Posted on 01/27/2009 6:59:07 AM PST by betty boop
Edited on 01/27/2009 7:16:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Neither side is objective. Indeed, no observer "in" space/time can perceive objectively "all that there is" all at once.
Fair enough, but personal feelings and perceptions are not available for examination and discussion among groups of people.
Civilization is the result of commonly agreed upon perceptions. Science and technology are built on carefully constructed and tested conjectures, hypotheses and theories, ideas that pass the same test regardless of race, religion, nationality or politics. Those using the same methodology get the same results.
Again, my question goes to the rise of autonomy, semiosis, information [Shannon, successful communication] and awareness. Not taking it as a "given."
Since you are obviously aware of his work, perhaps you can tell me whether he addresses those specific points on the order of the mathematicians and physicists who have. (e.g. Pattee, Rocha, Yockey)
Nevertheless, science finds useful generalizations that can be tested and applied by anyone. That is why science doesn't attempt to deal with absolute truth or supernatural events and causes. It's a self-imposed limitation.
That does not mean that science cannot find reliable information about past history and current phenomena. If you choose to live within you own self-contained shell and not participate in the adventure of science, that is your own self-imposed limitation. You and your friend have wisely placed your discussion in the religion forum. However, if you venture out of your self-imposed world and make declarations about what is or is not valid in the domain of science, you need to prepare yourself for criticism. I assure you that not many would be as polite as I attempt to be.
Those who have experienced such miracles - e.g. Christians like me - do not question whether they are real. But of course we cannot convince someone who has not yet experienced it.
The objective of the thread was to reveal our worldviews - "where we were coming from" - up front. There is little point in berating someone for not seeing or appreciating something he cannot see or appreciate as you do.
I don’t really know how to phrase this any simpler. If mathematical models do not conform to physical reality, the models are defective.
Szostak is working with physical reality. If he can demonstrate self-replication and evolution arising from chemistry, it is the mathematical models that need revising, not reality.
One could hearken back to discussions of whether human powered flight is possible. There’s theory and math, and there’s experimentation.
There’s scarcely anything happening in recent work on evolution that wasn’t declared impossible based on theories of irreducible complexity, or some form of vitalism.
I find it interesting that Yockey and Dembski have undergone late life conversions on the subject of evolutionary algorithms and information. There’s even a hate Yockey site devoted to pillorying Yockey for turning against ID. Dembski hasn’t turned against ID, but he has realized that selection is a source of active information.
But it is also true that we see the domain of science (that which is governed by physical laws, physical causation and physical constants) as a reduction of "all that there is." It is also true that we cannot make a metaphysical naturalist (atheist) see what we see.
Methodological naturalism is a self-imposed boundary of science, in particular biology. I do not believe that imposition was either necessary or prudent. All of science should be more like physics in my view - only declaring postulates appropriate to the theory at hand.
Boundaries do not apply to the Creator.
[[But at any rate, given the molecular evidence of ERVs and such, if it is demonstrated that speciation is possible, than the other lines of evidence for common descent become overwhelming.]]
Niether speciation nor ERV’s are evidence for common descent- Speciation is nothign more than a species reamining the same species- Despite hte fact that htey can not breed with other guls, ring species such as these are still gulls- lizards that are seperated and microevolve the innability to breed with other lizards on different islands does not mean they are no logner lizards themselves. To state speciation is evidence for macroevolution is akin to stating that because I saw someone leap a log, that this means they must have been able to fly in the past. There is nothign in common design that prevents speciation- there remains the fact that those speciated examples remain within their own kind.
Macroevolution, a much much different process than adaptive microevolution requires a far different process than simple loss of informaiton that speciated examples genetic structures underwent.
