T
tonyrey
Guest
The scientific Establishment is dominated by physicalists - notably in the domain of neuroscience… Do you think the work of Erich Fromm is unscientific?
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
Don’t you think scientists ever think of an explanation before they have confirmed it?
Your notion of science is defective, my friend!
R
rossum
Guest
What other way do you know of to make life? What scientific evidence do you have for non-chemical life? All life on Earth is based on chemistry so it is not unreasonable to begin the search for the origin of life by looking at chemistry.
We can do more now than we could a few years ago.
We are not claiming a finished product, we are claiming “we have made a part”. We have made lipid bilayers. We have made purines. We have made pyrimidines. We have made amino acids. We have made chiral amino acids. We have made ribozymes. We have made lots of parts. That is progress.
Because we have been running models of evolution in computers for many generations. Evolution and genetic algorithms are well understood.
Correct. But only one has produced some of the parts that are found in living organisms. I know which one my money is on.
I note your continued failure to produce any relevant research from the ID side. Your posts are a good example of the scientific vacuity of ID. All you can do is to sit on the sidelines and try to pick holes. Just because we have not completed the process does not mean the the work done so far is not useful. We have a much better understanding of RNA and what it can do then we used to have. That in itself is useful scientific progress.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
The amount of carbon on the planet has been pretty much stable for millions of years, ever since the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment. What I suspect you are thinking of is the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. That is not germane to the current topic of discussion.
I disagree. Every Catholic accepts that God created the world, and that He can be seen as an Intelligent Designer. A Catholic like Ken Miller, who accepts evolution, sees that God used evolution to implement the design He created for the world. Evolution is not necessarily an alternative, it can be part of the same solution.
The Theory of Evolution is no more a metaphysical explanation for the origin of life than the Theory of Gravity is a metaphysical explanation for the origin of matter. You are setting up a straw man of evolution here. Darwin’s book was called “On the Origin of Species”. Just species.
I am Buddhist so life in general has been around for ever; the Buddha saw no beginning to the process of death and rebirth. That is theology, not science. In scientific terms life on Earth did have a beginning.
I find the fine tuning argument unconvincing because of the massive uncertainty in what values of various constants are allowed and also there is the anthropic principle to deal with. If Earth wasn’t suitable for life then we wouldn’t be here. By being here at all we set strict limits on where we are. Earth is automatically a biased sample.
The laws of nature could indeed be different. What is impossible to estimate is how different they could be. If the value required for life is between 50 and 60, but variation is allowed from 48 to 63 then life is reasonably probable. If the variation allowed is from 0 to 50,000,000 then life is much less probable. How do you propose to determine the boundaries within which a ‘fine tuned’ constant can vary?
Because it is true. DNA is a combination of chemicals. My DNA is different from your DNA and we are both alive. That is two different “combinations of chemicals” that make life.
rossum
M
minkymurph
Guest
Before reading any article it is important to establish the intention of the author. I have never heard of Gerhart and Kirschner. That is not meant as an insult. There are many theologians I could quote here that other’s may never have heard of; and others I’m sure could quote theologians I have never heard of. What it means because I don’t know what their area of expertise is and I because I not familiar with their work, I don’t know their position is on evolution, ID or interpretations of Genesis. Therefore, I don’t know if this article is written in support of ID, or evolution. Whatever the answer, the article is written from a pre-disposed position. Therefore, it contains a degree of bias. What were the intentions of the authors of this article? Was it written for the purpose of supporting a literal interpretation of Genesis, or in support evolution? If the authors of this article are writing in support of ID, then you’re interpretation is more accurate then mine. However if that is the case, it cannot be said to be written from an objective perspective. This is not a criticism. They are entitled to write from whatever perspective they want. Meaning, the authors if they are writing in support of evolution, it needs to be read as such. Likewise if they are writing in support of ID. Therefore, the article cannot be used to validate ID if that is not the intentions of the authors - neither can it be used to validate evolution if this is not the authors intentions. To do so would be taking what they say out of content.
