Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 118 (8777 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 2:59 AM
364 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ThinAirDesigns (4 members, 360 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,274 Year: 20,880/21,208 Month: 1,313/2,326 Week: 649/345 Day: 11/161 Hour: 2/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18855
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 166 of 219 (565664)
06-18-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Fiver
06-18-2010 2:51 PM


Excellent Point.
Thanks Fiver for the excellent suggestion.

There are a large number of scientific groups who have published statements saying that they disapprove of Intelligent Design Theory.

Obviously this should be considered support for Silly Design Theory.

Now we need to start compiling a list of Scientists That Don't Support Intelligent Design Theory.

And a statement to agree to ...

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of Irreducible Complexity (IC) and Complex Specified Information (CSI) to explain the full diversity of life. Careful evaluation of the arguments for Intelligent Design theory should be encouraged, especially before such a theory is incorporated into a public school curriculum.

Think I'd have any signers?

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 165 by Fiver, posted 06-18-2010 2:51 PM Fiver has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11658
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 167 of 219 (650775)
02-02-2012 5:40 PM


Example of ID or SD?
Here is an example of a dog's coat that was obviously designed by a higher power. Is this an example of Intelligent Design or Silly Design?


Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Wounded King, posted 02-02-2012 7:24 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2012 8:43 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1590 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 168 of 219 (650783)
02-02-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by New Cat's Eye
02-02-2012 5:40 PM


Re: Example of ID or SD?
I'd go for option number three, pareidolia.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-02-2012 5:40 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18855
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(4)
Message 169 of 219 (650791)
02-02-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by New Cat's Eye
02-02-2012 5:40 PM


Re: Example of ID or SD?
Hi Catholic Scientist,

... Is this an example of Intelligent Design or Silly Design?

I think that calling it Intelligent Design would be a big fallacy.

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 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-02-2012 5:40 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Redd Neo 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1902 days)
Posts: 9
From: Madison, Tennessee, USA
Joined: 02-16-2012


Message 170 of 219 (652932)
02-16-2012 10:34 PM


Friends,
I believe the literary technique given Paul and written in all his epistles for the revelation of the mystery of Christ is in regards to the days of Creation in the first oracles of Genesis 1 and the days of Creation from the sixth chapter of Revelation.

Blessings and Peace,
Ken


Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by subbie, posted 02-16-2012 11:41 PM Redd Neo has not yet responded
 Message 185 by NoNukes, posted 02-17-2012 12:52 AM Redd Neo has not yet responded

    
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 171 of 219 (652938)
02-16-2012 10:45 PM


Poor design and rational design
If poor design is evidence against the thesis that rational, intelligent design has played a role in the history of life on earth, then rational design would be evidence in favor of that thesis, would it not?

My approach goes like this: if a given biological feature seems to be poorly designed, then that's lowers our confidence that that feature was designed by intelligence; but if a given biological feature - like for example, the genetic code, or the bacterial flagellum - displays properties of rational design, then that's a clue in favor of the thesis that that system was designed by intelligence.

Any thoughts on this?


Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by hooah212002, posted 02-16-2012 10:57 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 177 by subbie, posted 02-17-2012 12:05 AM Genomicus has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 172 of 219 (652940)
02-16-2012 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Genomicus
02-16-2012 10:45 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Your "approach" is that this intelligent designer only designs half-ass? He puts forth his intelligence into some things and not others?

the genetic code

Yes. The genetic code is GREAT. The genetic code that says some people are predisposed to disease no matter what. Was the designer so intelligently lazy that it used practically the same code on all of life so as to give the appearance of a common ancestor?

bacterial flagellum

Without mentioning Behe, explain what is so great about the bacterial flagellum.

Lastly, your approach is simply "count the hits, ignore the misses" unless your designer is a bumbling fool.


