tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post4226086293290725128..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: The Sterility of Intelligent DesignUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger139125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-40093893314603432152014-06-09T14:02:31.226-04:002014-06-09T14:02:31.226-04:00@Ernst, 12:39 AM, January 14, 2013
"Does the...@Ernst, 12:39 AM, January 14, 2013<br /><br />"Does the T.O.E. explain long-necked giraffes, or does it just accommodate them"<br /><br />That is kind of a philosophical question.<br /><br />At least, evolutionary theory accommodates such developments as the evolution of the giraffe neck.<br /><br />It explains them in general terms. But it does not automatically offer a *detailed* explanation in terms of specific selection factors that drove this development. Such a detailed explanation requires specific hypotheses to be made, which then, in turn, can be tested against further, more detailed data, to confirm or reject it.<br /><br />Of course many such hypotheses have already been offered. Some of them have gained more credence than others, although none can be said to be "the definitive answer". And some of them have been rejected on the basis that there was either too little support for them, or data actively contradicting them. None of this conflicts with the match between all the available data and the more general, central theses of evolutionary theory, such as the nested hierarchies of biology and palaeontology; the observations of diverging morphologies, behavioural patterns and genomes; the associated declines in interbreeding frequencies; observation of radiating adaptation and speciation; and so on.<br /><br />To conclude, there is no doubt that giraffes and other (shorter necked) relatives derive from a common ancestor, and that they and more remote relatives derive, in turn, from remoter common ancestors, all the way back and even beyond the origin of the main domains of life. There is very little doubt that natural selection did play a large part in this, based on observations in all walks of modern biology, from molecular genetics to population dynamics. The discussion, if any, is about the details of each phylogeny, and about the specific factors that influenced the developments in these phylogenies.Gralgrathorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14928559772595731772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-57430059842109720812013-01-16T18:50:16.750-05:002013-01-16T18:50:16.750-05:00Your new equation of "give me some time to th...Your new equation of "give me some time to think about it" = "continued evasion" is duly noted, too.<br />It happens to be good food for thought, this analogy to meteorology.Ernstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-19276554339195713532013-01-16T13:52:04.343-05:002013-01-16T13:52:04.343-05:00Your continued evasion is noted.Your continued evasion is noted.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-17655513013635689042013-01-16T12:30:36.032-05:002013-01-16T12:30:36.032-05:00And your ability to conclude that "no comment...And your ability to conclude that "no comment for now" equals "inability to address" shows that you're a top notch mathematician.Ernstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-85547900308298125462013-01-16T06:20:26.402-05:002013-01-16T06:20:26.402-05:00Your inability to address the question about meteo...Your inability to address the question about meteorology is noted.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-26825421122668654792013-01-16T04:21:01.176-05:002013-01-16T04:21:01.176-05:00"I already gave you an example of an explanat..."I already gave you an example of an explanation, which you want to pretend is unimportant because you were unfamiliar with it"<br /><br />It's not accurate to say I was "unfamiliar" with it. I just wasn't very fluent in it.<br /><br />" If you think that because one animal has a long neck, another must, then I'm wasting my time, because this kind of ignorance is not really remediable."<br /><br />People who like to shoot down strawmen like that are also not really remediable.<br /><br />"So I guess your claim is unfalsifiable, then, since no matter how many examples I adduce, you will just repeat the line above?"<br /><br />Not true. I could adduce two examples of "accommodation" to every one of your "explanations", and my argument (which I think you forgot) would hold true.<br /><br />Thanks for inspiring me to read http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=267591<br />Ernstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-22754700808753402732013-01-15T06:25:12.069-05:002013-01-15T06:25:12.069-05:00How many times do I have to remind you that I do n...<i>How many times do I have to remind you that I do not reject the idea that the TOE can explain some things?</i><br /><br />So I guess your claim is unfalsifiable, then, since no matter how many examples I adduce, you will just repeat the line above?<br /><br />Let's look at another example: meteorology. Would you say that meteorology doesn't so much explain the weather as it does accommodate it? After all, meteorology cannot explain* why there is a big puffy cloud over my head right now, but not over yours.<br /><br />* In the sense of giving a relatively complete causal history of how *that particular cloud* came to be there.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-89722330086419381252013-01-14T18:30:00.836-05:002013-01-14T18:30:00.836-05:00" I already gave you an example of an explana..." I already gave you an example of an explanation, which you want to pretend is unimportant because you were unfamiliar with it"<br /><br />How many times do I have to remind you that I do not reject the idea that the TOE can explain some things?Ernstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-84597752064856222872013-01-14T04:26:13.690-05:002013-01-14T04:26:13.690-05:00And so forth with the other dichotomies I mentione...<i> And so forth with the other dichotomies I mentioned. It accommodates both extremes, but doesn't explain them</i><br /><br />Not true. Your ignorance of the existing explanations does not constitute an argument. I already gave you an example of an explanation, which you want to pretend is unimportant because you were unfamiliar with it.