Posts by hooberus

142

Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution

by zagor in

jw
friends

study detects recent instance of human evolution by nicholas wadea surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of east africa.

it is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.. the finding is a striking example of a cultural practice the raising of dairy cattle feeding back into the human genome.

it also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level.

hooberus

Hey hooberus, is that the same John Sanford as this guy?
http://www.raelianews.org/news.php?item.181.6

Yes, however I don't think that he as anything to do with the "Raelians". They appear to name all sorts of people as "guides." Here is where they did the same to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet:

http://www.raelianews.org/news.php?item.168 His book has nothing to do with aliens (the craft on the cover is used as a part of an illustration contrasting various levels of complexity). see: http://creationresearch.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=CRSOS

142

Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution

by zagor in

jw
friends

study detects recent instance of human evolution by nicholas wadea surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of east africa.

it is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.. the finding is a striking example of a cultural practice the raising of dairy cattle feeding back into the human genome.

it also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level.

hooberus

http://www.creationresearch.org
A recent book from a former Cornell university researcher (and inventor of the "gene gun")
It should be read by everyone sincerely interested in the origins debate:
Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome (available from the creation research society -see below for more:
http://creationresearch.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=CRSOS
Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome
John Sanford 2005. Ivan Press, 202 pages.
The central axiom of evolution is that natural selection acts upon mutations to provide the genetic mechanism for common descent. However, Dr. Sanford, a former researcher at Cornell University, challenges that there are many reasons why this axiom is not a reasonable mechanism for evolution. He demonstrates that various phenomena, such as Haldane’s dilemma, show that mutations create a genetic burden that natural selection cannot compensate. Furthermore, because there are many more mutations than previously thought, the health of organisms is steadily declining, not evolving. This well written book is geared toward the educated layman and deals with many current aspects of genetics.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

You also ignore that if one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designers are spontaneously available, or have always been there, one also has to accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or the environment for complexity can arrise spontaneously or to always have been there.

I'll try to provide a brief response to the above provided I'm allowed to break it down issue by issue to the following two separate arguments:

"You also ignore that if one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designers are spontaneously available, . . . one also has to accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or the environment for complexity can arrise spontaneously. . . ."

"You also ignore that if one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designers . . . have always been there, one also has to accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or the environment for complexity. . . to always have been there."

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

Regarding the first statement that: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." funkyderek said:

It's trivial to make statements that are not inconsistent, as I demonstrated in previous posts. You would be better served by attempting to provide evidence for some of your assertions, most notably the two beliefs essential to your original statement: the direct assertion you made that life requires an intelligent designer, . . .

I agree that statements require more than being merely not inconsistent (and/or not requiring a logical inconsistency), in order to be considered scientific. This is why for example ReMine in his book later goes on to explain how the statement is both testable, and supported by scientific evidence.

However, this thread was not intended by myself to be an attempt to scientifically support the statements claim of the necessity of a disgner for life from non-life (scientific resources for that claim are available)- but instead to demonstrate that properly written ID statements exist which do not necessarily lead to either an infinite regression of designers, or logical self-refutations.

. . . and the corollary, that an intelligent designer can exist without having an origin.

As far as proving evidence that: "an intelligent designer can exist without having an origin", I would say that 1.) there is nothing necessarily illogical about such a scenario; and 2.) that statements such as: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." do not also necessarily require (in order to be valid) additional evidence for other things- such as how "an intelligent designer can exist without an origin". For example lets say that a group of SETI scientists received a radio signal and then (after analysis) stated that: "An intelligent sender is necessary for the origin of this mathematically coded signal." There would be no requirement that in order for their statement to be valid that they must also provide evidence for other things- such as how the signal sender could have came about from non-life, or how they may have always existed, etc. They simply need to show that their statement is testable, not necessarily illogical, and supported by data. (In fact if their data demonstrates their statements claim of the necessity of an intelligent sender, then this would then be evidence that an intelligent sender does in fact necessarily exist).

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

Before addressing any non-logic issues, I feel that it is still important to continue for a while to clarify on the original topic. I will give another hypothetical ID theory/statement (which builds on the first). Here it is:

"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex machines (composed of interworking componet parts) from non-complexity."

