D R Lindberg:   How so? Please explain, in your own words, with
examples.  "Intelligent
Design theory" claims that evolution cannot produce new
information. So it is contradicted by the evidence shown in the videos.  Of
course, they never really define "information" functionally or empirically.
How is it measured? What units do they use to measure it?  How can you say
something has increased, or decreased, if you can't measure it?  So they
can skate around their claims and say that anything is evidence for them.
If the opposite happens, that's evidence too.  That's empirical?

Jim in Vermont:   No, what ID claims is that no random, undirected natural
process (such as Darwinian evolution) can produce complex specified
information, that is to say, complex information (i.e., roughly 500 bits or
more) that conveys a message and/or performs a function. Such a natural
process is quite capable of producing mere Shannon information, which need
not convey any message and/or perform any function. But it has never been
shown that any random, undirected natural processes (including Darwinian
evolution) can produce new information that is both complex and specified.

Charles P:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/teach/evo_misconceps_diagnostic.pdf
  This is what scientists have concluded and in my opinion their UPDATED
version of neo-Darwinism comes to the same scientific conclusions as does
Intelligent Design.  New information comes from preexisting information.
  For example, look-alike wolves of Wolf populations over time can evolve to
become as diverse looking as Chihuahua populations and Great Dane
populations.  When you have learned to recognize the "right answer" on this
multiple choice test, ask yourself: "What do these answers have in common".
  INCREASE IN DIVERSITY = INCREASE IN INFORMATION OVER TIME.  DECREASE IN
DIVERSITY = DECREASE IN INFORMATION OVER TIME.

Charles P:  I believe that you understood the most important and most basic
concept of ANY theory:  The theory can't have it BOTH WAYS.  For this
reason, I have chosen the analogy of CLASSICAL MECHANICS as a sort of
STANDARD by which to measure the quality of ANY theory.  Scientists know
and still use classical mechanics.  The ideas of QUANTUM MECHANICS did not
falsify classical mechanics.  The ideas of SPECIAL RELATIVITY did not
falsify classical mechanics.  The rules of classical mechanics are just as
valid today as they ever were.

Charles P:  By contrast, neo-Darwinism and theistic evolutionism have been
trying to make the Theory of Evolution not-falsifiable by making it include
BOTH WAYS every time a science writer publishes something that involves the
theory.  In effect the writers are saying that EVOLUTION = EMPIRICAL +
NON-EMPIRICAL.  When there is overwhelming evidence for some piece of the
puzzle, they claim it is EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.  When something previously
unknown is newly discovered by research scientists, they claim it is
EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.  They can't have it BOTH WAYS.  The theory of
evolution as presented by neo-Darwinists and theistic evolutionist writers
can NEVER BE FALSIFIED because it is UNSCIENTIFIC.  To make matters worse,
anyone who questions the ideas of neo-Darwinism or theistic evolutionism
are considered to be "anti-science" and therefore must believe in "creation
nonsense".

Casey Luskin:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/confusing_evidence_for_common_051311.html
   Intelligent
design does not conflict with evolution if by "evolution" one simply means
"change over time," or even that living things are related by common
ancestry (Evolution #1 or Evolution #2). However, the dominant theory of
evolution today is neo-Darwinism (Evolution #3), which contends that
evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an
unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernible direction or
goal, including survival of a species." It is this specific claim made by
neo-Darwinism that intelligent design directly challenges.

Charles P:  Please allow me to paraphrase.  CLASSICAL MECHANICS does not
conflict with PHYSICS if by "PHYSICS" one simply means "BEHAVIOR OF
OBJECTS," or even that MASS QUANTITY IS A VARIABLE (PHYSICS #1 or PHYSICS
#2). However, the dominant theory of PHYSICS today is SCIENTIFIC
CONCLUSIONS ARE TENTATIVE (PHYSICS #3), which contends that PHYSICS is
driven by PHILOSOPHY acting on TENTATIVE IDEAS, an unpredictable and
purposeless process that "has no discernible direction or goal, including
FINDING FINAL TRUTHS." It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that
intelligent design directly challenges.

Charles P:  Please understand that my purpose is NOT to "debate"
the philosophies of neo-Darwinism and theistic evolutionism.  I respect
those philosophies.  It is NOT my purpose to "debate" the philosophies of
creationism.  I respect those philosophies.  However, it must be understood
that none of the philosophies can qualify as being scientific UNTIL THERE
ARE EMPIRICAL METHODS THAT CAN BE FALSIFIED.

Charles P:  Please understand that I welcome "discussion" of EMPIRICAL
METHODS.  Please understand that I have an open mind and I welcome
EMPIRICAL METHODS that point to my mistakes.  I learn from my mistakes.
  So, please, go ahead and put something SCIENTIFICALLY CONCLUDED into my
open mind.

Charles P:  I believe that you want me to defend INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY.
  In my opinion, the theory is so simple that some people seem to miss how
powerful the theory is.  I am NOT an ID theorist either.  Anything that I
say are just MY IDEAS and not the ideas of anyone else.  So, if I make a
mistake, that in NO WAY should change anyone's opinion of Intelligent
Design Theory.

Charles P:  You have viewed videos that claim to be evidence for
neo-Darwinism and theistic evolutionism.  Each of the videos have times
associated with each video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ  2:33.  At what time IN THIS
VIDEO is evidence presented for " the dominant theory of evolution today or
neo-Darwinism (Evolution #3), which contends that evolution is driven by
natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and
purposeless process that "has no discernible direction or goal, including
survival of a species." It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism
that intelligent design directly challenges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_UFImmulY&feature=related  5:57  At what
time IN THIS VIDEO is evidence presented for " the dominant theory of
evolution today or neo-Darwinism (Evolution #3), which contends that
evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an
unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernible direction or
goal, including survival of a species." It is this specific claim made by
neo-Darwinism that intelligent design directly challenges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI&feature=related  9:58  At what
time IN THIS VIDEO is evidence presented for " the dominant theory of
evolution today or neo-Darwinism (Evolution #3), which contends that
evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an
unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernible direction or
goal, including survival of a species." It is this specific claim made by
neo-Darwinism that intelligent design directly challenges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvrmZLGWfFs&feature=related  Evolution In 5
Minutes.  The philosophies of neo-Darwinism and theistic evolution are very
interesting.  Here is a SCIENCE FICTION video that is a show-and-tell
representation of what some science writers believe.  I respect those
philosophies, but they are NOT SCIENTIFIC and can't stand up to scrutiny
without EMPIRICAL METHODS.  Having it BOTH WAYS is like saying that the
fossil record shows us "STASIS and EXTINCTION" plus "SOMETHING ELSE".  If
there were empirical methods to show us the "SOMETHING ELSE", then we could
discuss that evidence.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)

D R Lindberg: "I'm afraid that Jim, who in other ways appears to be a very
intelligent and knowledgeable person...shows himself in this context to be in
some sort of denial - his faith is such that he cannot conceive, or at any rate
refuses to believe, that anyone could possibly have honest doubts about his
heroes at the Discovery Institute or any of their claims. or that anyone could
actually understand any of their arguments and still reject them."

There is only one person who knows whether either of your claims is true. That
person is me, and I know that both of your claims are false. As I have said here
on other occasions, I don't think that any human beings - including Discovery
Institute Fellows - are infallible or that their claims can never be doubted. I
cite Discovery Institute fellows not because I think they're infallible, but
because they are authoritative on the subject of intelligent design and because
I think they make good arguments against the sufficiency of Darwinian theory to
account for life's diversity and complexity. It does not follow that I think
everyone will be persuaded by the arguments they make for ID or against ToE.
People can understand their arguments yet have reasons for rejecting those
arguments. I have never said nor suggested that disagreeing with design
proponents can ONLY ARISE from misunderstanding them (although misunderstanding
can often lead to disagreement). I have instead said that it is evident that a
person does not understand intelligent design when that person persistently
misrepresents it (assuming, of course, that the person is both intelligent and
honest).

D R Lindberg: "For Jim, there seems to be no reality beyond the borders of the
Discovery Institute (or quotations carefully and lovingly mined by Discovery
Institute 'fellows')."

This is such ridiculously absurd rhetorical overkill that it deserves no further
comment from me.

D R Lindberg: "Now this is the impression I get from reading his postings. I
could very well be wrong, indeed I hope I am."

Your hope has been fulfilled; you are wrong.

D R Lindberg: "It would be very nice to see Jim prove that I'm all wet by
showing that he realizes that it is entirely within the realms of the possible
for someone to be less than 100% convinced of the absolute truth of every crumb
dripping from the lips of the DI's 'intelligent design theorists,' and still be
an honest person."

Oh, good grief. I would have to be stupid to think that a person's failure to
accept everything said by design theorists indicates that the person must be
dishonest. Well, I'm not stupid and I think (and have said) no such thing. What
I have said is that when a person persistently misrepresents intelligent design,
there are three possible explanations for those misrepresentations:

1) The person has read at least some of the design literature, but either lacks
the wit to understand what he read or willfully misunderstands it.
2) The person has read none (or very little) of the design literature, thus his
misrepresentations of intelligent design result from partial or total ignorance
of it.
3) The person has read and understood at least some of the design literature,
but deliberately (thus, dishonestly) misrepresents intelligent design.

Number 2 is the most charitable of those explanations, so it's the one I favor
when someone persistently misrepresents intelligent design.

Jim in Vermont


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
   From: VictorM
   To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 4:37 AM
   Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Where Does the Bible Teach Millions of Years?



   B. CEC accept that the creation is enslaved to change that is internal,
orderly and together change - just like the Apostle Paul so plainly wrote in
Romans 8:19 - 22.


   LA>  Are you saying that this "change" that Paul speaks of is "downwards"
change and one that scientists of almost all persuasions refer to as leading to
eventual "heat death"?


   Laurie.

   "The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good
   ending, then having the two as close together as possible." (George
   Burns, quoted in Hollywood be Thy Name, p.152)

   ..



   Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
   Messages in this topic (2)
   Recent Activity:
   Visit Your Group
   ============================================
   OriginsTalk email listserv
   Northwest Creation Network
   http://nwcreation.net/
   ============================================
    Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use.


   No virus found in this message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4855 - Release Date: 03/06/12


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

D R Lindberg:  I'm afraid that Jim, who in other ways appears to be a very
intelligent and knowledgeable person, (and whom I like and admire, although
he seems convinced of the contrary - so much so that he refuses to respond
to my postings), shows himself in this context to be in some sort of denial

his faith is such that he cannot conceive, or at any rate refuses to believe,
that anyone could possibly have honest doubts about his heroes at the
Discovery Institute or any of their claims. or that anyone could actually
understand any of their arguments and still reject them.

Charles P:  In my opinion, the description for the origin and diversity of
life on Earth is not about who-thinks-what here on Origins Talk.  Unless
YOU have some EMPIRICAL METHODS to discuss, all we know is that you
disagree with something and are blaming it on somebody.

Charles P:  Sometimes I am guilty of NOT RESPONDING to some of your
postings.  Most of the time it is not clear to me what it is that you want
to learn from me.  Most of the time it seems to me, just like you said,
this become a Dialog of the Deaf.  You can't hear me and I can't hear you.
  I understand that you disagree with something, but you choose to make it
personal by saying negative things about people like Ian Juby or Do-While
Jones, "HEROES AT THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE", etc.  In my opinion, everyone
should be respected for their inherent dignity and worth.

D R Lindberg:   You know, I really have difficulty understanding you..
  Recently,
you have repeatedly been talking about "EMPIRICAL METHODS."  Yet when I
mention something that I have seen or touched (what could be more empirical
than that?) you dismiss it as "philosophy."  And now you ask a bunch of
questions that are, at least at the present level of our scientific
understanding, not much more than philosophical questions.  Don't you have
it backwards somewhere?

Charles P:  I have an open mind.  Please discuss your ideas in a way that
is understandable to you.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
>
> D R Lindberg:   How so? Please explain, in your own words, with
> examples.  "Intelligent
> Design theory" claims that evolution cannot produce new
> information. So it is contradicted by the evidence shown in the videos.  Of
> course, they never really define "information" functionally or empirically.
> How is it measured? What units do they use to measure it?  How can you say
> something has increased, or decreased, if you can't measure it?  So they
> can skate around their claims and say that anything is evidence for them.
> If the opposite happens, that's evidence too.  That's empirical?
>
> Jim in Vermont:   No, what ID claims is that no random, undirected natural
> process (such as Darwinian evolution) can produce complex specified
> information, that is to say, complex information (i.e., roughly 500 bits or
> more) that conveys a message and/or performs a function. Such a natural
> process is quite capable of producing mere Shannon information, which need
> not convey any message and/or perform any function. But it has never been
> shown that any random, undirected natural processes (including Darwinian
> evolution) can produce new information that is both complex and specified.
>
> Charles P:
> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/teach/evo_misconceps_diagnostic.pdf
>  This is what scientists have concluded and in my opinion their UPDATED
> version of neo-Darwinism comes to the same scientific conclusions as does
> Intelligent Design.


I am not sure why you call this UPDATED as I don't know of any former time when
neo-Darwinism made any different claim.  Could you present evidence that the
conclusions alluded to in this document are different from those of say 1930 or
1890?

I am also puzzled that you see the scientific conclusions (as seen in the
correct answers to these problems) as "the same scientific conclusions" as ID.  
Where does ID—using the principles of ID--come to these same conclusions?

Also let's see how good a teacher you are.  Let's take the first multiple choice
question:

1) A volcano erupted on an island. The ash released from the volcano changed the
acidity(pH) of the soil from the level it had been for hundreds of years. This
significant change resulted in new environmental pressures on species in the
soil. Which of the following is a likely outcome of these pressures?

a) Some species will disappear from the soil because they do not have
individuals with traits that allow them to survive in more acidic soil.
b) Only some species will generate the needed mutations to adapt to the change
in pH; other species will become extinct.
c) Most species gain additional genetically-based traits, and this increase in
complexity allows them to live in the more acidic soil.
d) Individuals in each species will evolve the traits necessary to survive under
these new conditions.

Which is the correct answer according to the theory of evolution?  Why is this
the correct answer according to the theory of evolution?

Which is the correct answer according to ID?  Why is this the correct answer
according to ID?

Which is the correct answer according to Preprogrammed DNA theory?  Why is this
the correct answer according to Preprogrammed DNA theory?





>
> Charles P:
When there is overwhelming evidence for some piece of the
> puzzle, they claim it is EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.  When something previously
> unknown is newly discovered by research scientists, they claim it is
> EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.
>



What is wrong with that?  A good theory does explain new evidence as well as
already known evidence.   It is only when the new evidence cannot be accounted
for by the theory that the theory needs to be revisited.


>
> Casey Luskin:
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/confusing_evidence_for_common_051311.html

"The debate over evolution and intelligent design can be confusing because some
keys terms in the discussion are ambiguous."

They are only "ambiguous" because anti-evolutionists like Luskin tend not to use
standardized scientific definitions.


>
> Charles P:  You have viewed videos that claim to be evidence for
> neo-Darwinism and theistic evolutionism.  Each of the videos have times
> associated with each video.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ  2:33.  At what time IN THIS
> VIDEO is evidence presented for " the dominant theory of evolution today or
> neo-Darwinism (Evolution #3), which contends that evolution is driven by
> natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and
> purposeless process that "has no discernible direction or goal, including
> survival of a species." It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism
> that intelligent design directly challenges.
>
>


Nowhere.  The point is to show evidence that the theory of evolution is true,
not that it conforms to a biased ID definition of evolution.

What each of these three videos shows, very clearly, is that humans and
chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

In each case a sequence of DNA in humans is compared with the same sequences in
chimpanzees and other primates.  The sequence of DNA is the empirical evidence.

So here are the questions for discussion:

Does the theory of evolution explain clearly why these sequences are the same or
nearly the same in humans, chimpanzees and other primates while differing from
other mammals such as mice and guinea pigs?  If not, what is unclear about the
evolutionary explanation?

Do creationism or ID have any plausible, testable explanation for these
similarities?
If so, what are they?

Since these videos do not deal with what Luskin calls "the specific claim . . .
that ID challenges" does that invalidate the empirical evidence for evolution
they do provide?  If yes, why?

Is Luskin presenting a challenge that is scientifically untestable?  IOW a
question of philosophy rather than of science?

Sorry Victor, I disagree. I agree with Henry Madison Morris. But I respect
your views.





Regards, Stanley.





From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of VictorM
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 1:38 AM
To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Where Does the Bible Teach Millions of Years?





Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists BOTH have valid points.
However, neither one of them interprets the Bible the world the way the
Biblical authors intended. They both twist the words of the Bible to fit
western scientific notions.

1. The Bible repeatedly refers to the vast age of the earth, both in Greek
and Hebrew. Everywhere we observe evidence for enormous age, especially in
hundreds of billions of galaxies that we see back to the creation era.

2. The Bible contains genealogical records from Adam to Jesus. These add up
to about 4,000 years. From Jesus to the present we have secular sequential
histories that add ~ 2000 years to the biblical count. Biblically, the world
is 6,000 years old.

3. Only Changing Earth Creationists (CEC) admit BOTH a universe with vast
ages during which the Earth orbits the Sun only 6,000 times.

A. CEC get their fundamental principles from the Bible instead of ideas
passed down from the pagan Greeks, the medieval Catholics and western
empiricists. CEC reject the assumption that matter is not changing itself
because the Bible predicted the scientists as those who will obfuscate the
age of the plural heavens and the watery history of earth with their notion
THAT ALL THINGS REMAIN THE SAME. (2 Peter 3:3 - 6). This assumption is the
basis for scientific definitions of matter and time, scientific measuring
units and mathematical laws. The entire structure of western science was
founded on the notion that today's matter is identical in quality to
yesterday's matter.

B. CEC accept that the creation is enslaved to change that is internal,
orderly and together change - just like the Apostle Paul so plainly wrote in
Romans 8:19 - 22. CEC accept what is VISIBLE, that all matter changes
relationally since the beginning. Most scientific measuring units exist only
in their minds. Time, mass and energy are completely invisible. They were
contrived mathematically with the scientific notion that atoms are immutable
and dither with perpetual motion.

C. CEC confirm the vast age of the universe with visible evidence. We notice
that He is spreading out the plural heavens in unbroken continuity (the
galaxies) exactly as He claims in Isaiah. We observe the very things He says
bring Him glory as the He continues to form the stars and place them in the
spreading place calling them to come out in unbroken continuity. Indeed the
plural heavens (the galaxies) and the spreading place (raqiya) are
irrefutable evidence for the power of God. We see creation and biblical
cosmic history exactly as spelled out in the Hebrew grammar of the Bible.

D. We see that the galaxies were formed first, that they were naked and
without starry appendages. We observe how the galaxies formed as the stars
continued to accelerate out, taking up more space as the atomic clocks also
accelerated. There are probably more than a trillions galaxies. Not a single
ancient galaxy shines with the light frequencies of modern atoms. Scientists
have filled the universe up with magical things like invisible matter,
vacuums that stretch light, black holes, vacuums that push galaxies etc
because they refuse to believe their eyes that the properties of matter are
emergent.

E. We even see the evidence that our ancestors lived for geological ages as
their faces deformed, exactly as Job described in chapter 14. The bones of
the face are the only part of our skeleton that keeps growing with age. If
we lived for geological ages in few days, as Job explained, our faces would
grow Neanderthal but our grandchildren's skulls would not look the same -
which is what the fossil record shows. We see evidence for things Bible
states about earth history - things like close planet passages and the
shattering of a planet in our solar system (asteroids, comets, moons, planet
surfaces). The evidence is merely visible, is not scientific. Science was
founded on the very idea the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the
last days - panta houtos diamenei - all things remain the same (2 Peter 3).

If you do not understand why days, years, orbits and clocks are all
accelerating together, relationally, read these:

http://www.godsriddle.info/2011/10/polarizing-earth-age.html
http://www.godsriddle.info/2010/07/6000-years-of-gravity.html
http://www.godsriddle.info/2011_11_01_archive.html
http://www.godsriddle.info/2011/10/invisible-matter.html

Victor





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gluadys:   I am not sure why you call this UPDATED as I don't know of any
former time when neo-Darwinism made any different claim. Could you present
evidence that the conclusions alluded to in this document are different
from those of say 1930 or 1890?  I am also puzzled that you see the
scientific conclusions (as seen in the correct answers to these problems)
as "the same scientific conclusions" as ID. Where does ID—using the
principles of ID--come to these same conclusions?

Charles P:  Thank you for the opportunity to "debate" the same-old-stuff
that keeps some people motivated.  THESE ARE SOME OF THE SOURCES OF THE
MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF THE DESCRIPTION FOR THE ORIGIN AND DIVERSITY OF LIFE.
1  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/  Creationist claims are numerous and
varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given
claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need
addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to
find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all
of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's
New page for the latest changes.

2  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/whatsnew.html  New claims are linked
in bold red. Updates to previously existing files are regular links.

3  http://ncse.com/about  We educate the press and public about the
scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding the
teaching of evolution and climate change, and supply needed information and
advice to defend good science education at local, state, and national
levels. Our 4500 members are scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens
with diverse religious and political affiliations.

4  http://ncse.com/evolution/science/what-is-science  ALL SCIENTIFIC
CONCLUSIONS ARE TENTATIVE--THEY WILL BE CHANGED IF NEW EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS
PREVIOUS UNDERSTANDINGS.

Charles P:  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/index.shtml
The NCSE is the major source of the misunderstandings.  Now that their
philosophies are being UPDATED, they have turned their attention to CLIMATE
SCIENCE.  The TRUTH has never changed.

Gluadys:  Also let's see how good a teacher you are. Let's take the first
multiple choice question.

Charles P:  I am NOT a good teacher.  No matter how much evidence I have
presented with my HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE? series of posts, in my
opinion NO PERSON on Origins Talk has switched sides on the "debates".  I
am not authorized to speak for Intelligent Design theorists.  I alone am
responsible for what I post here on Origins Talk.  My only interest here is
to share what I have learned about the description for the origin and
diversity of life on Earth.  The search feature on Origins Talk allows
ANYONE to put in the name of an author and every post that author has ever
made here is a permanent record.  As of today, I have posted 942 posts
since October 26,2010.  Gluadys has posted 1965 times since August 22, 2008.

Gluadys:  So here are the questions for discussion:  Does the theory of
evolution explain clearly why these sequences are the same or nearly the
same in humans, chimpanzees and other primates while differing from other
mammals such as mice and guinea pigs?  If not, what is unclear about the
evolutionary explanation?

NCSE:  http://ncse.com/rncse/30/1-2/review-greatest-show-earth  Richard
Dawkins.  Darwin’s latterday pit-bull, has a missing link. Or, rather, had.
With the publication of his tenth book,The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins
finally gets around to filling a conspicuous void in an evolutionary oeuvre
that spans nearly forty years. As Dawkins himself explains, all his
previous books primarily deal with the power of natural selection and
simply assume that evolution has happened.

Charles P:  I have read "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A Coyne.  I have
read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.  Nowhere in those two
books could I find EMPIRICAL METHODS for reaching scientific conclusions.
  In my opinion, their philosophies are very interesting and very well
written for ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY.  After people have read these
philosophy books, they add philosophic ideas of their own.  Unfortunately,
after a period of time and after scientific questions are answered IN
SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, NOT IN BOOKS BY SCIENTIFIC WRITERS, there obviously
have occurred some misunderstandings THAT NEEDED TO BE UPDATED.

Gluadys:  Do creationism or ID have any plausible, testable explanation for
these similarities?  If so, what are they?

Charles P: http://www.icr.org/  Creationism has some EMPIRICAL METHODS
presented by The Institute for Creation Research, Ian Juby, Do-While Jones,
Ken Ham, and many YOUTUBE sites that I have quoted from time to time.
  Neo-Darwinists and theistic evolutionists have a CLOSED MIND to such
sources.

Charles P:  http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php  The Center for
Science and Culture has some EMPIRICAL METHODS that include
REVERSE-ENGINEERING to resolve scientific questions.  The scientific method
of OBSERVATIONS IN NATURE, HYPOTHESES, EXPERIMENTS, and CONCLUSIONS help to
resolve scientific questions.  All of the ideas presented by Intelligent
Design are found in scientific journals.  Books on the subject are
important, but the SAME EVIDENCE from scientific papers is available to
everyone, including the average reader, NO MATTER IF THEY HAVE AN OPEN MIND
OR NOT.

Gluadys:  Since these videos do not deal with what Luskin calls "the
specific claim . . . that ID challenges" does that invalidate the empirical
evidence for evolution they do provide? If yes, why?  Is Luskin presenting
a challenge that is scientifically untestable?  IOW a question of
philosophy rather than of science?

Charles P:  I am not authorize to speak for anyone else.  I wish that
people would seek the description for the origin and diversity of life on
Earth with an OPEN MIND.  I wish that people would pay more attention to
EMPIRICAL METHODS and "discuss" those conclusions and less attention to
who-said-what in the "debates".  In "discussions" everyone wins.  In
"debates" there is only one winner.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE? (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)

gluadys: "Also let's see how good a teacher you (Charles) are. Let's take the
first multiple choice question:

1) A volcano erupted on an island. The ash released from the volcano changed the
acidity(pH) of the soil from the level it had been for hundreds of years. This
significant change resulted in new environmental pressures on species in the
soil. Which of the following is a likely outcome of these pressures?

a) Some species will disappear from the soil because they do not have
individuals with traits that allow them to survive in more acidic soil.
b) Only some species will generate the needed mutations to adapt to the change
in pH; other species will become extinct.
c) Most species gain additional genetically-based traits, and this increase in
complexity allows them to live in the more acidic soil.
d) Individuals in each species will evolve the traits necessary to survive under
these new conditions.

Which is the correct answer according to the theory of evolution? Why is this
the correct answer according to the theory of evolution?

Which is the correct answer according to ID? Why is this the correct answer
according to ID?"

ID makes no attempt to answer the kind of questions you ask here. So far as
design theorists are concerned, the Darwinian explanation for the kind of minor
adaptation you present in your list of questions is a credible explanation. (It
should be noted, however, that you're simply assuming that any genetic mutation
causing certain species to adapt to more acidic soil amounts to an increase in
complexity, that is to say, the addition of new genetic information. It may
actually be the case - as it has been in adaptive changes in E. coli observed by
Richard Lenski, et al - that the adaptation to more acidic soil would be brought
about by a decrease in complexity, that is to say, by a loss of genetic
information.)

Design theorists have no quarrel with the Darwinian claim that undirected
material mechanisms (principally, random genetic mutations and natural
selection) can, for example, cause adaptive changes in the size of finches'
beaks. Their quarrel is with the Darwinian claim that those same undirected
material mechanisms (perhaps aided by other undirected material mechanisms, such
as genetic drift and gene flow) brought finches' beaks (and finches themselves)
into being in the first place. Design theorists do not dispute that undirected
Darwinian mechanisms can alter already-existing biological information,
sometimes to the benefit of organisms. What they dispute is that those
undirected mechanisms are so powerfully creative that they brought into being
the vast amounts of complex specified information that makes living things what
they are, with no assist whatsoever from any intelligent agent or cause. The
Darwinian explanation for life's complexities is contrary to what we have
learned from universal experience, namely, that intelligence is the only cause
known to be capable of generating complex specified information.

gluadys: "A good theory does explain new evidence as well as already known
evidence. It is only when the new evidence cannot be accounted for by the theory
that the theory needs to be revisited."

That's precisely why Darwinian evolutionary theory needs to be revisited. Since
about the mid-20th century, our knowledge of life's complexities - especially at
the molecular level - has exploded. That increase in knowledge constitutes new
evidence that was unavailable to Darwin and to evolutionary biologists in the
first half of the 20th century. We now know many things that they did not know,
perhaps the most significant of those things being that life is what it is by
virtue of the complex specified information that controls, specifies, and orders
the growth and development of complex organisms. To explain life, then, we need
to explain the origin of biological information. Darwinian theory cannot do
that, even in principle. Why? Because it is a wholly materialistic theory - a
theory that attempts to explain life solely in terms of matter and material
causes. It is akin to trying to explain how the text of "The Origin of Species"
came to be in terms of the chemical interactions between ink and paper. Because
the Darwinian explanation of life continues to portray life in terms of matter
and energy (and nothing else), it is conceptually unequipped to explain the
non-material information that makes living things what they are. I think
Darwinian theory remains the most widely-accepted explanation of life (among
biologists, at any rate) not because it is conceptually capable of explaining
the origin of complex specified biological information or because the evidence
compels its acceptance, but because so many of its proponents are committed to
the materialism that is ToE's chief prop. If materialism is true, then something
like ToE has to be true. But if materialism is false, then ToE can't deliver the
true explanation of how life came to be what it is. Science shouldn't prejudge
whether materialism is true or false. It should instead follow the evidence
wherever it leads, even if it leads to intelligent design as the best
explanation for life's complexities. Mainstream evolutionary biology won't do
that because it is committed to materialism (both methodological and
philosophical). It is a science wearing a self-imposed methodological and
philosophical straitjacket. Those who think (as I do) that science ought to be
an unrestricted search for the truth about the natural world should be
supporters of intelligent design's attempt to remove that straitjacket from
evolutionary biology.

Jim in Vermont

"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism that does not
admit this can survive at the present day." - Information theorist/applied
mathematician Norbert Wiener (author of "Cybernetics")





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Stanley Sethiadi" <ssethiadi@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry Victor, I disagree. I agree with Henry Madison Morris. But I respect
> your views.
>
> Regards, Stanley.
>

Henry Morris was a true believer. I have his books and find many gems of wisdom
in them. However, he was also a scientist, which IMHO is a disadvantage when it
comes to understanding creation. He admits that science depends on broad
principles that are accepted by faith. Then he tries to understand the universe
with the very principles the Bible warns about.

Henry M. Morris:
"When men attempt to interpret the events of the prehistoric past or the
eschatological future, they must necessarily leave the domain of true science
(whose measurements can be made only in the present) and enter the realm of
faith.This faith may be in the doctrine of uniformity, which assumes that the
present processes may be extrapolated indefinitely into the past or future and
that therefore "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
creation" (II Peter 3:4). If one, because of his basic presupposition, wishes to
believe in uniformity in this way, it is logically possible for him to do so and
to explain all the pertinent data in this context. He can determine the ages of
rocks and suns by projecting present rates of change into the limitless past; he
can develop theories about the evolution of species and life and galaxies and
chemical elements and everything in the universe, if he wishes, and no one can
prove him wrong, for the simple reason that these events are not reproducible
and therefore not subject to scientific checking."

