The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

LM:
The process of mutation and selection is capable of producing design. Period.John Paul:
Show me one place where that mechanism produced design from scratch. Do you know why Dobzhansky stated that "..prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms"?This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-10-2004 03:06 PM

Dan, ID says that intelligence (an intelligent agency) designed life. It does NOT say that the designer played any role in the evolutionary process.Dan:
Then what is the relevance of IC?John Paul:
The relevance of IC is that purely natural processes can't account for it.Dan:
If the evolutionary process doesn't require intelligence, I mean.John Paul:
The process doesn't require intelligence. The information to produce IC systems is programmed in at the beginning. That is what IDists such as Behe suggests.

The process doesn't require intelligence. The information to produce IC systems is programmed in at the beginning. That is what IDists such as Behe suggests.Mark:
So where is the programming that dictates evolution happens, rather than just allows it?John Paul:
In the DNA, cytoskeleton and membrane of living organisms.The relevance of IC is that purely natural processes can't account for it.Mark:
No, it's not. That's an assertion that can be made regardless of IC. It's an untested premise, not relevance.John Paul:
Funny ALL of our knowledge an dexperience points to an intelligent cause when we observe IC. Go figure...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The process doesn't require intelligence. The information to produce IC systems is programmed in at the beginning. That is what IDists such as Behe suggests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
So Behe should be able to predict future changes in morphology and function.John Paul:
I love conclusion jumpers. 99% they are wrong. Behe can't predict changes because evolutionists won't allow ID in the door. Until ID is allowed no one will decipher any genome. That is what would be required to predict changes. Right now all evolutionists can predict is change- why do we need a theory for that?

Arach:
irreducibly complex systems may not have separable subsystems, and any such argument is flawed (see page 38 of behe's book) since that system can then be reduced to that subsystem of subsystems.John Paul:
That is wrong. Maybe you just don't understand what you are reading: What Behe really says:"The key misleading assertion in the article is the following: Moreover, the individual parts of complex structures supposedly serve no function. In other words, opponents of design want to assert that if the individual parts of a putatively IC structure can be used for anything at all other than their role in the system under consideration, then the system itself is not IC. So, for example, Kenneth Miller has seriously argued that a part of a mousetrap could be used as a paperweight, so not even a mousetrap is IC. Now, anything that has mass could be used as a paperweight. Thus by Miller’s tendentious reasoning any part of any system at all has a separate function. Presto! There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

​

That’s what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key terms--the terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle. The evident purpose of Miller and others is to make the concept of IC so brittle that it easily crumbles. However, they are building a straw man. I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn’t be used for any other purpose. (That would be silly--who would ever claim that a part of a mousetrap couldn’t be used as a paperweight, or a decoration, or a blunt weapon?) Quite the opposite, I clearly wrote in Darwin’s Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system. In fact, it would most likely exacerbate the problem, as I stated when considering whether parts lying around a garage could be used to make a mousetrap without intelligent intervention."Arach:
the bacterial flagellum contains a type 3 secretory system. therefor, it is not irreducibly complex, as you can reduce it to the secretory system. qed.John Paul:
That is false. The bac flag contains 10 proteins homologous to 10 proteins in the type III. Also phylogenetic analysis shows that if anything the type III evolved from the bac flag.Arach:
it's called a simulation. you program it with the rules of evolution, it produces ic systems all the time.John Paul:
What rules? Those who survive to produce more offspring produce more offspring? Too bad every attempt top do so has been refuted, including the EV.Arach:
no, but the fact that behe disproves himself before he gets 40 pages in kind of rules out his argument.John Paul:
I have already shown you didn't read him very well. This is just more evidence that you didn't.

LM:
Just as an organism starts with unmutated DNA, this circuit started out as a mass of transistors and other hardware. Through mutation and selection, it assembled itself into a radio receiver.John Paul:
The issue here is that it had ALL of the components necessary at its disposal. That is the basic premise Behe is getting to. IF organisms had all the information and material handy then IC could come about.The circuit "survived" because of what? If they were trying to get an o'scope, what we allow it to survive until it got to that stage?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mark:
So where is the programming that dictates evolution happens, rather than just allows it?
John Paul:
In the DNA, cytoskeleton and membrane of living organisms.Mark:
I'll ask again, WHERE IS IT? Where is the program that causesevolution? I've seen nothing about DNA, a cytoskeleton, & a cell membrane that would lead me to conclude that they contain programming that would deliberately cause change in a given direction.John Paul:
Then I would say you know little about developmental biology or embryology. Why does the change have to be deliberate? Why was that added? The change is the organisms reaction to the environment or its internal program, ie the information contained in the DNA, membrane & cytoskeleton.Mark:
But there are potential evolutionary paths to IC, so you cannot conclude design based on the existence of IC. It's called logic, so go figure yourself.....John Paul:
If these pathways exist they don't exist in scientific literature and they don't include RANDOM mutations culled by NS. And we don't conclude ID based solely on IC. Spoecified complexity and information rich systems always lead to an intelligent agency.This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-11-2004 12:33 PM

is totally confused, as usual. All one has to do is to actually read some literature by IDists to see what is so great about the concept. First it would replace an outdated and falsified position on biology. Secondly ID is scientific and its processes are already being used in scientific and other investigative venues. As for predictions- that has been covered. ID predicts we will see information rich systems and specified complexity along with IC. That is what we see. As for being aimed at unscientific minds well it must have hit Meert right between his eyes.

deleted duplicate postThis message has been edited by John Paul, 06-14-2004 12:33 PM

JM:
At its very heart, IC is about the exploitation of scientific ignorance.John Paul:
No, that would be the ToE. The ToE was borne out of ignorance- Darwin and his contemps thought the cell was a "blob of protoplasm".JM:
It plays upon that which we do not know in a vain attempt to claim it can never be known.John Paul:
That is not true. IF science is done via inference then when we observe something that appears to be IC we can safely infer it was designed. To refute/ falsify that inference all that needs to be done is to show that object can arise via purely natural processes. Without that evidence all you have is a belief that it could.JM:
The atom was once considered irreducibly complex but then science discovered it was composed of smaller parts that gave each atom its 'identity'.John Paul:
ROTFLMAO! Guess what Joe? If you start removing parts- subatomic particles- from the atom it changes that atom's characteristics. The atom is the smallest you can get and still have an element. Methinks you are so confused and bitter over other scientific fields trying to gain acceptan ce you know not of what you post.
IC does NOT say something can't be broken down in to smaller parts!JM:
It is dangerous to teach young scientists that a problem has no solution.John Paul:
Yes it is. But if that solution is ID, what would YOU say? Intelligent Design is a perfectly acceptable solution in many investigative and scietific venues.The ToE can and has been reduced to a theory of credulity. Belief systems have no place in a science classroom.

LM:
If design can be created by the process of change and selection in non-biological systems, why shouldn't it apply to biological systems as well.John Paul:
As I have already posted- the computer was designed by humans. The program was written by humans. The parameters were input by humans. And all the parts needed were granted to the program by humans. IOW there wasn't anything natural about the simulation.

MrH:
This is a perfect example of the way proponents of ID creationism like to twist analogies to fit their aims.John Paul:
I don't know of any proponents of ID creationism. If you tell me what ID creationism is mayb e I will know one when I see one.MrH:
This particular IDC'er likes to harp (a la Behe) on the fact that since 'irreducible complexity' is the hallmark of intelligently designed systems, if DNA or the human eye is IC, then it was intelligently designed.John Paul:
Now IC is "the hallmark" of ID? Yes it is evidence for ID, but a hallmark? Maybe so. On another note I am not now nor ever have been an IDCer.MrH:
All that is needed to refute this inference, he says, is (presumably eyewitness) evidence that DNA or the eye evolved via natural processes.John Paul:
That is a fact. Without that evidence, what besides faith, do YOU have that allows you to infer natural processes can account for them?MrH:
I could just as easily point to the BacFlag as a refutation of the design inference, since no independent knowledge exists of the intelligent agency that produced this artifact.John Paul:
You could do that but it wouldn't take the scrutiny. Again as I have posted several times- whenever we observe information rich systems and/ or specified complexity it is always at the hands of an intelligent agency. ALWAYS. We have NEVER observed nature giving rise to such- NEVER.
BTW they are NOT natural systems if they are the product of design.

JM:
Irreducible complexity preys upon scientific ignorance.John Paul:
Wrong. IC falls in line with ouyr current state of knowledge. If anything preys upon our ignorance it is the ToE. Afterall if we don't have any evidence that certain structures could evolve via natural processes, why infer they did?JM:
Others are able to see through the smoke screen and realize that ID/IC is just a backdoor for creationists.John Paul:
Does lying and bullsh!t come easy for you Meert? It sure does flow freely in your posts.ID is NOT Creation and Creation is NOT ID.

LM:
JP, surely you know the intentions of the ID movement. It is not the pure pursuit of knowledge, but rather the overthrow of materialism.John Paul:
Really? Are you sure it isn't just to have reality brought into the science classroom? But even if it is to overthrow materialism, so what? If materialism isn't indicative of reality then it should be taken out.LM:
It doesn't matter if it is ID or YE creationism, just as long as religion gets its shot at inserting God into scientific investigation.John Paul:
But ID says nothing about God or religion.LM:
You may notice that they start with the presupposition that God MUST have a role.John Paul:
Odd I didn't read anything about God.LM:
They only look for things that seem to support this presupposition, and ignore everything else.John Paul:
And materialism just looks for material/ natural causes and ignores everything else.LM:
The fact that ID theory is untestable makes it even better, since it can't be falsified like YE creationism.John Paul:
Anyone knowledgeable of ID knows it can be tested and falsified. YEC can be falsified also.LM:
ID isn't a movement that started with the evidence, but rather a movement that is looking for an excuse to exist. IC just seems to be the latest invocation of "God-did-it".John Paul:
That is false. ID started out based upon the evidence. It exists because of the evidence. And if God-did-it or some other intelligent agency did it, so what? There is still much left to be done. Do archaeologists give up after they find a designed object? NO! They study that object so they may know more about it.

LM:
Again, lets look at other computer simulations. As an analogy, lets look at tornadoes.John Paul:
Tornadoes don't fit the criteria for being designed. They may be specified but they are not complex and they do form regularly. IOW they would stop at the first block of the design explanatory filter.LM:
Of course, what you and Behe often miss is that genetic algorithms in computer science model reality, and the mechanisms found in reality.John Paul:
Excuse me, the issue is they don't model reality. I can point you to the refutations to show you that they don't.LM:
In the example of the evolved oscillating circuit, the system started out with zero information. By the end, it had both information and design.John Paul:
That is NOT true. That program started out with plenty of information. It had plenty at its disposal too.DNA, first wouldn't form outside of a cell and second wouldn't do much of anything outside of the cell.The circuit didn't create an antenna, the antenna was a by-product of the design. The algorithm had a goal- nature does not. That is all that is required to show that the simulation does not simulate nature.