Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by Aphoric

Also, who says God couldn't have created the universe that way? Maybe God wants to tinker a little. Plus, aren't you kind of suggesting that you wouldn't want to "baby-sit" your own child in such a scenario? I should hope my God isn't so callous, hehe.

I'm glad you see where I was going with that line of questioning. That is why I don't like the wishy-washy answer of, "well sometimes he gets involved but for the most part no." Or that god answers prayers but yet there are millions of starving children in the world but god is benevolent. You can't be benevolent and allow innocent suffering, I'm sorry but that just flys in the face of the definition.

If god is love then he hates third world children. And yes I keep bringing this concept up because it supports the fact that there is no life Guard On Duty.

[richard_mcnair]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

Sorry to cut you short.

"Darwinian theory" is a scientific theory, and all scientific theories concern themselves with observable facts about reality and the degree to which those facts can be verified and explained by a governing idea - the theory.

So your objection is as valid (or invalid) as an objection to the theory of gravity or electromagnetism or a hundred other scientific theories.

Now you may be happy, through some sort of phenomenological mind game, to assume that it is unwise to assume the theory of gravity has something relevent to tell us about our lives.

However, to state that a scientific theory is "logical positivism overstepping its boundaries" is to misunderstand science.

Science starts with the assumption that observable things teach us something about reality.

To complain about it doing so is a bit like complaining that vermillion is too red, really, or that water's overly liquid.

No, because things like the theory of gravity are relevant because we are here to observe the effects. What is observable about the theory that we all evolved from ameoba? Especially as an ameoba is something that exists in time and space before there was a mind to create time and space. They are completely different things, and different kinds of science. One is observable, repeatable and demonstrable, or largely is, the other is not.

Again, sorry for the cut.

Why is it necessary to seek a necessary a priori?

What is the a priori for a priori thought?

Is there some sort of basic assumption involved, and why is it a given that that basic assumption is required?

It's not about being necessary to seek a necessary a priori, its just about trying to understand things as they actually are. If the necessary a priori exists, it exists. To say that whether it exists or not is somehow meaningless, as the logical positivists do, is like sticking you fingers in your ears, and burying your head in the sand.

Is a priori thought just solipsism then?

No. Because it certainly is useful to understand the external phenomenal world. BUT when we are trying to answer mans great questions, the answers cannot be found in reference to the external world only, we must look at the transcendant. Dont yopu agree?

Sure, but to repeat (as I think this is important), science is defined by the assumption that observing phenomena leads to an undrestanding of reality.

So you can question the assumptions by all means, but science is not science without that foundational assumption.

Observing phenomena absolutely leads us to a greater understanding of phenomena, and in fields like medicine, and technology is tremendously useful, but it is not these fields I am talking about. The common ancestory theory, and abiogenesis theories are basically trying to understand the greater question with regard to the phenomenal world only, and I am sorry that is bullshit. This attitude to go back to Plato's cave is basically equivalent to just turning to the wall, intent on eternally convincing yourself that all that exists are the shadows, perhaps because it is easier that way, I dont know.

I'd love to see you live your life without the various products of this "bullshit". I would wager you'd grow pretty miserable.

Well once again I am not questioning the logical positivist attitude if its use isnt well defined and it doesnt overreach itself into area where it has no business.

To fetter science by claiming that it "should" concern itself with the ontological is nonsense. It is up to those with a metaphysical appetitie for theological answers to the big questions to either reconcile those beliefs with science or ignore science.

However, too often they demand science adopt some sort of sensitivity to their beliefs, or they lie about science and twist science to some sort of collusion with their beliefs - like Christian Creationists and the like.

But (I know this is getting repetitive, but it's worth bashing into people's heads) science deals with the observable world.

And those who claim evolution is some sort of exception to this are either ignorant of the theory or unable to reconcile their metaphysical desires with science.

Absolutely science deals with the observable world, however the statement 'we all evolved from ameoba, and this happened through nothing else than survival' is a mere theory, and does not deal with anything observable. I agree it certainly is the 'best fit' picture at the current time, but does that mean I am not allowed to question or enquire?

SCIENCE is merely an explanation for phenomena. That's how science works. Why single out "Darwinian theory"? Why not "Newtonian" theory, or "Pasteurian" theory or dozens of others?

I seem to me unfair to single out one set of Scientific ideas, facts, principles and the theory that governs them and say that they have to satisfy some sort of phenomenological ideology which the rest of science gets on quite well without.

