E_muse

This seems to be the point of contention for DNAunion and the statement which seeks demonstrate that Behe's arguement for IC is dead.

Certainly my understanding of evolution would be established on the writings of someone like Dawkins. In The Blind Watchmaker he seeks to increase the plausability of the idea that a complex eye could have evolved. In doing so he argues that the reader should imagine a series of X's between complex eye and no eye at all. Moving up from 'no eye' each X would be increasingly more complex and move the whole system closer to being a human eye. However, I am not suggesting here that the evolution of the eye was inevitable or that it would occur again.

He certainly doesn't leave his reader with the freedom to create stasis or invoke backward steps into the process. Obviously stasis or regression would slow the process and I suppose there is some doubt that a highly complex system could evolve in the time available. However, it would be good to hear a better informed opinion on this.

E_muse

It is unfortunate that DNAunion's arguement seems to centre around semantics. DNAunion has picked up on a particular comment made by pz (mentioned above) and it seems to have become the centre of his entire arguement coupled with an apparent desire to 'win'.

However, DNAunion has plainly stated in this thread that:

So it seems like IDers don't have the monopoly on semantic arguement!

It is important IMO to examine what leading authorities and people on these boards are saying anc compare their ideas. It is also important to compare statements made by people like pz and Dawkins for example in order to get to the reasoning behind the statements and thus develop one's own understanding. This may sometimes be laborious or frustrating but worth the struggle and the potential for misunderstanding if it brings us nearer to a better understanding of the universe we live.

For example, pz has said:

pz has emphasized the random aspects of evolution whereas someone like Dawkins has sought to de-emphasize it. Again, a quote from Dawkins:

There is obviously a difference in emphasis between what pz and Dawkins are saying and so I wish to explore this in order to increase my own understanding.

However, despite what I have said about DNAunion, I also think that in debates that are conducted entirely around text, semantics is all important. However, he may have taken things too far and his arguements can seem to centre around cheap point scoring.

No data speaks for itself IMO but must be interpreted. Scientists do not always agree over what conclusions should be drawn from certain observations and so this is where there is a need to examine the reasoning behind their conclusions.

If 'evidence' was 'self-evident' then scientists would never disagree.

No.

But surely you can see that in debates driven by text, semantics is very important. Especially when we can so easily superimpose our own 'meanings' onto the words someone else has used when in fact they 'mean' something entirely different.

KC

Because they argue with dictionaries, not data.

Cheers,

KC

Nic Tamzek

Read this for some reasonably careful definitions (this is the paper DNAunion mentioned before, it is essentially a rebuttal of Behe that was published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology; it is pretty good though not perfect IMHO):

IMO the words "direct evolution" reasonably apply if one is looking at a (approximately) gradual adaptation in response to a specific selective pressure. This will of course then only be applicable to specific species in specific times/environments. If you 'zoom out' very far in time, space, or taxonomy then "directness" becomes impossible to find.

All politics is local, and so is adaptation.

nic

E_muse

This is almost certainly an inaccurate presentation of the situation.

It may be true that IDers who have no scientific qualifications will present a poor ID arguement. However, the same can also be said of the theory of evolution itself with talkorigins arguing that even few biologists (the qualified) have a satisfactory grasp of it.

Few people will have access to the actual data surrounding the theory. Most of us trust the conclusions of those who have. However, scientists who argue for ID do provide data for their theory.

ID theorists can almost certainly be divided into camps, young earth creationists and old earth creationists. The second group may well accept evolution as a mechanism of intelligent design and so would have little arguement with the atheist over how scientific data should be interpreted.

The first group however will provide data to support their claim that the earth is young (thus removing the necessary time period for evolution to work). Such arguements will almost certainly be based upon some form of catasrophism as opposed to uniformitarianism.

Arguements (data) put forward for this might include the following:

Violent volcanic eruptions producing very rapid sedimentary deposition. For example, they may use the example of Mount St. Helens in Washington state depositing 7.6 metres of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon.

Another example used under this heading might include the island of Surtsey which appeared between November 1963 and June 1967. When geologists explored the island in the summber 1964 it is reported that they found it hard to believe that what they were witnessing had taken only months not years.

Another example used might be examples of trees that are found fossilized in an upright position and which extend up through more than one layer or strata. Obviously, if layering took millions of years then such trees would have rotted away long before they had a chance to fossilize.

Another example that might be employed by a young earth proponent is that of modern petrified artefacts. One I have seen used is the discovery of a petrified bowler hat. This arguement is used to call into question the claim that fossilization must take millions of years. This arguement will go on to present the arguement that all fossilization must occur rapidly if decay is not to remove the evidence.

Other arguements for this standpoint might also include:

1. Red blood cells and haemoglobin have been found in some dinosaur bone. These could not last for more than a few thousand years.

2. The decay of the earth's electromagnetic field. It is said to be decaying so fast that the earth could not be more than 10, 000 years old.

3. The helium in the atmosphere (from radioactive decay) is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere is really billions of years old.

4. An absence of very old, widely expanded supernova remnants.

5. The recession of the moon from earth (about 4cm per year) which means that the moon could have only taken 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is much younger than the dates assigned to the rocks.

Old earth proponenets may have perfectly adequate and more logically consistent ways of assimilating these factors into their theories. However, what this demonstrates is that the YEC interpretation of the data is faulty or inadequate not that creationism isn't an explanation or that its proponents have failed to present data.

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

pz

I'm not going to waste my time on these ridiculous young earth arguments, except to mention the last as an example and suggest that you see the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html" target="_blank">Talk.origins FAQ</a> on this subject.

I do find it amusing that in a discussion of ID that you think it is appropriate to bring up so-called 'evidence' for a young earth.
Baloney. Rank, reeking, putrescent baloney.

This is such a thoroughly buggered argument that I don't even know where to start. You are conflating assertions with data, and apparently have such a lack of rigor in your definition of data that you will accept half-truths and distortions as sincere.

Think about this: every year, millions of children get presents on December 25th. Most bookstores have books with photographs and paintings of Santa Claus. Many Nobel-prize-winning scientists celebrate Christmas. Have I therefore presented data that not only does Santa Claus exist, but that he is an adequate explanation of a phenomenon?

Clutch

Emuse, I asked you to Those of uour comments that actually address this request are the following:

This is a highly idiosyncratic use of the term "sound", on your part, amounting to a complete change of topic. You seem to be using it in relation to a concept, to mean something like "logically consistent". But Dawkins uses the term in relation to an argument -- Hume's argument. And calling an argument sound is not simply to call it consistent. By definition, a sound argument has a true conclusion.

Hence, in calling Hume's argument sound, Dawkins professes to believe that Hume established his conclusion. What conclusion does Dawkins think that is? "[W]hat Hume did was criticize the logic of using apparent design in nature as positive evidence for the existence of God."

And that is indeed, among other things, what Hume successfully did.

In short, Dawkins' point amounts to this: Simply observing the vacuousness of purported design explanations is not intellectually fulfilling for a scientist. This, of course, would only surprise someone who thought that the intellectual purpose of evolutionary theory is to oppose claims of design.

RufusAtticus

DNAunion,

Check your PMs.

Your entire argument rests on the contention that because pz didn't write "in general" or "the process of" he obviously didn't mean that by his statement. This is of course false since language doesn't work this way. Sometimes statements are ambiguous especially when you are not familiar with the background of your audience. This has happened here. Pz stands by his words since the clarification doesn't change its meaning but rather the accuracy of the reception of the audience.

You have allowed yourself to get distracted by seeking to win semantic games. "Direct Evolution" is not a standaradized term in biology. To me it means, "monotonically linear change of traits during anagenesis." I suspect that pz and Nic have viewed it similarlly. (Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.) Evolution is not monotonically linear change of traits during anagenesis, although monotonically linear change of traits during anagenesis would be evolution.

Now please tell us what you mean by "direct evolution" and quote the relevant sections of your sources that support your defination. Just saying that the authors use the words "direct evolution" is not enough to prove your point since they could be using it differently than your are.

~~RvFvS~~

KC

E muse writes:

I should have also added, not only do creationists argue with dictionaries and not data, they also conspicuously avoid public libraries where such data is very easily obtained.

Cheers,

KC

RufusAtticus

E_muse,

Of course not, but in DNAunion's case I suspect that he is unconsciencely and unfortunately falling back into the bad habits he acquired in his IDist days.

The problem is that the same flaws the OEC/ID point out in YEC geology exist in OEC/ID biology.