Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
[[Allowing evil in a system that exhibits free will is quitedifferent from creating it in detail, s ID proponents assert.]]
God didn’t create evil- He allowed the ability to do evil, and ID doesn’t delve into these matters- they are strictly science makign no judgement values beyond hte science other than to suggest a more plausible, more feasible, more biologically logical alternative for life’s complexities than Macroevolution.
I don't think that's a sensical statement. I don't know what you define efficient by, but if we take the normal meaning of "Performing a job with the least wasted energy" then a stream does not find the most efficient path downhill. It will go the long way around something, even when a much shorter path could have been attained were it 1 inch higher and could wash over a bank.
A stream takes whatever path is easiest at the moment which is not always the most efficient.
-Jesse
You're starting with the presupposition that the ball did get in the whole by a certain method.
But we don't know empirically that the ball actually got into the hole by the proposed method.
But remember that we are like detectives who did not witness the incident, and are trying to determine it based on small facets of fact. The fact that the incident happened is not inherently proof that it happened a certain way.
When a golfer tells me that he hits a ball x number of feet and lands it right down in the hole, the number of feet matters. If he says 20 feet, I would be correct to believe him if I've found him to be an honest fellow. But if he says he hit it from 25 miles away, and got it right in the hole, then as a detective I am this time quite correct to consider the odds of the golfer's swing actually getting it into the hole, since there are other ways the ball could have been put in.
It's not that we're considering the likelihood of something happening when it's already happened, but rather we're considering the likelihood of whether it happened a certain way.
-Jesse
DNA is much like computer code, and cells are much like computers.I too write computer programs. While obviously computer programs aren't exactly like DNA, I think it is an excellent comparison. Computer code and DNA are both series of codes which completely describe the shape, function, and appearance of their end product. Now DNA is not turing capable or sequential like a computer program, but then it doesn't need to be. They both have words or opcodes if I may speak loosely that are in a certain order. And by removing or changing these codes, one can change the end product. Software pirates have, for years, been using hex editors to go change bytes in a program to disable a feature (usually the copy-protection code) and this is very like poking around in a DNA sequence and changing some of the codes and getting more wings on a fruit fly or whatever. In both cases code can be corrupted, deleted, inserted, and duplicated. In both cases randomly changing code generally cripples the end product (whether it be a life form or a computer program) or completely makes it unusable. But careful work of editing the code can change the operation or add features if the code to do more features is added.How so?
You could write a computer program to look any way you wanted or do whatever you wanted. If you were really good with a fine pair of tweezers and knew how DNA worked completely, you could, letter by letter, build any kind of creature you wanted.
I say that comparing DNA and computer code is an excellent comparison.
-Jesse
Uhh, wouldn't countering my argument have been more productive then saying something bizarre ?
-Jesse
Maybe our world-view influences the type of conclusions we tend to draw from the limited evidence? Maybe?
Said Jesse: I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the best evidence is actually no big thing but lots and lots of little things,It think that's true. It's like a court case where nobody saw the crime but there's blood, a weapon, a pattern of behavior, etc., each of which the defendant might explain away but which taken together point to one overwhelmingly plausible story.
But let's consider what happens if the guy they have isn't actually the guy who committed the crime. The problem with this method is that there could be 10,000 tiny evidences, 9,000 of which suggested the defendant's innocence, and 1,000 of which suggested the defendant's guilt. The prosecution could selectively submit just the evidence that was against the defendant, and say "Look here ladies and gentlemen of the court, I realize all of these little clues each by themselves would not stand and could be explained away, but look at how many there are. Alltogether, they form a very strong case that the defendant is guilty."
And try as the defense might, there's no way it will have time to go over even a hundred of those evidences.
Furthermore, whenever the defendant's lawyer brought up one of the facts that was in defense of the defendant, the prosecution would say "Oh that can't be right because look at the 1000 facts we already have condemning the defendant."
And by using as weight the 1000 carefully selected facts, the prosecution would categorically dismiss any of the 9,000 remaining facts, and not allow them to even be counted, all because the 1000 facts provided such a plausible case.
Remember, just because it could be doesn't prove that it is be!
