125 Million-Year old Dinosaur feathers remarkably similar to modern bird feathers

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Amazing, you got something right after me repeating it for what felt like the hundredth time.

Yes, the theory of evolution ONLY has to do with the natural processes of biology. In the case of evolution, evolution via natural selection. Being prepared for you to twist that in three... two... one...

Right, so then evolution assumes a natural process for things? And only studies what is natural? So then if things worked a different way, say through Intelligent Design, then it could not actually be studied since the natural is the only thing we can assume about things?

 

[Occams Barber]

If you could point out the problem with the theory of irreducible complexity, I'd like to hear it.

I already did - irreducible complexity has never been shown to exist.

If you understood evolution, you would realise that mutation/natural selection results in the modification of preexisting DNA/genes/structures. Life itself originally occurred through changes to existing, non-living, chemical structures.

OB

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Right, so then evolution assumes a natural process for things? And only studies what is natural? So then if things worked a different way, say through Intelligent Design, then it could not actually be studied since the natural is the only thing we can assume about things?

But you can't show that it assumes anything. You just saying it does not mean a damn thing unless you can back it up.

Yes, the theory of evolution could be overturned by intelligent design one day. Anything is possible. But until that day comes, all we have is the simple fact that science studies the natural world.

 

[dlamberth]

You can study the supernatural when it happens.

The supernatural can not be studied. Why?... one might ask. Because it's "supernatural". They are beyond the realm of what is considered natural.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I already did - irreducible complexity has never been shown to exist.

If you understood evolution, you would realise that mutation/natural selection results in the modification of preexisting DNA/genes/structures. Life itself originally occurred through changes to existing, non-living, chemical structures.

OB

Please describe irreducible complexity in your own words, thanks.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

But you can't show that it assumes anything.

I just did. It assumes evolution is a natural process.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I just did. It assumes evolution is a natural process.

No you didn't and no it doesn't. Evolution IS a natural process. It can't be an unnatural process.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

No you didn't and no it doesn't. Evolution IS a natural process. It can't be an unnatural process.

So do you think evolution is completely unguided (except by nature)?

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm already aware of this. ID is still alive.

ID is 'alive' as a social/religious apologetics movement (and a grift), not as a scientific idea.

Even in those circles, ID is barely hanging on. Google search analytics show search interest in the term 'intelligent design' peaked in November 2005. Searches for intelligent design are now just 1% of what they were then, despite the fact that global internet use has increased fivefold since then. Most of the websites, blogs and news mills dedicated to ID have died out. You might even say there was a natural selective process going on.

ID proponents aren't publishing scientific papers (well not anywhere other than in in-house journals and vanity press) and they're certainly not publishing peer reviewed papers. The Discovery Institute shut down its "research" division (the Biologic Institute) in 2021, although it was basically moribund from about 2017 onwards.

The Discovery Institute's house journal BIO-Complexity has a grand total of two research articles in it this year. One of which (hilariously) debunks itself in it's own results section.

The Discovery Institute is essentially reduced to publishing retreads of the same books it published 20-25 years ago, and angry news and blog posts from the same 30-40 culture warriors. The types who think the NWO is real, that Social Darwinism/racism is related to evolutionary biology (it's not, any more than phrenology is related to anatomy), that green policies are a conspiracy to redistribute wealth and that things would be better if the US was a theocracy.

If you look at the anti-ID website (like the Panda's Thumb or Sensuous Curmudgeon), they've not hand any real leg work to do in the last 12 months. I think the last thing they did of any note was 'A Mousetrap for Darwin' in 2020, which was Behe's attempt to come to terms with his PTSD from the Kitzmiller v Dover decision, and a lively debate with a Swedish statistician who published a paper claiming 'non physical information' is a thing in gentic inheritance, got some of the basics wrong when dealing with protien structures and admits to using a model that "assumes that all humans are descended from a first couple, Adam and Eve".

 

[Gene2memE]

At one point people believed that the sun revolved around the earth as well. That was the consensus view.

Was it an evidentially supported view?

The modern synthesis has masses of evidence to support it.

Right, so then evolution assumes a natural process for things? And only studies what is natural?

Scientific theories - by their nature - require an assumption of naturalism. Methodological naturalism (not philosophical naturalism). It's the same for gravity, nuclear physics, germ theory and plate tectonics.

If you throw methodological naturalism aside and accept supernatural claims, then any one supernatural claim is just as likely as the other (even the ones that are mutually contradictory). So, an Intelligent Designer is just as likely as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which keeps us on the ground by action of its blessed noodly appendages. Ramen.

So then if things worked a different way, say through Intelligent Design, then it could not actually be studied since the natural is the only thing we can assume about things?

You could start with the assumption of a designer and a design, and attempt to demonstrate that by studying the evidence available in the natural world.

That's basically what ID is though - a series of psuedoscientific arguments that presuppose design (and thus a designer) and then attempt to show it to be the case. Usually by torturing statistics to show that something or other in evolutionary biology is "impossible" (generally, by claiming that evolution can't produce new genetic information and/or gain of function, or that our understandings of evolution demonstrate a loss of information/function).

But, it's not science. It's the antithesis of science. It's conclusion first (and above all) and then forming the test and results to fit.

 

[Estrid]

Intelligent Design (ID) effectively passed away in 2005 with the Kitzmiller vs Dover court case. Its main support, the Discovery Institute, was financially moribund and now appears to have shifted focus to Trumpish 'stop the steal' propaganda and climate change denial. ID has never been anything more than thinly disguised Creationism.

From the court ruling:

The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring ID to be taught as an alternative theory.[3]​

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

​

OB​

" challenging the assumptions"
So much not - even -wrong in three words!

 

[Estrid]

Now who is twisting things? I have not said either of those things. I never said evolution was an assumption. I pointed to assumptions that evolution makes.

And your absolutely right that I cannot show you that intelligent design is science. That's true because I can't seem to be able to show you anything.

It's true because it's not science.
If you really- really don't know why,
you might want to to retire to your study for
a while. Come back better informed.

 

[Estrid]

If you could point out the problem with the theory of irreducible complexity, I'd like to hear it.

irreducible complexity is not a theory.

Do you understand why?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

irreducible complexity is not a theory.

Do you understand why?

Because it does not play nicely with the other theories?

 

[Occams Barber]

Please describe irreducible complexity in your own words, thanks.

Nope. I'm not playing your games.

If you really want to know what it means you have the resources of the entire internet in front of you. It should take less than 20 seconds including typing.

OB

 

[Estrid]

Because it does not play nicely with the other theories?

No. Could you please try to inform yourself
a bit better? You aren't ready to play here yet.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Nope. I'm not playing your games.

If you really want to know what it means you have the resources of the entire internet in front of you. It should take less than 20 seconds including typing.

OB

I was asking because I wanted to make sure you knew what is meant by the term. But if you no longer want to engage with me about this subject, that's fine.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

No. Could you please try to inform yourself
a bit better? You aren't ready to play here yet.

You are not my authority figure.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Was it an evidentially supported view?

Seemed to be for the time.

Scientific theories - by their nature - require an assumption of naturalism.

No, scientific theories require repeatability. That is all they require.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

ID is 'alive' as a social/religious apologetics movement (and a grift), not as a scientific idea.

Even in those circles, ID is barely hanging on. Google search analytics show search interest in the term 'intelligent design' peaked in November 2005. Searches for intelligent design are now just 1% of what they were then, despite the fact that global internet use has increased fivefold since then. Most of the websites, blogs and news mills dedicated to ID have died out. You might even say there was a natural selective process going on.

ID proponents aren't publishing scientific papers (well not anywhere other than in in-house journals and vanity press) and they're certainly not publishing peer reviewed papers. The Discovery Institute shut down its "research" division (the Biologic Institute) in 2021, although it was basically moribund from about 2017 onwards.

The Discovery Institute's house journal BIO-Complexity has a grand total of two research articles in it this year. One of which (hilariously) debunks itself in it's own results section.

The Discovery Institute is essentially reduced to publishing retreads of the same books it published 20-25 years ago, and angry news and blog posts from the same 30-40 culture warriors. The types who think the NWO is real, that Social Darwinism/racism is related to evolutionary biology (it's not, any more than phrenology is related to anatomy), that green policies are a conspiracy to redistribute wealth and that things would be better if the US was a theocracy.

If you look at the anti-ID website (like the Panda's Thumb or Sensuous Curmudgeon), they've not hand any real leg work to do in the last 12 months. I think the last thing they did of any note was 'A Mousetrap for Darwin' in 2020, which was Behe's attempt to come to terms with his PTSD from the Kitzmiller v Dover decision, and a lively debate with a Swedish statistician who published a paper claiming 'non physical information' is a thing in gentic inheritance, got some of the basics wrong when dealing with protien structures and admits to using a model that "assumes that all humans are descended from a first couple, Adam and Eve".

This does not cover a lot of the relevant information and it seems you have already given away your source.