BookTalk.org

Interbane wrote:So what is the argument? You're reluctant to pick one of the ones I listed above. Did I miss your actual argument?

Hi Interbane,
In the articled I referenced on the eye a number of arguments were given against evolution as a plausible explanation.Micro-evolution is accepted and the argument in general is there are limits to this.Here's a broad outline in relation to eyes.
1 Advanced complex eyes are found in the fossil record very early.
2 There are no creatures possessing evolving eyes leading up to these found in the record which is why it is described as sudden, and all of these are fully functional creatures.
3 Many varieties of eyes ranging from simple to elaborately complex are there at that time.
4 Given the complexity of eyes and even simple ones are not simple,and the requirement for complex related systems such as processing in brains for instance this requires many co-ordinated changes.
5 The time frame is very short given the complexity and co-ordination required.
6 Mutations are generally deleterious and not constructive and mulitiple simultaneous mutations are therefore unlikely candidates to achieve the kind of complexity and co-ordinated design required.
7 Evolution for all types of eyes are individually lineal and all types existing today both simple and complex must have such a lineal history.
8 They don't fit into the evolutionary model e.g. Primitive creatures have complex eyes in many cases and advanced creatures less complex.
9 Difficulty determining how many eye evolutions should have taken place and conflicting and varied views on this.
In other words all the arguments in the article which I have summarised here, but the article itself is more detailed and comprehensive.
In addition the most important factor is genetic information and it would seem staggering amounts of such information needs to be generated to account for complex eyes. Can natural processes do this and given that mutations are way more negative than positive how plausible is this?
The articles you referenced do show mutations creating new functions and that's a valid and reasonable riposte to Behe's article.
Biochemistry is a very complex and specialised area of study and not one I am in any way qualified to speak on. Like most people my understanding is more on general outlines than comprehensive understanding.
It's really the qualified protagonists on both sides who should be debating these things. Richard Dawkins wrote his book; "The greatest show on earth" to vindicate neo- Darwinism and creationist Jonathan Sarfati wrote a book challenging it called;"The greatest hoax on earth". Sarfati is willing to debate Dawkins but he is not for the reasons I previously mentioned.
I've already said that at least one obvious reason many do not believe in neo Darwinism is the fact that some theistic scientists present scientifically based arguments against it.If these are so easily overthrown then it seems that those like Dawkins who are ideologically atheistic should do this in public debate.
There are responses from I.D. advocates and creationists to the arguments in the articles you referenced. I considered referencing one but basically I think the experts should do their own debating.

Flann 5 wrote: I've already said that at least one obvious reason many do not believe in neo Darwinism is the fact that some theistic scientists present scientifically based arguments against it.If these are so easily overthrown then it seems that those like Dawkins who are ideologically atheistic should do this in public debate.
There are responses from I.D. advocates and creationists to the arguments in the articles you referenced. I considered referencing one but basically I think the experts should do their own debating.

It may seem unfair to you, but intelligent design arguments are not considered scientifically respectable. The evidence for evolution is far more overwhelming than you realize. You can't expect high-profile scientists to give everyone a stage who wants one. And people have responded to Behe regarding the actual science, as you've seen. People obviously debate on mechanisms and details of evolutionary theory. Here is Lehigh University's official disclaimer about Behe:

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm

Mutations are generally deleterious and not constructive and mulitiple simultaneous mutations are therefore unlikely candidates to achieve the kind of complexity and co-ordinated design required.

This was the premise for number six. Are you saying that because multiple simultaneous coordinated mutations are unlikely, that they therefore cannot account for the development of the eye? Of if you're giving a likelihood(or quoting the word from someone who has run the math), can you give us the numbers? One in a million? One in a billion?

In addition the most important factor is genetic information and it would seem staggering amounts of such information needs to be generated to account for complex eyes. Can natural processes do this and given that mutations are way more negative than positive how plausible is this?

Do you understand how rare positive mutations outstrip a thousand negative ones on a population? It's inevitable that beneficial mutations would lead to the complex eye, even if exceedingly rare. Understanding the mechanisms takes some work, and there may be an element of counterintuitive math involved, but when it clicks it's as easy to see as a visual puzzle. Everything snaps into place.

It's really the qualified protagonists on both sides who should be debating these things.

I disagree. On the technicalities of individual experiments, yes. On the dissemination and discussion of information, anyone can jump in. You can understand everything we're talking about here Flann, if you applied intellectual empathy to understanding the mechanisms rather than searching for a way in which the words that embody them might be false.

I've already said that at least one obvious reason many do not believe in neo Darwinism is the fact that some theistic scientists present scientifically based arguments against it.

