Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
What I wrote (the above)in my last post is a direct quote from Ernst Mayr himself in his lecture of 1999
You will find that lecture here
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-on ... luence.htm
One of the founding fathers of the modern synthesis proudly hails Darwinism as a philosophy.
You are now taking on Ernst Mayr, well good for you.
Phylosophy is the intellectual persuit of truth. Science is a rather recent and far more effective tool than the biased hand waving(and coersion) of the past. Scottie, stop the evasions,long winded obfuscations and name dropping. Just explain your theory.
The context has not changed any meaning.
Here is what he went on further to say in the same lecture
No context change here at all.
Ernst Mayr was simply being honest and indeed proud of it.
Evolutionary theory is not a physical science it is a philosophy that is being promoted as a physical science.
Ok let’s put that statement to the test
Craig Venter and his team made headlines when they announced their success in transforming and existing cell into a cell with as he put it “with no biological anscester”
He published an account of what his team accomplished in the Science Express portion of the journal Science. Here is an excerpt from the 12-page report.
They made this long DNA molecule by putting together smaller segments of commercially available DNA which they purchased from Blue Heron. They purchased pieces that were about 1,000 base pairs long and joined ten of them together to form pieces that were about 10,000 base pairs long. They took ten of these 10,000 base pair pieces and joined them together to form pieces about 100,000 base pairs long. Finally, they joined eleven of these 100,000 base pair pieces together to form the complete molecule.
In other words they designed and built a new genome and inserted this genome into the cell of another bacterium and it booted up.
As he says
Now take any number of biologists and examine that cell. Make sure they have no information about how that cell came about. We know that it was clearly designed and built(or at least an important part of it was).
Now just for clarity here is your statement again
So please explain to me but more importantly to this forum, how these biologists by only using the tools of science can determine who the designer and creator of this new species is.
If science can do that, then you should have no problem demonstrating it.
Please prove me wrong.
Sounds like Craig Venter was the designer in this case. I'm pretty sure you can't extrapolate that very far. Craig Ventor is human, he was engaged in a scientific exploration, and I doubt that he has created any other life. (Being a scientist he wouldn't keep it a secret.)
Now back to your designer. WHO? WHAT? WHEN? WHERE? hell I am even curious about WHY? Inquiring minds want to know.
By the way, if your apponant in an arguement gets tired, annoyed,exasperated and decides argueing with you is pointless, it doesn't mean you have won the arguement. This is a common misconception among crackpots. Crackpots believe that when people politely nod and smile that they are aggreeing with the ranting. It just means that they know a crackpot when they see one and know that it can be dangerous to provoke the delusional. Don't be a crackpot.
No NO it doesn't sound like Craig Venter. It was Craig Venter and his team.
And how do we know that Venter is the designer?
Because he has provided an historical record, or has that simple point escaped your notice.
Without that record we would not know who created it.
We would not know by examining the cell itself with all the science at our disposal.
As I have said before and repeatedly, neither I nor any other person could tell who created the cell without some form of authentic historical record, any more than could you tell who designed and made this cell without an historical record to accompany it.
Surely even you with all your intelligence can understand that, can't you?
As for me, well I am just a crackpot aren't I, so how could I possibly explain such simple concepts to you.
I'm having trouble seeing what this experiment says about your designer.
I recall you were at one time hung up on the idea that creating a new species was not possible. Even though it's just a bacteria it is a new species, lab created. Just like the lizards.Two proofs of concept.
It seems your designer hasn't been doing anything metaphysical, just physical and well within the pervue of science.
Sooooooo, once more Please describe your theoretical designer.
If you evade this question once more I will give up on you and you will no doubt conclude (incorrectly) that you have won this arguement.
Well there you go, rambling again. (bad sign)
However let’s try and unravel your confusion.
You really must not rely on your powers of recall, a very uncertain process. Go and read my posts again. It really isn’t that difficult, it is in English.
It does seem that you have some difficulty with language. I need to take that into account in future. Very remiss of me, please accept my apologies.
Where have I stated or even relied on anything metaphysical?
In fact I have been arguing that the metaphysical is within your argumentation and therefore not physical science.
Oh come come, I don’t need to conclude anything. You reveal it all for yourself far better than I could ever conclude.
I will of course try and educate if you wish to continue. Patience is a virtue I have tried to develop over many years now, so don’t worry you won’t be in any danger of trying my patience, honest.
Please back up this absurd statement.
Also, I take issue with your consistent mischaracterizations of what the literature, you yourself have linked in this thread, actually say.
Shapiro could reference 56 or 560,000,000,000 papers. So what? This is from a lecture at a conference, is speculative, is NOT a peer reviewed scientific work. On top of this blatant appeal to authority, you (and other ID'ers) have totally overstated what Shapiro is saying in this document, which Shapiro himself is overstating. There is nothing earth shattering in the actual science he is referencing in this document.
It's a common tactic for creationists/intelligent design proponents to latch on to this particular document as if it totally disproves random mutation in favor of design claims. I back that statement up by simply pointing out that if search for Shapiro's "third way" concept you find it plastered all over many psuedoscientific ID websites.
You have terribly mischaracterized this paper. In no way does this work refute common ancestry. It's an attempt to reestablish the shape of the "tree of life", or even redefine it in other terms, to match the observational data. NOWHERE in the paper does the author even remotely suggest throwing out the idea of common ancestry.
This Biological Big Bang argument in no way supports design claims. The peer reviewers, however, saw the potential for this work to be misinterpreted (intentionally or otherwise).
Allow me to quote:
Your design claims are not science. Wish as though you might, they just aren't. Design infers a designer. You admit science can't find the designer. Therefore design claims are not science. Stop claiming they are.
You also repeatedly allude to "Darwinists" and try repeatedly to make the claim that Darwinian evolution is a religion. This a tired old debate tactic of the Creationist/Intelligent Design community. It's a way to try to equate the two (religion and the study of evolution by natural processes) even though are clearly not the same thing.
Evolution is not a religion. Your evidence that it is a religion is the zeal and conviction with which it is pursued. This logic could be applied to ANY activity, for example quilting or coin collecting. Calling evolution a religion makes religion pretty much meaningless.
The fact is, people of diverse cultural backgrounds and religious affiliations believe in evolution, yet not one of them, if asked, would identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
About your design claims:
1) There is no "theory of design" in biology because design can't be defined in the normal sense without also defining an agent and purpose. A theory of design must address agent and purpose or it is not about design. You admit that you do not define the agent and purpose. Therefore, even if you could somehow prove design, it wouldn't be about design in the usual sense at all.
2) Nowhere in the scientific literature is any design theory validated.
3) The design claim is useless and unscientific, it has not generated any predictions and no scientific work has come from it.
scottie, you can go on linking scientific works and mischaracterizing until your heart's content but you'd still be wrong WRONG wrong. All throughout this thread you've made this argument from incredulity about design. The problem with your arguments is that they rely on "disproving" evolution instead of proving positive your own claims. You appear to be trying to sneak in the god of the gaps whether you admit or not.
This is an absurd attempt to discount Darwinian evolution by misconstruing Mayr. Shame on you scottie. Shame.
The effects of Darwin's ideas on Philosophy and the founding of the well regarded science of Philosophy of Biology is clearly the sentiment of Mayr's article. Not writing off Darwinian evolution as something less than scientific or as a something akin to religion.
Mayr is giving praise to Darwin's theories not solely as philosophical, but in addition to it's merit as scientific FACT. Huge difference when you compare it to what you are inferring he meant scottie.
Further down in Mayr's article:
"No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact." Sounds a heck of a lot different than what you wrote in your post right above the one I'm criticizing:
Darwinian evolution is not a religion. Did you just not understand Mayr, or were trying to intentionally misconstrue him? Either way your point is invalid and wrong.
Darwin created the theory of the origin of new species from the former by means of natural selection. The theory of evolution - "from simple replicators to the crown of evolutionary selection", he did not create, and just trying to adjust to his theory of the origin of species.
The theory of evolution before Darwin came up as a "whipping boy", embed it in biology and used to criticize the science of being a missionary.
Darwin's theory works seamlessly with the theory of Devolution from the initial complex engineering design to dead-end species.
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... ro.name%2F
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests