|
Author
|
Topic: Fernando Castro-Chavez: Some Implications for the Study of Intelligent Design ...
|
gordon
Member
Member # 781
|
posted 08. April 2004 11:29
Perhaps Nobody can explain why he emphasized the word "hypothesis"?
Was there a point to be made, and if so, what was it?
Also, I was unaware that Dr.Bohlin had predicted/demonstrated that Neanderthals were not direct ancestors to humans, and that this prediction was made premised on ID premises.
Perhaps we could be provided with the relevant literature showing this?
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 08. April 2004 13:42
Fernando:
are you really saying that HIV is the product of intelligent design? Does that mean that a Designer purposefully generated this catastrophic pathogen? And why did the designer make two different types of HIV (HIV-1 and HIV-2), resembling two different primate pathogens?
Also, what do you mean when you say Neanderthals were "IDc"? Did the Designer make two different human species? I thought the YEC line was that they were just big-boned fellas.
Finally, what is your definition of "kind"?
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 08. April 2004 20:16
To Gordon and Charlie D.:
Nor Bohlin, never I wrote those things that you are declaring. Bohlin, on referring to Custance mentioned H. erectus as being a human in “a degenerative state”, so his statement goes only to the span of the quotation marks that I have used; I repeat them here: “evolutionists would not be likely to make such a prediction, since their search is primarily for apelike ancestors” and “leading to research questions otherwise left unasked”.
Nor Dr. Bohlin neither Dr. Custance had 'predicted/demonstrated that Neanderthals were not direct ancestors to humans', they only approached the view that, and Custance included those Neanderthals in his statement that they were also “a degenerative state” of humanity. I agree with that, but I have seen that the particulars of the issue are more intricate.
Before those quotations, Dr. Bohlin had appealed to ID in the next contexts: “the necessity of INTELLIGENT design in the structuring of the informational content and grammar of the genome” (his emphasis) and also that “Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code” here he makes reference to the works of Wilder-Smith; he also mentions the “intelligent manipulation of matter”, and that DNA required “intelligent manipulation”, “the mark of intelligence is not exactly hard to discern”, “we find that the evidence of intelligent design is impressive”, “the presence of intelligence becomes unmistakable”, “the simple point is that intelligent design is discernibly”... and Dr. Bohlin also talks of “integrated complexity”, “the properties of sand and water alone are unable to produce this level of complexity”, etc.
I am using IDc (Intelligent Design corruption as the corruption of the original Intelligent Design of the universe and of our planet) when referring to that degenerative state, either in human-like beings or in the rest of nature (viruses, cancer, poisons, etc). Evolution presents the stairs of the universe and of humanity as ascending; my understanding of IDc presents those stairs as descending.
ID was perfect; then, IDc entered to gradually corrupt it. For the driving forces or 'intelligences' (as you have stated) behind each of these two clearly opposite realities... we just need to carefully attend the same Source of Information and of Inspiration used by such successful scientists as Newton, Boyle, Kelvin, Mendel, Pasteur, Cuvier, etc. Such Source also provides an account of Neandertal-like beings and their origin. Seek on that Source, as my own studies are fallible and incipient. I demand to myself the gathering of all possible evidence.
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 08. April 2004 23:25
I see, so speciation (kindification?) can occur, but only through "corruption". Humans initially were one, perfect species, then from them speciated, by corruption, Neanderthals, and erectus, habilis, the various australopitheci, etc. So are chimpanzee "degenerate" humans as well? Or did they start as such, and degenerate into something else? And HIVs are degenerate SIVs, which are degenerate something else, back all the way to some innocuous virus in Eden which probably didn't even replicate, since there were not parasites then by definition. That's fascinating stuff.
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 09. April 2004 00:41
charlie d (your remarks in " "):
"Speciation (kindification?) Can occur, but only through "corruption"?"
I did not say that. In the particular human context, humans were and are the main 'target' of IDc, vs. humans were raised the Neanderthals and HIV.
"Are chimpanzee "degenerate" humans as well?"
No, they have always been only chimpanzees.
"And HIVs are degenerate SIVs, which are degenerate something else"
I did not say that, you did it. That is like saying that chihuahua dog is a degenerate great dane. No, I did not say that, those are just two different viruses with high similarities.
"erectus, habilis, the various australopithecine, etc."
If we found 'human' skulls and bones equivalent to the bones of a mule or of a tiglon, and if we classify them as 'a human ancestor' or as different 'hominid species', I think that we will be reaching the wrong conclusions.