And just because one idea is plausible it doesn't mean that another idea isn't more plausible. It also doesn't mean that either idea is correct.
-Jesse
Why isn't that a satisfying to you?
-Jesse
I said I wasn’t going to get into obfuscatory arguments.
If you choose to consider any sequence of base pairs in any arrangement as the same “data”, you may do so.
Considering the DNA based relationship trees used in modern phylogenetics, and ignoring the value judgements (”broken” copy mechanism) the answers to your questions are clearly in the res ipsa loquitur category.
Since doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result does not meet my definition of reasonable behavior, I will not respond to more questions. On occasion I will provide information. Since the scientist expulsion/exodus there are too few lurkers to post for and I have not got Coyoteman’s patience.
Courtesy ping to Coyoteman.
It most certainly does. ID asserts that things like malaria and E.coli are specific creations that could not have arisen without being designed and created by the designer.
These two examples are specifically cited by Behe in his latest book, and Behe is the only ID proponent currently testifying for the ID side. Behe was used as an expert witness in the recent california textbook case, defending the use of books supplied by Bob Jones University.
DNA is more like variable parameters to a function than machine code instructions. When you alter the input to a function you alter the output, but you do not crash the system. Cells can metabolize for some time without DNA.
DNA as code is a very limited analogy, and cannot be used to imply that mutations are typically fatal.
You're right, but I didn't say "the most efficient," I said "an efficient." I'll stand by that. My comparison was never meant to stand up to this kind of scrutiny--like I said, it was only meant to illustrate one small point, not be an analogy for the whole of natural history. But I will say that your clarification actually makes it a better analogy for the evolutionary process and makes it more applicable to the questions you asked. Dr. Malcolm said "Life will find a way," not necessarily the best way.
The problem with this method is that there could be 10,000 tiny evidences, 9,000 of which suggested the defendant's innocence, and 1,000 of which suggested the defendant's guilt....And by using as weight the 1000 carefully selected facts, the prosecution would categorically dismiss any of the 9,000 remaining facts, and not allow them to even be counted, all because the 1000 facts provided such a plausible case."
Speaking as the judge or juror in this analogy: bring 'em. I don't categorically dismiss anything. I've spent a lot of time reading the so-called evidence against evolution or for intelligent design that's been brought onto these threads, and I've found it unconvincing. And I sure haven't seen anything like a 9-to-1 ratio.
Why isn't that a satisfying to you?
Because it doesn't explain anything. It doesn't expand or deepen my understanding of how things work--in fact, it does the opposite. It leaves a lot of followup questions unanswered: why did the designer base the bird's wing on one set of bones and the bat's wing on another? Why did he make some sea creatures with tails that move from side to side and others with tails that move up and down? "Because he felt like it" is the answer one gives a child to shut them up.
>>Of course if everyone saw things the same way, there would not be thousands of religions.<<
That is for sure! And the most religiously intolerant man that ever existed was Jesus the Christ.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Not a lot of wiggle room there...
[[It most certainly does. ID asserts that things like malaria and E.coli are specific creations that could not have arisen without being designed and created by the designer.]
Those two examples are indeed cited, however, As far as I know, Behe simpyl states that they are IC, not that “The designer’ designed them- Nor does Behe make any mention in his books that I know of that states the original intents of both those bacteria and virus- As I mentioned both htose were benign before we invited sin into our lives- the original intent was not for causing disease as there woudl have been nho disease in God’s original intent for creation.
Have you read any of those think tank links I gave? If you go to the second link, and click on the first one (I think it’s called godevil.htm, Glen delves into the issues of evil and why God allows it- He does perhaps the best job of explaining that I’ve seen- To assert that God is evil for creating E.Coli, you have to know the mind of God and have to know every reason, argument etc that is involved in the keeping of Humanity under both a Holy universe, and one that allows evil. Note Glen’s response to a very similar accusation as you made: [[On (2), you assert that the divine judgments were/are senseless. This, of course, is a rather absolute statement of knowledge! Granted that you have been thinking about this for 40 years, I strongly suspect that God may actually have data / arguments / reasons that you havent had access to or have considered objectively. For you to asset that the judgments are senseless MUST be restated more accurately as I cannot see any sense in the divine judgmentsthis is a huge difference and one MUCH MORE IN KEEPING with the limited epistemic faculties of humanity!]] (The rest of that exchange has more valuable explanations down furhter in the page- but let’s be careful and intellectually honest in how we word our objections)
I touch on the issue briefly on my site here: http://sacredscoop.com/?p=755
[[DNA is more like variable parameters to a function than machine code instructions.]
