Intelligent Reasoning: No Examples and No Hypothesis for the non-telic position

Friday, August 14, 2009

No Examples and No Hypothesis for the non-telic position

Every day it is becoming more and more obvious that the only criteria for the anti-ID, ie non-telic, position is just the refusal to accept the design inference at any and all costs.

I say that because no one can provide a testable hypothesis for that position nor have any examples been forthcoming.

Heck I have asked how one can test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved via non-telic processes and instead of answering the question the assholes harp on anything and everything ID.

So now one has to wonder how it is that their position is deemed scientific when it can't even meet the standards of science.

200 Comments:

At 10:18 AM, blipey said…

So, no EXAMPLE here either? Come on, there must be a way to determine the design of Stonehenge. What is it?

I have a prediction. Intelligent Reasoning will soon look just like Reasonable Kansans--all closed threads and no comments. I wonder why?
At 10:44 AM, Joe G said…

Indeed- there isn't any examples to support your position here or anywhere.

And yes there is a way to determine that Stonehenge, or anything, is designed.

I told you about it and you just said we know Stonehenge is designed because it looks designed.

But anyway I am sure your prediction will come true because you never have any relevant comments.

You seem to think that your misrepresentations and ignorance are meaningful discourse.

You and your ilk fulfill my predictions every day.
At 12:24 PM, blipey said…

So, maybe you could take us through the Stonehenge Problem. Exactly what signs of counterflow do you see that make it designed (signs that aren't determined by us knowing that human beings made them, that is)?
At 12:34 PM, Joe G said…

I went through how to determine design with Stonehenge.

There isn't any reason to do so again.

That you think Stonehenge's design was determined because we know humans did it proves you are ignorant and unreasonable.

The fact you refuse to post and example or a testable hypothesis for your position proves you are neither intelligent nor have any reasoning abilities.

IOW you are a clown for a reason...
At 12:41 PM, Joe G said…

Heck I have asked how one can test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved via non-telic processes and instead of answering the question the assholes harp on anything and everything ID.-

Erik Pratt, fulfilling my predictions on a daily basis.

Thanks Erik.
At 2:11 PM, blipey said…

No, Joe. You said that Stonehenge was designed because of counterflow. That is not "going through" anything. As I said at the time, that's like saying I designed the road with calculus.

So, what method of detection do you use? What process of investigation goes into determining Stonehenge was designed? Besides saying "it looks designed" that is?

You mentioned the mortice, but that just boils down to "humans make stuff like that, so humans probably built this.

What non-ambivalent manner do you use to show that Stonehenge was designed?
At 3:31 PM, Joe G said…

No, Joe. You said that Stonehenge was designed because of counterflow. That is not "going through" anything.-

I said more than that and that is going through the process.

Your ignorance is not a refutation.

As I said at the time, that's like saying I designed the road with calculus.-

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

But I understand that is how you do things via unsupported proclamations.

So, what method of detection do you use? What process of investigation goes into determining Stonehenge was designed?-

Determining the presence or absence of counterflow is the process.

It takes knowledge, which is why you cannot understand that process.

Science and investigation aren't for everybody.

You are a clown for a reason.

BTW you are the one saying we determined Stonehenge is designed because it looks designed.

So stop with your projections already.
At 3:43 PM, Joe G said…

The explanatory filter (EF) is a process that can be used to reach an informed inference about an object or event in question.

The EF mandates a rigorous investigation be conducted in an attempt to figure out how the object/ structure/ event in question came to be (see Science Asks Three Basic Questions, question 3).

So who would use such a process? Mainly anyone and everyone attempting to debunk a design inference. This would also apply to anyone checking/ verifying a design inference.

As I said in another opening post, Ghost Hunters use the EF.

The EF is just a standard operating procedure used when conducting an investigation in which the cause is in doubt or needs to be verified.
At 9:59 AM, blipey said…

What are the signs of counterflow in Stonehenge, Joe.

You seem not to be able to detail anything. Why is that?

Once again, calculus takes some knowledge. Saying that I designed the roadway with calculus just doesn't cut it, however.

Saying that:

a parabola is the smoothest transition between grades so I joined the roadbed coming off the hill with the roadbed on the flat using a parabolic transition which I determined using a first differential of the linear equation representing the roadbeds

would be an example.

Where's yours?
At 10:18 AM, Joe G said…

I have already been oversome of the signs of counterflow in Stonehenge.

There isn't any reason to do so again.

However you have never provided anything to support your position.

All you can do is to fulfill my predictions-

Heck I have asked how one can test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved via non-telic processes and instead of answering the question the assholes harp on anything and everything ID.

So now one has to wonder how it is that their position is deemed scientific when it can't even meet the standards of science.-

So I thank you.
At 10:18 AM, Joe G said…

Put up or shut up Erik...
At 10:29 AM, blipey said…

Okay, by some you mean one. I get it. The response was,

We know that man makes mortice joints like this so man most likely made Stonehenge.

You have never revealed to us a process by which we can determine design when man is factored out (or, more generally Earthbound animals). Until you do so, your design inference is merely saying "it looks like man made it so it must have been made by man."

If not, give an example of design that does not rely on man (or what man has observed in nature).
At 10:41 AM, Joe G said…

By some I mean more than one.

We know that man makes mortice joints like this so man most likely made Stonehenge.-

What prevents nature, operating freely from producing the joints seen on Stonehenge?

THAT is what has to be answered.

Ya see as I told you design detection needs two areas of knowledge.

One is what nature, operating freely can do and the other is what agencies can do with nature.

What would happen if we never observed man making those joints?

As I said we know what man can do because we have direct observation as well as designer input where man is concerned.

When man is factored out counterflow still applies.

And if you don't like the design inference then all you have to do is to actually substantiate the claims of YOUR position.

However you don't have any criteria from which to do so.

By not providing an example that supports your position you have proven that examples are meaningless.

So why is it that you demand of ID what your position cannot provide?
At 10:58 AM, blipey said…

So, "it looks designed to me" is your answer?

There is no process there, Joe. None. You have no steps, nothing. Just "it looks designed to me." If you had anything else, you'd be able to explain why it looks designed. But you never have and you will never do so in the future.

Humans have seen trees clogging a river after a flash flood. Sometimes these trees and twigs jumble together in pretty neat looking packages that do a nice job of damming the river. If man had never seen a beaver, he might think it reasonable to assume a beaver dam was created by floods.

Or that lighting is created by the gods.

Or that maggots are created by wheat.

What definitive PROCESS do you have that tells him he is wrong? Besides observation of nature that is?

You must have a process that can determine whether sticks on the side of the road where arranged by design or blown there by the wind. I'll bet dollars to donuts I could set up a test that would be impossible for you to determine the piles' design.
At 1:56 PM, Joe G said…

"It looks designed" is YOUR criteria.

But I say when something "looks designed" we should be able to at least check into that possibility.

And again just because you, a freakin' lowlife clown, can't understand the methodology I have presented, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Trees clogging a river and beaver dams are two very different things.

Anyone with even the slighest bit of investigative experience could tell the two apart.

Glaciers move big stones.

They can also carve grooves in stones.

So the bottom line is Erik thinks his ignorance and lies are meaningful discourse and/ or some sort of refutation.

He also thinks that the refusal to support his position is a strength.

The Pratt MO:

1- Misrepresent the opponent's position

2- Never, ever, try to substantiate the claims of your position

3- Always hold your opponent to a different standard. And when that standard is met see step 1.
At 1:57 PM, Joe G said…

BTW beavers leave behind traces of their activity- ie counterflow.
At 4:46 PM, Joe G said…

If man had never seen a beaver, he might think it reasonable to assume a beaver dam was created by floods.

Or that lighting is created by the gods.

Or that maggots are created by wheat.-

If man never made a beaver he would think that lightning- I think you meant lightning- is created by the gods?

But anyway we no longer infer lightning is the product of the gods because we now know that nature, operating freely can account for it.

And we do that even though man can create lightning.

And if man never met a beaver he could investigate to see what non-telic process can account for the points on the end of the dams branches, as well as the markings leading to those points. Then there will be the pointed stumps left behind, with those same markings.

Then there is all that well placed mud.

IOW counterflow.

And Pasteur, who refuted the premise of spontaneous generation,was a Creationist.
At 5:41 PM, blipey said…

Good, Joe. That's almost an EXAMPLE. Now, give an EXAMPLE of something that was designed that was not designed by Earthbound life. Should be easy, huh?

How about a planet? How do we know that a planet is designed?

Or the galaxy? How do we know that the galaxy is designed?
At 7:25 PM, Joe G said…

Actions speak louder than words and your actions prove that examples are not necessary.

But anyway all the scientific data presented in "The Privileged Planet" is more than enough to infer our universe is designed.

Just what do you think the options are?

And what do you have to support your position?
At 12:54 AM, blipey said…

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 10:24 AM, One Brow said…

The origin of any particular bacterial flagellum (there are a few different versions) is a historical quesiton, not subject to testing unless you have a time machine. There is no testable scientific hypothesis that can be formulated concerning it.

We can construct a narrative based on known evolutionary processes. We can test individual pieces of the narrative to see if they occur. However, none of this tells us what actually happened in the past. Sans bacterial fossils, there is no confirmation method.
At 10:31 AM, Joe G said…

The origin of any particular artifact is also a historical question, and yet they are subject to testing.
At 10:38 AM, One Brow said…

However, we can test the theory that the development of
a flagellum having evolved by looking at closely related bacteria and seeing if the are some that have flagella and some that do not, if the protein that make the flagellum have been put to other uses in these related bacteria, and/or if the differences between the heretible information in these bacteria fit the pattern of random mutation through the know causes of mutation. So, while the historical question is not directly testable, we can test the results of assuming it to be true, and can falsify it.
At 5:47 PM, Joe G said…

The debate is not about "evolution". It is about the mechanisms.

Also it isn't just one protein per flagellum component.

Then there is the fact that without chaperones there would be cross-reactions.

So you need the correct amount of proteins, directed to the correct place and assembled in the correct order.

Then you also need command and control in place for it to function.
At 6:06 PM, blipey said…

Some people are closed for business even though the sign on the door says "Open 10-5".
At 6:08 PM, Joe G said…

For example:

The bacterial flagellum- It is a physical part. The physical information is the specific arrangement of amino acid sequences required, as well as their configuration- the “propeller” filament is comprised of more than 20,000 subunits of the flagellin protein FLiC; The three ring proteins (Flgh, I, and F) are presnt in about 26 subunits each; The proximal rod requires 6 subunits, FliE 9 subunits, and FliP about 5 subunits; the distal rod consists of about 25 subunits; the hook (or U-joint) consists of about 130 subunits of FlgE .
At 6:15 PM, Joe G said…

Some people are closed for business even though the sign on the door says "Open 10-5".-

It's Sunday.
At 7:53 PM, blipey said…

Not really the point.
At 8:17 PM, Joe G said…

The only point you have is at the top of your pointy little head.
At 9:55 PM, blipey said…

How about an EXAMPLE relating the design or non-design of said point?
At 10:08 PM, Joe G said…

Wednesday it may rain.
At 11:27 AM, One Brow said…

Then there is the fact that without chaperones there would be cross-reactions.

So you need the correct amount of proteins, directed to the correct place and assembled in the correct order.

Then you also need command and control in place for it to function.

When you have a 99.99% tolerance for failure, you really don't need any of those things. Also, I note nothing in your comment said that my construct failed to test the theory of flagellar development. So, regardless of your disbelief, we apparently do have a test.
At 11:35 AM, Joe G said…

1- Nothing you said tests the possibility that a bacterial flagellum evolved via non-telic processes.

NON_TELIC PROCESSES- you failed to address that.

And nothing you said tests the evolution of a flagellum.

2- Without the things I mentioned you don't get the flagellum.

Cross-reactions would prevent one from forming.

Without the correct quantities no flagellum

without command and control all you have is a useless appendage.
At 5:59 PM, Joe G said…

BTW related bacteria could have similar proteins because of flagella devolution.

That is bacteria with a once functioning flagella system lost that functionality because it wasn't needed in that environment.
At 11:15 AM, One Brow said…

Sorry, I didn't see the "non-telic" part. That renders your challenge impossible and meaningless, of course. Since there is no meaningful way to determine teleogy in biological organisms, there is no meaningful way to demonstrate non-teology.

I'll acknowledge that your challenge has meaning though, if you can prove that any aspect of evolution is non-telic. Let's try random mutations. Can you prove they are non-telic?
At 11:37 AM, Joe G said…

OB,

This whole debate is about telic processes vs non-telic processes.

And yes we can tell telic from non-telic via reducibility. That is we (try) to figure out what it (whatever we are investigating) is reducible to.

We make scientific inferences of telic v non-telic via observation, experiment and experience.

Dr Spetner has written a book titled "Not By Chance"- you should read it.
At 12:07 PM, blipey said…

Right. A demonstration would include something other than "it looks telic or non-telic". What specific numbers or physical criteria do you have to differentiate telic from non-telic processes?
At 12:16 PM, One Brow said…

i'm aware that's the debate you want to conduct. However, to have that debate, you first have to distinguish between processes that are telic and those that are non-telic.

Reducibility is not an indicator of telic origin. Many very simple things are designed, many complx things are not.

Again, feel free to try to prove that any one mechanism of evoltuion is non-telic. When you find out you can't, how can you debate telic vs. non-telic when you can't even line thenm up?
At 12:33 PM, Joe G said…

i'm aware that's the debate you want to conduct.-

No that has been the debate since the debate began back in the time of Aristotle- perhaps even before.

However, to have that debate, you first have to distinguish between processes that are telic and those that are non-telic.-

We humans think we have a pretty good grasp on that.

SETI, forensic science and archaeology try to differentiate between telic and non-telic processes.

Reducibility is not an indicator of telic origin. Many very simple things are designed, many complx things are not.-

Reducibility is a great indicator because once we figure out what it is reducible to we will have an excellent idea about how it came to be that way.

And yes designers can mimic nature- as I have already told you.

And mere complexity is meaningless.

The design inference is not based on mere complexity.

Again, feel free to try to prove that any one mechanism of evoltuion is non-telic.-

That is what IDists have been saying for decades!

As Dr Spetner said if evos want to say that mutations are random then all they can call on are point mutations as other mutations such as transposons carry with them the sequence for the enzymes required to move them around.

Ermst Mayr said that teleology cannot be allowed in biology "What Evolution Is".

Dawkins wrote "The Blindwatchmaker" to promote that evolution is non-telic.

Even Darwin talked about this.

So don't even try to tell me that I am the one making the distinction.

And please stop thinking your ignorance is meaningful discourse.

I get enough of that from blipey and Rich Hughes.
At 12:42 PM, Joe G said…

What specific numbers or physical criteria do you have to differentiate telic from non-telic processes?-

The same criteria I have been posting and discussing for years.

Do you think that

SETI researchers flip a coin?

Archaeologists flip a coin?

forensic scientists flip a coin?

Why do you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?
At 2:12 PM, blipey said…

Yet you have never actually given any numbers, or Examples of why one group of stones is designed and another is not.

Oh, except that one looks designed and one does not. Not very objective.
At 2:26 PM, One Brow said…

We humans think we have a pretty good grasp on that.

SETI, forensic science and archaeology try to differentiate between telic and non-telic processes.

All of this is done by analogy to what radio signals people have produced, what injuries people have inflicted on each other, and what humans do to their environment. Do you have an example that does not use analogy?

The design inference is not based on mere complexity.

Right, it's based on prettiness.

The fact that you can't provide evidence that any mechanism of evolution as telic or non-telic means that the discussion is not a scientific discussion, and does not belong in a science classroom.

By the way, point mutations are not random in the same way transposons are not random. They happen for specific chamical reasons.

The only way any of these are random is with respect to the needs of the organism.
At 3:29 PM, Joe G said…

SETI, forensic science and archaeology try to differentiate between telic and non-telic processes.-

All of this is done by analogy to what radio signals people have produced, what injuries people have inflicted on each other, and what humans do to their environment.-

Nope, SETI is not done by analogy. Archaeology is not done by analogy and forensic science isn't done by analogy.

True all those venues require knowledge- but it is the knowledge of what nature, operating freely can do vs what designing agencies can do with nature.

The fact that you can't provide evidence that any mechanism of evolution as telic or non-telic means that the discussion is not a scientific discussion, and does not belong in a science classroom.-

Your refusal to accept the description of how we can tell the difference doesn't mean no one has produced it.

Reducibility is the key.

Also most, if not all, books say that point mutations are copying errors- all mutations are either copying errors or damage from an external source (radiation for example).

What ID says (Dr Spetner too) is that some or even most mutations are not random in any respect.

They occur because something triggered them- as with control statements in a computer program.

(if-then-else)
At 3:32 PM, Joe G said…

Yet you have never actually given any numbers, or Examples of why one group of stones is designed and another is not.-

I have.

Again your ignorance is not a refutation.

Oh, except that one looks designed and one does not.-

That is what YOU say.

I say if it looks designed then that is reason enough to check into the possibility is was designed.

But you are too stupid to even understand that.
At 3:56 PM, One Brow said…

Nope, SETI is not done by analogy. Archaeology is not done by analogy and forensic science isn't done by analogy.

True all those venues require knowledge- but it is the knowledge of what nature, operating freely can do vs what designing agencies can do with nature.

That's the analogy. We know what humans have done, and we looks for signs that are analogous.

Your refusal to accept the description of how we can tell the difference doesn't mean no one has produced it.

You don't have a reliable indicator. If I post two strings of sixty characters, you can't tell which one has a telic origin, unless it is analogous to other strings you have seen you know are telic (such as those composed of words). There is no formulaiton of CSI that aids in the decision, because the "S" of CSI is arbitrary.

Reducibility is the key.

Reductive analysis is a methodology that can be applied to anything.

Also most, if not all, books say that point mutations are copying errors- all mutations are either copying errors or damage from an external source (radiation for example).

They are only errors from the viewpoint of faithful copying, and even then non-random errors from a chemical perspective. The only randomness is with respect tot he needs fo the organism.

What ID says (Dr Spetner too) is that some or even most mutations are not random in any respect.

They occur because something triggered them- as with control statements in a computer program.

However, it says this without offering any way these mutations are tied to the needs of the organism.
At 5:05 PM, Joe G said…

Except we know that humans didn't create life.

And we know humans built Stonehenge because we have found evidence of them being at the site.

With SETI they even say they aren't looking for what humans may have done. Just something that nature, operating freely could not possibly account for.

Also "specification" is not arbitrary.

If you post two strings then both were designed.

Have you ever observed nature, operating freely produce a string of numbers?

And yes reductive analysis can be applied to anything. That is the point.

One of the basic questions that science asks is "how did it come to be this way?"

Reducibility helps answer that question.

BTW Dr Spetner provided a way to test his premise.
At 1:12 AM, blipey said…

We know that Stonehenge was built by humans because we have evidence of them being at the site.

Wow. Thanks, Joe. We're pretty sure it was designed because we're pretty sure that humans designed it.

Why did it take you so long to say so?
At 8:25 AM, Joe G said…

We know that Stonehenge was built by humans because we have evidence of them being at the site.-

My apologies I misspoke. We infer Stonehnege was built by humans because we found evidence of humans at the site.

But that could also mean that humans stumbled upon the site an dset up camp.

We're pretty sure it was designed because we're pretty sure that humans designed it.-

Not even close.

We are sure it was designed because it contains counterflow, ie work.
At 8:39 AM, Joe G said…

Ya see Erik we found the evidence for human presence after design was determined.

Then we tried to see how they could have built it. And in doing so we found it could have been done with the technology available to humans.
At 8:55 AM, Joe G said…

Erik Pratt working his first homicide as a forensic scientist:

"Chief, I have solved this murder!"

"What do you have Pratt?"

"It was a human that killed the other human!"

"You're fired Pratt."
At 11:14 AM, One Brow said…

Except we know that humans didn't create life.

Exactly, we have no analogy for th ecreation of life.

And we know humans built Stonehenge because we have found evidence of them being at the site.

Even before the evidence, it was obvious because it looks likes something men make.

With SETI they even say they aren't looking for what humans may have done. Just something that nature, operating freely could not possibly account for.

They are looking for narrow-band transmission not in natural spectrum, because that is what humans have created.

Also "specification" is not arbitrary.

It's assigned to the structure after it has been determined if the structure has a function or not in the eyes of the observer. That's highly arbitrary.

If you post two strings then both were designed.

Have you ever observed nature, operating freely produce a string of numbers?

Yes. DNA, RNA, pulsars, etc.

And yes reductive analysis can be applied to anything. That is the point.

That's why it is not evidence for design.

BTW Dr Spetner provided a way to test his premise.

Can you link to the details?
At 12:21 PM, Joe G said…

Exactly, we have no analogy for th ecreation of life.-

Analogy isn't the only way to detect design.

Reducibility is a very relieable indicator.

Even before the evidence, it was obvious because it looks likes something men make.-

Nice assertion. Too bad it is bald and false.

They are looking for narrow-band transmission not in natural spectrum, because that is what humans have created.-

Not according to Seth Shostak(sp?).

Narrow-band, yes. because of humans, no. Because nature, operating freely couldn't do it.

It's assigned to the structure after it has been determined if the structure has a function or not in the eyes of the observer. That's highly arbitrary.-

Science does rely on observation.

But specification is laid out prior to any observation.

Have you ever observed nature, operating freely produce a string of numbers?-

Yes. DNA, RNA, pulsars, etc.-

Pulsars don't produce a string of numbers and there isn't any evidence that nature, operating freely can put together a sequence of DNA nor RNA.

And neither is a string of numbers.

And yes reductive analysis can be applied to anything. That is the point.-

That's why it is not evidence for design.-

You have serious issues.

Reductive analysis isn't evidence for anything.

However if we figure out what something reduces to we can figure out if agency involvement was required or not.

Stonehenge is not reducible to geological forces. A designer and builder were required.

Dr Spetner's "Not By Chance"- read it.
At 2:35 PM, One Brow said…

Reducibility is a very relieable indicator.

Salt is reducible into sodium and chlorine. Is salt designed?

You don't think Stonehendge resembles a man-made construction? My kids make things like that when they play with blocks.

They may not be specifically looking for the narrow-band transmissions humans use, but the reason they chose that as an item of detection is that mumans make such transmissions. If we didn't, why would we think an alien culture would?

In Dembski's work, specification is only determined after looking for function, not before.

We have seen RNA arise spontaneously in labroatory conditions. It would not happen in nature today because existing life would use up the materials first.

Yes, pulsars generate a string of numbers. They are highly repetitive, but it is still a string.

Stonehedge is reducible to natural, geological forces, however design by the designers we know were extant is the more parsimonious explanation. when ID can present an extant designer and some analogous work thereof, it can be taken more seriously.
At 5:41 PM, Joe G said…

Salt is reducible into sodium and chlorine. Is salt designed?-

1- There is more to it than that

2- If nature, operating freely can produce it there wouldn't be any reason to infer it was.

However if a chemical analysis turns up iodine it may have been designed- strong possibility.

You don't think Stonehendge resembles a man-made construction? My kids make things like that when they play with blocks.-

Your kids have the advantage of centuries of research.

When "modern" people first came upon it it didn't resemble anything they had seen being built.

No one thought prior humans could move such large stones over a great distance.

They may not be specifically looking for the narrow-band transmissions humans use, but the reason they chose that as an item of detection is that mumans make such transmissions. If we didn't, why would we think an alien culture would?-

1- We go with what we have available

2- We think there is only a certain BW that can be used for communication

In Dembski's work, specification is only determined after looking for function, not before.-

1- Functionality can only be determined by looking and investigating

2- To refute Dembski all one has to do is demonstrate non-telic processes can account for it.

We have seen RNA arise spontaneously in labroatory conditions.-

Reference please-

It takes agency involvement just to get the nucleotides.

Yes, pulsars generate a string of numbers. They are highly repetitive, but it is still a string.-

Reference please. On/ off are not numbers.

Stonehedge is reducible to natural, geological forces-

No it isn't.

Stonehenge is reducible to the agencies' involvement with nature.

however design by the designers we know were extant is the more parsimonious explanation.-

We only know humans were around because of what they left behind.

And it took many, many years to figure out how they COULD have done it.

And we still don't know who. nor why.

when ID can present an extant designer and some analogous work thereof, it can be taken more seriously.-

Again the evidence for the designer(s) is in the design.

If you need proof of a designer then you are not interested in scince.

There are plenty of analogs to be found. However that is not the only way to determine design.

And I will say it again the theory of evolution doesn't have any analogies based on the proposed mechanisms.

No hypothesis, nothing.

And yet people take it seriously!

Go figure...
At 12:53 PM, One Brow said…

2- If nature, operating freely can produce it there wouldn't be any reason to infer it was.

However if a chemical analysis turns up iodine it may have been designed- strong possibility.

Because iodine is not natural? Your comment made no sense.

My kids had not been to Stonehedge or seen pictures of it, and they didn't know centuries of research at the age of one. They built primitive arches/bridges from blocks. "Modern" people knew Stonehedge was designed because they had blocks when they were kids.

If you are claiming it is impossible for natural forces to produce something like Stonehedge, you're just wrong. Rocks falls into interesting shapes all the time. Design just seems more parsimonious, given that we already know humans make things like that.

RNA molecules form with specific guidance:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

No, there is no such thing as scientific evidence for a designer within a design, at least none that has passed any sort of test of reliability. The CSI test can't tell the difference between conserved and non-conserved snippets of DNA unless it knows that beforehand. IC gets applied to structures and then withdrawn when patheways ae discovered. The EF produces false positives and false negatives. Counterflow is nothing more than an attempt to wrap up all the other bogus methodologies under a fancy name. The only test used for design, in science, is by analogy to what similar designers have done. We might not need *the* designer, but we at least need a similar designer whose work we can compare life to.

The theory of evolution, which contains no designer, needs no analogies to a designer. That's hardly a surprise.
At 8:50 PM, Joe G said…

Because iodine is not natural? Your comment made no sense.

No because of what it takes to combine those elements.

My kids had not been to Stonehedge or seen pictures of it, and they didn't know centuries of research at the age of one. They built primitive arches/bridges from blocks. "Modern" people knew Stonehedge was designed because they had blocks when they were kids.

You are so full of shit it is pathetic.

If you are claiming it is impossible for natural forces to produce something like Stonehedge, you're just wrong.

Evidence please.

Design just seems more parsimonious, given that we already know humans make things like that.

Except we didn't "know" humans built it until after years of research. Well after its design was already determined.

RNA molecules form with specific guidance:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucl

Yup, just as I said.

There isn't anything about nature, operating freely.

No, there is no such thing as scientific evidence for a designer within a design, at least none that has passed any sort of test of reliability.

Of course there is.

If you think we have to know the designer before reaching a design INFERENCE then you are just plain wrong.

The EF depends on the people using it.

And I doubt that capable people have reached a false positive.

But if you have any evidence for that then bring it on.

And about IC that is why it is best to refute the biggest IC observed- living organisms.

Yet science has told us only life begets life.

Counterflow is the same as work.

An object which is an artifact in a narrow sense is usually made from some pre-existing object or objects by successive intentional modifications. This activity is called work.

But Stanford is a school for morions, what do they know.

The only test used for design, in science, is by analogy to what similar designers have done.

You are wrong and couldn't back that up if your life depended on it.

The theory of evolution, which contains no designer, needs no analogies to a designer.

It doesn't have anything- no predictions based on the proposed mechanisms. No examples and no testable hypothesis based on those proposed mechanisms.
At 12:10 PM, One Brow said…

You are so full of shit it is pathetic.

Is that your usual reaction when presented with an obvious idea that disputes your point?

No because of what it takes to combine those elements.

Sodium, iodine, and chlorine are all presnet in seawater. I don't think design is required to find them in evaporated sea water.

Evidence for the possible? OK. It's possible the large stones were smoothed by erosion at the bottom oof a riverbed, face-by-face. I used to find pebbles that were basically rectangualr prisms, these are just larger. The, it's possible an earthquake rasied the river bottom, and a landslide planted some of the stones upright and landed the others on top. Sure, it's much more parsimonious to say humans did it, but it's not impossible to have happened naturally.

Can you claim one design (that we would both agree is designed, like Stonehedge) that has scientific evidence for design stored within it, and describe the nature of the non-analogous evidence. Was it mass, length, what?

The EF depends on the people using it.

And I doubt that capable people have reached a false positive.

So, it's not really science then, since it can't be used objectively but requires skill to use properly. I agree.

Yet science has told us only life begets life.

Science has told us that, in the presence of life, only life begets life. We don't know about an object has heterogenous as earth sans life.

Counterflow is the same as work.

That's waht I just said, it just a word that trys to sum up all the other words used.

The only tests for design I have seen applied are by analogy. If you can find one that is not, mention it. You have not so far.

Your comment on evolution is so off-base as to be laughable.
At 1:42 PM, Joe G said…

OK. It's possible the large stones were smoothed by erosion at the bottom oof a riverbed, face-by-face.

Except there isn't any evidence that a river ran through Stonehenge.

Then there is all that counterflow that must be accounted for.

Can you claim one design (that we would both agree is designed, like Stonehedge) that has scientific evidence for design stored within it, and describe the nature of the non-analogous evidence. Was it mass, length, what?

Yup the presence of counterflow.

So, it's not really science then, since it can't be used objectively but requires skill to use properly. I agree.

Umm science requires the skill of the scientist or whoever is conducting the research/ investigation.

Science requires all of the knowledge we have available- the EF requires the same.

IOW once again you prove you don't know what you are talking about.

Yet science has told us only life begets life.

Science has told us that, in the presence of life, only life begets life. We don't know about an object has heterogenous as earth sans life.

Yet we don't say "we don't know". We say "we don't know but we know a designer was required."

Counterflow is the same as work.

That's waht I just said, it just a word that trys to sum up all the other words used.

Except it is what is used to determine design or not.

The only tests for design I have seen applied are by analogy.

And yet you have failed to provide any such examples.

The Stanford article agrres with what I said.

Or can you find where it says design detection is done by analogy alone?

Also using your standard if someone were to genetically engineer a flagellum then ID wins.

And that is just stupid.

Your comment on evolution is so off-base as to be laughable.

Your bald assetrtion is laughable.

Try to refute what I said I and I will substantiate my claim.
At 10:34 AM, One Brow said…

Except there isn't any evidence that a river ran through Stonehenge.

Such evidence could have been destroyed in the same geological shifts that freed and tumbled the stones. Mind you, this is not presented as a serious possibility, just as an example that anyhthing is possible. We don't infer design in Stonehedge because of improbability, but because of analogy.

Then there is all that counterflow that must be accounted for.

You keep using that word like it it refers to a specific property. Counterflow just refers to the presence of information, improbability, and all the usual ID argument. I did look it up.

Yup the presence of counterflow.

How much counterflow? What is the unit of counterflow? How are these measurements conducted?

You can't answer these questions, because counterflow is not objectively observable.

Umm science requires the skill of the scientist or whoever is conducting the research/ investigation.

Science thrives on being objective and repeatable. Technical skills to operate equipments are different from skills in making subjective decisions, the latter are not science.

Science requires all of the knowledge we have available- the EF requires the same.

Since our knowledge continuously improves, the results we get from the EF today will hcange in the future.

Yet we don't say "we don't know". We say "we don't know but we know a designer was required."

You say that, but it is not science.

Counterflow is the same as work.

Scientifically, work is the change in active energy over a distance. It is objective and measurable. Counterflow is not work in science.

Except it is what is used to determine design or not.

The notion of 'counterflow' adds nothing to the discussion.

And yet you have failed to provide any such examples.

Actually, despite your bald denials, I have. SETI looks for narrow-band EM emissions bexause humans use them. Stonehedge looks like a ramped-up version of something kids build.

The Stanford article agrres with what I said.

No, it doesn't. The Stanford article gives no method for detecting artifacts or separating that whichis designed from that which is not. It says that a discussion of the designer and the designer's purposes is legitimate and important when discussing artifacts.

Also using your standard if someone were to genetically engineer a flagellum then ID wins.

There is an issue of precedence. Kids playing with bricks preceds Stonehedge. OUr use of narrowband EM transmissions preceds SETI. The currect flagella precede the putative designed flagella.

Your bald assetrtion is laughable.

Evolutionary scientists have a long history of making and verifying predicitons based on evolutionary mechanisms, such as the naked mole rat.

Try to refute what I said I and I will substantiate my claim.

I can always use a good laugh.
At 10:57 AM, Joe G said…

We don't infer design in Stonehedge because of improbability, but because of analogy.

You keep saying that yet you have never supported that claim.

And I know you are wrong.

You keep using that word like it it refers to a specific property. Counterflow just refers to the presence of information, improbability, and all the usual ID argument. I did look it up.

Well then to refute the inference all you have to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it and the counterflow argument falls.

How much counterflow? What is the unit of counterflow? How are these measurements conducted?

It just takes one instance of counterflow.

Science thrives on being objective and repeatable.

That leaves the theory of evolution out of science.

Since our knowledge continuously improves, the results we get from the EF today will hcange in the future.

That goes for everything.

Science does not and cannot wait for what the future may or may not bring.

IOW you don't understand science.

The notion of 'counterflow' adds nothing to the discussion.

Of course it does.

It helps us determine how it came to be this way.

It is all about reduction.

