Posted on 02/26/2005 4:45:01 PM PST by DannyTN
I believe you, although I don't think another particular poster who felt obliged to chime in can make that claim.
I'm not going to waste my time rebutting the entire thing, but if you'd like to point out the one or two parts you feel are most supportive of ID, I'll explain what's wrong with them.
The funny thing is a good bit of Meyer's article involves arguments long batted about here on crevo threads. Of course, now the points are peer reviewed :-)
One thing for you to consider is how neo-Darwinism fails completely to account for the Cambrian explosion.
Another point is: "Natural selection can favor new proteins, and genes, but only after they perform some function. The job of generating new functional genes, proteins and systems of proteins therefore falls entirely to random mutations. Yet without functional criteria to guide a search through the space of possible sequences, random variation is probabilistically doomed." This is a pretty good criticism of non-design arguments.
Meyer addresses design in a fairly philosophical way but the arguments against considering design are basically philosophical rather than empirical so that's not unfair. He notes, however, that it is not arbitrary to consider design, and basically says why not consider it since it makes more sense than the other claims.
Heaven forfend, psipsistar!
Darwinist theory doubtless does have predictive value. It seems Darwinist theory constitutes a good explanation of adaptations in living beings occasioned by "pulls" from the external environment. But there's more to living beings than environmental pulls. And there's nothing in Darwinism that can account for the emergence of life in the first place.
So, if one is interested in the problem, "What Is Life?," one finds that Darwinist theory is, at best, but a piece of the puzzle. There's more 'splainin' to do.
Thank you very much for writing, psipsistar!
Junk!!!! This is peer reviewed in a respected journal!!!! Did you know that?
This link does not lead to the Biological Society of Washington. Your link actually leads to www.discovery.org.
Why did you change the name? Are you ashamed of the real source? Cannot you be even a little bit honest in your postings?
What is a good question but I find why to be ever so much more interesting. Why, for instance, does life try so dang hard to survive?
The "Will to Live" is #3 of my nine challenges on this thread: post 40 on the Does Science Point to God thread
Thank you for your post!!!
Because natural selection favors the life forms which do.
Yes.
This is peer reviewed in a respected journal!!!!
So what?
Did you know that?
Yes.
for later reading ping
The funny thing is a good bit of Meyer's article involves arguments long batted about here on crevo threads. Of course, now the points are peer reviewed :-)
So? That means nothing more than that a handful of reviewers decided to give it a green-light to be printed in an issue of the journal.
One thing for you to consider is how neo-Darwinism fails completely to account for the Cambrian explosion.
I'd be glad to "consider" that if you could actually make a case for such a claim. But neither Meyers article nor anything you've posted here actually supports such an assertion. So why should I consider your empty assertion?
Another point is: "Natural selection can favor new proteins, and genes, but only after they perform some function. The job of generating new functional genes, proteins and systems of proteins therefore falls entirely to random mutations. Yet without functional criteria to guide a search through the space of possible sequences, random variation is probabilistically doomed." This is a pretty good criticism of non-design arguments.
ROFL!! Look, the first quoted sentence is true in a sense (although "perform some function" is remarkably vague and probably misleading). The second sentence is moderately correct but leaves out other parts of the process. The third sentence, however, is flat wrong. So please explain how "this is a pretty good criticism of non-design arguments".
Meyer addresses design in a fairly philosophical way but the arguments against considering design are basically philosophical rather than empirical so that's not unfair.
No, the "argument against design" is that there is no theory *of* design, and no evidence *for* it.
He notes, however, that it is not arbitrary to consider design, and basically says why not consider it since it makes more sense than the other claims.
He's entitled to his opinion, I suppose, but until there's some sort of actual theory of design, and/or evidence in favor of that theory *specifically*, it's just a philosophical bull session.
Before our investigation into abiogenesis was terminated by the raising of the fallacy of the quantizing the continuum (unwillingness of correspondents to accept there could be a definition of life v non-life/death)
That wasn't the reason for the raising of the fallacy, nor were the participants in that thread "unwilling to accept" that there could be a definition of life vs non-life. The disagreement was over whether there were graduated states in between.
- we did explore the thermal vents speculation and discovered that the newer preference is primordial pizza (over primordial soup).
The "primordial pizza" is a slang term *for* the hydrothermal vent scenario. Here you make it sound as if one has replaced the other, when in fact they are the same thing. Or have I misunderstood/missed your point here?
Miller is a fine chemist, but a lousy oceanographer. No, the "entire ocean" doesn't pass through hydrothermal vents every 10 million years. If it did, all ocean life would have been parbroiled and there wouldn't be any fish left. The fact that ocean life has persisted just fine for hundreds of millions of years without being flash-fried shows that Miller's argument is quite simply wrong.
It's probably true that about one ten-millionth of the ocean's volume gets sucked through the hydrothermal vent system in a given year -- that sounds about right given the flow rates of the vents -- but that's *not* the same as saying that every gallon of water in the ocean actually passes through the vents sometime over each ten million year period. Given the obvious fact that the water in the ocean mixes easily, it would take many billions of years to actually sterilize 90+% of the material in the oceans.
So if you're clinging to that idea in hopes of "disproving" ocean-based abiogenesis, jwalsh07, I'm sorry to have to disappoint you.
Is this a statement of faith?
No it isn't, it's a statement of what the evidence indicates.
You, nor anybody else for that matter, can declare this to be true absent a very strong belief system.
Actually, I can declare it to be what the evidence indicates, because it is.
I say that knowing that even if true it wouldn't affect my beliefs one way or the other.
Good for you then.
If I thought I had bore false witness against him I would.
Then you'd better, because you have.
But he has repeatedly called me and others "liars" on this thread and others (see post 33 & 36).
I have pointed out where you and others have told falsehoods. I can provide as much support as you'd like for my assertions. You have, indeed, posted falsehoods.
And that truly makes him like Al Franken.
No, it doesn't. Al Franken calls people liars without good cause. I call people liars when they actually are telling lies.
Jesus didn't apologize when he called the pharisees hipocrits and vipers. I'm not going to apologize for calling him like Al Franken,
You're not Jesus, and Jesus wasn't doing what you're doing, which is making false accusations against people in order to divert attention from his own falsehoods.
especially when he called me like a liberal fan of Michael Moore first.
I made a case for why that was an accurate assessment. You avidly follow biased sources which are known to be grossly inaccurate due to their agendas, you uncritically swallow their propaganda, and then you go running around repeating it, and you continue to believe the false propaganda even after people have taken pains to refute the propaganda with facts. That makes you very much like a liberal fan of Michael Moore indeed.
If he can dish it out, he better learn how to take it.
I can take it just fine -- if I repeat any falsehoods, feel free to roast me for it. But I will *not* have you making *false* accusations against me because I make *true* accusations against you. That only proves my original point about your (in)accuracy and your (dis)honesty.
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.