Defence of Intelligent Design

quote:

---

Neither the creationists or the anti-ID crowd on this thread understands what ID is.

---

Speak for yourself. I got into this while trying to create a documentary on the subject. I have approached the subject as a scientific discipline and am familiar with most of the literature (the only exception being Dembski's later books which repeat his earlier works).I came to this site seeking out actual ID theorists who could explain some of the weaknesses in its proposed model and stated evidence. I have yet to come across a real ID theorist in these forums and that includes you. Or at least, you have been unable to address any of the issues I bring up. Your best debating tactic appears to be disappearing, only to pop again later repeating your initial claims.As time moved on more evidence has come out supporting evolutionary theory and seriously undercutting ID as a valid, or useful paradigm for research. I post these bits of evidence, but no ID supporter (Including you) have dealt with them at all. This suggests to me a lack of confidence, or understanding on your part.I can talk about weaknesses in proposed evolutionary mechanisms, and have even opened a thread to defend ID. The inability of IDists to allow any negative assessment for their own theory, and that none showed up to help me defend/explore ID (in my thread) makes me even more sceptical of its validity.I will only add in my defense that the rest of your post says the same thing about ID as my earlier post in this very thread does.

quote:

---

To me ID is a teleological perspective that generates testable hypotheses. Why can't science function perfectly well with more than one theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses?

---

Ahhhhhhh, yes. Here we go again. I have already challenged this idea of dual scientific research programs... how many times now?While certainly science can function with various theoretical frameworks. The problem is it won't work "perfectly well". It is a waste of time to keep using theoretical frameworks to propose hypotheses, when they don't come up with anything valuable.I have at least two threads of my own, awaiting your response as to why we should bother using ID when it has nothing to say on new developments in biology. I believe you even admitted evolutionary theory was the way to go with those developments, but that ID might do something some day for something else.My argument is why bother promoting it as a framework until such time that evolution does not provide a good hypothesis. If in most cases evolution ought to be followed, it's just a waste of time to continually use something else (which consistently does not help).Shall I hold my breath waiting for your response, or should I start a pool now on when and where you'll pop up next to repeat your assertions?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-23-2004]

Loudmouth, Dual porosity requires water(Water Table,etc...), your not factoring in the weak electrical current generated by earth ground (the electron sink), I thought I heard that its possible to connect a copper radiator in stream lower than the house, why people have used a water flowing and connect an insulated copper wire to the insulated metal roof, to generate an electric current, etc...P.S. A moon rock, meteorite, etc... only supports the sediments that erupted out from within the earth would of dated old even before it erupted out from the earth, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-23-2004]

So many misconceptions, so little time... sigh...Oh well... once more into the breech... So, if I am understanding you correctly, then the version of intelligent design to which you subscribe is entirely undifferentiable from the tenets of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory? (BTW - "undifferentiable" means that you can't tell them apart). If you don't believe them to be so, what testable differences are there, according to you?Also, exactly what information did you omit with your use of "etc..." or is it just there to make it look like you have more to say? What need? So you're saying that the Cambrian explosion didn't happen? But aren't you arguing that the fossil evidences do have a common designer? So what? What part of "transitional" implies "non-functional"? Why would we expect to see that? But you just said that the fossil evidence didn't show such evidence. Which is it? Sure there is. It's called heredity and genetic sequencing. We know how genes are passed through time, and we know that genes in the present contain more "information" than the ones in earlier history. I have access to a great post that addresses this common creationist misconception, but I'll have to look for it. If I find it, I'll start a new topic.

Heheheh, just havin' some fun. I aspire to your stoic demeanor. I guess I never would have made it as sisyphus.Seriously though, you better not let your kids see this site or they'll start asking why you can't be so even handed with them!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I encourage them to read it. My daughter gets a huge case of the giggles at some of the fundie antics.

---

Common sense isn't

::, Message 235 of 256 of $50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie where I answered mark24, in respect to etc...mark24, I like to leave statements open, so you being the listener can infer whatever you think I'm implying, makes you a part of the posts, etc...The very name Cambrian explosion suggests it all came on suddenly, which brings the question why is it not still exploding, the answer is obvious, it was created by Intelligent Design, that was the Cambrian explosion, the creationists would direct you to Genesis chapter 1, etc...The creationists have no problem with the word geneologies, its all throughout the bible, the seed of Isaac, the forefathers, all decended from Adam, the geneologies of the creatures, its interesting that the bible was concerned with genes(geneologies) before you knew there was such a thing, etc...P.S. The Jews only married within the congregation, (the seed of Isaac),etc...The gentiles became unclean genetically, the Jews were not allowed to eat certain foods, and interestingly we find today its these heavy metals in bottom feeders, or creatures that feed on them, that these heavy metals can cause genetic diseases(mutations, genetic drift), etc...If someone married outside the congregation (gentiles, etc...) their kids couldn't marry within the congregation, unless you can prove me wrong, not a theologists, but wasn't this why they kept such records of the geneologies, that were lost after Titus destroyed Jerusalem, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-23-2004]

Prominent Hominid Fossils. What "necessary links" have not been found, and why are they necessary? Right. That's why it's such a misleading term. The so-called "explosion" took many millions of years. It is, at about the same rate.[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-23-2004]

JonF, What I hear is that life is losing genetic information, one of the things geneticists are trying to do is repair this loss of genetic information, etc...the only thing thats being seen in the natural is the increasing of genetic diseases, and genes that copy double copy are only copies, doesn't explain the amount of design in the creatures formed in the cambrian explosion, etc...P.S.The cambrian explosion happening over millions of years is just an assumption, based off the dating of the sediments, which someone else explained, even moon rocks date millions of years, just don't buy that your radiometric atomic decay data has any merit, given dual porosity the sediments reacting to the water table, etc..., but understand you need to make this assumption, to imply the cambrian explosion happened over millions of years, etc...But in the natural your only seeing a decreasing of information and the normal microevolution that Creationists, and Intelligent Design people agree is happening in the natural, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-23-2004]

This was an excellent post originally by lucaspa on Christian forums:

quote:

---

The general formula for information -log2(M/N) where log2 is logarithm to the base 2, N is the number of possible choices, and M is the number actually chosen. So, say you are a telegraph operator and you choose between a dot and a dash. So the formula is -log2(1/2) and you have an increase of 1 bit of information.

​

Now, apply this to some examples in natural selection:
1. In a population, there are 4 offspring born but selection eliminates 3 and only one reproduces. So we have N = 4 and M = 1. -log(2) (M/N) = -log(2) (1/4) = -(-2) = 2. We have gained 2 "bits" of information in this generation. Selection does increase information.

​

2. Let's take a more radical example. An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Now information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information.

​

3. Let's take a less severe example. A selection pressure such that of 100 individuals, 99 survive to reproduce. -log(2) (99/100) = -log(2) (.99) = - (-0.01) = 0.01.
So now we have only an increase of 0.01 "bits" in this one generation due to selection. But remember, selection is cumulative. Take this over 1,000 generations and we have an increase of 10 "bits". Now, Nilsson and Pelger have estimated, using conservative parameters, that it would take 364,000 generations to evolve an eye. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. 256: 53-58, 1994. Taking that over our calculations shows that the eye represents an increase of 3,640 "bits" of information.

​

Finally, note that selection must result in an increase of information by Dembski's equation. Any fraction always has a negative logarithm. With the negative sign in front of the logarithm (-log) that means that the value for information must be positive as long as selection is operative. The only way to get loss of information is for the number of individuals that reproduce (M) to be greater than the number born (N). This is obviously not possible.