<br /><br /><i>how does it explain the short-neck animals in the same environment </i><br /><br />I guess you haven't heard of the concept of ecological niche. If you think that because one animal has a long neck, another must, then I'm wasting my time, because this kind of ignorance is not really remediable.<br /><br /><i> following more comprehensive site</i><br /><br />Now your argument is that a famous case, well-known to biologists, somehow doesn't count because it fails to appear on a popular website created by a non-biologist? You seem to have a real problem evaluating sources.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-70226221247407906052013-01-14T00:39:54.788-05:002013-01-14T00:39:54.788-05:00"Oh, geez, if it's not mentioned in a pop..."Oh, geez, if it's not mentioned in a popular article, it can't be famous."<br /><br />You conveniently forgot to mention the TalkOrigins site.<br /><br />"It's not exactly evidence for macroevolution. It's a prediction by evolution that turned out to be correct. Do you understand the difference?"<br />Yes. I admit I should've focused on "explanatory power" of evolution as opposed to "evidence for evolution." Some examples, including eusociality, are here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13677-evolution-myths-evolution-is-not-predictive.html<br /><br />(Unfortunately, the article neglects to mention where the theory predicted <i>incorrectly</i>.)<br />Also failing to mention where the theory predicted incorrectly is the following more comprehensive site, which claims to list successful evolutionary predictions, but does <i>not</i><br />include eusociality. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html)<br /><br />"Yes, I've already noticed you seem to have trouble admitting you are wrong when the evidence is clear that you are."<br />You're worse.<br /><br />I'm not a philosopher, either.<br /><br />Why don't we just revisit the question: Does the T.O.E. explain long-necked giraffes, or does it just accommodate them. If the former, then how does it explain the short-neck animals in the same environment. If it explains flashy animals, then how does it explain plain animals in the same environment. And so forth with the other dichotomies I mentioned. It accommodates both extremes, but doesn't explain them (a contention you've yet to address).Ernstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-30104807939588514482013-01-13T21:02:29.897-05:002013-01-13T21:02:29.897-05:00I considered the "15 Evolutionary Gems" ...<i>I considered the "15 Evolutionary Gems" from Nature magazine</i><br /><br />Oh, geez, if it's not mentioned in a popular article, it can't be famous.<br /><br /><i>the well-known "29 Evidences for Macroevolution"</i><br /><br />It's not exactly evidence for macroevolution. It's a prediction by evolution that turned out to be correct. Do you understand the difference?<br /><br /><i>The link you supplied does nothing to refute my contention that the theories within the theory of evolution are less about explaining and predicting (which they may very well do at times) than they are about adapting to fit what is observed. </i><br /><br />Yes, I've already noticed you seem to have trouble admitting you are wrong when the evidence is clear that you are.<br /><br /><i> I'm not a creationist.</i><br /><br />You argue just like one. If you're not a creationist, I'm betting you're a philosopher.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-38254775286791781052013-01-13T20:31:40.435-05:002013-01-13T20:31:40.435-05:00Jeff, when you claimed that sex ratios in eusocial...Jeff, when you claimed that sex ratios in eusocial species was one of the most famous examples of explaining a theory in evolution, I considered the "15 Evolutionary Gems" from Nature magazine, and the well-known "29 Evidences for Macroevolution", and noted that eusociality was mentioned in <b>neither</b> of them. (And it's <i>barely</i> mentioned at the talkorigins site.)<br />Besides, when I said I wanted to check up on it, I meant to check up on whether the theory truly explained the ratios, or merely accommodated them. If it's been a while since I've read up on eusociality, well excuuuse me!<br /><br />The link you supplied does nothing to refute my contention that the theories within the theory of evolution are less about explaining and predicting (which they may very well do at times) than they are about adapting to fit what is observed. <br /><br />PS: I'm not a creationist. Jump back from the island of conclusions.Ernstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61631311560162732062013-01-13T04:56:02.830-05:002013-01-13T04:56:02.830-05:00Jeff, when are you going to learn the difference b...<i>Jeff, when are you going to learn the difference between explanation and accommodation?</i><br /><br />I don't think you have any knowledge or understanding at all about evolution and why scientists find it useful. My evidence is that you don't even know about one of the most famous evolutionary explanations, and you sneer at those with more knowledge who try to educate you.<br /><br />When you are done reading about eusocial mammals, you can read <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>. But I doubt it will make any difference. Creationists rarely learn anything.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-55017397611763292022013-01-12T20:42:23.814-05:002013-01-12T20:42:23.814-05:00"The fact that you don't know about such ..."The fact that you don't know about such explanations doesn't mean they don't exist."<br /><br />Jeff, when are you going to learn the difference between explanation and accommodation?Ernstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-46406634509856967432013-01-11T04:01:11.724-05:002013-01-11T04:01:11.724-05:00if adaptive evolution unfolds by differential surv...<i>if adaptive evolution unfolds by differential survival of individuals, how can individuals incapable of passing on their genes possibly evolve and persist?</i><br /><br />Poor sad, stupid anonymous, who apparently doesn't know that this puzzle was solved long ago by the very person he mentions.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-89816911248681627692013-01-11T03:59:51.833-05:002013-01-11T03:59:51.833-05:00"one of the most famous"
Right.
Your bl...<i>"one of the most famous" <br />Right.<br />Your bluff is obvious.</i><br /><br />Poor, sad, Ernst, who knows nothing about evolution, but likes to pretend he does.<br /><br />That's the thing about creationists - you can't educate them, because they already think they know everything, and are unwilling to learn.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-42449122759171364842013-01-11T00:27:11.290-05:002013-01-11T00:27:11.290-05:00Jeff,
if adaptive evolution unfolds by different...Jeff,<br /><br /> if adaptive evolution unfolds by differential survival of individuals, how can individuals incapable of passing on their genes possibly evolve and persist?<br /><br />So much for eusocial animals with a pat on the back to WD Hamilton. IOW, the idea they were designed this way is a vastly better solution. Not proof of ID but you just gave evidence against evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-60957660049378770712013-01-11T00:10:53.327-05:002013-01-11T00:10:53.327-05:00"one of the most famous"
Right.
Your bl..."one of the most famous" <br />Right.<br />Your bluff is obvious.Ernstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-16429480871269295522013-01-10T18:49:33.789-05:002013-01-10T18:49:33.789-05:00Ernst:
The fact that you don't know about suc...Ernst:<br /><br />The fact that you don't know about such explanations doesn't mean they don't exist. How much of the evolutionary biology literature have you read? The fact that you don't know about the eusocial sex ratio explanation - one of the most famous - suggests strongly that you are are arguing from ignorance, not knowledge.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-90899673134533851242013-01-10T17:55:51.359-05:002013-01-10T17:55:51.359-05:00Says someone who doesn't read carefully. I sai...Says someone who doesn't read carefully. I said "doesn't <i>so much</i> as explain as..."<br />Sure, maybe it explains sex ratios in eusocial species (though I'll have to read up on that), but it doesn't truly explain why some organs can become more complicated <i>and</i> others more streamlined, fast <i>and</i> slow animals, flashy <i>and</i> plain animals, huge <i>and</i> tiny animals, light <i>and</i> dark animals, predator <i>and</i> prey, loner <i>and</i> herder, extinction <i>and</i>fecundity, giving <i>and</i> selfishness, reason <i>and</i> psychosis.<br />The theory of evolution accommodates these dichotomies very nicely. Explaining them, however, is a different matter.Ernstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-3299713283833955532013-01-10T05:35:21.364-05:002013-01-10T05:35:21.364-05:00The theory of evolution doesn't so much as exp...<i>The theory of evolution doesn't so much as explain as it does accommodate.<br /></i><br /><br />Says someone who obviously knows nothing about science or evolution.<br /><br />Evolution <i>explains</i> sex ratios in eusocial species, just to give one example.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-30035508268127106572013-01-09T22:14:09.856-05:002013-01-09T22:14:09.856-05:00The theory of evolution doesn't so much as exp...The theory of evolution doesn't so much as <i>explain</i> as it does <i>accommodate</i>.Ernstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-73466115523040686372013-01-07T03:33:01.703-05:002013-01-07T03:33:01.703-05:00you are guessing about evolution explaining. anyth...you are guessing about evolution explaining. anything. what is funny is that you and Jeff assume that if a person can see that evolution is incapable of explains much of anything save micro evolution that it makes a person tinto a creating onset. I reserve judgement on ID and don't subscribe to creationis,. evolution does. it has its own creation miracle. no rational argument for origins based on evidence.<br /><br />I just took Dr. Noor's Duke genetics class and he never got around to explains how life came to be. as it is but he did have Coyne show up and waste everyone's time,<br /><br />all guessing backed by no proof ... same thing ID folks,do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-18720222544780591852013-01-06T10:12:19.094-05:002013-01-06T10:12:19.094-05:00Evolution explains only a handful of things. Like ...Evolution explains only a handful of things. Like taxonomy, biogeography, paleontology, drug/pesticide resistance, ... Some handful.<br /><br />Meanwhile, "please don't let evolution be true" (that is, creationism/intelligent design) explains <b>nothing</b>. And its advocacy shows no signs of interest in ever explaining anything.<br /><br />The only puzzling thing is that advocates of creationism/intelligent design should want to draw attention to the issue of accounting for things.<br /><br />TomSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21887795491970914682013-01-05T19:00:14.194-05:002013-01-05T19:00:14.194-05:00Evolution accounts for only a handful of events. ...Evolution accounts for only a handful of events. Very few. Most events are beyond its power. that is why a top top math guy won't even attempt to show it actually working .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com