Unicorns and the ToE

[VoxRat]

...

You have lodged the most common objection to the machine analogy which is ... machines built by humans don't reproduce.

MY ANSWER: Yes they do. Now stick with me here. Man made machines DO reproduce, but their reproductive equipment is external to the manufactured product.

But that's precisely the problem. (Notice the title of von Neumann's book: Theory of Self-reproducing Automata, not Theory of Manufactured Automata). Machines are reproduced, but not by their own devices. Thus they cannot evolve, and nor produce nested hierarchies because they don't have lines of descent constrained by genetic heritage. A Roomba is totally irrelevant here. It does a self-serving function automatically, this has nothing to do with its capacity to produce offspring.

I guess during the first ten or twenty times this transparent equivocation between (self-)reproduction and "reproduction" by manufacture was dissected, I thought, surely, Dave will either concede the point or - more likely - quietly abandon it. But No!

Not surprisingly, people lost patience with him.
Impatient words ensued.
Many people concluded that Dave was not discussing in good faith, and/or was the poster child for willful ignorance.

I've said it before: Martin B has the patience of a saint.
Let's see if it survives even this test.

[Perrin]

I do and that was not what I ment. What I mean is that you classify for example radiometric dating, which is a nuclear physics topic and not related to the ToE, as 'evolutionist dogma'. The same goes for most of geology, etcetera.

I am just making an observation there. I'm not saying this is necessarily so, just that it happens to be so in every case I have encountered. Can you name me one person who believes in evolution who does not also believe in the validity of radiometric dating over long time scales (millions of years)? I don't think such a person exists. Ditto for geology. It seems to me that a belief in evolution goes hand in hand with belief that the earth is very old and also hand in hand with the belief that the geologic record represents millions of years of deposition.

A suggestion: How about calling these people "realworldists" instead of "evolutionists"?

[Perrin]

I just thought I have to quote the essential part of your argument again and highlight the central argument:

But that's precisely the problem. (Notice the title of von Neumann's book: Theory of Self-reproducing Automata, not Theory of Manufactured Automata). Machines are reproduced, but not by their own devices. Thus they cannot evolve, and nor produce nested hierarchies because they don't have lines of descent constrained by genetic heritage. A Roomba is totally irrelevant here. It does a self-serving function automatically, this has nothing to do with its capacity to produce offspring.

[Martin B]

I just thought I have to quote the essential part of your argument again and highlight the central argument:

But that's precisely the problem. (Notice the title of von Neumann's book: Theory of Self-reproducing Automata, not Theory of Manufactured Automata). Machines are reproduced, but not by their own devices. Thus they cannot evolve, and nor produce nested hierarchies because they don't have lines of descent constrained by genetic heritage. A Roomba is totally irrelevant here. It does a self-serving function automatically, this has nothing to do with its capacity to produce offspring.

I'm a bit more surised that people have missed this:

To reiterate and modify an example I brought up before: How does creationism explain the fact that animals as different as a elephant and a great white shark have three semicircular canals of the inner ear and a backbone? What cause is there for this similarity in two completely different animals? Why couldn't it have been accomplished in a different way?

Creationism cannot explain why this is the case any more than I can explain why my wife likes flowery wallpaper or why she likes eating boiled cabbage. We're talking about a Super Intelligence here with a free will. We would expect Him (if He exists) to do unexpected things. You know the expression, "Kids say the darndest things"? That's because they are free spirits and this God we postulate would be too, if He does in fact exist. For all I know God made elephants with trunks just to entertain kids at zoos. I mean why not? If I were God, I'd make some funny creatures to make kids laugh. Back to your specific questions, I can only guess the mind of God ... maybe backbones and triple canals are good design ... just like alternators are good design for supplying electricity in cars. Car designers use them in widely varying models of cars and why wouldn't they? Why re-invent the wheel, as they say.

I thoroughly agree with this statement. You're explicitly admitting here that common design/creationism/ID does not explain nested hierarches at all. The features I have cited (backbone, three semicircular canals) are homologies of vertebrates as a whole and jawed vertebrates respectively, and you've admitted that special creation cannot explain them.

Doesn't anybody see what just happened?

[ericmurphy]

Martin B ...

The existence of nested hierarchies was what led Darwin to propose common ancestry as an explanation. Nested hierarchical patterns are like a footprint of common ancestry.

