Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 7:19 PM
418 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,130 Year: 6,736/21,208 Month: 2,497/2,634 Week: 160/525 Day: 75/60 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
202122
23
2425Next
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1289 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 332 of 373 (648257)
01-14-2012 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Straggler
01-12-2012 7:51 AM


Yes. That's my point. By the terms of your own argument there is a logical stalemate.

You want to reject "something from nothing" on the basis that it has never been observed. Indeed given that we are "something" it is by definition impossible for us to ever observe a state of nothingness.

But the exact same problem applies to "infinite in time". We have never observed this. And by virtue of the fact that we are finite in time it is impossible for us to ever observe this.

But what we have observed... is a state of "time" and a state of "something." We do not logically need to reject the state of infinite time on the same basis as the concept of something from nothing. That is because our invention of the measure of time is mathematically limitless in both directions. If we eliminate the notion of time being a tangible thing (please note my comments to panda in this regard) then all we are really left with is the question of where did the changeable matter, and the space within it to change... come from? If our observations say that something is required in order for something to be, then the only logical conclusion is that something has always been in order for something to now be.

It is not necessary to have observed something for an infinite amount of time in order to arrive at this logical conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Straggler, posted 01-12-2012 7:51 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Straggler, posted 01-14-2012 4:55 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15496
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 333 of 373 (648287)
01-14-2012 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Just being real
01-14-2012 6:45 AM


Just being real writes:

Oh it was? My bad... Now if you will just be so kind as to point out to me who it was that was there to observe the process of evolution and know they are the same... I would greatly appreciate it.

Evolution is simulated by genetic algorithms at the reproductive level of a single generation, and the process of reproduction has been the subject of intense study since the beginnings of modern science. We have observed the imperfect reproduction between male and female where random change in the form of mutations and allele remixing occurs when the sperm and egg come together. This is followed by selection where the offspring compete in the existing environment to contribute to the next generation.

Genetic algorithms follow the same process as evolution. In this case it creates offspring antennae by combining the characteristics of two antennae and at the same time introducing random changes. The offspring compete to see which perform best as antennae, and the best are selected to contribute to the next generation.

Genetic algorithms are an illustration of the power of evolutionary processes (at heart just repeated Monte Carlo trials with selection added) to innovate new designs without any intelligent contribution. Algorithms that model evolutionary processes no more introduce intelligence into the evolutionary process than algorithms that model meteorological processes introduce intelligence into the weather.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Just being real, posted 01-14-2012 6:45 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1066 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 334 of 373 (648319)
01-14-2012 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Just being real
01-14-2012 6:45 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
JBR writes:

Therefore change existed long before humans. But the entire construct of the increments we use (and call time) did not exist. We are so proud of our units of time that we have become completely intrenched in them to the point that we even consider them to be literal as if they are a place to be traveled to. We have forgotten that they are merely man made increments to measure the rate at which things change. We can not travel to the "place" of 1955 (as in the moving Back to the Future) because 1955 is not a place it is only a chalk mark on the wall to remember the way things were.


Frequently wrong and completely irrelevant.
(I particularly liked the "We can not travel to the "place" of 1955". Miles are also a human construct, but we can travel to a place 5 miles away, even though they are "only a chalk mark" on the ground.)

The 4th dimension (that we have labelled as 'time') is a 'something' and it exists.

Straggler writes:

If time is something (which surely it must be) then - By definition there can be no time when there was nothing.


Straggler's point still stands.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Just being real, posted 01-14-2012 6:45 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12448
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 335 of 373 (648323)
01-14-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Just being real
01-14-2012 6:45 AM


quote:

No my friend, I meant exactly what I said: "intent" is not established it is DETECTED!!! If I use a "detector" to detect police radar, I have not "directly observed" the radar waves, I have detected them.

But you don't have a device for "detecting design". Instead you use an argument to conclude design, which would certainly qualify as "establishing".

quote:

We use a distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose (specificity)... to spot intelligence. And the key to DETECTING specificity is looking for any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a "foreknown" pattern that was completely "interdependent" of the first.

You just can't keep your argument straight. Firstly we are talking about establishing intent, so the "intended for..." part is redundant. And you've already denied that spotting "foreknown" patterns qualifies as detecting "specificity".

"Applying to or acting on a particular thing" is also a pretty silly way of detecting intelligence (absorption spectra would be a pretty clear example, that is not taken as an example of intelligence at work).

So that leaves you with the assertion that we should conclude that the functional systems we see in biology are the result of design. But why should we conclude that when we have an alternative explanation - evolution - better supported by the evidence?

quote:

And we do this every day. We see a bird's nest up in a tree and it instantly invokes a recognition response in us from a completely independent experience, and we know this bowl shaped clump of twigs were arranged that way for a specific purpose. To suggest that specificity is not detected this way turns us into a bunch of bumbling idiots who can't tell our asses from a hole in the ground. Perhaps you are comfortable with that description, but I am not.

And yet most of us do not conclude that there is intelligence at work in assembling the nest. Which may be underestimating the bird, but I think we can say that any claim that the nest is primarily the result of intelligent thought rather than instinct is one very much in need of support.

quote:

Wow... for real? Well since it seems to be far too difficult for you to go and back read before making accusations, I will help you out sir. In message 113 I actually "SHOWED" how several biologists refer to the code in DNA as being specified. In message 271 I actually "SHOWED" a list of several biologists who directly attribute this to an intelligent source. Thus contrary to your accusation that I am merely claiming and not "SHOWING"... you are wrong --again.

Message 113 does not support your claim that DNA is highly specified at all (do not forget that genes represent only a small proportion of DNA) - and nor do either of the links. Message 271 is a list of ID supporters (who clearly do not represent the scientific consensus) - but with no indication that even they agree with your claim. So no, you have not shown that scientists or biologists in general describe DNA as highly specified.

You really ought to learn not to try these silly bluffing tactics on me, because I WILL check your claims, and I WILL point out that they are clearly untrue.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Just being real, posted 01-14-2012 6:45 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 336 of 373 (648333)
01-14-2012 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Just being real
01-14-2012 6:45 AM


Selective "Logic"
You continue to talk yourself in circles trying to logically justify one evidentially baseless conclusion over another.

JBR writes:

If we eliminate the notion of time being a tangible thing...

Pardon? What is it that you think atomic clocks (for example) are measuring if not time? If I told you distance is a human invention that doesn't exist and that there is only separation between bodies you would (hopefully) point out that I am talking nonsense and making a distinction without a difference. You are doing the same.

JBR writes:

But what we have observed... is a state of "time" and a state of "something."

What we have observed is "something" (the observable universe and it's observable contents) changing in time.

JBR writes:

We do not logically need to reject the state of infinite time on the same basis as the concept of something from nothing.

Remind me on what basis you are rejecting "something from nothing" again?

JBR writes:

If our observations say that something is required in order for something to be, then the only logical conclusion is that something has always been in order for something to now be.

By the terms of your own flawed argument - If everything we have ever observed (including time itself) has a beginning and is not "infinite in time" then the only logical conclusion is that all things have a beginning and are not infinite in time.

JBR writes:

That is because our invention of the measure of time is mathematically limitless in both directions.

In what way is our mathematical concept of nothing limited in such a way that it logically precludes "something from nothing"....?

JBR writes:

It is not necessary to have observed something for an infinite amount of time in order to arrive at this logical conclusion.

Apply the same flawed logic to to the equally unobserved "infinite in time" and you'll end up with the opposite conclusion to the one you want.

You are being inconsistent and selective in your rejection of that which hasn't been observed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Just being real, posted 01-14-2012 6:45 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 337 of 373 (648347)
01-14-2012 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Just being real
01-14-2012 6:45 AM


has the process of evolution been observed? yes.
Hi Just being real

Just to add to what Percy said.

Oh it was? My bad... Now if you will just be so kind as to point out to me who it was that was there to observe the process of evolution and know they are the same... I would greatly appreciate it.

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

This has in fact been observed many times in the natural world and in the fossil record.

It is a fact that the process of evolution is at work in the world around us. You can observe it in the differences between parents and offspring, and in the differential success of different varieties undergoing selection pressures.

The process involves two basic elements: variation and selection in an endless do-loop.

Variation (in biology this is caused by mutations and the process of zygote formation. in the computer algorithm it is built into the coding for making offspring elements) makes more diversity available for selection.

Selection (in biology natural and sexual selection help determine which individuals survive to breed and make the next generation, in the computer algorithm it is built into the coding for picking the best fit solutions) results in a winnowing out by discarding the ones that are least fit (non-survival of the least fit).

The do-loop means you take the output from variation mechanism and feed it into the selection mechanism, then it takes the output from the selection mechanism and feed it into the variation mechanism. In biology this is done naturally by the surviving offspring breeding the next generation. In the computer algorithm it is built into the coding, with one small difference: there is a "good enough" test that takes it out of the do-loop as a final product.

You are part of the process of evolution: you are different from your parents -- not only do you have a different mix of hereditary traits than they do (thus changing the frequency distribution of those traits) but you also have some mutations of traits that they do not have (thus changing the composition of those traits), and when you breed you will pass on this process to the next generation.

Here is an example of such evolution process in the fossil record:

quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

... The diagram covers about five million years.
... As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

Variation and selection across many generations.

There are similar examples of generation by generation variation and selection that have been observed by biologists in the lab and in the field. Listing all the evidence for the process of evolution would fill volumes.

It is a fact that variation occurs.
It is a fact that selection occurs.
It is a fact that the process of evolution occurs.

In every generation of every species.

Enjoy.

Edited by Zen Deist, : added simple do-loop diagram

Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty


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 331 by Just being real, posted 01-14-2012 6:45 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by ookuay, posted 01-25-2012 9:19 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 338 of 373 (648348)
01-14-2012 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Just being real
01-14-2012 6:45 AM


delete duplicate post

Edited by Zen Deist, : added diagram

Edited by Zen Deist, : delete duplicate post


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Just being real, posted 01-14-2012 6:45 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 556 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 339 of 373 (648358)
01-15-2012 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Just being real
01-11-2012 12:40 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:


If we are going to assume based on observation that everything that has ever existed is finite because that is all we have ever observed, then how do we rationalize this mathematically? Finite things can not logically or mathematically also be infinite.

Not necessarily. See Wikipedia: Convergent series.


If time is something (which surely it must be) then - By definition there can be no time when there was nothing.

Here is an interesting comment for you. Suppose "time" is not a "something" but merely a human measurement to measure change. To test this notion, consider what if right at this moment every thing in the universe just stopped changing. All protons and electrons, all planets and stars, if everything just became frozen in one position. If this were to happen, then would there still be time? I think if this were to happen we would say, "Time stopped." Therefore if time is merely a construct of human invention to measure change, then we can abstractly (from our point of view) say that there has always been time and always will be time. Of course if there were ever time in which absolutely nothing existed (to change) then practically speaking there would be no time. But that is not the point.

Time is a human invention... a tool if you will, invented to think abstractly. I can think about yesterday because of the "tool" we use called time. And with that same tool I can think about the minutes before there was a universe, even though perhaps there was nothing changing then. So then there is nothing illogical about humans using their tool called time to think about the moments before the universe began.

There is also nothing illogical about thinking about Adam's biological mother. Or the intelligent designer's designer, for that matter.

Anyway, how many "moments before the universe began" are we talking about here? How long (in duration) are these individual moments? Do they remain in a strictly linear sequence even though they are not physically part of our universe?

I find it interesting that you are committed to the idea that (A) every moment in time must have an associated "prior moment", much in the same way that (B) every day (24 hour period) in time must have a corresponding "yesterday". Strangely enough, general relativity as applied to cosmology allows for A even if B is false, provided that time itself is not quantized.

You say that our (presumably finite) universe requires an infinite something temporaneously prior to it in order to exist. What if our (presumably finite) universe already has that feature built into it? Wouldn't there then be no need for an additional stretch of time previous to it?

Edited by DWIII, : fixed typo


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Just being real, posted 01-11-2012 12:40 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Boof
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 88
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


Message 340 of 373 (649049)
01-20-2012 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Just being real
01-11-2012 12:40 PM


If a tree falls in the forest...
JBR writes:

Here is an interesting comment for you. Suppose "time" is not a "something" but merely a human measurement to measure change. To test this notion, consider what if right at this moment every thing in the universe just stopped changing. All protons and electrons, all planets and stars, if everything just became frozen in one position. If this were to happen, then would there still be time? I think if this were to happen we would say, "Time stopped." Therefore if time is merely a construct of human invention to measure change, then we can abstractly (from our point of view) say that there has always been time and always will be time. Of course if there were ever time in which absolutely nothing existed (to change) then practically speaking there would be no time. But that is not the point.

Time is a human invention... a tool if you will, invented to think abstractly. I can think about yesterday because of the "tool" we use called time. And with that same tool I can think about the minutes before there was a universe, even though perhaps there was nothing changing then. So then there is nothing illogical about humans using their tool called time to think about the moments before the universe began.

Interesting perspective - but can't you describe space the same way? Consider if at this moment everything stopped moving. If this happened would there still be space? We would be unable to observe space or distance therefore would you not logically also conclude that space is a construct of human invention?

Maybe this is another example of religion's tendancy towards anthropocentrism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Just being real, posted 01-11-2012 12:40 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by ookuay, posted 01-25-2012 10:00 PM Boof has not yet responded

  
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


(1)
Message 341 of 373 (649843)
01-25-2012 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by RAZD
01-14-2012 8:24 PM


Re: has the process of evolution been observed? yes.
To add to what you and Percy were saying to Just Being Real, natural selection, artificial selection, macroevolution, and microevolution have ALL in fact been observed, as well as several phenomena such as the fossil record and genetic/anatomical/embryological homologies...
This brings up the question for everyone, "What kind of evidence does ID have to offer?"

Edited by ookuay, : No reason given.

Edited by ookuay, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2012 8:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


Message 342 of 373 (649846)
01-25-2012 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Boof
01-20-2012 4:16 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
@JBR: Time is relative to innate biological clocks, and theoretically moving faster than the speed of light can create an alternate timeline indicating that time does exist and is observable.
Also, I apologize for not back-reading but there are a LOT of posts, so briefly: how does this discussion connect back to expected evidence?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Boof, posted 01-20-2012 4:16 AM Boof has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Panda, posted 01-26-2012 5:14 AM ookuay has responded
 Message 345 by Larni, posted 01-26-2012 9:06 AM ookuay has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1066 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 343 of 373 (649869)
01-26-2012 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by ookuay
01-25-2012 10:00 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
Hi
Just a pro-tip...

Every message has a 'reply' button.
If you click the appropriate button then the forum software will help you track replies.
(The software can also email that person, informing them of your reply.)

This means that you won't have:

quote:
This message is a reply to:
Message 340 by Boof, posted 20/01/2012 9:16 AM Boof has not yet responded
and you won't need:
ookuay writes:

@JBR:


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by ookuay, posted 01-25-2012 10:00 PM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by ookuay, posted 01-26-2012 8:47 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


Message 344 of 373 (649879)
01-26-2012 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Panda
01-26-2012 5:14 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
I already know, but thanks. I went back to edit the original message to multiple people hence the "@JBR" left in. Also, the first thing can't be excluded.

Edited by ookuay, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Panda, posted 01-26-2012 5:14 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3932
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 345 of 373 (649880)
01-26-2012 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by ookuay
01-25-2012 10:00 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
and theoretically moving faster than the speed of light can create an alternate timeline

How does that work, exactly? Can you show us your maths, here?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by ookuay, posted 01-25-2012 10:00 PM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by ookuay, posted 01-26-2012 7:47 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


Message 346 of 373 (649983)
01-26-2012 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Larni
01-26-2012 9:06 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
It's not my math; it's Einstein's. You can start reading about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#Scope
This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Larni, posted 01-26-2012 9:06 AM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Panda, posted 01-26-2012 8:09 PM ookuay has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
202122
23
2425Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017