Re: Steven J introduces a "Rule of Science" which would bring Science

On Nov 21, 9:28 am, T Pagano <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:51:25 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 19, 10:27 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 19, 8:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Nov 18, 5:15 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 18, 5:07 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip]

[picking up where I left off in previous post]

snip



Completely false. Why are you participating in a thread about "Black
Box" when you have never read the book?

Ray is right on the money here. Almost none of the atheists in the
forum have read any of Behe's or Dembski's works.

Have you? More important, have you actually read the scientific
literature rather than bad books by ignorant authors? BTW, I have
read Behe's Black Box, when it came out. Since Dembski's books seems
to be based on a conception of the scientific method that is beyond
ignorant and results in nothing but assuming the conclusion, why would
anyone waste time with it. Any description of the scientific method
that *assumes* that one can "reject natural mechanisms" and then can
go on to reject "randomness" is deeply flawed.

They all argue from
both a profound and willful ignorance. They prefered instead to
create a straw ID theory which is easier to bash but nonetheless
irrelevent.

So.... What is the *real* ID theory?

snip

To show that a system "could not have evolved," one would have to
painstakingly look at every conceivable evolutionary pathway the
system might have taken, and consider every known (and unknown!) set
of natural laws that might have taken it down that pathway.

IC means "could not have evolved."

"Black Box" provided massive scientific documentation of IC systems
that smash gradual modification evolution.

That book was a boringly simple-minded description of biological
systems followed by *assertions* that these systems (never adequately
defined) could not arise 'naturally' because when one removes a part
they no longer have their current function.

.....and Dembski pretty well disposed of the handful of "conceivable"
"pathways" the atheists could come up with in his "No Free Lunch."

Rather, he thought he did. But only by hiding his working
assumptions. Particularly the assumption that selective environments
are randomly distributed in space. That is, that temperature changes
randomly from one site to the next rather than form gradients of
temperature. Such a model of selective space means that intermediate
adaptive states are impossible.

But
let's pursue why Steven J is profoundly mistaken here:

1. In Behe's latest book he disputes Steven J's (and the general
atheist) contention that one must "painstakingly look at every
conceivable evolutionary pathway" in order to draw the conclusion that
a particular system is Irreducibly Complex (see para 5 below).

I notice that the paragraph 5 doesn't do what you claim. Behe's new
book is based on math founded on false assumptions about reality, just
like Dembski's.

2. This latest rule of Steven J's is clearly "ad hoc;" that is, it is
designed solely to stave off the refutation of the neoDarwinian
mechanism as the universal engine of biological novelty. Nowhere else
in the history of science does any scientist offer it as a rule or
ever follow such a rule. And if required would render science
impotent to accomplish anything. The best of the atheist community
have only been able to offer a handful of "pathways" all of which
don't solve the problem and most (if not all) have NEVER been observed
to occur.

For the alternative, which is merely a null category without positive
evidence, to be true, the proposers of the null category without
positive evidence must demonstarte that *all* alternative "pathways"
are impossible, not just currently unevidenced.

Besides, there is a perfectly good way to disprove evolution. Show
that the rate of change in genomes, for sequences that organisms
share, could not have produced such differences in the time available
since divergence. That means that you have to present evidence for
the "time available" since divergence.

3. In effect this rule would require the investigator to learn every
conceivable possible explanation for a particular event under
investigation and then painstakingly investigate each. I suspect that
for every event there are an uncountable (if not infinite) number of
conceivable possibilities. I'll let Steven J take this to its
logical conclusion to satisfy himself that nothing gets accomplished
this way nor has it been necessary.
In fact, that is the scientific method. Examine the evidence
supporting each possible proposed explanation to see if that
explanation is consistent with the evidence. If not, go on to the
next possible and testable explanation. Such possible explanations
include the explanation of "chance", since "chance" as an explanation
often presents one with specific predictable mathematical
consequences. For example, the expected amount of change per time for
selectively neutral (chance) changes can be calculated at least to
within an order of magnitude. The probability of different alleles
being transmitted can be calculated based on the assumption (sometimes
violated) of chance distribution -- hence Hardy-Weinberg. Ignore
explanations for which no possible test could lead to its rejection as
useless.

4. Even Darwin didn't follow this new "rule" of Steven J's. Darwin
never claimed that his hypothesized mechanism was the only process
responsible for what we see, but he didn't refrain from offering his
hypothesized process as the best. He did NOT spend the rest of his
time discovering and investigating the countless other "conceivable"
possibilities even though his conception was NEVER observed to result
in a single novel structure or system----NEVER.

Artificial selection (which is Darwin's process -- the process is the
same -- except it is done by humans and is faster thereby) most
certainly had been observed to change morphology of species. But I
agree that selection rarely does produce "novel structures or systems"
in a magical poof (although events like nylonase can be considered as
a counter-example -- although its 'structure' pre-existed, but was not
produced). Asking selection to do so is asking it to work by a
mechanism that has not been claimed. Selection produces 'novelty' by
modification of pre-existing structures or systems rather than
inventing something from scratch. So all 'new' systems are really, in
Darwin's model, modified old ones, albeit sometimes with new, but
often related, functionalities.

5. Lastly, in his latest book ("The Edge of Evolution") Behe quotes
two secular evolutionary biologists (Jerry Coyne and Allen Orr from
their book "Speciation) which offers the generalized of how science
generally proceeds (if not trying to stave off refutation):

"The goal of theory, however, is to determine not just whether
a phenomenon is theoretically possible, but whether it is biologically
reasonable----that is, whether it occurs with a significant frequency
under conditions that are likely to occur in nature."

And we do know the rate of change in genomes, since, in the best
cases, we have fossil evidence of roughly the time of divergence and
we have living organisms whose genome we can sequence. The rate of
change for mammals (where most DNA appears to be selectively neutral)
is slightly lower than would be expected by drift alone. Drift, as a
process that changes genomes, is many orders of magnitude slower than
when selection is involved. Thus, the rate of change in genomes is
clearly sufficient to account for the observation of the amount of
change between genomes. In fact, as would not surprise any biologist,
most selection is conservative in nature, resulting in the slightly
lower rate of change (than that which would be expected due to chance
alone) that is observed. Remember, regardless of what *you* may
think, Behe does not have any problem with the geological time frames
and branching speciation that most scientists accept.

Atheism has really taken a toll on Steven J over the last 10 years. It
is obvious that the big lie of atheism no longer allows him to see the
forest for the trees. The Big Lie won't let him read anything that
might show him that he is on the wrong path.

snip

Regards,
T Pagano

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: adaptive behaviors in society
    ... that is part of that animal's personal history. ... It is the selection ... We are likely to desire a different kind of explanation, ... say that the duckling has inherited the behavior of moving towards the ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Why dont mitochondria have junk DNA?
    ... >>>Even though mitochondria has a small genome size compared to ... natural selection favoring a compact genome could still be ... And I conjecture that natural selection favoring ... >>>compactness helped to reduce the mitochondrial genomes to their current ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sweating is a dryland, not an aquatic adaptation in humans.
    ... abilities might not be the result of selection. ... most likely and parsimonious explanation here too". ... humans swim better than chimps. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: More seeks explanation from ganduly
    ... Kiran More, chairman of the national cricket selection committee, ... > want an explanation from Ganguly now," said More. ... as chairman of the selection ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: More seeks explanation from ganduly
    ... Kiran More, chairman of the national cricket selection committee, ... >> want an explanation from Ganguly now," said More. ... as chairman of the selection ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)