Darwin or Design?

[brian1]

Greetings!
I like your convictions!
One need not hide one’s head in the sand though, the relevant issue in regard to Behe’s irreducible complexity is the unanswered question, as to how DNA is programmed?
Therefore, Behe, answers, “not enough!”
Since, the information related to the cell has been demonstrated
not to have arisen by natural causes, (the information pararells
all human language, as well as, computer language) the proteins
and amino acids as carriers of the information and the information
as not inherent in the proteins and amino acids that constitute
DNA. One may not be aware that the principles of the
Scientific Method have not been applied to Evolution!
Pax

 

[dcdurel]

As another web site puts it:

*Is Darwin’s theory ultimately a tautology, that is, the needless repitition of an idea with different words? (e.g., “necessary essentials” or “Militarily stronger nations always win their wars.”) The famous British scientist, C. H. Waddington, stated: `Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable but previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave most offspring) will leave most offspring.’ (Waddington C.H., in Tax S., ed., “Evolution After Darwin”, Vol. 1, 1960, p.385). “The general principle of natural selection, in fact, merely amounts to the statement that the individuals which leave the most offspring are those which leave the most offspring. It is a tautology.” C.H. Waddington in The Strategy of the Genes From Quotable Quotes

Richard Milton put it this way: An even more damaging blow to the theory was the discovery that the very centrepiece of neo-Darwinism, Darwin’s original conception of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, is fatally flawed. The problem is: how can biologists (or anyone else) tell what characteristics constitute the animal or plant’s ‘fitness’ to survive? How can you tell which are the fit animals and plants? The answer is that the only way to define the fit is by means of a post-hoc rationalisation – the fit must be “those who survived”. While the only way to characterise uniquely those who survive is as “the fit”. The central proposition of the Darwinian argument turns out to be an empty tautology. "

Of course, the evolution by chance advocates have nothing to say about this plain fact. There whole theory is just an empty tautology

 

[Orogeny]

Why do you ask If I have examined the actual fossil, have you??

No, but I haven’t just blown off the conclusions of experts that have like you did.

I have only the link you gave me, and after studying the pictures I related my honest opinion.

So, based on photos on a web page, you can definitively declare that the fossil is a fake?

I don’t hate it because I don’t want it to be there. I hate it cause its bad science.

But making a definitive declaration based on internet photos is good science?

There is no front leg on the fossil, just an ickle flipper!!

You know that because you saw a photo on the internet. Beautiful. Obviously you are a science giant that doesn’t need to actually see the evidence to come up with a conclusion that is contrary to every person who has spent a large portion of their life studying fossils.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I am curious, other than seeing the real thing, what is better than photographs?

The problem with photographs is that the fossil and the matrix it is in are often the same color and because of this is difficult to see the intricacies that one can see in person. That is why, even in this day and age of digital photography, illustration is often the choice of researchers.

But you know this because you are a giant of science. You don’t need no stinkin illustrations to call all paleontologists liars.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Since, the information related to the cell has been demonstrated
not to have arisen by natural causes, (the information pararells
all human language, as well as, computer language) the proteins
and amino acids as carriers of the information and the information
as not inherent in the proteins and amino acids that constitute
DNA. One may not be aware that the principles of the
Scientific Method have not been applied to Evolution!
Pax

Please do share with us this earth shattering scientific research that demonstrates that “information” (whatever that is) has not arisen by natural causes.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

As another web site puts it:

*Is Darwin’s theory ultimately a tautology, that is, the needless repitition of an idea with different words? (e.g., “necessary essentials” or “Militarily stronger nations always win their wars.”)

Evolution is not a tautology.

talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

Peace
Tim

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…Without a literal Adam and Eve our faith dies…

But why ?​

If there were a first human pair and they were called Lee & Tracy, it wouldn’t matter - what matters (AFAICS from the documents on the subject) is not their names, or their location; but that there was some sort of communion between God & man which was culpably broken by man relatively early after the appearance of man.

As to there being two individuals with the names Adam & Eve (or their Hebrew originals): not only does there need to be some sort of explanation for how individuals living well before 4000 BC (at the very earliest - Mesopotamian culture is much older, by thousands of years, but let’s not be awkward; its recorded history begins about 3000 at the earliest) could have names in Hebrew, which is nothing like as old as that, but, in addition, it is not even clear that Genesis 2-3 is asserting that two such individuals existed.

