The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

quote:

---

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.

---

But the reason we're right to infer that Stonehenge was built by humans is that humans are known to build complex stone structures and Nature isn't. Now do we have that same knowledge about self-replicating molecular systems or bacterial appendages? It seems intelligent agents aren't ever responsible. EVER. And as a result, we can't really infer that DNA or the BacFlag are the products of intelligence, now can we?regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

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.

---

Firstly, the explanatory filter has yet to find a function in describing design, even design in nature. Even its proponents have yet to show how it can be applied to biological or natural phenomena. Therefore, it is pretty useless at explaning anything.Secondly, my analogy was attempting to show that no matter how much intelligence is put into modelling nature, that doesn't mean that the phenomena being modelled has to be intelligently designed. Therefore, no matter the amount of intelligence that goes into genetic algorithms it still doesn't mean that biological genetic systems have to be intelligently designed, as you seem to be insinuating.

quote:

---

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.

---

Could you point me in the right direction?

quote:

---

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.

---

And biomolecules start with the information found within chemical reactions. DNA has specificity because of the specificity of chemical reactions. Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphate don't randomly come together willy nilly, instead they follow the rules of chemical reaction. This is the information that Abiogenesis started with, and this is the information found within DNA as well. Compare atoms to transistors, and the evolution of the circuit will become clear (hopefully). So even abiogenesis had plenty of information available to it.

quote:

---

DNA, first wouldn't form outside of a cell and second wouldn't do much of anything outside of the cell.

---

So perhaps DNA wasn't part of the first replicator. There is catalytic RNA, as well as reactions between polypeptides and catalytic RNA. They react just find outside of the cell.

quote:

---

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.

---

Lets go over how the circuit evolved. The components were connected randomly. Each random set of connections was passed through a selection filter. The selection filter was for an oscillating signal. If the signal was closer to a true sine wave, then that set of connections was kept. The goal was for a circuit that created an oscillating signal ON ITS OWN. What happened instead was that the computer used a long stretch of wire as an antenna to recieve oscillating signals from near by computers. In other words, it became a parasite. This wasn't part of any of the scientists goal in evolving the circuit. The goal was an oscillating circuit.Lets compare this to bacteria. The selective pressure is for bacteria to move towards food sources. Each mutation either increases this ability or decreases this ability. Over time, the selective pressure creates the BacFlag. Just as the antenna above, the BacFlag is a consequence of the SELECTIVE PRESSURE, or the selective filter. The selective pressure is what I would call pseudo-goal oriented. As soon as there is movement towards that goal, it will change more and more towards that goal. Just as an analogy, you wouldn't call a falling rock "goal-oriented" just because it is affected by a physical force to fall towards the ground. Such is the force of selective pressure (in a figurative sense).What may help your case is to show changes in morphology or cell function in current times that could only be explained by a teleological goal oriented mutation. This mutation would have to be a consequence of your proposed "fron-loaded" instructions imbedded within DNA.

quote:

---

What may help your case is to show changes in morphology or cell function in current times that could only be explained by a teleological goal oriented mutation. This mutation would have to be a consequence of your proposed "fron-loaded" instructions imbedded within DNA.

---

JM: Given that Behe cannot help his case with such an example, it is unlikely that a non-scientist like JP can even come close. ID assumes ID without evidence for ID. ID is perhaps one of the best examples of pseudoscience in the new century. If all things are designed, then there is no reference for 'non-designed' and ID becomes practically useless as a scientific enterprise.Cheers
Joe MeertThis message has been edited by Joe Meert, 06-15-2004 09:54 AM

MrH:
But the reason we're right to infer that Stonehenge was built by humans is that humans are known to build complex stone structures and Nature isn't.John Paul:
Why couldn't it be that humans just copied what they saw nature do? And if you think Stonehenge is complex what about the living cell? If nature can create the complexity we see in the cell then all of our design inferences are thrown out of the window. Archaeology and anthropolgy are useless because nature could surely create an arrow-head and things that may look like tools.MrH:
Now do we have that same knowledge about self-replicating molecular systems or bacterial appendages?John Paul:
Well that self-replicating process is itr self irereducibly complex:http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb201.htmWe have and do observe intelligent agents designing and building complex structures every day. We NEVER observe or observed nature doing that.Can you point out one instance of nature creating specified complexity or information-rich systems?

JM:e.
ID assumes ID without evidence for ID.John Paul:
That is a lie. ID infers ID via the evidence. No amount of lying or whining from masters like Meert can change that fact.JM:
ID is perhaps one of the best examples of pseudoscience in the new century.John Paul:
You say that because you haven't a concept of what science is.JM:
If all things are designed, then there is no reference for 'non-designed' and ID becomes practically useless as a scientific enterprise.John Paul:
You keep saying that as if saying it makes it so. First not all things were designed. Second we still have a lot of work to do figuring out the design. The only thing useless is your and MrH's continued ignorance and misrepresentation of ID reality.

