Intelligent Reasoning

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

Monday, November 01, 2010

Archaeology, Forensics, SETI and the Explanatory Filter

-
Archaeology, forensics and SETI are three active areas of research that propose they can differentiate between nature, operating freely and agency involvement.

But how do they do so?

My claim is that they all use the explanatory filter. My reasoning is as follows:

1- In archaeology you cannot be holding an artifact if nature, operating freely can account for the object. In forensics you cannot have a crime scene if nature, operating freely can account for the evidence. And in SETI they do not infer an alien civilization is sending a signal if nature, operating freely can produce that signal.

So that is the first two decision nodes of the EF- eliminating chance and necessity, ie nature, operating freely.

However just getting beyond the first two nodes is not enough to infer design (nor a crime). You still need some positive evidence. And that is were the third node comes in.

2- In archaeology once nature, operating freely has been eliminated and there is some specification- tool marks, the way pieces fit together, for example- then they infer it is an artifact. The same with forensics- once nature operating freely is eliminated they have to look for things that known agencies can do. And the same for SETI- eliminate nature and then look for something agencies have been known to do.


With living organisms there isn't any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce a living organism from non-livng matter. All scientific data says that life begets life. And yes we observe specification inside of living organisms.

So we have eliminated nature, operating freely and have observed a specification and that is why we infer living organisms are the product of intent and design.

105 Comments:

  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    When will you be giving us those examples of the EF applied to biological objects?

    One case with positive results and one with negative results will demonstrate the concept nicely. Don't forget to show your work.

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why don't YOU do it?

    I know why- because you are afraid of what the result will be.

     
  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Why don't YOU do it?

    The person making the claim should be the person to back the claim up.

    For example, over on the Meyer Amazon thread you claimed that the EF is usable for biological entities and can be demonstrated. When asked for such a demonstration you stopped posting on the thread. And never returned.

    I tell you what. If you can run the EF for one such living example I'll be happy to apply your methodology to other items.

    I'm not afraid of what the results will be, I just don't know how to use the EF. You do, or so you claim, so please demonstrate and I'm sure many people will take your demonstration and apply it's methodology to other things.

     
  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    The person making the claim should be the person to back the claim up.

    And we are still waiting for you to back the claims of your position.

    As I said before if I did it you would just say tht I am cheating.

    OM:
    For example, over on the Meyer Amazon thread you claimed that the EF is usable for biological entities and can be demonstrated. When asked for such a demonstration you stopped posting on the thread. And never returned.

    There is no sense in dealing with people who are dishonest and delusional.

    OM:
    I'm not afraid of what the results will be, I just don't know how to use the EF.

    LoL! It is a simple process.

    First you have to figure out if the objec in question can be produced by nature, operating freely- you know such as laws, regularities and/ or chance.

    Doing that would go a long way to finding positive evidence for your position!

     
  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    With living organisms there isn't any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce a living organism from non-livng matter. All scientific data says that life begets life. And yes we observe specification inside of living organisms.

    So we have eliminated nature, operating freely and have observed a specification and that is why we infer living organisms are the product of intent and design.

     
  • At 10:05 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: they have to look for things that known agencies can do.

    Are there any known agencies that can create life from lifeless chemicals?

     
  • At 10:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Are there any known agencies that can create life from lifeless chemicals?

    Science has demonstrated only life begets life.

    So I take it that you have issues with science...

     
  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Ok then, you can't actually use the EF on biological objects. Got it.

    Why then do you keep claiming the EF as evidence of the design of biological objects?

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    If they use the EF then you can surely point us to some math, as the EF is a hard, empirical, mathematical construct.

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Science has demonstrated only life begets life."

    That's not how science works at all. All things in science are tentative.

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    And we are still waiting for you to back the claims of your position.


    I'm not making any claims. So, to be clear, you refuse to provide a demonstration of the EF until I back up some claims that you claim I am making when I don't even know what those claims are.

    Fair enough.

    As I said before if I did it you would just say tht I am cheating.

    Not true. Why don't you simply demonstrate the EF and find out? What are you afraid of?


    There is no sense in dealing with people who are dishonest and delusional.


    It seemed to me you were happy to participate for some time, but only when you made the claim that the EF can be used to detect design and were asked for an example of such did you vanish.

    LoL! It is a simple process.

    So it won't take any time for you to demonstrate.

    First you have to figure out if the objec in question can be produced by nature, operating freely- you know such as laws, regularities and/ or chance.

    Can the bacterial flagellum be produced by nature operating freely? If not, how have you determined that?

    Doing that would go a long way to finding positive evidence for your position!

    I have no interest in finding positive evidence for my position. I'm only interested in hearing about your positive evidence and demonstrating that the EF reliably detects design would go a long way towards that.

    In your next comment you say

    With living organisms there isn't any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce a living organism from non-livng matter. All scientific data says that life begets life. And yes we observe specification inside of living organisms.

    So we have eliminated nature, operating freely and have observed a specification and that is why we infer living organisms are the product of intent and design.


    I'm not talking about the origin of life in relation to the EF. There are plenty of bacteria without flagella out there. The question is then if nature, operating freely, can create the flagellum where one did not exist before.

    So, can the EF demonstrate that the flagellum is designed or not?

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Science has demonstrated only life begets life.