I just can say that there are many new things that we can learn and explore having at hand most of the facts as possible, and a Foundation. The concept of 'Speciation' is speculative and deceptive; I would not call the origin of Neanderthals or of HIV with that name. HIV was already there, but was raised to our attention only when it targeted Americans.
[ 13. April 2004, 16:09: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 09. April 2004 08:35
Uhm... so, Neanderthals and sapiens are the same species. This is more in line with the classical YEC explanation. But if that's the case, why is the evidence of lack of interbreeding between sapiens and Neanderthals supposedly supporting IDc? Wouldn't one predict interbreeding of members of the same species? And habilis and erectus, they were hybrids of humans and what?
As for the viruses, sorry, I thought you extrapolated this "corruption" thing to the entire biological world. So, HIV-1 and -2 were independently designed, resembling different SIVs, in the last century or so. Correct?
[ 09. April 2004, 08:36: Message edited by: charlie d. ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gordon
Member
Member # 781
|
posted 09. April 2004 09:11
Fernando:
Thanks for the clarification.
I have read some of Bohlin's work, including his essay "Natural Limits to Biological Change", and have been frankly unimpressed.
Why would evolutionists make 'predictions' that are not warranted from the available evidence?
Why would an evolutionist predict that H. erectus was really a 'degenerate' human?
And what is the evidence that Neanderthals were humans in a 'degenrative state? We should have football players in such a 'degenrative' state!
Bohlin's pleas for a necessity for "INTELLIGENCE" is just that - pleas, premised on his convictions, it seems, not the evidence.
If the evidence indicates a "downward" spiral, then I think others would have noticed it by now. It appears that your Source isn't up to snuff.
[ 09. April 2004, 09:41: Message edited by: gordon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 09. April 2004 12:55
gordon and charlie d:
"Uhm... so, Neanderthals and sapiens are the same species."
I did not say that. The nature of Neanderthals is that they are neither the same human species neither a product of 'speciation'. Neanderthals approaches Custance and Bohlin concept that they are a 'degenerate', I must add, a hybrid-like product.
"HIV-1 and -2 were independently designed."
I did not say that. It is like comparing the Mexican chihuaha dog with the European
great dane. If those were extinct and only their bones were found, do you think that
the 'speciacion' speculation will put them in the same kind or species? If even 'speciation'
have problems to-day on distinguishing between the same species, i.e. Drosophila, Finches, etc., etc.
I am saying that there is no reason to affirm that 'speciation' is a real fact. All the
literature on 'speciation' is based on wrong assumptions and on mere speculation.
The variability and change within kinds or species is the real fact, so I can see the
reality of 'subspeciation' (if you want to call it that way). 'Sub-speciation' is being sold
as 'speciation' by evolutionists and that is a trick that we need to be aware of to discard it.
The problem here is as if trying to interpret everything as if related to 'speciation', but that's not the case.
The same facts my be 'forced' to be interpreted under the 'speciation' banner, but after a careful analysis that assumption falls down flat as a mistake. So, the problem is not in the facts themselves or in the ID Source, the problem is on the heads of the interpreters.
If you read for a moment and critically the published material on 'speciation', classify the flaws, even with the weak definition of 'species' that the authors are using. If you prefer not to question those papers, so then, where is 'science' as being opposed to blindness?
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 09. April 2004 15:17
quote:
gordon and charlie d:
"Uhm... so, Neanderthals and sapiens are the same species."
I did not say that. The nature of Neanderthals is that they are neither the same human species neither a product of 'speciation'. Neanderthals approaches Custance and Bohlin concept that they are a 'degenerate', I must add, a hybrid-like product.
Hybrid of what species, besides sapiens? And if they were "degenerate" from sapiens, and you take at face value the fact that there was no gene flow between sapiens and Neanderthals, isn't that speciation, according to the biological definition of species? quote:
"HIV-1 and -2 were independently designed."
I did not say that. It is like comparing the Mexican chihuaha dog with the European
great dane. If those were extinct and only their bones were found, do you think that
the 'speciacion' speculation will put them in the same kind or species? If even 'speciation'
have problems to-day on distinguishing between the same species, i.e. Drosophila, Finches, etc., etc.
I am not talking about speciation. HIV-1 and HIV-2 are clearly distinct phylotypes of HIV. Moreover, HIV-1 is more closely related to chimp SIV than to HIV-2, which is more closely ralted to green monkey (IIRC) SIV. So, the two viruses, which must have been designed since no speciation occurs according to you, must have been designed independently to resemble different SIVs. Moreover, since there is no trace of their existence before some time in the 20th century, and both appeared in samples from people who had apparently been exposed to them in Africa, one should also reasonably conclude that the 2 viruses were designed in the 20th century and released in Africa. Or not?
