Re: summaries - summary of traderdew's comments

Original assertions made by traderdrew found at: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1426446#i


TR-1: I have something against what people have done with his theory and how it has influenced the minds of various people. An example given is from Dr. Daniel Dennett, a philosopher.

TR-1.A: http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/dennett.htm

TR-1.B: Darwinism is and has been viewed as a universal acid. Obviously the ramifications of the theory have not just been permeated throughout Science but in political and social arenas as well.

TR-2: Displays support for Intelligent Design and feels people standing up for Intelligent Design should be commended for standing up against mainstream science.

TR-3: There is Science and there are authors of books with controversial information making various claims:

TR-3.A: Evolution is true
TR-3.B: Evolution is the only theory, in principle, that explains how we got here.

TR-4: Pulls a quote from: http://www.tki.org.nz/r/science/science_is/nos/theme_19_change_e.php


TR-4.A: “All Science knowledge is, in principle, is subject to change.”
TR-4.B: Asserts that theories should not be seen as truth because a new theory may come around to explain a phenomena better.

TR-5: Gives an anonymous quote: “Once you credit supernatural causations for explaining phenomena, you effectively shut down all inquiry. Why would we question anything if God did it?”

TR-6: Agrees that citing a supernatural explanation would leave the realm of science.

TR-7: Asserts that “many people who would do their best to explain away any explanation that infers the supernatural.”

TR-8: Gives a definition for neo-Darwinism as: Random mutations + natural selection = evolution.

TR-9: Asserts neo-Darwinism is convincing in terms of gross anatomy.

TR-10: Asserts that neo-Darwinism “MUST be able to be understood and articulated at the molecular level because, random mutations occur at the molecular level and changes are made from it.”

TR-11: Asserts the secular twist does not make sense because it is “a reconstruction of the shadows of what happened with an earthly twist.”

TR-12: Asserts there are other theories besides neo-Darwinism such as Young Earth Creationism and other theories that you may not have heard of such as:

TR-12.A: evolution by symbiogenesis: (Lynn Margulis)
TR-12.B: biological self-organization (Stuart Kauffman)
TR-12.C: evolution through natural genetic engineering (James Shapiro)
TR-12.D: evolution by intelligent design (Michael Behe)
TR-12.E: creationism (Leonard Brand)

TR-13: Explains these theories range from most naturalistic theory to the most supernaturalistic theory.

TR-14: Asserts that the most naturalistic side invokes accidents and randomness to explain life. Asserts the most supernatural side invokes a more guided hand to explain life.

TR-15: Asserts that “guided” is taboo to many liberal evolutionists

TR-16: Asserts neo-Darwinism is based on faith.

TR-17: Asserts neo-Darwinsim is formulated without biochemical principles because the biochemical principles were unknown in Darwin's day.

TR-18: Gives an example of how unlikely neo-Darwinism was by looking at HIV.

TR-18.A: The mutation rate of HIV is 10,000 times faster than a cell.
TR-18.B: Some people are naturally immune because their immune system somehow burns the bridges to prevent HIV from invading the cell.
TR-18.C: HIV has not found a way to defeat this immunity.

TR-19: Asserts that some microbes mutate at a faster rate than advanced organisms is the error correction mechanisms to prevent mutations.

TR-20: If an error does get by, the mutation has to be the right type to be recognized and preserved by natural selection.

TR-21: Asserts sickle cell is an example that is not explained by neo-Darwinism due to its detrimental effects.

TR-22: Posts a thought question: “Are there any nutritionists out there who believe that mutations caused by toxins and a lack of antioxidants would lead to something that would benefit individuals? Perhaps it is theoretically possible but, it is certainly not within the framework of beneficial advancements that would help individuals.”

TR-23: Asserts there is a theory called “punctuated equilibrium” that explains that says there was rapid periods of evolution followed by periods of complete stasis because it appears to be the case in fossil records. Asserts Neo-Darwinism still has to explain those periods of rapid evolution.

TR-24: Asserts that two books books by Michael Behe (“Darwin's Black Box” and “The Edge of Evolution”) introduces the concept Irreducible Complexity where complex structures required ‘multiple coherent mutations’ for their existence.

TR-25: Asserts the last gasp of neo-Darwinism comes from Jason Shapiro's work in natural genetic engineering and gives link to: shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf

TR-26: Asserts: ”This research shows us that the bulk of mutations are clearly not random since these findings can be observed over and over again.”

TR-27: Finally, asserts that more info can be found at: http://www.uncommondescent.com


Further assertions made by traderdrew found at: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1429059#i


TR-28: I believe adaptation is a great thing. I think an intelligent designer programmed organisms to adapt in order to ensure less tinkering.

TR-29: The problem with evolution is the neo-Darwin interpretation of it. Do some of you remember my posts on the flounder? There IS fossil evidence of transitional forms between a symmetrical fish and the flat fish. However neo-Darwin evolution cannot explain how it happened and that is just another example of why I don't believe in it.

Other assertions and a question by traderdrew found at: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1430423#i


TR-30: What is so hard about accepting Intelligent Design anyway? I think a lot of scientists do but they are not willing to admit it publicly.

TR-31: I think scientists add faith to neo-Darwinism.

Introduction of “metascience” and
“assemblist” into the argument by traderdrew found at: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1428381#i


TR-32: I agree with you that ID is not science BECAUSE under the existing definition of science, it isn't.

TR-33: Metascience is my view and I do respect science. I would use science as one of the filters for deciding what is good or better metascience. In the following post ( //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1429063#i
), traderdrew wishes to redefine science or let science have their own definition.

TR-34: I also am not a creationist. At most I am an "assemblist" and refers to original Hebrew terms, the word "vaya'as" meaning “to make”. You don't make things out of thin air, you make them out of parts of other things.

Another assertion by traderdrew at: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1429062#i


TR-35: I think there are extreme views on both sides of this debate. I really think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I explained why I think God seemed to work harder in order to hide direct evidence of his existence through physical evidence in a post here months ago.

I, southern_reckoner, was challenged by traderdrew by asking if science explains everything. I asserted that science does not explain everything because there would be no science. Also, I asserted that science is a system to explore the natural world around us. ( //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1428534#i
). Based on my reply, traderdrew declares:

TR-36: Science cannot explain everything especially, the supernatural. It doesn't even attempt to begin to explain the supernatural because it disqualifies it right from the start. People everywhere need to understand my last sentence.

In the next post: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1430828#i


TR-37: Science attempts to explain away the supernatural.

TR-38: Requests to expand on the comments made in post: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1429121#i

You believe in science except in the areas you cannot accept or that science cannot explain. That is called god of the gaps. The heated debate between Creationism (ID) vs evolution is that the gaps in knowledge of the natural world is getting smaller and smaller.

TR-39: Asserts that the modern trend is to search for evidence for ID in molecular biology.

I, southern_reckoner, asked traderdrew, “If you accept supernatural explanations for natural events, how do you rule out which supernatural explanation is correct?” The reply found in: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1431592#i

TR-40: Says that I ask the wrong question. I should ask: “How do you rule out which explanation was correct; the supernatural one or the one that explains it through natural causes?”

I, southern_reckoner, requested traderdrew to define neo-Darwinism. The reply found at //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1430834#i
is an acceptable initial, working definition, but I leave it open for further clarification.

TR-41: It starts with multiple organisms (already formed). One or more of these organisms receive some sort of mutation apparently by some unintentional mechanism. Hence the term "random mutations". When one of these mutations asserts itself in a way that is used by the organism and proves to be beneficial, it gives the organism an advantage as it operates within the niche it occupies. Since it developed a new advantage, the selection process is able to weed out the weaker and let the stronger advance and survive. The new trait is then passed on to new offspring.