Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[bhsmte]

His admission that astrology has not been accepted as science for a long time, is part of why his argument was blown out of the water, since he admitted, IF ID WAS CONSIDERED SCIENCE UNDER HIS DEFINITION, ASTROLOGY WOULD AS WELL.

Why wouldn't he answer; no, astrology would not be considered science under my definition of ID today, but it would have been hundreds of years ago? He didn't say that though, did he, which would seem pretty important.

Deal with reality. Once you get over the initial trauma, you will feel better.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There has been no evidence given to show that the evidence that life appears to be designed with purpose is only an illusion. If you have evidence of such present it.

Evidence for lack of design has been submitted in the past and will be submitted in the future. For example, consider the broken vitamin c gene present in primates. That is was inherited from a common ancestor is shown by the shared nature of the broken gene. The presence of this broken gene in humans as well as other primates shows that there was no separate design event by an omniscient designer when our species diverged from other the other primates.

Also as evidence for lack of a designer we submit the recurrent laryngeal nerve. This is present in every vertabrate; the nerve that goes from the brain to the larynx takes a detour down to the heart, loops around an artery, then back up to the larynx. An intelligent designer would not make such an route. This is especially ludicrous when we observe it happening in the giraffe.

Then we have the structure in our eyes, with the nerves and blood vessels that support the retina arranged in front of the light sensing cells, so that the light has to go through them to be detected. All terrestrial vertebrates share this odd feature, but the sea creatures such as the squid and the octopus have the nerves and blood vessels on the correct side of the retina, so this is proof that the eye can be made the more sensibly designed way.

Human beings have ear wiggling muscles. These muscles do nothing but move the ear, most people cannot even activate them. Having extra muscles that do nothing useful is not a result of intelligent design, but clearly a result of the evolutionary process.

There are other indications of flaws in our makeup that would seem to rule out a direct intelligent designer that doesn't use the evolutionary process.

I hope you will at least refrain from saying "no evidence against design is ever given" in the future.

 

[HitchSlap]

Deal with reality. Once you get over the initial trauma, you will feel better.

Your conversation with this poster reminds me of a conversation I had with someone about twenty-five years ago, in which he was trying to convince me that the word "secular" had religious connotations, and even after I pulled out a dictionary and read the definition to him, he told me I didn't understand the definition. His pride was so strong, he just couldn't admit when he was wrong.

I agree, reality is best accepted as is.

 

[bhsmte]

Your conversation with this poster reminds me of a conversation I had with someone about twenty-five years ago, in which he was trying to convince me that the word "secular" had religious connotations, and even after I pulled out a dictionary and read the definition to him, he told me I didn't understand the definition. His pride was so strong, he just couldn't admit when he was wrong.

I agree, reality is best accepted as is.

I have to admit, it is actually pretty interesting to watch this level of denial in action. Just shows how potent it can be, when needed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your conversation with this poster reminds me of a conversation I had with someone about twenty-five years ago, in which he was trying to convince me that the word "secular" had religious connotations, and even after I pulled out a dictionary and read the definition to him, he told me I didn't understand the definition. His pride was so strong, he just couldn't admit when he was wrong.

Does that remind you of anyone else you know?

 

[HitchSlap]

I have to admit, it is actually pretty interesting to watch this level of denial in action. Just shows how potent it can be, when needed.

Strong indeed. Textbook case right here.

 

[HitchSlap]

Does that remind you of anyone else you know?

Was that you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Also completely irrelevant to carrying out any radiometric dating.

Just really goes to show how much you actually understand of the physics. You just know words, but not how they relate to the physics involved.

All radiation is electromagnetic. An atom decays when it looses binding energy and is no longer able to hold onto protons, neutrons or electrons. It is the energy released in the process or the particles themselves.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/5680/Radioactive-Decay.html

http://science.jrank.org/pages/5636/Radiation.html

Only in Fairie Dust land where reality isn't real unless we are observing it - can electromagnetic processes be ignored. Only in Fairie Dust land where a cat in a box is neither alive nor dead until the box is opened can electromagnetic processes be ignored. I say test that theory. Put a cat in the box with poison, food and water for a year. If after a year we open the box and the cat is dead and stinking we will know the falsity of those theories. If on the other hand the cat is freshly dead or alive - then the theoretical ideas have merit. For the sake of science - are you willing to climb into the box if the poison has a fast acting antidote available - so that when the box is opened and reality for you begins again - we can keep you from dying if the atom decays?

Oh that's right, since you understand science it would skew the test. It is only cats that do not understand science that do not observe reality, so they can be used.

 

[AV1611VET]

Was that you?

Let's see you walk your talk:

Am I a YEC or Embedded Ager?

 

[HitchSlap]

Let's see you walk your talk:

Am I a YEC or Embedded Ager?

Who cares?

 

[crjmurray]

Just really goes to show how much you actually understand of the physics. You just know words, but not how they relate to the physics involved.

All radiation is electromagnetic. An atom decays when it looses binding energy and is no longer able to hold onto protons, neutrons or electrons. It is the energy released in the process or the particles themselves.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/5680/Radioactive-Decay.html

http://science.jrank.org/pages/5636/Radiation.html

Only in Fairie Dust land where reality isn't real unless we are observing it - can electromagnetic processes be ignored. Only in Fairie Dust land where a cat in a box is neither alive nor dead until the box is opened can electromagnetic processes be ignored. I say test that theory. Put a cat in the box with poison, food and water for a year. If after a year we open the box and the cat is dead and stinking we will know the falsity of those theories. If on the other hand the cat is freshly dead or alive - then the theoretical ideas have merit. For the sake of science - are you willing to climb into the box if the poison has a fast acting antidote available - so that when the box is opened and reality for you begins again - we can keep you from dying if the atom decays?

Oh that's right, since you understand science it would skew the test. It is only cats that do not understand science that do not observe reality, so they can be used.

"Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

I think it's you that is a little confused.

 

[RickG]

Are you denying that he said Astrology would be considered science in the past?

So was blood-letting and alchemy, that doesn't make them a science today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's see you walk your talk:

Am I a YEC or Embedded Ager?

I just want to see if you walk your talk.

If you do, there's only one answer available to you: Embedded Ager.

'Who cares,' doesn't cut it.

 

[AV1611VET]

So was blood-letting and alchemy, that doesn't make them a science today.

Were they at the time?

 

[HitchSlap]

I just want to see if you walk your talk.

If you do, there's only one answer available to you: Embedded Ager.

'Who cares,' doesn't cut it.

What are you even going on about?

 

[RickG]

Were they at the time?

That's what I said.

 

[Oncedeceived]

His admission that astrology has not been accepted as science for a long time, is part of why his argument was blown out of the water, since he admitted, IF ID WAS CONSIDERED SCIENCE UNDER HIS DEFINITION, ASTROLOGY WOULD AS WELL.

He said it would a theory just like ID or any other theory in the past, present or future.

Why wouldn't he answer; no, astrology would not be considered science under my definition of ID today, but it would have been hundreds of years ago? He didn't say that though, did he, which would seem pretty important.

He had just said that before. We need to wait for the answer from Behe. I am done and will now get back to the original issue of appearance of Design.

Deal with reality. Once you get over the initial trauma, you will feel better.

No trauma, why would there be trauma? You are so strange.

Seriously, I am not

 

[Oncedeceived]

So was blood-letting and alchemy, that doesn't make them a science today.

Right which is what Behe said, theories like astrology are no longer considered correct.

 

[The Cadet]

Was Behe scientifically proven incorrect in his premise in your estimation?

Worse - he was proven not even wrong, which is considerably worse for a scientist. It was shown that his hypothesis was fundamentally unfalsifiable and untestable, and led to no increase in knowledge. How do you test whether something could not possibly have evolved? How do you test whether an intelligent entity (whose existence we have not established yet) designed it? Behe could provide no legitimate falsification criteria.

He was also proven wrong, to whatever reasonable degree was possible. In every case thus far, when ID proponents have proposed a system as irreducibly complex, biologists have found intermediate steps, showing quite clearly that irreducible complexity is no barrier to a system having evolved.

I guess that depends on how you look at it. Explain what you mean by "got his ass handed to him"?

He admitted in public that he was using an "expanded" definition of science, and the judge ruled firmly that intelligent design was simply creationism in a lab coat, and not science. This mirrors what you'll find in societies like the NAS or NCSE, in universities, and in the peer-reviewed literature.

Yet the there are approximately 30 unique proteins found in the Bacterial flagellum, so what of what you said above?
Real scientists are those that are trained in their area of expertise. Michael Behe is a real scientist. You may disagree with his views but he has written many many peer reviewed papers throughout his career.
"Real scientists" have shown a possible pathway, but these are speculative and have no way of being confirmed. This leaves both camps in the same predicament.

Not really.

You can essentially build the flagellum part by part. This video is based on a model published in 2003 - before the Dover trial. The fact that this pathway is hypothetically possible destroys the argument that the flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it obviously isn't, you can build it piece by piece, each step giving an advantage to the organism. What's more, out of the 42 proteins involved in the flagellum, 40 have been found to have clear homologues. That's a pretty sure-fire sign that something is up. Now, whether that actually happened just like that is another story, but at that point we're not in the realm of "could it have evolved", we're in the realm of "did it evolve". And given that no other mechanism beyond evolution is known, and given that this particular model of flagellum evolution makes numerous predictions, of which so far none have been refuted and several have been confirmed, it makes a very good case for the evolution of the flagellum.

Let's see, are you denying that systems and molecular machines are not specifically functional for certain purposes in life forms?

What do you mean by "purpose"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The evidence for a designer is that the thing in question appearing as if it were designed...wouldn't that be rather reasonable?

If one claims to know who the designer is, they'ld better be able to support that claim to knowledge somehow....

But lacking that, evidence for design would be a good start.
So far, the only thing you seem to have is that it "looks" designed.

Many things "look" like things they aren't.
If "looks" count as evidence these days..... then my girlfriend is Hayden Panettiere, because she "looks" like her.

Your argument rather becomes illogical when one puts those instruments that are purely and physically identifiable as being natural due to the laws of chemistry.

Arguments become illogical when they are supported by evidence? When they are made to match to the evidence?

That's news to me.

You conclude it seems to me that due to these life forms having a makeup of atoms, molecules and the like can not be designed as we know those things are inanimate but we know that a chair has a chemical makeup and it is designed. Millions of things come under this inanimate makeup that are designed.

No, that has nothing to do with it.
It's rather a conclusion based on understanding how chemistry works, how atoms and molecules interact.

And when it comes to evolutionary biology, it's a conclusion based on understanding how hereditary changes accumulate over generations, filtered by the natural phenomena of natural selection - and how a combination of those two things will make an organism fit his environment like a glove, automatically and inevitably.

You... you claim that organisms are designed for 2 reasons only:
- you already believe that (by faith), as it is a dogmatic tenent of your religion
- you point to organisms fitting their environment well and conclude that "they must have been made for that environment", completely ignoring the fact that we actually know and understand why they look that way. You know... the part you keep on ignoring.

Which actually means that superficially, they might "appear" designed for their niche. But upon closer inspection, it is seen that no - they aren't. They are rather "molded" to fit their niche through the very real and very demonstrable process of natural selection.

If life forms are designed by an intelligent agent they should appear as if they were designed.

Then why don't they?
As previously mentioned, upon closer inspection it is clearly seen that they aren't designed at all. They are rather "molded" by a natural process overtime, through incremental small changes over generations.

Design predicts that if life forms were designed they should appear that they were and that purpose and planning were used.

Okay.
So far, you have shown that superficially, life has an appearance of design.

Let's ignore that on closer inspection, this falls apart. You ignore it anyway, so why bother... Let's just go ahead and assume that biology as a scientific field hasn't been discovered yet.

Now.... all you still have is "it looks designed". Just like my girlfriend "looks like Hayden".

But now, you have added 2 additional parameters here.... "purpose and planning".

Okay....
Please share your evidence that supports "purpose and planning".

That is what we find in life forms. Science tested this and found it to be true.

How did science test for "purpose and planning"?