The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

edge:
And to SUPPORT ID, it would be good for you to give us some kind of mechanism.John Paul:
Design IS the mechanism.edge:
Perhaps it would be good to describe the designer and show us how the designing happened.John Paul:
It is not necessary to know anything abbout the design to determine or understand the design. It is not even necessary to understand how it was designed to determine and understand the design.edge:
Do you have any idea how much credibility this would give your arguments?John Paul:
Seeing those things are irrelevant I can't see they would do anything.edge:
YOu expect evolutionists to give a blow by blow account of the mechanism of evolution, but never, EVER, take a chance of doing so for ID.John Paul:
First you can't even come close to a blow by blow account, not even close. Second, if things are equal then we should have to produce the same level as you do. However we go one better.edge:
In the meantime you simply reject every line of evidence for evolution because you, personally, did not see the act happening and do not understand some of the basic geological concepts involved (i.e.: 'billions of animals died and were buried'.) REAL heavy stuff, JP.John Paul:
I reject the evidence for the ToE because it isn't compelling. It IS very subjective. Geology is NOT biology. IOW I don't have to know what a rock is in order to understand the workings of a cell. The ToE is a biological theory (I have emailed several paleontologists who disagree with you on you know what).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't change a protein without affecting something- in a negative way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------:
LM:
Absolutely false. Beneficial mutations are known.John Paul:
Just because a mutation is beneficial it doesn't mean it changed the shape of a protein.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
All evolutionists have to do to evidence IC as a result of evolution is to show random, non-teleological, mutations. This has been done.
John Paul:
When and where? Not in biology that's for sure.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, in microbiology it has been done. From this website:Luria and Delbruck (1943) Are mutations random or aresponse to an environment?
Observation: T1 bacteriophage resistant E. coliHypothesis #1: resistance is a physiological response to T1Hypothesis #2: resistance is due to a preexisting, random mutationExperiment: add T1 to twenty E. coli culturesPrediction #1: a small number of bacteria from each culture will become resistantPrediction #2: the number of resistant bacteria will vary from culture to cultureResult: large fluctuations between culturesConclusion: mutations are randomIn other words, mutations have been known to be random since 1943.John Paul:
How can they make that determination in 1943 when they didn't even know what DNA looked like in 1943? And what does this have to do with evolving IC, which was wht you tried to answer?LM:
If there are preprogrammed, front-loaded resistance "go to" instructions, then all of the clonal organisms should be resistant due to the same mutation.John Paul:
Not so. It would be so IF the original programming were unaltered but why would we expect that? There isn't anything that says a design has to remain intact throughout history.

Forum Guidelines:
7. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.Geeze I wonder when that will be enforced?1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.I answer the posts as they are posted. IOW if I stray off topic it would be because I answered someone who strayed.2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.Is further elaboration always necessary? If someone can't or shows no signs of understanding the basics why get more indepth?3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."When evos start doing this others may follow.4. Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.see response to #35. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.OK I can do that.6. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.I try very hard to do that.7 is covered above.8. Please do not participate as more than one ID. You can change your user ID by going to your Profile Page and creating a new alias.John Paul- no need to change.9. When introducing a new topic, please keep the post narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.OK I can do that.10. Do not cut-n-paste long excerpts into message boxes. Please instead introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.I don't understand this rational but I can do that.If I am guilty of violating #2 then many evos are guilty of violating #7. Even if I am not guilty they still would be.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:
Design IS the mechanism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Very convenient. ID is the process. How does it happen?John Paul:
Most likely very similar to the way humans design things. However that too is irrelevant to detecting and understanding design, which is what ID is about.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Perhaps it would be good to describe the designer and show us how the designing happened.
John Paul:
It is not necessary to know anything abbout the design to determine or understand the design. It is not even necessary to understand how it was designed to determine and understand the design.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Nonsense.John Paul:
Please show us why it is necessary for us to know the designer to detect and understand his/ her design. Then carry that over to why it is necessary to know how something was designed in order to detect and understand the design.edge:
What use is this theory then?John Paul:
What use is it to remain ignorant? Why don't you just start reading about ID?edge:
We don't know anything substantial about it.John Paul:
That is generally how things start.edge:
We don't know what the design is for.John Paul:
That is why we study things- so we can figure them out.edge:
We don't know when the designer designed. We don't know who the designer is.John Paul:
Those are irrelevant to detecting and understanding the design. Do you have to know who designed your computer in order to understand your computer?edge:
We don't understand the design.John Paul:
That is what sciense is for. If we had all the answers we wouldn't need science.edge:
The only thing that is clear is that you have redefined 'design' to be whatever you want.John Paul:
That is pure bullsh!+. ID uses the same definition for design that other sciences already use.edge:
You cannot support your viewpoint with any kind of independent evidence.John Paul:
Your ignorance is not a refutation. Independent evidence has been provided.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
In the meantime you simply reject every line of evidence for evolution because you, personally, did not see the act happening and do not understand some of the basic geological concepts involved (i.e.: 'billions of animals died and were buried'.) REAL heavy stuff, JP.
John Paul:
I reject the evidence for the ToE because it isn't compelling.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Perhaps if you understood it better...John Paul:
I understand it very well. I also understand that there isn't any evidence, in peer-reviewed rags or not, that shows mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to metazoans from non-metazoans.BTW the ToE does not explain the fossil record. If it did Gould and Eldricge would not have proposed punctuated equilibrium. However biology and genetics don't support punk eek. Oh well...

