Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis


Wall Of Sleep wrote:

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).


For ID to become a scientific discipline it does.
Science advances by testing hypotheses.
ID has not presented any hypotheses which can be tested.
Assertions, arguments from analogy, and attempts to falsify other
hypotheses are not hypotheses.


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.

No it doesn't.
I presents the argument that if certain systems in biology cannot be
explained by evolution in small incremental steps, the only other
possible explanation is that an "intelligent designer" of unspecified
but possibly supernatural powers is responsible.

This is neither evidence, nor scientifically literate.



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?


What on earth do you mean by "unguided forces"? Do you mean
naturalistic processes?
We have no clear theory of how gravity works. Should we assume that
"guided forces" are responsible for gravity?

Science does not claim to know all the answers. If a hypothesis is
falsified, that hypothesis is falsified, and we have to start thinking
about other conceptual models.


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".

Nonsense.
You should try reading the ruling:

p. 24
"We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an
expert
witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject
of evolution
and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for
ID is not a
new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for
the existence of
God."

p. 29
"ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to
make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a
particular version of
Christianity."

p. 35
"Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and
Minnich
testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by
way of bare
assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of
Pandas or other
evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between
creationism
and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism
from ID
was their assertion that the term "creationism" applies only to
arguments based on
the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood;
however,
substantial evidence established that this is only one form of
creationism, including
the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as
will be
described below."


p 49-50
"In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for
special
treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes
students to
doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students
with a religious
alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to
consult a creationist
text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to
forego scientific
inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out
religious instruction
elsewhere. Furthermore, as Drs. Alters and Miller testified,
introducing ID
necessarily invites religion into the science classroom as it sets up
what will be
perceived by students as a "God-friendly" science, the one that
explicitly mentions
an intelligent designer, and that the "other science," evolution,
takes no position on
religion. (14:144-45 (Alters)). Dr. Miller testified that a false
duality is produced:
It "tells students . . . quite explicitly, choose God on the side of
intelligent design
or choose atheism on the side of science." (2:54-55 (Miller)).
Introducing such a religious conflict into the classroom is "very
dangerous" because it forces students
to "choose between God and science," not a choice that schools
should be forcing
on them."

There's plenty more there.

I
think it's still a flawed decision,

I suggest that you read it before making that assertion. You quite
evidently haven't.

but it's entirely in keeping with
the sort of judicial activism that's prevalent in this country right
now.

You mean, the Bush-appointed right-wing judge who made the ruling was a
"judicial activist"?

Besides, since when does science depend on a court of law for it's
conclusions?

It doesn't.
But when an attempt to sneak religion into the science classroom in
breach of the law and contrary to the principles of the Constitution,
people have a recourse to law.

ID has had no impact on science - it can't, as it has nothing to offer
in the way of science.




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.

No, I haven't ignored them.

The total number of papers published in scientific journals listed on
their web site by the Discovery Institute is three, rather fewer than I
have published in what is a very modest career as a scientist. The rest
of their claimed publications are books written by or editted by
fellows of the institute.

Of those three papers, two were published in an obscure Italian journal
with a reputation for poor scholarship and fringe ideas, and the other
was published only by by-passing normal peer-review processes and has
been subsequently disowned by the journal.

If you know of any other publications in scientific journals feel free
to post a link. You evidently know more than the DI.



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.


No, I view presenting religious conviction as science when it is done
with the knowledge that it has no scientific validity as dishonest.
Some of the fellows of the DI have a perfectly respectable record of
publication in mainstream scientific journals, and must know that the
assertions of the ID movement have no basis in science.



<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?

No, I'm pointing out that mutations can confer advantages on organisms.
That's the driving force of evolution by natural selection.

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".

I suggest that you respond to what I have written rather than what you
misreprent me as writing.

Having said that, I see no difficulty in the evolution of the
vertebrate eye by a finely graded series of intermediates, each of
which grants a small selective advantage to its owner. As Darwin
pointed out, there exist in nature examples of all the intermediate
steps needed to transform a small patch of light-sensitive cells to a
fully-developed eye. Nobody has ever suggested that the vertebrate eye
sprang into existence fully formed as a consequence of a single
mutation.

The truth is that the overwhelming *observed*
evidence is that mutations are harmful ( and not just for humans - but
for lifeforms on all levels).

The truth is that the overwhelming majority of mutations are neutral.
They have no effect on the phenotype. Try reading some of the
literature on the subject.


They cause disease and death.

So what?
Some of them confer a selective advantage.
Don't forget that some of the mutations which cause disease are highly
beneficial to the disease-causing agents.

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.


It only takes a few beneficial mutations. Natural selection conserves
them in the gene pool.



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?

I said that natural selection has never been *observed* to produce an
extinct species. We can't *observe* events which happened in the past.
If we observe natural selection creating a new species in the present
(which we have), it's rather unlikely that the new species is extinct,
is it?

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.

Have a look here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

It list rather a lot, and gives references to back up those claims.


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 rate of speciation we see today is rather higher than we expected
from looking at the fossil record. It's a bit of a puzzle for
evolutionary biologists. It suggests that we have underestimated the
number of species which were around in the past.

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).

As his "ideas" are based on a falsehood - that we do not observe
evolution in action today - why should I not consider him to be either
ignorant or dishonest?



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.

The only person with sand in their eyes here is you.

I suggest that you educate yourself in evolutionary biology rather than
making silly assertions which are easily falsified taken from a source
which is demonstrably unreliable.

If you don't want to educate yourself, that's your business.

Face it, your "theory" has no *observed* workable mechanism -

What's wrong with genetics? It seems to work very well, it can be
observed and measured and it provides a very robust model for how
evolutionary changes can occur.

The scientists involved seem quite happy with it. There's a vast amount
of research going on which supports it.

What do you know that all those busy scientists don't?

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.


Well, no.
It's a process which is still going in all around us.
There's rather a lot of scientific literature on the subject. I suggest
that you educate yourself to a level that you can make sense of it.



I'll stick to
science.


You'll need to learn some science first.


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


Well yes. Science develops models for the behavour of systems based on
observation and experiment.

How else do you think science works?



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.


If you want to stick with ignorance, that's up to you.

I fail to see how professing ignorance adds to the strength of your
argument.


RF


--
"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

.