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

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Real Design vs. Apparent Design

Over in A Thought Provoking ID Proposal, we were clowning around ;) with the notions of design- i.e. real design vs. apparent design.

First I need to clarify/ correct something I stated in that thread:

ID does not have any criteria for determining the design is illusory.


What IDists say is if there is the appearence of design we should be able to investigate further to make a firm determination, i.e. a scientific inference to the best explanation. Designed or not. Agent activity vs. nature, operating freely.

The "design is illusory" label is added only after due diligence. And it could very well be that the "appearance of design" disappears after that investigation. Just like the appearance of magic disappears once you figure out or see how the illusion was performed.

We do have and use tried and true design detection techniques. Archaeologists employ them. Forensic scientists employ them. Fire investigators employ them. SETI employs them.

Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed.-
Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education (bold added)



If something "appears" designed should we be allowed to investigate it further to figure out if it was designed?

If not, why not?

And if someone is just going to say that only appears designed should they have to substantiate that claim, scientifically?


See also- How Archaeologists Detect Design

16 Comments:

  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger Chris Harrison said…

    Of course you are allowed to investigate anything in an attempt to find out if it was designed. I only ask, how do IDists sift through all the false positives?

    I can only think of one definite way to get positive evidence for design.

    You need to identify the mechanisms employed during the design process.

    Evolutionary theory, by contrast, states that the the living world is the product of *known* mechanisms, such as natural selection.

    To compete with ev., IDists would need to identify a mechanism with as much explanatory power as natural selection.

    Without this mechanism, ID is left as guy intuition at best, and an argument from ignorance at worst.

    Here's what Behe allegedly had to say about ID's mechanism:
    http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Puff_of_Smoke

     
  • At 3:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Chris,

    First design is a mechanism. Just look up both words- "design" and "mechanism". And it is just as valid of a mechanism as "culled genetic accidents".

    Natural selection only explains wobbling stability.

    Also all the theory of evolution seems to be is an arguemnet from ignorance. We can't even account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    Next what Dr Behe meant was that it is irrelevant to ID how it was designed. How it was designed, ie the specific mechansim, is beyond ID.

    And reality demonstrates the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the specific process or the designer's identity, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    And guess what?

    "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature
    that are best explained as the result of intelligence."
    -- William A. Dembski

    See also Intelligent Design, the designer and the process

    However there are several candidates for mechansisms- one being "built-in responses to environmental cues" ala Dr Spetner's "non-random evolutionary hypothesis"; front loaded evolution; and artificial selection.

     
  • At 8:34 PM, Blogger Chris Harrison said…

    Design isn't a mechanism. It's an inference made from observations.

    We look at a chainsaw, a car, or in an ID world, a bacterial flagella, and we *infer* that it was designed.

    So I will give you that the living world, in the broadest sense of the word, seems designed. With this inference in hand, we must now look for a mechanism that was employed to create this apparent design.

    So both evolutionists like myself, and IDists like yourself, can agree on the word "design", which is not synonymous with any mechanism.

    But, designed *by* what?

    I argue the living world was designed by known evolutionary processes. Assuming that you do not agree with this, it is up to you to find a mechanism for ID.

    The bit about natural selection being relegated as a purely conservative force is utter crap, I'm sorry to say. If you want to pursue this further, I can refer you to hundreds of published papers showing how natural selection can be a driving force.

    You said:

    Also all the theory of evolution seems to be is an arguemnet from ignorance. We can't even account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    You'll need to expound on this, because I can't make heads or tails of that quote.

    I know what Behe meant, and you're correct that ID doesn't have a mechanism. That's the problem, and you cannot wave it away by claiming that this fact is irrelevant. Without known mechanisms, evolution would not be a scientifically viable theory.

    I'm glad you mentioned Dembski and "intelligence" together.

    Herein lies the rub, because droning on and on about the "design" of life is a moot point.

    What is Dembski's definition of intelligence, and why does natural selection not fall under it?

     
  • At 10:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Design isn't a mechanism.

    I take it you don't know or understand the meanings of the words "design" and "mechanism".

    And you didn't even follow the link provided. That is bad form.

    design:
    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 (design a building)
    intransitive verb
    1 : to conceive or execute a plan
    2 : to draw, lay out, or prepare a design


    mechanism

    1 a : a piece of machinery b : a process, technique, or system for achieving a result


    It's an inference made from observations.

    It's is that also.

    With this inference in hand, we must now look for a mechanism that was employed to create this apparent design.

    You are referring to the specific design mechanism used.