Henry can't acknowledge that what scientists MEASURE, for the most part, are not
real things. They exist only in their minds and depend on the very idea the
bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days. Scientists claim to
measure time, mass, energy, gravity etc. - yet no one has ever detected any of
these. We only detect RELATIVELY faster or slower processes, more or less
massive objects, and hotter or colder events. The scientific definitions and
measuring units were contrived with the notion that the properties of matter are
fixed, not emerging. Peter warned about this idea and its consequence EVEN WITH
RESPECT to the age of the plural heavens.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20pe%203:3-6&version=NASB

Creation scientists struggle with the age of the earth because they adjust
Peter's words to fit their system. But our measurements are precisely repeatable
and exactly conform to our laws of physics, claims the scientist. The whole
structure is a castle in the air. They are exercising their minds with their
idea that atoms are immutable and dither with perpetual motion with which they
imagined their system of measuring.

Let me give you a few principles from the scripture that might help you with
regard to the age of the universe.

1. All substances are light (Eph 5:13). God made all things in the plural
heavens and the earth first (Genesis 1:1). Yet the earth was without form until
He continued to command light to continue to be (Genesis 1:2). Matter is a
relation with light that gives it its various properties. No one has ever
detected a "particle - proton, electron etc" isolated from or independently of
light. Light is fundamental to all substances, exactly as one should expect from
the text of scriptures. God continued to form the Sun, Moon stars and continued
to place tehm in the spreading place (raqiya) half way through the creation
week. We can see creation eons ago, exactly as described in the biblical text.
We see with sight that the earliest galaxies were tiny and naked, without starry
appendages. We observe how the stars kept on coming out, taking up more volume
as billions of galaxies grew into huge growth spirals. The Biblical God says
this is what I do in unbroken continuity. In the plural heavens (the galaxies
the billions of spreading places raqiya) we see His great glory.

2. The creation is enslaved to change by the command of God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom8:19-22&version=NASB
He commanded in between active and passive for the universe to degenerate. The
command was unspecified as to when (aorist) but it was an orderly submission
(hupotasso) to which the universe continues to deteriorate in an orderly and
active manner (again hupotasso). Paul used two together verbs to describe how
the entire universe deteriorates - communally groaning together, which is
continuous and active. The universe has together, in concert - internally to
itself, active pangs that continue. The notion that these verses refer to the
second law of thermodynamics is ridiculous. The second law is not an orderly
continuous process nor is it a together process. It is random chaos and IT IS
NEVER APPLIED TO THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. All atoms are excluded from the second law
because they are assumed to be perpetual motion engines. How foolish science
becomes when you question its fundamental creed.

When we start fighting the anti creation crowd with the Bible and the simple
visible evidence we will bring down the great fortresses of speculative
reasoning raised up against the knowledge of God. This will happen when our
obedience is complete.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%2010:3-6&version=NASB
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%202:8&version=NASB
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20co%203:18-20&version=NASB

How great will be the fall of western science before the power of God's word. No
one can come to faith in Him through science, only through believing in the
death of Jesus for us who are foolish and unworthy. It is by grace we are saved.

Victor

Here is an evidence to show the impossibility of Atheistic Evolution. DNA is
so complex that it cannot arise by chance. This is acknowledge by an
Atheist, Oxford University proffessor Anthony Flew. See below.



Regards. Stanley.









The Good News e-mail newsletter not displaying correctly?
<http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=1d04480cefc2e7c4492fe4a04&id=a038909511
&e=7580a9a7df> View it in your browser.



<http://ucg.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1d04480cefc2e7c4492fe4a04&id=8
d7e035efc&e=7580a9a7df>




Update
<http://ucg.us1.list-manage.com/profile?u=1d04480cefc2e7c4492fe4a04&id=ca167
adaef&e=7580a9a7df>  your email profile & preferences!


<http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=1d04480cefc2e7c4492fe4a04&id=a038909511
&fblike=true&e=7580a9a7df>


<http://ucg.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1d04480cefc2e7c4492fe4a04&id=d
857b14f95&e=7580a9a7df> The Silent Scientific Revolution

A revolution is taking place in several scientific fields right now. But
it's a silent revolution, and you won't hear or read much about it unless
you search diligently for it. It's silent because a lot of people don't want
you to know about it!

What's this revolution all about?

It's really pretty simple. When astrophysicists look into the farthest
reaches of the vast universe around us, and into the mysteries of our Milky
Way galaxy and the intricacies of our solar system, everywhere they look
they see laws that have fine-tuned our planet for life.

So many things had to be just right, or none of us would be here! And the
odds of this arising by random chance are so infinitesimally small as to be
mathematically impossible!

On the other end of the size scale, going from solar systems to cells,
microbiologists are finding things that just shouldn't be (at least if one
accepts the evolutionary viewpoint). They're finding that cells, rather than
being simple structures as long assumed, are actually incredibly
sophisticated microscopic machines with multiple intricate parts carrying
out complex and complicated tasks.

And DNA discoveries are even more amazing. Scientists are now coming to
understand that DNA is an extraordinarily complex code of instructions for
how to assemble every protein and molecule in every living thing. How did
such sophisticated information evolve from nonliving matter-or before that,
from nothing? Science offers no answers.

These astounding discoveries about DNA not long ago led one of the world's
most noted atheists, Oxford University professor Antony Flew, to state:
"What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost
unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce
(life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these
extraordinarily diverse elements to work together."

He went on to conclude: "The laws of nature...and the existence of the
universe-can only be explained in the light of an Intelligence that explains
both its own existence and that of the world. Such a discovery of the divine
does not come through experiments and equations" (There Is a God, 2008, p.
75, 155).

What did he see that made him change his mind and conclude that the only
logical, rational answer behind these discoveries is a divine intelligence
far greater than ours?

We give you a taste in the March-April
<http://ucg.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1d04480cefc2e7c4492fe4a04&id=0
2c2b3e143&e=7580a9a7df>  issue of The Good News, which should be arriving in
your mailbox any day now (if you haven't already received it). You need to
see some of the evidence yourself. You need to see what some outstanding
scientific minds are admitting-that the only answer is that a Creator God is
behind the astounding perfection they see!

And there's lots more to this issue as well-more food for thought to help
you better understand your Bible and what's going on in the world around
you. We're privileged to share this wonderful Good News with you!

Warm regards,

Scott Ashley
Managing Editor
The Good News









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
>
>
> HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE? (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)
>
> gluadys: "Also let's see how good a teacher you (Charles) are. Let's take the
first multiple choice question:
>
> 1) A volcano erupted on an island. The ash released from the volcano changed
the acidity(pH) of the soil from the level it had been for hundreds of years.
This significant change resulted in new environmental pressures on species in
the soil. Which of the following is a likely outcome of these pressures?
>
> a) Some species will disappear from the soil because they do not have
individuals with traits that allow them to survive in more acidic soil.
> b) Only some species will generate the needed mutations to adapt to the change
in pH; other species will become extinct.
> c) Most species gain additional genetically-based traits, and this increase in
complexity allows them to live in the more acidic soil.
> d) Individuals in each species will evolve the traits necessary to survive
under these new conditions.
>
> Which is the correct answer according to the theory of evolution? Why is this
the correct answer according to the theory of evolution?
>
> Which is the correct answer according to ID? Why is this the correct answer
according to ID?"
>
> ID makes no attempt to answer the kind of questions you ask here.
>
>

Thank you.  That is exactly the answer I expected from you.
Since you agree that ID doesn't answer this sort of question, do you also agree
that it has no theory to do so. Therefore in regard to this type of scenario, it
does not dispute the correctness of the theory of evolution, mechanisms and all.
Correct?



Perhaps you can also tell us what is the correct answer according to the theory
of evolution and why that, rather than one of the other three is correct.  If
you wish to be really thorough, you can also note what misconception about
evolution lies behind the three incorrect answers.




>
>
>It should be noted, however, that you're simply assuming that any genetic
mutation causing certain species to adapt to more acidic soil amounts to an
increase in complexity,
>
>


Sounds like you are assuming that I think c) is the correct answer.  Is this
what you think the correct answer is according to the theory of evolution? Why
do you choose c) over b), d) or a)

Or do you actually think one of them is the correct answer, but assume I would
mistake c) for the correct answer?



btw, c) is not the correct answer.








>
> Design theorists have no quarrel with the Darwinian claim that undirected
material mechanisms (principally, random genetic mutations and natural
selection) can, for example, cause adaptive changes in the size of finches'
beaks. Their quarrel is with the Darwinian claim that those same undirected
material mechanisms (perhaps aided by other undirected material mechanisms, such
as genetic drift and gene flow) brought finches' beaks (and finches themselves)
into being in the first place.
>
>
>

Why?




>
>
>Design theorists do not dispute that undirected Darwinian mechanisms can alter
already-existing biological information, sometimes to the benefit of organisms.
>
>


Given that all evolution alters already-existing biological information, what is
the basis of any dispute with the theory of evolution?  The theory of evolution,
as you may know by now, does not address the first origin of biological
information.





>
> gluadys: "A good theory does explain new evidence as well as already known
evidence. It is only when the new evidence cannot be accounted for by the theory
that the theory needs to be revisited."
>
> That's precisely why Darwinian evolutionary theory needs to be revisited.
>
>

On the basis of what specific new evidence?

Gluadys:   Thank you. That is exactly the answer I expected from you.  Since
you agree that ID doesn't answer this sort of question, do you also agree
that it has no theory to do so. Therefore in regard to this type of
scenario, it does not dispute the correctness of the theory of evolution,
mechanisms and all. Correct?   Perhaps you can also tell us what is the
correct answer according to the theory of evolution and why that, rather
than one of the other three is correct. If you wish to be really thorough,
you can also note what misconception about evolution lies behind the three
incorrect answers.

Charles P:  You still have that same-old "debate" theory that if you can
find something wrong with Intelligent Design theory, that somehow that is a
win for the same-old neo-Darwinism "debate" team or the same-old theistic
evolution "debate" team.  Please consider the only questions that these
same-old theories answer are the ones that no one asks any more.

Charles P:  YOUR theories say that the fossil record can be seen BOTH WAYS:
1  STASIS AND EXTINCTION
2  SOMETHING ELSE that only neo-Darwinist philosophers and theistic
evolutionists can see.

Charles P:  In my opinion, there are no EMPIRICAL METHODS to show the
average reader that SOMETHING ELSE.

Evolution as fact and theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory  Predictive
power.  A central tenet in science is that a scientific theory is supposed
to have predictive power, and verification of predictions are seen as an
important and necessary support for the theory. The theory of evolution has
provided such predictions. Four examples are:
1  Genetic information must be transmitted in a molecular way that will be
almost exact but permit slight changes. Since this prediction was made,
biologists have discovered the existence of DNA, which has a mutation rate
of roughly 10-9 per nucleotide per cell division; this provides just such a
mechanism.
2  Some DNA sequences are shared by very different organisms. It has been
predicted by the theory of evolution that the differences in such DNA
sequences between two organisms should roughly resemble both the biological
difference between them according to their anatomy and the time that had
passed since these two organisms have separated in the course of evolution,
as seen in fossilevidence. The rate of accumulating such changes should be
low for some sequences, namely those that code for
critical RNA or proteins, and high for others that code for less critical
RNA or proteins; but for every specific sequence, the rate of change should
be roughly constant over time. These results have been experimentally
confirmed. Two examples are DNA sequences coding forrRNA, which is highly
conserved, and DNA sequences coding for fibrinopeptides (amino acid chains
that are discarded during the formation of fibrin), which are highly
non-conserved.
3  Prior to 2004, paleontologists had found fossils of amphibians with
necks, ears, and four legs, in rock no older than 365 million years old. In
rocks more than 385 million years old they could only find fish, without
these amphibian characteristics. Evolutionary theory predicted that since
amphibians evolved from fish, an intermediate form should be found in rock
dated between 365 and 385 million years ago. Such an intermediate form
should have many fish-like characteristics, conserved from 385 million
years ago or more, but also have many amphibian characteristics as well. In
2004, an expedition to islands in the Canadian arctic searching
specifically for this fossil form in rocks that were 375 million years old
discovered fossils of Tiktaalik.
4  Evolutionary theory predicts that novel inventions can arise, while
creationists predict that new "information" cannot arise, and that the
Second Law of Thermodynamics only allows for "information" to be lost. In
an ongoing experiment, Richard Lenski observed that some strains of E.
coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate after tens of thousands of
generations.

Charles P:  Is THAT all?  After so many "debates" is THAT all YOUR theories
have to offer?  Where are YOUR EMPIRICAL METHODS that describe how the
diversity of life came about by BOTH WAYS:
1  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07  Mutations
are random.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution  Mutation.  This is important
because most new genes evolve within gene families from pre-existing genes
that share common ancestors.
2  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32  Misconceptions
about natural selection.  Natural selection is NOT random!

Charles P:  In my opinion, the neo-Darwinist and theistic evolution
theorists do not see this as a contradiction.  Please stand back for a
moment before responding to what I am saying.  This IS NOT meant to be
"anti-science".  This IS NOT meant to continue the same-old-tired
"debates".  Please just OPEN YOUR MIND for a moment.  Please think this
through from the perspective that the genomes of each population were
designed for the purpose of allowing some individuals of a population to
survive in hostile environments.

Center for Science and Culture:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php  Is intelligent design a
scientific theory?  Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a
four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and
conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent
agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists
hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high
levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural
objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One
easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be
discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to
see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers
find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures
were designed.

Charles P:  Please allow me to paraphrase.  The evidence is the same for
everyone.  We only differ in our INTERPRETATIONS of that evidence.
1  If a genome was DESIGNED, it will contain COMPLEX and SPECIFIED
INFORMATION.  The complex and specified information allows some individuals
to survive in a hostile environment.  Each individual begins as ONE CELL.
  All of its traits came from a permutation of information from its male and
female parents.  The individual remains the same species for its entire
life.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evodevo_03

Understanding complexity:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evodevo_05

2  Scientists then perform experimental tests upon genomes to determine if
they contain complex and specified information.
Which came first?  RNA, DNA, or proteins?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/evoconnections/evolutionconnection_tran\
slation.ppt

RNA contains complex and specified information.
DNA contains complex and specified information.
Proteins contain complex and specified information.

One easily testable form of complex and specified information is
irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally
reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of
their parts to function.  When ID researchers find irreducible complexity
in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

RNA does not function in the same way without a cell.
DNA does not function in the same without a cell.
Proteins do not function in the same way without a cell.

Charles P:  In my opinion, each structure was designed.  In my opinion,
each genome was designed for a purpose.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE? (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)

Me: "ID makes no attempt to answer the kind of questions you ask here."
gluadys: "Since you agree that ID doesn't answer this sort of question, do you
also agree that it has no theory to do so."