Decreases in informaiton, rearrangements of informaiton, etc all fall aquarely into Microevolutionary changes. Loss of informaiton is NOT evidence for Macroevolution. No matter how many losses of informasiton you throw at a species, it will never result in net-gain of non species specific informaiton NEEDED for macroevolution
Pointing to loss of informaiton as some supposedc evidence that macoreovlution happened ignores the fact that loss does not lead to gain, and ignores the fact that in order for macroevolution to happen- leterally trillions of very significant gains in informaiton needed to occure for macroevolution to happen. When I examine Macroevolution looking for evidence of these trillions of gains of non species specific informaiton, I come up empty- All I get are single scant few examples of microevolutionary evidence that is assumed to be the basics of macroevolution, but when examined, are nothign but genetic variation within kinds.
Macroevolution requires- absolutely requires a gain of very signficant non species pecific information in order to bring abotu al lthe changes between species that we’re told occured, and yet there are no valid examples of any of hte trillions of changes that are claimed to have occured? All we can point to are species havign hteir existing genetic info turned on to ingest nylonase under stressful conditions the way bacteria are supposed to, designed to react? All we can point to is genetic loss in ring species? All we can point to are scant few examples of genetic rearrangements that fall squarely within species specific parameters? All we can point to are ERV’s which prefer certain insertion points in similar species?
The ‘evidence is overwhelming for common descent’? Looks pretty thin and based on faith, assumptions, and an a priori dedication to naturalism despite compelling evidnece to the contrary if you ask me
As mentioned before, ERV’s do indeed show insertion bias/preferrences, and as such it is NOT surprising, nor does it undercut common design, that similar speices share similar insertion points ESPECIALLY in light of hte fact that there are millions of viruses assaulting similar genetic makeups constantly and in large groups over many many generations.
your link to common descent has htis to say:
“Our findings are consistent with a model of recombination-driven biased gene conversion. This leads to the provocative hypothesis that many of the genetic changes leading to human-specific characters may have been prompted by fixation of deleterious mutations.
What the authors report is a non-random shifting within genes, and the introduction of deleterious mutations.”
Swell- they’ve discovered inteligently designed, forward looking, anticipating metainfo that deals with problems in species specific ways, in ways that conform to predesigned genetic info that anticipates, designs for, and prepares for problems that can be dealt with by directing and orchestrating changes in such a way as to help preserve species fitness as best as possible “Directed change” Must be hte authors think Nature is omnisciently able to predict future problems and create info that is pre-prepared for such problems?. Yawn
I could have sworn there was some discussion in the lead article as to whether abiogenesis is possible.
I do not consider that ta worldview question. It is something to be explored and settled by experimentation.
[[Szostak is working with physical reality. If he can demonstrate self-replication and evolution arising from chemistry, it is the mathematical models that need revising, not reality.]]
Can he do it without any intelligent intervention? Or will it take designer designed complexity in order to achieve htis?
IF it takes designer designed complexity and manipulation and protection- then this would in NO way invalidate mathematical probability statistics that measure naturalism NOT intelligently designed manipulations JS
[[Theres scarcely anything happening in recent work on evolution that wasnt declared impossible based on theories of irreducible complexity, or some form of vitalism.]]
Really? And these are purely natural experiments without any intellgient intervention whatsoever huh? Swell- Let’s wait and see then- My prediction IF these tests and examinations are purely natural? IC is still a reality! IF however there needs to be ANY itnelligent intervention whatsoever then all it’s goign to prove is what again? Yup- An intelligent designer is needed- period.
[[It is not arising from chemistry if he starts with the message and presupposes autonomy, information {Shannon) and semiosis]]
Precisely, but I bet it will be trumpteted in National Geographic, Nature science journals, and various scientific papers and in news papers all across the globe that the scientists evolved reproduciton and have ‘closed the gap’ to how life arose from chemicals.
I'm leaving for the afternoon but I look forward to reading your further insights on this thread, as always.
That does not mean that science cannot find reliable information about past history and current phenomena.
As long as you're dealing with material, physical aspects of history inasmuch as it is subject to analysis by the scientific method, that is a possibility, BUT all it can do is indicate what appears to have happened. Any other investigation of historical evidence qualifies more as forensic investigation and analysis.
If you choose to live within you own self-contained shell and not participate in the adventure of science, that is your own self-imposed limitation.
Which is it? Is it science that has the self-imposed limitations or *the other side*?
Science is a subset of reality. How can all of reality be a subset of the study of the physical, material realm?
[[That is why science doesn’t attempt to deal with absolute truth or supernatural events and causes.]]
They don’t? Macroevolutionists are cosntantly appealing to biolgically impossible events that must have occured trillions of times- I’d call that a pretty supernatural event. As well, the fact that these supposed critical significant changes beat out all natural odds somehow trillions upon thrillions of times, and evaded natural laws indicates the beleif i nthe process is an appeal to hte supernatural.
At least for now, Macroevolution most certainly is an appeal to hte supernatural, and in order to chip away the supernatural, they must show conditions which were severely different i nthe past, consitent for billions of years, didn’t vary, etc, and they must chip away at hte established evidnece that species no logner diverge from their own kinds, and they must chip away at the evidnece which shows an explosion of fully formed, fully functional creatures, on and on it goes- in short, they must chip away at natural laws and constants, in order to show conditions and events which now violate several key scientific and natural laws, was somehow different in the past- Until then, and only until they can do so, they are appealing to a process which was supernatural to the best of our knowledge based o nthe evidence we’ve gathered so far.
Scientists in the lab manipulating genetic information are performing supernatural events by causing genes to violate natural laws and conditions. They are supernaturally causing genes to perform duties they could NOT do naturally and without intellgient intervention
[[ If you choose to live within you own self-contained shell and not participate in the adventure of science, that is your own self-imposed limitation.]]
There’s no need to get personal with snide snobbish remarks simply because someone doesn’t beleive the way you do. BB and Alamo and others ARE participating in scientific investigations by examining the very premiss of htis thread’s articles reasonably. IF you know of a manner in which information can arise to the level of metainfo in a purely naturalistic manner, then present it here for discussion- otherwise, simply dismissing this discussion by insinuating it isn’t a participation in scientific thought is simply an avoidance tactic meant to demean and belittle those bringing evidences to the table for discussions. These aren’t opinions JS- they are scientific principles hwich are being discussed, and we CAN come to reasonable conclusions abotu hte quesitons beign asked based on the evidences of chemistry and biology being presented. Just because they don’t include naturalistic conclusions, doesn’t mean they are ‘anti-science’ ‘psuedo-science’ or any other label yuou might think of. If you don’t wish to particpate, that’s fine- but leave hte petty snide comments out.
You are once again out of your element GGG and the things you say have no basis in reality.
On thread after thread I have found you dead to rights misrepresenting the truth and making statements so out of the scope of reality that in truth one can only conclude that you are willfully deceptive or just plain ignorant or a rather unpleasant combination of both.
Still think that humans and chimps being closer in their DNA than either is to a gorilla is a “logical impossibility”?
Still maintain that they “only” find anti-HIV antibodies in AIDS patients and “zero zip nada” of anything else?
Still maintain that antibody shuffling of gene elements in the variable region is dependent upon antigen presentation?
You were wrong on all points, and because you refuse to learn, you remain wrong.
I am on vacation for awhile so while I know you like to post “where have they gone?” posts, don't expect any reply until next Tuesday at the soonest.
I think this is from the section in your article:
And yet we know that every cell is subject to the second law simply by needing to fuel itself, it subjects itself to the effects of entropy, otherwise known as heat death. And although it can and does stave off such effects for a while, doing so requires the cell or species constantly to deal with maintaining distance from entropy in all its living functional components, organized globally. Entropy plays a big part in all life from cells to completed species.
How does a living thing stave off the effects of entropy? What does it do?
Even dumber people than you need to make sense of "things"..
Not everybody is as smart as you are..
/great un-washed proletariat
Bingo... you get a cookie..
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.