DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes, and I'm with you on that when an adversary is sincere. But this is just a game and responding just keeps it going.
An oxymoron if I ever heard one.
OK, I'll grant that's at least an argument.
Intelligent design redux
- Thread starter Pinball1970
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Agree but that is the way they framed it. Creation science is how they branded it but that was a bit of a given away.
Intelligent design or "cdesign" as they inadvertently called it became the final attempt.
Hey, it's 2024, nearly 20 years since the Theory of Evolution kicked creationist nonsense into touch, that time legally!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Behe's argument of irreducible complexity rested on the presence of the flagellan motor system, as I updated many moons ago.
The argument claimed that the motor was so complex and consisted of parts that had no ancestry but just appeared fully formed. Hence ID.
This argument was scientifically debunked with proof that all parts did have ancestry that were originally used for different purposes, but could easily be adapted the rotaty motion of the flagellan motor and cilia in bacteria and later in Eukaryotic cells.
Basically, the entire argument hinges on the pre-existence of ion channels in cellular membranes of living organisms.
ION CHANNEL
Ion channel | Biology, Structure & Function | Britannica
Ion channel, protein expressed by virtually all living cells that creates a pathway for charged ions from dissolved salts, including sodium, potassium, calcium, and chloride ions, to pass through the otherwise impermeant lipid cell membrane. Operation of cells in the nervous system, contraction of
www.britannica.com
Evolution and selectivity
Through subsequent evolution, ion channels have come to play essential roles in cellular secretion and electrical signaling!
The ion-driven flagellan motor evolved from this elementary diffusion system.
Abstract
much, much more ....... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10341847/#
In the absence of noteworthy additional evidence, the Kitzmiller case was decided on the debunking of the Flagellan motor as an example of irreducible complexity.
The actual case was not decided on the science but on the basis of the Establishment Clause, because the title "Intelligent Designer" was a synonym to the title "God".
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
A little aside.
Ion drives in the lowly bacteria may someday be used in space travel.
The Future of Deep Space Flight Using Ion Propulsion
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida, 32901, United States Downloaded by 98.146.190.206 on August 27, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2023-71410
Ion drives in the lowly bacteria may someday be used in space travel.
The Future of Deep Space Flight Using Ion Propulsion
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida, 32901, United States Downloaded by 98.146.190.206 on August 27, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2023-71410
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Again, you're quite right, and evolutionary biologists recognize other mechanisms besides natural selection. The "differential reproduction" that we hear them allude to may not be due to superior adaptation or fitness. For example, in a situation where there are ample resources for all -- i.e. Darwin's "struggle for existence" is absent -- the less fit may prevail (cf. genetic drift).
Note, then, that there are certain preconditions for natural selection to occur. By analogy, I've been arguing that natural selection is a necessarily true vacuous tautology on a par with "dogs are dogs". That is to say, "dogs are dogs" is true everywhere in the universe, but may not be instantiated everywhere in the universe. On any planet where there are no dogs, for example, it is still true that dogs are dogs (How could it not be true?) but you will not find any instances of dogs that are dogs. The precondition has not been satisfied, if you like.
The same applies to natural selection which -- for purposes of illustration -- you might think of as a theory about nightclubs, say. On quiet nights anyone who wants to get in does get in (cf. you don't have to be nightclub "fit" to succeed in gaining entry). Natural selection is akin to those nights when it's busy and not all the punters make it past the bouncers (cf. Darwin's competition or struggle for existence). Competition or struggle, then, is one of the preconditions for natural selection to occur.
To continue the analogy, depending on the particulars of the individual situation (cf. Pinball's examples - moths, etc.) punctuality may confer an advantage to gaining entry. Being the girlfriend of the bouncer may be another. You get the picture. The "fitter" get in; the less fit do not.
Now, for anyone proposing a general theory about this kind of thing, the key question of course is: As a matter of general principle, who gets in (and who doesn't)?
His own protestations and accusations of my dishonesty to the contrary notwithstanding, this is the question Pinball failed to address (bottom of page 70), muttering only something about "the environment selecting" (cf. the bouncers deciding who gets in). Yes, we know the bouncers select who gets in and who doesn't, but -- in general -- who do they select?
