Search This Blog

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Why Methodological Naturalism is unscientific - helping to overcome Darwinist ignorance

 Hat tip Karl Priest for cartoon   The Evolution of puppets

Darwinists are like dogs in some ways, coming in all sorts of sizes and styles and attributes.   I am being kind here, as I do like dogs as a rule, so there is no disrespect towards Darwinists meant.  (Dogs might resent the comparison but they cannot read, so...) There are the profoundly ignorant and brainwashed, such as Richard Dawkins.  There are Christian compromisers like Francis Collins.  There are the angry and nasty atheopaths like P.Z. Myers.   There are fakers who pretend to be mere skeptics, like Michael Schermer.   There are the pragmatic like Stephen Hawking (who kept putting in gratuitous references to God in his earlier works in order to sell more books despite his complete disregard for the Deity or His Laws).   There are even the apparently stark-raving mad like Jason Hribal and if you doubt me, read what he says for yourself!


Ventriloquists for the Powerless

Translating the revolutionary consciousness of voiceless animals is no more silly than doing the same for human beings.



No, that is NOT a parody piece taken from The Onion, the guy really believes this stuff!!!  As to the man responsible for the review, Thaddeus Russell, he credits prostitutes, drunks, pirates and organized criminals for the building of a free America rather than those fakers like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.  He was quoted on the Huffington Post (a liberal loonybin) as follows:

"...I was raised by pot-smoking, nudist, socialist revolutionaries as an egghead white boy in black neighborhoods in Berkeley and Oakland. I nearly flunked eighth grade and finished high school with a C average. Then I went to the anarchist, ultra-hippy Antioch College in Ohio, which accepted all their applicants, didn't give grades, and didn't have a history department.

So even though I managed to pull myself out of that background and into and through Columbia for a PhD, then onto a job at an elite college, I was highly uncomfortable moving from the world of weed to the world of tweed. I hated being "Professor." I cursed in class. I talked about sex. I used politically incorrect terms. My students said they had never heard the things I was teaching them in class. They called me "Bad Thad."..."

Astonishing...yet considering the kinds of people being cranked out by liberal colleges in the USA in the last few decades, I suppose Thaddeus Russell is not so singular as one might suppose.  Unfortunately...

Then there are those who are simply ignorant and for these there is hope.   I have little hope that an illogical sort not inclined to deep thinking could be swayed by logic or evidence away from his cherished Darwinist belief system but it is somewhat conceivable that he could someday understand that he actually HAS a worldview that filters his science.   Maybe.  So far very few of my commenters have been able to even grasp this incredibly simple fact.

The Scientific Method (developed by creationists, by the way) uses what we call methodological investigation.   One takes a good look at a process and makes a hypothesis about the way said process works based upon observation and any tests done by others.   Your hypothesis will make a prediction about the way the process works.   You then devise a test that can help determine whether your hypothesis is true or not.   If your test supports your hypothesis, you repeat it a few times with perhaps a few variables to check the results.   If you keep getting the same answers then you have yourself a working theory.

The next step is to share your hypothesis and test results with others so they can also test this and see if they are willing to agree with your theory.   If scientists from various places find that the get repeatable results every time then a theory it is!   A theory eventually gets to be accepted as a law over time as testing continues to confirm the original or modified hypothesis that became the theory.

Hypothesis - test - retest - revise or theorize - test some more - have others test and review - theory is supported or refuted - if supported every time it is often termed a law.   This is the scientific method of investigation.

The Law of Biogenesis was subjected to this strenuous and long-range process.  Scientists all around the world tested the hypothesis of spontaneous generation and found it to be faulty.   They then changed the hypothesis and determined that they should test thoroughly to see whether the revised hypothesis was true.   This testing process went on for around 150 years until Louis Pasteur got agreement from all of science that no organism of any kind or any size from simple microorganisms to complex vertebrates spring from matter alone but rather only living organisms can produce living organisms.    Therefore God was given credit for having produced the first life and first living creatures and science was satisfied that this was true.   The Law of Biogenesis has NEVER been refuted, it has continually passed every imaginable test over and over again.    So why would science abandon one of the most tested and proven hypothesis-became-theory-became-laws of all time?

