nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

nagirrac

Original thread from 2005 here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2362555

Mod Note
This is the tail end of the last discussion in "The Origin of Specious Nonsense" thread, which due to it's size now needs to be *retired*. This thread is now the new home for such talk as previously was restricted to the now closed thread above. The post below seemed a good a place as any to make the transition.
Dades

Although I came late to it, this is a fascinating thread. I would say every misconception about evolution is contained within its pages, along with lots of sensible and valid argument. I have not read the entire thread but have sampled extensively as it meandered back and forth from the extremes of the "evolution proves there's no God" strong atheist worldview to the "God made everything all at once" creationist position. Both positions are absurd given how little we really know and how much our knowledge evolves over time.

If nothing else the thread is a caution to resist making too many claims for current science. Evolution as a theory is ongoing science, with complexity far beyond anything Darwin or Dawkins for that matter could have dreamed of. The complexity of evolutionary mechanisms is staggering and as we peel back the onion layers it gets virtually incomprehensible (sound like something familiar? the physical universe for example).

A shout out to the much maligned Mick Rock who has been entirely consistent as far as I can see on this thread. He has stuck to one basic tenet, that evolution by natural selection of variations that arise from random mutation of genes is far too simplistic to explain evolution of life on earth. I suspect Mick has arrived at this position from logical reasoning and intuition as he has never tried to defend it on a scientific basis.

Although it may be unpopular to say this, he is most likely correct as modern scientific research is suggesting. Anyone who is actually following the research would be aware of this rather than pandering to Darwinian and neo-Darwinian dogma.

The most recent research suggests there are four mechanisms involved in evolution:

1. Genetic or DNA based. This is reasonably well understood although we have a long way to go in terms of understanding how genes are regulated to build a complete organism from a zygote. Clearly any changes in DNA for whatever reason are passed on from generation to generation. However, random changes in DNA appear quite rare in nature, in fact what we are finding is that the genome has highly sophistocated protection mechanisms to protect from mutation.

2. Epigenetics. Changes in the chemistry within the genome that does not change the DNA sequence but has an impact on how genes are expressed. This is a relatively new field but research is suggesting that these changes that occur during the organisms lifetime may be passed on for multiple generations. This helps to explain rapid evolution in species which has been widely reported in the scientific literature and simply cannot be attributed to chance mutations. Lamarckism arisen from the ashes.

3. Behavioral (learning). Darwinian evolution does not address how organisms react to their environment, develop traits to respond to it and pass on these traits to their offspring. Anyone who looks at an ant hill will understand this point. The underlying mechanism here is not well understood yet, although it is clearly to do with neurological development.

4. Language. Perhaps the most interesting of all. This is the basis for group evolution or societal evolution and is likely the primary driver for the rapid evolution of the human brain over the past 10,000 years. Not much idea yet what mechanisms are involved here.

All four share one common trait, information transmission. It seems absolutely clear that organisms since the beginning of life on earth have adapted to their environments in ways that are inherited by future generations and there is nothing "undirected" or "purposeless" about the overall process. Nature contains complex creativity that we are just beginning to comprehend.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

endacl

endacl wrote: »

Haven't checked this thread in ages. Probably since the days of MickRock. Anything new at all?

Whoops. I withdraw the above.

mickrock wrote: »

Haha, you're so right! Life forms are so shoddily and haphazardly put together!

And the layout of my TV remote control isn't great. What's going on there?!

Although, there is a certain feeling of deja vu...

mickrock

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

you could be making it up as a bad analogy to show that a designer ins't perfect (it is bad because of the claim that god, the being you are baselessly asserting is real, is perfect, as laid out in the three monotheistic cults).

I never mentioned god or a supernatural being.

It's obvious that life, nature and evolution in themselves are creative and creativity implies intelligence.

In the near future the idea that the evolutionary process is blind and dumb will be regarded as naive and childlike.

