Begging the question?

I appreciate your thoughtful response, especially the comments about SETI. It's interesting you mention it and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence because this effort highlights the fact that there are certain criteria that scientists use in distinguishing naturally occurring phenomena from artificial (or intelligently designed) ones. For instance, in the 1960's SETI scientists were all aflutter when they discovered what appeared to be an artificial signal with their array. In the end, it turned out to be a pulsar that was emitting radio signals in regular intervals and is now humorously referred to as LGM-1 ("little green men"). My point is this, just as these SETI scientists projected intelligence onto a naturally occuring phenomena, is it possible that adherents to ID are engaged in a similar kind of projection? 

Discovering pulsars make repeating radio patterns only makes my point here again: 

'No known natural process has been observed to create information...'

If the text on this page were one word repeated over and over and over, it would be like a pulsar. Nothing to read into. DNA laguage is more like our conversation, and so far no other things in the universe seem to be doing this writing stuff, on machines much like DNA information processing systems.

Do you see the difference? Do you think only random accdents can result in these extraordinary systems because that is all the universe willl ever be? Or are you open to exploring the design model alongside the standard evolutionary view to make a fair comparison? You know, science. Not too many people around here are into it when it comes to origins, they already know everything.

You are correct in asserting that the spontaneous arrangement of complex genetic material has never been observed by scientists either in nature or or in the lab. A fact which has led some to postulate what is known as the "metabolism-first" hypothesis. This is idea that metabolic processes developed in early life first before RNA. The spontaneous generation of organic molecules from inorganic chemical processes is something that scientists have observed occuring in nature. If this is indeed the case, then scientists would have a path forward to definitively prove abiogenesis. So I pose a similar challenge to you. Are you open to considering the possibility that life can spontaneously arise from nonliving sources? This need not mean the end of theism as we know it. Much in the same way that Galileo's verification of Coppernicus' heliocentric model caused a stir in its day, new scientific discoveries give us all the opportunity to pause and reevaluate our beliefs and understanding of the nature of the universe.

It is clear you make the usual assumptions regarding creationist thinkers and ideas. This is understandable, as the propaganda against any questioning of evolution, and any notion of design in nature or the universe is absolute and dictatorial in our scientific community, education, media, entertainment, and all other aspects of the 'authoritative' information-sphere. I know this extra well because I have studied evolution, origin of life (several theories, including the one you mention), and the history of life on earth as part of a geoscience degree, plus I just live in this society.

As expected by anyone who has honestly accounted for both interpretations (evolution and design), and their explanatory power, the entire class on the history of life was absurd. Just a vague narrative with lots of artists impressions and some science words. No explanation, no mechanisms, no compelling evidence. But the students don't notice BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE CONCLUSION IS TRUE, EVERYONE DOES (and they need it to be true for the metaphysical comfort it brings), A GOOD EXPLANATION ISNT NECESSARY AND ISNT LOOKED FOR.

This is backwards science of course, starting with the answer (evolution must have occurred), and forcing everything else to conform with it (life must begin from non-living matter in a random, accidental way), REGARDLESS OF A COMPLETE LACK OF COMPELLING EVIDENCE FOR THE INTITIAL IDEA.

I'm fairly certain you've never looked into creationist interpretations, except where they are being misrepresented and ridiculed, that's a prejudice I have about evolution promoters that has always held true. So, do you want some links to quality ID and Creationist sources? Or do you want to just stop posting, so the thread disappears quietly, like the other times I've challenged evolutionary theory on this site? 

I'm ready to type all day on this topic.

You should probably know that I grew up in the evangelical church and was born and bred in literal 6th day creationism. I'm very familiar with the arguments because I grew up with voices like Ken Hamm, Michael Behe, and Guillermo Gonzalez. So your assumption that my views are simply the result of youthful indoctrination and failure to adequately consider both sides is patently untrue. 

My rejection of ID as a viable scientific explanation for the origins of life is the result of my own personal experiences and intellectual journey. It's interesting that your contention with the standard evolutionary model as a foregone conclusion is precisely my primary contention with ID. In my experience, ID proponents begin with the conclusion first and cherry pick facts to support their thesis.

In any case, I am sorry that your own journey has resulted in feelings marginalization because of your beliefs. Please know I do not bear any ill will towards you because of your position. If you're interested in a civil conversation, I'd be more than happy to engage. But I think it would help if we actually listened to one another instead of just assuming we know where the other is coming from. 

[To Stefan Schiavone]

Ok, I was wrong, and being a dick, sorry.

Can you tell me how the wing developed, step by step, from a random mutated lump of flesh, into a fully usable flying apparatus?

If you can do that with the wing, or any other body feature of any creature, I will discuss your model of natural adaptation and change, otherwise, there is no evolutionary model to discuss, just the usual vague narative lacking evidence or even a logical model that be thought about, existing purely on its cultural dominance and peoples fear of being ridiculed, mocked and dismissed (or simply ignored, if people are pretending to be really virtuous intellectuals on websites, where they cant just call you names and laugh along with the other cool people in the social setting), if they have a different intuition or conclusion about life.

I do not refer to natural selection, the observed process by which existing genetic information is selectively expressed and fixed in a population. That doesn't create new things like wings, radar systems, geomagnetic navigation, or the ability to completely metamorphose into a totally different type of creature, that can also fly when its original form was based on walking with legs.

When you have a mechanism that can explain the appearance of these things, then we have a model to discuss. I've never met anyone who can do this, maybe you will surprise me again. Good luck.

I suppose that would depend on what kind of wing you're referring to. There are bat's wings, bird's wings, insect wings, the wings of flying squirrels and sugar gliders. Even the pectoral fins of flying fish allow them to glide like wings. You're going to have to be more specific.

Here's an honest evolutionist, for once:

'Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'

.................................

A debate only exists because alternative thinkers are gaslit into being intimidated by absolute fools in suits on television and websites who desperately need to be seen as intelligent and progressive, without feeling the need to actually be those things. They don't say the honest truth about thier worldview, because then they would be exposed as fakes and frauds with zero substance to thier ideas, and people would laugh and free their minds.

Evolution doesn't exist, there is no model, no mechanism, no process to investigate, analyse or discuss. It always was, and always will be, a scientific and intellectual dead end. Anyone who believes in it simply hasn't started thinking yet.

"Evolution doesn't exist, there is no model, no mechanism, no process to investigate, analyse or discuss. It always was, and always will be, a scientific and intellectual dead end. Anyone who believes in it simply hasn't started thinking yet." It seems that you've declared yourself the winner of this debate without having made a single argument. I also take issue with the notion that if a person doesn't agree with you, it automatically must mean they haven't sufficiently thought through their position (and that you have). This is quite a presumptuous statement, however simply asserting the superiority of your position doesn't make it so. I see you've quoted Richard Lewontin in your comments about evolution. Allow me to borrow another quote from him. “For Darwinian biology the organism is the nexus of the internal and external forces. It is only through natural selection of internally produced variations, which happen to match by chance the externally generated environmental demands, that what is outside and what is inside confront each other.” I personally think this is such a beautiful statement as it concisely summarizes the theory of evolution, an idea which has withstood almost 200 years of rigorous investigation and critique. It draws evidence from virtually every scientific discipline from paleontology, geology, biochemistry, particle physics, astronomy, and genetics. 

Before I go on, I think I should tell you a little about myself. I'm a science teacher who studied biology at a private Christian university. It was during that time that I bagan to question some of the assumptions of my religious upbringing. Like you, I know what it's like to be in the minority. Now I could have blindly followed what I had always been taught in my youth, it certainly would have made life easier. But the more I learned about science, the more questions I had. I began to see the flaws and misunderstandings in the arguments I had been spoon-fed as a child. Having said this, don't assume that I have totally shut myself off from considering of the possibility of God. Science, however, is the study of the natural world and therefore is incapable of verifying or refuting once-and-for-all existence and nature of the supernatural. Therefore, I don't believe that arguments for God are essentially arguments against evolution and deep time. Conversely, arguments for evolution need not be arguments against the divine. Intelligence and quality of thought can be found among both theists and atheists. The strength of a position is not in its conclusion, but the road traveled to reach that conclusion. 

[To Stefan]

Dawkins quote is poetic, and that's nice, but it doesn't explain. I want an explanation, based on evidence and logic, of the evolutionary mechanism, or process? What about the wing? Do you have any ideas how it developed? 'Scientists' do, look it up, it's quite amusing. Oh, and yes, it has to happen multiple times, accidentally, and independently. You can pick any wing you like, I just want a step by step explanation of how it came to be. Just get us from dead rocks to flying creatures and I'm all ears.

'an idea which has withstood almost 200 years of rigorous investigation and critique. It draws evidence from virtually every scientific discipline from paleontology, geology, biochemistry, particle physics, astronomy, and genetics.'

This is where you are supposed to recount that history of rigourous testing (just metioning it isn't enough outside a university class or television documentary (we are doing science here, not propaganda, so we need explantions. evidence etc.), and present the evidence from these fields that support the explanatory model (which I'm still waiting for, and can't find anywhere in the world.)

Listen, I could go into the history of theropods and site examples of fossilized evidence of intermediary forms. But why stop at the wing, you could ask how did limbs develop from fins, or bones and muscle from soft jelly-like bodies. The bottom line is that I'm not going to recount for you here an in-depth and exhaustive analysis of the morphological development of various anatomical features in living things. Primarily because I honestly don't possess that degree of knowledge. But that doesn't mean the information's not out there. If you're really curious about how an evolutionary scientist might answer your question, then do some research. You don't even have to agree with it to seek to understand it. 

I suppose the essential questions one must ask concerning the merits of evolution are these:

1. Is it possible for the DNA of organisms to be changed by random mutation?

2. Is it possible these mutations can increase the likelihood of an organism's ability to survive in its environment and reproduce thus passing on these changes to its offspring?

3. Is it possible that given enough time, these minute changes can accumulate in a myriad of different ways to account for the diversity of life we see around us today? 

If you can answer yes to these three questions then it would seem that evolution is indeed a plausible idea. If you have contentions or disagreements with these statements, well then we can talk about them. I look forward to it.

You missed this:

'Do you have any ideas how it developed? 'Scientists' do, look it up, it's quite amusing.'

What I meant by that is that I have researched the explanations for the wing, and they are absurdly laughable. All you need to do is type: 'How did the wing evolve?' and you can enjoy the comedy too, it's easy. That's not my job, anyway, I asked you for an explanation, not the other way around.

My position is there is no explanation to talk about, and nothing you have said changes that belief. Maybe look up your side of the debate and try using that material to argue, that's how |I usually debate things if I'm not sure why I even believe it yet. If you really don't want to google stuff, I will compile a short essay on the most popular absurdities of evolution, post them, and you can defend your position with those ideas.

You also missed this it seems:

'Which I'm still waiting for, and can't find anywhere in the world.'

Kind of saying the same thing.

You said:

1. Is it possible for the DNA of organisms to be changed by random mutation?

Is it possible these mutations can increase the likelihood of an organism's ability to survive in its environment and reproduce thus passing on these changes to its offspring? 

3. Is it possible that given enough time, these minute changes can accumulate in a myriad of different ways to account for the diversity of life we see around us today?

Thank you for making my point crystal clear, you don't know what you're talking about because THERE IS NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. NOBODY HAS A PROCESS, EXPLANATION OR MECHANISM FOR THE EVOLUTION OF CREATURE MORPHOLOGY. It doesn't exist and it never will because its a stupid idea that doesn't work. People don't think they need one because the super smart scientists just tell them the conclusion and hope the people never think it through too hard.

There is no model, only vague possibilities and pie in the sky physical miracles that fly in the face of everything we observe about nature.

Dr Lewin puts it perfectly: its a stupid idea, but the only way to banish God from the culture. Why not just admit that this is also your worldview and agenda? Why the games and avoidance?

Aren't any of the other elite intellectual experts on logic and science around here going to jump in and defend the Gov/Corp origin narrative?

C'mon guys. I know Dr Bo can't handle it, he always dropped out of these threads once I started, but someone must have SOME knowledge of their super logical and sense-making explanation for life that absolutly everyone must believe in or be rejected from society and the intellectual community. Anyone?

I'm bored.