Adam & Eve are not required by the theology of original sin to be real historical individuals - & besides, it’s not legitimate to use the needs of theology as evidence that something or someone must be historically real. Original Sin is unaffected by the non-existence of Adam & Eve, as is true also of our redemption by Christ - we still have something, sin & sins, to be redeemed from, even if Adam & Eve have no more historical reality than King Kong & Skull Island.

BTW - does one need to be anatomically capable of speech to be human; or would creatures without a voice box not count as true men ? Do paleontologists & theologians agree on what constitutes being truly human - or could a Lucy (say) count as fully (sufficiently ?) human for theological purposes ? ##

 

[corvidae]

Could we be setting up a false dictonomy here. I am not sure if my usage is correct.

I mean, some say you either have faith, or you have reason
But in reality you can have both

Why is it seen that ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive. I think that Evolution has been guided and is proof of intelligent design.

Also, I believe evolutionary theory as it stands today has its flaws, for example, we really do not have any idea about what the common ancestors are or how they seperated into species.

An example of this would be that Humans appeared about half a million years ago.

We have history for between 4 and five thousand years

We have seen no biological changes in those four to five thousand years. Shouldn’t we have about 1% of the total change in that time? But our genetic makeup is identical, and anything that is different could simply be a product of environment.

Just my two cents
Unasked for, and probably unwelcome

A lone Raven

 

[dcdurel]

Evolution is not a tautology.

talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
Peace
Tim

I looked up your reference. It says:
The real significance of this argument is not the argument itself, but that it was taken seriously by any professional philosophers at all. ‘Fitness’ to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population.

But, again, that is simply repetition of the same thing. For how do we know which “could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population.”? The only way we know, is that they survived

Thus, it is a tautology. Definition “A proposition which is always true.”

It can never be proven wrong, because it is simply a repetition of itself. It is simply circular reasoning. No matter which differences one species has from the other, the explanation will always be the same, “this is an adaption which helps the species survive”. How do we know? Because it survived !!!

Pure tautology.

Here is a more extensive explanation

members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl3.html

It shows how the same explanation is given for two different adaptions, in two different species, and each is given as the an adaption that help the species survive. No matter what difference a species will have, it is always an adaption that helped it survive. How do we know? Because it survived !!
Birds “developed” wings. Why, to help them survive.
Ostriches lost their wings. Why, to help them survive.
No matter what the animal does, it is always an adaption for survival. How do we know? Because they survive !

Circular reasoning.

 

[zian]

dc,

You have quoted from the information at Tim’s link selectively. I recommend you spend some more time there, because the gist of the article is the opposite of what you are concluding.

Also, perhaps this will help
sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=1&article=opinion

 

[PhilVaz]

Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe at U.S.F. 09-29-2006

Wells Talk Only (intro by Tom Woodward, and Q & A)

Behe Talk Only (intro by Tom Woodward, and Q & A)

WHOLE THING (includes my intro, PSSI intro, Dembski short interview, Wells Talk, clip from “Unlocking Mystery of Life” video, and Behe Talk)

Download at will, same old stuff except some of the questions by U.S.F. faculty were pointed. Fairly audible, I tried to clean up the sound a little bit.

Sponsored by www.PSSIInternational.com

Phil P

 

[dcdurel]

Furthermore, Darwinism is really driven by naturalism, a philosphy which says that matter is the only reality, and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical laws.

Therefore since this is the fundamental basis for Darwinism, it cannot accept the idea of design, no matter how obvious the proof, nor no matter how faulty evolution by chance is shown to be. We must understand that it is impossible to show that the theory of evolution is faulty to a committed evolutionist, not because the evidence is lacking, but because, those who defend evolution by pure chance have committed themselves to a philosophy in which matter is the only reality. Then they try to equate that philosophy with science, and thus say that scientists cannot accept design, because only material explanations can be accepted by scientists. Of course they ignore the many scientists who believe in design and esp. one of the greatest scientists, Albert Einstein.

