Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Yes, Design is a mechanism

In another thread "Dr" Scott Page (Doppleganger)posted the following when informed that "ID is the mechanism!" (inunison):

de•sign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-zn)
v. de•signed, de•sign•ing, de•signs
v. tr.

1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
2. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
3. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
4. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
5. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
6. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.


So, a plan is the mechanism for building a house?

It is a mechanism.

Ever hear of the "House that Jack built"? The story I remember is that Jack didn't have a plan and the resulting house exemplified that fact. His mechanism for building a house was "willy-nilly".

Edison had a mechanism for his designs- "99% persperation, 1% inspiration".

Which was different than Tesla, who had a better mechanism for his- actual research and development.

Therefore it would appear even the mechanism of design has different mechanisms.


And again- without direct observation or designer input the ONLY possible way to make a reasonable inference about the mechanism used is by studying the design. Therefore knowing the mechanism is not a pre-requisite for inferring design. It is, however, a driving force to understand the design- find a specific design mechanism. Then test it. It may turn out to be the mechanism. You never know until you try.

34 Comments:

  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    It appears that you have some experience in industry, so the fact that you can't tell the difference between design and mechanisms of design realization is a little puzzling. Let me try to explain it for you. In manufacturing, there are essentially three types of engineers: design, manufacturing and industrial (sometimes there's some overlap). Designers design things. Manufacturing engineers devise the mechanisms (manufacturing processes) through which the designs become products. Industrial engineers refine manufacturing processes and make them more efficient.
    A design does nothing until a mechanism for turning the design into something useful is developed. Sometimes designs are never developed for lack of viable mechanisms.
    In short, designs depend on mechanisms, and will never be anything except abstract concepts until a mechanism is developed (mechanisms also require design, but never mind).
    So for you to tell us that you recognize a design but can't tell us anything about the mechanism(s) involved in design realization means that you're guessing, and haven't told us anything useful, ergo you're not doing science.
    [Cue the hand-waving]

     
  • At 12:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    James Wynne sez:
    It appears that you have some experience in industry, so the fact that you can't tell the difference between design and mechanisms of design realization is a little puzzling.

    The only "fact" is the fact you are confused, as usual.

    James Wynne sez:
    A design does nothing until a mechanism for turning the design into something useful is developed.

    I never said nor implied otherwise.

    James Wynne:
    Sometimes designs are never developed for lack of viable mechanisms.

    And sometimes designs aren't developed because they just plain stink. So what?

    James Wynne sez:
    So for you to tell us that you recognize a design but can't tell us anything about the mechanism(s) involved in design realization means that you're guessing, and haven't told us anything useful, ergo you're not doing science.

    Yup you are confused. I said we can't tell anything about the mechanism of design used until we study the design in question. That is what reality demonstrates. Therefore I understand your confusion.

    As I have already told you we do have specific criteria in place that allows us detect intentional design. If that criteria is met the design inference follows.

    Design is a mechanism Jimmy. Whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not. You can either do things by design or willy-nilly. And as I posted, even the mechanism of design has mechanisms.

    Did you have a point? Or is incoherent & irrelevant babble the best you have for us today?

     
  • At 1:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just so that we are clear-

    I understand that there are different mechanisms for implementing any given design. That does nothing to refute the premise that the design process is a mechanism unto itself.

    I also understand that as observers we work with what we have. So we work it backwards- observe & detect the design, study the design so that we can gain an understanding of it becasue that is the only way to gain a reasonable inference to the mechanisms used and/ or the designer involved.

    We could find out that the design and implementation processes worked off of each other.

    The fact is we don't know and that is what science is for.

    ID & Mechanisms I

    "To say that ID has no proposed mechanism means only that we don't specifically know how ID was implemented. So what? Do we have any good reason to think that if ID was implemented at the origin of life (for example), then we should be able to determine how ID was implemented? Of course not. The truth of ID does not entail the ability to describe the process of design. Thus, the inability to describe the actual process that was implemented is essentially meaningless apart from its rhetorical appeal."

    ID & Mechanisms II

     
  • At 7:06 PM, Blogger Raevmo said…

    "As I have already told you we do have specific criteria in place that allows us detect intentional design. If that criteria is met the design inference follows."

    Are those criteria necessary conditions or sufficient conditions, or both?

     
  • At 8:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "As I have already told you we do have specific criteria in place that allows us detect intentional design. If that criteria is met the design inference follows."

