Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

The whole crux of the {ID} argument is that {ID} is defined as ”{IC} = ~{E}’ (Impossible through Evolution) thus if it is shown that ”{IC} = {E}’ (Can happen through Evolution) then {ID} has to be false.

That would be ID in its present commericalization. I would tend to think that IC=E has to be pushed, but then there would be some "design" on the border of artifical and natural selection. I tend to think the key is that Cantor did proove the limit of av =B which Russell denied and this spells the limit to animal breeding that Provine asserted Johnson had to show exists if... but to do so I need to pull a lot of thoughts from Realism and this is not an easy task as my personal notes on Psillos' book I preview in the newd below:

quote:

---

“(R)ealism requires two distinct elements. It requires belief and it also requires a particular interpretation of that belief. Thus anti-realism, in particular instrumentalism, pursues the following strategy. If it does not withhold belief, then it offers instead a non-realist interpretation of the belief . But the reader will no doubt notice that there is an interesting third way. For one can go along with belief, but then simply not add on any special interpretation of it - neither realist nor anti-realist. That is the way of NOA.”

---

quote:

---

p249 Scientific Realism- how science tracks truth-

---

quote:

---

Gould SETH p 141 “The requirements for variation In order to act as raw material only, variation must walk a tightrope between two unacceptable alternatives. First and foremost, variation must exist in sufficient amounts, for natural selection can make nothing, and must rely upon the bounty thus provided; but variation must not be too florid or showy either, lest it become the creative agent of change all by itself. A full taxonomy of non-Darwinian evolutionary theories may be elaborated by their denials of one or more of these central assumptions.”

---

Ok using this mask, the analogy between phenotype and genotype relative to van Frassen in “Can Darwin help?” p96 Stathis thought Darwin can not help. In Gould’s conceptual net van Frassens’ can be Genetical rather than phenotypical precisely where Boyd’s realist extra ontological commitments(p 215) (on the existence of extinct animals and aids virus etc- expressed rather often to me as “you can always have species selection”) abut non EDR thought.But Boyd does speak BOTH IBE and as-if IBE. The most striking aspect is that Boyd intends the listener to his philosophy to agree that as-if IS IBE but this only works if the environment that he address his students in and teaches his realism on and about is NOT an as-if when it comes the explanation used by the scientists themselves. So . . After a class with Boyd one should be able to attend a class with a scientist and find that there is no unobservable difference or feelling of observed difference between the two events that are ostensibly IBE. This does not occur. In fact, I listended to this very same difference being slipped past students 20 years later, well after I had resolved all of my own issues with all experiences in the environment THAT WERE NOT ABOUT SCIENCE. But even sticking with what is science this environment IS that where one recognizes how the norm of rxn interacts as Lewontin had showed and even THIS is not kept uniform or homogenous as Boyd’s explanation depends crucially on a density only notion of chemisty successiveness that was standard at Cornell prior to 88 when the Frenchman came to Baker Hall and lectured on supramolecular chemistry. Furthermore Boyd’s view did not keep up with the instrumental gains of the 90s IT bubble for my brother was studying with Lauden while I was with Boyd and it is not possible to bring these points of views on science among us all back to the common difference that was spoken over a beer in Fredonia between me and my brother in in think 85. But what HAS happened over this time is that the difference of IBE and as if IBE has permitted EXTENSIVE creationist dialogue which is increasingly more convincing and yet increasingly simply ignored as nonsense. That makes further separation of Psiloss secular vs theology not a lesser separation if there were really to have been “higher” education necessary to keep up with the unobservables in higher level hierarchical views of the base biology underlaying any of the psychology involved. Furthermore Boyd’s notion of “projectiablity” selection during empirical adequacy depends on choice in unobservable interpolations rather than simply the better topology being thought true. He had no way to distinguish in the 80s the context of the form from the translation in this space. So there can be no issue about OZ and ID science @ that abduction.Thus I would be with von Frassen on the vacuum that this KNOWLEDGE remains in, unless of course my own brand passes etc. Thus Fine is correct to notice the appeal to Hilbert’s programme put realist oranges in the juicer of Croizat’s stew of Gould if so interpreted. And in the 80s when at Cornell I had explicitly written and had a project applying Hilbert after rejecting Boyd’s idea of natural kinds to which he responded by saying I was religious on him and convinced my parents even though I have no issue with NMA and IBE as then I had not gotten past NOA. Thus though EDR needs to addressed it will be through an opening that still leaves theology open WITHOUT committing secularity to it’s ajarness . IBE does not permit this even if , as if IBE might, hypothetically.These notes that might enable IC=E come from reducing the red in the one picture to the blue etc in the other File Not Found - UW-Green Bay Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.Edited by Brad McFall, : add links

Nope. {ID} is defined as {evidence of design} and {IC} was defined as {Not{E} therefore a piece of evidence of design}. Not{IC} does not equal Not{ID}. You have falsified that {IC} implies {ID}, that is all.

Just because the control mechanisms were elucidated does not in anyway make it "SIMPLE". Alright let us assume that it is not at all complex. If this enzyme is too simple, then why no one has ever symthesized it? Not necessarily this enzyme, but any known enzyme. In the unverse, we have thousands of enzymes. Why is it that not asingle one of them has been synthesized yet?

Huh? We can synthesize polypeptides of basically any arbitrary sequence. Here's one they did back in 1999, so this is hardly new:

quote:

---

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and the Hubble Space Telescope has captured pillars of it. Yet, scientists struggle to produce a cheap supply of hydrogen gas. Scientists have created a synthetic enzyme that produces hydrogen fuel, a breakthrough that could move the world closer to an energy-efficient, hydrogen-based economy.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9910/15/hydrogen.enn/index.htmlJust like to point out that all I did was put "synthetic enzyme" into Google, and looked at the first of over 4 million hits. Maybe it would behoove you next time to do a little more research before you sweepingly assert what has or has never been done by scientists? Edited by crashfrog, : Taking out a spurious insult.

And now does that invalid what I said? It can be shown with computer simuations that random variation followed by a filter of selection can produce very complicated forms. In the case of biology, the 'random variation' is to a large extent mutation, and the filter is natural selection.No 'intelligence' is needed.

correct, inkorect.French discussion of physiological time has never been the same duration I maintain in the tri-State 'area'. It seems to me this notions of regulatory genes rather makes the"mechanism" more complex than even the 30s work my grandfather was trying to do with Arhenius equations

This report does not give much information. just a simple molecule with 25 atoms is even less than a peptide, leave alone polypeptides. Need more information on this. Poly peptides do not mimic enzyme activity. In today's world, anyone can write anything unless someone else either confirms of challenges it.

.Now, I have no choice except to repeat the same question. If no intelligence is required, why no new forms of life have emerged? Please do not repeat that new forms have been identified. I am yet to see them. you have never answered my question in the past. Why no one has synthesized any form of life so far? Are we still DUMB not to figure this out?How did the first form of life come into existence?

Well, there is not theory that is fully accepted for biogenesis (which is not evolution BTW. Evolution does not care about how life began, but rather the change of allees in a population over time). However, there are some very good work being done on how it might have occured.For example, did you know that amino acids assemble into protiens on quartz face crystals.. and that amino acids form naturally in the kind of atmosphere that earth had before life began?

In otherwords you remain ignorant because you specifically refused to investigate when it was pointed out previously that new forms have been identified.You have yet to see them because you have yet to look.Enjoy - they say ignorance is bliss.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

We observe new species all the time. Right, but the thing is - you're not looking very hard. You're so adamant that this is impossible that you don't even feel like you have to look and see if it's already happened.Arguing from your own ignorance isn't going to get you very far. An argument that's essentially "if this is true why haven't I heard about it?" isn't very compelling - you haven't heard about it because you choose to remain in ignorance rather than investigate the truth. Because it's really hard. But we're working on it, and we'll do it. Chemically. Why does the fact that we're still working on the problem mean that evolution is wrong?

Yes, Urey and Miller were able to demonstrate that basic amino acids were formed when methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide were subjected to an electric spark. The problem with this system was, this was biologically inactive. How? In nature, there are two forms of chemicals. One is right handed (d-form) the other one is the left hand form(l-form) They are the mirror images of the same chemicals. In Miller's soup, there were equal parts of d and l forms. The D-forms are biological poisons. Only the L-forms are biologically active. So, in amixture, if you have two of them, then it is a useless mixture. Nothing will come out of this. This is simply amixture of chemicals.I am uyet to see proteins being sysnthesized on Quartz. Quartz is another form of Silicon. I am not sure how quartz can catalyse protein synthesis. Well, even if they are synthsized, what is the potential use of this material? Does it have any biological activity? Please, this has NOTHING to do with the topic. Head back in that direction folk.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by AdminJar, : thread wandering far afield

So far the only thing testable that has come out of ID that I am aware of, is the concept of Irreducible Complexitity (IC).The idea was that {something} can be composed of parts that cannot function with any parts missing (Irreducible) and where each part is fully developed (this bears some relationship to 'Complexity' apparently, but the link has yet to be defined) in such a way that it cannot evolve and then be drafted into the IC system.The test is that if such a system cannot evolve naturally, that then there must have been some "assistance" (whether alien or superalien)There has been an IC system observed to evolve naturally, thus evolution can explain the development if IC systems, and the "test" has failed.Half way to 300 and still no real test for ID. Doesn't look good for a purportedly scientific concept.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

my thoughs work along this line1 ID= a god(s) like being , where they/he/she/its own agenda they wish to hide from us .. thus no way to prove / disprove .. as all evidence is tainted2 ID = aliens .. therefore they should be some clear clues , as the aliens are not god like and therefore will leave evidence ... not found a single hint of a bit of evidence yet , and we seem to be working things out at a fairly fundemental level ..so i would expect some hint.. and where did the aliens come from any way if they where not ID then it means ID is not the real origin .3 as a btw if it is ID seems a little short on the I , considering all the problems we face .. why includ virus/harmfull bacteria .. why not have a better regulated planet ????4 if its the give it a prod to start it off and see what happens ID then where are the watchers ?? given we now can destroy all life on eartyh with our nukes dont you think they would have stepped in to save us from our selves .. or are they not moral .?~?5 if you had the ability to set ID in action why would you , for what reason .??it feel we must admit for ID to work and to have a reason we are talking about a god(s) it terms of power , timespan ,resorcese et al .question is which one(s) ...................or just maybe its just a natural event this universe we call home ......