Pinball misses the point repeatedly.
Well, what is the answer? Is it the richer folks, say?
To propose as a general hypothesis that the richer folks (cf. dark colored moths) get in is to propose a perfectly respectable, empirical scientific hypothesis. Of course, it's almost certainly false. There are other ways of making it past the bouncers than being rich, indeed an enormous and indefinite number -- as many ways as there are to be fit in nature.
The general answer, of course -- from Darwin himself to Coyne, and everyone else (except Pinball who did not address the question at all) -- is (and varying slightly on how fitness is defined) : The ones that make it into nightclubs are the ones that are better able to get into nightclubs -- i.e. the fitter.
The general answer, then, is an empty tautology, devoid of any empirical content, predictively impotent, explanatorily vacuous, and something we'd all be far better off without. Same applies, mutatis mutandis, to Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Finally, speaking of definitions, it would appear that a troll is defined in this particular environment (i.e. this thread) as:
A person who points out the myriad confusions, inanities, and manifestly false assertions of the pair of numbskulls (no names mentioned, but it's not you Write4U) who seek to dictate the thread.
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
I suggested a couple of pages ago that one good clue that your theory is quite vacuous is if your theory is predictively impotent; it predicts nothing beyond the utterly trivial. I submit this is precisely the situation which obtains with natural selection theory (as opposed to all evolutionary theory, I hasten to add).
Here's another clue . . .
Defenders of natural selection theory are effectively telling us that a billion or more years of change in the biological realm -- in all its inconceivable diversity and complexity -- can almost entirely (duly noting other minor mechanisms of evolution) be explained by a simple one-liner. That one-liner is variously expressed as "Survival of the fittest", a phrase only later adopted by Darwin, or his own original slogan "Preservation of the favored".
Yes, a one-liner that, as Jerry Coyne and Pinball never tire of reminding us, is so simple that even a child could understand it. In this respect at least, natural selection is not at all unlike the "God did it" theory: Just about any fool can understand it.
Consider this: When under attack from Creationists expressing skepticism about large-scale, long-term evolutionary change, defenders of evolution often turn to human language as an analogy . . .
"Look, human language has only been around for perhaps a few hundred thousand years. No one is quite sure. But we are sure that the rate of change is simply breathtaking, even though we tend not to notice it in our own lifetimes. If we sent you back to the year 800 AD, say, somewhere in England, the language spoken -- Old English -- would be virtually incomprehensible to you. Now, if that kind of change can happen in just a thousand years or so, just think what Mother Nature can do in a billion years or more!"
Any interested readers here are invited to visit their local library, if they have not already done so, and examine the literature on the causes of language change, or language "evolution", if you prefer. My own dilettante excursions into the subject reveal a staggering array of divergent and enormously complex postulated mechanisms for various aspects of language change: syntactical change, semantic change, phonological change, and so on and, so forth. You may emerge from the library feeling dizzy!
The very last word one might consider using to describe it all is simple, indeed I doubt very much even the brainiest of precocious young Chomsky-esque child prodigies would grasp it all.
One can only wonder how the grand master himself, Noam Chomsky, would react were you to suggest to him that virtually all of language change can be explained by a one-liner such as "Survival of the fittest" or "Preservation of favored language components and elimination of the deleterious".
Perhaps he'd stifle a giggle.
By the way, as far as I can discern, Chomsky himself, on the rare occasions he has commented on the subject, seems far less enthusiastic about natural selection theory, dismissive even, than its devotees typically are.
Here's another clue . . .
Defenders of natural selection theory are effectively telling us that a billion or more years of change in the biological realm -- in all its inconceivable diversity and complexity -- can almost entirely (duly noting other minor mechanisms of evolution) be explained by a simple one-liner. That one-liner is variously expressed as "Survival of the fittest", a phrase only later adopted by Darwin, or his own original slogan "Preservation of the favored".
Yes, a one-liner that, as Jerry Coyne and Pinball never tire of reminding us, is so simple that even a child could understand it. In this respect at least, natural selection is not at all unlike the "God did it" theory: Just about any fool can understand it.
