Evolution Observed

[shunyadragon]

Dawkins himself acknowledges the possibility that life was put here by alien intelligence, other atheists like Andre Linde - principle in modern inflationary theory, speculate that the universe was also a product of 'alien' ID of some kind. Are those theistic arguments?

You are unethically misquoting Dawkins. Dawkins considers it possible that some of the basic amino acids may have extraterrestrial origin No alien speculation is not a Theistic argument, because no God nor God(s) are involved. Neither Dawkins nor Andre Linde propose there is objective verifiable evidence of an actual alien source. nor a falsifiable hypothesis for 'Intelligent Design.'

Please cite them completely and accurately and not unethical out of context interpretations from your theist perspective.

I believe @Subduction Zone more correctly described Dawkins off the cuff rhetorical comment in an interview. You need to be more specific what Dawkins believed and proposed in his actual writings.

Likewise non theists overwhelmingly support Darwinian evolution with God having no role. Neither belief should bias the objective science should they?

Well yes, pretty much all philosophical naturalists support the science of evolution without God or God(s) having a role.

Sure, nature is the executor of God's laws as Galileo said.

Not sure, the belief of theists.

But theist or atheist, the laws of nature very precisely predetermined the development of many natural phenomena. I don't make an exception for life.

OK

i.e. the implications of life developing according to predetermined plans,

Not ok! No evidence to support this assertion. I believe God is not an engineer working from plans. God is a Creator naturally.

are as easy to fit into an atheist model as the rest of nature. It would need some sort of infinite probability machine to write all the laws of course, but that's not a leap of faith not already taken.

Very foolish unsubstantiated 'belief.' There is no evidence of any such need of an 'infinite probability machine.' All that has been objectively determined is needed is Natural Laws and simply the nature of our physical existence as it is. The rest is interesting speculative science fiction.

point being again, as with Hoyle, we should not allow our personal feelings about the apparent implications of a theory, to bias the objectivity of it. If predetermination or ID implies God made us the way he wanted to, I have no bias against this- do you?

Point again . . . Hoyle is dead.

I have a scientific bias against claims scientific support for predestination whether natural nor Divine. My personal feelings nor theistic beliefs do not influence my science as a scientist.

Like most Darwinists, I think you are a perfectly intelligent, honest, rational person, capable of critical thought, who is ultimately interested in knowing the truth, not merely supporting a preconceived belief.
i.e. I do not and have not attacked your intellect in any way.

No I believe you are attacking science as science, and not me.

I am a scientist, not a Darwinist, and a very skeptical scientist of any philosophy and theology trying to influence science as science,

If you can state the same, then we can wipe the slate clean and stick to substance, deal?

My slate was wiped clean as humanly possible a long time ago.

Okay- so if it were found on Mars? How about if SETI detected a complex mathematical sequence coming from the Andromeda Galaxy? would that be human? or a theological argument?

The supposed 'complex mathematical sequence coming from the Andromeda Galaxy' is not found to be repeatable in terms of an intelligent origin, and considered possibly of natural origin, Neither human nor Theological, because it remains unknown. All this is basically speculation and reaching beyond the scope of what was observed.This source confirmed that scientists consider the amount of data limited and too small to draw conclusions with a number of possible cause.

From: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...nd-in-enigmatic-radio-bursts-but-its-not-e-t/

Instead of aliens, unexpected astrophysics, or even Earthly interference, the mysterious mathematical pattern is probably an artifact produced by a small sample size, Ransom says. When working with a limited amount of data – say, a population of 11 fast radio bursts – it’s easy to draw lines that connect the dots. Often, however, those lines disappear when more dots are added.

