Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis

Richard Forrest wrote:
Wall Of Sleep wrote:

Richard Forrest wrote:

Wall Of Sleep wrote:


<snip>

Have you read his manifesto? If not, then read first and make
derogatory comments afterward please.


--
"Are we to believe that mere chance can accomplish that which has proven
quite impossible for the enlightened scientist to achieve? I regard
that notion as absurd!" John A. Davison, Ph.D. - AN EVOLUTIONARY
MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html



Mind you, I'm quite happy to read (parts at least) of his manifesto and
make derogatory comments on it.


<snip>

"With all our advanced technology, we still have not been able to
produce even the simplest organic system which could even remotely
be described as being alive."


Not true. There have been plenty of experiments which have produced
systems which can be "remotely" described as "alive", from chemical
methods such as recombitant DNA to algorythms running on computers.


So, by your own words, it is possible for intelligent agency to produce
life. Why then are you so opposed to the idea of intelligent design?


If you think that an "intelligent designer" was involved, present an
hypothesis which can be tested against the evidence to support that
assertion.

If you can do so,. we can investigate the possibility that a specific
"intelligent desgner", using specific methods, and operating under
specific limitation was involved.


The concept of ID does not require a "specific" designer. The hypothesis only states that the machinery of life is too involved and complex to have come into being through an unguided means. In short Life *requires* a designer (or designers).


I am strongly opposed to the ID movement :

1) Because the ID movement offers no evidence in support of it's
assertion that an "intelligent designer" is involved in the normal
processes of evolution.

The ID movement does indeed offer evidence of this. You have chosen to ignore it.


2) Because the argument put forward by the ID movement is that if we
cannot account for the origin of a biological system by evolution in
small incremental steps, the only possible alternative is that an
"intelligent designer" is responsible.

If unguided forces did not produce life then what did?


3) That ID has been tested in the objective forum of a court of law and
has been shown to be no more than creationism under an new label.

No, only the *motives* of the school board were deemed "religious". I think it's still a flawed decision, but it's entirely in keeping with the sort of judicial activism that's prevalent in this country right now. Besides, since when does science depend on a court of law for it's conclusions?


4) Because the ID movement claims that it is a scientific movement, yet
offers no testable hypothesis, no research programme, and can only
publish papers in academic journals by bypassing the normal processes
of peer-review.


All false. I've presented you with papers, scientists and peer-reviewed journals within the ID community. You have chosen to ignore them.


and most importantly

5) The ID movement relies on misrepresentation, distortion and outright
falsehoods to propogate its methods.

The main reason why I am oposed to creationism in its various
manifestations is because it is essentially dishonest.

I don't like dishonesty



You seem to view anything that contradicts the prevailing scientific mindset as "dishonest". With that definition, no new ideas will ever come forth.



<snip>

"Theories, sensu strictu, are hypotheses which,
having been tested, have been found valid."

No, they are not. Theories are usually the result of testing many
hypotheses, and provide a sound and coherent model of the behaviour of
the systems to which they apply.

" For example, Einstein's
Special Theory of Relativity remained a hypothesis until it had been
verified. Only then did it become a theory."

The theory of evolution by natural selection has also been extensively
verified by observation and experiment.


Lets ignore all the hype and examine the "extensively verified by
observation and experiment" main mechanism of the "T"oE - RM+NS:

What have random mutations been *observed* to produce more of - disease
or beneficial functions?
The answer is - disease - by a long shot.



Those mutation are beneficial for the disease-carrying organism. They
allow it to spread more widely and more quickly.

What on earth do you mean by "benefit" if this is not beneficial? Or do
you think benefit as a concept is measureable only in terms of its
effects on human beings?

If that is the case, what about the random mutations exploited by plant
breeders which led to the development of better food crops?


So now you are equating cancer with the evolution of such systems as the eye? I don't know if you're serious, but if so, your logic borders on the ridiculous - and illustrates perfectly your blind allegiance to this untenable "theory". The truth is that the overwhelming *observed* evidence is that mutations are harmful ( and not just for humans - but for lifeforms on all levels). They cause disease and death. If you doubt this, make a list of the "positive" or beneficial *observed* mutations in your lifetime and compare that with the negative or harmful *observed* mutations.


What has natural selection been *observed* to produce more of - extinct
species or new species?
The answer is - extinct species - by a long shot.


Natural selection has never been observed to produce an extinct
species.
I have no idea what you are arguing here.

Species become extinct. The earth has been around for a very, very long
time. Continents have moved about in the surface through different
climatic zones, crashed into each other and raised mountains, subsided
and been flooded to form inland seas, split appart to form oceans; the
earth has been subject to massive volcanic erouptions, been hit by
asteroids, partly covered by ice sheets miles thick; it is a planet in
turmoil, in which environments and ecological systems are destroyed and
rebuilt all the time.

Of course there have been more extinct species that modern species.
Each of those extinct species was a "new" species as some time, and I'm
glad that you accept that natuaral selection is responsible for the
creation of new species.

Quite what argument you are making escapes me.


OK first of all, if natural selection does not produce extinct species, then what does? Natural selection, by definition, is the weeding out of the weak - the survival of the fittest. If none survive, then natural selection has "determined" that none are "fit". The overwhelming *observed* evidence is that more species are becoming extinct than are being "developed". In fact, I challenge you to provide an example of a species that has developed within modern history. Then cross check that number against the number of species that have gone extinct in modern history and tell me again how RM+NS produces new species. The truth is, if evolution happened at all, it happened in the past and is now done - which is what Prof. Davison explained in his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, but you were too busy accusing him of "dishonesty" to actually open your mind to his ideas (which are not "creationist" ideas by a long shot).


So there you have it - the *cornerstone* of the "theory" of evolution is
*directly observed* to overwhelmingly produce disease and extinction.
The ratio is not even close.



I have no idea that you are arguing here.


Head in the sand? I'm arguing that the most crucial mechanism of your "theory" is *observed* to fail miserably at the very task for which you place so much *faith* in it - the creation of novel features or even new species. Face it, your "theory" has no *observed* workable mechanism - unless you are (by faith) willing to trust that the catalyst behind disease, death and extinction is also a very potent creative power. If that's your position, it's *not* based on observation, it's based on *belief*.


So how is this "theory" supposed to work again?

You can pontificate all you want about all the "evidence" that supports
your views, but I'll stick to what's been observed.


You mean things like speciation events observed in nature, the shared
DNA of all living organisms, the fossil record, the diversity and
nested hierarchy of living organisms, and so on?

Everything which has been observed leads to the inescapable conclusion
that the diversity of living organisms is the outcome of billions of
years of evolution.


A process that's apparently finished.



I'll stick to
science.


You'll need to learn some science first.


You mean the process of making predictions based on *observation*?



You go ahead and believe in fairy tales. Go ahead and trust
in a propped up "theory" that is both unfalsifiable and unworkable at
the same time.


Nice rheotic.
This does not alter the fact the evolutionary theory is falsifiable and
workable.
Your ignorance of the subject does not alter that fact.


You have yet to show that your pet "theory" even has a workable mechanism. I guess, I'll stick with "ignorance" rather than trust that disease, death and extinction creates new lifeforms.



--
"Are we to believe that mere chance can accomplish that which has proven quite impossible for the enlightened scientist to achieve? I regard that notion as absurd!" John A. Davison, Ph.D. - AN EVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... processes of evolution. ... species or new species? ... The answer is - extinct species - by a long shot. ... nested hierarchy of living organisms, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... The answer is - disease - by a long shot. ... species or new species? ... The answer is - extinct species - by a long shot. ... So there you have it - the *cornerstone* of the "theory" of evolution is *directly observed* to overwhelmingly produce disease and extinction. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionists:Where are the Failures?
    ... How old are those fossils? ... certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense. ... not represented as extant species. ... the fact that most species are extinct. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of evolutionary transformism?
    ... You can select which other species you want to compare ... Unlike some other evolutionists here, I *concede* that this is insufficient by itself to prove evolution. ... Armored fish just popped into existence and later went extinct ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
    ... disease are probably consequences of our rapid evolutionary rate, which is what made us human. ... Evolution favors survival of the species and not the individual. ... metabolism species are short lived, and slow metabolism are long lived. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)