As one scientist wrote:
“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
Prof. Louis Bounoure, Former:
President Biological Society of Strassbourg,
Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum,
Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research
The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17

 

[nby]

What I understand so far from reading only a few articles about Intelligent Design (and I will read more) is that Darwinian laws or rules break down, or fail to explain, at the biological micro-level. This is a similarity shared with Physics where at the sub-atomic level, the laws of Classical Physics break down and Quantum Mechanics take over.

I don’t see what the problem with intelligent design is. It too is a theory that (from what I understand so far) attempts to present intelligence as a missing part of the puzzle. It does not try to replace Darwinian Theory but rather wants to go hand in hand with it.

 

[Montalban]

I think you misunderstand what scientists refer to as evolution.

Evolution doesn’t mean that you will see individuals “evolve,” but that evolution occurs across entire populations over the span of generations. Furthermore, evolution does not mean that new genetic material is created. Pre-existing material can be deleted, recombined, or co-opted for secondary purposes.

You don’t have to believe that evolution occurs, but as we say that there aren’t 100 people in the world that hate the Catholic Church–they only hate what they think it is–I would say that there aren’t 100 people in the world that would refuse to accept that evolution occurs–provided they really understood what it was.

Pax tecum,
Alberich

That’s not true. The whole idea of one of Darwin’s examples was that Finches in the Galapagos Islands had shown evolution to make different groups of finches. The whole group of finches didn’t become a new singular group, but rather pockets of the population became one sort, and other pockets became other sorts (according to Darwin)

 

[Montalban]

I looked up your reference. It says:
The real significance of this argument is not the argument itself, but that it was taken seriously by any professional philosophers at all. ‘Fitness’ to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population.

But, again, that is simply repetition of the same thing. For how do we know which “could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population.”? The only way we know, is that they survived

Thus, it is a tautology. Definition “A proposition which is always true.”

It can never be proven wrong, because it is simply a repetition of itself. It is simply circular reasoning. No matter which differences one species has from the other, the explanation will always be the same, “this is an adaption which helps the species survive”. How do we know? Because it survived !!!

Pure tautology.

Here is a more extensive explanation

members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl3.html

It shows how the same explanation is given for two different adaptions, in two different species, and each is given as the an adaption that help the species survive. No matter what difference a species will have, it is always an adaption that helped it survive. How do we know? Because it survived !!
Birds “developed” wings. Why, to help them survive.
Ostriches lost their wings. Why, to help them survive.
No matter what the animal does, it is always an adaption for survival. How do we know? Because they survive !

Circular reasoning.

Exactly! Some years ago, on another forum (www.4forums.com) I had this same argument with several pro-Darwinists. I produced this laughable science books attempts to defend Darwin…

“From time to time, attacks on neo-Darwinism are mounted, usually by persons who either see evolutionary theory as antireligious or who basically misunderstand Darwin’s theory. One attack, entitled “Darwin’s Mistakes,” by Tom Bethell, was published in Harper’s magazine.

Bethell began by pointing out that Darwinian theory is a tautology rather than a predicative theory. (The term tautology means a statement that is true by definition.)* That is, evolution is the survival of the fittest. But who are the fittest? Obviously, the individuals who survive. Thus, without an independent criterion for fitness, other than survival, we are left with the statement that evolution is the survival of the survivors. This indeed is a tautology. But it is possible to assign independent criteria for fitness. Darwin wrote extensively about artificial selection in pigeons, in which the breeders’ choice was the criterion for fitness. (Many novel breeds of pigeon have been created this way.) Artificial selection has been practiced extensively by plant and animal breeders. Here too, survival is not the criterion for fitness, productivity is.”

Robert H Tamarin, (1996) “Principles of Genetics” (5th ed), p571.

Thus although acknowledging that it is a tautology, they attempt to show how we can see evolution by an example of directed breeding !

“Possible to assign criteria…” where does nature do this?

In other words their proof of survival of the fittest not being a tautology comes not from nature, but from creative and intelligent design!

Darwin used the term “natural selection” in his book “On the Origin of Species” but was persuaded that Spencer’s phrase “survival of the fittest” was probably ‘more convenient’ “

perceptions.couk.com/genes1.html#rst

Darwin thus thought that a tautology was the better way of describing his theory!