Because Darwinists artificially insert their worldview into the scientific method and thus skew the results before testing begins.   One cannot rule out possible solutions to a problem before you even begin to investigate and test!   Yet this is what they do when they claim that the scientific method is....wait for it...

Methodological Naturalism!

Now take a look at these three statements and tell me which one seems most sensible?

1)Methodological Naturalism is the scientific method

2)Methodological Creationism is the scientific method

3)Methodological Investigation is the scientific method

Gee, Naturalism and Creationism are metaphysical in nature, they are belief systems.   So choices 1 and 2 would be tilted in advance towards an expected result, while number 3 is completely agnostic towards worldview and entirely focused upon evidence and the investigation of said evidence.   Individual scientists may well bring a naturalist worldview to a problem or a creationist worldview to a problem but SCIENCE doesn't put the worldview ahead of the investigation.   How can you not understand this, surely it is too simple to miss because I am quite sure a fourth grade elementary school class could easily grasp the concept.

If naturalists were pet birds...


"the real struggle between science and the supernatural" continues

Was a post I made in 2007.  Here is an excerpt:

"You name Newton, Kelvin and others, but all of them adhered to methodological naturalism in their scientific explorations. Their individual worldviews may have been Christian or whatever, but when they got down to their work as scientists, they adhered to strict naturalism/materialism - no mention of the supernatural in their discoveries.

You are 100%, totally and remarkably WRONG!!!!! You are so wrong it is rather humorous. Newton slung references to God around like pro athletes sling cusswords. But let us examine said method to which you refer. It was designed by a believer, Francis Bacon, and it makes no mention whatever of natural or supernatural at all. None. In fact, Bacon saw that the inductive method of Aristotle was incorrect because it began with a presupposition/axiom and proceeded from there. This is the very folly of so many of today's naturalistic materialists, that they have reverted to Aristotle by beginning with the axiom that only natural causes and explanations may be accepted.

Bacon suggested a better way, commonly known as the Scientific Method, and allow me to quote from the Physics Department of the University of California:

"The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

(Eventually a theory that is tested over and over with the same results is proclaimed to be a Law - radar)

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.""  January 18th, 2007.

Now I will yield the podium to a writer from the Discovery Institute:



We often hear Darwin lobbyists claim that evolution (meaning neo-Darwinian evolution) is "both theory and fact." For example, Wikipedia (which is never shy about advocating specific points of view) has a page titled "Evolution as theory and fact" that cites various authorities on this, including Larry Moran's Evolution is a Fact and a Theory, Stephen Jay Gould's article "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Richard Lenski's article "Evolution: Fact and Theory," and Theodosius Dobzhansky's infamous paper Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.

Now, Northern Arizona University philosopher Peter Kosso has blown the cover on the claim that evolution is "both theory and fact." He does so in a short piece published by Springer Briefs in Philosophy, "A Summary of the Scientific Method" (Springer, 2011). In the paper, he challenges the typical definition of "theory" used by the Darwin lobby.

When attacking opponents, Darwin lobbyists typically define "theory" as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses" (National Academy of Sciences, 1999) or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence" (National Academy of Sciences, 2008). Using such definitions, saying the "theory of evolution" now necessarily implies an idea that is "well-substantiated" and "supported by a vast body of evidence." Darwin lobbyists then scold those who say that "evolution is just a theory" as misunderstanding the definition of the term "theory" and also mock them for unwittingly implying that evolution is well-supported. But is that what "theory" really means?

Kosso observes that in practice, the term "theory" says little about the degree of certainty that characterizes an idea. As he notes "neither 'theoretical' nor 'law' is about being true or false, or about being well-tested or speculative."

How does Kosso define theory? He writes that "all theories describe objects or events that are not directly observable. This is the core concept of theory. A theory describes aspects of nature that are beyond (or beneath) what we can observe, aspects that can be used to explain what we observe." He continues:
Germs, atoms, caloric, curved spacetime, and elemental strings are all, to one degree or another, unobservable. That's what makes them theoretical. But that doesn't make them unreal.
Kosso goes on to explain that saying something is a "theory" doesn't necessarily imply it is a "fact," or even that it is well-supported by the evidence:
A theory is true if it describes unobservable things that really exist and describes them accurately. Otherwise it is false. This shows the mistake in contrasting "theory" and "fact." A fact is an actual state of affairs in nature, and a theory, or any statement for that matter, is true if it matches fact. Some theories are true (atomic theory), some are false (caloric theory), and the scientific method is what directs us in deciding which are which.
Thus, Kosso has blown the cover on the Darwin lobby's attempt to redefine theory to necessarily imply a concept which has strong evidential backing and is "well-tested" or "supported by a vast body of evidence."

