Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   paper against evolution, for intelligent design
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 100 (73756)
12-17-2003 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by FliesOnly
12-17-2003 10:10 AM


Re: ID Site
FliesOnly<< You're kidding right? If not, then I'm not sure the point you are trying to make here. All along, we have been telling you that ID is not a science, and you have (to your credit I guess) stuck to the notion that ID is a valid scientific field of study. However, this last statement by you only helps us prove our point. Loudmouth used his example to show the arbitrary nature of your ID arguments. If I correctly understand what you wrote, you basically support his idea then, by saying that his example is valid as long as his predictions are consistently based on the physiology and morphology of the unicorn. Really?>>
Let me take another stab at this. Here is a comment from another thread similar to Loudmouth's:
"The problem with ID is that it is unconstrained and thus useless as a scientific explanation. What about pink fairies, the unicorn, Zeus and company, little green men from Mars... All valid ID 'explanations' but what do they explain? Until ID can constrain its explanations, no explanations really exist."
The reply was:
"While there is an obvious connection between intelligent engineers and things like machines, I don’t see the connection between pink fairies, unicorns, Zeus, or little green men from Mars and machines. Unless of course, you want to envision such entities as intelligent engineers, in which case, their pinkishness, fairyishness, unicornishness, Zeusishness, littleishness, and greenishness are all irrelevant."
Now if you can't understand this simple logic that's your problem not mine. As for ID not being science I never said it was. I said ID is a theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses. The theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses in science is based on the metaphysical assertion that methodological naturalism proceeds upon an a priori assumption of ateleology. ID removes the assumption of ateleology from the epistemology of origins research and the evolutionary sciences, putting them on epistemological par with archaeology and SETI. It adds potential alternatives to the spectrum of possibilities to be considered. It allows a broader range of hypotheses.
If a teleological perspective can lead to predictions/testable hypotheses then it is useful. I've shown this can be done. I could care less if in your opinion it isn't science. Are you seriously suggesting that the only suspicions worth following up on are ateleological suspicions? If so, you must be laboring under the philosophical presuppositions of an atheist.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by FliesOnly, posted 12-17-2003 10:10 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Loudmouth, posted 12-17-2003 1:24 PM Warren has replied
 Message 93 by FliesOnly, posted 12-17-2003 2:17 PM Warren has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 100 (73780)
12-17-2003 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Warren
12-17-2003 12:12 PM


Re: ID Site
If a teleological perspective can lead to predictions/testable hypotheses then it is useful. I've shown this can be done.
Just so we are on the same page (which I think we are) this is from Ask Jeeves: "Teleological notions were commonly associated with the pre-Darwinian view that the biological realm provides evidence of conscious design by a supernatural creator." Or, in other words, Intelligent Design. So, teleological perspecitives start with an a priori assumption of a designer, possibly a supernatural designer. So, through this perspective, you give characteristics to the designer (such as the need for RNA proofreading via human logic) and then look for that design in organisms. It is the process of assigning characteristics and a set of logic to an a priori assumed designer that weakens the ID argument. This process is done arbitrarily, ie pick your favorite diety and assume it thinks like you do. The real problem occurs when humans would have designed something in an entirely different way than what is seen in nature, eg human retina, appendix, lower back, etc., not to mention other organisms who are far from effeciently designed even by human standards. This is why I have a problem with the predictions and testable hypotheses that a teleological framework creates. The causation of design is arbitrary, the reasoning behind design is arbitrary, and the designer is arbitrary.
Ateleological framework starts with a mechanism as a framework, random mutation plus natural selection. The mechanism supplies its own logic, not something that is personally contrived. There is no diety involved, it can be seen more as diety neutral, where as teleologically you have to pick a diety. The basis for an ateleological framework is that natural phenomena have natural explanations, all you have to do is find the natural mechanism to explain the outcome. This perspective does work of which there are many examples in the "Is it Science?" forum. One example I posted in another topic is this (Pubmed abstract which I will summarize here): A random sequence is added to a functional gene in a virus. This random sequence reduced the infectivity of the virus. Through artificial selection (picking the most infective strains over a few generations) the infectivity was regained. The artificial random sequence introduced into the genome mutated and resulted in wild type infectivity rates. No designing was necessary to produce a functional gene, just random mutation and selection. How would a teleological framework predict this? It wouldn't because the gene was not designed.
