What would it take to convince anti-IDists that ID is true?
OK anti-IDists and ID critics, here is your chance to tell us what scientific data IDists need to provide before you will accept ID. It should be of the same standard of data/ evidence presented to support the anti-ID position given in response to the previous post.
(If anti-IDists require a video of the designer in action, then their interest is not in science.)
(If anti-IDists require a video of the designer in action, then their interest is not in science.)
posted by Joe G @ 11:09 AM
20 Comments:
At 2:34 PM,
Zachriel said…
* Propose a valid scientific theory.
* Make valid empirical predictions based on the theory.
* Perform the necessary observations of those predictions.
* Publish to provide validation of those observations by independent researchers.
* Repeat the process to refine, modify or discard the theory in light of the evidence.
Let us know when you get to the first step, because no valid scientific theory of intelligent design has ever been proposed. You'd be the first!
The Scientific Method
At 12:48 AM,
Steve said…
OK anti-IDists and ID critics, here is your chance to tell us what scientific data IDists need to provide before you will accept ID. It should be of the same standard of data/ evidence presented to support the anti-ID position given in response to the previous post.
What makes you think that there is some sort of special data that will solve the above issue. You make it sound like, "if we could simply see X, why we'd believe it whole heartedly."
The reality is that ID needs to take not just future data, but existing data such as the fossil record and make sense of it. That is the ID hypothesis needs to be fleshed out. For the last 10+ years ID has been a basic idea and nothing else. Even Paul Nelso, prominent supporter of ID, has made this point.
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” –- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.--Touchstone, "The Measure of Design," July/August 2004, pp. 64-65
However, to do this, one would need to get into things like how the designer does it. This doesn't need a video tape of the designer in action, just some educated guesses to start with.
We don't simply look at the data in a vaccuum. What is needed is a theory and testable hypotheses derived from the theory that we can use, in conjunction with the data, to evaluate the efficacy of the theory vis-a-vis other theories.
You see, suppose there is some data that makes ID look good, but it makes evolutionary theory look even better. What then? Will you simply piss and moan about how FOS these scientists are?
The problem isn't a lack of data. There is loads of data about biological structures, organisms, etc. The problem is that ID has not coherent theory upon which to conduct research along the lines of evolutionary theory.
At 9:39 AM,
Joe G said…
Zach:
Propose a valid scientific theory.
Is the "theory of evolution" a valid scientific theory?
Zach:
Make valid empirical predictions based on the theory.
Does the ToE do this? Provide the data.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
In biology we can then observe biological organisms to see if they are chacterized by IC and/ or CSI. And guess what? That is what we observe. IC and CSI being valid predictions of ID.
If we didn't observe IC or CSI then there wouldn't have been a design inference.
The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
He goes on to say:
” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”
So Zachriel, answer this:
What prevents tried and true design detection methodology from being used on biological organisms?
At 9:43 AM,
Joe G said…
Richard:
ID claims that the universe as a whole is designed. In order to convince me that the universe is designed you will need to analyse the universe to identify the raw materials that were used to create it, locate a source for those raw materials and then identify the process used to create the universe from those raw materials. Having done that you would need to demonstrate that this process could not occur via a non-designed process.
But the same applies to the anti-ID position. YOU would also have to do what you posted. Otherwise you are engaging in a double-standard.
What "complexity" do we see in a lump of gold or steel? None at all...
At 9:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Steve:
What makes you think that there is some sort of special data that will solve the above issue. You make it sound like, "if we could simply see X, why we'd believe it whole heartedly."
It appears that is all you have for the anti-ID position. That is you refuse to believe a designer was involved and therefore set out to shoehorn all the "data" into the anti-ID agenda.
Paul Nelson also states there isn't a theory of evolution, and that what is proposed by the anti-IDists is pure nonsense.
Steve:
The problem is that ID has not coherent theory upon which to conduct research along the lines of evolutionary theory.