    Which apparently is capable of doing so without conscious design.

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Science has demonstrated only life begets life.

    Presumably this means that your purported designer is not alive then? Otherwise where could this designer have come from, if only life begats life? It's a logical impossibility for your designer to be alive.

     
  • At 12:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thortard:
    Ok then, you can't actually use the EF on biological objects.

    Perhaps you can't but that is only bcause you are afraid to.

    thortard:
    Why then do you keep claiming the EF as evidence of the design of biological objects?

    Why are you such an imbecile?

    No one uses the EF as evidence.

    The evidence is what goes into the EF you miserable dolt.

    And to date all teh evidence supports the design inference for living organisms.

     
  • At 12:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    If they use the EF then you can surely point us to some math, as the EF is a hard, empirical, mathematical construct.

    Do you think they flip a coin Richie?

    I bet if you ask you would find out they have to eliminate chance and necessity- ie nature, operating freely before they can go onto the design inference.

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Science has demonstrated only life begets life."

    Richtard:
    That's not how science works at all.

    What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

    Of course that is how science operates- we make observations and test them.

    And to date only life begets life.

     
  • At 12:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Science has demonstrated only life begets life.

    Zachriel:
    Which apparently is capable of doing so without conscious design.

    Actually reproduction is part of the design inference.

     
  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Science has demonstrated only life begets life.

    OM:
    Presumably this means that your purported designer is not alive then?

    Nope- keep grasping.

    OM:
    Otherwise where could this designer have come from, if only life begats life?

    Can't say anything about the designer without studying it.

    OM:
    It's a logical impossibility for your designer to be alive.

    maybe by your "logic" but your "logic" seems to be anything but...

     
  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I'm not making any claims.

    Then shut the fuck up.

    OM:
    I'm not talking about the origin of life in relation to the EF.

    I am.

    Ya see a living organism is the epitome of irreducible complexity and CSI.

    And it stands to follow if living organisms were designed they were designed to evolve.

    OM:
    The question is then if nature, operating freely, can create the flagellum where one did not exist before.

    Well seeing there isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can construct a functional multi-part system- not even one withn as few as five seperate components, it is easy to see a flagellum is well out of reach.

    That is what I am saying-

    In over 150+ years of research and experimentation there isn't any evidence to support the claim that blind, undirected chemical processes can construct functional multi-part systems.

    IOW it appears that such a thing has a probability of zero.

    So then it enters the third node of the EF- is it specified. And we have that specification = biological function.

    So the EF finds the flagellum was the product of design.

     
  • At 1:23 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    So the EF finds the flagellum was the product of design.

    Sorry, I seem to have missed the mathematics used in that determination. Can you provide the missing details?

    You are claiming that the EF has shown that the flagellum was designed, but I don't believe you have followed Dembski's guidelines.


    In over 150+ years of research and experimentation there isn't any evidence to support the claim that blind, undirected chemical processes can construct functional multi-part systems.


    I'm afraid you've misunderstood how the filter is supposed to work. If used on an entity that is the result of processes not currently known, or of a currently-unknown concatenation of known processes, the Filter would tell us that that entity is Designed. As a practical matter, the Filter cannot actually be successfully applied by non-omniscients.

    Even if I agree with your statement, you need more then a lack of evidence at this node. You need to specifically rule out any possibility. All you've done so far is to say that "there is no evidence for" when you need to say "this cannot be explained except by design because of X Y Z". While X Y and Z are unknown you can't use this data.

    So, Joe, what specifically is stopping the flagellum being a product of evolution except for the fact we've never observed one evolve from start to finish?

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    And the filter demands evidence of absence.

     
  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Sorry, I seem to have missed the mathematics used in that determination.

    No math required.

    Ya see before math comes into play someone has to demonstrate some probability exists.

    OM:
    You are claiming that the EF has shown that the flagellum was designed, but I don't believe you have followed Dembski's guidelines.

    I don't care what you believe.

    OM:
    I'm afraid you've misunderstood how the filter is supposed to work.

    You are wrong.

    OM:
    So, Joe, what specifically is stopping the flagellum being a product of evolution except for the fact we've never observed one evolve from start to finish?

    There isn't any evidence supporting the claim.

    I need something to get started. In the absence of that we have nothing- zero probability.

    And again this is only a design inference which can be refuted if you can just step up and demonstrate some probability does exist.

     
  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Do you think they flip a coin Richie?"

    This is a sophisticated argument. They apparently do *something* and you don't know what it is but you'd like us to believe it's the EF in action even though we can't find any examples of these long established disciples doing that.

     
  • At 2:45 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Jog G said...

    So then it enters the third node of the EF- is it specified.


    Where is the before-the-fact specification for the flagellum Joe? Looks like all you did was find something complex that exists in nature, wrote down the description, then declared after-the-fact that it is 'specified'.

    That's as impressive as picking the trifecta winners in every horse race at Churchill Downs the day after the races were run.

     
  • At 3:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thortard:
    Where is the before-the-fact specification for the flagellum Joe?

    Biological function, just as Dembski, Meyer, behe, et al. have stated.

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    This is a sophisticated argument. They apparently do *something* and you don't know what it is but you'd like us to believe it's the EF in action even though we can't find any examples of these long established disciples doing that.