SETI looks for narrow-band EM emissions bexause humans use them. Stonehedge looks like a ramped-up version of something kids build.

You say that but you have NEVER supported those claims.

Provide someonme from SETI saying that and provide archeaologists saying that.

The Stanford article gives no method for detecting artifacts or separating that whichis designed from that which is not.

The presence of work.

It is right there in the article.

Evolutionary scientists have a long history of making and verifying predicitons based on evolutionary mechanisms, such as the naked mole rat.

The naked mole rat was based om what evolutionary prediction?

Please be specific and be sure to include the mechanisms.

1- No one can predict what mutation will occur

2- No one can predict what mutation will be selected for
At 11:01 AM, blipey said…

Joe, go to Moab sometime.

Also, go see some little kids (try to ask their parent's permission first) and see what they make out of Duplo blocks.

Then tell their parents that their children have been possessed by aliens--the only explanation for the kids making arches with blocks!!!

This is my JoeTard claim evah!!!!
Right up there with FTK claiming that Behe didn't have to read a book to know what it contained because it doesn't take kids a million years to learn a language.

The funny never stops.
At 11:18 AM, Joe G said…

Joe, go to Moab sometime.

Been there, done that.

Do you have a point?

Or are you just spreading more of your tard around?
At 4:53 PM, blipey said…

Some of those arches look designed, don't they?

On the kids with blocks, why no response?
At 5:07 PM, Joe G said…

Some of those arches look designed, don't they?

Not really.

On the kids with blocks, why no response?

It is difficult to respond to your brand of tard.

Do you think that giants moved the stones around to make Stonehenge?

That would be the analogy- kids can move their blocks around because they are bigger than the blocks.

Therefor it must have been giants that built Stonehenge.
At 5:25 PM, blipey said…

How do you know they aren't designed, Joe? An EXAMPLE please.

No, Joe. The kids DESIGNED the blocks. That's what we're talking about, Joe. DESIGN.

The analogy is that the kids DESIGNED their structures (which look a lot like Stonehenge).

Do try to keep up.
At 5:33 PM, Joe G said…

How do you know they aren't designed, Joe?

They who?

The kids DESIGNED the blocks.

How do you know?

The analogy is that the kids DESIGNED their structures (which look a lot like Stonehenge).

Right those kids are much, much bigger than their blocks so the agencies who built Stonehenge must have been much, much bigger than those stones.
At 5:52 PM, blipey said…

No, Joe. Kids playing with blocks DESIGN the structures they build. That's the analogy.
At 5:54 PM, blipey said…

You can't have this both ways. You seem to be in the camp with people who claim that algorithms can't model anything because people designed the algorithms.

Yet, when it is convenient for you, you claim that structures built by children with blocks aren't designed.

You are a coward.
At 9:07 AM, Joe G said…

Kids playing with blocks DESIGN the structures they build.

Right those kids are much bigger than their blocks.

That is how they can move them around to design things.

So therefor giants must have built Stonehenge.
At 9:10 AM, Joe G said…

You seem to be in the camp with people who claim that algorithms can't model anything because people designed the algorithms.

You seem to be a clueless asshole.

I have never made any such claim.

Yet, when it is convenient for you, you claim that structures built by children with blocks aren't designed.

I never made that claim either.

IOW you are an asshole through-n-through.

And through all this you have not provided anything that would support your position.

That is a sure sign of an intellectual coward.
At 11:27 AM, blipey said…

Just so we're clear here, Joe. When you say:

Right those kids are much bigger than their blocks.

That is how they can move them around to design things.

you are equating design with building, making them essentially the same thing.

So, when we're talking about designing Stonehenge and we agree that humans built them, they must therefor have designed them.

Thanks for clearing that up.
At 11:48 AM, Joe G said…

you are equating design with building, making them essentially the same thing.

Nope I never did such a thing.

They can be but that is rarely the case.

Cars are a perfect EXAMPLE of things that are designed BEFORE they are built.

Houses- designed FIRST then built.

Buildings- designed first, tehn built.

And I doubt that some giant would move big stones around without first planning what he/ she was going to do with them.

Kids and clowns may play with blocks and arbitrarily design something.

In that limited sense design is linked to the building.

But when it comes to actual projects the designing and building are always two seperate things- design first, then build.

Clowns may do it differently but then again that is why they are clowns.
At 12:39 PM, blipey said…

So, a 26 year old saying "I'm going to put a stone here" is fundamentally different from a 5 year old saying "I'm going to put a stone here"???

What is the objective cut-off age for this fundamental difference?
At 12:58 PM, One Brow said…

You keep saying that yet you have never supported that claim.

Winning lottery numbers are not inferred to be designed. The shape of the Norwegian coastline is complex, functional, and not considered to be designed. Stonehedge is. There is no other gfacotr besides analogy that separates them.

And I know you are wrong.

Unbreachable beleif?

Well then to refute the inference all you have to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it and the counterflow argument falls.

There is no counte4rflow argument, because there is no single quality that counterflow represents.

How much counterflow? What is the unit of counterflow? How are these measurements conducted?

It just takes one instance of counterflow.

That's a dodge, not an answer.

That leaves the theory of evolution out of science.

Hardly.

That goes for everything.

The difference being that what changes in science will be mechanisms and explanation, while the EF simply categorizes without explanation.

Provide someonme from SETI saying that and provide archeaologists saying that.

http://www.seti.org/Page.aspx?pid=558

Answer to "Why do you think an extraterrestrial civilization will broadcast in the microwave frequency band?" among other questions. Any time you use an response like "makes sense", that is an analogy to what humans would do.

blipey has handled Stonehedge adequately, IMO.

The Stanford article gives no method for detecting artifacts or separating that whichis designed from that which is not.

The presence of work.

This is not mentioned as a detection device in the Stanford article. If you think otherwise, quote it.

The naked mole rat was based om what evolutionary prediction?

http://ncseweb.org/book/export/html/3498
At 7:51 AM, Joe G said…

Winning lottery numbers are not inferred to be designed. The shape of the Norwegian coastline is complex, functional, and not considered to be designed. Stonehedge is. There is no other gfacotr besides analogy that separates them.

You spewing nonsense does not support your claim.

You need to provide a VALID reference that demonstrates analogies are the only way to make any and all determinations.

There is no counte4rflow argument, because there is no single quality that counterflow represents.

Your ignorance is not a refutation.

The single quality counterflow represents is that nature, operating freely, couldn't/ wouldn't have produced it.

The difference being that what changes in science will be mechanisms and explanation, while the EF simply categorizes without explanation.

The EF mandates a thorough investigation. So of course there is an explanation.

Also to reach a design inference using the EF not only do alternatives have to be considered and eliminated but a specific criteria must be met before the design inference is reached.

The theory of evolution just disallows the design inference at all costs.

As for SETI you should have read your link a bit closer:

SETI supports my claim

"Narrow-band signals, say those that are only a few Hertz or less wide, are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers, such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow. The static from these objects is spread all across the dial."

As for you other link well there isn't anything about the mechanisms just some vague claim of selection.

However the model fits in very well with Baraminology.
At 8:02 AM, Joe G said…

So, a 26 year old saying "I'm going to put a stone here" is fundamentally different from a 5 year old saying "I'm going to put a stone here"???

I never made any such reference.
At 8:52 AM, blipey said…

Sure you did, Joe. You said that kids playing with blocks do not design the structure thy make. You also said that adults design things like Stonehenge or skyscrapers.

I want to know at what age the fundamental difference occurs.

Or do you now think that children design the structures they build out of blocks?
At 8:57 AM, Joe G said…

You said that kids playing with blocks do not design the structure thy make.

That isn't what I said.
At 9:02 AM, blipey said…

So we agree that kids design the structures they build with blocks?
At 9:39 AM, Joe G said…

So we agree that you claim giants built Stonehenge.
At 9:41 AM, Joe G said…

One Brow,

Matzke never provided any double-blind experiments to make his case.

Using your "logic" he hasn't done anything beyond making up a story.
At 10:22 AM, blipey said…

No, people designed Stonehenge. I'm putting you down for saying that kids DO NOT design the structures they build with blocks. Thanks for clearing it up.
At 10:27 AM, blipey said…

Just so we're clear, this is what JoeG and blipey are on record for at this moment. Clarifications may emerge, but probably not from JoeG (who couldn't form a short statement of fact if someone paid him).

blipey: Humans designed Stonehenge
JoeG: Giants designed Stonehenge

blipey: Children design the structures the build with blocks
JoeG: Children do not design the structures they build with blocks.

Very clear.
At 10:31 AM, Joe G said…

We don't know who designed Stonehenge.

We don't know who built Stonehenge (saying humans did it is meaningless).

I am putting you down for giants built Stonehenge.

Thanks for clearing that up.
At 10:35 AM, Joe G said…

Just so we are clear Erik Pratt is saying that giants built Stonehenge because kids can move blocks around and no human can move the stones of Stonehenge like kids move blocks therefor it must have been giants.

That is the only way to take clownie's analogy.
At 11:03 AM, One Brow said…

You spewing nonsense does not support your claim.

Calling it nonesense does notmake it so.

You need to provide a VALID reference that demonstrates analogies are the only way to make any and all determinations.

I presume you mean design determinations, and I don't know that they are. I would not trust anyone who said that they were. All I know is that they seem to be the only way we make that determination today.

Your ignorance is not a refutation.

You are correct. The refutation is that there is no single property that is identified with counterflow, regardless of my ignorance.

The single quality counterflow represents is that nature, operating freely, couldn't/ wouldn't have produced it.

That's not a property, it's a provisional determination, and not measurable.

The EF mandates a thorough investigation.

Not for design, it doesn't. It basically treats design as the default setting, without explanation.

Also to reach a design inference using the EF not only do alternatives have to be considered and eliminated but a specific criteria must be met before the design inference is reached.

That criteria is the elimination of the other two categories.

The theory of evolution just disallows the design inference at all costs.

Incorrect. The ToE is complately compatible with a front-loaded argument. It presumes there is no interference after evolution has begun, based on the lack of any detectable interference.

As for SETI you should have read your link a bit closer:

"Narrow-band signals, say those that are only a few Hertz or less wide, are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers, such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow. The static from these objects is spread all across the dial."

Lots of things don't occur in nature. Why did they choose this one thing? That is also explained: they felt it was a ensable thing to choose. Why sensible: because that's what humans would do.

As for you other link well there isn't anything about the mechanisms just some vague claim of selection.

Selection is a mechanism, and the link goes into detail about the predictions of a eusocial vertebrate that were fulfilled.
At 11:05 AM, One Brow said…

Matzke never provided any double-blind experiments to make his case.

You never offered a double-blind experiement for the creation of lightning in the sky. That's why I asked you to set the standard first.
At 11:11 AM, Joe G said…

You never offered a double-blind experiement for the creation of lightning in the sky.

Scientists and amateurs have done exactly that on many occasions.

Your ignorance is not a refutation.
At 11:21 AM, Joe G said…

The refutation is that there is no single property that is identified with counterflow, regardless of my ignorance.

Yes there is. It is how SETI operates. It is how forensic science operates. It is how archaeology operates.

The EF mandates a thorough investigation.

Not for design, it doesn't. It basically treats design as the default setting, without explanation.

So you are proud of your ignorance.

1- The EF mandates all alternatives be considered FIRST.

That is the very nature of the EF.

2- The design inference is reached only after alternatives have been considered and eliminated AND a criteria is met.

You cannot change reality.

Also to reach a design inference using the EF not only do alternatives have to be considered and eliminated but a specific criteria must be met before the design inference is reached.

That criteria is the elimination of the other two categories.

No the other possibilities have to be eliminated BEFORE even getting to the criteria.

You don't get to jump steps.

The SETI article didn't suppoort your claim.

The quote I provided refutes your claim.

Nothing in SETI says we look for analogies to what humans do.

Nothing in archaeology says that analogy is the only way to make a design determination.

And once again there isn't anything in the NCSE link that supports non-telic processes.

The article could be used in baraminology.

The theory of evoltion doesn't even predict vertebrates.

Artificial selection is a mechanism also- one that goes against natural selection.
At 11:24 AM, Joe G said…

Lightning

The point being we can and have studied the phenomenon and now we know what lightning is reducible to.
At 12:47 PM, blipey said…

Joe. Listen up.

blipey says that humans built Stonehenge. I'm not saying that is proof. That's what I think.

blipey says that kids building structures with blocks designed those structures. That's what I think.

You're too much of a coward to put your beliefs in a simple sentence.

When kids are playing with blocks, who do you, JoeG, thik designed those structures?

Jesus H Christ you're a fucknut.
At 4:58 PM, Joe G said…

blipey, listen up.

I don't care what you think.

What you think is irrelevant.

You think that kids playing with blocks is evidence that humans designed and built Stonehenge.

That proves you are a clueless fuck.

What Joe said:

Kids and clowns may play with blocks and arbitrarily design something.

In that limited sense design is linked to the building.

But when it comes to actual projects the designing and building are always two seperate things- design first, then build.

Clowns may do it differently but then again that is why they are clowns.

What part of that don't you understand?
At 11:20 AM, blipey said…

I understand it, but then when I use your words to further discussion, you say that's not what you meant. That methodology is your favorite discussion tactic.

So, to be completely clear:

Do kids playing with blocks design the structures they build?

Yes or no.
At 11:31 AM, One Brow said…

One Brow: You never offered a double-blind experiement for the creation of lightning in the sky.

Scientists and amateurs have done exactly that on many occasions.

Under controled conditions, they created lightning in one set of clouds and not the other? For that claim, I would need to see proof.

Matzke's construction is of the same character as your construction of what happens when lightning strikes.

Yes there is.

Name the property associated with counterflow, and describe how it is measured.

It is how SETI operates. It is how forensic science operates. It is how archaeology operates.

All of these endeavors use analogy.

So you are proud of your ignorance.

You should demonstrate my ignorance before deciding how I feel about it.

1- The EF mandates all alternatives be considered FIRST.

That is the very nature of the EF.

As I said, design is the default setting. The default setting is the one you use when no other choice overrides it. The EF sets the default to design.

2- The design inference is reached only after alternatives have been considered and eliminated AND a criteria is met.

The criteria of 'specification' has never been defined in an objective fashion. It relies on the notion or 'purpose', which is itself a subjective tag.

No the other possibilities have to be eliminated BEFORE even getting to the criteria.

The 'criteria' basically is to eliminate chance a second time, after doping so the first time, leaving design as the default.

Nothing in SETI says we look for analogies to what humans do.

There is no other reason to look for narrow-band transmissions.

Nothing in archaeology says that analogy is the only way to make a design determination.

I'm still waiting to hear of another way.

And once again there isn't anything in the NCSE link that supports non-telic processes.

The link was offered as evidence for the predictive power of evoltution, not for evidence against non-telic processes.

The theory of evoltion doesn't even predict vertebrates.

I bet you thought that meant something relevent.

Artificial selection is a mechanism also- one that goes against natural selection.

I bet you thought that meant something relevent.
At 11:43 AM, Joe G said…

It is how SETI operates. It is how forensic science operates. It is how archaeology operates.

All of these endeavors use analogy.

You keep saying that yet you have never provided a valid reference to support that claim.

And "analogy" means nothing more than "it looks designed", which isn't scientific.

1- The EF mandates all alternatives be considered FIRST.

That is the very nature of the EF.

As I said, design is the default setting.

You are so stupid that yopu don't even know the meaning of "default":

I will help cure your ignorance:

default-

a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative

1- The EF mandates active consideration and elimination of alternatives BEFORE seeing if the design criteria is met.

2- That means design cannot be the default.

The criteria of 'specification' has never been defined in an objective fashion. It relies on the notion or 'purpose', which is itself a subjective tag.

Specification is better defined than anything anti-IDists have to offer.

The link was offered as evidence for the predictive power of evoltution, not for evidence against non-telic processes.

That is NOT what I asked for.

IOW you are admitting that you are an asshole.
At 12:01 PM, blipey said…

What's the unit of counterflow again?
At 12:57 PM, Joe G said…

What's the unit of counterflow again?

It's related to reducibility.

Which is related to a thorough investigation.

Which is something you have never conducted and seem to be totally ignorant of.
At 1:01 PM, Joe G said…

I understand it, but then when I use your words to further discussion, you say that's not what you meant.

Except you don't use my words.

That is the problem.

There is what I say and what you think I said.

You can't help it. That is just how you "debate"- by twisting the words of others as opposed to just supporting your position.

IOW you are a coward through-n-through.

Do kids playing with blocks design the structures they build?

Only if design is a mechanism.
At 1:10 PM, Joe G said…

But anyway to get to the root of the question:

Do kids playing with blocks design the structures they build?

We would need to explore all definitions of the word design.

Then we would have to observe the kids and see if what they are doing match any of the definitions.

But what kids do is irrelevant unless clownie is saying that kids built Stonehenge.

