What exactly is ID?

quote:

---

These ERV's have the same features as retroviruses (e.g. LTR's, gag, pol, env), they can become infectious, their insertional biases match modern retroviruses, etc. It quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and flies like a duck but you want to tell us that it was magically poofed into the genome and isn't due to a retroviral insertion.

---

No, I'm saying that they are there for a purpose. They are one of the causes of genetic variability we see today.

quote:

---

What I do know is that if I am ever brought up on murder charges I want you in my jury. All my attorney needs to do is claim that fingerprints are not evidence. They are merely swirls of oil that were designed to capture dust floating through the air. Any DNA match of hair left at the crime scene is not evidence of me being at the crime scene. Oh no. It is just evidence that the DNA in my body and the DNA at the crime scene had a common creator.

---

How is this relevant to what we are discussing now?

quote:

---

So the goal of ID is not to explain anything in biology? That's news.

---

The goal of ID is to detect design.

quote:

---

Can you answer the question or not? Why is there more LTR divergence in an ERV shared by all apes than in the LTR's of an ERV shared by just humans and chimps? Evolution can easily explain this, but it appears that ID once again is incapable of dealing with evidence in the world of biology.

---

Your questions are a non sequitur. It's like me asking you, why do all monitors have a transparent screen? What is the point of that question?

quote:

---

Why is it a better explanation, other than just asserting it? Why is it that every time we observe retroviruses inserting into a genome they insert randomly among billions of bases in the genome, even in genomes that are 100% identical? Why is it that up to 25% of cancers can be directly linked to a retroviral insertion into an oncogene in a somatic cell? Is that part of the design, giving people cancer?

---

You don't know it's a random insertation. You simply assume it. For an example, if the sheep didn't have a particular ERV insertation, they would not be alive today. Because it is used in the development of the placenta.

quote:

---

We report here in vivo and in vitro experiments finding that the envelope of a particular class of ERVs of sheep, endogenous Jaagsiekte sheep retroviruses (enJSRVs), regulates trophectoderm growth and differentiation in the periimplantation conceptus (embryo/fetus and associated extraembryonic membranes). The enJSRV envelope gene is expressed in the trophectoderm of the elongating ovine conceptus after day 12 of pregnancy. Loss-of-function experiments were conducted in utero by injecting morpholino antisense oligonucleotides on day 8 of pregnancy that blocked enJSRV envelope protein production in the conceptus trophectoderm. This approach retarded trophectoderm outgrowth during conceptus elongation and inhibited trophoblast giant binucleate cell differentiation as observed on day 16. Pregnancy loss was observed by day 20 in sheep receiving morpholino antisense oligonucleotides.

---

Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation - PubMedAnd you have to be able to tell apart design and effects of natural forces on the original design. just because we have problems with viruses today that doesn't mean that they were made that way in the first place. They probably were made for maintenence of living organisms, but some have degenerated since than and are causing trouble. Besides, even if they were designed to be malicious, that still means they were designed.

quote:

---

Just ask anyone who has siblings if common descent is possible.

---

That doesn't imply that polar bears and horses are related.

quote:

---

Because you would need to start over. That is a drastic reduction in fitness. You would need to reevolve EVERYTHING. You would need to reevolve tRNA's, ribosomes, polymerases, DNA binding proteins, on and on and on.

---

So what? There is nothing stopping evolution from doing it. What is the physical restraint that is making evolution not be able to evolve a different geentic code? If tehre is none, then it's possible for evolution to do so. So evolution also predicts that.

quote:

---

On the flip side, there is nothing stopping a designer from starting from scratch. In fact, for an omnipotent and omniscient designer starting over takes just as much time and effort as copying previous designs.

---

That's true. And even for a non-omnipotent one. And it just so happens that there are instances of a non-standard genetic code. So tell me, was this wan designed, or did it evolve?Non-standard Genetic Codes

quote:

---

Completely false. Homology DOES NOT IMPLY A NESTED HIERARCHY. Automobiles share homology, but they do not fall into a nested hierarchy as we would expect from a design process. A nested hierarchy is a PATTERN OF HOMOLOGY, not homology itself.

