Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
As one evolution theory big shot said, if the fossil record didn't support the theory, it would fall.
Astrology is as much science as cooking goo in a bottle and proclaiming life will self generate in a mud puddle.
This site is pretty interesting showing both sides of the arguments http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000318-p-4.html
(And Demski’s site, uncommon descent is interesting too for both sides of argument if you read through the comments to the articles under hte article-)
[[That’s three words, and another theory and set of assumptions which may or may not be true.]]
It is backed up by observable testable evidences/experiments
I have looked and found nothing. Obviously you can't find anything either or you would point to it : )
What is the EVIDENCE that shows Macroevolution? IF you are demanding Evidence prove ID, then you are goign to have to provide evidence that PROVES Macroevolution,
Not prove, support. For evidence that supports macro evolution you don't need to search any further than DNA specie comparisons. http://www.dna-rainbow.org/species-comparison.html
I read Uncommon Descent nearly every day. That’s how I know how foolish much of the stuff said in the name of ID is. Including most of the stuff said on this thread.
I know, for example, that there is not a single instance of a calculation of CSI (complex specified information). Since that hypothetical calculation of probability is the cornerstone of intelligent design, I know that Phillip Johnson is correct to say that ID does not have a theory competitive with evolution.
[[I think the bottom line for me is that Williams asserts, but does not show, that since higher-level controls cannot be fully explained by the actions of the lower-level systems they control, there is no way they can naturally arise from those systems.]]
Well he does show it- in several ways- even by using non living systems- the post I’m workign on will show why species psecific systems can’t receive info they aren’t coded for to handle iwthin the metainfo- There probably is a problem with my post- and feel free to point it out- Hard to think today- and htere’s probably somethign I’m not takign into concideration in the analogy- if so, please point it out.
[[To me, that’s an unwarranted leap, and until he offers some support beyond analogies to nonliving machines, it’s fatal to his argument.]]
He does offer support- Both in the chemical purity, and the fact that lower systems woudl have had no higher syatems fro mwhich to draw the necessary Megaevolving info from if we’re to assume species Macroevolved from chemicals- He even offers support further down the line from abiogensis- The argument presented is reasonable, however, a coutner argument, as JS pointed out, ‘Might be’ that Created Metainfo at one time allowed for Mecroevolution, but now it doesn’t. While an extremely remote claime possibility, it might have a scant possibility- unless there is somethign in this paper that I’m not seeing that suggest otherwsie.
The issue would then become, IF there is a scant chance that Metaifno was designed to allow Macroevolution, then it’s just one more bilogical, mathematical, chemical, and natural law violating small hope for macroevolution, and how reasonable woudl it be to try to aergue the case in light of the compelte lack of evidnece for it?
[[I have looked and found nothing. Obviously you can’t find anything either or you would point to it : ) ]]
You didn’t look very hard- there are even Id online scientific magazines- keep looking
[[Not prove, support. For evidence that supports macro evolution you don’t need to search any further than DNA specie comparisons.]]
Simliarity shows nothing- especially in light of hte impossibilites againt Macroevolution- all that evidence shows is that common design is am ore reasonable explanation
You seem awfully quick to declare things impossible because they haven't been done in a lab yet, and to discourage people from even wanting to try.
[[I know, for example, that there is not a single instance of a calculation of CSI (complex specified information).]]
Not a single one eh? Hmmm- seems you just have a difference of opinion:
[[I know that Phillip Johnson is correct to say that ID does not have a theory competitive with evolution.]]
you’re welcoem to your opinion, but the facts show that it sure indeed does- Wehther you accept it or not is not relevent.
LOL The bible isn't evidence : )
Simliarity shows nothing- especially in light of hte impossibilites againt Macroevolution- all that evidence shows is that common design is am ore reasonable explanation
Then you don't understand what you are talking about : ) It isn't similarity that is most interesting it is lineage. DNA can show where species have diverged. DNA evidence specifically rules out common design : )
[[You seem awfully quick to declare things impossible because they haven’t been done in a lab yet, and to discourage people from even wanting to try.]]
