Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 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: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 304 (243533)
09-14-2005 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object
09-14-2005 8:26 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
Complexity is measured in contrast to the best and most complex any intelligent person can produce.
Which is not alive. Computers are not even comparable to the complexity of even the simplest living thing.
Which proves that living things cannot be the product of intelligence. No intelligence has the capability to create life. The complexity of life proves evolution - it's too complex to have been designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-14-2005 8:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 304 (295061)
03-14-2006 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Discreet Label
03-14-2006 12:17 AM


Re: Maybe a test?
Actually, this is an exciting area of research - the search to create the "minimal" cell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Discreet Label, posted 03-14-2006 12:17 AM Discreet Label has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Discreet Label, posted 03-14-2006 2:05 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 100 of 304 (295218)
03-14-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Discreet Label
03-14-2006 2:05 AM


Re: Maybe a test?
So is this a yes to it being a feasibly way to test for an "IC system"
Well, not exactly. I'm sure that when the minimal cell is developed the ID advocates will assert that it is too complicated to have evolved without any evidence to support their position. Will they be right? Even if they are there's no reason to believe that our minimal cell is anything like the original minimal cell, so the fact that what we developed couldn't evolve doesn't mean that no minimal cell could have evolved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Discreet Label, posted 03-14-2006 2:05 AM Discreet Label has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 304 (310869)
05-10-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by inkorrekt
05-10-2006 7:50 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
So, we both agree that the regulatory mechanisms for the beta-galactosidase gene, are complex. This experiment only elucidates the control mechanisms for the metabolism of lactose. This among other observations is a clear evidence for ID.
Funny, but I see it completely disproving a major tenant of ID - that complex regulatory mechanisms (among other things) are too complex to come about by natural selection and random mutation. Since they did exactly that in the experiment, that's proof that ID is false, not that it is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by inkorrekt, posted 05-10-2006 7:50 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by inkorrekt, posted 05-14-2006 3:13 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 147 of 304 (311906)
05-15-2006 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by inkorrekt
05-14-2006 3:13 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
The experiment only proves the complex mechanisms within the cell. Just because some one elucidated the complex mechanism does not make it simpler at all.
But that's not what happened. The mechanism was not "elucidated", it was completely destroyed, and then a replacement developed from random mutation and natural selection.
As I said, this disproves a basic canard of intelligent design - random mutation and natural selection cannot give rise to complexity. Since we directly observed them do just that in this experiment, that statement is proven false by observation.
How did this complex organization come about?
The experiment proves how it came about - random mutation and natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by inkorrekt, posted 05-14-2006 3:13 PM inkorrekt has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 155 of 304 (313796)
05-20-2006 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by inkorrekt
05-19-2006 9:44 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
Why is it that not asingle one of them has been synthesized yet?
Huh? We can synthesize polypeptides of basically any arbitrary sequence. Here's one they did back in 1999, so this is hardly new:
quote:
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and the Hubble Space Telescope has captured pillars of it. Yet, scientists struggle to produce a cheap supply of hydrogen gas. Scientists have created a synthetic enzyme that produces hydrogen fuel, a breakthrough that could move the world closer to an energy-efficient, hydrogen-based economy.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9910/15/hydrogen.enn/index.html
