Why Evolutionists Hate Intelligent Design
It has become very obvious why evolutionists hate intelligent design (ID):
In order to falsify ID they have to actually substantiate the claims of their position!
Ya see their postion goes over much easier if they only have to present a glossy narrative as opposed to actual scientific data.
In order to falsify ID they have to actually substantiate the claims of their position!
Ya see their postion goes over much easier if they only have to present a glossy narrative as opposed to actual scientific data.
posted by Joe G @ 11:11 AM
109 Comments:
At 11:54 PM,
blipey said…
that's right. it couldn't be the total lack of EXAMPLES....
At 12:25 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes another problem for evolutionists is their total lack of EXAMPLES for their position.
Thanks Erik.
At 11:17 AM,
One Brow said…
Actually, it's much more that ID can not be falsified, period. There is no hypothetical data that could falisfy ID.
At 11:33 AM,
Joe G said…
Of course ID can be falsified.
The way to falsify ID is the same way to falsify any design inference- demonstrate that nature,operating freely can account for it.
How did we falsify the premise that lightning was from angry gods?
By understanding what does cause it.
How can we falsify the premise that Stonehenge was designed?
By demonstrating purely undirected processes can account for it- for example glacier deposits.
“Coyne’s conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the “acid test” on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall’s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science’s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: “However, structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.” (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22)
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is
unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In "Darwin’s Black Box" (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.
How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design."-
IOW OB you don't know what you are talking about.
At 12:05 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, demonstration to you means showing the exact thing. And, as you point out quite often, that is not a means of falsifying anything.
You can't have it both ways. Either a demonstration of principle is good enough or it isn't.
You seem to think that ToE is bunk because no one can show you an historical event.
At the same time, you tell us that ID is falsifiable if only someone can show you an historical event.
Sorry, Joe. Choose one or the other.
At 12:12 PM,
One Brow said…
The way to falsify ID is the same way to falsify any design inference- demonstrate that nature,operating freely can account for it.
How can you ever prove nature is operating freely under any given circumstance?
As has been mentioned before, it is can be possible to falsify one particular claim or another, but the general design hypothesis is truly unfalsifiable.
At 12:24 PM,
Joe G said…
How can you ever prove nature is operating freely under any given circumstance?-
Observation and experience.
As I said there is a reason we no longer infer lightning is the wrath of the gods.
Yes particular cases can be falsified and so can the whole premise.
For example if it can be demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter without agency involvement, then biological ID falls.
Then if it can be demonstrated that our solar system is truly the result of cahnce and necessity, the premise of "The Privileged Planet" would be falsified.
At 12:38 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe, demonstration to you means showing the exact thing.-
No it doesn't.
And, as you point out quite often, that is not a means of falsifying anything.-
Provide a reference of me doing that or admit you are a liar.
You seem to think that ToE is bunk because no one can show you an historical event.-
Nope.
If the ToE is a historical claim then teach it in history class.
If it is a scientific claim then it has to have some scientific data to support it.
At the same time, you tell us that ID is falsifiable if only someone can show you an historical event.
-
Just because that is what your little twisted mind thinks doesn't make it so.
At 2:10 PM,
blipey said…
Geez, Joe. One of your most typed claims is that ToE is not science because no one can SHOW it to you. As the processes involved in ToE are on-going and each specific event is unique, this means that you are claiming that ToE is bunk because no one can show you an historical event.
Now, remind us of this by telling us how to falsify the ID design of a flagellum.
At 2:20 PM,
One Brow said…
For example if it can be demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter without agency involvement, then biological ID falls.
Then if it can be demonstrated that our solar system is truly the result of cahnce and necessity, the premise of "The Privileged Planet" would be falsified.
You continually seem to interchange "can arise" with "is truly" as standards of evidence, like you do above. They are in fact very different.
How can you ever prove nature is operating freely under any given circumstance?
Observation and experience.
How do you know when what you are observing is acting freely, as opposed to being guided by an unseen force?
As I said there is a reason we no longer infer lightning is the wrath of the gods.
We can use that example. Prove that lightning is non-telic.
At 3:18 PM,
Joe G said…
One of your most typed claims is that ToE is not science because no one can SHOW it to you.-
No it isn't.
The point is you cannot show anything beyond slight variations.
As the processes involved in ToE are on-going and each specific event is unique, this means that you are claiming that ToE is bunk because no one can show you an historical event.-
That is not my claim.
Again you can't show anything.
Don't blame me if your position cannot be objectively tested.
And your whining proves my point- get it out of the science classroom.
At 3:20 PM,
Joe G said…
One Brow,
Science is not about proof.
With lightning we know what causes it.
Now if a lightning bolt arose in the absence of those conditions then we would infer something else is at play.
It is all about requirements- as in what is required to bring this into existence.
At 3:48 PM,
One Brow said…
Science is not about proof.
With lightning we know what causes it.
So provide evidence that lightning is non-telic. Then I'll know what type of evidence to provide for the evolution of the flagellum.
At 4:58 PM,
Joe G said…
1- The evolution of flagella is not being debated. The mechanisms are.
2- Lightning is formed by the mass movement of particles past on another as happens in a thundercloud.
Warm air carrying moisture goes up, cold air carrying ice particles move down, the friction cause electro-static buildup and then there is a discharge.
Is that how a flagellum evolved?
At 11:06 AM,
One Brow said…
1- The evolution of flagella is not being debated. The mechanisms are.
OK.
2- Lightning is formed by the mass movement of particles past on another as happens in a thundercloud.
Warm air carrying moisture goes up, cold air carrying ice particles move down, the friction cause electro-static buildup and then there is a discharge.
I didn't see evidence where this was non-telic. Can you show me no lightning designer is involved, please?
Is that how a flagellum evolved?
One possibility:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
At 12:09 PM,
Joe G said…
2- Lightning is formed by the mass movement of particles past on another as happens in a thundercloud.
Warm air carrying moisture goes up, cold air carrying ice particles move down, the friction cause electro-static buildup and then there is a discharge.-
I didn't see evidence where this was non-telic.-
Where do you see a requirement for a designer?
Please be specific.
At 12:10 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW I read everything Matzke has to say and it may look good on paper but there isn'y any meat.
At 2:24 PM,
blipey said…
We're not asking for the NEED of a designer, Joe. We're asking you to prove that lightning is non-telic. In order to do so, you must show that no lightning designer exists.
Is there any reason that a designer couldn't be ordering the moisture movements, for example?
At 2:26 PM,
One Brow said…
I don't see a requirement for a designer, but that's not the challenge you proposed. You said you wanted to see evidence that the evolution of the flagellum is non-telic. If you can't even provide evidence lightning is non-telic, why should I think it is possible for evolution.
Claiming matzke's paper has no meat is quite cavalier, compared to your lightning explanaiton.
At 5:21 PM,
Joe G said…
We're not asking for the NEED of a designer, Joe. We're asking you to prove that lightning is non-telic.-
1- Science is not about proof.
2- Non-telic means there isn't any ned for a designer.
In order to do so, you must show that no lightning designer exists.-
Only in the minds of mental midgets who don't know anything.
Is there any reason that a designer couldn't be ordering the moisture movements, for example?-
Science is not about demonstrating a negative.
But thank you for continuing to prove just how ignorant you are.
At 5:25 PM,
Joe G said…
I don't see a requirement for a designer, but that's not the challenge you proposed.-
That is the difference between telic and non-telic.
If a designer isn't required it is non-telic. Hellooooo
You said you wanted to see evidence that the evolution of the flagellum is non-telic-
I am still waiting.
THAT is what Behe's challenge/ argument is all about.
If you can't even provide evidence lightning is non-telic, why should I think it is possible for evolution.-
Yet I provided that evidence.
Claiming matzke's paper has no meat is quite cavalier, compared to your lightning explanaiton.-
The lightning explanation has more meat than Matzkes' papers on flagella.
At 12:35 PM,
One Brow said…
You seem to be using the words wrong. Telic means directed toward a goal or a purpose. You can be non-telic and still require a designer, or or be naturally occuring and still used in pursuit of a goal by a designer.
Being non-telic is not a proof no designer was involve. Occuring naturally is not proof of being non-telic.
In order for your insults to mean something, they need to come from a source that offers respected information. I don't expect you to stop using insults, but I thought you should know that.
Section3 of Matzke's paper alone covers several typewritten pages and goes into a possible non-telic step-by-step account of the possible evolution of the flagellum. Again, your claim of no meat is specious. If you can read the paper and point out an undiscussed step, an uncovered gap, do. Until then, Matzke has more than met your challenge, in precisely the same way you met the lightning challenge, and wtih much more detail.
At 8:38 PM,
Joe G said…
You seem to be using the words wrong.
You are just too stupid to understand them.
Not my problem.
Telic means directed toward a goal or a purpose.
Nature doesn't have a goal nor a purpose.
Only intelligent agencies do.
Being non-telic is not a proof no designer was involve.
I never said it did.
The point is there wouldn't be any reason to INFER a designer was required.
Occuring naturally is not proof of being non-telic.
Occurring via nature, operating freely means it was non-telic.
Nature doesn't have any goals nor purposes.
Matzke hasn't domne anything.
But I will re-read that pap and refute it.
Stay tuned...
At 12:13 PM,
One Brow said…
Occurring via nature, operating freely means it was non-telic.
How do you demonstrate something is operating freely?
I look forward to your attempts to refute Matzke. It should be amusing.
At 1:31 PM,
Joe G said…
How do you demonstrate something is operating freely?
Observation is a main ingredient.
But anyway that is what the anti-IDists need to do- according to them no designer is required.
However it is all a bald assertion.
I look forward to your attempts to refute Matzke. It should be amusing.
It has already been done.
He thinks the IC TTSS is a viable precursor and yet science sez the TTSS came after the flagellum.
But I may have more...
At 1:45 PM,
Joe G said…
refuting Matzke
At 9:50 AM,
One Brow said…
Observation is a main ingredient.
Describe the objective way to observe that something is operatinig freely, please.
But anyway that is what the anti-IDists need to do- according to them no designer is required.
There is a difference between 'required' and 'actual'.
He thinks the IC TTSS is a viable precursor and yet science sez the TTSS came after the flagellum.
Thank you for the laugh, and the even funnier link. Both you and Dr. Pitman are badly misrepresenting Matzke's paper, which does not propose the flagellum descend from the surrent TTSS, but from a much more primitive type 3 export system. It's not like this is hidden, the discussion is the focus of section 3.2, which is not short.
Personally, I don't care if you are misrepresenting Matzke's paper because you never read it, because you read it and did not understand it, or because you are just lying. Any credibility you had has been thrown out the window. Any further comments by you on mu abilities and knowledge can be safely ignored.
At 10:06 AM,
Joe G said…
Matzke has evidence for this primitive TTSS?
He has demonstrated one could arise via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
No to both.
Describe the objective way to observe that something is operatinig freely, please.
Are you saying that we humans are totally clueless and therefor should not be conducting science?
I mean if the 3 basic questions science asks depend on how it came to be, then according to you we cannot conduct science.
Observation and testing.
We see what it takes to get the result required.
At 10:07 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW where did I say Matzke was talking about the current TTSS?
At 10:11 AM,
Joe G said…
Matzke:
The model begins with a hypothetical primitive type III export apparatus.
Did you get that?
IOW he is just making it up.
At 10:50 AM,
blipey said…
Wait, are you now admitting you misrepresented Matzke's paper? I say this because of your complete lack of response to this accusation coupled with your plain change in questions about his paper.
Too funny.
At 11:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Wait, are you now admitting you misrepresented Matzke's paper?
One Brow made that accusation. However he never supported it.
IOW like you all he can do is throw out false accusations and bald assertions.
That you dolts think that is meanigful just exposes your ignorance.
At 4:22 PM,
blipey said…
Sure he did. He explained exactly what your misrepresentation was and what the paper actually said.
You never responded to this, but instead changed questions about Matzke's paper. A clear goalpost move.
Nice.
At 5:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Erik,
I NEVER said anything about the current TTSS.
One Brow just made up an accusation and threw it out there- just like you do.
That you assholes think that bald assertions and false accusations are meaningful discourse just proves that you both have your heads up the same ass.
You never responded to this, but instead changed questions about Matzke's paper.
Wrong again asshole.
I asked him to substantiate his false accusation.
THEN I demonstrated how Matzke was being a weasel.
At 12:33 PM,
One Brow said…
Matzke has evidence for this primitive TTSS?
Matzxke does not propose a primitive TTSS. If you like, it's a TTES. Yes, there is evidence in the homolgy of the TTSS and the flagellum, as well as biochemical evidence.
He has demonstrated one could arise via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
No scientists think things arise solely as an accumulation of genetic accidents.
Describe the objective way to observe that something is operatinig freely, please.
Are you saying that we humans are totally clueless and therefor should not be conducting science?
I am asking how you make your determination you say you can make. I don't think there is a way to rule out supernatural influences. So, we just assume things are operating freely when we see no natural influence.
I mean if the 3 basic questions science asks depend on how it came to be, then according to you we cannot conduct science.
Conducting science always makes a few metaphysical assumptions (no supernatural interference, uniformitarianism, etc.).
BTW where did I say Matzke was talking about the current TTSS?
"He thinks the IC TTSS is a viable precursor and yet science sez the TTSS came after the flagellum."
To which IC TTSS that came after the flagellum were you referring, if not the current one?
At 8:00 AM,
Joe G said…
1- I see my mistake with the Matzke paper.
He mentions a type three export apparatus but then talks about the TTSS.
2- Homology is assumed, not proven
3- Homology can come from devolution also
4- Homoplasy also explains similarities
5- There is still the issue of configuration- you need more than one protein product, you need to get them to the correct location and you need to prevent cross-reactions.
Now I understand why this paper didn't pass through peer-review.
All he has is imagination without a demonstration.
But all he has to do is go into a lab and start tinkering with flagella-less bacteia.
He has demonstrated one could arise via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
No scientists think things arise solely as an accumulation of genetic accidents.
The theory of evolution only posits an accumulation of genetic accidents.
1- All mutations are genetic accidents- that is in the evolutionary scenario
2- Mutations must accumulate in order for those big changes to occur- Dawkins calls it cumulative selection.
I am asking how you make your determination you say you can make. I don't think there is a way to rule out supernatural influences. So, we just assume things are operating freely when we see no natural influence.
I told you how we make that determination- reduction.
Also the supernatural has nothing to do with it- you do realize that all positions regress to the SAME point.
Conducting science always makes a few metaphysical assumptions (no supernatural interference, uniformitarianism, etc.).
