Materialism

[StevenO]

Evolving insights is just another example of continuous change in the universe. According to this theory of probability everything that fits continuous change is true at some place or time.

[webolife]

... only given eternity, and a sorting device capable of foretelling the future.

[altonhare]

F*, yeah!
Stay out of court, Alton.

I've managed to so far.

I agree, but I would only change this bit:

...

I don't get it.

Alton,
"Designed" implies a designer... nothing circular about that.

Wait, what? That's exactly circular. You state that *this* thing looks designed to you, which is identical to stating that a "Designer" made it. This is at best just a statement of your opinion/stance on the issue.

Irreducibly complex is not how I would describe a long rock resting on a smaller one.

But it fits your definition, whether you like it or not.

Specified information is not about occasionally get 300 heads... it's about getting 300 heads every time because it is encoded in the DNA of your nucleus, and all the machinery required for its operation is in place.

People are practically hardwired to think in terms of probabilities because of the great success of statistical methods in quantitative correlation. So let me say this one more time. Contrary to everything you have learned since kindergarten, there is nothing special about flipping 300 heads in a row. It's called "causality" and it doesn't care what you calculated or what your opinion is. Entities act in a specific causal way as a result of their identity. If you flipped 300 heads, it was inevitable.

You think that this is all inevitable based on there not being a "first cause". That is the most acausal position possible!
It just happened! After all here we are, so that's what must have happened!

Oops, you're confusing me with you. You see, a "first cause" is a causeless event by definition.

And this is not an article of faith to you!

It's just a result of definitions. Either you reject causality and accept an acausal "first cause" or you accept causality and reject a "first cause". You cannot have both, you cannot have your cake and eat it too (why have it if you can't eat it... that saying is terrible).

Man, I sure hope you aren't saying that since there is life on earth, this is proof that evolution occurred (it is not clear to me if that is what you are saying, but it looks that way)?

Not at all. If you read me carefully I never talk about "proving" evolution. Evolution is a theory, i.e. just an explanation. Evidence is brought up in the last step of the presentation in the hopes of convincing the audience that you're Right. We never prove theories because a theory is neither Right nor Wrong, it's just a theory. An individual's *belief* in a theory is either Right or Wrong and is a result of how convincing the theorist was in his/her presentation. Of course physical evidence via fossils etc. are often convincing.

What I'm saying is that arguments based on "probability", whether on the pro-evolution side or not, are all worthless garbage. Life is here, any calculation of the "probability" of life occurring better give 1! Anything else and the calculation goes into the trash can of failed ideas.

What kind of sense can it make for me to flip heads and then say the probability that I flipped (past tense) heads IS (present tense) 1/2? The "probability" that I flipped heads is 1! I know the result, it already happened. If I flip 300 heads the "probability" that I flipped 300 heads is 1. Using the word "probability" in this context is misleading, and is what leads to a lot of worthless squawking. We should just say that I flipped 300 heads, that's what happened. Life either arose on or came to earth, that's what happened. Dawkins ridiculous calculation shows how little logic and reason there is left in the world.

That life occurred is a fact. Therefore any talk about "probability of life" is poppycock. We can at best try to illustrate and explain how we think it happened with a theory (such as evolution). Someone presenting the theory of evolution may present fossils and other exhibits as evidence to convince the audience to believe his theory. The minimum criteria for a theory of physics is that it begins with a hypothesis consisting of a physical object (that's why it's called physics) and a theory describing how this object behaves to explain a phenomenon of Nature. After that the presenter can choose to bring in lasers or whatever as supporting evidence, or choose not to. The audience can choose to believe, or not to believe.

So, as far as physics is concerned, the Creationists I have read do not even have a theory. The scientists of evolution are being attacked by ghosts. What will the Creationist's theory be? Did an entity push all the atoms together to form molecules, and push these together to form cells? This is what a physicist imagines when s/he reads the Creationist stance. What other theory could there be? Another race of conscious, sentient beings figured out how to synthesize the molecules necessary for life in addition to conquering the engineering obstacles, and decided to create us for any of a variety of imaginable reasons? This is another possibility the physicist considers when s/he listens to the Creationist. What the physicist doesn't consider is the creation of something from nothing. The physicist calls this "magic". God/Designer/FSM/Big Bubba waves his/her hands and everything appears? This is called "religion" because it invokes contradiction (something from nothing) and cannot be illustrated (we cannot illustrate or even imagine something coming from "nothing"). Proponents of such ideas object that, just because we can't imagine/rationalize it, doesn't mean it's wrong. This is not the issue, the issue is precisely that we cannot even talk about whether it is right or wrong. You cannot see that which is unseeable and you cannot use logic to evaluate the illogical (contradictory). So, to a physicist, such an idea is a ghost. An intangible, ethereal vagueness.

Evolution is possible. Anything is possible.

Not in physics, maybe in religion.

[webolife]

Alton,
Only in religion, you say, is anything possible.
Yet to you flipping 300 heads in a row is inevitable! The reality of the number of "heads" being flipped in the case of life is far greater than 300 heads, I simply picked that number as that is the approximate number of specifically coded proteins in the simplest mycoplasma cell. Heads/tails is hardly a code, yet, I'm taking a wild guess that no one has ever flipped 300 heads in a row with a fair coin... I'd be surprised if anyone has reached 30. Maybe you are a believer in experimental probability, but not theoretical probability? Saying probability doesn't matter is just running the facts through your filter and whimsically spitting them out.
How in *anyone's* name is a rock sitting on another rock irreducibly complex?
Your definition of causality deposes God, not mine. I reject your defiinition of causality.
I actually agree with your rejection of the "probability" of life, as I see "life" as the epitome of design!
You "rationalize" too much, and observe not enough!

[bdw000]

Thanks for your reply Alton. Good stuff.

Something that I see as a problem when evolution is discussed is that it frequently seems to be an assumption that the only alternative to "evolution" is "creationism." Personally, I take that as a strawman argument. The obvious other solution is simply that WE DO NOT KNOW.

That is they key for me. What I am saying is that the case presented by the evolutionists lacks evidence for their claims. They have lots of "evidence," it just does not support the claims they make. That does not prove that evolution is wrong. But there is no evidence. No refutation of evolution is necessary, because they have presented no evidence. Nor does this mean that the creationists are correct, of course.

As you would say, as a memeber of the audience I see no evidence for the claims made, therefore I remain unconvinced.

[rcglinsk]

There's an old Bill Hick's joke:

I once met a creationist and said, "OK, DINOSAUR BONES?" And well, god put them in the ground to test our faith...

There are of course two problems with the fossil record. One is fossilization events are rare, and two, fossils are fragile - they can be destroyed by plate tectonics or floods or whatever.

There's a different kind of fossil under investigation in today's laboratories. All plants and animals, when infected with a dangerous enough virus, will make a copy of that virus' DNA, stick it in the organism's own DNA sequence, and once recovered and healthy print off a copy from time to time in order to keep the immune system primed to the threat. These fragments of DNA will then be passed along to each next generation. Eventually the species will stop printing off copies, but only because the virus has passed its prime and is no longer a threat. The DNA doesn't go away however - in your DNA, my DNA, your housepet's and houseplant's DNA there are thousands of viral fossils, the remnants of diseases that threatened your ancestors. The incorporation events are not random - they result from dangerous infection. The fossils are not fragile - they are replicated more or less faithfully through the generations.

So evolution is falsifiable, in the straight up Popperian style. It makes very clear statements about which groups of extant species have which common ancestors. One could completely disprove the theory by finding a viral fossil from the plant kingdom in the DNA of an animal, or a fossil of the small monkey family in the DNA of a large monkey. But the only fossils all monkeys share are inherited from our common ancestor. The entire structure of evolutionary taxonomy can be tested and justified in this way.

So the question for the intelligent design theorists should be, "OK, VIRAL FOSSILS?" I suppose the designer put them here to test our faith...

[Aidan Weisz]

The dictionary simply defines it as a desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters. Nothing is real in this world but matter.

[altonhare]

Yet to you flipping 300 heads in a row is inevitable!

Wrong, if I flipped 300 heads in a row it WAS inevitable. Nobody can say what *will* happen. But we can all say with (ideally) perfect accuracy what DID happen. Will I flip 300 heads in a row? No idea! Will I flip heads? No idea! Did I just flip heads? Yep. Did I just flip 300 heads? Yep. Is there life on earth? Yep. Will life arise on Mars? No idea! Will all life be extinguished from earth? No idea.

Heads/tails is hardly a code, yet, I'm taking a wild guess that no one has ever flipped 300 heads in a row with a fair coin... I'd be surprised if anyone has reached 30.

Whether someone has flipped 30 or 300 heads in a row is a fact that is independent of your "wild guesses". Lets say Dawkins does his stupid calc and decides that life "probably didn't arise". We'd all look at him like he's crazy. You flip 5 heads in a row. Your friend does a quick calculation and says "you probably didn't flip 5 heads in a row". You'd want his head examined. However nobody bats an eye if you say that "nobody probably flipped 300 heads in a row", even though you haven't the faintest clue how many times a coin has been flipped or how many heads have been flipped. Probabilities are subjective. The only difference is whether you *know* the facts or not. In the case of life we know the facts. In other cases we are clueless and all the math and calculation in the world goes in the toilet. The only meaning that can be derived from a calculation of probability is if it returns 1 or 0.

Maybe you are a believer in experimental probability, but not theoretical probability?

idk the difference

How in *anyone's* name is a rock sitting on another rock irreducibly complex?

2. Irreducible --- No functionality in a partial state of construction, only with all parts, intact, assembled, and with other necessary elements present, eg;

A see-saw is irreducible. Take away the center pivot point and it no longer functions to bob my kids up and down. A long stone falls onto a small round stone, here we have an irreducible entity without apparent direction.

Your definition of causality deposes God, not mine. I reject your defiinition of causality.

What's your definition of causality?

Something that I see as a problem when evolution is discussed is that it frequently seems to be an assumption that the only alternative to "evolution" is "creationism." Personally, I take that as a strawman argument. The obvious other solution is simply that WE DO NOT KNOW.

I absolutely, 100% agree with this. This unscientific attitude pervades today, with a healthy dose of illogic and religious fervor. As soon as a theory becomes "scientific consensus" it is a very thin line to becoming more like religious doctrine.

As you would say, as a memeber of the audience I see no evidence for the claims made, therefore I remain unconvinced.

Exactly. The burden is on them to convince you that the evidence is not just "evidence". Each individual comes to their own conclusions for a variety of reasons. Two people with similar backgrounds and powerful analytical skills come to opposite conclusions, one doesn't believe the theory and the other one does. One just remains unconvinced. If he has a theory called "Creationism" it is now his turn to go to the Big Board and convince us. What will he put on the screen, though? That's the question. If he can't put it on the screen then it remains a vagueness in his mind, waiting to attain concrete form and be molded into a theory.

RCG:

Interesting stuff, got any references?

[rcglinsk]

Well, egg on my face y'all. While I'm pretty sure the human immune system can make a copy of a virus for its own purpose, the viral markers that justify evolution actually come from retroviruses inserting their own DNA. The following blog post does a much better job of describing the information than I did.

http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/06/end ... dence.html

And for the best information, I think the advice at the end of that post takes the day:

"I would encourage anyone who's interested to search for "endogenous retrovirus" AND evolution in the PubMed database of peer-reviewed research papers."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed

There is one nice thing about peer review research papers in biology or chemistry, normally they're not making data up out of whole cloth. The gene sequencing was probably done correctly etc.