Once again this statement requires:

1.) No infinite regression of designers- since it (similar to earlier ID statement) does not require that potential designers even have an origin at all.

2.) No required self-refutation- since it (similar to the earlier ID statement) does not also require the existence of some complex machine that has an origin from non-complexity without a designer, as it does not require the designer to even have an origin from non-complexity at all.

(Anyone who disagress with the above two points please see the earlier dialogue on the other simpler ID statement).

Furthermore, it should also be noted that the expanded ID statement at the top of this post does not even require the designer himself to also be a complex "machine" at all- thus it additionally does not disallow any potential designer which is not composed of machine type complexity.

It's trivial to make statements that are not inconsistent, as I demonstrated in previous posts. You would be better served by attempting to provide evidence for some of your assertions, most notably the two beliefs essential to your original statement: the direct assertion you made that life requires an intelligent designer, and the corollary, that an intelligent designer can exist without having an origin. If you do happen to make a self-contradictory statement while doing so, don't worry, we'll tell you.

If the above example is also agreed to be non-contradictory, then I hope to proceed to other related issues (including the points in your above comment, though I may begin initially with with some other relevant issues).

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

xjdub said:

If you say that the Intelligent Designer has always existed you have contradicted the theory you presented.

There is nothing in the statement that: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" that contradicts with a designer that has always existed. This is because the statement only states that a designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life, and thus a designer who has always existed would not fall under this since they would have no origin from non-life (nor any origin at all).

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

funkyderek said:

hooberus:
Before moving on to other points are you in agreement that the ID statement requires: 1.) No nesessary infinite regression of designers
From a strictly logical viewpoint, that's correct. You've declared the original designer to have characteristics that excludes him from the group "life" as defined in the sentence. Examining it in any detail leads to a whole host of problems, but in and of itself, it avoids the problem of regression.
and 2.) No necessary self-refutation ?
Agreed. As I wrote above, the sentence is internally consistent - as are all the ones I provided in response. Do you agree?

I am glad that we are in agreement on at least the logical consistency issue of the particular statement that I posted.

As far as your point that: "You've declared the original designer to have characteristics that excludes him from the group "life" as defined in the sentence." I would instead word it that the ID statement given does not also require designers to have all of the same charatersistics as the type of life in question (such as having an origin from non-life).

Regarding the issue of internal consistency of the sentences you provided- I have seen no necessary logical inconsistency problem (though of course I don't necessarily agree with them).

Furthermore, I also agree with your previous point that ". . . there is more to science than constructing sentences that are not inherently nonsensical" (In fact I may later go into other issues besides the issue of logical consistency). However, for now I hope to deal specifically with the logical consistency/non-inconsistency issue.

Since we are in agreement that the previous simple ID theory and/or statement does not necessarily lead to logical inconsistency (such as being self-refuting, etc.), I will therefore proceed to post an additional longer ID statement that I feel is not inconsistent either.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

funkyderek said:

"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."
Well done, hooberus. You managed to formulate - or at least find - a sentence that is not self-contradictory. Well done indeed. I understand it's a big step for you.

Before moving on to other points are you in agreement that the ID statement requires: 1.) No nesessary infinite regression of designers and 2.) No necessary self-refutation ?

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

kid-A said:

As it stands, this statement would not preclude the necessity for an infinite regression of "designers" if you do indeed consider your deity a "life-form", regardless of whether that being is "biological" or not.

Since it there is nothing in the statement that requires the designer to himself have an origin from non-life, the statement does not therefore require the designer to also have their own designer, ad infinitum.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

Leolaia said:

Since we are talking only within the realm of logic, I have to wonder that if the Designer TM can be eternal tho having intelligence, organization, and what not, why cannot the universe and life itself (with all its wonderful "designs") be similarly eternal? After all, if we leave out the possibility of eternity, your posited Designer would just be the last in a potentially infinite series of Designers, as you put it. If the Designer need not be designed "themself" because of having eternal existence, why cannot the universe be similarly undesigned (tho having all the apperance of design that the Designer "themself" would have) if it eternally exists as well? As I recall, Aristotle or one of the other Greek philosophers pondered this question.

The ID theory/statement that I posted does not in itself exclude the possibility of an eternal universe with no designer. It was short statement dealing specifically with the issue of the origin of life from non-life.