CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

Unsurprising creationist gibberish

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#181  Postby Shrunk » Sep 21, 2014 1:10 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
There is no counterargument against something that isn't an argument but rather a blind assertion.


True enough. To assert that ID equates with creationism is a blind assertion.


Intelligent Design is simply a tactic being used by some in the, mostly American, Christian Creationist movement. People and organizations within the movement may disagree on some fundamentals, even fight over them, but they are all part of the same hope and plan.


ID is simply the inference of design. Many people including Christians of different denominations, Jews, atheists and agnostics, are sympathetic to ID. Some creationists may use it as a tactic and some creationists are opposed to it. The situation is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Oldskeptic wrote:There is no way to separate Intelligent Design from Creationism, and it doesn't matter how circumspect or scientific any of them want to appear. It all comes down to God did it.That is the conclusion that they start out with not one they arrive at.


You are confusing the world view of some ID advocates with the process of searching out and studying ID in the empirical world. We do not disregard Newton's science nor Kepler's science just because they believed that God had a hand in it. We take their findings on their own merit regardless of the religious attitude of these men.


How are the calculations going, Charlie?

:coffee:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#182  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2014 1:11 pm

CharlieM wrote:ID is simply the inference of design. Many people including Christians of different denominations, Jews, atheists and agnostics, are sympathetic to ID. Some creationists may use it as a tactic and some creationists are opposed to it. The situation is not as simple as you make it out to be.


Weasel words. Please provide substantiation to unpack the term 'many people' - I'd like to see the figures for myself please.

In absence of these numbers, my own experiences would indicate that the vast majority of ID proponents come from a Protestant Christian background - usually Baptist.

Personally, I think the situation is much more simple than you want it to be and your argument hangs on obfuscation. Even if we accept that 5% of ID sympathisers are not fundamentalist Christians, it still permits a fair characterization to say, to the first approximation, ID is a fundamentalist Christian platform.


CharlieM wrote:
You are confusing the world view of some ID advocates with the process of searching out and studying ID in the empirical world.


No one has done this, CharlieM - that's precisely the point. No one has actually tried because there is no robust metric available. Anyway, they don't need to do anything - all they have to do is say that they can do it, and people like you believe them.

CharlieM wrote: We do not disregard Newton's science nor Kepler's science just because they believed that God had a hand in it. We take their findings on their own merit regardless of the religious attitude of these men.


Who's 'we' and why do these 2 sentences make no sense whatsoever?

Of course you don't disregard scientists who also happen to have been believers in Christianity, because they're precisely the kind of reference you'd use to bolster your own contentions, and have done so frequently.

Neither Newton nor Kepler could provide any expansion in knowledge of the alleged Creator - and Newton certainly spent a considerable time trying.

What we remember them for was the fact that they engaged in a science untarnished by their religious suppositions. Creationist/IDers do precisely the opposite.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#183  Postby hackenslash » Sep 21, 2014 1:32 pm

We should also note that Newton and Kepler were pretty much entirely wrong. Of course, they were wrong in a way that was very useful for a very long time, not least in the use of their wrongness to construct theories which were less wrong.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#184  Postby CharlieM » Sep 21, 2014 1:45 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:I suppose that ridiculing creationists saves you from having to argue against ID:)

It seems to be favourite passtime here. If ID is equated with creationism then by arguing against creationism ID can be discredited without having to deal with any of their relevant arguments.

There is no counterargument against something that isn't an argument but rather a blind assertion.


True enough. To assert that ID equates with creationism is a blind assertion.


No it isn't. The evidence supports this. Oh wait, have you read what the IDists wrote in the Wedge Strategy Document? Want me to remind you what it says? I'll highlight the relevant parts for you, just so you can''t say you haven't had this explained to you:

Wedge Strategy Document wrote:The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). ]Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.


Oh wait, in the above, the assorted "fellows" of the Duplicity Institute explicitly state that they want to replace science as we know it, with a bastardised version subservient to Christian ideology. If this was a genuine scientific programme, why would it need to mention Christian ideology at all? Instead, the evidence provided by the IDists' own words, tells us that what they want is to replace science with mythology. Specifically, a particular interpretation of Christian mythology, itself constructed to be consonant with far-Right political doctrine.

Then we have this:

Wedge Strategy document, page 2 wrote:Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.


Any pretence at science here is well and truly thrown out of the window, and once again, points inexorably to the creationist origins of ID, which once again leads to the question of just how much of the relevant orthodoxy lies at the heart thereof. But I shall continue ... among the Five Year Goals of the DI stated in that document is this:

Wedge Strategy document, page 2 wrote:Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation and repudiate(s) Darwinism


And one wonders exactly what detailed form of this "traditional doctrine of creation" the DI seeks to see "defended" takes.

As for these "Governing Goals", we also have, under the section "Twenty Year Goals", the following:

Wedge Strategy document wrote:To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life


What they did NOT write, was "to see design theory accepted as a better scientific hypothesis".