Consider this: When under attack from Creationists expressing skepticism about large-scale, long-term evolutionary change, defenders of evolution often turn to human language as an analogy . . .
"Look, human language has only been around for perhaps a few hundred thousand years. No one is quite sure. But we are sure that the rate of change is simply breathtaking, even though we tend not to notice it in our own lifetimes. If we sent you back to the year 800 AD, say, somewhere in England, the language spoken -- Old English -- would be virtually incomprehensible to you. Now, if that kind of change can happen in just a thousand years or so, just think what Mother Nature can do in a billion years or more!"
Any interested readers here are invited to visit their local library, if they have not already done so, and examine the literature on the causes of language change, or language "evolution", if you prefer. My own dilettante excursions into the subject reveal a staggering array of divergent and enormously complex postulated mechanisms for various aspects of language change: syntactical change, semantic change, phonological change, and so on and, so forth. You may emerge from the library feeling dizzy!
The very last word one might consider using to describe it all is simple, indeed I doubt very much even the brainiest of precocious young Chomsky-esque child prodigies would grasp it all.
One can only wonder how the grand master himself, Noam Chomsky, would react were you to suggest to him that virtually all of language change can be explained by a one-liner such as "Survival of the fittest" or "Preservation of favored language components and elimination of the deleterious".
Perhaps he'd stifle a giggle.
By the way, as far as I can discern, Chomsky himself, on the rare occasions he has commented on the subject, seems far less enthusiastic about natural selection theory, dismissive even, than its devotees typically are.
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
A brief addition: Note also, that while being rich might confer an advantage in some contexts (cf. ecologies) -- you might be able to bribe the bouncer, say -- it may be decidedly deleterious in other contexts (different nightclub, same nightclub different bouncer, etc.). What if the bouncer is a committed Marxist who despises the wealthy bourgeoisie, tosses your fat bribe back at you, and gives priority to the long-suffering proletariat? Power to the people!
Needless to say, none of this massive context dependence could ever be captured in a general theory, which inevitably reduces to utter triviality.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Or triumph. Being rich does not protect you from mortal disaster. Being poor does not prevent you from leading a productive life.
And it all falls under the general term of evolution via natural selection.
You call it trivial, but when taken as a natural process that has self-organized a dynamic condition of chaos into the universe as we know it, it is awesome and necessary.
When I look up into the clear night sky here in Idaho and see the majesty, I feel breathlessly grateful for being one of the few who can comprehend the extraordinary fortune of being a product of evolution, being kept alive by a colony of symbiont bacteria.
Life is an extraordinary result and expression of dynamism and self-organization into a logical order.
Life
Life - Wikipedia
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Consider the case of the Spanish conquistadors who essentially wiped out the Aztecs, their possessing horses while the Aztecs did not playing no small part in the extermination (never mind if the actual historical details are incorrect - it's a conceptual point).
The Spanish possessing horses, then -- a very advantageous "trait" to have in a particular context -- (partially) explains the success of the conquistadors. We have a perfectly good (partial) explanation for the dominance of the Spanish, just as color vs background is a perfectly good explanation for the dominance of dark moths over light moths in sooty Victorian England.
Do you feel that in addition to the above explanation, the Spanish victory is also explained by an overarching general theory of the type "Armies which possess traits advantageous to winning battles (relative to a given context) tend to prevail over rivals who lack these traits"? . . .
. . . or simply "Armies good at winning tend to win"?
If not, why not?
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yeah the idiot is on ignore now.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
One more thing. Proponents of both the God-did it-theory and the natural selection theory share the same habit of claiming credit for this, this, and the other invariably after the fact, as you're doing yourself above, with no offence intended. The God theorists are liable to point to the birds and the bees and say precisely the same thing you're saying: "God is awesome and necessary."
Call me skeptical if you will (a virtue of the scientific mind?), but I'd find this a lot more convincing if either one of you could tell me what's going to happen in advance rather than, time after time, claiming post hoc glory for your respective theories. Can natural selection theory predict anything that the God-did-it theory cannot? Can natural selection theory predict anything at all? This predictive impotence can scarcely be blamed on evolution being a thing of the past or a purely historical science, after all, it's supposed to be an ongoing process like continental drift or gravity, say. Even meteorologists can provide us with pretty accurate predictions these days.
