Posted on 01/31/2005 12:15:48 PM PST by Grey Rabbit
As for the poem, dude, lay off the shrooms ... or at least pass them over this way.
Neither Dembski, nor anyone else, is "simply" saying "this looks designed".
What Dembski posits is a theory for detecting design, not a presumption of design nor a presumption of gradual accumulation of minute changes. The question is "How can we tell the essential difference between a rock and a watch?"(The Medical Examiner manages to tell the difference between Human and Natural causes.)
You are in turn wrong about the assumption of a designer then. Neither theory yet encompasses a complete accounting for the evidence but let us at least be civil and not declare theory simple-minded or ignorant because it fails to meet extraneous objections based on unprovable assumptions.
Philosophical worldview preconceptions about falsifiability or the exclusive preeminence of Naturalstic explanations are not to the point in the pursuit of Truth (with a capital "T"). Nor is the endless namecalling (ignernt trailer trash or elitist glorified pond scum for instance)of the sort that goes on around here appropriate or beneficial to the debate.
I must go. It's been fun.
I don't have Monstrous Regiment yet But I have read Night Watch about 6 times and I'm rereading Maskerade right now.
Dembski boils down to, "I know design when I see it." It's still subjective.
Should make for an interesting grant application.
Are you really ready to say that there exists no such category as design. It kinda puts you in the same boat as those libertarians who say there exists no such category as pornography because the legal definitions are not fool-proof and ironclad.
No. I'm saying there is no objective test for design ... yet.
Agreed. But there is likewise no repeatable demonstration of evolution.
Agreed. But there is likewise no repeatable demonstration of evolution.
Evolution made predictions as to which organisms were related to which other organisms. DNA testing has confirmed as many of these predictions as have been checked. These tests are repeatable.
All present and fossilized animals found should conform to the standard evolutionary tree. And they do.
Fossilized intermediates should appear in the "correct" chronological order on the standard tree.
Many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions.
Species that are more closely related should share a greater portion of their DNA.. Excerpt:
[A]n hypothesis of evolutionary relationships is provided by the fossil record, which indicates when particular types of organisms evolved. In addition, by examining the anatomical structures of fossils and of modern species, we can infer how closely species are related to each other. When degree of genetic similarity is compared with our ideas of evolutionary relationships based on fossils, a close match is evident.
Your understanding is wrong. The cambrian explosion lasted for many millions of generations. Punctuated equilibrium is one possible scientific explanation of it, and still involves "numerous small changes accumulating over time until a new species is established". Just a bit faster than normal due to greater selection pressure, thats all.
All arguments for common descent are equally valid for common design. Just because they have similar sequences doesn't make them related.
Then the thing that would separate the two would be the designer. How do you test for the designer?
If you cannot show me a step by step way to get from point a to point b then I need to start thinking about alternatives. All the protestations of similarity being equivalent to descent and all the gene sequences proving degrees of similarity between pigs and humans are beside the point. The workings of the cell and all the various biochemical and bio-electric cascades involved in life, not to mention the miraculous interdependence of all the various molecular machinery completely and totally precludes a step-by-step development.
So now what.
Which process would you like to investigate?
Millions of generations? That would be 10^6 generations. Doesn't seem like anywheres near enough time to accumulate all the mutations necessary in a finite population.
Many millions is not 10^6
Is it greater than or less than 10^7? Go ahead and add an order of magnitude or 2. It still isn't enough time.
Is it greater than or less than 10^7? Go ahead and add an order of magnitude or 2. It still isn't enough time.
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.