Oh, and if ID is supposed to be "scientific", why do the authors of the above document even mention apologetics seminars? Quite simply, if you're doing science, apologetics is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. Yet, they explicitly mention apologetics seminars as a forum for the propagandising of their views. Here's just one place where this is mentioned:

Wedge Strategy document wrote:Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to equip and encourage believers with new scientific evidences [sic] that support the faith


Why should a genuine scientific programme even bother with trying to butter up religious believers? If the evidence says that their mythology is wrong (which it does), then it's tough shit, they have to man up and live with it. If they're too fucking whiny and infantile to do this, then that's even more reason to stop the likes of the DI corrupting and perverting science classes with mythology-based bullshit.

In short, the entire ID programme was nothing more than creationism wearing a stolen lab coat. Any pretence that the "designer" was intended to be anything other than Mr Invisible Magic Man from the Bible, is precisely that, a pretence.

Oh, and then we have the "cdesign proponentsists" transitional fossil. I'll let Nick Matzke have fun explaining this one:



Evidence, Charlie, not blind assertion. We leave blind assertion to creationists and their speciation variants, of which ID is clearly one.


You make some compelling arguments but are you willing to read this and consider what they say in an objective manner?
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#185  Postby hackenslash » Sep 21, 2014 1:57 pm

CharlieM wrote:You make some compelling arguments but are you willing to read this and consider what they say in an objective manner?


That document does nothing to address Cali's criticism (even were it not presented by known liars). It talks about some people allegedly suggesting that the wedge strategy sought to impose a theocracy, which is not the content of Cali's criticism. It singularly fails to address the valid criticisms levelled at it, namely that it seeks to undermine scientific education, which is what it attempts to do.

Nice try, but you should try reading for comprehension.

How's that citation supporting your blatant lie concerning what Dawkins said about Down's Syndrome coming? Getting to that any time soon?
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#186  Postby CharlieM » Sep 21, 2014 2:31 pm

Rumraket wrote:
CharlieM wrote:The natural technology that allows birds to fly is not something that unguided evolution could produce.

How do you know that? Seriously, how do you know?


By understanding what a marvel of engineering a bird is. By looking at how all the components and systems that constitute a bird have developed in coordination to produce a heavier than air flying creature. It is no more than a fairy tale to belief that some animal flapping its limbs about resulted in the production of a primary flight feather while at the same time the bones, the respiratory apparatus, the muscalature and other features all happened to develop in just the right way to achieve lift off.

There is no evidence that unguided mutations could produce any of this.
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#187  Postby CharlieM » Sep 21, 2014 2:38 pm

Shrunk wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Animavore wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
I suppose that ridiculing creationists saves you from having to argue against ID:)

It seems to be favourite passtime here. If ID is equated with creationism then by arguing against creationism ID can be discredited without having to deal with any of their relevant arguments.


What's the argument? The only one I've heard of so far is that some things are so complex that they could not be the product of blind chance and therefore must (why 'must'?) be designed.

That's not an argument for a proposition. It's an argument (and I use the term very lightly here) against another (evolution by natural selection) with an added non-sequitur and false dichotomy thrown in. A very poor one because it doesn't even understand that evolution is not the result of blind chance so it has to strawman its supposed opposition to argue against it.

But if you think you have an argument for ID by all means go ahead...

Where did you hear anyone arguing that things must be designed? Do you have a specific quote or an example of one in mind?

Good science begins with observation and there are many observations which infer ID. Ever since the age of enlightenment and the birth of modern science as we know it, humans have viewed nature in terms of the current technology with which they are familiar. With the industrial revolution came descriptions of organisms as mechanical machines. When the microscopic world began to be revealed in ever more detail the organism was considered to be controlled by microscopic entities buried deep with the cells. No one imagined the amount of complexity that was to be found within the cell. And with the age of computers came the view that these microscopic entities within cells were the providers of the information needed to build organisms. But nature is always one step ahead of us. As human technology advances it is found that nature has already been using our newly discovered technology but usually in a far more efficient and subtle way. We see it from basic mechanics all the way to quantum mechanics.

And if you don't think that there is teleology in nature look at every single developing organism. The structures and organs are already planned for in each seed or egg. The organ that allows you to have an intelligent, thinking, mind was pre planned in your mother's womb. I would argue, and it is compatable with ID, that life as a whole began with a 'seed' which was placed into an environment in which it could grow to the stage where we see it today. From the beginning physical life was set up to produce rational thinking.

So let me give you a few specific examples in which I think we would be justified in inferring design.

The party line states that vertebrate eye has been shown to be poorly designed. As dawkins stated in The Blind Watchmaker, its design is a"thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!" but Michael Denton says, "the inverted retina is probably an essential element in the overall design of the vertebrate visual system." Recent research is revealing the benefits of the inverted retina. Claims of poor design are shown to be unjustified. (Although poor design would still be design.)

The limits of unguided forces to produce novel structures. For example Michael Behe has this to say about some experiments showing the power of Darwinian evolution:
I have written appreciatively about both Lenski and Thornton before, whose work indicates clear limits to Darwinian evolution (although they themselves operate within a Darwinian framework). Thornton’s latest work is beginning to show a convergence with Lenski’s that greatly boosts our confidence that they both are on the right track. In a recent review (Behe, 2010) I pointed out that all characterized advantageous mutations that Richard Lenski has observed in his twenty-year experiment have turned out to be degradative ones — ones in which a gene or genetic control structure was either destroyed or rendered less effective. (Random mutation is superb at degrading genetic material, which sometimes is helpful to an organism.) In his latest work Thornton, too, shows evolution of a system by degradation, although he speculates that the changes were neutral rather than advantageous.


