Flann 5 wrote: And whether species can evolve beyond certain boundaries is questionable.Change yes but do bacteria, ever become anything but bacteria? Do finches ever become anything other than finches?Where is the evidence that in fact they do?
Homologies are a matter of interpretation as to what explains them. A common designer is one such.
The neo-Darwinian synthesis is the widely accepted view, but I think there are questions,from some paleontologists for instance,whether the fossil record supports it.

I'm not sure if you realize the extent of evidence for evolution, it's not a couple of fossils that look similar with gaps between them.

LIterally everything in biology -- comparative anatomy, embryology, biogeography, molecular biology -- points to evolution from a common ancestor. Even without a single fossil the evidence would still be overwhelming.

Things that used to be gaps (e.g. how could the eye have evolved?) now have clear answers.

To deny it, the alternative you're left with is that God wanted to make it look like evolution happened.

To deny it, the alternative you're left with is that God wanted to make it look like evolution happened.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence for evolution within each individual line of inquiry. And hundreds of such lines of inquiry all converge on evolution as the explanation for life. There simply isn't any rational way to go about disbelieving.

Just look at the primary sources of opposition. On a world with billions, three or four scientists flaunt their failed arguments. They are convincing arguments to people with less knowledge, but easily taken apart by other experts in their fields. This forces their followers to maintain that the entire institution has some conspiracy going on, or has some great hidden flaw that allows false understanding to win through. I wonder if, having gone through a few college courses himself now, Stahrwe has changed his views at all. I see him shifting along the spectrum to intelligent design.

Either way, if there is a god, he wants us to believe evolution happened. With the convergence of all the evidence, he also wants us to believe abiogenesis happened.

Interbane wrote:Quote:
We habitually attribute information to intelligence.




Yes, except genetic information, which we attribute to nature.

Hi Interbane. What is information,and why this one exception to the rule?
Is Norbert Weiner correct when he says;"Information is information,neither matter nor energy?" If it is neither,what is it's source?
You suggest Interbane, that evolutionary theory has no problem with this. Information accumulates. But,what is it?
Intelligent design advocates question much of what seems taken for granted by evolutionary theorists.
It's a complex subject which I don't fully grasp. Here for what it's worth is a paper from an I.D perspective on; Information Theory and Biology; by Robert J Marks. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/ ... 8_others01

Flann 5 wrote:

Interbane wrote: Yes, except genetic information, which we attribute to nature.

Hi Interbane. What is information,and why this one exception to the rule?

It’s not really an exception. It’s based on our understanding of the current state of science.

When we see a watch, to use the famous example, we infer a watchmaker. If we were to receive a communication from aliens, we would infer alien intelligence.

When we see seemingly perfect formations of crystal, or snowflakes, or the incredible adaptations in nature, or lightning, or images that kind of look like Jesus in grilled cheese, we don’t infer intelligence, because we've learned that we don't need to.

I had an entire post that got deleted. Grr.

Hi Interbane. What is information,and why this one exception to the rule?

How can it be a rule, if there are exceptions such as evolution? I understand that we are born into the information age, where all information seemingly comes from other humans. So we take from these observations the generalized induction that information comes from intelligence.

But the fact is, human produced information is the exception, considering the age of naturally produced information. DNA has existed for a billion years before we evolved to be complex enough to generate information ourselves. We are the exception to the rule in a universal sense.

Intelligent design advocates question much of what seems taken for granted by evolutionary theorists.

Information is not a mystery, nor is it taken for granted. Not sure why you think that. Information is a pattern that references something else in abstract form. There are different forms of information - causal and semantic and perhaps others. You're right that it's complex - the entire field of epistemology is concerned with how we humans acquire and verify information. But causal information such as that of DNA is not the mysterious enigma you're imagining.

I'll review the Marks paper when I have time. I know he's a controversial figure, and that other philosophers have disassembled his ideas. But I wouldn't mind giving it a go. It might be the subject of another thread however. In this subforum, we can rehash it when you get to the part where Carrier explains reductionism and patterns of matter.

It's a complex subject which I don't fully grasp. Here for what it's worth is a paper from an I.D perspective on; Information Theory and Biology; by Robert J Marks. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/ ... 8_others01

Marks raises the most common objections, so I guess there isn't much unpacking needed. The idea of bounded evolution has been shown false. The issue of entropy is one that johnson has explained many times on this forum.

If there's anything in particular that appeals to you in Mark's papers, point it out. I'd be more than happy to dig deeper. Perhaps create a new thread, since this one is loaded now.

Hi Interbane, Thanks, I think I was just responding to something Dexter said.
You seem to think that nature itself can produce information. So you start from simple organisms and by evolutionary paths more information accumulates.These are technical fields for me. If you have life I can see how things can change and allow this.The question is where does the information come from to even begin such a process? How could non life create a code to direct the creation of life?
I don't think the simple cell to man hypothesis is true.I see a kind of evolution with limits. Could inert matter create this kind of information? I don't think so.
You have the paradox of inert,unthinking matter,even if you make it a long process, producing intelligent human beings.And when we look at the complexity of the human body and cells now, the functioning is multi-complex and directed. It looks purposeful in its coordinated working seemly to keep us living,breathing and thinking functioning people.
But the theory, forbids purpose,foresight, and goals. I don't think pushing it back to primeval simplicity really deals with these problems.
It's philosophically implausible and while no expert,I think it doesn't provide sufficient evidence to substantiate all it's claims. You can get all kinds dogs,but getting from a dog to a donkey would be another matter.I wasn't really intending to get into all this. So I wouldn't bother with a separate thread for now.

The question is where does the information come from to even begin such a process?

If you understand what information is, it's less of an issue(a single grain of sand can be information). What you're asking is hidden behind wrapping your head around the concept of information. Try a different approach. All that's needed for life to arise is a way for a set of proteins to replicate. So, imagine you have 4 proteins, and they are linked together to form the 4 digit code of the simplest life form. Individually, the proteins are "sticky", a chemical property that alters when the proteins link together. Along come 4 more proteins, of the same sort, but individual. They stick, one by one, to the sticky side of the original protein chain. After all 4 new proteins have stuck, we have two identical protein chains stuck together. The proteins stick together more strongly in their chain than to the other chain, so when they are jostled strong enough, the two chains split. Suddenly, we have two chains of 4 proteins, each capable of replicating through natural laws.

After you have a few trillion or quadrillion chains, and each chain is able to have other new proteins stick to the ends of the chain(making 5 bit chains or more), you have evolution, with information increase included.

But the theory, forbids purpose,foresight, and goals. I don't think pushing it back to primeval simplicity really deals with these problems.

The theory doesn't forbid purpose Flann, you're reading into this in the wrong direction. Understanding is built from the ground up using proper methods, not from principles downward. That there is no purpose to evolution is a conclusion, not a starting principle. It is a conclusion because the entire process is known and well understood to be entirely mechanical. There is simply no need for any intentional agent to tweak the process for the results we see all around us. This is true at the same time that none of the scientists who believe in evolution would say it is simple, whether in a primeval or any other sense.

You have the paradox of inert,unthinking matter,even if you make it a long process, producing intelligent human beings.And when we look at the complexity of the human body and cells now, the functioning is multi-complex and directed.

Over a thousand years ago, this same argument was applied to the solar system. It was so incredibly complex in it's machinations that men knew it had to be driven by a purposeful agent. With increased understanding, we know this isn't the case. A thousand or more years later, we have a much more complex problem in life. But for all it's complexity, it still does not hold true that a purposeful agent is required.

This tendency is well known and well understood. See the wikipedia article to begin with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection

Ive read through Carrier's chapter on the two leading Multiverse hypotheses.
Smolin I believe is his favorite because according to him there is more evidence for it and has only one ad hoc presumption (which I seriously doubt).

Although intriguing, it must ultimately be rejected for several reasons.
One reason being what evidence could ever be collected that would rule out ANY multiverse hypothesis including Smolins?
Falsifiabilty has been a key component of scientific. Arguing against it in this instance is clearly done to advance it. It is always be good practice to allow for falsifiabilty just in case inconvenient facts start popping up that begin to seriously challenge a hypothesis.
I dont agree with arguing falsifiability away here. I simply dont and im not yet clear if Carrier does in this instance.

Any observation and measuring needed could only be done in this universe and no other. Direct evidence (what Carrier harps on about so much with gusto) for a multiverse is therefore impossible.

What happens on the "other end" of a black hole is enormously speculative as well.

Any multiverse hypothesis is also subject to an infinite regress (which one was the first and what caused that?)

The multiverse Smolin hypothesis is designed to solve the fine tunning conundrum.
If you dont want God, you had better have an infinite number of universes.

You're right about the fragile status of Smolin's idea and CIT. But I'd point out, the method used to support them isn't necessarily scientific. Notice that Carrier places science second on his list. The top spot is logic, truth rules between ideas. When dealing with the edges of knowledge, the last method on the list is the only one that applies with any strength - that of inference.

So asking that the theory be testable doesn't mean we can't sort it by it's merits. All it means is that we can't sort it using science as the primary method. Most of us use methods 3 and 4, our own experience, and expert testimony. Constant calls for evidence and falsifiability and good and necessary, but don't apply to all knowledge equally. Smolin may present his idea as scientific(I'm not sure), but we must judge it by other methods until someone works out a way to test it. Until then(if it ever even happens), we're left to less trustworthy methods.

Ad hoc assumptions. I keep calling them post hoc for some reason. That's what I get for listening to the book rather than reading it. I agree with you that we're left to trust Carrier's words on how many ad hoc assumptions are necessary for each explanation. Although I agree with everything he's said, I'm still skeptical to the core. I'd like to see the list. Until then I'm not convinced.