 

[Magicsilence]

No, but I haven’t just blown off the conclusions of experts that have like you did.

Peace in the Lord.

I haven’t blown off the opinion of experts. I reject conjecture and hypothesis about what an animal could have looked like, but that it doesnt correspond to the actual fossil.

So, based on photos on a web page, you can definitively declare that the fossil is a fake?

!!!

Not the fossil, but the model created is a farce.

But making a definitive declaration based on internet photos is good science?

No, its observation. I have no other means to look at the fossil.

You know that because you saw a photo on the internet. Beautiful. Obviously you are a science giant that doesn’t need to actually see the evidence to come up with a conclusion that is contrary to every person who has spent a large portion of their life studying fossils.

Am I a science giant?

Not really, are you?

Do you doubt your ability to spot the difference?

Thats all I’ve done regarding your webpage.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Magicsilence]

Exactly! Some years ago, on another forum (www.4forums.com) I had this same argument with several pro-Darwinists. I produced this laughable science books attempts to defend Darwin…

“From time to time, attacks on neo-Darwinism are mounted, usually by persons who either see evolutionary theory as antireligious or who basically misunderstand Darwin’s theory. One attack, entitled “Darwin’s Mistakes,” by Tom Bethell, was published in Harper’s magazine.

Bethell began by pointing out that Darwinian theory is a tautology rather than a predicative theory. (The term tautology means a statement that is true by definition.)* That is, evolution is the survival of the fittest. But who are the fittest? Obviously, the individuals who survive. Thus, without an independent criterion for fitness, other than survival, we are left with the statement that evolution is the survival of the survivors. This indeed is a tautology. But it is possible to assign independent criteria for fitness. Darwin wrote extensively about artificial selection in pigeons, in which the breeders’ choice was the criterion for fitness. (Many novel breeds of pigeon have been created this way.) Artificial selection has been practiced extensively by plant and animal breeders. Here too, survival is not the criterion for fitness, productivity is.”

Robert H Tamarin, (1996) “Principles of Genetics” (5th ed), p571.

Thus although acknowledging that it is a tautology, they attempt to show how we can see evolution by an example of directed breeding !

“Possible to assign criteria…” where does nature do this?

In other words their proof of survival of the fittest not being a tautology comes not from nature, but from creative and intelligent design!

Darwin used the term “natural selection” in his book “On the Origin of Species” but was persuaded that Spencer’s phrase “survival of the fittest” was probably ‘more convenient’ “

perceptions.couk.com/genes1.html#rst

Darwin thus thought that a tautology was the better way of describing his theory!

Indeed, it could be summed up as:

Those who survive, survive.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Valke2]

Who in the Florida area is going to this?

Darwin or Design? (Sept 29 at U.S.F. Sun Dome)

If you miss, don’t worry I’ll record it for you…

I’m thinking of going into the Univ of South Florida library, stacking up about 25 books and 500 papers on the evolution of blood clotting, immune system, bacterial flagellum, and asking Behe in person, "have you read these?"

Behe cross-examination at Dover

Phil P

The church recenlty recognized Darwinism and stated that evolution was compatiable with its doctrine.

 

[Magicsilence]

The church recenlty recognized Darwinism and stated that evolution was compatiable with its doctrine.

What do you mean.

Darwinism covers a range of subjects.

Again, please define evolution in this context.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Montalban]

Indeed, it could be summed up as:

Those who survive, survive.

Someone (could be Behe) said it’s “Survival of the Surviviest”

In the 1800s there was the idea that the strong would survive; the bigger deer, for instance would fight off all competitors and thus mate, and thus pass on his genes to the next generation.

However, sometimes when they fight, they lock antlers and if they can’t separate the two males will die - so the cowardly weaker buck will get a chance -so the bigger isn’t always best.

And take for instance a lion. Who’s to say that it has the genetic mutation that might help the pride survive a prolonged drought? It’s just pure luck that the right lion has the right gene to pass on.

And I’ve seen baby turtles as they break out of their shells come up from under the sand and make their way down to the sea. Seagulls and other predatours pick up one here and there to eat - there’s no selection of the weakest, its pure chance that one turtle gets eaten.

Perhaps it should be “survival of the luckiest”.