Help me understand Intelligent Design

quote:

---

But certainly not by chance. Not when we look at what is involved in the actual "randomness" of mutatation itself. It's Highly Improbable enough to be dismissed.

---

Is it ? Please make your case that it is.

quote:

---

You are not adressing the improbability factor here, you're refusing to deal with it with great lack of objectivity...So you always comeback to something I'm not even arguing about. Therefore, your arguements keep getting shut down at every turn.

---

You are very badly wrong. Firstly you have yet to establish that there is an actual problem here. Simply insisting that your subjective opinion is objective fact is not a valid argument.
And you certainly haven't "shut down" my arguments - ignoring them is not good enough.

quote:

---

Right, a million and one time. I understand, but the selection is not a function of the mutation, mathematically speaking. It's like whenever your cornered with the fallacy of the random mutation question, you shoot back the evolution equation but backwards. The Selection variable is not a function of the mutation variable, it's the other way around.

---

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Selection has no effect on which mutations occur - and I haven't said that it does. It DOES have an effect on which mutations are retained, and spread through the gene pool. And that is where our argument fails. That is Fisher's point.

quote:

---

The real question is, before there can even be a NS, does the mutation occur randomly?

---

As I have stated the answer appears to be yes in the sense that the probability of a mutation is not directly influenced by whether or not it will prove useful in the current environment.

quote:

---

According to Fisher, the step-father of non-teleological darwinism, it's an Extremely High Degree of Improbability,

---

That is not what Fisher said. Fisher was talking about the result of selection, and certainly not individual mutations. And that really IS objective.

quote:

---

so therefore, in light of Ockham's razor, I would have to say no. It doesn't. You can't shoot back Selection to that question/objection because it's mathematically embarrasing when you do so.

---

Since your argument relies on grossly misrepresenting Fisher, and in fact the quote from Fisher agrees with my position I'm hardly the one who should be embarrassed.

quote:

---

Big deal, so the man quoted a man who made a wrongful taxonomical estimate. I'll reject the taxonomical error as such, sure, but the fundamental question still stands, that's my point.

---

Behe endorsed a major error.
And as I have pointed out even Behe and Sermonti - biased against evolution as they are - accept that the "fundamental question" has been answered.

quote:

---

As if all these travails weren't bad enough, Mr. Larson honestly discusses the range of horrific crimes against humanity that trace back to Darwinism, from eugenics in the U.S. to the German militarism of WWII and exterminationism of WWII. So, it must be asked, what could it be that makes the faith in Darwinism of so many secular intellectuals so unshakable. The answer to that likely lies in an episode to which Mr. Larson, besides the treatment here, has devoted a whole book, the Scopes Trial. As the rise of Christian fundamentalism was fueled not just by the scientific threat to Creationism but by the moral implications of Darwinism and the crimes it spawned, battle lines were drawn between the religious and the secular and the turf on which they fought most dramatically was the teaching of Evolution in American public schools. From that point on Darwinism seems to have become a totem as much as a scientific theory with supporters as little interested in its truth or falsehood as its opponents. Rational inquiry became impossible for either side since to express doubt would be to yield a portion of the battlefield to a hated foe.

---

Review of Edward Larson's Evolution : The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (Modern Library Chronicles) - BrothersJudd.comThanks for this article Brad, I enjoyed it. I particularly find this passage relevant to the entire debate.

Are we getting closer? I'm not so sure, lol...What is it exactly that you are arguing? Is it that "evolutionists" stubbornly deny purpose and intent, even though the words they use (mimicing, adapting...) constantly illustrate that purpose and intent are "inevitable"? I haven't seen it worded this way. Please explain why vestigial organs are NOT a problem for intelligent design? Then you can't maintain that you agree 'intelligence' is not needed to explain the actual phenomena. Why add something that is unnecessary?

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Selection has no effect on which mutations occur - and I haven't said that it does. It DOES have an effect on which mutations are retained, and spread through the gene pool. And that is where our argument fails. That is Fisher's point.

---

Right, again with the arguement backwards. Selection has no effect on mutation. You said it, but therefore, what are we arguing about? Think about it? What are we arguing about then?We are arguing about the probability of the mutation resulting into a leaf-like bug. We all know that in order to get there, it had to have a genetic construct of such potentiality, but that this potentially, in reality, would result in a bug-like creature is the EHDI part of that equation, so that by Ockham's razor, it's alot more logical to conclude that it was Designed that way by a Designer, then to say it was random.That being said, if you tell me that the Selection Process, in and of itself, is what Fisher refered to when he said EHDI, that would make no sense. The selection process, deals with the organism's ability to survive quite simply and naturally. The Highly Improbable part, is that it mutates to the point that it would then be naturally selected. To call the NS process EHDI in and of itself would be silly, and that's not what Fisher meant. There is nothing Highly Improbable about The Survival Of the Fittest In and Of Itself, come on now?

quote:

---

Please explain why vestigial organs are NOT a problem for intelligent design?

---

In that it doesn't preclude design at all, it only details it's directional path as given by it's Designer. Not all religions depend on that Bible by the way. Some look at Nature as their Holiest Book, as did Native Americans, Ancient Egyptians, etc. And in books like the Qur'an references are made to God guiding and evolving His creation on to perfection. This is only an example to show my initial point on this very question, which is, that vestigial organs are a problem to people who say the earth and all it's creatures were created 6000 years ago, as they are, wrapped up and ready to go. Which would be a textual and not an allegorical understanding of their Scriptures. But I fully embrace vestigial organs yet, I believe in God. Now can you show me how that constitutes a contradiction?Of course, not knowing what I mean by God can be a problem, but that sort of discusion doesn't belong in this forum.

quote:

---

Then you can't maintain that you agree 'intelligence' is not needed to explain the actual phenomena. Why add something that is unnecessary?