And I admit that it is tempting to propose common ancestry. After all, look at dogs. It is my opinion that all the radically different looking and different acting dogs came from a single founder pair which were present on Noah's Ark. So I understand that widely varying forms can involve common ancestry. But just because common ancestry is true for some does not mean it is true for all. I would argue that the nested hierarchical patterns that we actually have in nature are not a footprint of common ancestry.

No you wouldn't. Common ancestry is true for all. There are no organisms on earth which do not sort into a single nested hierarchy. You've never been able to come up with an explanation for this:



—which is the nested hierarchies we see in nature, that does not involve common descent.

But I don't care to argue that more.

So in other words, you cannot refute the single strongest argument for common descent, and hence for macroevolutionary theory. Giving up, Dave? Because the diagram above is essentially proof beyond all possibility of doubt for the relatedness of all life through common ancestry.

I understand your position on this and it does not really matter to me in the big scheme of things.

Really? So you now accept the common ancestry of all organisms? Or you don't accept it, but can't give a reason why not? I'm guessing the latter.

To reiterate and modify an example I brought up before: How does creationism explain the fact that animals as different as a elephant and a great white shark have three semicircular canals of the inner ear and a backbone? What cause is there for this similarity in two completely different animals? Why couldn't it have been accomplished in a different way?

Creationism cannot explain why this is the case any more than I can explain why my wife likes flowery wallpaper or why she likes eating boiled cabbage. We're talking about a Super Intelligence here with a free will. We would expect Him (if He exists) to do unexpected things. You know the expression, "Kids say the darndest things"? That's because they are free spirits and this God we postulate would be too, if He does in fact exist. For all I know God made elephants with trunks just to entertain kids at zoos. I mean why not? If I were God, I'd make some funny creatures to make kids laugh. Back to your specific questions, I can only guess the mind of God ... maybe backbones and triple canals are good design ... just like alternators are good design for supplying electricity in cars. Car designers use them in widely varying models of cars and why wouldn't they? Why re-invent the wheel, as they say.

In other words, creationism is scientifically and intellecually vacuous, has no explanation at all for any observed phenomena, and the only reason you believe in it is because it makes you feel good to believe in it? Is that it, Dave?

THE MACHINE ANALOGY
I see you have objected to my machine analogy in the same way as others have in the past. But I will continue to stick to my analogy because it is a good one and yes, I DO wish to carry the analogy to it's logical end. I have already done so in the past and it works beautifully, though I have yet to encounter a Darwinist who accepts it.

You have lodged the most common objection to the machine analogy which is ... machines built by humans don't reproduce.

MY ANSWER: Yes they do.

No. They don't. Any grade schooler knows they don't. You can't just redefine "reproduction" to mean something it doesn't mean. We've already been through this with you a million times before. Butterflies reproduce; watches don't.

[Serafina Pekkala]

I just thought I have to quote the essential part of your argument again and highlight the central argument:

But that's precisely the problem. (Notice the title of von Neumann's book: Theory of Self-reproducing Automata, not Theory of Manufactured Automata). Machines are reproduced, but not by their own devices. Thus they cannot evolve, and nor produce nested hierarchies because they don't have lines of descent constrained by genetic heritage. A Roomba is totally irrelevant here. It does a self-serving function automatically, this has nothing to do with its capacity to produce offspring.

I'm a bit more surised that people have missed this:

Creationism cannot explain why this is the case any more than I can explain why my wife likes flowery wallpaper or why she likes eating boiled cabbage. We're talking about a Super Intelligence here with a free will. We would expect Him (if He exists) to do unexpected things. You know the expression, "Kids say the darndest things"? That's because they are free spirits and this God we postulate would be too, if He does in fact exist. For all I know God made elephants with trunks just to entertain kids at zoos. I mean why not? If I were God, I'd make some funny creatures to make kids laugh. Back to your specific questions, I can only guess the mind of God ... maybe backbones and triple canals are good design ... just like alternators are good design for supplying electricity in cars. Car designers use them in widely varying models of cars and why wouldn't they? Why re-invent the wheel, as they say.

I thoroughly agree with this statement. You're explicitly admitting here that common design/creationism/ID does not explain nested hierarches at all. The features I have cited (backbone, three semicircular canals) are homologies of vertebrates as a whole and jawed vertebrates respectively, and you've admitted that special creation cannot explain them.

Does anybody not see what just happened?

Hiya!

Earlier, David stated that evolution did not predict the observed nested hierarchy, and that creationism predicted the nested hierarchy that we observe. Here, David is stating that creationism cannot predict anything , particularly the nested hierarchy. David, this seems very confusing. Could you clarify what you mean? Thanks.

Sari

[ericmurphy]

I just thought I have to quote the essential part of your argument again and highlight the central argument:

But that's precisely the problem. (Notice the title of von Neumann's book: Theory of Self-reproducing Automata, not Theory of Manufactured Automata). Machines are reproduced, but not by their own devices. Thus they cannot evolve, and nor produce nested hierarchies because they don't have lines of descent constrained by genetic heritage. A Roomba is totally irrelevant here. It does a self-serving function automatically, this has nothing to do with its capacity to produce offspring.

I'm a bit more surised that people have missed this:

Creationism cannot explain why this is the case any more than I can explain why my wife likes flowery wallpaper or why she likes eating boiled cabbage. We're talking about a Super Intelligence here with a free will. We would expect Him (if He exists) to do unexpected things. You know the expression, "Kids say the darndest things"? That's because they are free spirits and this God we postulate would be too, if He does in fact exist. For all I know God made elephants with trunks just to entertain kids at zoos. I mean why not? If I were God, I'd make some funny creatures to make kids laugh. Back to your specific questions, I can only guess the mind of God ... maybe backbones and triple canals are good design ... just like alternators are good design for supplying electricity in cars. Car designers use them in widely varying models of cars and why wouldn't they? Why re-invent the wheel, as they say.

I thoroughly agree with this statement. You're explicitly admitting here that common design/creationism/ID does not explain nested hierarches at all. The features I have cited (backbone, three semicircular canals) are homologies of vertebrates as a whole and jawed vertebrates respectively, and you've admitted that special creation cannot explain them.

Does anybody not see what just happened?

Oh yeah we did. Dave has admitted that creationism has no explanation for nested hierarchies at all. Now, he may continue to argue that nested hierarchies does not imply common descent, but that's a losing struggle. He'll never come up with another remotely plausible explanation for them.

You did bring up a very good point though, Martin, one that's been alluded to before but never stated explicitly.

Dave's argument about his machine analogy, if followed to its logical conclusion, implies that non-nested hierarchies are evidence of design.

So, Dave, if you want us to believe life was designed, just show us the non-nested hierarchies that would result from design in living organisms.

[VoxRat]

...I'm a bit more surised that people have missed this:

Creationism cannot explain why this is the case any more than I can explain why my wife likes flowery wallpaper or why she likes eating boiled cabbage. We're talking about a Super Intelligence here with a free will. We would expect Him (if He exists) to do unexpected things. You know the expression, "Kids say the darndest things"? That's because they are free spirits and this God we postulate would be too, if He does in fact exist. For all I know God made elephants with trunks just to entertain kids at zoos. I mean why not? If I were God, I'd make some funny creatures to make kids laugh. Back to your specific questions, I can only guess the mind of God ... maybe backbones and triple canals are good design ... just like alternators are good design for supplying electricity in cars. Car designers use them in widely varying models of cars and why wouldn't they? Why re-invent the wheel, as they say.

I thoroughly agree with this statement. You're explicitly admitting here that common design/creationism/ID does not explain nested hierarches at all. The features I have cited (backbone, three semicircular canals) are homologies of vertebrates as a whole and jawed vertebrates respectively, and you've admitted that special creation cannot explain them.

Does anybody not see what just happened?

VoxRat doesn't not see it

[Perrin]

Doesn't anybody see what just happened?

I tend to just skim Dave's posts (my irony meters are really expensieve), so I missed this. But you are right: Here we have it, in Dave's own words: creationism is not science. Surprise, surprise.

[Dave Hawkins]

Not conceding anything here. You have misunderstood. Creationism is quite scientific and is in fact more consistent with the evidence that we actually have than Methodological Naturalism and it's child (so to speak), the ToE. I'll explain from a different angle tomorrow and perhaps it will become clear.

[JOZeldenrust]

Not conceding anything here. You have misunderstood. Creationism is quite scientific and is in fact more consistent with the evidence that we actually have than Methodological Naturalism and it's child (so to speak), the ToE. I'll explain from a different angle tomorrow and perhaps it will become clear.

That's a bold statement Dave. In essence, you're claiming that a supernatural explanation for natural evidence is better then a natural explanation for the same natural evidence. Or are you claiming there's also supernatural evidence?

How would you go about making observations concerning non-naturalistic phenomena? Observing non-naturalistic phenomena is commonly known as psychosis.

[VoxRat]

Not conceding anything here. [yadda yadda yadda] I'll explain from a different angle tomorrow and perhaps it will become clear.

Also, be sure to take a heavy-duty umbrella with you if you're going out, because if Dave's "perhaps" is remotely possible, flying pigs is a virtual certainty.

[RAFH]

I just thought I have to quote the essential part of your argument again and highlight the central argument:

But that's precisely the problem. (Notice the title of von Neumann's book: Theory of Self-reproducing Automata, not Theory of Manufactured Automata). Machines are reproduced, but not by their own devices. Thus they cannot evolve, and nor produce nested hierarchies because they don't have lines of descent constrained by genetic heritage. A Roomba is totally irrelevant here. It does a self-serving function automatically, this has nothing to do with its capacity to produce offspring.

I'm a bit more surised that people have missed this:

Creationism cannot explain why this is the case any more than I can explain why my wife likes flowery wallpaper or why she likes eating boiled cabbage. We're talking about a Super Intelligence here with a free will. We would expect Him (if He exists) to do unexpected things. You know the expression, "Kids say the darndest things"? That's because they are free spirits and this God we postulate would be too, if He does in fact exist. For all I know God made elephants with trunks just to entertain kids at zoos. I mean why not? If I were God, I'd make some funny creatures to make kids laugh. Back to your specific questions, I can only guess the mind of God ... maybe backbones and triple canals are good design ... just like alternators are good design for supplying electricity in cars. Car designers use them in widely varying models of cars and why wouldn't they? Why re-invent the wheel, as they say.

I thoroughly agree with this statement. You're explicitly admitting here that common design/creationism/ID does not explain nested hierarches at all. The features I have cited (backbone, three semicircular canals) are homologies of vertebrates as a whole and jawed vertebrates respectively, and you've admitted that special creation cannot explain them.

Doesn't anybody see what just happened?

Oh yeah, davey explicitly admitted his explanation of reality, ie - creationism, can not and does not explain why there are homologies, his answer was simply, "goddidit and who am I to know why". davey has specifically stated his paradigm does not answer and, further, he has no idea why it doesn't, other than "well, gee, my buddy is sooper-dooper, all powerful and invisible, out of space and time and has Level umptey-elevenish-!!!1111!!!** special powers".

[Elká]

Creationism cannot explain why this is the case...

Exactly, so cut the rest of the crap about your wife's love of frou frou or her gassy indulgences etc. and we agree.

THE MACHINE ANALOGY
I see you have objected to my machine analogy in the same way as others have in the past. But I will continue to stick to my analogy because it is a good one and yes, I DO wish to carry the analogy to it's logical end. I have already done so in the past and it works beautifully, though I have yet to encounter a Darwinist who accepts it.

You have lodged the most common objection to the machine analogy which is ... machines built by humans don't reproduce.

MY ANSWER: Yes they do. Now stick with me here.

No. You're done. You've crashed and burned this analogy too many times davey. Buzz your little blow fly wings all you want, machines do not self replicate imperfectly.

Your machine analogy will not fly so don't even ask for permission to taxi out to the flight line.

Elká

[Susannah]

Dave, if your answer to the question [How does creationism explain the fact that animals as different as a elephant and a great white shark have three semicircular canals of the inner ear and a backbone?] is:

Why re-invent the wheel, as they say.

Why (and this is just your opinion) do you think that your designer God re-invented the wheel when providing bats, birds, and dragonflies (among others) with powered flight?

If bird wings are "a good design", they could have been worked into bats...right? Why re-invent the wheel, as they say.

Secondly, are you willing to give us your opinion on why God would stick the "good design" bird wings on birds which can't use them for flight, like penguins, ostriches, or emus?

I understand how nested hierarchies account for these observations; can you help me out with how creationism accounts for them so that I may better understand that point of view?

It's quite simple, as Davey explains it; his God is a Free Spirit. Like a kid. Totally unpredictable. Does the "darndest things".

[RAFH]

Not conceding anything here. You have misunderstood. Creationism is quite scientific and is in fact more consistent with the evidence that we actually have than Methodological Naturalism and it's child (so to speak), the ToE. I'll explain from a different angle tomorrow and perhaps it will become clear.

And then, of course, he reverts to daveyism and simply asserts what he said is not what he said because we have "misunderstood" him and besides, he is right because he is and we are wrong because he is right. Stay tuned for further confusionization.