Simon G. Powell has written a book called "Darwin's Unfinished Business: The Self-Organizing Intelligence of Nature" of which Lynn Margulis said:

"Simon G. Powell forcefully but gently demonstrates that intelligence (modes of being that acquire information, learn, and meaningfully respond to larger contexts) is intrinsic to our natural world. People who deny the intelligence of the living (microbes, plants, other animals) are abysmally, indeed dangerously, ignorant."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaq0LTqQvyc

Vivisectus

mickrock wrote: »

Haha, you're so right! Life forms are so shoddily and haphazardly put together!

And the layout of my TV remote control isn't great. What's going on there?!

Ah, a proponent of unintelligent design! Indeed: what we see around us is compatible with that. But then again, a lot of things are. The Loch Ness monster, for instance, is perfectly compatible with what we know so far.

But intelligent, benign design we can rule out based on what we can observe, however.

Brian Shanahan

mickrock wrote: »

Haha, you're so right! Life forms are so shoddily and haphazardly put together!

And the layout of my TV remote control isn't great. What's going on there?!

On your first sentence; glad that you finally accept evolution one of the most well evidenced and explanatory scientific theories.

On your second sentence there are a few competing hypotheses 1) you may have bought a cheap tv from lack of money, 2) you may have bought a tv without considering the remote design first, 3) your evolved hand could be a bad fit for the decently designed remote, or 4) you could be making it up as a bad analogy to show that a designer ins't perfect (it is bad because of the claim that god, the being you are baselessly asserting is real, is perfect, as laid out in the three monotheistic cults).

mickrock

Vivisectus wrote: »

Apart from that we are still waiting to find out why a Giraffe has such a long laryngial nerve when a short one would be much more efficient. Also, why does the Loa Loa or African eye-burrowing worm exist?

Haha, you're so right! Life forms are so shoddily and haphazardly put together!

And the layout of my TV remote control isn't great. What's going on there?!

robindch

A reporter visits Ken Ham's dreary, humorless world:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/the-genesis-code/379341/

Genghiz Cohen

Vivisectus wrote: »

Apart from that we are still waiting to find out why a Giraffe has such a long laryngial nerve when a short one would be much more efficient. Also, why does the Loa Loa or African eye-burrowing worm exist?

I believe the given answer was an artistic flair from a loving creator.
I may be slightly off but that was the gist of J C's answer.

Vivisectus

Apart from that we are still waiting to find out why a Giraffe has such a long laryngial nerve when a short one would be much more efficient. Also, why does the Loa Loa or African eye-burrowing worm exist?

Mr. CooL ICE

Vivisectus wrote: »

Is God altering their design somehow in order to give people more bacterial infections?

Well, he does work in mysterious ways...

72DSpecial

Vivisectus -

Thanks for adding some badly needed clarity.

Vivisectus

Where to begin? So much silliness, so little time… Let’s just pick a few of the major points.

First off, abiogenesis and evolution are two very different things. Evolution can be true with or without abiogenesis happening on earth.

Your professor Crick, for instance, was a staunch supporter of evolution even though he had some doubts about the ultimate origin of life itself. At first he favoured the panspermia hypothesis, which states that life is spread through the universe after an accidental start.

Later on he changed his mind, and decided that he had been too pessimistic about the chances of spontaneous abiogenesis following some experiments that managed to create some primitive amino acids in proposed early earth conditions.

What you quoted was him speaking about abiogenesis, not evolution. And as I already pointed out, evolution is not disproven if abiogenesis would ever end up being disproven. It merely gets a new starting point. It is a common ploy by ID proponents to pretend that evolution and abiogenesis are linked to such a degree that if you can cast doubt on one, you can cast doubt on the other, but that is simply not the case.

Then there is the other common ploy that says that mutation can never improve anything… which is clearly nonsense. We only have to look at the way bacteria have used mutations in their genetic material to develop resistance to antibiotics. How does ID explain this rather dangerous new development? Is God altering their design somehow in order to give people more bacterial infections?

Brian Shanahan

endacl wrote: »

Haven't checked this thread in ages. Probably since the days of MickRock. Anything new at all?

I believe JC has almost hit that point south of New Zealand that is his antipode, so furiously is he digging down.

endacl

legspin wrote: »

Not really.
J.C. is still hoisting himself with his own petard, everyone else is still facepalming at the knots he ties himself into with his answers (if you can call that gibberish answers) and I still cant believe he hasn't managed a Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent yet.

Cool. Nice one. Will check in again in a year.

legspin

endacl wrote: »

Haven't checked this thread in ages. Probably since the days of MickRock. Anything new at all?

Not really.
J.C. is still hoisting himself with his own petard, everyone else is still facepalming at the knots he ties himself into with his answers (if you can call that gibberish answers) and I still cant believe he hasn't managed a Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent manoeuvre yet.

[Deleted User]

J C wrote: »

... so, was Prof. Crick one of the first ID proponents? ... this writing would certainly lead one to believe that he was.

Discovering this quote over 30 years later, is an amazing experience for me, having discovered these figures and ratios myself only 10 years ago.

It is often said in jest on this thread, that if ID were correct, then an ID proponent would have got a Nobel Prize already ... and now it seems to actually be the case that they have!!!

Well if a Nobel prize winner says something, it must be true unquestioningly.
Good thing the majority of those winners don't all believe in evolution or you might be a little stuck and confused.

endacl

Haven't checked this thread in ages. Probably since the days of MickRock. Anything new at all?

[Deleted User]

J C wrote: »

What lie?
The 'Fathers of Modern Science' ... are the fathers of modern science ... and they were nearly all Creationists.

But people pointed out that some of the important ones believed in nonsense like astrology. You claimed they didn't. You were shown to be wrong.

Now either you are as educated in science as you claim to be and knew this, so you deliberately lied. Or you didn't know this, so therefore lied about how educated you are.

Also, you never actually responded to me pointing out your lie so it's also a lie of omission.

J C wrote: »

They're people of the highest integrity and scientific eminence ... who 'call it
like it is'.

But if they really did "call it like it is" then surely they would say that evolution is wrong and creation is right, no?
So why don't they?

J C wrote: »

It's evolving grammar ... and I'm it's leading proponent.:)

I like it. It sounds like you pause randomly to process what nonsense you are going to make up and spout next.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So they all believe that evolution is completely and utterly wrong and that creationism is right?

Here is one eminent Evolutionist who said exactly what ID proponents of my acquaintance say ... indeed this is the very statistical method used to prove the existence of ID :-

Prof. Francis Crick (1916–2004) Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Nobel laureate 1962, Professor at the Salk Institute

"To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA) which will be described in outline in Chapter 5. Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?

This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!

This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry by comparison to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense." Life Itself (1981) p. 51-52.

... so, was Prof. Crick one of the first ID proponents? ... this writing would certainly lead one to believe that he was.

Discovering this quote over 30 years later, is an amazing experience for me, having discovered these figures and ratios myself only 10 years ago.

It is often said in jest on this thread, that if ID were correct, then an ID proponent would have got a Nobel Prize already ... and now it seems to actually be the case that they have!!!

I am speechless, at this amazing discovery!!!
... and as you all know, it takes a lot to make me speechless!!!:)

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Oh, except for that lie you told about all the fathers of science not studying and believing astrology you told. Whoops.

What lie?
The 'Fathers of Modern Science' ... are the fathers of modern science ... and they were nearly all Creationists.

King Mob wrote: »

So if they don't reject evolution, why are they expressing doubts that you are saying point to massive flaws in it?

I guess they have faith that their doubts will be resolved by further research. Like I say, hope can spring eternal.:)

King Mob wrote: »

If these flaws are as fatal as you are saying, why would any one of them still believe in evolution?

