If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

[Caphi]

Whether the observation is direct enough for you is irrelevant. The claim of direct observation is being made to IDists or others who are less knowledgeable than you about the circumstanial evidence backing up the evolutionists' position that the mutation was created by an accident that occurred during the replicating process rather than intentionally. The use of the phrase, "directly observed," is clearly intended to say to those less informed people that "we scientists have watched the process so carefully while in such immediate contact that we were able to determine that the change occurred by pure accident rather than on purpose." That statement is a lie.

Do you trust that the fine men and women at whatever company made your computer know how it works? How come? Sure, THEY can tell you that this chip does this and that that slot is for this kind of device, but after all, you're less informed than them, right? How would you possibly trust all that shaky circumstantial evidence? I mean, sure, they could take a thermometer and tell you that the doohickey over here is ten degrees too warm, but isn't that crap too indirect for you?

Another example of a Creationist who neatly applies his argument to precisely the bits of science which rub him the wrong way while cheerfully sparing the parts that suit him.

 

[SamCJ]

Do you trust that the fine men and women at whatever company made your computer know how it works? How come? Sure, THEY can tell you that this chip does this and that that slot is for this kind of device, but after all, you're less informed than them, right? How would you possibly trust all that shaky circumstantial evidence? I mean, sure, they could take a thermometer and tell you that the doohickey over here is ten degrees too warm, but isn't that crap too indirect for you?

Another example of a Creationist who neatly applies his argument to precisely the bits of science which rub him the wrong way while cheerfully sparing the parts that suit him.

You seem to have deliberately ignored the point. You are addressing the "Who's correct" issue. Wrong issue.

 

[birdan]

What you claim not to know, remember, is that the dictionary definition of "directly observe" a mutation being made in the act would not include merely comparing a later genome with an earlier one. Despite the superior intelligence of scientists, they do not have license from the common man to manipulate the plain meaning of words, after the fact, in order to avoid the appellation of "liar." The phrase of mine that you quoted and denied also challenged you to justify your justification for the use of the term "directly observe" based upon the dictionary, and you made no effort to meet the challenge. In fact, some of your prior messages in this thread clearly concede that direct observation of a beneficial mutation is impossible. In view of these things, your present claim not to know that Loudmouth's persistent effort to defend the lie of "direct observation" is crap is also crap.

Whether the observation is direct enough for you is irrelevant. The claim of direct observation is being made to IDists or others who are less knowledgeable than you about the circumstanial evidence backing up the evolutionists' position that the mutation was created by an accident that occurred during the replicating process rather than intentionally. The use of the phrase, "directly observed," is clearly intended to say to those less informed people that "we scientists have watched the process so carefully while in such immediate contact that we were able to determine that the change occurred by pure accident rather than on purpose." That statement is a lie.

I haven't been able to locate the article yet, but I've recently read that some researchers were able to directly observe RNA moving along the DNA during replication, and were able to ascertain it moved one base at a time, not 3 at a time as some had thought.

You seem to be saying that observing actual atomic bonding is the only thing that constitutes direct observation. Most reasonable people would consider comparison of a gamete's genome to the parent genome as direct. Your argument seems silly. If I observe a car going down the street, I'm not actually observing the car, but rather I'm registering photons reflected from the car surface on my retina and then processing this information to internally construct the image of a car. By your narrow definition, direct observation can be argued to be impossible.

If, as you say, only observation on the atomic level constitutes direct observation to rule out intentional vs. random mutation, please describe for me what differences you would expect to see, on the atomic level, of an intentional vs. a random mutation. How would your narrow definition of direct observation differ in any substantive way from the more generally accepted usage? You say "we scientists have watched the process so carefully while in such immediate contact that we were able to determine that the change occurred by pure accident rather than on purpose." What would the observational difference be?

 

[WAB]

A lot of arguments used against the theory of evolution boils down to this: You cannot observe it directly, so you can't use it as evidence.

In another thread, it was argued that mutations do not exist, since they have not been observed directly.

So, heres the point of the OP:

How valid is the following claim:
"Since mutations cannot be observed directly, they do not exist."

And of course that must include your opinion!

 

[Tomk80]

And of course that must include your opinion!

Is this post supposed to tell us something?

 

[SamCJ]

But there is an inherent dishonesty in your position, in that even 'direct observation' of the mutation would not exclude an intelligence. Given the observation on mutations that we have, they are just as directly observed as h-o-h2o.


But even direct observation won't address the issue, so what's the point?

You seem to have deliberately ignored the point. You are addressing the "Who's correct" issue. Wrong issue.

And here you demonstrate why your car analogy doesn't work. Even if we would directly observe a mutation happening, we could not exclude an intelligence.

You can't even develop a reasonable argument to support this assumption. But since it cannot be done, we do not need to argue about what it could or could not show. Whether or not the observation can exclude intentional conduct depends on what it shows and, since you have never done, you cannot know what it would show.

So we directly observed a radiation wave hitting a certain spot in the genome, causing the mutation, what does this tell us?

You would probably need the observation to show some evidence of the source of the radiation, I agree.


Observation might provide the answer. Until you have done the observation, you cannot reliably predict what the observation will show. The envolutionsts claim of direct observation certainly infers that that their direct observation provided the answer.

Logic is going to address it, in the sense that we can, from our observations, determine the causes of mutations. These observations are just as direct as the observations of h-o-h2o, so if you have no problem calling that observation direct observation (and I would hold that it is direct observation), there is no reason why we should call our observations of mutations anything different. We can derive from the mechanisms of mutation, that these are going to be stochastically randomly distributed across the genome.

You need to spend more time with the dictionary. You are refering to "indirect" observations, aka circumstantial evidence.

Counting is going to address it in another, also direct, way. If we count how many times an effect of a mutation occurs, we can compare it to how many times we would expect it to occur if the effect would be random. Experiments like these have been performed and have been presented to you. They further confirm that the distribution of mutations is random.

This is circumstantial evidence. These indirect observations address the wrong issue. I am turning blue in the face telling you atheists that I believe that circumstantial evidence is pretty strong. Your continual repetition of the strength of circumstantial evidence does not convert it to eye witness evidence. Get onto point of my message or do not bother replying to it. If you want to again complain that my message does not address the OP, fine. As I said, I agree.

 

[Tomk80]

You seem to have deliberately ignored the point. You are addressing the "Who's correct" issue. Wrong issue.

Not quite. What you continuously imply in many of your posts is that we cannot state that mutations occur randomly and then imply that 'direct observation' as described by you would solve that issue. It won't.

You can't even develop a reasonable argument to support this assumption. But since it cannot be done, we do not need to argue about what it could or could not show. Whether or not the observation can exclude intentional conduct depends on what it shows and, since you have never done, you cannot know what it would show.

Of course I can develop a reasonable argument to support my assumption. If I can observe a radiation wave hitting a particular base and causing a base substitution there, I cannot tell whether that radiation wave was aimed particularly at that base or that it just started at a point and hit that base by chance.

You would probably need the observation to show some evidence of the source of the radiation, I agree.

But even that doesn't address the issue. We no the source of radiation in quite a few experiments on mutations, since we are the ones producing it on purpose. But we cannot determine where the radiation is going to cause a base substitution, our equipment can't handle that kind of pinpointing (now). But maybe some 'God' or something guided the radiation wave to hit a certain base by some unknown mechanism, how could we exclude that? We can't.

Observation might provide the answer. Until you have done the observation, you cannot reliably predict what the observation will show. The envolutionsts claim of direct observation certainly infers that that their direct observation provided the answer.

We increase the radiation aimed at a cell --> mutations in the cell increase. Conclusion, radiation causes mutations. How is this not direct?

You need to spend more time with the dictionary. You are refering to "indirect" observations, aka circumstantial evidence.

Nope, I'm not. The observations are as direct as h-o-h2o. Do you denote those observations as direct?

This is circumstantial evidence. These indirect observations address the wrong issue. I am turning blue in the face telling you atheists that I believe that circumstantial evidence is pretty strong. Your continual repetition of the strength of circumstantial evidence does not convert it to eye witness evidence. Get onto point of my message or do not bother replying to it. If you want to again complain that my message does not address the OP, fine. As I said, I agree.

We observe the effects of mutations, and by counting establish that they are random. How is this not as direct as h-o-h20.

I think the main question remains, and I've asked that one several times but still received no answer.

Is there any scientific observation that you would call 'direct'?

 

[SamCJ]

Not quite. What you continuously imply in many of your posts is that we cannot state that mutations occur randomly and then imply that 'direct observation' as described by you would solve that issue. It won't.