    Raevmo asks:
    Are those criteria necessary conditions or sufficient conditions, or both?

    Specified complexity is a reliable marker for intelligent (intentional) intervention. Intelligent agencies can also design/ manufacture that do not exhibit SC.

    Counterflow is also a reliable marker for intelligent (intentional) intervention. And yes intelligent agencies can make it so counterflow is not present.

    I am not to worried about the scenarios in which intelligent agencies mimic nature. Those scenarios would be the minority. In the scenarios we can reliably detect design we should be allowed to do so.

    What is it that prevents tried & true design detection methodology, used in other branches of science and investigation, from being used in biology?

     
  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Joe G. asked,
    "What is it that prevents tried & true design detection methodology, used in other branches of science and investigation, from being used in biology?"

    Could it be that "design detection methodology" doesn't serve a useful purpose in biology without knowing anything about design implementation methodology? What good does it do to "know" that some biological structure might have been designed? Doesn't design, without reference to or knowledge of designers serve to answer any question that might come up?

     
  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "What is it that prevents tried & true design detection methodology, used in other branches of science and investigation, from being used in biology?"

    James Wynne:
    Could it be that "design detection methodology" doesn't serve a useful purpose in biology without knowing anything about design implementation methodology?

    That's false for several reasons. Here a couple:

    1) The ONLY way to infer anything about the design implementation process is by studying the design in question.
    2) We don't need to know the design implementation process in order to detect and attempt to understand the design.

    Do I need to know how my cars were designed and manufactured before I can understand & operate them?

    Also if we knew how the design was implemented we wouldn't have a design inference- design would be a given.

    James Wynne:
    What good does it do to "know" that some biological structure might have been designed?

    It is always best to "know" the reality behind what is being observed. That is what science is all about. And as reality demonstrates it does make a difference, at least to humans, whether or not something was intentionally designed or exhibited intelligent intervention.

    James Wynne:
    Doesn't design, without reference to or knowledge of designers serve to answer any question that might come up?

    No.

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Let me try again: ID, in order to be considered scientifically useful, must enable predictions that will help us expand the body of knowledge either beyond or in addition to what methodological naturalism is already able to do. An example: It wasn't long ago that it was believed that schizophrenia was caused by demon possession. Those who weren't satisfied with supernatural explanations (which didn't help anyone) hypothesized a somatic basis--something amiss in electrochemical activity in the brain. Long story short, it was discovered that the auditory and visual hallucinations that are typical in schizophrenia could be reproduced under controlled conditions by stimulation of the areas of the brain responsible for auditory and visual processing. After that was established, drugs were developed that help to control chemical activity in the brain such that schizophrenia sufferers can get much of their "normal" lives back.
    How would knowledge that the brain was (allegedly) intelligently designed have helped in a situation like that? I ask again--how does intelligent design serve to expand the body of knowledge in biology in a useful way--a way that will help us to form useful hypotheses?

     
  • At 12:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    James Wynne:
    Let me try again: ID, in order to be considered scientifically useful, must enable predictions that will help us expand the body of knowledge either beyond or in addition to what methodological naturalism is already able to do.

    But we already have been told that there is NO way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. Therefore what useful predictions can be made from unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?

    Heck the current biologicalparadigm has us afraid of birds!

    So I will ask again- How has saying that life and its diversity is the result of blind, purpose-less processes helped us discover anything? It is obvious it can't help us predict anything.

    Why is it that anti-IDists ALWAYS have to stray off-topic to peddle their inane babble?

    And as I have already stated- the only way to truly understand something is to see it in the light of its reality. If you can't understand that basic and simple fact then perhaps you shouldn't debate science.

    BTW I think drug treatment to be barbaric...

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Joe said,
    But we already have been told that there is NO way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. Therefore what useful predictions can be made from unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?

    You didn't answer the question. Or are you agreeing that ID is useless as a scientific concept? *You're* the one who argues that ID should be accepted as scientific, so tell us how ID can serve to advance knowledge in biology.

    Heck the current biologicalparadigm has us afraid of birds!

    Oh, my. Please tell us how ID can help us to deal with infectious diseases, while biologists are hard at work actually dealing with the problem.

    So I will ask again- How has saying that life and its diversity is the result of blind, purpose-less processes helped us discover anything? It is obvious it can't help us predict anything.

