Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,627 Year: 4,884/9,624 Month: 232/427 Week: 42/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 304 (373958)
01-03-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by nator
01-03-2007 9:23 AM


But what does any of this have to do with the change in allele frequencies in populations over time?
The subject of this thread is "Can't ID be tested AT ALL?" But yes, I'm also impressed that you know about allele frequencies. I'll look that up when I get some time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by nator, posted 01-03-2007 9:23 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 11:43 AM TheMystic has not replied
 Message 252 by nator, posted 01-03-2007 1:17 PM TheMystic has not replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 304 (373974)
01-03-2007 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by nator
01-03-2007 9:20 AM


If you agree that Quetzal knows what he's talking about regarding field Biology, since he's a field Biologist, then what he was explaining to you about species distribution in the forest wasn't "bullshit".
Well, maybe I owe Quetzal a less flippant response. I was only doubting the relevance of his info. So let me say that I think there is a difference between regularity and order. Take a CRT display for a PC, for instance. If you take a magnifying glass and look at the screen you see red, green, and blue dots in nice orderly patterns. But if you magnify even further you will find phosphor coated on the glass basically randomly. It's not done in regular patterns because a CRT must support different resolutions - the dot pattern is produced by the electron gun. So I would argue that the randomness of the phosphor does not make the CRT disorderly. It the aggregate macroscopic functionality that determines orderliness, at least as I'm using it in the ID context. So the jungle, whoops I mean rainforest, is orderly in the macroscopic sense that it helps regulate weather and produce medicines and so on. The fact that God did this with, dare I say, an almost irreducible complexity (I'm just kidding, ok), is to me a sign of genius. How many brain cells do we have? And how many genes? Two microscopic cells can carry enough information to produce a human being, whose brain complexity is just one of the fabulous stories in that body? I'm sorry, I'm going to get insulting again, but anyone who cannot see from the outset that the DNA is extremely unlikely to have any flaws of design (not accumulated defects) is a fool. So the evolutionist has to posit flaw after flaw only to find out he just didn't understand why things were they way they are. Do not mistake economy of expression for disorder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by nator, posted 01-03-2007 9:20 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by nator, posted 01-03-2007 1:26 PM TheMystic has not replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 304 (373980)
01-03-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Quetzal
01-02-2007 8:59 PM


Well, I flat out apologize my first response. I realized how much thought you had put into your response and realized I was being rude. It is very enlightening, what you wrote about species distribution. So, I get in these anonymous environments and forget my manners.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Quetzal, posted 01-02-2007 8:59 PM Quetzal has not replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 304 (373981)
01-03-2007 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 10:05 AM


ditto my message #243 to Quetzal. We can all agree that we are human and we should make our interactions as pleasant as possible. Ok, Mom, you can quit squeezing my neck now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 10:05 AM TheMystic has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 245 of 304 (373982)
01-03-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 8:13 AM


TheMystic writes:
Re: all that other stuff about tree distributions or whatever; ok, I'm impressed with your knowledge, but it seems like a perfect example of "baffle 'em with bullshit".
I don't believe that calling a message an example of "baffle 'em with bullshit" constitutes valid rebuttal. Simple courtesy, not to mention the Forum Guidelines, require that you explain why it is bullshit. If you don't understand it then either ask questions, or look things up, or don't reply, but don't call it bullshit.
You're also beginning to drift seriously off-topic:
The problem, I think, is that you *want* to find this disorder in order to fit your need to bolster the theory of evolution. This is part of why evolution is so destructive - it makes people try to find problems with a system that should instead be studied with awe. What I think you are probably missing is the way God uses, shall we say, chaos theory in his work. For instance, if you take a look at a zip file on your hard drive it will look like garbage, but of course it is not. God seems to code the bare minimum of information into DNA.
This thread isn't about the theory of evolution or God. It's about whether ID is testable. In reading your posts all I can see proposed for a test is, "If it looks designed, it is."
The problem with your test is that it lacks objective measures. If you look at life and see design and I look at life and do not see design, then how do you decide who is right? Science is a consensus activity, and theories emerge when many scientists look at some natural phenomena and reach the same conclusions. So you need to define some testable criteria for design that can be agreed upon. All you've done so far is characterize evolution as destructive and accuse evolutionists of committing spiritual suicide.
So if ID is testable, what are the objective criteria for testing ID?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 8:13 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 12:07 PM Percy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1551 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

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 304 (373990)
01-03-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
01-03-2007 11:45 AM


Simple courtesy, not to mention the Forum Guidelines, require that you explain why it is bullshit.
First, see my message #243. Second, the way I have heard the expression used, it means if you can't respond directly to a boss or customer, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, you throw a lot of irrelevant information at them to distract them. It doesn't mean the information is wrong.
Second, if you want me off the forum, I'll go. I don't know who is running this thing but I don't want to be an unwelcome visitor. You will note that people respond to me, which generally means they want to talk. So if science is a consensus activity and you want to reach consensus, by all means, get rid of me. I thought science was about being correct.
The problem with your test is that it lacks objective measures.
So do you grade your significant other on how well he/she loves you? Do you measure the radius of a square? Appropriate measures for the question is part of my point, and you can't force today's problems into yesterday's solutions. But if you don't like my proposed test(s), why not propose better ones? Sounds to me like you want to take a poll and I'm screwing up the numbers for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 11:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 1:20 PM TheMystic has not replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 304 (373997)
01-03-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by crashfrog
01-03-2007 11:53 AM


In fact, I know from experience that nothing scholarly can be found in any work by C.S. Lewis;
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.
I guess I've been invited to leave (see #245) and we're obviously from two different planets. You can have the last word, I'll read it and get back to my pleasant little fantasy world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 11:53 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 12:59 PM TheMystic has not replied
 Message 250 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 1:09 PM TheMystic has not replied
 Message 256 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 2:20 PM TheMystic has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 249 of 304 (374008)
01-03-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 12:15 PM


TheMystic writes:
I guess I've been invited to leave (see #245)...
You were not invited to leave, and I'm not operating in Admin mode in this thread. I merely pointed out that responding with accusations of "bullshit" violates simple courtesy and the Forum Guidelines.
--Percy

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

aiguy
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 304 (374009)
01-03-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 12:15 PM


Hi All -
Just to position my response here: I am very critical of "Intelligent Design Theory" as science - I believe it is scientifically vacuous, and there is no possibility of testing or falsifying its claim. I am also versed in the cognitive sciences.
However:
Mystic writes:
The first evidence any of us have is our own consciousness.
crashfrog writes:
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.
Well, not so fast, crashfrog. Nobody knows what gives rise to consciousness. 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. 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.
So consciousness remains a mystery. There are contemporary scientists and philosophers of mind on every side of the issue - for example:
Dan Dennett believes any suitable information processing device can be conscious
John Searle believes consciousness is a biological function of brains only
David Chalmers believes consciousness transcends material causation
Roger Penrose believes quantum gravity will explain consciousness
Henry Stapp believes quantum physics in general explains consciousness
etc. etc.
What does this have to do with ID and testability? IF dualism were found to be true, then many (including me) believe that would be a very strong indication that mind was not limited to living humans (and other animals). There is no scientific evidence for dualism, but neither is there compelling reason to dismiss it.
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, that said: There is absolutely no way to test ID theory, mainly because ID theory actually doesn't make any specific claim about anything in the world that is accessible to empirical investigation, directly or indirectly.
Edited by aiguy, : typo

Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2007 1:36 PM aiguy has replied
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 2:25 PM aiguy has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2254 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 251 of 304 (374011)
01-03-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 10:03 AM


quote:
In every design there are tradeoffs. You also assume a design goal for the human species, such as every offspring surviving. But I think I could sum it all up by saying, if you think you could do better then show me your design. I'll pay shipping and handling both ways, feed it while it's here too.
Who cares what I (or any human) could or couldn't design?
This is God we're talking about, right?
Why would the IDer/God design our bodies with such flaws?
Furthermore, why would the IDer/God design our bodies to appear as though many parts are merely "just good enough", and others "not very good at all"?
If the IDer designed us, it is a pretty poor designer, wouldn't you say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 10:03 AM TheMystic has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2254 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 252 of 304 (374012)
01-03-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 10:05 AM


You don't know what "change in allele frequencies over time" means, and yet you criticize the Theory of Evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 10:05 AM TheMystic has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 253 of 304 (374014)
01-03-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 12:07 PM


TheMystic writes:
Second, the way I have heard the expression used, it means if you can't respond directly to a boss or customer, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, you throw a lot of irrelevant information at them to distract them.
Yes, you have an accurate understanding of what the expression means. But this is a debate board with Forum Guidelines that require you to support your claims. If you believe the answer was bullshit then you have to support that claim. Without such requirements we'd get discussions of the form, "That's Bullshit!" "Oh, yeah, well you're bullshit!" "No, you're bullshit!" "No, you are."
We try to discourage such exchanges here.
I don't know who is running this thing...
I own the domain, I own the server, I wrote the software, I defined the board structure, and I wrote the Forum Guidelines, so in an ultimate sense that would be me. But it is really the moderator team who makes this place work.
So if science is a consensus activity and you want to reach consensus, by all means, get rid of me.
I can only guess that you've misunderstood my point. I was talking about a scientific consensus, not a consensus on this board that I want you to join. The theory of relativity is an accepted scientific theory because a consensus of scientists believe it accurately describes reality. The theory has been able to persuade scientists of this because it has passed all tests of its validity (so far). This is what ID must do, devise tests of its validity. Devising and passing such tests is how you convince scientists.
I thought science was about being correct.
Science is about building an understanding of how our universe works, and the scientific method is the best approach we have for approaching this task.
But if you don't like my proposed test(s), why not propose better ones?
I already think ID is a religious view because the designer, ultimately, is God. And I've already described how the evidence in the fossil record indicates that design innovation spreads in the form of a nested hierarchy, unlike design innovation by people, which is the model for the designer, so ID is already contradicted by established evidence. If you think ID is scientific then it is up to you to explain the contradictions and propose tests of its validity.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar in last paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 12:07 PM TheMystic has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2254 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 254 of 304 (374017)
01-03-2007 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 11:19 AM


quote:
Two microscopic cells can carry enough information to produce a human being, whose brain complexity is just one of the fabulous stories in that body?
A person's genes are only partially responsible for their brain development. A lot of it happens after birth, for years. That's why early childhood development is so important.
For a graphic illustration, check out info on feral children

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 11:19 AM TheMystic has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 255 of 304 (374023)
01-03-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by aiguy
01-03-2007 1:09 PM


I'd say that there was pretty strong evidence that any simple dualism which allows that an ordinary human mind can exist apart from a brain is probably false. The so-called "split-brain" operation, by severing most of the connections between the two hemispheres produces a split in consciousness. The human mind is apparently dependant on physcial connections in the brain to keep itself integrated. Obviously a disembodied human mind would lack those connections and so would presumably have the same problems - at least. And that's before we consider issues like memory or the fact that physical damage to the brain can apparently produce personality changes.
Presumably a dismebodied mind would split into two, have no memory and likely a completely different personality than if it were embodied. Dualism (or more properly substance dualism) is not exactly looking healthy from where I'm sitting.

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 257 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 2:20 PM PaulK 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