What Lies Beneath

[Resha Caner]

I pointed out a number of references to peer-reviewed literature on the subject. What specifically didn't you understand?

I don't remember specific citations, but only general comments. I must have missed it, so I'll go back and look.

[edit]: Are you talking about the reference at the bottom of post #51? I saw some discussion of mechanisms for genome change, but I didn't see a criteria for species descent. Did I miss something?

References to publications you've authored? Patents?

I have 5 patents with 3 more pending. I've published 6 technical papers in peer-reviewed literature along with roughly a dozen confidential internal papers. I use a screen name and I would prefer not to use citations that would show my legal name. If you want to assume I'm lying, that's a call you have to make.

Hey look, poisoning the well.

In a sense it was. I don't know Paradoxum's specific interest, so it was a challenge on my part. OK, if you're actually interested I'll discuss it with you.

If you're going convince us to hold evolution to this level of scrutiny, you should walk the walk in the things you do claim to believe. If you really don't apply this level of skepticism to your beliefs, it speaks much louder than any hypothetical objection you can bring up to evolution or whatever it is we're supposed to question.

I'm at a loss as to why you continue to misunderstand. This is not a hypothetical objection to evolution. This was not supposed to be a discussion on whether evolution is true. Once again, I was asking for a discussion on the philosophical differences underlying different views of the origin of life.

I thought this ability was a given in your hypothetical. Are you changing your mind?

This was a statement the hypothetical new species makes to you. Yes, the ability to generate a new species is part of the scenario - I gave specific details on that. So reply with how that demonstration would go.

But how about I just conceed my scenario is not helping to facilitate the discussion.

 

[Resha Caner]

Did you read my reply where I spelled it out? I even cited a creationist organization that does exactly what I am describing.

The philosophy of science is to remove as much human bias as possible by relying on empirical evidence instead of human wishes. That is exactly the opposite of creationist philosophy where empirical evidence is thrown out if it contradicts the worldview of the creationist:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

If a scientist came out and said, "I will reject any evidence that contradicts my conclusion," would you say that they are following the philosophy of science?

I understand your point, and no the quote does not follow scientific method. In my conversation with Davian I acknowledged that the term "creationist" carries a lot of baggage that doesn't represent my position - we jokingly tossed around some new descriptors I could use for myself.

At the same time, I'll be honest that there are some things I'm going to dig in on. You will never convince me that God doesn't exist, and you will never convince me that science can even address the question.

But let me be clear about 3 things I have repeated many times in this thread:

1) Evolution doesn't fall into that "you'll never convince me" category.

2) Call my standards too high if you wish, but at this point I still think those standards are commensurate with the claims made, and they haven't been met (Though I need to go back and check the citations KC made).

3) This thread is not about whether evolution is true.

 

[Resha Caner]

The philosophical difference sure looks epistemological.

You may be right about that, so please elaborate.

 

[Resha Caner]

This is by far your best idea for this thread. I would strongly encourage you to flesh this out a bit.

What evidence should this species be looking for to test the idea that it evolved? How could we use genetics, comparative anatomy, and fossils to test whether or not this species evolved? Would this creative process necessarily produce evidence that is indistinguishable from the process of evolution?

This made me laugh. Others seem to think it's a pretty crappy idea. But the questions you ask are exactly the ones I was looking to answer.

The null hypothesis is not really an alternative hypothesis.

I understand your example, but I think this is different. If we defined a criteria for "descent of species", that still wouldn't address the guided/ungudied challenge. All it would address is whether or not descent occurred. Unless you're saying that the criteria for the "descent of species" contains a subcriteria specifying that is is unguided. If so, I'll need someone to tell me what that criteria is.

How would you define "guided" so that it is testable with respect to a comparison of two genomes?

Well, I wasn't the one who raised that issue. Davian did. Have you ever read Dembski's book (The Design Inference)? I have. My reaction was: This is pretty cool and a very persuasive argument, but it's not going to work as a testable hypothesis. It's excellent groundwork, but it needs more.

So I looked for more, and didn't find it. I tried to find solutions myself, and never came up with anything. So, at the moment I don't have an answer for you ... which, admittedly, is part of my skepticism. If no one can tell me how a guided process would be identified, then I think we're saying science will never be able to recognize an intelligence - a complexity - greater than our own.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand your example, but I think this is different. If we defined a criteria for "descent of species", that still wouldn't address the guided/ungudied challenge. All it would address is whether or not descent occurred. Unless you're saying that the criteria for the "descent of species" contains a subcriteria specifying that is is unguided. If so, I'll need someone to tell me what that criteria is.

It is really a question of descent of species through which mechanisms. Two hypotheses that are easily checked are vertical vs. horizontal inheritance. A good real life example is the Glofish:

GloFish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are fish that carry an exact copy of a jellyfish gene that causes them to fluoresce in UV light. This gene falsifies the type of vertical inheritance that evolution predicts. If this glofish has an exact copy of the jellyfish gene then all fish in that lineage should have nearly the same exact copy, but they don't. This can only be explained by horizontal inheritance.

We can then ask a second question. Was this horizontal transfer guided? As it turns out, it was. It was guided by humans. In fact, everywhere we look we see that human designs are based on horizontal transfer of design units. This is really the hallmark of intelligent design. No intelligent designer would limit themselves to vertical inheritance, and no intelligent designer we know of does limit themselves in such a way. This is why the nested hierarchy is such a powerful piece of evidence. It simply should not be there if evolution did not happen, and yet there it is.

Well, I wasn't the one who raised that issue. Davian did. Have you ever read Dembski's book (The Design Inference)? I have. My reaction was: This is pretty cool and a very persuasive argument, but it's not going to work as a testable hypothesis. It's excellent groundwork, but it needs more.

Dembski makes a very simple, and ultimately fatal, mistake. He ignores all of the losers. It is nothing more than an elaborate Sharptshooter fallacy:

Texas sharpshooter fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If no one can tell me how a guided process would be identified, then I think we're saying science will never be able to recognize an intelligence - a complexity - greater than our own.

If they can not be indentified then how can people claim that we were designed?

More to the point, evolution is detectable and would produce a very specific pattern of shared and derived features which is a nested hierarchy. We observe that pattern everywhere in biology. So the real question is why would a guided process exactly mimic evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

At the same time, I'll be honest that there are some things I'm going to dig in on. You will never convince me that God doesn't exist, and you will never convince me that science can even address the question.

I will agree that a belief in God is not a question of evidence, but a question of faith. This is not so with the history of biology, however. We have evidence to look at where that is concerned.

2) Call my standards too high if you wish, but at this point I still think those standards are commensurate with the claims made, and they haven't been met (Though I need to go back and check the citations KC made).

How has the evidence for ID met those same standards?

 

[Resha Caner]

If they can not be indentified then how can people claim that we were designed?

That is the dilemma, isn't it? It's nice that you see it. When someone asks for evidence of such a thing, what am I to do if said evidence begs a criteria we can't meet?

The only solution would be that the designer would tell us what he has done. The question then becomes whether we believe the designer.

More to the point, evolution is detectable and would produce a very specific pattern of shared and derived features which is a nested hierarchy. We observe that pattern everywhere in biology. So the real question is why would a guided process exactly mimic evolution?

This is one of the points I was trying to raise earlier. You assume these features mean evolution even though that is an inductive conclusion ... IOW an extrapolation or a generalization. You don't have demonstrable evidence of this happening for every case.

So, is there a reason to think an intelligent designer wouldn't design this way? If I understand this correctly, the nested hierarchy you refer to would be something like: all bats are mammals, all mammals are vertebrates, etc.

Why would a designer create a bat that wasn't a mammal? Or, the better question is, if we found a bat-like creature without mammalian traits, would we call it a bat or would we put it in a different category?

How has the evidence for ID met those same standards?

I don't think it has. As I said, I liked Dembski's idea, but didn't see how it would make for a testable hypothesis.

I've further said I think the only solution is for the creator to tell the created. The created then accepts or rejects that based on trust. I don't see how an evidential approach would ever work.

- - -

P.S. I'm going to be away from home for a week and I don't know if I'll have Internet access. So, I'm signing out. We can pick this up when I get back.

But, my conclusion at this point is that this is the key difference in philosophies. In a way the points about purpose, guided vs. unguided and Emsworth's epistemological point all roll up into this.

 

[Paradoxum]

It seems this would be a lengthy discussion, and I was trying to avoid a digression. If you're really interested you should start with this video and later we could have a thread on "what is time".

Brian Cox - Do You Know What Time It Is? - YouTube

BBC worldwide is block in Britain. Also I can't be bothered with watching the whole thing when it could probably be explain alot quicker.

You keep raising this charge that I'm not taking science seriously. I disagree. I have a career's worth of experience with science. Evolution is not the only theory I've questioned. I could point you to other threads where my challenges were answered and I acknowledged it.

Shouldn't that show that your concern is generally misplaced?

Before I gave you the example of the 'voice box' nerve. You just waved it away saying design is subjective. A good designer (or any designer) wouldn't create a creature like that.

You may care about science more than most people, but I don't think that excludes bias against it, or bias in favour of something else that disregards the evidence. Science was my best subject at school, but I rejected evolution for about a week because I read a book by a Christian saying it was false. I identified as Christian so I accepted that those doubts must be legitimate. I was lucky enough to still be able to see the evidence when a friend showed me it, and to recognize that science has a stronger foundation than some Christians who likely have bias based on fallible interpretation of a holy book.

To some extent it is about trust, but that trust isn't just opinion. Who you can trust is based on evidence and reason.

It is. In what way does that exclude evidence, reason, and experience? You assume much about how I must read the Bible that isn't true.

Because acceptance of the Bible isn't a basic belief, or at least it shouldn't be for people who care about the truth. You should accept the Bible as true because you have some evidence or reason to choose that book over 'The Cat in the Hat'.

I'm just saying that things like evidence and reason are prior to things like acceptance of the Bible.

This would be another long conversation. How honest are you in being interested? Past experience indicates most people aren't really that interested. KC will jump in here and tell you to prepare for a lot of dissembling and hand waving. If you're really interested, we can start that conversation somewhere outside this thread.

I'm surprised, if you think I'm going to hell, that you seem to be quite against giving me a reason to believe.

I'm interested in what reason you will give, rather than interested because I think it will cause me to believe. As I lost faith I tried to figure out what type of evidence or reason would justify belief. So it's just interesting what people claim as their justifiable foundation for belief.

For the "evidence for evolution" piece, are you saying we have specific evidence for every species in existence? If not, are you saying that if we lack evidence specific to a species, it is possible that species didn't evolve? If no, and you just generally assume all species have evolved - whether specific evidence exists or not, then our new species should be able to make that same assumption here.

It is possible that a species we have no evidence for might not have evolved. Everything is possible. But without reason against evolution it makes sense to assume that all animals evolved. Just like we know that trees grow from seed, so it makes sense to assume that a tree we have never seen before probably grew from a seed. It didn't magically appear.

I'm still not sure what the situation is you are thinking of.

For the "history" piece, our first recorded instance of someone mentioning the idea of one animal coming from another was Anaximander in the 6th century B.C. The idea could go back further, but we don't know. Why? Because beyond that date the historical record starts to get kind of sketchy. So, I'm not sure a sketchy historical record applies here as evidence that they didn't exist earlier. Further, this new species might claim they evolved from humans, in which case their historical record would be ours.

But we do have good history now. Unless they think they were some random tribe in the middle of no where, we would have known about them and written about them.

It also depends what we changed. If we fixed the nerve example I keep giving, that change would seem to be something unlikely to be evolved. I could be wrong.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. What does it gain you if I accept (for the sake of argument) that they could assume they were evolved?

 

[Loudmouth]

That is the dilemma, isn't it? It's nice that you see it. When someone asks for evidence of such a thing, what am I to do if said evidence begs a criteria we can't meet?

I have already shown what a basic indication of design would be. This would be the horizontal sharing of design units. What we would not expect to see from a design perspective is a nested hierarchy.

The only solution would be that the designer would tell us what he has done.

Except we don't have that. We have myths written by men, and they can't even be used to describe the evidence found in biology. There is nothing in any religious text I am aware of that explains why we see a nested hierarchy when comparing genomes, fossils, and living organisms.

This is one of the points I was trying to raise earlier. You assume these features mean evolution even though that is an inductive conclusion ... IOW an extrapolation or a generalization. You don't have demonstrable evidence of this happening for every case.

It is no different than finding forensic evidence at a crime scene where there were no witnesses. If we find fingerprints, DNA, fibers, shoe prints, tire prints, etc. all connecting the suspect to a crime scene can we just ignore all of it by saying that a supernatural deity designed it that way to make it look like the suspect was there? This is exactly what you are doing here. A nested hierarchy is the fingerprint of evolution. We OBSERVE evolution producing this pattern in living populations. It runs contrary to every single design concept that we understand. The only reason that a designer would create life so that it fell into a nested hierarchy is to fool us into thinking that life evolved. That is the only reason.

So, is there a reason to think an intelligent designer wouldn't design this way?

If I understand this correctly, the nested hierarchy you refer to would be something like: all bats are mammals, all mammals are vertebrates, etc.

Why would a designer create a bat that wasn't a mammal? Or, the better question is, if we found a bat-like creature without mammalian traits, would we call it a bat or would we put it in a different category?

If life were designed we wouldn't be able to create these groups with any objectivity. For example, the mammalian middle ear has three bones while every bird has a single bone in their middle ear. Why? Why couldn't a designer create a species with feathers and three middle ear bones? Why couldn't a designer create a species with fur and flow through lungs? Why couldn't a designer create a vertebrate fish with a forward facing retina like those found in squid who live in the very same environments?

Why do we see these consistent relationships between features that have nothing to do with one another? Design can not explain this. Evolution does. This is EXACTLY what we would expect to see if evolution occurred in the past.

I've further said I think the only solution is for the creator to tell the created.

All we have are stories written by men.

But, my conclusion at this point is that this is the key difference in philosophies. In a way the points about purpose, guided vs. unguided and Emsworth's epistemological point all roll up into this.

It is really about creationists starting with the conclusion that life just has to be designed no matter what the evidence shows. Even if the evidence is completely consistent with other mechanisms it will still be claimed that it was designed anyway. Like I said, creationists start with the conclusion.

 

[Davian]

...
It seems you're leaning on a technicality here. While what you say is true, it implies that you think you have no responsibility when the issue of falsification arises.

Were you to self-assess the theory you support, it would be you proposing the falsification test, and therefore you would define the alternative.

I do not support the theory of evolution; there are many here far more qualified than I to do so. I *accept* the theory as a scientific explanation for the diversity of biology on this planet.

But OK. You're not going to define what "guided" means.

I do not see how I could do so without quickly inviting 'strawman' type criticisms.

Feel free to do so yourself.

My experiences.

Earlier in this thread you asked, what do you trust?

I do not implicitly trust my own or others' experiences. Our senses can be deceived, intuitively and sometimes intellectually, by optical and auditory illusions, and our thinking can be subject to things such as priming.

With a nod to the works of philosophers Metzinger and Dennett, I do not even trust my experience of 'self'.

"Experiences" are inherently unreliable. Why would you use unreliable methods to build your worldview?

 

[KCfromNC]

That is the dilemma, isn't it? It's nice that you see it. When someone asks for evidence of such a thing, what am I to do if said evidence begs a criteria we can't meet?

Toss out the unscientific creator god idea and wait for creationists to come up with something that's actually science.

The only solution would be that the designer would tell us what he has done.

This is false. We identify design in all sorts of things without the designer being around.

You assume these features mean evolution even though that is an inductive conclusion

It's either an assumption or a conclusion. It can't be both. Which did you mean?

And even though you think that "inductive conclusion" is some sort of weakness, it's really the best we can do back here in reality. The efficacy of the Polio vaccine is "just" an inductive conclusion, and yet look at what it has accomplished.

So, is there a reason to think an intelligent designer wouldn't design this way?

Technically, there's no reason to think anything about a creator god at all.

So what evidence do you have for this creator god in the first place? Here you were telling me that all your objections would be based on real, non-hypothetical evidence, and then you're tossing out magical creator gods as possible alternatives. I don't know if you even believe what you're telling us anymore - which is evidence of the creationist approach others have pointed out : pick a conclusion and twist reality to fit.

I've further said I think the only solution is for the creator to tell the created.

Why? That's not a problem in any other field.

The created then accepts or rejects that based on trust. I don't see how an evidential approach would ever work.

More evidence that creationists' objection to evolution aren't scientific in the least. It seems like you're objecting because science is ignoring the non-scientific works of creationists because they're not science. I'm not sure why you'd view that as a weakness of science rather than of the creationists in question.

 

[super animator]

I do not implicitly trust my own or others' experiences. Our senses can be deceived, intuitively and sometimes intellectually, by optical and auditory illusions, and our thinking can be subject to things such as priming.

With a nod to the works of philosophers Metzinger and Dennett, I do not even trust my experience of 'self'.

So why trust anything you see/hear/taste/etc, if anything could be one intelligent labyrinth illusion?

 

[bhsmte]

So why trust anything you see/hear/taste/etc, if anything could be one intelligent labyrinth illusion?

Interesting topic and Dennett is one smart dude, who knows his stuff and makes a boatload of sense.

Our personal cognitions can be very dicey and are heavily influenced by our personal psychological needs. Non-believers will tend to gravitate towards the evidence of no God and see it a certain way and believers will gravitate towards what ever they claim to evidence of God and disregard everything else.

With that said, this is why science is the great equalizer, as it has specific criteria to eliminate this bias. It is also true, that analytical thinkers tend to think more objectively (and likely less prone to as many bias cognitions). If a person has enough internal motivation, their mind will convince them of just about anything.

 

[Davian]

So why trust anything you see/hear/taste/etc, if anything could be one intelligent labyrinth illusion?

The usual, illusion of not. Observe, hypothesize, test, falsify, repeat. Trust others that do the same. Be wary of those that don't.