Are you seriously suggesting that the only suspicions worth following up on are ateleological suspicions? If so, you must be laboring under the philosophical presuppositions of an atheist.
I know this statement wasn't aimed at me, but nevertheless, it seems to bring up an important point. Ateleological assumptions are rife in other branches of science, but this seems to be ok with you. In math, we don't assume that God makes 2+2=4, we assume it to be a natural consequence. Same with gravity, electricity, chemical reactions, etc. This is not athiesm. Why is it athiesm in relation to the biological sciences?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Warren, posted 12-17-2003 12:12 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Warren, posted 12-17-2003 3:24 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 93 of 100 (73795)
12-17-2003 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Warren
12-17-2003 12:12 PM


Re: ID Site
Warren:
First you say this:
Warren writes:
By all means - make predictions about cell biology using the concept of the designer as a unicorn. Just make sure the predictions stem from the unicorness of the designer...
Now, call me silly, but does that not say that predictions of a unicorn designer are ok with you, as long as these predictions are based on the "unicorness" of the designer?
Now you say (or relate back to an earlier reply at least) this:
Warren writes:
Unless of course, you want to envision such entities as intelligent engineers, in which case, their pinkishness, fairyishness, unicornishness, Zeusishness, littleishness, and greenishness are all irrelevant."
So are the relevent or irrelevent?
Then you insult me by saying this:
Warren writes:
Now if you can't understand this simple logic that's your problem not mine.
Warren, you have yet to demonstrate any logic what-so-ever to your arguments. They are nothing more than a collection of big words and contradictions.
You also say this:
Warren writes:
If a teleological perspective can lead to predictions/testable hypotheses then it is useful. I've shown this can be done.
When? Where? This thread has gotten quite long and I will admit that it is entirely possible that in a previous thread you presented a testable ID hypothesis, but to be honest I cannot remember reading it. If you have, would you please be so kind as to either repeat it in your next reply or supply me with the link back to your response in which it is located?
However, I will also admit that I have yet to see a testable hypothesis come out of ID that cannot be falsified in about five minutes. Maybe you and I have a different perspective on what we consider to be useful (or for that matter, what we consider to be a hypothesis).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Warren, posted 12-17-2003 12:12 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Warren, posted 12-17-2003 8:33 PM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 98 by Warren, posted 12-17-2003 8:52 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 100 (73810)
12-17-2003 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Loudmouth
12-17-2003 1:24 PM


Re: ID Site
Warren<< If a teleological perspective can lead to predictions and testable hypotheses then it is useful. I've shown this can be done.>>
Loudmouth<< Just so we are on the same page (which I think we are) this is from Ask Jeeves: "Teleological notions were commonly associated with the pre-Darwinian view that the biological realm provides evidence of conscious design by a supernatural creator." Or, in other words, Intelligent Design. So, teleological perspecitives start with an a priori assumption of a designer, possibly a supernatural designer. So, through this perspective, you give characteristics to the designer (such as the need for RNA proofreading via human logic) and then look for that design in organisms. It is the process of assigning characteristics and a set of logic to an a priori assumed designer that weakens the ID argument. This process is done arbitrarily, ie pick your favorite diety and assume it thinks like you do.>>
Two points. First, my ID hypotheses only require an assumption of a designing agent with human-like intelligence. Why? Because the things in nature that cause me to suspect ID happen to be things that look like products of advanced bioengineering. I'm not sure what a supernaturally designed thing would look like. So to infer ID I don't require evidence of perfect design.
Secondly, it doesn't even matter if an intelligent designer exists. It's my contention, for example, that viewing bacteria as integrated technology is a better perspective for understanding how bacteria function than viewing them as random goo. Viewing biological things as random and purposeless hinders scientific progress. Viewing them as designed machines is a superior paradigm operationally regardless of whether there is an intelligent designer.
Loudmouth<< The real problem occurs when humans would have designed something in an entirely different way than what is seen in nature, eg human retina, appendix, lower back, etc., not to mention other organisms who are far from effeciently designed even by human standards. This is why I have a problem with the predictions and testable hypotheses that a teleological framework creates. The causation of design is arbitrary, the reasoning behind design is arbitrary, and the designer is arbitrary.>>
I suspect you are assuming that my ID perspective is that everything in nature is the direct result of ID. Not so. Currently my ID inference is constrained to the origin of life: the original life forms were designed and followed by evolution. This perspective certainly allows for imperfection in nature.
