Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 08-09-2003, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Think of it this way: we start with some organism. It incurs some change. The change is incidental in the sense that it doesn't anticipate future changes that subsequent generations of organisms may experience... What's more, incidental change is heritable and can therefore be transmitted to the next generation. Whether it is actually transmitted to the next generation, however, depends upon if that change is in some sense beneficial.

He has it quite backwards. Whether the change is transmitted to the next generation depends upon that change not being sufficiently harmful to prevent the reproduction of the organism. Big difference. And I think that the significance of natural selection to evolution is very much being challenged by evolutionary biologists--precisely how large a role it plays (especially in a macroevolutionary sense), and in conjunction with what other factors (like extinction).

Individual organisms produce enormous numbers of offspring, all with different combinations of pre-existing genetic variation (due to past mutations that have become established in the population) and new genetic variation (due to new mutations which may or may not become established in the population). The individuals of any particular species produce far more offspring than can possibly survive; in a stable population, on average only one out of the dozens, hundreds, or thousands (and in some cases millions) of offspring produced by any one individual of that species will live to reproduce (and that's not even counting gametes, which provide a whole 'nother level of selection on "populations" in the millions and billions). Exactly which of those individuals survive and which ones die is largely independent of the precise genetic combinations of those individuals (due to predation, weather, etc.). I would suggest that, except for mutations that provide a strong positive or negative adaptive value (which might give a significant edge on or against that one in a dozen/hundred/thousand/million chance of surviving), precisely which mutations become established in any given population is largely a matter of chance. And the huge numbers of offspring represent a "laboratory" for trying out different combinations in search of those rare signifcantly adaptive mutations.

Lizard · 08-09-2003, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Tamzek
Howdy Liz,

Having a little return to the UBB forums? 'Tis a dangerous path, it's tough to get off the bottle...

Howdy, Nic --

It's even worse than that. Last night, I posted a couple of messages on the ARN board. The first one shut down that thread immediately. In it, I criticized Dembski for doing drive-by postings on ARN, then letting Nelson Alonso defend his inane ideas, for which he is uniquely suited, since he can entertain many contradictory ideas at once. My second post may be gone by now. It was a response to Dembski whining about Dennet and Dawkins proposing the term "brights" be used for atheists. I wrote saying he shouldn't worry that anyone would ever call him "bright."

Feeling a little feisty, I guess. How much Dembski can anyone take? A better question: Why does anyone bother to take him seriously? Even the ID establishment seems to have booted him from the bandwagon.

There is an ID "symposium" coming up at the University of Minnesota in November. Behe is the only "star" on the program. One of the speakers is a Muslim Fundamentalist who is part of the group of anti-evolutionists writing under the name "Harun Yahya." Paul Nelson will be there, and a few others whose names you may recognize. See more here:

ID Symposium

If anyone is in the University of Michigan area and would like to distribute flyers outside the symposium, let me know. Some are available on the KCFS website: KCFS Website. There are more available, and if interested, I can direct you to them.

MrDarwin · 08-09-2003, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lizard
One of the speakers is a Muslim Fundamentalist who is part of the group of anti-evolutionists writing under the name "Harun Yahya."

Ah yes, good old Harun Yahya, a dishonest creationist of the worst kind. This came up quite some time ago in a discussion (summarized here) on whale evolution in which randman (we all remember him, don't we?) quoted from Harun Yahya's website regarding the "walking whale" Pakicetus, which states:

Quote:

Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises or crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one. (emphasis mine)

Yet when we examine the original description of Pakicetus (Gingerich et al. 1983, Science 220: 403-406, "Origin of Whales in Epicontinental Remnant Seas: New Evidence from the Early Eocene of Pakistan") here is what it has to say:

Quote:

The specimens were recovered from fluvial red sediments.... The fauna associated with Pakicetus at Chorlakki is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include poorly preserved Planorbis-like snails [Planorbis is the common freshwater ramshorn snail], fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodilians.... Altogether this evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than marine environment for Pakicetus during at least part of its daily or annual life cycle.... Evidence suggests that Pakicetus and other early Eocene cetaceans represent an amphibious stage in the gradual evolutionary transition of primitive whales from land to sea. (emphasis again mine)

So with some convenient omissions, the change of "turtles" (aquatic) to "tortoises" (terrestrial), and the bald-faced claim that snails and crocodilians are "terrestrial" (some snails are, but not the ones mentioned), Harun Yahya manages to turn inside-out what the original publication actually said.

lpetrich · 08-09-2003, 09:34 AM

William Dembski reminds me a bit of the physics crackpot George Francis Gillette, with his impenetrable theorizing about "complex specified information", though without the color of GFG's theories.

GFG was an advocate of the "spiral universe", and the "backscrewing theory of gravity", a theory which "out-Newtons Newton."

"Each ultimote is simultaneously an integral part of zillions of otherplane units and only thus is its infinite allplane velocity and energy subdivided into zillions of finite planar quotas of velocity and energy," he wrote.

By contrast, he claimed in 1929 that by 1940, "the relativity theory will be considered a joke." And he felt very strongly about the rejection of his theories by the "orthodox oxen" of science:

"There is no ox so dumb as the orthodox."

Which Dembski expounded on at length in his most recent tract, though without GFG's color.

Nic Tamzek · 08-09-2003, 09:57 AM

Liz,

Heh, I looked at the DDD IV website, no wonder you're feeling feisty:

Quote:

Twelve other scientists, lawyers and philosophers will speak in concurrent sessions on a variety of topics, including:

The legality of teaching or censoring design theory in public schools.

Current scientific research programs on complexity theory and intelligent design.

How origins science is taught objectively at the University level and how it might be incorporated in a high school curriculum;

The view of the AAAS in support of the resolution.

The Muslim ID movement and its opposition to a naturalistic model.

Science that supports a young earth perspective of our origin.

Science that supports a non-naturalistic "old earth" perspective of our origins.

The view of a theistic evolutionist on the debate.

Evaluations of our past symposia have been superlative. Presentations are interspersed with music and laughter and are designed for students, teachers, school administrators, parents, and the general public. Come for all or just part of the day and have a box lunch with the speakers.

YEC, OEC, whatever, I guess...

Mageth · 08-10-2003, 01:12 PM

I thank everyone for their input.

(in addition, this is a subtle bump

)

Lizard · 08-10-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lizard

There is an ID "symposium" coming up at the University of Minnesota in November. Behe is the only "star" on the program. One of the speakers is a Muslim Fundamentalist who is part of the group of anti-evolutionists writing under the name "Harun Yahya." Paul Nelson will be there, and a few others whose names you may recognize. See more here:

ID Symposium

If anyone is in the University of Michigan area and would like to distribute flyers outside the symposium, let me know. Some are available on the KCFS website: KCFS Website. There are more available, and if interested, I can direct you to them. [/B]

In the last paragraph above, of course, I meant if anyone is in the University of Minnesota area... etc.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-09-2003, 09:34 AM	#14
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	William Dembski reminds me a bit of the physics crackpot George Francis Gillette, with his impenetrable theorizing about "complex specified information", though without the color of GFG's theories. GFG was an advocate of the "spiral universe", and the "backscrewing theory of gravity", a theory which "out-Newtons Newton." "Each ultimote is simultaneously an integral part of zillions of otherplane units and only thus is its infinite allplane velocity and energy subdivided into zillions of finite planar quotas of velocity and energy," he wrote. By contrast, he claimed in 1929 that by 1940, "the relativity theory will be considered a joke." And he felt very strongly about the rejection of his theories by the "orthodox oxen" of science: "There is no ox so dumb as the orthodox." Which Dembski expounded on at length in his most recent tract, though without GFG's color.

08-10-2003, 01:12 PM	#16
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I thank everyone for their input. (in addition, this is a subtle bump )

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.