• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Carrier: the religious meme

#133: Sept. - Nov. 2014 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Carrier: the religious meme

Unread post

Interbane wrote: Regarding Meyer, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Here is Donald Prothero setting him straight:
Hi Interbane,
I'm a layman here myself but I can see if something is logically consistent or not. Prothero a paleontologist takes Meyer to task largely on the question of the duration of the cambrian era. Prothero says 80 million years.Yet I note that at the end of the review a reader responds to the review questioning this timeframe ,and Prothero seems to backtrack to 20 to 25million years.

In the wikipedia article the author mentions that researchers radiometric dating fossils from the Cambrian, differ by 20 million years in their results.

Meyer's arguments largely relate to the production of new genetic information and whether this could be generated in the time available and focuses on a particular part of the Cambrian explosion where a lot of complex creatures appear suddenly in evolutionary terms.
Donald Prothero and Michael Shermer debated Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg where Sternberg and Meyer argue for the same informational deficit and inadequacy of the mutation/natural selection mechanisms for whale evolution in the available time.
Reviews are one thing, but I think the debate provides a way to evaluate what both sides are actually saying.

Here's the Prothero/Shermer vs Meyer/Sternberg debate from a few years ago on the question; Can Darwinian evolution adequately explain the origin of life? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yqqlZ29gcU
Last edited by Flann 5 on Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:04 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Carrier: the religious meme

Unread post

A fallacy of origins is something no historian would commit unless he was strongly biased against something.
Falsely blaming an historian for committing a fallacy is nothing anyone would commit unless he was strongly biased against something.

Carrier commits no fallacy here. The genetic fallacy is a fallacy where evidence is judged because of where it comes from, rather than what it entails. In other words, it is when an idea is accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than because of its merits.

I know what wikipedia says. Look up the genetic fallacy from a university website.
Meyer's arguments largely relate to the production of new genetic information and whether this could be generated in the time available and focuses on a particular part of the Cambrian explosion where a lot of complex creatures appear suddenly in evolutionary terms.
Donald Prothero and Michael Shermer debated Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg where Sternberg and Meyer argue for the same informational deficit for whale evolution in the available time.
We have documented cases of speciation within a decade. To reject the idea that millions of years is enough time is plain silliness.

Flann, if the debate wasn't so cut and dry, I would be far more skeptical of evolution. I'm skeptical even of skepticism. I distrust my own conclusions and don't join teams. Your mistrust will never end, but it is not because evolution merits mistrust. It is because you wish for creationism or ID to be true. We know for a fact that evolution is the explanation for life. Critics like Meyer are great for displaying potential issues with the theory - the grains of discolored sand on a mountain. But don't for a moment think that the mountain will change shape because a few grains are out of place.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Carrier: the religious meme

Unread post

Interbane wrote: We have documented cases of speciation within a decade. To reject the idea that millions of years is enough time is plain silliness.
What documented cases? Wells talks about primary and secondary speciation. I had to edit my post after your response to mention that Sternberg is also arguing against the adequacy of the mutation/natural selection mechanisms in supposed whale evolution in the available time. Sternberg is well qualified and I don't think they are debating what is "plain silliness."
I notice that in the Prothero vs Meyer debate from 2009 that Prothero is arguing the lousy design and non functional"junk" D.N.A. line.

Donald Prothero didn't come out too well is this debate I think, but that's my opinion and people can judge for themselves.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Carrier: the religious meme

Unread post

Carrier commits no fallacy here. The genetic fallacy is a fallacy where evidence is judged because of where it comes from, rather than what it entails. In other words, it is when an idea is accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than because of its merits.

I know what wikipedia says. Look up the genetic fallacy from a university website.
Let's see your "university" definition.




http://books.google.com/books?id=PA1pPQ ... cy&f=false


also
The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its pastrather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html

Once again, just another atheist defending one of his apostles - this one being the apostle Carrier.


Carrier, like common new atheists like Dawkins, attempts to implicitly devalue the truths religion(s) espouse (mainly belief in God) by claiming its origin is memetic and proliferated itself in the same manner as evolution by natural selection.
This is more propaganda than anything else.

And, there is no evidence to establish the truth of meme theory (or whatever you'd like to call it)

.

Also, this is a great book that discusses the historian's genetic fallacy in greater detail:

http://www.amazon.com/Historians-Fallac ... DZY2W6FJ46



There is no denying the positive cultural and personal impact religion has had on civilization. Christianity's past has no impact on its present value to millions of people that have been given meaning and purpose to their lives.
Whereas the idea of "atheism" has little to no viability. History has demonstrated this to us.

If secularism is a manifestation of "disbelief" it has not proven to be a superior idea to theism.
Secular regimes that have marginalized and brutalized millions of people (mostly those that are "infected" with the meme Christianity) have been the greatest evil mankind has seen to date.

Once again we have Interbane attempting to spread a bold-faced lie in order to advance what otherwise is a historically weak worldview.

Interbane has secularism and its apostles to give meaning to his life.
And that's okay.
Just as long as he doesn't turn into a Mao or Pol Pot.
Last edited by ant on Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Carrier: the religious meme

Unread post

In an interview in TPM Magazine (with Jeremy Stangroom) Richard Dawkins says this about memes:
Stangroom: But memes are physiological entities that have phenotypic effects?

Dawkins: Yes, I think that's right. I wasn't sufficiently clear and explicit about that originally. My colleague Juan Deilus who is a physiologist in an article in the Timbergen Legacy Memorial volume was much clearer and actually stuck his neck out and said that a meme is a physiological entity.