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 09. April 2004 23:01
Humans have (un)intelligently modified a number of nasty little critters to make them even more deadly.
But we seem to have wandered a bit off topic....
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 10. April 2004 16:35
Nobody:
Thanks for your observation, you are right. I have already added your reference in my section of Literature Review.
Back to the weakness in the 'evidence' for 'speciation' (present in all published papers on the subject), the next is a clear example on the fallibility for the classification of 'species' based only on phenotype or genotype, without including the fact of "fertile parents = fertile descendants",
Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2002 Oct;56(10):2083-9. The evolution of F1 postzygotic incompatibilities in birds. Price TD, Bouvier MM.
“Among our sample more than half the crosses between species in the same genus produce fertile hybrids” "...viable hybrids have been produced between taxa..."
-------
News review:
ID was present in the last AAAS meeting:
In the Annual Meeting at the AAAS, John Staver (Dir. of Kansas State University's Center for Science Education) stated:
"ID must first be vetted by the scientific community, in journals and conferences such as the AAAS."
Vetted means to subject to expert evaluation, check up or appraisal.
Steven Gey, lawyer from Florida State University said that [legally, even if Gey expressed it in a sarcastic context] ID teachers have the right of free speech and academic freedom to proclaim anti-evolution arguments.
Ronald Numbers, a historian in the department of medical history and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin said that in the past, the overwhelming number who wrote against evolution had no quarrel with geology that suggested earth's antiquity. Most turn-of-the-century [even way far before] anti-evolutionists accepted the idea that Earth is very old.
[Which is good, as again the mistake in the beginning of the YEC timeline is only in the minds of some 1960’s interpreters and its followers, but not in the Source itself, as Dr. Custance started to prove it: http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html , ]http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/app_xxi.html]
The most dogmatic promoter of the religion of evolution present there (as audience) was Eugenie Scott, executive director of the Natl. Ctr. for Science Edu., who said regarding ID teachers and researchers "push 'em down in one place and they pop up in another".
To see the full history:
http://www.stnews.org/news_idl_0404.html
At the very end of the page, there is a nice and special mention of Philip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski.
[ 10. April 2004, 23:50: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. April 2004 08:17
With respect to our relationship with Neanderthal, I suggested in the Manifesto that Neanderthal was our direct ancestor for the simple reason that there was no other known hominid present at the time we first appeared, roughly 100,000 years ago. Homo sapiens certainly did not appear de novo. The many structural differeces that separate us are compatible with the mechanism first proposed by Goldschmidt - the result of chromosomal restructuring, rather than by the accumulation of Mendelian micromutations. This explanation finds clear support from analyses comparing the karyotypes of Homo sapiens with our closest living relatives, Pan, Gorilla and Pongo. There is also no compelling evidence that such reorganizations involve the introduction of new genetic information into the genome. That, in combination with the failure of both the Lamarckian and Darwinian models, is what led me to postulate the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Evolution (past tense) can thus be compared directly with ontogeny which obviously involves the ordered derepression of prescribed information all of which must be present in a single cell, the fertilized egg. The notion of predetermination is not new with me but can be traced to Bateson, Berg and Grasse. Consider the following from Berg's Nomogenesis:
"Finally, Bateson likewise (1914, p 640) inclines to the view that the entire process of evolution may be regarded as "an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present"."
page 359
I was delighted to discover that Einstein also adhered to a predermination of the universe:
"I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the beginning as the well as the end, forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insects as well as for the stars. Human beings, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper."
[ 12. April 2004, 16:19: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 12. April 2004 17:50
Comparative differences in the mtDNA between humans and some Neanderthals:
http://www.geocities.com/fdocch/compare.htm
Differences in the nuclear DNA between humans and Neanderthals can be seen in:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10788336
The introduction of new genetic information into the genome of different organisms is the subject of a recent and ongoing study on “species-specific molecules”:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12604796
Which is starting to disclose that not only the (formerly known as) “junk DNA” has a vital importance for the third dimensional stability of the genome:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12547679
I am convinced that “pseudogenes” have also a designed purpose to be there (unpublished results).
Every dating system and every ‘speciation’ experiment are new speculations based on previous speculations; consequently, any conclusion based on those by twice speculations will only lead to more speculation. Equally mistaken will be if we base our reasoning in the works of Haeckel or any other theoretical ‘evolutionist’.
The full package for genetic variability within species has been there since the beginning. There is no natural package for ‘evolution’ among species.
The weakness of the ‘dating’ and ‘speciation’ reasoning and publications can be discovered by anyone critically reading every abstract on the subject published until now. ‘Evolution’, even if we put together all its variants (that we don’t need to increase) have had more than a century to prove itself to be more than hypothesis without any success, it is time to cast it down from our own reasoning and scientific experimental designs.
Today we don’t have any legal hindrance to demonstrate with all boldness in every school and in every research facility all the weaknesses of the hypotheses on ‘evolution.’ This is a necessary step in which we, ID researchers, need to take the lead in order to, as yourself have said before: “liberate us in our quest for the ultimate truth” [not just to try to prove your personal hypothesis, but rather, going beyond of that].
[ 15. April 2004, 18:08: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 12. April 2004 19:20
Fernando Thanks for the terminal plug. I am convinced that evolution WAS a reality. It is only the mechanism or mechanisms that remain to be ascertained. I hope you also include Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Provine and many more of those that can properly be described as "theoretical evolutionists." I find it of great significance that of the six on whom I have based my own conclusions - Berg, Broom, Schindewolf, Bateson, Goldschmidt and Grasse, not one was primarily an evolutionist. Yet they reached remarkably similar conclusions from totally separate areas of biological science concerning a subject, evolution, which was not central to their major scientific fields of interest. Furthermore, with the exception of Goldschmidt and Schindewolf, they reached their common conclusions without reference to each other. The remarkable agreement between Goldschmidt and Schindewolf, a transmission geneticist and paleontologist respectively, is one of the most significant features in all of the evolutionary literature. For that reason I have presented it in some detail in the Manifesto. It is unfortunate that the neoDarwinians continue to ignore an overwhelming body of evidence demonstrating that the Darwinian model is a total failure and must be abandoned as a meaningful instrument for organic change. Why it persists absolutely mystifies me.
Incidentally, the only reason I postulated Neanderthal as our immediate ancestor was because I was, and remain, unaware of an alternative candidate.
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 13. April 2004 17:39
charlie d
Very good observations, thank you:
"HIV-1 is more closely related to chimp SIV than to HIV-2, which is more closely ralted to green monkey (IIRC) SIV"
Do you know if some research has been done to see if all the HIV's and related strains are able to recombinate without 'hybrid incompatibility'?
I.E.:
Heredity. 2001 Nov;87(Pt 5):522-9. Multiplicity of infection and the evolution of hybrid incompatibility in segmented viruses. Frank SA.
"When multiple viruses infect a single cell, progeny form by reassorted mixtures of genomic segments. Hybrid incompatibilities arise when a progeny virus has incompatible segments from different parental viruses. Hybrid incompatibility has been observed in influenza and in the multiparticle plant virus Dianthovirus."
"Hybrid of what species, besides sapiens?"
A Karyotype of one of them, if found frozen in the North Pole will answer that. Do you know how is going the research progress on the frozen mammoth found in Russia?
/////////////
Prof. John A. Davison,
"Everything is determined" Albert Einstein.
Einstein's scientific approach can contribute several aspects to ID researchers, as he had the IDer in mind. First and against a random evolution we can quote his classical example: "God does not play dice", and also:
1-
Eternity (The IDer) and death (the "pause" 'on the KCT player') are delineated in his theory of relativity of time and space.
2-
The original order in which Einstein stated his most classical formula was: m = E/c^2, the 'constructive form' of the equation, and means that Energy can be transformed into matter if the proper 'compressive pressure' is applied (c^2), this delineates the 'Big Condensation' of matter from energy at the beginning as today, when a new star is born. A living evidence for a IDer at the origin of the energy.
[Einstein, A., Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energiegehalt abhängig?, Annalen der Physik, 17, 1905; Einstein, A., Uber den Einfluss der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes, Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911)]
3-
The deduction of a limited, circumscribed universe. I must also add that the universe is expanding and is surrounded by water (according to my Foundation):
http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/circumscribed.htm
[Einstein in spanish: http://www.geocities.com/fcastrocha/einstein2.htm]
On thinking on all of that, there is no reason or real evidence to exclude the sudden appearance "de novo" of men. That is why you remain "unaware of an alternative candidate."
Other Einstein's ID quotes:
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slightest details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds"
"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God"
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created"
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be"
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic