....did you just erect irreducible complexity. The concept that was laughed out of and debunked in a US court of law by Kenneth Miller during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial?

laklak wrote:A couple of years ago I suffered a bout of non arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy... I lost vision in the lower inner quadrant of my left eye. ...my brain adjusted. ... The brain has merged the data from both eyes into a coherent picture...

laklak, sorry to hear about bout that, but I'm glad that you have recovered.

hackenslash wrote:You can gaze over the horizon? And without even trying, no less!

Me, I can only ever see to the horizon. It's kind of what the word means.

More cretinist bollocks.

Sorry hackenslash for the confusion. I meant that with our upright posture, we humans so easily gaze above the horizon.

- Bob Enyart

Rumraket wrote:

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Both sides have long offered their methods of demarcation. ... The Darwinist camp offers a philosophical, and the ID camp provides a mathematical method of demarcation.

The ID camp offers mathematical proof of design? Show me.

Hi Rumraket. Well, that's pretty close to what I said, I guess. What I wrote was that the ID community offers a mathematical method of demarcation.

Regarding "proof" of anything, have you ever had an atheist say to you that "proof" is only possible in mathematics? Ha! When I hear that, I ask if he can prove that mathematics exists? (Funny no? We've got a million of 'em!)



That ID book is in my studio which is two miles from my home. However, we do discuss their mathematical method to identify design in the interview that I conducted with one of the Intelligent Design Uncensored authors, and it is archived on the Internet, so it's instantly available to anyone who is interested.

I'm curious. If I were to go to the studio right now and get that book, and type in the sentence or two with their mathematical method, would you be inclined to carefully consider it?

If so, I'll consider going out tonight and getting that book.

Thanks,

-Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
Yeah, as the Bible says, Love hopes all things!

It does? Poor grammar and all?!

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:That would be Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved by Ivan R Schwab. (Just giving people context you understand )
And you debated his colleague? Um okay, doesn't seem terribly relevant to much of anything that you debated a colleague of someone who wrote a book, but okay. What form did this "debate" take? Is there a form of it anywhere, such as a video or something like that?

Hey ADParker! I didn't put a link to the debate because I've had my hands slapped with a ruler when I've done that at other atheist sites, and then they block you, and then they boot you!

Not frowned on here at all. And being a forum moderator I should know.
There are links and embedded videos all over this forum.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:This thread is about a counterclaim to the evolution of the eye. So, the book I'm reading is considered the authoritative work on the topic; the author's colleague is, as I said, a prof of eye-stuff at the University of California, who I debated on this very topic. That's why I thought it was relevant. Probably, about 99.95% of folks online who argue about eye stuff and evolution haven't ever picked up a text on the evolution of the eye, and probably 99.99995% haven't debated an eye guy on the topic. So by letting you guys know that I'm a bit familiar with the topic at hand, you might not be inclined to think that I'm just making stuff up. (Of course, educated and informed people make stuff up all the time, just like other people, yes, agreed.)

None of that actually goes very far to support your claim that you aren't making stuff up. Only your actual content could possibly do that. And to be perfectly frank: no it is not relevant that you debated some expert, all that implies is that you disagreed with them on some topic, not that you have any understanding therein.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:Um okay, so a bit of the old appeal to authority and popularity then.

Good point ADParker. I agree that it's so easy to fall into the logical fallacy of an invalid appeal to authority. Of course, a zillion other PhDs reject God, and countless PhDs believe in all kinds of crazy things. Agreed. I offered that bit of info not as evidence that creation is true, but as a counter to the mocking that I saw in this thread and as a counter to the widespread mocking of creationists as summarized by Richard Dawkins, "'if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane..." Of course, many of the fathers of the physical sciences, both before and after Darwin, rejected evolution and believed in our creator God, so the claim that only the uneducated reject materialist origins shouldn't be used by evolutionists.

