Evolution, an irreplicable lightning strike , or an unavoidable lightning bolt in a thunderstorm

Discussion in 'Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics' started by Bart V, Feb 26, 2017.

  1. Bart V

    Bart V straw materialist Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    604
    How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?


    Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function



    These two are from the "Look mam, we have peer reviewed articles too" magazine of self publishing, so we can safely ignore them.

     
  2. Bart V

    Bart V straw materialist Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    604
    The ID movement has given itself so much rope, it has effectively hung itself on a scientific level. All the arguments are so old and stale, and have been debunked so often, it simply has become ridiculous.
    What the hell are you talking about, David?
    A mechanism like DNA was predicted by the theoretic framework of evolution. It is not only evidence for evolution by NS, by it's evidence for common descent, it closes the deal.
     
  3. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,013
    Let me put it like this: ID proponents and evolutionary biologists both love a gap... but for entirely different reasons.
     
  4. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    359
    A serious question for me: Why do evolutionary biologists love such a gap? Is this an allusion to a "job security" joke or something more serious?
     
  5. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,013
    Science is, and always has been, about filling gaps.

    ID philosophy is to hype and manufacture gaps into which they can squeeze god (or whatever wink, wink).
     
  6. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,013
    The argument that 'MAL' just decided to 'get extra busy' for the 25 million years of the Cambrian explosion just seems a bit shallow when put up against the multiple strands of evidence supporting common descent.
     
  7. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    I have never read about the "gap filler" theory in many years of reading Philosophy of Science. Causal connectivity in physics and chemistry is driven by empirical measurements and math analysis. Empirical evidence is the backbone of analysis, sorted by logic and reason.

    The semantic aspect of science theory for "gap filling" is known as "just so story". I can cite a lot of Phi-o-Sci commentary on the use of narrative by scientists. It is mostly derision and tales of prejudice. In my "book" data rule and b.s. walks.

    ID as per Dembski and Behe is one "just so story" promoted to counter-point the "just-so-story" of evolving phenotypes exclusively from RM and NS.

    Forget this crap. Look to actual data from Physiology. Look at it objectively - it's a fight of the scientists who model - how biology works from physics/chemistry - vs the ones putting evolutionary "narratives" on top of known phenomena. I simply side with the data-based biologists.

    http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/183/231
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  8. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    359
    Stephen already covered this, but I've never read nor understand science to be about filling gaps. I actually think most scientists would shirk from such a description. Heck, many scientists have even suggested some gaps (e.g., consciousness) to be beyond their ability to explore.
     
  9. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,013
    There were suspected gaps in the periodic table. Scientists accurately predicted what would fill them. Other scientists discovered those elements.

    This parallels what we have seen on the compilation of the fossil record.
     
  10. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    Certainly true about atomic weight series in an epistemological sense, which is a subjective view of our knowledge-base from analogy and graphic representation. I was talking about empirical work. Filling-in a chart of trees or bushes with possibilities is not empirical science. At hand is empirical evidence on how regulation (cybernetic control) builds RNA/DNA/Ribosome signalling systems for the communication of information. To understand how it actually works is to lose belief in in "random magic".

     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  11. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    786
    Trancestate and Stephen Wright like this.
  12. Dante

    Dante Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    135
    Bart you are hardly worth discussing this issue with. You outright blindly dismiss all criticism of evolution and consistently assume that everything goes back to the DI or ID, while blatantly ignoring when people challenge you with non-ID sources. David said the most valuable thing in this thread: that just because you don't have a replacement theory, does not make the criticism worthless. I personally believe in common descent (important note, since you seem to think that everyone who disagrees that RM, NS and chance got us here today: lots and lots of people who have huge issues with evolution by that mechanism still buy into common descent), and I believe in evolution. But it seems obvious to me, based on the information available, that evolution by RM and NS is not nearly the whole picture. Does this mean that those mechanisms weren't involved? Of course not. They sure seem to be very involved. But there are plenty, and I mean plenty, of issues with the extended synthesis and gene centric view of evolutionary theory. That criticism is both valuable and significant, even if you don't have a replacement theory. A negative result in science is 100% every bit as valuable as a positive one.
     
    nbtruthman likes this.
  13. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,013
    Do you consider the study of the fossil record empirical? The study of the genetic and molecular evidence for common descent? The study of the morphological similarities between species? Because that is what we are talking about.... Is there anything here you consider unempirical?



