Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving New Information
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 316 of 458 (523175)
09-08-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by traderdrew
09-08-2009 5:43 PM


Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)
quote:
I would expect scientists who are proponents of ID to do research. This is because it is obvious to me natural laws and natural causes are operating all of the time. But you are probably using Creationism as a reference for comparison and that is why you see it as "so close".
Then you need to offer a real explanation for why there is so little published ID research. And why the ID movement couldn't find anyone to take up the offer of a grant from the Templeton Foundation.
quote:
I would really like to know what they were if I have not refuted them.
We can start with the fact that ID is not distinct from creationism - it includes creationism.
I can point out the fact that we have not one demonstrated example of Dembski's CSI in biology - yet you still try to produce "CSI" as evidence for ID.
quote:
There may be an assumption here that we cannot figure out the way an intelligent designer designed things.
If so, it must be on the part of the ID movement. It is the ID movement that avoids taking a firm position on what the designer did.
quote:
I believe that Wounded King and I mutally agreed when you take this outside of science into atheism or ID it then falls into the realm of philosophy. I, of course, do not believe Richard Dawkin's arguments are better.
Richard Dawkins is not trying to change science education to make it friendlier to his philosophical views. Nor does he spend large amounts of time, for instance, trying to link his opponents views with the Nazis.
quote:
When Darwin's theory became well known 150 years ago, archaeopteryx was found two years later. This I believe was no accident. The whole paradigm permeated its way into the way societies thought and how governments ran. Trends form and their effects are felt. Look at the stock market trend in the 1990s and the real estate trend and the current trend in gold. No single explanation can be found for the reason why they were formed. All of these trends were driven by multiple reasons.
This hardly addresses the point - or the evidence I referred to. Not even the single example you chose to quote.
But let us consider how to objectively weigh the evidence:
You claimed that there was a rising trend for ID based on a paper published 5 years ago, under dubious circumstances.
Objectively, however:
1) One point cannot show a trend.
2) If there were really a rising trend you would not have to go back 5 years to find something.
And that's without going into the quality of the paper, the fact that it was not original research or the questionable circumstances surrounding the publication.
Think about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by traderdrew, posted 09-08-2009 5:43 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by traderdrew, posted 09-08-2009 6:49 PM PaulK has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 317 of 458 (523188)
09-08-2009 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by PaulK
09-08-2009 6:21 PM


Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)
Then you need to offer a real explanation for why there is so little published ID research. And why the ID movement couldn't find anyone to take up the offer of a grant from the Templeton Foundation.
I just researched this on the Discovery Institute site. I saw that a grant from the Templeton Foundation was given to the authors of the "Priveleged Planet".
I can point out the fact that we have not one demonstrated example of Dembski's CSI in biology - yet you still try to produce "CSI" as evidence for ID.
Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [ L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189. Emphases added.]
I said it before, you see no CSI and you hear no CSI. I have ased this question before, if it is not CSI, then what is it then?
Gotta run

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2009 6:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by mark24, posted 09-08-2009 7:14 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 322 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2009 2:00 AM traderdrew has replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 318 of 458 (523193)
09-08-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by traderdrew
09-08-2009 5:59 PM


Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)
quote:
1. the cell 2. the terrestrial environment of the earth (things such as life supporting cycles and radioactive isotopes) and our life supporting moon. 3. the solar system and its position in the galaxy which also happens to be a galaxy better suited to support life. 4. fine-tuning of physics of our universe such as gravity and nuclear force. Here is an example I found from physics:
The cell is complex - but what evidence actually is that of design? The same argument applies to points 2 and 3.
Fine tuning is more interesting - but it's an area where we have no idea what the origin of the constants of nature is. Penrose's argument is that we find a constraint at the beginning of the Universe that resulted in a very low entropy state. But essentially this an unsolved problem. There is no actual evidence that design of the universe took place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by traderdrew, posted 09-08-2009 5:59 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 319 of 458 (523197)
09-08-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by traderdrew
09-08-2009 6:49 PM


Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)
traderdrew,
I said it before, you see no CSI and you hear no CSI. I have ased this question before, if it is not CSI, then what is it then?
And I've said it before, too, even if you could identify CSI, it's still an argument from incredulity. In other words, CSI isn't evidence.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by traderdrew, posted 09-08-2009 6:49 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 5084 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 320 of 458 (523201)
09-08-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by traderdrew
09-08-2009 5:59 PM


Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)
It can be found anywhere through the microscope to the telecope. The fine-tuning of all of these things:
1. the cell 2. the terrestrial environment of the earth (things such as life supporting cycles and radioactive isotopes) and our life supporting moon. 3. the solar system and its position in the galaxy which also happens to be a galaxy better suited to support life. 4. fine-tuning of physics of our universe such as gravity and nuclear force.
Here is an example I found from physics:
Mathematician Roger Penrose (Penrose 1981) has estimated that the margin of error permitted here was less than 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power (that is, 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros, more zeros than there are particles in the universe!)
No, he did not 'estimate'. He threw numbers together without showing they actually meant anything but came up with a big, big number. For them to have any meaning, the likelihood of those values being different must be known. Please show me where the range of possible values and corresponding probabilities have been determined.
In fact, a thorough statistical analysis of all known universes shows that the probability of a universe existing with the exact properties we see in this one is ... unity. Exactly 1/1.
But, more than that, none of this is evidence FOR design. It shows no demonstrable traces of the implementation of design. Despite your claims to the contrary, all you have IS your disbelief in the ability of unassisted natural processes to do things.
'It's just so unlikely' is NOT evidence FOR ID.
You wouldn't accept that throwing the broken pieces of a vase into a bag and shaking it would create a new vase. You would demand an explanation other than that one.
Of course. As nothing like that had been seen to have happened, I would be extremely skeptical of it. I don't know of anyone who thinks that's something that happens. Except for the completely clueless anti-science types which try to misrepresent what science says in some 'tornado-in-a-junkyard-making-an-airlpane' spew, I haven't seen anybody put forth that kind of an idea.
But it does seem to indicate the difference between attribution and explanation isn't something you've grasped very well.
Or maybe you can show in what way ID is an explanation (or necessary part of an explanation), NOT an attribution, for ... well, anything. What happened and how did it happen, not just 'designer-did-it'.
You see, it's the fact that no research has been done, is being done, is planned on being done into the things which 'could' make it an explanation that keeps it, and quite rightly so, in the company of other occult pursuits like Astrology.
Edited by jacortina, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by traderdrew, posted 09-08-2009 5:59 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by traderdrew, posted 09-09-2009 11:21 AM jacortina has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 321 of 458 (523208)
09-08-2009 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by traderdrew
09-08-2009 5:47 PM


back up the reference bus -- don't you learn?
Hi traderdrew,
Conduct a google search with these terms - "James Shapiro natural genetic engineering" and click the fifth link down.
You could have just posted the link ... which is more accurate than this (google popularity is based on use and links)
I get http://www.iscid.org/brig-klyce-chat.php
The "The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID)" website link is not a direct link to Shapiro, and the article in question only mentions him briefly, by the moderator.
You just got lambasted for posting information from a person that told falsehoods, and it appears you have not learned anything from it.
Post a link to Shapiro, and let's see what HE says, not what some anonymous IDist SAYS he says.
University of Chicago, James A Shapiro
quote:
Research Summary / Selected Publications
My current research deals with understanding how cells regulate the natural genetic engineering systems that produce DNA rearrangements and formulating a new conceptual basis for genome evolution consistent with molecular genetics. I also collaborate with colleagues who study multicellular pattern formation in bacterial colonies.
Any bets that what he says is taken out of context by the ID crowd?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by traderdrew, posted 09-08-2009 5:47 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by traderdrew, posted 09-09-2009 11:26 AM RAZD has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 322 of 458 (523235)
09-09-2009 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by traderdrew
09-08-2009 6:49 PM


Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)
quote:
I just researched this on the Discovery Institute site. I saw that a grant from the Templeton Foundation was given to the authors of the "Priveleged Planet".
To write a book, not to do scientific research.
And you still haven't addressed the main point - where is the ID research ?
quote:
Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [ L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189. Emphases added.]
I said it before, you see no CSI and you hear no CSI. I have ased this question before, if it is not CSI, then what is it then?
Just because two different concepts are given similar names does not make them the same. It may or may not be an example of Dembski's CSI BUT NOBODY HAS SHOWN THAT IT IS or even given a good reason to think that it is. You ought to know this by now.
If you are going to accuse me of willful blindness, just for understanding an ID argument and pointing out it's flaws - which is what you've just done - you throw out any pretence of honestly seeking the truth. You just want to support ID and the truth can go hang.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by traderdrew, posted 09-08-2009 6:49 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by traderdrew, posted 09-09-2009 11:51 AM PaulK has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 323 of 458 (523240)
09-09-2009 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Rrhain
09-08-2009 1:12 PM


It might have a point, but we have no way of knowing it because everything about how this paper came to be has been tainted.
Um, we could read the paper. Its not as if peer review is the be all and end all of review in science, it isn't the ultimate seal of approval. To be honest it doesn't matter if the paper was reviewed and approved by Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers its still a rubbishy little review paper which does nothing to show positive evidence for ID and equally little to make a compelling argument against modern evolutionary theory.
It seems odd to abbrogate our own critical faculties by saying we can't tell if it has a point or not. You might have a stronger point if it was some primary research where fraud might be an issue, but scientific fraud frequently gets past peer review because that isn't really what peer review is designed to weed out. And in any case it is only a review article, all you need to do to fact check it is see if the references Meyer gives support his argument and whether his argument actually makes senese.
In my view the whole rigmarole surrounding the peer review and publication of this paper is incidental to how worthless it is as either science or evidence supportive of ID.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2009 1:12 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 324 of 458 (523246)
09-09-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by traderdrew
09-08-2009 5:22 PM