    We may never know that, however we may be able to ascertain a possible design mechanism we can use to duplicate it.

    So both evolutionists like myself, and IDists like yourself, can agree on the word "design", which is not synonymous with any mechanism.

    The word design implies agency. The word intelligent in front of it is used to differentiate from optimal design on one side and apparent design on the other.

    I argue the living world was designed by known evolutionary processes.

    Argue all you want. You have to make your case.

    It should be pointed out that "known evolutionary processes" cannot be responsible for the origin of living organisms as they apply only to living organisms.

    It should also be pointed out that if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker-type, processes, there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity is solely due to those types of processes- ie culled genetic accidents.

    The bit about natural selection being relegated as a purely conservative force is utter crap, I'm sorry to say.

    It is reality. It is what is observed in the wild and in the lab.

    If you want to pursue this further, I can refer you to hundreds of published papers showing how natural selection can be a driving force.

    Show me one that gets the finch in the first place, as opposed to just showing oscillating variation of the beak.

    Show us one that demonstrates NS can do anything other what a published geneticist states.

    Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design

    To IDists intelligence is anything which can create counterflow

    Also what part about the following didn't you understand?

    And reality demonstrates the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the specific process or the designer's identity, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    And guess what?

    "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence."-- William A. Dembski

    And I know why you can't make head or tails out of:

    We can't even account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    Because that is reality. And people like you don't want to deal with reality.

    And the reality is the specific design mechansims involved is a separate question, just as the origins of living organisms has been kept a separate question from its subsequent evolution even though it directly impacts it.

    How something was designed or how that design was implemented has zero impact on whether or not it was designed.

    And if you want to say that culled genetic accidents can "design" something from scratch you had better have some pretty convincing data.

     
  • At 11:40 PM, Blogger Chris Harrison said…

    Joe, things are not looking up for us in this conversation.

    I'm not going to pursue the "design is a mechanism" anymore, because it will lead no where except semanticsville, and it's not relevant.

    What ID needs, to compete with evolution, is a *specific* mechanism that accounts for at least some fraction of the biological world. Evolutionary theory has an arsenal of known processes, yet ID's holster is empty. That is problem that ID proponents need to address, first via a theoretical framework, and then through experiment.

    Failing this, ID will never achieve the explanatory power of evolution, and will continue to hover in the realm of theology. If you want to be scientific, do some science.

    The word design implies agency.

    No doubt IDists associate the word with an intelligent agency. However, this perceived correlation results purely from semantics, and in no way bolsters ID as scientifically viable. Preying on street-corner connotation doesn't work in the world of academic science.

    Argue all you want. You have to make your case.

    Go type "evolution" into the search engine at pubmed. That's a good chunk of my "case".
    Let me give you an analogy:

    Evolution is the star player at the plate who is constantly getting hits.
    ID is like the 5th string right fielder who has never stepped into the box, but will not stop bragging about how he's never struck out.

    We can take this further by saying a helmet would represent the theoretical mechanism through which ID happens. You get a bat (and the ability to step up to the plate) when you perform experiments that demonstrate your theoretical mechanism.

    Then, after we let you get a few swings in, we'll compare your batting average with evolution's.

    It should be pointed out that "known evolutionary processes" cannot be responsible for the origin of living organisms as they apply only to living organisms.

    If you want to discuss abiogenesis, you can contact the biochemists who study that area of research, but we're talking about the evolution of life, not it's origin. Please don't install wheels on the goal post.

    It should also be pointed out that if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker-type, processes, there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity is solely due to those types of processes- ie culled genetic accidents.

    Are you telling the designer what he/she/it can and cannot do? Regardless, from a logical PoV, the above is a huge non sequitur. From a scientific PoV, it's just silly. We've very good reasons to believe life has propagated through the eons via evolution.

    It is reality. It is what is observed in the wild and in the lab.

    You're growing denser. NS can act as a conservative as well as a driving force. Both stasis and positive selection has been observed "in the wild and in the lab". Do you really dispute this?

    Show us one that demonstrates NS can do anything other what a published geneticist states.

    There are more than one published geneticist in the world Joe. But since you request evidence that NS can drive evolutionary change, I'll give you a few links, although I really can't believe you're disputing this. You do understand that natural selection is simply differential survival, right?
    A trivial example is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16445718&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

    Adaptive evolution in humans:
    http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072
    http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0030090.eor

    And a digestible video:
    http://biocompare.fullviewmedia.com/eseminar/science/060607_sabeti_schaffner/060607_sabeti_schaffner.html

    It's unfortunate that you dodged defining intelligence. One of those "I know it when I see it" things I guess?