Of course I do. Intelligent design theory doesn't propose to explain the cause
of minor adaptive changes in organisms. Design theorists regard the Darwinian
explanation of those minor changes as credible and adequate. Instead of
concerning itself with minor adaptive changes in organisms, ID theory posits
that certain features in nature (such as irreducibly complex biological systems)
are best explained by intelligent causation, not by an undirected natural
process. Unlike Darwinian theory, ID theory doesn't purport to explain
EVERYTHING about how life came to be what it is. Its explanatory efforts are
much more modest than ToE's.

gluadys: "Therefore in regard to this type of scenario, it does not dispute the
correctness of the theory of evolution, mechanisms and all. Correct?"

That's what I said.

gluadys: "Perhaps you can also tell us what is the correct answer according to
the theory of evolution and why that, rather than one of the other three is
correct."

Here again is the scenario and the questions you presented:

"A volcano erupted on an island. The ash released from the volcano changed the
acidity (pH) of the soil from the level it had been for hundreds of years. This
significant change resulted in new environmental pressures on species in the
soil. Which of the following is a likely outcome of these pressures?

a) Some species will disappear from the soil because they do not have
individuals with traits that allow them to survive in more acidic soil.
b) Only some species will generate the needed mutations to adapt to the change
in pH; other species will become extinct.
c) Most species gain additional genetically-based traits, and this increase in
complexity allows them to live in the more acidic soil.
d) Individuals in each species will evolve the traits necessary to survive under
these new conditions."

If by "new environmental pressures" you mean effects that are detrimental to the
survival of some of the species living in the soil, then  those threatened
species will likely die off (or migrate to a more favorable environment). Of the
answers you've given, only a) is likely to occur; threatened species will likely
"disappear from the soil" either through extinction or migration. It can't be
anticipated (or predicted) that "needed mutations" will occur in any of the
threatened species, thereby allowing them to survive in the new environment.
Within Darwinian theory, beneficial mutations are a matter of sheer dumb luck,
not environmental pressures. Those mutations occur, you'll recall, randomly
(i.e., they are not determined by any organismal needs in changing environments;
they simply occur or don't occur, and in rare instances when they do occur, they
enhance the survivability of a mutated organism).

Me: "(Design theorists) quarrel is with the Darwinian claim that those same
undirected material mechanisms (perhaps aided by other undirected material
mechanisms, such as genetic drift and gene flow) brought finches' beaks (and
finches themselves) into being in the first place."
gluadys: "Why?"

Since I've explained why numerous times, I won't repeat the explanation here. If
someone hasn't understood an explanation the first 10 times it's given, she's
not likely to understand it the 11th time.

  gluadys: "A good theory does explain new evidence as well as already known
evidence. It is only when the new evidence cannot be accounted for by the theory
that the theory needs to be revisited."
Me: "That's precisely why Darwinian evolutionary theory needs to be revisited."
gluadys: "On the basis of what specific new evidence?"

I've already told you. We've discovered levels of complexity in living things -
especially at the molecular level - that raise serious questions about the
adequacy of the Darwinian explanation of how life came to be what it is. ToE
should, therefore, be revisited. That's what design theorists are doing, and
that's what mainstream evolutionary biologists resist doing. The latter have
made it abundantly clear that the evidence doesn't really matter; the Darwinian
paradigm must be maintained regardless of any problems with the evidence. Why?
Because ToE (or Darwinism) is so supportive of the materialism that dominates
the thinking of intellectual elites in academia and science.

Jim in Vermont








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>   B. CEC accept that the creation is enslaved to change that is internal,
orderly and together change - just like the Apostle Paul so plainly wrote in
Romans 8:19 - 22.
>
>
>   LA>  Are you saying that this "change" that Paul speaks of is "downwards"
change and one that scientists of almost all persuasions refer to as leading to
eventual "heat death"?
>
>   Laurie.

Some scientists speculate on the heat death of the universe because they imagine
that all galaxies are moving away from each other as the vacuum of space-time
expands. Space-time has never been detected anywhere, so these speculations are
assumption dependent.

Scientist define most of their symbolical concepts with an assumption. They
claim to precisely measure heat and "energy." Yet their reference system for
such measuring is their concept of atomic perpetual motion. If atoms are
changing themselves, as we can see with sight in billions of galaxies, most
scientific measuring units and symbolical constants would shift with the
changing atoms.

What Paul is talking about here is
1. Fundamental - since it applies to everything in creation. There exists no
visible evidence for perpetual motion atoms in billions of distant galaxies.
Scientists imagine laws of thermodynamics. However, they exclude all atoms from
their laws since atoms are thought to be perpetual motion engines, always
actively dithering, but never changing frequency since science definitions and
measuring depend on such ridiculous notions.

2. Genesis 1 states that God continues to form the Sun, Moon and stars and
continues to place them in the spreading place. He began to do this half way
through the creation week but he formed the galaxies (the plural heavens) first
(Genesis 1:1)

3. We confirm that naked galaxies existed before the stars began to form and
spread out as billions of galaxies grew into huge growth spirals. In other
words, we confirm creation visually, just as declared in the Scriptures. What we
SEE is a universe that is vastly ancient but where days and years continue to
accelerate as orbits and rotations continue to accelerate.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2047:9&version=NKJV#en-NASB-1430

4. We observe that the properties of all matter continue to change as orbits and
atoms both accelerated together. In short we see an old universe in which days
and years are always accelerating. We see no constants anywhere in the vast
universe. Yet the change is togetehr and orderly - just like the verbs Paul used
to explain how the universe degenerates.

Victor

--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
>
>
> Charles P:  You still have that same-old "debate" theory that if you can
> find something wrong with Intelligent Design theory, that somehow that is a
> win for the same-old neo-Darwinism "debate" team or the same-old theistic
> evolution "debate" team.
>
>


Somehow, Charles, you manage to express everything in reverse.  I don't need to
show anything wrong with ID because there is so much that is right with the
theory of evolution and until ID can show me a better explanation, I'll stick
with one I know works in so far as it has been tested so far.  OTOH, the only
premise ID has is that something is wrong with the theory of evolution.  But
they haven't shown us what it is yet. Apparently we are to take their word for
it.

>
>
>Please consider the only questions that these
> same-old theories answer are the ones that no one asks any more.
>

No one except people trying to argue from nothing that there is something wrong
with the theory of evolution. Why do scientists not ask these questions anymore?
Because they have seen that they are answered very well by the theory of
evolution.  So they don't need to invest anymore effort into showing how good a
theory evolution is: they already know that and can go on to other matters
relating to the process and history of evolution.


>
> Charles P:  YOUR theories say that the fossil record can be seen BOTH WAYS:
> 1  STASIS AND EXTINCTION
> 2  SOMETHING ELSE that only neo-Darwinist philosophers and theistic
> evolutionists can see.
>

You can see what you choose to open your eyes to.  For example, do you see that
fossil trilobites are abundant in Cambrian strata, become less abundant by the
late Paleozoic, and disappear at the end-Permian mass extinction?  Do you see
that almost all other arthropod fossils do not appear until after trilobites
have appeared?  Do you see that all early arthropod species (both those now
extinct like eurypterids and those still extant, like shrimp) are marine and no
fossils of terrestrial arthropods show up until well over 100 million years
after the first trilobites.  Similar patterns are seen in other groups of plants
and animals.

If you can't see these patterns, then perhaps you are standing too close to each
fossil to see the big picture---like missing the forest because you are looking
at one tree at a time.

So step back and look at a wider view.  How is this pattern to be explained?  If
stasis and extinction are all there is to be seen, why is there a pattern at
all?


>
> Charles P:  In my opinion, there are no EMPIRICAL METHODS to show the
> average reader that SOMETHING ELSE.
>
>



Do you not consider comparative anatomy to be an empirical method?



> Evolution as fact and theory:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory  Predictive
> power.  A central tenet in science is that a scientific theory is supposed
> to have predictive power, and verification of predictions are seen as an
> important and necessary support for the theory. The theory of evolution has
> provided such predictions. Four examples are:
>
> Charles P:  Is THAT all?
>

By no means.  They even tell you plainly "four examples are:"  four examples out
of how many?  Why assume four out of four when it could just as easily be four
out of four hundred?




>
>
> 1  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07  Mutations
> are random.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution  Mutation.  This is important
> because most new genes evolve within gene families from pre-existing genes
> that share common ancestors.
> 2  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32  Misconceptions
> about natural selection.  Natural selection is NOT random!
>
> Charles P:  In my opinion, the neo-Darwinist and theistic evolution
> theorists do not see this as a contradiction.
>
>


You are quite right.  It would be like saying "It's a rainy day in Paris"
contradicts "It's a sunny day in Peking."  Where is the contradiction?



>
>Please stand back for a
> moment before responding to what I am saying.  This IS NOT meant to be
> "anti-science".  This IS NOT meant to continue the same-old-tired
> "debates".  Please just OPEN YOUR MIND for a moment.  Please think this
> through from the perspective that the genomes of each population were
> designed for the purpose of allowing some individuals of a population to
> survive in hostile environments.
>
>

I don't know how to do that.  Please guide me.  It might help clarify this
perspective for me if I ask about a few things that puzzle me.

  Let's begin with this one.  How many genomes are pre-planned for each species?



> Center for Science and Culture:
> http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php  Intelligent design begins with
the observation that intelligent
> agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
>

That's fine.  No one could disagree with that. But I have a question.  Is CSI
produced ONLY by intelligent agents?  How does ID answer this and with what
evidence?


>
>When ID researchers
> find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures
> were designed.
>

Why? How have they concluded that no other origin of irreducible complexity
exists?


> Charles P:  Please allow me to paraphrase.  The evidence is the same for
> everyone.  We only differ in our INTERPRETATIONS of that evidence.
>

Then the question is which interpretation is most consistent with ALL the
evidence.



> 1  If a genome was DESIGNED, it will contain COMPLEX and SPECIFIED
> INFORMATION.


And if a genome was not designed will it also contain complex and specified
information?

>
>The complex and specified information allows some individuals
> to survive in a hostile environment.
>

Why only some individuals and not all?  Does that mean the genomes of the
individuals who did not survive did not contain complex and specified
information?


I will appreciate further information on your theory of pre-programmed DNA.  I
have been asking about it since you first mentioned it, but I cannot recall
getting any clear answers to my questions.  Perhaps you can begin now to explain
how it works.


Also, since Jim has provided the answer to the first question on the
misconceptions quiz, let's try the second.

2) A ship that had been used for many years in arctic exploration was sold and
moved to
a harbor in the warm waters of the Caribbean. Worms that had lived on the ship
bottom
crawled off in the warm waters and attempted to attach to other ships in this
tropical area
where there were no similar worms. Some of the worms were able to survive and
reproduce. What would you expect to happen to this group of worms over many
generations in this new environment?
a) The worms will mate and produce offspring just as they did in their previous
environment, and the group's traits will likely remain unchanged after many
generations.
b) The worms will gain new, more complex traits through natural selection that
will help them better adapt to the warmer waters because natural selection
leads to more complex and better adapted organisms.
c) Worms possessing genetic variations that help them to survive and thrive in
the new environment will leave more offspring than others lacking those
traits. Over time, the proportion of the worm population with these adaptive
traits will likely increase.
d) The mutation rate will increase in this group of worms in order to promote
evolution.


Which is the correct answer by the theory of evolution?  Why?
Which is the correct answer by the theory of preprogrammed DNA?  Is it a
different answer or the same?  In either case, explain why the theory of
preprogrammed DNA comes to this conclusion.

I won't ask you about ID this time, since you do not wish to speak for that line
of thought.  In any case, I expect that as for the first question the ID
response would be the same as that for the theory of evolution and for the same
reasons.

--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
>
>
> HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE? (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)
>
> gluadys: "Therefore in regard to this type of scenario, ID does not dispute
the correctness of the theory of evolution, mechanisms and all. Correct?"
>
> That's what I said.
>

Yes, I expected that answer too, but it is good to get it out there.




> gluadys: "Perhaps you can also tell us what is the correct answer according to
the theory of evolution and why that, rather than one of the other three is
correct."
>
> Here again is the scenario and the questions you presented:
>
> "A volcano erupted on an island. The ash released from the volcano changed the
acidity (pH) of the soil from the level it had been for hundreds of years. This
significant change resulted in new environmental pressures on species in the
soil. Which of the following is a likely outcome of these pressures?
>
> a) Some species will disappear from the soil because they do not have
individuals with traits that allow them to survive in more acidic soil.
> b) Only some species will generate the needed mutations to adapt to the change
in pH; other species will become extinct.
> c) Most species gain additional genetically-based traits, and this increase in
complexity allows them to live in the more acidic soil.
> d) Individuals in each species will evolve the traits necessary to survive
under these new conditions."
>
> If by "new environmental pressures" you mean effects that are detrimental to
the survival of some of the species living in the soil, then  those threatened
species will likely die off (or migrate to a more favorable environment). Of the
answers you've given, only a) is likely to occur; threatened species will likely
"disappear from the soil" either through extinction or migration. It can't be
anticipated (or predicted) that "needed mutations" will occur in any of the
threatened species, thereby allowing them to survive in the new environment.
Within Darwinian theory, beneficial mutations are a matter of sheer dumb luck,
not environmental pressures. Those mutations occur, you'll recall, randomly
(i.e., they are not determined by any organismal needs in changing environments;
they simply occur or don't occur, and in rare instances when they do occur, they
enhance the survivability of a mutated organism).
>
>

Thank you again.  I think this is the first time you have given me an answer in
sufficient detail to give me assurance that you really do understand something
of evolution.  However, the cat is out of the bag on this quesiton now, and I
will have to ask Charles to explain a different scenario.



> Me: "(Design theorists) quarrel is with the Darwinian claim that those same
undirected material mechanisms (perhaps aided by other undirected material
mechanisms, such as genetic drift and gene flow) brought finches' beaks (and
finches themselves) into being in the first place."
> gluadys: "Why?"
>
> Since I've explained why numerous times, I won't repeat the explanation here.
If someone hasn't understood an explanation the first 10 times it's given, she's
not likely to understand it the 11th time.
>

Perhaps you misunderstood the question.  I know it was cryptic.  I am not asking
for any detailed discussion of material mechanisms here.  I am just curious why
it would occur to anyone to question the evolution of a bird's beak in the first
place?  Why does that seem to be a stretch for evolution?  What is the key
difficulty you see in a transition from a mouthful of teeth, somewhat like a
crocodile and an toothless beak?  Is there more than one such difficulty? 
(Let's recall the earliest known bird did have teeth and did not have a beak.)
My basic problem with your statement is that I don't see how the evolution of a
beak as a modification of a jaw differs significantly from the evolution in
different forms of a beak once the beak exists.  And I have never seen any
proponent of ID explain what the significant difference is.

Whether mechanisms are adequate or not surely has something to do with what the
mechanisms are being called on to do.  What task, in the transformation of a jaw
to a beak, is over and above the task of shaping beaks to different uses?  Why
does this task strain the capacity of evolutionary mechanisms?



>  gluadys: "A good theory does explain new evidence as well as already known
evidence. It is only when the new evidence cannot be accounted for by the theory
that the theory needs to be revisited."
> Me: "That's precisely why Darwinian evolutionary theory needs to be
revisited."
> gluadys: "On the basis of what specific new evidence?"
>
> I've already told you. We've discovered levels of complexity in living things
- especially at the molecular level - that raise serious questions about the
adequacy of the Darwinian explanation of how life came to be what it is.
>
>


That is not very specific.  What feature, specifically, in molecular biology,
puts the adequacy of the mechanisms of evolution in doubt?

