Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 4:45 PM
452 online now:
jar, kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Rrhain (6 members, 446 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,990 Year: 6,596/21,208 Month: 2,357/2,634 Week: 20/525 Day: 20/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Author Topic:   Does ID predict genetic similarity?
Straggler
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 151 of 167 (671349)
08-24-2012 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by GDR
08-24-2012 10:56 AM


Re: universal principles
I don't think an intelligent first cause necessitates "order" or "principles".

Thus I fail to see how "principles" or "order" can qualify as predictions derived from ID.

Can you explain why you think a world created by an intelligent designer would invariably and necessarily be a world with "principles"...?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 08-24-2012 10:56 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 152 of 167 (671384)
08-24-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by herebedragons
08-24-2012 9:46 AM


Re: universal principles
So - Just to be clear - The answer "something-supernatural-did-it" you reject as valid in all cases (e.g. the death of buckthorn) except when it comes to the question of origins?

Herebe writes:

So, let me propose a hypothesis based upon my worldview.

You can propose whatever you like. But without any positive evidence in favour of that conclusion/hypothesis you are simply expressing the same old same old "God of the gaps" + "you can't prove me wrong" thinking that has been so discredited before.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by herebedragons, posted 08-24-2012 9:46 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by herebedragons, posted 09-02-2012 8:19 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 153 of 167 (671388)
08-24-2012 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by herebedragons
08-24-2012 10:15 AM


Re: universal principles
Herebe writes:

Can you explain the existence of these principals using the current theory?

Are you suggesting that whatever science is at any point unable to explain demands a supernatural explanation.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by herebedragons, posted 08-24-2012 10:15 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by herebedragons, posted 09-02-2012 8:28 PM Straggler has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 154 of 167 (672043)
09-02-2012 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by herebedragons
08-21-2012 9:25 PM


Re: Does ID predict genetic similarity?
Apologies for the belated response. I thought this thread had died, only to find that you had responded to my posts.

In the first place, ID as a concept is so loosely defined that one cannot say what it predicts at all.

While the global concept of ID doesn't make any true predictions, specific ID hypotheses do make testable predictions. For example, the ID hypothesis that "irreducible complexity can only arise through intelligent intervention" is quite testable. The hypothesis would predict that there are no non-teleological pathways to IC systems.

Conclusion:
Before we can make any statement about what ID predicts, ID as a scientific hypothesis must first be adequately defined.

This is probably one of the biggest reasons why I have not personally been able to support or "buy into" the ID movement. A specific, unified and cohesive hypothesis that can be tested and modified would go a long way to gaining support of the scientific community. However, it doesn't appear to be forthcoming at the moment.

Although I am an ID proponent, I do not consider myself part of the ID "movement" - that is, the movement that is associated with the Discovery Institute etc. One of the reasons for this is that the present ID movement is more concerned with disproving Darwinian evolution than with presenting testable ID hypotheses. Another reason is that the ID movement has undeniable religious underpinnings. We often see Evolution News and Views discussing religious topics. But if this is supposed to be about biology, then I'd expect all discussion to revolve around biology. Fortunately, there are subtle signs of this changing within the ID movement. Recently, Sal Cordova over at Uncommon Descent wrote an article that heavily criticized YEC folks like Kent Hovind. And Cordova also wrote an article at UD that critiqued the argument that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution (interestingly, in both of these articles, he was heavily criticized by numerous commentators).

Still, the changes within the ID movement are slow. Thus, I encourage anyone who has an interest in developing ID as a rigorous biological hypothesis to be an independent thinker, and not tied down to the ID movement.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by herebedragons, posted 08-21-2012 9:25 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by herebedragons, posted 09-02-2012 7:52 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 155 of 167 (672045)
09-02-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by herebedragons
08-21-2012 9:52 PM


But ultimately the argument would lead back to some type of non-created, teleological entity. A deity would imply that this supernatural being has contact with the human race and that would not necessarily be true. But without a final cause, you have the problem of infinite regression. So, are you referring to deity in the above quote in the context of a supernatural being that has contact with humans? Not meaning a supernatural, final cause?

