Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another Test for Intelligent Design Proponents
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 16 of 151 (272422)
12-24-2005 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by joshua221
12-24-2005 11:29 AM


I do not see an increase in entropy over time, I see order in nature. I have asked my biology teacher about it, he told me that although we can see many examples of order here, on a cosmic scale we see increase in chaos. Would not evolution itself be example of Increase in order? Someone tell me the truth.
I don't really buy entropy.
This is drifting off topic here, if you want a good discussion on thermodynamics, take a look here, I'm more than happy to join in if you have any additional questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by joshua221, posted 12-24-2005 11:29 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by joshua221, posted 12-24-2005 11:40 AM Modulous has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 151 (272424)
12-24-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Modulous
12-24-2005 11:35 AM


So the increase of energy used to counter entropy is it huh, yeah ok, forgot about that.

The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 12-24-2005 11:35 AM Modulous has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 151 (272428)
12-24-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Parasomnium
12-22-2005 7:36 AM


quote:
namely to tell us of each figure whether or not they think it shows the hallmarks of design, perhaps accompanied by an explanation of their reasoning.
To answer this question, one would probably have to understand the intricate workings of the universe in it's entirety.
Could you explain the graphs?
Why not this?
Or this?

The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 12-22-2005 7:36 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 19 of 151 (272441)
12-24-2005 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Modulous
12-24-2005 4:29 AM


Topic drift alert
Please focus on the content of message 1, and the messages that actually result in the focusing on the content of message 1.
Modulous is very much on topic. I reply to his message to quote it:
Modulous writes:
The answer is that neither of them show definite signs of design, but either could be. The first is clearly part of a sine wave, and the second could be a natural event (landscape, lp grooves, readings from a photon detector) or could be a scribble.
I agree.
An Adminnemooseus/minnemooseus mixed mode message (AAMMM)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 12-24-2005 4:29 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 20 of 151 (272644)
12-25-2005 2:32 PM


Some intermediate comments
Thanks to all those who replied. I'd still like some more replies (Brad McFall, as someone suggested?) before I discuss the figures of message 1.
But I will comment on some of your replies, lumped together in this post.

randman writes:
I'd have to say both because first off they appear on a computer screen, in color, and can be sent around the world via electronics. So yep, someone definitely made those images.
True, I made them. But I'd ask you to ignore for a moment the specific representations I made of these patterns. If you would see the pattern of figure 1 somewhere else, what would you conclude about it, in terms of how it came about? Same question for the pattern of figure 2.

buzsaw writes:
Well then, I suppose the left image appears to be less chaotic than the other suggesting that some work had been applied to it in order to make it uniform, whereas the other may suggest randomness.
Thank you, Buzsaw. No further comment for now. I'll get back to this.

Faith, I know you are not an ID-ist, therefore I appreciate your participation all the more. At the same time I must be careful in my comment on your answer, precisely because you don't represent ID.
As I pointed out to Randman, the pictures themselves are not at issue, it's the patterns that I'm asking about. (The pictures are obviously designed, by me.)
But you said something very important pertaining to the topic:
If they represent something else in the physical world, then I guess it depends on what they represent.
If I understand the ID position well, this should actually be no problem. Their claim is that intelligent design is obvious from certain features of things. My query is about those features.

Modulous writes:
The answer is that neither of them show definite signs of design, but either could be. The first is clearly part of a sine wave, and the second could be a natural event (landscape, lp grooves, readings from a photon detector) or could be a scribble.
Modulous (and Minnemooseus), no comment for now. I'll get back to this too.

Prophex, your first answer is off-topic.
prophex writes:
To answer this question, one would probably have to understand the intricate workings of the universe in it's entirety.
I don't think that's necessary. If you had to venture an answer to the question of message one, what would it be? And why?
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 25-Dec-2005 08:37 PM

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 21 of 151 (272654)
12-25-2005 3:44 PM


Containing information = containing design?
Please slap me if I'm going off-topic or am otherwise spoiling the topic, but I thought I'd ask the subtitle question.
To what degree are "information" and "design" equivalent?
Moose
{Edit after following message was posted: Changed "Do what degree" to "To what degree".}
This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-25-2005 04:01 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 12-25-2005 3:52 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 22 of 151 (272655)
12-25-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Minnemooseus
12-25-2005 3:44 PM


Re: Containing information = containing design?
The are equivalent in the sense that creationist's don't seem to understand either of them.
Apart from that, I can't see much equivalence.