    That was the sticking point, because we needed to determine if NS can be considered an intelligent process. We need definitions, not the ultra vague "marks" left by "counterflow".

    You ended with a demand that I demonstrate how evolution occurs, but I cannot tell if this is a sincere challenge, or sarcasm.

    You want me to show you how the mechanisms of evolution work? Really?

     
  • At 8:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Chris,

    I design things for a living. I know that design is a mechanism.

    And when it comes to evolution living organisms could have been designed to evolved as opposed to evolved via culled genetic accidents.

    Also "built-in reponses to environmental cues" and artificial selection are two other possible design mechanisms.

    The word design implies agency.

    No doubt IDists associate the word with an intelligent agency.

    Everyone does- or at least teh vast majority, And tat is why evos always state the design is illusory or use apparent design. Read the OP.

    Go type "evolution" into the search engine at pubmed.

    But "evolution" isn't being debated. The mechanism is- ie culled genetic accidents.

    Ya see ID accepts Common Descent- that is if there is scientific data to substantiate it.

    See Biological Evolution: What is being debated

    A trivial example is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

    Ummm, bacteria "evolving" into bacteria is an example of wobbling stability.

    Also on anti-biotic resistence in bacteria:

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

    And humans are still human. Again an example of wobbling stability.

    If you want to discuss abiogenesis, you can contact the biochemists who study that area of research, but we're talking about the evolution of life, not it's origin. Please don't install wheels on the goal post.

    Let's see if you can foolow along:

    If living organims did NOT arise from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes, ie blind watchmaker-type processes, there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.

    IOW if you want to tie the design process to ID then abiogenesis is tied to the theory of evolution.

    That is beacuse the design process is irrelevant to whether or not the object was designed. And the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the actual process, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    However the origins of living organisms directly impacts any subsequent evolution.

    It's unfortunate that you dodged defining intelligence.

    It is unfortunate that you cannot read.

    Intelligence is defined as that which can create counterflow. Just as I posted yesterday.

    We need definitions, not the ultra vague "marks" left by "counterflow".

    See the OP again. At the bottom there is a link that describes how arcaeologists detect design.

    As for "ultra vague" one can't get any more vague than "culled genetic accidents".

    Especially given the fact that no one even knows whether or not there is any mechanism that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    You seem to be avoiding that fact like the plague. And it is obvious why you are doing so.


    You want me to show you how the mechanisms of evolution work?

    I know how they work. But again it is obvious you do not understand what is being debated.

    IOW when you argue against ID you are arguing from ID ignorance.

    And in the end all evolutionists have is small change plus eons of time, which every objective person knows is not how science is conducted. Just throwing eons of time at something is not scientific.

     
  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. How is it that you can continue to ask questions of people, demanding that they answer your questions--and never address, acknowledge, or answer any questions yourself?

    Chris provideed you with answers, none of which you addressed. Zero. You merely moved the goal or presented a completely different and unrelated question.

    If you'd like to discuss things, you need to address other people's specific points. Discussion does not happen through non-sequiter. Will IDers never understand that?

     
  • At 2:06 PM, Blogger Chris Harrison said…

    And when it comes to evolution living organisms could have been designed to evolved as opposed to evolved via culled genetic accidents.

    How could we falsify this? What is the difference between this and the theistic evolutionists statement that "God set things up to evolve"?

    Everyone does- or at least teh vast majority, And tat is why evos always state the design is illusory or use apparent design.

    You know my position here. The living world was designed by evolution. We're disagreeing on the design *process*, not on whether or not design happened.

    Ya see ID accepts Common Descent- that is if there is scientific data to substantiate it.

    ID is not that homogeneous. Some of its advocates accept common descent, but many do not.

    Ummm, bacteria "evolving" into bacteria is an example of wobbling stability. And humans are still human. Again an example of wobbling stability.

    That's hilarious Joe. Positive/adaptive evolution occurs, and there is no "wobbling" effect in Antarctic Notothenioids. They evolved anti-freeze proteins, and they are not "mutilated" or "at the margins" as your geneticist claims. The genes encoding these proteins have run to fixation in the populations, there is no wobbling to be found. I have the full text of 7 papers on these antifreeze glycoproteins. It's adaptive evolution at its purest, immune to the whining of IDists.

    You sound like a YEC when you complain of "bacteria evolving into bacteria". Do you want examples of speciation events?