---

Big deal. You still have a contradiction. It's just a one word of difference. Which still doesn't make any difference. Because a pattern of similarity is still similarity. So if in one case similsrity implies something, and in another it does not, it's a contradiction. You still have a contradiction. Thus it's unfalsifiable. Besides, cars do have a pattern of homology. Just like frying pans evolving from metal cups do, as I have shown few posts ago. You can order things in such a way to imply a pattern of similarity.

quote:

---

Secondly, if evolution is true and if life shares common ancestry then we should observe a nested hierarchy among lineages that did not participate in horizontal gene transfer. This is the TEST.

---

Why? Explain how does this come from the idea of evolution.

quote:

---

So we should not find any fossils with feather impressions and three middle ear bones.

---

Why not? If some animals evolved those traits, why not the others? What's stopping them?

quote:

---

We should not find living bats with feathers.

---

Why not? If birds evolved feathers, why not bats?

quote:

---

We should not find an ostrich with mammary glands. An ostrich with mammary glands would share homologous structures with mammals, but this would break the nested hierarchy and would falsify common descent. Do you understand this or not?

---

No it wouldn't. You could simply claim it evolved independently. Just like eyes supposedly evolved independently. Furthermore, CD is still unfalsifiable. Because when you do find something at odds with a standard tree, you simply re-classify the animal. And than it again has all the "right" features.

quote:

---

No, the measurement tool is crude.

---

Not gonna fly. I don't care if it's too crude. That doesn't change the FACT that measurements show that there is no such a thing a a single nested hierarchy. Now we can discuss the reasons for why is that so, but you can't say that there is such a thing, and that we simply can't construct it.Basicly your argument fails because I could just as well say that the reason why we have some nested hierarchies i precisely because the tools are too crude. Why is my explanation worse than yours? It's not, it's actually better. All the previious supporting evidence actually wa done of older tools. And with newer and newer tools, we find more and more evidence that does not support one tree of life. That's what we see. You can't deny that. The only thing you can do is discuss why is this so.

quote:

---

This is also what the author said:

​

"Just as it would be futile to use radioisotopes with modest half lives to date ancient rocks, it appears unrealistic to expect conventional linear, homoplasy-sensitive sequences to reliably resolve series of events that transpired in a small fraction of deep time."

---

Well good for him. That's what he believes the reason to be. I could also say that the reason why we have nested hierarchies at all is because tolls are not precise enough, and in teh future, we are going to have even less of them.Besides, the author said that measurements done on teh state of the art equipment also show discrepencies. So however you look at it, this is not what you want.

quote:

---

The evidence presented here suggests that large amounts of conventional characters will not always suffice, even if analyzed by state-of-the-art methodology.

---

Yes, as you can see, even if we analyze them with the best equipment we have, we still get discrepencies. So if you argue that tiscrepencies are due to bad equipment, I could just as well argue that nested hierarchies are due to bad equipment.In the end, the present evidence tells us that there is no one single nested hierarchy.

quote:

---

I thought we were talking about evolution which occurs at the level of the population, not at the level of the individual.

---

And we are. But to know what is happening, we have to look at the individual. And we have to look at what exactly is it that's happening inside it.

quote:

---

So you are saying that if evolution is true that the next generation of humans could look like winged dogs and nothing like apes? Am I getting this correctly?

---

Exactly. Some macro-mutation could happen, and change the species in one generation. If you disagree, does than mean there are limits to evolution?

quote:

---

Let's look at the Glofish. This is a fish that carries and exact copy of the jellyfish GFP (green fluorescent protein) gene. This allows the fish to glow under UV light. This exact copy of the jellyfish GFP gene is not found in any other vertebrate fish. It is a clear violation of the nested hierarchy. Guess how it got there? Human designers. Humans have no problem moving genes between species and in clear violation of the nested hierarchy. Humans have no problem with getting mice to express human proteins in vivo. "Humanized" mice have been a huge advance in biomedical research. GM foods have been a big step forward in increasing yields and quality of product.

---

Yet all the discrepencies we find in nature you simply call noise and homoplasy. Why not call it design?

quote:

---

So why do we see a nested hierarchy if design is true?

---

But we don't see it. We see it only if we cherry pick the results. Bsides. I already showed you an example of designed nested hierarchy in Russian dolls. Design can produce nested hierarchy.

quote:

---

Why don't we see ostriches with mammary glands? Why don't we see bats with feathers?

---

Why should we? This is a non sequitur. This question doesn't imply anything. Yous imply found a bunch of animals and found that only those animals have certain features. That is all, that doesn't imply anything.And if some day they were to be found to have soem other feature, or some other animal was found to have one of the features that was thought to be present only in a certain group, that trait would not be called monophyletic anymore. And that's that. There would be a reclassification and nothing would be falsified. Than you could just pick another trait that you find in a certain group and claim it only happens in this group. Untill it's also found in another one.

quote:

---

You are begging the question.

