Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5149 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 304 (243073)
09-13-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
09-13-2005 10:07 AM


RNA?
I would guess that someone with encyclopedic knowledge of RNA might be able to set up a series of statements about population crashes (formerly within Drsophila studies)that do not involve losses of adaptibility but only changes in the way RNA effects relations BETWEEN proteins and DNA (such as seeing Introns as linked lists etc )in such a way that non-god designers might make predictions from where some form of biblical creation also motivates the researcher(s) after hours rather than a good pub beer.
Currently there is only stress in biology about hybrids phenotypically this would have to be involved in the design genomically. How to do that without dividing the field (the relation of ID to other forms of creationism is ALREADY Divided) is still a mystery to me. It is possible that what I suggest can be accomodated by stict evo thought but it is much easier to think about when one is not think'n bout it to assume GOD DID IT. Then at least some rest ensues. It would have to address Newton's notinon of absolute space in the space of the species as a class but the individual population would HAVE to be defined. Mayr asserted in 88 this was impossible.
I think that pursuing Macrothermodynamics would be an eaiser course to think through as it will be more easily understood by current scienctists than some form of ID that is currently out the pale and not even thinking outside the box

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 09-13-2005 10:07 AM Tusko has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5149 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 304 (243075)
09-13-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by CK
09-13-2005 2:56 PM


Re: Behe interview (Guardian 12/09/05)
quote:
Is there a bottom line in microscopic terms - a ground level below which you can't get any further into the structure of matter?
MB: Yes. We're at the molecular level of biology and from physics we know that's where it ends.
JS: And the baseline is irreducible complexity?
MB: Exactly.
from your link
Now I can think beyond this assuming all of current evo and ID is true but this is way speculative. While it is true that quarks and the weak force can be excluded from equilibrium nature of biology there is no reason that large galatic correlations to bizzare physical linkages can not be associated with what Newton called "conspiring motions" . Certainly not in a heritage from the Greeks as currently sholarized. NOW, if we submit to post 911 mentality , all these bets are currently off, and something that Behe said does make more sense than the less , I just said.
There could be wholes of subtractions from n! permutations that do not spatially get smaller but widen temporally and hierarchically. This would only work if there was symmetry across ther relativitistic light cone and this is so far out it probably sound like science fiction.
It seems to my view that some of irreducibile complexity will be found reducible to some given n! subtractions while any whole that teleolgically manifest are defined in the contemporainty to evolution theory progress to a stable heirarhical teaching. But that is just me again. Take it or take it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by CK, posted 09-13-2005 2:56 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tusko, posted 09-14-2005 5:02 AM Brad McFall has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5149 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 28 of 304 (244146)
09-16-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tusko
09-14-2005 5:02 AM