The code/instructions analogy holds up- As you mention- alterations can only occure within parameters unique to a species code/instructions- the key here are hte parameters. Species are coded uniquely per KIND, and instructions include allowances of variances within certain parameters, and the instructions have the added advantage of having set protection variables which are instructed to kick in when somethign goes awry- Code can take into account any kinds of variables, and can be constructed with instructions to account for alterations and act in specific ways when the gene’s code encoutners problems or alterations.
While the output has been altered when the input was altered, it was all within the set isntructions within the parameters and the variences were coded for to begin with.
[[Dr. Malcolm said “Life will find a way,” not necessarily the best way]]
And life almost always does find a way- All within the limits of MICROEvolution- that was the genious behind hte coding-
[[I’ve spent a lot of time reading the so-called evidence against evolution or for intelligent design that’s been brought onto these threads, and I’ve found it unconvincing.]]
No? What do you find convincing? A hypothesis that so severely ignores biological reality that it is a scientific impossibility?
[[It leaves a lot of followup questions unanswered: why did the designer base the bird’s wing on one set of bones and the bat’s wing on another? Why did he make some sea creatures with tails that move from side to side and others with tails that move up and down?]]
Why are these even questions? You don’t question why a Natural process would result in different wing bones or different tails- yet apparently you allow an anythign goes attitude for Natural process, but not for any other process of creation? Do your two questions even matter? Both the birds and mammals function just fine just the way they are- and htere may very well by a reason why htey were constructed differently. Bats hover to catch the smalleest of insects, birds fly to snatch bigger insects- the hoverign would need more precision (Or diferent organs and flight structures like the hummingbirds) As well the bats live in dank caves, and wrap their young in their wings to keep them warm when young. This would need a more precise wing structure, and we see precisely designed features in bats that account for this.
Yes, there may be plenty of questions, but to say Macroevolution answers them while ID doesn’t is innacurate- what Nature shows is design- what it doesn’t show however are small stepwise progressions from one species to another- all Macroevolution can produce are wholly disimilar species which show a small number of homological similarities, but even here- it just shgows that Design elements are common because they work. You say ID lacks answers, but I assure you when Macroeovlution is examined more closely, it lacks even more answers
[[Considering the DNA based relationship trees used in modern phylogenetics,]
Which coincidently doesn’t show common descent unless you fill in gaping holes with imaginary scenarios that violate nature, but rather shows discontinuity.
Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.
Behe, Edge of Evolution, p237
That is called code. Ever heard of an emulator.
Cells can metabolize for some time without DNA.
Sure, those are called chemical reactions. A computer can save some data as the power crashes.
And mutations are not typically fatal. That is due to the fact that the cell repairs all but a few percent. Ever seen the blue screen of death on a PC? That is due to the fact that the system is ensuring a "mutation" in the code is fatal whereas, it could just reload and restart.
I assume you mean limits or constraints rather than "parameters." If you are going to lecture us on computer science, at least pay attention to the jargon.
And if you are going to lecture us on the limits of change, please feel free to describe with some numbers, the exact limits. Perhaps you could start with known types of mutations and tell us which ones are impossible or universally fatal.
Repaired mutations are not really considered mutations in a discussion of evolution.
Mutations that affect the germ line are generally not fatal because most of them occur in non-coding regions, or produce synonyms.
Fatal mutations in single celled organisms are not threatening to the population for the simple reason that the population can generally reproduce faster than the available food supply anyway.
In sexually reproducing organisms, fatal mutations are expressed as defective sperm or eggs, and are easily ignored, for the same reason as with single celled organisms. Every living thing is at one time or another in its life cycle, single celled. And the single celled stage includes far more individuals than will survive to reproduce.
But let me ask a question: are you saying that a cell with its DNA removed is "just chemistry"?
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.