[Febble]

Not conceding anything here. You have misunderstood. Creationism is quite scientific and is in fact more consistent with the evidence that we actually have than Methodological Naturalism and it's child (so to speak), the ToE. I'll explain from a different angle tomorrow and perhaps it will become clear.

Well, if creationism is "quite scientific" why did you say:

Creationism cannot explain why this is the case any more than I can explain why my wife likes flowery wallpaper or why she likes eating boiled cabbage. We're talking about a Super Intelligence here with a free will. We would expect Him (if He exists) to do unexpected things.

Science is about explanations. You conceded, correctly, that creationism cannot explain things. If creationism postulates that things are due to "a Super Intelligence here with a free will" it cannot possibly explain things, because things are, by definition, done on a whim.

[Dave Hawkins]

I said it cannot explain WHY. Please read what I write very carefully.

[Febble]

I said it cannot explain WHY. Please read what I write very carefully.

Exactly. It cannot explain WHY. Therefore it is not scientific.

[Elká]

Not conceding anything here. You have misunderstood.

To reiterate and modify an example I brought up before: How does creationism explain the fact that animals as different as a elephant and a great white shark have three semicircular canals of the inner ear and a backbone? What cause is there for this similarity in two completely different animals? Why couldn't it have been accomplished in a different way?

Creationism cannot explain why this is the case...

What's to misunderstand here davey? YECreationism flat out denies nested hierarchies because they contradict scripture.

Elká

[JOZeldenrust]

I said it cannot explain WHY. Please read what I write very carefully.

Exactly. It cannot explain WHY. Therefore it is not scientific.

I'll have to open myself up to a massive quotemine here, but science can't explain "why" either.

As far as science is concerned, there is no "why". There's a "how", though, and science can describe that "how", whereas Davey has defines his how as fundamentaly unknowable.

Creationism is a cowardly position, a refusal to face a universe that doesn't have intrinsic value, an expression of the inability to take responsibility for your existence. It's pathetic, Dave.

[Dave Hawkins]

Can you explain WHY the ancient Hittites did everything they did? No. You can make pretty safe guesses on many things, but there are other things that will remain a mystery as to WHY they did it that way. Is the study of the archaeology of the Hittites unscientific because of this? Of course not. Same for the unobserved Creator as for the unobserved Hittites.

[Dave Hawkins]

Thank you Joz ... For setting Febble straight on the WHY issue.

As for HOW things work, creationists are all over that ... We--like the creationist founders of modern science--are not content to say Goddidit as so many know-nothings allege. We want to know HOW he did it and, since our paradigm actually has a basis in observed reality, we have an advantage over scientists operating under a non-ID paradigm. This paradigm difference is why, for example, that a handful of creationist geologists were able to turn conventional geology on its ear and bring about the revival of catastrophism.

[VoxRat]

I'll have to open myself up to a massive quotemine here, but science can't explain "why" either.

As far as science is concerned, there is no "why". There's a "how", though, and science can describe that "how", whereas Davey has defines his how as fundamentaly unknowable.

...

The word "why" is the English language's gift to would-be equivocaters, which includes pretty much all verbal creationists.

(Without bothering to quote a dictionary) it can mean either

• (1) "for what purpose" or
• (2) "from what cause"

as in

• "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
• "Why is the sky blue?"

In fact, that's the basis of some of the "chicken crossing the road" jokes (using the term loosely).

As in, back in the 1990's when the "punk" phenomenon, body piercing, safety pins through the nose, etc. were a novelty, one version of the joke went:

"Why did the chicken cross the road?"
"I don't know. To get to the other side?"
"No, it was stapled to the punk's face"

[JOZeldenrust]

Thank you Joz ... For setting Febble straight on the WHY issue.

As for HOW things work, creationists are all over that ... We--like the creationist founders of modern science--are not content to say Goddidit as so many know-nothings allege. We want to know HOW he did it and, since our paradigm actually has a basis in observed reality, we have an advantage over scientists operating under a non-ID paradigm. This paradigm difference is why, for example, that a handful of creationist geologists were able to turn conventional geology on its ear and bring about the revival of catastrophism.

Bad creomonkey!

All creationists do is make up excuses to reconcile real science with an a priori conclusion. "God" in creationist "scholarship" has exactly as much explanatory value as "marinara sauce" in pastafarian scholarship, and much less comedy value.