The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[buffalo]

What about the thought that the entire universe exhibits unity of design? Look at the earth from whatever age. Every cell, atom, and bit of energy is in relationship to the unity of design.

It does. And it is difficult to differentiate design when you are inside the design frame.

If we could look from outside the frame perhaps it would be more obvious. But just because we live inside design does not mean that certain parts do not rise higher and can be more obvious to us.

 

[rossum]

Say you have millions of pathogens. A deleterious mutation takes place that gives an immunity to one. One could make a case that every single mutation has a benefit. We will just have to wait long enough to stumble upon the discovery of which one it is.

If that pathogen is reasonably common in the environment then that mutation will be beneficial in that environment, provided carriers survive to be able to reproduce. If the pathogen is rare or not present then the mutation will be either deleterious or neutral in that environment.

If it didn’t kill you it is beneficial. I don’t like this argument.

Neither do I, and it is not an argument that evolutionary biologists make. Natural selection is not about ‘not killing you’ but about ‘having more grandchildren’. If your mutation enables you to reproduce more successfully than those without that mutation then that mutation will spread in the population and will be beneficial in that environment. The measure of beneficial or deleterious may often be in a given environment. White fur is beneficial in the Arctic but not beneficial in temperate climates - the environment must be considered.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

It does. And it is difficult to differentiate design when you are inside the design frame.

If we could look from outside the frame perhaps it would be more obvious. But just because we live inside design does not mean that certain parts do not rise higher and can be more obvious to us.

I don’t quite understand “to differentiate design”. It seems to me that the only design which could be differentiated from another design would be when one design consists of solely matter and the other design is matter and spirit. Maybe there is a better way to design my comment.

For the person whose basis for science is materialism – all reality is matter-- there is the major problem that matter decomposes or changes sometimes from internal causes and sometimes from external ones. For me, personally, there is no problem about matter evolving because all that means is that matter changes which we already know. Since God created matter that changes – what changes is part of God’s creation. It is ourselves who like to apply labels like good and bad changes.

Yes, we do live inside the whole design. But we are different because we have an immaterial spiritual soul with intellect and will. As you and others have pointed out many times, the spiritual has never evolved or come about because of changes in matter.

It is because of our spiritual soul that we are called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-368. It is our spiritual soul which allows us to step outside the frame of the created universe.

I still maintain that it is important to meet scientists on their material turf. But that does not mean that we should hold back the spiritual facts of existence.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred because the true, real human life of Adam and Eve is sacred.

 

[edwest2]

Scientists called archaeologists find things in the ground all the time. They have scientific criteria for determing if they are designed or (a) a piece of rock or (b) a piece of dried clay.

The SETI Project has criteria for determing if they are receiving intelligent signals from space.

It would appear that observing actual design is rejected because it might lead back to that word that starts with a G.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[buffalo]

If that pathogen is reasonably common in the environment then that mutation will be beneficial in that environment, provided carriers survive to be able to reproduce. If the pathogen is rare or not present then the mutation will be either deleterious or neutral in that environment.

Neither do I, and it is not an argument that evolutionary biologists make. Natural selection is not about ‘not killing you’ but about ‘having more grandchildren’. If your mutation enables you to reproduce more successfully than those without that mutation then that mutation will spread in the population and will be beneficial in that environment. The measure of beneficial or deleterious may often be in a given environment. White fur is beneficial in the Arctic but not beneficial in temperate climates - the environment must be considered.

rossum

I should have said kill your line off. I thought you would have known what I was getting at.

Again if there are millions of pathogens in your environment I do not think that a deleterious mutation that happens to have hit on one is a victory at all.

Descendants of white Europeans who survived the plague do not get AIDS. Blacks do. Should we conclude that this was a successful mutation when AIDS wasn’t even a threat? Or was it just plain luck today? The claim that mutations can have beneficial effects is true, but perhaps this very same mutation is a weakness to a host of other pathogen threatening our offspring even more.

I think the argument is suspect and the proponents cherry pick.

White fur is an adaptation.

 

[StAnastasia]

It is my understanding that the religion Francisco Ayala relates to is not Catholicism.
Did an analytic post on one of his “religious” type comments way back.