Too many fail to recognize that "ignorant" is not a pejorative. In my experience the vast majority of people who believe evolutionary theory to be false are largely ignorant of what it is, they don't understand it (they usually just call it "evolution" because they don't understand the word either - anyone who truly does not believe in evolution [change over time] is a moron or insane), and have been indoctrinated into some form of creationism to the point of blindly dismissing anything that might challenge it out of hand, without bothering to learn a thing about it; "It doesn't fit into my creationist beliefs? That's all I need to hear: False false false!"

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
In fact, don't you think that the public and the media are rather gullible

Yes...oh you had a specific context in mind? Sorry.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: when they accept that materialists have done a good job of showing that you can explain origins apart from the existence of a Creator?

If they think that, then yes; as that is rather muddled and confused. "Explain origins" such a creationist term that. The only explanations for such things has been "apart from the existence of a Creator". Empty claims and assertions are not explanations.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:By the way, at the risk of getting my hand slapped or just being considered self-centered, a well-received British Darwinist author, James Hannam, quoted that line from Dawkins in his blog across the pond about his debate with me.

Richard Dawkins once said that 'if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).' It rapidly became clear that Bob was none of these things. For a start, I know a fair bit about evolution and genetics. But when it came to familiarity with the arguments, he was way ahead of me. On epigenetics, RNA/DNA chemistry, and animal physiology, I was hopelessly outclassed. Bob is not ignorant. And it is pretty clear he is neither stupid nor insane. He came across, in fact, as extremely intelligent. So perhaps he is wicked? Well... I am sure he is nothing of the sort.
-James Hannam, British Author and Darwinist

I honestly could not care less.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I'm looking forward, ADP, to replying to the rest of your post. But, as I mentioned that the public and the media seem rather gullible regarding materialist origins, if it's okay, let me leave you with this question (my fifth)!

- Do Atheists Even Have a Hypothesis on Origins?

Are you saying that you don't even understand the very basics of what "atheism" means?!

Atheism is not a worldview, it includes no tenets, doctrines or even beliefs. It is a single position of non-acceptance on a single kind of claim; that some god(s) exist. That's it, anything else an atheist might think is extra. As such atheism has no hypotheses; period. What hypotheses individuals who also happen to not be theists is entirely up to them.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Because atheists don't have a workable hypothesis to account for human consciousness, therefore they don't even have a theory to explain where we've come from, let alone a robust theory.

That makes no sense, and represents a gross misrepresentation (due to ignorance, being misled, dishonesty or what I make no claims) of what "atheism" even means.

And so what if I (no need to pigeonhole every atheist on the planet) don't claim to have a 'theory' for such things; does than in any way bolster your own claims? No, not a bit.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: It seems ADP, that the following pattern shows that materialists do not have even a hypothesis on origins, as demonstrated by these six irrefutable observations:
- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence

Um sure, so what? The average cookbook doesn't explain the Heisenberg uncertainly principle either. Because they have set topics.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of stars begins with the explosion of existing stars and with protostars

Huh?! Second, thrid etc. stars yes. First generation stars are different. Of what possible relevance is this?!

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes

Sort of. Really the "gene" is not so much a physical object but a human concept of the function of certain groups of nucleotides. And those come from amino acids that are naturally forming all over the place. No real point of getting into it. But basically it is just chemistry and self-replicating-molecules.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of species by neo-Darwinism begins with existing complex reproducing life

So your fourth "irrefutable observation" is basically a repeat of your first.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from already existing alien life

You what?!

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse.

Increasingly explained? Oh you are claiming that those interesting multiverse hypotheses are being heralded as more than those who know what they are talking about are really saying at all. Figures.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:This pattern demonstrates that many in the public, following a gullible media, have undue confidence in the claims about origins from materialists.

Those things show nothing of the sort. What a complete and utter confused non sequitur!

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: Consider also how the process might have originated to encode a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule?

Um what? Is that a question? A loaded one at that. Yes I have considered and read a little about some of the working going into researching abiogenesis. Interesting stuff with interesting findings coming out all the time. I would not be surprised to hear of a viable model of how it could have occurred, purely as a matter of biochemistry with no magic involved, within my lifetime.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Atheists have nothing and we can affirmatively know that they will forever have nothing in that regard, because a high-level understanding of physics and information affirmatively demonstrates that the laws of physics do not include symbolic logic functions. Information is not physical, and hence, strictly material systems cannot give rise to information systems.

