Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 136 of 220 (484078)
09-26-2008 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Bio-molecularTony
09-26-2008 7:37 AM


Re: DNA systems Logically compute to design
Hi Tony,
This doesn't appear a reply to my message. When you're writing your replies, if you click on the little 'reply' button in the bottom right of the post you're replying to it creates a link between your new message and the message you're replying to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-26-2008 7:37 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 137 of 220 (484079)
09-26-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Bio-molecularTony
09-26-2008 7:39 AM


Re: DNA systems Logically compute to design
Do you want to bet on that one.....
By all means, explain my error. Please give details of how DNA functions in the cells of the body and the ways in which this closely parallels the functioning of computers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-26-2008 7:39 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

  
b00tleg
Junior Member (Idle past 4520 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 08-18-2008


Message 138 of 220 (484080)
09-26-2008 8:52 AM


Does ID have any methods at all on how one might observe an act of Intelligent Design? I ask because its taken science a long hard road to work out the details as to what constitutes evidence, how it should be observed, and how to make sure that experiments with a specific result can be repeated by other scientists. Can we expect ID to offer up any new or unique evidence of its own to support it's claims. Will ID ever make any predictions on where or how design can be observed and verified?
Will someone who supports ID be able to make a statement along the lines of "The process of Intelligent design shows us that....." or "With Intelligent Design, we can that design has been prevelant in life in the past and still is quite active because...."
What observations can be made about the world today that indicates intelligent design at any level other then "its complex."
If IDers, in my opinion, want to be taken seriously they need to start coming up with answers to any of these questions that I've posed. I can't see ID ever being taken seriously as a scientific alternative until something about it is Observable and Verifiable. In summation, I'd say there is no evidence for ID.
Edited by b00tleg, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by obvious Child, posted 09-27-2008 4:35 AM b00tleg has not replied
 Message 154 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-27-2008 9:47 PM b00tleg has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 139 of 220 (484129)
09-26-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Bio-molecularTony
09-26-2008 7:37 AM


incredulous argument
Bio-Tony writes:
We are talking here of a superior programmer coding automated intelligent software!
This is a cop-out answer.
Basically what you're saying is:
"Im talking about a programmer that I have imagined to be superior because I personally can't see any other way in which anything can be coded naturally. I have never seen nor been shown evidence for the existance of said designer, but I have to imagine there is one because I cannot understand complexity without it."
This does not equal evidence...this is an argument from incredulity.
Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia
Not human technology - superior technology fit for a God /great universal creator.
Again, here you show some double talk. If it's comparable to human technology then it is not Godly in any way. Evolved apes came up with computer programs, if DNA was the result of some superior God-like programming then it, by definition, could not be comparable to anything humans designed.
And if it has no resemblace to human technology, then how do you know what you're looking at and judging to be superior? It would be beyond your scope of comprehension. Something equivalent to magic perhaps.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-26-2008 7:37 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-27-2008 10:51 PM onifre has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 140 of 220 (484181)
09-26-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Bio-molecularTony
09-26-2008 7:39 AM


Re: DNA systems Logically compute to design
Hi Tony,
All ID has going for it is a few interesting ideas:
  • Microbiology is replete with irreducibly complex structures that could only have been intelligently designed.
  • Specified complexity requires intelligence.
  • DNA is a code and the genome is information, and only intelligence can create codes and information.
You've brought an additional idea to the table, one IDists are usually loathe to mention because it immediately reveals the religious and unscientific nature of ID: the designer is "a God/great universal creator".
It's one thing to have ideas, it's another thing to actually develop them into hypotheses and eventually theories. If the ideas of ID had any correspondence to the real world then they would lead to insights and discoveries beyond the reach of modern science, or at least to ideas as good as modern science, or at least lead to some positive result, but they don't. That's why the vast majority of ID effort is lobbying rather than research.
So if irreducible complexity is an idea that leads to greater insights about the natural world, then why has its creator, Michael Behe, written no technical papers about it?
And if specified complexity is a real concept, then why is there not only no way to measure it, but no one even working on a way to measure it?
And if chemical structures can be codes and can contain information, then how do you tell the difference between a chemical structure created by an intelligence and one created naturally?
You see, ID is not going to become science just by claiming to be science. It will only become science by doing science.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-26-2008 7:39 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-26-2008 10:07 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 161 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-27-2008 11:25 PM Percy has not replied