What religion does Francisco relate to?

 

[StAnastasia]

If you haven’t noticed I am a Catholic Creationist

As am I, buffalo!

 

[itinerant1]

ID theory makes 1 claim - design exists and can be detected by scientific investigation, conclusions reached by calculating the probabilities.

The rest is philosophy.

You have the matter flipped and standing on its head. Design is apparent without scientific investigation.

Science does not detect design. The fact that science is possible “presupposes” the existence of design. Likewise, science does not prove that nature is intelligible. Science is possible only because nature is intelligible. We do not need science to tell us the world is intelligible. And neither can science tell us “why” the world is intelligible.

This is where ID theory fatally confuses the “special experience” of the natural sciences with philosophical inference. That nature exhibits design is in itself a philosophical inference.

If science was required or needed to “prove” design, then one will have to explain how pre-scientific cultures inferred design in the world.

Natural biological systems or organisms can be immensely complicated, and to a degree that boggles the mind. However, strictly scientific descriptions of the complexity adds nothing to the bare fact of design.

Even the simplest of organisms exhibits “design”, a fact which is a philosophical inference. “Specified complexity” adds nothing to that initial philosophical observation. One can assume that specified complexity suggests that the structure could not have come about by Darwinian means, but it is not a scientific judgment to assert that the structure in question is designed. Even the simplest of organisms exhibits “design”.

ID theory has these matters inexorably confused, as Father Oakes pointed out.

“Primarily that ID advocates seem regularly to confuse finality with design. Now because people only design things for a purpose, the two concepts are too often conflated. But they are different.” And…

“I also object to the way the ID Movement conflates the Thomistic distinction between primary and secondary causality. The advocates of this movement claim that if it can be proved scientifically that God must intervene on occasion to get various species up and running, then this will throw the atheist Darwinians into a panicked rout.”

Buffalo’s objection that things are designed for a purpose misses the point entirely. Things are in fact designed for a purpose, but purpose and design are not the same thing.

The act of creating is not identical with the thing created, and neither is the “purpose” for which it was created identical with the thing created.

However, I don’t expect ID theorists to catch any of this, which is why I don’t spend much time on the topic. For much the same reasons, Thomist philosophers generally refuse to have much to do with ID theory.

 

[itinerant1]

I look out my window and see design. I don’t understand the problem.

That’s right. It’s a pseudo-problem designed by ID theorists. We don’t need science to tell us things are designed.

Explaining the ontological nature of design is a matter strictly for philosophy. Metaphysical causality is outside the scope of the natural sciences, but ID theorists don’t grasp the distinctions.

It is not to the benefit of ID theorists to understand and acknowledge the philosophical problems inherent in the issue because if they did, they would have to give up their beloved enterprise, one in which huge amounts of time and money is being invested, with followers to appeal to. Donors have contributed literally many millions of dollars to “creation research”. And the donors must get their money’s worth.

 

[Philipp]

Say you have millions of pathogens. A deleterious mutation takes place that gives an immunity to one. One could make a case that every single mutation has a benefit. We will just have to wait long enough to stumble upon the discovery of which one it is.

If it didn’t kill you it is beneficial. I don’t like this argument.

Ia agree with Buffalo and so does my barber today. So I went to the literature recommended by Rossum. The enhanced immune reactivity in both HbC and HbS carriers supports the hypothesis that the protection against malaria of these adaptive genotypes might be at least partially mediated by acquired immunity against malaria. Is HbS and HbC really mutations? Or just bad adaptive genotypes with HbC the lesser of two evils?

Haemoglobin C and S role in acquired immunity against Plasmodium falciparum malaria - PubMed

-LEFT: 0in; PADDI

BUT Both HbS and HbC are considered diseases with HbS being far worse which my barber knows full well as he told me today; he has one family friend dead in her 20’s and another in Her 30’s on her way out with loss of hair and teeth and in constant pain. He told me he’d rather have malaria than HbS; at least that is treatable. HbC is of course the lesser of two evils.

YET Rossum is correct about HbC also a fighter against Malaria. But so what! It is still classified as a disease.

Introduction: Haemoglobin C disease
Description of Haemoglobin C disease
Haemoglobin C disease: A disease characterized by compensated hemolysis with a normal hemoglobin level or a mild to moderate anemia. There may be intermittent abdominal discomfort, splenomegaly, and slight jaundice.
Source: Diseases Database

I find what Rossum said very interesting and thank him for his (name removed by moderator)ut. It made me go to the original articles. But it makes me even more suspicious of evolutionary claims for positive mutations over eons of time. How do you go from one species to another if the above are truly mutations. No way Jose!

However I’m not ignorant as he implied since I have Celiac Sprue disease which is a reaction to a protein called Glutine primarily in wheat barley and oats [no beer please]. Also please excuse possible spelling mistakes–I’m not going to the dictionary; it’s very late. CS disease appears to be primarily amongst those from the British Isles but is growing much more pronounced throughout society and little children are being born with it. A baby in one of our extended families is both diebetic and has CS. Fortunatley Glutine is not in Rice bread so I eat that expensive substitute vigorously but I’m still thin as a rail.

What is my above rambling above got to do with the age question? Well I brought it up by quoting Dr. Maciej Giertych’s technical paper on Genetics and Rossum called me on it. Rossum also was critical of my mentioning Ed

ROSSUM: He has made egregious mistakes in geology, such as referencing a piece by Ed Conrad, and now he is showing his lack of background knowledge in biology. Lack of relevant knowledge is a serious handicap in a scientific debate. I would suggest that Philipp try a different line of argument. PHILIPP: Rossum knows full well if he read my previous response was that Ed Conrad was reporting primarily on the petrified fossil human bones and a possible skull and had it positively so identified and was ticked off that scientists would not recognize it so he did the only thing left to do; he put it in the Congressional record. I also noted that I could probably convince Ed Conrad that his old ages were wrogn with C-14 datilng dinosaur bones long before Rossum would ever come around to that. Off to bed.

 

[itinerant1]

Are plate tectonics and erosion intelligently designed?

ID theory involves a personification of nature in terms of an intelligence acting in all its parts in such a manner as to provide all the forces necessary for the production of any new species.

Now, Behe considers plate tectonics unintelligent. But the assertion is inconsistent, since there is no reason why his “logic” regarding the production of new species should not likewise apply to plate tectonics.

 

[rossum]

Again if there are millions of pathogens in your environment I do not think that a deleterious mutation that happens to have hit on one is a victory at all.

The criterion for natural selection is success in reproduction. It the combination mutation + pathogen reproduces more successfully than no mutation + pathogen then that mutation is beneficial in that environment.

Descendants of white Europeans who survived the plague do not get AIDS. Blacks do. Should we conclude that this was a successful mutation when AIDS wasn’t even a threat? Or was it just plain luck today? The claim that mutations can have beneficial effects is true, but perhaps this very same mutation is a weakness to a host of other pathogen threatening our offspring even more.

I have seen results indicating that it was more likely to be smallpox than plague that is related to the European AIDS immunity mutation. As ever, the key is the environment. In an environment with plague (or smallpox) that mutation is beneficial and increases reproductive success. Without the disease being present then the mutation is at best neutral or possibly mildly deleterious. The fact that it is still present in a reasonable proportion of European descended people indicates that it cannot have been seriously deleterious. With AIDS newly arrived in the environment that mutation is now beneficial again.

There are other anti-HIV mutations present in Africa, and given death rates there we will see more new mutations emerging and spreading.

White fur is an adaptation.

Yes. Adaptations are mutations that have been selected by natural selection for that environment. A good example of evolution, and evolution within “bear kind” if you want to see it that way.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Explaining the ontological nature of design is a matter strictly for philosophy. Metaphysical causality is outside the scope of the natural sciences, but ID theorists don’t grasp the distinctions.

You are forgetting the political side of the ID movement. They want to get ID into science classrooms in schools. In order to do that the have to try and make ID look sciency enough to pass muster. Looking philosophical is not going to get ID into science classes.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

ID theorists claim “intelligent design” is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic.

However, design is in evidence through the operation of the mind and not through physical evidence.

 

[itinerant1]

You are forgetting the political side of the ID movement. They want to get ID into science classrooms in schools. In order to do that the have to try and make ID look sciency enough to pass muster. Looking philosophical is not going to get ID into science classes.

rossum

Your point is inarguably true.

 

[itinerant1]

ID theorists assert that the origin of life has to be the work of “intelligent design.” However, there is no compelling evidence that biological life would involve anything more than mere matter. All scientific theories of the pre-biological origin of evolution involve a very specified matter, that is, matter with most specific properties.

As far as we know, such matter contains everything needed for life to originate by natural processes, so there is no need to invoke special actions of an intelligent designer into such processes as nucleosynthesis, or even into the pre-biological formation of sub-nuclear particles.

 

[itinerant1]

Intelligent Design, despite the verbal obfuscations of ID theorists, must imply an ultimate intelligence which is a divine intelligence, the intelligence of a Creator.

And no one who holds that the universe is the work of an infinitely intelligent Creator can reasonably claim that the matter created does not contain everything needed to perform all processes which are material.

Insofar as Intelligent Design claims to be science and not just philosophy it must acknowledge that in science, measurements are the last word. But ID theory as science fails because it claims that the “intelligence” which drive and directs the production of biological organisms can be measured and observed. How does one measure immaterial intelligence, especially divine intelligence?

Darwinian science, on the other hand, is valuable as a science of evolution because it proposes factors that can be evaluated, at least in principle, in quantitative terms which are the main characteristics of matter.

 

[rossum]

YET Rossum is correct about HbC also a fighter against Malaria. But so what! It is still classified as a disease.

I have never said it was not. In a malarial area HbC is a beneficial mutation. You give the mild symptoms of HbC, you do not give the much more serious symptoms of malaria. How many millions are killed by malaria each year? Someone who dies of malaria as a child will not have any children. Someone who survives childhood malaria because they have the HbC mutation will have children. HbC is a beneficial mutation.

I find what Rossum said very interesting and thank him for his (name removed by moderator)ut. It made me go to the original articles. But it makes me even more suspicious of evolutionary claims for positive mutations over eons of time. How do you go from one species to another if the above are truly mutations. No way Jose!

Your personal incredulity is not a valid scientific argument. The smallest number of mutations to get from one species to another that I am aware of is three mutations. Three. One mutation changed colouring and the other two altered the mating season. Now the two species, Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi, live in different habitats, (to match their colourings), and breed at different times of the year. Three mutations can make a new species.

ROSSUM: He has made egregious mistakes in geology, such as referencing a piece by Ed Conrad, and now he is showing his lack of background knowledge in biology. Lack of relevant knowledge is a serious handicap in a scientific debate. I would suggest that Philipp try a different line of argument. PHILIPP: Rossum knows full well if he read my previous response was that Ed Conrad was reporting primarily on the petrified fossil human bones and a possible skull and had it positively so identified and was ticked off that scientists would not recognize it so he did the only thing left to do; he put it in the Congressional record. I also noted that I could probably convince Ed Conrad that his old ages were wrogn with C-14 datilng dinosaur bones long before Rossum would ever come around to that. Off to bed.

Ed is convinced that he has found a fossil skull. He has not. He has found a piece of rock shaped like a skull fragment and convinced himself that it is part of a fossil skull. See Carboniferous human bones – an evaluation for a lot more detail from an expert. Ed has found a funny shaped piece of rock; is that what you want to base your case for a 6,000 year old earth on?

rossum

 

[grannymh]

However, I don’t expect ID theorists to catch any of this, which is why I don’t spend much time on the topic. For much the same reasons, Thomist philosophers generally refuse to have much to do with ID theory.

Fiddlesticks. That is exactly where time needs to be spent.

 

[grannymh]

You are forgetting the political side of the ID movement. They want to get ID into science classrooms in schools. In order to do that the have to try and make ID look sciency enough to pass muster. Looking philosophical is not going to get ID into science classes.

rossum

I do see that. How can I politely say that those interested in defending the true nature of Adam and Eve need to split?

Of course, the good that the ID movement has accomplished should not be abandoned. Rather the good of ID needs to refocus. The Thomists, too, need to refocus by expanding their understanding of certain ID principles.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.