Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 182 (115080)
06-14-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John Paul
06-11-2004 12:33 PM


Re: Why 'IC' Is relevant
quote:
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.
And within the theory of evolution, all the material you need is a self-replicating organism. "Front-loading" is not necessary.
quote:
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?
I misread the article a tad. They were actually trying to evolve an oscillator, not an oscilloscope. IOW, they were trying to evolve a circuit that would produce an electrical sine wave. The circuit layouts that were able to produce a signal that was closer to a sine wave were kept (beneficial mutations), and those that were poorer at producing a sine wave were thrown out (detrimental mutations). This would be the same thing seen in a predatory species, those that are better able to catch prey are kept in the population. It was not the design that the selection was choosing, but rather the outcome of the mutations. The funny thing about this experiment is that they circuit did just what the scientists wanted (output an oscillating signal) but the way in which the circuit did it (by reinventing the radio) was quite a shock.
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. This is a counter-example to your assertion that all design is due to intelligence, since this radio/oscilator was designed by an algorithm based on evolutionary mechanisms and not direct manipulation of an intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 12:33 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 1:47 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 182 (115083)
06-14-2004 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Joe Meert
06-11-2004 8:53 PM


Re: I see JM
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Joe Meert, posted 06-11-2004 8:53 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 2:28 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 182 (115084)
06-14-2004 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Joe Meert
06-11-2004 8:53 PM


Re: I see JM
deleted duplicate post
This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-14-2004 12:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Joe Meert, posted 06-11-2004 8:53 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 182 (115085)
06-14-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Joe Meert
06-14-2004 8:50 AM


Re: Why 'IC' Is relevant
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Joe Meert, posted 06-14-2004 8:50 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 182 (115087)
06-14-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Loudmouth
06-14-2004 1:20 PM


Re: Why 'IC' Is relevant
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Loudmouth, posted 06-14-2004 1:20 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by MrHambre, posted 06-14-2004 2:36 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 70 by Loudmouth, posted 06-14-2004 3:38 PM John Paul has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 66 of 182 (115094)
06-14-2004 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by John Paul
06-14-2004 1:47 PM


Analogies Are Like Mousetraps
This is a perfect example of the way proponents of ID creationism like to twist analogies to fit their aims.
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. All that is needed to refute this inference, he says, is (presumably eyewitness) evidence that DNA or the eye evolved via natural processes. In actual fact, all that is necessary to deflate this bizarre claim is a good look at the basis of the analogy itself, with which IDC proponents first assume what they're supposed to be proving.
The claim that certain man-made artifacts (like an outboard motor or a mousetrap) share the property of IC with natural systems (like a human eye or the bacterial flagellum) is not the same as claiming that anything we could say about a mousetrap can also be said of the BacFlag. The conclusion that both man-made artifacts and natural systems are the products of intelligent design hinges on the assumption that this property of IC is the hallmark of intelligent agency whether in artifical or natural systems.
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. In other words, you can't use IC as the litmus test for intelligent design before you prove that natural IC systems are by definition designed.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 1:47 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 3:27 PM MrHambre has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 67 of 182 (115102)
06-14-2004 3:04 PM


JP engineers an irreducibly false argument
Irreducible complexity preys upon scientific ignorance. Some buy into the argument hook, line and sinker. Others are able to see through the smoke screen and realize that ID/IC is just a backdoor for creationists (see Intelligent design ).
Cheers
Joe Meert

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 3:31 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 182 (115110)
06-14-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by MrHambre
06-14-2004 2:36 PM


Re: Analogies Are Like Mousetraps
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by MrHambre, posted 06-14-2004 2:36 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by MrHambre, posted 06-14-2004 4:15 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 182 (115112)
06-14-2004 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Joe Meert
06-14-2004 3:04 PM


Re: JM spews raw nonsense
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Joe Meert, posted 06-14-2004 3:04 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Loudmouth, posted 06-14-2004 3:53 PM John Paul has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 182 (115113)
06-14-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by John Paul
06-14-2004 1:47 PM


