Help me understand Intelligent Design

in other words,you want me to repeat my self?again

From there on in your post the quotes are talking about probabilities based on an outcome specified in advance. Did you or did you not agree that this is erroneous when used to refer to evolution?

Auser,it's been a while since I responded to this thread. The main reason is that, like some others here, I seemed to have a really hard time to find out what exactly you argue. I myself blamed this partly on language (I'm not native English), but over time I have come to the conclusion that you seem to have a real talent to obfuscate matters. It's incredible how many pages of text you had to write, while it all comes down to the simple notion that you don't believe "mere chance" could provide NS with the necessary mutations to result in 'functional' evolution.Aside from that, I still don't see how there is more to this than that you simply "don't think it is possible." Like nwr and Para, I still constantly have the impression that you're somehow missing the point of some of the analogies that have been put forward (like the tree analogy). And in any case, you have not offered anything beside some quotes and argument from incredulity to illustrate why random mutation could not offer NS the necessary material.Let me ask you a couple of questions:1) would you feel like your "concerns" would be addressed (and confirmed) if some sort of self-regulating principles were discovered (comparable to emerging order in chaos theory and such...) which would show that there is a naturalistic means by which NS is provided with "better than random" material? Would you feel like such a discovery would illustrate your point? Would it matter whether this is a naturalistic mechanism or something undefined (like a "designer")?2) do you think there's research going on in that direction and do you think this research is done under the "ID" banner? Or, in other words, is it your assumption that our hope to find something along these lines rests with those who go under the "ID" banner, and do you feel like opposing "ID" sort of equals blocking any research in this direction?3) do you have concrete examples of objective evidence, aside from "gut feeling", that some such mechanisms should exist?(edited layout)This message has been edited by Annafan, 20-10-2005 04:04 PM

quote:

---

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.

---

This is another case of "I'll close my eyes and pretend Ausar never said this and maybe he won't notice" I guess?You should take your own advice it seems, and read just a little bit further. The rest of the statement you quoted me writting was:

quote:

---

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{Note: That was my only point!}. You on the other hand, are trying to make Dawkins' Weasel the proof of random mutation. Apples & Oranges.

---

Then you also mention...

quote:

---

he wasn't trying to prove anything about random mutation, he was trying to demonstrate something about cumulative selection

---

As for Dawkins refering to cumulative selection and not random mutation, it seems like a contradictary statement on your part. We all know that cumulative selection is in fact, the acquisition of new mutated traits (aka DNA copying errors)in biopopulations, so we're dealing with random mutation on a cumulative level. In which case, a random composition of any unspecified setence through his Weasel Similation would've been appropriate to establish anything about cumulative selection, and that wasn't done, by his own admission. So therefore my point was, that his point was thereby pointless. This is why I said your quote reafirms my position.This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-20-2005 12:06 PM

quote:

---

From there on in your post the quotes are talking about probabilities based on an outcome specified in advance.

---

No actually, technically you're wrong, in the case of Dr.Eden, that much is clear. Read it carefully and identify specific outcome infered somewhere in that quote:

quote:

---

Dr. Eden said:
"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."

---

From my vantage point, he is saying that, as Para pointed out, of all the unspecified results we could've had, the probability distribution of what "should've happened" by random, causes him to conclude that the combined forces of natural selection regulating an accumulative alléatoire mutation process, "shouldn't", based on the properties of organisms or the sequence of DNA, have produced "any kind of viable form other then nonsense."If you wanna argue that the present outcome IS non-sense. We'll take it from there. But that would contradict the vary principle of NS's role and intrisic mechanism. Therefore I doubt you will.and nor in the case of Dr.Grassé, nor in the case of Dr.Crick is specified outcome in question in those quotes. Or even inferred as far as I can tell.In the case of Dr.Crick, he argues the improbability based on the nature of the DNA itself, just like Dr.Eden. Not specified outcomes.

Quite the contrary. I am looking for a simple clear one line explanation of what you are trying to argue. As best I can tell, that isn't anything you have yet provided.

I'll take your lengthy post as yet another confirmation that you have no methodology behind Intelligent Design, since you once again are dodging the main question of the thread.

Obviously you are.I'll clear it up for you yet again:The question is:
What is methodology of Intelligent Design?or, in other words:
If you were to teach ID in schools, what mechanics would you be teaching?

quote:

---

Quite the contrary. I am looking for a simple clear one line explanation of what you are trying to argue. As best I can tell, that isn't anything you have yet provided.

---

No you do want me to repeat myself, but that's ok. I will.

quote:

---

The accumulative selection of "Random" Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution.

​

My problem is with the "Random" part in this equation.

---

I say ID, you say random...the rest of this discussion deals with why we disagree on that very specific point remember?

Interesting that you bring this up.On the topic of repeating yourself...WHAT IS THE METHODOLOGY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

quote:

---

or, in other words:
If you were to teach ID in schools, what mechanics would you be teaching?

---

No you need to deal with the fact that you're asking the wrong question about ID because you are placing it in the wrong spot in the equation. This is where we disagree.Refer to my previous post.

Maybe answer MY post instead? Maybe it generates some PROGRESS in this very confusing thread...

The Simulation is designed to show the effects of natural selection. Therefore "selection" has to be a part of the process.How would one program a computer to do "selection" without having a goal for it to select towards?Could this be done? Probably. Could this be done by a Biologist instead of the programer? Doubtful.You complaint is more a restriction of the computers inability to make random selections than of Dawkins work.In any event...WHAT IS THE METHODOLOGY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

I have read your posts.You are saying that genetic mutations do not occur randomly. That they occur based on a very specific and well thought out plan.What is the methodology by which these mutations occur?The random methodology is that there are copying errors, that no one copy error is better or worse, or more likely or less likely, than any other. Hence the word "random".Your turn, how are the mutations taking place? What causes them? What selects what is mutated? How do we predict what the next mutation will be? How do we account for negative mutation?

You only said that after I pointed out the first time that you endorsed Grassé's view. I could not have read your modification because you had not written it yet.The first time you said: apparently implying that we can't blame him. So you didn't blame someone for making the specified goal error, after just having stated that you understand the very same error.You are trying to weasel yourself out of this. How appropriate.

---

"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