Why ID nor Darwinism works (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Sunday, June 08, 2014, 19:51 (3603 days ago)
An evenhanded discussion that makes perfect sense to me:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/science-cannot-in-principle-explain-how-an-intelligent-designer-can-create/
Why ID nor Darwinism works
by romansh 
, Sunday, June 08, 2014, 20:10 (3603 days ago) @ David Turell
An evenhanded discussion that makes perfect sense to me: > > http://www.uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/science-cannot-in-principle-explain-how-... unusual use of the word evenhanded
Why ID nor Darwinism works
by David Turell , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 22:45 (3603 days ago) @ romansh
David: An evenhanded discussion that makes perfect sense to me: > > > > http://www.uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/science-cannot-in-principle-explain-how-... > Rom:An unusual use of the word evenhanded-Would you like to expand on your opinion?
Why ID nor Darwinism works
by romansh , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 23:26 (3603 days ago) @ David Turell
First off, I maintain there can be no science telling us how an intelligent designer creates. That process is not only mysterious when applied to a supernatural agent; it is mysterious when applied to us. That's evenhanded right?-> Can writers trace the source of every word that pops into mind as they write? Can chemists fully explain why they choose one approach to analysis over another? Can engineers completely justify all materials choices? Can photographers explain precisely why they chose to frame an instant in time as they did? Strawman.-> Nor can any "science" be derived from such ambiguous, incompletion. A bold unsubstantiated assertion.-And this is just the first paragraph.
Why ID nor Darwinism works
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 00:17 (3603 days ago) @ romansh
First off, I maintain there can be no science telling us how an intelligent designer creates. That process is not only mysterious when applied to a supernatural agent; it is mysterious when applied to us. > Rom: That's evenhanded right? > > > Can writers trace the source of every word that pops into mind as they write? Can chemists fully explain why they choose one approach to analysis over another? Can engineers completely justify all materials choices? Can photographers explain precisely why they chose to frame an instant in time as they did? > ROM: Strawman. > > > Nor can any "science" be derived from such ambiguous, incompletion. > A bold unsubstantiated assertion. > > Rom:And this is just the first paragraph.-We interpret differently. The area you critique involves his discussion and dismissal of ID primarily. He then questions consciousness and how it works, and you have expressed issues over free will. Finally he dismisses Darwin asnd comes across like Nagel.
Why ID nor Darwinism works
by romansh , Monday, June 09, 2014, 00:37 (3603 days ago) @ David Turell
We interpret differently. The area you critique involves his discussion and dismissal of ID primarily. He then questions consciousness and how it works, and you have expressed issues over free will. Finally he dismisses Darwin asnd comes across like Nagel.-Nowhere does the author dismiss ID. He does dismiss the ability of ID to explain stuff. Well sorry David, the the fairies under my garden shed also don't explain much either. -He then goes onto say evolution has no explanatory capability >>But then neither can Darwinism explain how things come to be for instead of an intelligent designer (which intuitively makes sense) it offers random mistakes filtered by natural selection which is just another layer of randomness (which makes no sense at all). The details of why random mistakes would show up in a useful progression such that tremendously complicated structures get built up are never provided, nor explained, nor quantified in any way that science demands. Intuitively makes sense ... balderdash!->> Nor is it at all clear how each mistake could provide instant benefits even though a fully functional transformation remains in the distant future. This person has no clue ... and you think it is evenhanded?
Why ID nor Darwinism works
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 01:35 (3603 days ago) @ romansh
> Rom: Nowhere does the author dismiss ID. He does dismiss the ability of ID to explain stuff.-I consider this a dismissal:-"the work of the most rigorous ID proponents like Bill Dembski and David Berlinski is mathematical. They labor hard to explain why complicated things are statistically impossible. Such statistical exploration is indeed useful. But telling us why something cannot be does not tell us why it is." > > Rom: He then goes onto say evolution has no explanatory capability:-> >>neither can Darwinism explain how things come to be .. it offers random mistakes filtered by natural selection which is just another layer of randomness (which makes no sense at all). The details of why random mistakes would show up in a useful progression such that tremendously complicated structures get built up are never provided, nor explained, nor quantified in any way that science demands. - > Rom: Intuitively makes sense ... balderdash!-Tell me how Darwinian evolution works, especially faced with the Cambrian explosion evidence. I believe we evolved, but I am not convinced of any specific mechanism.-> > >> Nor is it at all clear how each mistake could provide instant benefits even though a fully functional transformation remains in the distant future.-> Rom;This person has no clue ... and you think it is evenhanded?-How carefully have you read the criticisms of Darwin theory? Punctuated equilibrium and exaptations are neat terms that imply a solution to the author's comment but really offer no clear answer. I suggest reading David Stove's Darwinian Fairytails, 1995 or any of Michael Denton's works.
Why ID nor Darwinism works
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 01:02 (3601 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Rom: Nowhere does the author dismiss ID. He does dismiss the ability of ID to explain stuff. > > I consider this a dismissal: > > "the work of the most rigorous ID proponents like Bill Dembski and David Berlinski is mathematical. They labor hard to explain why complicated things are statistically impossible. Such statistical exploration is indeed useful. But telling us why something cannot be does not tell us why it is." > > > > Rom: He then goes onto say evolution has no explanatory capability: > > > >>neither can Darwinism explain how things come to be .. it offers random mistakes filtered by natural selection which is just another layer of randomness (which makes no sense at all). The details of why random mistakes would show up in a useful progression such that tremendously complicated structures get built up are never provided, nor explained, nor quantified in any way that science demands. > > > > Rom: Intuitively makes sense ... balderdash! > > Tell me how Darwinian evolution works, especially faced with the Cambrian explosion evidence. I believe we evolved, but I am not convinced of any specific mechanism. > > > > > >> Nor is it at all clear how each mistake could provide instant benefits even though a fully functional transformation remains in the distant future. > > > Rom;This person has no clue ... and you think it is evenhanded? > > How carefully have you read the criticisms of Darwin theory? Punctuated equilibrium and exaptations are neat terms that imply a solution to the author's comment but really offer no clear answer. I suggest reading David Stove's Darwinian Fairytails, 1995 or any of Michael Denton's works.-The camdrian can be explained by oxygen and flowers for me. I mean if we look at atp production, then shut off, and back on again ... that is building on the past to me.-Then, the number of body types seen back then compared to the number of body types today. That to seems to fit evolution. -Then of course the rock record. The only thing written in stone to me.-It is true they don't see the "exact changes". But the experiments done to date do seem to fit.
Why ID nor Darwinism works
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 06:08 (3600 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK:The camdrian can be explained by oxygen and flowers for me. I mean if we look at atp production, then shut off, and back on again ... that is building on the past to me.-You are missing the point. Flowers came much later. Yes, oxygen rose a great deal, but there are no past forms to explain the Cambrian. There is an enormous jump from very simple forms to very complex ones with nothing in the fossil record in between > > GK: It is true they don't see the "exact changes". But the experiments done to date do seem to fit.-What experiments?
Why ID nor Darwinism works
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 12:40 (3600 days ago) @ David Turell
> > GK:The camdrian can be explained by oxygen and flowers for me. I mean if we look at atp production, then shut off, and back on again ... that is building on the past to me. > > You are missing the point. Flowers came much later. Yes, oxygen rose a great deal, but there are no past forms to explain the Cambrian. There is an enormous jump from very simple forms to very complex ones with nothing in the fossil record in between > > > > GK: It is true they don't see the "exact changes". But the experiments done to date do seem to fit. > > What experiments?-we start at the fruit flies.-your god, does he use evolution to make life forms here on earth? Keep in mind you and I are very close to the same thing I think. So this would be a small difference to me.
Why ID nor Darwinism works
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 16:38 (3600 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: we start at the fruit flies. > > your god, does he use evolution to make life forms here on earth? Keep in mind you and I are very close to the same thing I think. So this would be a small difference to me.-Fruit flies do not answer the problem presented by the Cambrian Explosion. I am doubting much of old Darwin. The new epigentic research, not fruit flies, seems to tell us that the genetic mechanism has much in the way of a self-directed component. Was that evolved or a given at the beginning, since bacteria can self-direct as Shapiro has shown?-Fruit flies show how mutations work, not much more.
Why ID nor Darwinism works
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 16:49 (3600 days ago) @ David Turell
> > GK: we start at the fruit flies. > > > > your god, does he use evolution to make life forms here on earth? Keep in mind you and I are very close to the same thing I think. So this would be a small difference to me. > > Fruit flies do not answer the problem presented by the Cambrian Explosion. I am doubting much of old Darwin. The new epigentic research, not fruit flies, seems to tell us that the genetic mechanism has much in the way of a self-directed component. Was that evolved or a given at the beginning, since bacteria can self-direct as Shapiro has shown? > > Fruit flies show how mutations work, not much more.-I never said they are the end all. They show mutations work. They really are only one piece. Thus we can conclude that mutations are probably the mechanism. O2 solves the energy problem for multiceller life form me. -So the four things I offered do suggest evolution is a solution. I don't need every step "solved". maybe, like my kids, it jumped two steps quickly.