LM:
Firstly, the explanatory filter has yet to find a function in describing design, even design in nature.John Paul:
The EF process works fine with detecting design.LM:
Even its proponents have yet to show how it can be applied to biological or natural phenomena.John Paul:
Why would biology be exempt from a design inference? Right now all you have is credulity that certain biological systems can evolve via purely natural processes.There isn't any laws of chemistry that would allow DNA to form in the first place. The bonds just won't happen in nature.Comparing to bacteria- odd that after billions of generations of bacteria, bacteria remain bacteria.

John Paul sez:

quote:

---

We have and do observe intelligent agents designing and building complex structures every day. We NEVER observe or observed nature doing that.

​

Can you point out one instance of nature creating specified complexity or information-rich systems?

---

Aren't DNA and the BacFlag good enough? Lots of those in Nature. Like I said, we have never, NEVER seen intelligent agents creating bio-replication systems or bacterial appendages. Please give me the 'current knowledge' that leads you to believe they do so, or admit that your inference is based on assuming what you intend to prove.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have and do observe intelligent agents designing and building complex structures every day. We NEVER observe or observed nature doing that.
Can you point out one instance of nature creating specified complexity or information-rich systems?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------MrH:
Aren't DNA and the BacFlag good enough?John Paul:
Good enough for what?MrH:
Lots of those in Nature.John Paul:
But can nature create them? That is the question. The question is NOT do they exist in nature but can nature create them. Please TRY to stay focused.MrH:
Like I said, we have never, NEVER seen intelligent agents creating bio-replication systems or bacterial appendages.John Paul:
And we have NEVER seen nature doing so either. We have NEVER seen nature creating anything that has specified complexity. But we have seen intelligent agents doing so. Therefore we can infer an intelligent agent every time we see specified complexity.MrH:
Please give me the 'current knowledge' that leads you to believe they do so, or admit that your inference is based on assuming what you intend to prove.John Paul:
Why don't you just show us nature creating DNA and a BacFlag and you will have falsified ID.

quote:

---

John Paul:
The EF process works fine with detecting design.

​

And . . .

​

LM:
Even its proponents have yet to show how it can be applied to biological or natural phenomena.

​

John Paul:
Why would biology be exempt from a design inference? Right now all you have is credulity that certain biological systems can evolve via purely natural processes.

---

This isn't meant to be rhetorical, but could you point me to a place where the EF has been able to detect design in biological structures/systems? And could you also show how the EF excludes evolutionary mechanisms as the design agent?

quote:

---

There isn't any laws of chemistry that would allow DNA to form in the first place. The bonds just won't happen in nature.

---

Then how do cells replicate? Also, RNA does form spontaneously given the right environment. RNA can have catalytic properties that could lead to RNA replication in early earth environments. DNA could be the product of RNA catalyzed reaction.

quote:

---

Comparing to bacteria- odd that after billions of generations of bacteria, bacteria remain bacteria.

---

Bacteria are the most successful organisms on Earth, why should they change. The only thing that drove multi-cellularity was the opening of new niches. The bacterial niche has and will always be available, and therefore there will always be a selective pressure for the presence of unicellular life. Just to give you an idea of how successful bacteria are, from the top of your head to the tip of your toes, bacteria outnumber your human cells about 1,000 to one. It is only your misrepresentation or misunderatanding of evolution and science that keep you from understanding the importance of unicellularity in an ecosystem and the niches open to bacteria.

John Paul keeps saying:

quote:

---

We have NEVER seen nature creating anything that has specified complexity.

---

If I always see computers being designed and manufactured by intelligent agents, and never being produced naturally, I assume that any computer I see is the product of intelligent design.If I always see organisms and their biological structures being produced naturally, and never being designed and manufactured by intelligent agents, I assume that any organism or biological structure I see is the product of nature.Your logical syllogism is as follows:
Major Premise: All things demonstrating specified complexity are the products of intelligent design.
Minor Premise: DNA shows specified complexity.
Conclusion: DNA is the product of intelligent design.You have NOT established your major premise, even though you keep claiming that every time we see IC or specified complexity it's always due to the actions of an intelligent agent. In fact, any system demonstrating 'specified complexity' that cannot be shown to originate through intelligent agency is a disconfirmation of your major premise and not support for your conclusion. You either have evidence that intelligent agents create living organisms and biological structures or you have no right to make your inference.My challenge to your faulty inference remains: you must show me that any organism or any structure thereof has been produced by intelligent agency before you can claim to be able to 'infer' intelligent design from the existence of DNA or the BacFlag.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 06-15-2004 11:58 AM

John Paul keeps saying:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have NEVER seen nature creating anything that has specified complexity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul:
I keep saying it because it is true.MrH:
If I always see organisms and their biological structures being produced naturally, and never being designed and manufactured by intelligent agents, I assume that any organism or biological structure I see is the product of nature.John Paul:
But you don't see that. No one has ever seen that. Organisms give rise to other organisms of the same type, not nature.MrH:
Your logical syllogism is as follows:
Major Premise: All things demonstrating specified complexity are the products of intelligent design.
Minor Premise: DNA shows specified complexity.
Conclusion: DNA is the product of intelligent design.You have NOT established your major premise, even though you keep claiming that every time we see IC or specified complexity it's always due to the actions of an intelligent agent.John Paul:a
Science has established that years ago and it holds true today. No one has falsified it although many have tried.MrH:
In fact, any system demonstrating 'specified complexity' that cannot be shown to originate through intelligent agency is a disconfirmation of your major premise and not support for your conclusion.John Paul:
Double DUH! That is what I have been saying for years. Care to give us a demonstration of such a system?MrH:
You either have evidence that intelligent agents create living organisms and biological structures or you have no right to make your inference.John Paul:
We have the evidence and it has been presented. YOU on the other hand do not have any evidence that shows purely natural processes can account for life, reproduction (I know you didn't read the article I linked to) or specified complexity.MrH:
My challenge to your faulty inference remains: you must show me that any organism or any structure thereof has been produced by intelligent agency before you can claim to be able to 'infer' intelligent design from the existence of DNA or the BacFlag.John Paul:
Are you really this dense? I have to prove it before I can infer it? That is NOT how science is done. IF it were then the ToE would not be in any classroom.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Are you really this dense?

---

John Paul, the 'stupid' challenge still stands. Either show me evidence that ANY organism or biological structure, EVEN ONE, is the product of intelligent design, or your inference is rendered useless. You can keep on inferring that Stonehenge and a computer is intelligently designed, but since you don't have independent knowledge of ANY biological structure being produced through intelligent agency, you're out of luck with DNA and the BacFlag.You don't seem to understand formal logic very well, and that's okay. Maybe it's unfair of me to expect you to conduct a discussion on logical terms, present the support for your major premise, and act rationally and politely. If your 'theory' ever makes it to the courts, these skills may come in handy. However, your inability to respond to the questions raised about your faulty logical construct should be a source of concern if you intend to bring it to an educated legal and/or scientific audience.Thanks and so long,
Esteban Hambre

JP,Let's take a step back and look at the whole picture. First of all, lets define "nature" so that we can agree on at least something. When is use the word "nature" I am referring to the things that can be touched, measured, or observed using the 5 senses. Things that can not be sensed witht the 5 senses, or through instrumentation that relates back tot he 5 senses, is by definition "supernatural" or beyond nature. Therefore, within nature new DNA is formed through the mechanisms of DNA replication in cells. It occurs through natural mechanisms, since we have been able to determine the enzymatic and chemical reactions that are required for DNA replication and elongation. I will agree that the first replicator is quite a different story, but nonetheless there are viable mechanisms for creating a self-replicator that does not involve manipulation by an intelligence. Whether or not these are plausible pathways should probably be discussed in a different thread on Abiogenesis.Secondly, anything that happens in a cell is the direct or indirect result of protein function (ignoring catalytic RNA for the moment). Protein function specificity is derived from the amino acid sequence, which is derived from DNA/RNA. Ignoring amino acid sequence for the moment, lets focus on DNA. It has been shown that mutations in DNA are random and you have yet to show how mutations are teleological in nature. The established fact is that mutations are random with respect to benefice, detriment, or neutrality.So, we have a system that results in mutations that directly affect protein function. This protein function then affects cellular morphology, cellular function, and cell to cell communication as well as extracellular reactions. Given a selective pressure, those mutations that offer a benefice to the carrier are spread through the population via differential reproduction. Do you agree with this so far? If not, this might be a good place to stop. But being the stubborn SOB I am, I will keep going.We now have a system that keeps beneficial mutations, and hence beneficial protein function, while detrimental mutations are pruned from the population. Given enough time, there is no limit to the number or specificity of different protein functions. Also, protein function can change within a system resulting in IC. Although I don't have direct evidence of this, but changing protein function over time has the innate ability to create just that. There is no reason why a protein should keep its present function over time. There is no reason why other proteins could be subtracted away from a system, and therefore masking prior relationships.In other words, changing protein function can result in IC systems. The cause of a change in protein function is due to a change (mutation) in the DNA sequence. All evolutionists have to do to evidence IC as a result of evolution is to show random, non-teleological, mutations. This has been done. To show that IC is a result of an intelligent designer, you must show how these mutations are non-random and teleological. Otherwise, your claim in the absence of these goal-oriented mutations is your incredulity about the ability of proteins to change function due to DNA mutation.

MrH:
Either show me evidence that ANY organism or biological structure, EVEN ONE, is the product of intelligent design, or your inference is rendered useless.John Paul:
The evidence that the BacFlag is designed is its specified complexity. Our current knowledge tells us that specified complexity is a hallmark of intelligent design.MrH:
You don't seem to understand formal logic very well, and that's okay.John Paul:
LoL!!! That is nice projection there Est. YOU are the one who is "out-of-touch". You don't have a clue as to what is logic or what is science. That much is obvious.Ya see MrH we don't have to observe an intelligent agency in order to infer one. YOU on the other hand have no evidence to infer purely natural processes can do anything more than put the old man on the mountain (was in NH but has fallen), Italy's boot or the meadering of a stream. IOW MrH you are intellectually bankrupt when it comes to presenting evidence to support your faith.

quote:

---

I keep hearing that IC has been rebutted but upon close examination it is really only rhetoric.

---

How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Deigned system and a natural one which we1) don't currently understand but will in the future, or2) don't have the intelligence to ever understand?