere the "sincere" convictions of those congenitally disadvantaged souls who continue to support the most ridiculous, the most discredited, the most intellectually barren concept every conjured up by an overactive human imagination, an evolution guided by chance and natural selection.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

It doesn't get any better than this.

Sergey

John A. Davison: This exactly what I assert. Natural selection is not a motor, but a brake of evolution, 99% conservative force. It is always directed to maintain a status quo, but no device can be 100% effective, so change happens. But the magistral path of evolution is to make evolution harder and harder, and every major step of evolutionary progress is aimed to make evolution impossible: diploidy, sexual reproduction, dioecy, and, as a culmination of efforts to bring evolution to screeching halt, two-stage meiosis. This almost did the trick, but not perfectly. One loophole still exists - but only for small animals with high reproduction potential, like mice or bats, or insects.

Sergey

This is exerpt from my book:
The Eclipse of Neo-Darwinism
The essence of all Neo-Darwinian models of speciation is summarized in the title of Darwin’s book: ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’. That is, races are incipient species, and natural selection is the only driving force of speciation. In Darwin’s days the notion of species was different from mod-ern understanding, since genetics was not discovered yet, so the only possible criterion was mor-phological. Struggle for life also was conceptualized quite differently from present notion. The only model was that of Malthus: geometrical progression of procreation, that is, exponential ex-plosion. There is no stable states in this dynamics, only extinction or population catastrophe due overpopulation.
Now we have many hundred times more information, especially in such fields as genetics and ecology, but once over-valuated ideas die hard. If Darwin were right in his treatment of races as incipient species, the systematics as we know it would not be possible. The whole diversity of life would be fuzzy, without clear-cut boundaries at any level, and all intermediate forms present in fossil record. Problem is not that there would be incomplete speciation events (while actually there are none or very few and doubtful), but that no speciation event ever could be complete.

Leigh Jackson

Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" was a sensational best seller which generated a media frenzy in the U.S.A. It was thoroughly dissected, ripped up and torn apart by biologists. It was adored by religious groups who insisted that it was science. And it came to pass that another ID book ,"Of Pandas and People", was thoroughly dissected, ripped up and torn apart in an American court. It was established beyond any doubt whatsoever that the same book had previously been published as a Creationist text book. The Catholic Church says that ID can be perceived through the instrument of faith not the instruments of science. How wise this Church has become. It has evolved considerably.

Sergey, I predict that your book will not create a stir.

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

Yes, I understood that you were saying nothing stronger than that fine tuning is indicative of design. From the strictly scientific viewpoint, I see fine tuning as possibly indicating a multiverse.

If it could be firmly established that there is only this universe, say through a TOE which fails to predict the values of the anthropic constants; then I would have start taking the idea of design more seriously. For me though it would have to be self-design, since the idea of outside design leads to infinite regression.

Sergey

See http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/isaiahs-job/

Sergey

"For me though it would have to be self-design, since the idea of outside design leads to infinite regression."
Self-design is an oxymoron. But idea of outside design really lead either to infinite regression, or to outwordly Creator, and this, in my view, makes the second option a logical necessity.

John A. Davison

Sergey

Are you aware of my 1984 paper, "Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism? It presents what I believe is a valid cytogenetic device by which macroevolution took place in the past and might still possibly take place now. It has yet to be tested with suitable material. I would appreciate your candid appraisal of that paper. It is avaliable at ISCID's "brainstorms" forum, Uncommon Descent and of course my weblog - jadavison.wordpress.com

Sergey

To John Davison:
I read your paper, and at first glance the proposed mechanism is workable. I still have doubts about its universality: does semi-meiosis operate outside avian species? In which groups exactly? As far as I know, the only two groups of mammals that demonstrate increase in the number of species during last 1.8 mln years are small mice-like rodents and bats. In all other orders these numbers are on the decline since onset of Pleistocene.

John A. Davison

In my more than half century as part of the academic community I have never known a Darwinan to recant and abandon his congenital atheist predisposition. It is rare that any atheist does. Anthony Flew is an exception but he waited until he was in his eighties to come to his senses.

Even as a graduate student I instinctively rejected the Darwinian notion much to the dismay of some of my professors and fellow students at the University of Minnesota. Incidentally that was the REAL University of Minnesota, not the community college at Morris where Paul Zachary Myers continues to pollute the students with his daily, even hourly, harangues against our most cherished institutions.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

I love it so!

Leigh Jackson

"Self-design is an oxymoron. But idea of outside design really lead either to infinite regression, or to outwordly Creator, and this, in my view, makes the second option a logical necessity."

Cosmetic surgery?

The existence of a Creator leads to regression or self-design. If no other intelligence designed God, then God is self-designed. If God can be self-designed why can't the universe be God? We don't know whether an external Creator exists, but we know that we exist. If design is forced upon us then I find it easier to accept the notion of self-design than of design by an assumed being about whom it is impossible to really say anything. "God" is a blank slate upon which to write whatever one wishes. To say differently requires faith. Science is not required to assume the existence of the God of faith.

(Originally posted 1.30pm May 30)

Leigh Jackson

John A. Davison,

"In my more than half century as part of the academic community I have never known a Darwinan to recant and abandon his congenital atheist predisposition. It is rare that any atheist does."

"Congenital" means present from birth. Atheists are predisposed from birth to be so. What about theists? Are they similarly congenitally afflicted; or should that be "blessed"? Agnostism; congenital? How many theists and agnostics do you know to have recanted over this same period. If the number is considerably greater than than zero, to what do you ascribe the disparity? And in which general direction is the recanting in the case of agnostics, if there is such?

Michael B

RickK,

You are simplistically tendentious in the extreme. Your little lesson in "science" vs. "religion" is well and good for a high-school class, or for that matter in some entry level college classes given the ideological cast of things in so many colleges and universities, but your superior sense of self and your view of things in general provide caricature and even a bit of eye-rolling, comedic relief, not anything beyond that. It's as if you've watched a Saturday morning cartoon feature that indulges all the stereotypes, reductions, tendentious caricatures, etc. of "your side" and "the other side" and on the basis of those cartoon-like conceptions now feel you can pronounce upon things with authority, while contentedly and glibly looking down your nose upon any perceived opposition.

Boorishly and simplistically tendentious in the extreme.

Likewise, given the evidence I've presented and my stated position, in this and one or two of the nearby threads, it should be plain enough that my position does not remotely fit your cartoon-like conceptions.

Leigh Jackson,

You still don't seem to get it. I have already allowed that the evidence would support, would also be indicative of multiverse conceptions.

For example, when I took note of (some of) the anthropic arguments and additionally took note of a more recently illuminated anthropic fact as applied to the Standard Model of physics (that the parameters of the Standard Model would need to be tuned to an infinitesimal degree of 1 part in 10ł˛ at the time of the big bang), I specifically allowed that multiverse conceptions were, in part, born out of those anthropic considerations.

So yes, the scientific, anthropic considerations per se are indicative of teleology and thus design within a single universe conception, and can also be conceived as indicatove of multiverse conceptions. It's both/and, not either/or. Otoh, those multiverse conceptions rely upon a particularly abstruse set of mathematics, string theory (M-theory) and a set of Supersymmetry Models of physics (in lieu of the Standard Model), not empirical evidence as such. So that too reflects a set of factors needing to be brought into view and fully weighed in the overall balance of things.

Michael B

Richard Forrest,

You have NOT more conscientiously "addressed" the issues presented; you have variously provided retorts and have variously evaded them and reverted to the standard Richard Dawkins cum Elmer Gantry pre-scripted confusions and obfuscations. But given your propensity in that vein, we could go back-and-forth like this quite literally forever. In order to more truly and more conscientiously address an argument you need to faithfully represent it in the first place. You are, decidedly and contentedly and with a sense of superiority, in the R. Dawkins cum Elmer Gantry mold, a mold that interweaves genuine science with pseudo- and quasi-philosophical assumptions and presuppositions and does so with religious-like devotion and with a preeminent self-satisfaction.

Richard Forrest

Michael B wrote: "You have NOT more conscientiously "addressed" the issues presented; you have variously provided retorts and have variously evaded them and reverted to the standard Richard Dawkins cum Elmer Gantry pre-scripted confusions and obfuscations."

So which issues have I not addressed?

" But given your propensity in that vein, we could go back-and-forth like this quite literally forever. In order to more truly and more conscientiously address an argument you need to faithfully represent it in the first place."

I'm not the one engaging in convoluted linguistic obfustication here. You are.

As far as I can make sense of your ramblings, you are claiming that biological complexity is in some way analogous to the anthropic principle in physics.

Is this what you mean? A simple yes or no will suffice.

John A. Davison

Leigh Jackson

I recommend you read William Wright's "Born That Way" which you obviously have not done. In it will discover that both atheism and religiosity have been demonstrated to have a congenital basis. I doubt if either predisposition is very often reversed.

I think it is remarkable and very much to his credit that Anthony Flew had the courage to admit that he as wrong for the better part of his life and in his eighties finally recognize the necessity for the supernatural.

I have never known a Darwinian to acknowledge a planned evolution and I suspect I never will. I also don't expect Pope Benedict the sixteenth ever to abandon the Christian ethic, the ethic that built Western Civilization.

John A. Davison

Sergey

Did you cite my 1984 paper or any other of my publcations in your Russian thesis which I take to be a Ph.D. thesis? Where can I find a copy of your thesis and do you plan to translate it into English?

I am glad we agree that evolution is largely finished.

As for my Semi-Meiotic hypothesis (SMH), it is theoretically testable in every organism that reproduces sexually because every organism that does so uses meiosis as the mechanism for producing haploid gametes. A two stage reduction from diploid to haploid is a universal feature of all organisms that engage in biparental reproduction. At least that is my understanding. If I am wrong please correct me.

RickK

Michael B,

Wow, you put a lot of energy into that ad hominem attack and never once addressed the content of what I said. Condescension seems to be an important weapon in your debating arsenal, as are the words "teleology", "anthropic", "tendentious", and "1 part in 10ł˛".

Looking back over your posts in this thread, besides insulting people, you've used a lot of words to say a few simple things:

- biological systems are indicative of intelligent design;
- the fine tuning of the universe (according to the current state of the Grand Unification Theory) is evidence of intelligent design;
- you don't believe small evolutionary events over a short time period are evidence that large evolutionary events can happen over a large time period; and
- you don't like Richard Dawkins and don't respect any scientist who is an atheist.

Did I miss anything important?

Let me ask you a few simple questions:

- Do you think that DNA was explicitly created by some force, or did it come about "naturally", forming up through processes that stayed within the bounds of the physical laws of the universe?

- Do you think current species evolved from earlier species with or without direct intervention of an intelligent designer?

- If DNA or speciation required direct intervention, how do you envision that working? What was the mechanism?

Remember, I can only think in simplistic caricatures, so try to keep your answers at a high-school level.

Michael B

RickK,

If an accurate description of your own m.o. sounds like a mere ad hominem attack, then you might indulge some self-examination, you might indulge some introspection and forego those facile sniffs and sneers of yours.

But you're offering still more pious reductions and construals. Instead of imputing to others your own tendentious sense, you might quote and excerpt something and then respond to that. But in terms of the first four construals you're imputing to me, I'll respond as follows:

"biological systems are indicative of intelligent design"

See my May 12th, 9:04pm comment. The wording is critical because, as applied to the set of disciplines demanded by truer conceptions of science, it serves to emphasize the difference between what we know and what we're variously hypothesizing/theorizing - likewise between a posteriori and a priori conceptions and methodologies. But again, my May 12th, 9:04pm comment is relevant here.

"the fine tuning of the universe (according to the current state of the Grand Unification Theory) is evidence of intelligent design"

See my May 5th, 8:02am and May 5th, 7:24pm comments. (And, I'm referring to the standard model of physics as applied to the GUT, not the "current state" of the GUT.) Several of the fine-tuning considerations were presented at this link, while the one you're referring to (where parameters need to be fine-tuned to a precision of 1 part in 10ł˛) is a single fine-tuning fact only as applied to the standard model.

"you don't believe small evolutionary events over a short time period are evidence that large evolutionary events can happen over a large time period"

Again, no, that's not at all how I'd put it. I suggested speciation per se, similar to so-called "micro" evolutionary events, is not inherently and necessarily indicative that larger, so-called "macro" transitions are part of the same continuum of events. (E.g., there are several species of finches alone, not birds in general, but simply of finches. So what?) Indeed, the very inter-dependent complexity referred to via a citation and excerpt from Jablonka & Lamb's volume (my May 12th, 9:04pm comment again) should heighten the caution and tentativeness in that vein.

I likewise noted that ideologues in the Richard Dawkins cum Elmer Gantry mold, aware of what "speciation" denotes vs. what it very often connotes in the popular mind, play fast and loose with that difference. I also noted the very definition of "species" has itself evolved and continues to be the subject of voluminous debate and critical review.

"you don't like Richard Dawkins and don't respect any scientist who is an atheist"

I said no such thing, in fact I do respect intellectually serious and honest theists and atheists both and have said literally NOTHING to suggest otherwise. I appreciate any truer, more rigorous and more conscientious scientist or thinker in general. Again, you might excerpt and quote something, and respond to that, in lieu of this piously tendentious approach you're indulging.

Michael B

RickK, now, addressing your three questions - and asking you questions in return.

"Do you think that DNA was explicitly created by some force, or did it come about "naturally", forming up through processes that stayed within the bounds of the physical laws of the universe?"

I believe you're asking if I'm a stupidly reductionist and simplistic theist, one that fits reasonably well within your own stupidly reductionist and simplistically caricaturizing sense of things. But taking your question more or less at face value - and re-emphasizing that I am in fact an unabashed theist: I don't know, and I don't know that the two are different. It doesn't matter since I'm not remotely, am not in any sense whatsoever suggesting a true conception of science be impeded in the least - to the contrary, I'm suggesting a truer conception of science is precisely what needs to be clarified and fought for.

Are you a metaphysical materialist? Are you a strong physicalist and strict determinist in that vein? What are you, in a positive and reasonably clarified sense, in terms of your metaphysical outlook? And how does that inform your view and conception of science?

"Do you think current species evolved from earlier species with or without direct intervention of an intelligent designer?"

I believe, largely on the basis of fossil and some other evidence, in evolutionary processes. As to the mechanisms involved, I don't know, but that is part of what we all don't know. Or, if you do know, fill us in. I remain profoundly curious - rather than incurious - about such things as the genesis of man, of consciousness, of the mind/body set of issues, of abiogenesis, of the origins of the universe, etc.

In what sense do you remain open, and intellectually and morally serious and curious?

"If DNA or speciation required direct intervention, how do you envision that working? What was the mechanism?"

I'm thinking via invisible magical fairy dust, the same ingredient that seems to inform the workings of your own grey matter, given the tendentious formulations you're capable of concocting. But it seems like a specious, suppositional question, similar to your first question.

This need you have, to sniff and sneer so often on the basis of such dullish formulations, where does that, morally and intellectually, originate from, your own DNA and some determinism resulting from a strong physicalism, or is it ad hoc and based upon your own free will and choices emanating from your free will? Do you believe in free will, or are you a determinist? If the latter, in what sense?

Billy Hippo

DeterminedToProceed May 16th, 2009 4:23pm says 'If a born-that-way Darwinist grew up with a bunch of Intelligent Design proponents (under influence as you say), he will undoubtedly believe in Intelligent Design until his prescribed reactive roots kick in' - and you then say vica versa

In my opinion criminal behaviour seems to be more strongly determined by our genes than does religious belief.
It seems to me that most people have brains that tend not to think about anything very deeply, so as regards religion, these types will just follow the flow and believe whatever everyone else believes.
Amongst those who do think about things, some are probably disposed by their genes to belief, and others to atheism.

Nevertheless, when we are aged about ten the environment can be used to make extra-strong channels of connections in a developing brain between neurons. Many a convinced and passionate atheist has experienced a religious upbringing, and as a result of this has a concept of God which is strongly formed in his brain as a result of the environment. When he thinks 'God' he has no problem retrieving a full and very strong concept, with many permanent pathways and connections established. This probably annoys him, and he wishes they were not there. So, ironically, he feels antagonistic towards God even though he does not believe in Him.
We all experience other examples of deep and permanent pathways, so, for example, when you think 'my first school' you will send this idea into parts of your brain, and it will retrieve a strong and vivid response to present to you. Because pathways formed when young can be so strong, very old people can have vivid memories of their youth.
But for the period between the ages of, say 30-40, a person is quite likely to think: 'xyz job for 10 years, so what?' and nothing much else comes back.

So being given a religious upbringing can lead to the formation of spiritual notions of God in those who think about these matters, but in those who do not, spending many hours a week reciting religious texts can have other non-spritual effects such as creating strong group loyalty, or loyalty to a cause which is linked to the religion, which is nothing to do with spiritual enlightenment, and has more to do with establishing the importance of cultural ideas.
Seeing examples of religion being mixed with culture can put people off religion generally, but these bad practices should not stop us enquiring into the origins of the universe with an open mind.