    Let's assume for the sake of discussion that you're right about things. (A mighty big assumption, because as far as I can see you're not right about any of this). Why would you want to replace one concept that "can't help us predict anything" with another that's just as impotent? Unless you can support your assertion that ID is science, of course. Making negative arguments about a competing idea (using the Pee Wee Herman Argument) does nothing to support your own position.

    Why is it that anti-IDists ALWAYS have to stray off-topic to peddle their inane babble?

    How is the current discussion off-topic? Aren't we discussing the idea that ID has no mechanisms and your fatuous claim that "Yes, Design is a mechanism"? Mechanisms that don't do anything aren't very helpful, and perhaps don't even deserve to be called mechanisms, so your failure to demonstrate the scientific utility of ID is very much on-topic.

    BTW I think drug treatment to be barbaric

    Now who's off-topic?

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    James, YOU don't answer any questions. So what's your point?

    I have more than supported the premise that ID us scientific:

    Why ID is scientific- short version

    Why ID is scientific

    The Design Inference- Why it matters

    As for the "Pee Wee Herman" argument- that is exactly what you use. I take it that is why you are so familiar with it.

    Design is a mechanism. You have done nothing to show otherwise. And design does do something.

    However as I said too many times to count, the ONLY way to make any determination of any specific mechanism is by studying the design. That you can't undertsand that reality (pretty simple actually) demonstrates your inability to even think.


    And as I have already stated- the only way to truly understand something is to see it in the light of its reality. If you can't understand that basic and simple fact then perhaps you shouldn't debate science.

    That is why we are afraid of birds. The current paradigm is useless.

    I provided two links that refute your nonsense (about mechanisms) yet you keep pushing the same tired ole refuted pap.

    It is amazing what ignorance does to humans.

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Doppelganger said…

    Sorry, "scientist" Joe Gallien, none of the gibberish you wrote indicates that "design" is a mechanism.

    It was pretty funny to watch though, almost as funny as seeing you run away from KCFS.

    But, that is another story.

     
  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doppleganger sez:
    Sorry, "scientist" Joe Gallien, none of the gibberish you wrote indicates that "design" is a mechanism.

    Gee Scotty, I wouldn't expect someone of your diminished capacity to understand what I posted anyway.

    Ya see it is rather simple- You can either do things by design or willy-nilly.

    And THAT is why I choose not to post over on KCFS. Why waste my limited internet time on people intent on agenda-driven lies and misrepresentations? Especially when I can take my case right to high schools. That's right, I have offered & given my videos so the people who matter most (students) in this debate can see for themselves. So far it is going rather well.

    However it is curious how alleged "scientists" can spend so much time on internet discussion boards. Perhaps I should have taken that demotion...

     
  • At 12:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    mech·a·nism [ mékə nìzzəm ] (plural mech·a·nisms)


    noun

    Definitions:

    1. machine part: a machine or part of a machine that performs a specific task


    2. something like machine: something that resembles a machine in having a structure of interrelated parts that function together
    the fragile mechanism of the planet's ecology


    3. method or means: a method or means of doing something
    Interest rates are only one mechanism for controlling inflation.


    4. way that something works: the methods, procedures, or processes involved in the way something works or is done
    the mechanism of international diplomacy


    5. psychology instinctive behavioral reaction: a natural unconscious reaction or type of behavior that comes into action when somebody is faced with a particular situation
    defense mechanisms


    6. philosophy philosophical theory: the philosophical theory that all natural phenomena, including human behavior, can be explained by physical causes and processes


    [Mid-17th century. < modern Latin mechanismus < Greek mēkhanē (see machine)]


    Main Entry: mech·a·nism
    Pronunciation: 'me-k&-"ni-z&m
    Function: noun
    1 a : a piece of machinery b : a process or technique for achieving a result
    2 : mechanical operation or action : WORKING 2
    3 : a doctrine that holds natural processes (as of life) to be mechanically determined and capable of complete explanation by the laws of physics and chemistry
    4 : the fundamental physical or chemical processes involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural phenomenon (as organic evolution)


    It really scares me that someone like Scott Page is a professor...

     
  • At 4:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Should university professors be able to use a dictionary? You would think that to get a PhD one would have figured out how to do so.

    Main Entry: 1de·sign
    Pronunciation: di-'zIn
    Function: verb
    Etymology: Middle English, to outline, indicate, mean, from Middle French & Medieval Latin; Middle French designer to designate, from Medieval Latin designare, from Latin, to mark out, from de- + signare to mark -- more at SIGN

    transitive senses
    1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE
    2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind (he designed the perfect crime) b : to have as a purpose : INTEND (she designed to excel in her studies) c : to devise for a specific function or end (a book designed primarily as a college textbook)
    3 archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
    4 a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans for

    intransitive senses
    1 : to conceive or execute a plan
    2 : to draw, lay out, or prepare a design
    - de·sign·ed·ly /-'zI-n&d-lE/ adverb

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Main Entry: wil·ly-nil·ly
    Pronunciation: "wi-lE-'ni-lE
    Function: adverb or adjective
    Etymology: alteration of will I nill I or will ye nill ye or will he nill he
    1 : by compulsion : without choice
    2 : in a haphazard or spontaneous manner

    Remembering that mechanism is a method or means of doing something, willy-nilly qualifies.

    Knowing that mechanism is a method or means of doing something is there anyone else who would doubt design, to devise for a specific function or end, IS also a mechanism?

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Hey Joe--

    It's pretty funny for a guy whose posts are full of spelling and grammar errors to keep posting references to dictionaries. You should try using one once in a while.
    By the way, a few weeks ago I happened on a thread at the KCFS forum where you were doing your standard bloviations, and I asked a question that you never answered (one of many, btw). I'll try again here:

    Joe,
    It's very simple. You want ID to be recognized as science, yes? Good. Then why not take one of the many research papers that deal with the evolution of the flagellum, read it (ha!) and then tell us specifically what your problem with it is, and also tell us about an experiment that you might design to test the hypotheses you think are wrong. Then you might want to tell us why there are no actual ID scientists who are doing such work, and why the Discovery Institute spends millions on PR but nothing to fund actual scientific research.
    Or, as an alternative, you can cover your ears, sing "Lalalalalala..." real loud, and then give us your worn-out arguments from incredulity all over again.

    Anyone care to bet on Joe's preferred approach?

     
  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JW sez:
    It's pretty funny for a guy whose posts are full of spelling and grammar errors to keep posting references to dictionaries. You should try using one once in a while.

    That is VERY funny because it is obvious that you don't know how to use one. (BTW, the proper term would be "grammatical errors", not "grammar errors"- LoL!)

    I take it you now realize the stupidity in trying to argue that design is not a mechanism. At least we are making progress.

    Perhaps James Wynne can provide ONE scientific research paper that demonstrates the bac flag "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process.

    Then perhaps James will tell us why not one evolutionary biologist has conducted the experiment that would demonstrate that such a transformation is even possible (ie from flagella-less bacteria to bacteria with at least one flagellum).

    You know James I have asked you several times what would falsify the premise that the bac flag evolved via some blind watchmaker-type process, yet you NEVER answered the question. IOW you are an intellectual coward extraordinaire.


    BTW Scott Minnich is a flagellum expert.

    Biochemist Michael Behe used the flagella to illustrate the concept of irreducible complexity and Minnich takes the argument to the next level crediting the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research at the University of Idaho.

     
  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Joe said,
    That is VERY funny because it is obvious that you don't know how to use one. (BTW, the proper term would be "grammatical errors", not "grammar errors"- LoL!)

    "Errors" is modified by the phrase "spelling and grammar." Are you saying that "spelling" as used in the sentence in question is an adjective? Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

    As for the rest, your continuing evasion is noted. See you next time.

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Oh, by the way, could you share with us some of the specifics of Minnich's "new insights" and how they've augmented the body of knowledge in biology?

     
  • At 1:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    James Wynne asks:
    Oh, by the way, could you share with us some of the specifics of Minnich's "new insights" and how they've augmented the body of knowledge in biology?

    I do know only an intellectual coward would ask me what someone else is doing. Thank you for again proving my point.

    JW:
    "Errors" is modified by the phrase "spelling and grammar."

    LoL! It would still be "spelling and grammatical errors", you twit. "Errors in grammar" is also OK. Ya see when you use the word "and" you should be able to take away half of the equation (ie what is on one side of the and) and still have a coherent sentence.

    JW:
    As for the rest, your continuing evasion is noted.

    It is obvious the evasion is all yours:

    Perhaps James Wynne can provide ONE scientific research paper that demonstrates the bac flag "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process.

    Then perhaps James will tell us why not one evolutionary biologist has conducted the experiment that would demonstrate that such a transformation is even possible (ie from flagella-less bacteria to bacteria with at least one flagellum).

    You know James I have asked you several times what would falsify the premise that the bac flag evolved via some blind watchmaker-type process, yet you NEVER answered the question.


    Still waiting for ONE scientific research paper... (see above for details)

    And waiting, and waiting, and waiting...

     
  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    James Wynne asks:
    You want ID to be recognized as science, yes?

    No. Physics is science. Biology is science. Chemistry is science. Intelligent design is an inference based on the data that science has provided. You know, the data presented in those two videos you choose not to watch.

    Jame Wynne:
    Then why not take one of the many research papers that deal with the evolution of the flagellum, read it

    I have read a few but not one deals with a mechanism. And we all know the debate is all about mechanisms.

    James Wynne:
    and then tell us specifically what your problem with it is,

    That has been dealt with in the video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life". What is your problem with that?

    James Wynne:
    and also tell us about an experiment that you might design to test the hypotheses you think are wrong.

    Why don't YOU tell us about the experiment(s) that confirm that bacteria without flagella can evolve into bacteria with?

    If such a scientific research paper on the bac flag exists why wasn't it used at the "Dover" trial?

    But what does all of this have to do with ID being scientific? It is obvious that evolutionism doesn't have any experimental support, yet its proponents tell us it is scientific. It can't make useful predictions, yet its proponents say it is scientific. IOW evolutionism cannot hope to live up to the standards evolutionitwits impose on ID- so what gives?

    However IF James Wynne can provide me with one scientific research paper that demonstrates the bac flag "evolved" via blind watchmaker-type processes I will gladly read it and discuss it.

    My prediction is he will not because such a paper does not exist.

    But at least we all know and understand that design is a mechanism...

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Possible design mechanisms:

    1. Front-end loading-
    J.R. Koza, Keane M., Streeter M, “Evolving Inventions”; Scientific American; Feb. 2003
    As this paper demonstrates amazing things can be accomplished when combining a properly written computer program with the resources required to accomplish a goal.

    2. “Built-in responses to environmental cues” as first put forth by Dr. Lee Spetner in Not By Chance. Akin to C++ "if""else""while" etc.

     
  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger Doppelganger said…

    I think it is just so cute that "electronics engineer" Joe Gallien feels the need to try to denigrate my credentials.
    Hero worship, propaganda videos, repeated assertions, etc. are the tools of the simpleton.
    Learn what "transitive" means.
    "Intelligent Design" is not a mechanism.

     
  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doppleganger sez:
    I think it is just so cute that "electronics engineer" Joe Gallien feels the need to try to denigrate my credentials.

    Actually you do that just fine by yourself.

    Design is a mechanism. Only a true dolt would even attempt to say otherwise.

    If only NU knew the true Scott Page...

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    mech·a·nism 3. method or means: a method or means of doing something
    Interest rates are only one mechanism for controlling inflation.


    An economic plan for limiting inflation might include a series of interest rate increases. The design is the planned series of actions. Adjusting the fed rate is the mechanism.

    Conflating common terminology does not bode well for your other arguments.

     
  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Adjusting the fed rate is a mechanism. That fed rate can be adjusted "willy-nilly" or by design, ie with a plan or intent. Which would you prefer?

    Let's take a bunch of numbers and put them into a big drum. Spin the drum and pull out a number. That will be the new fed rate. The NS can act on that number and sooner or later, it will be kept or discarded. Sooner or later a number will come along that NS seems satisfied with.

    OR you can adjust those rates via some agreed upon plan.

    IOW there are mechanisms that control other mechanisms.

    1) Design X
    2) Design a way to implement step 1
    3) Follow the instructions
    4) Correct any errors along the way (error correction- yet another mechanism underlying the other mechanisms)

    Denying reality by refusing to accept the fact that design is a mechanism, doesn't bode well for any of your arguments.

     
  • At 1:16 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Adjusting the fed rate is a mechanism. That fed rate can be adjusted "willy-nilly" or by design, ie with a plan or intent. Which would you prefer?"

    That has nothing to do with your linguistic claim.

    --
    'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
    --

    You are stretching the word "mechanism" to avoid the query. The mechanism described in the Bible is 'breath'.

    Genesis 2:7
    And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    The query posed is what is the mechanism by which the intelligent designer intervened in the history of life. Saying "design" is not a valid description of the mechanism. Did the intelligent designer form life out of the clay, or manipulate the genome on a molecular level, or did He just *poof* each species into existence?

    If you can't answer this, then just don't answer. Don't change the meaning of words to suit.

     
  • At 8:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Adjusting the fed rate is a mechanism. That fed rate can be adjusted "willy-nilly" or by design, ie with a plan or intent. Which would you prefer?"

    Zach sez:
    That has nothing to do with your linguistic claim.

    What do you think my linguistic claim is?

    Zach sez:
    You are stretching the word "mechanism" to avoid the query.

    I never meant it to be anything specific. That much should have been obvious from the OP.

    It should also be noted that the mechanism of design is at least on par with random variations culled by natural selection. Both are rather vague and lack details. Yet both are indeed mechanisms.

     
  • At 9:53 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "What do you think my linguistic claim is?"

    Your claim is at the top of the thread, "Design is a mechanism", which is a definitional question.

    When someone asks what the mechanism for intelligent design is, they are asking what physical process is used to effect the changes required to match the design. Does the designer shape clay and then breath life into them? Does he make a small change to the genome now and again? These are all valid questions that follow directly from the assertion of intelligent design.

    joe g: "random variations culled by natural selection. Both are rather vague and lack details. Yet both are indeed mechanisms."

    Neither random variation nor natural selection are vague. They are very specific scientific observations of natural phenomena. And yes, they are mechanisms of evolution because they result in changes of hereditary patterns.

     
  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "What do you think my linguistic claim is?"

    Zach:
    Your claim is at the top of the thread, "Design is a mechanism", which is a definitional question.

    And everything I have posted substantiates that claim.

    Zach:
    When someone asks what the mechanism for intelligent design is, they are asking what physical process is used to effect the changes required to match the design.

    At least you should try to follow along. I came right out and said that "design" is not a specific mechanism. However that does not rule out the fact that design is a mechanism as shown by standard and accepted definitions of both.

    ZAch:
    Does the designer shape clay and then breath life into them? Does he make a small change to the genome now and again? These are all valid questions that follow directly from the assertion of intelligent design.

    Sure thay are valid questions but they are also irrelevant to ID as explained in this thread. Again try to follow along.

    joe g: "random variations culled by natural selection. Both are rather vague and lack details. Yet both are indeed mechanisms."

    Zach:
    Neither random variation nor natural selection are vague.

    Reality demonstrates that both are very vague:

    Random variation- you can't get much more vague that "random". Random means no one knows what mutations or variations.

    Natural selection- how do we measure it? Please be specific or admit it is a vague notion.

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "I came right out and said that "design" is not a specific mechanism. However that does not rule out the fact that design is a mechanism as shown by standard and accepted definitions of both."

    'Design is not a mechanism. Design is a mechanism.' Regardless of the strained semantics you wish to use, the question remains "How was the design implemented? How was it manufactured?"

    joe g: "Sure thay are valid questions but they are also irrelevant to ID as explained in this thread."

    Redefine the words that compose the question, yet the fundamental question remains.

    joe g: "Random variation- you can't get much more vague that 'random'."

    In fact, random is a particularly described mathematical function, and in this case is a very specific assertion that mutations are independent of adaptation. The Lederbergs' Experiment is one such demonstration of this empirical fact.

    joe g: "Natural selection- how do we measure it? Please be specific or admit it is a vague notion."

    Natural selection is directly observed. It can be observed in bacteria, birds, humans, orchids and so on. As pointed out by Darwin, it has an analogue in agriculture and husbandry. It is easily demonstrated that random mutation and selection in bacteria can lead to antibiotic resistance, and even the ability to digest substances heretofore unknown to nature such as plastic.

     
  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Natural selection- how do we measure it?"

    As mentioned in my previous comment, it is possible to easily detect mutation and natural selection in bacteria exposed to antibiotics.

    A more general analytic method is by application of the Hardy-Weinberg Equation. Hardy-Weinberg posits a stable population of allele frequencies when certain conditions are met. By controlling these various factors, it is possible to detect the disequilibrium associated with selection.

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How can one distinguish between an organism surviving due to some advantageous trait and one that survives simply by being in the right place at the right time?

    How do distinguish between an advantageous trait and luck/ chance?

    How do we distinguish between traits- which are advantageous and which are not?

    You may also want to reconsider using bacterial resistance to anti-biotics as evidence for evolution:

    Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home