Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
LeeBowman has an amusing post over at UD. It concerns the recent presentation by Mizzou Professor John Marshall. Says Bowman (who seems to have lifted part of his post from the Columbia Tribune article without attributing it):
Marshall held up DNA as a possible example of intelligent design in action, calling it the "most complex, densely packed, elaborate assembly of information in the known universe." He went on to say that DNA even bears similarities to computer codes or a language, e.g. a kind of organized complexity that could never derive from Darwinian means.Where have we heard that before? More and more, scientists are coming to similar conclusions, which bolsters the case for ID.
If I understand correctly, LeeBowman seems to be arguing that because ID hacks are repeating ID talking points the case for ID is stronger? So if I go into an echo chamber and say the world is flat and hear my voice echoed back at me a hundred times, the case for the world being flat is stronger?
Finally, LeeBowman asks:
On more thing of note: MU has a program entitled, "Difficult Dialogues", which is dedicated to promoting "Pluralism and Academic Freedom on Campus". Taken directly from their site, "The MU Difficult Dialogues program is designed to stimulate rigorous intellectual inquiry, and to empower students to express opposing views respectfully and in the spirit of open-mindedness."Would not that entail acceptance of ID as a viable theory of origins [emphasis mine - afarensis], and certainly one 'suitable for intellectual inquiry'?
The answer is "no". What would entail acceptence of ID as a viable theory of origins is actual scientific evidence - uou know, that "...pathetic level of detail..." that ID seems so adept at avoiding.
Comments
Good catch on the unatribbuted quote! LeeBowman - ust another Lying For Jeebus ID Proponent.
Posted by: J-Dog | April 26, 2007 9:25 AM
"... who seems to have lifted part of his post from the Columbia Tribune article without attributing it ..."
Look just below the piece and you'll see the link to the article. The context of my comments weren't to defend ID point by point, but merely to point readers to the story and see what, if any, they had to say about it.
Design is the salient issue today, not religion, so Schmidt's claim of "masquerading religion as science" is off the table.
That aside, the main thing I found interesting was the stated objectives of the 'Difficult Dialogues' group, like "The MU Difficult Dialogues program is designed to stimulate rigorous intellectual inquiry, and to empower students to express opposing views respectfully and in the spirit of open-mindedness." Schmidt, as a member of that group, demonstrates abject hypocrisy.
Since we've pretty much ruled out 'religious motives', except for some like the Dover School Board and a few other YEC groups, the issue over whether it qualifies as 'science inquiry' due to a lack of empirical testing ability, still remains. I would suggest we remove the Big Bang Theory from the purview of science for the same reason.
Regards,
Lee Bowman
Posted by: leebowman | April 26, 2007 6:03 PM
The issue is that you made part of the Columbia Tribune article appear as if you had written those words. Anybody who read
or in your post would not know it is a verbatim quote from the Trib article. You are presenting that material as if you wrote it. Design, I would also point out is only a salient issue amongst the religious since it is totally lacking in scientific content or experimental results. I would also recommend that you read up on your cosmology since there is tons of evidence for the Big Bang (cosmic background radiation bein a good example).Posted by: afarensis, FCD | April 26, 2007 7:07 PM
"Design, I would also point out is only a salient issue amongst the religious ..."
With some maybe, but most fundamentalist types believe in creation by fiat, i.e. "Let there be ...", rather than creation over great time periods. Even though disposed to use the term ID in place of creationism, deep down they feel that stepwise creation is demeaning to their concept of an omnipotent god, who wouldn't get his hands dirty, so to speak, or employ 'cut and try' methodology.
The evolving theory of ID embraces evolution as a mechanism, but guided by intervention along the way. Alteration (or 'tweaking' as I like to call it) of the genome is a likely method. As I stated, and I hold to it, properly defined, ID is an hypothesis that falls within science, like it or not.
My tongue-in-cheek rejection of BBT as science was based on the fact that it is not empirically testable and falsifiable (i.e. the actual 'event'), the primary objection posed for eliminating ID from the science tent. Neither is macroevolution, by the way.
Posted by: leebowman | April 26, 2007 10:19 PM
Um, didn't O'Leary just do a post on not letting materialism creep into religion at UD? About half the comments at UD concern religion in one form or another. Quit trying to blame the religious elements behind ID entirely on YEC's, I've read too much ID material to fall for it. As far as the Big Bang, it is testable. One of the predictions of the big bang theory was that there would be a cosmic background radiation - which is a left over signal of the Big Bang. This prediction was derived entirely from the theory itself, and when the aformentioned radiation was detected by Penzias and Wilson. Had such radiation not been found the Big Bang theory would have been falsified. There are a number of examples of macroevolution (whales spring to mind), so I'm not sure exactly why you say it is not testable or falsifiable. At any rate, until such time as idea can provide a mechanism - tell us how it was accomplished - that can be tested it won't get much respect. Vaguely saying intervention by unknown intelligences via unknown mechanisms is a non-starter.