Yes - everything we think we know might be wrong - pretty much everyone gets that don't they? However, the discoveries of science - which I feel have vastly contributed to my own quality of life and wellbeing - work because they assume reality can be observed.

Because darwinian theory is not JUST refering to the same objective phenomenal world. It is trying to explain life itself, and mind, both of which have to be understood in the transcendental.

---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 02:26 PM ----------

Once agian NO-ONE is answering my ACTUAL question. How does something evolve in time and space, before there was 'mind' to create time and space. If we are co-creators of own reality, how did we evolve in this reality? Time and space do not exist as things in themselves.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by richard_mcnair

No, because things like the theory of gravity are relevant because we are here to observe the effects. What is observable about the theory that we all evolved from ameoba?

Firstly, can we do without the strawman argument?

No qualified biologist claims we evolved from ameoba - you are lying when you claim that's what the theory says. What they claim is that animals share a common descent and that at one point ameoba and man shared a common ancestor.

This common ancestor was probably more like ameoba than man, but no one claims it actually was ameoba.

What can we observe to support this view? A number of things including:

1) The fossil record.
2) The taxonomic tree.
3) The phylogenetic tree (comparisons to the taxonomic tree first proposed by Lineaus and the genetic code of animals alive and recently dead).
4) Geographical distribution of animals living and dead.
5) Ring species and other speciation events observed in the here and now.
6) Mutation, atavism, vestigial organs, pretty much all of genetics.
7) Inexplicable bad design - hernias, larangial nerves, hiccups, etc.

In fact, evolution is more complete a theory as Darwin supposed it than gravity was when Newton supposed it. Gravity has so far undergone one major revision - Relativity. Evolution as Darwin supposed still fits most of the apparent facts. There is some quibbling over detail, punctuated equilibrium and the like, but the general idea hasn't been threatened (in serious academic circles by those who actually understand the theory) in 150 years.

No. Because it certainly is useful to understand the external phenomenal world. BUT when we are trying to answer mans great questions, the answers cannot be found in reference to the external world only, we must look at the transcendant. Dont yopu agree?

No.

Philosophically I think assuming the transcendant is in itself significant is a baseless assumption grounded in a metaphysical desire for there to be easily understood answers to the 'big questions' and comforting moral props to accompany them.

Whilst I think there is much to admire about Kant I feel he makes a fundamental error. He is involved in a program of reduction that refuses to take the last logical step.

Being - the assumption that the transcendant must be is no less crass than the assumption that it need not be.

But anyway - what has this to do with Darwin? One can believe in evolution and find the vistas of time and natural history it reveals transcendant. One can even - as the last two Popes have - say that it describes in detail what Genesis describes metaphorically.

Observing phenomena absolutely leads us to a greater understanding of phenomena, and in fields like medicine, and technology is tremendously useful, but it is not these fields I am talking about. The common ancestory theory, and abiogenesis theories are basically trying to understand the greater question with regard to the phenomenal world only, and I am sorry that is bullshit. This attitude to go back to Plato's cave is basically equivalent to just turning to the wall, intent on eternally convincing yourself that all that exists are the shadows, perhaps because it is easier that way, I dont know.

Well, this is just going to lead to talking in circles.

You are treating the Plato's cave analogy as something holy in and of itself. This is just as crass a philosophical position as stressing that percieved reality is all there is.

To use your preffered tone of debate - it is bullshit.

Well once again I am not questioning the logical positivist attitude if its use isnt well defined and it doesnt overreach itself into area where it has no business.

Yet you have given no good reason as to why it's not evolution's business to describe what it describes.

Absolutely science deals with the observable world, however the statement 'we all evolved from ameoba, and this happened through nothing else than survival' is a mere theory,

It's not theory - it's a strawman arguement used to persuade people that scientists think and say things they don't actually think or say.

and does not deal with anything observable.

Apart from The fossil record, The taxonomic tree, The phylogenetic tree, geographical distribution of animals living and dead, Ring species and other speciation events observed in the here and now, Mutation, atavism, vestigial organs, pretty much all of genetics, otherwise Inexplicable bad design - hernias, larangial nerves, hiccups, etc. And so on...

I agree it certainly is the 'best fit' picture at the current time, but does that mean I am not allowed to question or enquire?

Another strawman - who said you weren't allowed to enquire?

Because darwinian theory is not JUST refering to the same objective phenomenal world. It is trying to explain life itself, and mind, both of which have to be understood in the transcendental.

No, you just assume they do - but you haven't given any reason to justify such an assumption beyond "Kant said so".

---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 10:04 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Aphoric

There is rational, empirical evidence for intelligent design...

Really? Such as?

Most such evidence I have seen presented has been quickly debunked by real scientists.

[Aphoric]

Dr. Michael J. Behe's irreducible complexity

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry-- From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference: Behe, Michael.

Go ahead, quickly debunk this theory, but I promise if you start with the mouse trap this will be a long and painful process for both of us.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by Aphoric

Go ahead, quickly debunk this theory...

Here is a quick video debunking Behe. It's part of a longer lecture posted below, but it does include a number of working mousetraps made out of parts of mousetraps - hence why mousetraps are not irreducibly complex. This is a clip from the program:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2l...eature=related

This video is satirising Behe - but makes a number of salient points regarding bacterial flagella.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irVqVKdiohE

Honestly, if you would just look at a few arguments opposing irreducable complexity you would see that it is a thoroughly vapid argument. There are no examples of such a thing in nature.

Arguments such as irreducable complexity are constructed in order to appear impressive to the layman. Anyone who has actually made the effort to understand what evolution actually is can see through them pretty quickly - they are not impressive arguments - they are nothing more than smoke and mirrors and strawmen fallacies.

Here's the full Ken Miller lecture on why Behe's ideas are not valid scientific evidence for irreducible complexity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsW...eature=related

It really is a very good lecture, and comprehensively answers Behe. I strongly suggest you watch it, it's pretty fascinating stuff.

EDIT: Sorry for the edits - I find it hard to work out why videos cause the formatting problems they do. Never mind. The first video is the important one to watch to understand why Behe isn't providing a valuable scientific critique.

Originally Posted by Aphoric

I promise if you start with the mouse trap this will be a long and painful process for both of us.

Well, I started with the mousetrap...

[Aphoric]

*sigh*.... Of course you had to do it anyway. Behe addressed this argument in the book Case for a Creator

Michael Behe replies to Ken Miller's misrepresentation of Intelligent Design and the concept of the mouse trap:

Originally Posted by Michael Behe

"The problem... is that it's not an argument against anything I've ever said. In my book, I explicitly point out that some of the components of biochemical machines can have other functions. But the issue remains - can you use numerous, slight, successive modifications to get from those other functions to where we are?

"Some of this objection seems a bit silly. Could a component of a mousetrap function as a paperweight? Well, what do you need to be a paperweight? You need mass. You need to exist. An elephant, or my computer, or a stick can be a paperweight. But suppose you go buy a paperweight. What would it look like? Most of them are nondescript, roundish things. None of them look anything like a precursor to a mousetrap. Besides, look at what he's doing: he's starting from the finished product - the mousetrap - and disassembling it and moving a few things around to use them for other puposes. Again, that's intelligent design!

"The question for evolution is not whether you can take a mousetrap and use its parts for something else: it's whether you can start with something else and make it into a mousetrap. The problem for evolutionists is to start with a less complex system and build a more complex system. Even if every component could theoretically have a useful function prior to its assembly into the mousetrap, you'd still have the problem of how the mousetrap becomes assembled."

...

"When people put together a mousetrap, they have the disassembled components in different drawers or something, and they grab one from each drawer and put it together. But in the cell, there's nobody there to do that.

"In molecular machines, components have portions of their shape that are complementary to each other, so they connect with each other in the right way. A positive charge can attract a negative charge, and an oily region can attract another oily region. So if we use the mousetrap as an analogy, one end of the spring would have to have a certain shape or magnetism that just happened to attract and fit with another component of the trap. They'd all have to fit together that way until you had the whole trap assembled by itself.

"In other words, if you just had the components themselves without the ability to bring the toher pieces into position, you'd be far from having a functioning mousetrap. Nobody ever addresses this problem in the evolutionary literature. If you do any calculations about how likely this could occur by itself, you find it's very improbable. Even with the small machines, you wouldn't expect them to self-assemble during the entire life-time of the earth. That's a severe problem that evolutionists don't like to address."

About your second video. One thing that I want to point out is that you're a jerk for making me watch a video with about 15 minutes of misrepresented ideas about ID, and 45 minutes of why ID shouldn't be taught in school. As a proponent of ID, I don't even think it should be taught in schools. Like Ken Miller said, I would hate the idea of a bunch of ignorant fundamentalists tried to drive a wedge between science and religion in our schools. HOWEVER, I didn't come into this thread to talk about how awesome it would be to have been taught ID in Freshman Biology. I came to this thread to talk about the merits of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. As far as the politics and ethics of the Dover board of education court case goes, Kenneth Miller hit the nail on the head. As far as the science goes... eww. Kenneth Miller holds forth on Intelligent Design like he fracking came up with the idea. But here's what he really knows about ID.