The natural technology that allows birds to fly is not something that unguided evolution could produce. There is no evidence that the avian respiratory system could have evolved from a reptilian or any other non-avian respiratory system. That would be like trying to evolve a gas turbine engine from a reciprocating piston engine. Look at all that is required for bird flight. Power requirements, aerodynamic requirements, nutrition and reproduction requirements all have to be integrated into a whole; the marvelous organism that is a bird.

How about the intelligent processing revealed within the cell.

James Shapiro:
...cells do a lot of information processing. For example, if the cell is going to utilise a certain nutrient for growth it has to access the DNA to make the proteins and enzymes that are neccessary for utilising that nutrient. And what we've discovered as we analyse these processes in detail at the molecular level is that cells have sensory receptors, sometimes these receptors do other jobs as well like transporting nutrients across the cell membrane. They have ways of communicating that information from the recptors to the interior of the cell and indeed of communicating that information to the genome that the appropriate expressions of genome information can take place and then the right enzymes can be synthesised for that nutritional process. I look at that as a congnitive process. The cell has to recognise the nutrients available to it, so its a sensory process. And then there follows another process of almost like computation, of evaluating the information that's been received and then doing the right things to fulfil the objectives of the cells. So there is an information processing that goes on that is really quite extensive and quite sophisticated. And we understand a few very simple cases. In more complicated cases we know there is a molecular network which allows the cell to make the right decisions, to do the right things that are necessary for survival or even indeed in some cases for cell death or cell suicide when the cell gets in too much trouble and can mess up the whole organism.


These examples are just a few of many. I'd say that there are plenty of arguments in favour of inferring design.


So complexity = design, because reasons.

You've really drunk the creationist Kool-Aid, haven't you, Charlie?


Nowhere have I implied that complexity = design. Think again.
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#188  Postby hackenslash » Sep 21, 2014 2:41 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
CharlieM wrote:The natural technology that allows birds to fly is not something that unguided evolution could produce.

How do you know that? Seriously, how do you know?


By understanding what a marvel of engineering a bird is. By looking at how all the components and systems that constitute a bird have developed in coordination to produce a heavier than air flying creature. It is no more than a fairy tale to belief that some animal flapping its limbs about resulted in the production of a primary flight feather while at the same time the bones, the respiratory apparatus, the muscalature and other features all happened to develop in just the right way to achieve lift off.

There is no evidence that unguided mutations could produce any of this.


Your personal incredulity is not a fucking argument.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#189  Postby bert » Sep 21, 2014 2:44 pm

Who are you to discard the route god took to create birds (and all other life)? Are you saying an omnipotent god couldn't take the route of evolution?

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#190  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2014 3:41 pm

CharlieM wrote:Nowhere have I implied that complexity = design. Think again.


Nowhere have you implied that you can actually present any coherent metric for testing designedness.

Perhaps you just genuinely don't want to consider the fact that there is no such metric and Dembski is a hustler.

You must realize though that you've put yourself in a corner now. You either have to come out and straight up say that you have no idea how to compute designedness and so believed the claim on face value, or you have to actually post a response to the request made of you.

Posting anything else is merely highlighting the evasion.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#191  Postby pelfdaddy » Sep 21, 2014 4:55 pm

Charlie has attempted to describe science throughout history--our seemingly endless chain of uncovering smaller and more complex microscopic mechanisms that cause the things we observe. He thinks that every time someone says "here is the even tinier mechanism beneath that other tiny mechanism" that this means "here is the final mechanism underlying all other mechanisms." This way, the next time another, even smaller mechanism is discovered, it can be interpreted by the CharlieMs of the world as a falsification of scientific opinion. In other words "They keep getting it wrong, so they should look elsewhere."

How, I'd like to know, does the revelation of an ongoing cascade of material causes, spiraling down, down, down through a seemingly bottomless tube of steadily decreasing diameter of material causes beneath material causes beneath material causes, indicate to someone that a non-material cause will one day confront us like a deer in the headlights on a dark road??

If the universe were a material one only, it would have little choice but to arise out of just such an ascendancy of material causes. If there was a God, he would have many options, and the world could be very simple. We could be hollow, with souls to guide us, or have no material substance at all. That the designer chooses to design everything with such needless complexity, so that this looks like an emerging and unguided universe, is amusing but not impressive.

What is it about anything we have so far discovered that leads to the conclusion...that an immaterial force with purpose and...
aw fuck it.
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 1022
Age: 54
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#192  Postby Rumraket » Sep 21, 2014 5:04 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
CharlieM wrote:The natural technology that allows birds to fly is not something that unguided evolution could produce.

How do you know that? Seriously, how do you know?


By understanding what a marvel of engineering a bird is.

It does not follow from the propostion that "the bird is a marvel of engineering" that an unguided evolutionary process could not produce it. You must be assuming something extra in order to extract your conclusion here.

CharlieM wrote:By looking at how all the components and systems that constitute a bird have developed in coordination to produce a heavier than air flying creature.

It does not follow from the proposition that "the components and systems that constitute a bird have developed in coordination and produced a heavier than air flying creature" that therefore an unguided evolutionary process could not have produced it. You must be assuming something extra in order to extract your conclusion here too.

CharlieM wrote:It is no more than a fairy tale to belief that some animal flapping its limbs about resulted in the production of a primary flight feather while at the same time the bones, the respiratory apparatus, the muscalature and other features all happened to develop in just the right way to achieve lift off.

Why? It seems to me pretty simple that this is the result of a mix of natural selection and contingent historical circumstances. You must be assuming there's something intrinsically unlikely about this result, over and above millions of other ones possible.

CharlieM wrote:There is no evidence that unguided mutations could produce any of this.

Why are you reducing the evolutionary process to just mutations? Look at it this way, all species exist in some kind of environment that constitute a whole host of selective pressures. There are many different ways to be successful in the environment, we know this simply by looking at extant biodiversity and the countless niches there are. With so many possible niches, why do you think natural selection can't hone and adapt some given organism around in this landscape? You seem to have this weird picture of the landscape as being amazingly vast deserts of nonfunctional organismal variation, that would take eons to cross by conventional evolutionar means? Why? What merits this picture?

This is the quintessential ID proponent vision of evolution, a carefully constructed strawman you have bought into, because you constantly read their propaganda. The same basic idea is enfused in all forms of ID and creationism, that basically any kind of evolution, whether at the macroscopic morphological level of the organism, or at the level of individual mutations in proteins and DNA sequences, will eventually destroy the function of the organism before it has changed enough to find a new one. This is exactly what the "paper" by Axe and Gauger I annihilated earlier is supposed to argue too.

Here's a list of various creationists and ID proponents making up these lies to construct this picture(that evolution is basically impossible, because some kind of eventually change destroys these marvelously finely-tuned organisms and molecules):
Diogenes wrote:CREATIONISTS and Intelligent Design proponents themselves have stated clearly that every and all mutations are CATASTROPHIC. Remember that? "Catastrophic."

Every human baby born has somewhere between 100 to 200 more mutations than its parents (depending on how you count)-- and twice that number relative to its grandparents-- and thrice that relative to its great-grandparents-- etc.

Young Earth Creationist Kent Hovind: “A change of only three [DNA] nucleotides is fatal to an animal. There is no possibility of [genetic] change.” (Ken Hovind, Source: http://media.drdino.com/sem/audio/mp3/books2.mp3 @ 82:10, March 2003, cited at http://kent-hovind.com/quotes/sciencei.htm)

Got that? Kent Hovind says only three mutations will kill an animal.

If creationism is correct, every baby has 100 to 200 new CATASTROPHES its parents didn't have-- and twice that number of CATASTROPHES relative to its grandparents-- and thrice that relative to its great-grandparents-- etc. Enough to kill every baby on Earth a hundred times over.

Pro-ID Philosopher William Dembski: “[T]here is now mounting evidence of biological systems for which any slight modification does not merely destroy the system’s existing function but also destroys the possibility of any function of the system whatsoever.” [Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 113]

Pro-ID lawyer Phillip Johnson: “Biologists affiliated with the Intelligent Design movement nail down the distinction by showing that DNA mutations…make birth defects” ["Berkeley's Radical: An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson", November 2000.]

Pro-ID lawyer Edward Sisson: “[T]he theory of unintelligent evolution, which depends entirely on the supposed occurrence in history of trillions of DNA mutations that beneficially affect body shape, has not identified any such mutations” -- [Edward Sisson, “Darwin or Lose”, Touchstone, v. 17, issue 6, July/Aug. 2004]

Uncommon Descent: “As far as I know, the current consensus of population geneticists is that mutations do indeed have disastrously bad fitness.” [Eric Holloway. Uncommon Descent. August 28, 2011.]

Young Earth Creationist Henry Morris: “Inheritable and novel changes (mutations) which take place in organisms today have always been observed to be harmful.” [Henry Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p.vii]

Young Earth Creationist Duane Gish: “the mutations we see occurring spontaneously in nature or that can be induced in the laboratory always prove to be harmful.” [Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No, p. 47]

Duane Gish: “all mutations are bad” [Gish, Dinosaurs by Design (1992), p.83]

Duane Gish: “Remember, all the changes were just mistakes, they were genetic errors, mutations, almost everything which is bad… they're all bad” [Keith Saladin-Duan Gish Debate II, 1988]

Creationist Don Boys: “Not only are mutations always harmful, but they produce changes in present characters, never producing new characters. Mutations are the catalyst for defects, deformity, disease, and death; yet evolutionists scream that they are the explanation for all the varieties we see… [T]he results of all mutations: disorder, defects, disease, deformity, and death.” -- ["Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!", Don Boys. Canada Free Press. May 2, 2010.]

Muslim Creationist Harun Yahya: “[N]ot one single useful mutation has ever been observed… The slightest alteration in [genetic] information only leads to harm.”

The Muslim creationist sex-cult of Harun Yahya says all mutations cause only harm: “Mutations… like all accidents, they cause harm and destruction. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl … freaks of nature… because all efficient(?) observable mutations cause only harm to living things.”

There we have it. All the creationist top dogs and professional ID proponents of the discovery institute go out of their ways to tell us that introducing mutations to extant functional DNA and proteins will invariably always lead to loss of function and dead sequences. Mutation just cannot create anything new that works. This is a deliberate lie they work hard to maintain, it is found in some form or another in ALL the creationist and ID books.

