I believe if you look at all History and Sciences and tried to distill out the absolute truth of it all, if you could only take out the parts that were absolutely proven and correct, you would end up with a lot of little disconnected bits of information that did not make very much sense when all was said and done. History is the story we have of the winners side of the battle. It's the story of the conqueror that did away with the history of the loser. The history of the minority learned man who knew how to read and write and could express his views above that of an uneducated majority populous. The majority of past science is the end result of someone thinking something is a certain way and going out to prove it with scientists misconceptions and arrogance all ready in place, that cloud judgment, and bias outcome. Today's science has a better chance of fact being taken at face value. Blind studies, carbon testing, and DNA will do away with some of the skewing of experiments and studies. Neither science or history are an exact study. They are changeable and fluctuate throughout time depending on what we perceive as "truth". I am not saying that all of science and history are wrong. There are many, many tangible proofs of absolute truth. But you cant deny that many experiments throughout time have been skewed, many "proofs" have been hoaxes or great fakes. Historical "Fact" differs depending on whose eyes it is seen through. I believe what we need to be teaching our children is to look at the whys and wherefores of these two areas being taught, and to use common sense to try to look past what is accepted fact, to see if it is indeed actual fact. We need to teach them that some science being put forth as fact, has indeed never been proven, its just today favorite version of the truth. We need teachers to teach what a theory is, and use the word with science that has not been absolutely proven. We need them to teach that this is only today's version of what we think events were or will be. It does no good to get angry with our teachers, but to face the fact that the truth we want our children to learn will need to come from us. Because each of us holds our own truths, and who better for our children to hear it from than ourselves. As for the religion in science issue. Most of the greatest scientists throughout history believed in a supreme being. Most of them believed in a purposefully ordered universe. The more I see of science, and history, and our universe, and the more scientists discover to be absolute truth, the more apt I am to agree with them. I do believe we need to have absolute and complete separation of church and state to remain free, and able to accept our own truths the way we want to. Every person has the right to believe his own way. Lisa Zeigler www.johnstelescopes.com

If you get that happening hit Esc button while closing pop ups and it should stop. If all else fails hit the power button. I got a virus once that wiped half the hard drive. You would think I would know better with a husband who does computer systems for a living. Thanks for the heads up. Lisa Zeigler

I'll tell you... You'd have thought I was playing a video game by the way those pop-ups were hitting the screen. I ended up having to pin the power button to the floor for a count of 10 to get rid of them all. Talk about dysfuntional... ;) Thank you Lisa for the suggestion. Quoting Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com>:

Guy, I think you slightly misspelled it, and should have typed "dysfunction" after that word to get what you were after.

--- diveboss@xmission.com wrote:

...

Becareful when using a 'low bucks' search engine while doing an internet search for anything with (snip) "erectus" in the title. You could end up with a screen full of pop-ups like I just did.

____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html Understanding Evolution - an evolution website for teachers. Starts out with the nature of science. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

Just get the latest updates of internet explorer if that is what you are using. It has a default pop up blocker now. Its not the greatest, but it will do the job. http://update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us Lisa Zeigler -----Original Message----- From: Richard Tenney [mailto:retenney@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:47 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] What "schools" now, internet porn I meant to post this earlier. You guys having trouble with naughty pop-ups should switch to the mozilla firefox browser. It's not as vulernable to pop-up ads as MS Internet Exploder is. You can download it here: http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ It's got a lot of cool features as well (site/ad blocking, tabs, etc.). Rich --- diveboss@xmission.com wrote:

I'll tell you... You'd have thought I was playing a video game by the way those pop-ups were hitting the screen.

____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

What a stud! Kurt, you're my hero. No apology needed. Well written and reasoned. Looking for an apprentice? --- Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:

First, a short apology to listserv participants. This is an overlength and somewhat over the top response to Jim and Don questions.

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Quoting South Jordan Mom <sjordanmom@yahoo.com>:

instead of people like Buttars... espousing dogmatism.

'Dogmatism'. Would that be an animal reference like "Barking up the wrong tree"? ;)

Quoting Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com>:

I hate to use rehtoric techniques in a more informal coffee-table discussion setting, but this issue gets my goat and called out for somebody to go post hoc, ergo propter hoc on it.

What???

Yup, that's much better... ;) Thanks Kurt Quoting Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com>:

--- diveboss@xmission.com wrote:

...

Quoting Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com>: <snip> This issue . . . called out for

...

somebody to go post hoc, ergo propter hoc on it.

What???

Opps. Got it wrong should have read: "called out for somebody to go non-sequitur on it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc

- K

____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

I'm afraid you'll be talking to Steve or Brent for mirror grinding advice- I made my last mirror in 1975 and don't plan on ever making another. I need to build telescopes for 2 big ones still in storage in my basement! --- Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:

When I get around to mirror grinding, we'll have some skills to swap.

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Excellent post, and not too long at all. I appreciate very much your willingness to go so in-depth; I for one found it very instructive and helpful in the current debate. All in all, I've discovered some very smart, talented and gifted (and humorous!) folks in this list, on both sides of the fence. Thank you all for enriching my life! Rich --- Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:

First, a short apology to listserv participants. This is an overlength and somewhat over the top response to Jim and Don questions.

Jim Cobb wrote on 8/12/2005:

...

I was surprised to receive zero answers. in follow-up to his earlier 8/9/2005 question: Yes! Being falsfiable is fundamental for a scientific theory. Please tell me, how is SETI falsfiable?

The construction of an experiment to test the falsifible hypothesis that ET exists is a straight-forward proposition and illustrates the difference between the scientific method and faith-based religious-directed inquiry.

Take the negative of the hypothesis - "ET does not exist." Listen for a reasonable period of time using currently available technology covering a reasonable volume of intra-galactic space. If no signals are received, then the negative of the hypothesis is true and the hypothesis is false. The results hold for the volume of space covered by the limit of detection of current radio technology.

A person applying the scientific method must accept the proposition that ET does not exist in the search volume.

The result of faith-based religious-directed inquiry is radically different. Because the faith-based inquirer assumes as matter of faith that a divine creator is the cause of an observed effect, if the faith-based inquirer constructs an experiment that conclusively shows that a divine creator did not cause the effect, the inquirer will properly reject the results of their experiment and continue in their religious faith-based belief in a divine being.

...

I also asked how one falsifies the current evolutionist theory of abiogenesis, the rise of life from an inanimate chemical stew.

As others have pointed out in this thread, the theory of the creation of life is not an essential claim contained within and is not a necessary condition to the theory of evolution. It has been some time since I've read in this area, but from memory, the key propositions for the theory of evolution are:

1) There are random mutations in the genetic code of organic life.

2) These random mutations in the genetic code cause mutations in characteristics of an organism.

3) Whether those random changes in the characteristics of organisms are expressed in subsequent generations depends on the force of natural selection. Does the randomly created mutation result in a increased survival benefit to the organism that increases the probability the organism will reproduce?

4) Enough changes in the acquired characteristics of a group of organisms can accrue over time that speciation occurs - that is a group of isolated "child" organisms looses the ability to procreate by sexual reproduction with the "parent" group.

The evidence supporting these key warrants does not appear to me to be in a position of such uncertainty that it is time for revolution in scientific thought, or paradigm shift, in the Thomas Kuhn sense of the phrase, to some other theory.

The evidence supporting these basic warrants include:

"1) There are random mutations in the genetic code of organic life."

Such changes can be directly observed in real time in the mutation of organisms that have very short life times, like bacteria and viruses. With short life-times they can be observed across many generations within the life-time of a human being.

"2) These random mutations in the genetic code cause mutations in characteristics of an organism."

Such mutations can be directly observed in high-school level experiments by irradiating the genes of fruit flies.

"3) Whether those random changes in the characteristics of organisms survive to following generations depends on the force of natural selection. Does the randomly created mutation result in a increased survival benefit to the organism that increases the probability the organism will reproduce?"

Darwin's support for his claim was an argument by analogy based on a) artificial selection and b) the extension of the analogy of artificial selection to natural selection using, amongst other examples, the finches of the Galapagos Islands.

In our modern post-industrial world, we sometimes lose touch with the common knowledge of the primarily agarian society of Darwin's day - the reality of artificial selection. It's the process by which man and woman, over thousands of years of husbandry, have selected random mutations in organisms to turn:

- grass into wheat and rye, - water buffalo into Jersey dairy cows, and, - 100 lb. tundra wolves into 8lb. Pekinese dogs.

Jim also wrote on 8/12/2005:

...

Citation of Darwin's finches as conclusive evidence of speciation induced by natural selection. Someone

...

else in this discussion has acknowledged that this

...

is no longer considered by biologists as a legitimate example. Yet it remains in the textbooks; . . .

This is a straw dog argument. Darwin's finches were not considered to be evidence of natural selection progressing to specification - rather the they are evidence of natural selection influencing the acquired characteristics of subsequent generations.

I'd have to dust off and reread my copy of the _Voyage of the Beagle_, but my recollection was and my understanding of the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution is that Darwin was not arguing that the finches of the Galapagos Islands are necessarily an example of the force of natural selection progressing to the stage of speciation.

Rather, the finches of the Galapagos Islands are an illustration of the force of natural selection on random changes in the characteristics of the finches of the Galapagos Islands caused by background genetic mutation. Those randomn mutations that confer an incremental survival benefit under current environmental conditions are "selected" by nature and transmitted to later generations. The end result was the accrual of changes in finch beaks.

As you have indirectly alluded to in other threads, the finches of the Galapagos Islands have been the subject of intensive research by Rosemary and Peter Grant since 1973 and across a period of high environmental stress resulting from the 1983 El Nino event. While speciation did not occur in response to rapid environmental change, Grant and Grant observed natural selection at work in subtle modifications to the size of finch beaks within the life time of a single human being.

Peter and Rosemary Grant's bios at Princeton

http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/FACULTY/Grant_P/grantPeter.html

http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/FACULTY/Grant_R/Grant_BR.html

Papers:

"Evolution of Darwin’s Finches Caused by a Rare Climatic Event." Grant, B.R. and Grant, P.R. (1993).

Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 251, 111-117.

"Convergent Evolution of Darwin's Finches caused by Introgressive Hybirdization and Selection" Grant et al. (2004) Evolution 58: 1588-99

http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/FACULTY/Grant_P/Evolution_2004.pdf

(continuing their earlier research by looking at the effect of "child" population rebreeding with the "parent" population)

"Bmp4 and Morphological Variations of Beaks in Darwin's Finches" Abzhanov et al. (2004) Science 305: 1462-65

http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/FACULTY/Grant_P/Science_2004.pdf

(discussing a genetic marker associated with finch beak size)

"4) Enough changes in the acquired characteristics of a group of organisms can accrue over time that speciation occurs - that is a group of isolated 'child' organisms looses the ability to procreate by sexual reproduction with the 'parent' group."

Proof is based principally on the geologic record. Speciation, caused by natural selection, is not an event observable within the life-time of a human-being. I'm at a loss as to whether there are any examples of animals modified by human-directed artificial selection that have lost the ability to sexually reproduce with their progenitors.

Jim made some other points on 8/9/2005:

...

Here are some other items that I think we should question being taught in our high schools: <snip> [1] The fraudulent Haeckel embryonic images. . . . [2] Haekel's biogenetic law, "ontogeny recapitulates

...

phylogeny." . . . [3] The fraudulent linkage of Haekel's images with

...

von Baer's laws; [4] Pictures of pepper moths on tree trunks as evidence of natural selection. . . . [3] Citation of Darwin's finches as conclusive evidence of speciation induced by natural selection. . . . Yet it remains in the textbooks; . . .

As valid as these points may or may not be, it does not follow from them that the theory of evolution is so fatally inconsistent with observed facts about the natural world that it is time for a revolution in scientific thought, or a paradigm shift to some other theory. There is no sufficient inconsistency between observed facts and the theory of evolution justifying changing what is currently taught in the Utah primary and secondary science curriculum.

Your points regarding the textbooks being used in Utah high schools support an alternative cause and they suggest an alternative course of social reform:

Utah may be underfunding its primary and secondary educational systems resulting in the education system providing our students with outdated textbooks. Therefore, the taxpayers may wish to debate increasing education funding to assure the most recent, updated textbooks are being provided to Utah's youth. A bill should be introduced into Utah's Legislature entitled the "Evolution Financing Textbook Catch-Up Act of 2005."

Jim also commented on 8/12/2005:

...

I also asked how one falsifies the current evolutionist theory of abiogenesis, the rise of life from an inanimate chemical stew.

Jim repeated his earlier 8/9/2005 statement that reflected Don Colton's thoughts, who wrote on 8/9/2005 that:

...

I believe the idea of intelligent design as an explanation for at least the first cells can be readily taught without pointing to any particular religion. It is much more likely than the staggeringly improbable idea that the first cells were created by chance.

If you can produce appropriate affirmative, scientifically testable evidence of a divine causal agent creating life from inanimate chemical stew, then your theories should be given consideration. For example, you could surround a pail of dirt with a prayer group (I'm being serious and not factious here) and, after praying for a reasonable period of time, you could examine the bucket to see if divine intervention created life from inanimate soil. Merely relying on argumentation to ignorance (when all other probable causes are ruled out, then the improbable must be true) is insufficient.

The appropriate faith-based response to such an experiment is to continue the core practice of religion - that the belief in the creator is an act of faith. The appropriate scientific response is suspension of belief until more information can be gathered in the future.

Don, if you were going to construct an affirmative scientific experiment to show a divine cause of the transmutation of inanimate matter into organic life,

how would you proceed?

Don Colton also wrote on 8/9/2005 that:

...

[1] Huxley, Darwin and Lyle had an agenda: . . . [2] They were all believers in the idea that the epitome of natural selection was the white Englishman of the 19th century. [3] They believed blacks, Asiatics and native Americans were sub-human and lower on the evolutionary scale.

For discussion purposes, I'll accept your proposition that Huxley, Darwin and Lyle did hold those beliefs.

Even if those propositions are true, it does not follow from your attack on the characters of these historical figures that the theory of evolution is so fatally inconsistent with observed facts about the natural world that it is that it is time for a revolution in scientific thought, or a paradigm shift to some other faith-based religious-directed theory like intelligent design. Such attacks on the characters of historical persons do not show that the theory of evolution is so inconsistent with the observed natural world sufficient to justify changing what is currently taught in the Utah primary and secondary science curriculum.

The real focus of whether the theory of evolution should be accepted as the best scientific explanation of certain observations about the natural world is the strength of the connection of the physical evidence with the claims of the theory. Sometimes deconstructing the motivations of the primary participants in revolutions of scientific thought (or any other historical event) provides additional illumination on the matter under discussion. But in general, the theory of evolution has to rest on how well the theory explains the physical evidence and not on the moral character of its first proponents over 100 years ago.

For example, I believe that Thomas Jefferson most probably had sex with Sally Hemmings while she was still technically a minor. The fact that Thomas Jefferson may have been a pediophile does not change the inherent "correctness" of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence or balance-of-powers structure in the Constitution. Similarly, some religions have held the belief that negros were inferior beings whose skin color reflected a mark of disapproval by a divine being, and therefore they were not entitled to equal participation in religious practices or equal respect as human beings. Such beliefs and practices, which go to moral character of the proponent, are generally not accepted as proof that a divine being does not exist.

Conversely, attacks on the character of Huxley and Darwin do not prove that the theory of evolution is inconsistent with observable facts in nature.

...

These concepts [the racist and social Darwinistic views of Huxley, Darwin and Lyle] were readily adapted by Adolph Hitler to his program of extermination of "sub-humans". Evolutionary ideas applies to societies by dictators including Lenin and Stalin have had horrible results.

Yes, the perverse borrowing of Darwin's biological theory of evolution by the cultural movement of Social Darwinism is one of mankind's darkest hours. Darwin's biological theory of evolution was hijacked and misused by others in the United States to bloster the pre-existing beliefs regarding manifest density and to justify the pre-existing genocidal extermination of possibly up to 30 million Native Americans.

Capitalists, like J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carneige, relied on Social Darwinsim to condemn a couple of generations of children, as little as 6 years old, to labor in the Pennsylvannia coal fields instead of attending elementary school. Such American examples showed Hilter and Stalin the way in the application of Social Darwinistic philosophy to dominate people. The evil of Social Darwinism persists to this day in class stratification in American society, i.e. - the belief by some wealthy persons that they are inherently superior and more worthy than the less wealthy.

Having read the _Voyage of the Beagle_ and the _Origin of the Species_, my sense of the author behind the book is one who would have been equally revolted by the subsequent misuse of his theories as you and I are. History has many examples of scientists' discoveries being misused and abused. Einstein and Oppenheimer come to mind. The subsequent misuse of the atomic weapons by dark historical currents during the Cold War does not change the scientific reality of the theory of atom or quantum mechanics.

In short, it does not follow from the fact that J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Stalin and Lenin were not nice people (who perverted the biological theory of evolution into a completely different political theory) that Darwin's theory should be rejected as the best current scientific explanation of certain observations about the natural world. Those historical facts do not justify a sufficient paradigm shift that changes what is currently taught in the Utah primary and secondary science curriculum.

Your facts suggest an alternative reform to address the very real evil that you have identified:

Ethics, basic western philosophy, conflict-resolution skills, media and propaganda analysis, democractic participation skills, and modern history should be deeply integrated into the curriculum of our primary and secondary public education system. Funding for primary and secondary education should be increased to assure that the very best and inspired teachers instill these basic skills into the next generation. A well-educated citizenry competent in such skills is a pre-condition to a vital modern democracy. That is the best preventative medicine to combat the history of the first half of the 20th century from repeating itself.

Teaching intelligent design seems IMHO unconnected to the problem that you identify.

Again, my apologies to the listserv participants for this overlength and somewhat over the top response to Jim and Don.

The weekend and other obligations call. See you next week.

- Canopus56

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

Excellent post, . . .

Other options for continuing this discussion (if that's what the list wants to do as a group) would be: 1) To better define exactly what the theory of intelligent design is that its proponents want to be taught in Utah secondary public schools, or, 2) To explore whether ID theory does equally explain the pattern of descent with modification, purportedly seen in the geologic record, as compared to the standard synthesis of evolution by natural selection. I believe that both Jim and Don have claimed that it is a better explanation parts of some organisms are irreducibly complex and could have only been created by an intelligent agent. In short, let's give intelligent design theory a fair test and see if it is consistent with evidence in the geologic record and in biological organisms. Let's see if ID theory can stand on its own instead of just saying that ID theory is true because the theory of evolution is statistically impossible. As I understand the intelligent design theory, its central feature is that directive force of evolution is explained by purposeful design. It substitutes explanation by purposeful design for the force of natural selection. Explanation of events by purposeful design is something we see frequently in our daily lives. A collection of objects on a table, like a star chart, a laptop loaded with Sky 2000, and a set of car keys, is evidence of an intelligent purposeful designer who wants to do some astronomy. A Paris map, a plane ticket to a subway, and a passport, if found on the ground, is evidence of an intelligent agent who is planning a trip to Paris. Similarly, when walking through a forest, if we find a smooth rock, we would assume that the rock was made into that form by unintelligent, random natural forces. If we walk a few more paces and find a watch or Blackberry, we would assume because of its characteristics, that they were created by a purposeful intelligent agent, who created these objects for a functional purpose - to tell time or to communicate with others or to record personal thoughts. What I take intelligent design to be, and what I understand that its proponents want to be taught in the Utah public secondary schools, is essentially a modification of the standard synthesis of evolution - one that substitutes explanation by purposeful design for the force of natural selection, namely - ========= Canopus56(Kurt)'s view of the central tenants of ID theory ========= 1) There are random mutations in the genetic code of organic life. 2) These random mutations in the genetic code cause mutations in characteristics of an organism. 3) Whether those random changes in the characteristics of organisms are expressed in subsequent generations depends on purposeful design selections made an intelligent agent. The design selections made by the intelligent agent result in a increased survival benefit to the organism that increases the probability the organism will reproduce. 4) Enough changes in the acquired characteristics of a group of organisms can accrue over time that speciation occurs - that is a group of isolated "child" organisms looses the ability to procreate by sexual reproduction with the "parent" group. ========= For comparison, let's repeat the key third central tenant of the theory of evolution by natural selection: "3) Whether those random changes in the characteristics of organisms are expressed in subsequent generations depends on the force of natural selection. Does the randomly created mutation result in a increased survival benefit to the organism that increases the probability the organism will reproduce?" IMHO, one of the indica of _purposeful_ design is that the intelligent agent makes good intentional engineering choices to achieve some improved function in an object. By "intentional," I mean that changes in an object (or an organism) are made by the intelligent designer to achieve some purpose. Mere whimsical changes are not purposeful changes and are not evidence of an intelligent agent. One of the main problems I have with the theory of an intelligent agent driving evolution is that if there is designer - he's got to be one of the worst engineers in recorded history. Some examples include: A) Men have nipples but don't nurse children. B) Women give birth by a uterus and do not lay eggs. Why would a purposeful designer select the mammalian utreus as a design for human reproduction? Without significant medical support the odds of death and/or dehabilitating infection are quite high due to the placenta tearing away form the uterine wall. Wouldn't a purposeful designer have simply stuck with egg - a design that inherently has much lower risks associated with childbirth? C) Wouldn't a purposeful designer have made me just a little better, e.g. - not bald, no bad breath and with knees that would easily last a life-time of use? My first point is that the theory of intelligent design is inconsistent with biology - most biological organisms are riddled inefficiencies and useless parts. That is more consistent with random mutations selected by random changes in the environment, than with a design by a purposeful intelligent agent. Along the same line, the second major problem intelligent agent theory gives me is that it does not explain why a purposeful agent would remove a useful part from an organism. A main example would be - D) Flightless birds like the now extinct Dodo. The geologic and historical record is that the intelligent agent first gave the Dodo wings - one of the most useful parts that a bird could have. But after the Dodo settled on a remote island, and even though wings were still useful, the intelligent designer apparently changed the wings to make them useless appendages. As a consequence, when man and his familiars, the cat and the rat, showed up - no more Dodo. To me, flightless birds seem inconsistent with a purposeful intelligent designer. Removing a key important characteristic needed for the survival of a bird does not seem IMHO the design choice of a purposeful intelligent agent. To summarize a series of questions for possible future discussion - 1) What are the key components of the theory of intelligent design that proponents want taught in Utah public secondary schools? 2) Is my summary of intelligent design as explanation by purposeful design accurate, or is ID something else, and I don't understand what is being proposed? 3) Are there instances where intelligent design theory is inconsistent (or consistent) with what we know about biology and/or the fossil record? 4) How can the existence of purposeless parts found in many organisms be resolved with a hypothesized purposeful intelligent designer making the design selections? 5) How can the removal of purposeful parts, as see in the fossil record of flightless birds, be resolved with a hypothesized purposeful intelligent agent making design choices? 6) Does intelligent agent theory explain observed facts in biology and/or the fossil record better than or less than the explanations provided by the standard synthesis of evolution by natural selection? My assumption is that if the intelligent agent theory provides a weaker explanation than the theory of evolution by natural selection, then it should not be taught in the Utah secondary public school system. Again, if the list has had enough of this topic, or if I am being repetitive of the many prior posts in this thread, speak up and I'll move on. - Canopus56(Kurt) P.S. - All of the above are taken from: Dembski, William A. (ed), Ruse, M. (ed.) 2004. Debating Design : From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge Univ. Press. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521829496/ref=wl_it_dp/002-65... - which includes chapters by scientists who are both proponents and opponents to intelligent agent theory. P.P.S. - Patrick, I hope the work on the dome went well today. My apologies for not showing up. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Not to beat a dead horse, so I will try not to. Here are perhaps some thoughts, scientific and not, to ponder on. Sorry about the length. Has anyone given the thought that ID and evolution... I should say the natural selection part of the evolution theory could co-exist. 1. I propose that you imagine you are the intelligent designer. For your own purpose you wish to create maybe a science experiment, maybe a faith based "test", maybe you just got this crazy thought that you'd like to see what these life forms you can create will be after a million, or 100 million years of living in the space you give them to inhabit. A. You are ruled by the laws of Physics - because lets face it - they exists, and I doubt anyone would want to work without them... They are actually a guide and aid to our hypothesized ID. B. You want to create a space for your intelligent life, you have to give them certain things to be able to grow and populate. And you have to design them is such a way so that without your interference they can continue to grow and populate, after all, how much interference are you going to give an experiment, or faith based test, especially when your crowning achievement, that "intelligent" life form you are producing goes and messes things up all the time because he thinks for himself? You may give life some assistance from time to time when asked, but for the most part you're a hands of kind of ID. C. You have to prepare for every contingency, because you'd really like to see what a million, or 100 million year outcome will be, and for your experiment to continue, you know its got to be designed pretty well without your constant help. In answer to Kurt's question about biological design I can only say: A. why do men have nipples? Maybe it's a contingency plan. I have heard of women producing milk even though they have not given birth. I have heard a wives tale that there have been men who could produce milk, but of course, I do not have a source to quote, and cannot prove any assertion, so I will make none, but just to say that perhaps the yet to be found "Homo Whatever" they finally are able to prove was our ancient ancestor from 4 million years ago had functioning mammary glands and chose to not do the job, something about a fire he had to keep going, or an animal that needed to be skinned at that exact moment, or some such excuse for not doing it, and so now man doesn't need these things on his chest. B. Women giving birth, and wouldn't an ID make it easier? How big do you propose a women should get? Are her hips to be so wide as to not let her stand or walk? What design would you propose instead?