Re: and yet you go there
traderdrew writes:
Can't you see that it is not only "god of the gaps", it is also "evolution of the gaps" or an "argument from ignorance of natural causes".
You are correct that we are following a "natural causes of the gaps" approach. We believe that what we don't know will eventually be explained by natural causes. This is because throughout millennia of experience, all scientific questions have resolved to natural causes, and not a single one to God.
The ID position is that a certain scientific question, namely the cause of the diversity of life on Earth, has been answered, and that the cause is God, not evolution. They argue that they've eliminated all possible natural causes, and therefore only God remains as a possibility.
But they haven't eliminated all possible natural causes, of course, and the argument that our current lack of knowledge about specific events in evolutionary history is evidence that they would be naturalistically impossible is IDists contribution to the "God of the gaps" fallacy, and as already pointed out, not a single scientific qustion has ever resolved to God.
Before one can begin claiming God as one of the possible answers to scientific questions, one first has to have at least one case where actual evidence has resolved some scientific question to God. Only then would proposing God as the answer to unresolved scientific questions make any sense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by traderdrew, posted 09-08-2009 5:22 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Peepul, posted 09-09-2009 9:42 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 331 by traderdrew, posted 09-09-2009 11:54 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 325 of 458 (523276)
09-09-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Percy
09-09-2009 7:02 AM


Re: and yet you go there
What a great post Percy - that expresses exactly what I think, but expressed with perfect clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Percy, posted 09-09-2009 7:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 326 of 458 (523291)
09-09-2009 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by jacortina
09-08-2009 7:54 PM


Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)
In fact, a thorough statistical analysis of all known universes shows that the probability of a universe existing with the exact properties we see in this one is ... unity. Exactly 1/1.
If you can prove this then I will leave this site forever. (((Documentation please.)))

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by jacortina, posted 09-08-2009 7:54 PM jacortina has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2009 11:25 AM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 329 by jacortina, posted 09-09-2009 11:36 AM traderdrew has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 327 of 458 (523292)
09-09-2009 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by traderdrew
09-09-2009 11:21 AM


Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)
You do realise that it's trivially true ?
(Read it carefully and think).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by traderdrew, posted 09-09-2009 11:21 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 328 of 458 (523293)
09-09-2009 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by RAZD
09-08-2009 9:17 PM


Re: back up the reference bus -- don't you learn?
You didn't find it. Here it is.
James A. Shapiro
You just got lambasted for posting information from a person that told falsehoods, and it appears you have not learned anything from it.
If James Shapiro told falsehoods then I suggest you provide some supporting evidence from a scientific journal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2009 9:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2009 10:03 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 5084 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 329 of 458 (523294)
09-09-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by traderdrew
09-09-2009 11:21 AM


Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)
If you can prove this then I will leave this site forever.
I suggest that if your understanding of statistics and probability is so woefully poor, you should avoid basing your worldview on something you are completely ignorant of.
We know of exactly one universe, the one we're in. The one we're in has the properties that it has. Therefore, the probability of a universe existing with the properties we see in our own is precisely unity. 1/1. 100%.
The probability of anything existing which is known to exist is that same unity, that same 100%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by traderdrew, posted 09-09-2009 11:21 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by traderdrew, posted 09-09-2009 12:10 PM jacortina has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 330 of 458 (523297)
09-09-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by PaulK
09-09-2009 2:00 AM


Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)
If you are going to accuse me of willful blindness, just for understanding an ID argument and pointing out it's flaws - which is what you've just done - you throw out any pretence of honestly seeking the truth. You just want to support ID and the truth can go hang.
I have tried to find evidence against what I believe. I found this in another link on this forum:
In the rebuttal posted above (through the IIDB debate site) it states that protein SEQUENCES can differ by 80% while still holding the same conformational shape and the same enzymatic properties.
I cannot find any good evidence for the above quote on the net. Claims don't cut it and there are a lot of claims on this forum. In fact, I have found evidence that contradicts the above on google searches on scientific papers.
CSI in DNA??
The nucleotides are arranged in specified sequences are they not?
The nucleotides are information that is ultimately trascribed into amino acids which then form proteins. Is this not true.
I guess Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis has been proven false. Has it???
I would not consider "Specified" as a subjective term. I would consider "complex" as subject to interpretation. However, I would definitely draw the line where proteins have to bind to proteins in more than one specific way at specific places. Each protein is made to fit with other proteins but each protein is assembled independently from each other. The coherence required would call for "complex" information.
Do the proteins somehow morph into each other during their formations?
I'm tired of arguing with walls. I'm begging you to shut me up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2009 2:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2009 12:02 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 335 by Wounded King, posted 09-09-2009 12:40 PM traderdrew has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024