Loudmouth<< Ateleological framework starts with a mechanism as a framework, random mutation plus natural selection. The mechanism supplies its own logic, not something that is personally contrived. There is no diety involved, it can be seen more as diety neutral, where as teleologically you have to pick a diety.>>
There is no diety in my teleological approach.
Science is built on the belief in repeatability. Repeatability is not a property of purely random processes. There are too many correspondences and linguistic relationships in the laws of physics that do not correspond to purely random processes. There is too much repeatability!!! We take repeatability for granted, but as math and information theory advance we realize this is a 'miracle'.
The reason for this is that modern quantum theory is becoming better described by information theory, and we are noticing repeatable phenomeon, and even if there are non-repeatable phenomenon, they may be at least describable algorithmically. Further, what is preplexing is the form of these laws is comprehensible like : F=ma. F=ma is an approximation, but such universal approximations do no easily emerge out of chaos.
We have laws of physics because the universe, although there are many chaotic phenomenon, there exist decodable sequences where we can make sweeping generalities on scant evidence. We can repeat things, and by faith accept they are repeated elsewhere.
For example we can test gravitational acceleration in the lab, and make rather sweeping generalizations. If not an ID hypothesis, science succeeds at least on an operationally pragmatic Design hypothesis that believes in repeatability to some degree.
For Evolution to proceed, even the "randomness" must be algorithmically constrained like a search heuristic. With unbridled randomness, you get chaos. The ability to replicate must be guaranteed at some point for evolution to succeed. Replication and repeatability are vital components, and it is these qualities (replication and repeatability) that are the antithesis for purely random processes.
Air is molecularly chaotic, but we are able to build airplanes because molecularly chaotic phenomenon are algorithmically constrained. We can model these constraints generally in ways like Bernoulli's equations (sweeping generalized approximations accepted on faith, amazing).
Science succeeds because we can make sweeping generalizations on faith without testing every special case. Theories succeed if we can at least constrain randomness or get randomness to drop out of both sides of the equation so to speak (as in the case of Bernoulli's equations).
For evolution to succeed it must be isomorphic (analogous) to an alogorithmically constrained process. We can let randomness into the mix, but it must be tightly constrained. We actually do see this in antibiotic resistance and B-Cell hypermutation. The mutation can be modelled as random phenomenon being algoritmically constrained. The randomness in B-Cell hypermutation is localized to only a part of the B-Cell. It's not the whole thing that mutates.
For evolution to succeed, the randomness is constrained and localized. So for at least a pragmatic description with thoughts of an Ultimate Intelligence aside, the fundamental design spec is constraining the extent randomness can propagate through the system. It cannot allow pure chaos. That's why I believe, "Random Variation" is a misnomer. We credit success of evolution too much to Randomness rather than the 'design' constraints on the randomness. Unconstrained randomness leads to randomness. Darwinism attributes the constraint on randomness to Natural Selection, but information theory is challenging that view severely as well as experimental evidence. Chaporale actually shows how the randomness is constrained at the cellular level.
The best example I think is Dawkins Weasal, and Avida programs. Evolution succeeds because the random elements were algorithmically constrained. The programs were not pure chaos.
In sum, the fundamental design spec: randomness must be constrained.
James Shapiro from the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago says:
"We can now postulate a role for some kind of purposeful, informed cellular action in evolution."
[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Loudmouth, posted 12-17-2003 1:24 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Rei, posted 12-17-2003 4:54 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 96 by Loudmouth, posted 12-17-2003 5:41 PM Warren has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 95 of 100 (73825)
12-17-2003 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Warren
12-17-2003 3:24 PM


Re: ID Site
quote:
Why? Because the things in nature that cause me to suspect ID happen to be things that look like products of advanced bioengineering.
Ah. Like these beautiful design elements?
How about you hear what geneticists think of the beautiful design of DNA (i.e., that it is complete and utter spaghetti code).
Have you ever worked with a genetic algorithm before? That's just what it's like.
quote:
It's my contention, for example, that viewing bacteria as integrated technology is a better perspective for understanding how bacteria function than viewing them as random goo.