Sergey

If one looks for examples of idiocy from members of scientific community, the best, arguably, is the folowing disclaimer from Prof. Behe colleagues: "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific."
How do they suppose to test it experimentally? To manifacture a hundred of Universes, let Creator to interfere in half of them and let another half as controls, then wait 14 bln years and see how far progress can advance with and without divine interference? This is like a joke about a biochemist whose wife delivered twins, and he decided to baptize one and to leave another as a control. If "scientific" means only experimentally testable, than all paleontology is not a science because all its classification schemes are logical inferences based exactly on the same logic as ID: all phylogenies are derived on (wrong)assumption that nothing complex can arise independently and must be inherited.

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

“So yes, the scientific, anthropic considerations per se are indicative of teleology and thus design within a single universe conception, and can also be conceived as indicatove of multiverse conceptions.”

We therefore need to determine whether we inhabit the only universe or one amongst a mind-boggling number.

“…those multiverse conceptions rely upon a particularly abstruse set of mathematics, string theory (M-theory) and a set of Supersymmetry Models of physics (in lieu of the Standard Model), not empirical evidence as such. So that too reflects a set of factors needing to be brought into view and fully weighed in the overall balance of things.”

Copernicus got the basic theory of the solar system right, but needed a morass of epicycles to fit his model to the data. It had some advantages over the Ptolemaic system but was a long way short of being the finished article. His system required a sudden mind-boggling expansion of the size of the universe and could not be directly tested. Newton had to invent differential calculus to get the theory to work – pretty abstruse mathematics for his day. In short, it took a century of intellectual sweat to transform a revolutionary but raw model of the universe into the picture of a universe unified by a mathematical law of gravity.

This law replaced the teleological Aristotelian model of sublunary and celestial forms of matter striving towards their designated place in the cosmos. The Copernican revolution was about making better sense of existing empirical facts by challenging existing theory. And so it is now. Yes, we want testable predictions at some point, or at the very least more elegant solutions than existing ones.

The Planck satellite may produce evidence relevant to aspects of string theory. Watch this space.

Lots of things need to be brought into view and fully weighed. A consensus opinion of what constitutes “complexity” needs to be defined. If the consensus view in biology is in fact correct then nature evidences unintelligent design – produced by the mechanisms of evolutionary theory. It would then appear that the laws of nature allow for design without purpose; and we know of no law which says that life must occur; we only know that life can occur and is therefore compatible with the laws of nature – the conservative form of the anthropic principle. We need to consider whether life exists elsewhere in the universe and if it does what its nature is and how common.

And no doubt much, much more needs to be considered.

(First posted 1.00 am, May 21)

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

You continue to miss and avoid the most basic issues and questions involved at this more probative level of the discussion.

Your "watch this space" formulation is simplistic, reductionist and presumptive in the extreme - it's essentially a "scientism of the gaps" formulation, similar to a "god of the gaps" formulation imposed by unsophisticated and presumptive theists at times. Aporias and indeterminacies need to be acknowledged for what they are, much as what we know in a simpler sense needs to be distinguished from what we don't know - e.g., for the sake of distinguishing hypotheses from better grounded knowledge, from epistemically clarified forms of knowing.

In one sense, yes, fine, all well and good. But you are hugely overly leveraging and simplifying its applicability. It's Ideological Scientism and Pseudo- and Quasi-Philosophy 101. E.g, there is a vast, order of magnitudes difference between the "abstruse" quality in Newton's or Leibniz's calculus vs. the abstruse quality reflected in M-theory and supersymmetry models and multiverse theories. That earlier calculus resulted in immediate empirical verifications and has done so time and time again since that time. By contrast, string theory has resulted in virtually no empirical verifications over a protracted period of time now. I'm a proponent (and enthusiast) of the abstract/mathematics based research and the collider based research as well, but it's orders of magnitude different and that is a salient fact that needs to be acknowledged forthrightly. Multiverse conceptions reflect still greater abstruse and hypothetical reaches, beyond string theory conceptualizations, which they are in part based upon.

Also, if in a broadly indicative sense only, Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton - and Max Planck for that matter - were all theists, the latter three were theists and Christians as well.

And, no, consensus, in the manner you're representing it, does not govern scientific facts and truths, does not reflect an epistimically sound manner of producing valid science. If it did, all manner of emerging, new science throughout history would have been discarded. At this point we're invoking the arcane subject matter of intellectual historians and the philosophy of science and the history of philosophy in general. (I'm also reminded of the "consensus" that governs the AGW debates and related politics, but do not wish to broach that topic here, beyond a brief mention.)

Likewise, I'd ask you ALL the questions I posed to RickK. You folks, if I might use that expression, are great at posing questions, but you manage to avoid answering your own problematic questions in a manner that demands much rigor within your responses.

You need to hold your own feet to the fire at least as often as you're willing to hold others' feet to the fire. If you're unwilling to do so, it's at least a tell-tale indicator that you're more an ideologue and presumptive in the Richard Dawkins cum Elmer Gantry mold than a truer and more rigorously demanding inquirer into the subject matter - which is the very point of this set of broadly ranging and yet probative set of inquiries.

John A. Davison

Free Will is a joke. If humans were capable of objectively evaluating the world around them, Darwinism would have gone the same way that the Phlogiston of Chemistry went in the the 18th and the Ether of Physics went in the 19th century, the very first time it failed the acid test of experimental verification. The reason that Darwinism still exists is BECAUSE we don't have Free Will, BECAUSE we are predestined to be unable to be objective about the nature of our origins and BECAUSE the vast majority of Homo sapiens (wise man) are anything but wise.

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.... The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time....In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."
Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, page 28.

Darwinian zealots remind me of Winston Churchill's characterization of Neville Chamberlain - A sheep in sheep's clothing.

Baaa, Baaa, Baaa!

John A. Davison

Sergey

Once again I ask where can we read your book? Surely if you have publoshed something it must be available soemwhere?

John A. Davison

Pierre Grasse, one of my most valued sources and the French equivelent of the Russian Leo Berg, had this to say about DNA and its role in phylogeny.

"But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central doctrine, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its SOLE CREATOR. I do not believe this to be true."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 224, words in caps in italics in the original.

I don't believe it to be true either and never have.

There is no fight; there is no debate. A creative intelligence far beyond our capacity to understand is a mandatory starting point without which nothing in the universe can ever be understood. The stubborn refusal of the Darwinists to recognze that mandate dooms them to be mere footnotes in the history of evolutionary science.

That suits me just fine!

The truth lies elsewhere with a planned, "prescribed" evolutionary script for a drama now in its terminal stage. The curtain is falling right now.

"La commedia e finita."
Pagliacci

Billy Hippo

RickK May 19th, 2009 4:25pm says 'Others can look at DNA and dismiss it as "impossible" to have developed naturally, without supernatural/divine intervention. But I'm not so proud as to think I can completely comprehend what natural processes can do over such a time period. Others on this thread may be blessed with such self-confidence...

- but RickK, you ARE proud (you mean knowledgeable/wise?) enough to say -with the same certainty as a dropped pencil won't fall up - that no ID was involved in these matters, even though the beginning of everything is by definition linked to those things which are mysterious and unknown. Like everyone else, You cannot understand a) infinite time b) the beginning of time c) the beginning of matter from nothing - which certainly violates the principles of physics d) or infinite space e) or the edge of space if it is curved. Sooner or later you have to reach a point where you come up against the mysterious and you have to confront matters which fall outside the scope of the laws of physics. To exclude ID from this stage is a bold assertion. It is like saying 'I am aware that there are 5 mysterious things listed a-e above, but I am as certain as a pencil drops down that there cannot be a 6th to join them. I am certain because..because...' - there is no reason you can think of why you are so certain, is there?

So ID is not 'diverting the mystery elsewhere' as Dave M mentions in his interesting post May 11th, 2009 4:20pm. It is just including ID in the mystery, which does not seem unreasonable to me.

RickK - be careful you do not end up with a mind as closed as the one Sergey mentions above at May 21 5:03 'It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science'

John A. Davison - you say sexual reproduction is anti evolutionary. What do you say to the argument that it facilitates the rapid spread of a 'new' advantageuous feature? A male can pass on a gene to 100 females, but it is hard for a cloning mouse to have 100 babies and look after them all. So if a mouse 'aquires' immunity to a disease, the gene could spread faster by sexual reproduction than by cloning. A population of mice possessing such a fast process would be faster at changing than one which used a slower method. Faster changing equals more success in a competitive environment.

Also, with cloning, all the other mice would die out and loose their other gene info. So imagine two populations, one cloning, one sexual. The sexual one would have a much larger gene pool as information could be preserved. With cloning, only the best clone survives, and the population has only its genes left. A diminished pool.

So the sexually reporoducing population would be superior by virtue of its larger gene pool and ability to change faster. It is like colonies of ants - this colony has co-operative individuals, so the population out-performs that colony over there which has selfish individuals. ie selection of a population, not an individual.

RickK

Michael B,

Yes, I simplify discussions.

For example, your statement:
” ID applied to biological systems is viable in a more restricted sense. As with the complexity and design reflected in cosmological anthropic arguments, it serves as a highly indicative expression of design and of intelligence - of intelligent design. "Indicative" is not synonymous with proof in a mathematical/deductive sense, nor can such profoundly indicative evidence per se be conceived as expressing a scientific theoretical architecture (reflecting, imo, the overreach of IDers), but it is strongly indicative of design and of mind behind it all nonetheless."

I simplified to: " biological systems are indicative of intelligent design"

I didn't miss a thing.

Now, while it may feel good to wax philosophical and try to demonstrate to us all your overwhelming command of metaphysics and cosmology, it is no more relevant to this thread than are the differences between the Christian creation story and that of the Navajo.

While I fully expect to be thoroughly insulted as "dull" and "simplistic" and "stupid", I have complete confidence in the following:

- My "metaphysical outlook" is no more relevant to this thread than my religion. Religion, socio-cultural background, "metaphysical outlook" - these are all biases that a proper scientific investigation attempts to remove from the equation.

- Methodological naturalism and the scientific method have proven to have tremendous explanatory and predictive power.

- The divine/supernatural has to date proven completely bereft of explanatory or predictive power, and there is no reason to believe that trend will change.

- Therefore, the continued development of modern evolutionary theory is a vastly more productive exercise than is Behe-style ID, JAD-style "multiple creators who are now dead", flood geology, or arguing over free will versus determinism.

So, by all means, climb back onto your cosmologically exhaulted soapbox and tell us all how we're not being honest or true inquirers because, unlike you, we're not considering the implications of supersymmetry in the evolution of a fish to a mammal.

Sergey

"John A. Davison - you say sexual reproduction is anti evolutionary. What do you say to the argument that it facilitates the rapid spread of a 'new' advantageuous feature?"
Billy, John is right. Reproductive potential of a population depends on number of females. So the same territory can support twice as many non-sexually reproducing females than two-sex population. Parthenogenetical populations are known to be more pliable, than two-sexual ones, and that is why they could not last long: they aquire deleterious mutations which they could not get rid of. Only dominant mutations spread fast, but they can not achieve fixation; recessive are not visible to selection. In case of dominant mutations, selection process never ends; in case of recessive, it can never start. So elementary evolutionary act, that is, fixation of a new mutation, is impossible in both cases. The corresponding calculations were vere made in 1915 by H.T.G.Norton. His conclusion was that selection of mutations can only change their frequencies, is fully reversible and has nothing to do with evolution. So, yes, sexual reproduction is anti-evolutional device, it is essentially conservative and makes species unresponsive to change of environment condition. This is the main factor of stasis and dooms species to eventual extinction.

Sergey

Ability to change and ability to preserve information are mutually exclusive. Only very simple organisms can be supported by asexual reproduction, like Rotifera. The more complex organisms became, the more information they need to preserve, that is why all really complex organisms must reproduce sexually. The price of this complexity is inability to change, that is, stasis and extinction.

Billy Hippo

Good link to article by Michael B May 21st, 2009 12:58pm re coincidence of all factors all just right for life on earth.

- Have you heard of the one about the moon being just the right size and distance from earth. I heard once how life would be impossible without this, but I cannot remember in what way the moon is vital. Have you heard of that one?

Leigh Jackson

“Your "watch this space" formulation is simplistic, reductionist and presumptive in the extreme - it's essentially a "scientism of the gaps" formulation, similar to a "god of the gaps" formulation imposed by unsophisticated and presumptive theists at times.”

Watching space is exactly what Planck is designed to do; to supply new empirical data so as to help fill in gaps in our understanding; to test various theories – including aspects of string theory bearing on the multiverse hypothesis. Not scientism but science of the gaps. Yes, science wants a clearer picture of nature. It wants to turn what we don’t know into what we do know. Science has the proven power to do this.

The means of communication which we are using requires an understanding of nature unimaginable to Newton; he recognised the vastness of what he did not know. He filled in some of the gaps in his theory with God. We don’t do God any more in science. We say instead: “We don’t understand this, what’s going on?”

“ Aporias and indeterminacies need to be acknowledged for what they are, much as what we know in a simpler sense needs to be distinguished from what we don't know - e.g., for the sake of distinguishing hypotheses from better grounded knowledge, from epistemically clarified forms of knowing.”

Who can tell what you mean by this? I don’t pretend to. Science asks hopefully answerable questions – that’s an art not a science – forms hypotheses and tests them. Yes, yes I know there’s more to it than just that; there’s intuition, serendipity etc, etc. It’s all about which questions interest you most. It’s all about what you like most: knowing or not knowing. And it’s all about what you like knowing or not knowing. And it's about whether you just want to talk or to do something about it.

John A. Davison

While it is true that evolution took (past tense) place over millions of years, each step was an instanteous event. There WAS no place for gradualism in phylogeny. It isn't even going on any more.

"The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
Otto Schindewolf

John A. Davison

Leigh Jackson says we don't do God any more in science. I presume that is because Darwin made the notion of God unecessary? Is that the reason?

It is not only in science that we "don't do God any more." God has become illegal in the classrooms of our teaching institutions. And what has that done for us? Absolutely nothing of value and much to destroy the foundations of Western Society. The terrorism of Richard Dawkins is every bit as corrosive as that of the Jihad. Great civilzations always have decayed from within and our present one in no exception.

As for Dawkins and all the other Darwinian mystics he so eloquently represents, I will quote Elizabeth Barrett Browning -

"How do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways."

Leigh Jackson

"I presume that is because Darwin made the notion of God unecessary? Is that the reason?"

Purely in respect of an explanation for the origin of species, yes. Laplace filled in Newton's gaps with the aid of new mathematics and claimed that privilege in respect of the physics of the solar system.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question.

Sergey

"We say instead: “We don’t understand this, what’s going on?”"
Modern science does more than that. It formulates absolute, principal restrictions on ability to acknowledge some things, not only now, but untill kingdom comes. Examples are principle of uncertainty in quantum mechanics and "no go" theorems in non-linear dynamics.
As for shutting down of evolution by sexual reproduction, the most important recent discovery was meiotic gene silencing (see Wiki). If exessive copy of some gene sequiencies is found in meiosis by comparing homologuous chromosomes at conjugation, ALL copies of this gene across genome are silenced, that is, are banned from transcription. This means that the only way new genes can arise - the gene duplication - is incapacitated, because the genes produced this way are made unaccesible for selection. (They woud not affect phenotype.) Moreover, such silencing of any vital gene will make ontogenic development abortive, thus eliminating these exessive copies not only from selection, by wiping out such mutants from population. See
van Leeuwen F, Gottschling DE. (2002). "Assays for gene silencing in yeast.". Methods Enzymol. 350: 165-86.

Sergey

"There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly." If humanity broke this distinction it "would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history"
Adam Sedgwick, Darwin's teacher in geology.

Sergey

The most common fallacy is that biology can be developed as a natural science only, when actually it can not. Many of fundamental notion of biology are essentially philosophic, as, for example, the general principles of systematics advanced by Aristotel and St.Thomas Aquinas. Most of morphology as we know it was proposed by R.Owen and K.M.Baer, and it still is used in paleontologic reconstructions. But morhpology is not a natural science, it belongs to humanities, a form of structuralism.

RickK

Sergey,

Just wanted to respond to your statement:

"that is why all really complex organisms must reproduce sexually"

That's not true at all. There are many species of invertebrates AND vertebrates that reproduce through parthenogenesis. Here is a lizard species that reproduces exclusively asexually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnemidophorus_neomexicanus

Yes, sexual reproduction is more prevalent because it allows for selection of healthy mates. But it is not the only path to success.

Sergey

Vertebrates can reproduce asexually only limited number of generations, since this way, without genetical recombination, it is inmossible to get rid of accumulated mutatations. This is known as "Muller's ratchet" (see Wiki.) Sexually reproducing species can last for many thousand or even millions of generations, while asexual die out in 500 years.