[klypp]

It is pretty much part of the record that the reason Darwinians, at least in the early days, "made a fuss about the randomness of mutation" is because they simply wanted to oppose Christianity. Evolution was seen as a way to oppose Christianity, plain and simple. Evolution was an arrow in the quiver of those who wanted to debunk Christianity (something I am not opposed to)..

Not quite so, I'm afraid... Sure, there were some atheists lurking around, but the all-dominating "scientific" debate could just as well be described as "theological". Evolution was already pretty much accepted - as opposed to God once created everything and nothing really changed since then.
The question now was whether or not this evolution was a result of continuous creation. The "darwinists" would say that God once created the natural laws and then just left it for us to figure them out. Which is precisely what Darwin started to do.
This is why our relation to apes caused such havoc. It contradicts continuous creation. Man was supposed to be created separate from animals, remember?
One famous argument the "darwinists" would use, goes like this: Miracles break the laws God created. If you believe in miracles, you accept that the Divine laws can be broken. That is atheism!

I kind of love this argument. It shows that even christians trusted causality in those days - as opposed to some of the nonsense presented by creationists in this thread...

Something that I see as a problem when evolution is discussed is that it frequently seems to be an assumption that the only alternative to "evolution" is "creationism." Personally, I take that as a strawman argument. The obvious other solution is simply that WE DO NOT KNOW.

"We don't know" is not a theory. It is commonly called lack of a theory!
It has never been and will never be a scientific solution!

Take care! Even though you say you're not a religious person, you are coming very close to some junk I hear ever too often: "We don't know everything. Therefore God exists!".

[nick c]

Darwinism is often equated with Evolution.
All beagles are dogs, but not all dogs are beagles.
Darwinism is a uniformitarian theory, and Darwin was a quintessential uniformitarian, a kindred spirit to [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell]Charles Lyell[/url2].
Rejection of Darwinism does not make one a creationist.
See Velikovsky's theory of [url2=http://www.mysticlink.com/si/011207.html]cataclysmic evolution[/url2] as put forth in [url2=http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/earth.htm]Earth In Upheaval[/url2] (1956).

nick c

[Grey Cloud]

Just for the record, Darwin never said we were descended from apes. He said we and apes were descended from a common ancestor/critter. Also, Darwin never mentioned how life began.

[klypp]

Precisely, Grey Cloud!
And I think this discussion could prosper from not mixing up evolution theory with theories on how life began. If it ever did...
Darwin wrote Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.

nick c...
I don't quite see where you want to go? Are you suggesting Velikovsky has an alternative theory to evolution theory? If so, I would like to know more precisely what. (I've skimmed some Velikovsky sites, but can't find anything that contradicts evolution theory.)

So far the only alternative to evolution I've seen presented here is the "intelligent designer" - and that is nothing but creationism. Like it or not!

And, btw, Darwin is the authority on evolution, not Lyell!

[nick c]

hi klypp,

I don't quite see where you want to go?

Excuse me, my post was somewhat cryptic. Let me clarify.

Darwinism is often equated with Evolution.
All beagles are dogs, but not all dogs are beagles.
Darwinism is a uniformitarian theory, and Darwin was a quintessential uniformitarian, a kindred spirit to Charles Lyell.
Rejection of Darwinism does not make one a creationist.

Although Darwin never actually dealt with how life began, his followers have adapted the theory to explain the origin of life from inorganic substance. But that was not a consideration in my post.
I was concerned with the fact that the debate has come down to a choice between Darwinism and Creationism (as espoused by those that say life was created through divine intervention.)
You cannot seperate Darwinian evolution from its' parent...Lyell's geological theory, for actors (plants and animals) work upon a stage (the Earth).
Darwinism is a specific type of evolution theory, based on, or inspired by Lyell's [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformita ... _(science)]uniformitarian[/url2] geological concepts. The premise is that ever so slight changes in a species due to the process of natural selection, will over vast expanses of time result in the creation of new species. This slow evolutionary process takes place in the setting of the slow geological forces that we see in operation today....erosion by wind and water, the slow encroachment or recession of the sea upon the land, meandering rivers carve canyons, mountains rise slowly from gradual tectonic pressures, and are in turn ever so gradually worn away by weather, etc etc. This is Darwinism in a nutshell, and it has become equated with evolution. Those that oppose this theory are the creationists.
That is the limited choice, Darwinism or Creationism.
But there is another form of evolution theory, as put forth in Earth In Upheaval (1956) which was the polar opposite of uniformitarianism, that is Cataclysmic Evolution.
Just as Darwin fit his theory into the geological theories of Lyell, Velikovsky came up with a theory of evolution that was congruent to the catastrophic paradigm. As Velikovsky notes, Lyell's geology and its' offspring, Darwinism, are not consistent with the geological and fossil record which shows sudden changes in the geology of our planet; accompanied by the extinction of the old biological forms and the sudden appearance of entirely new forms which then populate the radically changed environment.
Even Darwin observed this:

Scarcely any paleontological discovery is more striking than the fact that forms of life change almost simultaneously
throughout the world."

Origin of the Species ch 10, as cited by Velikovsky

But he did not let his observations stand in the way of the uniformitarian paradigm which he had embraced a priori.

(I've skimmed some Velikovsky sites, but can't find anything that contradicts evolution theory.)

I strongly recommend a reading of Earth In Upheaval.
Read the whole book as it is a build up to chapter XV, "Cataclysmic Evolution," pp. 233-259.
The book starts out with an assault on Lyell and uniformitarianism dealing with "stones and bones," (that is, no mythology or historical records) and ends in an attack on Darwin and replacement of his slow evolution with a model that fits into the catastrophic paradigm.
Though it is over 50 years old, it is still thought provoking material.

nick c

[klypp]

Just as Darwin fit his theory into the geological theories of Lyell, Velikovsky came up with a theory of evolution that was congruent to the catastrophic paradigm. As Velikovsky notes, Lyell's geology and its' offspring, Darwinism, are not consistent with the geological and fossil record which shows sudden changes in the geology of our planet; accompanied by the extinction of the old biological forms and the sudden appearance of entirely new forms which then populate the radically changed environment.
Even Darwin observed this:

Scarcely any paleontological discovery is more striking than the fact that forms of life change almost simultaneously
throughout the world."

Origin of the Species ch 10, as cited by Velikovsky

But he did not let his observations stand in the way of the uniformitarian paradigm which he had embraced a priori.

Darwin's theory was not an offspring of the uniformitarian paradigm. Quite contrary. As you point out, Darwin knew very well that there had been times when lifeforms changed drastically in a relative short period. This was a problem for him, because in his days science "knew" that the world hadn't changed. So how could life forms change so drastically if the environment was the same? I think this quote from ch 9 illustrates this:

We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge.

Not much help from the authorities there. His only support was that Lyell might have doubts!!!

Darwin tried to get around the problem uniformitarians posed on him by suggesting the fossile records were imperfect. Today we know that it was the uniformitarian paradigm that was "imperfect", and this goes even if we don't consult Velikovsky. This ought to be taken as support for Darwins theory, but what happens? Now he is attacked from the opposite side!!!
First he was blamed for not being an uniformitarian, now he's blamed for being one! Give the poor guy some rest...
---
I don't have Earth in Upheavel at hand, but I found this:

The innumerable new forms of life in the animal and plant kingdoms following the Deluge could have been solely a result of multiple mutations.(4) Although this seems a sufficient explanation of why and how Saturn came to be credited with the work of dissemination and mutation, the mention of another possibility should not be omitted.
If it is true that the Earth passed through the gases exploded from Saturn, it should not be entirely excluded that germs were carried together with meteorites and gases and thus reached the Earth.

If this is all, I can't see how it is an alternative .
Evolution theory doesn't exclude neither multiple mutations nor the possibility of germs from space.