Tutors at my college always recommend we have someone else proof read our essays. This is not just to check for mistakes. It’s because you understand your own essay because you know what it is you want to say. When someone else reads you’re essay, they may interpret what you say in a manner that is far removed from you’re intention. In addition, when you proof read your own essay you have a tendency to see what you want to see rather than what is actually there.
The point I’m making is it’s very easy to see what we want to see when we read something. That is why it is important to know who wrote the article and why.
I’m trying to avoid discussing the article itself. I’ll do that in my next post. Hope you can bear with me in relation the long posts.
R
rossum
Guest
Agreed so far.
Here we disagree. Since there is no objective way to measure CSI it is completely useless as a basis for science. I am only aware of one single calculation of CSI by an ID researcher, Dr Dembski’s calculation of the CSI of a bacterial flagellum. That attempt showed up so many problems with the concept that neither Dr Dembski nor any other ID researcher has, to my knowledge, attempted such a calculation since. CSI is a vacuous concept.
We agree that ID has progressed to this stage. It has proposed its hypothesis and made a prediction.
Which is precisely what ID has failed to do. Where are the scads of research papers from the ID labs measuring the CSI in different things? Where are the double-blind tests looking at designed and non-designed objects that test the operation of the methods used? Where are the grants from the NSA for ID to develop a distinguisher to tell random noise from encrypted messages that are designed to look random? In short where is the actual scientific work?
No it is not. IC can evolve and has been shown to evolve in the lab. Professor Behe has even calculated that a simple IC system can evolve in 20,000 years. IC is not useful as a means of detecting design.
ID has observations and a hypothesis. It has not progressed to the stage of experiments so at the moment it is, at most, half science. Only when the ID side has actually done their experiments and modified their hypothesis in the light of those experiments can it be considered science.
Of course, for political reasons, the Discovery Institute does not want to modify its ID hypothesis so it is trapped by the political requirement not to “flip-flop” and the scientific requirement that experiments can modify hypotheses. So far it has chosen to follow the political imperative and has avoided doing any experiments.
For fun, I once used CSI to design an ID-style Design Detector: see Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector.
That illustrates some of the problems with the concept of CSI as it is currently expressed, and it also illustrates some of the problems with what ID is attempting to do. If God is the Designer then how can we ever find something that is not designed? Is there anything that God didn’t create? In such a case the whole attempt to create a scientific theory of ID collapses into ludicrousness.
rossum
M
minkymurph
Guest
OK, now we’re onto the article you asked me to consider.
‘This theory concerns the means by which animals generate phenotypic variation from genetic change.’
This sentence tell you what the article is about. The authors are proposing a theory
concerning the means by which animals, no mention of plants, bacteria etc; generate phenotypic variation. They are not claiming all the species of flora and fauna we see in the world today existed in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, I would say the the authors are not writing in support of that claim. Using this article to do so would be taking it out of context.
‘Most anatomical and physiological traits that have evolved since the Cambrian are, we propose, the result of regulatory changes in the usage of various members of a large set of conserved core components that function in development and physiology.’
the authors are discussing the Cambrian era which was 542-488 approx. Based on their understanding of Genesis, some argue Adam was created around 4000 BC. We could argue that but suffice to say, the time period in question is way after the Garden of Eden. Therefore, it cannot be used to support the view that all the species of flora and fauna we see in the world today existed in the Garden of Eden, or around 4000 BC.
‘Genetic change of the DNA sequences for regulatory elements of DNA, RNAs, and proteins leads to heritable regulatory change, which specifies new combinations of core components, operating in new amounts and states at new times and places in the animal. These new configurations of components comprise new traits. The number and kinds of regulatory changes needed for viable phenotypic variation are determined by the properties of the developmental and physiological processes in which core components serve, in particular by the processes’ modularity, robustness, adaptability, capacity to engage in weak regulatory linkage, and exploratory behavior. These properties reduce the number of regulatory changes needed to generate viable selectable phenotypic variation, increase the variety of regulatory targets, reduce the lethality of genetic change, and increase the amount of genetic variation retained by a population.’
