Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
I liked your earlier idea of "composite" but you probably have it right this time. I know of no way to clean this up further tonight and am too tired to chase it.
Yeah right. I got a good laugh out of that. Science is unbiased, for example:
global warming "science"
gun control "science"
environmental doom "science"
population study "science"
The EPA
The CDC
Al Gore and Earth in the Balance
No biased science here.
JWinNC
Sorry for the tardy response, I was occupied. Yes, I understand and commiserate. On the other hand it is particularly galling when Richard Dawkins relates biblical lessons to believers and is completely wrong when he does so.
Science in itself is just science; models that are created from observed phenomena. Unfortunately, not all scientists are unbiased towards their models.
And there are people outside of Answers in Genesis who are just as troubled by blind chance.
B3: Extrapolating From Small Changes -- This has no attribution but argues against small changes + time = large change
| Roland F. Hirsch For example, molecular analyses indicate that all living things fall into three domains-the Bacteria, Archaea, and Eucarya-related by descent from a common ancestor." This has been a fundamental point of Darwin's theory- stated here by its strongest adherents. Yet the microbial gene sequence information indicates it clearly is wrong, which suggests to me that the Darwinian theory itself is fundamentally, perhaps fatally flawed. Rather few cellular processes are enabled solely by the presence of a single gene product. Indeed, in some cases several different proteins must be present simultaneously, or the process does not take place at all. Such a process is called irreducibly complex. It does not occur at all unless every essential protein is present. So gradual, step-by-step evolution of the process would not work, for none of the intermediate stages would be "selected" because none of the intermediate stages would be functional. I should add that this point is supported by fundamental principles of information theory, as well as recent research that concludes that random mutations cannot create complex, biologically-specified genetic information. What is the origin of this complex specified information? Until recently it was thought that this problem of generating complex specified information could be solved by recourse to evolutionary or genetic algorithms. That hope is now dwindling as a result of the recently proven No Free Lunch theorems, which show that evolutionary algorithms fail on average to outperform blind search
|
| ID Friendly Evolution This link is to an article that uses quotations from a presentation by James A. Shapiro. I was unable to find the original document and must trust that this is a faithful representation of the original. The citations are ostensibly the word of Dr. Shapiro. One of the most important questions in evolution is: How can new adaptations originate? This is a difficult question, because most evolutionary novelties, such as the eye or the wing, involve the orchestrated expression of many different loci, a number of which act in the expression of multiple phenotypes. Conventional explanations that randomly generated advantageous changes in complex characters accumulate one locus at a time are unconvincing on both functional and probabilistic grounds, because there is too much interconnectivity and too many degrees of mutational freedom. The genomic reorganization perspective, however, allows us to restate the question of adaptive novelties as : How can a complex multicomponent genomic system be assembled before screening by selection? |
A gall bladder, perhaps. Plato is a fuzzball of compassion.
Didn't Michelangelo paint Plato on the ceiling of the Cistine chapel once?
Yes. Alas, it was thought too sexually suggestive, so the original was altered to put a man in Plato's place. All that we have now is Junior's blasphemous representation. Perhaps he'll post it for us.
[Got a question for Plato? Send it in, only 2 cents per minute -- much cheaper than Miss Cleo.]
That's right! Tease the organ-gimp! (These threads can get very un-PC.)
So we have no "material" evidence of a "pre-biotic soup", yet it is necessary for the paradigm so is assumed. And this is different from faith in what way?
The "pre-biotic soup" is not a necessary assumption. That life began is axiomatic. If that's faith, it's a faith everyone on earth shares. Kumbaya!
For the paradigm I believe we are discussing it is necessary. The fact that life began is also "evidence" that it could have been created.
No, it isn't. The "pre-biotic soup" is only one of many hypotheses for beginning of life.
Okay pick one.
The fact that life is axiomatic. It isn't evidence of anything.
We can create abiotic conditions in the laboratory (since they don't exist in nature anymore) and we get can get complex hydrocarbon soup in fairly short periods of time. A week or so, not billions of years. With a small flask, not a whole ocean.
So, you think what a whole abiotic planet and lots of time might do.
Is that faith or just a rational model with a skoach of imagination? Before you take off on "imagination = faith," look at gore3000 woodenly assuming that each scrap of fossil bone is all the evidence there ever is or was for the reconstruction of said fossil. That's a failure of imagination, not faith.
Look at Frumious B's original argumentum ad walnut that the lack of pre-biotic soup today proves something. Faith he has. Imagination he has not.
Here, I answered, "Do you find it interesting that if you set out fresh bread, meat, milk, butter, or cheese, something large or microscopic or in-between will eat it?"
Frumious's rather jaw-dropping response:
Wouldn't happen if the lifeforms that eat these foods didn't exist. So your question really has nothing to do with the ID vs evolution debate.When the other side does that, I want to thank them for making it so clear what's going on. Not that you're sure what it is that's going on, but it can't be good.
Stultis was analyzing this curiosity when you chimed in, "'So we have no 'material' evidence of a 'pre-biotic soup', yet it is necessary for the paradigm so is assumed."
Factually incorrect, O Accuracy-Obsessed one.
Then how can it be a fact? You believe in facts without evidence?
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.