Posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Wrong. Everybody can see you didn't. You're being intellectually dishonest.
And as for your confusion as to message theory, it appears you are simply ignorant.
Thank you, I have seen it. It was a clear KO against Thomas.
Thomas failed to establish his thesis:
1. Biomolecules aren't "independent" evidence for macroevolution - they cannot stand-alone - they aren't "fingerprints." Rather their very meaning must be interpreted beside other evidences - even Thomas did this.
2. Biomolecules don't "compel" us to macroevolution. Haldane's Dilemma remains unsolved. Evolution doesn't predict hierarchy, biochemical unity, abundant convergence, concerted evolution, or relative-rarity of enzymes for digesting the world's most abundant food compound - cellulose. If evolution predicts anything on these matters, it predicts contrary to what we observe. And that's just some biomolecular evidences.
3. Message Theory scientifically explains these patterns and more. Thomas's arguments against Message Theory all misrepresented it. He now responds that he personally finds the theory "illogical and unconvincing" - for reasons he chose not to reveal! Thus, he failed to explicitly address - much less dislodge - Message Theory.
Wrong. Everybody can see you didn't. You're being intellectually dishonest.
Balderdash. This is a bluff. Show me specifically how my characterization is different from the explanation given and quoted back to you.
And as for your confusion as to message theory, it appears you are simply ignorant.
Than, pray tell, enlighten me; what is the course content of message theory Remane has taken a phud in?
Do you agree, LVD, that science is not materialist?
Cordially,
You mean on own goal by ReMine, don't you? I mean, consider this example. He says
Humans transpose designs anywhere useful (into cars, buildings, etcetera) Transposition is ordinary design practice. But lifes designer avoided that.But then just above in his chart the transposition row lists lateral transfer and endosymbiosis as examples. Both are very well supported by the evidence. Unless he is arguing that lateral transfer doesn't happen and endosymbioisis didn't happen, it appears "life's designer" does employ transposition.
Yes! It is the ones who support natural evolution who make the claim that such molecular systems evolved in the past by numerous, step by step modifications of precursors. As that is essentially a historical claim, at least reconstructions of the actual pathways and assemblies would be warranted, supported by detailed, testable data, and failing that, at least detailed, testable alternatives. If Behe has performed no other service, at least he has provoked some biologists to try to provide a detailed Darwinian accounting of these molecular systems. Darwinists should be be glad for such challenges that provide even more opportunity to demonstrate scientifically the truth of their hypotheses, but I don't see much evidence that many of them are. Quite the contrary.
Where would this end?
When does science and the quest for knowledge end?
And how do you propose to discount the argument that the Designer may be intervening in the petri-dish?
What is that argument?
Cordially,
When does science and the quest for knowledge end?
Well, actually it ends the moment a supernatural entity can be undetectably altering the results of observations.
Anyway, your answer sounds to me like you just want carte blanche to propose forever that any system whose pathways haven't yet been demonstrated might be IC, and therefore naturalistic evolution isn't yet acceptable to you. That amounts to you setting a bar for the acceptance of naturalistic evolution that can never be overcome.
"And how do you propose to discount the argument that the Designer may be intervening in the petri-dish?"
What is that argument?
The argument that we've had before. Once you propose that a Designer of unknown motivation and powers can undetectably intervene, then how can you ever trust the results of any naturalist experiment. If BF appear in the petri dish, how do you know that your proposed Designer didn't tweak them into existence? Or are you going to set limits on the Motives/Power/Detectability of your hypothetical Designer?
An idiotic ad hominem aspersion...even for you, apparently made since you can't deal with his superior mathematical logic and credentials.
His hobby in magic only helps inform us of how he had perceived the sleight-of-hand deceptions of the naturalists...and helps expose it to all.
There is no way you can spin that debate. You lost.
Anyone who reads it will know what I mean.
His credentials? What credentials? Walter ReMine is an EE. How does that give him special expertise in the area of evolutionary biology?
I could submit such proposals till I'm blue in the face, but what would effectively put an end to it is detailed, testable reconstructions demonstrating that such structures can occur in a gradual, step by step Darwinian process, in which case Occam's razor would suffice nicely to finish off a design inference, or at least render it superfluous. One doesn't need to invoke intelligent agency where a naturalistic, undirected mechanism will do.
As far as the methodological approach to the epistemological dilemma of a putative Designer tweaking the Petri dish, I've never heard of anyone not doing an experiment or suggesting it invalid because of lack of direct knowledge or certainty of possible motives/powers of any designer. That type of Humean certainty is not a necessary part of a scientific design inference anyway.
Cordially,
How can it not be? Please explain why the Designer would definitely not intervene in whatever experiment one constructs that is related to proving or disproving ID? It is you who is proposing an interventionary tinkering Designer. How do you know when the Designer is tinkering, and when the Designer is not tinkering?
Incidentally, your politeness is a breath of fresh air. after the rantings I am facing on another thread.
Kind Regards
That's it in a nutshell! Elegantly put.
(PLACEMARKER)
No. You took a statement out of context and omitted the vast majority of the argument. Before you rushed off to note Remine's listing of transpositions in the chart he developed, showing where the evolutionists made their stands, he then explained his view, which you conveniently omitted with your over-hasty and misrepresentative 'But':
Here is the WHOLE passage:
Evolutionists could forever circumvent those fossil difficulties, if complex traits were rampantly transposed between morphologically-distant lineages – here called Transpositions. This exceedingly powerful evolutionary explanation could potentially explain-away the twofold absences of gradualism and clear-cut ancestors/lineages. (Indeed, that notion lay at the core of Syvanen’s evolutionary theory, which assumes lateral DNA transfer between higher-lifeforms.[4]) Transposition patterns, if sufficiently sturdy, would nullify the fossil record’s testimony against common descent – therefore Message Theory predicts life’s design avoids Transposition patterns.
Humans transpose designs anywhere useful (into cars, buildings, etcetera) Transposition is ordinary design practice. But life’s designer avoided that. Life’s designs are re-used, not randomly anywhere useful, but in confined “theme and variation” patterns that resist Transposition interpretations. This feature profoundly distinguishes life from human-designed systems.
The substantial absence of Transposition patterns from macroorganisms (at morphological, embryological, and biomolecular levels): Resists Transposition explanations(E9), Syvanen’s theory, and “gene’s from Space” (Hoyle’s theory) Resists Exobiology(E13) Shows life’s designer is unordinary
Life’s hierarchy patterns (cladistic and phenetic): Supplies biodiversity for above-named purposes – while leaving “ancestors” out!(E1) Unifies all life together, as product of one designer Resists Transposition explanations(E9) Provides background, against which, “convergences”(E6) are ‘seen.’ Allows deep (rather than superficial) embedding of bio-message; making it: resistant to mutation, and inseparable from survival Resists incompleteness(E12). The above properties retain perceptibility even when lifeforms are severely unavailable.
These properties are vital for Message Theory.
The traits evolutionists call “convergences”(here including “parallelisms”), favor Message Theory – which explains their abundance. {Similar arguments apply to biomolecular patterns called “concerted evolution.”(E14)} These complex designs are: sufficiently similar (to demand special explanation), yet sufficiently non-identical (to negate Transposition/Atavism explanations), and systematically-placed (to negate explanation by common descent). Evolutionists are left with their least plausible explanation – independent origin of similar complex designs – such as your eyes and octopus eyes!
“Convergences” are abundant (at morphological, embryological, and biomolecular levels)[16]) because they: Help link diverse life-groups together, as products of one designer Help thwart attempts to ‘impose’ ancestors and lineages onto life’s pattern[17] Demand explanation, while resisting naturalistic explanations
Hence, he is totally consistent...and he hoists the naturalists by their petards.
I wish it was mine. Right Wing Professor, I think produced that precis last time I proposed that particular anti-ID argument (if memory serves).
Does ReMine or does he not say that life avoids transpositions? Well, that is false. Transposition is rampant. He mentions lateral gene transfer but omits stuff like retrotransposons and hybridization and ordinary chromosomal crossover, the latter two being fundamental drivers of evolution. It is simply ridiculous to say that life eschews transposition. One might even say that if an organism doesn't protect its genome, it will be a victim of transposition.
The guy's a kook. To claim that biology will resist naturalistic explanations when the evidence for evolution has convinced generations of biologists is just plain kooky.
I can understand Thomas just fine, despite his credentials being at least as "superior" as Remine's. That in fact is my point. Thomas has the goods for his position, presents them clearly, and explains clearly why they mean what he says they do.
By comparison, Remine sounds like Professor Irwin Corey. All smoke, mirrors, bafflegab, distraction, and evasion. He revels in being hard to understand. It is his refuge.
One thing that jumped out at me, having been exposed to some of Remine's arguments on previous FR threads, was that he saved his Haldane's Dilemma strawman for the third segment when he knew he was having the last word and couldn't be rebutted. Let's bring some of that forward.
Thomas cites "how simple genetic mutations ... can also produce radically new body plans."Thomas wasn't making a theoretic point. It's a fact. We knock out one or two HOX or UBX genes and get fruit flies with stump legs on their abdomens, four wings instead of two, etc. But Remine waves it away with a strawman argument from the 1950s. It takes nerve to try to wave away a hard fact with a bad model.
But that runs into Haldane's Dilemma - a classic evolutionary problem a leading evolutionist acknowledges, "was never solved".[3] Haldane showed that species with low reproduction (higher vertebrates) could substitute beneficial mutations no faster than one per 300 generations, on average.[4, 5]Now, I've already given you two sources on why Remine is an ass for still clutching at this straw. "No faster than one per 300 generations?"
Didn't get any reply from you on this post.
Then there was this post.
Remine is more buffoon than charlatan. You just have to know hocus-pocus when you're hearing it.
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.