Of Baramins and Baloney 26

Mark,
You have given me examples of phenotypical changes that are useful to the organism and seem to be traceable back to random mutations. I appreciate that, and will enjoy looking into them over the next weeks. Still, I find you have stated no hypotheses, and I do not see any construct validity for how randomness can produce increased information. Information is fundamental, not only for simple change or even usefulness, but also as the whole basis of DNA.
I’m afraid I don’t see how white noise contains more information than a Beethoven sonata. There may be more data, depending on the length, but the difference between data and information is some discernable meaning in some identifiable context. By meaning I mean a consistent, logical interpretation into an application, as is the case with a sonata or DNA.
I also consider logic to be fundamental behind an hypothesis. Examples of change are nice, but the absence of construct validity is where “no hypothesis can stand.” After the logic behind the construct comes examples, or the examples themselves have no meaning–application to theory.
I see no reason to present further arguments. The ones I have presented you have disqualified, ignored, or pooh-poohed, but you have offered no logical rebuttals for any of them.
To date I am not convinced that evolution occurs beyond natural selection of pre-existing information or rearrangements of pre-existing information. That said, I believe, scientifically speaking, there is no reason why Darwinian (tree of life) evolution and design could not occur in the same universe. Said another way, everything need not be explained by one over the other. This apparently is not your position.
There is evidence for evolution, for gradual decent. I find it neither compelling nor up to the level of evidence for design, but I do not find it difficult to admit. It is there, and I can understand how a person could buy it, especially in the absence of any alternative presentation of fact, theory or hypothesis. After all, I was there once.
What I find more difficult to understand is complete denial of any evidence for alternative interpretations. I have attempted, with some effort at logic, to make the alternatives clear, pushed by curiosity to find what it might take to gain consideration. In this I have utterly failed.
Your reasons for rejecting my evidence include it’s too old (older than Darwin), it’s not my field (and no one should look outside their field), it’s too negative (viewing it for how it DOESN’T support evolution instead of how it DOES support design), and the most lame of all, it’s not about the Cambrian Explosion (as if the Cambrian were the real issue).
You are offended at the idea that evolutionary scientists might be wearing blinders, while illustrating the point perfectly. The fact that you are so intelligent, so well educated, and so highly positioned in your field make the point even stronger, that people can’t get that way by themselves. It takes a total culture of total denial to make it possible. The fact that any crack in the dike is intolerable says to me that denial itself is the last stronghold.
If you cannot admit that there is evidence on both sides of any argument, then you will never find the truth. I could have never written a scenario like the one you and I have constructed. I would not have considered the prose plausible. Thank you for an education in this area.
We can both stop here and consider ourselves to have won. My perceived victory is in being able to weigh evidence that alludes a very intelligent and educated mind. It looks to me like your perceived victory is in winning an argument over an “uncluttered” mind that “lacks understanding.”
Don Mc

This entry was posted on April 19, 2009 at 10:58 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.