Try all you like- I personally beleive you will find out just how impossible it really is and run smack dab into one brick wall after another- but feel free to try. Just stating my opinion that the evidnces agaisnt Macroevolution are strong enough, and impossible enough that you won’t find success- And just for hte record, many thigns have been done ‘in hte lab’ and they just further illustrate how impossible it really is. Just saying- Don’t hate the messenger.
[[DNA evidence specifically rules out common design : )
]]
Good bye- It does no such thing- and hte evidnece does not show where ‘species diverged’- it shows that common design results in common genetic vulnerabilites- that’s all- Going beyond hte science by claiming anything more isn’t science, it’s projecting a religious hypothesis
A religious idea I might add that contradicts the evidences, and violates laws- not just in moot instances- but every major step of the way- trillions of times- but if you wish to beleive macroevolution somehow overcame these serious defects to the hypothesis, then fine, but don’t tell me the evidneces ‘rule out common design’ when they do no such hting.
OK. But if it's all based on the messenger's opinions and personal beliefs, what's the difference between the message and the messenger?
I’ve read that thread and many more like it. It supports my statement that there is not a single instance of the calculation of CSI.
Perhaps my standards are too high. I generally think calculations require numbers and equations.
==I’d need to know more about whether or not nature is capable of creating chemically pure systems
It’s not just perfectly purity at issue. As Williams points out, these perfectly pure molecules are being selected out, one molecule at a time, from the dirty chemistry that we ingest in the form of food. Nothing in inanimate nature could possibly do this on its own. Therefore, this capability cannot be explained by either environmental chemistry or physics.
==I would also like to know a bit more about whether metainfo can or can not be created in a stepwise fashion- so far htough, the evidence seems to indicate it can not, and makes a fairly strong case that it can’t- but I’m not sure it’s an ‘airtight’ case
This also strikes me as a polyani impossibility, as metainfo (again, as Williams points out) is “information about how to use information. Meta-information cannot arise by chance because it only makes sense in context of the information it relates to.” In other words, in order for the thousands of metabolic pathways of a cell to function, inversely causal metainfo (information that anticipates what comes next) must be in place, but this very same metainfo cannot be explained by the metabolic pathways themselves, and yet is totally meaningless without said metabolic pathways. One cannot function without the other. Which means they both had to be present at the same time no matter how they got here.
==Williams made a coupel of unfortunate statements- however, they did nothign to undermine the central concepts that I can see.
Did you mention these before. I don’t seem to recall what you’re talking about here.
[[OK. But if it’s all based on the messenger’s opinions and personal beliefs, what’s the difference between the message and the messenger?]]
That isn’t the issue- the issue is about what the messenger is bringing to the table- is it reasonable? Is it more reasonable than the opposing hypothesis? Whiel it is indeed my opinion, hte evidences are more supportive of the reasonability of common design, and that isn’t simply opinion, it is supported by the evidneces If we’re to intellectually honestly objectively examine the differences between the two.
==The design itself may be creating mutations in response to external stimulus or stress, looking for combinations that will cope better.
Careful, you are starting to think like a Creationist/IDer :o)
Since I just answered fielded the same assertion with IL, I’m reprinting part of my response here:
Williams does no such thing. He was not focusing on Polany’s musings with respect to the origin of life. Rather he was focusing in on what he calls “Polanyi impossibilities.” And he quotes the relevant passage from Polanyi’s paper to illustrate what he’s talking about. Namely,
“The recognition of certain basic impossibilities has laid the foundations of some major principles of physics and chemistry; similarly, recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of physics and chemistry, far from setting limits to our understanding of life, will guide it in the right direction.”
And let us not forget Polanyi’s unambiguous conclusion:
“Summary...Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of inanimate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry.”
Whatever Polanyi’s speculations with respect to origin of life research might have been, he clearly demonstrated that there are autopoietic “boundary conditions” that are “irreducible” to the “laws of inanimate nature.” Williams was right to point out that this renders naturalistic evolution a Polanyi impossibility, thus leaving Intelligent Design as the only historical inference that meets the criterion of the Law of Cause and Effect.
Not being able to project emergent properties from the properties of component parts suggests that design of emergent systems is impossible except via evolutionary algorithms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.