Where is this argument!?!? Are you saying that this discussion on the development of the eye is the scientific issue? Formulate the argument as I've been asking. Don't just use words, use the logic behind the words. Show me how this is an actual argument against evolution. As I said originally, if it convinces anyone, it convinces them because people swallow fallacious reasoning.

If these are so easily overthrown then it seems that those like Dawkins who are ideologically atheistic should do this in public debate.

This thread is all the evidence we need to show that faulty arguments are not easily overthrown. In spite of several attempts to pull it from you, I'm still waiting for the logical construction of how the difficulty of the evolution of the eye should lead to disbelief. Proper reasoning is not easy, neither to do in practice, nor to recognize. Why debate in public, when the public does not understand logic? How many gagillion times have I mentioned the words logic, method, process, filter, but you willfully ignore what I'm referring to?

Words themselves do not make an argument. They need a logical infrastructure behind them. Most people, and nearly everyone who hasn't learned the rules of logic, will not recognize the structure, and will instead rely on heuristics. Heuristics are "rules of thumb" used for quickly navigating today's informational quagmire. The sad truth is that so very many heuristics, while useful for making snap decisions, are in many cases faulty(fallacious).

Look at all the debates you've posted or have viewed. You'll find people from both sides of the debate, claiming in the comments section that "their side won". What good was the debate then, but to reinforce what people already believe? The debates are therefore useless. It starts with educating people on proper logic and reasoning, so they can recognize when points are scored in a debate, rather than cheering when emotional appeals are made. Jonathan Sarfati is notorious for personal attacks and emotional appeals. To any untrained eye, he would trounce Dawkins in a debate, even if Dawkins scored every technical point. It's counterproductive to debate when people can't recognize logic.

I also agree with Dawkins that there is no debate to be had. Sarfati's position is false. There is no reason to give him a stage to make him seem legitimate.

You have great faith in chance Interbane.
Of course in the fossil record no creatures with evolving eyes exist leading up to the Cambrian creatures, Where are these evolving eyes?
Lining up currently existing eyes from simple to complex and speculating that this proves eye evolution is not science. All eyes from the simplest to the most complex currently existing have lineal histories of their own.
If mutations are so powerful why haven't we seen the same advances in the simple eyes over the same timescale?
And why do primitive creatures in many cases have much more complex eyes than supposed more evolved creatures in the evolutionary classifications between such as invertebrates, birds and mammals?
Stasis is more the norm in the fossil record. Eye evolution requires very complex coordination between interdependent systems not least processing in the brain. Mutations are considered random and natural selection may in fact be predominantly neutral.
Your faith rests on chance for just about everything. The existence of the universe,the origin of life and a speculative history of life.

Of course in the fossil record no creatures with evolving eyes exist leading up to the Cambrian creatures, Where are these evolving eyes?

It is an extrapolation from simple to enormously rich complexity.

"the most fit survive and flourish in their environment"

and

"simple organisms over the course of millions of years develop into highly complex organisms"


are tautologies.



the explanatory power is there, but only in empirical form in certain instances

the remainder is inference to the best explanation.

ant wrote: http://www.booktalk.org/post133082.html#p133082
What is the Demiurge and how are you going to prove its existence?

Thanks ant, great question. The demiurge, or Master Craftsman, is a key figure in ancient Platonic and Gnostic philosophy as the designer of the world. Understanding the role of the Demiurge in theology and religion is important to understand why conventional Christianity is so resistant to understanding evolution.

I have read a lot about Gnosticism, for example the great classic work The Gnostic Religion by Hans Jonas, available in full at http://arcaneknowledgeofthedeep.files.w ... ligion.pdf and books by Elaine Pagels including The Gnostic Gospels and The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis.

The demiurge was the mythical creator of the cosmos, and was supposedly a subordinate inferior being who pretended to be the ultimate real God. I have a specific hypothesis regarding what this actually means. If anyone can disprove this hypothesis I would be interested.

In Biblical Greek, cosmos - defined at http://biblehub.com/greek/2889.htm - means ‘world’ or ‘order’. For example the term ‘cosmopolitan’ means ‘citizen of the world’. The distinct modern meaning of cosmos as universe rather than world only gradually evolved from this old idea of cosmos as world.

There is an important difference in meaning between ‘world’ and the natural universe or the physical planet. The world, the Greek cosmos, is constructed by human culture, as the ordered rational framework of meaning. Our world is what we know and imagine.

By contrast the planet is disorderly, the chaotic unknown physical substrate of nature. As religion uses its idea that spirit is superior to nature, it constructs a view that the ordered cosmos is a function of spirit, and therefore a product of human culture.

So, if the demiurge is understood as the maker of the world, we should question the tradition that defines the demiurge as the creator of the physical universe, and instead consider the demiurge as the principle of construction of human culture.