Personally I would doubt kids have the ability to design such a thing, but I wouldn't categorically deny the possibility.

Kids moving the giant stones would be an issue though.

And archaeologists did not go to Stonehenge and say "We have sen children playing with blockes therefor this is man-made."

What does this say?

Do anything and everything to distract from the fact that clownie cannot provide one example nor a testable hypothesis for his pathetic position.
At 1:59 PM, blipey said…

Wow, for a guy who tries to use analogy to solve all problems, you sure have a tenuous grasp on its use in linguistics.

Also, I guess you're saying that the metric "couterflow" is unit-less.

That seems to be a bad way to set up objective comparisons.
At 5:00 PM, Joe G said…

Wow, for a guy who tries to use analogy to solve all problems,

Not I.

Analogies have their use(s) but they are not the only way of doing things.

One Brow thinks analogies are everything. You seem to think so to.

Also, I guess you're saying that the metric "couterflow" is unit-less.

And yet it exists and is used for design determination and/ or refutation.
At 5:12 PM, blipey said…

How is it used, Joe?

All you've ever said is that it is used. How? give an EXAMPLE!!!
At 5:53 PM, Joe G said…

How is it used, Joe?

As a tool to determine the traces that may have been left behind by agency involvement.

For EXAMPLE counterflow was once thought to be present in eoliths:

An eolith (from Greek "eos", dawn, and "lithos", stone) is a chipped flint nodule. Eoliths were once thought to have been artifacts, the earliest stone tools, but are now believed to be naturally produced by geological processes such as glaciation. (bold added)

It was used again at Stonehenge- for example it was once posited that glaciers put the stones close to the current location. However there isn't any evidence for that.

And SETI:

An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone - is not complex; it's artificial. Such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add -Seth Shostak

And all that is much more than you can provide to support your position.
At 6:25 PM, blipey said…

Right. Thanks, Joe. Still no EXAMPLE of a process used or a differential physical characteristic. Nice. Still no details. Keep working, Joe.

You might start with explaining how we would determine the difference between a rock that was tumbled down a river bed and a rock that was shaped in a rock tumbler....
At 6:59 PM, Joe G said…

Still no EXAMPLE of a process used or a differential physical characteristic.

The EF is a process and counterflow is a differential physical characteristic.

You might start with explaining how we would determine the difference between a rock that was tumbled down a river bed and a rock that was shaped in a rock tumbler....

You may want to explain the relevance.

IOW WHY would someone even care?
At 7:03 PM, Joe G said…

Every day it is becoming more and more obvious that the only criteria for the anti-ID, ie non-telic, position is just the refusal to accept the design inference at any and all costs.

I say that because no one can provide a testable hypothesis for that position nor have any examples been forthcoming.

Heck I have asked how one can test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved via non-telic processes and instead of answering the question the assholes harp on anything and everything ID.

So now one has to wonder how it is that their position is deemed scientific when it can't even meet the standards of science.
At 12:32 AM, blipey said…

Really, you have no idea what the relevance is? Wow. ID is in good hands.

One rock would be designed. One would not be.

Your process needs to be able to determine which is which. Now, how would you go about determining which is which?

If your process can't determine the design or non-design of something as simple as a smooth rock, what hope does it have for determining the design of the universe?

We eagerly await JoeG's methodology for determining the design or non-design of several different rocks.
At 9:03 AM, Joe G said…

Really, you have no idea what the relevance is? Wow. ID is in good hands.

I don't see the relevance but I know it doesn't have anything to do with ID.

One rock would be designed.

Designed from scratch?

Your process needs to be able to determine which is which. Now, how would you go about determining which is which?

1- My processes don't need to do that.

That is because as I have told you many times now an intelligent agency can mimic nature, operating freely.

Also there has to be a REASON to even look at the rocks.

2- INVESTIGATION is how I would go about it if a valid reason is provided as to why I am looking at rocks.

If your process can't determine the design or non-design of something as simple as a smooth rock, what hope does it have for determining the design of the universe?

There is a huge difference between the two.

And again if you don't like the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your position.

However it is obvious that you cannot and that is why you are relegated to misrepresentation and ignorance.
At 10:42 AM, blipey said…

Wow. You're saying that your methodology CAN'T determine whether or not a smooth rock has been designed or not!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Unbelievable. You can't determine the difference between nature and something imitating nature!

What's the point of ID again????

You need to see if Dembski can get this thread published for you! Actually, just post your last comment at UD; I want to see the firestorm! I bet they'd ban you.
At 11:07 AM, Joe G said…

You're saying that your methodology CAN'T determine whether or not a smooth rock has been designed or not!

Nope I didn't say that at all.

However it is sad that all you can do is misrepresent what I say.

I take it that is the only methodology your side has.

You can't determine the difference between nature and something imitating nature!

It all depends on how good the imitation is.

That is why we INVESTIGATE. The CONTEXT is also important as investigations are not conducted in a vacuum.

I also noticed you have failed to provide any reasoning as to why we are investigating rocks.
At 11:11 AM, Joe G said…

Wm Dembski:

When the Explanatory Filter fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no intelligent cause underlies it? The answer to this question is No. For determining that something is not designed, the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion. False negatives are a problem for the Explanatory Filter. This problem of false negatives, however, is endemic to detecting intelligent causes. One difficulty is that intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes. It takes an intelligent cause to know an intelligent cause, but if we don't know enough, we'll miss it.

That is why we investigate and that requires the context.
At 11:16 AM, blipey said…

So, if it's a very good imitation, you can't tell the difference???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

What's the point of ID again?
At 11:24 AM, One Brow said…

And "analogy" means nothing more than "it looks designed", which isn't scientific.

Yet, it is all scientists have.

default-

a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative

That is meaning of default I intended.

1- The EF mandates active consideration and elimination of alternatives BEFORE seeing if the design criteria is met.

Exactly. The EF expolres viable alternatives, and then when there are no viable alternatives, uses design automatically without active investigation of the mechanisms of design. Design is the default setting, precsiely according to the definition you provided.

Claims of what ID opponents have or have not done is not a defense of the use of 'specification'.

The link was offered as evidence for the predictive power of evoltution, not for evidence against non-telic processes.

That is NOT what I asked for.

You asked, "The naked mole rat was based om what evolutionary prediction? Please be specific and be sure to include the mechanisms." The link I offered was very specific and included the mechanisms used to find eusocial vertebrates.

IOW you are admitting that you are an asshole.

I really don't care if you think of me as one.
At 11:33 AM, Joe G said…

And "analogy" means nothing more than "it looks designed", which isn't scientific.

Yet, it is all scientists have.

No it isn't. If analogy was their only tool then what would they do in a unique scenario?

default-

a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative

That is meaning of default I intended.

Then you are wrong about the EF.

1- The EF mandates active consideration and elimination of alternatives BEFORE seeing if the design criteria is met.

Exactly. The EF expolres viable alternatives, and then when there are no viable alternatives, uses design automatically without active investigation of the mechanisms of design. Design is the default setting, precsiely according to the definition you provided.

Again your ignorance is not a refutation.

If we are looking at alternatives first that refutes your premise that design is the default.

Also even if all alternatives are eliminated if the criteria is not met we do not infer design.

And nothing you can say will ever change that fact.

Claims of what ID opponents have or have not done is not a defense of the use of 'specification'.

Except that IDists have done a better job at that than any evolutionist has done with any of their claims.

And the following is what I said:

It doesn't have anything- no predictions based on the proposed mechanisms. No examples and no testable hypothesis based on those proposed mechanisms.

And all you presented was something with a vague reference to "selection".

And if that is all you have then the theory of evolution is more nonsensical than I thought.
At 11:37 AM, Joe G said…

So, if it's a very good imitation, you can't tell the difference???

If it is real good no one could.

Not even the scientists you worship.

What's the point of ID again?

The same as science- to find the answers, ie the reality, behind what we are investigating.

So what's the point in your position again?

That's right to prevent people from finding the reality and making them look only for a pidgeon-holed version of it.
At 11:58 AM, blipey said…

Let's make this real clear:

ID cannot distinguish between the natural world and "God did it." And since the only purpose of ID is to distinguish between the natural wold and "God did it" we seem to have a problem.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Call up Dembski and see if he'll let you write the forward to his next book.
At 12:07 PM, Joe G said…

ID does not try to make a distinction between natural world and "Goddidit".

ID and ALL design-centric venues try to distinguish between directed (telic) and undirected (non-telic) processes.

IOW once again you PROVE that you are nothing but an ignorant asshole and you think being so is some sort of refutation of ID.
At 6:15 PM, Joe G said…

For One Brow:

Bad arguments by analogy
…like there’s another kind:

When someone argues by analogy, you can be pretty sure it’s because they don’t have any facts, evidence or logic to support their position. And all you have to do to debunk their argument, is find the flaw in the analogy.

And:

Thinking Straight- Evidence:

There are three main types of evidence you will be using in any argument: Illustrations, Facts, and Inference. Each piece of evidence should substantiate one premise or otherwise solidify your conclusion in the minds of you audience. Several pieces of evidence can be combined to support a premise.

Illustrations

We'll start at the weakest point: Stories, analogies, comparisons and anecdotes.

I will stick with examining the evidence in light of the facts and context.
At 6:35 PM, One Brow said…

No it isn't. If analogy was their only tool then what would they do in a unique scenario?

Wait and see, and offer no opinion on design.

Again your ignorance is not a refutation.

If we are looking at alternatives first that refutes your premise that design is the default.

The default value is always the last choice to used, when all the other choices are gone. You are calling me ignorant, but nonetheless describing design as the default position.

Also even if all alternatives are eliminated if the criteria is not met we do not infer design.

The final criteria being that if it serves no purpose, it is chance, otherwise it is the default (design).

And nothing you can say will ever change that fact.

I have no need to change it.

Except that IDists have done a better job at that than any evolutionist has done with any of their claims.

Since IDists have done nothing, that is hardly possible.
At 6:49 PM, Joe G said…

The default value is always the last choice to used, when all the other choices are gone.

Only if black is white and up is down.

a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative

The EF mandates active consideration to determine whether or not a viable alternative exists/ existed.

The final criteria being that if it serves no purpose, it is chance, otherwise it is the default (design).

Nope. It doesn't have to serve a purpose.

We may, via investigation, determine it does or doesn't.

Except that IDists have done a better job at that than any evolutionist has done with any of their claims.

Since IDists have done nothing, that is hardly possible.

That's the reality. Deal with it.

And you have more than demonstrated there isn't anything because all you can do is try to change a definition and set up strawman after strawman.

But anyway:

Suporting Intelligent Design
At 6:51 PM, Joe G said…

If analogy was their only tool then what would they do in a unique scenario?

Wait and see, and offer no opinion on design.

Wait for what?

We can conduct tests.

We can figure out what it is reducible to.

That is what scientists do.

No one goes by analogy alone.

To even think that demonstrates a severe lack of understanding.
At 8:16 PM, blipey said…

So, in almost every case in which it would be useful to know if something is designed or not, ID has nothing to say?

The only scenarios in which ID methodology is effective are the scenarios that JoeG think are interesting????

That's not science, that's egotistic.
At 9:13 PM, Joe G said…

So, in almost every case in which it would be useful to know if something is designed or not, ID has nothing to say?

And those cases would be?

An EXAMPLE would be required- many EXAMPLES- that is if you want to post here again.

The only scenarios in which ID methodology is effective are the scenarios that JoeG think are interesting????

All I am saying is there has to be a reason to conduct an investigation- any investigation.

However seeing that you have never conducted one you wouldn't know anything about that.

So once again all clownie is reduced to is pure bullshit, pulled directly from his own ass.
At 10:15 PM, blipey said…

Shouldn't your methodology be able to distinguish designed things from non-designed things?
At 8:49 AM, Joe G said…

Shouldn't your methodology be able to distinguish designed things from non-designed things?

It not only should, it does.

And it does so with the same confidence as forensic science, SETI and all design-centric investigative venues.

That said you have failed, once again, to provide any EXAMPLES that would support your claim.

I will give you one more chance to do so.
At 9:02 AM, Joe G said…

BTW Erik,

Nothing in science is guaranteed.

IOW science is not about proving.

Humans are not perfect.

We can only work with the evidence and facts we have.

Forensic scientists do not have a 100% "correct call" rate.
At 9:57 PM, blipey said…

Great, your methodology can then tell us if a distribution of leaves on the ground is designed or not.

Do tell us how this is done--preferably by working through the problem....

No?

Oh well, I guess Mifflin will hold back your chapter until next year...
At 10:22 PM, Joe G said…

Great, your methodology can then tell us if a distribution of leaves on the ground is designed or not.

Why would anyone be investigating a distribution of leaves on the ground?

Do tell...
At 11:01 AM, blipey said…

As a test to see if your methodology can actually be applied to anything...

If it can't tell us if a pattern of leaves was designed or not, what hope does it have in telling us if the cosmological constant wad designed?
At 11:46 AM, Joe G said…

As a test to see if your methodology can actually be applied to anything...

So you think it is a test.

Great then apply your methodology to this alleged test and walk us through it.

Ya see your position needs to be able to make the correct determination of designed or not.

So you need provide an EXAMPLE from your methodolgy so I can have a guide as to what you will accept.
At 5:54 PM, blipey said…

Not a test of my methodology, you nitwit. Your methodology. I'm not claiming to be able to distinguish design from randomness. You are. So, why can't your methodology distinguish random leaves from designed leaves?
At 10:29 PM, Joe G said…

You dumbass ignorant fuck.

Of course your position claims it can determine design from non-design.

That is the nature of the whole argument.

You say not designed.

Yet all you have to support your position is the refusal to allow the design inference.

That you don't even realize that just cements your ignorance in the ignorant hall of shame.
At 11:25 PM, blipey said…

So, what you're saying is that our methodology can't determine design in an infinite number of cases.

That's bad.

My position is, "It happened."

Your position is, "Someone did it."

Pretty bad methodology when in an infinite number of cases you can't determine if someone did it.
At 9:26 AM, Joe G said…

So, what you're saying is that our methodology can't determine design in an infinite number of cases.

That's bad.

My position is, "It happened."

Your position is "even though it looks designed it wsn't."

And your "methodology is nothing more than the refusal to allow the design inference.

That just isn't bad it is intellectual cowardice.

Your position is, "Someone did it."

Not quite.

Pretty bad methodology when in an infinite number of cases you can't determine if someone did it.

And yet you have failed to produce any examples other than a few strawman cases.

Why is that?
At 11:24 AM, blipey said…

So, Joe any word of anything being designed that wasn't designed by earthbound life?

Any word on ID actually being able to investigate generic scenarios?

Why are you so gung-ho about a methodology that only works when we already know that a thing was designed?

Why can't ID work in general cases? What is it about the methodology that breaks down when it tries to investigate leaves on the ground?
At 11:44 AM, Joe G said…

So, Joe any word of anything being designed that wasn't designed by earthbound life?

Yes. And I have already given you some examples.

Any word on ID actually being able to investigate generic scenarios?

ID just can't investigate strawman arguments.

ID can investigate anything that forensic science can.

Why are you so gung-ho about a methodology that only works when we already know that a thing was designed?

That is YOUR position. So I am not gung-ho on that type of methodology.

Why can't ID work in general cases? What is it about the methodology that breaks down when it tries to investigate leaves on the ground?

It works in general cases and if ID braks down so does fornsic science.

They use basically the SAME methodology.

Also YOUR methodology breaks down.

Heck if it can't tell us about those leaves then there isn't any chance it can tell us about anything.

So thank you for proving your position is bullshit.
At 12:34 PM, One Brow said…

The default value is always the last choice to used, when all the other choices are gone.

Only if black is white and up is down.

Actually, in any computer program or database, among other things.

Nope. It doesn't have to serve a purpose.

We may, via investigation, determine it does or doesn't.

The lack of purpose/function (specification) is an indicator of chance. At that step, the existence of a purpose allows you to assign the default of design.

Since IDists have done nothing, that is hardly possible.

That's the reality. Deal with it.

I agree that it is the reality IDists have done nothgin.

Suporting Intelligent Design

Your link had a couple of arguments attempting to be anti-evolution. There was nothing supporting design.
At 3:03 PM, Joe G said…

Actually, in any computer program or database, among other things.

In the startup routine of a computer the default drive is always the FIRST drive checked. Always.

The lack of purpose/function (specification) is an indicator of chance.

Not always. And sometimes only via an investigation may we be able to determine a purpose.

And function doesn't always equal purpose.

At that step, the existence of a purpose allows you to assign the default of design.

Except it isn't a default if there is active consideration of alternatives, which is what the EF mandates.

I agree that it is the reality IDists have done nothgin.

Your ignorance is meaningless.

Your link had a couple of arguments attempting to be anti-evolution. There was nothing supporting design.