"The Privileged Planet" is based on scientific research. Ya see THAT is what it is all about, at this point in time. THat is conducting scientific research and being able to come to a design inference if that if what the data affords. However you and your ilk are trying to prevent such a thing from happening. Which pretty much demonstrates your anti-science agenda.
At 11:32 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe said:
But the same applies to the anti-ID position. YOU would also have to do what you posted. Otherwise you are engaging in a double-standard.
Richard:
Actually, no I don't as I am not claiming that the universe was designed or that there is any supernatural environment in which the universe exists.
You are making the claim that the universe did not require a designer and therefore you need the data, the same data you say IDists need, in order to make your point. You need to know the raw materials. You need to know how the laws that govern nature came about without a designer.
Richard:
The evidence already exists that supports the theory that we evolved on this planet and the universe arrived via a natural big bang event.
That is false. The evidence for "evolution" can support several models and is all circumstantial. The "big bang" does not say anything about the cause.
Richard:
So, let me get this right. The universe was created by a designer outside of the universe, but the only evidence for the inference of that design is biological organisms?
Nope. I told you to read "The Privileged Planet". That demonstrates the design inference extends well beyond biology.
The book also makes it clear that if you want to use the laws of nature to explain something you had better be prepared to demonstrate how those laws came to be without a designer. And sheer dumb luck is all you have.
Richard:
Why is the focus of your argument only on design of human beings?
It isn't. That you even think that just demonstrates you don't read my posts or have very selective recollection of what I posted. It also demonstrates that you don't know anything about ID outside of what you selectively read in my posts.
With evolutionism we don't even know what makes an organism what it is therefore it is very premature to say that one population "evolved" into another.
Richard:
If the universe was designed, this should be able to be infered from any part of that design - including a lump of gold that occurs naturally.
Nope, for the reasons Dr. Behe provides:
"Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.
Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important."
As for the big bang Behe states:
"It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality. It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event-that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size.
To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event-the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust with such a notion:
“Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind."
At 8:21 AM,
Zachriel said…
steve,
I note you cited a Nobel Prize winning chemist who helped discover self-replicating molecules — RNA world. In reply, joe g cited a former textile rental industry worker who maintains a website on RNA world.
Beyond a joke.
joe g, I note you forgot to include the Theory of Intelligent Design — again.
At 3:15 AM,
Steve said…
It appears that is all you have for the anti-ID position. That is you refuse to believe a designer was involved and therefore set out to shoehorn all the "data" into the anti-ID agenda.
This is not true at all. What I said was that before we can evaluate the ID hypothesis is that the hypothesis needs to be fleshed out.
I keep going on about the likelihood function,
Prob(E|ID).
That is where the rubber meets the pavement. Without talking about the ID hypothesis in greater detail we can't saying anything at all that is meaningful about the likelihood above. For example, suppose we want to look at,
Prob(E. coli flagellum|ID).
Well, does the designer have knowledge of biochemistry? Suppose the designer is a designer in the sense of Gonzalez and all it did was set up a life friendly universe--i.e. a universe friendly to the formation and existence of life. This hypothesis says nothing about the designer's knowledge of biochemistry, hence the flagellum probably wouldn't increase the probability of the ID hypothesis being true.
Zachriel has basically said the samething when he talks about "a valid scientific theory". What this is a detailed model/description of what happened (note this isn't a video tape in that the model/description can change). This model/description puts constraints on what can and cannot have been done. For example, evolutionary theory says we shouldn't observe hominids in the Jurassic. Observing hominids in the Jurassic would undermine current evolutionary theory. Samething is if a goat gave birth to a giraffe.
However, with ID we don't have the model/description that puts any constraints on anything at all. Junk DNA turns out to really be junk? That doesn't mean a thing for ID. Junk DNA turns out to be important? Well, that is not a problem for ID.
ID will become a theory when it puts its predictions on the "chopping block" of testability. But to get there you'll need some sort of model as to what happened. You don't have that. Hence you don't have a scientific endeavor here, just speculation.