And we infer design due to our knowledge of cause and effect.
At 10:53 AM,
One Brow said…
Now I understand why this paper didn't pass through peer-review.
You mean, because it was not submitted for such, not being a paper designed for publicaiton in a scientific journal?
At any rate, it provides exactly what you asked for, "how one can test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved via non-telic processes" by providing the exact same type of description you offered for lightning: one that is possible with no proven telic interference.
The theory of evolution only posits an accumulation of genetic accidents.
1- All mutations are genetic accidents- that is in the evolutionary scenario
2- Mutations must accumulate in order for those big changes to occur- Dawkins calls it cumulative selection.
You have just contradicted yourself. As soon as you add any other process, it is no longer just a series of accidents.
I told you how we make that determination- reduction.
Supernatural influences can't operate at the reducted levels? What stops them?
And we infer design due to our knowledge of cause and effect.
We have no measurable effect for design.
At 11:09 AM,
Joe G said…
You mean, because it was not submitted for such, not being a paper designed for publicaiton in a scientific journal?
Then it is meaningless to science.
At any rate, it provides exactly what you asked for, "how one can test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved via non-telic processes"
It doesn't do any such thing.
It can't even be tested. It is all imagination.
The theory of evolution only posits an accumulation of genetic accidents.
1- All mutations are genetic accidents- that is in the evolutionary scenario
2- Mutations must accumulate in order for those big changes to occur- Dawkins calls it cumulative selection.
You have just contradicted yourself. As soon as you add any other process, it is no longer just a series of accidents.
1- I didn't say a series of accidents
2- All you have is a bald assertion:
As soon as you add any other process, it is no longer just a series of accidents
I told you how we make that determination- reduction.
Supernatural influences can't operate at the reducted levels?
What supernatural influences?
ID does not require the supernatural any more than your position does.
And we infer design due to our knowledge of cause and effect.
We have no measurable effect for design.
We have a measureable effects of causes.
We have scientists making design determinations on a daily basis.
We have measureable effects of intelligent agencies.
We have measureable effects of nature, operatingvfreel.
And to refute the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that in question could arise without agency involvement.
That you refuse to understand that demonstrates your ignorance.
At 11:50 PM,
blipey said…
Meaningless to science? Wow. You seem to want all of your ideas to be meaningful to science. Which ideas have you published?
At 9:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Meaningless to science?
Yup. Ya see Dr Behe's whole point is there isn't anything in PEER-REVIEW.
And I have had more than one evolutionist/ scientist tell me if it isn't in peer-review it is meaningless to science.
You seem to want all of your ideas to be meaningful to science.
And you seem to think your ignorance and bullshit are meaningful discourse.
At 11:15 AM,
One Brow said…
Then it is meaningless to science.
Since we are discussing ID, that's not relevant, even if it were true.
It can't even be tested. It is all imagination.
It is tesable in exactly the same way your lightning description was: small, individual, tested steps assembled into a narrative.
You have just contradicted yourself. As soon as you add any other process, it is no longer just a series of accidents.
1- I didn't say a series of accidents
I will correct: You have just contradicted yourself. As soon as you add any other process, it is no longer just an accumulation of accidents.
2- All you have is a bald assertion:
As soon as you add any other process, it is no longer just a series of accidents
So, you think adding a non-acccidental process means the result is still a mere accumulation of accidents and nothing more? I think you need to defend that notion. 'Pure accident' + 'Not accident' =/= 'Pure accident'.
Supernatural influences can't operate at the reducted levels?
What supernatural influences?
The ones needed in ID. If you prefer, though, we can go with "unseen desgn influences". YOu claim they can't operate at the reduced levels?
ID does not require the supernatural any more than your position does.
ID posits there is information, the information must come from outside the system, and that information does not come from natural sources. Adding in planet-sseding aliens just pushes back the question to where did they get their information.
We have a measureable effects of causes.
None of which are solely tied to design.
We have measureable effects of intelligent agencies.
We have analogous effects of intelligent agencies. Their is no measurement of a clay shard that makes it part of a human artifact.
We have measureable effects of nature, operatingvfreel.
You have provided no such measures, and neitherhave any other IDers.
And to refute the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that in question could arise without agency involvement.
As Matzke did.
At 11:31 AM,
Joe G said…
Matzke didn't demonstrate anything.
That you think he did proves that you are a clueless tool.
ID does not require the supernatural.
Again your ignorance exposes your agenda.
ID posits there is information, the information must come from outside the system, and that information does not come from natural sources.
That is false. It isn't about "natural sources", is about directed vs undirected.
As I said and you seem to ignore all positions regress to the SAME point.
And seeing thta natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins, where does that leave your position?
We have a measureable effects of causes.
None of which are solely tied to design.
True non-telic process can cause things to happen also.
That is why we conduct investigations. We try to figure out what we are investigating is reducible to.
We have measureable effects of intelligent agencies.
We have analogous effects of intelligent agencies. Their is no measurement of a clay shard that makes it part of a human artifact.
Design detection is not done solely via analogy.
All analgy can offer is "it looks designed".
Also there is a measuement of a clay shard- it is called work/ counteflow.
Look up "eolith". Eoliths were once thought to be artifacts until someone allegedly demonstrated that geological processes can account for them.
We have measureable effects of nature, operatingvfreel.
You have provided no such measures, and neitherhave any other IDers.
Again your ignorance is not a refutation.
As for an accumulation of genetic accidents- you are again clueless.
According to the theory of evolution ALL mutations are genetic accidents.
They accumulate via various selection processes.
Therefor saying an accumualtion of gentic accidents is exactly how evolutionists posit evolution taking place.
I never said nor implied that the accumulation is accidental.
IOW you cannot even read.
At 11:13 AM,
One Brow said…
Matzke didn't demonstrate anything.
He demonstrated a possible natural pathway, in detail, as you have required.
ID does not require the supernatural.
Where else can the information come from?
That is false. It isn't about "natural sources", is about directed vs undirected.
From where does the natural, directing source get its information?
Look up "eolith". Eoliths were once thought to be artifacts until someone allegedly demonstrated that geological processes can account for them.
So, they were a false postive for the EF?
Also there is a measuement of a clay shard- it is called work/ counteflow.
That's a good place to start. Define how you measure the work/counterlow of a clay shard.
According to the theory of evolution ALL mutations are genetic accidents.
They accumulate via various selection processes.
Therefor saying an accumualtion of gentic accidents is exactly how evolutionists posit evolution taking place.
I never said nor implied that the accumulation is accidental.
Your summary is highly imprecise and conveys an incorrect idea. Selection processes don't accumulate mutaitons, they sift them or ignore them.
At 11:24 AM,
Joe G said…
One Brow,
There wasn't any demonstration.
Just because something exists on paper does not mean it is indicative of reality.
ID does not require the supernatural.
Where else can the information come from?
Is that supposed to be a refutation?
Why doesn't your position require the supernatural seeing that it regresses to the SAME point as ID?
From where does the natural, directing source get its information?
That is what science is for- to help us answer those questions.
We sure as hell don't need to know that before making an inference.
Look up "eolith". Eoliths were once thought to be artifacts until someone allegedly demonstrated that geological processes can account for them.
So, they were a false postive for the EF?
Nope- the EF wasn't used.
Define how you measure the work/counterlow of a clay shard.
As I have already told you- reducibility.
That is we (try) to figure out what caused what we are investigating by finding out what it reduces to.
That is where the EF comes in. The EF forces us to consider non-agency causes first.
Your summary is highly imprecise and conveys an incorrect idea. Selection processes don't accumulate mutaitons, they sift them or ignore them.
One more time- Mutations accumulate or your position is nonsense.
Or do you think that one mutation can account for the diversity of life?
Dawkins calls it "cumulative selection"- meaning mutations accumulate.
At 6:30 PM,
One Brow said…
Just because something exists on paper does not mean it is indicative of reality.
Youur pathway for the creation of lightning exists only on paper, as well. Matzke has met the burden you set.
Why doesn't your position require the supernatural seeing that it regresses to the SAME point as ID?
I accept the natural generation of information where none existed before, ID does not.
Nope- the EF wasn't used.
No one considered they might be a product of chance/design? Suuure.
Define how you measure the work/counterlow of a clay shard.
As I have already told you- reducibility.
In what way is a clay shard reducible?
One more time- Mutations accumulate or your position is nonsense.
Certainly, but this is not done by the process of selection.
At 6:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Youur pathway for the creation of lightning exists only on paper,
No, it exists in the real world, has been observed and studied.
Why doesn't your position require the supernatural seeing that it regresses to the SAME point as ID?
I accept the natural generation of information where none existed before, ID does not.
That doesn't even mean anything.
There couldn't be a "natural generation" pertaining to the origin of nature.
Also humans are natural in that they exist in nature. Humans are agencies.
ID posits that complex specified information can be traced back to agencies/ agency.
Nope- the EF wasn't used.
No one considered they might be a product of chance/design? Suuure.
Analogy. You said ANALOGY is the ONLY tool used.
In what way is a clay shard reducible?
If what is found is reducible to the forces of nature- ie purely geological forces- then no design inference is made.
However if it took something else then a design inference is reached.
One more time- Mutations accumulate or your position is nonsense.
Certainly, but this is not done by the process of selection.
Perhaps not solely, but that is why I never specified any selection process.
But anyway you appear to have an issue with Richard Dawkins. He is the one who coined the term "cumulative selection" to demonstrate that mutations accumulate.
At 11:31 AM,
One Brow said…
Your pathway for the creation of lightning exists only on paper,
No, it exists in the real world, has been observed and studied.
The parts of have been studied, just like the various processes Matzke used has been studies. The demonstration is thae same. Your refusal to admit it is expected.
I accept the natural generation of information where none existed before, ID does not.
There couldn't be a "natural generation" pertaining to the origin of nature.
I said information, not nature.
ID posits that complex specified information can be traced back to agencies/ agency.
From where can these agencies get their information to disperse? Can it be from random non-telic causes, or must it be from still other agencies? What is the possible list for ultimate sources of information? Under ID, the list is supernatural.
Analogy. You said ANALOGY is the ONLY tool used.
So it was. I agree.
If what is found is reducible to the forces of nature- ie purely geological forces- then no design inference is made.
You have two clay shards, and you know ahead of time one is designed, the other was dried mud. Describe this process of reduciton. What so you measure and look for?
But anyway you appear to have an issue with Richard Dawkins.
Probably more than one.
At 11:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Matzke has never provided any demonstration.
Everyting he has exists on paper alone.
And that wasn't even good enough for science.
Go figure.
I accept the natural generation of information where none existed before, ID does not.
There couldn't be a "natural generation" pertaining to the origin of nature.
I said information, not nature.
You're not responding to what I said.
try again:
Also humans are natural in that they exist in nature. Humans are agencies.
ID posits that complex specified information can be traced back to agencies/ agency.
IOW your "cliam" doesn't make any sense, just as I said.
Analogy. You said ANALOGY is the ONLY tool used.
So it was. I agree.
1- That proves analogy isn't the best way
2- If they used analogy then they didn't use the EF.
Thank you for making my point.
If what is found is reducible to the forces of nature- ie purely geological forces- then no design inference is made.
You have two clay shards, and you know ahead of time one is designed, the other was dried mud. Describe this process of reduciton. What so you measure and look for?
1- I would have to have them in order to conduct an investigation
2- I would look for counterflow
and then test to see if something other than agency can account for it.
That is how you do it. We go by the assumption that when agencies act with nature they leave traces of their involvement behind.
Those traces are counterflow.
At 12:51 PM,
One Brow said…
Matzke has never provided any demonstration.
Everyting he has exists on paper alone.
The ion channels, the protien homolgies, etc., are all experimentally verified, just like the individual pieces of your lightning story.
And that wasn't even good enough for science.
It was not intended for publication in a science journal, any more than your lightning account was so intended. He met the standazrd you set.
One Brow: I accept the natural generation of information where none existed before, ID does not.
Joe G.: There couldn't be a "natural generation" pertaining to the origin of nature.
One Brow: I said information, not nature.
Joe G.: You're not responding to what I said.
You changed the subject, I pointed out the change. I don't need to explain where the information comes from, because I believe information can arise within nature from a non-telic process. ID denies that a non-telic process can result in information increase. Thus, the only ultimate source for information in ID is supernatural.
Also humans are natural in that they exist in nature. Humans are agencies.
ID posits that complex specified information can be traced back to agencies/ agency.
ID believes humans are designed, and thus not the ultimate originators of the informaiton they possess.
Do you think there is any natural explanation for the ultimate source of informaton under ID? What would it look like?
1- That proves analogy isn't the best way
The only way is necessarily the best way.
2- If they used analogy then they didn't use the EF.
Good point, I stand corrected. Eoliths were not a false positive for the Ef.
You have two clay shards, and you know ahead of time one is designed, the other was dried mud. Describe this process of reduciton. What so you measure and look for?
1- I would have to have them in order to conduct an investigation
I am asking for your process. You should have a process in hand before you have the shards.
2- I would look for counterflow
and then test to see if something other than agency can account for it.
For what do you look to find counterflow? What are the indicators of counterflow for a clay shard? Your answer is highly non-specific.
That is how you do it. We go by the assumption that when agencies act with nature they leave traces of their involvement behind.
Those traces are counterflow.
What is the nature and form of these traces on clay shards?
At 3:21 PM,
Joe G said…
The ion channels, the protien homolgies, etc., are all experimentally verified, just like the individual pieces of your lightning story.
Lihghtning can be observed directly.
The alleged evolution of the bacterial flagellum has never been observed.
And it appears the premise cannot even be tested.
It was not intended for publication in a science journal, any more than your lightning account was so intended.
Except that lightning is in scientific journals.
You changed the subject, I pointed out the change. I don't need to explain where the information comes from, because I believe information can arise within nature from a non-telic process.
Yet no one has been able to confirm that belief.
Also nature itself had an origin. Yet that origin could not have been via natural processes.
ID denies that a non-telic process can result in information increase.
Origin of information.
Thus, the only ultimate source for information in ID is supernatural.
That doesn't follow. Prenatural perhaps. Supernatural not necessarily.
Not any more than your position requires it anyway.
ID believes humans are designed, and thus not the ultimate originators of the informaiton they possess.
We don't know what was designed. That is what science is for- to help us make that determination.
Do you think there is any natural explanation for the ultimate source of informaton under ID? What would it look like?
Natural doesn't have anything to do with it.
The debate is about directed vs non-directed processes.
As I have said your position needs something other trhan "natural".