    Abiogenesis is an open question, but evolution does not live or die by the failings of origin of life research. We can postulate a designer who jump started the first self-replicating organisms, and then removed herself from the picture to allow wholly material processes to take over. It's just more unfalsifiable speculation, of course.

    We're interested in how the living world was designed, I'm waiting for the design process to be observed in the lab. Just one protein fold. That's all I ask.

    Pick a living organism--or a part of one--and show me the evidence of "counterflow".

    Archaeologists can detect human design because they make specific assumptions that ID cannot make. Archaeologists know who the designer was and are cognizant of their abilities and the structures they have been *known* to design. The equivocation of ID with archeology is a false one.
    http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.html

    As for "ultra vague" one can't get any more vague than "culled genetic accidents".

    That's absurd Joe. Mutation happens, and we know the specific ways it can happen; the same for selection. Combine them to get your "culled genetic accidents".

    Your sound bites about human/chimp differences aren't impressive. Mutations alter DNA sequences that selection and drift can the act on. Not surprisingly, recent maps of both human and chimp genomes show the differences between us lie in the ~3% sequence difference. We've identified thousands of genes in both species, and by comparing them we can develop plausible mutation events that lead to their divergence. There are no sequences in the respective genomes that cannot be explained through a combination of various mutation events.

    Duplication events are quite obvious, for instance:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04000.html

    Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

    I hope ID can develop into a viable scientific theory Joe. I really do, but unfortunately, I currently see no evidence that it will make it into the batter's box. If you want to be scientific, you need to do science. You need a mechanism, and you must set up repeatable experiments that put forth positive evidence for ID. *Then*, ID might be relevant in a discussion on biology, depending on your batting average. Good luck Joe, and remember to keep your eye on the ball.

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

    blipey, why do you just spew nonsense from the cheap seats?

    I have addressed specific points.

    Chris just ignored my answers and chooses to remain ignorant of ID and what is being debated, just like you.

    Imagine that.

     
  • At 10:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And when it comes to evolution living organisms could have been designed to evolved as opposed to evolved via culled genetic accidents.

    How could we falsify this?

    If we can demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter, that would be a strat. Then we would figure out how much intervention, if any, was required, and go from there.

    Or evos could demonstrate that their proposed mechanism can do something other than slight variations and extremeophiles. That would be a start.

    The living world was designed by evolution.

    But "evolution" has several meanings. And the living world could have been designed to evolve.

    ID is not that homogeneous. Some of its advocates accept common descent, but many do not.

    ID is NOT the sum of its advocates.

    You sound like a YEC when you complain of "bacteria evolving into bacteria". Do you want examples of speciation events?

    Bacteria "evolving" into bacteria is an example of the wobbling stability I mentioned earlier. You cannot provide ANY data that demonstrates that bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria.

    THAT is what is meant and demonstrated by wobbling stabity. Also I take it you didn't understand the point of the link about bacteria.

    Your ignorance of the debate is not any type of refutation.

    Mutation happens, and we know the specific ways it can happen; the same for selection. Combine them to get your "culled genetic accidents".

    But culled genetic accidents have never been demonstrated to have any kind of creative power beyond altering what already exists within apparently prescribed limits.

    Your sound bites about human/chimp differences aren't impressive.

    Your answers demonstrate they aren'tsound bites and you are clueless as how to respond.

    The genetic similarities observed between the two species do not account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    No one can account for them. That is a fact.

    That is not to say we didn't share a common ancestor but it is to say that such a notion is in fact not testable. And as such out of the realm of science.

    In the end all you have is a little variation plus eons of time. Once you find that magical mutational combination, please have it published so I can read about it.

    BTW the ID mechanisms I presented are just as valid as culled genetic accidents. And as gene duplications go, as far as we know that is part of the "designed to evolve" mechanism.

    Also, as "The Privileged Planet" makes clear, the evidence and data for ID extends well beyond biology.

    We exist Chris. What is the materialistic anti-ID position if not sheer dumb luck?

    BTW archaeologists don't know who the designer is until they study the design. and even then all they really have is a vague notion, unless there is documentation.

    Copunterflow is exhibited in living organisms by their irreducible complexity.

    The bactetial flagellum is a perfect example of an IC structure in an organism.

    Not only is it IC the assembly instructions are IC. Then it has to be under command and control.

    Just how can we test that such a structure arose via culled genetic accidents? How could it be falsified?

     
  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To recap-

    Chris Harrison sez that ID is not science because it doesn't do what it wasn't formulated to do.

    When I demonstrate that reality says the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the specific process used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question, Chris ignores that reality.

    The bottom line is the specific process(es) used are a separate question. Just like the OoL is kept separate from its subsequent evolution.

    I then show, using commonly accepted definitions, that design is a mechanism. Chris ignores that reality also.

    So I provide some possible design mechanisms. Chris ignores that too.

    Next I said that all natural selection gives us is wobbling stability.

    Chris said that was nonsense but then provided examples that support wobbling stability.

    Chris then tells me to keep my eye on the ball when he isn't even in the same ballpark.

    More stuff that Chris ignored:

    ID and 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."

    Also I have provided the following:

    Testing and (potential) falsification: ID vs. evolutionism

    and:

    ID and peer-review

    And I would love to see his answer to the following:

    The bactetial flagellum is a perfect example of an IC structure in an organism.

    Not only is it IC the assembly instructions are IC. Then it has to be under command and control.

    Just how can we test that such a structure arose via culled genetic accidents? How could it be falsified?

     
  • At 1:37 PM, Blogger Chris Harrison said…

    Hi Joe.

    This will be my last post here, so feel free to get the final word in when I'm done.

    I asked you how we could falsify the design inference, and you replied:

    If we can demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter, that would be a strat.

    This would not falsify the design inference in any way. By your own speculation, we could account for abiogenesis as life having been "designed to originate".

    There must be some conceivable *observation* that would render ID falsified on the spot. Until ID is developed such that it's open to falsifaction, it will remain non-science.

    The ToE does not have this problem, because it is potentially falsifiable. It is a well structured scientific theory that makes testable predictions. Find human fossils in pre-Cambrian strata and voila, the ToE must be immediately tossed out.

    That's the problem with ID, "it's not even wrong". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
    You'd do well to read your Popper.

    Or evos could demonstrate that their proposed mechanism can do something other than slight variations and extremeophiles.

    We've very good evidence that evolution generates entirely novel form and function--the opposite of your "wobbling stability".
    The evolution of trichromatic vision via opsin gene duplication in OW monkeys is one. The trait has run to fixation and is not wobbling around at all. I posted about this here:
    http://interrogatingnature.blogspot.com/2007/04/once-more-on-biological-information.html

    More importantly, you're missing the main point of natural selectionwhen you complain of our inability to observe "more than slight variation" in the lab. Ignoring the subjectivity of "slight variation", we would not expect to see the nascent evolution of an organ or a any major morphological change given our time frames. NS gets its power because it is *cumulative*. Slight variations add up over geological time. I'm sure you're familiar with many of the transitional forms that the fossil record displays. Cetacean evolution is a good one, because there are many intermediate stages which, although they don't prove NS did it, they represent just the sort of *expectations* that stem from predictions made by the ToE.

    ID makes no such prediction.

    We've been investigating the power of NS for, what, 100 years at best? Given this incredibly short amount of time, we would not expect to directly observe anything more than what we already have. Amazingly, we've already documented speciation events, which run directly counter to your "wobbling stability".

    WS is a catch all phrase that really means "nothing big enough has been observed to impress me, personally". It's a phrase born out of the incredulity of IDists.

    That's why you won't find the phrase here:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/genetics
    or here:
    http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=index-html&issn=1553-7404
    or here:
    http://www.nature.com/ng/index.html
    or here:
    http://www.genetics.org/current.shtml

    Forgive me for dismissing the phrase as ill-defined nonsense. When your acclaimed geneticist submits a paper on WS for peer-review, let me know.
    But right now, all you're doing is making irrelevant noise. Stop being so lazy and do some research. You want to be scientific, remember?

    The rest of your postings are a mish mash of ignorant word salad that I do not care to wade through.

    At the beginning of this train wreck, I had hoped for a reasonable discussion about the scientific viability of ID. After 11 responses, I now see my hopes were delusions. You're not interested in science Joe, and I'm submitting the title of your blog for the "most misleading" award.

    I'm done buddy. Now it's your turn to come in and point out my "surrender", or perhaps my "inability to face reality". Whatever conclusions you've drawn from our discussion, you've succeeded only in lowering my opinions of ID and those who advocate it.

     
  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If we can demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter, that would be a strat.

    This would not falsify the design inference in any way.

    Umm, A) I said it would be a START, and B) I clarified that position.

    There must be some conceivable *observation* that would render ID falsified on the spot.

    That is NOT a requirement of science. But if we saw living organisms arise from non-living matter without any intervantion from some agency, ID would be falsified. That is because that living organisms are the ultimate in biological IC and CSI. And if it is demonstrated that both can arise without an agent, ID falls.

    The ToE does not have this problem, because it is potentially falsifiable. It is a well structured scientific theory that makes testable predictions. Find human fossils in pre-Cambrian strata and voila, the ToE must be immediately tossed out.

    You are obviously ignorant as to how science operates. A VALID RESEARCH program is required to falsify a scientific theory. And out of place fossils can be explained away- just as out of place artifacts are.

    We've very good evidence that evolution generates entirely novel form and function--the opposite of your "wobbling stability".

    No we don't. And AGAIN "evolution" isn't being debated.

    That you refuse to acknowledge that fact further exposes your agenda of misrepresenation and deception.

    The evolution of trichromatic vision via opsin gene duplication in OW monkeys is one. The trait has run to fixation and is not wobbling around at all. I posted about this here

    Monkies "evolving" into monkies is an example of wobbling stability. Also as far as we know ospin gene duplication was part of the design.

    Ignoring the subjectivity of "slight variation", we would not expect to see the nascent evolution of an organ or a any major morphological change given our time frames.

    Hellooo!? I already said that eons of time are required. I also stated that is NOT a scientific position.

    IOW throwing time at something is not testable.

    Cetacean evolution is a good one, because there are many intermediate stages which, although they don't prove NS did it, they represent just the sort of *expectations* that stem from predictions made by the ToE.

    First there should be roughly 50,000 transitionals and intermediates if cetaceans evolved from land animals. We have a small handful of speculations. And not one bit of biological or genetic data that would demonstrate such a transformation is even possible.

    Amazingly, we've already documented speciation events, which run directly counter to your "wobbling stability".

    If you think so then it is obvious that either you didn't read "wobbling stability" or you didn't understand it.

    Thank you for not only exposing your ID ignorance but for also exposing your ignorance when it comes to science.

    And thank you for ignoring the following (twice):

    The bactetial flagellum is a perfect example of an IC structure in an organism.

    Not only is it IC the assembly instructions are IC. Then it has to be under command and control.

    Just how can we test that such a structure arose via culled genetic accidents? How could it be falsified?


    But you are correct in one aspect- you are delusional. And you can add willfully ignorant to that.

    The following is another article that refutes you which you will ignore:

    Extrapolating From Small Changes:

    "If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don't know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don't truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1)."

    However you have not disappointed me, Chris. Your posts exhibit the ID ignorance that is rampant among anti-IDists. And you have taken it a step further by demonstrating you don't even understand science or the theory of evolution.

    You rock dude!

     
  • At 2:08 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Yeah, it makes you wonder hw all these morons got jobs at universities, and researchlabs, and corporations that make useful products and stuff?

    They're all just morons. If you, Joe, were working at ALL of these locations in their place, the world would be so much better.

    You're so smart.

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    to summarize:
    Chris Harrison starts off with a strawman:

    I can only think of one definite way to get positive evidence for design.

    You need to identify the mechanisms employed during the design process.


    Reality demonstrates that the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the specific mecahnsisms involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the the object/ event in question.

    Therefore it is a given that one does not need to know the specific mechanism used to first identitfy (detect) and then study the design.

    Also, although this may get a new thread, mechanism, as it is used in this context is a method or means or doing something. And "by design" is a method or means of doing something.

    Next Chris sez that NS has explanatory power. But when it is demonstrated that it only explains wobbling stability, ie oscillating variations, Chris then unwittingly supplies evidence that supports that claim all the while claiming it is evidence that refutes it.

    In the end he calls me lazy when in reality I have already done years of research into this. That is why I know that no one on this planet can scientifically account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    I also know there isn't any way to objectively test the premise that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor. And there isn't any way to falsify the premise that humans "evolved" via culled genetic accidents from some non-human population.

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah, it makes you wonder hw all these morons got jobs at universities, and researchlabs, and corporations that make useful products and stuff?

    People who run those corporations that make useful stuff know that design is a useful mechanism.

    People who work at universities had to be qualified and pass an interview. The same goes for people who work in research labs.

    IOW it doesn't make me wonder, I am very familiar with the processes involved.

    What is clear is that corporations do not require the theory of evolution to become and remain profitable.

    It is also clear that the theory of evolution isn't of any use to researchers:

    Why do we invoke Darwin?

    And in the end all researchers know they have to carefully design their experiments in order to get any meaningful data from them.

    You're so smart.

    When compared to the anti-IDists who post(ed) here, I am very smart.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home