Help me understand Intelligent Design

For some 200 posts now, you've been ignoring the central theme of the thread.Fine, you have no evidence in support of ID, you have no mechanism describing ID, you have no understand to impart on behalf of ID.Instead you are spending ungodly amounts of time talking about improbablity.But, I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say -Improbable compaired to what?Or are you saying that this one particular mutation is improbable when compaired to all the other possible mutations that could have occured?If so, that's pretty dim of you.Let's say that Widget Species has 100 billion potential ways a mutation could occur. The odds of any one of those mutations taking place (in comparison to the others) is 1 in 100 billion.The odds of ANY one of those mutations (without regard to the others) taking place is 100%.Your entire argument hinges on the improbablity of an event which is 100% likely.What are you thinking?

I still had to add that we should not only consider the failed experiments, but also the ones that were perfectly possible (and possibly successful) but weren't undertaken by chance.As also pointed out by some others, this group is even immeasurably bigger.

Given: a coin is flipped a hundred times and the result of each flip is noted down.Calculate the probability of the following two situations:A. That afterward we have a row of a hundred coin flip results on paper.
B. That this row of results is exactly the same as one you wrote down yesterday.The answers are:A. 1.
B. approximately 7.9 x 10^-31Only one of these situations has an analogue in evolution. The question is: which one?
Here's a hint: it's not B.The fact that Fisher said that "natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability" indicates that sometimes statisticians have a sense of humour. Of course Fisher knew that "generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability" is a contradiction in terms. That's what makes it a joke.What could be more improbable than a statistician making a joke? Not getting it, I guess.

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

For reasons that don't need to be explained I spent a fair bit of time today in a place with a view of several trees buffeted by wind and rain.The observation that came to me was that each tree was different, yet formed by exactly the same process.The seed grows, sprouts and branches, branches occuring in relatively random order and location, leaves occuring in relatively random order and location.The {branch\leaf} pattern on one tree never repeated on another tree, the trees as different as snow-flakes are rumoured to be.Thus each tree alone is a paradigm for life and organisms and the change in organisms with time.The sum of all the trees in existence and in the past are a paradigm for all the possible ways that life could have gone and still been valid, productive versions of life.The sum of all the seeds that never sprouted are a paradigm for all the ways that life did not succeed and global death ensued.The fact that one leaf is on one tree in one location is no miracle, no special success compared to all those other leaves on all those other trees.The probability of it being forced to that position is very low, but this is the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc (hope I got it right that time ) argument because there is no need for it to have been that leaf in that location on that tree, that is just simply where it grew.The reason the probability calculation is false is because it does not consider all the other possible successful solution that are equally valid

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive.

​

(chapter 1 - Explaining the very Improbable)

---

quote:

---

The actual animals that have ever lived on Earth are a tiny subset of the theoretical animals that could exist.

​

(chapter 3 - Accumulating small change)

---

Actually, I'm glad you brought that up. Because mathematically, the actual number of species and speciations that could have existed, is also a reason there is a need for "Explaining the very Improbable" in the first place. Why devote a chapter to it otherwise? Or was it because Dawkins, like myself, didn't get Mr. Fisher's joke about EHDI either, since he took it so seriously and litterally that he felt the compelling need to devot a whole chapter to it in his book . I dunno...?But clearly, it's right there in front of you, in saying that, since there "should" be so many combinations of mutations, thus, a very unorderly and incongruent amount of results (species & speciations), many more then what we actully see, and in a much more chaotic way then what we actually see, the likeliness of the "illusion of design" factor diminishes even further. It encourages the improbability of a leaf-bug and a bug-eating plant result. Because as you said, it could have been so many other things. So why a plant like bug, looking exactly like a plant...but it's a bug? NS is quite an illusionist...or was it God?See the above I have already adressed below, to which your coin flipping example is hardly satisfactory. You're gonna have to do better guys...You haven't said anything I haven't already heard and refuted.

quote:

---

In corroboration with this view, Dawkins attempts to explain the improbability of chance in reference to cumulative evolution by natural selection, saying that "Living complexity is indeed orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. But only if we assume that all the luck has to come in one fell swoop. When cascades of small chance steps accumulate, you can reach prodigious heights of adaptive complexity. That cumulative build-up is evolution. Its guiding force is natural selection." To which he concludes, that Design is an illusion. Yet, we need to approach them as if they were designed in order to "try to work out their functions.", according to Ruse. Not to mention that Dawkins doesn't adress the fact that these "cascades of small chance steps accumulat(ing)"over time, aren't so small at all, they each involve their own degree of EHDI. Plus, when all the small chance steps are accumulated selectively through Natural Selection, can the combined "luck factor" of all these steps, wihch constitute a Super Equation of EDHI, produce say...a leaf-like bug? In all that that entails?