Kosso continues, stating: "To say of some idea, That's a theory not a fact, is a confusion of categories, a comparison of apples and oranges." While I agree with Kosso on this, it would stand to reason that it is also a confusion of categories to say "That's a theory and a fact." Thus, Kosso's argument also could cut against Darwin proponents who say "Evolution is both theory and fact."

Amending My Recommendations For Expressing Skepticism of Neo-Darwinian Evolution
 A few years ago, I wrote a series where I explained why using the line that "evolution is a theory, but not a fact" is an ineffective way of expressing skepticism of neo-Darwinism. As I wrote:
I've long opposed using such a rhetorical line of "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" to oppose evolution because it gets you caught up in a semantic debate over the proper definition of fact and theory, and communicates very little about the most important component of this debate -- the scientific evidence. ... What follows is a slightly longer description of what one might say to communicate doubts about neo-Darwinism while avoiding semantic mistakes and communicating more than mere soundbyte arguments:
When evolution is defined as mere change over time within species, no one disputes that such evolution is a fact. But neo-Darwinian evolution -- the great claim that unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life -- has many scientific problems because such random and unguided processes do not build new complex biological features. According to the technical definitions of "theory," "fact," and "hypothesis," such neo-Darwinian evolution is neither theory nor fact. It's just a hypothesis."

(Is "Evolution" a "Theory" or "Fact" or Is This Just a Trivial Game of Semantics?)
Today, I continue to very much stand by the position that the "evolution is a theory, not a fact" or "evolution is just a theory" lines are poor and ineffective means of expressing skepticism of neo-Darwinism. However, in light of Kosso's definitions of "theory," driven by no discernible agenda, I would like to amend myself. What follows is an amended description of what one might say to communicate doubts about neo-Darwinism while avoiding semantic mistakes and communicating more than mere sound-byte arguments:
When evolution is defined as mere change over time within species, no one disputes that such evolution is a fact. But neo-Darwinian evolution -- the great claim that unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life -- has many scientific problems because such random and unguided processes do not build new complex biological features. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a theory that has been falsified by the evidence.
And that's a fact.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Now take a look at these three statements and tell me which one seems most sensible?

1)Methodological Naturalism is the scientific method

2)Methodological Creationism is the scientific method

3)Methodological Investigation is the scientific method

Gee, Naturalism and Creationism are metaphysical in nature, they are belief systems."

Metaphysical naturalism is metaphysical in nature, methodological naturalism is NOT.

I think you may have been asked this before, but...

Could you please explain the actual difference between what you call "methodological investigation" and "methodological naturalism" WITHOUT confusing methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism?

The evidence so far indicates that you cannot.

Anonymous said...

"The Law of Biogenesis has NEVER been refuted, it has continually passed every imaginable test over and over again."

The LOB doesn't need to be refuted for abiogenesis by natural means to be researched and found to be viable.

You see, the LOB states that complex life forms can only come naturally from other complex life forms. Abiogenesis by natural means doesn't contradict the LOB because it doesn't concern itself with these complex life forms. Abiogenesis research comes at the issue from a different angle that was never covered by the LOB and was therefore not included in any of the testing by Pasteur etc. - the molecular level. Even the simplest life forms considered by Pasteur et al are quite complex, as Radar never tires of telling us when it suits him in other contexts.

"So why would science abandon one of the most tested and proven hypothesis-became-theory-became-laws of all time?"

Radar, surely you know that scientists do this all the time. If everyone had considered Newton's Laws of Motion to be sacrosanct, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity would have been shut down because "it violated the Law".

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The never-falsified Law of Biogenesis leads us to declare that life only comes from God, the Creator of all things because it cannot come from non-living matter. This law has passed every test."

