Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID taken to the end
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 31 of 97 (241676)
09-09-2005 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by coffee_addict
09-09-2005 2:07 AM


Re: ID for origins only?
I believe your point was that early ToE didn't have heredity to rely on. Of course, it's also late, so I may have completely misunderstood your point.
The basics of heredity had been understood for a lot longer that ToE. After all, people have been breeding animals for centuries. It just took Mendel to really quantify it.
But my greater point was, IDers have a lot of advantages that weren't available in 1850s, so what's the hold up?
I don't remember if it was your point or Ben's that the designer is the mechanism, but where does that take us?
If the theory is God did it and the mechanism is God did it, and the proof is God did it, what's there to talk about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by coffee_addict, posted 09-09-2005 2:07 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 97 (241689)
09-09-2005 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by coffee_addict
09-09-2005 1:10 AM


Re: ID for origins only?
1) There's no need for ID to be vague on the age of the Earth. It isn't part of their theories.
2) It's not that they are supported by nutters. It is that they go against their stated principles to retain the support of nutters. Obviously they regard the nutter's political support as being more important than integrity o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by coffee_addict, posted 09-09-2005 1:10 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 33 of 97 (241699)
09-09-2005 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Nuggin
09-09-2005 1:56 AM


Re: ID for origins only?
Darwin published in 1859. Mendel published in 1866. So we're talking about a seven year gap in a time before computers, globalization, etc.
This is a bit simplistic. I'm currently reading a book by Ernst Mayr in which he tells the story of how ToE came about, how it evolved and how the acceptance evolved.
In the case of Mendel, it seems his results were indeed published around the time you mention, but it never got much attention until it was "rediscovered" some 40 years later. Only then, it impacted ToE. All that time, scientists were completely in the dark about heredity.
MOST aspects actually aren't all that clear-cut. For example Darwin himself still believed in some form of "soft" heredity, neo-Lamarckism. Weismann was the first to really stress that natural selection could account for all examples that were given in favour of inheritance of acquired properties, and better also. Mayr also argues that it would be completely wrong to see ToE as one monolithic theory. Common descent, descent with modification, natural selection and other aspects (don't have the book at hand here) can be, and were, considered seperately.
This is also reflected in the different degrees of confidence that Darwin himself had in parts of his theory, and in how the different aspects were accepted or rejected by different people or through history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 1:56 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 34 of 97 (241702)
09-09-2005 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by cmanteuf
09-08-2005 1:53 PM


Dembski is the Newton of Information???
[Dembski is] the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, not a biologist.
That's an unusual statement. Newton was the breakthrough guy that pretty much formalised physics. So has Dembski made any breakthroughs in IT? I would have thought Claude Shannon was more deserving of the title, and even then the praise is far too high...Newton not only invented a whole branch of mathematics, but he formalised motion, gravity, optics, heat (convection) and invented a telescope.
What has Dembski done to deserve such grand comparison? Or are you referring to Newton's less than savoury characteristics...I've not seen enough of Dembski to tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by cmanteuf, posted 09-08-2005 1:53 PM cmanteuf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ramoss, posted 09-09-2005 7:42 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 38 by ramoss, posted 09-09-2005 7:42 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 40 by cmanteuf, posted 09-09-2005 10:36 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 35 of 97 (241703)
09-09-2005 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Ben!
09-09-2005 1:44 AM


Re: ID for origins only?
Like I was writing in AnnaFan's thread on ID being non-science, I disagree. Just because a theory has black boxes (i.e. lacks mechanisms for parts of it) doesn't mean it's not worthwhile or "scientific." Another good example of this (besides Evolution Theory, as shown above) is Newton's gravitational law. It's completely based on description of observation; there was no attempt to describe a mechanism at all.
I still fail to see where the ID hypothesis leads to. Really, I guess I just don't understand how proposing an "intelligent designer" can be considered a satisfying answer. It's the type of answer that fits everything. Why not simply claim that we "don't know yet"? Looks like a much safer bet, seeing how some of the previously "irreducibly complex" structures have already been explained in the mean time. You simply look silly each time a naturalistic explanation is given for an example you brought up to illustrate that there was a "designer" at work. How many of those claims have to be eliminated before it becomes clear that "ID" is just a silly placeholder for the "as yet unexplained"?
Like I said before: it is no use to invoke something like an intelligent extraterrestrial species as our "engineers", because even if that were true you would have to come up with an explanation for THEIR origins. And if that turns out to be another intelligent species, you'll have to repeat the same exercise again. And again, and again, and again... Until you either find a naturalistic explanation (which you could have applied rightaway to life on earth to begin with), or invoke ... "God".
As to the black box analogy, I've given that some thinking; if we see the different layers of knowledge as consecutive "black boxes" inside other "black boxes", then proposing ID seems to be analogeous to opening a "black box", and finding two "black boxes" that are connected. And next deciding to forget about one of them and only trying to open the other. The one you decide to neglect would then stand for the "intelligence" of the designer. It would absolutely make no sense to try to figure out the contents of the other box on its own, because it is tied to the "intelligence" black box. A seperate interpretation of the other black box would always be distorted or disjointed. Maybe it's even impossible to just peek inside, if you haven't first figured out the "intelligence" box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 1:44 AM Ben! has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 36 of 97 (241716)
09-09-2005 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by coffee_addict
09-09-2005 1:06 AM


Re: ID for origins only?
quote:
Reread my statement more carefully. I didn't say that there wasn't enough time. I said that ID offers an alternative mechanism for the diversification of life on Earth.
Does it? How can this mechanism be tested for? How does this mechanism work? Making a claim is not good enough in science. You have to back it up with hard data, and for theories, there has to be explanatory powers, and it be testable and falsifiable.
ID is still in it's infancy because it's proponents don't know biology for the most part, and spend more time with the politics of trying to get it accepted in schools rather than overcome is defiencies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by coffee_addict, posted 09-09-2005 1:06 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 37 of 97 (241717)
09-09-2005 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Modulous
09-09-2005 5:01 AM


Re: Dembski is the Newton of Information???
Deleted duplicate post
This message has been edited by ramoss, 09-09-2005 07:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2005 5:01 AM Modulous has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 38 of 97 (241718)
09-09-2005 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Modulous
09-09-2005 5:01 AM


Re: Dembski is the Newton of Information???
Dembski has come up with this thing he calls the 'Law of Conservation of Information', and uses it as if it was the absolute truth. It is utter nonsense in my opinion. However, I suspect you will be seeing people who are ID'st keep on quoting it ad infinitum now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2005 5:01 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2005 8:14 AM ramoss has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 39 of 97 (241724)
09-09-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ramoss
09-09-2005 7:42 AM


Re: Dembski is the Newton of Information???
Dembski has come up with this thing he calls the 'Law of Conservation of Information', and uses it as if it was the absolute truth.
It is an absolute truth (as absolute truths go) as far as I can see, but it isn't news. Its just a logical extension of conservation of energy. Its a nonsense argument as far as evolution goes though because no new information is needed - change occurs as a result of a selection method based on the population's environment. The information isn't 'created' - it's already there in the environment.
This message has been edited to fix some clumsy language by Modulous, Fri, 09-September-2005 01:15 PM
This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 09-September-2005 01:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ramoss, posted 09-09-2005 7:42 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ramoss, posted 09-09-2005 11:06 AM Modulous has replied

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6766 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 40 of 97 (241769)
09-09-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Modulous
09-09-2005 5:01 AM


Re: Dembski is the Newton of Information???
Modulous writes:
cmanteuf writes:
[Dembski is] the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, not a biologist.
That's an unusual statement.
It is. The original quote and author is:
"William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time. His "law of conservation of information" represents a revolutionary breakthrough. In Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Dembski explains the meaning and significance of his discoveries with such clarity that the general public can readily grasp them. He convincingly diagnoses our present confusions about the relationship between science and theology and offers a promising alternative."
-Rob Koons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin
It's a blurb from the back cover of Dembski's _Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology_
I might have been a trifle sarcastic when I described Dembski thus.
Chris
This message has been edited by cmanteuf, 09-09-2005 11:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2005 5:01 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2005 11:26 AM cmanteuf has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 41 of 97 (241775)
09-09-2005 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Modulous
09-09-2005 8:14 AM


Re: Dembski is the Newton of Information???
Prove it. That is an assertion. Come up with an experiment to demosntrate it. Show how you demonstrate that 'law'. How can 'information' be detected? Dembski makes the assertion, show me that assertion can be demonstrated with an experiment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2005 8:14 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2005 12:33 PM ramoss has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 42 of 97 (241779)
09-09-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by cmanteuf
09-09-2005 10:36 AM


Re: Dembski is the Newton of Information???
Or in short it's a wholly undeserved puff from one ID supporter to another.
So far Dembski's contribution to information theory is nil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by cmanteuf, posted 09-09-2005 10:36 AM cmanteuf has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 43 of 97 (241807)
09-09-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ramoss
09-09-2005 11:06 AM


Re: Dembski is the Newton of Information???
Prove it. That is an assertion. Come up with an experiment to demosntrate it. Show how you demonstrate that 'law'. How can 'information' be detected? Dembski makes the assertion, show me that assertion can be demonstrated with an experiment.
Remember that laws are empirical truths.
Situation A ->present day universe.
Let's look at our sun. The sun contains information, lots of it. To describe the sun we'd need to describe the energy state of all the particles with in, their gravity, charge and so on. Many bits of information.
Hypothetical Situation B->heat dead universe.
First off, we don't have a sun anymore. But just to keep things sane let's look at all the quanta of energy that made up the sun in Situation A. They all have the same amount of energy. I'm not sure how gravity works in this scenario but they would have 0 charge since there is no workable energy.
Our sun, indeed everything in our universe has less information.
An experiment would require an isolated system and a fusion based explosion.
That is to say that thermodynamics is the most straightforward way to demonstrate that information is eventually lost. That information cannot be created is also based in thermodynamics.
Naturally, quantum physics muddies the water somewhat, but as far as I am aware not to the point where it refutes the idea.
However, it is irrelevant. The central point is that 'Dembski's law' is a) nothing new, b) has no bearing on evolution since evolution is taking existing information and changing it so that it becomes a copy of the information in the environment and c) misnamed, since information isn't conserved, it's just not created

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ramoss, posted 09-09-2005 11:06 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ramoss, posted 09-09-2005 3:32 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 50 by madeofstarstuff, posted 09-09-2005 11:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 44 of 97 (241871)
09-09-2005 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Modulous
09-09-2005 12:33 PM


Re: Dembski is the Newton of Information???
You are incorrect.
You are making excuses about WHY you can not make an experiment, or make a prediction using the concept of 'conservation of information'.
We can show experiments to demonstrate the conservation of energy.
To claim 'oh , we can't do that because of shows that the 'Law of conservation of information' is untestable, and therefore worthless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2005 12:33 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Modulous, posted 09-10-2005 1:41 AM ramoss has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 45 of 97 (241873)
09-09-2005 3:40 PM


Ummm, WTF R U talking about
Hey all,
What the hell are you talking about?
I'm big on going off topic and all, but you totally lost me.
My original point was this --
My understanding of Intelligent Design dictates that since the Grand High Designer set things up a certain way, we shouldn't be dicking around trying to fix them. (ie, if you get appendisitis, it was all planned for, you're F-d)

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 3:48 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024