Re: Why 'IC' Is relevant
quote:
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.
Again, lets look at other computer simulations. As an analogy, lets look at tornadoes. The mechanisms behind tornado formation are understood, maybe not well but understood nonetheless. Now, someone wants to simulate tornado formation using a computer. They come up with a plausible model that takes into effect wind speeds, humidity, and air pressure. They set the simulation into motion and on the screen they see a tornado form. Now, are we to argue that tornadoes are intelligently designed? According to your argument, yes we should. It took human intelligence to simulate the tornado, and therefore tornadoes are a product of intelligent design.
Of course, what you and Behe often miss is that genetic algorithms in computer science model reality, and the mechanisms found in reality. In the example of the evolved oscillating circuit, the system started out with zero information. By the end, it had both information and design. We could say the same thing about genetic systems. If we start with the simplest DNA sequence, a self-replicating molecule of DNA, and put this sequence under selective pressure we will also end up with an increase in information and design. It is the mechanisms of evolution, not the intelligence of man, that cause the ultimate changes in information and design. Man supplies the environment, in this case software, hardware, and selective pressure. The algorithm of evolution takes it from there. No front-loading is necessary. In fact, the circuit wasn't even supplied an antenna, but it created one on its own. The circuit wasn't even given instructions to make an antenna, but it did so anyway.
Sorry, but the excuse of intelligence being input into the investigation of genetic algorithms is a cop-out. It fails to explain the ultimate power of the algorithm, whether within the confines of man-made technology or within the larger natural world. The only way to investigate ANY mechanism in the natural world is to apply our intelligence. If in doing so we strip the phenomena under investigation of it's natural state, then everything known to man would by definition have to be intelligently designed. This is a piss poor way to define what is natural and what isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 1:47 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 4:12 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 182 (115117)
06-14-2004 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by John Paul
06-14-2004 3:31 PM


Re: JM spews raw nonsense
quote:
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.
JP, surely you know the intentions of the ID movement. It is not the pure pursuit of knowledge, but rather the overthrow of materialism. 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. From the Wedge Document:
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
You may notice that they start with the presupposition that God MUST have a role. They only look for things that seem to support this presupposition, and ignore everything else. The fact that ID theory is untestable makes it even better, since it can't be falsified like YE creationism. 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".
Please tell me that you are not as naive as you sound. ID theory is the foothold that creationists have been looking for for about 30 years. Their ultimate plan is to introduce other creationist theories once ID is established in high school curicula. Denying this is indeed turning a blind eye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 3:31 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 4:04 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 182 (115122)
06-14-2004 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Loudmouth
06-14-2004 3:53 PM


Re: JM spews raw nonsense
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Loudmouth, posted 06-14-2004 3:53 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 2:35 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 182 (115125)
06-14-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Loudmouth
06-14-2004 3:38 PM


Re: Why 'IC' Is relevant
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Loudmouth, posted 06-14-2004 3:38 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Loudmouth, posted 06-14-2004 7:13 PM John Paul has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 74 of 182 (115127)
06-14-2004 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by John Paul
06-14-2004 3:27 PM


Re: Analogies Are Like Mousetraps
quote:
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.
So DNA is an information-rich system? And the bacterial flagellum is an example of specified complexity? Instead of proving that these natural systems are the products of intelligent agency, you assume they are and expect us to agree.
You've never observed intelligence creating DNA or a BacFlag. It's more rational to assume that Nature can create information-rich systems, because that's exactly what we observe.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 3:27 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 4:49 PM MrHambre has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 182 (115139)
06-14-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by MrHambre
06-14-2004 4:15 PM


Re: Analogies Are Like Mousetraps
MrH:
So DNA is an information-rich system?
John Paul:
That's what the scientists say.
MrH:
And the bacterial flagellum is an example of specified complexity?
John Paul:
Yes.
MrH:
Instead of proving that these natural systems are the products of intelligent agency, you assume they are and expect us to agree.
John Paul:
Science is NOT about proving things. If it were we wouldn't have the ToE in our science classrooms. Science is about inference. We do NOT assume DNA and the flagellum are the products of an intelligent agency, we infer they are based on our current level of knowledge.
MrH:
You've never observed intelligence creating DNA or a BacFlag.
John Paul:
We didn't observe anyone designing or building Stonehenge either.
MrH:
It's more rational to assume that Nature can create information-rich systems, because that's exactly what we observe.
John Paul:
When and where have we observed nature creating information-rich systems? If you have an answer you may want to publish it and then wait for your Nobel prize...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by MrHambre, posted 06-14-2004 4:15 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by MrHambre, posted 06-14-2004 5:05 PM John Paul 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