Impeach Bush

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-25-2005 3:44 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 23 of 151 (272904)
12-26-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by MangyTiger
12-23-2005 7:30 PM


Re: ID-ers? Where are you?
quote:
“The concept of a multidimensional “surface” of mean selective values on which a population moves toward the immediately controlling peak (except as diverted by the other systematic pressures, recurrent mutation, and immigration, and by random process was developed (Wright 1932) for natural populations, assumed to have been breeding according to the same system long enough that there is divergence from random combination only as forced by interactive selection”
quote:
EVOLUTION AND THE GENTICS OF POPULATIONS by Sewall Wright Uchicago p 105
quote:
”A cross between two inbred lines is likely to have a selective value higher than the nearest peak on the equilibrium surface. The randomnly bred descendents will thus move down tpward the latter. Because of this sort of situation, Moran (1964) has drawn the conclusion indicated by the title of his paper, “The nonexistence of Adaptive Topographies.” This, however, was based on a misunderstanding of the concept.
quote:
EVOLUTION AND THE GENTICS OF POPULATIONS by Sewall Wright Uchicago p 105
Kant’s notion of habitat still applies here. Elite evolutionists must have not communicated what “same system” means well enough.
quote:
The first thing that must be designedly prepared in an arrangement for a purposive complex of natural beings on the earth would be their place of habitation, the soil and the element on and in which they are to thrive. But a more exact knowledge of the constitution of this basis of all organic production indicates no other cause than those working undesignedly, causes which rather destroy than favor production, order, and purposes. Land and sea not only contain in themselves memorials of ancient might desolations which have confounded them and all creatures that are in them, but their whole structure, the strata of the one and the boundaries of the other, have quite the appearance of ebing the product of the wild and violent forces of a nature working in a state of chaos. Although the figure, the structure, and the slope of the land might seem to be purposively ordered for the reception of water from the air, for the welling up of streams between strata of different kinds I (for many kinds of products), and for the course of the rivers, yet a closer investigation shows that they are merely the effects of volcanic eruptions or of inundations of the ocean, as regards not only the first production of this figure but, above all, its subsequent transformation,as well as the disappearance of its first organic productions. Now, if the place of habitation of all these creatures, the soil(of the land) or the bosom (of the sea), indicates nothing but a quite undersigned mechanism of its production, how and with what right can we demand and maintain a different origin for these latter products?
quote:
Kant Critique of Judgment Methodology of the Teleolgical Judgment @82
Now we can start from Para’sleft figure if we can agree to start the discussion from
quote:
Chapter 3 Systematic Change of Gene Frequency: Single Loci Such evolutionary processes as mutation, immigration, selection , and inbreeding seem at first sight to be so different in nature that quantitative comparisons of effects would be impossible. They may, however , be brought under a common viewpoint by measuring each by its effect on gene frequency much as physical phenomena of the most diverse sorts may be reduced to a common quantitative basis by measuring their capacities to do work.
The persistence of gene frequencies discussed in the proceeding chapter is not due to a true equilibrium but merely to an absence of disturbing processes. The slightest disturbance may be expected to produce changes that have no tendency to revert.
quote:
EVOLUTION AND THE GENTICS OF POPULATIONS by Sewall Wright Uchicago p 24
The designer need simply supply the evidence of a truly equilibrated law here as a “key” Kant denied existed but before mating systems were seen to turn Mendel division signs
and either figure can be argued to a plan of systematic pressures. Sustaining the first diagram would be harder for man
to
keep constant but assuming the peaks and values in the second are only figurative there seems little doubt to me if the GAMODEME (“If sufficiently extensive, any of the above patterns may be treated as hierarchic by subdivision of the whole into a number of primary subdivisions, these into a number of secondary ones , and so on down to groups that may be treated as homogenous within themselves. The convenient term “deme” of Gilmour and Gregor (1939) has come to be used for this ultimate unit of population, though in a narrower sense (gamodeme) than they proposed.” EVOLUTION AND THE GENTICS OF POPULATIONS by Sewall Wright Uchicago p 290-1)
was expressed from Croizat’s method under Gladyshev’s law etc.
even
the probabilistic discrepancy of current ID from current criticism MIGHT, I only say might -be obviated. That seems all that needs to be required in response? I tend to think it was due to the difference of Price and one of his followers that Creationism has not followed up the project of creating verifiably complex man-made habitation concepts out of niche space. I do not know if some of the “popularity” of ID would rub off if it had to dip back into an older Biblical Creationism Tradition than the P&P title seems to suggest. The problem however was not solved by evolutionists either and that is generally the yardstick when not on their own turf.
I do not know how much longer my website will be up for now, but the point of ecosystem engineering begins where the slope goes “down” according to Wright.
http://www.students.tc3.edu/bmcfall/fripge.htm
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-26-2005 04:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MangyTiger, posted 12-23-2005 7:30 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 24 of 151 (273834)
12-29-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Parasomnium
12-22-2005 7:36 AM