Logically speaking, that would be an unwarranted conclusion. The Law of Biogenesis declares that complex life only comes from complex life, not from God.

As Anonymous observed in the previous comment, the LOB does not make any claims about life originating at the molecular level and evolving from there, so clinging to this as a refutation of abiogenesis research is also logically unwarranted.

Incidentally, Radar, what's with the exasperated tone lately? Why not calmly deal with arguments one at a time - and actually try to understand the opposing arguments?

Chaos Engineer said...

As to Methodological Naturalism vs. "Methodological Creationism"...the whole thing seems a bit abstract; I'm wondering if it would help we moved it into a real world situation. Let's look at how people might research the question, "How much food should we buy for the Church Picnic?"

A Methodological Natualist would say, "Well, based on my observations of the natural world, I can eat about this much, and we're estimating about a turnout of one hundred people, so I'll buy a hundred times as much as I can eat...maybe a bit less since some of the guests will be young children. After the picnic, I'll make notes on what I ran out of early, and what was left over, and that'll give me a more accurate estimate for the next picnic."

A "Methodological Creationist" would reason like this: "The Bible clearly states that you can feed five thousand churchgoers with five loaves of bread and two fish. We're not going to have that big a crowd, so one loaf and one fish should be plenty. After the picnic, if people complain that there wasn't enough food...well, what should I believe? The Bible, or the babblings of a bunch of wicked naysayers?"

(My observation is that even the most devout Creationists are willing to throw out the Bible in favor of Naturalism when it comes to getting enough to eat.)

Anonymous said...

"Neo-Darwinian evolution is a theory that has been falsified by the evidence.

And that's a fact."

Kindly identify the evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution.

Be specific.

Logical fallacies, misrepresentations, strawman arguments etc. need not apply.

radar said...

I feel like I am talking to little children who cannot understand basic logic, but I know instead that you are not really dialoguing with me, you are attempting to sway readers who may not know any better.

The Law of Biogenesis has never been challenged and that means abiogenesis was actually the original hypothesis. Abiogenesis was tested repeatedly beginning in the 1600's when people had no real idea of the concept of microorganisms on up to this present day when we know they exist quite well. Louis Pasteur identified microorganisms and tested to see if they would come to life from non-living materials. He used normal substances that microorganisms would thrive on and made sure all the components would be avaialable.

The dirty secret of Darwinism is that in countless labs around the world for many decades Darwinist scientists have tried every means possible to plot and script a scenario in which any kind of simple organism could arise from non-living materials. The basic laws of chemistry preclude this because the building blocks of life cannot occur naturally nor can they exist in the wild for any length of time due to chemical processes which will change them.

So there is no possible scenario for life to come from non-life. Biochemists know this. Did you know that it costs a tidy sum of money to have a lab come up with one-handed DNA components because even in a lab chirality is a big problem? And you can shove all the amino acids in the world into any situation you like and life does not spring forth. Period. So "Chemical Evolution" is a complete canard. Scientists who pretend there is a way to get life from non-life are phonies. Liars. Or they are completely self-deluded.

radar said...

Now as to the three choices - you either investigate without prejudice whatever system or organism or process or object you like or you bring a worldview along and artificially impose it upon the process.

There is no confusion here. Methodological Naturalism is the scientific method with religion attached to it, which actually limits it. This is why Darwinists have no answers to the basic questions, because their religious point of view blinds them to the obvious.

Methodological Investigation is not religious and doesn't demand natural or supernatural causes, it just investigates and comes up with the best answer based on evidence.

Methodological Creationism is research done by creationists with their worldview firmly in place although it does allow for both natural and supernatural causes. The difference is that most Creationists in science have been led by science to decide to choose to accept creationism. This is what happened to me. This is what has happened to most of the well-known creationists and ID proponents.

Our school systems teach us Darwinism. Many of us in researching the Universe have discovered that Darwinism fails to explain pretty much anything. It is a massive fail.

Darwinists decide in advance to ignore any possibility of a supernatural cause for anything in any way, shape or form. This leaves them with frustrating dead ends and forces them to make up fairy tales or give us "the check is in the mail" statements about how they are "working on" the problem or "there are promising ideas" off on the sideline somewhere.