“My prediction is that this pattern will be washed out quite quickly once more fast radio bursts are found,” says West Virginia University’s Duncan Lorimer, who reported the first burst in 2007. “It’s a good example of how apparently significant results can be found in sparse data sets.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are unethically misquoting Dawkins. Dawkins considers it possible that some of the basic amino acids may have extraterrestrial origin No alien speculation is not a Theistic argument, because no God nor God(s) are involved. Neither Dawkins nor Andre Linde propose there is objective verifiable evidence of an actual alien source. nor a falsifiable hypothesis for 'Intelligent Design.'

.

Actually there was a dishonest video made of Dawkins where the questions were changed in post. He was asked to come up with a possible scenario where life on Earth was not the result of natural abiogenesis here. He answered that poorly asked question the only way that he could. By dreaming it up it does not mean that he advocated it in any way at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually there was a dishonest video made of Dawkins where the questions were changed in post. He was asked to come up with a possible scenario where life on Earth was not the result of natural abiogenesis here. He answered that poorly asked question the only way that he could. By dreaming it up it does not mean that he advocated it in any way at all.

Good answer! As I said quoting Dawkins out of context. Quote mining par excellence.

It was an obvious last resort 'IF' case scenario with a rhetorical response.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are unethically...”

my hopes were not high, why can't you debate without slurs?, what are you afraid of?

 

[shunyadragon]

my hopes were not high, why can't you debate without slurs?, what are you afraid of?

Why can't you cite scientists completely in context?

The interview if you follow Dawkins further he gave an extreme what 'IF' hypothetical response when pressed by Stein that included that ultimately the source is natural without any possibility of a Divine origin. That is a more complete response of what Dawkins believes.

Citing his view completely from his books would be far more accurate.

When you do I will reciprocate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

my hopes were not high, why can't you debate without slurs?, what are you afraid of?

Was that a slur? Or was it an accurate assessment? Most people know that the interview between Dawkins and Stein in Expelled was a very dishonest piece of work. Did you have a different source? If that is the case then he would have been wrong about you. If you were referring to the Dawkins Stein interview then he was correct:

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why can't you cite scientists completely in context?

When you do I will reciprocate.

It's a pretty well known interview from 'no intelligence allowed' which doesn't usually require spoon feeding, where, as I said, he acknowledges the possibility.

Just as with Raup, I'd be interested in knowing how anyone can manage to spin his words into a different context. where do you glean from this that he is NOT acknowledging the possibility? please give it your best shot:

But the more people try to re-invent the context of statements like this, the more they undermine the argument for Darwinism, it's been quite an eye opener.


What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?

Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a pretty well known interview from 'no intelligence allowed' which doesn't usually require spoon feeding, where, as I said, he acknowledges the possibility.

Just as with Raup, I'd be interested in knowing how anyone can manage to spin his words into a different context. where do you glean from this that he is NOT acknowledging the possibility? please give it your best shot:

But the more people try to re-invent the context of statements like this, the more they undermine the argument for Darwinism, it's been quite an eye opener.


What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?

Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.

But that was a dishonestly edited video. The video that I linked explains that. I did at first link the wrong video so you might want to recheck my post. By citing a known dishonest source you look dishonest yourself. It is wise to vet a source before using it.

And your abuse of Raup has been explained to you countless times. By your standards the Bible says "there is no god" twelve different times. When citing someone or something that disagrees with you, and Raup does disagree with you, one needs to link to the original source or else the quote is worthless.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's a pretty well known interview from 'no intelligence allowed' which doesn't usually require spoon feeding, where, as I said, he acknowledges the possibility.

No, it is only well known by Creationists who want to quote mine it. If you want to cite Dawkins, IF he considers it an actual possibility please cite his writings that are specific and no question as to what he believes.

Just as with Raup, I'd be interested in knowing how anyone can manage to spin his words into a different context, in which he is NOT acknowledging the possibility, but please give it your best shot:

You have been called out repeatedly misrepresenting Raup, who believes in evolution as it is, and was just presenting a more contemporary view of the evidence,

All ready done that. It was in response to a question about an extreme what 'IF' scenario. and not a citation from Dawkins writings concerning what he actually believes concerning the possibility of ID.

