Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Analyzing Intelligent Design {a structural construction of ID theory}
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 99 (208262)
05-14-2005 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by EZscience
05-14-2005 9:53 PM


Re: Jerry's Lament
quote:
which >95 % of actual biologists will claim is founded on Darwinian ToE.
Myth, I'm afraid. I minored in the subject in college and don't even remember discussing Darwin outside of genetics and evolution class. But did you know that 95% of the science you use in the lab today was brought to you by teleologists? IDists? How do you get away from this inescapable fact?
Doesn't it bother you that I have mathematically backed up every assertion I have made in this forum since I've been in here when asked to do so and that you cannot back anything up mathematically in Darwinism?
People can see this! And this is exactly why the Darwinists would not agree to testify this year in your home state. They knew they were trounced before they even started that debate.
quote:
Why does this concept seem to disturb you so much
It disturbs me because you will not teach it like that. Instead of teaching the truth to our children and allowing them to decide for themselves, science teachers are simply propagandizing them.
quote:
It has been explained in numerous threads that it is unreasonable to expect empirical testing of historical events in 'real' time . Get 'real' Jerry
Then don't call it a theory and pretend that it has been taken through the method as one. ID doesn't pretend to be a theory, neither should Darwinism. How is that for, 'real.'
quote:
Maybe you would feel more comfortable with a world-class cladogram of insects 'morphing' into winged and wingless forms back and forth again?
No. I wouldn't surprise to see that anymore than drisophila morphing back and forth between 2 and 4 wings when irradiated. I have done that myself.
quote:
We are are still waiting with baited breath for Inference No. 1 from ID theory.
Well, I've already thrown out 3 that I can think of and there are a ton more. Here they are abbreviated:
1) When loose information is spontaneously diffused, entropy will tend to increase.
2) Specificity is inversely proportional to the probability of an event occurring.
3) DNA must be designed by an intelligent agent or by code pre-programmed designed by an intelligent agent.
Now your turn.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by EZscience, posted 05-14-2005 9:53 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 11:26 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 94 by EZscience, posted 05-15-2005 7:54 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 05-15-2005 10:05 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 99 (208266)
05-14-2005 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-14-2005 11:11 PM


Re: Jerry's Lament
quote:
People can see this!
Yes we can Jerry.
Well, those of us who realize that the philosophy of Darwinism doesn't add up to the sum of Human experience - that we, the Human Race, are more than merely the sum of our 'evolved' parts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 11:11 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 99 (208270)
05-14-2005 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by mick
05-14-2005 10:11 PM


Re: Topic Drift and Forum Guidelines Alert
quote:
You are right to say that there is no Darwinist biology. Darwinism is a product of biology, and it is a product of the scientific method. It is not something external to biology that was forced upon the natural world. The Darwinian theories were developed by scientists who examined the natural world, and tried to come up with a theory to explain what they saw.
Then I can extrapolate that to ID as well. We don't make up what we see in biology, we let the chips fall where they may and just seem to have honed in on some areas of biology you guys have either missed or ignored. No, it's not ID biology at this point, it is still just biology.
But when are you to the point that you are willing to admit that 19th century thinking is no longer compatible with biology in the new millennium? When does a theory that never quite reached the theory level to begin with, become a discard of science due to lack of evidence? ID is here now; and it works. Investigate what you will about it, understand it may not be the religion you all thought it was before I came in here, and look at it with an open mind. But be careful because it will suck you in like it did me if you even make a tiny effort to be objective.
quote:
Darwinism just happens to be the theory of choice within biology, because it seems to work pretty well. There may be alternative theories, but they aren't as good. There is no such thing as Darwinist biology, because Darwinism was created by biologists and only exists in the framework of the scientific method. I'm sure I don't have to repeat this, but "Darwinism is a theory, and not a fact". It is a scientific theory that may or may not be an accurate description of nature.
In this respect, ID (in its contemporary incarnation as described, for example, by the discovery institute) is very different to Darwinism.
The kind of ID that is promoted by the discovery institute is NOT a product of biology, and it is NOT a product of the scientific method. ID is something external to biology and science that has been forced upon the natural world by non-scientists who have their own political and religious agenca. ID is not the theory of choice in biology, because it doesn't perform very well.
Well, I don't know that much about the Discovery Institute but they don't speak for me. The ID that I promote is a product of science because there is not a tenet of it not based on math and/or science and you cannot produce a single snippet of anything I have posted here that even remotely could qualify as a religious teaching.
How will you deal with that? You can see for yourselves that the schools aren't dealing with it very well as the public demands that this be taught as science and no one can seem to fine a legitimate reason it is NOT science.
Finally, Darwinism is the majority because it has been around for a 150 years. ID is brand new in its present time and we are making remarkable inroads in persuading logical people that this is where the truth lies in science.
You have seen right here in this forum that I have taken on many PhDs in science from many different areas and who is it still standing.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by mick, posted 05-14-2005 10:11 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by mick, posted 05-15-2005 2:50 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 98 by Brad McFall, posted 05-23-2005 7:22 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 94 of 99 (208316)
05-15-2005 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-14-2005 11:11 PM


Jerry's Inferences from ID
jdb writes:
did you know that 95% of the science you use in the lab today was brought to you by teleologists? IDists? How do you get away from this inescapable fact?
I don't need to 'get away' from it.
Belief in a God or teleological forces doesn't prevent you from doing science. But the belief is not essential, or even relevant, to the science itself.
jdb writes:
1) When loose information is spontaneously diffused, entropy will tend to increase.
This is a testable inference in biology how?
I suggest it makes a very nice description of ID theory development, but not a very good description of anything biological.
jdb writes:
2) Specificity is inversely proportional to the probability of an event occurring.
So if the probability of some ID theory actually 'occurring' was '1' (because here it is), then it must contain '0' specificity ?
jdb writes:
3)DNA must be designed by an intelligent agent or by code pre-programmed designed by an intelligent agent
Why? Because anything else would represent an unacceptable challenge to your predetermined religious convictions ?
jdb writes:
I minored in the subject in college and don't even remember discussing Darwin outside of genetics and evolution class.
Do you remember anything from genetics and evolution?
jdb writes:
...this is exactly why the Darwinists would not agree to testify this year in your home state.
No, its because they didn't want to permit the slightest inference that ID had any credibility at all as an alternative to ToE.
jdb writes:
Doesn't it bother you that I have mathematically backed up every assertion I have made in this forum ?
Don't you mean "mathematically *baked* up" ?
jdb writes:
Instead of teaching the truth to our children and allowing them to decide for themselves, science teachers are simply propagandizing them.
Collins English Dictionary. Propaganda: 1. The organized dissemination of information, allegations etc. to assist or damage the cause of a government or movement.
Also: a congregation responsible for the directing of foreign missions and the training of priests for these.
I think these definitions fit ID theory a lot better than ToE.
jdb writes:
I have taken on many PhDs in science from many different areas and who is it still standing.
But what are you actually standing *on*, Jerry, science or mysticism ?
Sorry Jerry, I can only re-iterate my previous assertion about ID theory:
EZ writes:
...it is a 'ghost theory' that seeks to exist as such, without accepting any burden of proof or responsibility for formulating any testable predictions regarding real world biological phenomena.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 11:11 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 95 of 99 (208337)
05-15-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-14-2005 11:11 PM


Re: Jerry's Lament
Jerry Don Bauer writes:
1) When loose information is spontaneously diffused, entropy will tend to increase.
Keep in mind that we're not as familiar with your terminology as you are and keep reminding us what these terms mean. I think you consider genes "loose information" because they can change, but what does it mean for information to "diffuse"? Do you mean decrease or become lost? What is an example of information diffusion? Most importantly, you said this was a testable assertion of ID, so I'm wondering how that could be the case. If we grant for the sake of discussion that you're just stating an accepted principle of information theory in unfamiliar terms, how would that constitute a test of ID? Can you describe such a test?
2) Specificity is inversely proportional to the probability of an event occurring.
You're simply asserting that s=1/p. ID hasn't yet drawn any correlation between terms like "specificity" and "specified complexity" and the real world. Can you describe how these concepts relate to the real world, and how you would go about testing this relationship?
3) DNA must be designed by an intelligent agent or by code pre-programmed designed by an intelligent agent.
And how would you test this?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 11:11 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 96 of 99 (208349)
05-15-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
05-09-2005 10:52 AM


I am finding this "intelligence" at the TWO places where the parallel lines and the circle cross below the surface below.
These are only the architect/author marks and DO NOT EXIST in nature but are needed in the brain of desinger to actually bring foward the full dimenionality of the thing itself. On making these lines on paper I was lead to also coincide Maxwell's drawing of Farady's state of physics and the form of the genus Xanthidium which might indeed be congruent with the design and form a test of the intelligence instead however, I am using the drawing to circumscribe the relation of the micro and macro states in the torus/margo dielectric model elsewhere discussed in this thread. My current design contraint is that the figure and ground of these re-marks ovelaid on nature will enable one to differentiate the difference of external field applications in science which/where (they) are either
quote:
(i) those due to elastic displacement of charges, and (ii) those due to a change in the average orientation of the permanent dipole of the molecule
Frochlich page 196("applications").
References
General Botany by Gilbert Smith of Stanford 1933 p196(desmid figure)
A Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism by JC Maxwell (line of force figure)
Theory of Dielectrics by Frohlich
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-15-2005 11:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2005 10:52 AM sidelined has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 97 of 99 (208380)
05-15-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-14-2005 11:48 PM


But when are you to the point that you are willing to admit that 19th century thinking is no longer compatible with biology in the new millennium?
You have not shown that evolutionary theory is incompatible with biology. And I'm pretty certain that evolutionary biology is not "19th century thinking".
Since Darwin's time, evolutionary biologists have engaged in a long process of communication and interchange with other scientific disciplines including population genetics, taxonomy, bioinformatics, molecular biology, ecology etc. etc. Over the years evolutionary biology has been transformed into something that the nineteenth century Darwinists would not recognise. If we were able resurrect Darwin for a moment, and ask him to read the latest issue of a journal such as Molecular Biology and Evolution he would not understand a word of it.
Darwinism is the majority because it has been around for a 150 years. ID is brand new in its present time
You have argued elsewhere that ID has been around since Aristotle. We might wonder then, why ID has not engaged in the kind of scientific development over 2300 years that evolution achieved in 150. I think this point is quite relevant for this thread. What is the cause of the retardation of ID's theoretical and practical development over the past 2300 years?
Best wishes
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 11:48 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 98 of 99 (210731)
05-23-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-14-2005 11:48 PM


why or how? a cognizable method of biology is missed
quote:
There already exists a highly developed mathematical theory of population genetics, which can predict, in fair detail, the changes and constancies in gene frequencies that will result given certain selective values, breeding systems, population sizes, and the spatial and temporal distribution of these properties. To a large extent, the theory rests on the ability to measure selective advantage.
--------------------------------------------------
Quotes from LBSlobodkin Toward a Predictive Theory of Evolution in Population Biology and Evolution Ed. By RCLewontin
---------------------------------------------------
It seems that the conflict between an ID that comes out of evolutionary theory and one that has started without it’s specific evaluations, lies in what populations of humans receive the advantage? This is a sociological problem not a biological one.
quote:
DOES A PREDICTIVE THEORY EXIST?
It is possible to argue that in fact there simply is no possibility of developing a causal theory of evolution with any predictive power worth considering. The admittedly stochastic events which combine to produce evolutionary change may make interesting prediction impossible. This argument cannot be dismissed out of hand, despite the fact that I find it repulsive in that its acceptance would involve cutting off an apparently legitimate empirical question from further investigation and in that sense a kind of intellectual despair.
The difficulty in producing a predictive theory of evolution is that:
1. While a rigorous definition of selective advantage exists, it is largely retrospective.
2. There is no unique historical trend in the evolutionary process to date.
3. Biochemical similarity between organisms does not, in itself, imply that they will also be similar in evolutionary success.
Given these considerations, I must proceed
This is the form of much/most creationist shutting down of the different approaches to fitness. It would be eaiser to simply continue to agree with Slobodkin that the last two points continue to apply. I will ply the harder current. I deny all three.(oops there it was without the rich text of pari passu).
quote:
This can be done by waiting several generations and then determining the relative number of individuals in the population which are descended from two individuals or genotypes or alleles. The greater the relative number of descendents, the greater the selective advantage, other things being equal. This measurement procedure is rigorous, unambiguous, and precisely what is required for the development of the formal theory. It does not, unfortunately, permit an immediate reply to the inquiring animal (cf. , Medawar 1960).
This is the reason that evos often don’t even explain their own object in its proper subject.
quote:
It is also very clear that, despite the general validity of mechanistic approaches to biology, we can not predict evolutionary success on biochemical criteria alone. That is, there is no single best biochemistry for organisms in general. This can be
demonstrated by constructing a list of pairs of closely related species that one member of each pair is a living species and the other member is extinct. Obviously the biochemical similarity is greatest between members of each pair, but, by any reasonable definition of evolutionary success, all living species are evolutionarily successful despite their biochemical differences.
I will suggest contra the molecular clock and the niche of molecular evolution (from Pauling etc) a synthetic apirori were in the biochem originates the genetics analytically contra Carnap such that a trend might be suspected. In taxogeny the seed fern will be within the ecosystem that man continues to enter (contra Eldgridge who claimed man’s dominion LEAVES ecosystems) the prophetic present greenery as the trend is relieved of its beginning. Spontaneous generation is not possible but potential effects across levels will not be ruled out definitionally as bolid impacts suggest in the mind of some existing evolutionary thinkers. I will then apply a rigorous selective advantage in-to molecular biology (code, dogma, recent findings) because it is possible in the falsification of the particular trend opened up by the subject-object predications being supposedby man entering this more proper biology of his dominion, proposes, in a sequal PERMANENT POPULATION FORMS thinking. This suggestion at this time is just as specious as what Slobodkin set for himself and can not be said if is in contradiction with species selection at the present analysis or not. I don’t know.
quote:
An alternative, less rigorous, method of measuring selective advantage is possible. If there is reason to believe that some particular anatomical or physiological properties will be of advantage to an organism, and if the relation between these properties and particular alleles is known, then a selective value could be assigned to alleles based on the expected differential production of descendents. This involves a series of assumptions about the interaction between the biological features of the organisms and the present and future environment. The quality of the numerical estimate of selective advantage, derived in this way, will be no better than the quality of the information that morphologists, physiologists, and ecologists can provide. My analysis will not change this fact
The philosophy of biology is opened wide to the discussion as to if hierarchy theory tends to constrict OR construct this view. It is an open question. Regardless, the disciplines of physics, chemistry and biology receive a materialistic basis and not a mere pedagogic convienence as the Galvani-Volta difference in particular adjudicates the appearances. No matter what, it is demonstrable that nomothetic truths are possible in the critique of aesthetic judgement of the junctions provided.
REASON TO BELIEVE-thermal currents will follow fluadically the trajectory of any temperature dependent effect on the selectability of particular associated alleles to dielectrics given the middle formation of cellulose to the cell and clade splits. Traits correlated with thermal currents will receive selective evalutations positive a prori but their physical existence must be large enough not to be designed against by chance.
This apirori use of these mathematical symbols provides a structure generalizable because its physiological deportment resides where infinite divisibility might be imagined but need not provided the population thought is thinking its sign in nature. If the signs are univocal then the relation of any trend to different uses of biochemical similarity can be sorted (given the new mathematical foreground to do biology in) to the more rigorous mode of assessing selective advantage. It will be epistemologically reasoned to so proceed. Issues of adaptive teleology are now then available in the face not of a new formalism but of a hierarchical model that is either expanding or contracting for a given level of organization under different sets of causally active levels of selection. It might even be possible to reason that the Bauplane is not ONLY what Woodger suggested and Gould could not separate himself from but it also might be that death still masks any knowledge other than speculation here.
The tension between Fisher and Wright thus will receive its just deserts and the transition to population thinking will commence. The divided labor producing the raw tool materials of this discipline is rich provided Marxist materialism doesn’t step in again to spoil the reward of continued thought that cashes all dialectics out practically.
The difference is I don’t need to write out an existential game. I have already lived it. It will be strange to explain how the lower quality of a Cornell trained biologist worked on something not being done at YALE, HARVARD or PRINCETON. If this has already been deposed
EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.
please let me know.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-23-2005 07:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 11:48 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
CodeTrainer
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 99 (212026)
05-27-2005 11:58 PM


(( Quoting... There already exists a highly developed mathematical theory of population genetics, which can predict, in fair detail, the changes and constancies in gene frequencies that will result given certain selective values, breeding systems, population sizes, and the spatial and temporal distribution of these properties. To a large extent, the theory rests on the ability to measure selective advantage.)))
The problem for darwinists is that this attempt at making predictions based on darwinistic assumptions "rests on the ability to measure selective advantage". How are they going to do that? The only consistent measure for selective advantage is survival and reproduction.
Their hangup is trying to figure out how to measure the very thing the model is supposed to predict.
Don't feel too bad. I once had planned on developing a mathematical model for describing evolution myself. Nice trick. Now, I'd call it "new math". Doesn't matter if it's correct or not, what matters is how you "feel" about it, and does it help your self-esteem?
- Alan

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024