Re: Behe interview (Guardian 12/09/05)
Tusko,
It will take some time for me to "unpack" my personal investment in the short hand terms I use ("n!" and "sphere").
The b&w pick below is the closest I can come to representing (albeit discontinuously ( dont say how the marks "one" and g "zero" are to be rotated and drawn with respect to fill areas and text as well as inductions from putting the "bio" back in geography ( Stoddart(the book is older than this bio"")) but suspend judgement pending creation of imagined sphereically representable technology diplayed (furtherst below). The fact that you said something assuming a reduction I suspected did happen shows that you would be able to understand what I had meant by the substractions. If you read EVC well you might have seen Mark24 speak of additions or substractions. I think he would understand the particularity as I unpack the darkest regions of thos diagram in the future.
Some creationists might question that the use the technology I imagine will afford the particulars but in general no one can know, unless the economic restraints were loosened and the constraints were refined and implemented. I doubt that the sphere will always be the representable result and thus i conclude against irreducible complexity but as the technology does not exist I could be wrong about what will happen if and once it is used.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-16-2005 12:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tusko, posted 09-14-2005 5:02 AM Tusko has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5149 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 59 of 304 (246170)
09-24-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by mick
09-19-2005 9:30 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
These are questions the "default" position might not be remonstrably placed to answer. Sorry but that is raw me. I have some problems with current assertions that Natural Selection is a two-step aposteriori phenomenon where group selection of population in the physicist's sense does not exist. Ok that is default but it is also at fault If I can keep answering these questions by challenging the status quo. It seems that one can find the lack in the current teaching by looking at non-design as well as what was smarter in the design. Evidence for the designer might remain with GOD. We just might not be smart enough.
quote:
Are there possible adaptive non-designs NOT produced by natural selection? Did dielectric breakdown invert ontogenetically plant leticel phylogeny?? Can the cost of water balance ecosystem engineering per matter GO UP with increased biomassproductvity rather than down as a simple analogy to economics would rather suggest???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by mick, posted 09-19-2005 9:30 PM mick has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5149 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 152 of 304 (312871)
05-17-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by ohnhai
05-17-2006 10:28 AM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
That would be ID in its present commericalization. I would tend to think that IC=E has to be pushed, but then there would be some "design" on the border of artifical and natural selection. I tend to think the key is that Cantor did proove the limit of av =B which Russell denied and this spells the limit to animal breeding that Provine asserted Johnson had to show exists if... but to do so I need to pull a lot of thoughts from Realism and this is not an easy task as my personal notes on Psillos' book I preview in the newd below:
quote:
“(R)ealism requires two distinct elements. It requires belief and it also requires a particular interpretation of that belief. Thus anti-realism, in particular instrumentalism, pursues the following strategy. If it does not withhold belief, then it offers instead a non-realist interpretation of the belief . But the reader will no doubt notice that there is an interesting third way. For one can go along with belief, but then simply not add on any special interpretation of it - neither realist nor anti-realist. That is the way of NOA.”
quote:
p249 Scientific Realism- how science tracks truth-
quote:
Gould SETH p 141 “The requirements for variation In order to act as raw material only, variation must walk a tightrope between two unacceptable alternatives. First and foremost, variation must exist in sufficient amounts, for natural selection can make nothing, and must rely upon the bounty thus provided; but variation must not be too florid or showy either, lest it become the creative agent of change all by itself. A full taxonomy of non-Darwinian evolutionary theories may be elaborated by their denials of one or more of these central assumptions.”
Ok using this mask, the analogy between phenotype and genotype relative to van Frassen in “Can Darwin help?” p96 Stathis thought Darwin can not help. In Gould’s conceptual net van Frassens’ can be Genetical rather than phenotypical precisely where Boyd’s realist extra ontological commitments(p 215) (on the existence of extinct animals and aids virus etc- expressed rather often to me as “you can always have species selection”) abut non EDR thought.
But Boyd does speak BOTH IBE and as-if IBE. The most striking aspect is that Boyd intends the listener to his philosophy to agree that as-if IS IBE but this only works if the environment that he address his students in and teaches his realism on and about is NOT an as-if when it comes the explanation used by the scientists themselves. So . . After a class with Boyd one should be able to attend a class with a scientist and find that there is no unobservable difference or feelling of observed difference between the two events that are ostensibly IBE. This does not occur. In fact, I listended to this very same difference being slipped past students 20 years later, well after I had resolved all of my own issues with all experiences in the environment THAT WERE NOT ABOUT SCIENCE. But even sticking with what is science this environment IS that where one recognizes how the norm of rxn interacts as Lewontin had showed and even THIS is not kept uniform or homogenous as Boyd’s explanation depends crucially on a density only notion of chemisty successiveness that was standard at Cornell prior to 88 when the Frenchman came to Baker Hall and lectured on supramolecular chemistry. Furthermore Boyd’s view did not keep up with the instrumental gains of the 90s IT bubble for my brother was studying with Lauden while I was with Boyd and it is not possible to bring these points of views on science among us all back to the common difference that was spoken over a beer in Fredonia between me and my brother in in think 85. But what HAS happened over this time is that the difference of IBE and as if IBE has permitted EXTENSIVE creationist dialogue which is increasingly more convincing and yet increasingly simply ignored as nonsense. That makes further separation of Psiloss secular vs theology not a lesser separation if there were really to have been “higher” education necessary to keep up with the unobservables in higher level hierarchical views of the base biology underlaying any of the psychology involved. Furthermore Boyd’s notion of “projectiablity” selection during empirical adequacy depends on choice in unobservable interpolations rather than simply the better topology being thought true. He had no way to distinguish in the 80s the context of the form from the translation in this space. So there can be no issue about OZ and ID science @ that abduction.
Thus I would be with von Frassen on the vacuum that this KNOWLEDGE remains in, unless of course my own brand passes etc. Thus Fine is correct to notice the appeal to Hilbert’s programme put realist oranges in the juicer of Croizat’s stew of Gould if so interpreted. And in the 80s when at Cornell I had explicitly written and had a project applying Hilbert after rejecting Boyd’s idea of natural kinds to which he responded by saying I was religious on him and convinced my parents even though I have no issue with NMA and IBE as then I had not gotten past NOA. Thus though EDR needs to addressed it will be through an opening that still leaves theology open WITHOUT committing secularity to it’s ajarness . IBE does not permit this even if , as if IBE might, hypothetically.
These notes that might enable IC=E come from reducing the red in the one picture to the blue etc in the other
File Not Found - UW-Green Bay
Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.
Edited by Brad McFall, : add links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ohnhai, posted 05-17-2006 10:28 AM ohnhai has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5149 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 157 of 304 (313825)
05-20-2006 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by inkorrekt
05-19-2006 9:44 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
correct, inkorect.
French discussion of physiological time has never been the same duration I maintain in the tri-State 'area'. It seems to me this notions of regulatory genes rather makes the"mechanism" more complex than even the 30s work my grandfather was trying to do with Arhenius equations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by inkorrekt, posted 05-19-2006 9:44 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5149 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 166 of 304 (314383)
05-22-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by ikabod
05-22-2006 10:48 AM


Re: To sum up the thread to date ... and direct it back on topic?
quote:
Perhaps though, I'm wrong, and there is something inherent to ID that makes testing it logically impossible, unless it is distorted out of all recognition.
I think I have finally decided how I am going to "take" ID as post-ICR intelligent"" debating(of course others here "debate" this) but I k'now" the ICR from which I situate my own.
So I think it is not in ID that inherence continues to make illogical the rebate science may gain say. Specifically it seems that ID shows that other creation science to rely on A-series TIME (see "A world without time" by Palle Yourgrau) and reads to me that Goulds' ideas are flawed insofar has his notion of clumped morphospace FOILS special creation in the A-Series sense that Yourgrau tried to show epistemologists that Godel had wrote does not exist. I came to my own thought on subjectivity of time from trying to "picture" organism competion of different species not from time in general relativity. I also have thought that Carnap is not correct so I would probably agree with Godel on if math is not syntax of language but I have not read that paper by the G-man.
It is however realists who have stalled the incorporation of Godel's relation of Einstein and Kant and thus Gould seems to have been mislead even though I think he had the correct criticism of Dawkins. Hakwing was left making ad hoc requirements and that is what is happening here untill ID produces some results but if I am correct that ID makes the already subjective time (from the secular perspective) even more idealist than the YECS had presented it will be more than time that is needed here. The Putnams and the Quines of the world need to be shown that the nervous fluid is both received and transmitted differently in biological tissue that is macrothermodyanmic than that is simply biophysically phenomenologiclly dynamic. I gained a lot reading Derrida on Husserl and seeing how Derrida's thoughts were off scientifidally but Provine-Gould constrictions still restrict acesss to this subjectiviy we can have in abundance on EVC!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by ikabod, posted 05-22-2006 10:48 AM ikabod has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5149 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 172 of 304 (314818)
05-24-2006 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Tusko
05-24-2006 4:19 AM


off the top of my head...
Well,
I was reading Kant's (practical)reason again...
If ID was considered wholly as a synthesis within an imperative (i.e. it did not proceed first from considerations of space and time purely)then if the duty to have done so got sufficient attention and Kant's ideas of action and reaction were updated to the past century it seems possible that the "intelligence" WOULD NOT be reducible to simply science tomorrow. The trouble is getting one to take the imperative without a necessarily deterministic mechanism in the outer empirical world from wherever the practice divided the internal and external. If there were some hermeneutic between prior creation science and ID that shifted between reasons pure and practical it seems that science would fall within Biblical Creationism but one would surely meet political obstacles to such a culture of the skills necessary to carry out the circle of thought.
I do suspect that if anything more is socially to come from ID it will be piecemeal as notions of space and time might alter as work is done by the rather few and near between and thus only the empirical side-products will make it into global circulation. Just a final guess and the end of my rope here...
Edited by Brad McFall, : processed with m-word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Tusko, posted 05-24-2006 4:19 AM Tusko 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