I guess they have faith that their doubts will be resolved by further research. Like I say, hope can spring eternal.:)

King Mob wrote: »

If you are going to claim that they are controlled or deluded by evolutionist belief, why would they express doubts at all?

They're people of the highest integrity and scientific eminence ... who 'call it like it is'.

King Mob wrote: »

And why do you keep randomly adding and starting sentences with ellipsises exactly?
Do you think that's proper grammar or is it just to annoy people?

It's evolving grammar ... and I'm it's leading proponent.:)

[Deleted User]

J C wrote: »

Absolutely ... and thanks for pointing this out.

Oh, except for that lie you told about all the fathers of science not studying and believing astrology you told. Whoops.

J C wrote: »

They don't seem to

Only they know the answer to that.
I guess it depends on how grave their doubts are and how much of the Modern Synthesis is affected, in each of their cases.

So if they don't reject evolution, why are they expressing doubts that you are saying point to massive flaws in it?

If these flaws are as fatal as you are saying, why would any one of them still believe in evolution?

If you are going to claim that they are controlled or deluded by evolutionist belief, why would they express doubts at all?

And why do you keep randomly adding and starting sentences with ellipsises exactly?
Do you think that's proper grammar or is it just to annoy people?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Gosh and we all know that incorrect words would never enter or exit your mouth.

Absolutely ... and thanks for pointing this out.

King Mob wrote: »

So do these grave doubts make the people you quoted reject evolution?

They don't seem to ... I guess hope (of some solution) springs eternal, as far as they are concerned.

King Mob wrote: »

Or do they still believe that evolution is true?

Only they know the answer to that.
I guess it depends on how grave their doubts are and how much of the Modern Synthesis is affected, in each of their cases.
When I was an Evolutionist and some of its weaknesses were brought to my attention, I dreamed of getting solutions and being feted by my fellow Evolutionists, for doing so.
Eventually, when the cause seemed hopeless, I gave up trying to defend indefensible concepts, like mutagenesis being the driver towards perfection ... when everything about it is actually destructive of life and limb.

[Deleted User]

J C wrote: »

You're trying to put incorrect words in my mouth!!

Gosh and we all know that incorrect words would never enter or exit your mouth.

J C wrote: »

... other Evolutionists are more nuanced about what they accept about evolution and they have grave doubts about significant aspects of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

So do these grave doubts make the people you quoted reject evolution?
Or do they still believe that evolution is true?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So they all believe that evolution is completely and utterly wrong and that creationism is right?

You're trying to put incorrect words in my mouth!!

I never said, nor do I believe that "all believe that evolution is completely and utterly wrong and that creationism is right".
There are aspects to evolution, like Natural Selection of pre-existing genetic diversity that are objectively true ... and some Evolutionists believe everything positive that is said about evolution and none of the negative things.
... other Evolutionists are more nuanced about what they accept about evolution and they have grave doubts about significant aspects of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.
... and there are other (former) Evolutionists, like myself, who are now Creationists or ID proponents.;)

[Deleted User]

J C wrote: »

I'm not claiming that they agree with all of my arguments.
If they did, that would make them Creationists ... and they certainly aren't Creationists.

They are Evolutionists who are honestly and objectively looking at the various serious evidential and logical weaknesses in the theory that evolution is the source of the genetic diversity of life.

So they all believe that evolution is completely and utterly wrong and that creationism is right?

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

An entire field of science bites the dust because one scientist makes a rather specious claim about it?

Not just one scientist ... but many eminent Evolutionists are finding serious issues with the theory ... and are 'calling it like it is'.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I know it probably hasn't occurred to you that Henry Gee might be wrong, because he said something that you can claim is supportive of your views (and I'm pretty certain he would laugh in your face if you tried to claim him as a supporter of Creationism), but there are those who have disagreed - eloquently - with him.

