|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
The failure of Natural Selection - 5/15/2008 12:54:04 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7783
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
Was motivated to start this thread because of a recent interview of Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a visiting professor at Harvard, MIT, the University of Bologna and the College de France in Paris, who studied physics and cognitive sciences I read.
The interview concerns a book he and Jerry Fodor are writing on evolution without adaptation. In criticizing this critical aspect of Neo-Darwinism, he makes points that myself and other IDists have been making for years, for example:
“Insects had evolved at least ten elaborate forms of mouthpieces, uniquely adapted (one would say) to their feeding upon flowers, one hundred million years before there were any flowers on Earth.”
And notes that:
… when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?
Both points emphasizing the fact that many attributes exist that precede any ability for selective processes to have acted on them.
He also mirrors the ID (and in all fairness, the creationist) claim that evolution as it stands is quite limited to explain anything except very minor changes in a population:
Of course, there is natural selection all around us (just think of the flu virus, mutating and adapting every year, to our detriment) and inside us (just think of our antibodies and our synapses and the pancreas cells and the epithelial cells). The point is, however, that organisms can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is NOT the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated.
For that, major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks have to occur. All this is perfectly naturalistic and now well documented. Minor changes in the order of activation of master genes can create vast discontinuous morphogenetic changes. Very similar (in the jargon orthologous) genes in insects and in vertebrates produce an inversion in the development of the nervous system.
In essence, in insects the system is ventral, in vertebrates it’s dorsal. Two opposite gradients of morphogenetic factors (one the mirror image of the other) produce this difference. Huge difference to the eye, but minor in its origin early in the development of the embryo.
And he promotes the idea of a ‘universal genome, an idea I have detailed previously:
Suzan Mazur: Have you seen any convincing new illustrations and evolutionary models?
Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini: The idea of a universal genome, a’ la Sherman, is the most interesting I have seen recently. Not a single key, but an important key.
And the kicker? He can’t stand the notion of ID, so he can’t be called a sympathizer:
I think that abandoning Darwinism (or explicitly relegating it where it belongs, in the refinement and tuning of existing forms) sounds anti-scientific. They fear that the tenants of intelligent design and the creationists (people I hate as much as they do) will rejoice and quote them as being on their side. They really fear that, so they are prudent, some in good faith, some for calculated fear of being cast out of the scientific community.
It’s interesting that here he also affirms here the current fascistic nature of the scientific community, affirming Stein’s Expelled thesis.
All in all, while he and Fodor appear to be no friends of ID, it good to see that inch by inch Neo-Darwinism is falling by the wayside as the failed theory that IDists and creationists have long been saying it is.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/15/2008 1:34:26 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
… when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?
I know from rueful experience the problems of physicists treading into biology. From what I can tell, sea urchins do not have inexpressed genes for eyes, they have expressed genes "for sensory proteins that are involved in vision and hearing in man." "Some of the visual sensory proteins are located to an appendage known as the tube foot, and likely function in sensory processes there."
Similarly, the urchin seems to have a fully active immune system. The open question is why it has 10 times as many genes for it than humans do.
quote:
"The aquatic environment, especially the sea bottom, is just filled with bacteria," said Courtney Smith, a biologist at the George Washington University and co-author of the study, suggesting the need for an innate defence system to fight invisible predators along with the pointed spines to fend off large ones.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/15/2008 1:39:27 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Was motivated to start this thread because of a recent interview of Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a visiting professor at Harvard, MIT, the University of Bologna and the College de France in Paris, who studied physics and cognitive sciences I read.
I think the title of your thread (and the proposed title of Fodor's book) are misleading. I don't think we are dealing with a failure of natural selection so much as an increasing recognition that it is not the full story. But why would we ever have supposed it was?
I note that Fodor stresses "selections" and I think he is probably right. It is a matter of sorting out the variety of selectional factors, not of writing off natural selection. It is a matter of seeing natural selection, not as the whole picture, but as one element of a picture that is far larger than we previously realized.
quote:
And notes that:
… when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?
Both points emphasizing the fact that many attributes exist that precede any ability for selective processes to have acted on them.
Well, of course, it is the nature of an attribute that it must exist before it can be the object of a selective process.
As an aside, are you only opposed to neo-Darwinism as a model of evolution, or are you opposed to evolution per se? I have no problem with seeing neo-Darwinism in need of revision. It was a helpful model for its time, but after all, it was proposed before we had any notion of the structure of DNA, before we could actually identify specific genes and study their operation, before we knew anything about HOX genes and other regulatory processes, before any serious results were forthcoming from evo-devo. It would not be surprising at all that a synthesis formed in the absence of this flood of information would be inadequate to account for it.
We do need a new synthesis that brings all this stuff together. And that, not the "failure" of natural selection, is what Fodor et al seem to be aiming for. I expect you will be disappointed if you expect any new synthesis to include ID though.
quote:
For that, major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks have to occur. All this is perfectly naturalistic and now well documented. Minor changes in the order of activation of master genes can create vast discontinuous morphogenetic changes. Very similar (in the jargon orthologous) genes in insects and in vertebrates produce an inversion in the development of the nervous system.
In essence, in insects the system is ventral, in vertebrates it’s dorsal. Two opposite gradients of morphogenetic factors (one the mirror image of the other) produce this difference. Huge difference to the eye, but minor in its origin early in the development of the embryo.
Gould said the same thing as I recall. The question of course becomes, how does this minor change in the early development of the embryo arise if not by genetic mutation? And how is it preserved, if not through selection?
quote:
They fear that the tenants of intelligent design and the creationists (people I hate as much as they do) will rejoice and quote them as being on their side.
Prophetic, no? Isn't that exactly what you are doing--quoting him as being on "your side"?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/15/2008 2:01:14 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7783
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think the title of your thread (and the proposed title of Fodor's book) are misleading. I don't think we are dealing with a failure of natural selection so much as an increasing recognition that it is not the full story. But why would we ever have supposed it was?
I note that Fodor stresses "selections" and I think he is probably right. It is a matter of sorting out the variety of selectional factors, not of writing off natural selection. It is a matter of seeing natural selection, not as the whole picture, but as one element of a picture that is far larger than we previously realized.
It’s not that it is not just ‘the full story’, it’s that it (natural selection) doesn’t do what Darwin and Neo-Darwinians claim it does. It is relegated to a little after the fact optimization device. Evolutionary theory as we have known it is essentially eviscerated.
quote:
Well, of course, it is the nature of an attribute that it must exist before it can be the object of a selective process.
Numerous specific mouth parts for specific plants 100 million years before those plants existed? That demolishes the notion of gradualism and natural selection.
quote:
As an aside, are you only opposed to neo-Darwinism as a model of evolution, or are you opposed to evolution per se? I have no problem with seeing neo-Darwinism in need of revision. It was a helpful model for its time, but after all, it was proposed before we had any notion of the structure of DNA, before we could actually identify specific genes and study their operation, before we knew anything about HOX genes and other regulatory processes, before any serious results were forthcoming from evo-devo. It would not be surprising at all that a synthesis formed in the absence of this flood of information would be inadequate to account for it.
I will go with you so far as to say that part of the problem here is language. The role of variation and mutation has been completely changed from the original perception of Darwin and Neo-Darwinians, and now the role of natural selection can be all but dismissed. What is left is nothing like the original notion of evolution, so perhaps it’s time to get a terms– Natural Initial Design Optimization? Systematic Bio-Engineering? ID perhaps?
quote:
We do need a new synthesis that brings all this stuff together. And that, not the "failure" of natural selection, is what Fodor et al seem to be aiming for. I expect you will be disappointed if you expect any new synthesis to include ID though
Oh, I have already become resigned to the fact that science is going to continue to borrow basic premises from ID without giving credit to them; which is fine, as long as we can keep steering them in the right direction.
quote:
Gould said the same thing as I recall. The question of course becomes, how does this minor change in the early development of the embryo arise if not by genetic mutation? And how is it preserved, if not through selection?
Well, if there exists as Sherman suggests a 'universal genome', then the information may already be there – just add peripherals.
quote:
Prophetic, no? Isn't that exactly what you are doing--quoting him as being on "your side"?
I specifically said “he and Fodor appear to be no friends of ID” – the fact that he mentions ID would seem to be tacit acknowledgement, at the very least, that the ideas he is proffering don't hurt ID.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/15/2008 2:04:26 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7783
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I know from rueful experience the problems of physicists treading into biology. From what I can tell, sea urchins do not have inexpressed genes for eyes, they have expressed genes "for sensory proteins that are involved in vision and hearing in man." "Some of the visual sensory proteins are located to an appendage known as the tube foot, and likely function in sensory processes there."
They are the same genes as humans have, and appear to be in every way anticipatory of later capabilities. But the sea urchin is just one of numerous examples of such anticipatory genes and capabilities, all casting into doubt notions of natural selection.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/15/2008 2:21:28 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
They are the same genes as humans have, and appear to be in every way anticipatory of later capabilities. But the sea urchin is just one of numerous examples of such anticipatory genes and capabilities, all casting into doubt notions of natural selection.
How is it anticipatory, if the sea urchin is already using it? The urchin doesn't have dormant eyes, waiting to be woken up. It has genes for structures for which it has a use.
Our many times removed cousins have just followed a different path with the same starting material. Descent with modification has repurposed those genes to provide a different manner of sensation in us and our closer relatives.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/15/2008 2:25:03 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7783
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
How is it anticipatory, if the sea urchin is already using it? The urchin doesn't have dormant eyes, waiting to be woken up. It has genes for structures for which it has a use.
Our many times removed cousins have just followed a different path with the same starting material. Descent with modification has repurposed those genes to provide a different manner of sensation in us and our closer relatives.
Well, if I write a piece of code, and it functions as a word processor, and when I run it on a different machine it also happens to be capable of running large scale climate simulation scenarios, I would say that is pretty anticipatory.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/15/2008 2:57:08 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
It’s not that it is not just ‘the full story’, it’s that it (natural selection) doesn’t do what Darwin and Neo-Darwinians claim it does. It is relegated to a little after the fact optimization device. Evolutionary theory as we have known it is essentially eviscerated.
So you agree that natural selection does have a role, you just want to constrain it severely. We can quibble about how much it needs to be constrained. But what about Fodor's other selections? Is evolutionary theory eviscerated or enriched by considering additional mechanisms of selection?
What is it that you think Darwin claimed for natural selection? What is it you think neo-Darwinists claim?
quote:
quote:
Well, of course, it is the nature of an attribute that it must exist before it can be the object of a selective process.
Numerous specific mouth parts for specific plants 100 million years before those plants existed? That demolishes the notion of gradualism and natural selection.
Does it? Or does it mean we have been wrong in focusing on the insect instead of on the flower? Maybe it was the flowers adapting to the mouthpieces of insects rather than vice versa?
quote:
I will go with you so far as to say that part of the problem here is language. The role of variation and mutation has been completely changed from the original perception of Darwin and Neo-Darwinians, and now the role of natural selection can be all but dismissed. What is left is nothing like the original notion of evolution, so perhaps it’s time to get a terms– Natural Initial Design Optimization? Systematic Bio-Engineering? ID perhaps?
The body of knowledge we work with is added to and changes what we thought we were seeing. I find it helps to take a historical view and realize how far we have come. Darwin had no knowledge at all of anything other than variation. He was virtually working blind. He knew nothing of genes, he knew nothing of mutations, he didn't even have a sensible model of inheritance. Yet he comes up with this brilliant theory of natural selection based primarily on the observation of morphological variations in complex plants and animals.
With this, he practically invents the science of biology, which until then had no basic principles to work with. It was mostly a case-by-case study of specific organisms, their anatomy, behaviour and place in the taxonomic system, which itself had no agreed theoretic basis. I remember high-school biology sans evolution as incredibly boring.
Evolution turned biological factoids into clues to a history worth exploring. We have a lot more clues than natural selection now and the story is entering into a lot of plot complications. It's exciting.
quote:
Oh, I have already become resigned to the fact that science is going to continue to borrow basic premises from ID without giving credit to them; which is fine, as long as we can keep steering them in the right direction.
And what direction would that be?
quote:
quote:
Gould said the same thing as I recall. The question of course becomes, how does this minor change in the early development of the embryo arise if not by genetic mutation? And how is it preserved, if not through selection?
Well, if there exists as Sherman suggests a 'universal genome', then the information may already be there – just add peripherals.
And then you will be asking about the origin of the universal genome. btw, I notice Fodor likes Chomsky and doesn't like Pinker, but Pinker and his allies seem to be taking over from Chomsky. If language does have its roots in evolution, that takes away the Chomskyian support for Fodor.
I've always been interested in languages and linguistics, long before I became engaged by the evolution controversy, so I am really fascinated by these developments. Chomsky is a genius, of course, by I have never understood his opposition to the notion that hard-wired grammar might have an evolutionary basis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/15/2008 3:05:34 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, if I write a piece of code, and it functions as a word processor, and when I run it on a different machine it also happens to be capable of running large scale climate simulation scenarios, I would say that is pretty anticipatory.
That would be impressive. How about a piece of code that functions as a light absorbing rhodopsin on one machine's foot, that when run on another machine, functions as a light absorbing rhodopsin in its eye?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/15/2008 3:27:15 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7783
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
So you agree that natural selection does have a role, you just want to constrain it severely. We can quibble about how much it needs to be constrained. But what about Fodor's other selections? Is evolutionary theory eviscerated or enriched by considering additional mechanisms of selection?
Which specific mechanisms are you referring to here?
quote:
What is it that you think Darwin claimed for natural selection? What is it you think neo-Darwinists claim?
Well, I think in general Darwin saw variation (the result ofmutation in Neo-Darwinism) as the engine of change, and natural selection as the arbiter of which changes get propagated in a population. The claim is that over time these processes (or variations on them) are sufficient to account for all organisms that now, or have ever existed.
quote:
Does it? Or does it mean we have been wrong in focusing on the insect instead of on the flower? Maybe it was the flowers adapting to the mouthpieces of insects rather than vice versa?
Well flowering plants, when they did appear, seem to have arisen in another of many of life’s ‘explosions’. If what you say is true, it rather turns previous evolutionary predictions on their head.
quote:
The body of knowledge we work with is added to and changes what we thought we were seeing. I find it helps to take a historical view and realize how far we have come. Darwin had no knowledge at all of anything other than variation. He was virtually working blind. He knew nothing of genes, he knew nothing of mutations, he didn't even have a sensible model of inheritance. Yet he comes up with this brilliant theory of natural selection based primarily on the observation of morphological variations in complex plants and animals.
With this, he practically invents the science of biology, which until then had no basic principles to work with. It was mostly a case-by-case study of specific organisms, their anatomy, behaviour and place in the taxonomic system, which itself had no agreed theoretic basis. I remember high-school biology sans evolution as incredibly boring.
Evolution turned biological factoids into clues to a history worth exploring. We have a lot more clues than natural selection now and the story is entering into a lot of plot complications. It's exciting.
While I certainly find biology exciting (which explains why I studied it in college) I don’t really think evolution has been as useful as many claim, indeed, I think it has led us down many rabbit trails. Many of the original cases that were thought to be typical of Darwinian change have since proved to be the product of significantly different mechanisms. I think the best thing to happen to biology would be for it to throw off this collar Victorian naturalism that has held it back for well over a century.
quote:
And what direction would that be?
The direction of seeing the sophisticated technology that under girds life through the lens of the information and structural engineer, and the willing and eager student of course.
quote:
And then you will be asking about the origin of the universal genome. btw, I notice Fodor likes Chomsky and doesn't like Pinker, but Pinker and his allies seem to be taking over from Chomsky. If language does have its roots in evolution, that takes away the Chomskyian support for Fodor.
I've always been interested in languages and linguistics, long before I became engaged by the evolution controversy, so I am really fascinated by these developments. Chomsky is a genius, of course, by I have never understood his opposition to the notion that hard-wired grammar might have an evolutionary basis.
Though I detest his politics, I share with Chomsky the notion that naturalistic science is a very limited lens through which we might apprehend reality.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/15/2008 10:14:29 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:Jhudquote:
“Insects had evolved at least ten elaborate forms of mouthpieces, uniquely adapted (one would say) to their feeding upon flowers, one hundred million years before there were any flowers on Earth.”
I see statements like this as strong indication of a severe problem in the accepted interpretation of the fossil record.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/16/2008 9:04:58 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:Jhudquote:
“Insects had evolved at least ten elaborate forms of mouthpieces, uniquely adapted (one would say) to their feeding upon flowers, one hundred million years before there were any flowers on Earth.”
I see statements like this as strong indication of a severe problem in the accepted interpretation of the fossil record.
Well, you never know, with all those faulty dating processes perhaps the flowers have been incorrectly dated.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/17/2008 3:37:12 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1384
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
They fear that the tenants of intelligent design and the creationists (people I hate as much as they do) will rejoice and quote them as being on their side.
This begs the question
quote:
How does one develop hatred for those he has never met and knows nothing about other than the singular belief they hold?
http://telicthoughts.com/so-then-how-did-it-happen/
Is this hatred scientific? Does science teach people to hate?
Then they claim that the secular community does not unfairly discriminate against those who disagree with them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/17/2008 9:51:09 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Is this hatred scientific? Does science teach people to hate? Just one more evidence of the religious fanaticism of naturalistic scientism. It's actually rather frightening, isn't it Betta.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/21/2008 3:39:24 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1384
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Just one more evidence of the religious fanaticism of naturalistic scientism. It's actually rather frightening, isn't it Betta.
As someone already pointed out
quote:
Hate and fear. What a sad commentary on the state of science these days.
http://telicthoughts.com/so-then-how-did-it-happen/
Unfortunately, this seems to be how naturalism maintains itself. This is not how good science should maintain itself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/25/2008 7:36:25 PM
|
|
|
Kames
Posts: 170
Joined: 4/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Does it? Or does it mean we have been wrong in focusing on the insect instead of on the flower? Maybe it was the flowers adapting to the mouthpieces of insects rather than vice versa?
statements like this state the unfalsifiability of the evolutionary thought/theory
it reminded me of a south park episode where Cartman pretends to be the hero saving the day ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_the_Down_Steroid
"Cartman eventually comes in last in the Special Olympics. However, he gets a spirit award of a gift voucher to Shakey's Pizza. When he comes up to the stand to collect the prize, Jimmy realises Cartman has been faking his "retardation" and ironically is about to beat him up for being a cheater, but Timmy scolds him for it. Jimmy learns his lesson, namely that taking steroids is cheating, on a par with pretending to be "retarded" in order to participate in the Special Olympics, as Cartman did and gives back his medal. At that point, the people applaudded Jimmy for being honest, and he say he'll be back next year to 'compete with honor.' Cartman then tells his friends that he pretended to be retarded just to teach Jimmy about taking steroids, but they don't believe him. In response, Cartman angrily says, "Oh yeaah?!"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/27/2008 9:52:02 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1384
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kames
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Does it? Or does it mean we have been wrong in focusing on the insect instead of on the flower? Maybe it was the flowers adapting to the mouthpieces of insects rather than vice versa?
statements like this state the unfalsifiability of the evolutionary thought/theory it reminded me of a south park episode where Cartman pretends to be the hero saving the day ..