---

Note that the equation used is the one implemented by William Dembski, a creationist, so it's validity is not in question.EDIT: I think it is also important to note that you've conceded that "micro"evolution occurs, meaning that you don't doubt that selection operates. Therefore, since selection must result in an increase in information, your position that microevolution occurs but information does not increase is internally inconsistent.Also, I'd like you to please describe for me the barriers which you believe exist that would prevent many many "micro" evolutionary changes from amounting to a "macro" evolutionary change.[This message has been edited by ::, 01-23-2004]

Only if it's under a pyramid made of gopher wood.

To this in Message 96: "The answer is obvious, it was ..." due to particularly globally temperate to tropic climates developing lush vegetation and habitat conducive to fish and fauna population expansion.

Whatever, Oh no, dear boy! NO! If you accept there was such an artifact as the Cambrian explosion, it also means you must accept the stratigraphic significance. Which means you accept that it happened relatively quickly rather than it being an artifact of the flood. etc...Touche. etc...Unfortunately there isn't a single species found at the Cambrian base found today. More importantly, there are large taxonomic groups completely absent. Where are the marine vertebrates? etc... That is, teleosts, placoderms, sarcopterygians, cetaceans, etc... Where are the bryozoans? Where are the nematodes? Where are the cephalopod molluscs. etc... More importantly, why is NOTHING, & I mean NOTHING that is found in the Cambrian base found today? etc...Why are their animals AND plants predating the Cambrian explosion? etc...If birds & water creatures of all kinds were created on the same day, why aren't there any birds in the Cambrian explosion? etc...Of all the creatures mentioned in the bible why isn't a single one of the Cambrian fauna mentioned? etc...The question simply is this, why did so many taxa appear relatively so quickly at the Cambrian base. I often wonder why creationists bring up the Cambrian explosion when it only poses one important question to evolution, but at the same time in no way constitutes a falsification, but blows biblical creation completely & utterly out of the water. If the Cambrian explosion really were a creation event, then there is a mighty amount of macroevolution to be done before we get anywhere near the present flora & fauna.You simply have no idea. LAUGH OUT LOUD!!!!!!!!!Show me where a single terrestrial plant predates the Cambrian? Show me the bird that IS the earliest known tetrapod. etc...Thus proving, once & for all that creationists engage their mouths before their brains, if they bother to engage them at all. etc...Let me make it absolutely 100% crystal clear, Whatever. The fact that you happily accept the Cambrian explosion as being a creation event means it wasn't affected by the flood. It therefore stands to reason that all fruit & seed bearing plants appeared during the Cambrian explosion, & also aren't affected by the flood. The utter & total absence of angiosperms & gymnosperms (thats flowering & cone bearing plants, including all grasses) in Cambrian/Precambrian rocks completely falsify the creation account. etc... (just leaving my paragraphs open, etc...)Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

quote:

---

What I hear is that life is losing genetic information,

---

I invite you or whoever told you this, to go to my threads on the new immune systems discovered in an African family (of prostitutes), and the new species of plant which is threatening aquatic plants worldwide, and show me calculations which explain how they have lost genetic information.Frankly I don't believe "information" can be measured in the way ID theorists claim, but even so, here are some concrete examples that defy ID convention.

quote:

---

geneticists are trying to do is repair this loss of genetic information

---

I am unsure what you are talking about. As far as I know geneticists try to understand genes and genetics. They have no emergency mission they must undertake. I mean that very concept implies that geneticists believe they know everything about genetics and know that it is not moving toward some correct end goal.

quote:

---

The cambrian explosion happening over millions of years is just an assumption

---

And a pretty good one given not just radioactive dating, but positions within strata and requirements for metamorphic effects to influence readings.Does your theory not make an assumption that 1) radioactive dating must be wrong, because 2) the cambrian explosion must be short, in order to make the point that 3) the TOE could not produce speciation in that small a time, so that one has evidence for 4) life being designed, which is supports the idea that 5) Xian religious doctrines regarding life are true? Each of those points are assumptions which drive ID. It is possible to take out that last one, but most IDers don't.In the end the cambrian "explosion" may be just an illusion of how previous life was preserved, or how that age's life was preserved. Environment and that sort of thing.But assuming the fossil record is accurately representative of all life, so that the cambrian explosion is real, this is what has shaped the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Under this "explosion" could very well have occured over 10,000 or 100,000 years.Life was much different back during that "explosion", with predation being different (life was still relatively simple and not as many fixed predators in the system). So while life is constantly changing now, we have pretty well adapted and thus fixed predator prey relationships. That gives the illusion of greater stasis in life. Radical change is not likely to occur until something throws the current order out of equilibrium (locally and/or globally).You can see some examples of sweeping change with the new species of plant that has come to threaten other marine fauna (most notably in the Med). It went from one plant to all over the world in a very short time. That will upset the ecology of systems until a new balance is formed (or humans reset the old balance by eliminating the new specie).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

::, I don't feel double copied gene/chromosomes is an increase in information, that makes as much sense as making two copies of the same page, extra garbage information, though I believe micro-evolution explains how the creatures that were on the ark survived and diversified since the biblical flood, recessive genes, natural selection, and the gene pool, etc...mark24, The creatures that could swim, survived in the flood waters, insects, on floating debris, lot of bloating debris for the creatures to feed on, reptiles, insects, fish, etc...not that some insects survived on the floating debris as larvae, seeds replentishing the herbs, etc... the flood washed off the earth, and it only was 15 cubits above the highest mountain, and the flood only happened over 40 days and nights, etc...
P.S. If there were pre-cambrian fossils it was probably caused by liquefication shuffling the fossil base, and all the other fossils settling within the sediments of biblical flood answers why it appears the Cambrian explosion gives the illusion it happened over long periods of times, the sediments that buried the fossils happened suddenly, however, the Creationists see these sediments as evidence, the evolutionists incorrectly believe these sediment were laid down over long periods of time, etc...holmes, If you calling copies an increasing of information, I call a new gene being formed out of thin air like wings forming so you could fly, etc...the increase in information for this to happen in the natural, etc...its not happening, etc..., information that would make that makes a new kind of creature, not where they becomes a new species because of microevolution, natural selection, etc...mutations is a decreasing of information, it a deforming gene, that not increasing design, etc...Evolution has no evidence to support live macro-evolves to increasing complexities, extra copies, is just garbage information, etc...P.S. It all resides on the dating methods, but even here you see the creationists Snelling bringing up a wood fossil that dates young by C-14 dating yet old by all other geological considerations, you have granite exibiting helium in amounts to suggest the granites that underlie all the sediments were formed quite recently, you have all the rocks that are uprising due to the frost, that would all be on the surface if these sediment were laid down millions of years ago, its called the farmers curse, every year frost is pressing up more rocks which their sprinkled tops get snagged by the farmers plow, where he keeps adding to the side of his field, etc...I'm told geologists believe these rocks are quite a recent phenomenom, and I agree it was caused quite recently, its called the biblical flood sediments(glaciers that formed suddenly by freezing flood waters also contributing to their sediments as they melted), etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-23-2004]

quote:

---

Loudmouth, Dual porosity requires water(Water Table,etc...), your not factoring in the weak electrical current generated by earth ground (the electron sink), I thought I heard that its possible to connect a copper radiator in stream lower than the house, why people have used a water flowing and connect an insulated copper wire to the insulated metal roof, to generate an electric current, etc...

---

I am starting a new thread for you, Whatever, on dual porosity etc... You seem to be asserting your position on faulty dating in every thread, regardless of topic, so I thought it might be handy to concentrate it within one thread. etc....I may be gone this weekend, but may check in sometime. etc...PS (etc...) You might want to bone up on the reactivity of argon, and the solubility of isotopes in water, etc... Not just solubility between elements, but also between isotopes of the same element. etc... Oh, and etc...