  
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5379 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 141 of 220 (484192)
09-26-2008 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Percy
09-26-2008 8:31 PM


Re: DNA systems Logically compute to design
Wow, lot's of posts to answer too and it's 10:00 pm FRI. Oh man...
I am going to use my library forum to refer you to cut and past information that best answers your questions when my words are just not enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 09-26-2008 8:31 PM Percy has not replied

  
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5379 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 142 of 220 (484198)
09-26-2008 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by bluegenes
09-24-2008 6:32 AM


Re: ***Bump***
"Proof: 1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something."
Evidence - Wikipedia
Evidence in science
In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis. When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process the hypothesis is rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence: nonetheless even anecdotal evidence is enough to reject a theory incompatible with that evidence, if there are sufficient repeated examples.
TONY: No one has ever shown that software of any kind can be produced naturally (non-intelligent source) that is basically superior to human knowledge.
No one has ever shown bio-machinery can occur naturally to a superior design level then mankind can design intelligently.
I have two points here.
1# You underestimate the vast complexity of the DNA software, and the bio-machinery that stores the information, reads it, and creates the finished "product".
2# Your dogmatic belief system is blinding your eyes from seeing the evidence is all around us - so clearly exposed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by bluegenes, posted 09-24-2008 6:32 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dr Jack, posted 09-27-2008 6:27 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied
 Message 145 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2008 6:30 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 09-27-2008 6:46 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 143 of 220 (484224)
09-27-2008 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by b00tleg
09-26-2008 8:52 AM


quote:
In summation, I'd say there is no evidence for ID.
Indeed. Intelligent Design can be summed up in one phrase:
Don't know now? Therefore Goddidit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by b00tleg, posted 09-26-2008 8:52 AM b00tleg has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 144 of 220 (484229)
09-27-2008 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Bio-molecularTony
09-26-2008 10:44 PM


Re: ***Bump***
No one has ever shown that software of any kind can be produced naturally (non-intelligent source) that is basically superior to human knowledge.
DNA is not software.
1# You underestimate the vast complexity of the DNA software, and the bio-machinery that stores the information, reads it, and creates the finished "product".
Probably. But I do know enough about it to understand that talking about "DNA software" being "read" by "bio-machinery" is a massive mischaractarisation of how DNA and the associated systems actually work.
More importantly, so what if we do? There's nothing about complexity that speaks against evolution.
2# Your dogmatic belief system is blinding your eyes from seeing the evidence is all around us - so clearly exposed.
We are not like you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-26-2008 10:44 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-27-2008 11:51 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 164 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-28-2008 12:03 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 145 of 220 (484230)
09-27-2008 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Bio-molecularTony
09-26-2008 10:44 PM


Inbuilt contradictions
B-mTony writes:
No one has ever shown that software of any kind can be produced naturally (non-intelligent source) that is basically superior to human knowledge.
Here, your parenthesis defines intelligence as non-natural when our brains are made of natural matter. Your first evidence-less assumption is that we, and therefore our codes are non-natural.
If you're using the word "natural" in the sense of "natural" as opposed to man made, then you're wrong as well if we accept your definition of DNA as software, because we didn't produce DNA.
If you meant to say that no-one has shown that "software" of any kind can be produced by unintelligent processes (leaving out the word natural), then who designed your personal unique "software"; your unique genome? And hasn't it occurred to you that no-one has shown that intelligence can exist without "software"? We have no evidence for any intelligent creatures that do not have DNA at their base.
Look at your own wiki extract, think of the observations we have made at this point in time, and you see that it looks like "software" first, then intelligence.
Then think of the point I keep repeating to you. Intelligence is a highly complex phenomenon. You cannot logically use the argument that intelligence is a prerequisite for complexity because, by your own argument, intelligence could not exist.
1# You underestimate the vast complexity of the DNA software, and the bio-machinery that stores the information, reads it, and creates the finished "product".
I certainly don't underestimate it! I also don't find complexity surprising in a complex universe made of complex atoms that can combine to increase complexity. When you can observe that 3 atoms of 2 different elements can combine to make a molecule of water, and that those molecules can combine to form a drop of water with characteristics like surface tension, and then that that drop of water can arrange itself into a snowflake, you realise that nature can increase complexity easily, and does so frequently.
Your "complexity" arguments seem to rely on a strange view that you are in a simple universe, so that when you observe complexity, you claim, without evidence, that it requires external intelligent interference. Next time you see something complex, consider the obvious; that it's evidence of a complex universe.
2# Your dogmatic belief system is blinding your eyes from seeing the evidence is all around us - so clearly exposed.
If you understood the arguments that I'm making to you, you would know that there's no dogmatic belief system involved. I'm pointing out that the complex phenomenon of intelligence must be able to exist without requiring intelligent engineers. That means that creator Gods can exist without requiring engineers, and that intelligence and other complex phenomena could be produced in this universe without engineers.
It is your argument that intelligence (a complex phenomenon) is a prerequisite for the existence of complex phenomena which is nonsensical because of its obvious inbuilt contradiction. Surely you understand this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-26-2008 10:44 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-28-2008 12:17 AM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 166 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-28-2008 12:40 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 146 of 220 (484234)
09-27-2008 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Bio-molecularTony
09-26-2008 10:44 PM


Re: ***Bump***
Bio-molecularTony writes:
I have two points here.
I have four.
TONY:
First, unless you're in the habit of handing out your account name and password to family and friends or have it posted somewhere on the Internet, or until you forget how to use the quoting codes, I think you can safely assume we know that "TONY" wrote this.
No one has ever shown that software of any kind can be produced naturally (non-intelligent source) that is basically superior to human knowledge.
Second, you're committing the fallacy of argument by analogy. When Robert Burns wrote, "My love is like a red, red rose," he did not mean she had all the qualities of a rose. Obviously his love did not have a pistol or stamen or roots.
In the same way, while analogies can obviously be drawn between DNA and software regarding some of its qualities, it is a mistake to conclude it must therefore possess all other qualities of software.
IDists make analogy mistakes so consistently that I'm impelled to say more. An analogy is a method of explication, not scientific evidence. It is a way of making something clear and understandable by drawing parallels to something else that is more familiar. But noting similarities between things does not mean those things are equivalent, or that the similarities extend to aspects of these things that have not yet been observed.
The number of stupid mistakes you can make by overextending analogies is legion. If someone didn't know what a bat was you could tell him that a bat is like a bird in that it is a mammal that flies. If this person were to make the mistake of overextending the analogy he might reason, "If a bat is like a bird in that it flies, then it must be like a bird in all its other aspects and also have feathers and lay eggs."
Or what if someone told you that a black hole is like the whirlpool above a bathtub drain in that it sucks everything in. Would you then conclude that a black hole must be made of water?
You're making the same type of mistake. You're noting that DNA possesses some of the qualities of software and then concluding that it must therefore have all the qualities of software. In reality, DNA has the qualities it is observed to have. It is an error of the first order to conclude it must have qualities of other things that it is similar to.
1# You underestimate the vast complexity of the DNA software, and the bio-machinery that stores the information, reads it, and creates the finished "product".
Third, you're just repeating the ID claim I already listed in Message 140, that specified complexity requires intelligence. As I already pointed out, this is an unsupported claim with no foundation in any scientific research. It originates with William Dembski who just proposed it out of the blue, and who still has provided no scientific evidence for it, no way to measure it, and of course no way to decide how much specified complexity requires intelligence, not to mention that the definition of intelligence is still scientifically vague.
Specified complexity is not a scientific concept. It's no more than an ID talking point raised when making presentations to victims, er, school boards, politicians, and other laypeople. If it were science it would be receiving attention in scientific research.
2# Your dogmatic belief system is blinding your eyes from seeing the evidence is all around us - so clearly exposed.
I always love these "I'm objective and you're not" arguments. The obviously and equally fallacious response is, "No, it's your dogmatic belief system that is blinding your eyes from seeing the evidence all around us." So where does the argument go from here? How do we determine whose belief system is more dogmatic and which is more blinding to the eyes? Obviously this can only lead irrelevantly off-topic.
What you need to do is seek out the evidence for intelligent design, keeping in mind this time that analogies and unsupported assertions are not evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-26-2008 10:44 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Wounded King, posted 09-27-2008 6:45 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 167 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-28-2008 12:47 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 168 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-28-2008 1:15 AM Percy has not replied

  
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5379 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 147 of 220 (484235)
09-27-2008 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by bluegenes
09-26-2008 8:17 AM


Re: DNA systems Logically compute to design
Are you proposing an intelligent engineer who is simpler than the simplest of proteins?
TONY: No. God has a complex mind, with complex thought.
To create a computer that is self functioning and complex you need to design it from the ground up. Yes you need to start simple but the complexity increase on each level to create a fully functional, totally automatic MACHINE / computer.
Note that all parts of the computer are intelligently designed - there are no natural designs (such things do not exist).
So it is with life. Life is contrary to nature - all technology is forced designs against the "natural tendencies" of random/blind chemical happenings.
The possibilities basically are the same for making a car verse making life without intelligence. What is the difference? Not much. If I create a door key, I create it large enough to fit in may hand. At the quantum level this is EXTREMELY large. The size should be the simplest problem because it is all the same metal, and that would be the easiest part.
To make the custom key with a custom design to have a restrictive function is what intelligent design really is all about. Living systems have all kinds of molecular "keys" with highly restrictive functions. They're "created" out of dumb atoms, an "intelligent" automated functioning logic system for order and for design.
Dumb atoms in themselves can do nothing, but can be used to create "Machines" that can act "intelligently" with stored information commands.
Have you ever created a computer program like tic-tack-toe. You use dumb commands and create a logic structure of intelligent thought down in writing. The computer reads and does what is said. So my tic-tack-toe game might whip your butt, even though the computer is not intelligent in it's self or the programming as well. But my programmed logic in that game is more intelligent them many children, maybe even you for the first 15 minutes.
Logic programming is contrary to nature. This is a undeniable principle understanding in true science. Intelligence in any form, alive and functioning person, a book, a software program are all - not naturally occurring (contrary to nature).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2008 8:17 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2008 7:06 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 148 of 220 (484239)
09-27-2008 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Bio-molecularTony
09-27-2008 6:46 AM


Re: DNA systems Logically compute to design
Please, Tony, look up the words "evidence" and "assertion" and study them carefully. The rest is answered in my last post, and you could also read Percy's post carefully, and look up "analogy" as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-27-2008 6:46 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

  
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5379 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 149 of 220 (484241)
09-27-2008 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dr Jack
09-25-2008 1:06 PM


Re: DNA systems Logically compute to design
Old - TONY: "The DNA systems function like a computer."
No, they don't. They really don't. The only similarity I can think of is that they both using digital systems; although, even there, DNA does a lot of stuff which isn't digital too.
Mr Jack
New - TONY: You must understand the complexity of the problem here. We have this little cell that can do things you could never do. It can create complex structures again and again on command that will for ever be beyond you intellectual abilities, both in size and structure.
Information storage is of no value if never used, read, and acted on.
You already know life can not function without those DNA "instructions". So getting to know the a-z logic functions of the cellular machinery (factory) would help you not to put you own foot into your own month. Don't make me force you to eat your own words of stupidity. Watch those Youtub videos on DNA functions and learn a little more about God's universal bio-technologies.
Lest I bleed you to "death" on the forum floor. (Joke) Oh Mr Jack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dr Jack, posted 09-25-2008 1:06 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Shield, posted 09-27-2008 7:37 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 09-27-2008 8:50 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2008 2:14 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied
 Message 177 by Dr Jack, posted 09-28-2008 2:53 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 150 of 220 (484246)
09-27-2008 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Bio-molecularTony
09-27-2008 7:08 AM


Re: DNA systems Logically compute to design
*Deleted content, went OT*
Edited by rbp, : fixed quote
Edited by rbp, : No reason given.
Edited by rbp, : Deleted content

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-27-2008 7:08 AM Bio-molecularTony 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