How many times do we have to correct creationists about this strawman? Natural Selection != Randomness. The changes are random; the selection is based on a well defined criteria (long-term reproductive success). "Random goo" would die out and be replaced by "less random goo". After millions of generations, what you have is not really describable as goo at all, because it has continually been the subject of pruning by selective factors.
quote:
Viewing biological things as random and purposeless hinders scientific progress.
Random? No. Purposeless? Yes. Could you please elaborate on the purposes of things enumerated here, for example?
quote:
Viewing them as designed machines is a superior paradigm operationally regardless of whether there is an intelligent designer.
It is completely and utterly faulty for something that is, for all effects and purposes, spaghetti code filled with jury-rigged design and cooption.
If *humans* with superior biotech were to go in and design organisms, they would have things like telescopic vision. They would utilize things like RF communication. They would have coprocessors and other hardware to help out on tasks that neural nets are far less efficient and accurate at (such as mathematics and data storage), while utilizing neural nets for the rest of thought. Their "code" would be all in one place in cells, and be well documented and orderly instead of the piecemeal garbage-filled atavism-rich jury-rigged stuff we find in DNA. Nerve cells would attach on the *backside* of rods and cones (if we even bothered to use rods and cones at all), like it does in *more effective* vision systems in nature. All eyes would use the dual focal point eyes of birds, and . Etc.
quote:
I suspect you are assuming that my ID perspective is that everything in nature is the direct result of ID. Not so. Currently my ID inference is constrained to the origin of life: the original life forms were designed and followed by evolution. This perspective certainly allows for imperfection in nature.
And so how did the human lower back evolve to more resemble a quadraped's back, and our pelvis (which makes it harder to give birth) more like a quadraped's? I'll offer you a solution: perhaps it was the atavisms that we have hiding in our genes! Of course, that still won't explain our reverse-wired rods and cones, our faulty pain system, etc.
quote:
Science is built on the belief in repeatability. Repeatability is not a property of purely random processes.
It depends. The exact mechanism is often not repeatable, but the result is almost always repeatable (in a small context - in a larger context, chaos theory takes over). For example, if you remove the gene for metabolizing lactose from bacteria and leave them in an environment where most of the food source is lactose, they'll re-evolve it, from a completely different gene. Is the gene that it will evolve from guaranteed? Nope - even if you could get the initial starting conditions *precisely* the same, the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, magnified by chaos theory, would throw you off. Will it evolve it, though? Always.
If you're requiring exact long-term predictability, then meteorology, chemistry, and all of physics in general aren't sciences. Only mathematics is.
quote:
There are too many correspondences and linguistic relationships in the laws of physics that do not correspond to purely random processes. There is too much repeatability!!!
Please rephrase this; I can't tell what you're trying to claim.
quote:
We take repeatability for granted, but as math and information theory advance we realize this is a 'miracle'.
"We" meaning you and the handful of other creationists on the planet, and the ever-dwindling number in the scientific community. If the scientific community were realizing this, given that 45% of scientists in this country are theists, don't you think that creationism would be taking up a steadily *larger* percentage of their beliefs instead of a steadily *smaller* percentage? It's down to 5% now.
quote:
The reason for this is that modern quantum theory is becoming better described by information theory
There are several "information theories" out there, and they're all utterly different. The "information theory" that applies to quantum theory relates to how much spin data can be stored on a particle or pair of particles - and all of its information is created randomly!
quote:
and we are noticing repeatable phenomeon, and even if there are non-repeatable phenomenon, they may be at least describable algorithmically.
You citing quantum theory, and you clearly know nothing about it. Do you know what a wave function is?
quote:
F=ma is an approximation, but such universal approximations do no easily emerge out of chaos.
Are you trying to state that the establishment of the laws of physics have anything whatsoever to do with evolution?
quote:
If not an ID hypothesis, science succeeds at least on an operationally pragmatic Design hypothesis that believes in repeatability to some degree.
"To some degree". Yeah. It died with classical physics. The universe is random. Deal with it.
quote:
For Evolution to proceed, even the "randomness" must be algorithmically constrained like a search heuristic. With unbridled randomness, you get chaos.
It depends on what you call "unbridled". Do you consider a wave function to be unbridled? What about chaos theory, wherein minor changes to starting conditions amplify themselves over time?
quote:
The ability to replicate must be guaranteed at some point for evolution to succeed. Replication and repeatability are vital components, and it is these qualities (replication and repeatability) that are the antithesis for purely random processes.
