Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 7:58 PM
382 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,870 Year: 16,476/21,208 Month: 2,365/3,593 Week: 478/882 Day: 99/97 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   Doesn't Natural Selection lead to Specified Complexity?
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1191 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 106 of 138 (619798)
06-12-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Panda
06-12-2011 12:45 PM


Re: A call for clarity
Panda writes:

SavageD writes:

Panda writes:

SavageD writes:

It is unlikely that you would find a river of dna (Deoxyribonucleic acid) for example, such things aren't exactly found in our natural environment.

I thought I would point out that plants have DNA so, although you wouldn't find a river of DNA, you would find a forest of DNA.

True your gonna find within plants, however your not exactly gonna find it within the natural environment laying about on the ground somewhere in great abundance now would you.


Sorry.
I thought that plants were part of the natural environment.
I must be mistaken.

So...are plants not natural or are they not part of the environment? (Or both?)

Plants are found within the natural environment therefore, by all means plants are natural in that sense. Though some of the materials (dna for example) of which they are comprised of, are by all means unique to the environment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Panda, posted 06-12-2011 12:45 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Panda, posted 06-12-2011 1:14 PM SavageD has responded
 Message 109 by Nuggin, posted 06-12-2011 1:45 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1152 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 107 of 138 (619799)
06-12-2011 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by SavageD
06-12-2011 1:01 PM


Re: A call for clarity
SavageD writes:

Panda writes:

So...are plants not natural or are they not part of the environment? (Or both?)

Plants are found within the natural environment therefore, by all means plants are natural in that sense. Though some of the materials (dna for example) of which they are comprised of, are by all means unique to the environment.


It seems that you are saying that plants are natural and part of the environment, but plant DNA is not natural or part of the environment.
This makes little sense to me.

Would this also mean that plants are not 'designed', but their DNA is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 1:01 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 2:46 PM Panda has responded

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1191 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 108 of 138 (619800)
06-12-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by PaulK
06-12-2011 12:54 PM


Re: A call for clarity
PaulK writes:

You may not have explicitly used the word but it is pretty clearly what you mean.

Iterative change is simply a process of continually adding changes. It's normal with software sold as a product. Think of all the changes Windows has gone through - the same for Internet Explorer or Firefox, or whichever browser you use. But it's also the way evolution works. Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker is pretty good on this point.

Surely my definition includes the prospect of complexity, but it does not stop at that point. doing a quick look at Iterative design it seems to refer to tweaking? I could be wrong.

Not this tweaking isn't necessarily performed by mindless forces, but through laziness as one merely tweaks his program to compensate for what ever problem he can see offhand, without looking at the wider picture, again I could be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 06-12-2011 12:54 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 06-12-2011 2:55 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 109 of 138 (619802)
06-12-2011 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by SavageD
06-12-2011 1:01 PM


Re: A call for clarity
Plants are found within the natural environment therefore, by all means plants are natural in that sense. Though some of the materials (dna for example) of which they are comprised of, are by all means unique to the environment.

You seem to have an unusual idea of what the term "unique" means.

DNA certainly isn't unique. DNA is abundant.
A specific sequence MAY be unique, but then so too would the "plant" which contains it.

However, since we don't address each dandelion as a "unique" kind of plant, it seems a little ridiculous to have such a double standard.

I suppose you could say that DNA/RNA/mDNA was unique _IF_ you had a host of other life forms which didn't utilize any of these sequences. THEN, you could say "Look, life on Earth is 'unique' since all other life is silicon based" or whatever.

But that would assume having discovered other life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 1:01 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1191 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 110 of 138 (619810)
06-12-2011 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Panda
06-12-2011 1:14 PM


Re: A call for clarity
Panda writes:

SavageD writes:

Panda writes:

So...are plants not natural or are they not part of the environment? (Or both?)

Plants are found within the natural environment therefore, by all means plants are natural in that sense. Though some of the materials (dna for example) of which they are comprised of, are by all means unique to the environment.

It seems that you are saying that plants are natural and part of the environment, but plant DNA is not natural or part of the environment.
This makes little sense to me.