In conclusion you don't actually have any good reasons to claim that "The natural technology that allows birds to fly is not something that unguided evolution could produce." Your statement is based entirely on an assumption with no supporting evidence.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#193  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2014 5:37 pm

Dawkins wrote:To a first approximation, all animals fly


Flight is such an easy one, why did Charlie pick it?

I guess he's already tried bacterial flagellum without success, so now it's leap around morphology claiming it's too complex for him to understand how it could have resulted from natural mechanisms, therefore God.

It's not remotely like this is the first time he's trotted this argument from incredulity out.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#194  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2014 5:47 pm

CharlieM wrote:It is no more than a fairy tale to belief that some animal flapping its limbs about resulted in the production of a primary flight feather ...


CharlieM resoundingly defeats Lamarckism 200 years too late.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#195  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2014 5:49 pm

There is no evidence that unguided mutations could produce any of this.


Bah! I am so sick of the Creationist propensity for outright lies. It's readily apparent from this and other behavioral patterns that the real motivation is wedging their unwarranted beliefs into scientific discourse regardless of their inability to offer anything of value.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#196  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 21, 2014 7:22 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:

There is no counterargument against something that isn't an argument but rather a blind assertion.


True enough. To assert that ID equates with creationism is a blind assertion.


Intelligent Design is simply a tactic being used by some in the, mostly American, Christian Creationist movement. People and organizations within the movement may disagree on some fundamentals, even fight over them, but they are all part of the same hope and plan.


ID is simply the inference of design.


The Wedge Strategy document says otherwise. You keep pretending that this doesn't exist. Plus, if "design" genuinely existed to be inferred from observational data obtained from the biospehere, it would have been alighted upon by real scientists before now. Indeed, I've never encountered a "design" assertionist who knows what is required to have real evidence for "design". All of them think that all they have to do is shout "design" loudly enough, and the universe will somehow magically rearrange itself to make their wishful thinkiong become fact. This isn't how real science works.

CharlieM wrote:Many people including Christians of different denominations, Jews, atheists and agnostics, are sympathetic to ID.


I've never met a single atheist who treats "design" as something other than a supernaturalist assertion. Plus, there are many supernaturalists who think ID is a crock of shit. Ken Miller, for example, who happens to be a practising Catholic. Oh wait, he also happens to be an evolutionary biologist, and knows that "design" is nothing more than a blind supernaturalist assertion enjoying zero evidntial support. It's rather telling that the two biggest Christian denominations on the planet, the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, all accept the validity of evolutiioanry science. But then, the Roman Catholic Church got its fingers burned badly over trying to dictate to science 400 years ago, courtesy of that incident with Galileo, and a good number of Anglicans were also contributors to the very biological research that underpins evolution. Indeed, at one point, Darwin himself entered Christ's College, Cambridge, to train as an Anglican cleric, and in his early years, spent time defending "design" as postulated by William Paley. Of course, in his later life, he alighted upon the evidence destroying that apologetics, and the rest, as they say, is history.

CharlieM wrote:Some creationists may use it as a tactic


Funny how it's only creationists who think ID is anything other than a crock of shit.

CharlieM wrote:and some creationists are opposed to it.


Cite one.

CharlieM wrote:The situation is not as simple as you make it out to be.


As I've presciently noted with respect to Darwin above.

CharlieM wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:There is no way to separate Intelligent Design from Creationism, and it doesn't matter how circumspect or scientific any of them want to appear. It all comes down to God did it.That is the conclusion that they start out with not one they arrive at.


You are confusing the world view of some ID advocates with the process of searching out and studying ID in the empirical world.


Oh wait, when has this happened? When did papers detecting "design" for real, as opposed to specious apologetics dressed up as scientific papers, find their way into Nature or Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part B?

Oh wait, the absence thereof might have something to do with the vast mountain ranges of evidence supporting evolution, as documented in over a million scientific papers.

CharlieM wrote:We do not disregard Newton's science nor Kepler's science just because they believed that God had a hand in it.


No, we regard it as superseded because the evidence tells us this. Or did you fail to pay attention in the relevant classes, when the transition from Newton to Einstein was being expounded? Including the fact that Einstein provided a reason why Newton's physics appeared to be so successful for so long? Courtesy of the fact that the error involved in using a Newtonian treatment, when low velocities and weak gravity fields are involved, is so small that even now, in the 21st century, it requires expensive effort for scientists to measure? For example, measuing time dilation here on Earth usually requires flying atomic clocks around the globe on large jet aircraft non stop for up to a week, and even then, this expensive experiment only detects a difference measured in nanoseconds.

However, it's precisely because this error is so small, that we still use Newtonian physics in situations where the tiny size of that error doesn't matter. No one is going to resort to four-dimensional Minkowkian tensors to build a house, for example, when far simpler high school calculus can be pressed into service more than adequately.

Quite frankly, those of us who paid attention in science class don't care what sort of magic man fantasies someone indulges in, what we care about is whether the hypotheses erected thereby are in accord with the data.

CharlieM wrote:We take their findings on their own merit regardless of the religious attitude of these men.


Oh wait, isn't that what I just said above?

And that's why no one treats ID as anything other than a propaganda device, because it does not have any scientific merit.