Are the old "information" canard. A bit of confusing the map for the place involved with that one. Basically as far as I have ever heard on the matter; nothing more than a game of trying to baffle the audience with bullshit, which is what I guess the apologist has to do when they can't dazzle 'em with brilliance.

Not at all impressed so far Bob@RealScienceRadio.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Hello hackenslash! Where I say atheists, you can read atheist scientists, because that's who I'm referring to. Thanks for the opportunity to clarity. So, the pattern that I provided hackenslash demonstrates that atheist scientists do not even have a hypothesis on origin of life, species, proteins, stars, consciousness, encoding DNA, etc.

Even if that were true, which it is not (species; seriously?!), what of it? Argument from ignorance time: "You lot don't have all the answers so you should just accept our empty claims of knowledge"

Theistic scientists (that is scientists who are theists) let alone those "creation science" bullshit merchants), don't have any morehypotheses than the rest of them either. Beliefs and opinions are not hypotheses.

And you didn't demonstrate anything; you asserted. Learn the difference.

Made of Stars wrote:

Perhaps like you, I've been reading mainstream evolutionary work for decades, since the 1970s for me...

Proof that confirmation bias is a powerful force. I'm firmly of the opinion that creationists are only creationists because they're insecure about their belief system, and not that far from giving it up. Like those who rail against homosexuality...

Hi Made of Stars! If you've really hit upon a deep psychoanalysis of the human being, then wouldn't you yourself be on the verge of becoming a Christian?

Yes, you might have something there.

But hey, I thought that proof was possible only in mathematics?

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:Not a fan of the term "Darwinism"... like we worship Charles Darwin [or] take his works as 'gospel'...

What a coincidence ADP. Earlier today, I had the resident atheist at a theology forum criticize me for using the term "evolutionist". I posted there that I've also been criticized by an abortionist for calling him an abortionist, and liberals for calling them liberals. I don't quite understand all that. Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (emphasis on the theoretical) didn't even like me using the word "people". That's funny, no? When I am called a Christian creationist, a pro-lifer, a fundamentalist evangelical, or even an anti-choice activist, I don't run from it. I own it. Could it be that all those complaints are just obfuscation issues? I assure you ADP that neither me nor any creationist I have ever interviewed has suggested that Darwinists believe everything Darwin ever wrote. (For example, his overt racist and sexist contemptible comments, as at AmericanRightToLife.org/darwin, are rejected, I believe, by countless Darwinists.) And I can't recall any creationist making the claim, either, that Darwinists worship Darwin. So I'd rest easy on those concerns. A Darwinist today is someone who generally adheres to the modern synthesis (which of course isn't all that modern anymore, what with the study of epigenetics being what it is.)

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:So here are the kinds of questions that lead educated folks to doubt Darwinism:

Okay, do you have any actual reason, or better yet evidence, that these kinds of questions have led educated folks to doubt Darwinism. Or is it that only people who already doubt for other reasons (religious indoctrination for instance) use them in cases like this?

Thanks for the good question ADParker. I'd like to try to answer it. According to a prestigious pro-evolution institution, as reported on and linked to (including the raw data), over at Real Science Radio, the percentage of U.S. MDs who believe that some kind of intelligent design must be involved in the origin of mankind, here's a breakdown of some of them by worldview:
- Buddhist doctors: 43% reject materialistic Darwinism (compared to 36% who accept it)
- Hindu doctors: 54% reject materialistic Darwinism
- Jewish doctors: 32% reject materialistic Darwinism (contrary to the anti-intelligent design position of the pro-evolution Louis Finkelstein Institute at the Jewish Theological Seminary which commissioned the --rather expensive-- survey)

There were even 2% of atheist doctors who reject the strictly materialistic Darwinism approach, who I'm suggesting ADP consider questions like the four I listed, as do the atheists who are friendly to the ID Discovery Institute, and like atheist Thomas Nagel who subtitled his latest book, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False."

Of the Real Science Radio report I mentioned earlier, that provides links to lists of names and to research from prestigious organizations that document the more than half-a-million degreed Americans, most of whom with PhDs and most in science-related specialties, who reject strict materialist Darwinism, one smaller group of highly-credentialed scientists at The Third Way (about 15 of them), acknowledge that neo-Darwinism and its natural selection cannot account for the diversity of life. These scientists include molecular biologists, etc., from institutions like Oxford, the University of Chicago, Tel Aviv University, MIT, University of Vienna, University of Bonn, UCLA, Princeton, and you would have a hard time dismissing their assessments due to religious beliefs since they are all anti-creationists.

Isn't it interesting that none of that had anything to do with what I said.
And yes I was already well aware that U.S.American MDs have a lower rate of anti-evolution belief than the general public, but a higher one than physicists and biologists, and far lower than those at the heights of those scientific professions. nothing to do with my question as to why of course. But as long as you enjoyed waffling on about such irrelevances.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:p.s. Now it's going into overtime!

well as long as those boys running around playing there little game are enjoying themselves, and getting in some good exerciser. That's the important thing.

Rumraket wrote:You would do well to read Gould instead of Dawkins.
... It still is, the genome is still mostly junk.

Hi Rumraket! I grew up enjoying frequent visits to his museum not far from my hometown, and across the Hudson, and I began reading Gould in the 1980s.

I appreciate that you are a true believer, and that you have the courage to put your genome assessment in bold black and white.

Wow! That is courageous!

It's also going to come back on you.

Thanks,

- Bob Enyart

p.s. Just thought of a question. If, like Dawkins, you become convinced some day that the genome is not mostly junk, do you think you will, unlike Dawkins, have the courage to acknowledge that a major argument against creationism that was made by you and virtually the entire Darwinist community was wrong?

Rumraket wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Incidentally, Bob, where do I know you from? Your name is familiar. Talkrat perhaps?

AronRa took him apart on leagueofreason in a debate.

Yes, if you recognize my name, that debate is possibly why. It was quite a battle! Broadcast, and then a written moderated debate. All the folks over at theleagueofreason.co.uk (they added the "the") agree with you Rumraket. They say that Aron wiped the floor with me. And he agreed.

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

If you think "irreducible complexity" is a problem for evolutionary biology, then you really need to read some real scientific papers. Hermann Joseph Müller flushed this canard down the toilet way back in 1918, and the result was placed on a rigorous footing before Michael Behe was even born.

theropod wrote:Information isn't physical? Really? I suppose that shelf of books at my side are mere figments.

Hello theropod. Consider this way of understanding that information is not physical. (There are a hundred ways to understand this.) We (human beings) can accelerate some bits of subatomic particles to significant fractions of the speed of light, but we can't accelerate anything to light speed (in a vacuum). However, we can transmit gigabytes of data, entire novels, in a millisecond, at the speed of light. That is a rudimentary way of showing that information is not physical. [EDIT: The point being that if information were physical, we could not transport it at the speed of light. Ask a physicist if we can transport an atom at the speed of light? We can't. We can't transport carbon at the speed of light, not even hydrogen, in fact, not even protons. Because we *can* transport information at the speed of light, that is one way to demonstrate that it is not made of matter. You can't piggyback matter on photons and send them across the solar system. <end transmission>]



The ink on the pages in your books theropod represent the information that those books contain; but the ink itself is *not* the information itself. The information encoded on a DNA molecule has nothing to do with the chemistry of the nucleotides, just as the plot of a novel is fully independent of the chemistry of the ink, the electrons in the Kindle, the sound waves in the air, etc.

Perhaps you have already considered Einstein's insight on such matters as referenced over at AmericanRTL.org/einstein. Math does not have mass, nor temperature, nor electrical charge, nor angular momentum, etc. Neither do ideas. Neither do the laws of logic. Even Michael Shermer admitted (not that he's an authority, it's just that his admission, to us, is the testimony of a hostile witness) that the laws of logic are not physical. If you believe that they are physical, theropod, then you believe that by blind faith without an iota of evidence.

You've probably noticed Therapod that at first, atheists claim that information is physical, and before you know it, they are denying even the existence of truth. That's another one of those cliches in fact.

It goes like this: There is no truth! to which we ask, Is that true? That's a fun one too, no? We've got a ton of 'em!



It's like: Truth is unknowable! And we ask, How do you know?



And then there's, There are no absolutes! And we ask, Absolutely? And: only your five senses provide real knowledge! And I ask, Says which of the five?



Thanks Theropod for making a clear statement. That gives us something to grab on to to demonstrate the differences in our ability to describe reality.

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

This is complete crap. Information is nothing more than the physical data extant with respect to the current state of a system of interest. Which is an essential underpinning of every rigorous understanding of the word "information" in real science, from Turing's paper on computable numbers, right the way through to Kolmogorov's work.

Calilasseia wrote:Information is nothing more than the physical data extant with respect to the current state of a system of interest.

Calilasseia, are you quite sure of that? Do you have empirical evidence for that? Can you propose a way to falsify that assertion?

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:My agenda ADP is that I seek to love God with all my heart and my neighbor as myself.

Okay; so my agenda is to find the truth, or the best approximation possible. Yours starts with a conviction of a certain truth. At least you are honest about it.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:As a part of that, I hope to show people that claims that science has explained origins apart from the existence of our Creator are exaggerated.

Stop exaggerating what is being claimed then.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I hope that is open enough for you. And I'm not quite sure how listing the father of evolutionary science and the world's most prominent advocate could reek of anything. That confuses me. I feel bad that it offended you because we're having a good conversation and I'd hope it doesn't get sidetracked into emotionalism by the mere use of the leading proponents' names.

Richard Dawkins is 'so last year' man. Only anti-evolution apologists fixate on him (one of them just started a thread about something in his "The God Delusion" book, which is eight years old already. )

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:"If there are no steps": If you mean by that (and I think you do, just trying to be clear and precise) that if there is no way to get from one point to another by "neo-Darwinistic" means (by the means of known, and as of yet unknown, evolutionary biology means - mutations, natural selection etc.) Then if were true then any theory that concluded/claimed that it did happen that way would be false.

Thank you for working for clarity ADP. Well, I so very much wish that I could just agree with your restatement of my question. Except that, I think my words were more meaningful than your paraphrase. The way you reworded it, you have me offering a tautology: If Darwinist means do not exist, then Darwinism is false. Yes. Of course. But that's turned my question into a tautology that anyone holding any position shouldn't mind agreeing with. For example, *IF* Christianity were false, then Christianity would be false. Yes. But the Apostle Paul offered something more courageous, especially in his day. He volunteered that IF Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain.

So, the question I asked is:

I wrote:By Darwin and Dawkin's slow and gradual steps... would you agree that, in theory, *IF* THERE ARE NO STEPS between two very complex biological systems (like perhaps monochromatic and dichromatic vision), that neo-Darwinism is falsified?

If you think I misinterpreted it then repeating it exactly as before is pointless, rather stupid even.
I think I have answered that. If a theory requires something to be true and it is not; then the theory is wrong.

And learn what "tautology" means.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:You offer ADP:

ADParker wrote:Technically the theory (a human construct) wouldn't be "falsified" until that was demonstrated and "proven beyond all reasonable doubt" by the relevant scientific examination and tests. In other words a theory isn't falsified until it has been 'proven' false, even though it would of course have been false all along.

I love your last point there ADP, that in such a case the theory would have then been false all along. However, regarding what precedes that, hmm. My question presented a very clear theoretical stipulation, whereby, if true, would falsify Darwinism. ADP, you turned it into a tautology, and are now arguing that the stipulation may not be true. That's all interesting, and worth discussing sometime, but it's off point and a direct answer would have helped me understand your position better.

I'm sorry; what the Hel are you on about?!
All I said there was that a theory is false if it is incorrect. But falsification is a human endeavor; falsification is proving something false to human (experts in this case) satisfaction, not the ontological state of it being wrong. It is only falsified when it has been shown to be false.

In other words your claim that ' whereby, if true, would falsify Darwinism." is technically incorrect: That being true would not falsify 'Darwinism', to do that you would have to 'prove' that it was true. Otherwise theories could be falsified without anyone knowing it.

Put it this way "Falsified" is not synonymous with "is false."

But no (as I have already said) the proof that some specific thing like that could not have "evolved" would not falsify 'Darwinism' or the current theory of evolution. Because that theory doesn't rest on that being the case. That would almost be like claiming that the ToE is false because some people have pig parts (heart valves etc.) in them, which they got through non evolutionary means. Proving that one thing did not evolve does not prove that things don't evolve. And if you think it does then you don't really understand the theory.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:"Neo Darwinism" as you call it...

ADP, that's what everybody calls it.

I don't. Therefore you are wrong.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:"Neo Darwinism" as you call it would not be falsified that way though no.

ADP, you are now vindicating my concern above that you turned my straightforward question into a tautology. By doing so, you felt comfortable answering it directly and affirmatively. Then, you challenged what was the given in the question, and now you're reversing your answer above, and I think the reason you are doing so, is because you're shifting into responding to my actual question rather than your tautological paraphrase. And it seems that you are uncomfortable answering the question itself.

It seems that you have reading comprehension issues, or are not paying sufficient attention to what I have said. I see no point in this if you are going to go on like this.

I reversed nothing. And I answered the question directly and in full.

You want a simpler more straight forward answer? Then fine:
No that would not falsify Darwinism or Neo Darwinism because neither of those are scientific theories. it would not falsfify the theory of evolution either because the ToE does not make such a specific claim of truth as that, it is a general cover term for a group of more precise theories and hypotheses. If there was one of those that concluded such a thing then that theory and that alone would be falsified if such a thing as you suggest was found to be the case. And as it is not fundamental or foundational to the wider theory (ToE) it would be thrown out of the ToE, as numerous previous hypotheses, and perhaps a few theories, have before, without fundamentally affecting the whole of the ToE at all.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:Because that is not as precise a theory to make such claims. The theory of evolution is a broad term encompassing a large number of 'lesser' theories. It is one of those that at best could be falsified in this hypothetical case.

Well, we've done an interview on naive natural selection, which is the popular misconception of Darwinism, and you're showing that you are aware that the theory is much more complex and offers various options that, when some evidence appears to falsify the theory, another mini-theory pops up to rescue the overarching structure.

Cute.
No need of "rescuing" in this example. It is not as if your hypothetical was in proving that mutations doesn't occur or something.
Any examples of this "another mini-theory" just popping up? Or is it yet more hand-waving apologetic bullshit?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:However ADParker, you are wrong on this. If there are no small incremental steps between two very complex biological systems, the entire structure of Darwinism fails.

That's just bullshit. Unless you mean all "very complex biological systems".

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I almost thought you saw this a couple paragraphs up, but unfortunately, back then, you were only agreeing with your own tautology. This is why, just as so many astronomers are going public in rejecting the big bang, so many biologists are going public with their assessment that Darwinism is not a robust theory and that the data has thoroughly falsified it.

"So many"
Again with the appeal to authority and popularity. This is just a game to you isn't it?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Thanks ADP. That was question 1. We were close to a meeting of the minds, if only in the context of a theoretical question. But, it didn't happen.

Thanks though for the effort!

Oh noes. It looks like I 'failed' because I didn't agree with his beliefs on the matter.

And it is ADParker, not ADP thank you very much.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Information is nothing more than the physical data extant with respect to the current state of a system of interest.

Calilasseia, are you quite sure of that? Do you have empirical evidence for that? Can you propose a way to falsify that assertion?

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

It isn't an assertion, it's an observable fact. And I can point to a myriad of examples. I'll concentrate on two.

First, let's take a look at a magnetic disc, such as your computer's hard drive. The information stored therein consists of the magnetic orientation of ferromagnetic particles within the disc medium. One orientation corresponds to a zero bit, a different orientation corresponds to a 1 bit. That magnetic orientation is a physical property of those ferromagnetic particles.

Second, let's take a look at a DNA molecule. The arrangement of the nucleotides therein is another physical property of that molecule, consisting of where along the strand a different purine or pyrimidine molecule is located.

As for falsification, well, that's simplicity itself. Provide me with an example of a system where different information is extracted therefrom, by the same information extraction process, without any change in the physical constitution of the requisite medium that process is applied to.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:2. Is it possible that there are no physical or even logical steps between monochromatic and dichromatic vision systems? (There is a non-trivial level of increased complexity going to dichromatic vision.)

I have no idea.

Thanks for the direct response. Regarding my use of the word "logical", oftentimes we can explore concepts by way of mathematics (the topic of our radio program yesterday), and logically, even when we can't empirically study something. [Einstein was big on this process, spent years doing this, and spent more years pondering how such a process could even be possible. And among the atheists cliches that we falsify is this: Only knowledge gained empirically is valid. And so, how did you figure that out? That's a fun one, no? We've got a ton of 'em!]

As someone who studied logic in university; the stupid in that makes my head hurt.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:Did you just make that image up yourself?

Yes. Thank you. Except that, it wasn't just now. It was a few years ago.

I have no idea what you are thanking me for. And I never even implied anything about "just now."

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Regarding your comments, thanks for pointing out that you don't know enough about the topic to reply. But perhaps you can realize ADP that this same lack of knowledge that you have might call into question your judgment that my question is "decidedly misleading".

Because biological vision systems make use of symbolic logic, and because the laws of chemistry and physics have no symbolic logic functions, therefore, Darwinists can search for eternity but they will fail to demonstrate that there is a physical path for chemical and physical processes to develop a symbol-driven system. And at that point, Darwinists are out of options. Of course, they could explore the strong force, and the coulomb force, and gravity, but searching these for symbolic logic functions would be to make a category error. (Hey, scientists have even found organisms utilizing quantum mechanical functions, but none of that is relevant. As Einstein pointed out, and was mystified by for decades (see AmericanRTL.org/einstein), you cannot get from a purely physical world to the realm of ideas.

Gibberish.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:...showing an image of what "the brain "sees" " doesn't really make that much sense.

ADP, I show you that image in hopes that in it you will see God. I'm trying to get you to realize the actual dilemma that materialism faces, rather than have you feel content only dealing with caricatures of reality. Vision systems alleged arose may times over, in organisms that lacked a common ancestor that was sighted. (As you know, Darwinists call that concept convergence, like when dolphins and bats allegedly evolved nearly identical and very extensive computer coding/sequencing to implement echolocation.)

Eye evolution is nothing like that. You don't really understand what you are talking about do you, because you don't actually care. It's all about your pre-set conclusion.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:When you see that static, ADParker, consider a slug or a bug that is going about evolving, by an unguided process, a vision system.

Seriously? Like a bug evolves.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Once it functions, even in the most rudimentary way, then natural selection can get to work and preserve what is functioning and kill off what is not. So, the evolving bug brain would happen through a googolplex of complex algorithms before it randomly fell upon one that might give it some semblance of a valid interpretation of that static. In fact, even the concept of it trying to interpret the incoming data stream is itself incomprehensible. But, let's give you that. So, while the above vision data actually encodes a flower, as far as the bug knew, it might represent:
• The sound of thunder
• A predator’s mouth
• The taste of mold
• An atheists fingers in ten splints
• The heat of a flame
• A spider’s web
• The smell of ozone
• Nothing

More confused gibberish. I don't have the time or patience to go back through all the basics with you.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:So ADP, how does the supposed evolving bug brain begin to decipher such a data stream to identify a flower in the above static (i.e., encoded symbols)?