That's abiogenesis. Not evolution. 40% of scientists, 43% of the US population as a whole, and far higher in the worldwide population, believe in theistic evolution, which typically includes God creating the first life.
quote:
Air is molecularly chaotic, but we are able to build airplanes because molecularly chaotic phenomenon are algorithmically constrained.
Set a helium balloon flying, and using incredibly precise coordinates, geographic, and climatic data, estimate its position in 1 year. You'll be completely wrong. Why? Chaos. Your argument only works on brief time periods in many systems.
quote:
Science succeeds because we can make sweeping generalizations on faith without testing every special case.
And it fails in high-tech applications. That's why generalizations, while useful, can't be relied on for every situation. They utterly fall apart on systems where errors can be amplified (such as the weather)
quote:
Theories succeed if we can at least constrain randomness or get randomness to drop out of both sides of the equation so to speak (as in the case of Bernoulli's equations).
They're still subject to randomness. Sorry! If you make something in which iterative errors can build up, chaos theory takes over, and two sets of results will diverge.
quote:
For evolution to succeed it must be isomorphic (analogous) to an alogorithmically constrained process.
And you get that from... where?
quote:
We can let randomness into the mix, but it must be tightly constrained. We actually do see this in antibiotic resistance and B-Cell hypermutation. The mutation can be modelled as random phenomenon being algoritmically constrained. The randomness in B-Cell hypermutation is localized to only a part of the B-Cell. It's not the whole thing that mutates.
Yes. Because the chemistry of the cell functions to induce mutation in a small subset of the genes more often than for the average gene (the average gene still mutating at a lower rate). Your point?
quote:
For evolution to succeed, the randomness is constrained and localized.
No, it's not. The high-rate mutation is localized.
quote:
the fundamental design spec is constraining the extent randomness can propagate through the system. It cannot allow pure chaos.
What "pure chaos" are you referring to? The ability of any piece of DNA to mutate in the number of different methods that are chemically possible?
quote:
That's why I believe, "Random Variation" is a misnomer. We credit success of evolution too much to Randomness rather than the 'design' constraints on the randomness.
You mean the chemical limitations of cells, which in some cases have adapted proteins which preferentially encourage the mutation of other parts of the genome, and otherwise altered the mutation process to make it more effective at adaptation. If you're more effective at adaptation, you're more "fit", and you survive.
quote:
but information theory is challenging that view severely as well as experimental evidence.
Which information theory - the one that discusses how much data you can compress without losing content (and how to compensate for a noisy communication channel), the one related to the spin of particles, or any of the other information theories?
quote:
The best example I think is Dawkins Weasal, and Avida programs. Evolution succeeds because the random elements were algorithmically constrained. The programs were not pure chaos.
How are they algorithmicly explained? As someone who has used Avida, I would be quite amused to hear your response (I've never heard of Dawkins Weasal before, though).
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Warren, posted 12-17-2003 3:24 PM Warren has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 100 (73841)
12-17-2003 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Warren
12-17-2003 3:24 PM


Re: ID Site
Well constructed post Warren, good job (not being sarcastic). I wish a lot of design theorists would write posts like this explaining their position as you have. Anyway, now to the critique .
quote:
Two points. First, my ID hypotheses only require an assumption of a designing agent with human-like intelligence. Why? Because the things in nature that cause me to suspect ID happen to be things that look like products of advanced bioengineering. I'm not sure what a supernaturally designed thing would look like. So to infer ID I don't require evidence of perfect design.
Things in nature look like evolved products to me. I have seen and had experience with bioengineered E. coli expression systems, random transposon mutagenesis, etc and nature looks nothing like this. But, this is a subjective judgement so I will leave it at that. Saying you don't know what a super. design would look like is a statement I can agree with, and hence the perfect design is not needed. Point to you, we can agree on this.
quote:
Secondly, it doesn't even matter if an intelligent designer exists. It's my contention, for example, that viewing bacteria as integrated technology is a better perspective for understanding how bacteria function than viewing them as random goo. Viewing biological things as random and purposeless hinders scientific progress. Viewing them as designed machines is a superior paradigm operationally regardless of whether there is an intelligent designer.
So design is not needed for a teleological perspective? Hmm, seems to border on an ateleological perspective, wouldn't you say? Anyway, bacteria themselves are not strictly goo, but they are poorly compartmentalized as compared to eukaryotic cells. Non-excreted proteins are in the cell, membrane proteins bridge the gap between intracellular and extracellular, and excreted proteins are put out in the mileu. That is about the extent of compartmentalization seen in bacteria (as a general rule, spores come to mind). Goo might not be the best adjective; a complicated soup or stew might be a better analogy. Production lines are not separated out like a factory, everything is mixed in together. Substrate affinities keep reactions separate, not walls.
quote:
suspect you are assuming that my ID perspective is that everything in nature is the direct result of ID. Not so. Currently my ID inference is constrained to the origin of life: the original life forms were designed and followed by evolution. This perspective certainly allows for imperfection in nature.
So you would agree that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of species and body plans we see today, not design? What do you think were the first designed organisms? Cellular/non-cellular? One original design, multiple orignal designs?
quote:
Science is built on the belief in repeatability. Repeatability is not a property of purely random processes.
A random event can be observed repeatibly. I can watch a dice turn up a random number time after time, this is a repeatable event. Repeatability in scientific observations revolve around the circumstances of the experiment. For example, in my work I measure metabolic intermediates in cultured human cells. If someone else repeats my experiment and comes up with the same concentrations of metabolic intermediates that I do, then it is a repeatable event. It is also repeatable if I can show the same results time after time. Your definition of repeatability in science is being used in a different connotation. The rest of the repeatability argument kind of falls flat once this discrepancy is seen.
quote:
For Evolution to proceed, even the "randomness" must be algorithmically constrained like a search heuristic. With unbridled randomness, you get chaos. The ability to replicate must be guaranteed at some point for evolution to succeed. Replication and repeatability are vital components, and it is these qualities (replication and repeatability) that are the antithesis for purely random processes.
If the algorithmic constraint is number of mutations per generation, then I would agree. UV radiation is used for microbial sterilization because it causes DNA breaks and damage to such an extent that it causes cell death. However, the fidelity of DNA replicating enzymes and DNA repair mechanisms keep the number of mutations per generation very low, but still enough for natural selection to act on. Just like dice, it is the measureable randomness of mutations AND the number of mutations per generation that argue against design.
quote:
Darwinism attributes the constraint on randomness to Natural Selection, but information theory is challenging that view severely as well as experimental evidence.
Shannon information in DNA can increase due to random mutation and selection. I think we are covering this elsewhere.
quote:
In sum, the fundamental design spec: randomness must be constrained.
I think the fidelity in DNA replicating enzymes and DNA repair mechanisms keep mutations limited enough to prevent "chaos" but still allow selection to occur. This is perhaps the constraint you are looking for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Warren, posted 12-17-2003 3:24 PM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 100 (73887)
12-17-2003 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by FliesOnly
12-17-2003 2:17 PM


Re: ID Site
FliesOnly<< Now, call me silly, but does that not say that predictions of a unicorn designer are ok with you, as long as these predictions are based on the "unicorness" of the designer?>>
One more time. Flagellar expert David DeRosier acknowledges the flagellum resembles a machine designed by humans. ( Cell 93: 17-20). There is an obvious connection between intelligent engineers and things like machines. There is no connection between machines and pink fairies, unicorns, and a host of other ridiculous entities the ID critics have come up with as supposedly analogous to an intelligent designer unless you envision such entities as intelligent engineers, in which case, their pinkishness, fairyishness, and unicornishness are all irrelevant. Viewing molecular machines as intelligently designed can lead to logical predictions and testable hypotheses. I don't believe anyone can make logical predictions or produce testable hypotheses based on pinkishness, fairyishness, or unicornishness but if someone can do it more power to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by FliesOnly, posted 12-17-2003 2:17 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 100 (73894)
12-17-2003 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by FliesOnly
12-17-2003 2:17 PM


Re: ID Site
FlieOnly<< I have yet to see a testable hypothesis come out of ID that cannot be falsified in about five minutes. Maybe you and I have a different perspective on what we consider to be useful (or for that matter, what we consider to be a hypothesis). >>
Please provide an example of a testable ID hypothesis that has been proven false. I suspect you are talking about creationist hypotheses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by FliesOnly, posted 12-17-2003 2:17 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by FliesOnly, posted 12-18-2003 11:47 AM Warren has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 99 of 100 (74098)
12-18-2003 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Warren
12-17-2003 8:52 PM


Re: ID Site
Hello Again Warren:
Warren writes:
There is an obvious connection between intelligent engineers and things like machines. There is no connection between machines and pink fairies, unicorns, and a host of other ridiculous entities the ID critics have come up with as supposedly analogous to an intelligent designer unless you envision such entities as intelligent engineers, in which case, their pinkishness, fairyishness, and unicornishness are all irrelevant.
I get, I get. But that is not what you said here:
Warren writes:
By all means - make predictions about cell biology using the concept of the designer as a unicorn. Just make sure the predictions stem from the unicorness of the designer,...
However, I don't want to continue to beat a dead horse. I understand where you're coming from now, and I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
As for this:
Warren writes:
Please provide an example of a testable ID hypothesis that has been proven false. I suspect you are talking about creationist hypotheses.
I'm not sure how to respond. Are there ID hypotheses that are not a part of creationism? I have to admit, if I cannot include creationist ID hypotheses, then I cannot supply you with an ID hypothesis that has been proven false because I have never seen a non-creationists ID hypothesis.
I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I joined this part of the debate a little late so if you did supply a testable ID hypothesis in an earlier thread, I did not see it. Can you give it to me now?
Warren writes:
First, my ID hypotheses only require an assumption of a designing agent with human-like intelligence....So to infer ID I don't require evidence of perfect design.
(Can I stop you for a second here? As I said in the previous paragraph, I only recently joined this portion of the debate so perhaps I missed it...but what exactly, Warren, is your ID hypothesis?)
Anyway, in your "hypothesis" the intelligent designer is not a perfect being? It is not the omnipotant, omnificent, omnipresent God that creationsist refer to? Instead, it is "something" of high intelligence that designed the first organisms (on a side note...could you explain "original life forms") and then allowed evolution to do the rest. This is why we see mistakes....because the designer was not perfect?
This is a new one for me.
Warren writes:
It's my contention, for example, that viewing bacteria as integrated technology is a better perspective for understanding how bacteria function than viewing them as random goo.
Um...Warren, we don't view them as random goo. Do you believe that we have learned so much about the cell because we have treated them as random goo?
If you want to view them as little machines, that's fine. If describing them as such helps you explain what they do and how they function, fine. But please understand that using the machine analogy doesn't prove that they were indeed designed. It actually does nothing to explain how they did first come into being. Evolutionary biologists can explain how they may have evolved without the need of some intelligent designer.
So far, your only proof of design is your contention that living things appear designed. It seems you're asking us to abandon valid scientific explanations and just accept that things were designed by some sort of intelligent entity. Why? I'm not sure what your agenda is. You say that you are not a creationist (or at least that our ID hypothesis is not based on creationism). You say that you accept evolution after the "original life forms" came into being (I assume you accept the mechanisms of the theory as well). So why do you abandon scienctific explanations of events prior to the appearance of those origainal life forms. If these same mechanisms can lead to the diversity of life we presently see, why can we not apply the same logic to explain how they came into being in the first place? Granted, this falls outside the realm of the ToE, but certainly scientific principles still apply.
Warren writes:
Viewing biological things as random and purposeless hinders scientific progress.
Ok, pick an organism and tell me what you believe to be its purpose?
You keep saying things that imply that viewing life from an evolutionary standpoint somehow hinders progress. Can you back this up in any way what-so-ever?
Warren writes:
Viewing them as designed machines is a superior paradigm operationally regardless of whether there is an intelligent designer.
How so?
You then go on and talk a great deal about randomness and repeatability. It was all very impressive to read but I fail to see how it proves design or disproves evolution. I'm not a physicist (hell, I'm not even a very good biologist) nor can I go toe to toe with too many people about quantum theory. That being said, I think that Loudmouth and Rei did a fine job of critiquing your post. Still, I am going to try to address some of your points, but it might be a day or two before I can respond because this area is certainly not one of my strong points. I need to first do some research and ask some questions of friends that are far more knowledgeable in this area than I am.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Warren, posted 12-17-2003 8:52 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2003 8:32 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 100 of 100 (75080)
12-25-2003 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by FliesOnly
12-18-2003 11:47 AM


Bump for Warren
It seems that FliesOnly had some questions for you Warren? Are you going to fill her/him in?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by FliesOnly, posted 12-18-2003 11:47 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024