From personal experience, I am built exactly right for having babies. Having had four children, I can tell you I would not choose to be built any other way. I do not see the design of my body as a flaw. I would choose to be no bigger than I am, thank you very much. Women have had babies from time on end without medical help. Its only the last 100 years that women have been hospitalized for births and given "Professional help". Before doctors there were mothers, and sisters, and sometimes a man would even help :). Women are stronger than I think you have given them credit for. Yes, its dangerous and women died, but the fact that our species has continued to exist and grow over millions of years pretty much proves to me that the design is flawless. I do not know what you would suggest would be better...? I just realized that sounded like an attack - but it wasn't meant to be. I was very amused by the question is all. Lets look at the egg aspect. People having been born with larger than normal brains, I believe have the largest head compared to body size of any mammal at the time of birth. Human babies are helpless at birth in the physical arena, and need to be taken care of. Lets look at every animal on earth who bears eggs. They do not care and nurture their young the way a human baby needs to be nurtured and cared for. Would mothers feel like carrying a off spring around constantly for the first two years of that child's life if the birth was from an egg instead of feeling that offspring every day for the last six months of gestation? I think not. Human babies also need constant renewal of food sources during gestation. How big do you think a woman would have to be to lay an egg the size a human off spring would need to both feed it for nine months of gestation, and allow the baby to reach full size? I wouldn't want to lay that egg!! Babies also need warmth, oxygen transfer, waste transfer and a host of other things that eggs are not optimized to do. The system still looks perfect to me. C. Your body is built to function the way it should. Humans do have to die. Everything on the planet does. Finite space on this world. If the Hypothesized ID built indestructible humans, we would have to turn cannibal in order to feed our selves and have space to live, to say nothing of the waste that would grow. The ID would be forced to make us weak and fragile by design in order for everything to work properly. D. Flightless birds? As previously stated, if our ID were running an experiment and/or a faith based test he would have to have made natural selection part of the equation in order to keep all species alive and allow us to adjust in an ever changing environment. Birds may have found a haven without predators, enough food for survival, and thought to themselves, "why should we ever leave this place" The birds who used their wings and left, still have them and live elsewhere, the birds who did not fly lost their ability to do so. The land mass moved so that birds who could only fly short distances could no longer could reach the island, end of story.

Now back to our hypothesis - because of course we will never be able to prove the existence of an ID unless he or she wants to be known. After all, you would have to be incredibly intelligent to create all this, and you could choose to stay pretty incognito. I believe you would actually choose to stay anonymous because if she/he presents himself to us and says "here I am", he/she has ruined all the faith based things he/she set up. And If she/he reveals him/herself to scientists, what would they have left to hypothesize and quibble over? Maybe its fun to see us living in such ignorance. If your running an experiment you'd just sit back and let it run. Why waste time letting your experiment know they're just a glob in a Petri dish? If however there is no ID and the seeds of life came from a comet or meteor, if perhaps there is alien life that sent the seeds of their own kind to earth, then lets go look for them, oh wait, we are already doing that. Lets hope we can find them soon so we can teach the truth of that in our schools. (Sarcasm here.) If perhaps life did come from a primordial soup, why isn't life still coming from there? Why did it stop? What event happened to make it come from there? What event happened to make it stop coming from there? If evolution is true, why cant it be proved? Why isn't there evidence surrounding us? Why is it so difficult to find? Why doesn't life cross classifications any longer? How would scientists expect to find Homo Sapiens if we evolved from a totally different life form? Maybe if evolution is true, there is no 4 million year old bones waiting for us that are Homo Sapien, because we evolved from a different species after that time frame. If we cant cross classification lines now, why did we then? Why aren't we becoming a different species than we once were? If these aren't legitimate questions, how do scientists think we came about from primordial soup? All I can see are more questions. I believe theories belong in schools because they keep us asking questions. They may not be true, they aren't proven, but they give us food for thought. Evolution does not take away from my religion. It is not proven, children learn this, I would not want my idea of an intelligent designer to be mutated by a school system into just a "theory" which is all they could say about it. Leave teaching of an ID for church and home. What we don't learn in schools, parents need to make up for by finding religion, or teaching their own theories, if they so choose. But religion is a very personal thing, were science isn't so much. No one went on a crusade and burned people for the sake of proving weather a fruit fly has this or that trait from the parent fly. Religion is too deep in the core of a person, and every one of us should have the right to choose to believe what they will about their own religion. It should not be taught in schools because religion is too diverse an opinion to teach in schools, and everyone of us has the right to believe and have their kids taught exactly what they choose. I don't want a teacher teaching my child religion as a "curriculum". It wouldn't do it justice. We cant agree, so why don't we choose to disagree, and teach scientific fact in our schools, with a dose or two of "What if?" thrown in. We can keep religion under our own much tighter control in our separate places of worship. After all, we all have our own minds, free agency, intelligence to make informed decisions. Our children will figure out their own minds as they grow and learn. What they learn in school will influence them, but that's not the only place to learn. My two cents. Lisa Zeigler

I understood all of this. Thanks. Lisa Zeigler www.johnstelescopes.com -----Original Message----- From: South Jordan Mom [mailto:sjordanmom@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 5:08 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] RE: Lisa - What is to be taught in our schools? Oh, I don't think most here think that the two (natural selection and ID) can't co-exist. In fact, there are many here who, if I understand their posts correctly, feel that natural selection is a tool used by their idea of an intelligent designer. It seems that Buttars feels they can't co-exist though. Have you read his stance? I got that he wants evolution out of schools entirely. It seems that ID proponents, when speaking about evolution, try to make it sound like evolution is all about the origins of life, instead of natural selection. What the debate is really about though is whether ID should be taught in a science class when at the present time it does not qualify as science. The ID proponents want to be given scientific theory status when they haven't done anything to earn that status. Saying "the bible says" or conjecturing that something is too complicated to happen by chance is not enough when it comes to being considered science. I don't think anyone here has a problem with ID being taught in a religion or philosophy class. The problem is that Buttars wants it taught as science and is trying to get that instituted. As for child bearing, the reason women go to hospitals now is to keep the mortality rate down. The mortality rate for both mothers and infants was much much higher when it was done without any medical help, and even initially when it was done with medical help, before Dr.'s figured out germs and that they needed to wash their hands to avoid transmitting infections. There are so many complications that can happen, and often do, with child birth. A lot of them are not that big of a deal today however because of modern medicine. --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

--- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:

If this is the deliberate work of an intelligent designer, he's (I'll leave female deity out of this) one sick, sadistic creep to target children, the old and infirm.

Tough language; I don't want to go there. Yes, ID theory digs up a built-in theologic problem for Christians that it's non-scientific proponents may be downplaying - ID theory detracts from focusing on God as an omni-benevolent being. But the theologic problem of evil of whether God created evil isn't a new - Christainity has been dealing with it well since the fourth century, when St. Augustine answered the question - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/augustin.htm - and with St. Aquinas's advice to concentrate on a moral life of good, not evil. Similarly, the less-abled are viewed not as expressions of God's sadism, but as an opportunity and challenge to emulate the Creator's omnibenevolence by practicing loving charity. Last post on ID. Adios - Canopus56 ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

August 20, 2005 - An Open Letter to Science Magazine From William Dembski, Guillermo Gonzalez, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, and Jonathan Witt. Alan I. Leshner ("Redefining Science," July 8) says intelligent design isn't science because scientific theories "explain what can be observed" and are "testable by repeatable observations and experimentation." But particular design arguments meet this standard. Biologist Michael Behe, for instance, argues that design is detectable in the bacterial flagellum because the tiny motor needs all its parts to function-is irreducibly complex-a hallmark of designed systems. The argument rests on what we know about designed systems, and from our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms. How to test and discredit Behe's argument? Provide a continuously functional evolutionary pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. Darwinists like Kenneth Miller point to the hope of future discoveries, and to the type III secretory system as a machine possibly co-opted on the evolutionary path to the flagellum. The argument <http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html> is riddled with problems <http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm>, but it shows that Miller, at least, understands perfectly well that Behe's argument is testable. If irreducible complexity can't even be considered in microbiology, how do we test the Darwinian story there? We certainly don't observe the Darwinian mechanism producing molecular machines. Is it true by default, by dogmatic pronouncement? That doesn't sound very scientific.

Again, irreducible complexity is a joke.

The irreducible truth about irreducible complexity is that it is intellectual cowardice.

Canopus56 wrote:

Gravity is best explained by the theory of Intelligent Falling (IF). Because no one has really ever seen a graviton, the only reason I fall down is because the hand of the Intelligent Pusher is resting on my shoulders.

Gee and out at the drop zone we've always thought we fall because the Earth sucks. :-) Patrick

Actually I'd like to take issue with the idea of statistical improbability. While I have admittedly not studied the mathematical details of the approach ID proponents have taken (or is it only one mathematician?), common sense tells me that mathematics alone could not possibly produce any more proof or accurate model of how mutation and natural selection could or could not progress from single cell to modern life forms in the current geologic time scales projected for the age of the earth and the span of life on it, any more than the most brilliant meteorolgist, using the most sophisticated instruments available to modern science, accurately forecast the weather next week, and for exactly the same reason: way too many variables to take into account (picture Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park musing on Chaos theory). I can't imagine we even know the tip of the iceberg concerning what might constitute all the variables and processes that could have an effect on cellular mutation and/or natural selection; climate, habitat, ecology, food supply, predators, the unpredictable forces of vulcanism, meteor impacts, drought, etc., etc. Furthermore, how much do we really understand about the life force itself? It's tenacity, variety, and unique qualities -- there's still so much we don't understand at all. Way too many factors to make any kind of positive statement regarding what is possible or not possible over billions of years from a statistical standpoint. Knowing too however that assumptions are dangerous, I'm hoping Don (or anyone else familiar with it) can distill the material in question to address some of these concerns...? ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Actually, all the existing phyla (37 to 40 phyla, depending on who you talk to) and all extinct phyla arose during an, approximately, 30- million-year period of the Cambrian. No new phyla have entered the fossil record since that time, none. You need to read James W. Valentine's book "On the Origin of Phyla". Dave Gary On Aug 23, 2005, at 3:27 PM, Don J. Colton wrote:

Commenting to Rich and others.

The Discovery Institute, as pointed out in the Deseret News article and more fully in the original New York Times article, does NOT advocate the teaching of intelligent design as proposed in Utah. They instead want to see criticism of Darwinism allowed in the classroom and not see teachers who bring up such criticism dismissed or reprimanded. True, many members of the Discovery Institute believe in intelligent design, but some like David Berlinski (as noted in the New York Times) are critics of Darwinism and believe another mechanism is involved not necessarily intelligent design.

It is very difficult to be a critic of the popular theories of the day as Galileo and more recently Halton Arp found out. Halton Arp (who by the way believes in Darwinism and an old universe) was dismissed from Palomar Observatory because he presented observational evidence critical of the Big Bang Theory. He published numerous photographs showing possible quasar-galaxy interactions where the quasars and galaxies have different redshifts. He also, I think more compellingly, presented many examples of high redshift quasars aligned with the polar axis of "host" galaxies with much lower redshifts. Even though Arp was considered one of the most prominent observational astronomers, it still cost him his job to criticize the prevailing theories. Rich, I think you have observed some of the Arp galaxies with your 16-inch. Arp's book "Seeing Red" tells how graduate students who supported his ideas were afraid to go public. I think it is even more difficult for a biologist such as Michael Behe, who is a critic of Darwin on the cellular level, to get any of his papers published. Arp, because of his prominence, persistence and complaints to referees; has managed to publish some of his papers (often after several years of delay) in the major astronomy journals.

I should next point out that I believe the earth is probably a few billions years old and that some form of life has been on the earth for over a billion years. There is also clear evidence of increasing complexity of life over that period of time. The question is what is the mechanism for the development of life on earth. It is interesting that 600 million years ago numerous complex life forms covering at least eight major phyla appeared suddenly without any significant intermediate predecessors. These life forms appeared in a very brief period of time (geologically speaking) and this fact was part of the evidence for Stephen J. Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. The Cambrian explosion is certainly contrary to Darwin's idea of slow progressive changes and I do not believe in can be explained by natural selection.

My main point is that the scenarios and computer models that support the statistical theory of mutation and natural selection are flawed because they require a target phase or target objective but natural selection is just pure statistics. The target objective is introducing intelligent design into the models. Those organisms that reproduce the most viable offspring survive (rabbits in Australia comes to mind). There is no reason to expect them to become more complex and computer simulations that have no target objectives just produce gibberish. I think people need to give responsible critics of evolution a chance to be heard.

In 15-20 years I hope we can address the question rigorously assuming proponents of Darwinism do not prevent reputable research. The human genome has been completely mapped and with supercomputer power developing, it should be possible in the relatively near future to produce simulations that utilize actual gene locations and mutation statistics to better simulate reality. More than 99 percent of all mutations are detrimental and it will be interesting to see if we can simulate the Cambrian explosion, for instance, starting with prior simple organisms, various mutation rates and the limited time spans allowed. It is critical that all such simulations be set up by mathematicians (utilizing input from genetists etc.) who carefully avoid target objectives and set it up based strictly on natural selection criteria (i.e. mutations and reproductive survivability).

-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Richard Tenney Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:30 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Testing Irreducible Complexity

Actually I'd like to take issue with the idea of statistical improbability.

While I have admittedly not studied the mathematical details of the approach ID proponents have taken (or is it only one mathematician?), common sense tells me that mathematics alone could not possibly produce any more proof or accurate model of how mutation and natural selection could or could not progress from single cell to modern life forms in the current geologic time scales projected for the age of the earth and the span of life on it, any more than the most brilliant meteorolgist, using the most sophisticated instruments available to modern science, accurately forecast the weather next week, and for exactly the same reason: way too many variables to take into account (picture Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park musing on Chaos theory). I can't imagine we even know the tip of the iceberg concerning what might constitute all the variables and processes that could have an effect on cellular mutation and/or natural selection; climate, habitat, ecology, food supply, predators, the unpredictable forces of vulcanism, meteor impacts, drought, etc., etc. Furthermore, how much do we really understand about the life force itself? It's tenacity, variety, and unique qualities -- there's still so much we don't understand at all. Way too many factors to make any kind of positive statement regarding what is possible or not possible over billions of years from a statistical standpoint.

Knowing too however that assumptions are dangerous, I'm hoping Don (or anyone else familiar with it) can distill the material in question to address some of these concerns...?

____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

--- "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:

It is critical that all such simulations be set up by mathematicians (utilizing input from genetists etc.)

who carefully avoid target objectives and set it up based strictly on natural selection criteria (i.e. mutations and reproductive survivability).