There wasn't anything anti-evolution and it all supported ID.

BTW ID isn't anti-evolution.

Your ignorance is getting in the way.

But you have proven why ID needs to be presented in schools- to prevent your brand of ignorance from spreading.
At 8:03 PM, blipey said…

You might want to list all of the things we know are designed that were not designed by Earthbound life.

I'm sure the lurkers are curious.
At 8:29 PM, Joe G said…

You might want to list all of the things we know are designed that were not designed by Earthbound life.

We INFER. We do that by using observation/ evidence, facts and logic.

And I don't have the time to make such a list.

However YOU may want to start telling us about the methodology which determined the design observed is an illusion.
At 1:23 PM, One Brow said…

In the startup routine of a computer the default drive is always the FIRST drive checked. Always.

In the computers I have watched boot, the first drives checked were the floppy drives/CD drives, ane the default drive only afterward.

Except it isn't a default if there is active consideration of alternatives, which is what the EF mandates.

Considering aqnd rejecting the viable alternatives is exactly what makes it default.

There wasn't anything anti-evolution and it all supported ID.

Axe's papers are specifically probability arguments against evolution, not pro-design. Do you understand the difference?

But you have proven why ID needs to be presented in schools- to prevent your brand of ignorance from spreading.

When there is actual science putting forth design, I'll support it's inclusion.
At 4:53 PM, Joe G said…

In the computers I have watched boot, the first drives checked were the floppy drives/CD drives, ane the default drive only afterward.

In all computers the default drive is the first one checked.

Then the next in line and then the next and so on.

Considering aqnd rejecting the viable alternatives is exactly what makes it default.

Not according to the definition of the word.

According to the definition default is : a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative

IOW you are completely backwards from the definition.

Axe's papers are specifically probability arguments against evolution, not pro-design.

There wasn't anything anti-evolution in his papers.

ID is not anti-evolution.

His work supports the design inference.

When there is actual science putting forth design, I'll support it's inclusion.

There is but seeing you can't even understand a definition I doubt you would understand science.
At 12:03 AM, blipey said…

Joe, can you define "default" for us?

Also, you needn't make a whole list. Just one thing that we know is designed that isn't designed by Earthbound life.

Just one, and then lay out the evidence for us. Don't say "those things that other people said". Actually give us two pieces of solid evidence that the thing is designed by extraterrestrials.
At 7:28 AM, Joe G said…

Joe, can you define "default" for us??

Merriam-Webster and all the standard and accepted dictionaries already have.

I use the standard and accepted definitions.

One Brow appears to be too stupid to understand what dictionaries are for.

You have the same problem.

Also, you needn't make a whole list. Just one thing that we know is designed that isn't designed by Earthbound life.

I am still waiting for you to provide the methodology used to determine the universe and living organisms are the result of undirected processes.

Ya see alternatives to the reigning paradigm don't have to do what it cannot.

All alternatives have to do is to meet the SAME standard.

So don't blame ID if you morons set a very, very low standard for scientific acceptance.
At 10:15 AM, blipey said…

Good. So you don't know what the definition of "default" is. Fine. And you know of nothing that was designed that wasn't designed by Earthbound life. Fine.

Just say so. It looks a lot better than F and U are arbitrary points so to eat lunch after seeing C is counter to our summation that K isn't really a necessary point Y in any discussion of O or U.
At 10:33 AM, Joe G said…

I posted the definition of default you ignorant fuck. More than once.

I infer that many things were designed that couldn't have been designed by Earthbound life.

You, OTOH, are a clueless lying fuck.

You say so with every post.

What I don't understand is why you think your ignorance and nonsense mean something.

Oh well.
At 10:39 AM, Joe G said…

blipey sez:
Most people (everyone, in fact, except ID kooks), in order to negate the statement "you don't have X" produce X.

This thread's topic is all about blipey's inability to produce X.

Erik Pratt, by his own words, proves his position is worthless.
At 2:21 PM, One Brow said…

In all computers the default drive is the first one checked.

Then the next in line and then the next and so on.

If it is checked first, viable alternatives have not been explored, so it is not default by the definition you presented.

Considering and rejecting the viable alternatives is exactly what makes it default.

Not according to the definition of the word.

According to the definition default is : a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative

did you miss that part about "due to lack of a viable alternative"? An alternative can't be classified "not viable" unless is it explored.

There wasn't anything anti-evolution in his papers.

If you prefer, anti-unguided-evolution. They are claims teh changes can't happen via unguided forces. It is still not pro-design.

His work supports the design inference.

Saying something is not unguided is not support for design. You are assuming a false dichotomy.
At 4:14 PM, Joe G said…

If it is checked first, viable alternatives have not been explored, so it is not default by the definition you presented.

I guess we should talk with Bill Gates.

did you miss that part about "due to lack of a viable alternative"? An alternative can't be classified "not viable" unless is it explored.

No I didn't miss that part and how do you know?

I am unaware of the exploration of teenagers as President of the USA. Yet they are not considered a viable alternative to our current system.

And as I said the EF mandates exploration of alternatives- viable or not.

If you prefer, anti-unguided-evolution. They are claims teh changes can't happen via unguided forces. It is still not pro-design.

It is pro-design for the reasons provided- specification and functionality.

The positive criteria for design, along with the elimination of chance/ necessity, is how the design inference is made.

Saying something is not unguided is not support for design. You are assuming a false dichotomy.

How many options do you think there are?

1- Designed- agency involvement required

2- Not designed- no agency involvement required
At 11:47 AM, One Brow said…

I guess we should talk with Bill Gates.

His usage agrees. If no other directory is specified, the default is used.

No I didn't miss that part and how do you know?

How else will it be "not viable"?

I am unaware of the exploration of teenagers as President of the USA. Yet they are not considered a viable alternative to our current system.

Such exploration was done at the time of the constitutional convention, when they set teh age limit.

And as I said the EF mandates exploration of alternatives- viable or not.

Making design the default.

It is pro-design for the reasons provided- specification and functionality.

Axe's papers don't provide a method for having design or specification put into a protein chain.

How many options do you think there are?

1- Designed- agency involvement required

2- Not designed- no agency involvement required

Unintended side effect - agency involvemnt required, no design.

Self-emergent adaptation - design, with no agency involvement.
At 11:54 AM, blipey said…

So, again, Joe, the definition of "default" is??? You might try using your own words this time; it might go better (you could eave out all the parts about viable alternatives...).

Or, maybe you could just start with the definition of "viable alternatives"--in your own words please.

This is getting very close to the FTK discussion about how Behe knows what books he didn't read say (all viable alternatives were rejected without looking at them).

AWESOME!!!
At 1:39 PM, Joe G said…

His usage agrees. If no other directory is specified, the default is used.

No. The default drive is the first checked.

This can be seen, and changed in the start-up menu.

Such exploration was done at the time of the constitutional convention, when they set teh age limit.

You have the publication of such an exploration?

And as I said the EF mandates exploration of alternatives- viable or not.

Making design the default.

"We don't know" is the default as that is where we start.

Everything that goes into the EF defaults to "we don't know".

The default position is always before anything else.

That is if we go by the definition.

Axe's papers don't provide a method for having design or specification put into a protein chain.

In the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the specific process(es) used is by studying the design in question.

Stonehenge- first design was detected and then scientists started to figure out how.

That said design is a mechanism- directed mutation is another mechanism.

The genetic programming that resides in/ on the DNA is yet another- actually it is what does the directing.

How many options do you think there are?

1- Designed- agency involvement required

2- Not designed- no agency involvement required

Unintended side effect - agency involvemnt required, no design.

That would go under design.

As I have been telling you ID only can tell/ cares if agency involvement was required/ present.

Self-emergent adaptation - design, with no agency involvement.

Like "poof"? That is pretty mucjh like my option 2.
At 1:46 PM, Joe G said…

blipey,

Still no examples or testable hypothesis to support your position?

Still a blind follower who can only argie from ignorance?

How's your sentence splicing detection going these days?
At 2:10 PM, Joe G said…

default:

Comput. a preset choice, setting, etc. for automatic use as by a program when no other is specified by a user: often used attributively a default disk drive on a PC

"We don't know" is the preset choice of the EF.

default:

2 a pre-selected option adopted by a computer program or other mechanism when no alternative is specified.

2 (default to) revert automatically to (a pre-selected option).

Nothing reverts to design in the EF.

default:

A situation or condition that obtains in the absence of active intervention.

The EF mandates active intervention.
At 3:50 PM, blipey said…

How again are the alternatives rejected without looking at them?
At 4:13 PM, Joe G said…

How again are the alternatives rejected without looking at them?

The EF mandates looking at alternatives to the design inference first.

Not only that it mandates that a design criteria also be met before a design inference can be made.

If design was the default then it would be assigned before going through the EF.

Being assigned after the alternatives are considered AND a criteria met means it is far removed from the default position.
At 7:22 PM, blipey said…

Hmmm. From your definition:

a pre-selected option adopted by a computer program or other mechanism when no alternative is specified.

Seems you have to check for alternatives first!!!

So, how again is the default drive picked BEFORE exploring alternatives?...
At 8:15 PM, Joe G said…

a pre-selected option adopted by a computer program or other mechanism when no alternative is specified.

Seems you have to check for alternatives first!!!

Once an alternative is considered you have left the default position.

However that doesn't mean you can't return to it.

When all else fails return to the default position and start over.

And with the EF the default position is "We don't know".

Unless of course if you are an ignorant SoB (ie anti-IDist) and then the default is whatever you want it to be.
At 12:48 AM, blipey said…

No, Joe. That definition says that a default is a position that is chosen AFTER viable alternatives are considered.

According to that definition (yours), the only way a default would be chosen first is if there are zero other options. In any case that there is even one viable alternative, the default is not chosen. This happens every time there is a viable alternative.

Why do you argue with your own chosen definition?
At 7:21 AM, Joe G said…

That definition says that a default is a position that is chosen AFTER viable alternatives are considered.

No it doesn't.

"no alternative is specified" means that the default is checked FIRST.

According to that definition (yours), the only way a default would be chosen first is if there are zero other options.

If there is an option SPECIFIED it is always SPECIFIED FIRST.

Then it becomes the default.

Why do you have to twist reality into a strawman and argue against that strawman?
At 7:34 AM, Joe G said…

default

failure to act; a deficiency or failure

failure to act means that no active consideration was given to any alternatives- viable or not.

With the EF that means the EF was not yet used. Once the EF is started there is an action taking place.
At 11:36 AM, blipey said…

I understand English isn't your first language, but come on. You forgot to quote your entire chosen definition. I wonder why that is! Here it is, since you apparently forgot:

Comput. a preset choice, setting, etc. for automatic use as by a program WHEN no other is specified by a user: often used attributively a default disk drive on a PC

Interesting that you left out the word "when". That makes it pretty clear that if there is a setting specified--any setting--it is checked first.

Yikes.
At 11:46 AM, Joe G said…

With computers once somethinmg else is specified it becomes the default.

Then again I have already told you that.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the English language and you try to project your ignorance onto others.

Got it.
At 2:20 PM, One Brow said…

You have the publication of such an exploration?

Do you think the selection of age minimums was random? I don't have the minutes of the meetings at hand, no.

In the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the specific process(es) used is by studying the design in question.

Axe's paper makes no attempts to relate his claim of design to any specific processes used by the designer. ID literature has always been silent on the processes used.

Stonehenge- first design was detected and then scientists started to figure out how.

Design was speculated, and then evidence concerning the processes was evaluated. ID is still silent on the processes.

Unintended side effect - agency involvemnt required, no design.

That would go under design.

As I have been telling you ID only can tell/ cares if agency involvement was required/ present.

You believe a design may be the result of an accident? For example, the first rubber, crated by dropping something a stove, was a design of rubber? I don't think you'll get many ID advocates to agree on that. It certainly moots the EF.

Self-emergent adaptation - design, with no agency involvement.

Like "poof"? That is pretty mucjh like my option 2.

Actually, this would be the opposite of *poof*.
At 4:19 PM, Joe G said…

In the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the specific process(es) used is by studying the design in question.

Axe's paper makes no attempts to relate his claim of design to any specific processes used by the designer. ID literature has always been silent on the processes used.

I just explained why that is.

In "No Free Lunch" Dembski makes it clear that those are separate questions.

Just as evolution and abiogenesis are allegedly separate even though they are directly linked.

One first has to infer design before one can determine a process.

Stonehenge- first design was detected and then scientists started to figure out how.

Design was speculated, and then evidence concerning the processes was evaluated. ID is still silent on the processes.

It takes time and resources.

Also all you have is the very vague "descent with modification", for all the time and resources your position has had.

But anyway I provided a couple possibilities.

You believe a design may be the result of an accident? For example, the first rubber, crated by dropping something a stove, was a design of rubber? I don't think you'll get many ID advocates to agree on that. It certainly moots the EF.

You are not following what I say. Also what you said doesn't make any sense.

AGENCY INVOLVEMENT. That's it.

But anyway perhaps this is what you were referring to:

"Goodyear's recipe, a process known as vulcanization, was discovered when a mixture of rubber, lead and sulfur were accidentally dropped onto a hot stove."

Agency involvement.

I told you to read Del's book "Nature, Design and Science".

It is explained between the covers.

BTW "self-emergent" is "poof".
At 10:21 AM, One Brow said…

In "No Free Lunch" Dembski makes it clear that those are separate questions.

Even if that were true (and I disagree that design detecting is unlinked to design process investigation), why are the ID people conducting no experiements on the design process?

Just as evolution and abiogenesis are allegedly separate even though they are directly linked.

All science is linked.

Stonehenge- first design was detected and then scientists started to figure out how.

Design was detected by the obvious analogy, and was also a clue as to what the processes involved had to be (that is, the carving and movement of the stones). ID offers neither.

It takes time and resources.

It's been better than 20 years, and there has been a lot of mony used by the DI. How many experiments have been run on the design processes so far?

AGENCY INVOLVEMENT. That's it.

Agency involvement =/= design. Design requires setting a direction. Agency involvement can still be random in effect.

BTW "self-emergent" is "poof".

No, *poof* is something that happens quickly to make a radical change. Emergence is a gradual process that uses feedback. However, even if it were *poof*, it's still another alternative to design.

So, in addition to design, you still have two other possibilities (unintended by-product and emergent property) that are not "mere random chance" that I provided, plus the poofing into existence of a native consciousness that you provided. With so many alternatives, anti-evolution arguments are obvious not proof of design.
At 11:48 AM, Joe G said…

Even if that were true (and I disagree that design detecting is unlinked to design process investigation), why are the ID people conducting no experiements on the design process?

It is true for the reasoning provided.

FIRST design is determined.

Only AFTER that does one try to figure out "how", "who", "when", "where", "why".

And how do you know what IDists are and are not working on?

Just as evolution and abiogenesis are allegedly separate even though they are directly linked.

All science is linked.

Then why do evolutionists always claim that the OoL is separate from the theory of evolution?

Stonehenge- first design was detected and then scientists started to figure out how.

Design was detected by the obvious analogy,

That is false. There wasn't any analogy.

That is why people first thought something mystical happened.

and was also a clue as to what the processes involved had to be (that is, the carving and movement of the stones). ID offers neither.

The process and who built it came AFTER many, many years of investigation.

And we still aren't sure.

It's been better than 20 years, and there has been a lot of mony used by the DI. How many experiments have been run on the design processes so far?

It's been over 150 years since "On the Origins of Species" and evolutionists are still clueless.

That even with all the resources available.

AGENCY INVOLVEMENT. That's it.

Agency involvement =/= design. Design requires setting a direction. Agency involvement can still be random in effect.

You don't read very well do you?

All we can do is see if agency involvement was required or not.

That is in the absence of direct observation or designer input.

Again "unintended by-product" is design.

"Self-emergent" is non-telic.

And there isn't any evidence to support it.

Kaufmann has failed...

BTW why do you keep conflating ID with anti-evolution?
At 1:42 PM, One Brow said…

FIRST design is determined.

Supposedly accomplished at least twice fifteen years ago.

And how do you know what IDists are and are not working on?

There are no records, no results I have seen, and I have looked. Do you have access to or knowledge of any experiments on the methods of the designer purported by ID?

Then why do evolutionists always claim that the OoL is separate from the theory of evolution?

For the same reason chemists feel chemitry is not physics. Linked does not imply identical.

That is false. There wasn't any analogy.

I can only explain your not seeing the obvious analogy regarding Stonehedge to what people have been building for millenia as willful blindness.

That is why people first thought something mystical happened.

Actually, that thought the designers were mytical. They still accepted design based on analogy.

The process and who built it came AFTER many, many years of investigation.

So when are the ID investigations going to start?

It's been over 150 years since "On the Origins of Species" and evolutionists are still clueless.

Actually, we've compiled a reasonably large number of experimentally verified evolutionary mechanisms and processes. How many for design mechanisms and processes again?

You don't read very well do you?

All we can do is see if agency involvement was required or not.

Then you can't detect design.

Again "unintended by-product" is design.

So, design can be non-telic? If I roll a die repeatedly, the resulting string of numbers is a designed string? You must be unpopular among the ID crowd.

"Self-emergent" is non-telic.

After the emergence, it can operate telically on itself.

And there isn't any evidence to support it.

Like any other postion on design.

BTW why do you keep conflating ID with anti-evolution?

Actually, I keep pointing out they are not the same, and that anti-evolution arguments are not pro-design arguments.
At 3:57 PM, Joe G said…

I have already covered some possible design mechanisms-

1- Directed mutation - see Dr Spetner's "non-random evolutionary hypothesis- built-in responses to environmental cues"

2- Front-loading evolution- a targeted search

3- Artificial selection

I can only explain your not seeing the obvious analogy regarding Stonehedge to what people have been building for millenia as willful blindness.

No one used an analogy to determine Stonehenge was designed.

That is what I am saying.

No one said "Hey that looks like something anyone could build so it is designed."

The process and who built it came AFTER many, many years of investigation.

So when are the ID investigations going to start?

As soon as they have the same resources available to them as evolutionists have.

Actually, we've compiled a reasonably large number of experimentally verified evolutionary mechanisms and processes.

Again with the conflation and equivocation.

I have dealt with this before:

Equivocation and Evolution

and

Equivocation and Evolution continued.

IOW it is obvious you don't understand the debate.

All we can do is see if agency involvement was required or not.

Then you can't detect design.

Agency involvement is good enough.

Then we go from there.

Again "unintended by-product" is design.

So, design can be non-telic?

Purpose may be difficult to determine.

For example whittling a stick- sure there was intent to whittle but there may not be any purpose to the end product.

If I roll a die repeatedly, the resulting string of numbers is a designed string?

Would the string have occurred without your involvement?

BTW why do you keep conflating ID with anti-evolution?

Actually, I keep pointing out they are not the same, and that anti-evolution arguments are not pro-design arguments.

You keep saying that ID is anti-evolution even though it is not.

ID is based on positive evidence.

The analogy between a computer-code compiler and the ribosome, a genetic compiler, suit your standard of evidence.

We then couple that with the fact that nature, operating freely can't put such a thing together and we get the design inference.

Compare that with your position which is only the flat-out refusal to allow the design inference and you can see that ID has the upper hand.
At 6:13 PM, One Brow said…

I have already covered some possible design mechanisms-

When will we see tests for any of these mechanisms? How can you tell if directed mutation, front-loading, and/or artificial selection did or did not occur? What observation distinguishes these hypotheses from one another?

No one used an analogy to determine Stonehenge was designed.

The analogy is so obvious doesn't need to be mentioned. It looks exactly like something a kid would build from blocks.

As soon as they have the same resources available to them as evolutionists have.

It only takes a few million, if that, to run intial experiements. You don't need to equal the entire research output. Revolutionary scientists routinely start with small budgets. Instead, the DI publishes a handful of anti-evolution papers and spends millions on marketing.

Equivocation and Evolution

Your item #6a is not science and is not part of any science textbook in the USA, and #6b depends on the meaning of "completely sufficient". If that is your debate, it has no relevance to science.

IOW it is obvious you don't understand the debate.

I understand that your grounds for debate are well outside science, and don't belong there.

Purpose may be difficult to determine.

That guts the final step of EF, removes the specification from CSI, and eliminates the needed background to determine IC. All of these formulations rely on being able to determine a purpose for the event/pattern/construction in question.

For example whittling a stick- sure there was intent to whittle but there may not be any purpose to the end product.

That's true. So, we now have a fourth alternative to the design/random positions (accidental by-product, emergent self-direction, sudden self-direction, and action without an intentional result).

You keep saying that ID is anti-evolution even though it is not.

No, I said the only arguments being made by the ID proponents are anti-evolution arguments. There are no pro-design arguments. The EF, CSI, and IC tests, even if they were valid, could not distinguish between emergent self-consciuousness (no external agency) and the presence of an external agency.

The analogy between a computer-code compiler and the ribosome, a genetic compiler, suit your standard of evidence.

The analogy is actually very poor there.

We then couple that with the fact that nature, operating freely can't put such a thing together

Why not?
At 6:56 PM, Joe G said…

When will we see tests for any of these mechanisms? How can you tell if directed mutation, front-loading, and/or artificial selection did or did not occur? What observation distinguishes these hypotheses from one another?

When will we see tests for your position?

How can we test the premise that vision systems "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Also you should read "Not By Chance" by Dr Spetner.

He went over this stuff twelve years ago.

No one used an analogy to determine Stonehenge was designed.

The analogy is so obvious doesn't need to be mentioned. It looks exactly like something a kid would build from blocks.

By that analogy the builders must have been giants.

Your item #6a is not science and is not part of any science textbook in the USA, and #6b depends on the meaning of "completely sufficient". If that is your debate, it has no relevance to science.

There wasn't a 6A and 6B.

Evolution #6 is what is being taught in schools around the country.

But thanks for proving you don't understand the debate.

Purpose may be difficult to determine.

That guts the final step of EF, removes the specification from CSI, and eliminates the needed background to determine IC.

Not at all.

All of these formulations rely on being able to determine a purpose for the event/pattern/construction in question.

No, they do not.

Determining a purpose can only come after design is detected.

Unless the designer is there to tell you.

No, I said the only arguments being made by the ID proponents are anti-evolution arguments.

You are wrong.

The ONLY thing being argued against is the blind watchmaker.

The EF, CSI, and IC tests, even if they were valid, could not distinguish between emergent self-consciuousness (no external agency) and the presence of an external agency.

They are valid- as valid as anything we have and emergent self-con has never been observed and cannot be tested.

The analogy between a computer-code compiler and the ribosome, a genetic compiler, suit your standard of evidence.

The analogy is actually very poor there.

Not if you know about compilers and ribosomes:

The ribosome is a genetic compiler!

The enzyme machine that translates a cell's DNA code into the proteins of life is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist.

Think about it-

What happens to a newly written or modified computer code that has an error? All new and modified codes have to go through a compiler.

A compiler is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist!

I bet if we were to watch we would see the compiler doing its thing right up to the point the error occurs and then spits it out much faster than if the code was OK, ie error free.

Biologists need to be introduced to and experience computer science.

Then this sort of discovery wouldn’t be so “shocking”.

Compiler- source code in, object code out. Ribosome- mRNA in (string of nucleotides), polypeptide out (string of amino acids).

We then couple that with the fact that nature, operating freely can't put such a thing together

Why not?

Because it can't even buiold something as simple as Stonehenge.

IOW there isn't any evidence for it.
At 12:18 PM, One Brow said…

How can we test the premise that vision systems "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

I have repeated stated you can't test historical events in a laboratory.

By that analogy the builders must have been giants.

Very amusing.

Evolution #6 is what is being taught in schools around the country.

No, it isn't. People want you to think that. However, it would be against the law to teach the process in "an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes" as well as unscientific. Dawkins is free to make that claim in his books, but it is not in school textbooks.

But thanks for proving you don't understand the debate.

Debate requires both sides start from the same facts. When you bring in untrue facts, like the teaching of non-guidedness in high school texts, there can be no debate.

No, they do not.

Determining a purpose can only come after design is detected.

Purpose is the last test of the EF. It is the specification of CSI. IC only applies to ppurposeful arrangement of parts. If you think otherwise, you are not talking about ID as the ID proponents have been promoting these last 20 years.

You are wrong.

The ONLY thing being argued against is the blind watchmaker.

The unintended side effects of an agent, or the effects of an agent acting without any intended result, would still effectively be a blind watchmaker. If anything, the blind watchmaker is a better analogy for those two concepts than for natural selection.

... emergent self-con has never been observed and cannot be tested.

I agree, and neither can the other five alternatives be tested.

A compiler is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist!

There are many more differences than similarities, not the least of which are that the ribosome edits content, the compiler only syntax; the ribosome discards toxic programs while the compiler runs them.

Why not?

Because it can't even buiold something as simple as Stonehenge.

Why would nature be more likely to build something simple than something complex?
At 4:23 PM, Joe G said…

I have repeated stated you can't test historical events in a laboratory.

My point is no one even knows if it could happen.

So it is pointless saying it did.

Evolution #6 is what is being taught in schools around the country.

No, it isn't. People want you to think that.

Yes it is and it doesn't require any belief.

However, it would be against the law to teach the process in "an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes" as well as unscientific. Dawkins is free to make that claim in his books, but it is not in school textbooks.

Let's see it is always random mutations and natural selection which is a result and doesn't plan.

Debate requires both sides start from the same facts. When you bring in untrue facts, like the teaching of non-guidedness in high school texts, there can be no debate.

Then one must wonder why the NCSE opposes the mere mention of ID.

The following is dated but it still stands:

"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

Purpose is the last test of the EF.

No it isn't.

Just specified complexity.

It is the specification of CSI. IC only applies to ppurposeful arrangement of parts.

CSI is NOT about meaning. Dembski says this in NFL.

Of course understanding the meaning always helps but it isn't required.

And yes we can determine a purposeful arrangement without understanding the over-all purpose- ie the designer's intent.

That only comes after design is determined or agency involvement is determined.

The unintended side effects of an agent, or the effects of an agent acting without any intended result, would still effectively be a blind watchmaker.

Maybe in a very, very rare case but certainly not all the time.

There are many more differences than similarities, not the least of which are that the ribosome edits content, the compiler only syntax; the ribosome discards toxic programs while the compiler runs them.

That's just because we haven't caught up.

The analogy still works.

There is no way blind forces can construct such a thing.

It only makes sense in light of design.

We will only figure out that there is software residing in/ on the DNA hardware in a design scenario.

Why would nature be more likely to build something simple than something complex?

It has nothing to do with mere complexity and the point is if you can't show evidence for simpler things then the more specified and complex things shouldn't even be considered.
At 11:06 AM, One Brow said…

My point is no one even knows if it could happen.

Matzke goes into great detail on how it could happen.

Yes it is and it doesn't require any belief.

Both "unguided" and "unintelligent" are statements of beliefs, and they are not being taught in high schools. What is being taught is "random with respect to the needs of the organism", a position that is compatible with both unguided and guided evolution, with both no intelligence and an existing intelligence.

Let's see it is always random mutations and natural selection which is a result and doesn't plan.

Since the organims does not control the mutations to fit its needs, in what way are they not random in that respect?

Then one must wonder why the NCSE opposes the mere mention of ID.

The NCSE does not oppose the mention of ID in philosophy classes (as a point of view), political science classes (as a political movement), etc. Because ID is not science, the NCSE oppose it being taught as science in science classrooms.

The following is dated but it still stands:

None of that teaches teh process is inherent unguided by an outside force.

No it isn't.

Just specified complexity.

Purpose is the specification in specific complexity.

CSI is NOT about meaning. Dembski says this in NFL.

Trying to go from "purpose" to "meaning" is a cheap rhetorical trick. Purpose is teh specification of CSI. If the code serves no purpose, it is not specified.

Maybe in a very, very rare case but certainly not all the time.

You would still need to be able to tell teh difference to establish ID. That's why you need to start proving design, rather than just eliminate alternatives.

That's just because we haven't caught up.

It's much more that ribosomes work in a fundamentally different way than compilers.

There is no way blind forces can construct such a thing.

Why not?

It has nothing to do with mere complexity

The EF, CSI, adn IC all rely on complexity being harder to arise than simplicity.

and the point is if you can't show evidence for simpler things then the more specified and complex things shouldn't even be considered.

Why not?
At 11:57 AM, Joe G said…

Matzke goes into great detail on how it could happen.

Apparently not or it would be in a peer-reviewed journal.

Both "unguided" and "unintelligent" are statements of beliefs, and they are not being taught in high schools.

I understand what you are saying but I am sure you are wrong about what is being taught.

But I don't have a high school textbook so that will have to wait.

What is being taught is "random with respect to the needs of the organism", a position that is compatible with both unguided and guided evolution, with both no intelligence and an existing intelligence.

That is a belief- that is "random with respect to the organism".

We don't know.

Some may be.

Since the organims does not control the mutations to fit its needs, in what way are they not random in that respect?

How do you know if the organism controls the mutations or not?

Again Dr Spetner talks about this back in 1997- "built-in responses to environmental cues".

Transposons, for example, carry in their sequence the coding for the enzymes required for it to what it does.

The NCSE does not oppose the mention of ID in philosophy classes (as a point of view), political science classes (as a political movement), etc. Because ID is not science, the NCSE oppose it being taught as science in science classrooms.

They oppose it period.

They also push the blind watchmaker thesis.

Purpose is the specification in specific complexity.

No it is not.

Dembski flat out tells us that the meaning may not be able to be comprehended but the design will still be detectable.

This is in "No Free Lunch".

Trying to go from "purpose" to "meaning" is a cheap rhetorical trick. Purpose is teh specification of CSI. If the code serves no purpose, it is not specified.

That is false. We may not know if it serves a purpose or not.

We don't know what purpose Stonehenge served.

We don't know what purpose the Easter Island moai served.

Purpose is only ascertained after design is determined.

Sometimes the two can go together. But only in very simple cases.

You would still need to be able to tell teh difference to establish ID. That's why you need to start proving design, rather than just eliminate alternatives.

1- Agency involvement first.

2- We don't neeed to know the purpose to determine design- as demonstrated above.

3- Science is not about proving things

It's much more that ribosomes work in a fundamentally different way than compilers.

1-Fundamentally ribosomes are code translators.

2- Fundamentally compilers are code translators

3- Ribosomes have an advanced error correction system

4- Compilers have a crude error correction system

BTW they have to work differently- that is the nature of the beast.

There is no way blind forces can construct such a thing.

Why not?

For the same reason they can't produce a PC.

It has nothing to do with mere complexity

The EF, CSI, adn IC all rely on complexity being harder to arise than simplicity.

That is true but it doesn't address what I said.

The reach a design inference using the EF the object in question has to be more than complex.

Only the "C" in CSI refers to complexity.

Only the "C" in IC refers to complexity.

and the point is if you can't show evidence for simpler things then the more specified and complex things shouldn't even be considered.

Why not?

Lack of evidentiary support.
At 6:16 PM, One Brow said…

Apparently not or it would be in a peer-reviewed journal.

Why?

That is a belief- that is "random with respect to the organism".

We don't know.

Some may be.

Of the known causes of mutation (linked to in the other thread), which takes the needs of the organism into account?

How do you know if the organism controls the mutations or not?

Which of the causes of mutation listed would be under the control of the organism?

Transposons, for example, carry in their sequence the coding for the enzymes required for it to what it does.

However, is the change from transposons a mutation?

They oppose it period.

The members of the NCSE I have read say otherwise.

They also push the blind watchmaker thesis.

They advise against including words like undeiredted and unintelligent in statements describing evolution, from what I have read of them. In fact, they are criticized by the Myers-style contingent for being too accomodationist from time to time.

Dembski flat out tells us that the meaning may not be able to be comprehended but the design will still be detectable.

Again, you go from purpose to meaning.

We don't know what purpose Stonehenge served.

Then it would not pass the EF.

However, we know Stonehedge was designed by analogy anyhow.

2- We don't neeed to know the purpose to determine design- as demonstrated above.

A string can't be specified to peform a function if there is no purpose to the string. A system can't be a functional, ireeducible construction if there is no purpose to the system. The theird step of the EF is to figure if the object in question serves any function. In all of these, only functional objects are deemed to have design, so in ID, purpose does preceed design.

BTW they have to work differently- that is the nature of the beast.

Exactly so.

For the same reason they can't produce a PC.

To my knowledge, none of the components of a ribosome consist of purified metal.

Lack of evidentiary support.

Why should complex things require as much support as simple things? Complexity is the result of random behaviors.
At 7:46 PM, Joe G said…

Why?

It is meaningless to science without being peer-reviewed.

And it is meaningless to Dr Behe's challenge, which it was meant to meet.

Of the known causes of mutation (linked to in the other thread), which takes the needs of the organism into account?

The mutations that "can be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation."

And actually anything other than a point mutation.

As I said you need to read "Not By Chance".

Or just keep grasping.

Which of the causes of mutation listed would be under the control of the organism?

The mutations that "can be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation."

Didn't I just say that?

You should read your sources before posting them.

However, is the change from transposons a mutation?

All genetic changes are mutations.

Dembski flat out tells us that the meaning may not be able to be comprehended but the design will still be detectable.

Again, you go from purpose to meaning.

How can you tell the purpose if you don't know the meaning?

How can you tell if there is any purpose without knowing the meaning?

Also "meaning" is defined as the end, purpose, or significance of something and to have in mind as one's purpose or intention; intend.

So I take it you have difficulty with the English language in general.

We don't know what purpose Stonehenge served.

Then it would not pass the EF.

The EF doesn't say anything about "purpose".

That comes after.

Detect design first, THEN try to figure out the purpose.

However, we know Stonehedge was designed by analogy anyhow.

There wasn't any relevant analogy.

No more relevant than the ribosome and a computer code compiler anyway.

2- We don't neeed to know the purpose to determine design- as demonstrated above.

A string can't be specified to peform a function if there is no purpose to the string.

Prove it. And then tell me the relevance.

If I see a string of numbers etched into a cave wall I don't need to know what the purpose of the string was/ is in order to determine the string was designed.

You don't appear to know much about design detection.

You keep inventing strawman after strawman.

A system can't be a functional, ireeducible construction if there is no purpose to the system.

Prove it and then explain the relevance.

The theird step of the EF is to figure if the object in question serves any function.

That is ONE question asked- does it serve/ have a function.

It isn't the only question asked.

Art and function don't usually go hand-in-hand.

In all of these, only functional objects are deemed to have design, so in ID, purpose does preceed design.

Never has, never will.

To my knowledge, none of the components of a ribosome consist of purified metal.

Just other purified chemicals that nature, operating freely cannot produce.

Why should complex things require as much support as simple things?

It isn't mere complexity and if it doesn't have any support that has nothing to do with simpler things.
At 7:40 AM, Joe G said…

Dembski on Specification: The Pattern That
Signifies Intelligence

Notice the word "purpose" only shows up in the plural and only three times.

And not once does it describe that the purpose must be determined before the design inference is made.
At 11:25 AM, One Brow said…

It is meaningless to science without being peer-reviewed.

You and I are not acting as scientists in this topic.

And it is meaningless to Dr Behe's challenge, which it was meant to meet.

Why?

... by cellular processes such as hypermutation."

Hypermutation is a highly specialized activity of immune cells in mutli-celluar organisms, and it's effects are limited to few types of soma cells, as far as we can tell.

And actually anything other than a point mutation.

Gene duplicatino is not a random process? Frame shift mutations are not a random process?

Which mutations specifically are non-random, that is, tied directly to the needs of the organism?

By the way, how is the action of the transposon controlled in any way by the need of the organism? It seems to be random in that respect.

How can you tell the purpose if you don't know the meaning?

You can't tell me the purpose of the bacterial flagellum? You don't think its purpose is to move the bacteria?

So I take it you have difficulty with the English language in general.

Casual insults do not support your arguments and will not distract me from asking you to support your arguments.

The EF doesn't say anything about "purpose".

That comes after.

If there is no specification, no function, no purpose, no meaning, then the EF does not return a result of design.

There wasn't any relevant analogy.

My kids made similar structures all the time.

Prove it. And then tell me the relevance.

In every example presented, the specification is the purpose. If you think otherwise, find one time Dembski used CSI to detect design without finding a purpose for the string.

If I see a string of numbers etched into a cave wall I don't need to know what the purpose of the string was/ is in order to determine the string was designed.

You recognize the numbers by analogy, because you know what numbers are.

A system can't be a functional, ireeducible construction if there is no purpose to the system.

Prove it and then explain the relevance.

It's how Behe defined IC. Your asking me to prove his definition.

Art and function don't usually go hand-in-hand.

You don't think artists have some ort of purpose in mind when they create? Besides, according to you, art may well be a false negative for the EF anyhow.

Just other purified chemicals that nature, operating freely cannot produce.

Why not?

Dembski on Specification: The Pattern That
Signifies Intelligence

I've read it before.

Notice the word "purpose" only shows up in the plural and only three times.

And not once does it describe that the purpose must be determined before the design inference is made.

'Sophie was at the keypad again, entering a different number, as if from memory. “Moreover, with my
grandfather’s love of symbolism and codes, it seems to follow that he would have chosen an account
number that had meaning to him, something he could easily remember.” She finished typing the entry and gave a sly smile. “Something that appeared random but was not.”'

Using the purpose of the account number, Sophie sees the design.

'As an example of specification and specified complexity in their context-independent form, let
us return to the bacterial flagellum. Recall the following description of the bacterial flagellum given in section 6: “bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller.” This description corresponds to
a pattern T.'

The pattern derives from the purpose of the flagellum to be a propeller.

These are the only two examples of applying CSI in some fashion Dembski offers in his paper, and in both, the specification is derived from the purpose of the object. That Dembski does not come out and say this directly is unfortunate and confusing, but his usage is clear.
At 12:03 PM, Joe G said…

You and I are not acting as scientists in this topic.

I only accept scientific data.

Anything else may be interesting and even important, but when it comes to scientific discussions and refutations, only scientific data will do.

And it is meaningless to Dr Behe's challenge, which it was meant to meet.

Why?

Behe's challenge pertains to the scientific literature. As for why Matzke tried to meet that challenge- ask him.

Gene duplicatino is not a random process? Frame shift mutations are not a random process?

Which mutations specifically are non-random, that is, tied directly to the needs of the organism?

By the way, how is the action of the transposon controlled in any way by the need of the organism? It seems to be random in that respect.

Ignorance sez they are random. So sure hop on the ignorance bandwagon.

I bet they are as "random" as control statements.

IOW without knowledge of a program its actions may appear "random".

How can you tell the purpose if you don't know the meaning?

You can't tell me the purpose of the bacterial flagellum? You don't think its purpose is to move the bacteria?

It could be but that ain't the point.

A flagellum is NOT a string of numbers nor letters.

The EF doesn't say anything about "purpose".

That comes after.

If there is no specification, no function, no purpose, no meaning, then the EF does not return a result of design.

Specification is NOT the same as purpose. Never was.

There wasn't any relevant analogy.

My kids made similar structures all the time.

So what? Did the archaeologists who determined Stonehenge was designed watch your kids build with blocks?

And again the only analogy that would bring would be that the builders of Stonehenge had to have been giants.

If I see a string of numbers etched into a cave wall I don't need to know what the purpose of the string was/ is in order to determine the string was designed.

You recognize the numbers by analogy, because you know what numbers are.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

In every example presented, the specification is the purpose. If you think otherwise, find one time Dembski used CSI to detect design without finding a purpose for the string.

I just presented Dembski's paper on specification.

You are wrong. Get over it.

It's how Behe defined IC. Your asking me to prove his definition.

Again you respond with nothing.

You didn't even address what I said.

Try again:

A system can't be a functional, ireeducible construction if there is no purpose to the system.

Prove it and then explain the relevance.

I will wait.

Art and function don't usually go hand-in-hand.

You don't think artists have some ort of purpose in mind when they create?

Not always.

Besides, according to you, art may well be a false negative for the EF anyhow.

Not according to me. Only an asshole would say that.

Just other purified chemicals that nature, operating freely cannot produce.

Why not?

For the same reason it can't produce the purified metals required for computers.

Using the purpose of the account number, Sophie sees the design.

You're just grasping at straws.

Page 147 of "No Free Lunch" tells us meaning is not required and the Smthsonian has a room of obviously designed artifacts for which no one ahs a clue waht they do.

Start on page 145 section 3.6
At 12:58 PM, Joe G said…

Page 147 of "No Free Lunch":

"Neither CSI nor semantic information presupposes the other. This in my view is a tremendous asset of CSI, for it allows one to detect design without necessarily determining the function, purpose, or meaning of a thing that is designed (which is not to say that function, purpose or meaning may not useful in identifying a specification, but they are not mandated.)" (bold added)
At 4:18 PM, One Brow said…

I only accept scientific data.

So, you reject the EF, CSI, and IC? I think not. Besides, matzke's paper is completely supported by peer-review data. The narrative is not peer-reviewed, but narratives generally are not.

Behe's challenge pertains to the scientific literature.

Behe should know that a detailed historical narrative such as Matzke's would not be the subject of peer review, however it is scientific literature. Thus, either Behe is being devious or, more likely, you have misunderstood him.

Ignorance sez they are random. So sure hop on the ignorance bandwagon.

Se, you have no method by which the mutations are controlled by the organism. Failing that, and adding the the enormous prevalence of deleterious mutations over beneficial mutations along with the detected statistical patterns of mutations that are indisguishable from what you would see if mutation is random, and the conclusion is that they are random with respect to the needs of the organism.

IOW without knowledge of a program its actions may appear "random".

Some programs build randomness in.

A flagellum is NOT a string of numbers nor letters.

No, but it was one of only two examples Dembski offered for specification in the article you linked to.

Specification is NOT the same as purpose. Never was.

Except when Dembski needs to provide an example of using CSI, when he trots out statements that the specifcation comes from the function.

So what? Did the archaeologists who determined Stonehenge was designed watch your kids build with blocks?

I'm sure they had kids of their own, in addition to having been kids, in addition to seeing a variety of arches created by architects, etc.

And again the only analogy that would bring would be that the builders of Stonehenge had to have been giants.

Stonehedge is a circle of stone arches. You didn't notice?

That has nothing to do with what I said.

It has everything to do with why you think it is a string of numbers and not some random depressions with a possibly natural cause.

I just presented Dembski's paper on specification.

In both examples, specification came from purpose, what the code/construct was supposed to do.

Again you respond with nothing.

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

If there is no purpose to the system to contibute to, there is no IC. These are Behe's words.

Besides, according to you, art may well be a false negative for the EF anyhow.

Not according to me. Only an asshole would say that.

"And yes designers can mimic nature- as I have already told you."

For the same reason it can't produce the purified metals required for computers.

You think teh same type of manufacture process is required for the chemicals of RNA as for the metals of a computer?

You're just grasping at straws.

Debmski's description, not mine.

Page 147 of "No Free Lunch" tells us meaning is not required and the Smthsonian has a room of obviously designed artifacts for which no one ahs a clue waht they do.

Feel to free to pick one and describe how CSI is applied to it.

Dembski's bare assertion is one thing, but I await an example of using CSI without a prior determination of purpose.
At 4:39 PM, Joe G said…

So, you reject the EF, CSI, and IC?

The EF is a methodology used and IC is in peer-review.

People have been trying to refute it.

Se, you have no method by which the mutations are controlled by the organism.

So you have no way, besides ignorance, that all mutations are random. Fine.

No one used analogy to determine Stonehenge was built by humans.

No one even knew humans were capable of such a thing- that is until they found evidence that humans were around the site.

Stonehedge is a circle of stone arches. You didn't notice?

Do you know what an "arch" is?

I think not.

Next you conflate function with purpose.

"And yes designers can mimic nature- as I have already told you."

That refers to anything, not just art.

Artists usually want people to notice their work.

Arsonists, OTOH...

You think teh same type of manufacture process is required for the chemicals of RNA as for the metals of a computer?

Most likely more strict with RNA.

The most recent peer-reviewed paper demonstrates that agency intervention is required to get TWO nucleotides.

Page 147 of "No Free Lunch" tells us meaning is not required and the Smthsonian has a room of obviously designed artifacts for which no one ahs a clue waht they do.

Feel to free to pick one and describe how CSI is applied to it.

You pick one and tell me how it doesn't.

But that isn't even the point- design was detected without a purpose being known.

That is something you said can't be done, yet it is done on a daily basis!

Dembski's bare assertion is one thing, but I await an example of using CSI without a prior determination of purpose.

I already gave you one- a string of numbers etched into a cave wall.

If the string is long enough CSI would be present.

But I take it that you are upset because I keep exposing you strawman arguments.

Get used to it.
At 5:43 PM, One Brow said…

The EF is a methodology

So, your requirement for peer-review only applies ot data. Since Matzke's paper is not data, you can't use peer-review to reject it.

IC is in peer-review.

Journal, date, article?

So you have no way, besides ignorance, that all mutations are random. Fine.

Actually, I specifically mentioned the data that most mutations are detrimental (what organism would cause itself detrimental mutations?) and the the pattern of mutations matched a patttern you would get from random behavior.

Are you asking for evidence there is no connection? Surely you realize there can be no such thing.

No one even knew humans were capable of such a thing- that is until they found evidence that humans were around the site.

*chortle*

Yeah, I guess the pyramids and ziggerauts of the world offered no clue humans could move large stones.

"And yes designers can mimic nature- as I have already told you."

That refers to anything, not just art.

Certainly. I merely noted it for the self-reference.

Most likely more strict with RNA.

That would depend upon your tolerance for error.

The most recent peer-reviewed paper demonstrates that agency intervention is required to get TWO nucleotides.

You can prove it is required. *chortle*

You pick one and tell me how it doesn't.

They are known to be artifacts because they look like things humans build.

But that isn't even the point- design was detected without a purpose being known.

By analogy to what humans build, not CSI nore any similar process.

That is something you said can't be done, yet it is done on a daily basis!

No, I never said design determinaitons wwere impossible. I have consistently maintained they are had via analogy.

I already gave you one- a string of numbers etched into a cave wall.

If the string is long enough CSI would be present.

CSI inevitably appears in any sufficiently long string of numbers? I don't think you meant that. At any rate, the only reason you call them numbers is the etchings are analogous to what you have learned numbers look like.

But I take it that you are upset because I keep exposing you strawman arguments.

You confuse consternation with bemusement.
At 6:53 PM, Joe G said…

Since Matzke's paper is not data, you can't use peer-review to reject it.

I reject it because it is an imaginary tale.

IC is in peer-review.

Journal, date, article?

By the standard you set those are not required.

OR you can just start providing references to support your claims- starting with design detection can only be done via analogy.

Actually, I specifically mentioned the data that most mutations are detrimental (what organism would cause itself detrimental mutations?) and the the pattern of mutations matched a patttern you would get from random behavior.

NOW there may be a predominance of detrimental effects.

Remember we are talking about HISTORY.

No one even knew humans were capable of such a thing- that is until they found evidence that humans were around the site.

Yeah, I guess the pyramids and ziggerauts of the world offered no clue humans could move large stones.

the pyramids aren't anythinglike Stonehenge.

I have seen pyramids and Stonehenge up close.

Also no one thought that humans could have built the pyramids.

Most likely more strict with RNA.

That would depend upon your tolerance for error.

It would depend on a lot more than that.

I don't care what that tolerance is if it can't be done it can't be done.

And from our knowledge it just can't be done.

The most recent peer-reviewed paper demonstrates that agency intervention is required to get TWO nucleotides.

You can prove it is required.

It's all in the paper.

Had agency intervention not been required that would have been head-line news.

Ya see it is all about reducibility- just as I have been trying to tell you.

The experiment didn't/ wouldn't occur without intervention.

They are known to be artifacts because they look like things humans build.

Assface YOU said we couldn't determine design unless we knew the PURPOSE.

Yet we have determined design without knowing the purpose.

You are refuted.

But that isn't even the point- design was detected without a purpose being known.

By analogy to what humans build, not CSI nore any similar process.

Citation required- however THAT isn't even the point.

YOU said we had to know the purpose before saying it was designed.

Reality refutes you.

That is something you said can't be done, yet it is done on a daily basis!

No, I never said design determinaitons wwere impossible.

You said they were impossible without knowing the purpose.

You have been proven wrong. Deal with it.

I have consistently maintained they are had via analogy.

And you have NEVER substantiated that claim.

Why is that?

But yes, you are constipated.
At 11:53 AM, One Brow said…

I reject it because it is an imaginary tale.

So was your lightning description. No one went into clouds and deliberately controlled their ion levels to watch the results (such an experiemtn would not be ethical, for starters, as well as being hugely expensive to generate ions at that level). I don't mind that you insist on these arbitrary differences to create a separate standard, I expected it.

By the standard you set those are not required.

I set a claim for peer-review that does not require a publication date?
*chortle*

OR you can just start providing references to support your claims- starting with design detection can only be done via analogy.

Once you got into the the details of what you would look for to find counterflow, you did this work for me.

Remember we are talking about HISTORY.

Do you have eividence there was a difference in the past?

the pyramids aren't anythinglike Stonehenge.

I have seen pyramids and Stonehenge up close.

Also no one thought that humans could have built the pyramids.

*chortle*

It would depend on a lot more than that.

Sure, but a large tolerance for error obviates any other need for precise construction.

And from our knowledge it just can't be done.

You believe it can't be done. Scientifically, we have no proofof it.

It's all in the paper.

Link?

Had agency intervention not been required that would have been head-line news.

*chortle*

As if ID proponents have any trouble getting publicity, or editors are reluctant to publish that science has been overturned on some topic.

Assface YOU said we couldn't determine design unless we knew the PURPOSE.

No, I said you can't use the EF, CSI, or IC without determining a purpose. Nor will our pointless insults change what I said.

Yet we have determined design without knowing the purpose.

Howver, not by using the EF, CSI, or IC.

And you have NEVER substantiated that claim.

Your own examples have done that for me.
At 1:57 PM, Joe G said…

Lightning formation is in peer-review.