You cannot know "It won't" because you have never seen it. Direct observation was very helpful in addressing the "accident vs intentional" issue in the car on ice and the animal bitten by T-rex examples previously discussed.

Of course I can develop a reasonable argument to support my assumption. If I can observe a radiation wave hitting a particular base and causing a base substitution there, I cannot tell whether that radiation wave was aimed particularly at that base or that it just started at a point and hit that base by chance.


But even that doesn't address the issue. We no the source of radiation in quite a few experiments on mutations, since we are the ones producing it on purpose. But we cannot determine where the radiation is going to cause a base substitution, our equipment can't handle that kind of pinpointing (now). But maybe some 'God' or something guided the radiation wave to hit a certain base by some unknown mechanism, how could we exclude that? We can't.

Certainly, you can't from the limitations on your observation, so, hopefully, you will not be implying that your observation did address that issue.

We increase the radiation aimed at a cell --> mutations in the cell increase. Conclusion, radiation causes mutations. How is this not direct?.

IMO, it is adequate to say you intentionally caused a mutation, but not adequate to say that you intentionally cause the mutation of a particular gene.

Nope, I'm not. The observations are as direct as h-o-h2o. Do you denote those observations as direct?

They are not "direct" if you are addressing the "accident vs intentional" issue because the observation provides no relevant information on that issue.

We observe the effects of mutations, and by counting establish that they are random. How is this not as direct as h-o-h20.

ditto

I think the main question remains, and I've asked that one several times but still received no answer.

Is there any scientific observation that you would call 'direct'?

I assume and I have no reason to doubt that biologists observe genes in a position that is different from the gene in the same position as the gene of the parent. That observation does not address the "accident vs intentional" issue. Telling an IDist or Creationist that atheists have "directly observed" random beneficial mutations, is meant to deceive those people into believing that the observation was in such immediate contact with the mutating event that scientists saw something that excludes any reasonable possibility that the change was intentionally caused.

 

[Tomk80]

You cannot know "It won't" because you have never seen it. Direct observation was very helpful in addressing the "accident vs intentional" issue in the car on ice and the animal bitten by T-rex examples previously discussed.

Certainly, you can't from the limitations on your observation, so, hopefully, you will not be implying that your observation did address that issue.

So how do you propose to address that issue? I have given my arguments as to why the 'intentional vs accident' issue cannot be addressed by direct observation. If you still hold that it can, explain to me how.

IMO, it is adequate to say you intentionally caused a mutation, but not adequate to say that you intentionally cause the mutation of a particular gene.

Uh, duh??? We have another result of the observations though. If there is an 'intelligence that determined which gene mutated, the scientists were not that intelligence. The only experiment they set up is to let a cell come into contact with radiation. They cannot determine where it strikes. So we have at least excluded the scientists as an intelligent cause of the specific mutations.

They are not "direct" if you are addressing the "accident vs intentional" issue because the observation provides no relevant information on that issue.

ditto

But no direct observation is going to address that issue, and you know it.

I assume and I have no reason to doubt that biologists observe genes in a position that is different from the gene in the same position as the gene of the parent. That observation does not address the "accident vs intentional" issue. Telling an IDist or Creationist that atheists have "directly observed" random beneficial mutations, is meant to deceive those people into believing that the observation was in such immediate contact with the mutating event that scientists saw something that excludes any reasonable possibility that the change was intentionally caused.

But again, no direct observation is going to address that issue, and you know it. I have also proposed several ways to address that issue, using indirect observation. Those experiments have been done, and have shown that mutation is a random event.

So how do you suppose to address you issue? What kind of observation would be adequate to you?

 

[SamCJ]

So how do you propose to address that issue?

I don't propose that you do it by direct observation, because I believe, and at time I have thought you believed, that direct observation is presently impossible.

But no direct observation is going to address that issue, and you know it.

But again, no direct observation is going to address that issue, and you know it. I have also proposed several ways to address that issue, using indirect observation. Those experiments have been done, and have shown that mutation is a random event.

At times, you seem to be defending Loudmouth's position that "direct observation" in the context of the accidental vs intentional issue has occurred. I agree that direct observations that we are presently capable of making do not address the accidental vs intentional issue. Therefore, evolutionists should not be saying "we have directly observed mutations" when arguing with IDists because it clearly implies something that is not true; namely, that we scientists have seen things during the making the mutated gene which excludes any possible intelligent cause.

I do not say you should stop arguing with IDists based on your circumstantial evidence. Just stop claiming to IDists that you have been eye witnesses to the chemical reaction which gives you superior knowledge about accident vs intelligence as the cause. As you now seem to admit, whatever you have been able to eye witness, does not address the pertinent issue.

 

[SamCJ]

I haven't been able to locate the article yet, but I've recently read that some researchers were able to directly observe RNA moving along the DNA during replication, and were able to ascertain it moved one base at a time, not 3 at a time as some had thought.

You seem to be saying that observing actual atomic bonding is the only thing that constitutes direct observation. Most reasonable people would consider comparison of a gamete's genome to the parent genome as direct. Your argument seems silly. If I observe a car going down the street, I'm not actually observing the car, but rather I'm registering photons reflected from the car surface on my retina and then processing this information to internally construct the image of a car. By your narrow definition, direct observation can be argued to be impossible.

If, as you say, only observation on the atomic level constitutes direct observation to rule out intentional vs. random mutation, please describe for me what differences you would expect to see, on the atomic level, of an intentional vs. a random mutation. How would your narrow definition of direct observation differ in any substantive way from the more generally accepted usage? You say "we scientists have watched the process so carefully while in such immediate contact that we were able to determine that the change occurred by pure accident rather than on purpose." What would the observational difference be?

Did you see my discussion of the car accident and the prehistoric animal bitten by a T-rex? I do not know enough about mutation to know what the eye witness evidence might show, and apparently the biologists don't either.

 

[Tomk80]

I don't propose that you do it by direct observation, because I believe, and at time I have thought you believed, that direct observation is presently impossible.

What I want you to answer, is whether direct observation would address the issue, even if it were possible. I have given clear reasons as to why it wouldn't. I will again state that the issue you are making here is essentially a red herring, since even direct observation would not address the issue you want addressed. Now, could you please address that once? Just be honest and admit that direct observation would not address the issue you want to have addressed. I know it wouldn't and I know you know it. Just be honest and admit that or propose how direct observation would address the issue.

At times, you seem to be defending Loudmouth's position that "direct observation" in the context of the accidental vs intentional issue has occurred. I agree that direct observations that we are presently capable of making do not address the accidental vs intentional issue. Therefore, evolutionists should not be saying "we have directly observed mutations" when arguing with IDists because it clearly implies something that is not true; namely, that we scientists have seen things during the making the mutated gene which excludes any possible intelligent cause.

But nobody is saying that, and from the articles I have read, even ID-ists in the debate do not disagree that the statement 'we have directly observed mutations happening' is incorrect. From the ID articles I have read, professional ID-ists would agree that putting cells under influence of a radiation source and then observing mutations increase, constitutes a direct observation of mutations. If you know of an ID-ist that disagrees with that, feel free to provide sources.

I do not even know of a professional ID-ist that would claim that the above described experiment does not constitute a direct observation of random mutations. Again, if you know of a professional ID-ist that disagrees with this, feel free to provide sources.

The central claims of ID are generally not that mutations do not occur randomly, and not even that randomly occurring mutations cannot provide a benefit. What the ID position generally entails is that certain molecular structures are too complex to have occurred through random mutations. That is an inherently different position. Again, if you have any indication that the situation I described above does not apply, feel free to provide sources and citations of professional ID-ists that disagree with the above.

I do not say you should stop arguing with IDists based on your circumstantial evidence. Just stop claiming to IDists that you have been eye witnesses to the chemical reaction which gives you superior knowledge about accident vs intelligence as the cause. As you now seem to admit, whatever you have been able to eye witness, does not address the pertinent issue.

What I am claiming, and what you even agreed to, is that we have directly seen mutations happen. You stated:
'IMO, it is adequate to say you intentionally caused a mutation, but not adequate to say that you intentionally cause the mutation of a particular gene.'

In other words, we have directly observed mutations. If we have directly observed that we caused a mutation, and we subsequently show that that mutation happened in a certain gene, we have in fact directly observed mutation in that particular gene.

We have directly observed it in the same way we observe h-o-h2o, and I know of no professional ID-ist that would not claim we haven't ever directly observed that happening. Again, feel free to provide sources if you have professional ID-ists arguing differently.

 

[SamCJ]

What I want you to answer, is whether direct observation would address the issue, even if it were possible. I have given clear reasons as to why it wouldn't. I will again state that the issue you are making here is essentially a red herring, since even direct observation would not address the issue you want addressed. Now, could you please address that once? Just be honest and admit that direct observation would not address the issue you want to have addressed. I know it wouldn't and I know you know it. Just be honest and admit that or propose how direct observation would address the issue..

Evolutionists are the ones who clearly implied that their direct observations precluded an intelligent cause. How would I know how direct observation could address that issue since I have never had such a direct observation? You now seem to be arguing that the evolutintionists claim of such a direct observation could not address that issue. You seem to think that makes their statement to the contary true. I think it makes their statement to the contrary a lie.

But nobody is saying that, and from the articles I have read, even ID-ists in the debate do not disagree that the statement 'we have directly observed mutations happening' is incorrect. From the ID articles I have read, professional ID-ists would agree that putting cells under influence of a radiation source and then observing mutations increase, constitutes a direct observation of mutations. If you know of an ID-ist that disagrees with that, feel free to provide sources..

BVZ's OP, declaring that IDists and Creationists lie, cited their alleged statement that a random beneficial mutation has never been directly observed as a lie. BVZ was essentially saying that in the context of the accidental vs intentional debate, the direct observation provided information that addressed the issue. You now say that even a direct observation cannot address the issue. This is a direct contradiction of BVZ's patent implication.

I do not even know of a professional ID-ist that would claim that the above described experiment does not constitute a direct observation of random mutations. Again, if you know of a professional ID-ist that disagrees with this, feel free to provide sources..

Your alleged understanding of ID, seems self contradictory to me. Intelligent design cannot happen by accident. If you can find a professional ID advocate who says ID can happen by accident, provide your source. Why should I look up sources to contradict your obvious misunderstanding and your unsupported statement?

The central claims of ID are generally not that mutations do not occur randomly, and not even that randomly occurring mutations cannot provide a benefit. .

Please cite your source for their admissions on these subjects. I do not believe your description of the central claims.

What the ID position generally entails is that certain molecular structures are too complex to have occurred through random mutations..

Not just "certain molecular strutures" but all such structures because even the simplest is irreducibly so complex as to be stochastically impossible.

That is an inherently different position. Again, if you have any indication that the situation I described above does not apply, feel free to provide sources and citations of professional ID-ists that disagree with the above..

The burden is on you to support the obviously inane position you say IDists hold.

What I am claiming, and what you even agreed to, is that we have directly seen mutations happen. You stated:
'IMO, it is adequate to say you intentionally caused a mutation, but not adequate to say that you intentionally cause the mutation of a particular gene.'.

This quote leaves out the meaning of the word "it" as I used the word. The mutations you described and that I admitted could partially be said to have been directly observed were INTENTIONALLY caused NONBENEFICIAL mutations. For you to try to convert that to an admission by me that RANDOM BENEFICIAL mutations have been directly observed is clearly outrageous. One of the factors that make direct observation so difficult is the rarity of the event happening randomly. If you are required to watch 99,999,999 good replications to see 1 bad one that happens in the blink of an eye, you are not likely to see it. Seeing it is virtually impossible. Knowing that the mutation would be BENEFICIAL adds to the difficulty because the observation would likely kill the organism, or so I have been told by atheists evolutionists.

In other words, we have directly observed mutations. If we have directly observed that we caused a mutation, and we subsequently show that that mutation happened in a certain gene, we have in fact directly observed mutation in that particular gene. .

Wrong, but it does not matter because there is little issue about INTENTIONALLY CAUSED NONBENEFICIAL mutations.

We have directly observed it in the same way we observe h-o-h2o, and I know of no professional ID-ist that would not claim we haven't ever directly observed that happening. Again, feel free to provide sources if you have professional ID-ists arguing differently.

I think I see now. You are claiming professional IDists admit that scientists have directly observed INTENTIONALLY CAUSED NONBENEFICIAL mutations. BFD. Such observations are irrelevant to the issue of whether a BENEFICIAL mutation was caused BY ACCIDENT or on purpose. I do not know anyone who as argued that man does not have the ability to create harmful mutations. I believe man is progressing toward the possibility of creating beneficial mutations. That is a far cry from admitting that man happened by accident. I do not deny that man happened by accident. I simply do not know. And if argument on the subject is to be enlightening, the arguments must not be untrue, and not be deliberately misleading as the claim of "direct observation" is in the context of this debate. You must agree since you claim that it is impossible for direct observation to address the "accidental vs intentional" issue.