    I know what they do- I posted it in the OP.

    They have to find some specification and eliminate chance and necessity as possible causes.

     
  • At 4:07 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    T: Where is the before-the-fact specification for the flagellum Joe?

    Biological function, just as Dembski, Meyer, behe, et al. have stated.


    "Biological function" is not a specification.

    "specification: n. A detailed, exact statement of particulars, especially a statement prescribing materials, dimensions, and quality of work for something to be built, installed, or manufactured."

    Where is the before-the-fact specification for the flagellum Joe?

     
  • At 4:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thortard:
    "Biological function" is not a specification.

    Yes it is:

    Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

    In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.

    In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:

    "Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well."

    "For a pattern to count as a specification, the important thing is not when it was identified but whether in a certain well-defined sense it is independent of the event it describes."--Wm Dembski pg 15 NFL

     
  • At 4:33 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe - you claim they use the EF but are unable to show them using it.

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.

    For pity's sake. Yes, yes. But there is a problem.

    "Biological function" is indeed not a specification. It might well be a label for something that if described in sufficient detail would become such, but in and of itself it is not. The words "biological function" are just a label you'll use for when you provide the specification.

    Can't you see the difference between the words used to describe something and the thing itself?

    In the same way that "A series of letters and numbers" is not a numberplate of a car, "Biological function" is not a description of specific function.

    What you need to provide, what you must indeed have in order for the claims you are making to be true is a detailed, exact statement of particulars, especially a statement prescribing materials, dimensions, and quality of work for something to be built, installed, or manufactured.

    So what is your before-the-fact specification for the flagellum Joe, that describes specific biological function, just as Dembski, Meyer, behe, et al. have stated. You need that for your claims to be true.

    In fact, after you have given that you can give the specification for the ribosome.

    http://tinyurl.com/27xm2kg

    I say the ribosome is designed as determined by scientific inference:

    The ribosome is a genetic compiler.

    And again we have direct observations and experiences with intelligent agencies creating compilers and translation machines.

    We don't have any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can do the same.

    And that is how science operates- we infer based on our knowledge which comes from observations and experiences.

    And yes we can use the EF to verify that inference.


    Please perform that verification.

    And your excuse that time for not displaying your mastery of the EF?

    If I used the EF you will just say I am biased.

    No, I promise I won't. Please just "use the EF".

    And show your working!

     
  • At 6:38 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    "For a pattern to count as a specification, the important thing is not when it was identified but whether in a certain well-defined sense it is independent of the event it describes."--Wm Dembski pg 15 NFL


    Then where is the pattern for the flagellum that is independent of the flagellum itself?

    Again, all you've done is look at something in nature, write down a description of it, then declare that description to be a specification. The description is not independent of the object but is in fact derived solely from the object itself.

    So you have no specification. You lose again.

     
  • At 9:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Good. 27 comments in and there still exists nowhere in the world an example of the EF being used. This is so even though it is apparently super ease to use. If it were easy to use, Joe probably would have used it--unless easy is a step above Joe's abilities of course....

     
  • At 12:56 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Rich Hughes said:

    If they use the EF then you can surely point us to some math, as the EF is a hard, empirical, mathematical construct.


    Oh, come on. It's hardly going to be any harder than measuring the CSI of a cake. We all know how to do THAT!

     
  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Joe - you claim they use the EF but are unable to show them using it.

    Rich they eliminate chance and necessity and determine design by the presence of a specification.

    That is the EF Rich.

    Don't blame me because you are too stupid to grasp that simple fact.

     
  • At 7:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "For a pattern to count as a specification, the important thing is not when it was identified but whether in a certain well-defined sense it is independent of the event it describes."--Wm Dembski pg 15 NFL


    thortard:
    Then where is the pattern for the flagellum that is independent of the flagellum itself?

    You're just grasping.

    Biological function = specification.

    thortard:
    Again, all you've done is look at something in nature, write down a description of it, then declare that description to be a specification.

    Nope.

    If that were the case then I could say everything has a specification, yet I do not.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    "Biological function" is indeed not a specification.

    Yes it is.

    For the ribosome the specification is the exact components and their configuration.

    So we have many parts- more than 5- for the ribosome.

    1- Can the ribosome be explained by law/ regularity?

    Nope- not one experiment demonstrates that blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part 95 part) system.

    2- Can chance account for the ribosome?

    Nope- not one experiment demonstrates that blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part 95 part) system.

    3- Does the ribosome have a small probability of arising by chamce and necessity?

    Nope- not one experiment demonstrates that blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part 95 part) system.

    4- Is the ribosome specified?

    Yes, therefor we infer it was designed.

    There you have it the ribosome through the EF.

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

    Hawks:
    It's hardly going to be any harder than measuring the CSI of a cake. We all know how to do THAT!

    Actually evotards don't know how to do anything but attack ideas they disagree with.

     
  • At 7:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Good. 27 comments in and there still exists nowhere in the world an example of the EF being used.

    Archaeology, forensics and SETI use it- as do the "Ghost Hunters".

    Well just about anyone who is trying to determine whether an object is designed or not would use it.

     
  • At 9:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In my last response to OM, this:

    Nope- not one experiment demonstrates that blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part 95 part) system.

    should be:

    Nope- not one experiment demonstrates that blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part (5 part) system.

     
  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Rich they eliminate chance and necessity and determine design by the presence of a specification."

    Do they? They don't claim to at all, and you've been unable to show ONE instance of them doing that.

     
  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Rich they eliminate chance and necessity and determine design by the presence of a specification."

    Rich:
    Do they?

    Yes they do.

    Rich:
    They don't claim to at all,

    Yes they do- they have to eliminate chance and necessity for the reasons already provided.

    Also they need positive evidence to support their design inference.

    That is just all common sense.

    Rich:
    and you've been unable to show ONE instance of them doing that.

    I have provided the reasoning why the have to use it Rich.

    Don't blame me because you are too stupid to grasp that simple fact.

     
  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe: "Rich they eliminate chance and necessity and determine design by the presence of a specification."

    Exactly how do they do that? You know, besides saying there's some gal-dern specification there!

    An example would be nice--one that shows specific mathematics and comparisons that determine the specification. You know, the stuff you don't know how to do. :)

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I have provided the reasoning why the have to use it Rich."

    And yet these long established disciplines, don't.

     
  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    And yet these long established disciplines, don't.

    They have to for the reasons provided.

    Ya see you can't go into Court knowing that a heart attack explains the same evidence and that there isn't any evidence for a crime.

    You can't publish a paper on a lost civilization saying that the evidence that it is a lost civilization is that I have not found any evidence of its existence.

    Bu anyway Wm Dembski on page 47 of "The Design Inference", the book the introduced the EF:

    To sum up this section, the Explanatory ilter faithfully represents our ordinary human practice of sorting through events we alternately attribute to regularity, chance, or design. In particular, passage through the flowchart to the terminal node labeled "design" encapsulates the design inferenc. This inference characterizes

    (1) how copyright and patent offices identify theft of intellectual property
    (2) how insurance companies keep thmselves from getting ripped off
    (3) how detectives employ circumstantial evidence to nail criminals
    (4) how forensic scientists place individuals at the scene of a crime
    (5) how skeptics debunk the claims of parapsychologists
    (6) how scientists uncover data falsification
    (7) how the SETI prgram detects extraterrestrial intelligenc
    (8) how statisticians and computer scientists distinguish random from non-random strings of digits


    Yes Rich that is how they do it. That is how they have to do it.

     
  • At 3:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich they eliminate chance and necessity and determine design by the presence of a specification."

    blipey:
    Exactly how do they do that?

    Fuck you asshole I hve been over and over this already.

    You are a fucking clown - go pollute some other blog.

     
  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    And yet you still aren't able to give an example of it being done.

    Call CNN when you find an example.

     
  • At 3:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    And yet you still aren't able to give an example of it being done.

    It is being used in all those fields.

    If you find out otherwise call MSNBC...

     
  • At 12:28 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Could you give an example of a non designed object and how the EF determines non-design?

     
  • At 1:33 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Dembski asserts they use it, but provides no examples of anyone using it. Just like you do. Also, rejection of the chance hypothesis requires math, which you seem unable to do.

     
  • At 2:03 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe, in the OP you said:
    All scientific data says that life begets life.

    What begat "the designer" then?

     
  • At 3:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Could you give an example of a non designed object and how the EF determines non-design?

    I did- pulsars.

    Search my blog using the word "pulsars".

     
  • At 3:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Dembski asserts they use it, but provides no examples of anyone using it.

    They have to use it for the reasons provided.

    Do you really think your ignorance and stupidity are refutations?

     
  • At 3:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What begat "the designer" then?

    Who said it needed to be begat?

     
  • At 3:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Do you really think your ignorance and stupidity are refutations?"

    No - I think your lack of examples means there is no case.

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Who said it needed to be begat?,

    You did. Life only comes from life, remember?

    Science has shown that, apparently.

     
  • At 3:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Also, rejection of the chance hypothesis requires math, which you seem unable to do.

    Actually there first needs to be some justification that chance is even a player.

    That is something you have been unable to do.

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

    Who said it needed to be begat?

    OM:
    You did.

    Nope, as a matter of fact I said we can't say anything about the designer(s) until we can study them/ him/ her/ it.

    So shut the fuck up asshole.

     
  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    No - I think your lack of examples means there is no case.

    Just watch CSI and/ or Ghost Hunters- or better yet visit a freaking crime lab or read about how they do it.

    You can't find an example of them not using the EF.

    What's up with that?

     
  • At 3:33 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Just watch CSI and/ or Ghost Hunters- or better yet visit a freaking crime lab or read about how they do it.

    You can't find an example of them not using the EF.

    What's up with that?"

    Ghosthunters. Okay.

    I've never seen them calculate a probability in any of these shows to reject a chance hypothesis - could you give me the episode numbers where they do?

    CAKE.

     
  • At 3:36 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Nope, as a matter of fact I said we can't say anything about the designer(s) until we can study them/ him/ her/ it.

    So the designer may well be dead?

    In my experience "him/her" usually indicate a state of "aliveness" whereas "it" does not.

    So "it" could be dead? What, now or always?

    Interesting...

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    You can't find an example of them not using the EF.

    What's up with that?


    Yet they've never mentioned it. You'd think they would if they use it every time.

    What's up with that?

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Just watch CSI and/ or Ghost Hunters

    Do you believe Ghosts exist?

     
  • At 7:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Yet they've never mentioned it. You'd think they would if they use it every time.

    You are dense.

    They have been using since before Dembski was born- it is standard operating procedure for all the reasons provided.

    That you keep ignoring those reasons proves that you are an ignorant freak.

     
  • At 7:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Ghosthunters. Okay.

    I've never seen them calculate a probability in any of these shows to reject a chance hypothesis - could you give me the episode numbers where they do?


    That is because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

    People can do the math in their heads.

    It is easy if you have enough observations and experiences under your belt.

     
  • At 7:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So the designer may well be dead?

    In my experience "him/her" usually indicate a state of "aliveness" whereas "it" does not.

    So "it" could be dead? What, now or always?

    Interesting...


    Indeed...

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

    OM:
    Do you believe Ghosts exist?

    There is more evidence for "ghosts" than there is for the current theory of evolution.

     
  • At 4:55 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    There is more evidence for "ghosts" than there is for the current theory of evolution.

    Like what? What's your number one strongest piece of positive evidence for the existence of ghosts?

     
  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There is more evidence for "ghosts" than there is for the current theory of evolution.

    OM:
    Like what? What's your number one strongest piece of positive evidence for the existence of ghosts?

    Fuck you- it is time for YOU to put up or shut up-

    What's your number one strongest piece of eviodence that blind, undirected chemical processes can construct functional multi-part (5 or more) systems?

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So shut up it is.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 8:42 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    What's your number one strongest piece of eviodence that blind, undirected chemical processes can construct functional multi-part (5 or more) systems?

    Open your window. Look around you. See any functional multi-part (5 or more) systems?

    Check.

    See any designers designing those systems?

    No.

    Ever seen any designer designing such a system?

    No.

    Ever seen the "tool marks" of a designer designing those systems?

    No.

    Ever see the designer?

    No.

    Ever see the mountains of peer reviewed evidence that evolution can construct complex structures?

    No. But nonetheless it exists. That you've chosen not to read it, or chosen not to accept it does not change the fact it exists.

    If you want to talk about a specific system, please be my guest.

    So name such a system and we can examine the evidence together for how it came to be.

    I'll look into the scientific literature with regard to the item you choose, you can check the latest book by Behe or whoever you are hero worshipping at the moment.

    So up for the challenge Joe? Pick something....

     
  • At 8:43 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Fuck you- it is time for YOU to put up or shut up-

    There is more evidence that ghosts exist then your purported designer.

    And that evidence for ghosts is worthless.

    Yet you believe in both.

    Go figure.

     
  • At 8:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Open your window. Look around you. See any functional multi-part (5 or more) systems?

    Nothing that has been produced by blind, undirected chemical processes.

    OM:
    Ever see the mountains of peer reviewed evidence that evolution can construct complex structures?

    There isn't any evidence that blind, undifrected chemical processes can construct functional multi-part systems. Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

    IOW you are a liar and a fool.

    OM:
    So name such a system and we can examine the evidence together for how it came to be.

    The ribosome- have at it.

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    There is more evidence that ghosts exist then your purported designer.

    Said the scientifically illiterate ignorant fuck as if its ignorance means something...

     
  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    The ribosome- have at it.

    http://www.biology-direct.com/content/3/1/16

    The origin and early evolution of the active site of the ribosome can be elucidated through an analysis of the ribosomal proteins' taxonomic block structures and their RNA interactions. Comparison between the two subunits, exploiting the detailed three-dimensional structures of the bacterial and archaeal ribosomes, is especially informative.

    It's not definitive, but little is when examining things that happened so long ago. But their work is supported by empirical evidence and no sign of a designer in sight, nor any noted need for one.

    Rather then cite multiple papers it would probably be easier if you just go to

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

    and search for "evolution of the ribosome" and educate yourself.

    Now, is there anything with a comparable level of detail in the ID domain? Other then "it was designed, Joe says so" of course.

    There isn't any evidence that blind, undifrected chemical processes can construct functional multi-part systems. Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.,


    Out if interest Joe, do you consider an auto catalytic network which displays basic forms of cooperative behavior to be a "functional multi-part system"?

    If not, why not?

    How complex does a network have to be to meet your criteria? Can you give an example of the simplest such network that meets your criteria? Just so I know at what level to pitch further examples.

    The reason I ask is that autocatalytic networks seem to provide a great empirically supported (we can make them or observe them right now) example of the transition from molecular self-replication to molecular ecosystems. I.E. a functional multi-part system constructed solely by a blind, undirected chemical processes. Just as you've been asking for all these years.

     
  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow not one thing in any of those papers about blind, undirected chemical processes.

    OM:
    Out if interest Joe, do you consider an auto catalytic network which displays basic forms of cooperative behavior to be a "functional multi-part system"?

    Does it contain multiple parts? How many?

    Link to whatever you are talking about.

    OM:
    How complex does a network have to be to meet your criteria?

    In order to refute ID you have to show the most complex system can arise via blind, undirected chemical processes- that is according to Dr Behe.

    That is why the origin of living organisms is critical as tehy are the most complex system.

     
  • At 6:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The following is a more recent article on the origin and evolution of the ribosome:

    Origin and Evolution of the Ribosome

    Notice not one word about blind, undirected chemical processes and a lot of generalizations.

    Again it is a story based on the assumption that teh ribosome did evolve.

    Nothing testable- no experiment to reproduce the evolution of the ribosome. Nothing but speculation based on the assumption.

    And even that doesn't support the blind watchmaker...

     
  • At 5:20 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Why don't you want to talk about autocatalytic networks?

    What are you afraid of?

     
  • At 6:51 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Again it is a story based on the assumption that teh ribosome did evolve.

    Then where is the story based on the assumption the ribosome was designed?

    Or is it "the ribosome was designed because I ran it through the EF and it said it was designed"?

    If, as you claim, ID can explain the origin of the ribosome then where is that explanation? It surely must be at least as detailed as the "speculation" you decry?

    If not, why would we prefer the design "explanation" of the origin of the ribosome over the evolutionary explanation?

    A story lacking in some details is logically preferable to a story with no details or evidence whatsoever? Or no story at all, which is what I've seen so far.

    Preferable unless of course you have a preconceived idea of the origin of the ribosome and are not willing to follow the evidence where it leads....

     
  • At 7:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Why don't you want to talk about autocatalytic networks?

    Why are you a piece of shit lying asshole?

    OM:
    What are you afraid of?

    Geez asswipe I said:

    Does it contain multiple parts? How many?

    Link to whatever you are talking about.


    Are you that fucked up that you can't even understand English?

     
  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Then where is the story based on the assumption the ribosome was designed?

    Science is not about making up stories you scientifically illiterate freak.

    OM:
    If not, why would we prefer the design "explanation" of the origin of the ribosome over the evolutionary explanation?

    There isn't any evolutionary explanation- just a story without support.

    OM:
    A story lacking in some details is logically preferable to a story with no details or evidence whatsoever?

    Except your story lacks all details and cannot be verified by any experiments.

     
  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So OM thinks that science is done by whoever can come up with a good story.

    That is hilarious...

     
  • At 8:22 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Does it contain multiple parts? How many?

    Your question is meaningless. There is no single such network. It's simply a general term for a persistent phenomena involving self-maintaining patterns in space and time.

    An autocatalytic network is a chemical system that outputs a chemical that is a catalyst for the original reaction, or that leads to other reactions which eventually output a catalyst for the original reaction. Organisms are stable autocatalytic networks - enzymes accelerate reactions between other enzymes that create more enzymes, and hence the system stabilises.

    Autocatalytic networks consume resources. When competition for resources comes about, survival of the fittest comes into play. It is not enough for a network to be stable, it must be "more stable" than the other networks about it. This is natural selection - the most stable and efficient networks persist.

    I imagine this paper will be of particular interest to you, but there is a cost I'm afraid.

    http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v4/n11/full/nchembio1108-654.html

    The emergence of a primordial RNA world would have required the formation of RNA polymers of sufficient length to possess catalytic activities, which are difficult to obtain by spontaneous polymerization. An analysis of an autocatalytic assembly pathway that can self-construct a functioning ribozyme from smaller oligonucleotide building blocks describes a potential route for RNA extension.

    I expect you'll be especially interested in the part I highlighted.

    But if you really want to see how blind, undirected chemical processes can create complexity and complex networks of interactions then you'll purchase the paper. If you just want to keep repeating your mantra of "blind, undirected chemical processes" then you are of course welcome to do so. But you'll know somewhere deep inside that you've been given what you've been asking for all these years. How that will work out only you can say.

     
  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    There isn't any evolutionary explanation- just a story without support.

    Untrue. I guess you never even looked at what I linked to.

    So OM thinks that science is done by whoever can come up with a good story.

    Still waiting on that ID alternative explanation.

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Except your story lacks all details and cannot be verified by any experiments.

    Even a plausible, physically possible story that lacks all details and cannot be verified by any experiments is preferable to no story at all. Which is what you've provided so far as an ID explanation. And of course there were plenty of details provided in the resources I linked to, you claiming that there was not does not make those details go away. The onlookers can decide for themselves.

    In fact, I don't believe you've ever provided the ID explanation for anything, flagellum, ribosomes or anything at all.

    Why is that Joe? Can't you?

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

    There isn't any evolutionary explanation- just a story without support.

    OM:
    Untrue. I guess you never even looked at what I linked to.

    It is all speculation based on the assumption.

    OM:
    Still waiting on that ID alternative explanation.

    An alternative to nothing?

     
  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Your question is meaningless. There is no single such network. It's simply a general term for a persistent phenomena involving self-maintaining patterns in space and time.

    Your response is meaningless- now provide the link or fuck off.

    OM:
    Organisms are stable autocatalytic networks - enzymes accelerate reactions between other enzymes that create more enzymes, and hence the system stabilises.

    Yes I know however there isn't any evidence that living organisms are the result of blind, undirected chemical processes.

    The emergence of a primordial RNA world would have required the formation of RNA polymers of sufficient length to possess catalytic activities, which are difficult to obtain by spontaneous polymerization. An analysis of an autocatalytic assembly pathway that can self-construct a functioning ribozyme from smaller oligonucleotide building blocks describes a potential route for RNA extension.

    No evidence for a RNA world just a desparate need.

     
  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Even a plausible, physically possible story that lacks all details and cannot be verified by any experiments is preferable to no story at all.

    Except no one knows if it is plausible nor pysically possible.

    OM:
    And of course there were plenty of details provided in the resources I linked to, you claiming that there was not does not make those details go away.

    No details about how blind, undirected chemical processes could do it.

    The only details provided are sequence details which can be used as evidence for a common design.

    OM:
    In fact, I don't believe you've ever provided the ID explanation for anything, flagellum, ribosomes or anything at all.

    I have provided a testable hypothesis for ID which is something yur position cannot muster.

     
  • At 9:04 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Your response is meaningless- now provide the link or fuck off.

    Can't you read?

    http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v4/n11/full/nchembio1108-654.html

    Yes I know however there isn't any evidence that living organisms are the result of blind, undirected chemical processes.

    So? Nobody is claiming that they are. That's not a position held by anybody but ID proponents as a distortion of the actual positions held by people who actually know what they are talking about.

    I have provided a testable hypothesis for ID which is something yur position cannot muster.

    And when will you be testing it and where will you be publishing your results?

    Why don't you want to talk about autocatalytic networks?

    What are you afraid of?

     
  • At 9:04 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    No evidence for a RNA world just a desparate need.

    And the proposed ID alternative to solve this problem is.....?

     
  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes I know however there isn't any evidence that living organisms are the result of blind, undirected chemical processes.

    OM:
    So? Nobody is claiming that they are.

    So ID or Creation is the only explanation for living organisms.

    Sweet.

    That would also mean that there is no reason to infer evolution is solely due to b,lind, undirected chemical processes.

    OM:
    That's not a position held by anybody but ID proponents as a distortion of the actual positions held by people who actually know what they are talking about.

    Liar- it is the position held by most scientists if we listen to evotards.

    I have provided a testable hypothesis for ID which is something yur position cannot muster.

    OM:
    And when will you be testing it and where will you be publishing your results?

    It has been tested and according to your position publishing isn't required.

    OM:
    Why don't you want to talk about autocatalytic networks?

    Who said I don't?

    Why do you have to lie all the time?

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No evidence for a RNA world just a desparate need.

    OM:
    And the proposed ID alternative to solve this problem is.....?

    Design- just as design is the best explanation for Stonehenge even though blind, undirected processes can produce stones they do not appear capable of producing Stonehenge.

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    So ID or Creation is the only explanation for living organisms.

    Sweet.


    Alternatively your understanding of the issue of the origin of life is lacking some important details.

    That would also mean that there is no reason to infer evolution is solely due to b,lind, undirected chemical processes.

    Currently there is no reason not to infer such as you have provided no evidence to the contrary. The point I'm making is that blind, undirected chemical processes can be constrained and channeled in various ways by the universe. And so complex structures can arise without a designer.

    Liar- it is the position held by most scientists if we listen to evotards.

    Unfortunately for you and your position, most scientists are "evotards". So you lose.

    It has been tested and according to your position publishing isn't required.

    No, that's the ID position. Why don't you publish your "work" in a book and make some $$ like all the other leading ID figures do?


    Who said I don't?


    I've asked you several questions about auto-catalytic networks already. You've ignored them. Therefore the inference is that you don't want to talk about them.

     
  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Design- just as design is the best explanation for Stonehenge even though blind, undirected processes can produce stones they do not appear capable of producing Stonehenge.

    "they do not appear capable" is insufficient to rule out such processes as potential causes as defined by Dembski in his work regarding the EF. I would suggest you re-read his work and try again when you have a fuller understanding of exactly what is required to use the EF.

    If you get stuck I'll be happy to quote the relevant passages, but I don't want to insult your intelligence so I'll assume you are capable of doing your own research.

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Design

    Design is just a word. Don't you have any details (like the details in the paper I linked to earlier) going into how "design" explains any of those things?

    Will the ID textbook that you want taught at highscools look like this:

    Chapter 1: Origin of life

    Design

    Chapter 2: Origin of Species.

    Design

    Chapter 3: Origin of Viri

    Design

    etc etc.

    Unless you can supply a "pathetic level of detail" you'll be laughed out of the textbook manufactures office, even in Texas.

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Alternatively your understanding of the issue of the origin of life is lacking some important details.

    So you say but then again you are ignorant.

    OM:
    Currently there is no reason not to infer such as you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

    You mean nothing you will accept.

    OM:
    The point I'm making is that blind, undirected chemical processes can be constrained and channeled in various ways by the universe. And so complex structures can arise without a designer.

    So you say but you don't have anything to support that claim.

    Liar- it is the position held by most scientists if we listen to evotards.

    OM:
    Unfortunately for you and your position, most scientists are "evotards". So you lose.

    How do I lose? I just proved- again- tat you are a liar.

    It has been tested and according to your position publishing isn't required.

    OM:
    No, that's the ID position.

    Yes ID position is that ID has been tested.

    OM:
    I've asked you several questions about auto-catalytic networks already.

    So what?

    OM:
    You've ignored them.

    No I didn't.

     
  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    "they do not appear capable" is insufficient to rule out such processes as potential causes as defined by Dembski in his work regarding the EF.

    You don't have any idea what Dembski says.

     
  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Design is just a word.

    It is a word that changesd the way we investigate

    OM:
    Don't you have any details (like the details in the paper I linked to earlier) going into how "design" explains any of those things?

    There aren't any details in any of those papers that explain how blind, undirected processes can produce anything.

    The only details are just sequence details which can be used to support a common design.

    But give IDists 150 years and all the funding then you cn talk.

    OM:
    Will the ID textbook that you want taught at highscools look like this

    It would look oime "The Design of Life" and "The Signature in the Cell".

     
  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    So you say but then again you are ignorant.

    No, it's the plain fact of the matter. You could correct my (and everybody else reading this) misunderstanding by simply proving the relevant level of detail.

    You mean nothing you will accept.

    If you mean "Design" as an explanation then no, I won't.

    So you say but you don't have anything to support that claim.

    The laws of physics.

    How do I lose? I just proved- again- tat you are a liar.

    Even the subset of scientists called Steve massively outnumbers the ID supporting science population.

    Yes ID position is that ID has been tested.

    Yes, I know. And the test was "does it look designed to me?"

    No I didn't.

    Er, yes you did. Would you like me to repeat them?

     
  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    You don't have any idea what Dembski says.

    I can quote the relevant passages if you like? It seems you could do with a refresher.

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Alternatively your understanding of the issue of the origin of life is lacking some important details.

    So you say but then again you are ignorant.

    OM:
    No, it's the plain fact of the matter.

    Fuck you asshole- support that piece of shit or fuck off- I am sick of your lies already.

    So you say but you don't have anything to support that claim.

    OM:
    The laws of physics.

    LoL! The laws that just "poofed" into existence?

    Your position doesn't have any explanation for those laws you moron.

    OM:
    Even the subset of scientists called Steve massively outnumbers the ID supporting science population.

    Science is not a democracy and not one of those Steve's can support their position.

    Yes ID position is that ID has been tested.

    OM:
    Yes, I know. And the test was "does it look designed to me?"

    As opposed to your tests which are "it looks like evolution didit to me."

    No I didn't.

    OM:
    Er, yes you did

    No I didn't.

    You don't get to tell me what I did or didn't do.

    OM:
    Would you like me to repeat them?

    No one cares what you do.

     
  • At 10:05 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    It is a word that changesd the way we investigate

    From the start of human history it was assumed the universe and everything in it was designed. What changed the way we investigate is the removal of that assumption from the process of investigation.

    There aren't any details in any of those papers that explain how blind, undirected processes can produce anything.

    You read them very quickly. But I guess with an IQ of 150 you can absorb highly technical information very quickly, even in fields you don't' necessarily have a solid grounding in to begin with.

    The only details are just sequence details which can be used to support a common design.

    So make a prediction that differentiates "common design" from the alternatives.

    I.E if "common design" is true we will observe X, if untrue we will observe Y.

    But you can't do that, can you?

    But give IDists 150 years and all the funding then you cn talk.

    They've already had the past 2000 years. And there is plenty of ID funding available, some very rich people support ID.

    Yet there is no actual research....


    It would look oime "The Design of Life" and "The Signature in the Cell".


    What is taught in schools is typically supported by mainstream science and published, peer reviewed work. When the authors of those books publish their work in such a venue and it's been through rigorous review then perhaps it'll have a shot at being taught.

    Until then it's just a book arguing for a particular viewpoint, just as any other book can argue for any thing the author likes. Those books are meaningless to both the scientific and pedagogical community in their current form.

    However,I am very much looking forward to the court case that will arise if you attempt to teach from those books in any public school. Not that they would let you in the door, but...

     
  • At 10:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I can quote the relevant passages if you like? It seems you could do with a refresher.

    Quote-mine away.

    I have spoken with the guy...

     
  • At 10:08 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    LoL! The laws that just "poofed" into existence?

    Your position doesn't have any explanation for those laws you moron.


    And your "explanation" is "design"?

    That sure advances our understanding of the universe!

    Science is not a democracy and not one of those Steve's can support their position.

    Odd then how an unsupportable position is the default position and that dozens of papers are published a week about that position.

    Very odd indeed.

    As opposed to your tests which are "it looks like evolution didit to me."

    Yes, that's what the paper I linked to said. You must have missed the other ten thousand words.

     
  • At 10:08 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    I have spoken with the guy...

    Did Dembski teach you how to run objects through the EF?

    Have you shared your demonstrations of the EF with him? What did he say?

     
  • At 4:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And your "explanation" is "design"?

    That is the inference. And given the options it appears the best one.

    OM:
    That sure advances our understanding of the universe!

    That is a start.

    Ya see that is how it goes- Stonehenge, for example, is studied differently than would some pile of glacial drop-stones.

    Murders are investigated differently than natural deaths.

    OM:
    Odd then how an unsupportable position is the default position and that dozens of papers are published a week about that position.

    The default position is "we don't know"- but you are right papers are published saying exactly that.

    OM:
    Yes, that's what the paper I linked to said. You must have missed the other ten thousand words.

    Nothing on HOW it happened. Nothing that can be tested on HOW it happened.

     
  • At 4:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Did Dembski teach you how to run objects through the EF?

    I was using that process well before I heard of him.

    As I have been telling you it is the procss that has to be used by anyone trying to determine a cause.

    But anyway you said something about quote-mining to correct me. What happened?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home