Help me understand Intelligent Design

quote:

---

From there on in your post the quotes are talking about probabilities based on an outcome specified in advance.

---

No actually, technically you're wrong, in the case of Dr.Eden, that much is clear. Read it carefully and identify specific outcome infered somewhere in that quote:

quote:

---

Dr. Eden said:
"what I am claiming is that without some constraint on the notion of random variation, in either the properties of the organism or the sequence of the DNA, there is no partcular reason to expect that we could have gotten any kind of viable form other then nonsense."

---

From my vantage point, he is saying that, as Para pointed out, of all the unspecified results we could've had, the probability distribution of what "should've happened" by random, causes him to conclude that the combined forces of natural selection regulating an accumulative alléatoire mutation process, "shouldn't", based on the properties of organisms or the sequence of DNA, have produced "any kind of viable form other then nonsense."If you wanna argue that the present outcome IS non-sense. We'll take it from there. But that would contradict the vary principle of NS's role and intrisic mechanism. Therefore I doubt you will.and nor in the case of Dr.Grassé, nor in the case of Dr.Crick is specified outcome in question in those quotes. Or even inferred as far as I can tell.In the case of Dr.Crick, he argues the improbability based on the nature of the DNA itself, just like Dr.Eden. Not specified outcomes.

quote:

---

Quite the contrary. I am looking for a simple clear one line explanation of what you are trying to argue. As best I can tell, that isn't anything you have yet provided.

---

No you do want me to repeat myself, but that's ok. I will.

quote:

---

The accumulative selection of "Random" Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution.

​

My problem is with the "Random" part in this equation.

---

I say ID, you say random...the rest of this discussion deals with why we disagree on that very specific point remember?

quote:

---

or, in other words:
If you were to teach ID in schools, what mechanics would you be teaching?

---

No you need to deal with the fact that you're asking the wrong question about ID because you are placing it in the wrong spot in the equation. This is where we disagree.Refer to my previous post.

quote:

---

1) would you feel like your "concerns" would be addressed (and confirmed) if some sort of self-regulating principles were discovered (comparable to emerging order in chaos theory and such...) which would show that there is a naturalistic means by which NS is provided with "better than random" material? Would you feel like such a discovery would illustrate your point? Would it matter whether this is a naturalistic mechanism or something undefined (like a "designer")?

---

I'm not sure I understand, pls provide further elaboration

quote:

---

2) do you think there's research going on in that direction and do you think this research is done under the "ID" banner?

---

Unfortunately I haven't read a single ID book yet. Only books and material against ID. Most of my knowledge on ID comes from them actually. So I'd be curious to find out as well. I will though, because I'm about to start reading Dembski & cie soon.

quote:

---

Or, in other words, is it your assumption that our hope to find something along these lines rests with those who go under the "ID" banner, and do you feel like opposing "ID" sort of equals blocking any research in this direction?

---

I never thought of it that way. It may very well be, since ID is still under debate.

quote:

---

3) do you have concrete examples of objective evidence, aside from "gut feeling", that some such mechanisms should exist?

---

I don't see ID as a mechanism, but rather what the mechanism points to. For Nug and friends, the mechanism points toward "randomness". I don't ask them to explain the mechanism of "randomness", there is no such thing. We infer randomness, and that, based on an EHDI as Fisher says. This is where me and everyone else disagree. But they unfairely ask me for a mechanism when i never argued that there is one in that sense.

quote:

---

You only said that after I pointed out the first time that you endorsed Grassé's view. I could not have read your modification because you had not written it yet.

---

There he goes with his nit picking, avoiding the central issue. I never said you did read it either btw.what is your point here?

quote:

---

I think you are utterly wrong but then maybe I just haven't a clue what you are talking about.

---

Hummm...wasn't it Ned who said:"In this context "random" is a description of the outcome of the detailed mechanisms."According to what I read, you didn't call "randomness" a "mechanism" in this case, but "the description of it's outcome". This sounds an aweful lot like what I said, which was, that "randomness" isn't the mechanism, but rather, to quote myself, "what the mechanism points to".Two ways of saying the same thing, so does it mean we are both wrong in our understanding of randomness then? Maybe you will explain?If not, I rest my case.

case rested

quote:

---

Anyone ever compliment you on your niceness abilities, Ned? You show more patience with the most incalcitrant debaters that most other people I know.

---

You're debating skills amaze me. But I don't think free insults will win any arguements here. Statistically, I've received more insults then valid points unfortunately.

I meant everybody else...just about

quote:

---

Hmm, yes, I do remember that. My apologies.

​

Still, it isn't obvious that your arguments have anything to do with this. It's a question of whether the original mutations are random, so the improbability of the result of accumulated mutations would not be relevant.

---

It may not be obvious on both sides actually. Because I had to debate this subject on alot of different levels with alot of different people at the same time. All the while, as the late rapper Tupac Shakur would put it, it was "Me against the world" on this thread. So I can understand that the debate became confusing to follow. Because at each turn, I was answering a number of different people none stop, each with their own different and specific questions and objections.In another context, perhaps it would have been easier to get certain points accross more clearly without having to rewind a 20 page long thread before posting with a full scope of the debate in question. Nonetheless, since I think we are clear on what we disagree on, though we may not agree, I personally enjoyed discussing this topic with everyone of you. I've learned of many interesting ways to look at the subject in the process. Looking forward to bumping into each one of you in other topics here on EvC.thank you

Thank you nwr,I will consider this option in the future. But all in all, I greatly appreciated this opportunity to exchange, dispite the short comings of it being done in a public thread.I enjoy my stay so far here at EvC and will stick around for more interesting discussions no doubt.And I truly respect and appreciate the fact that you show empathy for the position I found my self in. Thank you for that as well.cheersThis message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-20-2005 05:21 PM