But the more people try to re-invent the context of statements like this, the more they undermine the argument for Darwinism, it's been quite an eye opener.

You are the one trying to re-invent what Dawkins believes from a hypothetical response from a loaded extreme hypothetical question by Stein, for which you give an incomplete citation, and Stains video does not give the complete interview.

Again, again and again . . . please site Dawkins writings as to what he actually believes concerning ID.

What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?

I definitely do not like hypothetical probability to make such crystal ball conclusions.

Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.

Incomplete, as far as what Dawkins finally expressed, please include all of Dawkins statement where he concluded ultimately a natural origin, and it was a response NOT what Dawkins believes concerning the possibility of Intelligent Design, but an extreme hypothetical what 'IF' loaded question by Stein.

You need to cite his writings as to what he believes concerning Intelligent Design.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it is only well known by Creationists who want to quote mine it. If you want to cite Dawkins, IF he considers it an actual possibility please cite his writings that are specific and no question as to what he believes.



All ready done that. It was in response to a question about an extreme what 'IF' scenario. and not a citation from Dawkins writings concerning what he actually believes concerning the possibility of ID.



You are the one trying to re-invent what Dawkins believes from a hypothetical response from a loaded extreme hypothetical question by Stein, for which you give an incomplete citation, and Stains video does not give the complete interview.

Again, again and again . . . please site Dawkins writings as to what he actually believes concerning ID.



I definitely do not like hypothetical probability to make such crystal ball conclusions.



Incomplete, as far as what Dawkins finally expressed, please include all of Dawkins statement where he concluded ultimately a natural origin, and it was a response NOT what Dawkins believes concerning the possibility of Intelligent Design, but an extreme what if loaded question by Stein.

You need to cite his writings as to what he believes concerning Intelligent Design.

[/QUOTE]

So as I said, he openly acknowledges the possibility of alien ID originating life on Earth. If you are asserting that his reply was somehow faked, and that he does NOT acknowledge that possibility, then you need to show us some evidence of where he retracts this statement - on camera or in writing, both work for legal purposes I think you will find!

On the point that he believes the designers would have 'probably' evolved by Darwinian processes .. yes ....that would be the whole point if you remember what we were discussing- that ID does NOT have to be a theistic argument.

But I am curious why his acknowledging this possibility touch such a nerve? it's okay to consider other possibilities, unless there is an extreme dogma involved in a position

 

[Subduction Zone]

So as I said he openly acknowledges the possibility of alien ID originating life on Earth. If you are asserting that his reply was somehow faked, and that he does NOT acknowledge that possibility, then you need to show us some evidence of where he retracts this statement - on camera or in writing, both work for legal purposes I think you will find!

On the point that he believes the designers would have 'probably' evolved by Darwinian processes .. yes ....that would be the whole point if you remember what we were discussing- that ID does NOT have to be a theistic argument.

But I am curious why his acknowledging this possibility touch such a nerve? it's okay to consider other possibilities, unless there is an extreme dogma involved in a position

Nope, all that was needed was to show that the interview was dishonest. I did that. It makes it worthless.

 

[shunyadragon]

So as I said, he openly acknowledges the possibility of alien ID originating life on Earth. If you are asserting that his reply was somehow faked, and that he does NOT acknowledge that possibility, then you need to show us some evidence of where he retracts this statement - on camera or in writing, both work for legal purposes I think you will find!

The interview was dishonestly edited by Stein, and you are perpetuating that dishonestly. In the video cited by @Subduction Zone it is clear that he did not acknowledge the possibility in his later explanation that showed the dishonest editing.

To add:

"Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection." Richard Dawkins.

Read more at: Richard Dawkins Quotes - BrainyQuote

On the point that he believes the designers would have 'probably' evolved by Darwinian processes .. yes ....that would be the whole point if you remember what we were discussing- that ID does NOT have to be a theistic argument.

ID is ONLY a Theistic argument. The above is a misrepresentation of Dawkins.

But I am curious why his acknowledging this possibility touch such a nerve? it's okay to consider other possibilities, unless there is an extreme dogma involved in a position

What hits the nerve is the dishonest unethical editing of the video and the misrepresentation of Dawkins,

Nope, all that was needed was to show that the interview was dishonest. I did that. It makes it worthless.

As @Subduction Zone documented, an my quote pf Richard Dawkins confirmed"

"Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection." Richard Dawkins
Read more at: Richard Dawkins Quotes - BrainyQuote.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

New Species of Galapagos Finch Observed Evolving

Some folks like to claim evolution has never been observed. But the recent discovery of a new, fast emerging species of Galapagos finch upsets that apple cart.

Comments?

We see speciation in extreme climates all the time like deserts and Tundra- my comment as someone that took Ecology

I thought evolution was a pretty well accepted fact by all of us except fundamentalists?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

? If you can explain sub atomic physics/ quantum mechanics using only Newtonian physics... then they'll give you a prize! much easier to get one just being a liberal politician though..

I take it that you can't provide an example, so nice deflection! If we could marry the macro world(Newtonian Physics) with the micro world(QM), we would have solved the "science of everything" problem. This is the real prize for any physicist. The basic difference between the two, is that both scales of realities are explained using different frameworks(physics). Gravity(Newtonian) vs Quantum Field Theory(QM). The physics supporting the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces(QM), is incompatible with the effects of gravitational forces(Newtonian Physics). Solving both differentials have produced nonsensical answers. Hence the need for added dimensions(String Theory) to compensate for this incongruity. Gravity is far to weak at the sub-atomic level to effect sub-atomic particles. The real question is WHY? When you find that answer, I will personally fund your flight to Oslo.This site might peek your interest, and certainly your knowledge. Why Can't Quantum Mechanics Explain Gravity? (Op-Ed) . Don

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I take it that you can't provide an example, so nice deflection!

? quantum mechanics / subatomic physics cannot be explained with classical Newtonian physics,- you disagree?!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The interview was dishonestly edited by Stein, and you are perpetuating that dishonestly. In the video cited by @Subduction Zone it is clear that he did not acknowledge the possibility in his later explanation that showed the dishonest editing.

To add:

"Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection." Richard Dawkins.

Read more at: Richard Dawkins Quotes - BrainyQuote



ID is ONLY a Theistic argument. The above is a misrepresentation of Dawkins.



What hits the nerve is the dishonest unethical editing of the video and the misrepresentation of Dawkins,



As @Subduction Zone documented, an my quote pf Richard Dawkins confirmed"

"Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection." Richard Dawkins
Read more at: Richard Dawkins Quotes - BrainyQuote.

Again you underscore the problem, he quite sensibly concedes that life was possibly seeded here by intelligent design- which we all have to, unless you can prove this is impossible? of course not

but in other instances yes, he utterly rules ID out as an explanation...

So you see the contradiction here, it would be exactly like a flat Earther conceding the Earth MIGHT be spherical, then going on to also concede that he is so biased against the idea, no evidence would ever be admissible no matter what!

That's simply not a scientific approach.

Is that what this comes down to for you also? Or can you honestly say that you do not personally dislike the notion of ID as a conclusion?

I concede that natural evolution is possible, I am entirely open to compelling evidence should it arise, and have absolutely nothing against it ideologically, I think it's supporters are generally perfectly rational, & I was a big fan for decades in fact. It just doesn't pan out scientifically when you delve deeper into it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again you underscore the problem, he quite sensibly concedes that life was possibly seeded here by intelligent design- which we all have to, unless you can prove this is impossible? of course not.

but in other instances yes, he utterly rules ID out as an explanation...

Two facts, which you are inconveniently ignoring: (1) The interview was dishonestly and unethically edited, and no when the whole context of the interview is revealed it reveals that no Dawkins did not propose that 'Intelligent Design' is a possible option. Your perpetuating this selectively edited, unethical, and dishonest video (2) You asked for a specific reference where Dawkins denied the possibility of Intelligent Design. I provided that reference, and it was unequivocally specific.

"Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection." Richard Dawkins
Read more at: Richard Dawkins Quotes - BrainyQuote.

Admit it you have been busted!

So you see the contradiction here, . . .

The only contradiction is you relying on a dishonestly edited video to justify your case is not only a contradiction, but perpetuating a dishonest, unethical source.

That's simply not a scientific approach.

Is that what this comes down to for you also? Or can you honestly say that you do not personally dislike the notion of ID as a conclusion?

I have an extreme revolting dislike of an unethical, dishonest edited video to justify a religious agenda, and it is not science nor a legitimate scientific approach.

As far as ID it is not been remotely presented as a falsifiable hypothesis by scientific methods. That is the bottom line. Id remains a religious hypothesis based on the belief of an intelligent source Creator, nothing more nothing less.

I concede that natural evolution is possible, I am entirely open to compelling evidence should it arise, and have absolutely nothing against it ideologically, I think it's supporters are generally perfectly rational, & I was a big fan for decades in fact. It just doesn't pan out scientifically when you delve deeper into it.

The last statement confirms you have an agenda of ID, not science, and do not consider the objective verifiable evidence for the natural basis for the science of evolution. Your reliance on a classical Theist Discovery Institute argument, and an unethical, dishonest edited video promoted by Stein's Theist agenda further confirms your underlying motives. Honestly, I do not consider you conceding anything.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

? quantum mechanics / subatomic physics cannot be explained with classical Newtonian physics,- you disagree?!

I do agree that there are aspects of QM that cannot be explained by using Newtonian Mechanics. It would be like explaining oranges using a fork. But there are many aspects of classical mechanics that do apply to QM. Your question is truly an oversimplification, using half-truths, false assumptions, and false conclusions. Maybe this link might help you formulate a more relevant question. arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.4455v1.pdf . Don

 

[shunyadragon]

I do agree that there are aspects of QM that cannot be explained by using Newtonian Mechanics. It would be like explaining oranges using a fork. But there are many aspects of classical mechanics that do apply to QM. Your question is truly an oversimplification, using half-truths, false assumptions, and false conclusions. Maybe this link might help you formulate a more relevant question. arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.4455v1.pdf . Don

I consider it more important that Quantum Mechanics explains many aspects of Newtonian Physics. At present Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity does not fully explain Newtonian gravity.

The theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics evolved out of the problem that Newtonian Physics failed to explain the behavior of matter and energy at the micro level.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I do agree that there are aspects of QM that cannot be explained by using Newtonian Mechanics. It would be like explaining oranges using a fork. But there are many aspects of classical mechanics that do apply to QM. Your question is truly an oversimplification, using half-truths, false assumptions, and false conclusions. Maybe this link might help you formulate a more relevant question. arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.4455v1.pdf . Don

Glad we could clear this up!

so you now agree with what I said

Newtonian physics is fundamentally inadequate in explaining physical reality today. A simple statement sure, but unambiguously true


"It would be like explaining oranges using a fork"

well, kinda, but more to the point, like explaining oranges using only orange peel

Gravity is necessarily underwritten by a deeper layer of information, so is this software interface, and so is life-

The paradox of explaining gravity with classical physics, is the same you would encounter trying to write this forum software by typing in this box- this paradox is inherent to hierarchical information systems, be they artificial or natural, simple or complex

Life, DNA, is also a hierarchical information system, (also a digital one in fact) uncannily computer like, more sophisticated than any software we've ever written maybe,- but there is no exception in mathematical logic made especially for it. i.e. trying to explain evolution with adaptation is likewise extrapolating a feature of a design into a mechanism for that design. -

an extremely temptingly intuitive fallacy