CharlieM wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
CharlieM wrote:The natural technology that allows birds to fly is not something that unguided evolution could produce.


How do you know that? Seriously, how do you know?


By understanding what a marvel of engineering a bird is.


In short, "I can't imagine how testable natural processes could achieve this result, therefore no testable natural processes could achieve this, therefore Magic Man did it". Which is all that you and every other creationist on the planet has. Scientists, on the other hand, roll up their sleeves and ask themselves, "how could this be achieved, and what experiments can we conduct to ascertain this?"

CharlieM wrote:By looking at how all the components and systems that constitute a bird have developed in coordination to produce a heavier than air flying creature. It is no more than a fairy tale to belief that some animal flapping its limbs about resulted in the production of a primary flight feather while at the same time the bones, the respiratory apparatus, the muscalature and other features all happened to develop in just the right way to achieve lift off.


Except that your strawman caricature above, of all the features arriving simultaneously in perfected form, in one neat package labelled "bird", is precisely that, a strawman caricature of the actual scientific postulates. Which posit that the features developed over time, with assorted intermediates, plenty of which litter the fossil record, charting the manner in which these features were acquired by relevant ancestors of the theropod lineage. Then of course there's the additional evidence from molecular phylogeny, evidence which should not even exist if creationist/IDist assertions were correct. The very existence of that evidence on its own tells us that these assertions are wrong.

CharlieM wrote:There is no evidence that unguided mutations could produce any of this.


Ha ha ha ha ha.

Even an elementary Google Scholar search turned this up:

Wing-Assisted Incline Running And The Evolution Of Flight by Kenneth P. Dial, Science, 299: 402-404 (17th January 2003) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Dial, 2003 wrote:Flapping wings of galliform birds are routinely used to produce aerodynamic forces oriented toward the substrate to enhance hindlimb traction. Here, I document this behavior in natural and laboratory settings. Adult birds fully capable of aerial flight preferentially employ wing-assisted incline running ( WAIR), rather than flying, to reach elevated refuges (such as cliffs, trees, and boulders). From the day of hatching and before attaining sustained aerial flight, developing ground birds use WAIR to enhance their locomotor performance through improved foot traction, ultimately permitting vertical running. WAIR provides insight from behaviors observable in living birds into the possible role of incipient wings in feathered theropod dinosaurs and offers a previously unstudied explanation for the evolution of avian flight.


Then we have this:

The Wing Of Archaeopteryx As A Primary Thrust Generator by Phillip Burgers & Luis M. Chiappe, Nature, 399: 60-62 (6th May 1999) [abstract available here]

Burgers & Chiappe, 1999 wrote:Since the late 1800s, the debate on the origin of flight in birds has centred around two antagonistic theories: the arboreal (take-off from trees) and cursorial (take-off from running) models1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Despite broad acceptance of the idea that birds evolved from bipedal and predominantly terrestrial maniraptoriform dinosaurs1,7, the cursorial model of flight origins has been less successful than the arboreal model. Three issues have contributed to this lack of success: the gap between the estimated maximum running speed of Archaeopteryx (2 metres per second) and its estimated minimum flying speed (6 metres per second)8; the high energy demands of evolving flight against gravity2,3; and the problem of explaining the origin of the 'flight' stroke in an earthbound organism3,4. Here we analyse the take-off run of Archaeopteryx through lift-off from an aerodynamic perspective, and emphasize the importance of combining functional and aerodynamic considerations with those of phylogeny1,9,10. Our calculations provide a solution to the 'velocity gap' problem and shed light on how a running Archaeopteryx (or its cursorial maniraptoriform ancestors) could have achieved the velocity necessary to become airborne by flapping feathered wings.


Then we have this:

An Early Cretaceous Bird From Spain And Its Implications For The Evolution Of Avian Flight by José L. Sanz, Luis M. Chiappe, Bernadino P. Pérez-Moreno, Angela D. Buscalioni, José L. Moratalla, Francisco Ortega & Francisco J. Payato-Ariza, Nature, 382: 442-445 (1st August 1996) [Full paper downloadable from here

Sanz et al, 1996 wrote:Avian flight is one of the most remarkable achievements of vertebrate evolution, yet there is little evidence of its early phases. Specimens of Archaeopteryx shed important (albeit controversial) light on this evolutionary phenomenon, but the large morphological (and almost certainly functional) gap between Archaeopteryx and modrn avians remained virtually empty until recently. Here we report a new, exquisitely preseved, bird from the lower Cretaceous Konservat-Lagerstätte of Las Hoyas (Cuenca, Spain) which provides evidence for the oldest known alula (bastard wing). Crustacean remains inside its belly also provide direct evidence of feeding habits in birds. The new specimen has numerous synapomorphies with the Enantiornithes, but its unique sternal morphology, along with other autopomorphies in the furcula and vertebral centra, support the recognition of a new Enantiornithine taxon, Eoalulavis hoyasi. The combination in Eoalulavis of a decisive aerodynamic feature, such as the alula, with the basic structures of the modern flight apparatus indicates that as early as 115 million years ago, birds had evolved a sophisticated structural system that enabled them to fly at low speeds and to attain high manouevreability.