"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Genomicus, posted 02-16-2012 10:45 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Genomicus, posted 02-16-2012 11:27 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 173 of 219 (652942)
02-16-2012 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by hooah212002
02-16-2012 10:57 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
quote:
Your "approach" is that this intelligent designer only designs half-ass? He puts forth his intelligence into some things and not others?

The problem with the above statement is that you're assuming that I'm arguing for one particular model of ID, and that is the thesis that an intelligent designer(s) has intervened continually during life's history. You further assume, unfortunately, that common ancestry and ID are not compatible. This is evidenced by this statement of yours:

quote:
The genetic code that says some people are predisposed to disease no matter what. Was the designer so intelligently lazy that it used practically the same code on all of life so as to give the appearance of a common ancestor?

Common descent and ID are compatible under the front-loading hypothesis. Briefly, the ID hypothesis of front-loading proposes that the earth (or more broadly, the solar system) was seeded with unicellular organisms that contained the necessary genomic information to shape future evolution in a particular direction. This hypothesis answers your objection "He [why assume the designer(s) is a "he"?] puts forth his intelligence into some things and not others?"

According to front-loading, the first life forms had the optimal, universal genetic code found in virtually all taxa with the exception of secondarily derived genetic codes. The first life forms had molecular machines like ATP synthases etc., which were designed into the first genomes on earth. Subsequent evolution would produce biological systems that would be hodge-podge and display properties of poor design. There's room for the blind watchmaker and teleology, here. Try not to think in terms of black and white.

So, if the flagellum was designed into the initial genomes (or if it was front-loaded), then it would be expected to display properties of rational design. But the blind watchmaker could produce biological features like blind cavefish, and it could tinker with genomes, filling them up with transposons et al.

quote:
Yes. The genetic code is GREAT.

Indeed, it is. Some people say it is predisposed to disease? Who exactly are these people and what is their claim specifically? The scientific literature is pretty unanimous in that the genetic code is optimal - a property of rational design.

quote:
Without mentioning Behe, explain what is so great about the bacterial flagellum.

It is efficient, and it's not hodge-podge. The flagellum-specific ATP synthase fits neatly into the FliF pore: under the non-teleological hypothesis, it could have easily been otherwise. It could have been that the ATP synthase partially clogs up the pore with one or more F1 subunits - but this is not the case. Etc., etc. There is no molecular version of the eye's backward wiring in the flagellum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by hooah212002, posted 02-16-2012 10:57 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by hooah212002, posted 02-16-2012 11:54 PM Genomicus has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 174 of 219 (652943)
02-16-2012 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Redd Neo
02-16-2012 10:34 PM


I believe Dr. Suess had a unique grasp of language and a keen insight into what amused both children and adults.

My observation is similar to yours in that it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

Mine is different from yours in that it it based in reality.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Redd Neo, posted 02-16-2012 10:34 PM Redd Neo has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 175 of 219 (652944)
02-16-2012 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Genomicus
02-16-2012 11:27 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
The problem with the above statement is that you're assuming that I'm arguing for one particular model of ID

Have there been breakthroughs in ID since the Wedge Document or Dover? I didn't realize the ID movement had multiple "models".

You further assume, unfortunately, that common ancestry and ID are not compatible.

Damn skippy I do. Especially since the ID movement is creationism repackaged and sold as "SCIENCE!! (insert jazz hands here). You guys even use sciencey sounding words. Jenny McCarthy does that too.

Common descent and ID are compatible under the front-loading hypothesis. Briefly, the ID hypothesis of front-loading proposes that the earth (or more broadly, the solar system) was seeded with unicellular organisms that contained the necessary genomic information to shape future evolution in a particular direction.

This "hypothesis". Is there somewhere I could find it published? Preferably in a mainstream journal? It sounds an awful lot like panspermia to me.


"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Genomicus, posted 02-16-2012 11:27 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:04 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 176 of 219 (652945)
02-17-2012 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by hooah212002
02-16-2012 11:54 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
quote:
Have there been breakthroughs in ID since the Wedge Document or Dover? I didn't realize the ID movement had multiple "models".

ID movement? Well, I'm not part of the ID movement, so your above comment isn't particularly relevant to my arguments.

quote:
Damn skippy I do. Especially since the ID movement is creationism repackaged and sold as "SCIENCE!! (insert jazz hands here). You guys even use sciencey sounding words. Jenny McCarthy does that too.

It doesn't seem, to me at least, that you're responding to my specific arguments. In response to your assumption that ID and common descent are incompatible, I described the ID hypothesis of front-loading - common descent is a necessary component of that hypothesis. This means that some ID models are indeed compatible with common descent, and I think that answers your assumption.

quote:
This "hypothesis". Is there somewhere I could find it published? Preferably in a mainstream journal? It sounds an awful lot like panspermia to me.

It is an extension of Crick and Orgel's directed panspermia hypothesis. However, it goes a step further and states the the "course" of evolution has been biased in certain directions, due to the initial, designed state of the first genomes on earth.

An idea need not be peer-reviewed in the scientific literature in order to have merit as an idea that deserves discussion.

That said, I am sure you will kindly respond to (a) the evidence that the bacterial flagellum displays properties of rational design, and (b) my query as to who are arguing that the genetic code is predisposed to disease and what their arguments are specifically. Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by hooah212002, posted 02-16-2012 11:54 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by subbie, posted 02-17-2012 12:09 AM Genomicus has responded
 Message 183 by hooah212002, posted 02-17-2012 12:43 AM Genomicus has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 177 of 219 (652946)
02-17-2012 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Genomicus
02-16-2012 10:45 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
The first problem is developing criteria to determine whether something exhibits "properties of rational design," given that we can observe things that we know are not rationally design but nonetheless appear to exhibit properties of rational design. In other words, how do you distinguish between naturally occurring and rationally designed?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Genomicus, posted 02-16-2012 10:45 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:12 AM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 178 of 219 (652947)
02-17-2012 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 12:04 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
the evidence that the bacterial flagellum displays properties of rational design

You've given none. You stated that it was, but saying so isn't evidence.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:04 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:17 AM subbie has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 179 of 219 (652948)
02-17-2012 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by subbie
02-17-2012 12:05 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
quote:
The first problem is developing criteria to determine whether something exhibits "properties of rational design," given that we can observe things that we know are not rationally design but nonetheless appear to exhibit properties of rational design. In other words, how do you distinguish between naturally occurring and rationally designed?

Good question. However, my approach (to give credit where credit is due: Mike Gene developed this approach) is that once we have established that a given system displays properties of rational design, then this is one factor out of several that increases the confidence in our hunch that teleology was involved in the origin of this system. Simply because a biotic system displays properties of rational design doesn't mean it was designed. But if you couple this with other factors, then it's a clue in favor of the telic hypothesis.

Also note that explaining the origin of a molecular machine with tightly integrated, discrete components through Darwinian evolution is hard enough, but when you also have to account for that molecular machine's rational properties, then things really are starting to get "suspicious": i.e., it really would be a good clue in favor of the telic hypothesis. (Hopefully, what I just said makes a little sense)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by subbie, posted 02-17-2012 12:05 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by subbie, posted 02-17-2012 12:22 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 180 of 219 (652949)
02-17-2012 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by subbie
02-17-2012 12:09 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
quote:
You've given none. You stated that it was, but saying so isn't evidence.

Well, actually, I did. But let me elaborate on this. The efficiency of the energy conversion of the flagellum is very close to 100% - and, of course, efficiency is a hallmark of rational design. Further, structurally speaking, it is rationally designed. The flagellum-specific ATP synthase fits neatly into the FliF pore - it could easily have been otherwise; e.g., it could have been that one or more F1 subunits partially clogged up the FliF pore. But this is not the case.

I could go on about how the structure of the flagellum displays properties of rational design, but the above should suffice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by subbie, posted 02-17-2012 12:09 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by subbie, posted 02-17-2012 12:27 AM Genomicus has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017