Would this also mean that plants are not 'designed', but their DNA is?

No, it would mean that plant is there as a result of an intelligent designer. DNA isn't found in the environment in the sense that you cannot look within a rock formation, river or air and say hay look I found dna here. DNA is found within a plant, yes, the plant is found within the environment, yes, however dna cannot be found outside the organism, or rather it isn't found within the natural environment.

Simply saying dna is natural because plants are natural does not cut it as that would be a, truism, it goes much deeper than that.

Take a clay cup for example....Clay can be found within in a lot of places in the environment, not only within the cup, but outside it as well. (a mountain for example)

Intelligent agents usually create new (or unique) materials in an environment (metal, silk etc.) and they may use these new materials to create objects, a car & spider web (silk) for example.

Because the plant also fits within the scope of a designer (intricate & interconnected parts, unique materials etc) it is highly likely that it was created by an intelligent agent.

Or rather it is highly likely that an intelligent system was ordained to produce such creations, as plants depend on other life forms to survive.

Though I must admit that I see a need to refine what I mean by "unique or synthetic materials." For now it is a general concept.


Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. (lol!) The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Panda, posted 06-12-2011 1:14 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Panda, posted 06-12-2011 3:27 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12759
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 111 of 138 (619814)
06-12-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by SavageD
06-12-2011 1:18 PM


Re: A call for clarity
quote:

Surely my definition includes the prospect of complexity, but it does not stop at that point.

That would be true of any definition of specified complexity. But it seems clear that your notion of complexity is the common view, and not Dembski's improbability measures.

quote:

doing a quick look at Iterative design it seems to refer to tweaking? I could be wrong

"Tweaking" generally refers to minor changes. I am talking about iterative change rather than iterative design, which includes major additions (often unforseen by the original designer).

quote:

Not this tweaking isn't necessarily performed by mindless forces, but through laziness as one merely tweaks his program to compensate for what ever problem he can see offhand, without looking at the wider picture, again I could be wrong.

Laziness implies spending less effort than could be spent. While iterative change is less work than building a new design from scratch providing a new version in less time, spending less money doing so doesn't qualify as laziness in my book.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 1:18 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1152 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 112 of 138 (619823)
06-12-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by SavageD
06-12-2011 2:46 PM


Re: A call for clarity
SavageD writes:

No, it would mean that plant is there as a result of an intelligent designer. DNA isn't found in the environment in the sense that you cannot look within a rock formation, river or air and say hay look I found dna here. DNA is found within a plant, yes, the plant is found within the environment, yes, however dna cannot be found outside the organism, or rather it isn't found within the natural environment.

Simply saying dna is natural because plants are natural does not cut it as that would be a, truism, it goes much deeper than that.


No, I would say that DNA is natural because it is made in nature - by nature.
If that is a truism, then why are you disagreeing?
Maybe it would help if you could tell me how you define 'natural'.
This might help clear up the confusion.

SavageD writes:

Take a clay cup for example....Clay can be found within in a lot of places in the environment, not only within the cup, but outside it as well. (a mountain for example)


Take a clay mountain for example....Clay can be found within a lot of places in the environment, not only within the mountain, but outside it too. (a cup for example).
I am really not seeing how you are differentiating between a cup and a mountain, apart from your premise that "cups are designed". But that would make your argument circular.

SavageD writes:

Intelligent agents usually create new (or unique) materials in an environment (metal, silk etc.) and they may use these new materials to create objects, a car & spider web (silk) for example.

Because the plant also fits within the scope of a designer (intricate & interconnected parts, unique materials etc) it is highly likely that it was created by an intelligent agent.

Or rather it is highly likely that an intelligent system was ordained to produce such creations, as plants depend on other life forms to survive.


Since these rules may only sometimes apply, how do you tell when they are applicable?
What do you measure and how do you measure it?
(The answer to 'How do you measure it?' is vital.)