Also, it would be good if you defined what mechanisms you are speaking of.  If
you are referring to the only two mechanisms know when the neo-Darwinian
synthesis was formulated (changes in genes subjected to natural selection) I
don't doubt you would find a very high % of scientists agreeing with you that
this constitutes an inadequate explanation.  But if you are referring to those
and the many mechanisms since discovered as well (symbiogenesis, horizontal gene
transfer, chromosomal recombination, regulatory regions with on-off switches,
genes which impact regulation and development rather than coding for protein,
etc.) then I expect many scientists would say we have a much more adequate
explanation than an outdated neo-Darwinism.  IOW,along with discovering that the
cell and the genome are far more complex than previously suspected, scientists
have also been discovering a much larger and complex panoply of evolutionary
mechanisms.  And probably the only sense in which they are inadequate is that
the total number of such additional mechanisms and how they work is still
unknown.

I would also point out that directed or undireced, the mechanisms are the same. 
So they have to be adequate if these are the mechanisms being used by a designer
in the process of production.  Otherwise, the designs would never leave the
drawing board unless one proposes an additional process outside of evolution
altogether.

This, to me, seems to be the issue ID keeps dodging.

----- Original Message -----
   From: gluadys
   To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 4:02 AM
   Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How Do You Like Your Science? (Crick's dictum or
not)



   GLU:   I would also point out that directed or undireced, the mechanisms are
the same.


   LA> Now that is a real HOOT!!!  Leading evolutionists refute such a statement.
i.e.;
   ------------------------------

          "Nobody ever called this method elegant, but the job
          gets done. We call this third view "natural selection,"
          or Darwinism. Darwin himself commented most forcefully
          upon the inefficient and basically unpleasant character
          of his process, writing to his friend Joseph Hooker in
          1856: "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the
          clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horribly cruel
          works of nature!"

          (Eight Little Piggies, S.J. Gould, 1993, Penguin Books,  p.146)
         ==================

   Laurie.

   "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never
seems to happen."
   (Niles Eldredge, eminent Punk-eek EVOLUTIONIST, 1995)


   No virus found in this message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4859 - Release Date: 03/08/12


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Meiosis (4:23)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_LUJSqeSrI&feature=related
Please imagine the long YELLOW plastic beads = MALE HUMAN chromosome #2 and
the long RED plastic beads = FEMALE HUMAN chromosome #2.

NEW COMBINATIONS = INCREASED INFORMATION IN THE POPULATION.  DEATH OF SOME
INDIVIDUALS = DECREASED INFORMATION IN THE POPULATION.

=============================================

Charles P: http://tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299  Let's use the rules of
meiosis to describe the hypothetical common ancestor of apes and humans
according to the Tree of Life Web Project.

Chromosome 2 (human):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2  All
members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans
have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to
be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

Charles P:  In my opinion, the EMPIRICAL METHODS show us:
1  http://tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299  The Tree of Life Web Project has NOT
DETERMINED a common ancestor for apes and humans.  Cladistics teaches us
that Australopithecus and Homo were supposed to have a common ancestor.
  How many chromosome pairs did Australopithecus have?  How many chromosome
pairs did the hypothetical common ancestor have?  Which EMPIRICAL METHOD
was used to determine the correct answer?

2  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)  Interspecific hybrids are
bred by mating two species, normally from within the same genus. The
offspring display traits and characteristics of both parents. The offspring
of an interspecific cross are very often sterile; thus, hybrid sterility
prevents the movement of genes from one species to the other, keeping both
species distinct. Sterility is often attributed to the different number of
chromosomes the two species have, for example donkeys have 62 chromosomes,
while horses have 64 chromosomes, and mules and hinnies have 63
chromosomes. Mules, hinnies, and other normally sterile interspecific
hybrids cannot produce viable gametes, because differences in chromosome
structure prevent appropriate pairing and segregation during meiosis,
meiosis is disrupted, and viable sperm and eggs are not formed.

3  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count  (All
have even number of diploid chromosomes)
Male Horse + female Donkey = 32 + 31 = 63 chromosomes (sterile hinny)

Male Donkey + female Horse = 31 + 32 = 63 chromosomes (sterile mule)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3378453?dopt=Abstract

Male Tiger + female Lion = 19 + 19 = 38 chromosomes

Male Lion + female Tiger = 19 + 19 = 38 chromosomes

Male Dingo + female African Wild Dog = 39 + 39 = 78 chromosomes

Male African Wild Dog + female Dingo = 39 + 39 = 78 chromosomes

Male Ape + female Human = 24 + 23 = 47 chromosomes (sterile? not human, not
ape)

Male Human + female Ape = 23 + 24 = 47 chromosomes (sterile? not human, not
ape)

Chimpanzee genome project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project#Genes_of_the_Chromosome_2\
_fusion_site
   In
the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at
their telomeres producing human chromosome 2.

Charles P: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3333352  Why do neo-Darwinist
science writers make such statements WITHOUT EMPIRICAL METHODS to show us?
  The rules of meiosis are available to everyone.  If this is an exception
to the rules, then it should be reported as such.  How can homologous pairs
line up to CREATE A HUMAN from the hypothetical common ancestor?  Would the
CREATION have to occur during MALE MEIOSIS SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE FEMALE
MEIOSIS?  Isn't this expecting a MIRACLE TO OCCUR?  Where did this MIRACLE
BABY find a mate?  Would TWO MIRACLE babies have to be CREATED?  One
MIRACLE male and one MIRACLE female?

Charles P:  Is this another example of a "tentative" = "not reliable"
conclusion?  In the meantime, there will be science students who believe
that somebody must have figured this out and that anyone doubting it must
be "anti-science" or believers in "creation nonsense".

Charles P:  We can use the rules of meiosis to REVERSE-ENGINEER parents,
grandparents, etc. back to ancient times for male and female HUMANS.  We
can use the rules of meiosis to REVERSE-ENGINEER parents, grandparents,
etc. back to ancient times for male and female APES.  Which
REVERSE-ENGINEERED rules of meiosis would have to be changed to CREATE a
hypothetical COMMON ANCESTOR for humans and apes?  Why should we believe
that the rules of meiosis have ever changed?  Why should we believe in the
existence of a hypothetical COMMON ANCESTOR for humans and apes?  Isn't it
more reasonable to conclude that each KIND (not each species) was designed
purposefully by using COMMON GENES for traits?  Why should any different
KINDS be related at all?

=============================================

Genesis 2:20  The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the
sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a
helper suitable for him.
=============================================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kGN2dcjNUY&feature=fvwp&NR=1  The Miracle
Of Human Creation part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgGzFkHb91w  The Miracle of Human Creation
part 2

Biology : Meiosis - cell division:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVMb4Js99tA&feature=related

Meiosis (1:49):  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1_-mQS_FZ0&feature=related

Meiosis (2:51):  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xMXKU7JnMQ&feature=related


Meiosis (5:05)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifSIiMK3NWg&feature=related


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gluadys:   You can see what you choose to open your eyes to. For example,
do you see that fossil trilobites are abundant in Cambrian strata, become
less abundant by the late Paleozoic, and disappear at the end-Permian mass
extinction? Do you see that almost all other arthropod fossils do not
appear until after trilobites have appeared? Do you see that all early
arthropod species (both those now extinct like eurypterids and those still
extant, like shrimp) are marine and no fossils of terrestrial arthropods
show up until well over 100 million years after the first trilobites.
Similar patterns are seen in other groups of plants and animals.  If you
can't see these patterns, then perhaps you are standing too close to each
fossil to see the big picture---like missing the forest because you are
looking at one tree at a time.  So step back and look at a wider view. How
is this pattern to be explained? If stasis and extinction are all there is
to be seen, why is there a pattern at all?

Charles P:  Your narrative is very interesting and shows us that life on
Earth is more diverse than it used to be.  In my opinion, the
neo-Darwinists writers and theistic evolutionists writers can't give us
RELIABLE scientific conclusions to describe the diversity of life on Earth.
  Of course, they have no REVERSE-ENGINEERED description of the origin of
life, so they choose to ignore those discussions.  They seem to think that
RNA was first before DNA and proteins, but offer no description of how it
might function without a preexisting cell.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/evoconnections/evolutionconnection_tran\
slation.ppt

Charles P:  Thank you for considering what I had to say.  There are many
examples of "stasis and extinction".  I was hoping that maybe you might at
least try to give us some EMPIRICAL METHODS to support theistic evolution
or neo-Darwininsm.

Gluadys:   Do you not consider comparative anatomy to be an empirical
method?

Charles P:  Yes, I do.  Here is a recent comparison of the anatomy of the
extinct Pikaia and the LIVING FOSSIL Branchiostoma lanceolatum.  The
science of taphonomy has recently shown us that this is just another
example of "stasis and extinction" in the fossil record.  Pikaia
or Branchiostoma lanceolatum has some body parts that decay faster than
other body parts.

Pikaia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikaia  Pikaia gracilens is an
extinct animal known from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale of British
Columbia. 16 specimens of Pikaia are known from the Greater Phyllopod bed,
where they comprise 0.03% of the community.

Branchiostoma lanceolatum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branchiostoma_lanceolatum  Branchiostoma
lanceolatum or amphioxus is a lancelet in the subphylum Cephalochordata. It
is a marine invertebrate found in soft substrates in shallow seas. It is
used as a model organism to study the development
of vertebrates.[2] The mitochondrial genome has been sequenced.

Non-random decay of chordate characters causes bias in fossil
interpretation:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/full/nature08745.html

Charles P:  How long will neo-Darwinist writers take to report this
EMPIRICAL METHOD that real scientists are using to describe the diversity
of life?  The scientific journals speak for themselves.  How long will it
take for neo-Darwinist museums to UPDATE their Burgess Shale displays?

Charles P:  Why can't the neo-Darwinists and theistic evolutionist
recognize that each KIND of genome was purposefully designed so that some
individuals will survive in hostile environments?

=============================================
Charles P:   Please think this through from the perspective that the
genomes of each population were designed for the purpose of allowing some
individuals of a population to survive in hostile environments.

Gluadys:  I don't know how to do that. Please guide me. It might help
clarify this perspective for me if I ask about a few things that puzzle me.
  Let's begin with this one. How many genomes are pre-planned for each
species?

Charles P:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGkbMVCb4Wo  (4:57)  In my
opinion, all of the genomes are pre-planned for each KIND.  I know that
neo-Darwinists and theistic evolutionists don't believe in Noah.  However,
please consider the EMPIRICAL METHODS used to reach a scientific conclusion
for KIND or what some people call BARAMINOLOGY.  The point here is not to
"debate" creationist philosophies, but simply to provide an approximate
number for KINDS compared to the number of known SPECIES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology

Charles P:  We know that populations evolve.  Chihuahua populations and
Great Dane populations probably did not exist in ancient times.

Center for Science and Culture:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php Intelligent design begins
with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified
information (CSI).

Gluadys:  That's fine. No one could disagree with that. But I have a
question. Is CSI produced ONLY by intelligent agents?  How does ID answer
this and with what evidence?

Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder  I am not
authorized to speak for Intelligent Design theorists.  I can only explain
MY UNDERSTANDING in hopes that someone can find a mistake.  I welcome
calling attention to my mistakes.  I learn by my mistakes.  I know that
mutations occur and it is obvious to me that a person with Down Syndrome
has a genome with MORE complex and specified information than does the
typical human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

Charles P:  When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology,
they conclude that such structures were designed.

Gluadys:   Why?  How have they concluded that no other origin of
irreducible complexity exists?

Charles P:  Thank you for this discussion.  What are YOUR thoughts on these
questions?  What EMPIRICAL METHODS can you describe?

Charles P: Please allow me to paraphrase. The evidence is the same for
everyone.
We only differ in our INTERPRETATIONS of that evidence.

Gluadys:  Then the question is which interpretation is most consistent with
ALL the evidence.

Charles P:  Purposeful design of each KIND of genome to assure the survival
of some individuals of a population living in a hostile environment can
describe the origin and diversity of life on Earth.  Now, all we need to do
is to sit back, relax, and wait for the scientists to fill in the details.
  Unless we recognize that purposeful design is involved, we will always
have theories that are written BOTH WAYS, such as STASIS AND EXTINCTION and
SOMETHING ELSE.  When that "something else #A" is shown to be incorrect,
then "something else #B" will have to take its place until it is replaced
by "something else #C", etc.  Neo-Darwinism and theistic evolution will
always have to defend itself against "anti-science" and "creationist
non-sense". Why not embrace THE EMPIRICAL METHODS now?

Gluadys:  And if a genome was not designed will it also contain complex and
specified information?

Charles P:  That's a good question.  What is YOUR answer?

Gluadys:  Why only some individuals [survive] and not all?  Does that mean
the genomes of the individuals who did not survive did not contain complex
and specified information?

Charles P:  Populations evolve.  The country's population is different
every census.  Of course the genomes of the individual who did not survive
contained complex and specified information.  Is this a trick question?

Gluadys:  I will appreciate further information on your theory of
pre-programmed DNA. I have been asking about it since you first mentioned
it, but I cannot recall getting any clear answers to my questions. Perhaps
you can begin now to explain how it works.

Charles P:  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07
I learned if from this neo-Darwinist site that "Resistant strains... were
always there — and are just more frequent now because all the
non-resistant... [individuals] died [in a hostile environment].  Then,
Leroy Hood described DNA as a "digital code".  That, in my opinion, told me
that pre-programmed DNA digital code was the key to understanding the
description for the origin and diversity of life on Earth.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/abs/nature01410.html

Charles P:  Why don't the neo-Darwinists and theistic evolutionists look at
the EMPIRICAL METHODS and re-write their philosophies to agree with the
EMPIRICAL METHODS?  All they have to do is declare an UPDATE in their
conclusions.  Are they afraid of loosing the "debates"?  Are scientific
conclusions about discovering the TRUTH about the world around us?

Gluadys:  Also, since Jim has provided the answer to the first question on
the misconceptions quiz, let's try the second.

Charles P:  These neo-Darwinist sites were the "cause" of the
misunderstandings.  The "effect" was confusion on the part of
neo-Darwinists for arguing with creationists instead of UPDATING their own
philosophies.
1   http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
2   http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/whatsnew.html
3   http://ncse.com/about  We educate the press and public about the
scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding the
teaching of evolution and climate change, and supply needed information and
advice to defend good science education at local, state, and national
levels. Our 4500 members are scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens
with diverse religious and political affiliations.
4   http://ncse.com/evolution/science/what-is-science  ALL SCIENTIFIC
CONCLUSIONS ARE TENTATIVE--THEY WILL BE CHANGED IF NEW EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS
PREVIOUS UNDERSTANDINGS.