Isn't predictive power perhaps the most prized desideratum of a good scientific theory? Do you know of any other major scientific theory that suffers from this debilitating predictive impotence?
Does none of this give the defenders of natural selection theory even the slightest pause; the faintest inkling that something is terribly wrong with the theory?
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Good. Perhaps some children who understand the basics of natural selection theory will enter the thread now, replacing adults like yourself who don't. Survival of the fittest!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
A God would be awesome , but is not necessary in the face of an alternate and simpler explanation that is just as awesome.
And I can tell you the alternate theory that uses a perfectly logical method of forming complexity from simple constituent parts and can be used to make flawless predictions when using the proper parameters..
I just cannot tell in this sub-forum.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Go ahead write4U, it is not as if every member have respected the thread title. You have been on topic, respectful and informative pretty much. Most of the other regulars have just got bored with pointless irrelevant pretentious digressions and left the building.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I've invited Cthulhu to sign up here.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Thanks Pinball,
There are already several threads that address the question. Of course I am talking about a Mathematical (Logical) Universe.
The single common denominator is that both theories are unfalsifiable.
But when we test the practical effectiveness of both "disciplines" the results are very different.
Let me put it this way.
If we ask a mathematical question (equation) and ask it correctly, this Logical universe will yield an answer. Cosmologists do it all the time.
OTOH, if we ask a personal question (prayer) and ask it in every language but mathematics, the Intelligent Creator God will remain silent.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
What makes the theory of natural selection unique among scientific theories is not that it is unfalsifiable -- all scientific theories are unfalsifiable! I'm afraid a great many scientists and their followers, including members here, have not "received the memo", as it were, continuing to propagate the myth (cf. propaganda) that falsifiability is what distinguishes good science from pseudoscience, metaphysics, religion, and so on. It has been known for fifty years or more that Karl Popper's philosophy of science -- the origin of the falsifiability demarcation criterion -- is hopelessly flawed.
(See my "The Stage Theory of Theories" thread, post #73, for a bit more).
Perhaps fifty years ago or so, if you'd asked members here what would falsify general relativity, for example, you'd likely have heard something like the following: "If galaxies are found to be behaving in a manner which is inconsistent with the predictions of GR, the theory will have been shown to be false."
Guess what? They did subsequently find galaxies behaving in a manner which is inconsistent with the predictions of GR, and you probably haven't heard too many announcements of GR having been falsified.
The above considerations can be expanded to all (typical) scientific theories. When observation appears to be at odds with the predictions of a theory, scientists are not compelled by logic to the conclusion that the theory is false. What typically happens under such circumstances -- as the history of science bears ample witness -- is that the scientists say "That's interesting" and proceed to find some way to reconcile the surprising new evidence with the theory. The new evidence is not regarded as falsifying evidence at all; it is simply absorbed.
No, it's not unfalsifiability that makes the theory of natural selection unique: it is its complete and utter vacuity.
Not to be too blunt, but you and everyone else here have been directed to the vacuity of natural selection theory. Not a single attempt at a defense has been mounted (with good reason!). Reactions have taken three forms:
(i) Complete failure to understand what is being said (Pinball and fellow boneheaded mafiosa)
(ii) "Axocanth, you are an idiot and a troll" (Not the most cogent display of ratiocination I've ever seen) followed by complete silence, and
(ii) Expressions of faith such as "Natural selection is awesome. Hallelujah!" (e.g. yourself)
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
For your consideration, here are two experts in the field, both of whose work I have read with admiration (unlike, say, Dawkins), for what that's worth . . .