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : stuff


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 2:46 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 113 of 138 (619829)
06-12-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by SavageD
06-12-2011 12:19 PM


Re: A call for clarity
SavageD writes:

O Good, I should give up all hope in defining intelligent designs because no other scientist is willing to look into that area....your my hero good sir

Not sure what you mean by "defining intelligent designs". Is that a synonym for developing a model of intelligent design, which is what you claimed you wanted to do and is what I was responding to?

Anyway, my main point was that if you go off half-cocked then what will happen to you is what has already happened in this thread - you'll get caught up in multiple inconsistencies and contradictions because not only have you not thought anything through, you don't yet have enough knowledge to be worth thinking through (something easily remedied with study).

The suggestion to do your research first and go public second was a sincere and serious one. Your performance here is only proving the advantages of this advice.

A side issue: It's not necessary to quote 40 lines if your reply addresses a mere few.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 12:19 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 4:26 PM Percy has responded

    
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1191 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 114 of 138 (619836)
06-12-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Percy
06-12-2011 3:45 PM


Re: A call for clarity
Percy writes:

Not sure what you mean by "defining intelligent designs". Is that a synonym for developing a model of intelligent design, which is what you claimed you wanted to do and is what I was responding to?

?

Anyway, my main point was that if you go off half-cocked then what will happen to you is what has already happened in this thread - you'll get caught up in multiple inconsistencies and contradictions because not only have you not thought anything through, you don't yet have enough knowledge to be worth thinking through (something easily remedied with study).

What contradictions and inconsistencies?...I came here to refine my idea. If it is that I cannot prove a point I would admit it out rightly. Right now I'm caught up with some people who simply do not understand what synthetic materials are and how such a concept could be served as evidence for an object of intelligent design.

The suggestion to do your research first and go public second was a sincere and serious one. Your performance here is only proving the advantages of this advice.

Hard to tell when ever your being sincere or not, I take it that your predominantly insincere. Also, who are you to judge me...

A side issue: It's not necessary to quote 40 lines if your reply addresses a mere few.

Often times only a few words are necessary to some up the some up the reply of an individual.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 06-12-2011 3:45 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 06-12-2011 5:01 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 115 of 138 (619846)
06-12-2011 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by SavageD
06-12-2011 4:26 PM


Re: A call for clarity
SavageD writes:

Percy writes:

Not sure what you mean by "defining intelligent designs". Is that a synonym for developing a model of intelligent design, which is what you claimed you wanted to do and is what I was responding to?


?

In Message 95 you said:

SavageD in Message 95 writes:

I was actually working on my own model regarding intelligent design...

That was what I was replying to. Then when you answered you instead said you were "defining intelligent designs." So I asked if that was a synonym for defining a model of intelligent design, because that was what you said you were doing in Message 95 that I was replying to.

I came here to refine my idea.

Oh, okay. I think it would be better to do that with other like-minded people so you could then take public a more coherent proposal. You don't even know if you could convince other IDists about your ideas about "synthetic materials" - why don't you try that first? Or PM some other IDists here and see if they'll join you here in this thread.

Often times only a few words are necessary to some up the some up the reply of an individual.

Proofread much?

Seriously, dude, don't let the quote be 20 times longer than the reply. There's a link to the message you're replying to right at the top of your message. The text is already there for all to see, you don't have to quote it all over again. Give the database a break.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 4:26 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 116 of 138 (619865)
06-12-2011 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by SavageD
06-12-2011 12:04 PM


Re: A call for clarity
how so? please clarify

If an object fulfilled all your criteria, but was not designed, then by your definition we should still have to call it an "object of design", because your criteria for being an "object of design" do not include being designed.

Also, there are designed objects which do not fulfill your criteria --- a spoon, for example. Despite being an object that was designed, it does not qualify as an "object of design".

how so? please clarify

Well, again, because your definition of "specified complexity" does not include the proviso that the complexity should in fact have been specified. You mention things such as how many parts it has and what materials it's made of, but nothing whatsoever about someone drawing up a specification.

I'm referring to synthetic materials, materials that are not naturally found within a given environment, these materials are usually man made. Spiders create silk for example ...

Spider silk is not usually man-made.

Spiders create silk for example, it is unlikely that you would find silk randomly in our given environment, they require prior intelligence to be made (eg the spider)

The spider doesn't know how to make silk any more than I know how to grow hair out of the top of my head.

Finding the 'specified complexity' in 2 objects is good, finding it in 3 objects even better, finding it in 4 objects even better....

In what way? Either something possesses specified complexity or it doesn't. Does it somehow contain more specified complexity if there are lots of copies of it? Would I be more complex if I had a twin brother?

.....I do not believe in noahs ark, I'm agnostic....

Very well, consider the last dodo. Did it have a lower degree of "specified complexity" by virtue of being the last member of its species than dodos did when they were plentiful?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by SavageD, posted 06-12-2011 12:04 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1362 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 117 of 138 (619927)
06-13-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Percy
06-10-2011 8:08 AM


Re: So: 'If it was designed intelligently then it is the product of intelligent design.'
Hopefully that was simply from a mis-reading of my post ... herein re-written with parenthesis:

(Natural selection is a function of environment and gene distribution) and (drift is a function of gene distribution)

... and I think I have more 'talking' to do about that ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 06-10-2011 8:08 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1362 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 118 of 138 (619928)
06-13-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
06-10-2011 8:07 AM


Re: So: 'If it was designed intelligently then it is the product of intelligent design.'
I didn't say that gene distribution can predict drift, merely that drift is functionally dependent upon it.

I place 'drift' in the position of the 'function' or 'process' acting upon 'gene distribution'.

so (and neglecting the NS part for this and only this point):

GeneDist[k] = drift(GeneDist[k-1])

I have NOT commented on exactly what drift is or is not ... and only included it as an offset in principle because you mentioned it. I was merely trying to show where it fit into my thinking, and why, for this discussion, I was neglecting it.

Determinism:

You do know what deterministic means, don't you?

You answered a question of mine previously in a manner which can only mean you accept that the process of natural selection is deterministic.

"complete and fully detailed" at the same level of abstraction as the population.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2011 8:07 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2011 12:30 PM Peter has responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1362 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 119 of 138 (619929)
06-13-2011 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by SavageD
06-11-2011 4:38 PM


Re: Doesn't Natural Selection lead to Specified Complexity?
What I am actually trying to say is that the 'specified complexity' observed by IDists is, in fact, illusory.

Natural selection is capable of 'designing' systems to such a degree that they appear to have 'specifiec complexity'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by SavageD, posted 06-11-2011 4:38 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12759
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 120 of 138 (619948)
06-13-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Peter
06-13-2011 10:33 AM


Re: So: 'If it was designed intelligently then it is the product of intelligent design.'
quote:

I didn't say that gene distribution can predict drift, merely that drift is functionally dependent upon it.

Let us be clear, you wrote it as if it were a mathematical function with no other variables. If drift is not predictable, at least in principle, from gene distribution alone, you are either conceding a random element or admitting to the existence of other factors.

More importantly you excluded environment, which under your formulation means that no event can have any effect on gene distribution other than through selection.

quote:

You do know what deterministic means, don't you?

You answered a question of mine previously in a manner which can only mean you accept that the process of natural selection is deterministic.


Yes, I do know what determinism means. More importantly, I understand that your question essentially assumed that the "chance" element would always come out the same way, which is hardly helpful. You have not yet dealt with my point that the outcome of evolution is strongly affected by non-selective events which are best modelled as chance. Not because universal determinism is necessarily false, but because they are completely disconnected from selection.

[quote]
"complete and fully detailed" at the same level of abstraction as the population.
[/qupte]
In other words you admit to intentionally using misleading phrasing ? "Not abstracted at all" might be considered a level of abstraction technically, but why not simply say that you don't abstract your description of the population either ? (I would add that to the best of my knowledge, populations are not usually described in complete detail - I guess that must be another of your oddities)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Peter, posted 06-13-2011 10:33 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Peter, posted 06-14-2011 7:48 AM PaulK has responded

    
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017