That you keep ignoring that just exposes your agenda.
1- Analogy isn't the best way
2- Analogy isn't the only way
I have provided references that support my claim and refute yours.
Nice of you to ignore them.
argument by analogy:
"Argument by analogy is rarely as good as an argument by logic, evidence or facts."
and
3- Your position doesn't have any analogies
I am asking for your process. You should have a process in hand before you have the shards.
Right. The process is to conduct a thorough investigation.
That includes looking at the shards- closely.
It would also include going to the site where they were found.
It would also include testing for any non-directed processes that can account for a clay shard.
Now if you want to find out more about "counterflow" then read "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch.
At 1:18 PM,
One Brow said…
Lihghtning can be observed directly.
The alleged evolution of the bacterial flagellum has never been observed.
The flagellum can be observed directly.
Your alleged explanation for the creation of lightning has never been obsevred.
Nice try, though. Keep squirming, it's amusing.
Except that lightning is in scientific journals.
So is much of the evidence on the evolution of the flagellum.
Yet no one has been able to confirm that belief.
Even if that were true, it does nothing to alter that ID requires a supernatural source for information.
That doesn't follow. Prenatural perhaps. Supernatural not necessarily.
Any ID argument that accepts prenatural information only accepts the evolution of the flagellum through natural means afterwards.
I have no argument against the exclusively prenatural addition of information, but that's not compatible with your flagellum position.
ID believes humans are designed, and thus not the ultimate originators of the informaiton they possess.
We don't know what was designed.
So, ID does not know the flagellum was designed?
Natural doesn't have anything to do with it.
Except you have limited your sources to prenatural and supernatural.
1- Analogy isn't the best way
2- Analogy isn't the only way
I have provided references that support my claim and refute yours.
Except, both SETI and archeology use analogy.
argument by analogy:
"Argument by analogy is rarely as good as an argument by logic, evidence or facts."
True.
Right. The process is to conduct a thorough investigation.
That includes looking at the shards- closely.
Looking for what (saying "counterflow" will just be circular). What features reveal counterflow on close examination?
It would also include going to the site where they were found.
What would identify counterflow at the site where the shards were found?
It would also include testing for any non-directed processes that can account for a clay shard.
So, what tests can you conduct for non-directed processes that are evidence of counterflow?
Now if you want to find out more about "counterflow" then read "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch.
The book that savages the EF? Interesting recommendation.
However, I am asking *you*. What is a process that does not use analogy to find counterflow?
At 7:19 AM,
Joe G said…
Lightning can be directly observed and its formation can be studied.
The evolution of the flagellum has never been observed and its evolution cannot be studied.
Therefor One Brow saying the standard of evidence is the same exposes his ignorance-drivenm agenda.
This agenda is further exposed by his refusal to understand counterflow.
He thinks his ignorance on the subject is some sort of refutation..
And he continues to prattle on about analogies even though his position doesn't have any.
And that he thinks Del Ratzsch did something to the EF proves his ignorance.
At 7:20 AM,
Joe G said…
Refuting One Brow’s claim that analogy is the only way:
argument by analogy
Argument by analogy is rarely as good as an argument by logic, evidence or facts.
The reason this person said this is because ID has the analogies.
It is the anti-IDists who have to explain away the “apparent” design.
Design is so obvious that they have to remind themselves “it wasn’t designed. No matter what we see it wasn’t designed.”
IOW they don’t have any analogies that would support their position.
Allen MacNeill weighs in on this section three: on transduction:
”In science, this kind of reasoning is usually referred to as “anecdotal evidence,” and is considered to be invalid for the support of any kind of generalization. For this reason, arguments by analogy are generally not considered valid in science.”
Enough said.
At 2:12 PM,
One Brow said…
Lightning can be directly observed and its formation can be studied.
A bolt of lightning hit a power pole last year. Describe how you would observe the formation of that bolt of lightning.
You wouldn't, of course. You would observe currently forming lighting, and project your results onto that lightning bolt, just as Matzke looked at current evolutionary processes and projected them into the creation of the flagellum. Your continued attempts to pretend there is a difference keep failing.
This agenda is further exposed by his refusal to understand counterflow.
I understand counterflow all too well. I understand it well enough to know that you have no objective, non-analogous means of detecting it, and that is way when faced with a simple problem like two clay shards, you can only give vague generalities.
And he continues to prattle on about analogies even though his position doesn't have any.
My position doesn't need analogies, because I am not trying to find design in biology. I can tell you how I would use analogy in the clay shard example, but you claim you don't need analogy to detect counterflow. I'm still waiting to hear what you use instead.
And that he thinks Del Ratzsch did something to the EF proves his ignorance.
Are you saying he did not criticize the EF in his book?
Refuting One Brow’s claim that analogy is the only way:
argument by analogy
Argument by analogy is rarely as good as an argument by logic, evidence or facts.
Agreed.
It is the anti-IDists who have to explain away the “apparent” design.
Actually, anti-IDists have the random generation of information along with a very high rate of tolerance for failure due to inferior new information. That's all we need.
Design is so obvious that they have to remind themselves ...
I don't find that necessary.
Applying analogy to a specific item is not an act of generalization.
At 4:31 PM,
Joe G said…
1- There aren't any known evolutionary processes that are known to give rise to complex protein machinery.
2- Nothing of the sort has ever been observed
3- Nothing of the sort has ever appeared after thousands of generations in Lenski's experiment(s)
4- Lightning has been observed and its formation studied.
5- To understand the lightning bolt that hit the pole we would need to know how low the clouds were. IOW the weather report for the day.
I understand counterflow all too well. I understand it well enough to know that you have no objective, non-analogous means of detecting it, and that is way when faced with a simple problem like two clay shards, you can only give vague generalities.
Yeah, I would have to hold them, look at them and in general run a thorough investigation.
And it is objective to figure out how something came to be.
My position doesn't need analogies, because I am not trying to find design in biology.
Analogies don't only apply to design.
You cannot force ID to provide something that your position doesn't.
That is intellectual cowardice.
Are you saying he did not criticize the EF in his book?
He did but counterflow and the EF go hand-in-hand.
Also his "critique" wasn't very compelling and proves my point- the EF is only as good as the people using it and the data they use.
Actually, anti-IDists have the random generation of information along with a very high rate of tolerance for failure due to inferior new information. That's all we need.
Except that only exists in your minds.
Design is so obvious that they have to remind themselves “it wasn’t designed. No matter what we see it wasn’t designed.”
I don't find that necessary.
And yet you have nothing- no methodology- nothing to support your claims.
Applying analogy to a specific item is not an act of generalization.
”In science, this kind of reasoning is usually referred to as “anecdotal evidence,” and is considered to be invalid for the support of any kind of generalization. For this reason, arguments by analogy are generally not considered valid in science.”
Your willfull ignorance has been exposed already.
At 11:56 AM,
One Brow said…
1- There aren't any known evolutionary processes that are known to give rise to complex protein machinery.
Evolution only begins after there is already complex machinery. Anything before that is abiogenesis.
3- Nothing of the sort has ever appeared after thousands of generations in Lenski's experiment(s)
Only thousands of generations? There have been quadrillions of generations of bacteria on the planet.
5- To understand the lightning bolt that hit the pole we would need to know how low the clouds were. IOW the weather report for the day.
Much as Matzke relies on evidence concerning conditions in ancient bacteria for his TTES.
Yeah, I would have to hold them, look at them and in general run a thorough investigation.
Like I said, vague generalities, because you don't have an objective, non-analogous way to detect counterflow.
Analogies don't only apply to design.
However, they are still the only tool science uses to detect design.
Except that only exists in your minds.
The new information is demonstrable as mutations, the high tolerance for failure as natural selection. Both exist.
At 2:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Evolution only begins after there is already complex machinery. Anything before that is abiogenesis.
1- Evolution isn't being debated
2- If living organisms didn't arise from non-living matter via undirected processes then there is no reason to infer its subsequent divesity arose solely via undirected processes
Only thousands of generations? There have been quadrillions of generations of bacteria on the planet.
And no evidence a flagellum evolved from a population taht never had one.
Much as Matzke relies on evidence concerning conditions in ancient bacteria for his TTES.
He should be able to go into a lab and start experimenting.
That is take a population without a flagellum, and start adding the genes as his paper requires.
Then see what happens.
Yeah, I would have to hold them, look at them and in general run a thorough investigation.
Like I said, vague generalities, because you don't have an objective, non-analogous way to detect counterflow.
There is. You just refuse to understand it.
And I can't help that.
Analogies don't only apply to design.
However, they are still the only tool science uses to detect design.
I know that is what you say however I have noticed you have failed to substantiate that claim.
Also ID has plenty of analogies pertaining to living organisms.
That is why MacNeill and the other guy said what they did.
Analogies are not the only way to detect design.
I would say that analogy is only an impetus to see if real design is present or not.
The new information is demonstrable as mutations, the high tolerance for failure as natural selection. Both exist.
and
Actually, anti-IDists have the random generation of information along with a very high rate of tolerance for failure due to inferior new information. That's all we need.
The debate is about the ORIGIN of information. Also there isn't enough time for random generation to work.
At 2:07 PM,
One Brow said…
2- If living organisms didn't arise from non-living matter via undirected processes then there is no reason to infer its subsequent divesity arose solely via undirected processes
The discussion of whether the creation of protien machinery is a discussion withing evolution or abiogenesis has little intersection to claims of abiogenesis being directed or not.
And no evidence a flagellum evolved from a population taht never had one.
The evidence of the common ancestry of one type of flagellum and the TTSS is actually quite strong, and they would have come from a population that had neither.
He should be able to go into a lab and start experimenting.
That is take a population without a flagellum, and start adding the genes as his paper requires.
Then see what happens.
If a flagellum is created, does that prove it happened non-tellically? If no flagellum is created, does that prove it can only happen telically? I don't see how that experiment proves anything.
There is. You just refuse to understand it.
And I can't help that.
You could start by describing it. When you hold the clay shards, what will indicate counterflow? You have not offered a single word of description.
I know that is what you say however I have noticed you have failed to substantiate that claim.
Every example so far has relied on looking for things humans produce as a comparison. Human produce narrow-band transmissions, so SETI seeks them, etc.
Also ID has plenty of analogies pertaining to living organisms.
To what other designed living organisms can life on earth be analogized?
The debate is about the ORIGIN of information. Also there isn't enough time for random generation to work.
4 billion years, quadrillions of generattions of bateria? There is plenty of time.
At 4:36 PM,
Joe G said…
1- This debate is all about origins.
Living organisms are the ultimate in IC.
If it is demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter, without agency involvement, then ID is falsified.
All protein machinery pale in comparison so Behe's criteria- Meyer's, Dembski's, Wells'- all of ID's criteria would be met and ID falls.
The evidence of the common ancestry of one type of flagellum and the TTSS is actually quite strong, and they would have come from a population that had neither.
Funny the evidence for common design and convergence are equally as strong as the evidence for common ancestry.
He should be able to go into a lab and start experimenting.
That is take a population without a flagellum, and start adding the genes as his paper requires.
Then see what happens.
If a flagellum is created, does that prove it happened non-tellically? If no flagellum is created, does that prove it can only happen telically? I don't see how that experiment proves anything.
1- Doing something is better than a bald declaration
2- If something happens then it shows it is possible
3- If possible you start removing agency involvement to see what it takes
Or he could do nothing and his work will remain unknown to science.
You could start by describing it. When you hold the clay shards, what will indicate counterflow? You have not offered a single word of description.
The shard itself could be evidence of counterflow.
We take a look at it, measure it, weigh it, check its density, etc. and try to figure out what process(es) can account for it.
Every example so far has relied on looking for things humans produce as a comparison. Human produce narrow-band transmissions, so SETI seeks them, etc.
1- SETI seeks narrow-band transmissions because nature, operating freely cannot produce one:
SETI and ID:
"An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone - is not complex; it's artificial.- Shostak"
"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 "
2- Why can't you provide an example from a peer-reviewed paper that supports your claim?
To what other designed living organisms can life on earth be analogized?
The analogy is living organisms to data processing systems, data storage systems and data communication systems.
4 billion years, quadrillions of generattions of bateria? There is plenty of time.
1- If all you can do is throw time at something then you have left science behind
2- There isn't any evidence that a population of bacteria without a flagellum could ever evolve one.
Nothing. Not even a hint of such a thing.
Not even a TTSS. Nothing.
And apparently there isn't any way to even test the premsie in a scientific manner.
At 7:59 AM,
One Brow said…
If it is demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter, without agency involvement, then ID is falsified.
No, just IC would be falsified, and maybe CSI. Even then, you can never disprove agency involvement. You still can't even prove that for a bolt of lightning.
Funny the evidence for common design and convergence are equally as strong as the evidence for common ancestry.
There is zero evidence for or against the former.
That is take a population without a flagellum, and start adding the genes as his paper requires.
You would consider that to be undesigned? I don't believe it.
3- If possible you start removing agency involvement to see what it takes
You mean, run the experiemnt for a few thousand years to see what happens?
The shard itself could be evidence of counterflow.
We take a look at it, measure it, weigh it, check its density, etc. and try to figure out what process(es) can account for it.
Weight and density will tell you more about the composition of the clay than the process from which it came. Being dried in the sun is the same process whether the clay shard has counterflow or not.
Still, you gave it the old college try.
1- SETI seeks narrow-band transmissions because nature, operating freely cannot produce one
Nature does not produce many things. SETI looks for something nature does not produce and that humans do produce.
2- Why can't you provide an example from a peer-reviewed paper that supports your claim?
As we have discussed, SETI's own Q and A already supports me.
The analogy is living organisms to data processing systems, data storage systems and data communication systems.
The storage methodology and media for living systems is nothing like that for digital information.
If all you can do is throw time at something then you have left science behind
It's a perfectly valid respnse to a claim there is insufficient time.
2- There isn't any evidence that a population of bacteria without a flagellum could ever evolve one.
You can lead a horse to water ...
At 8:42 AM,
Joe G said…
If it is demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter, without agency involvement, then ID is falsified.
No, just IC would be falsified, and maybe CSI.
ID would be falsified- that is according to all the top ID proponents like Behe, Dembski, Wells, Meyers, etc.
Funny the evidence for common design and convergence are equally as strong as the evidence for common ancestry.
There is zero evidence for or against the former.
ID is based on observation and experience- so there is plenty of evidence for it.
That is take a population without a flagellum, and start adding the genes as his paper requires.
You would consider that to be undesigned? I don't believe it.
That is irrelevant. But without doing that you aren't engaging science.