Leigh Jackson

Sergey,

"Modern science does more than that. It formulates absolute, principal restrictions on ability to acknowledge some things, not only now, but untill kingdom comes. Examples are principle of uncertainty in quantum mechanics..."

If the rules of quantum mechanics fundamentally determine the nature of the cosmos, and the theory of eternal inflation is correct, then what you say is true. God then plays dice with creation - the multiverse - eternally.

Sergey

"The New Mexico Whiptail Lizard is a crossbreed of a Western Whiptail which lives in the desert and the Little Striped Whiptail that favours grasslands."
That is, they are not species, but interspecies hybrids. They reproduce asexually exactly because they can not reproduce sexually: the males are infertile, like mules. This is a blind valley, as I explained. And no parthenogenetic mammals ever been discovered. That is what I called "really complex organisms".

John A. Davison

I am sorry to have to say that I cannot accept any of Sergey's recent pronouncements so there is no point in my trying to communicate with him. Others can do what they want. I am still waiting for him to produce a source for his "book."

John A. Davison

There are plenty of purely asexual organisms that have been around unchanged for millions of years. Protozoa in the genus Amoeba are good examples. All that is required for species immortality is to never stop growing and to reproduce faster than they aquire deleterious mutations. Continued growth prevents the accumulation of damaging cytoplasmic molecules. August Weismann correctly understood this which is what prompted him to say -

"The Protozoa are immortal"

Amoeba which has no known means of genetic recombination also illustrates the virture of not changing.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it."

Sexual reproduction is a dangerous game and creatures which practice that as their only means of reproduction are most likely doomed to extinction. That includes us folks. Get used to it.

John A. Davison

If sexually reproducing organisms can persist indefinitely, then why did they, with very few exceptions, become extinct? Sexual (Mendelian) reproduction is anti-evolutionary, preventing change and thus ensuring extinction. That is the testimony of the fossil record. That is what cannot be denied.

One should remember that the rare event, the supression of the second meiotic division in a single ovum which was activated but not fertilzed can theoretically result in a new species in a single step. That this has not yet been achieved is of no consequence. Until it is attempted with suitable material and shown to fail, the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH)remains viable as a mechanism for creative evolution, a phenomenon, it seems, no longer in progress.

Apparently my audience here is not familiar with the fundamentals of cytology which makes it virtually impossible for me to communicate.

It is my belief that it WAS the individual organism and not the population that was always the instrument of creative evolution. Population genetics is nothing more than the distributon of Mendelian alleles in populations. Such populations can never do more than establish varieties and local races, none of which are incipient species.

Incidentally, my citation of Goldschmidt who said exactly the same thing was from his "Material Basis of Evolution" published in 1940, not in 1982 as Forrest erroneously reported. I am amazed at the ignorance of the evolutionary literature exhibited here and elsewhere. Not one of my several predecessors has ever been discredited or formally rejected. There is one glaring exception in the person of Stephen Jay Gould, who dispensed (he thought) with Otto Schindewolf with a wave of his imperial pen when he described Schindewolf's evolutionary thesis as "spectacularly flawed." I never forgave Gould for that and I never will. It was a cheap shot at the greatest paleontologist since Cuvier.

As I have fully documented, my sources have largely been ignored as I have as well. That is the Darwinian way, the way of every ideology.

One thing is for certain. The experiment I have suggested will never be undertaken by a congenital Darwinian atheist. They are paralyzed at the thought of what might be divulged if they were to test their own hypothesis so one can hardly expect them to test those of their adversaries. In short, Darwnians ARE NOT SCIENTISTS and not one of their primary spokespersons ever were either. They have traditionally been sedentary, pompous wordsmiths glued to endowed chairs in some of our most distiguished institutions - Harvard, Oxford and Cornell.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

"Davison is the Darwinians' worst nightmare."
Terry Trainor

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "Most of morphology as we know it was proposed by R.Owen and K.M.Baer, and it still is used in paleontologic reconstructions. "
Owen and Baer made considerable contributions to the science of comparative anatomy, but as they lacked a theory to explain the reason for anatomical homologies, they relied on philosophical concepts to explain them. As evolutionary theory developed and provided a robust, testable explanation for homology the philosophical concepts were discarded.
This happened well over a century ago.
As usual, your view of science in general and biology in particular is hopelessly outdated.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "That is, they are not species, but interspecies hybrids."
Actually, they are the species Cnemidophorus neomexicanus.
What do you know that the scientists who described this species don't? Hybridisation is one of the ways in which new species originate. As I have pointed out previously, there is a large body of scientific literature on the subject. As your only response to the evidence and argument presented in the papers is flat and dogmatic denial and appeal to decades-old authority, why on earth should anyone take your pronouncements on this seriously?

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "Modern science does more than that. It formulates absolute, principal restrictions on ability to acknowledge some things, not only now, but untill kingdom comes. "

Actually, it doesn't. Science recognises no absolutes, and all theories in science are subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands.

S:" Examples are principle of uncertainty in quantum mechanics and "no go" theorems in non-linear dynamics."

...and scientists are testing those theories by trying to see if the fundamental restrictions they imply are real.

Scientific theories set restrictions on possible outcomes. That's what makes them testable. If the evidence shows that the theories are wrong, they are rejected or revised to accommodate the new evidence. That's how science advances.

It doesn't advance on the basis of the model you and Davison represent, which is essentially a series of dogmatic proclamations from authority. Science isn't a pissing contest in which issues questions are resolved by trumping others on the basis of who can produce a quotation from the higher authority, or make more strident and dogmatic assertions. There is no authority in science, only evidence and argument.

Sergey

"All that is required for species immortality is to never stop growing and to reproduce faster than they aquire deleterious mutations."
Absolutely true. But it takes only one mitotic cycle for Protozoa to produce offsprings, while in Metazoa, as Weissmann explained, the immortal germ line includes several dozen mitotic cycles from ova to ova, and in each cycle mutation can occure. That is why it is virtualy impossible for Metazoa to reproduce faster than to accumulate mutations. Step from unicellularity with asexual reproduction is also a step from immortality to mortality, not only for individuals (soma), but for species too. This immortal germ line is eventually mortal too, because nobody can guarantee that a niche for a highly specialised and incapable to change organism will continue to exist eternally. Simplicity is a way to immortality, but complexity blocks this way. And regressive switch to asexual reproduction in complex organisms ensures rapid degeneration.

John A. Davison

Let the record show that Leigh Jackson claims that the supernatural played no role in evolution.

Who is next to join with Jackson? Come on folks. Don't be shy. Let it all hang out. I propose a poll. Let the democratic process decide the truth. It always has don't you know.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

It doesn't get any better than this.

I love it so!

Leigh Jackson

I go beyond Darwin and Laplace but I do not say what you say I say. I say that not only does nature not require God as a scientific explanation but God is not a scientific explanation at all. Science deals exclusively with nature and natural explanations; not supernature and supernatural explanations. Let experts in the supernatural speak about the supernatural. I am perfectly happy to consider God as being identical with nature; in which case science reveals knowledge of God.

Sergey

"As evolutionary theory developed and provided a robust, testable explanation for homology the philosophical concepts were discarded."
This explanation is neither robust nor testable, and morphology concepts were never discarded. They were further elaborated by Berg, Vavilov and Meien (law of homologuous series, morphological-taxonomic incongruence, the concept of diatropical tables and so on). May be, you never heard of them, but they are successfully developed in Moscow Institute of Paleontology by nomogenetical school of theoretical morphology founded by Berg.

Sergey

"What do you know that the scientists who described this species don't? Hybridisation is one of the ways in which new species originate."
The concept of species applies only to sexually reproducing organisms, according both to Mayr and Wight. Some taxonomists can play semantic games with this definition, but I simply do not buy it. Blurring the boundaries of this concept makes it useless for any serious theoretical work. Hybrids so genetically defective that they can not even produce males are not species in my vocabulary.

Sergey

As an example of current work with diatropic tables, see
http://www.mtu-net.ru/periodic-sys/inglver/i_text.htm

Sergey

To feel the gist of morphologal approach to biodiversity, I quote a small exerpt from the work which I linked to:
"Naturally, it is impossible to use species and/or characters as the elements of the periodical system even for a small taxonomic group. That’s why till present days the hierarchical system of organisms is being considered the natural one. Graphically it represents genealogical tree or looking alike cladogram. The hierarchical system completely answers the accepted theory of evolution based on the divergent principle of species origin. However the parallelism phenomenon doesn’t conform to this principle. Parallelism, or recurrence of characters in the species belonging to different taxa, is known for a long time. The resemblance of features and characters in the velvety peach and the sleek one was described by Darwin and is considered now a classical example of parallelism. However only N.I. Vavilov’s works have drawn attention to the serious study of parallelism phenomenon."

Sergey

The definition of species according Wiki:
"There are many definitions of what kind of unit a species is (or should be). A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen."
So, asexually reproducing organisms do not comprise a species.

John A. Davison

This is rich folks. Jackson claims Nature does not require God and in the next breath he says science reveals knowledge of God. Such logic astounds me as it should everyone else.

First causes DEMAND one or more Gods. What I want is a list of those who subscribe to Jackson's words which are that God played no role in phylogeny. Unless you are willing to use your real name don't bother. I predict it will be a short list indeed. I'll bet we couldn't even get Richard Dawkins to endorse that position. Where is he by the way? Why isn't here telling us all about his precious God delusion. I'll tell you why he isn't here. He is an intellectual coward just like Paul Zachary Myers who also refuses to leave his sanctuary.

Dawkins will debate Ken Miller, a fellow Darwinian, not because they have any real differences but only because Miller claims to be a Christian, something Dawkins can't abide!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

It doesn't get any better than this.

I love it so!

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "This explanation is neither robust nor testable, "

Of course it's testable! It can and has made predictions - for example, that the same genes will control the development of homologous structures and systems in different organisms. There's a whole branch of biology which investigates such things.

S: "and morphology concepts were never discarded. "

No, but they were founded on a robust theory of how they could have arisen, not on philosophical abstractions.

S: "They were further elaborated by Berg"
...who died in 1950...
S: ", Vavilov "
...who died in 1943...
S: " and Meien (law of homologuous series, morphological-taxonomic incongruence, the concept of diatropical tables and so on). "

...and while they may have made a contribution to modern evolutionary theory, any contribution they made was so long ago that I fail to see why you think that it is relevant to modern biology.

Why do you think that appeals to the authority of biologists who have been dead for over half a century should take precedence over the evidence and argument published in numerous scientific papers over the past two decades?

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "The concept of species applies only to sexually reproducing organisms, according both to Mayr and Wight."

...but not according to many other evolutionary biologists. Incidentally, Mayr accepted hybridisation as a mechanism by which new species could evolve.

S: "Some taxonomists can play semantic games with this definition, but I simply do not buy it"

Well bully for you. Most taxonomists don't think that they are playing semantic games, and are trying to describe as objectively as possible what they find in nature and from experiments in the laboratory. They have found problems with *all* species concepts, and that none is universally applicable, not even if limited to the very small sub-set of organisms which reproduce sexually.

S: "Blurring the boundaries of this concept makes it useless for any serious theoretical work."

That species boundaries are blurred is a fact. Any serious theoretical work needs to accommodate this fact, not dogmatically deny it.

S: "Hybrids so genetically defective that they can not even produce males are not species in my vocabulary."

Well, they are in the vocabulary of modern biologists. Perhaps you need to catch up with the modern science of biology rather than relying on the authority of long-departed biologists.

Sergey

"I fail to see why you think that it is relevant to modern biology."
Because modern biology largely failed even to understand these contributions, and much less to recognize them, which makes this modern biology completely irrelevant to biological reality.

Sergey

See an article published in 2007, not 50 years ago. It gives a short summary of Meien work:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/843n144383563736/?p=80567166c06c436e87cd21b6f6f244e6&pi=4

Sergey

"I fail to see why you think that it is relevant to modern biology."
You failed to see so many things, that it seems there is a major defect in your thought process. You can not understand why great biologists are always relevant; you think that latest issue of "Nature" should be believed as gospel; you fail to see that I do not appeal to authorities at all, but to arguments and evidence these books contain, and which is completely ignored by brain-dead Darwinists. I also read "Nature" and see how shallow and repetitive modern biology became, how it avoids the most challenging facts and tries to gloss over glaring contradictions in its narrative. These all are signs of imminent paradigm shift, when all these inconvenient topics will came to the front line and will be discussed openly and honestly, which hardly possible now.

Leigh Jackson

J.A.D.

If God is identical with nature - "Deus sive Natura" as Spinoza coined it - then God is not the explanation of nature. Nor is God the scientific explanation of nature if God is not identical with nature. Scientific questions about nature necessarily demand natural explanations. Other types of questions don't.

John A. Davison

Sergey is wrong again. Metazoan Coelenterates like Hydra and Platyhelminthes like planaria are immortal too as long as they grow and bud or fission faster than they aquire deleterious mutations. It is only when we get to the higher metazoa which stop growing that mortality becomes mandatory.

Sergey should be more careful with his words as words have meaning. Sergey has issued a number of internally inconsistent statements of which this is just one. I still want to know where I can find his "book."

Richard Forrest

sergey wrote: "You failed to see so many things, that it seems there is a major defect in your thought process. "
I suggest that it is not my thought processes which are in question here.
S: "You can not understand why great biologists are always relevant"
I understand that the relevance of great biologists depends on the extent to which their ideas have contributed to the development of the science. Any scientist works within the constraints of the evidence to which they have access. Our knowledge of biology has increased vastly over the past few decades, and if those great biologists had access to the knowledge which is now available they would have drawn different conclusions.
S: "you think that latest issue of "Nature" should be believed as gospel;"
No, I don't. However, I think that if a journal such as 'Nature' publishes papers which present the evidence and argument which shows that the great biologists of the past were wrong, you need to address the evidence and argument which they present, not fall back on the authority of those biologists.
S: "you fail to see that I do not appeal to authorities at all, but to arguments and evidence these books contain, and which is completely ignored by brain-dead Darwinists."
What nonsense! Your posts contain nothing but appeals to authority!
S: "I also read "Nature" and see how shallow and repetitive modern biology became, how it avoids the most challenging facts and tries to gloss over glaring contradictions in its narrative."
If that is the case you should find it easy to identify those glaring contradictions rather than making another appeal to the authority of biologists who died half a century ago.
S: "These all are signs of imminent paradigm shift, when all these inconvenient topics will came to the front line and will be discussed openly and honestly, which hardly possible now."
There is plenty of open and honest discussion in the field of evolutionary biology over the nature of evolutionary processes, especially in the light of the rapidly growing body of knowledge from genetics. Paradigm shifts in science do not happen because people appeal to authority figures from the past. They occur because cutting-edge science investigates the weaknesses of the current theoretical models and proposes new models which are a better fit to the evidence.

Sergey

From context of my post about causes which prevent complex Metazoa to reproduce faster than they accumulate mutations should be clear that I meant not all Metazoa but those complex enough to have specialised organs for sexual reproduction, which fits Weissmann's distinction between soma and germ line. Planaria, hydroid polyps, Rotifera and Spongia obviously do not fit this paradigm. But their way of asexual reproduction also is possible because they are fairly simple. In biology it is impossible to assert anything general without implying some exeptions, those that should be obvious to specialists and do not invalidate general thesis.
RF: I used the most common definition of species cited in Wiki. There could be many borderline cases in nature, but our concepts must be, nevertheless, clearly defined to be usable. I defined my terms; it is a pure sophistry to split hairs about definitions when it is already clear what (common) definition I use.

Sergey

The link I gave about S.V.Meien work was broken. This seems to work:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/843n144383563736/

John A. Davison

Leigh Jackson

I have presented concrete evidence for a "prescribed" evolution in my 2005 paper and in earlier works. If you think my brand of creationism is incompatible with hard science you are terribly mistaken.

Where may I find your contributions to the sunject with which this thread is presumably concerned? I "googled" you and found nothing.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "RF: I used the most common definition of species cited in Wiki. "
...and omitted the next sentence which explained that it is of limited application.
S: "There could be many borderline cases in nature, but our concepts must be, nevertheless, clearly defined to be usable"
To be usable, any species concept needs to reflect biological reality, not dogma. The simple fact is that species boundaries are fuzzy, and that there is no single and universally applicable concept of species.
S: "I defined my terms; it is a pure sophistry to split hairs about definitions when it is already clear what (common) definition I use."
When your terms don't match the reality of what we find in the real world, it is not "splitting hairs" to point that out.

John A. Davison

Sergey

Hydroids, Flatworms, Rotifers even sponges all have highly specialized organs for sexual reproduction. It is their asexual means of reproduction that permits their immortality. Many presumed examples of sexual reproduction may not be that at all. The proof of sexual reproduction is syngamy, the fusion of the male and female haploid nuclei. For many organisms that has never been observed. Similarly, for many organisms, Mendelian genes (alleles) are not known even to exist. Their reproduction may be entirely asexual.

Mandatory sexual reproduction is the certain path to extinction, and never had anything to do with creative evolution. It is quite impossible to produce a new species through Mendelian (sexual) means.

That is my postion now as it was William Bateson's shortly before his death -

"By 1924, Bateson had come to realize, and told his son in confidence, 'that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general.'"

Check my papers for the documentation.

Sergey

"If that is the case you should find it easy to identify those glaring contradictions rather than making another appeal to the authority of biologists who died half a century ago."
That is exactly what I did: I refered to absence of gradual transitions in fossil record, failure to observe directed selection in nature, failure to observe current speciation events, impossibility to explain almost universal karyotype differences between species by accumulation of point mutations, conservative character of natural selection, and so on. But all these observations are not new, they all were made many years ago by those great biologists whose arguments you dismiss on the only pretext that they are dead long ago. Why such hubris? The mere fact that these arguments were persistently ignored by Darwinists because they do not fit into their worldview does not invalidate them, however long ago they were advanced. My references to these books never were appeals to authority, but references to the facts and arguments these books contained. What do expect me to do? Cite them page by page? I did it, but not in blog, but in a book, link to which is repeatedly rejected either by software or moderator. That is you who repeatedly appeals to authority of the current opinion, but not to any specific evidence.

Michael B

Richard Forrest,

"To be usable, any species concept needs to reflect biological reality, not dogma. The simple fact is that species boundaries are fuzzy, and that there is no single and universally applicable concept of species."

Indeed. Though that's true of most concepts: suppleness rather than dogmatism and rigidity.

And yet it's you, Richard, who cannot abide anything other than a rigidly dogmatic and doctrinaire conception of "intelligent design," even at the purely suppositional level as Ms. Phillips, I and others have advanced a set of arguments - a set of arguments that are ALL, without exception, inline with any better conception of science and rational inquiry in general.

Likewise, in one of your very first comments in this thread, you even get Newton's conception of his "laws" wrong ***. And, tellingly, you get them wrong in a manner that suits your general polemical interest and tone herein.

In general, the taxonomy reflected in this thread, of circumlocutions, evasions, misdirections, obfuscations, incoherence, confusions, sniffs and sneers, etc., and evidenced by the troika of Richard Forrest, Leigh Jackson and RickK, would fill a small volume. As with the idea of "speciation," it's also a taxonomy that would require a great deal of nuance and deft handlings.

Sniff and sneer and arrogate and insinuate and presume a great deal less, and advance arguments on a more coherent, cogent and well reasoned and responsible basis, on a more transparent and less tendentious basis, one receptive to criticism and review rather than contemptuous of it. Otherwise, your aggressively insinuating taxonomic classifications will continue to grow larger still.

*** Newton's mechanics and laws, firstly, need to be viewed within the context of the "sublunar vs. celestial" conceptions that were still being discarded, but more importantly still they were a result of 1) a posteriori (i.e. empirical) and 2) inductive forms of reasoning, not in any sense a direct or simple result of Newton's conception of God. Newton did appreciate God as being broadly and theoretically accessible to mind, to intelligence, but your depiction is off the mark and decidedly (and tendentiously) so.

Before you worry over Isaac Newton's purported dogmatism, you should worry over your own, Richard.

Sergey

"...and omitted the next sentence which explained that it is of limited application."
The next sentence did not explain anything of this kind. It reads "Other definitions may focus on similarity of DNA or morphology." And further:
"A usable definition of the word "species" and reliable methods of identifying particular species is essential for stating and testing biological theories and for measuring biodiversity."
And further:
"Although properties such as DNA-sequences and morphology are used to help separate closely-related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries."
Exactly! That is why it is useless in stating and testing biological theories. So I cling to the most common, which has not "fuzzy" boundaries:
"group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen." It is absolutelly irrelevant if this definition does not apply to organisms without mandatory sexual reproduction: I am interested only in those with obligatory meiosis as indespensible component of their life cycle. And in this group, which includes all higher vertebrates and insects, the boundaries are NOT fuzzy. In my view, meiosis is a very complex specialized device aimed at keeping species separate and immutable, and only in respect to those organisms that have this device it makes sense to speak about species. In all other groups this concept is fairly arbitrary, it does not reflect any biological reality and used only for taxonomic convenience. Since the group I chose for building theory is sharply defined, I need not consider anything else. There simply can not be common theory of evolution for Protozoa and Metazoa, for procaryotes and eucaryotes, for sponges and primates: each group needs different special mechanisms both for change and persistency.

Pete Hoskin

Sergey: sorry to hear that the link to your book isn't showing. We haven't been getting it at our end, so it must be getting stuck in the system.

You can always email me on phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and I'll make sure it gets up on the site.

Sergey

John, Bateson was absolutely right. Populational approach to biodiversity is logically incompatible with typological and essentialist approach. But systematics can be done only by adopting typological approach. That is why speciation is impossible not only to observe, but even to contemplate in purely populational Mendelian outlook. Goldschmidt who did a lot of field and experimental work in population genetics, was, probably, the first who clearly understood this. Exactly because of this he looked for different mechanisms for micro- and macroevolution.

Leigh Jackson

My contributions to the subject under discussion are before you, as yours are before me. Thank you for being honest enough to state that you are a creationist. You have not answered my question. You have ignored what I have said and ranted against against things which I have not said. Your paper was published in Rivista di Biologia I understand? A journal with about as much scientific credibility as The Beano - evidently.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote: "That is exactly what I did: I refered to absence of gradual transitions in fossil record,"

But we have numerous instances of gradual transitions in the fossil record! We have a series of fossils which show how the mammalian ear bones evolved from the jaw bones of reptiles, a series which represents the evolution of the tetrapod limb from the fins of lobe-fined fish, a series which show the stages by which whales evolved their aquatic lifestyle, a series which shows how birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs, and many others. There are numerous examples in the scientific literature.

S: " failure to observe directed selection in nature,"

Why on earth should we *expect* to see "directed selection"? What we *do* see is natural selection in action in populations in response to changes in the selective environment. There are numerous papers describing this in the scientific literature.

S: " failure to observe current speciation events,"

But I've posted a list of several such instances! There are many more in the scientific literature. You need to address the evidence and argument presented in every single such paper to justify your assertion. All you have done so far is pick on one, quibble over the species concept used by the author and declared that it is invalid.

S: "impossibility to explain almost universal karyotype differences between species by accumulation of point mutations,"

Why on earth do karyotype differences *need* to explained by point mutations?

S: " conservative character of natural selection"

Why is this a problem for evolutionary theory? We know that natural selection tends to be a conservative pressure. We also know that if the selective environment changes, it creates a pressure for phenotypical changes.

S: ", and so on. "

S: "But all these observations are not new, "

Actually, most of them are not observations, but assertions. How, for example, can one observe an "absence of gradual transitions"? Or observe a lack of instances of " directed selection in nature"?

S: "they all were made many years ago by those great biologists whose arguments you dismiss on the only pretext that they are dead long ago."

No, I dismiss them on the basis of the evidence and argument presented in numerous scientific papers published since those scientists died. To repeat a question you seem very reluctant to answer, do you honestly think that we have learned nothing in the field of evolutionary biology in the past half century?

S: "the mere fact that these arguments were persistently ignored by Darwinists"

But they have not been ignored by "Darwinists"! The scientific literature on the subject addresses every issue you have raised. We have numerous published examples of the transitional forms you claim are lacking from the fossil record. We have numerous published examples of speciation which you claim cannot happen. We have numerous published examples recording natural selection producing phenotypic changes which you claim can't happen. That natural selection is generally a conservative pressure is well-known to evolutionary biologists.

Science does not advance by ignoring the evidence which shows that a theory is wrong.

Richard Forrest

Michael B wrote: "And yet it's you, Richard, who cannot abide anything other than a rigidly dogmatic and doctrinaire conception of "intelligent design," even at the purely suppositional level as Ms. Phillips, I and others have advanced a set of arguments - a set of arguments that are ALL, without exception, inline with any better conception of science and rational inquiry in general."

What absolute nonsense!

I've explained why ID is scientifically useless. If you think I'm wrong, provide any example from any field of any science which accepts the intervention of the supernatural as an explanation. That's what ID proponents are demanding. It's not my " rigidly dogmatic and doctrinaire conception of "intelligent design"", but the way in which ID has been formulated by the people who originated the concept. If they fooled Melanie Phillips and you into thinking that it has any scientific value, or that it came from science, all that tells us is that they are successful scammers.

Science advances by formulating hypotheses from the evidence which can be tested by the acquisition of more evidence. Hypotheses are testable because they set constraints on possible outcomes. This is fundamental to all science.

Unless you can propose a test of ID - which means a potential observation or measurement which could *NOT* be explained by "GodImeananIntelligentDesigner did it" - it has no validity as science. You may think that the complexity of biological systems is evidence for a designer, but unless you can test that proposition it ain't science.

I'm not saying that science is the only way of investigating the universe, or that non-scientific explanations are stupid or invalid. I'm simply saying that if a proposition is to be accepted as science it should be formulated in such a way that it can be treated as science.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote " So I cling to the most common, which has not "fuzzy" boundaries:
"group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen." "

What do you think "does not normally happen" mean? It means that under some circumstances interbreeding *can* happen - which is exactly what is meant by species having fuzzy boundaries!

John A. Davison

Leigh Jackson

Where may I find your contributions to the only issue that has ever been im question -the mechanism of a long ago terminated organic evolution? I am willing to bet that you have never published word on that subject and neither has your fellow mystic Darwinian, Richard Forrest.

If it will make you feel even more superior than you already are, Rivista di Biologia wants nothing more to do with me because I refused to endorse the perspective of its editor Giuseppe Sermonti.

From now on my evolutionary papers will be published in my own journal modeled on Mendel's journal for which he was the editor - "The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn, Austria." Mendel knew that his work could never be published in the German botanical journals of his day, just as mine can not be published now. My journal, which I recommend to you as an antidote to the Darwinian nonsense with which you are so afflicted, is - "The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of South Burlington, Vermont.

jadavison.wordpress.com

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

You and others have avoided answering plenty of questions. You have variously sniffed when it comes to doing so or have indulged a contented and studied incomprehension, and have also indulged a certain prescriptive contempt as well (Leigh has now informed us we're allowed to be Spinozan pantheists, in addition to metaphysical materialists, presumably).

As previously noted, you folks are great when it comes to making demands and asking questions of others, but manage to avoid answering your own problematic questions in a positive, assertive manner, a manner that demands much rigor at all, a manner that would open up your own assumptions and beliefs to critical review. (E.g., My May 21st, 7:41pm comment.)

In sum, sneer less and answer questions put to your in a less evasive, more forthright and more transparent manner. Your views, too, warrant critical and probative review.

Richard Forrest,

As you are aware, I'm not a proponent of ID in the manner you're conceiving - in fact, that was precisely the point being made, your insouciant disdain notwithstanding.

Leigh Jackson

" Newton's mechanics and laws, firstly, need to be viewed within the context of the "sublunar vs. celestial" conceptions that were still being discarded, but more importantly still they were a result of 1) a posteriori (i.e. empirical) and 2) inductive forms of reasoning, not in any sense a direct or simple result of Newton's conception of God."
Precisely, but Newton then went on to infer what a scientist today would never infer.
Newton derived his laws of motion and gravitational force by doing science - as you say. The theistic metaphysical assumptions interwoven with his science have all been demonstrated to be superfluous: absolute time and space as the "sensorium of God"; the necessity for God to intervene occasionally to keep the solar system machinery from running down. These could fairly be described as dogmatism - to use your word. He considered the laws of motion to be God's laws - in tune with the mood-music of the age. I believe it was Descartes who first articulated the notion of nature being controlled in every detail by God's laws. Kepler had been instrumental in the paradigm shift away from qualitative (Aristotelian) methodology to neo-Platonic (or Pythagorean) mathematics as the key to understanding the world - and to understanding the glory of God as divine mathematician. The mystical import makes for fascinating history but it was his ferociously hard work to get to the mathematical heart of the new observations produced by Tycho Brahe's observatory that constitute his legacy to science. Perhaps he (like Newton) was motivated as much by the idea of serving the glory of God by revealing nature's underlying mathematical exactitude (despite the fact that Kepler's laws revealed elliptical rather than the perfect circular motion so beloved by philosophers, theologians and scientists since the time of the ancient Greeks) as he was by his interest in mathematics and science per se.
In all cases the science is completely sufficient without any of the theological impedimenta.
So science has dropped the theological/metaphysical stuff. A religious person may view God as the only true explanation for everything but "God" explains nothing scientifically. God can give meaning to people's lives. Let it do so for whom it may; science does not require nor cannot prove nor even indicate the existence of the God of Abraham. That is for the domain of religious faith to prove or defend.

Sergey

"What do you think "does not normally happen" mean?"
Obfuscation, of course. In a Zoo you can mate a lion to a tiger and produce hybrides (F1 only), because they will be infertile. To have a workable definition, you must drop the word "normally". Then everything will be OK. The definition itself cites fertility of offsprings as a neccessary condition. That makes "normally" in brackets redundant.

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

You are dissolving into a still more obscure abyss of incoherence and insolvency. AT NO POINT WHATSOEVER did I indicate anything about the need for a deus ex machina principle applied to science, much less a reference to "Abraham." Are you suffering from some type of siezure? You seem to be making stuff up and you additionally are failing when it comes to any coherence. Throwing up a pastiche of names and terms, then announcing Voila!, is not an argument.

And this, re, Isaac Newton:

"The theistic metaphysical assumptions interwoven with [Newton's] science ..."

What on earth are you talking about? Where does Newton do this? Unless your latest effort was for purposes of comedic relief, support this assertion of yours with a citation to anything Newton said as applied to science.

John A. Davison

Of course I am creationist but not in any Biblical sense. Leigh Jackson makes creationist a dirty word and an indictment of ones intelligence. I redefined that word in my essay "What is a Creationist?" The bizarre are those who can even imagine that it was intrinsic in matter to become alive even once and then evolve. What kind of laws could ever have produced such a result? Certainly no laws with which we are presently familiar.

Even Leo Berg who postulated tens of thousands of primary forms, insisted somehow that evolution was, as his subtitle claims, determined by law. It is there that I must part even with Berg. It is all well and good to postulate laws but laws must be demonstrated first to exist. I say such natural laws do not now and never did exist, that it is not intrinsic in the nature of prebiotic matter to self assemble, and that such processes required (past tense) a supernatural plan or more likely plans which included goal seeking ends which I am convinced have now been achieved. There is no requirement for a living personal God to satisfy those requirements. Those who are so congenitally disadvantaged as not to see this necessity will never enjoy fulfilled lives.

It is interesting that the word evolution derives from the Greek verb "evolvo," meaning to unfold like the pages of a book. The Darwinians are convinced that the book of life had no author, something many of us are loathe to accept.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

John A. Davison

This thread like so many others perfectly vindicates Einsten's summary -

"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time."
Ideas and Opinions, page 28.

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

What I have said about Newton I believe to be uncontroversial. I refer you to “The Leibniz-Clarke correspondence” by H.G. Alexander, Manchester University Press ND, 1998. Alexander examines the commingled nature of Newton’s science and theology as expressed in the Opticks, Principia and personal correspondence set against the Newton-Leibniz dispute as mediated by Samuel Clarke. If this exegesis – or my reading of it – is contradicted by recent scholarship I am willing to be corrected.

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

What you "believe" to be uncontroversial is far from the case. I'm hardly a Newton scholar, but I'm familiar with his demanding rigor as applied to science and some of the nuances relevant to the subject. Perhaps you're unaware as to how the reasoning process works, how it transpires. It doesn't work on the basis of officiousness or articles of faith and what you believe, or via a reference to some alleged authority and obscure reference and interpretation. I asked for specific excerpt(s) from Newton himself that reflect the premises you're conditioning your assertion upon. To put it in simple and pedantic terms, that's how the reasoning process works.

I'll try again: support your assertion with a citation to anything Newton said as applied to science.

RickK

JAD said: "First causes DEMAND one or more Gods. What I want is a list of those who subscribe to Jackson's words which are that God played no role in phylogeny. Unless you are willing to use your real name don't bother."

There is no evidence to support supernatural intervention in anything that has occurred since the Big Bang. I'm not saying categorically that a higher force hasn't intervened, just that:

1) there have been many many many phenomena attributed to gods or higher powers;

2) not one has been proved right;

3) without a single exception in all the millions of phenomena, those that have been explained, have been explained with natural causes; therefore...

the only rational assumption based on the evidence is that natural effects (including speciation) have completely natural causes.

But John will dismiss my input here because I choose not to use my real name. I've heard too many stories of people intervening in the personal lives of blog opponents. The last thing I need is someone writing a letter to my employer because I posted an opposing opinion in a blog. It's hard to imagine, but there are people crazy enough to do such things.

Anyway, John, I agree with Leigh Jackson. I don't believe every watch requires a watchmaker because we've been shown too many times the awesome power of biological systems to adapt and change even in our short lifetimes. So the idea of nature producing massive change over massive timescales, while a vast simplification, is still much simpler than the complexity of supernatural beings periodically tinkering with DNA.

Leigh Jackson

A new day. I have tarried here for too long. I am gone.

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote; "Obfuscation, of course. In a Zoo you can mate a lion to a tiger and produce hybrides (F1 only), because they will be infertile. To have a workable definition, you must drop the word "normally". Then everything will be OK. "
So, having produced your definition, you are now saying that it is not workable. From someone accusing me of obfustication this is rather ironic.
S: "The definition itself cites fertility of offsprings as a neccessary condition."
No, it doesn't. It says that interbreeding does not normally happen. That can be due to a number of causes, of which reduced fertility of hybrids is only one. Even if you take hybrid infertility as a criterion, this creates fuzzy boundaries. Pairs of species whose hybrids are normally infertile can occasionally produce fertile offspring. Of course, many pairs of species can produce viable offspring so this is not a hard and fast criterion in any case.

Richard Forrest

Michael B wrote:
"As you are aware, I'm not a proponent of ID in the manner you're conceiving - in fact, that was precisely the point being made, your insouciant disdain notwithstanding."

I'm at a loss to understand just what you mean by ID. Your posts seem more of an attempt to cloud the issue than to explain your position, and as you retreat behind a flurry of verbiage rather than answering questions clearly, your complaints of misrepresentation are somewhat hollow.

From what I can piece together, you seem to be claiming that complexity of biological systems is evidence for a designer, and that scientists should acknowledge this as a scientific proposition.

Is this an accurate representation of your position? If not, perhaps you can try to explain it in simple terms, as I have tried to do in explaining why ID is not science.

John A. Davison

It is perfectly obvious that what I say means absolutely nothing here, so I will first cite my sources, so the Darwinian zealots can denigrate them instead of me. Only then will I proceed.

Selection is the heart of the Darwinian myth. Here is what Otto Schindewolf had to say about selection.

"Selection is only a negative principle, an eliminator, and as such is trivial; it asserts and explains only the nonexistence of forms that could not possibly exist under the conditions in question."
Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 360, (1950)

Compare Schindewolf with Leo Berg writing 28 years earlier -

"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, preserve the standard."
Nomogenesis, page 406, (1922)

"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle

I can see it now as Leigh Jackson or Richard Forrest will tell us how these authors have been discredited by all that we have learned since. It is what we have learned since that makes their conclusions all the more valid, that selection could not possibly have been involved in creating the incredible complexity which characterizes our present knowledge of the cell.

I am going to carry this matter a step further by asserting that no cellular organelle had an ancestor different from its present configuration. By that I mean that all the following first appeared in their modern form, a form which was not molded by selection in any way during its evolutionary history -

Mitochondria of all types.
Centrioles.
Centromeres.
Ribosomes.
The bacterial flagellum.
The eukaryotic flagellum.
Cellular membranes.
Nuclear membranes.
Or any other subcellular unit.

None of these "evolved" from less specialized precursors but appeared de novo in their present configurations. In other words, at the subcellular level there has been NO EVOLUTION whatsoever.

It is only at the organismic level, the morpological level, that the concept of evolutionary change can even be applied.

In other words, exactly as Leo Berg claimed-

"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Nomogenesis, page 406.

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

In terms of demonstrating a sound, coherent, premise-to-conclusion ability to reason, you were never here in the first place.

Richard Forrest,

You need to be willing to step down from this house-of-cards perch of presumptive "authority" you endlessly place yourself upon and, instead, demonstrate an ability to engage and reason on the basis of the premises and concepts presented. You need to be willing to hold to the discussion at hand and eschew this almost Pavlovian reflexiveness of yours. Two comments of mine in this present thread should suffice to reflect and summarize my views:

May 5, 8:02am
May 5, 7:24pm

Also recall, as I have been reminded recently, the subtitle of Richard Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker" is:

"Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design."

So you may need to clarify your own views. Again, we know you can resort to preset, formulaic patter and evasiveness. But can you responsibly and transparently engage on the basis of the arguments and concepts presented? The answer to that question is not apparent. This is not a discussion about syntax and semantics, it's a discussion about content and meaning. To this point you've demonstrated a strong predilection for the Richard Dawkins cum Elmer Gantry mode of discourse that includes razzle/dazzle evasiveness, misdirection, obfuscations, much hand-waving about his/your presumptive "authority," etc.

This is yet another attempt to see if you're capable of a more meaningful engagement.

Richard Forrest

Michael B wrote: "You need to be willing to step down from this house-of-cards perch of presumptive "authority" you endlessly place yourself upon and, instead, demonstrate an ability to engage and reason on the basis of the premises and concepts presented."

To repeat my last post:

From what I can piece together, you seem to be claiming that complexity of biological systems is evidence for a designer, and that scientists should acknowledge this as a scientific proposition.
Is this an accurate representation of your position? If not, perhaps you can try to explain it in simple terms, as I have tried to do in explaining why ID is not science.

I keep asking you for clarification, but all your responses complain that I am evading the issue, frequently dragging in complete red herrings in the process. Perhaps you think that this is a intellectually valid way of making your point, but all you are succeeding in doing is to make yourself look evasive and unwilling to address the issues. If you won't make clear what you mean in spite of repeated requests for clarification, how on earth can anyone engage and reason on the basis of the premises and concepts presented?

If you think that my description of the nature of science is wrong, why not explain why you think I'm wrong rather than accuse me of obfustication?

If you think that I am misrepresenting your position, make your position clear.

If you think I have evaded any issue, identify the issues you think I have evaded.

If you think that ID has scientific merit, explain why it has scientific merit.

If your version of ID differs from that of the originators of the concept, perhaps you should explain your position.

If your response to this is more obfustication, that tells us more about the validity of your position than clear, direct answers would.

John A. Davison

Michael B

You are wasting your time tryimg to reason with Leigh Jackson and Richard Forrest. They are Darwinians, immune to reason because they sincerely believe that they hold the secret of evolution, that it was and still is nothing but the natural selection of continuing modifications of the genetic code, an ongoing process no different now than in the past. They already know all that they need to know so you can rest assured that you, like myself and every other critic of the Darwinian hoax will never shake their faith in the Great God Chance.

All you can do is try to follow the words of Christ as he appealed to his father -

"Forgive them Father for they know not what they do."

They really can't help themselves as tey were "born that way."

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

Sergey

RF: ""The definition itself cites fertility of offsprings as a neccessary condition."
No, it doesn't."
Again, the definition from Wiki:
"A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen."
Is it possible to dispute with a person with this level of a reading comprehension? Who are you, Richard? An idiot or a habitual liar?

Michael B

Richard Forrest,

You excel at indignation, exhibiting more plumage than a male peacock.

I pointed you to two specific comments. My May 12, 9:04pm comment, wherein I first cite Jablonka & Lamb's volume, is also relevant. You can choose to deal with the position reflected in those three (3) comments, or you can display still more plumage and indignation.

I'd also be interested in you tackling the questions presented (initially to RickK, then to Leigh Jackson, neither of whom deigned to provide answers) in my May 21, 1:33pm comment. They are questions relevant to meta aspects of the general discussion - and are entirely relevant in that vein.

You should also find this Mary Midgley article on Dawkins - Gene Juggling - of interest. Though I suspect more plumage, more incomprehension and more evasiveness will continue to result from this effort as well. As with everyone in the R. Dawkins cum Elmer Gantry family, you are less than forthcoming.

Sergey

"So, having produced your definition, you are now saying that it is not workable. From someone accusing me of obfustication this is rather ironic."
First, this is not MY definition. It is definition from Wiki, word by word, as it appears in most textbooks. And for majority of purposes, like practical taxonomy, it is enough. But not for all. For theoretical work, as mentioned in the same article, more rigorous definition is needed, since this affects stating and testing of biology theories. My proposal to clarify it is the omission of the word "normally", because it produces confusion. In unclear cases everything needed to clarify the question is breeding experiment to produce F1 hybrides and test their fertility. This would eliminate ambiguity. The word "normally" refers not to fertility, but to interbreeding in normal (natural) condition. If F1 are sterile in one experiment with a pair of candidated into species, they will be always sterile for the same pair of "species"; if not, they will be always fertile. I do not know any exeptions from this rule. If you know, cite an example. And your last assertion, that sometimes hybrides are sterile and sometimes are not, is a pure fantasy. It is your duty to prove othervise.

John A. Davison

Sergey is wrong again.

Sterility is not an all or none situation. A single chromosome restructuring difference will not confer absolute sterility in a creature hererozygous for that condition. Even a few may not produce complete sterility. The mule is sterile because there are several chromosome rearrangenents that distinguish the horse from the donkey. I am willing to bet that we differ from our female Neanderthal ancestor by a single chromosome rearrangement.

Incidentally I am not at all certain that the polar bear and the grizzly bear are separate species. If some dummy hadn't killed the hybrid we might know about that for sure by now.

Such a cross should be attempted under zoo conditions. Don't expect a Darwinian to do it. They don't do experiments. They are afraid to. The cowardly swine won't even test Darwin's precious finches. They make me sick.

We also should try to cross chimps with humans. I would do it in a heartbeat if I had the means. It is possible the hybrid would survive but would most certainly be sterile as we differ from the chimp in about twelve chromosome rearrangements, making the production of balanced gametes virtually impossible. Accordingly, I have proposed that there may have been twelve discerete serial ancestors, now all extinct, that were our ancestors since the chimp and the human shared a common ancestor. The most recent must have been Neanderthal because it was the only hominid around when we first appeared in Europe. Hybrids bewteen Neanderthal and H. sapiens are known to have been produced.

We sure weren't produced de novo as the biblical account claims. That does not mean that we were not planned.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

I love it so!

Richard Forrest

Sergey wrote "Is it possible to dispute with a person with this level of a reading comprehension?"

A question I have asked myself.
You specifically referred to infertility of offspring as a boundary condition for species. The definition you produced makes no reference to that.

S: "First, this is not MY definition."

No, but it's the one you said you were using. To quote from one of your posts: "I used the most common definition of species cited in Wiki. .... I defined my terms; it is a pure sophistry to split hairs about definitions when it is already clear what (common) definition I use."

So having said that this is the definition you use, you are now saying that you are using a different definition which removes the word "normally", and you are doing so for theoretical purposes. The reason why the word "normally" appears in that definition is because species boundaries in the real world are *NOT* hard and fast. Theories in science are built from the evidence: if the evidence shows that the theory is wrong, you need to revise or reject the theory, not deny the evidence. If you need to adopt a species definition to support your theory which does not match biological reality, it's your theory which is wrong, not biological reality.

S: "And your last assertion, that sometimes hybrides are sterile and sometimes are not, is a pure fantasy. It is your duty to prove othervise."

E Zong and G Fan, 1989; "The variety of sterility and gradual progression to fertility in hybrids of the horse and donkey"; Heredity (1989) 62, 393–406
R H Rong, H D Cai, X Q Yang, and J Wei, 1985, Fertile mule in China and her unusual foal.; J R Soc Med. 1985 October; 78(10): 821–825.
R. Rong, A.C. Chandley, J. Song, S. McBeath, P.P. Tan, Q. Bai, R.M. Speed, 1988; A fertile mule and hinny in China; Cytogenet Cell Genet 1988;47:134-139

So by your species definition, horses and donkeys are normally different species, but are occasionally the same species. This is logically inconsistent.

John A. Davison

While he was an atheist, Bertrand Russell nevertheless give us the perfect summary of the Darwinian fantasy -

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."

It is not only undesirable, it is unreasonable, unscientific, unacceptable and unpalatable. It doesn't even taste good!

The Darwinian fairy tale is, in the immortal words of Ebenezer Scrooge -

"Baaaaa humbug!"

It doesn't get any better than this.

Richard Forrest

Michael B wrote: "You excel at indignation, exhibiting more plumage than a male peacock."

And once again you simply evade the issue.

All I am doing is trying to get you to clarify your position. Your rambling, verbose and self-referential posts make it hard to understand just what you mean, and frankly I can't be bothered to wade through them trying to make sense of your argument. Your references to "meta aspects" of the dialogue are nothing more than red herrings. This is about the statement Melanie Phillips made that ID "comes from science", and the claims of ID for scientific legitimacy.

To repeat a simple question:
From what I can piece together, you seem to be claiming that complexity of biological systems is evidence for a designer, and that scientists should acknowledge this as a scientific proposition.

Is this an accurate representation of your position? If not, perhaps you can try to explain it in simple terms, as I have tried to do in explaining why ID is not science.

Sergey

"A single chromosome restructuring difference will not confer absolute sterility in a creature hererozygous for that condition."
That is true. But all heterozygotes by a single chromosome rearrangement would have a reduced fertility. That is why chromosome mutations can not spread amongst normal population, and even less so they have a chance to achieve fixation. Absolute majority of species of the same genus differ from each other not by a single, but by multiple chrosome rearrangements. And with every new rearrangement chances to produce viable gametes drop exponentially. When we speak about true, natural species, not about products of laboratory experiments, their cytologically caused reproductive isolation is absolute and can be demonstrated experimentally. To understand speciation one need to consider population dynamics involved. That is what I did, mathematically. And the results are clear. No population, big or small, can tolerate chromosomal polymorphism by a rearrangement disrupting meiosis for long. We see rapid (exponential) exclusion of mutants from population. In a dozen generations this "heresy" would be uprooted.
This kind of polymorphism is a "genetic bomb" in population containing it. Only three outcomes are possible: extinction, return to normalcy, and, in very few cases, transition to a new established norm, that is, speciation. This all would require only one or two dozen generations. And since many types of heterozygous chromosomal mutation provoke new rearrangements due inequal mitotic crossover, a new stable state typically differ from initial not by one, but by several rearrangements. In a chaotic genetic revolution followed introducing a chromosomal heresy into a small isolated population, its genome would be sliced and diced, untill a new order emerge and attain fixation. The end result is a complete reproductive isolation from the parent species.

Sergey

The three outcomes I described can be illustrated by: 1) Night of St. Bartholomew in France; 2) Thirty Years War in Germany; 3) Establishing of Calvinist dictatorship in Switzerland. You need temporary chaos for transition from one stable order to another stable order. And chaos can not last long. Outcome of a chaotic state can not be predicted, this is a perfect situation for Providence to intervene without being detected, and this provides a perfect disguise of a chance, under which it usually operates.

Sergey

"Generally speaking, the majority of F1 hybrids between the horse and donkey are sterile and do conform to the hypothesis of gametogenic breakdown. The results of our own research, nevertheless, lead us to conclude that there is variability in degree of sterility and fertility for both F1 and B1 individuals, with a gradual advance from sterility to fertility being seen. This is the subject we will discuss from the points of view of oestrus, ovulation, mating, pregnancy, spermatogenesis, endocrine activity, isozymes and karyotypic analysis in this paper."
Actually, nothing new. They did not produce F2 hybrids, only backcrosses. This is possible in some rare cases, as have been well known long ago, but it does not invalidate hypothesis of gametogenic breakdown. Still the absolute majority of F1 hybrids are sterile, and in any natural population emergence of a small fraction of partially fertile hybrides will not produce sustainable subpopulation with a different karyotype. These "progresson" in fertility is achieved by repeated backcrossing, that is, progressive elimination of vestiges of alien karyotype.

Sergey

My assertion was:
"If F1 are sterile in one experiment with a pair of candidated into species, they will be always sterile for the same pair of "species"; if not, they will be always fertile."
I never claimed that ALL F1 progeny of a given pair of individuals is sterile, only that an absolute majority of them are. And that this is reproducible: if you chose another pair of individuals from the same pair of species, you will get the same result - always. Since meiotic crossover is random, no two gamets produced by the same hybrid individual are identical. Some are viable, but the majority are not. Fertility is a statistical concept: it refers to percentage of viable gametes, it never asserts that ALL gametes are inviable. In backcrosses you select this small fraction which is viable, and, naturally, this fraction grows in subsequent generations of backcrosses.

Billy Hippo

Sergey - are there publishing problems or disputes of ownership connected with your book?
Leigh Jackson - I can respect you remaining anonymous, for the reasons you say, and I take the same position as you. One day I expect the Thought Police will monitor posts and trace the originators of 'undesirable' contributions and immediately send someone round to really get on top of things as we head for 1984, although on this particular discussion you would not have to worry as you are fully on-message. But hats off to Richard Forrest and John A Davison for their openness in their websites, John A Davison even including his photo.

Leigh Jackson

Hi, Michael B,

Just passing through. Re your three posts:

(May 5, 8.02) Complexity is a salient fact within biology.

ID applied to biological systems is viable. It serves as a highly indicative expression of intelligent design.

(May 12, 9.04) Complexity within biological systems is worthy of scientific study.

(May 21, 1.33pm) I believe, largely on the basis of fossil and some other evidence, in evolutionary processes. As to the mechanisms involved, I don't know.

On ID as it applies to biology, in the 3 posts you direct attention to, those are the only firm statements (shorn of all linguistic excess) you have made by way of elucidating your own position - as opposed to what you believe to be the position of others, of whatever persuasion. The posts of May 12 and 21 I have no problem with. Everything in nature is worthy of scientific study. The current scientific consensus is that evolution is a fact which demands further study because we don't understand it completely; maybe never will no matter how hard we try, and certainly never will if we give up trying to understand.

The May 5 post wants an explanation. The first statement is not a problem. Questions arise regarding the other two. On the face of it the two statements are circular. I presume you mean to say that complexity in biology is indicative of intelligent design. Is that correct? If I have understood you, then the inference of intelligent design must be testable (in principle at least) in order for science to take it seriously. Any suggestion of a supernatural designer is not a scientific inference. One may always infer a supernatural cause for natural phenomena - however strong the evidence for a natural cause - because the supernatural is scientifically unfalsifiable. (String theory, by way of contrast, is falsifiable in principle if the equations of quantum mechanics or general relativity (since Planck time) should be empirically demonstrated not to hold.)

Leigh Jackson

Billy, who you calling anonymous? I'm a Google nobody and proud of it.

Sergey

Since supernatural causation had been, and rightly so, excluded from scientific discourse, the scientific picture of the world is grossly incomplete. It never could be able to accomodate concept of free will, for example. So to have a worldview that have some sense one needs to expand it by a philosophy and religion, what can be done in many, highly subjective ways. And here I with Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrodinger and depart from determinism of Spinoza, Leibnitz and Einstein, that is, from deism and pantheism to a true monotheism, which accept personal Creator, free in his will and making creatures which are, in His image, also empowered by free will. This attribute progressively grows through directed and guided evelution and culminates in humans. But in rudimentary form it exists even in amoeba.

Sergey

Is detection of irreducible complexity indicative of intelligent design? Yes. Can it be proved or is it testable? No. ID is a science in its negative assertions, in it's critique of existing explanations, not in proposing alternatives, which all are beyond the realm of science.
Actually, it can be expected. As Maimonid had demonstrated centures ago, everything we can know about Creator are not positive statesments, but negations of positive statesments: His attributes are negative in essence. Revealed truth is subjective, in contrast to objective knowledge attained by science. But positive knowledge is severely restricted, which always makes enough room for revelation not only to keep its ground, but to grow.

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

You have yet to support your claim concerning Isaac Newton's conceptions of science. Still waiting ...

(And I disagree with virtually everything you've forwarded in your most recent comment - e.g., the additionally tendentious reductions and simplifications - so I'm not going to follow you down one of your rabbit holes yet again.)

Either support your assertion concerning Newton in the manner requested - and in the manner rational investigation demands - or admit your error. Or, find someone else to follow you down your babbling rabbit holes. (Though feel free to regale us with a further digression and exposition concerning Leibniz's monads, that should be entertaining. You're accomplished when it comes to name dropping and inserting technical terms into your prose, but coherence is not your strong suit.)

Sergey

"if the equations of quantum mechanics or general relativity (since Planck time) should be empirically demonstrated not to hold."
Good luck with it. But to achieve these levels of energy in experiment, you will need partical accelerator of the size of the Earth orbit with energy consumption of the Sun output. Better observe quasars.

Billy Hippo

John A Davison says 'Hydroids, Flatworms, Rotifers even sponges all have highly specialized organs for sexual reproduction. It is their asexual means of reproduction that permits their immortality.'
I understand Sergey's point about sexual reproduction being anti-evolutionary in terms of blocking changes, but I do not see how it hinders immortality for a species. In fact it is essential in higher organisms as it preserves a larger gene pool and prevents the loss of useful genes which could easily be lost, especially if they only confer a .1% survival advantage, which could temporarily drop to zero. For example, in prehistoric times in the human species anti-social behaviour has been extremely strongly selected against for tens of thousands of years (they were kicked out of the group), but now we are going through a period where being antisocial does not result in any natural selection pressures against the person in terms of the number of offspring they can raise, possibly the reverse in fact. One group even bans a certain quota of its intelligent and thoughtful males from having any children at all! I realise that moral behaviour is not a single gene, but it illustrates the principle that something can be lost when it temporarily loses its advantage. Later, when it is required again, it is too late.

This advantage of preserving genes which are temporarily not important is not so significant in organisms which are so simple they do not need a gene pool.

Consider three types of animal
a) advanced - its survival depends on skilful interaction with a complex world, and the speed of eating and spreading is only one factor, albeit important. But there are others, eg lifestyle. Eg fish. The population finds a large gene pool advantageous as it enables it to adapt, within limits, to a complex world.
b) Intermediate - Hydroids, Flatworms, Rotifers, sponges. Here the interaction with the world is minimal - they just sit there and eat. Excuse the anthropomorphic phraseology, but: this animal might toy with the idea of abandoning its reproductive organs and sticking to asexual reproduction in order to really step up a gear in terms of spreading itself around faster. But then it finds that it loses something vital and dies out completely. For example, an individual might suddenly eat faster and think it is king, but when it has wiped out all its brothers, it suddenly discovers that it has lost immunity to a disease - too late! No going back. That gene is lost. You will all die. If only there were some way to get that gene back - there is -occasional sexual reproduction.
c) Lowest. Consider two amoeba. One is sexual - it cannot spread as fast but it has a larger gene pool. The other is asexual, it can spread faster but abandons its reservoir of spare genes. The asexual one wins. Why? Because its rival, for all its sexual reproduction, finds itself always converging to be identical to the asexual one. Powers to change are no use when your design is perfect. But this only applies in a simple organism in a constant world where ability to change slightly does not help.

An analogy - in handwriting the letter 'f' changes a lot in time and place. But the full stop, being simple and perfect, always seems to be the same everywhere.

As John A. Davison quotes - 'Selection is only a negative principle, an eliminator'. In the case of asexual amoeba, it is also a converger, so two amoeba 'brothers' can live side by side with no common ancestor for 10,000 years and end up identical twins.

Leigh Jackson

I'm never sure how long to wait before reposting. Anyway this was originally posted at 5.00pm, May 27

Michael B,

Like you I am a humble layman who keeps up to date on current issues in science via such derivative sources as New Scientist etc. I am not a scholar. I was giving a potted history of the Copernican Revolution from memory of studies undertaken many years ago. The book I referred to was one I used as a secondary source on Newton. The book is subtitled "with extracts from Newton's Principia and Optiks". It is interlaced with direct references to the primary sources. Newton is one of the most interesting figures in science as well as one of the greatest and worthy of a lifetime of study. Scholars of Newton use every last scrap of information which they can find in order to make sense of the man in the round. I was expressing my recollection of a relatively limited amount of study some time ago. You were unable to provide a reference for your assertion that Behe has done productive work in ID since publication of Darwin's Black Box. I have managed to locate a link to part of one of the relevant texts: Query 31 from Opticks*. To make sense of it requires a lot more than the mere text. It requires scholarship - which neither you nor I have. For that we need to turn to scholarship. I have cited the scholarship - or at least a part of it - on which I based my remarks. According to Alexander there is firm evidence that Newton was advising Clarke in his correspondence with Leibniz. In that correspondence in connection with Query 31 Leibniz raises questions regarding God's "sensorium" and the apparent necessity within Newton's system for God to intervene periodically to save the solar system from collapse. Clarke agrees that intervention is necessary and says that is just part of God's plan.

Do we know for sure whether Clarke was indeed being advised by Newton? I am not a scholar, I don't know. But Alexander feels sufficiently confident to say that Newton's reasons's for postulating such interventions were scientific not theological (page xvii). The implication is that God was necessarily involved in the process of maintaining the system, however it was achieved - miracles are not ruled out. Not laws of nature as modern science construes them. For Newton, it would appear, they were either teleological or else capable of being broken - by God. If Newton thought that his system demanded such intervention then we see how immensely far away he was from today's scientific world . We hold existing laws always to be provisional. We may find out that they do not always hold; that does not mean that we must assume the supernatural is at work. We must assume anything but that - as long as it can be tested in principle. Newton broke his own precept - he entertained the scientific possibility of untestable hypotheses.

*
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/newton.html

Now no more evasions. You are really just a hollow drum. Isn't that the truth?

Michael B

Leigh Jackson, in the following I'll use caps for emphasis, not to scream or yell.

You "believe" - and you believe it to be "uncontroversial." And now, Alexander "feels sufficiently confident" that he's correct - and yet we STILL don't have a quote from Newton himself, after repeated requests. We don't even have a relevant quote from Clarke, who we're now considering in a secondary, derivative and still more speculative fashion.

Because I'm acquainted with Isaac Newton's "Principia" as well as Newton's methodology applied to SCIENCE, I don't "believe" and I don't "feel" you or Alexander are correct. I could supply several direct quotes from Newton, but for space purposes will supply only one.

Newton was a polymath and had an extremely wide variety of interests, and variously and frequently SPECULATED on the basis of ALL those interests, often "interweaving" SPECULATIVE considerations, both intra-field and inter-field. That is a well known fact, one that is not controversial.

But within SCIENCE, properly understood, Newton was highly disciplined and "stingy," if I might employ that term. For example, Newton is well known for his "hypotheses non fingo" - and at this point I'll simply cut-and-paste from wiki's translation:

"... whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy [i.e. science]. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."

So, to translate a bit further in order to be explicit, he's using the term "hypotheses" more or less with how we would use the term "speculations," and he's using the phrase "deduced from the phenomena" to refer to empirical data, he's then sharply distinguishing speculations, whether based upon "metaphysical or physical" or upon "occult qualities or mechanical," from what he deems to be valid SCIENCE.

I've now provided a direct quote from Newton himself, one that reflects his view of SCIENCE, sharply distinguishing it from SPECULATIONS. Likewise, in his "Principia," his magnum opus in the field, he does in fact conform to that discipline and rigor. A concise example can be found in his well known "Axioms or Laws of Motion," a section within his "Principia." (And they are "laws" in the sense of "axioms" derived from the data, not "ultimate [i.e. God's] truth" or derived from any metaphysical speculations and "laws" in that ultimate and still more absolute sense, Richard Forrest's own Newton comment notwithstanding.)

To summarize, he does NOT "interweave" his metaphysical or other speculations with his science, what you "believe" and what Alexander "feels" notwithstanding. If you wish to argue the contrary, supply a direct quote from Newton himself. That's how a more rigorous reasoning process works. That's not a personally directed comment, it's a comment germane to the difficulties inherent in the subject matter.

John A. Davison

Sexual reproduction prevents progresssive change. Not only that; it ensures extinction. 99.99 +% of all sexually reproducing species that ever existed became extinct without ever becoming anything different during their existence.

Creative evolution was always a rare event and could not possibly have been supported by sexual processes. That realization is what prompted me to propose the Semi-Meiotic Hypthesis (SMH) in 1984, now a quarter century ago.

The simple truth is that it is just as valid today as it was then because it has yet to be subjected to the acid test of experimental verification.

The important question to be asked is - why has it not been tested? I will tell you why. It is because if it should be verified by producing a new life form, the entire Darwinian house of cards would collapse in an instant. That is why and that is the only reason why. As I have said before, Darwinians are not scientists. They do not test hypotheses, even their own. I am being ignored for exactly the same reason that every one of my sources was ignored, because what we each proposed was potentially lethal to the Darwinian thesis.

This intellectual stalemate is perpetuated for one reason only. FEAR, fear of the truth which is that phylogeny, like ontogeny, can never be understood without implementing a guiding component, a teleological mechanism, that can serve to expose the reality of that mechanism. That is precisely what the SMH offers. We already know that the cytology works, as semi-meiotically produced frogs have already been experimentally produced. There is no excuse not to test this eminently testable hypothesis in any sexually reproducing creature subject to having its female gametogenesis experimentally manipulated. Incidentally, that includes Homo sapiens. That it has not been tested is a scandal!

I rest my case.

John A. Davison

What the hell are you talking about Newton for? This thread is specifically about organic evolution. Is this just another Darwinian ruse to change the subject in order to get lost in a sea of semanticism? That is what it looks like to me.

We are suppose to be discussing our origins here and whether or not we were planned or an accident. It is as simple as that.

"Those who consider that all the strange course of evolution was an accident, or a series of accidents, are quite at liberty to think so. I believe there is a Plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to meet its goal."
Robert Broom, Finding the Missing Link, page 101.

My only difference with Broom is that I believe there WAS a plan and its goal has already been reached. It is my conviction that from here on it is all down hill just as it has been now for quite some time. The great triumphs of the human spirit are all behind it as we now descend into what must have been a planned oblivion, a giant cosmic joke.

"La commedia e finita."
Pagliacci

It is hard to believe isn't it?

That does not mean that it is wrong.

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

I have supplied a direct quote from Newton - in the form of an url. I have explained the basis of my original comments. As far as I am aware, Alexander's view - that Newton thought on scientific grounds that God had to intervene to maintain the stability of the solar system - is generally accepted amongst scholars. Are you saying that this is not the case? If so, this is news to me and I shall have to revisit the subject. You might be able to point me to some scholarship which contradicts Alexander on this question?

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

Good grief. I read the entirety of the url you provided, from Newton's "Opticks," dated 1704. However - and perhaps due to your own prepossessed metaphysical assumptions, which you are seemingly incapable of distinguishing from Truth itself - you likewise seem to be incapable of distinguishing Newton's speculative digressions from his science per se. Or, take a specific excerpt from the url you provide and explain why you believe it to lend support to your claim. To be very pedantic yet again, that is how the rational enterprise works: expose your thinking and views to the light of day and for all to see.

Also, in contrast to Newton, Richard Dawkins does in fact "interweave" his science with his metaphysical and other speculations and I've variously alluded to that fact herein, more specifically pointing to Mary Midgley's robust takedown of Dawkins' own farcical "interweavings." Do you have a problem with Dawkins doing so? Are you even capable of acknowledging and appreciating Dawkins' flim-flams in this vein?

Newton, however, and in stark contrast to the spectacle Dawkins presents, takes pains to distinguish his speculations from his science (hence I excerpted directly from Newtons's "hypotheses non fingo"), he's quite explicit. Once again, that's one of the reasons I requested Richard Forrest, yourself and one or two others to openly and transparently declare your positions as applied to metaphysical and other meta-issues related to the subject at hand.

Yet you and others refused to do so, and that too is revealing of your opacity, confusion, obfuscations and your reliance upon wouldbe authorities.

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

Btw, the very title of the extended excerpt represented in the url you provide is "query," specifically "Query 31." That might have been your first (and obvious) clue that he's essentially and explicitly asking questions, he's speculating, as something of an addendum to the "Opticks" proper. Addendums, as you're surely aware, are common in the literature for such purposes, for other purposes as well, and long have been.

In fact - mirabile dictu! - that's PRECISELY what Newton is doing. In his Opticks, Newton distinguishes his science from his speculations very clearly and with great care (again, in stark contrast to Richard Dawkins's disingenuous and confused meanderings and treakle). Newton takes pains to distinguish his definitions, axioms, propositions, empirical findings, etc. with extraordinary care. It's only explicitly, as a formal and explicit addendum to the body of his Opticks, that he lists a set of two or three dozen SPECULATIVE digressions - i.e. his "Queries."

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

Your recent posts show that you gave scant attention attention to my post of May 27, 11.46pm. I responded to your request for a direct quote from Newton and related it directly to my earlier posts re Alexander. If you read Query 31 carefully and do the same with my posts you will see their relevance to one another. Your posts also make it clear that not only are you not a scholar but you know precious little about Newton. You obviously didn't know of the existence of the Queries at the end of Opticks or their controversial history. Yet within a few minutes you think you know their full and exact significance. A subject that has been pondered and debated about down the centuries and you know everything in a blinding flash. If you know of any scholarship saying that Newton did not believe his calculations to imply the necessity for God to restore order to the solar system at some point, please tell me.

Leibniz queried Clarke on this point and on the question of God's sensorium - nothing less than absolute space according to Newton. Clarke's replies leave little room for doubt that Newton did believe this. Read Alexander. Do you not know that Laplace's mathematical improvements to the Newtonian system of mechanics suggested that the solar system was stable; when asked by Napolean where God fitted into the picture he archly replied "I have no need of that hypothesis". Einstein killed off absolute space for Newtonian reference frames i.e. inertial reference frames. But neither of these scientific advances prove that God does not exist and is not ultimately the cause of nature; because God is empirically unfalsifiable.

On Newton I have said all I want to say. On the subject of metaphysics I have nothing to say. I am interested in protecting science from people who are hell bent on destroying it. Dawkins is not saying that science must be founded on atheism and that children should be taught that God does not exist in science class as far as I am aware.

It is rather obvious that you have nothing of substance to say on the subject of ID as commonly conceived or as you conceive it. It is rather obvious that you are here to have a go at Dawkins and anyone who is against founding science on religion and teaching that ID is science. It is rather obvious that you are a hollow drum.

Richard Forrest

Michael B:

As ever, you go off into complete and utter irrelevancies rather than answer a simple question.
This discussion is about Melanie Phillips article on ID, and in particular her claim that ID comes from science. It is not about squabbles between Richard Dawkins and Mary Midgley, it is not about Newton ("And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy."), and it is not about metaphysical naturalism.

I have no idea what you think you gain by crossposting into the Marine Reptiles forum: as any intelligent person would understand from the name alone, it is not a forum for the discussion of ID, but of marine reptiles. Evidently this escaped you.

To repeat a simple question, and one which you evade like mad:

From what I can piece together, you seem to be claiming that complexity of biological systems is evidence for a designer, and that scientists should acknowledge this as a scientific proposition.
Is this an accurate representation of your position? If not, perhaps you can try to explain it in simple terms, as I have tried to do in explaining why ID is not science.

I don't anticipate a clear answer - after all, your responses are designed to confuse the issue rather than make your position clear - but your continued evasion of what is a simple question tells us more about you than a clear answer would.

Michael B

Leigh Jackson,

In fact I paid exceedingly close attention and specifically and overtly allowed of Newton's speculative range. Likewise, I detailed how his science proper vs. his speculations can be readily distinguished. (Google books has a copy, so people can verify everything I've said should they care to do so.)

Further, I never so much as hinted that I was particularly acquainted with his Opticks, I said I was acquainted with his Principia, which I happen to have a copy of (and which R. Forrest now quotes from - from another section and addendum, to the Principia).

Nor did I pose as someone aware of the "full and exact" significance of his speculative addenda (his formal queries) in some arcane and scholarly sense, I wrote in simple and direct and general terms, pointing out they are NOT interwoven with his science proper, supporting my comments with quotes from Newton and distinguishing what you are determined to confuse and obfuscate. Speculative addenda that are formally stipulated as such and are formally and plainly segregated from the science proper are precisely that.

Richard Forrest,

More duck and run while continuing to display all the indignation and plumage of one come down from the empyrean after having been allowed to kiss the ring or touch the hand of Mr. Disingenuous himself: Richard Dawkins. (And it's no mere spat Midgley has with Dawkins, she exposes his disingenuousness, his treacle, his confused and obfuscating and eye-rolling preachment with decided and illuminating effect.)

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

If you know of any scholarship saying that Newton did not believe his calculations to imply the necessity for God to restore order to the solar system at some point, please tell me.

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

"In fact I paid exceedingly close attention.."

If this is true why did you persist in asking me for a direct quote from Newton when I had given you one?

Leigh Jackson

"I never so much as hinted that I was particularly acquainted with his Opticks"

You are obtuse or disengenuous. I never so much as hinted that you were aquainted in any way at all with the Opticks. I formed no hypothesis about it, if you want to know.

Leigh Jackson

Michael B,

"In fact I paid exceedingly close attention.."

If this is true why did you persist in asking me for a direct quote from Newton when I had given you one?

"I never so much as hinted that I was particularly acquainted with his Opticks"

You are obtuse or disingenuous. I never so much as hinted that you were acquainted in any way at all with the Opticks. I formed no hypothesis about it, if you want to know.

If you know of any scholarship saying that Newton did not believe his calculations to imply the necessity for God to restore order to the solar system at some point, please tell me.

John A. Davison

I see my comments are being ignored again while Richard Forrest, Michal B and Leigh Jackson continue sparring over matters which have no place on this thread. If the moderator is going to ignore my commments which all deal directly with the subject here, I am history.

Billy Hippo

John A. Davison
May 28th, 2009 11:43am
mentions his 'Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) in 1984, now a quarter century ago.'
John, I cannot find this on your website. (I hope it is easier to locate than a certain other hard-to-locate thesis.)
Are you saying (a) all animals including mammals reproduced asexually for millions of years, revealing hidden sections of code and hence evolving, until they reached a certain 'tipping point' (analogous to a stage in ontogeny) at which stage the final code was revealed which was for sexual reproduction? This would be the seal to prohibit further change?
Or are you saying (b) there was a mixture of asexual and sexual until the final code was revealed, at which point, unfortunately for the species, asexual reproduction was 'deleted'.

So are you saying humans could have arisen within a few generations from an asexually reproducing ape female?

If you are proposing (a) above, then it means the final stage from asexual to sexual was a very great step. But I suppose not greater than acquiring wings.

If chromosomes are experimentally rearranged and nothing is revealed, this would still be compatible with PEH and Darwinism, because with PEH redundant information is generally lost. But I suppose you are hoping that it has not all gone and enough is intact to reveal something. Are you saying there might be some wing or feather hidden in human chromosomes which cannot be atavistic because there is no winged common ancestor? Surely whatever was found, the Darwinists would find no problem in rearranging the phylogeny tree?

If apes had hidden human genes, revealed them as humans were formed, but then after this lost them, then the process of apes to humans cannot be repeated.

Are there any stragglers left still evolving? Apparently not. Was man the last to finish by a narrow margin or had all the others finished millions of years before? How was it possible to arrange for man to be the last one to evolve?

I do not think all biologists are fanatical Darwinists - at least 2% might be open minded on the subject, which is enough to allocate a bit of grant money. Therefore the idea that they are scared of weaknesses in their theory cannot totally explain why no grants are allocated to test your theory. Especially as the fame and prestige for the discoverer would out way the distress at loosing Darwinism.

It is more of a case of the science establishment always accepting the current opinion without question. So any major breakthrough, such as the role of micro organisms in spreading diseases, always takes decades longer than it would have done if the key members of the establishment had been more open to new theories. No group is more conservative.

I believe if a PhD research grant application was made which suggested rearranging chromosome segments looking for hidden codes, the head of the department would say 'waste of time'. 98% would say this out of anger that someone dares to introduce ID into biology, but the other 2% would reject it not out of closed-minded anger, but out of a sense that it is a waste of time and others might laugh at them.
The same way that the dentist who suggested using laughing gas as an anaesthetic was sent packing and no experiments were carried out to test his idea.

When it becomes easier to use viruses to rearrange chromosomes, to counter inherited diseases for example, your experiments will take place anyway as an accidental side-effect.

John A. Davison

By being ignored I mean they are not appearing. I have had several comments fail to appear while others continue to ignore the subject of this thread and carry on willy nilly.

John A. Davison

Billy Hippo, whoever that is

All my papers, published or unpublished, are available on my website and elsewhere. On the opening page of my website you will see the button
"Evolutionary Works." You can also find the same papers at Uncommon Descent by pushing the John A, Davison button on the side board.

I have no intention of attempting to answer your questions until you have demonstrated that you have read and comprehended my several papers.

If you want to know "what I am saying" I suggest you read first "what I have said." I have neither the time nor inclination to do that for you. I hope you understand.

"You can lead a man to the literature but you can't make him read it."
after the horse that wouldn't drink.

Michael B

"... you [suddenly] think you know their full and exact significance." Leigh Jackson, May 29, 8:31am

"I never so much as hinted that you were aquainted in any way at all with the Opticks." Leigh Jackson, 12 hours later

If you're going to defend science and rationality, you might first learn to comprehend the meaning of your own writ. But if you wish to continue, my email address will follow. If you choose to do so I'll point out why we differ concerning Newton's speculative digressions vs. his science proper. To some extent we have a pivotal and absolutely basic disagreement. Though to a degree I suspect we're applying different emphases and meaning to basic concepts and may be talking past one another. Certainly in the more formal Principia, Newton takes pains to distinguish his science proper from his speculations. But even in the Opticks (I've now read extensive passages from an on-line version), where he writes with expansive, speculative freedom and entertains (as we now know) quaint beliefs, he's explicit and does not obfuscate, confuse and "interweave" his science with his speculative thought - not, for example, in the manner that Richard Dawkins does and as has been exposed by Midgley and others.

Richard Forrest,

I don't believe you're a serious inquirer in a more genuine, more thoroughgoing and more demanding and vigorous sense. If you were you would do more than dismissively sniff and sneer at Dawkins' flim-flams, his confusions and obfuscations and all the rest. But if I'm wrong and you do wish to continue a discussion, an email address follows:

InterResSys@hotmail.com

And I have in fact sketched out my position herein, a still more complete list of relevant comments:

May 5, 8:02am and 7:24pm
May 10, 5:57pm
May 12, 9:04pm
May 18, 12:24pm
May 19, 2:21pm
May 21, 12:58pm and 1:33pm

But it seems you've desired to pound a square peg into a round hole. As such, you're not seeking illumination, you're looking for some term or phrase that you can latch onto, and then revert, yet again, to your prescripted material for rhetorical point-scoring effect, not more substantive and illuminative value.

You've been able to deal with the still evolving concept of speciation in a comprehending manner, yet are unable to come to terms with the even more problematic issues associated with another set of concepts. And they are more complex and more deeply seated problems, in the case of design, complexity and teleological issues, since those issues reach into - in addition to still inadequately understood inter-dependent biological stratas - ontological and metaphysical problems in general. Which is why your own decisions and predispositions in those areas are just as relevant as anyone else's, even while you seek to immunize your own, Dawkins' and others' views in that vein. It's a revealing elision on your part.

Finally, if "modern" biology can be demarcated with Linnaeus, it's worth a broadly indicative note of departure that Linnaeus joins the aforementioned Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton and Planck as a theist, joining the latter three as a Christian as well, even if Newton was idiosyncratic in that vein, as elsewhere. Highly sophisticated theists, most certainly; but that's a quality, in part, that serves to immunize people in the current age from the fatuous doxologies surrounding the likes of R. Dawkins.

John A. Davison

I recommend again that Melanie Phillips extend an invitation to Richard Dawkins to present his thesis at Spectator so that he may properly defend himself against those of us who find his notions less than convincing. I am certain that he would ignore such a challenge which would be the best evidence imaginable that he is a mere footnote in the history of biological science.

"There is no such thing as concensus science. If it's concensus it isn't science. If it's science it isn't concensus."
Michael Crichton

Richard Forrest

Michael B wrote: "I don't believe you're a serious inquirer in a more genuine, more thoroughgoing and more demanding and vigorous sense."

In what way does your point-blank refusal to explain your position clearly imply that I am not a serious enquirer?

Your posts are convoluted, verbose, self-referential and from them it is hard to decipher just what your position is. All I am asking for is clarity - which is what any serious enquirer would do. The subject of this discussion is the assertions about ID made by Melanie Phillips, in particular that it "comes from science". It is not about Richard Dawkins, or the religious beliefs of scientists, or any vague metaphysical interpretation you are seeking to impose on what is a simple request for clarification.

From what I can gather from your endless circumlocution, you are asserting that the complexity of biological systems is evidence for a designer, and that this should be considered as a scientific proposition.

Is this your position? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

John A. Davison

Richard Forrest

This thread is very much about Richard Dawkins. He and his intellectual, joined at the hip, Siamese twin Paul Zachary Myers are the primary surviving representatives of
the Darwinian hoax. If they fail to appear here it will mean only one thing: They are finished as biological scientists, a conclusion I reached long ago.

Billy Hippo

What an unexpected reply by John A Davison May 30 10:48. You say you want to debate about our origins and whether it was an accident or not, yet when I ask you some questions about your ideas on the origins of mankind, you feel unwilling to answer them, unless I read your full thesis. But remember, other people are reading this discussion and they are not all going to read your thesis even if I do.
It would be helpful if you could summarise your ideas. Darwin did. He did not say 'read my book'. He said 'survival of the fittest'. Einstein did not say 'study my calculations'; he said e=mc squared, and 'you cannot travel faster than the speed of light'.

Fair enough if you don't want to - we all have free choice - but in these types of discussions I feel the etiquette is that the discussion should be largely 'self contained' by which I mean someone reading this discussion from top to bottom should not have to refer to any other websites.

Also, you say 'whoever I am' as if you disapprove of aliases. But who I am does not matter for the purposes of this discussion. I have already congratulated you on using your real name and photo on your website, so I thought that point was finished. I am just a person who enjoys Melanie Phillip's articles and who has never heard of your ideas or Sergey's ideas before reading them on the discussion which she started off. I have in the past used half of my real name on another major UK newspaper website, but after writing a satirical post saying that a certain race enjoys war and does not want peace and prosperity, not only was I banned from their site, but they blanked out my posts and then left my name up with the words 'banned' underneath as if I was beneath contempt. And also without a right to reply. I realise this would not happen with The Spectator but after that time I stopped using my name.

Anyway, if you had replied it would have been good practice for that great debate you are seeking with your nemesis, Richard Dawkins. You cannot say to him that you refuse to answer points.

On the subject of Richard Dawkins, he often used to appear on the morning 'religious' programme on tv when I used to watch it, but I never saw anyone put the case for ID. And all these 'open minded' people who come on this discussion actually approve of this closed-minded attitude to enquiry into our origins. I think they have reached the stage where they seriously cannot see anything wrong with their approach.

John A. Davison

Billy Hippo

The right to reply is precisely what has happenead to me here at Spectator forum.

Billy Hippo

John A Davison - To be fair to the Spectator, they are the fastest to put up comments of the major newspaper sites which pre-check them (IMO of the ones I have used). Even though this costs them money, I believe it is worth it in business terms (subscriptions, adverts). Only the BBC can continuously antagonise its paying customers and still get money from them.

I have had comments not posted on The Spectator occasionally. I am never sure if they got lost in the system or if it something I said, but when I have changed them slightly and resent them they have always appeared. I have to be careful when talking about human genes, especially when I say that some people have genes which make them have hardly any morals, or a set of morals which are so basic that all that is left when you get rid of all kindness, compassion etc, is some kind of group loyalty, eg to their gang. If this post fails to get through, I will simply rephrase that last bit and resend it.

John A. Davison

Since I am unable to respond, so am I unable to participate. Spectator has joined the ranks of Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb and richarddawkins.net. It is a sad day for British science.

Pete Hoskin

John A. Davison: As I have consistently said in both comments and emails to you, if you feel that you are being unfairly moderated - or that your comments aren't getting through for technical reasons - then you can email me on phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and I'll happily look into it.

We've certainly not trying to block your views on the issue, as should be clear from all the comments by you that we've approved.

John A. Davison

Sorry Billy Hippo but that won't wash. I have had several comments that never appeared. They didn't get lost. They were refused by whoever it is that moderates this presumed "forum."
It is perfectly obvious to me that the aim of The Spectator is to foster debate rather than to seek the truth. I am not a debater and have no truck with that device. The simple truth is tht this "forum" is no different than most, dominated by behind the scenes manipulators, intoxicated by their power and influence and dedicated only to their own survival. I have no truck with such chicanery. The internet has largely become a nightmare of self interest, hidden purposes and personal gratification, a phenomenon virtually useless, especially for the understanding of the most fundamental of all questions, the great mystery of our origins. It seems everyone is an expert when in fact no one is. An expert is one who has convinced others that he is. The first thing such a person must always do is reveal his identity. We all know who these "experts" really are don't we. We also know that no one who must hide his identity will ever rise to that exalted status. That includes Billy Hippo and every other anonymous user of this and every other weblog in the wonderful world of cyberdumb.

Pete Hoskin

John A. Davison: further to your comment at 12:32pm today, did you see my comment one above it saying that if you email me I'll happily chase up any missing comments?

Like I said: we're not trying to block your views on the issue. And, as I've said to you in a few emails, "whoever moderates this presumed 'forum'" is me.

John A. Davison

All I can say is that several of my comments which apparently were sent never appeared. I have no intention of emailing you when I can explain myself perfecty well here. If others have also had my experience they should say so. In that case there is something wrong with the system here and it should be fixed. Pardon my paranoia, an aquired condition resulting from my long experiece with internet weblogs, few of which find my posture acceptable.

"Even a paranoid can have enemies."
Henry Kissinger

Billy Hippo

Re John A Davison and experimentally rearranging chromosomes to look for unused genes which are not relevant or of any use to the owner, and which are used by unrelated animals or even plants, as predicted by the theory that all life forms started off with all the gene codes for all plants and animals, including man, in the simplest organisms.

John A Davison says: 'It is because if it should be verified by producing a new life form, the entire Darwinian house of cards would collapse in an instant. That is why and that is the only reason why.'

