|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 10 Categories of Evidence For ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Actually, that would be better stated as "some" IDists accept common descent. Behe, Gene and others are in the minority but they do exist. Dembski, Cordova, myself and others take an opposing view. There are several camps developing in ID just as there are your closed universalists verses your flat universalists, relativity gravitists verses graviton gravitists in physics, etc. Wait a second. In the whole "teach the controversy" argument of ID proponents, they point to various scientists having differences regarding specifics of the evo model, and call that evidence for why it is a faulty and failing model. Doesn't that mean what you just said about ID, is an indication that ID is faulty and failing? But let me move beyond that to another question... what criteria allows you, Dembski, and others to oppose the position taken by Behe on common descent? And I don't mean lack of info, I mean what positive info do you have for a model with no descent and only multiple creation events? As far as I understand it Dembski does not deal with any physical evidence at all, and is only part of constructing the mathematical and philosophical tools necessary to detect design. I am unsure how one who does not work with the fossil evidence can possibly claim to have evidence for multiple creation events, rather than a single initial creation, with descent unpacking from preprogrammed data?
Why could this intelligence not have come from another universe? We don't have to get into metaphysics if one ponders how this could occur through a singularity in a black hole. It may not be so painfully obvious if you discard norms of mundane thinking and go a bit deeper. What other universe? Now you have another universe and an ability to move from one to another? Wouldn't Occam's Razor come in to play somewhere about now? Evolution does not require extra universes. By the way, since you guys appeal to design and function, what is the point of moving through a hole to another universe billions of different times to leave behind different biological entities, instantly disappearing and covering any trace that they had been there? This is to ask, what is the function of the entities to the designer and what were they designed for? All of our probes and even our Voyager craft had obvious function outside of their own existence, for our utility. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I did say almost anyone's definition of information didn't I?
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 05-12-2005 04:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Jerry Don Bauer writes: do note that they entered this experiment with a preset goal: "The motivation was to evolve an oscillator of a precise frequency without using capacitors." But their goal never was to evolve a radio. That emerged on its own as a completely novel way of tackling the problem of survival in a world where only oscillators survive. It was "invented" by the mindless procedure that was followed in the experiment, which essentially did nothing but mimic the process of evolution.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: Further note that there are all kinds of designed equipment in this experiment The nature of the materials in inconsequential. For the process it was just "gefundenes fressen", or: whatever was available.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: quote: How does anyone know this when you openly state above: "If they themselves don't know how the evolved circuits work, their intelligence cannot be responsible for the design..." And yet they conclude that the signal was "invented" by a mindless process of evolution? They could know this if they don't even understand it how it's working? Well, it's pretty clear that the radio wasn't the experimenters' idea. So, whoever invented it, it wasn't them. Therefore, it must have arisen spontaneously from the mindless procedure. There are no other candidates.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: Electrical waves are not similar to genomes. Radio signals are not similar to evolving populations of organisms. The thing that evolved in the example was the radio, a piece of hardware. Nothing was said about evolving radio waves. Please try to avoid misinterpretations of what other people write.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: If you are to show evolution with anything resembling a biological system, I would suggest we stay in biology. The process of evolution consists of nothing more than random mutation of mutable material and selective pressure on the results of those mutations. This can be shown in any model that can handle these two mechanisms.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: I understand there is no goal in evolution. That was not my point. The fossil record is an accurate record of around 80% of the earth's biotic history. If creatures evolved the way Darwin suggested, do you really think there would be no evidence in the fossil record of one species evolving into another? Somewhere? Anywhere?? There is, but you refuse to accept it. What can I do? In the mean time, if I may ask, since you seem to emphasize the distinction between evolution and Darwinism, what exactly do you perceive as the difference between them?
Jerry Don Bauer writes: quote: And if the aliens arrived, then the system is designed by aliens. And what if they are aliens who are only smart enough to build space ships and know nothing at all about DNA? Anyway, who designed the aliens? Some other designer, probably? And who designed them? I hope you can see where this is going.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: Why do you think life on earth could not be seeded by aliens? I don't. But then, neither do I see any evidence for it. Nor do I see any evidence for ID. For science to harbour such theories, it needs at least some plausible reasons to start investigating them. Reasons, I might add, that cannot be explained any other way. I just think that evolution (Darwinism, if you like) explains things just fine, so, for now, it doesn't need these theories.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: Intelligent designers in the lab have tried to synthesize these complex molecules from scratch and have not succeeded. Surely we can weigh this fact, compare it with the fact that no one has ever seen it form in nature outside an organism and draw a hypothesis from this. I hope you realise that, the way you put it, it seems very much as though you are pleading against ID.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: quote: [...] It is direct evidence for intelligent design because it supports a tenet of intelligent design: "loose" information will tend to degrade over time (become more disorganized) rather than evolve with complexity. If that's true, then mustn't we also conclude that an ice crystal is intelligently designed? After all, when it melts, essentially the same thing happens. I just fail to see the connection between the degradation of something and any conclusions about its origin. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 12-May-2005 11:21 PM We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Welcome Zyncod:
quote: Unfortunately, you have this exactly bass ackwards. Information is the opposite of entropy (see Boltzmann). Information is just like energy in that it is maxed when concentrated. As it diffuses, entropy increases. This is easily shown mathematically using a simple statistical formula like S = ln(W) where S is entropy and W is the microstates of the information. If we divide a teaspoon of sugar into 10 gridded areas and then the cup of tea in which it diffuses into 150 we have: State 1: S = ln(10) = 2.30 State 2: S = ln(150) = 5.01 deltaS = S(final) - S(intial), delta S = 5.01 - 2.30 = 2.71 The entropy and therefore the disorganization has increased. You have lost information.
quote: Ok, so what? My point is that DNA is not synthesized outside of an organism in nature. If you are taking issue with the article I posted, fine. But that doesn't change my argument. In fact, you seem to be agreeing with me on this.
quote: Oh I can imagine a lot of things, doesn't necessarily give it any credibility in science. How do you know this is CSI? You are going to have to calculate it out to show this. And you think that replication is the definition of life? Then further define the word replication and we will go from there. I shall be respectful and hold comments on this until you define your terms appropriately.
quote: I would explain this for you, but you base the entire question on a false conception of ID. ID espouses that the genotype of extant organisms are a result of both initial design and evolution. In fact, this is the way we explain the supposed incompetence of the designer as some Darwinists (I don't argue with evolutionists, I am one. I just argue with Darwinists) seem to picture. This is to be fully expected. Hence, you simply misunderstand ID when you assume that everything we see in the genotype is a result of design.
quote: No it can't. There is no such thing as evolutionary theory as you have taken nothing through the scientific method TO the theory level. I'm a science purest, so let's keep our terminology correct. Biology explains this, not Darwinism.
quote: There is no such thing as a theory of ID and ID has nothing to say about the non-working vitamin C synthesis allele in primates. Again, this is biology. What you need to do, is to come to learn to think about this using the proper perspective. As a Darwinist you view biology with a different paradigm than do I, an ID theorist. It's still all biology. There is no ID biology. There is no Darwinist biology. You have not staked a claim to anything in science other than to flood academia with pseudo-science. You seem to see this mutation as some quasi-divine uber-manifest of the god of Darwin in action speaking with epiphanic thunder-vox. I see it for what it is, biology, with a simple, common sense explanation. Lower life progressed to more complex life, both plant and animal, over time. At a given point in time vitamin C became quite prevalent in the diet as it is today. Now am I going to have to bring an argument to you that some plants today are rich in vitamin C like I had to with the other one I was recently discussing this with? No? Thank you. When this C became available in the diet, omnivores that ingested this C no longer needed to systemically produce C and natural selection caused this mutation. And in what organisms would this environment have selected for? ALL of them, people, chimps, gorillas, little funky tree monkeys, little monkin' tree.........So you are quite surprised to see this mutation in common with primates? Now. Since the rest of your post is based on a non-existent theory of ID, or non-existent ID theorems and badly confuses evolution, which is noted both in Darwinism AND ID with Darwinism, clarify all of that, respond to the above and we'll boogie with this discussion. Thanks for your post. Oh, again....welcome! Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: In what case? Where there is no intelligence, I would think if selection occurs we might rule out intelligence. But I don't know that there's a universal rule. Are you suggesting that natural selection was also intelligent selection? If you are a theistic evolutionist, I have no problem with this, but other than this, I would have to ask you where the intelligence came from.
quote: Who am I to rule out models before I consider them. Present one and I will. Describe this strict environment and explain what it is doing to the organism.
quote: I don't know that it does. Shouldn't we be trying to confirm or falsify common ancestry?
quote: First, please clarify yourself and come to use these terms more precisely. When you speak of evolution of the inner ear, this just means a change over time in the inner ear not how it originated. Second, I don't even recall discussing the inner ear. Can you link me back?? Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
This is easily shown mathematically using a simple statistical formula like S = ln(W) where S is entropy and W is the microstates of the information. If we divide a teaspoon of sugar into 10 gridded areas and then the cup of tea in which it diffuses into 150 we have: State 1: S = ln(10) = 2.30 State 2: S = ln(150) = 5.01 deltaS = S(final) - S(intial), delta S = 5.01 - 2.30 = 2.71 The entropy and therefore the disorganization has increased. You have lost information. Lord have mercy, you're a hoot! It's been obvious for some time that you're just flailing, but this is too much! You are claiming that the thermodymic entropy of the system is a function of the number of chunks in which you choose to subdivide the system, and that these arbitrarily chosen subdivideed chunks are microstates! And you finish by claiming that you've demonstrated something about information, which claim is the first mention of information in the "demonstration". You're too much, Jerry!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Well I'm not Dembski. I think I've pointed this out to you before, if not it was someone else and forget that. If you have questions for him, go over to one of his sites and ask him. Finally, I don't oppose any positions Behe has in ID because common descent doesn't have a thing to do with ID. As to the rest of your post....um...your posts are beginning to get a tad silly. I saw another one somewhere to me something to the effect that the second law no longer applies to chemical reactions in open system. I'll answer what I can of this one but don't expect a whole lot of enthusiasm in the future to answering this stuff. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
When this C became available in the diet, omnivores that ingested this C no longer needed to systemically produce C and natural selection caused this mutation. And in what organisms would this environment have selected for? ALL of them, people, chimps, gorillas, little funky tree monkeys, little monkin' tree.........So you are quite surprised to see this mutation in common with primates? Stop it, Jerry, you're killin' me here! I haven't laughed like this for months. Yes, of course it's not surprising ... but you forgotr to mention that other omnivores such as pigs, chickens, and raccoons do synthesize vitamin C. So the fact that one subset of omnivores, within which we find literally thousands of strtiking similarities, shares this exact mutation (when we know that there is at least one other mutation that would knock out vitamin C, and there's probably hundreds or thousands that would) is not surprising at all; it's only yet another comfirmation (albeit a dramatic and easily understood one) of common descent among primates. Like us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: You almost write like you think this mindless procedure is some form of ethereal intellect. How can you believe in what seems like some weird pocket of unknown fuzzy cognizance and still keep the atheist slogan as your sig? So tell me. Is this how you think evolution acts in a human genome?
quote: So who's idea was it? Do you have any stereos sitting around the house that evolved into place? And if these things just evolve all the time, why in the heck do people have to manufacture them? I mean, if a simple radio can evolve, what is to stop it from further evolution and before you know it we have a Boze system sitting out in the desert? Why is it I have to pay people to manufacture radios when they just poof themselves from nothing?
quote: Well I don't think I can think of any material that isn't mutable. So I guess everything in nature just evolves. I guess I'm silly to even but a lamp as if I wait long enough that sucker will surely poof from the aethers.
quote: I keep repeating this, but I keep being asked it, so here it goes again: One need be careful to distinguish between the terms Darwinism and evolution. The latter is a science based concept that studies variations in the gene pools of populations of organisms over time. When a virus mutates as in SARS, HIV or Bird Flu, biologists study these genetic changes hoping to fully understand them and eventually even to be able to predict and manipulate them for the betterment of medicine. This study of evolution is hard science entailing many areas such as genetic defects in infant births, errors in transcription during nucleic acid replication and the inheritability of certain genetic traits through interbreeding (animal breeders have the concept of evolution down to an art, it would seem). Conversely, Darwinism is a wishy washy conception (it seems that no two Darwinists can agree on much of anything) that takes this area of biology and extrapolates it ridiculously outside the realm of any known science. Darwinism boldly concludes that man sprang from a common ancestor with apes, that huge land dwelling animals called pakicetus somehow had their legs morphed into flippers and crawled into the oceans to turn into what we know today as modern whales, that reptile like organisms called therapsids almost ethereally evolved from reptiles into mammals and that larger mammals such as horses and elephants slowly evolved from tiny, less complex ameboids in violation of some of the most well proven laws of science. No tenet unique to Darwinism has ever been shown to be true in laboratory or field experiments in a manner that is non-controversial to all observers (natural selection is not a tenet unique to Darwin as it pre-existed his writings and is basically little more than common sense). All of the evidence that Darwinists have from which to draw these extraordinary conclusions is a few fossils from which more than one conclusion could be drawn if any conclusions can be rightfully drawn at all from this scant evidence. Even simple speciation, a core component of Darwinism, cannot be shown or rejected in these fossilized substances as a sexual species is defined as two organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile, viable offspring and do so naturally. How do Darwinists go back in time sometimes millions of years to do these breeding experiments in order to hypothesize what species evolved into other species? They cannot, as to even contemplate this is ludicrous. Yet, they readily draw these conclusions and teach them as theories of science without any empirical experimental evidence what-so-ever to support them and ignoring the fact that these theories have never been taken through the observation -----> hypothesis -----> theory process inherent in the scientific method in order for theories of science to be termed a theory of science to begin with.
quote: Nah...Not the same thing. Darwinism doesn't predict that ice crystals don't melt. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: LOL...Thermodynamic entropy? Um....no. Do we need to take a class maybe?With that lack of education you have the gall to make fun of me. Sheeze.. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
So who's idea was it? Do you have any stereos sitting around the house that evolved into place? And if these things just evolve all the time, why in the heck do people have to manufacture them? I mean, if a simple radio can evolve, what is to stop it from further evolution and before you know it we have a Boze system sitting out in the desert? Why is it I have to pay people to manufacture radios when they just poof themselves from nothing? Bad analogy Jerry. Did you not get the message on the 747 in the junkyard? If you have to be told the same thing too many times people will start to find you boring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: When people start finding me boring, Ned, they will stop posting to me. When people begin posting to me STATING I am boring, readers will understand that they just don't like the way the argument is going but do not have the intellect to do anything about it. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
So I completely removed this possibility from my example - the constraints are provdied by the user. well, no. not completely. you're still matching it to a predetermined design. the word itself is being artifically selected by a master intelligence (the user) who is manipulating the system to create something. evolution runs on its own, with no user, and no pre-design to match to.
Also, you say this as if it were different in principle from what happens in nature. It isn't. Just as nature provides constraints in the form of temperature, weather, water supply, food supply, predators and so forth, the program provides constraints, too. These constraints are what provides selection, which is one of the two key components of evolution: descent and with modification and natural selection. well, that's not what i have issue with. i have issue with the pre-conception and matching process, and that it doesn't run on its own.
Following the rules of grammar isn't going to produce a story, or even very many rational sentences. I can see a lot of sentences like, "The tinted cognition drove to the rusty iota." and evolution does not produce perfect organisms, either.