I would call that evolution but to be fair, as a much later time period we cannot say this happened at the outset of creation. Therefore, it cannot be used as scientific evidence of physical evolution during the process of creation. In addition, what is genetic change in DNA if it not biological evolution? The authors also states this specifies new combinations of core components in new times and places in the animal.’ Was this not one of my points of discussion? Core components created by God physically evolved under God’s design into different species and continued to do so over time?
‘By such reductions and increases, the conserved core processes facilitate the generation of phenotypic variation, which selection thereafter converts to evolutionary and genetic change in the population. Thus, we call it a theory of facilitated phenotypic variation.’
The fact that the author uses the term ‘evolutionary and genetic change’ indicates the author’s are proposing a theory in relation to evolution, not all species of flora and fauna we see in existence today existed in the Garden of Eden. (around 4000 BC)
M
minkymurph
Guest
This article is not, to me, evidence that every species of flora and fauna we see in the world today was present in the Garden of Eden. I would also say that based on Genesis.
Perhaps what we need is clarification of the term, ‘species.’ The author of Genesis writes ‘God said let the earth produce every kind of living creature in it’s own species.’ Based on biblical scholarship, the Hebrew word that translates into the modern English word ‘species,’ (“miyn” (Strong’s Concordance #4327) means ‘kinds’ in a broad sense. The understanding we have of the term ‘species’ today is in accordance with Linnaean taxonomy which was not proposed until around 1758. What the author is saying is that God created all kinds of living things in a broad sense and not a specific sense.
To expand further, lions, tigers and the domestic cat are all species that belong to the cat family. We could assume there was a cat ‘family’ in the Garden of Eden, and that were the same ‘species’ as the cat ‘family’ today. However, it is nothing more than assumption because we don’t know if there were lions, tigers and cats in the Garden of Eden. It’s assumed on the basis of use of the word ‘species’ in Genesis. We cannot assume that all species of flora and fauna that are in existence today were in existence in the Garden of Eden on this basis for the reasons I have outlined above. In addition, the Genesis account of creation wasn’t written for the purpose of telling us that after the fifth creative day no more ‘species’ of animal, in the context we understand the term today, came into existence.
B
buffalo
Guest
John Gerhart
Code:
**Professor of the Graduate School Division of Cell and Developmental Biology**Marc W. Kirschner, Ph.D.
John Franklin Enders University Professor
Chair and Professor of Systems Biology
Code:
Department of Systems Biology
Harvard Medical School
B
buffalo
Guest
This paper lends support to idea that life is frontloaded, that is right from the beginning life had various capabilities built in.
B
buffalo
Guest
rossum, let’s try to see how far we can get with way to formulize design.
You pick a designed object and let’s get the attributes laid out and see if we how it works among a broad number of objects. Perhaps we can get funding and do the work together. We could be famous.
You pick a designed object and let’s get the attributes laid out and see if we how it works among a broad number of objects. Perhaps we can get funding and do the work together. We could be famous.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I wouldn’t have any problem with that. I said at the outset that I believe evolution is built into nature by God. I know I didn’t say it that. I think what I did say was that God bestowed on nature the ability to evolve.
B
buffalo
Guest
The other key point in the paper is that the mother preserves the “kind” that it began as.
Within, there is variation.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Is his area of expertize cell biology? His others papers seem to relate to cell biology. In which case, his intention in this paper is to explain biological changes in DNA? (Put simplistically.)
I’ll grant you logic there.
But don’t make the mistake of thinking it scientific.
What you describe is a default, not a scientific process.
And that takes you closer to an unspecified target how?
This whole time I have been arguing about the end product, life.
And you have been fighting fairly well.
It would seem intellectually dishonest to suddenly turn and claim your only talking about parts of living organisms and not life.