"The theory of natural selection can describe and explain phenomena with considerable precision, but it cannot make reliable predictions, except through such trivial and meaningless circular statements as, for instance, "the fitter individuals will on the average leave more offspring." "
- Ernst Mayr, 1961, "Cause and Effect in Biology", contained in "Evolution and the Diversity of Life", p367
"I tend to agree with those who have viewed natural selection as a tautology rather than a true theory (see review by Peters, 1976). It is essentially a description of what has happened, with only weak powers of prediction, in that the kinds of individuals that are favored can often be recognized only in retrospect. The doctrine of natural selection states that the fittest succeed, but we define the fittest as those that succeed. This circularity in no way impugns the heuristic value of natural selection as a generation-by-generation description of evolutionary change"
- Steven M. Stanley, "Macroevolution: Pattern and Process", p192-193
Both these men are effectively conceding that natural selection theory is tautologous -- viciously and inescapably circular -- exactly as I've been saying. But they go on to say that it is nonetheless useful -- it has explanatory power even if devoid of predictive power. I regard this as a profound philosophical confusion indeed . . .
. . . unless, of course, someone can enlighten us as to what possible explanatory power a tautology such as "Dogs are dogs" or "All vixens are female foxes" can boast.
"Vixens are female foxes" might be invoked to explain the meaning of the word vixen, to a child or a foreigner perhaps. A gap in their knowledge of the English language has thus been filled. Meanwhile, they have learned precisely nothing new about how the world is. Tautologies -- by definition -- have no empirical content, therefore they cannot possibly increase our understanding of empirical matters (cf. science).
"The theory of natural selection can describe and explain phenomena with considerable precision, but it cannot make reliable predictions, except through such trivial and meaningless circular statements as, for instance, "the fitter individuals will on the average leave more offspring." "
- Ernst Mayr, 1961, "Cause and Effect in Biology", contained in "Evolution and the Diversity of Life", p367
"I tend to agree with those who have viewed natural selection as a tautology rather than a true theory (see review by Peters, 1976). It is essentially a description of what has happened, with only weak powers of prediction, in that the kinds of individuals that are favored can often be recognized only in retrospect. The doctrine of natural selection states that the fittest succeed, but we define the fittest as those that succeed. This circularity in no way impugns the heuristic value of natural selection as a generation-by-generation description of evolutionary change"
- Steven M. Stanley, "Macroevolution: Pattern and Process", p192-193
Both these men are effectively conceding that natural selection theory is tautologous -- viciously and inescapably circular -- exactly as I've been saying. But they go on to say that it is nonetheless useful -- it has explanatory power even if devoid of predictive power. I regard this as a profound philosophical confusion indeed . . .
. . . unless, of course, someone can enlighten us as to what possible explanatory power a tautology such as "Dogs are dogs" or "All vixens are female foxes" can boast.
"Vixens are female foxes" might be invoked to explain the meaning of the word vixen, to a child or a foreigner perhaps. A gap in their knowledge of the English language has thus been filled. Meanwhile, they have learned precisely nothing new about how the world is. Tautologies -- by definition -- have no empirical content, therefore they cannot possibly increase our understanding of empirical matters (cf. science).
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
re vid two posts above. A fine comedian! His philosophy of science leaves a bit to be desired though. Compare:
3:40: "Science is constantly proved all the time."
and
"The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions" - Albert Einstein
4:08: "I don't need faith to know that probably if I jump out of a window I smash to the ground . . . "
You don't need science to know this either. Presumably tribal warriors in New Guinea are perfectly aware of what happens when you jump out your treehouse.
" . . . because of this thing called gravity."
Er, do you have any idea how many theories of gravity there have been, and still are? I wonder which theory of gravity this fella has in mind. His account of events sounds distinctly Newtonian: he is being pulled to the ground by a force. Not too many physicists believe this any more. Einstein, of course, has a very different story to tell.
3:40: "Science is constantly proved all the time."
and
"The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions" - Albert Einstein
4:08: "I don't need faith to know that probably if I jump out of a window I smash to the ground . . . "
You don't need science to know this either. Presumably tribal warriors in New Guinea are perfectly aware of what happens when you jump out your treehouse.
" . . . because of this thing called gravity."
Er, do you have any idea how many theories of gravity there have been, and still are? I wonder which theory of gravity this fella has in mind. His account of events sounds distinctly Newtonian: he is being pulled to the ground by a force. Not too many physicists believe this any more. Einstein, of course, has a very different story to tell.