 

[Caphi]

Evolutionists are the ones who clearly implied that their direct observations precluded an intelligent cause. How would I know how direct observation could address that issue since I have never had such a direct observation? You now seem to be arguing that the evolutintionists claim of such a direct observation could not address that issue. You seem to think that makes their statement to the contary true. I think it makes their statement to the contrary a lie.

I wouldn't use the word "preclude." It's always possible, after all, that a mysterious, invisible, intangible entity which does not interact with the Universe in any way and has for itself only pathetically weak circumstantial evidence created the Universe and has not shown up in it since. I do not say that this is impossible, or necessarily false. I merely say that from my current position, the possibility of such a thing is vanishingly small by the principle of parsimony. Okay?

 

[Tomk80]

Evolutionists are the ones who clearly implied that their direct observations precluded an intelligent cause. How would I know how direct observation could address that issue since I have never had such a direct observation? You now seem to be arguing that the evolutintionists claim of such a direct observation could not address that issue. You seem to think that makes their statement to the contary true. I think it makes their statement to the contrary a lie.

No, I am saying that the insistence of you on what you call 'direct observation' does not address the issue and I want you to stop dancing around that.

BVZ's OP, declaring that IDists and Creationists lie, cited their alleged statement that a random beneficial mutation has never been directly observed as a lie. BVZ was essentially saying that in the context of the accidental vs intentional debate, the direct observation provided information that addressed the issue. You now say that even a direct observation cannot address the issue. This is a direct contradiction of BVZ's patent implication.

What you consider 'direct observation' would not address the issue.

However, if I did the experiment I described above (radiate bacteria and see it mutate), that would count as direct observation to me. If some of the mutations caused are beneficial, beneficial effects caused by a random event have been observed, since I could not determine the site of mutation and it is thus random.

Your alleged understanding of ID, seems self contradictory to me. Intelligent design cannot happen by accident. If you can find a professional ID advocate who says ID can happen by accident, provide your source. Why should I look up sources to contradict your obvious misunderstanding and your unsupported statement?

Please cite your source for their admissions on these subjects. I do not believe your description of the central claims.

Not just "certain molecular strutures" but all such structures because even the simplest is irreducibly so complex as to be stochastically impossible.

The burden is on you to support the obviously inane position you say IDists hold.

I never stated that ID-ists claim that ID can happen by accident. But neither is it the ID-ists claim to say that all molecular structures and mechanisms are irreducibly complex. Behe admitted that some structures can be reducible complex to a certain point. He maintains, however, that the core of the system is irreducible complex.

I'm looking for the articles at present, but couldn't find them so quickly. Basically, at least to me, the ID-ists point seems to be that some beneficial effects might result from random mutations, but that those effects are not irreducible complex. Furthermore, the argument is that irreducible complexity points to design.

This quote leaves out the meaning of the word "it" as I used the word. The mutations you described and that I admitted could partially be said to have been directly observed were INTENTIONALLY caused NONBENEFICIAL mutations. For you to try to convert that to an admission by me that RANDOM BENEFICIAL mutations have been directly observed is clearly outrageous. One of the factors that make direct observation so difficult is the rarity of the event happening randomly. If you are required to watch 99,999,999 good replications to see 1 bad one that happens in the blink of an eye, you are not likely to see it. Seeing it is virtually impossible. Knowing that the mutation would be BENEFICIAL adds to the difficulty because the observation would likely kill the organism, or so I have been told by atheists evolutionists.

Wrong, but it does not matter because there is little issue about INTENTIONALLY CAUSED NONBENEFICIAL mutations.

Where did you or I specify the nature of the mutations in the experiment I described? I certainly didn't, and you never gave such an indication. Are you going to pull some bait and switch here, claiming that only detrimental mutations can be caused randomly? So if I have an experiment where I radiate a number of cells, and they mutate (randomly to me at least, since I can't control the location of the mutation) that the detrimental mutations are random, but the beneficial ones have some kind of intelligence behind it? Is that the position you maintain?

I think I see now. You are claiming professional IDists admit that scientists have directly observed INTENTIONALLY CAUSED NONBENEFICIAL mutations. BFD. Such observations are irrelevant to the issue of whether a BENEFICIAL mutation was caused BY ACCIDENT or on purpose. I do not know anyone who as argued that man does not have the ability to create harmful mutations. I believe man is progressing toward the possibility of creating beneficial mutations. That is a far cry from admitting that man happened by accident. I do not deny that man happened by accident. I simply do not know. And if argument on the subject is to be enlightening, the arguments must not be untrue, and not be deliberately misleading as the claim of "direct observation" is in the context of this debate. You must agree since you claim that it is impossible for direct observation to address the "accidental vs intentional" issue.

So you claim that, if we do an experiment like I described, and we get a beneficial mutation, an intelligence might have been behind it. But, if we have a detrimental mutation, the conclusion that the mutation was random is okydoky?

 

[SamCJ]

I wouldn't use the word "preclude." It's always possible, after all, that a mysterious, invisible, intangible entity which does not interact with the Universe in any way and has for itself only pathetically weak circumstantial evidence created the Universe and has not shown up in it since. I do not say that this is impossible, or necessarily false. I merely say that from my current position, the possibility of such a thing is vanishingly small by the principle of parsimony. Okay?

That's fine. I think you exaggerate the weakness of the circumstantial evidence of a creator. EG, there is a cause for everyting in nature, and that it strong evidence of a cause for the universe, a possibility that has not vanished into nothingness. But your point is reasonably arguable. However, your announcement of your birthday is evidence to me that you do not really believe your life is as pointless as some rock on the moon, a view that would be compelled by the alleged fact that mankind is a purposeless accident.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Evolutionists are the ones who clearly implied that their direct observations precluded an intelligent cause.

Nonsense. Who are you claiming made such a claim? Science has nothing to say one way or another about the existence or non-existence of a metaphysical entity so the idea that “The Evolutionists” claim anything “Precludes an intelligent cause” is pure fantasy.

Ghost

 

[Tomk80]

Nonsense. Who are you claiming made such a claim? Science has nothing to say one way or another about the existence or non-existence of a metaphysical entity so the idea that “The Evolutionists” claim anything “Precludes an intelligent cause” is pure fantasy.

Ghost

The argument may have been made by some of the more ardent atheists on this board, although most wouldn't make this argument either. After all, something may seem random to us, but how can we know it really is?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

The argument may have been made by some of the more ardent atheists on this board, although most wouldn't make this argument either.

Precisely. Sam implies it is a standard argument of evolution, of course we know its not. Only ardent atheistic willing to accept an albescence of evidence (for a designer) as absence of evidence would make the claim.

After all, something may seem random to us, but how can we know it really is?

That is a very good point, we can’t. We can only draw our conclusion on that point as we see fir. This is why I always argue that agnosticism is the best position from a point of intellectual purity and neutrality. Of course I’m not an agnostic, demonstrating that I can’t live up to my own standards.

Ghost

 

[Caphi]

That's fine. I think you exaggerate the weakness of the circumstantial evidence of a creator.

Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony) states that all things being equal, the likelier theory is one which fits all the evidence while postulating the fewest unevidenced entities. We can both fit all the evidence, but you require one more entity to make yours work, an entity which not only has zip to go for itself with regards to evidence but runs the gamut from "doubtful" to "logically impossible" depending on how you define it.

EG, there is a cause for everyting in nature, and that it strong evidence of a cause for the universe, a possibility that has not vanished into nothingness.

If there is a cause for everything in nature, then do you plan to suggest an infinite regression of causes. The First Cause argument is n years old, you know. I'm surprised that you need stoop to such tired tactics.

But your point is reasonably arguable. However, your announcement of your birthday is evidence to me that you do not really believe your life is as pointless as some rock on the moon, a view that would be compelled by the alleged fact that mankind is a purposeless accident.

The announcement of my birthday is an automatic feature of the forum. That you read into it so is an act either of desperation or of ignorance. I suspect the latter, and if that is the case, it won't look to badly on you.

Nevertheless, I do not consider my life as pointless as a rock. Indeed, I should imagine that YOU would dislike your life, seeing as you have a paradise waiting for you beyond it, according to your beliefs, yes? While religious men hope for paradise beyond this life, people like me believe that paradise is something that we must create, right here, for our descendents. This is the point of my life - that I should help other lives, my peers, my inferiors, and the generations to come.