The alleged evolution of the bacterial flagellum is not.

Just because you refuse to accept that proves you have an agenda.

Once you got into the the details of what you would look for to find counterflow, you did this work for me.

Jus because you think so doesn't make it so.

You have failed to provide a reference for your claim.

You have never provided anything to support your claims.

Do you have eividence there was a difference in the past?

According to you there was.

Actually there had to have been a difference.

In the evolutionary scenario there has always been change.

Sure, but a large tolerance for error obviates any other need for precise construction.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

And no one says there was/ is a large tolerance for error.

You believe it can't be done. Scientifically, we have no proofof it.

Science isn't about proof.

There isn't any evidence for it.

Without that all you have is a belief.

No, I said you can't use the EF, CSI, or IC without determining a purpose.

And yet I have refuted that ignorant claim.

Ya see we don't know the purpose of Stonehenge yet we know it was designed using the same methodology used in the EF.

Dembski, who gave us CSI and to some extent the EF, says you are wrong.

Yet we have determined design without knowing the purpose.

Howver, not by using the EF, CSI, or IC.

Yes we have. Neither the EF, IC nor CSI require knowledge of a purpose.

You conflate function with purpose.

And you have NEVER substantiated that claim.

Your own examples have done that for me.

That is only because to you everything is an analogy.

However don't ask me for any references or citations if you are not going to provide any when asked.
At 1:58 PM, Joe G said…

Page 147 of "No Free Lunch":

"Neither CSI nor semantic information presupposes the other. This in my view is a tremendous asset of CSI, for it allows one to detect design without necessarily determining the function, purpose, or meaning of a thing that is designed (which is not to say that function, purpose or meaning may not useful in identifying a specification, but they are not mandated.)"

Thank you for proving that you "argue" from willful ignorance.
At 3:29 PM, Joe G said…

Analogy:

the bacterial flagellum to an inboard/ outboard drive.

Therefor by your "logic" the design inference for teh bacterial flagellum is justified.

And also by your "logic" if someone goes into a lab and genetically engineers a bacterial flagellum the design inference is as solid as anything.
At 9:09 PM, Joe G said…

One brow- you said "design requires setting a direction".

You never clarified that nor have to ever supported the claim.

Just how the hell can you support something so vague anyway?

Then you prattled on about purpose.

Then you tried to tie purpose in with the EF, CSI and IC.

Dembski flat out refutes your claim pertaining to the EF and CSI, and you still prattle on.

Also "a purposeful arrangement of parts" pertains to function, which does not equal purpose.

For example a Rube Goldberg machine.

You may not be able to initially ascertain the purpose but there is no doubt it was designed.

And if it didn't function someone could fix it without knowing what it did just by seeing where things stopped and figuring out how to repair that gap.

Only then could they see what the purpose was.

And yes a Rube Glodberg machine would easily make it through the EF- that is in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

There you have it- an example of IC without knowing the purpose.
At 9:22 PM, Joe G said…

Lightning- in the New World Encyclopedia-

It's not just that it is in the Encyclopedia- it's the number of peer-reviewed articles used to support it.

As I said lightning formation is in peer-review and it is directly testable.

It is science.

The alleged evolution of the bacterial flagellum- as YOU said- is history.

There isn't anything scientific about it.

IOW One Brow it is you who holds the different standards- that is if you think Matzke's paper is in the same league as lightning formation.
At 12:40 PM, One Brow said…

Lightning formation is in peer-review.

The alleged evolution of the bacterial flagellum is not.

List the peer-review article that provides your explanation of lightning formation. An encyclopedia article is not a scientific peer-review. If all you mean is that other scientists have looked at the article and approved of it, I can say the same for Matzke's on-line article.

Just because you refuse to accept that proves you have an agenda.

You difficulty in proving a difference that does not exist is not a feature of my agenda.

Jus because you think so doesn't make it so.

It is so, regardless of whether I think so or not. You description relied on correlation to current known designs and methods. My thoughts were not required for that.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

I've done enough building in my time to know the importance of error tolerance on constructions of bvarious sorts.

And no one says there was/ is a large tolerance for error.

Natural selection indicates there is, since it weeds out the errors.

Science isn't about proof.

We have no evidence such limits exist.

It's not just that it is in the Encyclopedia- it's the number of peer-reviewed articles used to support it.

None of the peer-reviewed articles test the entire cycle of lightning formation as you described it.

IOW One Brow it is you who holds the different standards- that is if you think Matzke's paper is in the same league as lightning formation

If you keep trying, you may one day find a real difference. I'm not holding my breath.
At 12:41 PM, One Brow said…

And yet I have refuted that ignorant claim.

One quote of Dembski is not a refutation, when every example provided so far supports my claim.

Ya see we don't know the purpose of Stonehenge yet we know it was designed using the same methodology used in the EF.

How do you get past the last step of the EF without providing a function, when Dembski himself can't? Another example.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm

"But of course, the event is specified: that Caputo is a Democrat, that it is in Caputo's interest to see the Democrats appear first on the ballot, ..."

How does the highly supportive conservapedia describe it?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Explanatory_filter

'Explanatory Filter Step 3 – Identifying purpose – Finding a Specification

The third element of Dembski’s filter is to look for an apparent “specification” or purpose. '

Dembski, who gave us CSI and to some extent the EF, says you are wrong.

I await one example by Dembski. So far i have seen three, and in all of them, Dembski used the purpose to determine specificaiton.

You conflate function with purpose.

If I do, so does Dembski when discussing CSI or the EF. Meanwhile, Behe specifically references purpose in the formulation of IC.

However don't ask me for any references or citations if you are not going to provide any when asked.

You mean, like my providing of examples of Dembski using purpose when determining specification, and you refusing to provide a single citation or reference when he does not?

Page 147 of "No Free Lunch":

Again, Dembski's claims do not align with Dembski's examples. This is not ignorance on my part.

And also by your "logic" if someone goes into a lab and genetically engineers a bacterial flagellum the design inference is as solid as anything.

I have continually stated that engineering a flagellum, through means direct or indirrect, would not be evidence for or against design for the currently known flagella.

Also "a purposeful arrangement of parts" pertains to function, which does not equal purpose.

So, 'purposeful' does not relate to 'purpose'? I think you are trying to attach some additional meaning to the purpose of a flagellum beyond the obvious 'move a bacterium'.

For example a Rube Goldberg machine.

You may not be able to initially ascertain the purpose but there is no doubt it was designed.

Because the pieces of Rube Goldberg machines correlate to other human designs, so I know what I am looking at.

And yes a Rube Glodberg machine would easily make it through the EF- that is in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

Not without distoring the third step beyond recognition.
At 8:38 PM, Joe G said…

1- Lightning formation can be obeserved and studied- ie science

2- The alleged evolution of the bacterial flagellum has never been observed nor studied- not science

3- Counterflow does not require direct correlation nor analogy

4- Knowing what agencies are capable of coupled with the knowledge of what nature, operating freely, can do, does not equate to using analogies nor correlation

5- Unique scenarios cannot use analogies and we do not wait around for an analogy to pop up

6- A puposeful arrangemant of parts does not equate to knowing the purpose of the device.

7- One quote from the developer of CSI and to some extent the EF is worth more than anything you can say

8- A series of prime numbers, if received, would pass through the EF even though we did not know the purpose

9- Stonehenge would make it through the EF even though we don't know the purpose

10- The moai would make it through the EF and we don't know their purpose

11- And despite your claims there aren't any analogies for either.

12- There isn't any step in the EF that requires knowing the purpose- specification is NOT purpose.

And nothing you can say will ever change that.

Specification OR purpose

That's right you have difficulty with English.
At 8:45 PM, Joe G said…

I've done enough building in my time to know the importance of error tolerance on constructions of bvarious sorts.

So what? That doesn't help your claim at all.

And no one says there was/ is a large tolerance for error.

Natural selection indicates there is, since it weeds out the errors.

1- Natural selection is a RESULT- it doesn't do anything.

2- And even that doesn't mean there is a large tolerance

3- Natural selection does not apply to inanimate matter- ie the OoL

We have no evidence such limits exist.

That isn't how science operates. There needs to be POSITIVE evidence.

There just isn't any.

All we have is only life begets life.

If you keep trying, you may one day find a real difference.

I have told you the difference several times.

Lightning formation can be observed, studied and tested.

Matzke's imaginary tale has never been observed, can't be studied and will never be tested.
At 12:18 PM, One Brow said…

JoeG,

Thank you for the dialogue. I think I've gotten close to what I can from you. Rather than respond to each point, I'll just summarize.

The only difference between the discussion of events in Matzke's paper and your discussion of lightning is the amount of time involved. No one goes, or has gone, directly into clouds in a thunderstorm to observe and measure lightning formation directly. The theory of lightning generation is dependent upon the assemblege of a variety of tested parts and indirect observations into a coherenet view of lightning. Your attempts to find some sort of substantive difference besides time required have been a failure on your part, from anything I can see. You attempt to equate the study of a general phenomenon (lightning formation) to a specific instance of a phenomenon (the evolution of flagella) also shows that you are missing the point.

Meanwhile, while you continue to claim counterflow is not dependent on correlation to what designers have previously done, this was the precise process you used in the example I gave. If you care to provide an example of how you would find counterflow without making such a correlation, feel free, but so far all you have provided to me that had use of correlation.

Dembski's own examples are worth more than any quote of his or mine. When he provides an example of using the EF or CSI that does not rely on function or purpose, feel free to bring it in. Until then, three tries are enough for me. As for the prime numbers, where are seeing prime numbers to start with? We would know design from the medium before we even saw the sequence. You can't get a specification for Stonehedge without knowing the purpose or function, according to Dembsi's own examples, the Conserva[pedia article, etc. If you want to make a convincing argument, find a way to create a specification without using a probability argument (that's the second stage) or a function/purpose argument.

Natural selection is not a result, it is a mechanism (as is mutation). The result of natural selection is a different phneotype in the descendant populaiton. If you don't understand that basic aspect of evolution, who will take you seriously on other issues?

If there is no positive evidence for a limit, it is unscientific to say a limit exists.
At 1:23 PM, Joe G said…

The only difference between the discussion of events in Matzke's paper and your discussion of lightning is the amount of time involved.

No it isn't.

The difference is exactly what I said it is:

1- We can observe formation lightning and we can study it.

2- We cannot observe the evolution of the flagellum nor can we study said evolution.

3- We can test our hypotheses of lightning formation

4- You have said we cannot test the hypothesis for the evolution of the flagellum.

Meanwhile, while you continue to claim counterflow is not dependent on correlation to what designers have previously done, this was the precise process you used in the example I gave.

Correlation is part of it.

Again your refusal to read the source- ie "Nature, Design and Science" proves that you are noit interested in debating. Rather you are more interested in erecting strawman after strawman in hopes I can't knock them all down.

counterflow

Del Ratzsch presents this term in his writing on design in Nature, Design and Science. Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely. When agents redirect, restrain or constrain nature, they leave counterflow marks. Ratzsch goes on to say that counterflow can be injected into initial states, processes, or results (p.7). Counterflow is important in identifying agent activity in a given structure.

Del Ratzsch distinguishes between primary and secondary counterflow marks. Primary counterflow characteristics can be found in the following ways (pp.10-11):

Parts vs. Systems: Individual components of the system may exhibit counterflow, or it may be only as a whole system that counterflow can be identified in a particular structure.

Surface vs. Deep: There may be obvious counterflow properties, or more subtle and complicated properties, such as medium-run sequence probabilities.

Direct vs. Indirect: Recognition can be immediate or more inferential

Synchronic vs. Diachronic: Counterflow can be evident over time (diachronically) or all at once (synchronically)

Hard vs. Soft: Soft counterflow recognition required knowledge of relevant valuations. Hard required only familiarity with nature’s normal flow.

Secondary marks of counterflow include: Complicated development, complex structures, coordination of components, adjustment of means to end, interlocking functions, extreme improbability, purposelike behaviors, and others (p.12).
At 1:23 PM, Joe G said…

Next you say:

Dembski's own examples are worth more than any quote of his or mine.

Not really.

Examples are never meant to portray every aspect of something.

And specification does not mean purpose.

As for the prime numbers, where are seeing prime numbers to start with?

Irrelevant.

If we received them and put them into the EF design would be the inference.

And we wouldn't know the purpose.

Stonehenge definitely meets the specification criteria and we do nopt know the purpose.

The moai meet the specification criteria- again no purpose required.

Natural selection is not a result, it is a mechanism (as is mutation).

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

Variation
Inheritance
Fecundity

which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeil- biology prof at Cornell

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UC Berkley website on "evolution".

The result is in- natural selection is a result.

If there is no positive evidence for a limit, it is unscientific to say a limit exists.

There isn't any positive evidence for an OoL without agency involvement.
At 4:59 PM, One Brow said…

The only reason the lightning formation is observable, to the degree it is at all, the flagella evolution is not, is the time factor. Nothing else about lightning makes it more or less observable.

3- We can test our hypotheses of lightning formation

4- You have said we cannot test the hypothesis for the evolution of the flagellum.

Again, you try to equate "lightning formation", an ongoing process, with "evolution of the flagellum", a historic event. We can and have tested all the processes involved in Matzke's account of flagellar formation, just like we have tested the processes of lightning formation. We can't test the evolution of a particular flagella, just like we can't test the creation of any particular bolt of lightning. Your attempt to find a difference here has failed. Repeating that failure will not change it to a success.

Again your refusal to read the source- ie "Nature, Design and Science" proves that you are noit interested in debating.

I might read that book. It's Spetner's I see no point in reading.

When agents redirect, restrain or constrain nature, they leave counterflow marks.

We would read those marks by correlatiing what we already know of how agents operate. Your list merely confirmed that.

Examples are never meant to portray every aspect of something.

I am still waiting for an example where he does not use function or purpose as the specification.

If we received them and put them into the EF design would be the inference.

Received means sent. That's different from read. For example, the brightest starts in Orion form two shoulders, a belt of three, and to thighs. All of those are prime, plus there's five above the hips and five below the shoulders (also prime) and seven total (a prime), and even three on the left side and three on the right side. All primes, but we don't usually conclude that the stars of Orion were deswigned in that pattern for that reason.

Stonehenge definitely meets the specification criteria and we do nopt know the purpose.

Give the specification of Stonehedge, then. Explain what nature can't do.

The moai meet the specification criteria- again no purpose required.

Again, what is it nature can't do.

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

...

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UC Berkley website on "evolution".

The result is in- natural selection is a result.

For someone who complains about my reading so often, yours should be more careful. Being the result of three component processes is not the same as being a result from a process. The third quote even specifically to it being mechanistic, i.e., a mechanism.

There isn't any positive evidence for an OoL without agency involvement.

No evidence is no evidence. There is no evidence it is impossible.
At 6:44 PM, Joe G said…

Being the result of three component processes is not the same as being a result from a process.

Natural selection is a result. Period, end of story.

Just because you are incapable of understanding that doesn't mean anything to me.

The third quote even specifically to it being mechanistic, i.e., a mechanism.

Actually "mechanistic" as in "lacking thought or feeling".

The only reason the lightning formation is observable, to the degree it is at all, the flagella evolution is not, is the time factor.

Time factor? Can't observe what never happened.

When agents redirect, restrain or constrain nature, they leave counterflow marks.

We would read those marks by correlatiing what we already know of how agents operate.

We may but we don't have to.

As a matter of fact the counterflow observed may not have any correlation at all.

And even then one has to be able to test that premise of correlation.

IOW correlation only gets one's interest.

Then it has to be tested to see exactly what can account for it.

That pertains to the reducibility part that you refuse to understand.

Examples are never meant to portray every aspect of something.

I am still waiting for an example where he does not use function or purpose as the specification.

I am sure it's been provided but you just are just too narrow-minded to have read it.

And I have provided examples that don't require function nor purpose.

IOW you are just being an ass.

If we received them and put them into the EF design would be the inference.

Received means sent.

Received means we received them.

We didn't send them.

So if we received a series of prime numbers and enetered that into the EF - design would be the output.

Stonehenge definitely meets the specification criteria and we do nopt know the purpose.

Give the specification of Stonehedge, then.

I have already done that.

Explain what nature can't do.

Scientists have already done that.

Nature, operating freely can't build a structure like Stonhenge.

Nature, operating freely cannot carve heads out of stone.

Nature, operating freely cannot produce plastic.

Scientists have a real good grasp on what nature, can and cannot do.

There isn't any positive evidence for an OoL without agency involvement.

No evidence is no evidence.

Which is why it is a BELIEF.

There is no evidence it is impossible.

There isn't any evidence that it is possible.

Without that all there is is faith.

Intelligent Reasoning

Friday, August 14, 2009

No Examples and No Hypothesis for the non-telic position

200 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts