Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
Posted on 06/13/2005 7:50:19 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
You've been busy.
I think you're off to a good start and have the right idea.
Sorry, but I must leave to do some work and thus will not be able to tend the thread until this evening. But I very much look forward to reading all of your contributions!
How do you think the ID believers break down?
(A) Designer is God
(B) Designer is 'collective conciousness'
(C) Designer is aliens
(D) Designer is unknown at this time
I would assume a small minorty believe that B,C, or D are correct. What do you think?
It's "Science, Religion, and Evolution." by Eugenie C. Scott.
There is no such "central dogma of reductionism" in biology.
Again, it would behoove ID supporters to actually learn something about biology before they attempt to critique it, add to it, or identify any "problems" in it.
The primacy of DNA in influencing and regulating biological behavior and evolution is based upon an unfounded assumption.
Actually, it's based decades of research and mountains of evidence. And I note that the author doesn't actually present anything which undercuts such a position, although he does wave his hands a lot and pretends that he has.
Since the assumption emphasizes the genetic program as the "top rung" on the biological control ladder, genes have acquired the status of causal agents in eliciting biological expression and behavior (e.g., genes causing cancer, alcoholism, even criminality).
The author grossly misrepresents the case. While genes have "acquired the status" of *contributing* to such things in many cases -- and the evidence for such a position is overwhelming -- it's a straw man for the author to imply that biologists hold that genes are "the" cause of such things. Clearly many other factors are involved as well, and biologists never claimed that they weren't. In fact, biologists routinely seek, find, and identify such factors.
What happens if a cell experiences a stressful environment but does not have a gene program (behavior) to deal with the stress? It is now recognized that cells can "rewrite" existing gene programs in an effort to overcome the stressful condition. These DNA changes are mutations.
Yeah, so?
Also, the author keeps saying that "it is now recognized" and "until recently", etc. -- when in the hell was this written, the 1970's? The induced mutations he's talking about were discovered and recognized in the *1960's*. See: Bradshaw, A.D. (1965). "Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants," Advances in Genetics vol 13 pp 115-155) and observed at the DNA level in many studies in the 1980's ([West-Eberhard, M.J. (1986) "Alternative adaptations, speciation, and phylogeny (A Review)," Proceedings National Academy of Science USA vol 83 pp 1388-1392] [Harrison R.G. (1980) "Dispersal polymorphisms in insects," Annual Reviews of Ecological Systems vol 11 pp 152-153.] [Schlichting, C.D. (1986) "The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants," Annual Review of Ecological Systems, vol. 17 pp 667-693] [Stearns S.C. (1989) "The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity" Bioscience vol 39 pp 436-445]).
This is a typical rhetorical trick of IDers -- trying to pretend that an old, established concept that has been a standard part of evolutionary biology for decades is somehow a "new", "revolutionary" discovery that is on the verge of "changing everything" in biology and (so the implication goes) about to usher in a Brave New Era where creationism actually becomes real science.
But this current example is as lame as the others -- yeah, so environmetnal stresses cause some organisms to start randomly shuffling parts of their genomes, in order to increase the rate of evolutionary adaptation. So what? It's still evolution, and evolution can itself produce such "response mechanisms". So where's the ID? Where's the "problem" with evolution?
Until recently, all mutations were thought to be "random," meaning that the outcome of the mutation could not be directed.
And they *still* can't, even in the "induced mutation" cases the author mumbles about above. The environmental stresses just cause the genome to mutate faster, producing more random grist for the evolutionary mill.
It is now recognized that environmental stimuli can induce "adaptive" mutations that enable a cell to specifically alter its genes.
...and alter it randomly. And whether or not the mutations are adaptive is still up to the "luck of the draw". The genome doesn't automatically produce mutations that *are* adaptive, as if the changes were pre-planned.
Does Lipton not understand this -- or is he just trying to sucker the reader? Neither option inspires confidence.
Furthermore, such mutations may be mediated by an organism’s perception of its environment. For example, if an organism "perceives a stress that is actually not there, the misperception can actually change the genes to accommodate the "belief."
Translation: This increased rate of random genome shuffling can be triggered by accident, instead of when it would be actually useful. Whoop-de-doo.
Note how the author dishonestly attempts to conflate this to the level of some kind of "belief" or awareness at the cellular level.
In conclusion: The structure of our bodies are defined by our proteins. Proteins represent physical complements of the environment. Consequently, our bodies are physical compliments of our environment.
Faulty summary.
Where did you hear/read that claim, CarolinaGuitarman? Source please???
Sooo, you are preparing to lance FR's boil...
Messy work.....
Draining that sucker may be in a "needs to done" catagory..
Maybe not..
Marxism and Evolution dance together.. and may be cousins..
and Socialism and Christainity don't mix well.. unless the christianity is apostate.. as most is..
Socialism and Evolution do mix well.. actually they complement each other.. both are on a tear against the concept of human sin.. in different ways..
Socialism = Slavery by Government..
Evolution = Evolving organization of the slaves, socially by psuedo-science..
I guess you completely missed the similarities between evolution and free-market capitalism.
Unfortunately, I can't read the paper, only the CSC spin. I would also like to know how "god must have guided it" can help with cancer research. By design or by evolution, it acts the ways it does, period. It mutates because God told it to mutate one way, or it just mutates randomly. Does he think he can tell the difference between a God-ordered mutation and a random one?
I did notice that the author also has a degree in religious studies, which makes me think he's trying to throw the "ID" name into otherwise regular research in order to promote religion.
Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
I am not sure how ID helps us to understand processes in nature if the answer to natural questions is: "An omniscient, omnipotent god, allah, great spirit, designer did it."
For example, when Pasteur was developing the Germ Theory of Disease, couldn't all the same objections used against evolution have been raised? The IDers of the time could have said, well, the complexity of disease means that it had to be designed, intended by a super intelligence. But how would that have helped us understand the origins of infectious disease? Or turn the understanding of the GTOD into new ways to prevent or treat disease?
"Also, because the intelligent design doesn't specify the designer, it could be an emergent property of naturalistic origins - the current mainstream view of intelligence. In this case, emerging intelligence is one possible cause of its own variation."--AG
It always seems to me that with enough miracles and divine interventions absolutely anything can be "explained". But such explanations do not help humans to understand anything significant about the way the natural world works. That is, really works, as opposed to philosophical or theological notions about the way some think it should work.
The only basic decision really needed by "political conservatives" is whether they want to embrace ID, or not. They will not be using intelligence or investigation to make that decision. They will be using emotion, which is what all politics runs on. James Carville and Carl Rove probably have a better understanding on what will happen, and how to effect the outcome, than investigating actual scientific evidence.
I'm convinced that if and when political conservatives embrace ID, their days as a political majority are numbered. But what do I know?
The alternative possibility is "conservatives" gain even more power, and destroy science in an anti-evolution, and anti-environmental fit. The result is another dark ages, beginning in about 3 generations. Technological civilization ends. Because it depends on a belief that the natural world can be understood and somewhat "controlled", rather than "God does everything, so why bother with understanding". In the end, my great-great-grandchild herds sheep and dies an early death from an appendicitis.
Thanks for the ping. I followed most of your conversation with AntiGuv on defining the terms of the debate and will watch this one as well.
Yes I did.. But I didn't miss a free republic being evolved(morphed) into a democracy because a democracy is the source of socialism.. always has been that way, always will be.. Socialism is merely a symptom of a democracy.. America was designed as a unique kind of republic NOT a democracy in any sense.. Socialism does not like free market capitalism.. Almost ALL Marxists are evos.. and Maoists too.. Something about socialism that depends on evolution.. The affinity could be what they both think mankinds "IS".. The more socialist a country is the LESS it allows competetion to evolutionary theory.. Could have something to do with the State becoming the NEW God.. proverbially..
A-G So very true, jwalsh! Great catch.
A-G That point is addressed in the "Information or What is life v non-life/death in nature?" section of the article. How do we explain the "will to live" - "want to live" - "struggle to survive" - or what amounts to the primary inception of "successful communication" in life v non-life/death.
This seems typical of the ID crowd, to play semantics and jump on any use of the language that, to them, seems to indicate an external (or non-intrinsic) influence on evolution. The language is such that it normally becomes easier to express and to understand if a minor amount of anthropomorphizing occurs when describing processes.
Natural selection does not have a 'prime directive' in the sense jwalsh seems to mean nor is there a 'will to live' inherent in the living that cannot be explained by natural processes. Upon encountering a new environment, some survive and some don't. Those that survive reproduce. If one adaptation happens to be fear, leading to running away then those that fear and run the fastest will not be culled out. No direction, no 'prime directive', no external intelligent influence. Very simple, very straightforward.
If you're talking Soviets and Maoists, then that's only because they were officially taught athiesm. What else you gonna think about where species came from if there's no God?
Your comparison's irrelevant.
Most Dale Earnhardt fans are Christians too. And that's also irrelevant.
bump4later
Argumentum ad ignorantium.
You have been corrected a number of times about the directedness of natural selection. Why do you still insist on making the assertion that because, in your mind, natural selection is undirected it could not be responsible for changes in allele frequency within a population?
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.