Paul Nelson also states there isn't a theory of evolution, and that what is proposed by the anti-IDists is pure nonsense.
Really, I'd like to see a reference to that.
But, in any event, there is a well defined theory/model of evolution proposed by evolutionary biologists. Behe himself laid out quite a bit of it in your post on Junk DNA. That model puts constraints on what we'd expect to observe. Thus, evolutionary theory is way ahead of ID.
"The Privileged Planet" is based on scientific research. Ya see THAT is what it is all about, at this point in time.
So what? So was Darwin's work way back when. He made some observations, came up with a nifty idea and others came along and fleshed it out. Well over 100 years later the theory is very detailed and has lots of evidence supporting it.
Gonzalez at best, has the observations and some notion of the idea. There isn't anything else beyond that. How did the designer create the universe? What constraints were there? If there were none at all, then the theory is worthless as anything that is observed fits with the theory--i.e. it can't be refuted.
THat is conducting scientific research and being able to come to a design inference if that if what the data affords. However you and your ilk are trying to prevent such a thing from happening. Which pretty much demonstrates your anti-science agenda.
This is just ridiculous. Nobody is preventing anything of the kind. Gonzalez has gotten far, far more money doing his ID work than I have for arguing that ID is scientifically vacuous. This notion that it is the IDCists who are being gagged is just laughable.
Go out and develop a theory, which people like Dembski refuse to do, and then derive the testable hypotheses and compare it to the data then you'll have a scientific endeavor. Until then it is simply speculation.
At 11:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Zach:
I note you cited a Nobel Prize winning chemist who helped discover self-replicating molecules — RNA world. In reply, joe g cited a former textile rental industry worker who maintains a website on RNA world.
Only an imbecile couldn't see that the site I linked to contained the CURRENT (and former) SCIENTIFIC PAPERS ON THE RNA WORLD.
So Zach, what does that say about you?
RNA World WHAT's NEW
At 10:22 PM,
William Bradford said…
* Propose a valid scientific theory.
Origin of life theories are not examples.
* Make valid empirical predictions based on the theory.
No predictions of a cell arising in prebiotic conditions have been empirically verified.
* Perform the necessary observations of those predictions.
Cells are observed to come only from other cells.
* Publish to provide validation of those observations by independent researchers.
Publication of evidence for OOL can be represented by a blank page.
* Repeat the process to refine, modify or discard the theory in light of the evidence.
Discard OOL. It is absurd.
At 1:46 PM,
Steve said…
No predictions of a cell arising in prebiotic conditions have been empirically verified.
Of course not. It is a prebiotic world hence a cell is like talking about a cart before wheels are invented. Seriously, if you can't come up with something better than this kind of nonsense I suggest you lie on the porch.
Cells are observed to come only from other cells.
Well that kind of rules our ID since there had to always be Cells and unless you believe in magic or something like it you can't get that first cell you need, let alone whatever comprises the designer. Its that chcken-egg thing you know.
Publication of evidence for OOL can be represented by a blank page.
This is an outright lie. There is plenty of research on the origins of life that have been published in peer-reviewed literature.
At 2:01 PM,
Joe G said…
It appears that is all you have for the anti-ID position. That is you refuse to believe a designer was involved and therefore set out to shoehorn all the "data" into the anti-ID agenda.
Steve:
This is not true at all. What I said was that before we can evaluate the ID hypothesis is that the hypothesis needs to be fleshed out.
Has evolutionism been “fleshed out”? No. Not one of its claims can be tested. Not one.
Steve:
I keep going on about the likelihood function,
Prob(E|ID).
But the “likelihood” approach is subjective and useless.
Steve:
That is where the rubber meets the pavement. Without talking about the ID hypothesis in greater detail we can't saying anything at all that is meaningful about the likelihood above.
So what? As I said it is useless so who cares about it?
Steve:
For example, suppose we want to look at,
Prob(E. coli flagellum|ID).
Well, does the designer have knowledge of biochemistry?
The inference from the data would be that the designer at least had knowledge of biochemistry.
Again if we knew the designer, the capabilities or the process we wouldn’t have a design inference.
I have yet to find any use for the likelihood approach in determining design. It seems to me a senseless approach, an approach shown to be useless in “No Free Lunch”, starting on page 101.
Steve:
Suppose the designer is a designer in the sense of Gonzalez and all it did was set up a life friendly universe--i.e. a universe friendly to the formation and existence of life.
But that is NOT what Gonzalez says nor implies. Nowhere does he say that the universe is friendly for the formation of life. He and co-author Jay Richards do say that these are the conditions required for sustaining complex life. Neither says anything about the formation of life. Richards makes it clear that life is more than “just add water”
Steve:
This hypothesis says nothing about the designer's knowledge of biochemistry, hence the flagellum probably wouldn't increase the probability of the ID hypothesis being true.
Again ID is not about the designer. So why do you keep erecting this strawman?
Steve:
Zachriel has basically said the samething when he talks about "a valid scientific theory". What this is a detailed model/description of what happened (note this isn't a video tape in that the model/description can change). This model/description puts constraints on what can and cannot have been done. For example, evolutionary theory says we shouldn't observe hominids in the Jurassic. Observing hominids in the Jurassic would undermine current evolutionary theory. Samething is if a goat gave birth to a giraffe.
Evolutionary theory does NOT say we shouldn’t observe hominids in the Jurassic. If we ever do the theory will just accommodate that data.
Steve:
However, with ID we don't have the model/description that puts any constraints on anything at all.
Spoken like a true ID ignoramus. Both IC and CSI are testable.
Steve:
Junk DNA turns out to really be junk? That doesn't mean a thing for ID. Junk DNA turns out to be important? Well, that is not a problem for ID.
The same applies for evolutionism you twit.
Steve:
ID will become a theory when it puts its predictions on the "chopping block" of testability
It has. Both IC and CSI are testable.
Steve:
But to get there you'll need some sort of model as to what happened.
Reality demonstrates otherwise. I will go with reality.
Steve:
You don't have that. Hence you don't have a scientific endeavor here, just speculation.
But all evolutionism has to offer, as far as ‘what happened’, are unverifiable “just-so” stories.
Paul Nelson also states there isn't a theory of evolution, and that what is proposed by the anti-IDists is pure nonsense.
Steve:
Really, I'd like to see a reference to that.
But, in any event, there is a well defined theory/model of evolution proposed by evolutionary biologists. Behe himself laid out quite a bit of it in your post on Junk DNA. That model puts constraints on what we'd expect to observe. Thus, evolutionary theory is way ahead of ID.
Let’s see- ID puts constraints on what we should observe. “Evolutionary theory” is bunk. It just incorporating mechanisms as they come- conversion once thought to be unlikely is now widely accepted- BECAUSE THE DATA WAS TOO OVERWHELMING TO KEEP REJECTING IT!
"The Privileged Planet" is based on scientific research. Ya see THAT is what it is all about, at this point in time.
Steve:
So what? So was Darwin's work way back when. He made some observations, came up with a nifty idea and others came along and fleshed it out. Well over 100 years later the theory is very detailed and has lots of evidence supporting it.
LoL! We don’t even understand the mechanism behind the variations in the beak of the finch!
Steve:
Gonzalez at best, has the observations and some notion of the idea. There isn't anything else beyond that. How did the designer create the universe? What constraints were there? If there were none at all, then the theory is worthless as anything that is observed fits with the theory--i.e. it can't be refuted.
“TPP” makes several testable predictions. Predictions that will be fleshed out with further research- research that is going on today.
That is conducting scientific research and being able to come to a design inference if that if what the data affords. However you and your ilk are trying to prevent such a thing from happening. Which pretty much demonstrates your anti-science agenda.
Steve:
This is just ridiculous. Nobody is preventing anything of the kind.
The evidence demonstrates blatant censorship.
Steve:
Gonzalez has gotten far, far more money doing his ID work than I have for arguing that ID is scientifically vacuous.
You are an imbecile while Gonzalez is an actual scientist. Your arguments are refuted by reality on a daily basis and Gonzalez publishes his in peer-reviewed journals.
Steve:
This notion that it is the IDCists who are being gagged is just laughable.
I don’t know anything about IDCists but I know for a fcat that IDists and Creationists are getting gagged. To say otherwise is to talk from one’s arse.
Steve:
Go out and develop a theory, which people like Dembski refuse to do, and then derive the testable hypotheses and compare it to the data then you'll have a scientific endeavor. Until then it is simply speculation.
CSI and IC are testable. It is simply speculation to say either can arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.
At 2:07 PM,
Joe G said…
WB:
Publication of evidence for OOL can be represented by a blank page.
Steve:
This is an outright lie. There is plenty of research on the origins of life that have been published in peer-reviewed literature.
Research conducted does not mean the research has been successful.
There isn't ANY published data that demonstrates that non-living matter can give rise to life. All research to date demonstrates the premise to be incomprehensible.
At 10:07 AM,
Steve said…
There isn't ANY published data that demonstrates that non-living matter can give rise to life. All research to date demonstrates the premise to be incomprehensible.
Again this is also a lie. There is research, such as that pertaining to the RNA world that is quite suggestive. Is it research that provides an answer with 100% certainty? No, but no research in any field provides such an answer. Ever. Such research would be junk.
Joe and William Bradford have relied on an argument from ignorance. We can't see how it would work, the research to date is still rather uncertain, therefore it didn't happen. Similar arguments were made about things like atoms and the orbits of the planets.
But the “likelihood” approach is subjective and useless.
No it isn't. The Likelihood approach is not subjective, the Bayesian approach MAYBE subjective, but that is a somewhat different approach.
So what? As I said it is useless so who cares about it?
On the contrary use likelihood functions and Bayesian methods are on the rise in science. Scientists and philosophers of science have long ago realized the efficacy of these approaches which is why nobody uses things like Dembski's Explanatory Filter.
The inference from the data would be that the designer at least had knowledge of biochemistry.
Wrong, you don't even understand the issue here. When I asked about
Pr(E. coli flagellum|ID)
it wasn't asking about inferences about the designer, but the likelihood of the evidence. A completely different question.
Again if we knew the designer, the capabilities or the process we wouldn’t have a design inference.
Impressive subtle dishonesty here. I didn't say we have to know about the designer and his methods, but that we have to at least postulate something.
Spoken like a true ID ignoramus. Both IC and CSI are testable.
Really, how come no real tests have been done. I know Dembski has claimed some tests, but they all rely on the same faulty assumptions of things like the uniform probability distribution and total random assembly. To date not one test of either of these concepts has stood.
But that is NOT what Gonzalez says nor implies. Nowhere does he say that the universe is friendly for the formation of life. He and co-author Jay Richards do say that these are the conditions required for sustaining complex life. Neither says anything about the formation of life. Richards makes it clear that life is more than “just add water”
That is precisely what the anthropic principle says, which is part of Gonzalez' hypothesis. Granted it isn't all of it, but it is part of it. So you are wrong here as well.
Evolutionary theory does NOT say we shouldn’t observe hominids in the Jurassic. If we ever do the theory will just accommodate that data.
Yes it does preclude such an observation. You are right that the current theory would change, but it would be a huge change--and it would also mean the end of the current theory of evolution. In fact, it would be so huge that things like ID, and UFOs would probably become far more attractive theories. In the end they may not win, but such a find would have sweeping and far reaching implications. To pretend otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.
Gotta go for now. Thanks for the response Joe G., its always fun.
At 10:46 AM,
Joe G said…
There isn't ANY published data that demonstrates that non-living matter can give rise to life. All research to date demonstrates the premise to be incomprehensible.
Steve:
Again this is also a lie.
Present the data or admit you are a liar.
Steve:
There is research, such as that pertaining to the RNA world that is quite suggestive.
It suggests different things to different people. And it does NOT suggest life could arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process unless you already believed that to be true.
Steve:
Joe and William Bradford have relied on an argument from ignorance.
Nice projection seeing that argument from ignorance is ALL evolutionitwits have.
But the “likelihood” approach is subjective and useless.
Steve:
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
Again if we knew the designer, the capabilities or the process we wouldn’t have a design inference.
Steve:
I didn't say we have to know about the designer and his methods, but that we have to at least postulate something.
And the ONLY way to do that in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question! IOW what you ask for comes from first detecting design and then trying to understand it.
Spoken like a true ID ignoramus. Both IC and CSI are testable.
Steve:
Really, how come no real tests have been done.
Then how are anti-IDists trying to refute ID? By attempting to falsify IC and CSI.
Steve:
To date not one test of either of these concepts has stood.
Reality demonstrates quite the opposite- that is both have stood against all tests.
But that is NOT what Gonzalez says nor implies. Nowhere does he say that the universe is friendly for the formation of life. He and co-author Jay Richards do say that these are the conditions required for sustaining complex life. Neither says anything about the formation of life. Richards makes it clear that life is more than “just add water”.
Steve:
That is precisely what the anthropic principle says, which is part of Gonzalez' hypothesis. Granted it isn't all of it, but it is part of it. So you are wrong here as well.
Did you read the book? No, I didn't think so. Gonzalez does NOT say anything about the formation of life.
Evolutionary theory does NOT say we shouldn’t observe hominids in the Jurassic. If we ever do the theory will just accommodate that data.
Steve:
Yes it does preclude such an observation.
Show us the peer-reviewed paper that documents this. Or admit that is nothing but wishful thinking along with a poor understanding of the theory...
At 1:55 PM,
Steve said…
Sorry Joe, the likelihood approach is not subjective as there is no prior probability used in the calculation. And even if there was, the prior does not have to be a subjective prior. You, quite simply, are ignorant of these concepts.
At 9:18 AM,
Joe G said…
St3eve:
Sorry Joe, the likelihood approach is not subjective as there is no prior probability used in the calculation.
Well it isn't enough for you just to say it isn't subjective. Try demonstrating that it isn't. Or are you too ignorant of the concept to demonstrate it?
At 12:53 AM,
Steve said…
Joe,
It isn't my fault that you are not familiar with the likelihood approach. The likelihood approach compares the likelihood of the evidence under various hypotheses. This isn't subjective in the sense that anyold number is picked. I suggest you read up on the topic.
At 9:11 AM,
Joe G said…
Steve:
It isn't my fault that you are not familiar with the likelihood approach.
But I am familiar with it. That is why I said what I did.
I noticed you cannot demonstrate otherwise. Typical.
At 10:41 PM,
William Bradford said…
No predictions of a cell arising in prebiotic conditions have been empirically verified.
Of course not. It is a prebiotic world hence a cell is like talking about a cart before wheels are invented. Seriously, if you can't come up with something better than this kind of nonsense I suggest you lie on the porch.
Conditions in a prebiotic world can be simulated in a lab. If you did not realize this maybe you spend too much idle time on that porch.
Cells are observed to come only from other cells.
Well that kind of rules our ID since there had to always be Cells and unless you believe in magic or something like it you can't get that first cell you need, let alone whatever comprises the designer. Its that chcken-egg thing you know.
No lab evidence of cells coming from anything other than other cells. Does not bode well for an allegedly empirical science of abiogenesis. You need more than chickens and eggs to sustain an empirical claim
Publication of evidence for OOL can be represented by a blank page.
This is an outright lie. There is plenty of research on the origins of life that have been published in peer-reviewed literature.
None of it worth the researcher's salaries. A smattering of building blocks does not make your case.
Post a Comment
<< Home