Do bugs even have a concept that an image is a flower, or simply an instinct to react to what they receive the image) in a particular way? You are acting as if we are talking about a fully sentient being in whom only then does the eye alone evolve.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:You might say, as you have, that you don't know enough about the subject to offer a reply. But don't worry. You're in the best company. Because that Univ of Calif professor who authored Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved has no clue either. At least, if he does, he never even attempted to answer such questions in his lengthy textbook.

You are sounding more and more like the apologist who thinks they have posed a brilliant stumper when on asking their "challenging question" their target just looks at them funny. Not realizing that it is not that they don't know the answer so much as the question is far too muddled to make any sense of (and perhaps their look is indicating that they might be facing a mad man.)

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Of course you can doubt my assessment, but I would hope that you might give me the slightest benefit of the doubt after hearing Richard Dawkins above vindicate my televised 1997 assessment of his entire body of work which he published in his bestselling books.)

I saw that. thought it was ridiculous, but all too typical.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:It does. Wow. With that question? I sure didn't see that coming.

My trochlea challenge to evolutionists is simply another iteration of irreducible complexity. Only, instead of using wildly complex and unfamiliar molecular machines, like a flagellum, I'm using something that most everyone can relate to. A pulley.

Irreducible complexity, oh brother.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Because it's so simple, it's difficult for either side to obfuscate. PZ Myers has spent a lifetime studying neo-Darwinism and he's considered an expert and he acknowledged that he cannot give an answer, even though I've only asked for a general broad outline of an answer, on how that trochlea could evolve.

So why ask a general audience then? Cheap imagined points or something?! Why does creationist apologetics have to be so fucking childish?!

My first guess would be that it is something like the case of the messy mammalian cranial nerves, laryngeal nerves etc. That (according to evolutionary models etc.) became looped in those otherwise odd ways as a result of shifting parts over their evolutionary history. For example the same 12 cranial nerves in fish are pretty much direct point A to point B, somewhat less so in amphibians, and even more so in mammals, and all in line to the expected pathways the various 'bits' would have to have shifted to get from there to here. And if it worked, even more so if it worked better, then there was a higher chance of of becoming somewhat 'fixed' and the norm. Not a fundamentally troubling mystery really.
Neil Shin's Your Inner Fish might help you out in this area. If you were to read it other than merely as a means to find something to attack and mock of course.

No, I can't (honestly) tell you what happened exactly. But so what? If I can't tell you how a certain person got from Houston Texas to Kent England that in no way implies that the trip was impossible without some kind of mystical intervention.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

ADParker wrote:An odd question: A "rough algorithm" for a rather precise little part of the development of the eye in particular.

I'll leave it at that. ADP, thank you for taking my questions seriously. I do appreciate that!

- Bob Enyart

Ouch. I think I was just reprimanded for ending my post with my name and city.

Not reprimanded. Believe me; you will know when that happens (we have pretty colored boxes and everything. ;p )

I just think that essentially signing ones posts seems at least a little silly (your username and avatar - when/if you choose to get one - and more already being plastered all over each post by default anyway). And it at least looks to me to be perhaps a little egotistical.

willhud9 wrote:....did you just erect irreducible complexity. The concept that was laughed out of and debunked in a US court of law by Kenneth Miller during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial?

Yup...and I laughed!!

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

hackenslash wrote:You can gaze over the horizon? And without even trying, no less!

Me, I can only ever see to the horizon. It's kind of what the word means.

More cretinist bollocks.

Sorry hackenslash for the confusion. I meant that with our upright posture, we humans so easily gaze above the horizon.

- Bob Enyart

Except of course that we don't. Due to what the word "horizon" means.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Regarding "proof" of anything, have you ever had an atheist say to you that "proof" is only possible in mathematics? Ha! When I hear that, I ask if he can prove that mathematics exists? (Funny no? We've got a million of 'em!)

No. Not funny in the slightest, but creationist 'humour' is only ever funnny to creationists it seems. Although I have seen a fair few of them give uncomfortable looks when hearing them and the almost "canned laughter" responses in debates etc. I suspect that most just laugh because one on "our side" made fun of "their side" without having a fucking clue what was actually said, let alone its humor level.

Even less so when the topic was mathematics.