I agree Kames. It's sentences like this that help demonstrate the kind of nonsense that we're up against. If there is any evidence for UCD whatsoever, any at all, they would have presented it by now and they wouldn't need to be so immune to good logic and making consistent, reasonable predictions (instead, they constantly change definitions like they do in these forums and take people out of context, etc...). Like I've often said, the only problem is that naturalists have a monopoly on thought in public schools which makes it much easier for them to convince people that their unsupported speculation is true. UCD and other naturalistic philosophies just couldn't survive in the face of criticism and opposing views.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/27/2008 10:17:31 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/27/2008 10:35:50 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kames
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Does it? Or does it mean we have been wrong in focusing on the insect instead of on the flower? Maybe it was the flowers adapting to the mouthpieces of insects rather than vice versa?
statements like this state the unfalsifiability of the evolutionary thought/theory it reminded me of a south park episode where Cartman pretends to be the hero saving the day ..
I agree Kames. It's sentences like this that help demonstrate the kind of nonsense that we're up against. If there is any evidence for UCD whatsoever, any at all, they would have presented it by now and they wouldn't need to be so immune to good logic and making consistent, reasonable predictions (instead, they constantly change definitions like they do in these forums and take people out of context, etc...). Like I've often said, the only problem is that naturalists have a monopoly on thought in public schools which makes it much easier for them to convince people that their unsupported speculation is true. UCD and other naturalistic philosophies just couldn't survive in the face of criticism and opposing views.
Except that both the philosophy (to which I do not personally subscribe) and the science (UCD is science not philosophy) have survived in the face of well-grounded criticism and opposing views.
Arguments against straw men of your own making does not count as valid criticism. Nor does uninformed opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/27/2008 12:15:52 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
UCD is science not philosophy Then show us observational evidence instead of philosophical diatribe!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/27/2008 1:46:07 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1384
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
UCD is science not philosophy Then show us observational evidence instead of philosophical diatribe!
drmark, you're asking for too much. You know they don't have any scientific evidence, just very bad philosophical arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/27/2008 2:32:24 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
UCD is science not philosophy Then show us observational evidence instead of philosophical diatribe!
You've been offered it time and again. So take off the blindfold, put on the thinking cap, learn a bit of logic and it will all become clear.
No philosophical diatribe is needed.
Tell me, do you believe in biological inheritance? Do you believe your children inherited part of their DNA from you? Because, frankly, that is all that is needed to understand UCD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/27/2008 3:12:28 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
drmark, you're asking for too much. You know they don't have any scientific evidence, just very bad philosophical arguments.
And yet, when pressed, you call science the devil. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/27/2008 3:17:24 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Because, frankly, that is all that is needed to understand UCD. You've lost whatever vestige of credibility you previosly possessed, gluadys. Obviously, you have not an inkling of what the U in UCD represents! I'm sorry, but I don't have time to engage in such ridiculous conversations.
quote:
And yet, when pressed, you call science the devil. Go figure. Scientism is of the devil, Method. You still don't understand the difference, do you.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/27/2008 5:25:29 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Because, frankly, that is all that is needed to understand UCD. You've lost whatever vestige of credibility you previosly possessed, gluadys. Obviously, you have not an inkling of what the U in UCD represents!
It stand for "universal" as in "last universal common ancestor" . Do you understand what the D in UCD means?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The failure of Natural Selection - 5/28/2008 10:42:26 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Scientism is of the devil, Method. You still don't understand the difference, do you.
Yes, I do. Science is everything that doesn't contradict the Bible outright. Scientism is all the stuff that contradicts the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