Or how about this:

What Use Is Half A Wing In The Ecology And Evolution Of Birds? by Kenneth P. Dial, Ross J. Randall & Terry P. Dial, Bioscience, 56(5):437-445 (2006) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Dial et al, 2006 wrote:

The use of incipient wings during ontogeny in living birds reveals not only the function of these developing forelimbs in growing birds’ survival but also the possible employment of protowings during transitional stages in the evolution of flight. When startled, juvenile galliform birds attempt aerial flight even though their wings are not fully developed. They also flap their incipient wings when they run up precipitous inclines, a behavior we have described as wing-assisted incline running (WAIR), and when they launch from elevated structures. The functional benefit of beating these protowings has only recently been evaluated. We report the first ontogenetic aerial flight performance for any bird using a ground bird, the chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar), as a model species. We provide additional ontogenetic data on WAIR, a recently described locomotor mode in which fully or even partially developed flapping forelimbs are recruited to increase hindlimb traction and escape performance. We argue that avian ancestors may have used WAIR as an evolutionary transition from bipedal locomotion to flapping flight.


"No evidence" my arse.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#197  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 21, 2014 7:53 pm

At this point, I'm minded to note the hilarious level of fail contained in CharlieM's apologetics, and, for that matter, the apologetics peddled by every other creationist. Because, when these people start peddling assertions, to the effect that "evolution cannot account for X", where X is posed as some purportedly "insurmountable" problem, my first reaction is to fire up Google Scholar, and find out whether there exists any scientific literature answering this purportedly "insurmountable" problem. What happens when I do this, is that scientific papers literally come tumbling out of the search engine like a fucking avalanche. Demonstrating time and again, that every time some smug, self-satisfied apologetics is peddled, even the most elementary fact checking destroys that apologetics, courtesy of the fact that scientists have not only answered their specious "gotcha" questions, but have moved on and started answering questions that the creationists were too stupid to think of.

Indeed, in this latest episode, I've just found a raft of scientific papers, providing an explanation for the emergence of avian flight that I did not even know existed previously. Namely, that the ancestors of modern birds were not "trying" to become flying creatures, but instead were merely using their forelimbs to increase their ability to negotiate slippery inclines. Bird flight was simply the co-option of the existing structures to perform a new task, courtesy of the fact that those same structures first gave the organisms in question the ability to slow descent and prevent injury, thus expanding their options for exploration in search of food and nest sites, then bestowed a limited gliding capability, and eventually made powered flight a rudimentary possibility. Once powered flight became even a rudimentary possibility, the selection pressure arose to improve upon it, because better fliers lived in greater numbers to breed another day.

All of which makes this even more apposite than before:

Science Beats Made Up Shit Every Time.jpg
Science Beats Made Up Shit Every Time.jpg (48.17 KiB) Viewed 1166 times
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#198  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 21, 2014 8:12 pm

Oh, and meanwhile, there's this paper:

The Evolution Of HoxD-11 Expression In The Bird Wing: Insights From Alligator mississippiensis by Alexander O. Vargas, Tiana Kohlsdorf, John F. Fallon, John VandenBrooks & Günter P. Wagner, PLoS One, 3(10): e3325 (October 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Vargas et al, 2008 wrote:Abstract

Background: Comparative morphology identifies the digits of the wing of birds as 1,2 and 3, but they develop at embryological positions that become digits 2, 3 and 4 in other amniotes. A hypothesis to explain this is that a homeotic frame shift of digital identity occurred in the evolution of the bird wing, such that digits 1,2 and 3 are developing from embryological positions 2, 3 and 4. Digit 1 of the mouse is the only digit that shows no late expression of HoxD-11. This is also true for the anterior digit of the bird wing, suggesting this digit is actually a digit 1. If this is the case, we can expect closer relatives of birds to show no HoxD-11 expression only in digit 1. To test this prediction we investigate HoxD-11 expression in crocodilians, the closest living relatives of birds.

Methodology/Principal Findings: Using degenerate primers we cloned a 606 nucleotide fragment of exon 1 of the alligator HoxD-11 gene and used it for whole-mount in-situ detection in alligator embryos. We found that in the pentadactyl forelimbs of alligator, as in the mouse, late expression of HoxD-11 is absent only in digit 1.

Conclusions/Significance: The ancestral condition for amniotes is that late-phase HoxD-11 expression is absent only in digit 1. The biphalangeal morphology and lack of HoxD-11 expression of the anterior digit of the wing is like digit 1 of alligator and mouse, but its embryological position as digit 2 is derived. HoxD-11 expression in alligator is consistent with the hypothesis that both digit morphology as well as HoxD-11 expression are shifted towards posterior in the bird wing.


From the paper in more detail:

Vargas et al, 2008 wrote:Introduction

The identity of the digits of the bird wing is a classic problem of evolutionary biology, born out of apparently contradictory developmental and morphological evidence. If we follow the criterion of homology by embryological position of origin, we find that the wing digits develop from embryological positions corresponding to those of digits 2, 3 and 4 of crocodilians [1,2]. Crocodilians are bird’s closest living relatives [3] and thus the optimal reference point for developmental comparisons to the bird wing. In the alligator forelimb (as in mouse) the first cartilaginous digital condensation to form is spatially in line with the ulnare and ulna (Figure 1A, top row), and develops into digit 4 (Figure 1 A, bottom row). The spatial alignment of these elements is referred to as the ‘‘primary axis’’, indicated by a red line in Figure 1. In the wing, the primary axis develops into the posterior digit, indicating the digits develop at positions 2, 3 and 4 [1,2] (Figure 1A). However, the wing digits of early birds like Archaeopteryx are morphologically similar to digits 1, 2, and 3 of crocodilians, presenting 2, 3 and 4 phalanges, respectively (Figure 2). We arrive at the same conclusion if we compare Archaeopteryx to early dinosaurs, lizards, and even early branches of amniotes (Figure 2, See Captorhinus, Ophiacodon). Wing digits are labeled 1,2,3 in the fields of phylogenetic systematics and comparative anatomy [4,5,6,7] As an explanation to this apparent contradiction with the embryological evidence, Wagner and Gauthier [8] suggested that a homeotic frame shift of digital identity had occurred in the evolution of the bird wing, such that in birds digits 1, 2 and 3 develop from embryological positions 2, 3 and 4 (Figure 1C). Consistent with this hypothesis, the embryological position of HoxD gene expression appears to be shifted in the bird wing. The posterior HoxD genes (i.e. HoxD-10, HoxD-11, HoxD-12, and HoxD-13) are well known for their expression and function in developing digits [9,10]. In the bird wing HoxD-10, -11 and -12 are absent only at the most anterior digit [11,12] (embryological position 2, Figure 1B). Because the same is true only for digit 1 of the mouse [13], Vargas and Fallon [14] argued that HoxD gene expression in the wing suggests a digit 1 develops at the embryological position of digit 2. If the comparison of digit 1 of the mouse to the anterior wing digit is correct, we should expect closer relatives of birds to show no expression of these genes only in digit 1 (The predicted expression for alligator is shown in gray shading in Figure 1B). If we do not assume a frame shift, but rather that wing digits develop directly into digits 2,3 and 4, expression in crocodilian forelimbs could be absent in digit 2. To test these predictions, we investigate HoxD-11 expression in crocodilians (bird’s closest living relatives). If expression in crocodilians is not uniquely absent in digit 1 (as in mouse), HoxD-11 would provide no support for the homeotic frame shift hypothesis. We cloned a fragment of exon 1 of HoxD-11 of the crocodilian Alligator mississippiensis and observed its transcription in developing digits. We found that, as in the mouse, in alligator forelimbs HoxD-11 mRNA is absent only at digit 1. We discuss the relevance of this result for the hypothesis of a homeotic frame shift in the bird wing.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Avian Flight Papers

#199  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 21, 2014 9:36 pm

Oh, I've just found another paper on avian wing development:

Pentadactyl Ground State Of The Avian Wing by Hans C. E. Larrson & Günter P. Wagner, Journal of Experimental Zoology, 294: 146-151 (2002) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Larsson & Wagner, 2002 wrote:

ABSTRACT The issue of the homology of bird fingers with those of pentadactyl amniotes has been a topic of contention for nearly 200 years. Data from the fossil record and phylogenetic systematics ascribe bird digit homologies to digits I, II, and III of pentadactyl amniotes while embryological evidence supports digital homologies of II, III, and IV. Using a molecular marker
specific for condensation competent mesenchymal cells, we describe a pentadactyl arrangement of prechondrogenic digital anlagen in the wings of stage 29 chick embryos. Only the middle three anlagen develop into mature fingers. This pattern supports the hypothesis that bird fingers develop from digital anlagen II, III, and IV of pentadactylous amniotes. In addition, this result rejects a model assuming a shift in the primary axis in bird digit development and shows that a prechondrogenic digital anlage has been maintained in the bird lineage for at least 220 million years since the last known pentadactylous ancestor of the lineage. Such a vestige suggests that strong constraints are maintaining a pentadactyl ground state in amniotes.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Dialog on "Creationists Read This"

#200  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 21, 2014 9:44 pm

We also have this:

A Fundamental Avian Wing-Stroke Provides A New Perspective On The Evolution Of Flight by Kenneth P. Dial, Brandon E. Jackson & Paolo Segre, Nature, 451: 985-989 (21st February 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Dial et al, 2008 wrote:

The evolution of avian flight remains one of biology's major controversies, with a long history of functional interpretations of fossil forms given as evidence for either an arboreal or cursorial origin of flight. Despite repeated emphasis on the 'wing-stroke' as a necessary avenue of investigation for addressing the evolution of flight1, 2, 3, 4, no empirical data exist on wing-stroke dynamics in an experimental evolutionary context. Here we present the first comparison of wing-stroke kinematics of the primary locomotor modes (descending flight and incline flap-running) that lead to level-flapping flight in juvenile ground birds throughout development (Fig. 1). We offer results that are contrary both to popular perception and inferences from other studies5, 6, 7. Starting shortly after hatching and continuing through adulthood, ground birds use a wing-stroke confined to a narrow range of less than 20°, when referenced to gravity, that directs aerodynamic forces about 40° above horizontal, permitting a 180° range in the direction of travel. Based on our results, we put forth an ontogenetic-transitional wing hypothesis that posits that the incremental adaptive stages leading to the evolution of avian flight correspond behaviourally and morphologically to transitional stages observed in ontogenetic forms.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest