Re: Forrest asserts that genetics and comparative anatomy explains

On Jan 19, 11:14 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:08:53 -0800 (PST),
"richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"



<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 19, 3:53 am, T Pagano <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:30:24 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli

<Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2008-2009/mp3/qq-2009-01-17_02.mp3

In this interview Dr Ron Douglas concludes that mirror based eyes,
in addition to being optically superior are probably also easier to
evolve!!!

Since all(?) other vertebrate eyes use inferior and harder to evolve
lensed eyes, is this a sign from The Creator that He is intervening
directly to prevent evolution from operating optimally?

First, evolutionists haven't the slightest idea when any particular
vision system emerged, when it evolved to maturity, why, or by which
mutations.

Of course they do! What on earth do you think that the evidence from
genetics, comparative anatomy and the fossil record shows>?

Really?  On what date did the first visual system emerge in
rudimentary form?

We have evidence of primitive chordate eyes in conodonts.

 What nucleotide mutations resulted in the
emergence?

Those affecting pax and hox genes
http://www.biozentrum.unibas.ch/report0607/gehring.pdf

 What positive selective value caused this emerging system
to propagate throughout the entire population?

The fact that even a rudimentary eye gives a selective advantage in
some environments, especially those in which predator/prey
relationships are evolving.

 Which population?

Early eukaryotes. The evidence from precambrian formations.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118531929/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

And
what was the exact sequences of nucleotide mutations which lead to the
existence of the mature visual system and on what date did the system
reach mature?

Such information is not available from the fossil record.

 Genetics, comparative anatomy and the fossil record are
impotent to answer any of these questions.

As I have cited sources which *do* address these issues, I suggest
that you either demonstrate that they are drawing conclusions which
are not supported by the evidence or withdraw that assertion.

Of course, we both know that you can't, and will carry on making the
same assertion. This is dishonest, but that tells us more about you
than it does about the nature of the evidence.


The fossil record shows----almost without exception-----the sudden
appearance of fully formed mature populations (with fully mature
systems) and the lack of any significant change in those populations
for millions of years.


Of course the fossil record shows "fully mature populations"! What on
earth else do you suppose it should show? However, many of the species
making up those "fully mature populations" are clearly intermediate
forms.

 That is, it shows only the "end nodes" of the
hypothetical tree of common descent.

Of dear! You are trying to use technical terms whose meaning you very
evidently don't understand.
Using the tools of phylogenetic systematics, we can *only* show
relationships between terminal nodes of a tree. This is a limitation
of the method, not a reflection of evolutionary relationships over
time.

 The rest of the tree (all the
purported common ancestors) and the First Common Ancestor (the "root"
of the tree) are all hypothesized, unknown and completely absent from
view.

Actually, the root of the tree is also marked by a terminal node. You
don't know much about cladistics, do you?


At best genetics and comparative anatomy can produce observations
consistent with the theory of common descent.

Nope. Genetics can and has showed the complete chain of evidence
showing evolutionary changes in populations over successive
generations.

 That is, that
commonalities like mature visual systems were there from the start,
present in some common ancestor.

No they were not, as the primitive eyes of conodonts demonstrate.

 They don't even begin to explain the
ORIGIN of those commonalities.

Of course they do! They originated by the known processes of selection
acting on mutations in the genome. There is massive evidence even at
the level of the individual mutations involved.




 So the atheistic hypothesis

Tony, this is deeply dishonest.
I suggest that you stop using "atheistic" when you mean "scientific".

Since the modern secular enterprise has artificially closed off an
avenue of research for metaphysical reasons I think I am justified.

It hasn't "artificially closed off" anything. It does not consider
"God did it" as an explanation because there is no possible phenomenon
which could *not* be "explained" by "God did it". It was rejected not
because all scientists are atheists, but because it is unfruitful.

And Richard Dawkins would agree.  I suggest you view his interview in
"Expelled."  He and Provine are one of only a few atheists who admit
this.

Well, that makes the Pope an atheist. Glad we're clear on that.





that the existence of vision
systems and structures arose by purely material processes

i.e. the scientific explanation

Here Forrest proves my point.  He equates any purely materialistic
explanation with a scientific one.

Is there any other "purely materialistic" explanation?

More to the point, science *cannot* provide anything other than a
"purely materialistic" explanation.

 This is atheistic naturalism not
empirical science.

So how does the "explanation" that God did it fit into "empirical
science"?

 Having a material explanation, in and of itself,
isn't even a necessary condition to be considered scientific.

Says Tony Pagano.

Tell us Tony, why should anyone take the views of someone who is very
evidently prepared to lie to support their argument as anything other
than the rantings of a dogmatic ignoramus?

Your argument makes the Pope an atheist.


A scientific explanation is one which
a.  solves some problem of interest
b.  has empirical consequences which can actually be observed, and
c.  prohibits at least one event, if observed, would contradict and
falsify the theory.

Quite so. There are many, many potential falsifiers of evolutionary
theory.

What observation or measurement could *not* be explained by "God did
it"?




is little
more than a wild ass guess.  

Funny, but they most certainly *don't* look like "wild guesses" to me,
and I suggest that I know the evidence rather better than you do.

What evidence might that be?  Genetics and comparative anatomy?  These
allow wild ass guesses about common ancestors not ORIGIN of the visual
systems and structures.  

They provide very good explanations for the origin of such structures,
as the article to which I posted a link demonstrates.

I think Forrest is terribly confused.

I suggest that I am not confused, and rather better informed on the
subject than you are.

 The
disputes about evolutionism are not about the existence of biological
systems but their ORIGIN.

Excuse me? How did the term "evolutionism" sneak in?
Evolutionary theory addresses the question of how biological systems
originate, and contrary to your ill-informed assertions, we have
robust evidence that they did *not* appear spontaneously as fully
developed systems such as the vertebrate eye. There is a huge
scientific literature on the subject.




Mind you, as you have just dismissed *ALL* science as "wild guesses",
it's a wonder that a device built on information from "wild guesses"
is able to communicate your dishonesty on the subject.

Your assertion that genetics and comparative anatomy answer these
questions below makes my claim of "wild ass guess" kind:

1.  On what date did the first visual system emerge in rudimentary
form?

Why is this even a meaningful question?
The evidence suggests that it arose some time in the middle of the
Ediacaran, about 600 million years ago.

2.  What nucleotide mutations resulted in the emergence?  

Read the article I cited.

3.  What positive selective value caused this emerging system to
propagate throughout the entire population?  

The evolution of predator/prey relationships in the Ediacaran.

4.  Which population?

The populations of organism on the sea floor about 600 million years
ago.

5.  And what was the exact sequences of nucleotide mutations which
lead to the existence of the mature visual system and

6.  on what date did the system reach mature?

This is a meaningless question. All systems are "mature", in the sense
that they are fully developed. That does not preclude subsequent
evolutionary changes. Surely you understand after the years you have
spent posting on these boards that evolution is not a goal-orientated
process?

7.  Where is the observational evidence to answer these questions?

In genetics, comparative anatomy and the fossil record. Why not
educate yourself in the subject?




Second, ID theory has no interest in the relative "quality" of systems
or structures or the causal history of how those systems arose. It's
ONLY interest is in inferring MODE OF CAUSATION. #

It makes no reference whatsoever to mode of causation! The claim of ID
is that if a structure can't be explained by evolutionary theory, the
only possible explanation is that an "Intelligent Designer", using
undefined methods which may or may not be supernatural, did it.

And more evidence that Forrest has never read Dembski's peer reviewed

Nope. It was not "peer-reviewed". It's a freaking book, not an
academic paper.

"The Design Inference" published by the Cambridge University Press in
1998.  How on earth can you criticize something for which you haven't
even done the requisite reading?

So which mode of causation does Dembski offer?


The answer is quite simple.  The issue with Forrest and his merry band
of atheists

What on earth gives you the idea that I am an atheist?

Your argument makes the Pope an atheist.

is metaphysical and has nothing to do with science.  ID
conflicts with Forrest's atheistic world view.  Does Forrest deny his
atheism.

I make no comment on my religious beliefs or lack of them here or on
any other forum. However, as I have expressed no views which are not
held by devoutly religious scientists such as Simon Conway Morris, Bob
Bakker, and many others, the issue is irrelevant.

So what mode of causation does Demski offer as an explanation?




 In other words
Broccoli's rhetorical questions are born out of the usual gross
ignorance of ID theory (and just about everything else).

So where has *ANY* ID "theorist" proposed a mode of causation for any
biological structure? "GodImeananIntelligentDesigner did it" is *NOT*
a mode of causation.

More complete ignorance from yet another angry atheist.  There are
three modes of causation:  law, chance, and intelligent design.

Those are not "modes of causation".

 How
can Forrest hope to criticize when he doesn't have a grasp on the
basics.

ID theory is impotent to identify the intelligent agent on those rare
occasions when it does infer intelligent causation.

So where does it offer a "mode of causation"?

 SETI uses exactly
the same methods which Dembski generalized and could no more identify
the nature of the intelligent agent than can Dembski's generalized
methods.

That, given the number of times the link to what Seth Shostak has said
on this subject, is yet another baldfaced lie, Tony.

SETI does *NOT* use the same methods. Dembski makes the assertion that
some *COMPLEX* systems cannot be explained by *ANY* naturalistic
processes. SETI is looking for *SIMPLE* signals made by *KNOWN*
naturalistic processes.

 Its obvious that Forrest the atheist doesn't like the
IMPLICATIONS of ID theory because it conflicts with his atheism not
because it conflicts with scientific activity.

What utter bull***!

There is no scientific theory of ID. It's a busted flush, Tony. Even
the founder of the ID movement, Phillip Johnson, has conceeded that
there is no such theory.


And in Dembski's "No Free Lunch" published by Rowman & Littlefield, in
2002 Dembski goes through the process to infer intelligent design of
the flagellum.

....and his exposition has been thoroughly eviscerated by scientists
with knowledge of such systems. No doubt this is why, unlike Behe, he
ran away from the opportunity of defending his position under cross-
examination. Mind you, perhaps he knows perfectly well that his
position is scientifically untenable.
 

The rest below deserves separate posts.  More to follow as time
permits.

Try just for once to construct a post which does not contain so many
falsehoods in that case.

RF

Regards,
T Pagano



Third, no one has EVER actually seen random mutations coupled to
natural selection (or even the guided selection of a breeder) result
in the emergence of novelty or its development to maturity.

Yes they have. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of papers
in the scientific literature which do just that./

 Lenski's
evolutionary study of over 40,000 generations of E coli has NEVER
resulted in coherent, progressive change of any sort.  NEVER.

Of course this study has!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Why do you think ignorance of the subject gives your arguments any
weight?

Finally the *** brother Broccoli

And note the obsession with homosexual anal sex.
Why is it that creationists are so interested in the subject of
homosexuality?

(Casanova is the other half of that
team) has been reading too much of Dawkins's fairy tales about
evolutionary optimization.  The No Free Lunch Theorems proved
CONCLUSIVELY that ALL evolutionary algorithms----including the
neoDarwinian one----are no better or worse than a blind search.

Tell that to the corporations which have made billions of dollars from
research and development using evolutionary algorithms. They will be
very surprised to be told that the results are no better than those
produced by a "blind search".

Mind you, tell that to David Wolpert - who originated the NFL
theorem.

 Call
that optimization if you like but...

Regards,
T Pagano

Tony "the Pope is an Atheist" Pagano still peddling falsehoods as
usual;.

RF

.

Quantcast