    I need to be clear on what you mean here. Have you a link to the empirical evidence? I'm not sure serial chains of chemical reactions are truly transmitting "information" along them, unless of course you consider there is a designed end point 'in mind' from the outset. These propositions seem to be overlaid with vague language and imprecisely defined terms, in order to inject some pseudo-profundity into the argument.
     
  14. Bucky

    Bucky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    Sure :) But none of them (from either side of the gap) have given up, have they?
     
  15. Bucky

    Bucky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    Careful with the "philosophy" argument... it cuts both ways... wink wink
     
    Brian_the_bard and tim like this.
  16. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,403
    Negative results are the only solid results. Positive ones are always merely provisional - they stand only until something better comes along.
     
    Bucky and tim like this.
  17. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    The study of the fossil's materials are empirical. Referring to my primary stand of using the tools of material science and physics is one level of abstraction and the tools of information science are another - your questions tease out my humble worldview. Common descent is a straightforward proposition that biological beings come from a parent. I think is is a certain observation. My take is some believe it means something more magical. Whatever this magical view of bio-evolution is, I think that Lynn Margulis and the merger of bacterial and virus information bearing molecules with other genomes proves it false.

    The study of genetics is based on the transfer of information. Here the tools of information science have opened the doors to reality. Open to debate and opinions would be my personal understanding that much of information science and math analysis is quasi-empirical. So therefore; much of the work in genetics is quasi- empirical. The directness of the measurement is in question when mapping function and biochemistry.

    "just-so-stories" are very useful as abduction (considered guessing). They are neither empirical or quasi-empirical.
     
  18. Bart V

    Bart V straw materialist Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    604
    That is simply not true, the theory of evolution is based on observation, and evidence, not on dogma.
    In the days of it's inception, there was no dogma to defend, on the contrary it replaced the oldest dogma in the world.

    However, it is true that many scientist base their work on the foundations laid by the ones that came before them, that is not dogma, that is how science works.
    The field of evolutionary biology is completely open to change through the normal process of research and peer review. This certainly can result in some inertia to accept new ideas, but that can be expected.

    Now, do you think the ID crowd is going to change any of their ideas under any circumstance?
    What is this post then, a lecture?
    No, i opposed very specific claims made in this thread, i provided links that imo showed these claims wrong.
    Please tell me which criticisms of evolution i blindly dismissed?.
    Well that is because most of the names mentioned are directly connected to the DI, Berlinski is a senior DI fellow, so is Meyer.
    Axe is the director of the Biologic institute, which is funded by the DI.
    The Biologic institute publishes the BIO-Complexity Journal, in which Axe and the other discoverites publish most of their 'work.'

    Peer review is a lot easier if you keep it in the family, you know.


    The third way movement, is interesting, but it is also a very big tent.
    if i take a look at the list of authors, and their work, they represent a very wide range of viewpoints.
    To me they look a bit to heterogeneous to be one movement.
    But, at first sight, most of them seem honestly frustrated scientifically or philosophically.

    David said a lot of things in this thread, without giving any reference, something he threatened to ban people for in other threads.
    But this is one i might agree with, although it does not apply to evolution. I do not think evolution is shown to be a "phoney explanation", to use his words.
    NS is not the only selection mechanism known, there is genetic drift, sexual selection, migration.
    None of these are controversial.
    also RM is not the only mechanism, there is epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis.
    In itself, maybe these are not controversial, but to what degree they (have) play(ed) a part, is certainly ground for healthy scientific debate.


    And then there is the question whether DNA maybe has a deeper layer we do not fully understand.

    I agree, up to some level, but it is not clear to me what has been shown to be a negative result, and by whom.

    On the other hand i would be very cautious about anybody who wants to claim a negative result, but already has a faith based replacement in mind.

    I think the DI ,and all of it's subsidiaries, definitely fall into that category.
    You do not have to take my word for that, research them a bit, their origin, their founding document, etc..

    If you really are interested in the legitimate scientific controversies that live at the edge of the research, your viewpoint would probably be further from theirs than from mine, even if we would be at the opposing end of these legitimate controversies.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2017
  19. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    There is a deep layer in your post. You are fighting the DI (a strawman to me) and in the mean time there is a cadre of elite scientists refuting your rose-colored simplistic view of bio-evolution. DNA and it's genes are not stand-alones - they are part of an elaborate communication system, which has regulation and adaptation as its primary function.
    (not evolutionary change)

    Yes, RM is not the only "mechanism" it is a minor background factor in terms of proven casual effects. Physiological break-throughs of the last 20 years have found genetic adaptation that encode strategy for future development. Hardly random.

    What do you think of the Weismann Barrier?
     
  20. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,013

Share This Page