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | April 26, 2007 10:47 PM
Um, is it just me or wouldn't inquiry entail testability? I mean what are you questioning if there's nothing to test?
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | April 27, 2007 1:07 AM
"didn't O'Leary just do a post on not letting materialism creep into religion at UD?"
Her latest post was critical of ASA for a change in their official position, which she feels has juxtapositioned itself in regard to support of ID, and that they have shifted opposition to materialism to focus more on opposition to YECs. The issues are largely political, and get into a lot of side issues in the discussion that follows. I haven't followed the ASA personally up till now, and have only a casual interest in any regard. http://tinyurl.com/ytadpu
According to my observations, in the ID arena, there are religionists, primarily Christian, and of those, largely fundamentalist. That however, does not alter ID's basic hypothesis, which addresses apparent "intelligent causes" rather than naturalistic causes in certain biologic systems. There is a variation in definitions, some stating "supernatural", which would eliminate the proposed designer(s) from science. That term, however, is conjectural, since nothing supernatural can be observed, and therefore may or may not exist as such. My view is that everything in the universe, including spirit entities, if they exist, are natural phenomenon. Terms like supernatural, omni(whatever), and infinite are conjectural terms, begot by humans to label the unexplainable.
"Quit trying to blame the religious elements behind ID entirely on YEC's"?
I'm merely pointing them out. Their presence, however, does not alter ID's basic tenets.
"As far as the Big Bang, it is testable ..."
Only to a degree. Cosmic background radiation is evident, but it could other causes than stipulated in the theory. It is evidence of the stated hypothesis, yes, but the 'bang' itself is not empirically reproducible. My point was that when investigating long past events, or phenomenon occurring over large time periods, empirical testing may not be possible, but rather proofs and modeling are required. Granted, this issue is debatable.
Regarding ID: For the moment, let's assume that intelligence and intervention was involved. Should we then declare that science will ignore it since it involves an unpredictable variable? We now do genetic engineering, thereby introducing a 'human variable', and still call it science. Limiting science in this way is potentially unproductive, and smacks of an overt attempt to shield Darwinian evolution from any challenges to its basic assumption. ID may threaten Darwinian Evolution, but not science itself. All of the fear mongering, anger, and threats from the science establishment do more to discredit science's integrity than anything ID could ever do.
"Vaguely saying intervention by unknown intelligences via unknown mechanisms is a non-starter."
The first step is establishing evidence of intervention, and granted, methods are lacking at this point. At present, evidence only allows elimination of naturalistic causes by (for example) showing that the number of required mutations exceed available time, by demonstrating that certain required permutations would produce no immediate advantage and would therefore not be selected, and by demonstrating the dearth of co opted functions that would happen by chance are some of the ways. Consider also the fact that computer modeling has failed thus far, the fact that Tephritidae are still Tephritidae, and more ...
Posted by: leebowman | April 27, 2007 7:31 AM
"... the issue over whether it qualifies as 'science inquiry' due to a lack of empirical testing ability ..."
"Um, is it just me or wouldn't inquiry entail testability? I mean what are you questioning if there's nothing to test?"
I answered that to a degree in the previous post. In addition, I feel that computer modeling will improve. Maybe even quantum computers. Testing methods will evolve (and improve), no doubt.
Posted by: leebowman | April 27, 2007 7:37 AM
Nice way to dodge the question about the religious roots of ID.
The problem with spirit entities is that they can not be observed, nor can their effects be tested. In a word, they explain everything and nothing. Which gets us back to the Big Bang. The cosmic background radiation was not predicted based on computer simulations since the prediction was made pre-computer. The prediction comes from working out, mathmatically, what the laws of physics say about the origin of the universe. Two points need to be made about this. First, ID has nothing comparable. There are no laws we can apply to make predictions, there are no theories we can derive predictions from. All ID has is what if, it could be and it's possible. Second, we do not need to recreate the big bang in a lab in order to verify that it occured. This is a warped notion about what constitutes an experiment perpetuated by creationists. In reality there are a large number of powerful methods we can use to learn about the past.
Your point about mutations is incorrect. A recent paper by Zhang, for example examined how many possible ways one could go from a pancreatic Rnase to a virus munching enzyme in a colobine or ruminant stomach. The answer was 44-45 different mutations could achieve the same function - that was just for one protein. Multiply that by all the proteins in the body and you will see their are literally millions upon millions of ways for mutation and evolution to occur...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | April 27, 2007 5:05 PM
Okay, this is funny, and, no, I'm not making this up.
First, Lee Bowman writes...
...and then he proceeds to make use anti-science rhetoric that is straight out of the young earth creationist literature, that YECs have used for decades.Lee, please get back to us after your foot surgery. (Shooting yourself in the foot has got to be pretty painful.)
Posted by: Steve Greene | April 29, 2007 1:44 PM
Well, yes, and as I pointed out O'Leary just did a post on how materialism was creeping into Christianity and how awful that was. What difference does that make if ID is not about religion?
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | April 29, 2007 3:09 PM
"The problem with spirit entities is that they can not be observed, nor can their effects be tested. In a word, they explain everything and nothing." Actually, consciousness (and for that matter, human existence) is 'spirit based', but I won't argue the point of whether human life is spirit based or merely synoptic activity. My understanding of that is based on my own empirical experiences, but I'm not here to push that concept. I will say this though, that if anybody wants to pursue exploring that, there are simple ways to do it on your own. I don't expect anyone firmly wedded to a materialist world view to do anything but laugh at the idea, but for the benefit of any lurkers open to 'empirical' checks, they're out there.
Now, back to 'science'. "Which gets us back to the Big Bang. The cosmic background radiation was not predicted based on computer simulations since the prediction was made pre-computer. The prediction comes from working out, mathematically, what the laws of physics say about the origin of the universe."
Doesn't matter how you do the calculations (computers simply save human effort), much of the verification (or falsification) is arrived at mathematically. Be careful regarding the application of known physical laws, since quantum physics has shown some contradictions, and even variances. Can a particle be a wave? I'm sure you know what I'm alluding to. My point wasn't to discredit BBT as unscientific, but that ID could be classified as scientific without being fully empirically testable in the classical sense. Nor can macroevolution be demonstrated in a petri dish (metaphorically speaking).
"Your point about mutations is incorrect." My blanket statement may be vague and inaccurate, but there are two broad points to consider if one is to take either position. First is the time allowed for a posited number of mutations (vertical, lateral, whatever) to achieve evolutionary innovation, and the second one relates to this:
"... Multiply that by all the proteins in the body and you will see there are literally millions upon millions of ways for mutation and evolution to occur... "
Mutations can occur randomly (or due to selective pressure), but what will cause them to link together in such a way as to achieve complexity (functional systems on a higher order)?
Posted by: leebowman | April 30, 2007 8:27 AM
" ...and then he proceeds to make use anti-science rhetoric that is straight out of the young earth creationist literature, that YECs have used for decades."
I never go to Ken Hamms page, unless to have a laugh myself. But give 'em a little credit; they may actually be right on one or two things!
Posted by: leebowman | April 30, 2007 8:33 AM
" Nice way to dodge the question about the religious roots of ID."
"Well, yes, and as I pointed out O'Leary just did a post on how materialism was creeping into Christianity and how awful that was. What difference does that make if ID is not about religion?"
Why don't you ask Denyse?
As has been stated, among the ID believers, (of which some may actually become ID researchers), there are religionists. The troublesome ones would be YECs that want to foist religion upon science, but they are a minority, and with no genuine affiliation with ID as science (Ken Ham would disagree). It's not hard to understand, however, that believing in ID might lead to believing in a present day God, and thus religious affiliation.
Regarding the discussion mentioned above, its roots lie in an organization ASA that was originally friendly to ID, now seems to have an altered position. But it is certainly not an ID issue, but more of a political quandary for some.
Posted by: leebowman | April 30, 2007 9:04 AM
No, Penzias and Wilson used a radio telescope to detect the cosmic background radiation and thus prove part the Bang Theory. Math provided the prediction not the experimental proof (or verification). Incidentally, the phenomena of light being both a particle and a wave has been known since the time of Newton/Huygens and is perfectly consistent with the laws of physics.
This makes no sense. In the example above, the pancreatic Rnase duplicated about 4.2 MYA (due to unequal crossing over). One (Rnase 1) kept it's original function due to purifying selection, the other duplicate copy (Rnase 2) accumulated something like 12 mutations. Of those 12 mutations, five changed the function of Rnase 2 from degrading double stranded RNA (the original function of Rnase 1) to digesting single stranded RNA in a much lower PH environment. Note, this took a couple of million years to accomplish and, to repeat myself, there are about 45 ways to go from the original function to the new function. The point here is that there are many different ways to achieve many different functions with only a few (in this case 5 of the 12 mutations increased the ability of Rnase 2 to work in a lower PH environment - the other seven mutations were neutral) mutations and there was plenty of time to accomplish the change.
Sigh. Dembski considers ID to be "the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,". Yet you want to blame the religious element of ID on a few YEC's? Really, a large number of ID's leading lights are coming at it from an explicitly religious perspective. The discussion of O'Leary's that I mentioned had nothing to do with the ASA. Since you didn't follow the link, here is a quote:
In my experience, a far more serious concern is the gutting of a spiritual tradition from within. Along those lines, be on the lookout for the following trends, whether in your church mosque, synagogue, or whatever:
This from someone Davescot and William Dembski consider a leading IDist.
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | April 30, 2007 7:59 PM