What would be your selection mechanism for choosing the "winners" in each generation? evolution rarely choose winners. it just chooses LOSERS. so to duplicate the model, all you'd really have to do is throw all of the ones that are unfit according to grammatical rules and parts of speech. if you want to throw in actual selection, then we could add a user or users in, to vote for their favourites. and as someone pointed out, darwinian poetry works quite well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Ooops, I almost missed Mammuthus' post and I have determined he is a *cough* scientist:
quote: These are your words. I thought you asked me if I thought bacteria and viruses were the only thing evolving. I replied: "I'm not saying that bacteria and viruses are the only organisms evolving, they are just among them." My answer was no. So what is your beef with this? To me, it's you not making a lick of sense. All I'm saying here is that all organisms experience evolution. But you disagree with this? Then what magic aura do you assume cloaks a species to ward off evolution?
quote: A paper don't have to quote every single logical proposition that it adds substance to. Look at the math in that paper and then apply that math to the math we use to show evolving and devolving systems. We need go no further than that, my friend. Math speaks much more than words. If you Darwinists would learn this, you would all be IDists. Can you mathematically refute the math I threw out? No? Then your only choice seems to be to accept it or ignore it. The choice is yours.
quote: I don't think I conflate anything--you're just playing with semantics. Darwinists embrace naturalism and espouse that life began on earth through natural processes and evolved into the present through natural processes. You know you agree with this, so why are you afraid to lump it all in together? It seems you are afraid to defend your beliefs. Ahem....excuse me, but I think I want to just defend half of my beliefs here, thank you.
quote: I don't have to test for anything. Science tells me this is all designed by preprogrammed code. You seem to think there are little Darwin buggies floating around in there doing Dawkins magic since you don't recognize the code inherent in organisms.
quote: Yeah, hey: before you mega-scientists came along everyone thought that man was more closely related to bananas than chimps. You have revolutionized human knowledge here.
quote: Really. Because if there is indeed any intelligence up the old family lineage, I would surely think it might use similar blueprints for similar critters. I'm sure this doesn't make much sense to you as you would conclude that an elephant SHOULD be more genotypically related to an acorn. Does this duck float in your world?
quote: It DOES require design in the form of preprogrammed code. If course, you don't think code is designed as you have failed to comment each time I have asked if you if you think Windows XP can just poof out of a rock. Let me help you here, Mr. biologist: Yes! I see no reason at all that Windows XP cannot just magically poof out of a sheep's ass. Now. I want the whole world to learn what your science really is. A fairy tale that no one with an IQ over 80 could ever take seriously. Nobody in this country does, and you have only Buffaloed yourself.
quote: I need a model. I have given you one for design. You would EXPECT that some very simple replicators formed naturally and then grew over time? I don't see why you would expect this since it goes against everything science knows about simple molecules evolving over time into more complex ones. And give me some papers on the lab work or withdraw the comment. Not at all professional to present your opinion as an abstracted paper.
quote: Well, I would think that one good way one might judge you to have no evidence is that you don't present any.
quote: Let's see these studies. I mean, I don't think that anyone will argue with you that genes... ahem...JUMP from parent to child. But how do the gene entities start suddenly jumping horizontally? Is there like a gene fairy that starts causing this? There's certainly nothing in biology that would cause genes to start jumping across things.
quote: Well don't start seeing things as support for your position just because you mention them. Expound on this. Present some evidence of this. What characters are you referring to?
quote: No. Why? Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Ok, Jerry I think you have had adequate time to get some idea of how to debate in good faith.
When asked to support your assertions you will start to do so or you will have a short suspension. You will also reduce the number of so-called 'smart' remarks. This sort of childishness does not constitute an adequate response:
JDB writes: Yeah, hey: before you mega-scientists came along everyone thought that man was more closely related to bananas than chimps. You have revolutionized human knowledge here. There are a number of places where you have tried to duck and weave to avoid answering points made. It is becoming obvious that you have no answers. The first suspension will be for only 24 hours.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024