---

Well I did clarify that point in a response to Crash or Paul.

Ok, so we've had 13 pages here and now it seems we hit the fundamental issue here: you can not believe that random mutations combined with natural selection could together offer adequate efficiency to cause the adaptation that we see in organisms?

quote:

---

Right, again with the arguement backwards. Selection has no effect on mutation. You said it, but therefore, what are we arguing about? Think about it? What are we arguing about then?

---

Evolution, which combines the effect of selection and mutation.

quote:

---

We are arguing about the probability of the mutation resulting into a leaf-like bug.

---

Wrong. We are arguing about the probability of EVOLUTION producing a bug resembling a leaf.

quote:

---

We all know that in order to get there, it had to have a genetic construct of such potentiality, but that this potentially, in reality, would result in a bug-like creature is the EHDI part of that equation, so that by Ockham's razor, it's alot more logical to conclude that it was Designed that way by a Designer, then to say it was random.

---

That is very unclear. After all we are starting off with a "bug-like creature". That is a given for this discussion. We are discussing whether it is possible or not for this species to evolve so that its descendants resemble a leaf.

quote:

---

That being said, if you tell me that the Selection Process, in and of itself, is what Fisher refered to when he said EHDI, that would make no sense.

---

The quote - your quote from Fisher is: Thus your EHDI is the outcome produced by selection. That is what the quote says.

quote:

---

The Highly Improbable part, is that it mutates to the point that it would then be naturally selected.

---

That is certainly not what Fisher said - the quote does not even mention mutation.

Tis true about the drake but I was only a teenager then.What I do not understand is how Will Provine can sleep at night knowing that I, BSM, however am not to be taken seriously.This possible purpose = function lay behind an extensive attempt of me to materialize population genetics before his eyes. I even PUT the paper copy IN his Cornell Mail Box. He will give Johnson an ear but not my dear... me!
http://EvC Forum: All species are transitional -->EvC Forum: All species are transitional
There seems to be a disconnect between intuitive and discursive cognitions going on.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-11-2005 11:51 AM

That indeed doesn't need to be a contradiction, depending on what you mean with your 'God'...Fact: we have vestigial organs
Question: does this rather support a 'long distance radar' design (= purpose) or a mere 'ad hoc solution' design?There is no question it supports the latter. It can not EXCLUDE the former but it certainly asks for stronger additional evidence. And probability calculations will need to be damn convincing to turn things around again!BTW, what would be a reason for you to concede that there is not some teleological component after all? Or is it a GIVEN? Could you repeat it again, please? Try to be clear since I'm not native english (and the others will also appreciate, lol)

quote:

---

That is very unclear. After all we are starting off with a "bug-like creature". That is a given for this discussion. We are discussing whether it is
possible
or not for this species to evolve so that its descendants resemble a leaf.

---

Ok, replace possible by probable, because I said it was possible. If it wasn't possible, there would be no basis for this 13 page discussion, because there would be no leaf-bug, period.

quote:

---

Wrong. We are arguing about the probability of EVOLUTION producing a bug resembling a leaf.

---

That's what you wish the arguement was about, but it's not. So, at least I'm arguing about the probability of the mutation resulting into a leaf-like bug.

quote:

---

Thus your EHDI is the outcome produced by selection. That is what the quote says.

​

That is certainly not what Fisher said - the quote does not even mention mutation.

---

"Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability"Now if mutation is not inferred in this statement, then it's a silly statement by all accounts of what we understand to be NS in and of itself.That's a ridiculous claim, mutation is what makes the NS process a EHDI. Not "survival of the fittest". It doesn't make any sense.

quote:

---

There is no question it supports the latter. It can not EXCLUDE the former but it certainly asks for stronger additional evidence. And probability calculations will need to be damn convincing to turn things around again!

---

Strange, I honestly feel the exact same way, but the other way around.

quote:

---

That's what you wish the arguement was about, but it's not. So, at least I'm arguing about the probability of the mutation resulting into a leaf-like bug.

---

So essentially you have not been talking about evolution - which is what I've been talking about, and what Bottaro is talking about and what Sermonti and Behe were arguing against. Instead you are arguing against something nobody has claimed, that a single mutation makes a bug that looks at most a little like a leaf produce descendants a lot like a leaf.
And the relevance of that would be ?

quote:

---

"Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability"

​

Now if mutation is not inferred in this statement, then it's a silly statement by all accounts of what we understand to be NS in and of itself.

---

Of course the question is not whether mutation is involved somehow, the question is what the "EHDI" Fisher referred to was. And that quite clearly is the outcome of selection. That is exactly and explicitly what the quote states.And understanding natural selection the obvious result is in preserving a particular combination of mutations - out of the many that have occurred. Something that would be "EHDI" without the cumulative effect of selection.If you want to disagree then I suggest you produce the context of the quote.

quote:

---

Of course the question is not whether mutation is involved somehow, the question is what the "EHDI" Fisher referred to was. And that quite clearly is the outcome of selection. That is exactly and explicitly what the quote states.

​

And understanding natural selection the obvious result is in preserving a particular combination of mutations - out of the many that have occurred. Something that would be "EHDI" without the cumulative effect of selection.

​

If you want to disagree then I suggest you produce the context of the quote.

---

You've stated that already, to which I said, Mutation is obviously inferred, or else the quote wouldn't make sense. You seem to want to agree with this in your first setence:
"if course the question is not whether mutation is involved somehow"This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-11-2005 01:36 PM

Of course the issue at dispute was what the "EHDI" referred to.Your claim that it refers to a mutation prior to selection is clearly wrong since Fisher states that the EHDI is the product of selection.