Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
You may be catching on. There is no way, not even in principle, that ID could be falsified, because we're free to postulate anything we want to about the hypothetical designer. ID has no explanatory power at all - absolutely any observation is consistent with it, since the designer is not restricted in any way.
However, as I and others have stated above, there are observations, which if they were ever made, would falsifiy standard biological evolution (out-of-place fossils, non-tree-like dna or protein based classifications, an intermediate between a bird and a mammal, etc ad infinitum). None of these observations has ever been made.
Another thing. The scientific theory allows us to make rather strong predictions, for example 'if a particulaar piece of dna is found in both people and orangutangs, it will also be found in chimps and gorillas.' This single statement is a huge number of potential falsifications. Can ID come up with something similar? How could it possibly, since it asserts nothing whatsoever about the hypothetical designer?
The above statement about people and apes has counter parts in other lineages, for example artiodactyls: 'if a particualr piece of dna is found in both pigs and whales, it will also be found in cows and hippopotomi' See section 4.7 in Plagiarized Errors
I KNOW that. I have not been misinformed. You are making assumptions. I am aware that they came up with this to support the TOE, specifically to address the issue of lack of change for long periods, and then suddenly a burst of change.
The basis of PE is the neontological theory of peripatric speciation.
This statement converges two separate concepts. Neontology just means "current organisms" (but just try to find that word in your standard online dictionary. Heh heh.) Regarding PE, neontology just means using our understanding of current living organisms to understand paleospecies. While parapatric speciation is supposed to provide support for PE, in fact the parapatric speciation simulations tend to be run to support microevolution.
If I don't make a botch of it, here is the simplified specification of PE.
1st, a mutation generates a split between a parent and a daughter population.
2nd, it so happens there is geographical isolation of the daughter population, thus that population becomes a separate species. (Note, however, it might be better termed a "breed" but current species definition no longer requires inability to interbreed for a species to be defined within the context of the TOE. I personally think that is begging the question, but hey, what the heck.)
3rd, since the daughter species is isolated, and interbreeds, the mutation rate is higher. (Think "Deliverance" and the banjo boy.) Yikes.
4th, an "environmental event" or other situation occurs such that the daughter species breaks out of their niche and spreads widely, while the parent species croaks. Or not.
Now how is this different from microevolution? Well, PE asserts that since the mutation would occur in a limited geographical range, the "transitional" forms are unlikely to be found. Ergo, when the daughter species "breaks out" they appear without transitional forms.
Great. However, while PE is interesting, it doesn't explain two things. One I have said before regarding dogs, which is that we have bred the heck out of them and we can still cross them with wolves. TOE assumes that given enough time that speciation without the ability to interbreed will occur. This has not been experimentally verified in animals (I think), although it can be done fairly easily in plants. Secondly, PE explains how a new species can pop up, but doesn't explain really the problem of long periods of no change in the fossil record and then (what I referred to before as "WHAMO") you get huge form differences. Like when trilobites and brachiopods appeared, there wasn't anything even close in form to them. That event was comparable to having a jump from lemurs to humans with nothing in between. I don't think PE really explains a gap that big.
I can't for the life of me figure out how someone who's ostensibly devoted to the standard of intellectual honesty such as yourself (as am I) could possibly interpret my posts as "seeking to find something anti-conservative" in your source's writings. Why do you do that? And please be specific in your charges.
For something to be science,you need evidence. It does not matter if 5,999,999,999 people say that evolution is science, and only I say it is not. If there is no evidence it is not science.
For a theory to be science it first of all has to be a theory, and there is no theory of evolution because each time someone makes one up it gets refuted by the scientific facts. That's why over at TalkOrigins they have two dozen theories of evolution, one for every occassion.
Sure. By analogy, suppose I have a CRM system (that's Customer Relationship Management to you non computer types.) This system lets a CSR (customer support representative) enter data about a customer into the system. For example, the ability to change address information. Now I can predict, absolutely, once I have examined the Siebal CRM, that the Clarify CRM and the Vantive CRM will also have this same functionality. Why is this? Because form follows function, in the sense that this functionality is needed, therefore it is written. Further, I can predict with confidence, once I have seen one ERP system, that any other ERP system will also have some form of order processing functionality.
Ergo, in fact, for ID I would predict exactly what you identify as true for TOE. Using your precise example, 'if a particulaar piece of dna is found in both people and orangutangs, it will also be found in chimps and gorillas', I would predict that for ID.
Who cares what a Marxist says, IMO they're all liars who will say anything for power.
It is the only solution to those that wish to create something and then decide to undermine it.
VIRTUAL IGNORE, has been and forever shall be, OUR FRIEND!!
If what ALS said was so illogical, then why did you not refute it? The above sounds like an insult at someone who has proven an evolutionist wrong. Back up your statement, apologize, or show yourself to be the disruptor of the agreement you promised to abide by less than 48 hours ago. Remember civility?
BTW - Patrick Henry's name is in the above since he was the prime negotiator for the evolutionist side and for no other reason.
ALS apparently does. A lot. Its all he ever talks about.
That's not necessarily correct. If I were to suggest an ID, it would fit the observations made in nature. Which is, that the code tends to be hacked to fit current needs, that copy/paste is used, and that bugs are introduced. Very, very much like software development as we know it. So, if I were to suggest a single "designer", I would suspect they are way overworked. I would, I think, suggest multiple "designers" and "coders" and suspect that some of the sub-contractors are not too hot at what they do, while others are brilliant. And I suggest that that explanation fits the observed results also.
And here is falsifiable statement for ID. I bet that if my (half-joking) statement is correct, somewhere in the DNA we will find some "comment" statements (maybe in the so-called "junk" DNA). So here you go. If no "comment" statement is ever found, then this half-joke ID theory has been falsified. So all that is required to disprove this half-joke ID, is to show that the "junk" DNA contains no coding comments.
You really need to find some other argument for evolution. Any way you call it sickle cell anemia is not beneficial. It has not created anything which is beneficial in an organism. You need to create things to get from a bacteria to a human, an illness creates only destruction. And also let me note that many survive malaria without carrying this trait. In fact, if it was prevalent in any large amount of any population it would kill up to a quarter (that's called genetics, a well proven scientific fact) of the children of those carrying this trait. So yes, more people have survived without this trait than with it.
I know you say it tongue in cheek but this has proposal has been put forth before to which I ask what would the "comment" look like? Is it written in english? In novel nucleotides?
In the heterozygous condition, it does offer some protection from malaria.
You have just made a valid statement. The QED doesn't provide much -- to the electrician. And not just to the electrician. Electrical theory as a whole doesn't depend upon the QED for squat. You are making my point back to me. Not even antenna theory needs QED. Not to say that QED isn't valid, it is. But it isn't applicable to electrical theory in any pragmatic way.
The only thing that the TOE contributes to genetics is the concept that mutations happen - spontaneously, due to radiation, or other mutagens. But that concept could be understood without the baggage of the TOE.
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.