Charles P:  The NCSE has already moved on to address climate change.
  Please consider how much better it would be if neo-Darwinists and theistic
evolutionists would UPDATE their scientific writings to agree with the
EMPIRICAL METHODS being presented by scientists.  SCIENTISTS WRITE PAPERS
IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS.  NEO-DARWINIST SCIENCE WRITERS WRITE BOOKS AND
BLOGS TO "DEBATE" CREATIONISTS.  THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS CHOSE TO BE ON THE
SIDE OF NEO-DARWINISTS IN THESE "DEBATES".  In the meantime, the
description for the origin and diversity of life on Earth is being
discovered by scientists.  Let's pay attention to what the scientists are
saying.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jim:
Oh, good grief. I would have to be stupid to think that a person's failure to
accept everything said by design theorists indicates that the person must be
dishonest. Well, I'm not stupid and I think (and have said) no such thing. What
I have said is that when a person persistently misrepresents intelligent design,
there are three possible explanations for those misrepresentations:

1) The person has read at least some of the design literature, but either lacks
the wit to understand what he read or willfully misunderstands it.
2) The person has read none (or very little) of the design literature, thus his
misrepresentations of intelligent design result from partial or total ignorance
of it.
3) The person has read and understood at least some of the design literature,
but deliberately (thus, dishonestly) misrepresents intelligent design.

Stewart:
4)The person has read at least some ID literature, has understood perfectly the
concept, including the motivating factors which lead to the concept. Yet the
person has found no reason to concur with the theory on the basis that it is
subject to even more preconceptions than natural selection is.
That this rejection of ID theory is arrived at not through prejudice,
misunderstanding, misrepresentation, dishonesty or ignorance, but because the
central tenet of ID is not accounted for (the identity of the designer).
Furthermore because no weight is given by ID to the necessity for the identity
of the designer.

No serious scientific theory could be successfully proposed while lacking
evidence of that which is central to the structure of the theory.
The problem is not that others lack an understanding of ID Jim, they just don't
accept it. It is not only possible, but inevitable that the majority of people
will, with honesty and intelligence reject this theory.
You perceive design and so assume a designer, but offer no evidence of the
designer other than the perception of design.
It's insufficient Jim, which means that it offers nothing more than a new take
on divine creation.


--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
>
>
> HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)
>
> D R Lindberg: "I'm afraid that Jim, who in other ways appears to be a very
intelligent and knowledgeable person...shows himself in this context to be in
some sort of denial - his faith is such that he cannot conceive, or at any rate
refuses to believe, that anyone could possibly have honest doubts about his
heroes at the Discovery Institute or any of their claims. or that anyone could
actually understand any of their arguments and still reject them."
>
> There is only one person who knows whether either of your claims is true. That
person is me, and I know that both of your claims are false. As I have said here
on other occasions, I don't think that any human beings - including Discovery
Institute Fellows - are infallible or that their claims can never be doubted. I
cite Discovery Institute fellows not because I think they're infallible, but
because they are authoritative on the subject of intelligent design and because
I think they make good arguments against the sufficiency of Darwinian theory to
account for life's diversity and complexity. It does not follow that I think
everyone will be persuaded by the arguments they make for ID or against ToE.
People can understand their arguments yet have reasons for rejecting those
arguments. I have never said nor suggested that disagreeing with design
proponents can ONLY ARISE from misunderstanding them (although misunderstanding
can often lead to disagreement). I have instead said that it is evident that a
person does not understand intelligent design when that person persistently
misrepresents it (assuming, of course, that the person is both intelligent and
honest).
>
> D R Lindberg: "For Jim, there seems to be no reality beyond the borders of the
Discovery Institute (or quotations carefully and lovingly mined by Discovery
Institute 'fellows')."
>
> This is such ridiculously absurd rhetorical overkill that it deserves no
further comment from me.
>
> D R Lindberg: "Now this is the impression I get from reading his postings. I
could very well be wrong, indeed I hope I am."
>
> Your hope has been fulfilled; you are wrong.
>
> D R Lindberg: "It would be very nice to see Jim prove that I'm all wet by
showing that he realizes that it is entirely within the realms of the possible
for someone to be less than 100% convinced of the absolute truth of every crumb
dripping from the lips of the DI's 'intelligent design theorists,' and still be
an honest person."
>
> Oh, good grief. I would have to be stupid to think that a person's failure to
accept everything said by design theorists indicates that the person must be
dishonest. Well, I'm not stupid and I think (and have said) no such thing. What
I have said is that when a person persistently misrepresents intelligent design,
there are three possible explanations for those misrepresentations:
>
> 1) The person has read at least some of the design literature, but either
lacks the wit to understand what he read or willfully misunderstands it.
> 2) The person has read none (or very little) of the design literature, thus
his misrepresentations of intelligent design result from partial or total
ignorance of it.
> 3) The person has read and understood at least some of the design literature,
but deliberately (thus, dishonestly) misrepresents intelligent design.
>
> Number 2 is the most charitable of those explanations, so it's the one I favor
when someone persistently misrepresents intelligent design.
>
> Jim in Vermont
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
>
>
> HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)
>
> D R Lindberg: "I'm afraid that Jim, who in other ways appears to be a
very intelligent and knowledgeable person...shows himself in this
context to be in some sort of denial - his faith is such that he cannot
conceive, or at any rate refuses to believe, that anyone could possibly
have honest doubts about his heroes at the Discovery Institute or any of
their claims. or that anyone could actually understand any of their
arguments and still reject them."
>
> There is only one person who knows whether either of your claims is
true. That person is me, and I know that both of your claims are false.
As I have said here on other occasions, I don't think that any human
beings - including Discovery Institute Fellows - are infallible or that
their claims can never be doubted. I cite Discovery Institute fellows
not because I think they're infallible, but because they are
authoritative on the subject of intelligent design and because I think
they make good arguments against the sufficiency of Darwinian theory to
account for life's diversity and complexity.

I find that no matter how knowledgeable someone is and no matter how
much I may agree with him/her in principle, there are almost always
places where I see that he/she is wrong or has made an error, usually
minor or of no consequence. If you do not consider the Discovery
Institute Fellows to be infallible, can you give some examples of their
mistakes or errors that you have found?

> It does not follow that I think everyone will be persuaded by the
arguments they make for ID or against ToE. People can understand their
arguments yet have reasons for rejecting those arguments. I have never
said nor suggested that disagreeing with design proponents can ONLY
ARISE from misunderstanding them (although misunderstanding can often
lead to disagreement). I have instead said that it is evident that a
person does not understand intelligent design when that person
persistently misrepresents it (assuming, of course, that the person is
both intelligent and honest).

Can you give us the name of one person who has rejected "Intelligent
Design" theory despite having what you consider a good understanding
thereof?

I have yet to see any reaction by you or the DI crew to criticism that
did not begin (and often end) with the claim that the critic did not
understand your theory. Can you give us an example where they or you
accepted the validity of the criticism?

>
> D R Lindberg: "For Jim, there seems to be no reality beyond the
borders of the Discovery Institute (or quotations carefully and lovingly
mined by Discovery Institute 'fellows')."
>
> This is such ridiculously absurd rhetorical overkill that it deserves
no further comment from me.
>
I have asked you several times for examples of non-Discovery Institute
sources who support their or your claims, but you have always refused to
respond. I have asked you a couple of times whether the lists of
quotations that you sometimes give are from books that you have read on
your own initiative. Again, no reply.

Why would that be? What am I to make of that?


> D R Lindberg: "Now this is the impression I get from reading his
postings. I could very well be wrong, indeed I hope I am."
>
> Your hope has been fulfilled; you are wrong.
>
Actions speak louder than words.

As the song went, "Show me!"

> D R Lindberg: "It would be very nice to see Jim prove that I'm all wet
by showing that he realizes that it is entirely within the realms of the
possible for someone to be less than 100% convinced of the absolute
truth of every crumb dripping from the lips of the DI's 'intelligent
design theorists,' and still be an honest person."
>
> Oh, good grief. I would have to be stupid to think that a person's
failure to accept everything said by design theorists indicates that the
person must be dishonest. Well, I'm not stupid and I think (and have
said) no such thing. What I have said is that when a person persistently
misrepresents intelligent design, there are three possible explanations
for those misrepresentations:
>
> 1) The person has read at least some of the design literature, but
either lacks the wit to understand what he read or willfully
misunderstands it.
> 2) The person has read none (or very little) of the design literature,
thus his misrepresentations of intelligent design result from partial or
total ignorance of it.
> 3) The person has read and understood at least some of the design
literature, but deliberately (thus, dishonestly) misrepresents
intelligent design.
>
> Number 2 is the most charitable of those explanations, so it's the one
I favor when someone persistently misrepresents intelligent design.
>
Strange then that I and every other commentator I run across get the
same response when we dare to question DI doctrines.

Just who do you consider to be a person who has understood and is not
misrepresenting "Intelligent Design" theory and has still rejected it?

What about the commentator here? Is he/she misrepresenting intelligent
design? How?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Positive_Case_for_Design


--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
>
>
> HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE? (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)

>
> D R Lindberg: "'Intelligent Design theory' claims that evolution
cannot produce new information."
>
>  No, what ID claims is that no random, undirected natural process
(such  as Darwinian evolution) can produce complex specified
information, that  is to say, complex information (i.e., roughly 500
bits or more) that  conveys a message and/or performs a function. Such a
natural process is  quite capable of producing mere Shannon information,
which need not  convey any message and/or perform any function. But it
has never been  shown that any random, undirected natural processes
(including Darwinian  evolution) can produce new information that is
both complex and  specified.
>
Looks like I should have said "'Intelligent Design theory' claims that
evolution cannot produce significant and useful new information."

Can you give us a clearer indication of where you draw the line, and
why?

What size of the line does this fall on? Why?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5894/1346.abstract

> D R Lindberg: "Of course, they never really define 'information'
functionally or empirically."
>
>  Of course, you're quite wrong on this point. ID theorists quite
carefully explain what they mean by "information," distinguishing
information that is relevant to both ID and evolution (that is to say,
complex specified information) from information that is completely
irrelevant to both ID and evolution (that is to say, mere Shannon
information). Both design theorists and Darwinian molecular biologists
discuss biological information in terms of complexity AND specificity,
where specificity (or "specified") means "necessary to function" (which
is another way of saying "conforming to independently given functional
specifications"). Rather than never defining information functionally
(as you aver), that's what design theorists ALWAYS do, and for a very
good reason: Only information that is functional is of any biological
significance.
>
You don't seem to understand what I mean by a functional empirical
definition. I mean a definition that can be used, one that is clear
enough and practical enough that everyone will immediately understand
how it applies in all cases, and there will never be any arguments about
whether a given example does or does not fall within that definition.
Scientific definitions are of this type.


> D R Lindberg: "How is it measured? What  units do they use to measure
it? How can you say something has  increased, or decreased, if you can't
measure it?"
>
> ID  theorists measure information in the same ways that it is measured
by  information theorists. One of the basic units of information used by
information theorists and design theorists alike is the bit, which
represents the amount of information stored by a physical system that
exists in one of two possible distinct states. While information content
measured in bits is of some interest to ID theorists, a more important
measure of information content for ID theory is the mathematical
relationship between information and probability implied by Shannon
information theory. As Stephen Meyer put it (in "Signature in the Cell:
DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design"): "[T]he amount of
information conveyed by an event is inversely proportional to the
probability of its occurrence. The greater the number of possibilities,
the greater the improbability of any one being actualized, and thus the
more information that is transmitted when a particular possibility
occurs."
>
I don't think you did provide a unit in all that, other than to state
that the bit is not of much interest. What unit is of interest? What
unit do you use for measuring probability? How do you count the "number
of possibilities" for something that is unknown, or little known?

And how does all that relate to genome size? We read that some flowers,
amphibians, mollusks, and insects have larger genomes than mammals, and
some amoebae larger genomes than mammals
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_size). Famously, onions have 12
times as much DNA as humans
(http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/02.10/onion.html).

How does all that work into your measurement of information? What units
and what numbers does ID theory use here? Uncommon Descent does talk
about this matter
(http://www.uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/thoughts-on-the-c-value-enigma-\
the-onion-test-and-junk-dna/), but they appear to be more interested in
knocking "atheistic neo-Darwinists" than in discussing useful science.

I hope you'll pardon me for saying that this seems to be about par for
the course.


> D R Lindberg: "So they can skate around their  claims and say that
anything is evidence for them. If the opposite  happens, that's evidence
too."
>
> This is arrant nonsense  springing from your evident lack of
familiarity with the way design  theorists define and measure
information. It also falsely attributes to  design theorists something
that none of them say, namely, that "anything  is evidence for them."
Once again you display your virtuosity in  creating straw-man versions
of design theorists' arguments and in  casting aspersions on their
intellectual integrity.
>
Well, they seem to be claiming that their basic premise is that the
appearance of design is evidence of an "Intelligent Designer." Have I
got that right?

Yet whenever anybody mentions something that does not seem to be
intelligently or even functional, the reaction is that the comment is
irrelevant. "That is not part of the theory."

>
>
>
--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:

>
> HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE?
>
>  Truman: "It took me awhile, but I found somebody from Germany who was
kind enough to translate some literature that Weikart used in his book
to find out what the proper translation was. You should not be surprised
that 'evolution' was the incorrect translation for the context of
'Entwicklung' that Hitler used."
>
> Actually, in those  passages of "Mein Kampf" (and in other of his
writings and speeches)  where Hitler was clearly discussing Darwinian
concepts (such as natural  selection, or "survival of the fittest"), the
only translation of  "Entwicklung" that is contextually sensible
(therefore the correct  translation) is "evolution," not "development"
(Entwicklung can mean  either, depending on the context). It may be true
today that Germans  exclusively use the word "evolution" rather than
"Entwicklung" to refer  to biological evolution, but it was not true in
Hitler's time. German  biology textbooks and journals of that time, for
instance, routinely  used "Entwicklung" to refer to biological
evolution. Also, even today  German dictionaries give both "development"
and "evolution" as meanings  for "Entwicklung," which makes it rather
perverse that you (like D R  Lindberg) insist that Hitler never used
"Entwicklung" to mean  "evolution," even in passages of his writings and
speeches where he  clearly did. Why not simply deal with the fact that
Hitler - like so  many other people - was deeply influenced by Darwin's
ideas rather than  obstinately denying that historical reality?
>
> See: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/rallying_to_dar053511.html
>
Have to admit. Takes SOME chutzpa to claim to know more about German
that the Germans do.