Just like to point out that all I did was put "synthetic enzyme" into Google, and looked at the first of over 4 million hits. Maybe it would behoove you next time to do a little more research before you sweepingly assert what has or has never been done by scientists?
Edited by crashfrog, : Taking out a spurious insult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by inkorrekt, posted 05-19-2006 9:44 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by inkorrekt, posted 05-20-2006 2:53 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 162 of 304 (314106)
05-21-2006 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by inkorrekt
05-20-2006 2:53 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
If no intelligence is required, why no new forms of life have emerged?
We observe new species all the time.
Please do not repeat that new forms have been identified. I am yet to see them.
Right, but the thing is - you're not looking very hard. You're so adamant that this is impossible that you don't even feel like you have to look and see if it's already happened.
Arguing from your own ignorance isn't going to get you very far. An argument that's essentially "if this is true why haven't I heard about it?" isn't very compelling - you haven't heard about it because you choose to remain in ignorance rather than investigate the truth.
Why no one has synthesized any form of life so far?
Because it's really hard. But we're working on it, and we'll do it.
How did the first form of life come into existence?
Chemically. Why does the fact that we're still working on the problem mean that evolution is wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by inkorrekt, posted 05-20-2006 2:53 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by inkorrekt, posted 05-30-2006 9:13 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 184 of 304 (316916)
06-01-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by inkorrekt
05-30-2006 9:13 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
Just because you are working on evolution does not make it right and acceptable.
I follow the first part, but not the second. In what sense does evolution need to be "acceptable"? Do you mean to say that you won't accept evolution unless the theory is changed in such a way that you don't find the conclusions of it so troubling?
Honestly I don't see the relevance, here, of what is acceptable or not. The question is - what is the accurate model?
If you are going to prove it, then the existing Chemical laws need to be rewritten!!!!!!!!!
Your plurality of exclamation points don't constitute an argument. Would you care to actually support this sweeping statement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by inkorrekt, posted 05-30-2006 9:13 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by inkorrekt, posted 06-02-2006 7:00 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 186 of 304 (317126)
06-03-2006 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by inkorrekt
06-02-2006 7:00 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
I have already written that the classical experiment only yielded equal parts of the D and L forms of glycine and alanine. Such a mixture is biologically useless.
Oh, hardly. (Didn't you make this erroneous claim once before? I don't get the sense that you're actually reading the posts of your opponents. If you're not doing that, why are you even here?)
Many bacteria use right-handed aminos in addition to the left-handed ones, so an equal mixture is hardly "biologically useless." There's no need to rewrite the laws of chemistry, as you asserted. All that is required is that you actually educate yourself about the chemistry of living things. Also? Glycine isn't handed - it doesn't have D and L forms. That's a pretty surprising mistake for someone who claims knowledge of chemistry to make. Can you explain this discrepancy?
Edited by crashfrog, : Added fact about glycine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by inkorrekt, posted 06-02-2006 7:00 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Rob, posted 06-03-2006 10:06 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 190 of 304 (317401)
06-03-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Rob
06-03-2006 10:06 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
There you are crashfrog, I thought I'd run you back to the nipple...
You stopped being interesting when you started talking nonsense, so I don't think our discussion in that thread is going to continue. Plus that topic isn't of relevance to this one.
Did you have a comment on the topic of this thread? Or a specific rebuttal to the points I raised in the post you just replied to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Rob, posted 06-03-2006 10:06 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Rob, posted 06-04-2006 12:06 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 198 of 304 (331665)
07-13-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by inkorrekt
07-13-2006 11:41 PM


Re: IC irrelevant to the current debate ... guess it's a dead issue.
The probability of Self assembly of amino acids into proteins has been shown to be less than 1 raised to the power of 42 which is astatistical impossibility.
Could you show your math?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by inkorrekt, posted 07-13-2006 11:41 PM inkorrekt has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 234 of 304 (373811)
01-02-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by TheMystic
01-02-2007 7:21 PM


I seem to be something more than just an animal or a machine. I am aware, and aware that I am aware.
What makes you think that (some) animals and machines aren't aware or aren't aware that they are aware?
That is, my intelligence does not seem to be the product of natural causes, suggesting that there is a supernatural dimension of some sort.
I don't follow your reasoning, here. From what evidence do you conclude that your intelligence is not the product of natural causes? It seems to me that it's quite obvious that natural causes produce intelligence; certainly there's nothing more natural than, or supernatural about, the process that humans use to produce additional intelligences - sexual reproduction and childrearing.
I have the concept of an ID
Sure, you heard about it from somebody. What does that prove?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 7:21 PM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 8:31 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 246 of 304 (373984)
01-03-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 8:31 AM


A proper scholarly explaination, though in very understandable language, can be found in C.S. Lewis' book 'Miracles'.
In fact, I know from experience that nothing scholarly can be found in any work by C.S. Lewis; moreover, C.S. Lewis had no education in cognitive science nor in comparative anthropology. Indeed, these two fields did not even exist until well after his death. What possible relevance could the writings of Lewis have on the matter?
In short, the idea is that if thought is entirely a physical phenomenon and physical phenomena are basically deterministic then objective thought is really an illusion. We only respond to stimuli.
Response to stimuli strikes me as pretty objective, actually. Once again, the low caliber of Lewis-based argumentation is exposed.
The great paradox of evolution is that if it occurred we could never know it.
If evolution occurred, it should be sufficient to determine that it had simply by examining the evidence. And, to the surprise of no one but you, when we do look at the evidence, we see that it substantiates the evolutionary model and refutes all current challengers.
So where's the paradox?
Where did they hear about it from?
Have you ever played a game of "Telephone"? Where do you suppose the faulty messages come from? God?
No, they come from people's imaginations. Every messenger adds a little invention to the message, until the message is completely invention and bears no resemblance to the original message. It's not hard to imagine a game of telephone continuing into history, with the result that a countless number of elaborate, fantastic messages are developed from even the most prosaic of original messages (or, following the logic of Baudrillard, no original at all.)
Where did such a concept come from if it is entirely bogus, and why does it have such sticking power?
Good question, but beyond the scope of an internet post. Since you like to hand out reading assignments so much, I'll do you the same favor. If you want to understand the natural origin of God mythology, I suggest you pick up Danial Dennet's Breaking the Spell.
You will no doubt be tempted to say that man invented God in order to fulfill some need, but the interesting thing is, as forums like this demonstrate, people don't generally like God or the gods.
Are you joking, or what? People love the idea of God. They can't get enough of it. They'll invent gods, if it helps them come to terms with the forces that they have no control over. For instance, the example of anorexia sufferers "deifying" their eating disorder, creating "Ana", the goddess of anorexia.
No, really. Search the internet. You can find plenty of young people, a lot of them female, who talk about their personal relationship with Ana. If gods are real, why are they so easy to invent?
The first evidence any of us have is our own consciousness.
I asked you to explain how that constitutes evidence for ID, but you completely ducked the question. The simple fact of the matter is that consciousness arises naturally from brains. It's what brains do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 8:31 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 12:15 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 256 of 304 (374032)
01-03-2007 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 12:15 PM


Ok, one of the great minds of the 20th century, maybe any century, but you... I don't know what to say, I'm speechless.
He's not that good, though. No, really.
And it really leaves you "speechless" to be confronted by an opinion that is different than your own? Seriously? You must be pretty sheltered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 12:15 PM TheMystic has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 258 of 304 (374035)
01-03-2007 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by aiguy
01-03-2007 1:09 PM


It would certainly appear that well-functioning human brains are necessary for human consciousness, but presently we have no scientific explanation for subjective mental experience.
Nonsense. The brain is the explanation. It's a pretty simple explanation - "brains are the organs that produce sensations of consciousness."
Consciousness research consists of trying to find neurological correlates of conscious experience, and there is movement on that front, but there is no guarantee that once we do pin down the neural structures and systems that are correlated with consciousness, we will be any closer to a material explanation of qualia.
Of what?
There is no scientific evidence for dualism, but neither is there compelling reason to dismiss it.
Actually the lack of evidence is a pretty compelling reason to dismiss it, at least until there's some evidence. Why wouldn't it be? Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, after all.
In other words, the fact of our conscious awareness is the single aspect of the world that may speak against materialism, and if materialism is false, ID theory gains a modicum of credibility.
Now you're just repeating his assertion, and still the question I've asked is being ducked. Why is conscious awareness evidence against materialism? The fact that consciousness is only observed to exist under a specific, narrow set of material conditions seems to indicate the exact opposite. The ephemerality of consciousness is excellent evidence for materialism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 1:09 PM aiguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 2:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024