Who made who, who made you? ACDC
The problem with the concept of intelligent design is that one has to first decide what is intelligence, then quantify what is design.
If the wind shapes a mountain to the exact likeness of J-lo's ass, and I show it to someone who could appreciate a nice ass would said person be able to tell me if the sculpture was intelligently designed or not?
There are as many factions of ID as there are Creationist as there are atheist and agnostics. From God did it to God had a hand in it to: Aliens did it.
Bottom line: No buddy knows. and I prefer it that way personally. **edit spelling of agnostics..
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-29-2005 12:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 12-22-2005 7:36 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 25 of 151 (273889)
12-29-2005 4:04 PM


Questions for anyone:
I hear it said that ID is not scientific because the proponents do not have a clear model of what non-intelligently designed life would look like:
1.) Are IDs saying that non-intelligently designed life forms look like something non-living and therefore do have a model?
2.) Do Evolutionists have a clear model of what an un-evolved life form should look like? (Holding themselves to the same standard).
Opinions?
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 04:08 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2005 4:13 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2005 7:37 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 26 of 151 (273890)
12-29-2005 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jaywill
12-29-2005 4:04 PM


Unevolved
2.) Do Evolutionists have a clear model of what an un-evolved life form should look like? (Holding themselves to the same standard).
Kind of depends on what you mean by "unevolved".
Do you mean a life form which has never gone through an process of evolution? - No, there is no model for that.
Do you mean a life form which has not gone through less evolution than another life form it's compaired to? -- Sure. Look at more "primative" forms of existing animals for the answer there

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2005 4:04 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2005 4:31 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 28 by 1.61803, posted 12-29-2005 4:34 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 29 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2005 4:39 PM Nuggin has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 27 of 151 (273896)
12-29-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Nuggin
12-29-2005 4:13 PM


Re: Unevolved
Kind of depends on what you mean by "unevolved".
Thanks Nuggin.
I'm probably not on the topic. But I think I mean in terms of ID verses Evolution. So
Do Evolutionists have a clear model of what an (let's say) intelligently designed life form would look like with which they could falsify an evolved one?
In an old thread comparing SETI with ID someone said ID has no model of non intelligently designed life, therefore flunking the "true science" test which SETI passes.
Does Evolution Theory have a clear model of what a totally un evolved living organism should look like? That's totally non evolved - not less evolved in your #2, which is still evolved to me.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 04:32 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 04:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2005 4:13 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2005 7:31 PM jaywill has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 28 of 151 (273897)
12-29-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Nuggin
12-29-2005 4:13 PM


Re: Unevolved
Nuggin writes:
no there is no model for that.
Perhaps no model for that because it is not known what the first indigenous life form was or looked like. Or even how it came to exist. Hence our debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2005 4:13 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 29 of 151 (273899)
12-29-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Nuggin
12-29-2005 4:13 PM


Re: Unevolved
Do you mean a life form which has never gone through an process of evolution? - No, there is no model for that.
Then if Evolution has no model of non-evolved life, how comes its "true science" but ID is not because they have no non IDed model of life?
Basically...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2005 4:13 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by 1.61803, posted 12-29-2005 4:42 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 31 by Parasomnium, posted 12-29-2005 4:44 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 34 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2005 7:56 PM jaywill has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 30 of 151 (273901)
12-29-2005 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jaywill
12-29-2005 4:39 PM


Re: Unevolved
I think because evolution is a falsifiable theory, where as creationism or id-ism is not. maybe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2005 4:39 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024