Evolution News & Views: Misrepresenting the Definition of Intelligent Design

His argument against the example of the flagellum being an irreducibly complex system was also misrepresented and ended up being TOTALLY wrong.

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Luskin_E...uts_042706.pdf

Oh, he was wrong about blood clotting too, a point that has been contested by far more capable scientists and yet has been successfully defended.

CSC - In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade:

Oh, and that bit about the fused chromosome? Red herring.

And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller's Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion (Updated)

So, yeah. About being quickly debunked, have you anything else to say about Michael Behe's irreducible complexity? Because you didn't even mention the "Acid Test" or chemical self-organization, and I still have to get to Rare Earth, The anthropic principle, and the mathematics of information theory.

[Dave Allen]

you're a jerk

Do we have to descend to ad hominim? I'd rather not myself.

Some of this objection seems a bit silly. Could a component of a mousetrap function as a paperweight? Well, what do you need to be a paperweight? You need mass. You need to exist. An elephant, or my computer, or a stick can be a paperweight. But suppose you go buy a paperweight. What would it look like? Most of them are nondescript, roundish things. None of them look anything like a precursor to a mousetrap.

In the first article you linked to Behe describes irreducible complexity in Darwin's own terms, that something has to have been assembled in it's current form for the task it is designed to do and that cannot perform a useful function without all it's parts being in place.

The reason the mousetrap isn't a valid objection (aside from the elephant in the room - that it is a made object anyway) is twofold:

1) It fails to acknowledge that evolutionary theory can account for partway structures that don't perform the function of the finished structure (but some different function) fusing to form a different structure undertaking the new function.

Does the board of the mousetrap form a paperweight? Yes it can. Is it as good a paperweight as a stone? No - but it needn't be in many circumstances. If you haven't got anything but a wooden block for a paperweight the wooden block will do. If you haven't muscles and a sphincter to push out waste a type 2 secretory system does the job (indeed, on the scale of a bacteria it's far more functional).

2) It doesn't exhaust the partway structures that lead to it's possible construction.

When Behe used the bacterial flagellum as evidence of intelligent design he claimed that it was irreducible - but it isn't. The type two secretory system is part of the flagellum and does a job well.

In order to prove that irreducible complexity works someone needs to find something that is irreducibly complex, and Behe hasn't done that. he has found things that look really intricate, that many might take as impossibly intricate at first glance, but in each case a reduced version performing some useful function has been found - to the degree of relative simplicity such as might be arrived at via mutation, or genetic changes without concious design.

He needs to provide evidence of a structure that is complex, and that cannot have been arrived at via changes or fusions of less complex (but still functional) structures in order for irreducible complexity to provide a valid argument.

Now, to look at the blood clotting thing as an example.

Behe claimed that you neded the entire cascade in order to have blood clot.

This was a lie, and Miller proved it was by citing examples of fish who miss out nearly a third of the cascade and still effect blood clotting.

It's relevent, because if you think, as evolutionists do, that mammals descended from fish then the fact that something that works for them which is part way to something that works for us is what you would expect to see.

The article you link to titled "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade" talks mostly about how mice missing some of the material needed for the cascade suffer health defects.

But that isn't relevent - we know the cascade is needed as it is in mammals for them to be healthy - that's not an issue. If they work well without the cascade further down the evolutionary tree then it's not an irreducibly complex system.

Even if it were relevent the fact the mice still reach breeding age means that their shoddy blood clotting doesn't in itself remove them from the struggle for life - it just makes it harder. Competition would probably see them dead in the wild - but that's only because they compete against animals with advantages - such as properly clotting blood.

If everyone was on the same playing field - as you might have seen with early terrestial animals - then the stage would be ripe to favour an animal with better blood clotting system - who would become the paramount animal in the environment due to natural selection.

Next!

From Casey Luskin's article on why Miller is wrong about the bacterial flagellum:

In Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge John E. Jones ruled harshly against the scientific validity of intelligent design. Judge Jones ruled that the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, as argued by intelligent design proponents during the trial, was refuted by the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert biology witness, Dr. Kenneth Miller.

Sure - Behe was there - why didn't set the judge straight?

Dr. Miller misconstrued design theorist Michael Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity by presenting and subsequently refuting only a straw-characterization of the argument.

Again, Behe was there and could have defended himself in court - but apparently did not.

I assume he didn't because the straw characterisation was only nominally sillier than the real argument, and so similar to it that pedantic quibbles over the differences would have been pretty picayune.

Accordingly, Miller claimed that irreducible complexity is refuted if a separate function can be found for any sub-system of an irreducibly complex system, outside of the entire irreducible complex system, suggesting the sub-system might have been co-opted into the final system through the evolutionary process of exaptation. However, Miller’s characterization ignores the fact that irreducible complexity is defined by testing the ability of the final system to evolve in a step-by-step fashion in which function may not exist at each step.

Why is Behe's definition (as stated in the first link you posted to)...

An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.

... even relevent when we are presented with numerous sub-assemblies that do work.

In order for this objection to have merit he would have to prove:

1) that sub assemblies cannot be combined and we never see such a thing in nature (in Luskin's parlance: why exaptation need not be considered a factor).

2) that the bacterial flagellum does not work in any sort of fashion with the removal of one part.

3) that Darwin's idea of a "slight modification" is the same as Behe's and, if so, why the original document outlining the theory of evolution should be considered canonical literal truth despite 150 years of increasing understanding of the processes involved.

As Luskin says:

Only by reverse-engineering a system to test for function at each transitional stage can one determine if a system has “reducible complexity” or “irreducible complexity.”

Well, this was proved by the type 2 secretory system example, was it not?

If he wants some stage by stage illustration then he has to explain why exaptation does not occur in nature (which, given the huge morphological alterations we see in some mutations, and the fact that other subtler mutations resulting in useless but not detrimental forms often occur in nature, seems unlikely).

Do we know for sure that a bacterial flagellum missing the end of its tail, or part of its motor, is useless in every conceivable way?

No.

[Kielicious]

This is awesome.

[Dave Allen]

Oh, and that bit about the fused chromosome? Red herring.

Because Casey Luskin says so?

His argument is, again, pretty irrelevent. Miller doesn't cite the "human/chimp ancestor" DNA thing as evidence for evolution in the way Casey says he does.

The reason the DNA sequence is mentioned is that in the past people have stated the fact that humans have less chromosomes than chimps is evidence we aren't related.

On the surface - seems a fair point. It would prove evolution has a major flaw in this regard. So it's worth explaining why it doesn't hold water.

The evidence that human chromosome 2 looks like a fusion of chromosomes is overwhelming. As Miller explains.

Insofar as citing evidence against objections is an argument for something - well, I suppose that's irrefutable - but Casey is making it look like Miller just pulled the fusion thing out as a big bit of evidence in favour, when really it was just mentioned so as to say "this is why the chromosome objection stuff isn't worth the paper its written on".

Casey is trying to turn Miller's willingness to discuss apparent holes in the theory into a weakness.

Rather than aknowledging that creationists have cited the "missing DNA" as a flaw in evolution in the past, and that Miller's explanation gives the reasons why, he merely starts going "why is Miller banging on about the fused DNA as if it proves evolution?"

It doesn't prove evolution - it just invalidates a previously popular objection to evolution.

Casey Luskin is quite happy to be labelled a creationist on Fox News, by the way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpL1dmfVoGA

[jeeprs]

I will wheel out one of my stock arguments and see what happens to it.

My problem with the outlook of evolutionary biology is that it is being asked to do double duty as a 'philosophy of life'. I don't believe that Charles Darwin had such presumptions. As far as the science goes, I think it is pretty hard to differ with. So the science advocates all say, with a tone of righteous umbrage, but this is a scientific question. In many respects it may well be, but there are large questions about whether there is indeed a telos, an ultimate end, in this process, as well as a first cause. In fact, the origin and purpose of life is a much larger question than a merely scientific one.

I think it is impossible to dispute that live evolves from less to more intelligent life forms. If all that was required was to set up a self-sustaining reaction how come it didn't stop at blue-green algae, or insects, or reptiles, or some other type of creature or organism, which could spread all over the earth?

It seems to me that life evolves towards greater and greater levels of awareness. This is not a Christian idea, it is a neo-Vedic idea, articulated by such contemporary Indian philosophers as Sri Aurobindo. But it is an idea that integrates a good deal of what was best about traditional Western philosophy, while offering some very new perspectives. It is also at the heart of the 'integral consciousness' movement.

And we have a place in it. We all participate, we too are able to contribute, by training our own awareness to evolve to its maximum potential, and helping the whole process of life realise its goal in so doing.

Criticisms welcomed.