Is this another one of your deceptions?
I defeated the zerg in a computer game last week.
How real are they?
Because a computer says so is not science.
Actually, I am in full agreement that we all know where your money lies.
Thanks very much.
Could you please remind all of the other Catholics on the board of this?
M
minkymurph
Guest
I’m sorry I must have overlooked that. I didn’t see the word ‘mother’ or ‘female’ in the paper. I read it again and still couldn’t see it. Could you point it out to me?
M
minkymurph
Guest
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I’m going to answer my own question.
According to Genesis, the Garden of Eden was in the land of Cush which may have been somewhere in modern Iraq. Let’s assume for now this is literal.
Today there are:
24 500 species of fish
10 000 species of bird
100 000 species of tree
11 000 species of bat
900 000 species of insect
36 species of wild cat
millions of species of fruit
trillions of species of bacteria
I could go on, but this list will suffice for now.
We can assume there was at least one pair of each species of fish. Unless anyone want to argue they were all hermaphrodites. We can also assume they had offspring. Anyone know of a sea in modern day Iraq that could contain not only all species of sea water fish, but all the species of whales, crustaceans, etc. there are today? Perhaps there was one before the fall? Possible.
Moving on to the most obvious one: species of insect. The Garden of Eden must have been teaming with insects. However, it could be argued it’s possible all 900 000 species of insect existed in Eden. It’s also the millions of species of fruit and trillions of species of bacteria existed in the Garden of Eden. Maybe even 36 species of wild cat. Interestingly, I believe there is one species of dog, so we can assume there were dogs in Eden.
Now, I haven’t mentioned any other species of living things but by now, I reckon the Garden of Eden is getting pretty crowded. Now, the fish, birds, insects etc. may have lived outside Eden, and only man lived in Eden. Possible, but not according to the way some interpret Genesis and if their were animals and vegetation outside Eden, that’s dangerous territory because someone might have the idea there were humans outside Eden. Alternatively, Eden may not have been a literal place. However, if Eden is not a literal place, can we be sure all the other details are literal?
Does anyone apart from me see a problem with the belief that all species of flora and fauna in existence today were present in Eden?
According to Genesis, the Garden of Eden was in the land of Cush which may have been somewhere in modern Iraq. Let’s assume for now this is literal.
Today there are:
24 500 species of fish
10 000 species of bird
100 000 species of tree
11 000 species of bat
900 000 species of insect
36 species of wild cat
millions of species of fruit
trillions of species of bacteria
I could go on, but this list will suffice for now.
We can assume there was at least one pair of each species of fish. Unless anyone want to argue they were all hermaphrodites. We can also assume they had offspring. Anyone know of a sea in modern day Iraq that could contain not only all species of sea water fish, but all the species of whales, crustaceans, etc. there are today? Perhaps there was one before the fall? Possible.
Moving on to the most obvious one: species of insect. The Garden of Eden must have been teaming with insects. However, it could be argued it’s possible all 900 000 species of insect existed in Eden. It’s also the millions of species of fruit and trillions of species of bacteria existed in the Garden of Eden. Maybe even 36 species of wild cat. Interestingly, I believe there is one species of dog, so we can assume there were dogs in Eden.
Now, I haven’t mentioned any other species of living things but by now, I reckon the Garden of Eden is getting pretty crowded. Now, the fish, birds, insects etc. may have lived outside Eden, and only man lived in Eden. Possible, but not according to the way some interpret Genesis and if their were animals and vegetation outside Eden, that’s dangerous territory because someone might have the idea there were humans outside Eden. Alternatively, Eden may not have been a literal place. However, if Eden is not a literal place, can we be sure all the other details are literal?
Does anyone apart from me see a problem with the belief that all species of flora and fauna in existence today were present in Eden?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Which “other” Catholics?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
rossum, how long do you think the DI can hold out not producing any results? I suppose it might outlast the Institute Creation Research, as it sounds more “sciency.”
- Status