Really?

What evidence is there for this claim?


Carrier is appealing to the authority of scientists. Scientists that have yet to produce evidence that a meme is a "physiological entity" of any kind.
Sticking out your neck is exactly what both Dawkins and Carrier are doing simply for the sake of attempting to falsify belief.

"I feign no hypothesis" is wisdom that certain scientists should consider.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Carrier: the religious meme

Unread post

Sternberg is well qualified and I don't think they are debating what is "plain silliness."
This is an arrogant dismissal common among new atheists.

The real question is why do new atheists like Carrier argue in such a desperate fashion against religion - mainly Christianity?

I forgot which atheist philosopher asked that question, but it's an important one.

Here is Sternberg's bio:
I am an evolutionary biologist with interests in the relation between genes and morphological homologies, and the nature of genomic “information.” I hold a Ph.D. in Biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University and a Ph.D. in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University. From 2001-2007, I served as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, and from 2001-2007 I was a Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. I am presently a research scientist at the Biologic Institute, supported by a research fellowship from the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. I am also a Research Collaborator at the National Museum of Natural History.

From 2001-2004, I served as Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and I have served on the Editorial Board of the International Journal of General Systems. In 1999, I was a Visiting Associate Professor of Biology at Northern Michigan University, and from 1999-2001 I was a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History. I have received postdoctoral fellowships from both the NIH and the National Museum of Natural History, and I have published refereed articles in such journals as Genetica, Evolutionary Theory, Journal of Comparative Biology, Crustacean Research, Journal of Natural History, Journal of Morphology, Journal of Biological Systems, and the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

I think it's both stupid and unproductive for anyone here to brashly dismiss Sternberg.

But I have learned when you're Interbane you can, because.., well, you can.
The same as when Interbane dismissed Karl Popper's contribution to scientific methodology, all for the sake of bolstering a layman's argument.
:appl: :appl:
Last edited by ant on Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Carrier: the religious meme

Unread post

Once again we have Interbane attempting to spread a bold-faced lie in order to advance what otherwise is a historically weak worldview.
Continue researching ant. Throw it in my face that I'm wrong. But don't do it by misinterpreting wikipedia. Start here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Genetic
What documented cases?
Some that have diverged are blackcaps, finches, cichlids, salsifies, heliconius butterflies, maderian mice, mollies, thale cress, and molestus mosquitos. Some are in the process of splitting, such as the apple maggot fly, ensatina salamanders, malheur wirelettuce, and crossbills.
Wells talks about primary and secondary speciation.
Polyploidy leads to the same plants, but offers gametic rather than geographic isolation. The examples above contain mostly "primary" speciation. Calling polyploidy "secondary" is a ruse by creationists. That's not proper vernacular.
Sternberg is well qualified and I don't think they are debating what is "plain silliness."
We observe speciation in a matter of decades. Yet Sternberg is saying that millions of years is not enough. That is silly. Earning a doctorate does not immunize one from taking silly or stupid stances. Sternberg is known for taking such stances, see his peer review controversy.

If you want an evangelical perspective on macroevolution and speciation, see this article: http://biologos.org/blog/speciation-and-macroevolution
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Carrier: the religious meme

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Some that have diverged are blackcaps, finches, cichlids, salsifies, heliconius butterflies, maderian mice, mollies, thale cress, and molestus mosquitos. Some are in the process of splitting, such as the apple maggot fly, ensatina salamanders, malheur wirelettuce, and crossbills.
Hi Interbane,
The one I'm most familiar with in this list is the finches but I'm guessing they "diverged" into finches and not giraffes?
I'll have a look at your links and get back to you on it.
Memes were the bright idea of a bright Richard Dawkins or maybe he was just a hapless victim of the meme, meme.He does enjoy passing on memes at any rate.
If speciation takes place in decades why do we not have innumerable, living intermediate species between existent animals now? Darwin says it's slow and gradual so you seem to be contradicting Darwin here. The whole question of what a species actually is doesn't seem agreed on and clear. Humans have bred cattle and sheep for thousands of years and though there are many kinds bovines are bovines.
The evangelical writer you linked goes with neo-Darwinism but falls back on the; it takes too much time to see it argument.
I don't know about the Richard Sternberg controversies. He is an evolutionist actually but tends to rock the consensual neo Darwinian boat by questioning it. Maybe he's right. He doesn't lack qualifications,that's for sure.If evolution is as gradual as Darwin says then I think Sternberg has a good argument in relation to whale evolution, considering the massive alterations and adaptations required to get from land mammal to aquatic creature with vastly different biological systems.

The time constraint says no here, and that's Sternberg's argument based on population genetics and rates of mutation.
You can't have it both ways Interbane,either it is a slow gradual process or it isn't.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Carrier: the religious meme

Unread post

If speciation takes place in decades why do we not have innumerable, living intermediate species between existent animals now? Darwin says it's slow and gradual so you seem to be contradicting Darwin here.

How replete is the transitional fossil record?

How many are there actually?

Is this where the term "living fossil" is used to fill in the gap?

I'm asking because I don't know.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Carrier: the religious meme

Unread post

Continue researching ant. Throw it in my face that I'm wrong. But don't do it by misinterpreting wikipedia. Start here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Genetic
Okay. I will look over what you've linked.

I was harsh in my response.
Post Reply

Return to “Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism - by Richard Carrier”