Of course he could be wrong on this issue ... and indeed I might be wrong on many issues ... but try as I might ... and I did make a mighty effort, when I was an Evolutionist, I couldn't overcome these fundamental issues with Evolution, myself.
I don't know the man personally, so I have no idea what he would make of me ... but I'm sure he would reciprocate the respect I have for him as a scientist of absolute integrity and obviously eminent ability.

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/nature-editor-henry-gee-goes-all-anti-science/

In other words, has it occurred to you that someone who apparently agrees with you might be wrong?

Dr Henry Gee expressed honestly held reservations about Evolution Theory and in particular, the non-scientific nature of conclusions being drawn in relation to the so-called 'fossil record' in support of Evolution.
Expressing such reservations is quite legitimate, and occurs in every area of science, about particular aspects of various hypotheses.
What is unique to Evolution, is that any hint of criticism is often viewed as some kind of 'anti-science' remark ... when it is actually an attempt to develop, even evolve, if you will, the Theory.

Such criticism of honest questioning, can be stifling of proper scientific assessment of the undoubted weaknesses of Evolution ... and indeed it can affect progress in developing the Theory.
... and even if Creation Scientists, like myself, latch on to the reservations ... Evolution Theory, if it is valid, should be robust enough to be defended against such criticism ... but here is the rub ... it hasn't largely been able to be so defended.

Now, what does that tell you about it?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So are you claiming that all of these evolutionists agree with all of your arguments, secretly or otherwise?

I'm not claiming that they agree with all of my arguments.
If they did, that would make them Creationists ... and they certainly aren't Creationists.

They are Evolutionists who are honestly and objectively looking at the various serious evidential and logical weaknesses in the theory that evolution is the source of the genetic diversity of life.

These are very capable and eminent scientists ... and I suppose they reckon that the first thing to be done is to identify the weaknesses of Evolution ... and then to try and test various alternative ideas that will overcome the weaknesses with more plausible and evidentially supported new hypotheses.

This is a totally legitimate activity and it is how science progresses ... so I applaud them for doing so.

I have serious doubts that they will succeed ... but I fully support them in trying.

... and perhaps you may also be surprised to learn that I have no problem with my 'tax dollars' being used for such pure and fundamental research.

That is, after all, what academic freedom and respect for diversity of opinion is all about.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

This is what he said
Quote:-

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.116-7

... I guess most, if not all, of the so-called 'fossil evidence' for evolution 'bites the dust' on that one.

An entire field of science bites the dust because one scientist makes a rather specious claim about it?

I know it probably hasn't occurred to you that Henry Gee might be wrong, because he said something that you can claim is supportive of your views (and I'm pretty certain he would laugh in your face if you tried to claim him as a supporter of Creationism), but there are those who have disagreed - eloquently - with him.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/nature-editor-henry-gee-goes-all-anti-science/

In other words, has it occurred to you that someone who apparently agrees with you might be wrong?

[Deleted User]

J C wrote: »

This is what he said
Quote:-

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.116-7

... I guess most, if not all, of the so-called 'fossil evidence' for evolution 'bites the dust' on that one.

Quite obviously no Evolutionist is going to say that Evolution is 'bunk' ... and if they did, they would effectively cease to be an evolutionist.

However, many cast doubt on various critical aspects of evolution - and I agree with their assessments in this regard.

So are you claiming that all of these evolutionists agree with all of your arguments, secretly or otherwise?

J C

SW wrote: »

but Gee didn't say that evolution is a fairytale. Something that you mistakenly claimed he did say. Prettymuch all the quotes you provided fall under the category of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the quote.

This is what he said
Quote:-

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.116-7

... I guess most, if not all, of the so-called 'fossil evidence' for evolution 'bites the dust' on that one.

Quite obviously no Evolutionist is going to say that Evolution is 'bunk' ... and if they did, they would effectively cease to be an evolutionist.

However, many cast doubt on various critical aspects of evolution - and I agree with their assessments in this regard.

sephir0th

Years later, and J.C. is still finding new victims. The ultimate troll as Wicknight/Zombrex believed.