What about the point I mentioned previously that if there are hidden codes, they will be revealed accidentally as a side effect of a study of genetics? In particular, using viruses to manipulate chromosomes for the purpose of investigating inherited diseases.
I am sure that if genes for feathers are discovered in a human genome the discoverer will not be able to hold back from announcing this, however loyal they were to Darwin. The status of the discoverer would trump all other considerations. If these codes are present, scientists will reveal them as they unravel the code regardless of their prejudices. Although I believe scientists are closed minded and prejudiced, I believe this serves to slow down advancements, but it does not halt them, and the truth comes out in the end (as regards the current life forms we see), it just takes a little longer, as in the examples of laughing gas and the role of micro organisms in disease. If your theories are correct all you have to do is sit back and watch as genomes are unravelled.

John A. Davison

I am doing exactly what Billy Hippo has suggested. I am sitting back and watching the PEH and SMH hypotheses, not theories, continue to receive support from both the fossil record and the experimental laboratory. In the meantime there is nothing, absolutely nothing that can possibly save the Darwinian myth from the oblivion it should have achieved the day it first appeared.

"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley

It is obvious that Billy Hippo, whoever that is, still has not read my papers or, if he has, he has not compehended them. I do not choose to answer questions already answered. I am not on trial here. Darwinian mysticism is. It always has been.

John A. Davison

Pete Hoskin

Here in the colonies we use the phrase "chase down" rather than "chase up" missing comments. The important point is that they are missing and the notion that they could be be "chased up" further suggests that they exist. I am not in control of this discussion, you are. If you can't find my missing comments just say so and that will be the end of it. I don't see why ANY comments should be blocked unless they are obscene and that should be noted by the moderator.

Pete Hoskin

John A. Davison: I have indeed looked for comments by you which haven't made it onto the site, and I came across a string of comments in our system which were little more than ad hominem attacks on other commenters. I assume they are the missing comments to which you refer, as all other comments by you are showing on the site.

I'm afraid, they have not - and will not - be approved. Gratuitous attacks on other commenters can't be allowed. And that goes for attacks which you have made, as well as ones that have been made against you.

John A. Davison

I am through here in any event. I am not a debater and I have no respect for those who regard the search for the truth as a debatable issue. Please return to the anonymous debate format which has never yielded anything of significance on any subject in the history of human communication. The Spectator is really not much different from richarddawkins.net forum, Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula. They too are loaded with anonymous users all lacking the moral and ethical integrity to sign their opinions: in other words those who violate one of the ten commandments, the one dealing with bearing false witness.

Billy Hippo

John A Davison -
I am not claiming to be an expert nor do I want any recognition as I have not contributed any original ideas. I am simply participating in a debate. That is not bearing false witness, which means telling lies about someone. Presumably you do not read any books or watch any programmes unless you have the full and verified names of all the contributors. Presumably you do not allow yourself to watch films with actors who use stage names. This discussion is about ID and evolution, not about which contributor is the most expert or important, or who has the greatest status.
I have not even spoken or written to anybody on the subject of evolution for 30 years apart from a time a few months ago when the total number of my posts was about 10 when I was saying that dinosaurs are fully represented today as, strangely, are all the stages of evolution. I had not heard of you or Sergey or either of your theories before you appeared on this discussion on The Spectator. How ironic that on the one forum which allows you to air your views you feel inhibited to do so. I suspect your belligerent tone is the result of being on the receiving end of similar tactics for several decades.

You say 'where is the A-team?' in reference to Richard Dawkins and you ask the Spectator to invite him on. This means you want to debate with him. If you eventually have your great debate you are seeking with Richard Dawkins you will look silly if the debate starts off and then after a couple of posts you say 'I am not a debator' or 'my ideas are not on trial' or 'a point is not valid unless I know the identity of the contributor'.
You should be glad that the internet has enabled you to air your views and to make a record of them however much the establishment does not like them, and you should be optimistic as scientists are on the verge of unravelling the genomes. Try and consider the points made and not the person. I feel your attitude is unhelpful and tends to inhibit reasonable discussion. And that is from someone who is not even antagonistic to your views.

Billy Hippo

Sexual Reproduction and Presexual Reproduction - As proposed by John A Davison
in his paper 'Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism 1984'

Sergey - although I have attempted to summarise John A Davison's theory, please feel free to comment on this as you seem to have similar ideas, and he seems to have withdrawn from the discussion.

For the purposes of this summary of John A Davison's ideas, consider a lizard 65 million years ago reproducing sexually and 'presexually' (explained below), and which lays actual eggs which hatch. There are males and females and let us represent the entire genome of the animal by the double string of letters: 123gniw456 Note that the animal has '123' and '456' which work fine to make the animal, but the 'gniw' part is redundant and harmless, just sitting there. The animal does not realise it, but if reversed it would reveal the code 'wing'.

Normally when the animal reproduces SEXUALLY each parent contributes a 123gnwi456 x1 string, so two of these align together to make the full double string, or 'zygote' which is 123gnwi456 x 2. A slight variation in the string is possible to make the animal slightly darker or lighter, but apart from that nothing much can happen with SEXUAL reproduction, for the following reason. Suppose in a female a looping of the DNA takes place which results in a reversal of the 'gniw' sequence. This would give the sequence 123wing456. At first this seems a major breakthrough for the animal, and at last it will get wings. But then consider what happens when the 123wing456 gamete from the female meets the 123gniw456 gamete from the male - no fusion is possible because the two strings are completely incompatible so with SEXUAL reproduction the fertilised egg dies.

This is what Sergey meant when he said sexual reproduction was anti-evolutionary.

But now consider an alternative method of reproduction called PRESEXUAL reproduction, (alternative to sexual, or even additional to sexual in the same animal). In the male as usual there is a 123gniw456x2 string and the male makes a 123gniw456 x1 for the purpose of fertilisation. But in the female a different meiotic process takes place, plus let us also include a mutation of 'gniw' to 'wing'. Do the mutation first. So the female now has a 123wing456 x 2, and the animal is about to separate this double string into two 123wing456 x 1 strings to make an egg ready for fertilisation. But instead of full meiosis into two single x1 strings, semi-meiosis takes place, and the halving does not occur. Now the egg cell which 'should' contain a single x1 string, in fact contains a full double string of 123wing456 x 2. This establishes itself successfully in the egg, without waiting for fertilisation from a male.

As we are looking at a sexual AND presexual animal, let us suppose that the animal mates. Suppose a proportion of the eggs have 'normal' half strings 123wing456 x1 which meet their counterpart from the male 123gniw456 x1 and promptly die as fusion is impossible. But then there is another 'impostor' group of eggs which contain 123wing456 x2 (from the semi-meiosis), and these can grow into adults with wings as they do not need fertilising.

The ones with wings are male and female which breed and out-compete the rest of the population which dies out. Therefore from now on the entire population will be the descendants of a single individual. The drawback is that the larger genome of the population shrinks to whatever the single individual had.

There is one more process to explain. It is generally thought that sexual cells (germen) keep themselves as distinct as possible from body cells (soma), in order to minimise mutations. Therefore in the human female egg cells stop dividing for the life of the adult. (Incidentally, why would this be desirable if evolution is desperate for all these mutations? This seems very anti-evolutionary.) Anyway, what would happen if the official germen contingent were joined in a developing egg by a few 'hangers-on' soma cells? The consequence would be that the offspring would be a mixture of cells grown from the 'correct' single nucleus, but, also, a quarter, or a fifth or a tenth of the body could develop from the remaining 'hangers-on'. The 'correct' nucleus could be 123gniw456 x 2 whereas the hangers-on could be mutations of the form 123wing456 x 2. As the egg develops, it is critical which part of the body the hangers-on make. If they make the TOP half the animal has no wings. If they make the bottom half - great, the animal has wings. But if they make the left half vertically, the unfortunate animal would have a wing on one side only. An animal could carry on like this for generations, with 'normal' cells and 'hanger-on cells' in the same animal. All it takes is for a single hanger-on soma cell to become the maker of eggs, and, together with semi-meiosis, a new species is formed.

Points:
- Why are there no stragglers still evolving this way? If evolution ended a few 100,000 years ago, how was it all ended so neatly and abruptly with man?
- The earlier organisms had packed into them all the genetic information for all plants and animals. How was the information released in an orderly manner? If an amoeba had a billion times as much genetic information as it has now, how could it control what was used and what was lost?
-By the time evolution reached the stage of 65 million years ago (before mammals got going properly), the information for the human brain had never been needed, so how was it preserved intact all that time up to that point, and not discarded or jumbled up beyond repair? How was it that a million years ago it was still intact in pristine condition in apes ready for the final mutation to man, and yet in a scorpion, which never found a use for it, it had all been discarded?
- If sexual reproduction eventually triumphs over non-sexual, presumably it has advantages which makes it superior (1) the size of the gene pool 2) a mechanism for eliminating bad genes). Why did this triumph of the superior over the inferior not occur much sooner in evolution? If it occurs at the end of evolution, why not occur 65 million years ago and stop mammals as they were then? How did the inferior mechanism manage to proceed up to the mankind stage?
- Even if an animal evolves a wing in one stage, it has to be the appropriate size and it has to match its lifestyle. A wing too big or the wrong shape would get in the way. Imagine a small lizard. Give it a double wing transplant from a canary. Release into the wild. It will not last five minutes. Can you imagine it flying off when a snake approaches? Sadly, it would flap around madly and the snake would hear the noise and come over and eat it.

Conclusion
Darwin simplified his hypothesis with the phrase 'survival of the fittest', and a simple term for your hypothesis could be 'presexual reproduction' which you use in your essay. Or 'multi-genome reproduction'.

As the genomes are unravelled computers will be programmed to attempt to link the similar to the similar to try and create a tree structure showing a nice development a to b to c. If they find this is completely impossible, and there is not a tree but a giant tangled mesh, this will support PEH and SMH, and creationsim. It will be interesting to see how long Darwinism can survive if a tangled mesh is found.

John A. Davison

Billy Hippo does not understand the nature of meiosis and I am not prepared to give him a short course in cytogenetics.

John A. Dav ison

That Darwinism has survived at all is a testimonial that free will is a myth, that we are all puppets and above all that -

"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time."
Albert Einstein

John A. Davison

Darwinism is dead and always has been. It is nothing more than the necessary posture of the congenital atheist. There is nothing that can be done for the homozygous atheist except to laugh at him which I find most rewarding.

chuck norris

A few observations.

1) As a Jew, I find it offensive the author cites the Inquisition.

Jews were persecuted during the Inquisition. People who support Intelligent Design are simply referred to as, "Idiots."

Not even remotely the same.

2) Although "Sergey" purports to be an expert in every field known to man: Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Sociology, Psychology, Numerology, Horseshoes, and Break Dancing. I did find something that apparently evades his grasp-

"Science is never settled. 90% of these "peer-reviewed" articles 10 years from now will be considered a junk. 20 years from now 95% of now "settled" science will be a junk, and 30 years from now - 99%."

Irony.

Oh, one other interesting observation in regard to "Sergey."

Generally, when people argue from authority, which Sergey does incessantly, they cite a person or source that has some perceived "authority."

However, Sergey doesn't bother invoking the name of some dead scientist, philosopher, or corn holer, as he prefers to invoke the name of one who is peerless in the world of men, himself.

I think I counted 5 branches of science, and at least 50 peer reviewed articles that Sergey smugly dismissed as "Irrelevant," "Pointless," "Stupid," etc, etc.

He is his own god.

3) Richard Forest.

Although I admire your patience, surely you are aware of the futility.

Sergey, Billy, et al don't give two spits about truth.

They want to believe what they want to believe, and will argue ad nauseam until you choke out a la Jimi Hendrix.

I believe such behavior is called "Willful Ignorance."

John A. Davison

From now on I let others speak for me on this blog.

"There is no such thing as concensus science. If it concensus it isn't science. If it is science it isn't concensus."
Michael Crichton.

"Darwnism has become our cultures official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious criteria."
Nancy Pearcey

"Only the stupidest calves choose their own butcher."
Konrad Adenauer

John A. Davison

Billy hippo insists that I want to debate Richard Dawkins. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to expose him as the charlatan that he is.

That goes for any other "prescribed" Darwinian mystic whose fate was also determined long ago. I wasn't kidding when I said I was a disciple of Albert Einstein. You see -

"Everything IS determined...by forces over which we have no control."

Shakespeare knew this long before Einstein -

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Hamlet, Act I

As for anonymity with which this blog is so blessed, isn't "chuck norris" just another example? Why should anyone pay any attention to what an anonymous commenter has to say?

I am reminded of Polonius' advice to Laertes also from Hamlet, Act I -

"This above all; to thine own self be true,...

Graham P

A few more observations about this debate.

If you enter a debate of this nature you can do so with various approaches:

1) Debating the actual points made, possibly involving heated debate, but nevertheless still addressing the points made. Sometimes even calling the other person 'ignorant' or similar, but nevertheless this is acceptable provided you still respond to what the other person has said. I believe this is the correct approach and leads to an interesting discussion, and there have been sufficient numbers of such contributors on both sides to make this blog qualify as such. I think a reasonable person would say that Sergey in particular has made significant positive contributions to the debate. This is called exchanging ideas in a reasonable way.

Just to give one example, the discussion about whether there are any new species evolving.

2) Not addressing any points made, but just attempting to rubbish or belittle the contributors that you disagree with using personal attacks. Mockery is one of the main weapons for this type of person.

These tactics make the person using them appear ignorant, angry, closed minded, and their approach is more closely aligned with the debating style of the Inquisition than it is with reasonable discussion. Their posts are in themselves actually confirming the exact point Melanie Phillips was making about a secular Inquisition, by kindly providing us with examples to prove her point, although I doubt they can see this at the moment they press 'Post your comment'.

Sadly, the approach our state broadcaster uses is a combination of mockery, rubbishing the opponent, and, the main one, simply refusing to air the opinions of those with whom it disagrees. How the free speech on the internet must enrage them.

John A. Davison

There is no place for debate in science. There is only discovery and the transmission of discovery to receptive minds of which there are all too few.

Everyone may now return to the debate. Enjoy yourselves, if you get my drift.

Billy Hippo

Below is a quote from The Mail 19.6.09 below. The reason I mention it is to show how radioactive dating in 1986 can give an age of 21,000 years, and 'improved' techniques now give an age of 14,000 years only 23 years later. What does this tell us about the accuracy of dating methods which are given 'fact status' (by the way they are presented), then changed by 33% only 23 years later? And as dating more recent fossils should be more accurate than dating older ones, this makes me trust even less the 'fact' that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. If this fact cannot be trusted, what other 'facts' should we doubt?

I have no problem with scientists changing their minds in relation to dating fossils. What I object to is the way they present each version as fact rather than speculation or hypothesis, and call anyone who is sceptical about the latest version a flat-earther. They do the same with all aspects of their theory

It illustrates how consensus = fact. I gave other examples of serious date revision much earlier in this debate.

Mail: "Professor Adrian Lister of the Natural History Museum re-examined the remains of an adult male and at least four young mammoths that were disinterred from a gravel bog at Condover near Shrewsbury in 1986.
New radiocarbon dating techniques developed since then have allowed him to make a more accurate estimate of their age.
Now he thinks that even if hunters and the cold wiped out Britain's mammoth population at one point, the animals returned later from warmer parts of Europe.
Professor Lister, whose research is published today in the Geological Journal, said: 'Mammoths are conventionally believed to have become extinct in north-western Europe about 21,000 years ago during the main ice advance, known as the Last Glacial Maximum.
'Our new radiocarbon dating of the Condover mammoths changes that, by showing that mammoths returned to Britain and survived until around 14,000 years ago.'"

Kimbal Binder

Melanie Phillips is not terribly familiar with creationism. Creation science hardly denies dinosaurs, for one thing. But she has certainly understood that the naturalistic materialistic orthodoxy are guardians of their religious faith with maniacal fervor.

The basic assumptions behind this paradigm are so ridiculous that a good half of the people still believe "God created" makes more sense than "Nothing created" and that is unsurprising. Macroevolutionist think that people who do not understand evolution will not believe. I say that the more you know about it, the more ludicrous it becomes.

A fact must be observed. The speed of light allows us to infer the age of the Universe, however, it does not prove that age. It is not a fact that the Universe is billions of years old, it is an inference. Hopefully logic is allowed to rule?

There are other explanations than an uncaused big bang consisting of what was not there controlled by no one and leaving behind mixed evidences that do not fit together.

Where did information come from? Where did life come from? Who designed DNA? ID at least recognizes that these are not questions that can be answered by "chance occurence." Naturallistic materialists subtract God from the equation but continue to believe in miracles, miracles performed by "chance" rather than God. It is a religion.

RiyaButler

Hello,
I'm an American. I want to Put in place an Animation Studio in India. At the moment i'm looking for computer animators. I preferred India considering that it is more inexpensive compared to U.S. I want to know the strategies for opening a business enterprise in India, particularly an animation studio.

Can you people please guide me out?