---

ps: very busy nowdays,won't be able to answer as frequently,cheers all

Because some people seem to have a very difficult time getting it.The rest of your post doesn't seem to say much as far as I can tell.You seem to keep repeating that there is an EHDI problem in evolution but ignore the responses discussing it.

If you carry out the coin flip experiment, do you feel the need to explain why the result is precisely the one you get, out of 1.27 x 10³⁰ possible results? After all, it seems incredibly improbable... until, that is, you realise that some result has to come out. If you now admit that you didn't get Fisher's joke, then I think the whole basis for your EHDI argument falls apart. Not at all. It just means that we're flipping more coins than we thought. Why a plantlike bug? Well, why not? It had to be something. Neither. I think God does not exist, and the results of natural selection are not illusory.

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

You seem to keep repeating that there is an EHDI problem in evolution but ignore the responses discussing it.

---

Strange...my response included the explinations and my problems with those explinations. Yet instead of adressing those problems, you claim I ignore the responses.At least I'll give Parasomnium credit for attempting to adress my problems with Dawkins' explinations. However, they haven't done much outside of reaffirming my position.thanx Parasomnium

Could you please show how what I said affirms your position?

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

BTW, what would be a reason for you to concede that there is not some teleological component after all? Or is it a GIVEN?

---

You're right, I haven't answered you...sorryWell, it isn't a given no. But as for your former question, it's simple. We have this formula:The accumulative selection of "Random" Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution. My problem is with the "Random" part in this equation. If random is removed, what can you replace that with? If randomness doesn't sufficiently provide an explanation for the phenomena, it forces one to reconsider what would? In the case being, ID (God) does. The problem with Nuggin is that he wants the mechanism of ID to be explained. But he got it all wrong and he is asking the wrong questions (an honest mistake or because of personal beliefs I dunno..?) Because ID, just like RANDOMNESS, isn't the mechanism itself, it's what causes the said mechanism to exist and to take place, and give form to the present reality in the overall above stated formula. For neo-darwinists, it's randomness, and for the Believers in God (in whatever way), it's God. But in both cases, the information is lacking. In the former case, the likelyhood of the randomness is inextricably interfused and connected with an EHDI factor. Not to mention other problems. With the latter, the main objection, among others, seems to be the lack of information about the Designer, which leads people to turn (oh so inconviently for so many) to religious avenues for answers. Of course, everyone will say, that's unscientific. Well, is everything scientific? Ethics for example, human laws and the so necessary judicial (man-made) system, etc. None of those are entirely empirical in nature, yet we accept them as integral parts of our human reality. We don't say, well I don't follow any laws of the State, because they are invented by men and there is no empirical way to prove them scientifically. It's entirely based on interpretation. Ok, true in a sense, but how true is it? Not true enough for us to start stealing and killing at whim. Therefore, to over emphasise some of the problems that neo-darwinists have with ID, is really to miss the point. That point, I repeat, goes back to the initial equation, in wich ID is pinned against Randomness. In that equation, mathematically, in consideration of many factors, based also on Ockam's Razor, I, personally, find it more possible, probable and plausible to deduce ID, then to decude Randomness.One reason I stated, is that both the "Mutation" part and the "NS" part of that equation involve an Exceedingly High Degree of Improbility, according to Fisher, and Dawkins et al agree. Further, Dawkins' Weasel Similation, which he offers as "proof" for the randomness of the mutations, has done very little convincing, since the selection of each letter sequence is determined entirely on its match with the pre-programmed goal sequence, namely the setence "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL’".This attempt, without going into specifics, is about as convincing as Micheal Drosnin's Bible Code, which has been reproduced with Mobi Dick, in the same way I can reproduce the Weasel setence with my Xcell program at home. Dawkins' Evolution Code is the equivalent of Drosnin's Bible Code. Both an attempt to confirm their beliefs, and both : D-E-B-U-N-K-E-D miserably.

quote:

---

Nuggin said:

​

How is this hard to understand?

​

You are arguing against the mechanics of the real world and (Im gonna have to go caps here)

​

YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED THE MECHANICS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

​

Which is the WHOLE POINT of the THREAD!!! If you want to argue FOR ID, then DO SO. But you aren't arguing FOR ID, you're trying to argue against evolution.

​

Offer a positive argument for ID. Explain the mechanisms that are imployed in the designing and implimentation of the design.

​

IF you can not do that, you don't have a theory.

---

I hope the above helpeduntil your next backlash of neo-darwinian outragecheers all!

I don't think it helped one little bit.You put that right after the request for the mechanism etc for ID. You then wander all over the map in a run on paragraph without touching on it.Random change to the genome through a variety of known mechanisms is a viable base for neo-darwinism. Now someone suggests that this isn't correct and offers a theory of ID. You were asked for the mechanism behind this. You haven't touched on it in the slightest way yet.In addition: This shows that you don't get the point of the analogy. It is a fairly weak one in any case. The selection of the letters is done in a very simply minded manner but it shouldn't be taken as thinking NS is selecting against anything pre-programmed. It is selecting against what happens to "work" in the current environment.Any analogy is only useful for showing a point. The point of this one is to show that random change AND selection can produce unlikely outcomes. Argueing that this isn't support for evolutionary biology as a whole is missing the point of the analogy and misunderstanding the use of analogies in general.If you wanted to improve this to make it a teeny tiny bit more representative you'd make the selection based on the sentences closeness to any valid english (or ANY languages) word AND on closeness to gramatical correctness ( even to push it further closeness to making sense) but not based on a specific sentence.This would improve the analogy somewhat but loose the point that the current analogy is trying to help make and be confusing to attempt to show.I've forgotten but don't you have a physics background? It is surprising to me given that background that you seem to have such problems with some pretty straight forward reasoning.

quote:

---

You put that right after the request for the mechanism etc for ID. You then wander all over the map in a run on paragraph without touching on it.

---

I'll give you a chance to re-read my previous post Ned, I'm sure you'll reconsider what you wrote just now. If not, I'll have to question the honesty of that statement.

quote:

---

I've forgotten but don't you have a physics background? It is surprising to me given that background that you seem to have such problems with some pretty straight forward reasoning.

---

Well, I'm not familiar with your background, but taking shots at my credibility does very little to adress the problem and futility of Dawkins' similation in making his point. Mathematically, even a high school student can clearly see how his analogy is flawed and futile, because by setting a pre-programmed goal, namely finding a specific sentence (METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL), he critically renders his analogy pointless. Because as you said, it wasn't a random search. Had Dawkins been honest, and not just trying to prove a point, he would have done what you proposed, which is, "If you wanted to improve this to make it a teeny tiny bit more representative you'd make the selection based on the sentences closeness to any valid english (or ANY languages) word AND on closeness to gramatical correctness ( even to push it further closeness to making sense) but not based on a specific sentence."But did Mr. Dawkins do that? No...emphatically not.Therefore, he set himself up for this humiliating debunking..Maybe you should write him your suggestion..assuming he isn't smart enough to have thought about it himself. Which I doubt. In which case, that makes Dawkins a little dishonest methinks..he clearly was being a weasel in that attempt (humour is good for the soul)cheers

AM, from your posts you seem to be intelligent, yet you are failing to grasp really basic concepts here.You want people to accept ID as a theory then you MUST explain the mechanics. The "random" that you have such a problem with is not "random" at all. A truly "random" mutation would be the inclusion of a completely new protein into the genetic code. That NEVER happens. What does happen is that letters get transposed, etc.You want to show that the mutations are all well planned out, completely on purpose descisions by some higher being. Show us the mechanisms by which these changes are being made. If it's planned, we should be able to realize why this particular fruit fly has feet on its head instead of antanae.If you can't show evidence FOR intelligent design taking place, there's nothing to discuss. All you are doing is trying (and failing) to discourage people from pursuing science in favor of pursuing your religious beliefs (excluding all others).If you want to have your religion, no one is stopping you. Go have it. In a church. Leave science to the scientists and we promise we won't do any DNA testing on angels and unicorns.

Perhaps you should state clearly what you think his point was. You miss MY point! If you wanted an analogy that was a bit closer to biological evolution then you might make such a change. However that isn't the point that Dawkins is making. I'll let you have a go at clarifying you understanding of the point he IS making and we can discuss it. Let's have a look at the paragraph in detail. First one would have to show that randomness should be removed. You haven't done that. All the available evidence is that mutations occur in a way that is not specfically predictable. I suspect we will have to, again, fuss with a definition of "random" before continueing on this vain. Does what? Explain anything? Not that I've noticed. In this context "random" is a description of the outcome of the detailed mechanisms. It is NOT equivalent to ID in this context however. What is equivalent to ID here would be "quantum mechanics" or "the rules of chemistry". So what? As noted above this comparison is not valid. In the biologists case "it" is chemistry. If as you say it is God then the whole idea of ID being science evaporates and we can all retire from the argument. The ID claims that we can see design and should consider that. Nuggin is asking for how this design is implemented -- that is what is the mechanism. There hasn't been one put forward. I don't understand this bit. Please elaborate. Since ID is claiming to be attempting to be a scientific what does all this have to do with the discussion here? Well, we have been discussing this for days. There isn't any hint that you have understood any of the discussion. You may conclude what you want. I suggest you improve your understanding before reaching a conclusion.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-19-2005 01:13 PM

He didn't have to, because he explained that: Sometimes it helps to read just a little further.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 19-Oct-2005 07:03 PM

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins