Help me understand Intelligent Design

quote:

---

If you wanted an analogy that was a bit closer to biological evolution then you might make such a change. However that isn't the point that Dawkins is making. I'll let you have a go at clarifying you understanding of the point he IS making and we can discuss it.

---

You don't seem to want to adress the fact that he could have used the other method to make a more convincing case. To ask me to elaborate on what I think he meant or what his point was, is only getting around and detouring that fact.

quote:

---

First one would have to show that randomness should be removed. You haven't done that. All the available evidence is that mutations occur in a way that is not specfically predictable. I suspect we will have to, again, fuss with a definition of "random" before continueing on this vain.

---

Well maybe you can present that evidence, because all the evidence I've read points to the improbility of occurence by chance. Especially if we mean, as the dictionary would put it: Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements.The probability distribution points in that direction when looking at the phenomena as a whole, even in small accumulated chance steps and how they all add up to a super coincidence factor as I've pointed out already. So please bring forward this additional evidence I might be missing?

quote:

---

In this context "random" is a description of the outcome of the detailed mechanisms. It is NOT equivalent to ID in this context however. What is equivalent to ID here would be "quantum mechanics" or "the rules of chemistry". So what?

---

So you're essentially saying that you disagree with me when I said ID, just like RANDOMNESS, isn't the mechanism itself, it's what causes the said mechanism to exist and to take place, and give form to the present reality in the overall above stated formula.See here, it's now for you to explain how your proposition works, and how mine doesn't. Because my cards are on the table on that one.

quote:

---

As noted above this comparison is not valid. In the biologists case "it" is chemistry. If as you say it is God then the whole idea of ID being science evaporates and we can all retire from the argument. The ID claims that we can see design and should consider that. Nuggin is asking for how this design is implemented -- that is what is the mechanism. There hasn't been one put forward.

---

You either misunderstood or being a little dishonest with this point, because the "it" is in relation to randomness or ID. Thus the "IT" is the "HOW" of the biochemical phenomena in question, raisin the following question, at the heart of this discussing: is "IT" ID and randomness. This is where the beef is. As for the latter part of your statement, I refer you back to my previous question.

quote:

---

Well, we have been discussing this for days. There isn't any hint that you have understood any of the discussion. You may conclude what you want. I suggest you improve your understanding before reaching a conclusion.

---

With the way I've knocked off every major objections to my positions, firmly, time after time, the above is borderline delusional I'm afraid. Not to mention a lil' pretentious.

quote:

---

sometimes it helps to read just a little further.

---

Another example of philosophical piece that quote was...but it further reafirms the iniatial proposition..thanx Para!God I love Dawkins..

Do you have a reading problem?

You don't know what case he was trying to make. He makes the case he is actually talking about just fine. The language analogy becomes way to cumbersome if you try to extend it to explaning biological evolution.What he is trying to show is that a very improbable event (20 or 30 letters in a particular order) is entirely possible if there is selection involved. That is all the point being made.His climbing mount improbable is a better analogy for the big picture. This has already been explained a number of times.One more time, but briefly, it is becoming apparent that you aren't going to get it.I think your whole argument is that the probility of an outcome (like a leaf bug) specified in advance is low.However, there is no outcome specfied in advance so that argument doesn't make any sense at all.ABE I do happen to agree that randomness is not the mechanism itself. Random is a description of the result. The mechanisms are those of chemistry.ID is, if I read you right, a description of the result also; that is a "design".Now Nuggin asked for the mechanism. This thread is about supplying that. Care to summarize?All I've seen you say is that something is improbable. As noted above it is only ridiculously improbable if it is a single, specified outcome with a very few trails. That is not the case here.Did I miss any of the rest of your argument?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-19-2005 03:35 PM

quote:

---

You don't know what case he was trying to make. He makes the case he is actually talking about just fine. The language analogy becomes way to cumbersome if you try to extend it to explaning biological evolution.

​

What he is trying to show is that a very improbable event (20 or 30 letters in a particular order) is entirely possible if there is selection involved. That is all the point being made.

​

His climbing mount improbable is a better analogy for the big picture.

---

Then I believe I understood correctly the first time. However, it remains an inappropriate analogy for the point he is trying to make, for reasons I have already stated. But your defense of his analogy is not much different from those who defend Behe's analogy of the Motorclycle. Both are flawed. You can't be so dogmatic about your views to the point where you deny the obvious in order for things to fit your own understanding. Dawkins is not perfect, he made an honest or dishonest mistake in using that analogy, his explanation of why he did so, as provided by Para, bares witness to that fact, when of course, one analyses the matter objectively and not dogmaticaly.

quote:

---

This has already been explained a number of times.

​

One more time, but briefly, it is becoming apparent that you aren't going to get it.

​

I think your whole argument is that the probility of an outcome (like a leaf bug) specified in advance is low.

​

However, there is no outcome specfied in advance so that argument doesn't make any sense at all

---

You do that sometimes Ned, you completely overlook things that were clearely stipulated in previous posts. Because I fully understand that according to Evolution, there is no specified outcome. Or else I wouldn't have pointed out that Dawkins' analogy was flawed. How could that objection make any sense if I didn't understand that principle Ned?You're assuming, which is something you seem to do almost systematically throughout this discussion. This is one of the reasons I have to reiterate my statements everytime you do so.But since we've established that I do "get it", and based on that understanding, I've raised my objections to randomness' being able to account for such specific unspecified results, what else can you tell me to prove that my objections are unfounded. Because just telling me: "well that just the way it works son, so you have to accept it, it seems you just don't understand", isn't very convincing. It sounds like something a christian pastor would say.So since I have restated the fact that I do understand the principle of unspecified results, what can you do to substantiate it? Considering, by both Dawkins and Fisher's account, that it is an "EHDI", for the fact that in the end, the unspecified results seem a little too specific. To the point where, from the biologists standpoint, you have to approach the unspecified organisms as though they were in fact specified, designed, manufactured and thought of, in order to work out their fonction in the first place. I mean, with all due respect, it seems neo-darwinists are basing randomness on Faith more then anything. Because you critically minimise the order of improbability here, that is, the plausibility of pure unoriented chance, guided by a cumulative process of NS, to be capable of producing such diverse, specific, and remarkably functional complexity from an unspecific random cause. Because Natural Selection, in and of itself, hardly accounts for it. To take this a little furhter, can you tell me how many (non-harmful)positive mutations (aka DNA copying errors) have to take place in an organism in order to produce a new structure? Let's answer that question then move along based on the answer.But let us consider this, while we await the answer, that even avout darwinists are themselves puzzled by the astounding improbability that "randomness" presents. So I conclude that they must accept, in the end, partly on faith, and partly on peer pressure.A case in point, although Mr. Perre-Paul Grassé is a devout evolutionist and possibility one of the most famous zoologists in France's history, can we blame him, as a skeptical darwinist, for raising an observation like:"what gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's "Melancholia'" is less infinitesimal then the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formaiton of the eye; besides, these erroes had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not induldge in it"And although this next quote dates a while back, 1967, it does capture the spirit of the objection I'm raising, here is what Dr. Murray Eden :"what I am claiming is that without some constraint on the notion of random variation, in either the properties of the organism or the sequence of the DNA, there is no partcular reason to expect that we could have gotten any kind of viable form other then nonsense."See Para, I know you'll say NS regulates this. But as it does, it still, mathematically produces a nonsentical unorderly expression of function. In other words, randomness, regulated purely by NS, had highly improbable chances of taking the process that far out into the complexity of things around and about us. This is what I mean when I say that the amount of potential species that never existed also contributed to the connundrum of: well why order and function then? Why is it so specific? In many cases, it didn't need to in order to survive. Not to mention that according to Dr. Kimura's Neutral Theory of evolution, Natural Selection may turn out to play an even smaller role then previously thought.If you refer back to my initial claim though, you'll notice that my problem with random evolution as a whole is that it relied much more on faith then on science or mathematics then ID does, based on these awesome improbabilities.

quote:

---

I do happen to agree that randomness is not the mechanism itself. Random is a description of the result. The mechanisms are those of chemistry.

​

ID is, if I read you right, a description of the result also; that is a "design".

---

You read me right..

quote:

---

Now Nuggin asked for the mechanism. This thread is about supplying that.

---

Then you can appreciate why I said that Nuggin is not asking the right questions about ID because he is not placing it at the right position in the Evolution equation then.This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-19-2005 05:30 PM

It does not. He merely points out that his model is not accurate in all aspects. But it doesn't need to be. The only aspect he needs for his immediate purpose is cumulative selection.Do you really believe that when Dawkins is writing a book and makes a mistake, he is going to write an apology in the same book and then publish it? How stupid do you think he is? How stupid do you think his readers are?Let me venture a guess as to your reply: "Para reaffirms my position." If you repeat it often enough, you might even convince yourself one day.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 19-Oct-2005 10:55 PM

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

LOLI was prepared to write a lengthy response to this, then it occured to me that since you are your own judge and always assign yourself an A+, you still wouldn't understand the point.

Come to think of it, ausar_maat sounds suspiciously like Jerry Don Bauer, don't you agree?

We're rapidly reaching the 300 limit so here we go again.I'll use your simplication to make it easy on everyone.evolution = random mutation + natural selection.
"random" means that it's not directed
"mutation" means that there are changes in the genetic codeEven Biblical Creationists accept that microevolution takes place.ID = God directed changes + (?) natural selectionWhat I'm asking you to explain is very simple -
1) What process is used by God to create the specific changes?
2) How do we predict through pattern when and where these changes will occur?
3) What evidence is there that all the changes have been specifically selected?
4) Why, if God is in charge of all these changes, do we see microevolution taking place?And here's a special one5) If God is responsible for all genetic mutation, then shouldn't we scorn those afflicted with genetic defects as they are clearly being punished by God?

In one and the same post, ausar_maat writes: and I would like to point out that playing roulette is betting on a specified outcome. The above quotes make me wonder if ausar_maat understands his own posts, let alone ours.

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

I'm beginning to see how narrow and particularly biased, not to mention emotional, you all seem to be on this topic. Because you insult the objections yet, fail to adress them methodologically and so, you merely adopt a dismissive attitude. Like many believers in a religion will do when faced with opposing views. Further reafirming that your non-teleological views are merely philosophical naturalism. This doesn't convince anyone but your selves I'm afraid. You don't seem to want to accept that the views you repeat and regurgitate may have flaws, so you loose objectivity in so doing. And to top it all off, when I answer your questions from my perspective, then comeback with more questions of my own, based on the knowledge and information available, instead of adressing these questions, you flee behind your comfortable sarcasm. Then claim, again, to comfort yourselves I guess, that I just don't understand. When in fact, I demonstrated that I did. But you nit pick on little words I write and look for little contridactions instead of adressing core central points, which is why we had to spend so many pages arguing things like "purpose", to the point where I had to resort to the dictionary to end up proving my points emphatically and beyond dispute. Then you jump on another lil something when that no longer worked, and so on and so forth. But with all due respect, it is dishonest arguementation at it's best to say the least. Very poor in fact. However, I respect your points of view, I hope to share further on a more intellectual level, but alas...this here is sounding more and more like a christian debate between 2 rival churches (and I'm not christian in that sense by the way).Para, I think you are being a little too dogmatic about Dawkins. Because it's ridiculously funny to write: I would like to point out that playing roulette is betting on a specified outcome. The above quotes make me wonder if ausar_maat understands his own posts, let alone ours. After you vehemently defended Dawkins when I made the very same objection about his analogy. It makes you look bad and demonstrate that you are clearly biased.But I agree, Grassé's analogy wasn't adaquate, in the very same way Dawkins' wasn't either, although I wanted to raise the point that for even the best in the field, there are objections. You on the other hand, are trying to make Dawkins' Weasel the proof of random mutation. Apples & Oranges.But while I'm on the topic of objections, improbability also happens to be one of the reasons Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick developped ”directed panspermia’ in the first place. What I'm raising is not only beyond obvious, it's attested by neo-darwinists and other non-ID also. His reasoning is as follows in Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature :
pp. 51-52:
“If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be?
“This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20 (200) and is approximately equal to 10260, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros.
“Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense. The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.” then...
p. 88:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. ...The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth’s surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.” It's nothing special guys, EHDI is inherent to the equation..be objective and deal with it. Then tell me if by Ockham's razor, believing in randomness isn't more based on Faith then on fact. Be real with yourselves...

What point are you trying to make, ausar_maat?I have read many of your posts, and I still fail to see your point.Do you believe that there was an intelligent designer? Well that's fine with me. I don't try to control your beliefs. If you want to think that way, go ahead.Are you trying to convince me (and others) that there was an intelligent design? If that is your aim, you have failed completely. You have not produced any evidence whatsoever. The problems with your arguments have been explained to you many times.Are you trying to show that, once teleological assumptions are made, then evolution looks highly improbable unless there was a designer? I don't think anybody disagrees with that. What they disagree with, is your teleological assumptions.Are you trying to argue that there is a scientific basis for teleological assumptions? If that's your aim, you have failed. You have not provided any evidence to support such a claim.Are you trying to argue that there is no scientific disproof of your teleological assumptions? I'm not sure why you would bother. I haven't seen anybody trying to disprove your assumptions. Scientists only assert that there is no basis for your assumptions. But sure, maybe there really is an invisible pink unicorn that planned it all out, and somehow managed to subtly meddle with apparently random events just so that they would all turn out the right way. I can't prove that wrong, but I'm not likely to believe it until there is independent evidence of the invisible pink unicorn.Are you just trying to argue that Dawkins use poor metaphors to argue his case? Well, take that up with Dawkins. As far as I can tell, he didn't consult any of us for advice on how to best present his ideas.Help me out, ausar_maat - tell me what it is that you are trying to argue. You seem to keep bringing up the same points, and they have been answered time after time. If people seem dismissive, it's because you seem to be ignoring their responses.Maybe other responders are as confused as I am, on what it is you are trying to argue. They have been answering your aruments on the assumption that you were attempting to show that ID is scientific. If your aim is actually something different, perhaps that is why you see the responses as dismissive. No, this isn't a matter of assuming philosophical naturalism. It is a matter of basic scientific objectivity. The teleological assumptions you make are subjective. Science avoids such assumptions in order to be objective. You have failed to demonstrate any flaws.What you have been arguing, in effect, is that if we were to make some highly subjective teleological assumptions, we would come to different conclusions.Well sure. The history of science has many examples where people have made bad assumptions, and reached wrong conclusions. Scientists do their best to avoid making unwarranted assumptions. We do not lose objectivity by avoiding teleological assumptions. Rather, we avoid those assumptions in order to retain objectivity.

When you made your objection to Dawkins' analogy, it was clear that you hadn't read his own defense for not bothering to eliminate the factor of the specified goal. Your objection was against something Dawkins wasn't even after with his analogy: he wasn't trying to prove anything about random mutation, he was trying to demonstrate something about cumulative selection. In his own defense, which you hadn't read, but which I quoted to you, he mentions this specifically. Then, in your subsequent reply, you did not address this, so I was beginning to think that maybe you couldn't read very well.On the other hand, my objection against your endorsement of things like "what gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution?", is that in the same post where you state that you "fully understand that according to Evolution, there is no specified outcome.", you argue your case by citing sources that specifically make this very error, without qualifying them as such, thereby demonstrating that you either do not understand the problem of the specified goal after all, or willfully ignore it. Either you lack understanding or you are being dishonest.

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

You seem to keep bringing up the same points, and they have been answered time after time. If people seem dismissive, it's because you seem to be ignoring their responses.

​

Maybe other responders are as confused as I am, on what it is you are trying to argue. They have been answering your aruments on the assumption that you were attempting to show that ID is scientific. If your aim is actually something different, perhaps that is why you see the responses as dismissive.

---

What part of that is an answer to any of my objections? This is rhetoric, you demonstrate talents of a good preacher. Because here, every objection has been meet, yet you act as though it hasn't, then instead of brining additional arguements as I asked, you ignore it and ask of more evidence from me. Who is really confused here nwr?

It seems that you are confused.I explicitly asked: You did not answer that. I guess I should conclude that you don't actually have a point. I have no idea what you are reading (or what you are smoking). I did not ask for more evidence.I pointed out that the reasons others are dismissing your arguments is because you do not provide evidence, but I never asked you to provide evidence.I will ask once again. Please provide a succint statement of what it is you are trying to establish.