The same could be said to apply to Intelligent Design mathematicians. The strict criteria set up by the theory's originator Dembski is that intelligent design could be inferred by eliminative induction where all other causes are outside the "universal probability horizon" of 10^-150. In two examples that I am aware of, ID biochemists and geneticists move the "universal probability horizon" when the data they find doesn't meet Dembski's 10^-150 criteria. When the theory doesn't work - that change a critical criteria in ID theory - to make the theory fit the facts. Example 1: Walter Bradley, in advancing that a theory of the origin of life that relies random assembly in a pre-biotic chemical soup on Earth is mathematically impossible - points to Yockey's computation that the odds of a function cyctochrome c molecule self-assembling is on the order of 10^-75. _Debating Design_ at 337. Cytochrome c is a protein that a key component to how a cell's metabolism creates energy. Bradley also points to other new emergent research computing 10^-75 and 10^-63 as the probability quotient for the self-assembly of cytochrome c. The problem with Bradley's conclusion is that 10^-75 or 10^-63 are _within_ Dembski's universal probability boundary of 10^-150. Spontaneous self-assembly of Cytochrome c _is possible_ based on the central mathematical criteria established by ID theorist and creator Dembski. In the case cited by Bradley, ID theory directs the conclusion that an intelligent designer hypothesis is false - not true. But the fix is easy - just fudge Dembski's 10^-150 by a factor of 10^75 and everything works fine. Example 2: In the ongoing three-part New York Times series on ID (referenced by Michael Kwan yesterday in another thread on this listserve), Douglas D. Axe, a molecular biologist and director of the Seattle ID research center the "Biologic Institute," used penicillinase, a molecule that creates resistance to penicillin, has the probability of self-assembly of 10^-77. ID proponents at the Discovery Institute (Dr. Meyers in the NYT story), use Axe's computation to conclude that penicillinase could have only arisen in nature by the intervention of an intelligent designer. The problem with Meyer's conclusion is that 10^-75 is _within_ Dembski's universal probability boundary of 10^-150. Spontaneous self-assembly of penicillinase _is possible_ based on the central mathematical criteria established by ID theorist Dembski. In the case cited by Dr. Meyer, ID theory directs the conclusion that an intelligent designer hypothesis is false - not true. But the fix is easy - just fudge Dembski's 10^-150 by a factor of 10^75 and everything works fine. I'm not educated in biochemistry, but this looks like a case of new provisional theory that is changing to fit the facts. If the biochemical facts that ID researchers find in the human cell don't meet Dembski's universal probability criteria of 10^-150 (the key criteria around which the inference of intelligent design is warranted), they just "move the goalpost" and move the universal probability horizon to 10^-75 [or lower], that is they increase the probability boundary by a factor of 10^75, so the facts seen in the human cell fit intelligent design theory. But maybe there is some other perfectly reasonable biochemical rationale for ID researcher's moving the "universal probability horizon" around. It's not unusual for a new, provisional developing scienctific theory to change the working hypothesis as it develops. In a way, science is supposed to work that way. But the problem created by this kind of moving goal post is because there is no clear criteria to decide when a cause (random self-assembly) so infinitely improbable as to be excluded from the range of known causes in the physical world. ID theory dissolves into a serious of "just-so" stories. I.e. - in this reasearcher's opinion 10^-25 or 10^-50 or 10^-63 or 10^-75 is "too low" to occur by random self-assembly. Without Dembski's clear criteria - that is based on characteristics of the known universe - there is no "bright-line" criteria. For ID to be a useable, testable theory, it has to be - to borrow part of Don's phrase "set it up based strictly" on clear mathematical criteria and not a researcher's subjective moving "goal post" of infinite improbability. - Canopus56 Ref: Chang, Kenneth. Aug. 22, 2005. In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash. New York Times (online edition) << http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/national/22design.html?pagewanted=print

...

Bradley, Walter L. 2004. Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life. Chap. 18 in Dembski, William A. (ed), Ruse, M. (ed.) 2004. Debating Design : From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge Univ. Press. ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Kurt, your post details my fears exactly. The State Board is flirting with a slippery slope that leads to social disaster. Another excellent, inspired, well-researched post. I do hope you remember to eat and take care of yourself. ;) --- Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:

Don, I wanted to repeat my invitation from 8/13 to move on to discussing the social costs and benefits of teach ID theory in the schools - since the State Board of Education will be discussing evolution at the 9/2 Board meeting.

__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

Actually, different body plans are represented by the phyla. There are, approximately, 37 phyla, therefore, there are 37 different body plans. This is the definition of phyla. I don't know where you got your information about 5 different body plans. Again, read James W. Valentine's "On the Origin of Phyla". His material will really get you thinking. Oh, by the way, Chris Buttars is a certifiable moron. He is one of those people who is so stupid, they don't even know they're stupid. His threat of taking his fight to the public for a vote is absurd. Science is not subject to majority rule. If it was, we would never have come out of the Dark Ages. Dave Gary On Aug 28, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Canopus56 wrote:

Way back on August 23, Don Colton wrote:

...

I should next point out that I believe the earth is probably a few billions years old and that some form of life has been on the earth for over a billion years. There is also clear evidence of increasing complexity of life over that period of time. The question is what is the mechanism for the development of life on earth. It is interesting that 600 million years ago numerous complex life forms covering at least eight major phyla appeared suddenly without any significant intermediate predecessors. These life forms appeared in a very brief period of time (geologically speaking) and this fact was part of the evidence for Stephen J. Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. The Cambrian explosion is certainly contrary to Darwin's idea of slow progressive changes and I do not believe in can be explained by natural selection.

This enters the area of the distant geologic past during the pre-Cambrian explosion, where less is known with certainty about the geochemistry and ecological distribution of species. Fossils of the soft-body predecessors of hard-body pre-Cambrian organisms makes proving causal connections, whether by natural selection or intelligent design even more uncertain.

Don, I took some time to read a ID theorist Stephen Meyer's chapter in _Debating Design_. Meyer's overviews his theory that information theory invalidates the Darwinian explanation of the pre-Cambrian explosion. Meyer's case seems very weak and does not adequately prove that ID's core conclusion of causation by intelligent design could properly reached when applied to the pre-Cambrian explosion using ID theory’s own definitional criteria.

The pre-Cambrian era is unique in evolutionary history in that nine or so novel new body plans evolved in mutli-celluar organisms in a relatively short period of geologic time. Of the nine original body plans, only five survive today. No new novel body plans have evolved in the subsequent 560 million years.

ID theorist-founder Dembski established the following definitional requirements to the application of ID theory using the "scientific" form of argument from ignorance - eliminative induction:

1) The list of possible causes must be "exhaustive" so it includes the true cause. (If the list of causes only contains false causes, a false positive will be selected as the true cause.)

2) The list of possible causes must be "exclusive," meaning that there must be some means of distinguishing improbable false causes from the probable true cause.

3) The complexity of the effect (an object or process) must be "irreducibly complex," meaning the object or process cannot be broken down in smaller, less complex functional parts.

4) The likelihood of the spontaneous self-assembly of the irreducibly complex object or process must be so low, that it exceeds the "universal probability boundary" of 10^-150

When measured against these preconditions to ID's appropriate use, Meyer's reasoning and conclusion, that natural selection should be ruled out and that ID theory is the best explanation for the pre-Cambrian explosion, is weak. Natural selection remains the best explanation - even though based on weak sign.

Meyers makes the biomolecular and paleo-biological argument that the pre-Cambrian explosion happened over 5 x 10^6 (5,000,000) years. If the baseline rate of cellular mutation seen in present-day single-celled organisms is only 1 per million (1x10^6) mutations per generation, generational times are simply too high to permit the requisite number of generations to mutate a single-celled soft-bodied organism into a multi-celled hard-bodied organism. _Debating Design_ at 377.

Meyers goes on to argue that probability of favorable biomolecular mutations occurring is much lower. In the phase space of possible beneficial biochemical molecules and harmful biochemical molecules, there are only a few molecules that are beneficial that could be created out of the population of harmful and beneficial molecules. Even if random mutation could generate bio-chemically active molecules in the requisite period of time, the odds of generating a beneficial biologically active molecule within the required time period are just too small. See Figure 20.1 in _Debating Design_ at 380.

Meyers reasoning that ID theory can be properly applied to conclude that an intelligent designer is the cause of the pre-Cambrian explosion fails on a number of points:

First, the pre-Cambrian explosion occurred over a time frame of 100 million years - not 5 million years as Meyers supposes. One only has to look at how natural selection has evolved tundra wolves into ocean-going ocra whale over the last 60 million years to see just how radical a change that natural selection can induce in the exterior appearance of organisms over 60 million years.

Second, Meyers improperly assumes that his list of possible causes is exhaustive - based on his assumed mutation rate of 1 per million _for one organism_.

Meyers's reasoning about current known average mutation rate of 1 per million per generation in modern single-celled organisms is correct - but his reasoning is improperly based on applying that rate to one organism.

Let's take a modern bacteria like E coli. A single-cell of E. coli self-replicates under ideal conditions about once every 20 minutes or 1.2*10^3 seconds. After a 30 day month, the one E. coli cell has undergone 72 generations and created about 1.6*10^650 “daughter” organisms. Under Meyers's reasoning, the favorable mutation would have only occurred about 220 times (650/3). (Michael Crichton's 1969 sci-fi classic, The Andromeda Strain, was built-in around this hard-science.)

But the mutation rate for a single organism does not properly state the probability that a single mutation will be expressed in the environment. Rather, one has to take the total number of organisms in the environment and multiple that times the number of mutations expected to have occurred during a given time period. Take hospital-induced penicillin resistant bacteria. The odds of a single cell of bacteria randomly mutating the correct gene sequence to become resistant to penicillin within one person's lifetime infinitesimally small. However, penicillin resistant bacteria evolved in less than 30 years. Why? Because there are googles of individual bacteria undergoing gene mutation in a single hospital and each of those bacteria are having 1.6*10^650 "daughters" a month. Consequentially, the odds of penicillin resistant bacteria evolving in a hospital within your lifetime is near 100%.

The same analogy applies to the unknown state of affairs of Archean ocean's mix of single celled organisms and primitive mutli-celled organisms. For example, in a recent Utah astro-e-newsletter, the editor pointed out an August 18, 2005 study of the prevalence of the SAR11 single-celled organism in the modern world oceans. In that study, SAR11-type single-celled organisms were found to comprise more than 25% of the prokaryotes in a millimeter of Pacific Northwest near surface ocean water. It was estimated that there are 500,000 SAR11 cells in a single milliliter of ocean water. << http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/6/2979

...

...

">25% of total prokaryotes " in seawater"

<< http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/ 2005/2005081820000.html

...

...

"a milliliter of sea water off the Oregon coast

might contain 500,000 of these cells."

Now take the top 1 meter of the world's oceans. The world's oceans have a surface area of about 361 million km^2 << http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean >>. One liter is 0.001 cubic meters. That works out to 3.61*10^14 cubic milliliters in the top meter of the world's oceans that might contain 1.8*10^20 SAR11 single-celled organisms. With that size of a population, the odds of a SAR11 cell expressing a randomly mutated gene in anyone month, somewhere in the world’s oceans, is 100%.

A more correct view of the Earth's ecology of single-celled organisms is an immense organic Babbage computer - and not Meyers’s overly reductionist view of the characteristics of a single cell.

The controlling question isn't Meyers's "Is the mutation rate too low in a single cell," but rather "Does the near certain expression of the mutation in a large population likely to occur in a favorable environment such that it will transmitted to following generations?" Once the gene conferring survival advantage is expressed - let's say in E. coli - it doesn't take a single-celled organism long to make 1.6*10^650 "daughters" expressing that gene.

In conclusion, Meyers improperly assumes that his list of possible causes is exhaustive - based on his assumed mutation rate of 1 per million _for one organism_.

Third, Meyers assumes that the current historical mutation rate of organisms of 1 per million per replication was true during the pre-Cambrian explosion 560,000,000 million years ago. This is a flawed assumption.

Intermediate amateur astronomers on this listserv are more aware than the generic public of just how variable the background radiation has been on the Earth's surface's during its 19 or 20 trips around the galactic core. Sol's orbit of the galactic core probably has taken it past and through many massive dark nebula that disturbed the Ort cloud, sending cascades of Earth bombarding comets into the inner solar system, and that collapsed the solar and geomagnetic fields. Sol has probably transited any number of nearby nova. Alpha Orion is a present-day nearby nova candidate that one day may triple the background radiation on the surface of the Earth for 10,000 years. The Sun itself was "bluer" and it's Achaean light had more uv, although its total luminosity was lower. The state of the Archean and pre-Cambrian ozone layer that blocks uv is not known with any certainty.

Taken together, these likely past events probably caused periods of higher levels of surface radiation on Earth. The higher the background radiation; the higher rate of cellular mutation.

Fourth, in his _Debating Design_ chapter, Meyers incorrectly reasons that natural selection occurs on the biomolecular level of the gene and not on the level of the organism. Meyers's reasoning assumes that natural selection only requires cells to accumulate beneficial mutations to genes. This is not the case because natural selection occurs on the level of the organism. It is possible for a genome to accumulate two harmful genes - that do not kill the organism off - and at a later time for natural selection to mutate a single gene into a positive survival enhancing gene. Another scenarios is the accumulation of two complex harmful genes that do not kill the organism - that are combined into a more complex positive gene at a later time. Again, this can occur because natural selection occurs at level of the organism and not at the level of the gene.

As an illustration of non-functioning genes hitching a ride, take SAR11, discussed above. SAR11 has one of the most efficient, compact genomes. Virtually every gene is biochemically active. In contrast, less-than 1/3 of the human genome is biochemically active. That's alot of organic "disk space" to hold information in structurally complex but non-functioning genes or in deactivated harmful genes. See - << http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/ 2005/2005081820000.html

...

...

Looking at Meyers's first, second and third errors (described above), preconditions to applying ID theory (that "the list of possible causes must be ‘exhaustive’ so it includes the true cause" and that "The list of possible causes must be ‘exclusive,’ meaning that there must be some means of distinguishing improbable false causes from the probable true cause") have not been met because we know too little about pre-Cambrian organisms, ecology and geochemistry.

Meyers's implicitly acknowledges this uncertain level of knowledge regarding the pre-Cambrian fossil record and geochemistry in his chapter in _Debating Design_. And Meyers correctly points out that we also know too little with certainty about pre-Cambrian soft-bodied single-celled organisms that inductive proof of Darwinian natural selection will never occur with absolute certainty.

Here, Meyers argues that even if ID theory is possibly wrong because we have little certain knowledge about events occuring 560,000,000 years ago, ID theory is still the best uncertain theory among available competing uncertain theories. Therefore, ID theory's conclusion of intelligent design causation of the pre-Cambrian explosion should be accepted by the scientific community as the best scientific explanation:

"Studies in the history and philosophy of science have shown that many scientific theories, . . . are formulated and justified as inferences to the best explanation. . . .Those with greater explanatory power are typically judged to better - more probably true - theories. . . . . Clearly, we have good reason to doubt that either mutation and selection of self-organizational processes can produce the information-rich components, systems, and body plans that arose in the Cambrian. Instead, explaining the origin of such information requires causal powers that we uniquely associate with conscious and rational activity - with intelligent causes, not purely natural processes . . . Thus, based on our experience and analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory entities, we can infer Intelligent Design as the best - most causally adequate - explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals." Meyers, Debating Design at 387-389.

The problem with Meyers's conclusion is that this is not how science is done. He inverts the usual process applied to uncertain events in the natural world - inference based on inductive examples - with violations of basic tenets of ID's argument to ignorance or "eliminative induction." The way scientists reason based on induction from sign is one assembles numerous examples, albeit weak examples - the "signs", supporting a working hypothesis. If enough weak inductive samples are found, then the theory is assumed to be the "best explanation." This is the process that natural selection paleo-biologists use. One should reason from what affirmative weak signs that can be found in the fossil and geochemical record of the pre-Cambrian.

Meyers's ID "eliminative induction" based-reasoning turns this process upside down. He admits that he does not have enough affirmative inductive examples of intelligent design in pre-Cambrian fossil and/or geochemical record. Nonetheless, he "inductively eliminates" natural selection based on uncertain, hypothetical characteristics of organisms in the pre-Cambrian and then concludes ID theory is the "best explanation." This reasoning violates the basic tenet’s of ID "eliminative induction" reasoning - "eliminative induction" can only be used where the evidence of processes in the natural world can be known with some certainty. That constraint on reasoning to a true cause applies uniquely to "eliminative induction". Scientific reasoning by induction from sign (induction from weak affirmative evidence) does not suffer from the constraint of certainty as to all possible causes of an observed effect. Inductive reasoning from affirmative weak signs is proper scientific reasoning.

The same criticisms equally apply to ID theorist Walter Bradley's conclusion in _Debating Design_ that the origin of life - 3.8 billion years ago in the Achaean - occured by the action of an intelligent designer. We really don't know what was in the bio-molecular soup of the Achaean ocean. But that lack of knowledge does not, ipso facto, imply intelligent design. Conversely, weak knowledge of what was in the Achaean bio-molecular soup is proper fodder for inductive reasoning from sign.

Because ID practitioners apply bad scientific reasoning, ID theory should not be taught in the life science curriculum of Utah secondary schools. The purpose of a life-science secondary school science curriculum - like the physics and geo-science curriculum - is as an aid to teach teenagers how to reason - specifically how to apply the scientific method. Because ID theory does not rely on the mainstream scientific reasoning methods of proving a scientific hypothesis based on affirmative induction from sign or cause, ID theory is not ready for introduction in the curriculum of secondary schools.

Dark-skies are a-calling tonight. See ya!

- Canopus56(Kurt)

References:

Dembski, William A. (ed), Ruse, M. (ed.) 2004. Debating Design : From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge Univ. Press.