---

Does saying that a computer was designed to work as it does beg the question?

quote:

---

Fish have a two chambered heart and gills. Mammals have fur and a four chambered heart.

---

Does that mean that they don't share a common ancestor? If having eyes does imply a common ancestor, does not sharing the gills imply a non-common ancestry?

quote:

---

So where is the fish with fur or the mammal with gills? Why don't we see these things if design is true?

---

Why should we?

quote:

---

So let's summarize. ID can't explain ERV orthology, biogeography, the pattern of homology, the fossil record, and really anything else in biology. So why do you feel it necessary to come into a thread and discuss ID and biology since ID doesn't address anything in biology?

---

Because ID is about detecting design. If you can't accept that, than that's your problem.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Did you know YOU can download and run SETI and help in the detection of extraterrestrial life? Does ID have anything where a layperson can detect design and know it is, in fact, designed?

---

You can start by visiting this web site.Forbidden

quote:

---

I'm beginning to wonder what bizarre defect in my psychological makeup is causing me to continue a dialog with you. You exhibit a cycle that gives no indication of diminishing, yet here I am, apparently poised to reply yet again while expecting something different to happen this time.

​

The cycle is simple. Someone says something, and you either misinterpret it or throw in an unrelated red herring.

​

So they reply and clarify, and you do it again.

​

So they reply and clarify yet again, and you do it again.

​

Let's take this little example here:

---

As we shall see shortly, you are the one who is confused not me.

quote:

---

Clearly you didn't understand the question. I could clarify yet again, but until you help me understand how your response makes any sense in the context of the question there isn't any point to responding to this or anything in your message since it is full of equally puzzling malapropisms, but on the scale of concepts rather than words. It's like you're using something that feels like logical thinking to you but only to you.

---

One of the questions youa sked was: "Can you name any legitimate field of science that makes an analogous claim in the absence of supporting evidence? You can't, right?"And my answer was SETI.So where's the problem?

quote:

---

Can you name any other field of science that holds an equivalent position as a basic tenet?

---

Once more. SETI.

The position of intelligent design is that it is not possible to know anything about the nature of the designer. SETI has no such equivalent position where in the absence of any evidence they claim there's something it isn't possible to know. Why don't I give you the setup question again and you can give it another try.Unlike any other field of science, without any evidence ID states a priori what it isn't possible to know, specifically, anything about the designer. Here's a quote from Of Pandas and People: Can you name any other field of science that holds an equivalent position as a basic tenet?--Percy

That is an unsupported assertion. With SETI, it is simply out of the bounds of our current technological capabilities to get from the design to the designer. They do NOT proclaim it out of bounds by fiat like ID does.You are the one who drew the comparison, it is up to you to support it with more than just your say so.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

Which is true.

---

What is true ? Are you now trying to assert that you did NOT argue for the loss of all function ?

quote:

---

What if they were different proteins of the same size N?

---

You said that they weren't different proteins. That is why I have to point out that more copies of the same protein isn't that unlikely.

quote:

---

According to you, one of them did. The proteins come from genes. Yet you need proteins to have a DNA replication. Since it would lead to an infinite regress to say this has been happening since forever, it's obvious that one came first. How? Well, you claim one came about by chance.

---

Since DNA replication was preceded by RNA replication we cannot say that the assembly of any protein was by chance. You are treading on unknown ground when you make that claim.

quote:

---

Okay, and how would you define this equation.

​

---

I would say that y is proportional to the logartihm of x

quote:

---

Great. And what is this?

​

1/2 - 1
1/4 - 2
1/8 - 3
1/16 - 4
1/32 - 5
1/64 - 6
1/128 - 7
1/256 - 8
1/512 - 9

---

It's an inverse logarithmic relation.

quote:

---

Which is a statement that you yourself do not agree with. You basicly want to stop science in its tracks. When science doesn't know something, it infers it. I don't know if you actually read what I wrote few posts ago, but I'll re post it now. Here it is...

---

No, I don't want to stop science in it's tracks. The progress of science does mnot depend on making wild guesses that happen to be convenient to ID proponentsAlso your long paragraph is very, very silly. We conclude from induction that the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is very, very high. We do not conclude that it is just as likely not to rise or to perform odd manouevres as you suggest, There is no similar body of evidence validating the use of uniform probabilities - a method recognised as unsound by statisticians.

quote:

---

You are missing the point. It's not about what we DO know, it's about what we DON'T know.

---

No, I am CONTRADICTING the point by poiting out that the choice of uniform probability in this case is supported by knowledge. If it were not, it would be unreliable.

quote:

---

It's not a strawman, because materialism is also implied today.

---

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. However the fact is that inference to naturally existing intelligences is entirely permissable within methodological naturalism - which is based on the natural/supernatural dichotomy, not the natural/artificial dichotomy. Thus any assertion that methodological naturalism rules out intelligence is false and a strawman.

quote:

---

No, by definition can not be. Our universe is the nature. Everything that is outside of it is supernatural. So by definition the multiverse and big bang are supernatural.

---

No, our universe (which includes the Big Bang) is not regarded as necessarily all of nature.

quote:

---

No, I simply said that KC is not used for the probability of events. Shannon information is used instead.

---

Which is completely by Kol irrelevant since they are sequences and have a Kolmogorov complexity whether it is calculated or not. And that complexity is not determined by the length of the sequence.

quote:

---

But it is by the amount of proteins

---

Not really. Two different proteins would be more complex than two copies of the same protein - and very likely more complex than three or four. Certainly by Kolmogorov complexity - and Dembski's measure is even more sensitive to other factors.

That is by and far one of the worst websites I have ever come across. I wouldn't use it for a reference even if it were advocating evolution. It hasn't even been updated in 4 years, the layout is garbage, navigation is terrible, links mostly end up nowhere (some even lead to pornographic material). You really should have something better.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

Well SETI isn't a field of science. It is using science to try to find some evidence of ET life, but It is in no way a "field" of science.Care to try again?Also, Percy has explained clearly why it doesn't work as an answer, but as always you refuse to even consider you might be wrong.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

If SETI is "basically a subset of ID", why do you never hear the people involved in SETI reciting the nonsense that Behe or Dembski come out with? It is perfectly possible to search for extra-terrestrial intelligence without telling dumb lies about biology or spouting discredited nonsense about "irreducible complexity" or making dumb mistakes about information theory.As a matter of fact, the methodology of SETI is necessarily opposed to creationist beliefs. For they try to distinguish between signals which are the product of intelligence and signals which are just the product of, for example, quasars. But according to creationist dogma, the signal of a quasar is just as much a product of intelligence --- indeed, of supreme intelligence --- as the sort of things that the folks at SETI are looking for.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How does this put their origin and mechanism of insertion in doubt? If an ERV induces variation how does that discount their insertion through standard retroviral mechanisms? It relates to your use of magic to discount obvious conclusions. You have consistently shown that ID is not able to detect anything in biology. Therefore, I can only conclude that there is no intelligent design in biology, otherwise ID could explain these features. No, it is not. I am asking you to use ID to explain observations. That is what scientific hypotheses/theories do, they explain observations. The observation is that an ERV shared by all apes has more LTR divergence than an ERV shared by just humans and apes. Evolution can explain this. If common ancestry and evolution is true this is exactly what we should observe. You are saying that common ancestry is wrong. You are saying that ID explains things better. So how does ID explain this observation? False. The random insertion of retroviruses is OBSERVED. It is an observation. Even an ERV rescued from the human genome (i.e. Phoenix) randomly inserts into the genome just like its modern counterparts.So once again you have to ignore observations to make ID work. That doesn't bode well. How does that put the origin of the ERV in doubt? Can you please show us how it is impossible for an ERV that is produced by random insertion of a retrovirus into the germline CAN NOT result in a function in the lineage? How does function negate the very natural origin of these sequences? Based on what evidence? If they have degenerated then how do you explain the higher divergence in ERV's shared by all apes than in ERV's that are lineage specific or shared by just 2 species of ape? If they all degenerated from a set time in history then all of them should be equally distant, but they aren't. You stated that common ancestry is impossible. Are you retracting that statement? I already told you what is stopping it. A drastic reduction in fitness. Such an organism would be selected against, strongly. Evolution can't go backwards. You might as well claim that gravity can make rivers flow uphill. This forum is about ID. What does ID say? No it is not. A bat with feathers would violate the nested hierarchy and would falsify the theory of evolution even though feathers would be a homologous structure shared by bats and ducks. Homology in and of itself does not indicate common ancestry or evolution. Not every pattern of homology will indicate evolution. There is only one pattern that will indicate evolution, and that happens to be the pattern we observe. Cars and frying pans do not fall into a nested hiearchy. You have just supported my argument. Designed things do not fall into a nested hierarchy. If they did then only one lineage of cars would have airbags. Only one lineage of frying pans would have teflon coating. This is not what we see. For example, we can find a Mazda and Chevy that have the same tires, but different engines. We can find two Mazdas that have the same engine, but different tires. There is no nested hierarchy even though there is homology. Do you understand the difference or not? Because bats were never birds. Evolution doesn't work that way. For bats to evolve feathers you would need to give bats the same genetic background as the non-feathered ancestors of birds. It is impossible for a bat to have that genetic background. Not only that, but once the bats have this impossible to get genetic background they need to acquire the same random mutations in the same order, another near impossibility. So your only recourse now is to put words in my mouth in order to discount my arguments? That's dishonesty at its acme. Why don't you find an ostrich with teats and then see how I react. Or why don't you give us the ID explanation of why we don't see a single species with teats and feathers. Care to explain?Secondly, the vertebrate eye evolved once. The insect eye evolved once. The cephalopod eye evolved once. These are lineage specific adaptations. They have lineage specific anatomy, histology, and development. The only thing that ties them together is their end function. You might as well try to claim that the insect leg, bear leg, and squid leg are also homologous because you can call them legs. What is being said is that the tool is too crude to resolve branches that are very close together. You might as well claim that binoculars don't work because they can not resolve separate stars in the Andromeda galaxy. It's not the equipment. It's the lack of data. Modern species represent a tiny fraction of the species that have existed. Using their genomes as a phylogenetic tool will not be able to resolve branches of extinct species that branched very close to one another due to the missing data. What it can give us is a cruder, larger picture, and it does that quite well. Please show how all known kachina dolls fall into a single nested hiearchy. Please compare the characteristics of each kachina doll population and show how they fall into a single nested hierarchy.BTW, the ability of something to physically fit inside another is not a nested hierarchy. The individual is meaningless in terms of evolution. If all we look at is the individual then we have to remove two of the important mechanisms in evolution: differential reproductive success and competition between organisms. If an individual has two offspring, what does that mean? What if that individual has 100 offspring, what does that mean? How can we make heads or tails of what the individual means without comparing the individual WITH THE REST OF THE POPULATION? You tell us? Why call it design when you have shown that ID can not explain any observations in biology? That was my question. Why should we or shouldn't we? What does ID predict as to the existence of fish with fur, mammals with gills, birds with teats, bats with feathers, etc.? Why do we only see the combination of features predicted by the theory of evolution?

The problem is that scientists can use the characteristics of the radio signal to reverse engineer the mechanisms that the alien race used to create the design. From the strength of the signal and the frequency one can derive the types of coils used, as one example. One can infer the mechanism of design from looking at the design. IDer's can't or won't do this.You need to find a new example.

quote:

---

The position of intelligent design is that it is not possible to know anything about the nature of the designer. SETI has no such equivalent position where in the absence of any evidence they claim there's something it isn't possible to know. Why don't I give you the setup question again and you can give it another try.

---

SETI has the same position. Based on just the signal they would detect from space, they can not know anything about the designer. Now, if they actually saw him, than they would know a lot about him, but then they wouldn't be needing any method for design detection in the first place.

quote:

---

Unlike any other field of science, without any evidence ID states a priori what it isn't possible to know, specifically, anything about the designer. Here's a quote from Of Pandas and People:

---

Because that's logic. Pure logic. If we detect CSI (regardless of what you think of it) we can not know what was the source. Was it supernatural, extra-terestrial, or human. Or maby a very intelligent animal. There is no information leading to that conclusion.Therefore, either we actually see the designer, or we use philosophy or religion to tell us. There is no other way.

quote:

---

Can you name any other field of science that holds an equivalent position as a basic tenet?

---

Any field of science that is based on design detection.

quote:

---

That is an unsupported assertion. With SETI, it is simply out of the bounds of our current technological capabilities to get from the design to the designer. They do NOT proclaim it out of bounds by fiat like ID does.

​

You are the one who drew the comparison, it is up to you to support it with more than just your say so.

---

The point is that based on science of design detection alone we can't know the identity of the designer. If we had better technology, to actually eitehr go to outer space and find some alien designer, than that would not be the case of design detection. But of simply observing the designer.

quote:

---

What is true ? Are you now trying to assert that you did NOT argue for the loss of all function ?

---

Nope, why would I say that?

quote:

---

You said that they weren't different proteins. That is why I have to point out that more copies of the same protein isn't that unlikely.

---

I know, and now, I'm asking you what if they were differnet but of the same size N.

quote:

---

Since DNA replication was preceded by RNA replication we cannot say that the assembly of any protein was by chance. You are treading on unknown ground when you make that claim.

---

You very well know that this is a pure assertation. Nobody knows what preceded what. So if we are going to accept the idea that something came first, than one of them came by chance, by your logic. So which one was it?

quote:

---

I would say that y is proportional to the logartihm of x

---

Great.

quote:

---

It's an inverse logarithmic relation.

---

Thank you. So it's an inverse logarithmic relation. Fine. So do you now accept that complexity and probability have an inverse logarithmic relation?

quote:

---

No, I don't want to stop science in it's tracks. The progress of science does mnot depend on making wild guesses that happen to be convenient to ID proponents

---

Saying that the Sun will rise tommorow is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT a wild guess! It's an inference, with which you would agree on. And it's based on an assumption!WE DO NOT KNOW IF IT WILL RISE TOMMOROW! WE ASSUME IT!But this is the best assumption we can make. If we don't make it, science is DEAD! Do you understand this or not?

quote:

---

Also your long paragraph is very, very silly. We conclude from induction that the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is very, very high. We do not conclude that it is just as likely not to rise or to perform odd manouevres as you suggest, There is no similar body of evidence validating the use of uniform probabilities - a method recognised as unsound by statisticians.

---

You got your analogy wrong. Infering that the Sun will rise tommorow is a generalized case of principle of insufficient reason.We claim uniforma probability not that the sun will make a wild action in the sky tommorow, but that it will continue doing the same thing it has been doing from the past few thousand years.Just as we assume that the probability will decrease in the same way when we increase the number of dice. This is also an assumption. The same one as assuming that the Sun will rise tommorow.

quote:

---

No, I am CONTRADICTING the point by poiting out that the choice of uniform probability in this case is supported by knowledge. If it were not, it would be unreliable.

---

AND YOU ARE WRONG!The article clearly says that PoIR is use not because we DO know something, but because we DON'T know something! We use it because, in this case, we do not precisely know the mechanical laws that govern the dice!The assumption is taken because of our ignorance, not knowledge!

quote:

---

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. However the fact is that inference to naturally existing intelligences is entirely permissable within methodological naturalism - which is based on the natural/supernatural dichotomy, not the natural/artificial dichotomy. Thus any assertion that methodological naturalism rules out intelligence is false and a strawman.

---

I said materialism rules out intelligence.

quote:

---

No, our universe (which includes the Big Bang) is not regarded as necessarily all of nature.

---

Wow, that's wrong on so many levels.1.) I didn't say BB itself. But the CAUSE of BB. The cause is obviously outside our universe.2.) As I said, unter the multiverse hypothesis, our nature is just one of many natures. And any one of them is by definition supernatural becasue it's outside our nature.3.) If you claim that our universe is just a part of the whole nature, than this is an unfalsifiable claim, thus not science. Becasue that emans that everything is nature, and thus nothing is nature. Eitehr soemthing is, or isn't nature.

quote:

---

Which is completely by Kol irrelevant since they are sequences and have a Kolmogorov complexity whether it is calculated or not. And that complexity is not determined by the length of the sequence.

---

Which is why I ddin't use KC for the probability, obviously.

quote:

---

Not really. Two different proteins would be more complex than two copies of the same protein - and very likely more complex than three or four. Certainly by Kolmogorov complexity - and Dembski's measure is even more sensitive to other factors.

---

But we are NOT using KC for protein formation. We are using SI instead. And you very well know that the higher the complxity, that SI claims the lower the probability.

quote:

---

That is by and far one of the worst websites I have ever come across. I wouldn't use it for a reference even if it were advocating evolution.

​

It hasn't even been updated in 4 years, the layout is garbage, navigation is terrible, links mostly end up nowhere (some even lead to pornographic material). You really should have something better.

---

quote:

---

This page was last modified 16:19, 2 March 2010. This page has been accessed 28,947 times.

---

LOL, anyone?