But as we learn more about organisms they just get more and more complex and we also have learned that the cell is necessary for reproduction, for the existence of DNA, for the production of ATP and on and on. There MUST be a cell before there can be life and there must be life before there is a cell. The cell is coded for by DNA and DNA only exists within that cell. In other words, the chicken and egg problem remains.

God made the chicken. The chicken can then mate with a rooster and produce an egg. No chicken, no egg. An egg will not randomly appear out of thin air by natural processes.

radar said...

I will next post on new information about DNA. The Darwinist concepts of ERVs and Junk DNA have been falsified by research. DNA that once was considered leftover garbage from old evolutionary mutations has actually been found to be crucial to the coding process and most of it has more functionality than the simple four-figure DNA string itself. What is quite interesting about this process is, again, the cell is required for DNA to operate and DNA is required for the cell to exist.

As I have posted in great detail before, the mother lays the framework for the child in reproduction, so that the child will be the same "kind" (Hebrew - Min) as the mother. This basic part of reproduction prohibits Darwinist evolutionary narratives because the kind is locked in. The variation can only happen within the kind and is almost entirely a result of choices made from preexisting genetic material. Many mutations simply trigger a switch that is built into the organism so that some mutations have been expected and thus the design of organisms anticipates mutations.

Mutations are most often deleterious or deadly but some simply cause the organism to exhibit a trait that was built-in but not displayed until the mutation arrives. A review of Kirschner and Gerhart shows us that, although they are Darwinists they have shot Darwinism in the foot with their findings. The cell rules the reproduction process, period.

radar said...

Bara (created) Min (kind) is the Hebrew for the living creatures made by God. Mendel sought to understand the reproductive process and discovered primitive genetics. He was a believer in creationism and saw the process as a design feature.

Linnaeus was also a believe in creation and his classification system was an attempt to identify the kinds and the variations branching off from said kinds. Darwinists have been misusing the classification system because they do not understand the basics. If you begin at the wrong starting point then your following suppositions will be faulty. This is what we call "error cascade>"

Error cascade is evident throughout Darwinism. One significant error is being ignorant of the scientific method and being blind to one's own presuppositions. Naturalism is a philophy/worldview/religion. It is not science.

WomanHonorThyself said...

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. ..just love that RADAR..youre the best!!!! Have an awesome weekend my friend!:)

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Great article good buddy. Your look at the (3) "methodological" statements simply "nails it". I stand by my arguments on that topic in comments I made at previous articles of yours. Of course, they support your conclusion.

Apparently your first commenter never read any of my comments. Too bad Blogspot only permits a search of blog posts and not of the comments. I'd love to go back and find them to confront such slackers.

Jon Woolf said...

"As I have posted in great detail before,"

And been refuted in great detail before.

Come on, Radar, is this really the best you can do? There's nothing new here. This junk has all been answered before, right here on your own blog. Why do you ignore those answers?

There are all sorts of interesting and relevant recent developments in a number of the subjects you touch on, like the recent reclassification of Archaeopteryx as a dinosaur or the discovery that the Hebrew Bible has not been preserved perfectly over time. But as long as you stick to this mindlessly repetitive ranting, I don't see any point in spending the effort to describe them.

radar said...

Jon Woolf you have never refuted this point in any way at all. In fact I am completely correct about this and you have no argument at all. Why bother? You are a brainwashed member of the Darwinist herd and will not ever change your mind no matter what the evidence.

The good news is that both Hribal and Russell have been published and they make you look sensible, so maybe you can abandon the blog and try a new career as a writer?

Anonymous said...

Radar loses again.

Jon Woolf said...

"Jon Woolf you have never refuted this point in any way at all. In fact I am completely correct about this and you have no argument at all."

[ROFL] You sound like you're trying to convince yourself much more than you're trying to convince me, Radar. I've answered all of this stuff before -- it's in the archives. All you need to do is go look for it, copy it here, and refute it for all the world to see.

Just don't think you can get away with anything obvious like misquoting me, m'kay?

"Why bother? You are a brainwashed member of the Darwinist herd and will not ever change your mind no matter what the evidence."

[snork] Evidence, eh? Seems you've forgotten (yet again) who can explain the evidence and who can't.

What's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for paleosols, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for the sequential nature of the fossil record, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for weathered and scavenged fossils, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for the anomalous distribution of living organisms, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for genetic anomalies such as the 'stuck-together' human chromosome #2, Radar?

Tell us, what's the YEC explanation for genetic bottlenecks ... or rather, the lack thereof in 99+% of living organisms, save for a very few glaring examples like the cheetah?

Why aren't dolphins and ichthyosaurs ever found together, Radar?

Why aren't rhamphorhynchoids and neornithines ever found together, Radar?

How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun brontosaurs and pterosaurs to higher ground, Radar?

How do we get fossil formations that preserve multiple layers of dinosaur and bird nests, obviously nesting colonies from several different years, in the middle of the geologic column?

How did we get magmatic intrusions -- that is, underground lava flows that took time to occur and more time to cool and solidify -- in between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock?

As always, no answer was the sad reply...

radar said...

Jon, if you answered even one tenth of the issues I raise you would get more respect. You have no arguments here. Don't pretend to point backwards to your previous failures. Meanwhile I might as well disclose to the world how empty and boring your long list really is...in a post. Not because you have earned it but because the brainwashed may well think you have some kind of point and you really don't.

radar said...

Yes, Hawkeye, I know they don't ever really make a point or come up with a logical retort and the reason is because they cannot.

Jon recently got shot down by Jonathan Sarfati himself and had not a peep to respond because he was pwned. Now I am going to make short shrift of his list...

Anonymous said...

*yawn* the usual macho talk from Radar when he loses...

Kinda cute though how he reveres Sarfati like a saint...

Anonymous said...

"Jon recently got shot down by Jonathan Sarfati himself and had not a peep to respond because he was pwned."

You've mentioned this a couple of times. Where did this happen exactly?

"Now I am going to make short shrift of his list..."

I can smell the evasions and misrepresentations already...

Jon Woolf said...

[shrug] Well, if you insist...

Let me see, the specific li[n]e that caught my eye was

As I have posted in great detail before, the mother lays the framework for the child in reproduction, so that the child will be the same "kind" (Hebrew - Min) as the mother.

The mother contributes roughly half the nuclear-genetic material (in most sexually-reproducing species), all mitochondrial and chloroplastic DNA, and a starter set of cellular equipment. The offspring then builds new cellular equipment from raw materials and its own genetic code -- roughly half of which came from the father, and some of which certainly contains unique mutations that neither parent had. Thus, the offspring is always different from the mother in some ways. Some chromosomal mutations, such as Robertsonian translocations, can make the offspring so different from the mother that they aren't reproductively compatible. With whole-genome mutations such as polyploidy, the offspring may be an entirely different species from either parent.

Now then, I believe you were saying something about how I never answer the issues you raise...?

radar said...

Jon Woolf, your problem here is that you think the Darwinist labeling of species is authoritative. Describing the process to the readers is unnecessary, I think we know the birds and the bees.

It doesn't matter if the child doesn't resemble the mother but it WILL be the same kind because, for one thing, the meta-information for determining the assembly is from the cell of the mother and that will assemble another of whatever she might be. That is always true.

Granted a Yorkie may not resemble a Bulldog but both are nevertheless dogs. Your imaginary scenario in which the mother produces some other kind is all verbiage and no evidence. Can an offspring be mutated and not viable? Yes. You seem to forget that the father must also be the same kind as the mother so no matter what mix of genetic materials clams produce clams and cats produce cats. It happens every time. The cell demands it, the meta-information controls it and when you have a mistake which cannot mate it obviously is going to die out. So there is absolutely no hope for a different kind to be produced.

Anonymous said...

ROFLMAO Radar is knocked on his butt again when firing a blank shot.

Jon Woolf said...

And you claim that I cling mindlessly to a dying worldview?

Wow.

It doesn't matter if the child doesn't resemble the mother but it WILL be the same kind because, for one thing, the meta-information for determining the assembly is from the cell of the mother

No, it's not. Only mitochondria and chloroplasts come entirely from the mother's line. Everything else is assembled using the offspring's own genetic code, which is partly the father's and partly unique.

Your imaginary scenario in which the mother produces some other kind is all verbiage and no evidence.

Polyploidy and translocations are all verbiage and no evidence? News to me ... and to the many geneticists who study them.

You're in over your head again, Radar.

radar said...

Yes, Woolf, you are in over your head. You can throw all the terminology around that you like, the reproductive process proceeds as I described it and nothing you bring to the table can change the truth. The mother only mates with a father of the same kind. The mother lays the framework for the child and genetic material from both parents are used to assemble one of their kind, being controlled by the meta-information that specifically assembles one of the same kind. There is no way to get away from this process and produce another kind of organism. Kinds are conserved by the process but variation within kind is made highly accessible. That is the truth. You cannot overcome this process with BS. Your attempt to "baffle them with BS" fails when those who are informed read what you say because they realize it is all irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm...it always gives me a warm feeling to see Radar frothing when he's sliced and diced...

Anonymous said...

"Yes, Woolf, you are in over your head. You can throw all the terminology around that you like"

Woolf is so in over his head he's responding with terminology - oh no! What will Radar do?

Call it "baffling with BS", that's what.

Thanks for playing, Radar.

Lista said...

I Wonder how many People Still Read the Comments on a Post that is a Couple of Weeks Old, but here it goes anyway.

Anonymous, 2:59 AM, Keeps Asking for the Distinction between "Methodological Investigation" and "Methodological Naturalism". I guess he wants Definitions. To me, if there was nothing Metaphysical about Methodological Naturalism, then it wouldn't make sense to me why it would be Called Naturalism at all, rather then simply "Methodological Investigation". I'd Like to Hear Anonymous Explain this, yet I bet you that he Can't.

No, he Wants Radar to do all the Explaining and is not Willing to do any himself and Actually, Radar has Explained his Position rather well both in the Post and also in his Comments.

The Real Truth is that "Methodological Naturalism" is Biased in a Metaphysical way because it Excludes the Supernatural, so the distinction between the Concepts in the Above Paragraph is the Presence or Absence of said Bias.

Anonymous, 9:48 AM,
"Kindly identify the evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution."

Perhaps it is the Lack of Evidence that is more Relevant here, for the Hypothesis that Life can Evolve from Non-Life has been Tested in Many Ways Over and Over again and has Failed Every Time.

Anonymous, 11:45 PM,
"Radar loses again."

That's such a Typical Blanket Statement Offered without Evidence and his Comments at 1:10 PM, 10:56 PM and 11:35 AM are Pretty much the Same. I don’t Know who Appointed him the Referee. I sure didn’t.

Woolf, 7:46 AM,
Your Entire Line of Questions is Off Subject, Woolf. This Post is about Methodological Naturalism and Biogenesis, not Geology or Young Earth. Radar's Response to you was Good though.

Woolf, 4:22 PM,
"With whole-genome mutations such as polyploidy, the offspring may be an entirely different species from either parent."

Species is just a Word, Woolf, and a Distorted One at that. That is, it is Twisted to Fit the Bias of Evolutionists. The Word Species has no Relevance to the Fixity of Kind Issue and as I can See, Radar has also Said something Similar at 10:05 PM, in Stating that the Darwinist Labeling of Species is not Authoritative.

Anonymous, 10:56 PM,
"ROFLMAO. Radar is knocked on his butt again when firing a blank shot."

You're not going to Last Long while Rolling there Laughing, Anonymous. You had Better Roll Fast, since you don't Know the Different between a Blank and a Real Bullet. Your 11:35 AM Comment just shows your Ignorance in Relation to the Imagined Frothing of Radar, when in Reality he is Making a lot of Sound Sense.

You see Blank Bullets and Frothing because that is what you want to see. What I see is a Strong Person Soundly Defending his Point of View.

Anonymous, 2:45 AM,
"Woolf is so in over his head he is responding with terminology - oh no! What will Radar do? Call it 'baffling with BS'."

And what will Anonymous do? Mock and Call it Blank Bullets and Frothing? Yeh, Right! Like that is any Better then "Calling it BS." You are such a Hypocrite. Yes, I'm Shaking my Head at the Fool Rolling on the Floor.