Matzke needs some way to verify his claims.
3- If possible you start removing agency involvement to see what it takes
You mean, run the experiemnt for a few thousand years to see what happens?
Are you admitting your position is untestable and doesn't belong in a science classroom?
The shard itself could be evidence of counterflow.
We take a look at it, measure it, weigh it, check its density, etc. and try to figure out what process(es) can account for it.
Weight and density will tell you more about the composition of the clay than the process from which it came. Being dried in the sun is the same process whether the clay shard has counterflow or not.
The composition is important.
From that we may be able to deduce a process.
1- SETI seeks narrow-band transmissions because nature, operating freely cannot produce one
Nature does not produce many things. SETI looks for something nature does not produce and that humans do produce.
SETI isn't looking for anything that humans produce.
They are looking for things that nature, operating freely cannot produce.
2- Why can't you provide an example from a peer-reviewed paper that supports your claim?
As we have discussed, SETI's own Q and A already supports me.
It doesn't. I have provided a clip that supports me.
Two clips.
The analogy is living organisms to data processing systems, data storage systems and data communication systems.
The storage methodology and media for living systems is nothing like that for digital information.
How do you know?
If all you can do is throw time at something then you have left science behind
It's a perfectly valid respnse to a claim there is insufficient time.
1- You never supported the claim
2- You have left science behind
2- There isn't any evidence that a population of bacteria without a flagellum could ever evolve one.
You can lead a horse to water ...
Matzke's "paper" isn't evidence. It isn't even in a peer-reviewed journal.
You have said that the premise cannot even be objectively tested- too much time required.
At 10:09 AM,
One Brow said…
ID would be falsified- that is according to all the top ID proponents like Behe, Dembski, Wells, Meyers, etc.
If showing a possible, natural, evolutionary pathway is all it takes to falsify ID, then ID is ultimately an anti-evolution argument, and provides nothing positive.
ID is based on observation and experience- so there is plenty of evidence for it.
So, it's in the eye of the beholder.
But without doing that you aren't engaging science.
If you are adding genes to a bacterium deliberately, you are engaging in design, or even deliberately manipulating the environment to encourage those genes, that is a design process. No reasonable person would take the results as being anti-ID.
Matzke needs some way to verify his claims.
You can't verify history in a laboratory, whether for lightning bolts or for flagella.
Are you admitting your position is untestable and doesn't belong in a science classroom?
All of the mechanisms used by Matzke for the creation of the flagellum have been tested in the laboratory. Then historical narrative is not directly testable, but neither is the creation of any single historical lightning bolt testable. We still teach how each formed.
The composition is important.
From that we may be able to deduce a process.
What does the composition tell you about the process? What do you look for? What sorts of composition are indicative of counterflow?
SETI isn't looking for anything that humans produce.
Humans produce narrow-band transmissions. SETI is looking for narrow-band transmissions. Put those two together and ...
They are looking for things that nature, operating freely cannot produce.
Which are also a type of things that humans do produce.
It doesn't. I have provided a clip that supports me.
Two clips.
YOur clups supports the "not created by nature" position that I agree with, and do not support a "not like what humans produce" postion you affirmed earlier.
How do you know?
You mean, besides the obvious differences regarding chemical vs. electronic, four digits instead of two, grouping of three with high redundancy instead of eight with no redundancy, self-replication vs. production?
1- You never supported the claim
You don't believe the earth is 4 billion years old, or that there have been quadrillions of generations in that time?
Matzke's "paper" isn't evidence.
It only shows the process is possible, the standard you claim is all that is needed. If you really think it doesn't, find the impossible step. If you can't, acknowledge the paper shows the flagellum isn't IC or chnage your standards.
It isn't even in a peer-reviewed journal.
Historical speculation rarely is.
At 11:39 AM,
Joe G said…
If showing a possible, natural, evolutionary pathway is all it takes to falsify ID, then ID is ultimately an anti-evolution argument, and provides nothing positive.
You have serious issues.
It is UNDIRECTED processes.
Design is perfectly natural.
Also it is about DEMONSTRATING- imagination is not a demonstration.
That said "evolution" has several meanings.
ID is only anti- blind watchmaker evolution. And that is only in ragrds to have sole dominion over evolution.
ID is based on observation and experience- so there is plenty of evidence for it.
So, it's in the eye of the beholder.
No, it's much more than that.
However if something looks designed we should check out the possibility it was.
If you are adding genes to a bacterium deliberately, you are engaging in design, or even deliberately manipulating the environment to encourage those genes, that is a design process. No reasonable person would take the results as being anti-ID.
I have already been over that.
Doing this would at least show that his premise is possible.
Doing nothing means it is all imaginary and therefor useless and worthless.
All of the mechanisms used by Matzke for the creation of the flagellum have been tested in the laboratory.
Not to make a flagellum.
What does the composition tell you about the process? What do you look for? What sorts of composition are indicative of counterflow?
The composition can tell someone skilled quite a bit.
It can tell us about reduction- as in what it took.
That is where counterflow comes in.
What methodology was used to determine the universe and living organisms are the result of non-telic processes?
As for SETI I have provided the quotes that support my claim.
Also I have ALWAYS claimed that tere are TWO sides-
1- What nature, operating freely, can do
AND
2- What agencies can do with nature
That is what all design-centric venues rely on.
They do not rely on analogies.
YOur clups supports the "not created by nature" position that I agree with
That is my claim.
Also SETI is not looking for our transmissions.
You mean, besides the obvious differences regarding chemical vs. electronic, four digits instead of two, grouping of three with high redundancy instead of eight with no redundancy, self-replication vs. production?
None of that supports your claim that they are nothing alike.
It only shows the process is possible, the standard you claim is all that is needed.
It's not my standard.
The standard is peer-review.
Lightning formation is in peer-review.
Science is not blind to lightning formation.
Science is blind to Matzke's paper.
At 1:30 PM,
One Brow said…
You have serious issues.
I am posting on this blog, so that is obviously true.
Also it is about DEMONSTRATING- imagination is not a demonstration.
So, when you said it only had to be possible, you didn't really mean it. No big deal, I understand completely.
However, it is not more possible for you to recreate some particular lightning strike that occurred in the past. So, even here you fail to differentiate your description of the lightning from Matzke's paper.
ID is only anti- blind watchmaker evolution. And that is only in ragrds to have sole dominion over evolution.
That is my understanding as well. ID is a philosophical position opposed to the philosohical position on there being no telic influences, niether position being scientific.
No, it's much more than that.
Eye-of-the-beholder is basically all the practitioners use.
Doing this would at least show that his premise is possible.
As long as all the intermediate steps are possible, the construct is possible.
Not to make a flagellum.
Valid mechanisms are valid even when not put to one specific usage.
The composition can tell someone skilled quite a bit.
It can tell us about reduction- as in what it took.
That is where counterflow comes in.
Back to the vague generalities again. What are the features of the reduction in the composition that indicate the counterflow?
What methodology was used to determine the universe and living organisms are the result of non-telic processes?
Faith. It's not a scientific statement, and not capable of being proven.
2- What agencies can do with nature
That is what all design-centric venues rely on.
Out of all the things agencies can do with nature, SETI has selected one specific thing, based upon analogy to what people do. I agree that is what design-centric venues rely on.
None of that supports your claim that they are nothing alike.
Outside of containing information, how are they alike?
The standard is peer-review.
Lightning formation is in peer-review.
Please list the peer-reviewed papaers on the lightning bolt that knocked down a telephone pole on Carlyle Ave., just east of Belleville, IL, USA, last year.
What, none? Historical occurences are not the subject of peer-reviewed papers. We assume that bolt of lightning is like any other bolt of lightning because there is no good reason not to. Matzke assumed the process leading to the creation of flagella were like any other evolutionary processes because there is no good reason to assume otherwise.
Science is not blind to lightning formation.
Science is blind to Matzke's paper.
I await your scietific papers on the lightning bolt that hit Carlyle Ave.
At 4:11 PM,
Joe G said…
So, when you said it only had to be possible, you didn't really mean it.
I didn't say that. I was very clear.
Here is what I said:
"If it is demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter, without agency involvement, then ID is falsified."
That is my understanding as well. ID is a philosophical position opposed to the philosohical position on there being no telic influences, niether position being scientific.
It depends on what definition of science you use.
Eye-of-the-beholder is basically all the practitioners use.
Nope.
We use a methodology- eliminate alternatives and see if a criteria is met.
Ours is very open to falsification.
As long as all the intermediate steps are possible, the construct is possible.
You don't know what is possible without trying.
Just because something exists on paper doesn't make it possible.
Back to the vague generalities again. What are the features of the reduction in the composition that indicate the counterflow?
Pottery, in order to be useful, was fired- heated at high temperature. This produces irreversible changes.
These changes can be detected.
What methodology was used to determine the universe and living organisms are the result of non-telic processes?
Faith. It's not a scientific statement, and not capable of being proven.
So your position is based on faith?
Also science is not about proving things.
1- What nature, operating freely, can do
AND
2- What agencies can do with nature
That is what all design-centric venues rely on.
They do not rely on analogies.
Out of all the things agencies can do with nature, SETI has selected one specific thing, based upon analogy to what people do. I agree that is what design-centric venues rely on.
I don't know of any humans transmitting a continuous sinewave 24/7.
Please list the peer-reviewed papaers on the lightning bolt that knocked down a telephone pole on Carlyle Ave., just east of Belleville, IL, USA, last year.
Don't need it.
Lightning formation is in peer-review.
The alleged evolution of the bacterial flagellum is not.
Dr Behe's whole point is that it isn't in peer-review.
That is the standard that must be met.
At 5:47 PM,
One Brow said…
"If it is demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter, without agency involvement, then ID is falsified."
Exactly, "can arise". All that is needed is to show the possibility. If you didn't mean that, you should use a more appropriate helping verb.
It depends on what definition of science you use.
I prefer the definitions that keep unprovable metaphysics of any sort out of science as much as is possible.
We use a methodology- eliminate alternatives and see if a criteria is met.
Ours is very open to falsification.
I agree with your description, the problem being that the criteria is subjective, making the determination of design an eye-of-the-beholder phenomenon.
You don't know what is possible without trying.
Again, if you find any step in Matzke's hypothesis not possible, say so.
Pottery, in order to be useful, was fired- heated at high temperature. This produces irreversible changes.
These changes can be detected.
I don't think that will work. What about cultures whose highest heat was from wood fires? How do you detect their clay from clay baked in a forest fire?
So your position is based on faith?
My belief system is based on faith. My position is that any statement that life is the result of telic or non-telic forces is not proper for a high-school biology class, because it does not concern science.
I don't know of any humans transmitting a continuous sinewave 24/7.
Does SETI insist on only finding a continuous sinewave broadcast 24/7? Hint: no. By the way, while they don't specifically look for human-based transmissions, "Unfortunately, SETI searches are burdened with confusion caused by narrow-band signals from our own planet." They are looking for type of signals that we produce.
Don't need it.
Lightning formation is in peer-review.
So is evolution. Again, no difference between Matzke's paper and your lightning explanation. The generalities are peer-reviewed, a specific historical occurence is not.
At 6:42 PM,
Joe G said…
"If it is demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter, without agency involvement, then ID is falsified."
Exactly, "can arise". All that is needed is to show the possibility. If you didn't mean that, you should use a more appropriate helping verb.
The key word is DEMONSTRATED.
But thanks for proving you don't understand English.
It depends on what definition of science you use.
I prefer the definitions that keep unprovable metaphysics of any sort out of science as much as is possible.
That doesn't help.
Also the "big bang" was objected to because of its metaphysical implications.
I agree with your description, the problem being that the criteria is subjective, making the determination of design an eye-of-the-beholder phenomenon.
The criteria isn't subjective if it is open to falsification.
Again, if you find any step in Matzke's hypothesis not possible, say so.
It is up to him or anyone using his "hypothsis" to show it is possible.
That is how science works.
Pottery, in order to be useful, was fired- heated at high temperature. This produces irreversible changes.
These changes can be detected.
I don't think that will work. What about cultures whose highest heat was from wood fires? How do you detect their clay from clay baked in a forest fire?
It will work. Has anyone ever found fired clay after a forest fire? No.
Are there forests on clay?
My position is that any statement that life is the result of telic or non-telic forces is not proper for a high-school biology class, because it does not concern science.
Except that now non-telic is being pushed.
Also science is very concerned with "how".
How things came to be is one of the basic questions science asks.
IOW it appears science is very concerned with telic vs non-telic.
By the way, while they don't specifically look for human-based transmissions, "Unfortunately, SETI searches are burdened with confusion caused by narrow-band signals from our own planet." They are looking for type of signals that we produce.
If nature, operating freely could also produce it then they couldn't tell.
That is why it takes both.
Lightning formation is in peer-review.
So is evolution.
Not blind watchmaker evolution. That is what is being debated.
Everything in peer-review can be used to support baraminology.
And again the criteria is peer-review and science.
If it ain't in peer-review science doesn't care about it.
At 12:30 PM,
One Brow said…
The key word is DEMONSTRATED.
Right, you ask to demonstrate a possibility. A reasonable chain of evidenced possibilities is a demonstration fo a possibility.
That doesn't help.
I'm more worried about science than offering "help".
Also the "big bang" was objected to because of its metaphysical implications.
Most novel scientific ideas are, at first. The valid ones go on to prove themselves.
The criteria isn't subjective if it is open to falsification.
How do you falsify the assignment of purpose?
It is up to him or anyone using his "hypothsis" to show it is possible.
Every step has been shown to be possible.
It will work. Has anyone ever found fired clay after a forest fire? No.
The term "fired clay" implies some sort of firing method. Cultures to old to have a firing method more advance than a campfire would not have "fired clay", but they would still have pottery.
So, how do you distinguish their shards from clay baked in a forest fire? What are the signs of counterflow you measure? How does reduction work then?
Are there forests on clay?
In Missouri, yes. Lots of our woods have a thin level of topsoil from decayed plants over a clay foundation. It doesn't take much to get to the clay under the topsoil.
Except that now non-telic is being pushed.
Except that it is not, in high schools, and would in fact be illegal to push in public high schools.
How things came to be is one of the basic questions science asks.
IOW it appears science is very concerned with telic vs non-telic.
The "how" does not change because a determination of telic vs. non-telic has been made.
That is why it takes both.
Very nice of you to acknowledge the point.
Not blind watchmaker evolution. That is what is being debated.
You description of lightning offered no guarantee it was the result of blind forces, either.
Everything in peer-review can be used to support baraminology.
What could possibly contradict baraminology?
At 4:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Right, you ask to demonstrate a possibility.
That is not what I asked.
However no one has been able to even demonstrate the possibility.
Imagination is not a demonstration.
The criteria isn't subjective if it is open to falsification.
How do you falsify the assignment of purpose?
By taking away all requirements for agency involvement.
IOW by showing that nature, operating freely can account for it.
It is up to him or anyone using his "hypothsis" to show it is possible.
Every step has been shown to be possible.
If that were true the paper would have been in a peer-reviewed journal.
It will work. Has anyone ever found fired clay after a forest fire? No.
The term "fired clay" implies some sort of firing method. Cultures to old to have a firing method more advance than a campfire would not have "fired clay", but they would still have pottery.
That has nothing to do with what I posted.
So, how do you distinguish their shards from clay baked in a forest fire?
What shards baked in a forest fire?
Where are they?
But anyway pottery is more than just fired clay.
We would find evidence of agency involvement in the structure of the clay.
What are the signs of counterflow you measure?
You look for counterflow
How does reduction work then?
You figure out what agency involvement was required.
That is how reduction works- what did it take to bring this into being?
But anyway I would love to hear about these naturally fired clay shards.
Except that now non-telic is being pushed.
Except that it is not, in high schools, and would in fact be illegal to push in public high schools.
Yes it should be illegal yet that is what is going on.
The "how" does not change because a determination of telic vs. non-telic has been made.
But many factors do change with such a determination.
That is why it takes both.
Very nice of you to acknowledge the point.
Acknowledge the point I have been making for decades? Yeah right.
Not blind watchmaker evolution. That is what is being debated.
You description of lightning offered no guarantee it was the result of blind forces, either.
As guaranteed as gravity.
Everything in peer-review can be used to support baraminology.
What could possibly contradict baraminology?
Evolution #6- the blind watchmaker thesis- as well as UCD by design.
Pretty much anything that shows the discontinuities are an illusion.
At 10:51 AM,
One Brow said…
That is not what I asked.
Then you need to both restate the request and revise your lightning example.
Imagination is not a demonstration.
Matzke's paper is a lot more than mere imagination.
By taking away all requirements for agency involvement.
1) How does that falsify purpose?
2) That has supposedly been done before purpose is assigned in the EF and with CSI.
If that were true the paper would have been in a peer-reviewed journal.
Why? How many peer-reviewed works do you see that use science to create a plausible historical scenario?
That has nothing to do with what I posted.
Yes, I am disregarding your attempted diversion into fired clay, and sticking with the two shards, neither of which has been fired, one of which was shaped by design.
What shards baked in a forest fire?
Where are they?
You can find them after almost any natural fire in eatern Missouri, and under a lot of campfires.
We would find evidence of agency involvement in the structure of the clay.
Describe the objective measures you would use, please.
What are the signs of counterflow you measure?
You look for counterflow
So, your only answer to this is circular?
How does reduction work then?
You figure out what agency involvement was required.
Again, circularity and vague generalizaitons.
Yes it should be illegal yet that is what is going on.
If you choose to believe the lie, there is little left to be said.
But many factors do change with such a determination.
Factors concerning the nature of the designer, sure.
As guaranteed as gravity.
I am unaware of any scientifically stated guarantee that the forces of gravity are natural in every respect. Science only describes the behavior, which is predictable.
What could possibly contradict baraminology?
Evolution #6- the blind watchmaker thesis- as well as UCD by design.
Neither is a scientific postion.
Pretty much anything that shows the discontinuities are an illusion.
The current discontinuities are real. Any found fossil can be imputed to be a separate "kind" from any current "kind", since there is no limit on the number of kinds. Anything that breaches a potential discontinuity, like a liger, just puts the two "kinds" back into one "kind". No observation can disprove baraminology.
At 12:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Then you need to both restate the request and revise your lightning example.
That wouldn't help.
I am sure you would just twist whatever I said.
Matzke's paper is a lot more than mere imagination.
True the paper exists.
However it is of an imaginary tale.
By taking away all requirements for agency involvement.
1) How does that falsify purpose?
No agency = no purpose
2) That has supposedly been done before purpose is assigned in the EF and with CSI.
You don't appear to know anything about the EF nor CSI.
Why? How many peer-reviewed works do you see that use science to create a plausible historical scenario?
So the theory of evolution should be taught in a history class?
OK.
Yes, I am disregarding your attempted diversion into fired clay, and sticking with the two shards, neither of which has been fired, one of which was shaped by design.
Now you are moving the goalposts.
Two clay shards that have never been fired?
I need to see these shards.
I don't play science with a strawman.
We would find evidence of agency involvement in the structure of the clay.
Describe the objective measures you would use, please.
The molecular structure would provide clues.
Then you said something about measuring counterflow when you LOOK for it.
You can then MEASURE it by seeing what agency involvement is required to produce it.
That is what reducibility is all about- finding out what it takes to bring it about.
That is what forensic science is all about.
But many factors do change with such a determination.
Factors concerning the nature of the designer, sure.
There are many different questions asked if design is determined or not.
So there are many factors that change depending on the determination design or not.
Evolution #6- the blind watchmaker thesis- as well as UCD by design.
Neither is a scientific postion.
Do they teach the theory of evolution in science classrooms in high school?
Apparently not.
The current discontinuities are real.
Why should that be?
That isn't a prediction of the theory of evolution.
However if we listen to you the theory of evolution belongs in a history classroom.
I am all for that.
At 5:35 PM,
Joe G said…
One Look,
The isn't anything in the deinitions of shard that allows for unfired clay.
As for counterflow, what to look for, you look for something, anything out of the ordinary.
If you can't find something that cannot be attributed to nature, operating freely, there isn't any reason to infer agency involvement.
That is why the CONTEXT is also very important- as in "where were the clay shards found?"
Design detection, as with all of science, is not conducted in a vacuum.
As for what is being taught in schools- both Darwin's theory and the modern synthesis were formulated to explain away the design in biology without requiring a designer.
So if you are telling me that they ain't teaching that is public schools, what, exactly, are they teaching?
Or do Darwin, Dawkins, Mayr, et al., not know what they are/ were talking about?
I bet what is being taught is that all mutations are mistakes- copying errors or DNA damage from environmental pressures.
I am also sure experiments like Urey-Miller are being promoted as evidence that living organisms arose by chance, given the right circumstances.
But anyway once I get ahold of a high school biology textbook I will let you know.
At 6:03 PM,
One Brow said…
The isn't anything in the deinitions of shard that allows for unfired clay.
From teh American Heritage link off teh OneLook page:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/shard
1. A piece of broken pottery, especially one found in an archaeological dig; a potsherd.
2a. A fragment of a brittle substance, as of glass or metal.
2b. A small piece or part: "shards of intense emotional relationships that once existed" (Maggie Scarf).
Can we agree that usage 2a is pretty much what I was describing?
As for counterflow, what to look for, you look for something, anything out of the ordinary.
"Ordinary" is an appeal to analogy. You know what it ordinary based upon what you have seen before, and if things look like you have seen before, they are ordinary.
That is why the CONTEXT is also very important- as in "where were the clay shards found?"
Apparently, more important than anything about the shards themselves, because you have not offered anything about the shards that would indicate design.
Design detection, as with all of science, is not conducted in a vacuum.
I agree.
As for what is being taught in schools- both Darwin's theory and the modern synthesis were formulated to explain away the design in biology without requiring a designer.
If you mean to render a designer unnecessary, I agree. Unnecessary =/= non-existent.
So if you are telling me that they ain't teaching that is public schools, what, exactly, are they teaching?
Regarding the actual existence of a designer, nothing at all.
I bet what is being taught is that all mutations are mistakes- copying errors or DNA damage from environmental pressures.
Here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_mutations#Causes_of_mutation
Do you have other causes to add to it?
I am also sure experiments like Urey-Miller are being promoted as evidence that living organisms arose by chance, given the right circumstances.
Last I saw, it was considered only as a possibility.
At 7:55 PM,
Joe G said…
Can we agree that usage 2a is pretty much what I was describing?
You said unfired clay.
That definition does not fit unfired clay.
As for counterflow, what to look for, you look for something, anything out of the ordinary.
"Ordinary" is an appeal to analogy. You know what it ordinary based upon what you have seen before, and if things look like you have seen before, they are ordinary.
It's an appeal to knowledge.
That is how science operates- we make inferences based on our current level of knowledge.
When we see something that doesn't fit we investigate to try to figure out what can cause it.
It is all about cause and effect- ie reduciblity.
That is why the CONTEXT is also very important- as in "where were the clay shards found?"
Apparently, more important than anything about the shards themselves, because you have not offered anything about the shards that would indicate design.
I have- that is to anyone who knows anything about the subject.
But context is important.
Just because you refuse to understand the concept of counterflow don't blame me.
As for what is being taught in schools- both Darwin's theory and the modern synthesis were formulated to explain away the design in biology without requiring a designer.
If you mean to render a designer unnecessary, I agree.
And that is a bullshit belief.
It isn't based on anything except the refusal to allow the design inference.
I bet what is being taught is that all mutations are mistakes- copying errors or DNA damage from environmental pressures.
Here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_mutations#Causes_of_mutation
Do you have other causes to add to it?
The list mirrors what I said except it adds hypermutations- organisms controlled mutations.
I am also sure experiments like Urey-Miller are being promoted as evidence that living organisms arose by chance, given the right circumstances.
Last I saw, it was considered only as a possibility.
Design is not only a possibility, given the data it is most likely.
At 10:20 AM,
One Brow said…
That definition does not fit unfired clay.
This will be my last comment on the meaning of shard: I have picked up small, thin sections of dry clay from the ground. It was definitely brittle. However, if you really can't handle the words shard, please feel free to substitute "two small pieces of dry clay".
It's an appeal to knowledge.
Yes, and in that case the knowledge based on analogy.
I have- that is to anyone who knows anything about the subject.
All you have discussed is the possiblity of one of the shards being fired and the other not, since we know humans fire their clay to harden it when they can (analogy again). Once it turned out neither shard was fired, you offered nothing else about the clay itself. This is what I expected, frankly, because in all my years of asking, no ID proponent has been able to give the one answer that really provides the best clue, the answer that goes against their entire argument.
The piece of clay with the smoother, simpler surface will be the designed clay. Clay dried naturally will have cracks in the top side and a jagged underside. This is because designers tend to make things more simply than they occur naturally.
Just because you refuse to understand the concept of counterflow don't blame me.
I understand it quite well. Just because you can't apply it to something as simple as a couple of pieces of clay is no reason to say I don't understand it.
And that is a bullshit belief.
"Unnecessary" is not a belief at all.
The list mirrors what I said except it adds hypermutations- organisms controlled mutations.
So, do you have any other sources of mutation to add to the list, that would be non-random mutations?
Design is not only a possibility, given the data it is most likely.
The data can neither support nor refute design.
At 11:00 AM,
Joe G said…
This will be my last comment on the meaning of shard:
I just need to know EXACTLY what it is being examined.
The word "shard" used with "clay" only means from pottery- ie worked and fired clay.
The question then would be can nature, operating freely, work and fire clay?
Now if you want to change that to pieces of dried clay then the context becomes all the more important.
It's an appeal to knowledge.
Yes, and in that case the knowledge based on analogy.
Nope, a knowledge based on observation and testing.
All you have discussed is the possiblity of one of the shards being fired and the other not, since we know humans fire their clay to harden it when they can (analogy again).
Counterflow. You just refuse to understand the concept.
You refuse to read the book which discusses it.
In the case of clay IDists would use the SAME methodology as forensic science and archaeologists use- we try to determine what can account for it- reducibility.
The piece of clay with the smoother, simpler surface will be the designed clay. Clay dried naturally will have cracks in the top side and a jagged underside. This is because designers tend to make things more simply than they occur naturally.
You have just described counterflow.
I am sure I went over this.
We take our knowledge of what designing agencies can do and couple it with our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can / can't do.
You should read the book "Nature, Design and Science".
"Unnecessary" is not a belief at all.
Without evidentiary support it is. And there isn't any evidence to support the claim that a designer is unnecessary. Therefor it is a belief.
The list mirrors what I said except it adds hypermutations- organisms controlled mutations.
So, do you have any other sources of mutation to add to the list, that would be non-random mutations?
Dr Spetner has such a list in his book "Not By Chance".
The data can neither support nor refute design.
Yes it can.
Why do you say it cannot?
We exist and there is only one reality behind that existence.
Science only cares about reality.
At 11:06 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW what happens if neither piece of dried clay is smooth, yet one is definitely designed?
Designers need not tend towards the simple.
Also you said:
Clay dried naturally will have cracks in the top side and a jagged underside.
So designers dry their clays supernaturally?
I need to take a pottery course so I can learn about that magic trick.
At 3:54 PM,
One Brow said…
I just need to know EXACTLY what it is being examined.
Two thin pieces of dry clay.
Nope, a knowledge based on observation and testing.
Observation and testing of what features of the dried clay?
Counterflow. You just refuse to understand the concept.
If anything, I understand it better than you would like. I understand it well enough that I am not fooled by your attempt to give an objective name to a determination made by analogy.
You refuse to read the book which discusses it.
Your arguments are laughable and incoherent. Why should I think the book ytou base them from would be any better?
In the case of clay IDists would use the SAME methodology as forensic science and archaeologists use- we try to determine what can account for it- reducibility.
As always, you fail to give a single measurement to take. I am not fooled by your cirularity.
You could always just admit their is no known way to tell from the clay itself that one piece was shaped by design, the other not, if you can't think of a way to tell.
You have just described counterflow.
Yes, and I used a comparison to what humans tyupically make, i.e., analogy.
We take our knowledge of what designing agencies can do and couple it with our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can / can't do.
Yet, you can't give the details of this process for looking as two pieces of clay, and I am supposed to believe it can be successfully applied to DNA?
And there isn't any evidence to support the claim that a designer is unnecessary.
If we have a natural path for a given construct to occur, then no designer is needed.
Dr Spetner has such a list in his book "Not By Chance".
Name three, then.
Yes it can.
Desing is compatible with any type of data found, so data can not offer it support nor refute it.
BTW what happens if neither piece of dried clay is smooth, yet one is definitely designed?
Then we have no way to distinguish them.
Designers need not tend towards the simple.
However, they almost always do.
So designers dry their clays supernaturally?
If you prefer, non-telically.
At 4:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Observation and testing of what features of the dried clay?
Whatever features we think are not or cannot be produced by nature,operating freely.
That along with the context in which they were found.
Investigations of this sort are open.
Science is not done in the structured manner you seem to think.
I understand it well enough that I am not fooled by your attempt to give an objective name to a determination made by analogy.
And I am not fooled by your attempt to label all knowldge an analogy.
You can't even support your claim that design detection is done via analogy.
Your arguments are laughable and incoherent.
To you, probably.
However what I offer is the way it is done.
Go figure.
In the case of clay IDists would use the SAME methodology as forensic science and archaeologists use- we try to determine what can account for it- reducibility.
As always, you fail to give a single measurement to take.
REDUCIBILITY is a measurement process.
We measure what it takes to produce it.
You could always just admit their is no known way to tell from the clay itself that one piece was shaped by design, the other not, if you can't think of a way to tell.
There may not be any way to tell.
However the methodology I described would be the way the investigation would go.
You have just described counterflow.
Yes, and I used a comparison to what humans tyupically make, i.e., analogy.
Yes, as I have said for years counterflow relies on our knowledge of what agencies can do coupled with the knowledge of what nature, operating freely can do.
You call that "analogy". I call it knowledge.
Yet, you can't give the details of this process for looking as two pieces of clay, and I am supposed to believe it can be successfully applied to DNA?
Details differ in every situation.
Processes are different too.
Also looking for counterflow, if you understand it, is the process.
That you choose willfull ignorance is not a refutation of the concept.
And there isn't any evidence to support the claim that a designer is unnecessary.
If we have a natural path for a given construct to occur, then no designer is needed.
So designers are supernatural?
The path to get a car is supernatural?
But I do agree if an undirected path is found then a designer is not required.
However that has not happened with the universe, nor living organisms.
IOW it is a belief.
Dr Spetner has such a list in his book "Not By Chance".
Name three, then.
Read the book then.
Yes it can.
Desing is compatible with any type of data found
That is false. YOU just said what kind of data would refute it- showing thta a designer is not required.
, so data can not offer it support nor refute it.
You are so wrong.
The data to support it has been found and presented.
However no data has been found nor presented to refute it.
BTW what happens if neither piece of dried clay is smooth, yet one is definitely designed?
Then we have no way to distinguish them.
That could be but it is no reason to just give up.
I am sure there could be other signs of counterflow.
Ya see I have done this sort of thing before- archaeological digs, tracking and hunting, etc.
Designers need not tend towards the simple.
However, they almost always do.
They don't have to.
So designers dry their clays supernaturally?
If you prefer, non-telically.
I am pretty sure they have a purpose, but tat's not the point.
YOU said that naturally dried clay cracks.
So how do designers dry their clay?
IOW support your dumbass claim.
At 6:01 PM,
One Brow said…
Whatever features we think are not or cannot be produced by nature,operating freely.
So, we use our knowledge of previously discovered clay pieces, and by analogy apply that knowledge to these clay pieces, as I have said, and you have denied.
And I am not fooled by your attempt to label all knowldge an analogy.
Not all knowledge, just knowledge of what is designed.
You can't even support your claim that design detection is done via analogy.
You can't even list one method of design detection used that is non-analogous.
To you, probably.
Laughable to me, but incoherence is an internal property to them.
REDUCIBILITY is a measurement process.
We measure what it takes to produce it.
By which you mean, 'How would humans produce this?'. Knowledge used analogously.
You call that "analogy". I call it knowledge.
Knowledge is the data, analogy is the method of applying it.
That you choose willfull ignorance is not a refutation of the concept.
Your inability to coherently explaing your conceptand refuasl to acknowledge the word accurately descibing it is the refutation.
But I do agree if an undirected path is found then a designer is not required.
However that has not happened with the universe, nor living organisms.
Or, when such a path is presented, the response is 'not demonstrated enough'.
Read the book then.
If you can list three causes of mutation in the book that are not mentioned in the article and are directed by the organism, I will read the book cover-to-cover. Of course, if they are not really there, I'll come back and note you lied.
That is false. YOU just said what kind of data would refute it- showing thta a designer is not required.
As you have acknowleded already, a designer can imitate non-design so well we can't detect it. If I show you some rocks at teh bottom of a cliff, maybe I moved them around and maybe not. Maybe I moved them and you can tell I moved them, maybe you can't. Saying that's it's possible the rocks fell that way is not proof I did not move them. Saying a designer is not needed does *not* refute the existence of a designer.
The data to support it has been found and presented.
So you wish to believe.
Ya see I have done this sort of thing before- archaeological digs, tracking and hunting, etc.
I didn't know that. It makes your inability to find a non-analogous method of design detection all the more revealing.
So how do designers dry their clay?
Over a source of heat, such as a fire, I would presume. However, if you have greater expertise from archeological digs, what did you find they used before there were kilns?
At 6:36 PM,
Joe G said…
So, we use our knowledge of previously discovered clay pieces, and by analogy apply that knowledge to these clay pieces, as I have said, and you have denied.
Knowledge isn't an analogy.
We use our knowledge of what designing agencies can do coupled with the knowledge of what nature, operating freely can do.
I don't think that is caled "via analogy".
Not all knowledge, just knowledge of what is designed.
Yet you cannot provide a reference to support your position.
You can't even support your claim that design detection is done via analogy.
You can't even list one method of design detection used that is non-analogous.
To you EVERYTHING is an analogy.
But you are not an expert nor an authority.
REDUCIBILITY is a measurement process.
We measure what it takes to produce it.
By which you mean, 'How would humans produce this?'.
Assholes don't get to tell me what I mean.
I don't think that humans could produce a spider web, nor a termite mound.
The point is to see if it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
OR is something else required. Then we figure out what else is required.
Basic stuff actually.
That you appear ignorant of it is very laughable indeed.
But I do agree if an undirected path is found then a designer is not required.
However that has not happened with the universe, nor living organisms.
Or, when such a path is presented, the response is 'not demonstrated enough'.
Presentations of imaginary tales need not apply- that is true.
Scientific DEMONSTRATIONS are always welcome.
If you can list three causes of mutation in the book that are not mentioned in the article and are directed by the organism, I will read the book cover-to-cover. Of course, if they are not really there, I'll come back and note you lied.
Look if you want to argue from ignorance that is fine.
Assholes usually do.
Why bother actaully learning what it is you are arguing against when you can just invent strawman after strawman and then act all obtuse as if the ignorance is meaningful.
Saying a designer is not needed does *not* refute the existence of a designer.
Once the requirement is gone that is all that has to be done to refute the design inference.
ID says there is a requirement.
The data to support it has been found and presented.
So you wish to believe.
No belief required. No wishing required either.
Ya see I have done this sort of thing before- archaeological digs, tracking and hunting, etc.
I didn't know that. It makes your inability to find a non-analogous method of design detection all the more revealing.
As I said you see analogies where none exist.
So how do designers dry their clay?
Over a source of heat, such as a fire, I would presume.
You PRESUME?
I am talking about DRYING- not firing.
We were talking about two dried clay pieces.
You said that drying naturally cracks the clay.
Drying by a fire would be natural.
You are so confused you can't even follow your own twisted story.
However, if you have greater expertise from archeological digs, what did you find they used before there were kilns?
Not what I was doing nor looking for.
At 12:08 PM,
One Brow said…
Knowledge isn't an analogy.
The way you are applyng it is.
I don't think that is caled "via analogy".
Pick another term if you like. It's still using the work of other designers to determine what is designed, and it doesn't work for biological systems, because we have no designed biological systems.
To you EVERYTHING is an analogy.
Measuring the wavelenght of light is not anaolgy. Checking the amount of precipitate is not an analogy.
Looking at a stone, seeing a specific patern of chip marks, and saying that it looks like the chip marks made by someone with a certain type of rock who wanted to use it for hunting is an analogy (or any other word youcare to use for relying on previous designs to make design determinations).
I don't think that humans could produce a spider web, nor a termite mound.
I have no problem to expanding my statement to 'How would some other organism I am familiar with produce this?'.
The point is to see if it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
Spiders are not reducible to matter, energy, chance, and necessity?
Presentations of imaginary tales need not apply- that is true.
Scientific DEMONSTRATIONS are always welcome.
I have seen the goalposts moved too many times by too many people to take this claim seriously.
Look if you want to argue from ignorance that is fine.
I engage in efforts I expect some sortof return from. Right now, I have no expectation of a return from reading Spetner's book, and I'm asking you toprovide one. If you can't, fine.
Why bother actaully learning what it is you are arguing against when you can just invent strawman after strawman and then act all obtuse as if the ignorance is meaningful.
I ask questions to learn things. I have learned much from our exchange already.
Once the requirement is gone that is all that has to be done to refute the design inference.
Even then the designer is not disproven.
You PRESUME?
I got what I needed from the example, despite its flaws. You replies showed you relied on previous knowledge of human designs.
At 2:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Knowledge isn't an analogy.
The way you are applyng it is.
Nope, that is not what I am doing.
And I am pretty sure you don't know what you are talking about.
I go by observations, experience and testing.
It's still using the work of other designers to determine what is designed,
It is using the knowledge of what agencies can do COUPLED with the knowledge of what nature, operating freely can/ can't do.
So yes making scientific determinations require KNOWLEDGE and the ability to test your findings.
and it doesn't work for biological systems, because we have no designed biological systems.
Yes we do- Genetic engineering.
What we don't have is any data that demonstrates nature, operating freely can do such a thing- but we have the data that shows only life begets life.
Looking at a stone, seeing a specific patern of chip marks, and saying that it looks like the chip marks made by someone with a certain type of rock who wanted to use it for hunting is an analogy (or any other word youcare to use for relying on previous designs to make design determinations).
I have never seen anyone using stone tools.
Yet I could recognize counterflow in a stone if it was present.
There was a show on the Discovery channel in which they were looking for bigfoot.
There was an anthropologist and a tracker out in the woods.
They came across a downed tree positioned just so between a fork in another tree.
Almost immediately the scientist says that nature didn't do that by herself.
Now it could ahve been that some hunters- had to be more than one- made a shelter. But the tracker didn't recognize it as such.
Analogy isn't the only way to detect/ determine design.
I take it that is why you refuse to post a reference- it doesn't exist.
Spiders are not reducible to matter, energy, chance, and necessity?
That's the BIG question, isn't it?
There isn't any evidence that they are.
There isn't any evidence life is so reducible.
Scientific DEMONSTRATIONS are always welcome.
I have seen the goalposts moved too many times by too many people to take this claim seriously.
People like you always move the goalposts. Not my problem.
I engage in efforts I expect some sortof return from. Right now, I have no expectation of a return from reading Spetner's book, and I'm asking you toprovide one. If you can't, fine.
I just think it is funny that you think it is OK to argue from ignorance.
You keep saying that non one has presented this or that, yet it has been presented.
Once the requirement is gone that is all that has to be done to refute the design inference.
Even then the designer is not disproven.
Science is not about proving or disproving.
The best we can do is see what is required and go from there.
You replies showed you relied on previous knowledge of human designs.
It requires knowledge of what designing agencies can do COUPLED WITH the knowledge of what nature, operating freely, can do.
All of this is in ID literature- how to detect design, etc.
At 9:24 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW One Brow- correlation should not be confused with analogy.
At 12:11 PM,
One Brow said…
BTW One Brow- correlation should not be confused with analogy.
If you prefer that term, fine. The process is unchanged.
It is using the knowledge of what agencies can do COUPLED with the knowledge of what nature, operating freely can/ can't do.
Humans are not natural? They don't operate freely? You have turned that sort of quesiton on my often enough.
Also, you seem to talk a lot about what non-telic forces *can* do, but there is no line to be drawn. Anything that can be done telically by natural creature can be done non-telically. Many of those things would be highly unusual occurences, though.
Yes we do- Genetic engineering.
This is begging the quesiton. You are tying to say the system that genetic engineering relies upon was designed, so genetic engineering itself offers no proof of design.
Of course, you could mean the patterns of code used in genetic engineering, but that does help you. For example, engineered genes, last I heard, don't have introns.
What we don't have is any data that demonstrates nature, operating freely can do such a thing- but we have the data that shows only life begets life.
In the presence of life, only life begets life.
I have never seen anyone using stone tools.
They are not unknown in modern times.
Yet I could recognize counterflow in a stone if it was present.
By identifying the correlaiton to what you would expect a human to do.
They came across a downed tree positioned just so between a fork in another tree.
Almost immediately the scientist says that nature didn't do that by herself.
Something in nature would prevent one tree from falling into the fork of another tree? With all the trees that fall in an unguided fashion every year, this claim strikes me as ludicrous.
Spiders are not reducible to matter, energy, chance, and necessity?
That's the BIG question, isn't it?
There isn't any evidence that they are.
What else goes into them? Do you thinks spiders have a soul or a spirit (or just spirit)?
I just think it is funny that you think it is OK to argue from ignorance.
Whatever my ignorance level would be, I am asking you for evidence it would be changed. Rather than offer such evidence, you try to cast my position megatively. It's cheap tactic. So cheap, that my presumption is that you don't have additional mutational causes to pull out of Sptener's book, but are sufficiently subject to embarrassment that you will not acknowledge this nor continue further in a misstatement until it become easily disprovable.
You keep saying that non one has presented this or that, yet it has been presented.
Not with regard to the additonal mutational mechanisms supposedly present in Spetner's book.
It requires knowledge of what designing agencies can do COUPLED WITH the knowledge of what nature, operating freely, can do.
I have recognized all along that correlation to previous design is the primary method.
At 9:02 PM,
Joe G said…
It is using the knowledge of what agencies can do COUPLED with the knowledge of what nature, operating freely can/ can't do.
Humans are not natural?
That has nothing to do with what I said.
Humans are not nature, operating freely.
Humans are agencies.
Humans can build cars- nature, operating freely, cannot.
Anything that can be done telically by natural creature can be done non-telically.
Not by nature, operating freely.
Nature, oerating freely is very limited.
And nature, operating freely cannot account for the origin of nature.
So there youi are back to the point you keep ignoring.
Why is it that you keep ignoring that simple and basic fact?
and it doesn't work for biological systems, because we have no designed biological systems.
Yes we do- Genetic engineering.
You are tying to say the system that genetic engineering relies upon was designed, so genetic engineering itself offers no proof of design.
No, that is wrong.
And stop telling me what I am trying to say- tat is unless you are trying to say that you are an asshole.
My point is that we have direct observational evidence of designed biological systems.
That refutes your claim.
For example, engineered genes, last I heard, don't have introns.
Irrelevant and introns and spliceosomes are evidence for design- alternative gene splicing.
In the presence of life, only life begets life.
There isn't any evidence that non-living matter can give rise to living organisms without agency involvement- ie life.
Yet I could recognize counterflow in a stone if it was present.
By identifying the correlaiton to what you would expect a human to do.
Nope. You don't get to tell me what I would do.
I would look for things I wouldn't expect nature, operating freely to do.
They came across a downed tree positioned just so between a fork in another tree.
Almost immediately the scientist says that nature didn't do that by herself.
Something in nature would prevent one tree from falling into the fork of another tree?
Not like this.
Ya see the felled tree wasn't from nearby. That is close enough to where it could have just fallen like that.
Also your reaction was the same as mine.
I sat there and said "you had better splain that inference"- and he did.
IOW he just didn't say it out of the blue and then just leave it there.
What else goes into them? Do you thinks spiders have a soul or a spirit (or just spirit)?
Information and life.
This is the crux of the debate- that living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
Information is not so reducible.
So to refute ID all one has to do is DEMONSTRATE they are so reducible.
As for Dr Spetner- look I don't care if you read the book or not.
I just think it's funny that you think it's OK to argue against something that you obviously know very little about.
It requires knowledge of what designing agencies can do COUPLED WITH the knowledge of what nature, operating freely, can do.
I have recognized all along that correlation to previous design is the primary method.
Except tat isn't what I just stated.
Perhaps you should go back to school and take a reading comprehension course.
At 12:41 PM,
One Brow said…
JoeG,
Again, I'll just summarize instead of responding point-by-point.
First, I apologize for for saying that your were trying to say a particular thing. I will try to avoid that. However, it is nonetheless true that genetic engineering is not designed life, but rather an insertion of designed code into an existing organism whose design is the subject of dispute. It is still begging the question to try to use genetic engineering as a comparison for biology when genetic engineering relies on that biology. When scientists create an entirely from-scratch life form, you will have a basis for comparison. However, there is one way in which the contents of the DNA code for genetically engineered genes are not subject to the limitations of the lifeforms in which they are inserted: the sequence itself is designed by humans. There is also at least major difference in the human-designed sequences versus those in life: human-designed sequences have no introns. No, spliceosomes are not evidence for design, they are the expected result of the jury-rigging we except as a result on non-telic evolution.
If humans are a part of nature, and they operate freely, how are humans not a part of nature operating freely? Also, how do yo know the limits of nature, operating non-telically? Your own experience can tell you that many different things are highly unusual, but there are no limits on what nature can possibly do. Nature can put a nut onto a bolt and tighten it, the sequence is merely so unusual that we seek to find other explanations.
I don't know that there is an origin to nature. There is an origin to our space-time continuum, but nature could well have existed before that.
Trees get tossed around in high winds. Again, there is nothing in nature that prevents a tossed tree from landing in the fork of another tree.
The information that the spider has is stored in a non-telic fashion, and "life" is very non-specific as a property.
You keep saying that if life were reducible to non-telic elements, that would refute ID. This is wrong, and I don't know any serious philosopher who thinks it is true. At most, it reuftes a few arguments favoring ID. You keep bypassing, rather than commenting, on the difference between the need for an ID versus the existence of an ID.
At 5:04 PM,
Joe G said…
However, it is nonetheless true that genetic engineering is not designed life, but rather an insertion of designed code into an existing organism whose design is the subject of dispute.
I am not using genetic engineering as an example of designed life.
I am using it to refute your claim:
and it doesn't work for biological systems, because we have no designed biological systems.
Don't move the goalpost from "systems" to "life".
There is also at least major difference in the human-designed sequences versus those in life: human-designed sequences have no introns.
That is because in order to incorporate introns one has to be able to insert the program that allows for their splicing.
No, spliceosomes are not evidence for design, they are the expected result of the jury-rigging we except as a result on non-telic evolution.
There aren't any expectations from non-telic evolution.
And editing is definitely evidence for telic processes.
Editing requires knowledge of what is and what should be.
If humans are a part of nature, and they operate freely, how are humans not a part of nature operating freely?
Again you twist the point.
I don't know if you are just obtuse or you are just dishonest.
We have a word called artifact that is used to differentiate between what nature, operatinmg freely can do and what agencies can do.
Also, how do yo know the limits of nature, operating non-telically?
All inferences are based on observations, experience and testing.
THAT is the whole point.
Yes future observartions, experiences and tests may over turn an inference, but they may also confirm it.
We make inferences based on our current knowledge.
I don't know that there is an origin to nature.There is an origin to our space-time continuum, but nature could well have existed before that.
That could well belong in a philosophy discussion.
Trees get tossed around in high winds. Again, there is nothing in nature that prevents a tossed tree from landing in the fork of another tree.
There was in my scenario.
The information that the spider has is stored in a non-telic fashion,
Bald assertion- there isn't any evidence non-telic processes can produce information, never mind store it.
and "life" is very non-specific as a property.
Specific enough that we can test for its presence.
You keep saying that if life were reducible to non-telic elements, that would refute ID.
Actually all IDists say if living organisms can be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity, ID falls.
Remove the requirement for a designer and ID falls.
Dembski wouldn't have an argument.
Behe wouldn't have an argument.
Spetner wouldn't have an argument.
Meyer wouldn't have an argument.
AND all of their arguments would be refuted.
Just because you refuse to read what these guys say doesn't mean it isn't there for all to see.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
At 5:59 PM,
One Brow said…
Well, I'm going to go back to paragaph form, and try to reduce repetition by combining the two threads where we have been sharing ideas. If I don't see anything new from you, this is probably my last response in this thread.
Genetically engineered DNA is not a biological system, either. The system also includes the non-human-generated components like ribosomes, various sorts of RNA, etc. That's beside the point, though. In the only way it is possible for human-designed DNA to differ from non-human-designed, we find a very significant difference: a lack of introns. It isn't because their is no way to get them spliced out (we do know a lot about splicesomes). We could add them, we choose not to. So, in the one feature where we can make a comparison, our design choice does not look at all like the comparable non-human-designed biological feature. That means there is no comparison of the features of life that exist to any sort of designed features that is valid. I'm not even sure why you would argue that, since you think the comparision is relevant to design methodology.
You seem to think that we can set some very firm limits on what can and can not appear without a designer. The problem is that all the details you have offered so far, after you get past the terminilogy and into the details, rely on what designers have done in the past and the odd probability argument. when you discuss detecting counterflow, or the knowledge and experience to establish reducibility, correlation and probability are what you fall back to when pressed for details. If I sit down to a hand of bridge and pick up 13 hearts, my first inclination will be that someone stacked the deck, but these do appear on rare occasion even in computer-dealt tournaments. Improbability arguments are not proof of design. Nothing that can be given a non-zero probability is impossible. YOu can not prove that nature is incpable of constructing Stonehedge or any similar thing, you can only discredit the probability. This does not make it impossible.
As for the current sotrage of information in life, unless you beleive that there is some invisible hand active today controlling the creating of every living organism indiviually, the storage of the information present in any living thing, including spiders, occurs in nature operating without a designer. It's controlled by the chemical reactions of the DNA that guide storage and replicaiton processes, and we know the processes in great detail. It's one thing to argue that it required a designer to set up, but the actual operation certainly seems to be capable of operating with no designer.
At 5:59 PM,
One Brow said…
I have not read Spetner, so I won't pass any jusdements on him. I don't consider Dembski, Behe, or Meyer to be serious philosophers, and the ID positon is not the same thing as the political movement spearheaded by the DI. Even if all of them lose their arguments (given the non-scientific nature of ID, I find this unlikely), the designer themself is not refuted, and ultimately is not refutable regardless of evidence.
Your premises of ID contain an error in the 3rd item, because random naturalistic mechanisms actually tend to create maximal Komolgorov-Chaitan information and are also quite capable of generating irreducible complexity by a variety of mechanisms (two being coaption and scaffolding). Also, the first premise sets design as the initial choice for the CSI and IC despite there being numerous other sorts of possiblilities, as we have discussed. So, I don't see two of your three premises as being sustainable.
Your attempt to deny that natural selection is a mechanism is most amusing. First, you definition of 'mechanistic' could be applied to a rock, and I don't know anyone who calls rocks mechanistic. Second, your attempts to slide the combinations of processes into being a result is a category error. Processes are not results, and combining three processes still does produce a result. Natural selection is the resultant process that comes from the effects of three component processes, but it is not a result per se. A result would be akin to a fact, and natural selection is the wrong type of object to be a fact.
I took the effort to read Dembski's writings to the point I found three examples of his saying what a specification was, and all three relied on function or purpose. Conservapedia acknowledges this to be the case. As far as I am concerned, my homework here is done, and your claims something has been provided are specious. If you know of an example, say it.
Anything that is received has to have been sent. Received is more tha observed. In fact, I went to the trouble of providing an observation full of prime numbers that you ignored, because you don't think it is designed. So, when you say we are receiving prime numbers, we know they are designed even before the transmission is interpreted because we are receiving something.
At 8:54 PM,
Joe G said…
Genetically engineered DNA is not a biological system, either.
We have synthesized ribosomes.
Ribosomes are systems.
Not all protein coding sequences contain introns.
So even if it were just DNA there is still a direct correlation.
You seem to think that we can set some very firm limits on what can and can not appear without a designer.
We do so via observation, experience and testing.
IOW science.
The problem is that all the details you have offered so far, after you get past the terminilogy and into the details, rely on what designers have done in the past and the odd probability argument.
That is only because you refuse to read what I actually type.
It relies on TWO things- what agencies are capable of and what nature, operating freely is capable of.
Then we test.
We see what can account for it- again never in a vacuum.
That is why your clay example was so lame.
when you discuss detecting counterflow, or the knowledge and experience to establish reducibility, correlation and probability are what you fall back to when pressed for details.
Details change with the scenario.
Science isn't rigid.
And testing isn't falling back on probability. However to refute any design inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can account for it.
Ever watch "Ghost Hunters"?
That is how they debunk claims of ghosts- by showing what does/ can cause whatever is reported.
Sometimes they catch things that can't be explained and it ain't no human behind what they catch.
Improbability arguments are not proof of design.
I agree. Dembski says so too.
ID does not make that claim.
YOu can not prove that nature is incpable of constructing Stonehedge or any similar thing, you can only discredit the probability.
As I have been telling you for days science is NOT about proving.
And actually we can- with a very good degree of certainty.
We have some very good technology that allows us to so some pretty thorough investigations.
As for the current sotrage of information in life, unless you beleive that there is some invisible hand active today controlling the creating of every living organism indiviually, the storage of the information present in any living thing, including spiders, occurs in nature operating without a designer.
Nice strawman.
Of course teh storage occurs in nature. Organisms exist in nature.
That doesn't mean that nature, operating freely produced that storage system.
There isn't any evidence for such a thing.
It's controlled by the chemical reactions of the DNA that guide storage and replicaiton processes, and we know the processes in great detail.
It's controlled by software that directs the chemical reactions.
DNA is the hardware and contained in/ on it is the software that directs replication, gene formation, RNA formation, etc.
It's one thing to argue that it required a designer to set up, but the actual operation certainly seems to be capable of operating with no designer.
No one claims the designer is still required.
Of course this is a "hands-off" operation.
Set it and forget it.
At 9:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Even if all of them lose their arguments (given the non-scientific nature of ID, I find this unlikely), the designer themself is not refuted, and ultimately is not refutable regardless of evidence.
1- ID is based on observation and experience. It can be tested. What else does it require before being considered scientific?
2- ID is about the DESIGN, not the DESIGNER
3- ID says a DESIGNER is required therefor take away the requirement and ID falls.
Your premises of ID contain an error in the 3rd item, because random naturalistic mechanisms actually tend to create maximal Komolgorov-Chaitan information and are also quite capable of generating irreducible complexity by a variety of mechanisms (two being coaption and scaffolding).
That is the assertion anyway.
However there isn't any evidence for it.
Also, the first premise sets design as the initial choice for the CSI and IC despite there being numerous other sorts of possiblilities, as we have discussed.
The first premise is based on all of our knowledge.
All other "possibilities" have been found wanting.
Your attempt to deny that natural selection is a mechanism is most amusing.
I just said it was a result.
A claim I have supported.
Second, your attempts to slide the combinations of processes into being a result is a category error.
Professor Allen MacNeil (biology) of Cornell University did just that.
A college textbook did just that.
A university website on evolution did that also.
Processes are not results, and combining three processes still does produce a result.
I know processes are not results.
The fact is natural selection is the RESULT of THREE PROCESSES.
If an organism survives and it isn't because of one of those three processes it isn't natural selection.
Natural selection is the resultant process that comes from the effects of three component processes, but it is not a result per se.
I have provided three valid sources that say natural selection is a RESULT.
And until you can provide at least that many saying it ain't- fuck off loser.
And the following proves just how fucked you are:
Anything that is received has to have been sent. Received is more tha observed. In fact, I went to the trouble of providing an observation full of prime numbers that you ignored, because you don't think it is designed. So, when you say we are receiving prime numbers, we know they are designed even before the transmission is interpreted because we are receiving something.
Yet we received something when we first detected a pulsar.
You need serious help dude...
At 8:57 AM,
Joe G said…
mechanism:
: a process, technique, or system for achieving a result
The processes for natural selection are variation, heredity, differential reproduction.
At 12:11 PM,
One Brow said…
Well, there wasn’t much new there.
Functional ribosomes are brand-new, and not a part of any human-designed system yet. We don’t have a human-designed system (as opposed to humans adapting a previously existing system), so we can’t tell if current biological systems look like a designed system.
Since we agree that the current biological systems store information quite easily with telic guidance, and since your claim the telic influences are well in the past, there will never be a scientific test for these influences. ID won’t ever be science if this is the extent of what it can claim.
Sincfe 'receive' does have a minor usage similar to 'observe' or 'perceive', I suppose I go with your usage. I not you are still ignoring how we received all sorts of prime numbers from the constellation of Orion, yet no one attributes that to design. It seems you really don't believe your own argument after all.
Especially amusing in a person who so regularly complains about my understanding of English, you continue to confused the phras 'the result of' with the categorization of something as a result. Thanks for the laugh. Here’s a hint: results can be measured. For example, the change in allele frequency between populations at various times is a measurable result. Now, how do you measure natural selection?
However, since you have agreed processes are not results ("I know processes are not results."), and further offered that the primary definition of mechanism is 'a process' I’m happy to sign off by providing a few sources saying that natural selection is indeed a mechanism or a process. Let me know how many more you would like.
"Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
"Natural selection is the primary mechanism within the scientific theory of evolution, i.e. it alters the frequency of alleles within a population."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Natural_selection
"Natural selection is the process by which biological organisms with favorable traits survive and reproduce more successfully than organisms that do not possess such traits, and, conversely, organisms with deleterious traits survive and reproduce less successfully than organisms lacking such deleterious traits."
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Natural_selection
"The process of natural selection requires 3 ingredients, 1) variation, 2) a struggle for survival, and 3) survival of the fittest."
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/esp/2001_gbio/folder_structure/ev/m2/s1/
"Natural selection is a process of non-random events (selection) working on random events (mutations), resulting in the production of complex systems (new species)."
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chaos.html
Here's a couple you will probably find more compatible in overall view-point:
"Natural Selection: the process by which individuals possessing a set of traits that confer a survival advantage in a given environment tend to leave more offspring on average that survive to reproduce in the next generation."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution
While discussing natural selection:
"However, no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another species."
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms01.html
At 12:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Functional ribosomes are brand-new, and not a part of any human-designed system yet.
Ribosomes are a biological system.
Since we agree that the current biological systems store information quite easily with telic guidance, and since your claim the telic influences are well in the past, there will never be a scientific test for these influences.
Actually there is.
I not you are still ignoring how we received all sorts of prime numbers from the constellation of Orion, yet no one attributes that to design.
No I am laughing at your "example", not ignoring it.
Now, how do you measure natural selection?
Are you saying that natural selection is not a scientific premise?
LoL!!!
The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations would be a good paper to start with.
Natural selection:
Wikipedia is not a valid reference.
The only one that may be valid is the Indiana.edu link.
At 2:43 PM,
Joe G said…
"The process of natural selection requires 3 ingredients, 1) variation, 2) a struggle for survival, and 3) survival of the fittest."
1- Variation without inheritance is useless to "evolution".
2) What struggle for survival?
3- The fittest are those who have the most offspring. IOW it is an post-hoc designation.
All-in-all a very useless and misleading reference.
At 3:00 PM,
One Brow said…
The ribosomes themselves are not like biological ribosomes, and not part of some larger human-designed living thing. So, they are still not a good basis for comparison. If they were, their greatly improved efficiency over the ribosomes found in nature would be arguments against the design of the latter.
I'm surprised you rejected the New world Encyclopeida as an authoritative source, since you have used it yourself. Further, to claim that the McGraw-Hill Textbook is not authoritative is mere hypocrisy when you offer a partial, unlinked quote from a textbook yourself.
However, since you take the Berkeley website as authoritative:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_16
"Each of these four processes is a basic mechanism of evolutionary change.
Mutation
...
Migration
...
Genetic drift
...
Natural selection"
That not only adds the Berkely website to my side of the ledger, it removes it from your side.
Hey, how about one quote that says natural selection is not a process? How about one that says the result of processes can't also be a process? How about just admitting you were wrong? Or, you could just ignore all this.
I am glad you are laughing at the notion that receiving a lot of primes is in and of itself proof of design. I already knew that was stupid.
No, not every scientific premise is measurable. In fact, in general theories, processes, and hypotheses are not measurable. You can only measure their effects, the differences they make after being applied.
At 3:19 PM,
Joe G said…
The ribosomes themselves are not like biological ribosomes, and not part of some larger human-designed living thing.
They don't have to be part of some larger human-designed living thing.
And the synthesized ribosomes are not only just like biological ribosomes, they are biological ribosomes.
And they produce proteins!
So, they are still not a good basis for comparison.
Not good for you because they refute your nonsense and give design a perfect analogy.
If they were, their greatly improved efficiency over the ribosomes found in nature would be arguments against the design of the latter.
"Efficiency" was never a requirement.
IOW you are running all over the place with the goalpost.
As for natural selection all I said was that it is a result.
I have supported that claim.
So what exactly was I wrong about?
Is the fact that evolutionists can switch things as they please really helping your case?
I am glad you are laughing at the notion that receiving a lot of primes is in and of itself proof of design.
That is not what I am laughing at.
I am laughing at your lame attempt of an example using Orion.
No, not every scientific premise is measurable.
Then how is it tested?
In fact, in general theories, processes, and hypotheses are not measurable.
Any examples of processes that are not measureable?
How do you know how far along the process you are?
How do you know when it is finished?
At 3:36 PM,
Joe G said…
How the natural selection "discussion" started:
OneBrow
Natural selection indicates there is, since it weeds out the errors.
1- Natural selection is a RESULT- it doesn't do anything.
From that:
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.
I then offer three references.
From one college textbook we also have:
3. Natural selection is the outcome of differences in survival and reproduction among variant individuals in a given generation.
The book is Biology: concepts and applications Starr fifth edition page 11 (2003)
At 4:16 PM,
Joe G said…
And as far as natural selection is concerned, is there any evidence that natural selection can "produce" anything more than a wobbling stability?
Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.
Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.
It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary. geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti.
At 2:45 PM,
One Brow said…
Just like with human-coded DNA, human-built ribosomes are designed to function in an existing biological system, so they mimic all the needed machinery for this. Also, just like with human-coded DNA, in the ways that they can operate differently, they operate very differently, with a marked increase in efficiency. So far, every version of human-designed biological construction has been more efficient than what has occured prior to human designs, using the same supporting machinery. If you think life is designed, it seems clear the designer is less competent than humans, so far. Otherwise, human-designed structures don't argue for the other structue to be designed.
I agree that any attempt to claim the observation of primes indicates design is lame.
You have said natrual selection is a result. You have also said results are not processes. The conclusion of those two statements is 'natural selection is not a process'. However, the evidence is quite clear natural selection is a process, so one of your initial two statements was incorrect. I really don't care which one you select, as I am flexible enoughto adopt which consistently applied language choice you require.
Scientific hypothesis and theories are tested by their ability to predict observations during experiements. It is the end product that is measurable, not the hypothesis or theory. As for knowing when to end an experiment, you do that from pre-determined starting conditions, not based on whether some process has finished, if it ever finishes. For example, in an experiment on natural selection you might run it for x number of generations or y number of years, until you see a difference of z in the percentage compsition of a certain allele, or any number of other factors. You don't just wait for natural selection to stop.
Processes don't have to be active causal agents. In fact, of the three processes that go into natural selection (variation, inheritance, fecundity) none is a causitive agent per se; all are descriptions of the effects of causitive agents. While I'm sure your quotes are genuine quotes from the text, in light of how incorrect you portrayal of the Berkeley web site was, I can't place any credence in any quotea you offer that are not verifiable on-line. Even then, there was nothing in the quote you offered that denied natural selection was a process.
As far as the limits of what natural selection can produce, the main difference between natural and artificial selection is the environmental pressure. Unless there has been a rapid change, animals under natural selection are already well-adapted for their environment, so we would not expect to see major changes, although we do see evolutionary arms races (faster prey leading to faster predator leading to faster prey, etc.). I don't think the horse will be returning to knee-high size anytime soon, nor will whales be walking on land again (though dolphins might). So, I think any claims that natural selection can only preserve a norm are based on observations where teh norm has the best advantage, and not on the inherent limitations of natural selection.
At 3:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Just like with human-coded DNA, human-built ribosomes are designed to function in an existing biological system, so they mimic all the needed machinery for this.
So what?
So far, every version of human-designed biological construction has been more efficient than what has occured prior to human designs, using the same supporting machinery.
Evidence please.
If you think life is designed, it seems clear the designer is less competent than humans, so far.
Not at all. Ya see for one we are looking at the result of many, many generations AFTER the desiggn event.
IOW what we observe today is the result of random effects on the original design.
Otherwise, human-designed structures don't argue for the other structue to be designed.
Using your "logic" they do.
I agree that any attempt to claim the observation of primes indicates design is lame.
Who are you agreeing with?
You have said natrual selection is a result.
Allen MacNeill, professor of biology at Cornell University, has said NS is a result.
A biology textbook has also made the same claim.
I look at the evidence and agree with both of them.
You have also said results are not processes.
A process is a way to get a result.
However, the evidence is quite clear natural selection is a process, so one of your initial two statements was incorrect.
The evidence says natural selection is the result of three processes- variation, differential reproduction, and heredity.
Processes don't have to be active causal agents.
I know that. So what?
Even then, there was nothing in the quote you offered that denied natural selection was a process.
Explain how a result can be a process.
As far as the limits of what natural selection can produce, the main difference between natural and artificial selection is the environmental pressure.
The limits of NS are observed in nature and in labs.
It just doesn't "do" very much.
As a matter of fact if you read the paper I cited about the strength of selection you will see it is almost meaningless.
Also the "faster prey" is BS.
Ya see the fastest zebra would be the first to the lioness' ambush.
Behaviour trumps genetics.
And in the end you still don't have anything scientific.
The theory of evolution doesn't make any predictions based on the proposed mechanisms.
At 7:33 PM,
One Brow said…
I was agreeing with you that observing a bunch of primes is not an indication of design.
Human-constructed DNA has no introns. Human-constructed ribosomes are faster than the non-human-designed. Human designs are more efficient. You have no evidence that the non-human-designed systems used to be more efficient than they are today.
Not one of your references has said natural selection is 'a result', only "the result of" other processes. None have said natural selection is not a process. As I said, one of your two statements is wrong.
Not all predators set ambushes, and the prey that has such a predator simply adapts in a different way. I also see you just ignored how whales are not going to be land animals anytie soon and similar situations. Your paper doesn't hold water.
At 10:46 PM,
Joe G said…
I was agreeing with you that observing a bunch of primes is not an indication of design.
I never said that, so you cannot be agreeing with me.
I said YOUR example was laughable.
My apologies if I wasn't clear.
So I will say it agin:
RECEIVING a set of prime numbers would be indicative of design.
Constructing a set may not be.
Human-constructed DNA has no introns.
Therefor nor altertanive gene splicing- IOW a very simplified form. Duh.
But we try- analogies are not direct correlations.
That you keep running around with the goalpost is amusing though.
You have no evidence that the non-human-designed systems used to be more efficient than they are today.
I know what random effects can do to a design. And I know that random effects exist in biological syetems.
Not one of your references has said natural selection is 'a result', only "the result of" other processes.
Umm, if it is a result it is a result of something.
Look at UC Berkley's site- it has an equation:
Variation + differential reproduction + heredity = natural selection
Variation is the RESULT of mutation(s) (and/ or epigenetic triggers).
Differential reproduction is the RESULT of having more viable offspring.
Heredity is the RESULT of getting your parents' DNA.
None have said natural selection is not a process.
How can a result be a process?
Don't avoid the question, answer it.
Not all predators set ambushes, and the prey that has such a predator simply adapts in a different way.
Not one "arms race" has changed the form of the organism. Not one.
Again all "arms races" fall well within the wobbling stability paradigm.
I also see you just ignored how whales are not going to be land animals anytie soon and similar situations.
Whales have always been whales.
There isn't any evidence they "evolved" from land animals.
Your paper doesn't hold water.
You didn't read the paper. You don't have any idea what is about.
However it is peer-reviewed therefor science says it does hold water.
I care about science not some anonymous ignorant fuck.
At 10:50 AM,
One Brow said…
You'll have to differentiate between receiving a set of primes and constructing a set of primes, then, and in a way that does not involve the set of primes having a sender (since you denied that is what you meant). Because I don't see your difference.
Yes, simplicity is often a hallmark of design.
Even if the biological systems were designed, that still is not evidence they were designed more efficiently in the past. You have none, period, for that.
Horses today are not within the paradigm of the early equines. Still, if you deny things like whale evolving from land animals, that puts your thoughts in a different light.
At 11:17 AM,
Joe G said…
You'll have to differentiate between receiving a set of primes and constructing a set of primes, then, and in a way that does not involve the set of primes having a sender (since you denied that is what you meant). Because I don't see your difference.
What you see is irrelevant.
If SETI received a set of prime numbers- that is their equipment picked it up- it would be deemed from an intelligent source regardless if it was a narrow-band signal or not.
And if someone said they looked at Orion and saw a set of prime numbers it would be up to them to demonstrate that.
With the SETI example it would be observed by anyone and everyone listening.
With Orion it is only in one person's mind.
Yes, simplicity is often a hallmark of design.
Except when it isn't.
Even if the biological systems were designed, that still is not evidence they were designed more efficiently in the past.
I never said it was such evidence.
However, as I said we know random effects exist and that they are usually detrimental to designs.
A brand new computer works better than a computer that has had years of viral attacks, wear-n-tear and user abuse.
Horses today are not within the paradigm of the early equines.
The alleged evolution of the horse has been found wanting.
Still, if you deny things like whale evolving from land animals, that puts your thoughts in a different light.
I don't deny it.
There isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates such a transformation is even possible.
My thoughts always reside with the scientific evidence.
And I was an evolutionist- blind watchmaker style (evolution #6)- until I had a closer look at the "science".
At 12:00 PM,
One Brow said…
If SETI received a transmission of prines, it would be a along a radio signal, and thus have been sent by source. Further, the primes would have to be demonstrated in such a signal just like they would have to be demonstrated in the case of Orion. In either case, there needs to be an interpretation of the basic observation.
We have no evidence that ribosomes were initially designed, whereas we know computers are.
Yes, I'm sure you think any short of a blow-by-blow account is wanting.
Well, I think I've learned about all I can from this thread. Enjoy.
At 2:42 PM,
Joe G said…
If SETI received a transmission of prines, it would be a along a radio signal, and thus have been sent by source.
Pulsars are a source.
Further, the primes would have to be demonstrated in such a signal just like they would have to be demonstrated in the case of Orion.
Your Orion "example" exists only in your head.
We have no evidence that ribosomes were initially designed, whereas we know computers are.
We have an analogy between the ribosomes in living organisms and the synthesized ribosomes.
According to you that is all we need.
Yes, I'm sure you think any short of a blow-by-blow account is wanting.
You are surely wrong.
But then again that doesn't seem to matter to you.
At 11:16 PM,
Unknown said…
Ok. how can we be darwinism. when you type 0f people think we came from a animal... think about it if we came from a monkey, ape or what ever. why are their still apes, and other monkeys around why havnt they changed yet if it was. Billion of years ago you say but let me ask you anti id people.. you can go bak decades million or billion of years ago so let me ask you why is technology advancing so slowly . if we wer billion of Years ago did we have the same technolog long ago Billion of yearz ago. Why does it take billion of years to to get this type of technology nobody talkes tech only evolution which is stupid READ THE BIBLE KJV SATIN IS INPRISION FOR 2,000 YEARS SO ITS 2014 14YRS AFTER SO THINK ABOUT IT SATIN IS FREE
Post a Comment
<< Home