It appears that the widespread claim that Gnostics viewed the material universe as evil is itself a confused corruption of an original view. The Gnostics, I suggest, originally and correctly thought that the constructed human world of culture is the source of evil, and that the Demiurge is the imagined constructor of this world. This is why a range of Gnostic writings identify the Demiurge with Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.

How is this relevant to evolution? If the demiurge is the maker of delusional culture, as the source of evil in the world, then the God of the Old Testament, the imagined Creator of the World in Seven Days, is actually the Demiurge, and creationists worship the Demiurge in place of the real creator of the universe, who is revealed by the study of modern physical science.

Belief in this false God, the Demiurge or Yahweh, has allowed the Abrahamic religions to become proud in the imagination of their hearts. They vainly claim that their constructed imaginary faith in God is real, and ignore the scientific evidence of evolution, the real truth that sits behind their invented fantasy.

The power of this demiurgic error is easily capable of resisting knowledge of truth, as false faith has been entrenched through millennia of fallen arrogance, as humans have used their false invented dogma of God as a source of political power. Gnosticism questioned this corruption of faith in the early days of Christianity, and that is why Gnosticism was smashed, for trying to place scientific method above authoritarian faith. We see this scientific dimension of Gnosticism especially in the Corpus Hermetica, whose recovery provided the impetus for the rise of modern science.

Orthodox Christianity is based on the demiurgic delusion that God made the world in seven days. All creationism rests on the alienated and evil error that a constructed fantasy can replace systematic investigation as a method to understand the true nature of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge provides an excellent overview of the history of the concept of the Demiurge.

Flann wrote:Of course in the fossil record no creatures with evolving eyes exist leading up to the Cambrian creatures, Where are these evolving eyes?

Let's say we can't find them. What do we conclude?

Your faith rests on chance for just about everything. The existence of the universe,the origin of life and a speculative history of life.

I have faith in exceptionally rare things, you're right. Watch this magic trick - sometime in the next year, someone in America will win a lottery where the odds are one in 300 million. Are you willing to be my "faith" will be rewarded?

When you understand the counterintuitive nature of the law of probability as it applies to evolution, you realize that very little faith is needed. Given enough time and iterations, the probability of any given mutation approaches 1. If that mutation is detrimental, nothing happens except that perhaps that specific organism dies. If that mutation is beneficial, it sweeps through the species like a firestorm. What happens in nature is different from how you're envisioning the probabilities.

ant wrote:"the most fit survive and flourish in their environment"

and

"simple organisms over the course of millions of years develop into highly complex organisms"


are tautologies.

The first is, the second isn't. Simple organisms in today's environment evolve horizontally in many cases, neither increase nor decreasing in complexity. That simple organisms evolve into highly complex organisms is a conclusion based on converging lines of evidence from many various disciplines.

This applies not only to countless organisms, but an even greater number of phenotypes, catalogued and tracked using many distinctly different methods. There is so much evidence that to infer evolution of any and every phenotype and organism is justified beyond a doubt.

It is the exception to say that some phenotypes could not have evolved. This goes against the grain of so much information, that it needs to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I got cut off

Ant wrote:

the explanatory power is there, but only in empirical form in certain instances

the remainder is inference to the best explanation.

which means we run smack into" the problem of induction"..,

which means our theories can not have deductive certainty..,

which means our theories do not give us universal, necessary, and certain knowledge about Reality.

which means science must live with a logical fallacy inherent within its method of reasoning:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.


I rest my case!

Robert Tulip wrote:How is this relevant to evolution? If the demiurge is the maker of delusional culture, as the source of evil in the world, then the God of the Old Testament, the imagined Creator of the World in Seven Days, is actually the Demiurge, and creationists worship the Demiurge in place of the real creator of the universe, who is revealed by the study of modern physical science.

Hi Robert, I appreciate that you have read a good deal on Gnosticism. I was wondering though, just who or what is this real creator of the universe revealed by the study of modern physical science?
You might enlighten us deluded worshipers of the Demiurge, on this important issue.

Interbane wrote:Given enough time and iterations, the probability of any given mutation approaches 1. If that mutation is detrimental, nothing happens except that perhaps that specific organism dies. If that mutation is beneficial, it sweeps through the species like a firestorm. What happens in nature is different from how you're envisioning the probabilities.

When it comes to eye evolution,complex eyes appear early and suddenly in the record. We can imagine since we have to, that supposed creatures actually existed with evolving eyes. "Given enough time." The time frame is short for such coordinated and complex design and function in eye evolution
Richard Sternberg argued against Darwinian evolution of whales based on population genetics and known rates of mutations in experimental evolution. Arguably this problem is even greater in the case of eyes and the time frame.
You just dismiss him though he is specifically and very well qualified to speak on such questions. It seems proper method is only recognised selectively.