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

Dave wrote: | Oh, by the way, Chris Buttars is a certifiable moron. | He is one of those people who is so stupid, they don't even know | they're stupid. His threat of taking his fight to the public for a | vote is absurd. Science is not subject to majority rule. If it was, | we would never have come out of the Dark Ages. | | Dave Gary I fear that Buttars will get all the press he wants (public servant morons seem to be very successful that way) and will pursuade Utah's conservative public that there is some kind of threat, just as he did with the definition of marriage issue. The "public" is undoubtedly even less knowledgeable about science then Buttars and the ID "theory" will be foisted on our kids in public schools. In that sense, Dave, science will, indeed, be subject to majority rule. Unfortunately. BTW, Buttars has not had the courtesy yet to reply to the letter that I sent to him on 8.11.

Thanks Chuck. I just about spewed my coffee all over the keyboard.

Give him time. You used multi-syllabic words rather extensively. He's still moving his lips.

BIG OOPS this time. Sorry. I retract that particular reference. ----- Original Message ----- From: <diveboss@xmission.com> To: <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Where did you get your information? | Quoting Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net>: | | | > I fear that Buttars will get all the press he wants (public servant morons | > seem to be very successful that way) and will pursuade Utah's conservative | > public that there is some kind of threat, just as he did with the definition | > of marriage issue. The "public" is undoubtedly even less knowledgeable about | > science then Buttars and the ID "theory" will be foisted on our kids in | > public schools. In that sense, Dave, science will, indeed, be subject to | > majority rule. Unfortunately. | | | Kim, | | I certainly hope that you don't think for a minute that Rep Chris Buttars | speaks for Utah's Conservative Public. Being a proud member of the | Conservative public that I am, Rep Buttars neither speaks for me, nor any of | my Conservative friends. He might think he speaks for all of us, but he would | be sadly mistaken. Please refrain from lumping us ALL into his camp. I think | there is enough bad representation on BOTH sides, where most decent, free | thinking individuals, would not wish any association. Thank you. | | | | | | | _______________________________________________ | Utah-Astronomy mailing list | Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | | ______________________________________________________________________ | This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net | ______________________________________________________________________ | |

Go back to Amazon and search Zshops. There are 51 copies available. --- Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:

P.S. - Thanks for the reference to "On the Origin of Phyla". I've added it to my Amazon wish list and used book search list.

____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Aha! And there is the astronomy tie-in. I knew if we waited it would appear. Many have theorized on periodic extra-terrestrial bombardment wiping most of the dominant biological slate clean, and giving "background" species a chance to evolve and proliferate. But isn't it "equalibrium"? Isn't "equiberium" some kind of diagnostic enemma using radioactive tracers? ;) --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:

While there is severe criticism of Gould's theory of "punctuated equiberium," this is a fantastic book to learn about life in the Cambrian.

____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

--- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:

Now the discussion is veering into an area that REALLY interests me -- the Cambrian. <snip>

Fortunately, Joe, it looks like you won't have to travel to China to write that story. Utah Cambrian fossils - Utah's "Burgess shale" http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Cambrian-Explosion/Utah-Cambrian-Explosion.htm Chengjian, China Cambrian fossils http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/Chengjiang.htm Cambrian explosion http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm - (Or maybe "Unfortunately, you don't have to travel to China to write that story!) - C P.S. - Also of Utah interest: Green River fossils http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Galleries/GreenRiverFish.htm http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Galleries/GreenRiverFossils.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote: <snip> Another infamous mistake involves the

Anomalocaris, which was the nastiest predator of its era. . . . Only much later were paleontologists able to put together the pieces and realize what a monster it was. . . . http://www.trilobites.info/anohome.html

P.S. - Here's a picture of an Anomalocaris from Utah rocks, instead of the China fossils in the above link. http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Cambrian-Explosion/Anomalocaris/Anomalocaris.htm - C __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

--- "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:

August 20, 2005 - An Open Letter to Science Magazine From William Dembski, Guillermo Gonzalez, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, and Jonathan Witt. <snip> Darwinists like Kenneth Miller point to the hope of future discoveries, and to the type III secretory system as a machine possibly co-opted on the evolutionary path to the flagellum. The argument <http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html> is riddled with problems <http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm>, but it shows that Miller, at least, understands perfectly well that Behe's argument is testable.

Thanks for the references, Don. Miller's article is reproduced as chapter in _Debating Design_ (2004). Dembski takes another more repolished reply in the wrap-up section of _Debating Design_. I have read both Dembski's preliminary response and his second response in _Debating_. Frankly, the math is over my head, but in neither article does Dembski really respond to Miller's key points: 1) the TSSS system sufficiently biochemically similar to the flagellum that natural selection could have acted on it within the required time frame to fabricate a flagellum, therefore, when computing whether the improbability function for self-assembly of the flagellum, one should begin with pre-existing complex systems. 2) Miller's main point in _Debating_, which Dembski's 2003 response is a further illustration of, is that biochemists did more research in response to Dembski's initial speculative hypothesis made between 1988 through 2000, and found additional biochemical processes and cellular structures that could have been used to make Dembski's supposed irreducibly complex process of the flagellum. Once Miller has made a showing of this plausible, alternative explanation for the development of the flagellum, Dembski's burden is to show that it self-assembly of the pre-existing, complex subcomponents is so improbable to be on the other side of the probability horizon. Dembski declines to do so, but instead simply points to another in a series of recent "hot off the press" biochemical papers to claim that he does not need to even do the mathematical work. Dembski saying Miller's response analysis is "riddled with problems" doesn't remove Dembski's burden of respond. Dembski is not principally a research biochemist and does not intend to do, what Miller calls, the "hard-work" of detailed examination of cellular biochemical processes, in order to see if alternative biochemical mechanisms pre-exist in the cell, for each initially hypothesized irreducibly complex organism. Will the history of 1988 through 2000 repeat itself with Dembski's new 2003-2004 objection of continued irreducilbe complexity, based on emerging 2003 research of the flagellum, being called into question during 2005-2010 from biochemists doing the "hard-work" of further investigating cellular biochemistry? Scientific research works in increments, principally by peer-reviewed papers. It may or may not work out in a few years that the ideas in new emerging biochemistry paper will prove out. Finally, in Dembski's chapter in _Debating Design_, even Dembski admits that ID theory is a _provisional theory_, currently in an early phase of assembling biochemical proof. Because of the difficulty of dissembling true intelligent design intervention from the concurrent cause of natural selection, Dembski predicted that maybe only a few examples of biochemical ID would ever be found. Dembski wrote his _Debating_ chapter after Dembski's preliminary 2003 article that you reference above. Dembski was an editor of _Debating Design_. In contrast in _Debating_, Behe takes a more expansion approach. Behe predicts that evidence of biochemical ID will be found in almost every biological cell and every biochemical subsystem. Before we start educating our children based on a provisional hypothesis, maybe we should let the scientists play their differences of opinion out and Utah secondary schools should stick with the existing life-science secondary school cirriculum of the National Science Education Standards of the National Committee of Science Education Standards and Assessments of the National Research Council. That cirrculum is appended to the end of this note. - Canopus56 ----------------------- NSES high-school life science cirriculm, a subcomponent of which is "Biological evolution" http://books.nap.edu/html/nses/html/6e.html#csb912 BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION Species evolve over time. Evolution is the consequence of the interactions of (1) the potential for a species to increase its numbers, (2) the genetic variability of offspring due to mutation and recombination of genes, (3) a finite supply of the resources required for life, and (4) the ensuing selection by the environment of those offspring better able to survive and leave offspring. [See Unifying Concepts and Processes] The great diversity of organisms is the result of more than 3.5 billion years of evolution that has filled every available niche with life forms. Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the fossil record of ancient life forms, as well as for the striking molecular similarities observed among the diverse species of living organisms. The millions of different species of plants, animals, and microorganisms that live on earth today are related by descent from common ancestors. Biological classifications are based on how organisms are related. Organisms are classified into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities which reflect their evolutionary relationships. Species is the most fundamental unit of classification. ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Wasn't Flagellum the first explorer to circumnavigate the globe? --- diveboss@xmission.com wrote:

Do you know, if I would have used a word like 'flagellum' just once in front of my parents, that would have been enought to get the boot.

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Hi all, at long last my story about the ID debate is finished and should be in tomorrow's paper. There are two articles, with the sidebar reprinting some of the truly wonderful comments in the newsgroup's debate. Also, the story has a beautiful photo of the Orion and Running Man nebulas by Tyler -- thanks again, Tyler. I apologize in advance because there were so many insightful comments that space and time prevented my getting most of them in. Some I really hoped to have in the paper, but it was not possible. For example, by the time I was able to contact someone for permission, that story was done. Anyway, it will be in Monday's paper and I hope we came up with a product worthy of this important dispute. Best wishes, Joe