Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code

Just so you know: Wow! signal - WikipediaIntelligent? Well, it's the only signal so far that can't be ruled out as intelligent.I'm just sayin'. SETI has more results than so-called "intelligent design" advocates can point to. So, you asked students who hadn't gotten to that part in class?

This seems rather twisted since Modulous then goes on to quite clearly say why he doesn't consider any of the current ID 'research' to be science. What he very specifically says is that research into the topic ID claims to be about, could be done scientifically, the fact that the ID movement does not approach it in such a way, with some rare exceptions, is one reason why it is not taken seriously.In those instances where ID researchers have approached the issue scientifically, such as in Behe and Snoke's published research on the evolution of simple structral motifs (2004), what they have found has given no support at all to ID hypotheses.TTFN,WK

Thanks for the Link. Quoted from link provided above: Are you willing to allow ID researches the same freedom to speculate and possibly alter their opinions?If SETI researchers have this freedom why do you want to nip ID in the bud before they have opportunity to speculate pro and con?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I would first want to know what was the stated purpose of the authors of the specific article to which you refer?

jaywill, They've had thousands of years, & still nada.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Well then why don't you click on the reference link I provided and read the abstract of the paper? Or indeed read the whole paper since that is linked to from the abstract and is now freely available.I'm still not sure what point you think you are making. If their point wasn't to provide any support for an ID hypothesis, either directly or by casting doubt on the efficacy of traditional evolutionary theories then it should be an even clearer indication of the paucity of ID research.When the most prominent IDist researchers, i.e. Michael Behe and Doug Axe, aren't producing anything which touches on ID except in the most indirect manner by casting doubt on the feasibility of 'neo-darwinian' mechanisms, one has to wonder whether any science of ID actually exists.The Biologic Institute, which Axe heads, was set up 2 years ago now to perform ID research in secret, we have yet to see any super secret results. I don't complain about that, my own publishing record is pretty meager, but I am but one man not a research institute. Indeed Axe has been funded by the Discovery institute to do research on design related issues for the past 8 years and none of his published works seem to offer any support to ID, for all they have been held up as peer reviewed ID research.TTFN,WK

There are no ID researchers.

The full paragraph was:

quote:

---

However, detecting intelligent design in biological systems can be a scientific process. The point is that no intelligent design has been scientifically detected in biological systems. If we were doing it scientifically (as in forensic science) we'd have to describe a process that would lead to the final result (the evidence). So far the ID movement, which you allude to, has been unable to describe a feasable and repeatable process that could interact in a predictable fashion to the development of life.

---

Which is basically what I am saying. That life was designed can be a scientific conclusion, but it cannot be a scientific theory. A scientific theory would need to describe physical mechanisms (the hows) before it could reach the conclusion. So far the ID movement has stated its conclusion without describing the hows. So yes, ID has the potential to have been a scientific area - but nobody has approached it in a scientific manner. Should IDers give up? You can't give up what you haven't started yet. Nope - but they know what an intelligent signal looks like because they have a theory as to what intelligent signals look like and what unintelligent signals look like. There is a strong theoretical framework describing how unintelligent signals are produced and how intelligent ones can be produced and the differences between the two. If someone wants to develop a theoretical framework describing the mechanisms with which an intelligent agent could intervene to 'shape' the development of life then that is their own concern. Go for it if you want, but at this time nobody has actually done this - that's all I am saying. The Big Bang event is probably as repeatable as a murder. Ie - not at all. However the Big Bang isn't a scientific theory - it is a conclusion from a scientific theory (Relativity being the first theory involved and now work is well on its way to understand the big bang in more detail by synthesising it with quantum theories. The big bang is described in exquisite exquisite detail. More detail than any other event I can think of. So much detail it takes years to learn the broad strokes, and decades to learn more of the details.The entire history is not completely mapped out - but that doesn't stop it from being science. Continuing investigation has lead to more and more detail being added into it. The Big Bang is simply 'the universe used to be much much denser'. We have an enormous amount of details on this, and how the universe changed through time from there on in - right up to the point where quantum processes and relativity processes need synthesising.Then again - nobody is saying that there is a complete history. There are some good contenders being developed but we are missing some key pieces of evidence to discern between them. Those key pieces of evidence have been identified, described and experiments to gain that evidence have been proposed. The Large Hadron Collider was so keenly anticipated because it can help falsify some of these theories hopefully leaving us with only one highly confirmed, unfalsified theory. I don't think so, but you may have misunderstood. I have been saying that the exploration and discovery and understanding of processes is science. Not knowing these processes doesn't render their discovery unscientific - quite the contrary. We have a methodology in place for process understanding and we call that methodology the scientific methodology. If you are using it you are engaging in science.Since 'ID research' is not about discovering the processes of a designer it isn't scientific research into 'Design'. All they have done is attempt to show that the theory of evolution cannot not describe a complete history of life on earth using erroneous data or claiming fallacious conclusions. Criticising the theory of evolution can be a scientific endeavour, but the current criticism from the ID crowd is so untenable it can only really be described as pseudo-scientific.

For me the biggest questions i think of and can't make any sense of, is that if evolution exist than by chance how did we got here and what is our purpose here on planet earth if any? Also were did sin come from and why do we have it. Why are we hard wire to do kind things to one another and it feels good when we do it? Why do we all have urge to find out how we got here and is this all by chance?

None of these questions are on-topic in this thread, but suffice to say - if you can't answer these questions for yourself (what is my purpose, why do people do things, where did I come from and what am I supposed to do) neither evolution nor any religion is going to answer them for you.Your purpose is whatever you decide it is. The biological origins of humanity are described by evolution. You've asked questions, though, that can't be covered in a single thread, particularly one not on those topics.

Thanks Crashfrog for replying,just as i expected complete run around on words you must dazzle people with your lingo. But as for me your going to have to do a better job of dazzling. But now come to think of it as i read between the lines you didn't have an answer.Edited by whaler777, : No reason given.Edited by whaler777, : No reason given.

Hi Whaler777!You're asking some rather large though relevant questions in a thread that's focused on a rather narrow topic. If you'd like to participate in discussions with a broader focus revolving around the meaning of life, why we're here, why is there sin, and so forth, you could propose a new topic in the [forum=-25] forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hey, whaler.This has been ruled off-topic, but I will say that I think that crashfrog gave a perfectly good response to your post.See you on the appropriate thread!

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

What "lingo", exactly?I'm sensitive to the fact that describing science often requires using (and therefore defining) terms that are not familiar to most people; but I don't see where I used any unfamiliar terms in my post to you.It's plain English as far as I can tell. Exactly what part of my response did you have trouble understanding? It was not my intent to "dazzle", but rather, to communicate my thoughts clearly. In your view, how did I fail at that?

I apoligize for the response i made earlier. I was a little harsh and mainly it was due to reading most of these threads about people being closed mind thinking. By that i mean i saw most people defend evolution(evilution) with a death wish but refuse to look at other theories with same intensity(creation theory for example)and was wondering why would you?. There is a better chance in a tornado for 747 to be created from an airplane wrecking yard than for any of these theories to exist. But anyways your wright i'm probably in the wrong area for this discussion. Sorry.