I don't think that ID necessarily leads back to some type of supernatural entity, as I attempted to explain to Tangle.

Here's why:

1. That certain biological features on earth could not have plausibly evolved says nothing of whether an intelligence existing elsewhere in the universe could evolve. In the first place, there are a whole bunch of possible forms of intelligence that could, in theory, evolve. And once you grant that this is possible then there is no basis for arguing that ID must invoke a supernatural being at some point.

2. The argument that ID leads back to a supernatural being only works if the ID position is that biological feature X could not have plausibly evolved. Although this is admittedly the position of the vast majority of ID proponents, if the ID position is that biological feature X could have evolved but was in fact intelligently designed, ID does not necessarily trace back to a supernatural entity.

3. Finally, in response to the question "Who or what designed the designer," there is a very simple, but reasonable, answer: I don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by herebedragons, posted 08-21-2012 9:52 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 09-02-2012 1:40 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 161 by herebedragons, posted 09-02-2012 8:16 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 156 of 167 (672046)
09-02-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by herebedragons
08-21-2012 10:46 PM


Without purpose don't we just have evolution?

Quite right, but if we find evidence of intelligent design (through front-loading), wouldn't that, by definition, imply purpose?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by herebedragons, posted 08-21-2012 10:46 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 157 of 167 (672048)
09-02-2012 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Genomicus
09-02-2012 12:39 PM


Genomicus writes:

3. Finally, in response to the question "Who or what designed the designer," there is a very simple, but reasonable, answer: I don't know.

If you're right that you avoid the requirement for a supernatural designer by not claiming that certain biological features couldn't evolve naturally, then without that claim and in the absence of any evidence what drives your belief in front-loading? If you claim unlikelihood of natural evolution (as opposed to impossibility) then that's just the Dembski position, which is part of the ID mainstream you supposedly eschew.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Genomicus, posted 09-02-2012 12:39 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Genomicus, posted 09-02-2012 3:02 PM Percy has responded

    
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 158 of 167 (672051)
09-02-2012 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
09-02-2012 1:40 PM


If you're right that you avoid the requirement for a supernatural designer by not claiming that certain biological features couldn't evolve naturally, then without that claim and in the absence of any evidence what drives your belief in front-loading?

The key phrase here is "in the absence of any evidence." The problem though is that I think that there are some clues in favor of front-loading.

If you claim unlikelihood of natural evolution (as opposed to impossibility) then that's just the Dembski position, which is part of the ID mainstream you supposedly eschew.

I do question the efficacy of Darwinian evolution to produce certain biological features, but that's not my main focus. Nevertheless, the presence of a discontinuity in the biological universe is one hallmark of intelligent design, and thus a suspicion in favor of ID.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 09-02-2012 1:40 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 09-02-2012 4:14 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 159 of 167 (672053)
09-02-2012 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Genomicus
09-02-2012 3:02 PM


Is this discontinuity related to genetic similarity, or am I drifting off topic by exploring this further?

The main requirement of front-loading is the preservation of inactive genetic regions that are intended for future use, but inactive genetic regions are where the greatest rates of genetic change are seen.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Genomicus, posted 09-02-2012 3:02 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by herebedragons, posted 09-02-2012 8:59 PM Percy has responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1251
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 160 of 167 (672059)
09-02-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Genomicus
09-02-2012 12:27 PM


Re: Does ID predict genetic similarity?
Apologies for the belated response. I thought this thread had died, only to find that you had responded to my posts.

It did sort of taper off, mainly because I have been busy and have not been active. School is starting and I will only be on sporadically. So no problem on the delay.

Although I am an ID proponent, I do not consider myself part of the ID "movement" - that is, the movement that is associated with the Discovery Institute etc. One of the reasons for this is that the present ID movement is more concerned with disproving Darwinian evolution than with presenting testable ID hypotheses.

Unfortunately, even a hint of an intelligent designer almost automatically puts someone in that category and makes it difficult for many to even consider your hypotheses. It would almost be better to coin an entirely new term. But I agree completely with your point about needing to present testable hypotheses rather than attempt to disprove Darwinian evolution.

But if this is supposed to be about biology, then I'd expect all discussion to revolve around biology.

Don't you consider the issue to be more than just about biology? Front-loading deals specifically with biological origins , as does biological evolution, but what about the other issues related to the topic of origins. An ID model would need to address those issues too (specific hypotheses may not though).

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Genomicus, posted 09-02-2012 12:27 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1251
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 161 of 167 (672063)
09-02-2012 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Genomicus
09-02-2012 12:39 PM


And once you grant that this is possible then there is no basis for arguing that ID must invoke a supernatural being at some point.

I understand what you are getting at, but I guess unless you postulate an infinite universe, the issue is merely pushed back a step. Personally, I feel the search for an intelligent designer is rather superfluous without the search for the supernatural. If an intelligence evolved from a non-biological source and then front-loaded life here on earth, and there was a naturalistic explanation behind this non-biological intelligence, it pretty much changes nothing here on earth.

On the other hand, such a non-biological intelligence would pretty much be "supernatural" to us whether there was a naturalistic explanation or not.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Genomicus, posted 09-02-2012 12:39 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1251
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 162 of 167 (672064)
09-02-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Straggler
08-24-2012 6:00 PM


Re: universal principles
So - Just to be clear - The answer "something-supernatural-did-it" you reject as valid in all cases (e.g. the death of buckthorn) except when it comes to the question of origins?

I reject philosophical naturalism not methodical naturalism.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2012 6:00 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 12:47 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1251
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 163 of 167 (672065)
09-02-2012 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Straggler
08-24-2012 6:31 PM


Re: universal principles
Are you suggesting that whatever science is at any point unable to explain demands a supernatural explanation.....

No. I am suggesting that:

1. I have a philosophical ideology that accepts that there is a higher power that is responsible for the existence of all that exists.

2. I have been unable to convert that philosophical ideology into a viable scientific hypothesis.

3. If anyone else has been able to do this, I would like to know how they did it and what those hypotheses are.

4. Assertions that no such supernatural entities can exist is not a logic assumption. Therefore, I am justified in asking questions 1,2 and 3.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2012 6:31 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 12:56 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1251
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 164 of 167 (672066)
09-02-2012 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Percy
09-02-2012 4:14 PM


Is this discontinuity related to genetic similarity, or am I drifting off topic by exploring this further?

Maybe discussion on the specifics of front-loading would be better off at Deep Homology and Front-loading, but I think the issue of discontinuities is worthwhile to explore.

I would think that any ID hypothesis would necessitate a discontinuity. Genomicus stated that:

quote:
the presence of a discontinuity in the biological universe is one hallmark of intelligent design,

He stopped short of saying that an ID hypothesis predicts discontinuities, but if an intelligent designer intervened in any way at some point, wouldn't that result in a discontinuity of some kind? In fact, an ID hypothesis without a recognizable discontinuity would be rather pointless, for sure.

I know you are not an ID proponent, but since you are "not an atheist", I figured you at least acknowledge the possibility of an intelligent designer.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 09-02-2012 4:14 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 09-03-2012 7:21 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 165 of 167 (672091)
09-03-2012 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by herebedragons
09-02-2012 8:59 PM


herebedragons writes:

I know you are not an ID proponent, but since you are "not an atheist", I figured you at least acknowledge the possibility of an intelligent designer.

My scientific opinion is that the amount of evidence necessary to conclude the impossibility of anything, including an intelligent designer, is unattainable, and that anyone who lets their religious beliefs in some way inform their scientific judgment is being unscientific.

I would think that any ID hypothesis would necessitate a discontinuity. Genomicus stated that:

quote:
the presence of a discontinuity in the biological universe is one hallmark of intelligent design,

And in Message 156 he mentions front-loading, which I was assuming requires a discontinuity no different than normal mutation, since front-loading is superfluous if it requires the same kind of periodic intercessions by the designer as non-front-loading possibilities.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by herebedragons, posted 09-02-2012 8:59 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017