'Boil Water' Warning After Confirmed...
News1 min ago
Darwin's Doubt, Intelligent Design And Evolution.
Has anyone watched this film, an interview with Stephen Meyer?
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. "At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet."
Sudden turn in the thread to disparaging talk of 'faith' and 'theists' - the bearded science-sages must be getting rattled.
Actually, religion can take many forms; Margullis also says that history will ultimately judge Neo-Darwinism as "a minor 20th century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology."
Actually, religion can take many forms; Margullis also says that history will ultimately judge Neo-Darwinism as "a minor 20th century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology."
Khandro, The term species is really only a convenient way of labelling organisms that are closely related. Taxonomists seem to spend most of their lives arguing the subject, either lumping them together or dividing them. I don't think the word 'unambiguous' forms part of their lexicon and molecular biologists probably couldn't tell one (alleged)species from another.
Yes, it's a bit of an empty challenge since a) we've only really been observing for a couple of hundred years at most, which is far too short a timescale to observe speciation, and b) the definition of species is far too vague to answer the question anyway. There's still ongoing debate about whether known species are the same or distinct. That will last for some time, I'm sure -- which, at the same time, will make it trickier still to observe speciation. You can always claim that it's just a "different breed", for example.
jomifl; //How on 'god's' earth does your respected professor know what historians will say?//
Well, she didn't preface it with 'In my humble opinion', but then she is an American, and she is Distinguished Professor of Biology.
We can all make predictions; I can say with some captaincy that future generations will speak of Ira Gershwin, but not Lady Gaga.
But jomifl, there's worse to come, she goes on to say "Proponents of the standard theory wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him .... Neo -Darwinism which insists on the slow accrual of mutations, is in a complete funk."
Oh dear!
Well, she didn't preface it with 'In my humble opinion', but then she is an American, and she is Distinguished Professor of Biology.
We can all make predictions; I can say with some captaincy that future generations will speak of Ira Gershwin, but not Lady Gaga.
But jomifl, there's worse to come, she goes on to say "Proponents of the standard theory wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him .... Neo -Darwinism which insists on the slow accrual of mutations, is in a complete funk."
Oh dear!
Does Professor Margulis believe in ID, Khandro? I don't think so. A quick check on-line suggests to me that she originated the theory of the creation of eukaryotic cell through symbiosis (third time this particular cuddly toy has appeared on the conveyor belt), and that she believes speciation occurs similarly.
Earlier, I stated that I was only interested (here at least) in how the first form of what could be termed 'life' might come into being from inorganic matter, and then I would hand over the wheel to Darwin, but now reading Behe I'm not sure how safe that would be.
Natural selection can only chose systems that are already working, but among these are some which are irreducibly complex, that is to say systems which cannot be produced directly by the improvement of the initial function and would have to arise as an integrated unit.
Examples given are the cilium and the bacterial flagellum, real understanding of which and their 'irreducible complexity' has only been achieved by the invention of the electron microscopes, which have also highlighted the complexity of blood-clotting, a process which would appear impossible to be arrived at by small incremental changes.
Natural selection can only chose systems that are already working, but among these are some which are irreducibly complex, that is to say systems which cannot be produced directly by the improvement of the initial function and would have to arise as an integrated unit.
Examples given are the cilium and the bacterial flagellum, real understanding of which and their 'irreducible complexity' has only been achieved by the invention of the electron microscopes, which have also highlighted the complexity of blood-clotting, a process which would appear impossible to be arrived at by small incremental changes.
Anyone looking at a finished product without being able to see any intermediate stages can be forgiven for assuming that it had to be that way. But it's only an assumption. Claimimg irreducible complexity in any other field of scientific study just ends up with someone five years or ao down the line showing that there was something intermediate after all. The problem in biology is that we can't really go back to the beginning properly so that it can be difficult to find what the "less complex" thing was. But claiming that there could be nothing less complex is almost certainly wrong. And when someone eventually does explain the process such people who believe in irreducible complexity just move on to something else, bouncing around to try to prove their position regardless of having been wrong about it every other time.
v_e; What is your verdict on the debate? I have only as yet watched the beginning, - though I shall return. I was amused that these scientists discussing the origins of life, were incapable of rigging up a decent p.a. system. Poor Dembski, forced to stoop and tap on the mike "can you hear this?" sounded like he was in a northern working men's club, and the intro. informing us that so many scientists feel that ID isn't even worthy of discussion prove once again that "the majority is always wrong".
I haven't watched the whole debate, Khandro. Found it while looking for Miller on Youtube, having watched several of his lectures and debates on ID. I don't think his mate helped the good guys' cause (i.e. mine) much. He did have a point to make ("...but is it science?"), but came across as an irritating pedant. Miller himself I love, and, to repeat, is a practising RC.
v_e; If that sermon by PZ Myers is an indicator to the standard of Skeptikon presentations, then I am quick to join you in your distaste for it.
What an odious little man he is, lying and misrepresenting his antagonist and using his own diagrams as a drunken man uses lamp posts - for support rather than illumination.
What an odious little man he is, lying and misrepresenting his antagonist and using his own diagrams as a drunken man uses lamp posts - for support rather than illumination.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.