> The following is a message I recently composed but never sent. It now
seems apt, so here it is....
>
> HITLER ECHOED DARWIN
>
>
>  In his writings and speeches, Hitler often echoed Darwin's ideas.
Here,  for example, are a few passages from Hitler's "Mein Kampf" that
echo  Darwin's doctrine of natural selection (or "survival of the
fittest"):
>
>  1) "Under certain circumstances...Nature herself tends to check the
increase in population in some countries and among some races, but by a
method which is quite as ruthless as it is wise. It does not impede the
procreative faculty as such; but it does impeded the further existence
of the offspring by submitting it to such tests and privations that
everything which is less strong or less healthy is forced to retreat
into the bosom of the unknown. Whatever survives these hardships of
existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and
rendered fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same
thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally
with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he
is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of
the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of
efficiency."
>
> 2) "By leaving the process of procreation  unchecked and by submitting
the individual to the hardest preparatory  tests in life, Nature selects
from an abundance of single elements and  stamps them as fit to live and
carry on the conservation of the  species."
>
> 3) "Since the inferior always outnumber the  superior, the former
would always increase more rapidly if they  possessed the same
capacities for survival and for procreation of their  kind; and the
final consequence would be that the best in quality would  be forced to
recede into the background. Therefore a corrective measure  in favour of
the better quality must intervene. Nature supplies this by  establishing
rigorous conditions of life to which the weaker will have  to submit and
will thereby be numerically restricted; but even that  portion which
survives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for here a new  and rigorous
selection takes place, according to strength and health."
>
>  The following - attributed to Hitler - is taken from "Hitler's
Table-Talk," Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), p.
51:
>
> "The law of selection justifies this incessant  struggle, by allowing
the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a  rebellion against
natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its  logical extreme,
Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of  the human
failure."
>
> In a May 20, 1937 speech to German construction workers, Hitler once
again spoke of natural selection in this way:
>
>  "It is absolutely true that first of all the law of selection exists
in  the world, and nature has granted the stronger and healthier the
right  to life. And rightly so... That is an eternal law of nature. You
see it  if you gaze into the forest, you see it in every meadow, you see
it in  the struggle of individual organisms in the world, and you see it
throughout the millenia of human history..."
>
> He repeated that theme in a February 15, 1942 speech to German
military officers, averring that:
>
>  "We are all beings of nature, which - inasmuch as we can see it -
only  knows one harsh law, the law that gives the right of life to the
stronger and takes the life of the weaker. We humans cannot exempt
ourselves from this law... On this earth we observe the unswerving
struggle of living organisms with each other."
>
> In a  May 30, 1942 speech to German military officers, Hitler
continued to  invoke Darwin's doctrine of natural selection, asserting
that:
>
>  "The entire universe appears to be ruled only by this one idea, that
eternal selection takes place, in which the stronger in the end
preserves its life and the right to life, and the weaker falls."
>
> In a June 22, 1944 speech to military officers, Hitler continued the
same Darwinian theme in this way:
>
>  "Nature teaches us with every look into its working, into its events,
that the principle of selection dominates it, that the stronger remains
victor and the weaker succumbs. It teaches us, that what often appears
to someone as cruelty, because he himself is affected or because through
his education he has turned away from the laws of nature, is in reality
necessary, in order to bring about a higher evolution of living
organisms."
>
> In the same speech, Hitler declared that:
>
>  "War is thus the unalterable law of all life, the precondition for
the  natural selection of the strong and simultaneously the process of
eliminating the weaker."
>
> In "The Hitler I Knew,"  Hitler's press chief Otto Dietrich described
Hitler's exaltation of the  Darwinian process of evolution above all
other moral considerations in  this way:
>
> "Among Hitler's own justifications for his  actions was his primitive
philosophy of nature. Both in public speechs  and private conversations
he would repeatedly refer to this philosophy,  his purpose being to
convince his listeners that this philosophy  represented the final truth
about life. He took such principles as the  struggle for existence, the
survival of the fittest and strongest, for  the law of nature and
considered them a 'higher imperative' which should  also rule the
community life of men. It followed for him that might was  right, that
his own violent methods were therefore absolutely in  keeping with the
laws of nature."
>
> In "Hitler: Memoirs  of a Confidant," Otto Wagener (once chief of
staff of the Nazi SA)  reported a conversation with Hitler in which
Hitler explained the  survival of the stronger and better, averring that
"selection therefore  runs a natural course. As Darwin correctly proved,
the choice is not  made by some agency - nature chooses."
>
> The extent to  which Hitler was influenced by Darwin's ideas is
debatable, but that he  was influenced by those ideas is not. Hitler
would not have repeatedly  worked Darwin's ideas into his speeches and
writings if he were not  influenced by them. (None of this, of course,
has the slightest bearing  on the scientific legitimacy or the
theoretical merits of Darwin's  theories.)
>
> Jim in Vermont
>
> P.S.  Richard Weikart's "Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of
Evoutionary  Progress" was my source for much of the above. Primary
sources can be  found in the book's Notes section.
>
>
So you (or Weikart) found three paragraphs out of the hundreds of pages
of Mein Kampt, and eight or nine short phases out of the hundreds of
speeches Hitler made, to back up your claim that he "often echoed
Darwin's ideas. " Wow!

You (or he) seem to have a different definition of "often" than I do.

How many times did Hitler mention God, Christ or Christianity in the
same hundreds of pages and hundreds of speeches? Why do you assume he is
serious in the one case and not in the other?

Today I happened to find this: (Please note that I do my own research
and do not depend on  opinions or arguments or lists of quotes I've
copied from others.)
During its long history, antisemitism has assumed any number of
disguises and has cloaked itself in pseudorational garb: Christian
theological "teachings of contempt" for the Jews; theories of alleged
Jewish economic and media control and manipulation; the idea that Jews
dominate the political system or pollute national cultures; and most
recently, "Zionism Equals Racism" - all these and more are subterfuges
for what, at bottom, is hatred of Jews .
Antisemitism has been transnational and transcultural in its themes,
images, and ideas. Racist theories articulated in Europe in the 19th
century played a role in the passage of restrictive immigration laws in
the 1920s in the United States. We shall see how, as Dawidowicz pointed
out, virulent antisemitic mythology has its own peculiar patterns of
migration. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, consigned yesterday to
the ash heap of history, has today been resurrected for use by Arab
propagandists. The 18th-century European myth of the Illuminati, a
somewhat less notorious variant on the theme of international
conspiracy, still persists in our own day, feeding the antisemitic
prejudices of many a home-grown American bigot."
Chanes, Jerome A. 2000. A Dark Side of History: Antisemitism Through the
Ages. Anti-Defamation League.  You seem to agree below that Hitler's
references to Christianity are part of this "cloak[ing] [him]self in
pseudorational garb," but why do you refuse to accept the possibility
that the same may be true of his references to "evolution", such as they
were?


--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
>
>
> HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE?
>
> Truman: "Christianity had influence and effect on human events too."
>
>  For that we can be extremely grateful. It is no accident that rights,
liberty, prosperity, and scientific discovery have best flourished in
those parts of the world where Christianity has been the dominant
religion/worldview.
>
> Truman: "Oh, yes, and also in the  quotes if (sic) provided from
Hitler, Christianity had an influence and  effect on Hitlers (sic)
racial philosophy and genocidal projects too."
>
>  More likely those quotes simply illustrate what we now know about
Hitler: that he was a consummate liar and propagandist who said a lot of
things he did not actually believe in order to win public support. The
notion that he was much influenced by the teachings of Christianity is
difficult to sustain in light of the fact that he despised those
teachings and wanted to destroy Christianity. So did his Nazi
underlings. He differed with them only over the timing: Hitler thought
the destruction of Christianity should be deferred until the war was
over so as to retain the loyalty of German Christians, while his
lieutenants thought the destruction of Christianity should be a part of
the war effort. I've written on this before (see OriginsTalk message
13,774),

I'll try to remember to take another look at that when I have the time
(couple of papers I'm supposed to be working on right now). That would
have been easier to do if you had provided page numbers for your
quotations.

> so rather than repeating that effort, I'll simply leave you  with the
following observations made by biographer and historian Allan  Bullock
(in "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny"):
>
> - "The basis of Hitler's political beliefs was a crude Darwinism."
>
>  - "In Hitler's eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves;
he  detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a
rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and survival
of the fittest."
>
> A man's actions will follow his  beliefs. Hitler's actions were quite
consistent with his "crude  Darwinism," which reduced ethics to "might
makes right," but his actions  were quite inconsistent with the
teachings of Christianity (especially  its moral teachings), thereby
demonstrating that Christianity had no  influence on him whatsoever.
What Hitler did with his life made it  abundantly clear that Jesus
Christ was not his Lord and Savior. (Note:  Anti-Semitism is not a
Christian value. The mere fact that some  Christians, such as Luther,
were anti-Semitic does not make  anti-Semitism a moral tenet of
Christianity. To say that Hitler was  influenced by Luther's
anti-Semitism and to say that Hitler was  influenced by the teachings of
Christianity is to say two different  things, not the same thing. There
might be some truth in the first  claim; there's none in the second.)
>
I'm not aware that anyone has ever claimed that antisemitism was "a
moral tenet of Christianity."

The fact remains however that antisemitism has been a big part of
Christian tradition since pretty well the beginning and has even been
Church teaching at various times, in pretty well all branches of the
Church. I'm not sure that there is one country in Europe that Jews have
not been expelled from at one time or another, usually at church
instigation. (Here's one list:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm)

I strongly feel that it is moral cowardice for us, as Christians, to
fail to acknowledge this fact.



   Jim in Vermont
>
> P.S. Many other historians have made observations similar to those
made by Bullock. Here are a few of them:
>
> 1) Historian Ian Kershaw, who is widely regarded as perhaps the
world's leading expert on Hitler and Nazi Germany:
>
>  - From "Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris": "[Hitler's] crude social-Darwinism
dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political
'world-view'."
>
> - From "Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis": "If  the German people should lose
the war, [Hitler] declared (in a further  demonstration of his unchanged
social Darwinism), then it would indicate  that it did not possess the
'internal value' (inneren Wert) that had  been attributed to
> it, and he would have no sympathy with his  people." And: "In early
1937, [Hitler] was declaring that 'Christianity  was ripe for
destruction,' and that the churches must yield to the  'primacy of the
state,' railing against any compromise with 'the most  horrible
institution imaginable.'"
>
> - From "Hitler"  (second edition): "Hitler's world-view was...already
formed in good  measure by the time he served in the trenches. A core
element - the  social Darwinistic view of history as a struggle between
individual  races with victory going to the strongest, fittest and most
ruthless -  seems to have occupied its place at the centre of his
world-view by  1914-1918 at the latest."
>
> - From "Hitler, the Germans,  and the Final Solution": "[Hitler's]
instinctive Darwinism made him  unwilling and unable to take sides in
> a dispute till the winner  emerged." And: "[Hitler's] belief in Social
Darwinism and its racial  'theory of history' 'is an ironclad principle:
the weaker must fall so  the stronger can live."
>
> - From "Stalinism and Nazism:  Dictatorships in Comparison": "Hitler
let rivalries flower more than is  common among despots. This was not
> just tactics or laziness (though it contained both). It also entwined
with his revolutionary Social Darwinism."
>
>  - From "Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich:
Bavaria 1933-1945": "[T]he Nazi racial-eugenic creed [was] social
Darwinism."
>
> 2) Noted political theorist Hannah Arendt ("The Origins of
Totalitarianism") :
>
>  - "Underlying the Nazis' belief in race laws as the expression of the
law of nature in man, is Darwin's idea of man as the product of a
natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present
species of human being."
>
> 3) Historian John Toland  (writing in "Adolf Hitler: The Definitive
Biography" about Hitler's  "Second Book," published in 1928):
>
> - "An essential of  Hitler's conclusions in this book was the
conviction drawn from Darwin  that might makes right. It led to a vital
link between self-preservation  and Lebensraum. 'The compulsion to
engage in the struggle for existence  lies in the limitation of the
living space; but in the life-struggle  for this living space lies also
the basis for evolution.'"
>

When did Darwin ever even suggest that "might makes right"? That concept
has been around since Greek and Roman times.
The history of the expression as described here does not even mention
Darwin.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right)

>  4) Modern European historian Richard Weikart ("From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany"):
>
>  - "Hitler derided any morality inimical to the increased vitality of
the 'Aryan' race, especially traditional Christian values of humility,
pity, and sympathy. He considered these unnatural, contrary to reason,
and thus detrimental and destructive for the healthy progress of the
human
> species. He spurned the idea of human rights, calling it a  product of
weaklings. 'No,' he explained, 'there is only one most holy  human
right,
> and this right is at the same time the most holy  duty, namely, to
take care to keep one's blood pure,' in order to  promote 'a more noble
evolution' of humanity."
>

It is not at all obvious that these historians have a clear and accurate
idea of what Darwin was all about. After all, why should they? That is
not their field of interest or expertise. Aren't they just using his
name as a loose and rather meaningless label, as we so often do, as a
sort of shorthand?

I remember many years ago when I told a friend about an incident where I
had had to sleep on the floor for one night, and told him that I thought
that it was no big deal, he replied that I was a masochist.

Do you think that he meant that I was an avid student and follower of
Leopold von Sacher Masoch?

When people say that the German prison camp guards were sadists, do
they mean that they had built their life's philosophy on their reading
of the writings of the Marquis?

If a politician is called a maverick, do you think that the meaning is
that he/she had adopted the wisdom of Samuel Maverick?

Aren't your historians doing the same thing when talking about
"Darwinism"? Otherwise their comments seem rather incoherent in relation
to his theory. Like the "might makes right" example I pointed out above.

Cheers!







I've never seen a definition of biological information.

Is it the base pair which would be equivalent to the binary bit?  If so,
an amoeba (about 300 billion base pairs) has about 100x the information
of a human (about 3 billion base pairs).

Is it the chromosome?  If so a fern (about 1200 chromosomes) has about
26x the information of a human (46 chromosomes).

So, just how does one go about measuring biological information?  This
becomes essential for those who claim "information" cannot be gained.

Pi [high school science teacher]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creation_evolution_debate/message/320743
<../creation_evolution_debate/message/320743>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Stewart:
4)The person has read at least some ID literature, has understood perfectly
the concept, including the motivating factors which lead to the concept.
Yet the person has found no reason to concur with the theory on the basis
that it is subject to even more preconceptions than natural selection is.
That this rejection of ID theory is arrived at not through prejudice,
misunderstanding, misrepresentation, dishonesty or ignorance, but because
the central tenet of ID is not accounted for (the identity of the
designer). Furthermore because no weight is given by ID to the necessity
for the identity of the designer.

No serious scientific theory could be successfully proposed while lacking
evidence of that which is central to the structure of the theory.
The problem is not that others lack an understanding of ID Jim, they just
don't accept it. It is not only possible, but inevitable that the majority
of people will, with honesty and intelligence reject this theory.
You perceive design and so assume a designer, but offer no evidence of the
designer other than the perception of design.
It's insufficient Jim, which means that it offers nothing more than a new
take on divine creation.

Charles P:  Stewart, whatever you believe is OK.  Your philosophies are who
you are and no one is going to change what you believe.  Everyone has the
exact same evidence from nature.  We only differ in our INTERPRETATIONS of
that evidence.  In a PERFECT world, neo-Darwinism would ALWAYS be "right"
and creationism would ALWAYS be "wrong".  (Or vice versa if one is a
creationist).

Charles P:  In the past, creationists INTERPRETED certain evidence
according to their philosophies.  Neo-Darwinists ASSUMED that the
creationists were "wrong", so they stated just the OPPOSITE for the purpose
of winning the "debates".  They never used EMPIRICAL METHODS to verify
their philosophies.  However, the creationists were occasionally "right"
and that led to CONFUSION on the part of the neo-Darwinists.

Charles P:  Now, the neo-Darwinists have been faced with a real dilemma:
Should they admit that their same-old "debates" against creationists was
unscientific?  Or should they UPDATE their philosophies and use EMPIRICAL
METHODS to reach "reliable", "not tentative" scientific conclusions?

Charles P:  Intelligent Design theory offers an alternative to the same-old
"debates".  Stewart, maybe you thought that Intelligent Design theorists
had discovered THE DESIGNER?  No, that is what creationists believe.

Charles P:  Evolution is a Natural Process Running Backward.  The
Intelligent Design theorists are simply presenting to the scientific
community what the neo-Darwinists should have done decades ago instead of
WASTING VALUABLE TIME AND RESOURCES DEBATING WITH CREATIONISTS.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/  An Index to Creationist Claims
http://ncse.com/  Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools
[against creationism].

=============================================

Granville Sewell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=259r-iDckjQ  Are You
Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design?

Granville Sewell ( February 24, 2012):
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf

=============================================

Charles P:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd4FjdBSCVU  Please use your
REVERSE-ENGINEERING skills to describe the evolution of the Monarch
Butterfly since ancient times.
1  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction  The four known
fundamental NON-CONTACT interactions are ELECTROMAGNETISM, STRONG NUCLEAR
FORCE, WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE and GRAVITATION.  Change over time of NON-LIVING
objects can be explained in terms of ENERGY + MATTER.  Change over time of
non-living objects moves in the direction of loosing energy to the
environment and increasing entropy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Everything

2  Change over time of living of LIVING OBJECTS can be explained in terms
of ENERGY + MATTER + INFORMATION.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information  Information = an ordered sequence
of symbols that can be interpreted as NON-CONTACT instructions.

3  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taphonomy  Taphonomy is the study of
decaying organisms over time and how they become fossilized (if they do).
  A known protein will change over time to loose its stored energy to the
environment and increase in entropy to become known "left-handed" amino
acids.  The decay of organisms over time is predicted by the SECOND LAW OF
THERMODYNAMICS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics  The law deduced
the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon
of irreversibility in nature.

4  HUMAN CONTACT with a purpose and a plan can REVERSE NATURE by carefully
selecting known "left-handed" amino acids to form known proteins by adding
energy from the environment and decreasing the entropy of the system.  The
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS predicts that the known protein's internal
energy will be less than the total energy required.

5  The preexisting DNA digital code of a population's GENOME contains the
INFORMATION necessary to REVERSE NATURE by selecting known "left-handed"
amino acids to form known proteins by adding energy from PREEXISTING CELL
MITOCHONDRIA and decreasing the entropy of the system.  The SECOND LAW OF
THERMODYNAMICS predicts that the known protein's internal energy will be
less than the total energy required.

6  The preexisting DNA digital code of a population's GENOME obtained the
necessary INFORMATION from some agent with a purpose and a plan.
  Philosophers have speculated about the nature of that creative agent
without obtaining a consensus.  All that is certain is that all known
INFORMATION  has been the result of plan and purpose.  It is incumbent upon
scientists to continue to develop EMPIRICAL METHODS to describe the origin
and diversity of life on Earth.

=============================================
The genome of the Monarch Butterfly population contains preexisting
INFORMATION that allows the following processes to occur over time.  Male
and female parents lay an egg which contains sufficient INFORMATION for:
1  Development into a caterpillar during warm weather with the behavior
necessary to survive in a hostile environment.
2  Knowledge of the proper time to become dormant.
3  Development into an adult Monarch Butterfly.
4  Knowledge of the proper time to migrate north, to find a mate, for male
and female to transmit sufficient INFORMATION to a new egg before dying.
5  Production of four generations that have never been to Mexico nor Canada.
6  The fourth generation appears to be the same as the previous
generations, but have the necessary INFORMATION not to mate but to store
energy for the long trip to Mexico.

Charles P:  Why do neo-Darwinists and theistic evolutionists want science
students to believe that the necessary INFORMATION for the life cycle of
Monarch Butterflies has been inherited from some NON-MONARCH BUTTERFLY
COMMON ANCESTOR?  Why would they defend such teachings in public schools
WITHOUT EMPIRICAL METHODS to explain their philosophies?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Chance or Design?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/430247_343185389056702_2033\
91749702734_951570_1562561732_n.jpg


You may need to examine the picture a bit before you see the complex specified
information not created by humans.

Gluadys:  Chance or Design?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/430247_343185389056702_2033\
91749702734_951570_1562561732_n.jpg
You may need to examine the picture a bit before you see the complex
specified information not created by humans.

Charles P:  This is a perfect example of ENERGY + MATTER.  To some people,
it will appear to be an example of ENERGY + MATTER + INFORMATION.  The
picture consists of pixels.  The information has a technical name:
  PAREIDOLIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia   Pareidolia is a psychological
phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound)
being perceived as significant.

Charles P:  In my opinion, neo-Darwinists and theistic evolutionists should
not continue to waste time and resources trying to win "debates" with
creationists.  In my opinion, they should UPDATE their philosophies by
using EMPIRICAL METHODS to verify if what they have been DEFENDING is worth
defending or not.   EVOLUTION IS A NATURAL PROCESS RUNNING BACKWARDS.

Granville Sewell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=259r-iDckjQ  Are You
Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design?

Granville Sewell ( February 24, 2012):
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE? (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)

gluadys: "I think this is the first time you have given me an answer in
sufficient detail to give me assurance that you really do understand something
of evolution."

Apparently, then, all the detailed things I've written over the years about
evolution have been wasted on you.

gluadys: "I am just curious why it would occur to anyone to question the
evolution of a bird's beak in the first place? Why does that seem to be a
stretch for evolution?"

So far as I know, no design theorists are saying that birds' beaks could not
have evolved. What they are arguing is that the random, undirected material
mechanisms (i.e., random mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection,
etc.) invoked by ToE to explain life's diversity and complexity do not have
sufficient creative powers all by themselves to account for the origin of novel
biological forms (such as the first birds), structures (such as birds' beaks),
systems (such as the avian respiratory system), and processes (such as the avian
process of vision).

gluadys: "Whether mechanisms are adequate or not surely has something to do with
what the mechanisms are being called on to do."

Precisely. Design theorists argue that if random, undirected material mechanisms
are called on to bring into being novel biological forms, structures, systems,
and processes, they aren't up to the task all by themselves. Perhaps an analogy
will help you to understand. Suppose that someone is trying to explain how the
painting known as the Mona Lisa came into being. He hypothesizes that the
mechanism that brought the painting into being was a paint brush applying paint
to canvas (imagine a mechanical device capable of dipping a paint brush into a
wide selection of paint choices and then applying the selected paints to a
canvas). He further hypothesizes (in much the same way that mainstream
evolutionary biologists hypothesize about evolutionary mechanisms) that the
painting mechanism operated randomly with respect to its selection of paint and
without conscious direction with respect to its application of paint to canvas.
Would that random, undirected mechanism then suffice as a credible explanation
for the origin of the Mona Lisa? Of course not. The Mona Lisa is not simply a
pattern of randomly chosen paint colors blindly applied to canvas; it is instead
the portrait of a particular woman, meaning that it exhibits specified
complexity, which is the hallmark characteristic of intelligent design. It
simply would not be credible to insist that the Mona Lisa came into being via a
painting mechanism that operated randomly and without conscious direction.
Similarly, ID theorists argue, it is not credible to insist (as mainstream
evolutionary biologists do) that random, undirected material mechanisms brought
into being all of life's diverse and complex forms, structures, systems, and
processes. They argue (quite persuasively, in my view) that the Darwinian
explanation for how life arrived at its current state of diversity and
complexity is incomplete. That explanation invokes unintelligent causes (or
mechanisms) without remainder to account for the origin of specified complexity
in living things. Yet universal experience has taught us that only intelligent
causation can bring things whose complexity is specified into being. As you say,
"Whether mechanisms are adequate or not surely has something to do with what the
mechanisms are being called on to do." Mainstream evolutionary biologists call
on random, undirected material mechanisms to do something that they have never
been shown to be capable of doing, namely, generating specified complexity.
Within the Darwinian explanation of life, life is a dazzling display of diverse,
complex "paintings" that came into being without the involvement of any
"painter."

gluadys: "What feature, specifically, in molecular biology, puts the adequacy of
the mechanisms of evolution in doubt?"

Pretty much all of them (assuming you're using "evolution" to refer to Darwinian
evolution), but the bacterial flagellum (which is irreducibly complex) is the
molecular "machine" used most often by design theorists to show that it's not
credible to attribute the origin of life's molecular "machines" to material
mechanisms that operate randomly and without intelligent direction.

gluadys: "I would also point out that directed or undirected, the mechanisms are
the same."

Perhaps, but if the mechanisms had to be (and in fact were) directed in some way
by an intelligent agent or cause to achieve success, then an explanation
attributing success to the random, undirected operation of those mechanisms
would be a false explanation.

Jim in Vermont









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE? (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)
. . . . .
>
> Perhaps, but if the mechanisms had to be (and in fact were) directed
in some way by an intelligent agent or cause to achieve success, then an
explanation attributing success to the random, undirected operation of
those mechanisms would be a false explanation.
>

But before that can be decided, doesn't this "intelligent agent or
cause" have to be demonstrated, in a demonstration that can be verified,
tested and repeated.

Otherwise, until then, it is beyond science, just like speculations
about multiverses and such.

We have been hearing recently about all the efforts being made to
demonstrate the Higgs boson particle, and how so much of modern physics
will have to be revised if it is not found.

Where are the equivalent efforts being made by the DI folks to
demonstrate the  "intelligent agent or cause," and the speculations as
to how "Intelligent Design" theory will have to be revised if it is not
found?

The most I have seen "Intelligent Design" theorists doing is trying to
show that there seems to be some kind of logical theoretical need for
such as entity (like the multiverses). If there are any attempts being
made out there to DEMONSTRATE it, please give us some details, with
references, so we can be enlightened, and perhaps help out.

That would be MOST helpful.

Thanks for any help or light you can throw on this issue.

Cheers!







"Predictions are difficult, especially about the future."
Yogi Berra


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
   From: D R Lindberg
   To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 1:45 AM
   Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How Do You Like Your Science? (Crick's dictum or
not)




   --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
   >
   >
   >
   > HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE? (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)
   . . . . .
   >
   > Perhaps, but if the mechanisms had to be (and in fact were) directed
   in some way by an intelligent agent or cause to achieve success, then an
   explanation attributing success to the random, undirected operation of
   those mechanisms would be a false explanation.
   >

   DRL:  But before that can be decided, doesn't this "intelligent agent or
   cause" have to be demonstrated, in a demonstration that can be verified,
   tested and repeated.


   LA> Charles Darwin himself conducted "repeated tests" in breeding his pigeons.
He found that there was a distinct LIMIT to the variations that breeders were
able to produce.  He further admitted that there appeared to be a LAW which he
called "Reverson to Average".  At a point in his breeding when he at last
expected to prove his theory, his result was just the opposite to his hopes and
his result was always this :reversion to average.

   LA> You will find all this in his famous book?  Do you have it?  Have you read
it?



   Laurie.

   "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never
seems to happen."
   (Niles Eldredge, 1995)




   No virus found in this message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4863 - Release Date: 03/10/12


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...>
wrote:
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: D R Lindberg
>   To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 1:45 AM
>   Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How Do You Like Your Science? (Crick's
dictum or not)
>
>
>
>
>   --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff JamesGoff_960@ wrote:
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE? (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)
>   . . . . .
>   >
>   > Perhaps, but if the mechanisms had to be (and in fact were)
directed
>   in some way by an intelligent agent or cause to achieve success,
then an
>   explanation attributing success to the random, undirected operation
of
>   those mechanisms would be a false explanation.
>   >
>
>   DRL:  But before that can be decided, doesn't this "intelligent
agent or
>   cause" have to be demonstrated, in a demonstration that can be
verified,
>   tested and repeated.
>
>
>   LA> Charles Darwin himself conducted "repeated tests" in breeding
his pigeons.  He found that there was a distinct LIMIT to the variations
that breeders were able to produce.  He further admitted that there
appeared to be a LAW which he called "Reverson to Average".  At a point
in his breeding when he at last expected to prove his theory, his result
was just the opposite to his hopes and his result was always this
:reversion to average.
>

"Reverson to Average" [sic] was a law proposed by Luther Burbank, who
was about 25 years old when Darwin died. The law is mentioned by
seemingly millions of  anti-evolution websites, but none of them are
scholarly enough (or honest enough?) to give the date. The only other
reference to it I can find is from a book published some 10 years after
Burbank died, so it is not clear when he came up with it. What evidence
do you have that Darwin had ever heard of it, much less "admitted" it?


LA> You will find all this in his famous book?  Do you have it?  Have
you read it?
>
Which "famous book" is that? Almost all Darwin's books are famous. I
have a couple of them (and another that I lent to a Creationist friend
who never returned it).

Are you incapable of giving more specific references?

Cheers!






"The idea that a good God would send people to a burning hell is utterly
damnable to me - the ravings of insanity, superstition gone to seed! I
want no part of such a God." -- Luther Burbank




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SCIENCE? (CRICK'S DICTUM OR NOT)





Stewart: "The problem is not that others lack an understanding of ID Jim, they
just don't accept it. It is not only possible, but inevitable that the majority
of people will, with honesty and intelligence reject this theory."

Actually, according to surveys, most Americans reject Darwinian evolutionary
theory and accept intelligent design (which, in the broadest sense, includes
creationism, although the two are distinct from one another). Most people
instinctively sense the overwhelming appearance of design in living things. The
science of intelligent design, however, does not base design inferences on mere
appearances, rather it looks for the telltale signs of design in nature (chief
among those signs being specified complexity) and subjects them to rigorous
scientific analysis before concluding design. I think that with respect to
winning the minds of the public, intelligent design holds the winning hand. I
dare say that most people (in America, anyway) are unconvinced by Darwinian
theory because they think the Darwinian proposition that life's incredibly
complex forms, systems, structures, and processes were brought into being by
random, undirected material mechanisms is just too preposterous to accept. In
his famous essay "The Deniable Darwin," philosopher/mathematician David
Berlinski aptly described the acceptance level of Darwinian theory in this way:

"Within the English-speaking world, Darwin's theory of evolution remains the
only scientific theory to be widely championed by the
scientific community and widely disbelieved by everyone else. No matter the
effort made by biologists, the thing continues to elicit the same reaction it
has always elicited: You've got to be kidding, right?"

Stewart: "You perceive design and so assume a designer, but offer no evidence of
the designer other than the perception of design."

That's not how the science of intelligent design works. Design theorists look
for (and have found) evidence of design, not for evidence of a designer
(although a designer is clearly implicated if design is actual rather than
illusory). Intelligent design takes an approach to science known as constructive
empiricism - an approach that is useful to other sciences as well, most notably
physics. Constructive empiricism values entities not because they are observable
realities, but because they have explanatory power and stimulate scientific
insights. Within physics, for example, quarks, strings, and cold dark matter are
entities invoked by physicists because they help explain the nature of matter.
But they are theoretical entities whose existence is inferred, not directly
observed (that is to say, no physicist can say for sure that they actually
exist). In a similar manner, within the science of intelligent design a designer
is a theoretical entity that can be inferred from design, but whose existence
can't be observed. Like so many people who don't understand intelligent design,
you think it's about the designer. But it's not. It's about design. If you want
your criticisms of intelligent design to have any traction, you need to focus on
what it is, not on what it is not. But before you can focus on what it is,
you're going to have to read some of the design literature. In debating ID, I
don't have a problem with people who understand it but don't accept it. Such
people have made a good-faith effort to educate themselves on ID by reading at
least some of the works of design theorists, but they weren't persuaded by what
they read. The problem I have is with people who claim to understand ID but
persistently misrepresent it (thereby showing that they don't understand it
after all). In my experience, it's not that ID critics don't know anything about
ID; it's just that so much of what many of them "know" is wrong.

Jim in Vermont


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The claim is that he was fired from working on the Cassini mission because he
actively promoted Intelligent Design.


http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/11/former-nasa-specialist-claims-was-fire\
d-over-intelligent-design/

Victor