LM:
We can't give a blow by blow account. That is why ID is an argument from ignorance. They claim that since we can't give a blow by blow, then ID has to be correct.John Paul:
Another misrepresentation. ID is not an argument from ignorance. It is an argument from our current state of knowledge. That current state of knowledge shows that every time we see specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems they are ALWAYS the result of an intelligent agency. IOW there is not one case of specified complexity or information-rich systems arising without the aid of intelliegence.LM:
If you want to claim that IC systems came about in one fell swoop, then you must show IC systems coming about in one fell swoop.John Paul:
IC comes about as it always has, by design. Since fair is fair if you want to say that IC can come about via purely natural processes it is up to you to show that it can.LM:
What parts of evolution are subjective?John Paul:
The fossil record is very subjective. Also the emergence of new body plans is subjective (no evidence to support that claim). Using similarities is subjective- similarities could also be the result of a common design. Add those to the fact there isn't any evidence that shows mutations could accumulate in such a way as to give any indication the ToE is indicative of reality and you have one subjective hypothesis.How to falsify IC? Show those alleged IC systems can come about via purely natural processes. Do that and inferring an IDer becomes very unnecessary to infer an IDer.Falsifying the ToE- how do we do that? Some say if we find "out-of-place" fossils. However that would only falsify, or call in to question, the history of life on this planet and not the ToE.

scraf:
Tell me, does ID predict how many IC systems should be found in nature, and by what meachanism they are produced?John Paul:
Design is the mechanism but ID does not predict how many would be found just that IC systems would be found.schraf:
For instance, can they take a pure strain of bacteria and predict how many, what kind, and how many generations it will take for IC mechanisms will be produced?John Paul:
What's a pure strain of bacteria? Does such a thing exist? The designer could most likely make that prediction, just like a computer programmer could tell you when certain features of his/ her program would be enabled.Now here is a question for you, seeing you seem to like peer-reviewed rags so much- Where is the peer-reviewed data that shows mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to metazoans from non-metazoans? Or even cetaceans from land anumals...
sc

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However biology and genetics don't support punk eek. Oh well...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammuthus:
Oh well, to bad they do...at its most basic level, every mutation is a punctuated event..in any caseJohn Paul:
Every mutation is a punctuated event? Please spare me.In your refernece I would bet that E. coli remained E. coli, which really does not help the case for the ToE.So please provide the other references and we will see what they contain.

Mammuthus,SJ Gould and Niles Eldridge proposed punc. eq. to explain the fossil record- metazoans. Bacteria evolving into bacteria isn't even under debate between Creationists and evolutionists. IOW bringing up bacteria evolving into bacteria does not help your case.I have the #2 article on your list. It doesn't support your claim with biological or genetic evidence.

schraf:
Design is not a mechanism, it is your conclusion after seeing the end product.John Paul:
Design IS a mechanism. It is also a conclusion. As for "after seeing the end product", what does that mean? Did Darwin formulate his theory of evolution before seeing the evidence?schraf:
It doesn't describe what physical forces acted upon a given life form to produce what we see.John Paul:
It doesn't have to. ID does not say some force acted on a life form...schraf:
Therefore, based upon everything you have told me so far, if there exists a single system that cannot currently be explained by naturalistic means, then you claim that ID must be true?John Paul:
ID can be INFERRED.schraf:
What happens if a system that IDists claim can only be explained by ID is eventually understood to have a purely naturalistic explanation?John Paul:
The inference is falsified. Newton was falsified but objects didn't hang in the air until he was.schraf:
Your designer gets smaller and smaller as we learn more and more.John Paul:
I see just the opposite in biology. Dean Kenyon was once a forerunner in the origins of life program. Now he is an IDist. Go figure...quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here is a question for you, seeing you seem to like peer-reviewed rags so much- Where is the peer-reviewed data that shows mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to metazoans from non-metazoans? Or even cetaceans from land anumals...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Nice try, but you have been told umpteen times by me alone that ID cannot be supported by the gaps in knowledge in science.John Paul:
OK if you aren't going to answer that question then please don't ask any of me. However I NEVER said or implied that ID is supported by the gaps in anyone's knowledge. I have ALWAYS said ID is based on the evidence. Please stop with the misrepresentation.

Mammuthus,Speciation? Creationists have known and understood speciation occurs for over 200 years- dating back to the Creationist Karl von Linne.Do any of your references have to do with the punk eek Gould and Niles proposed?

schraf:
So, you are inferring that a system that does not currently have a naturalistic explanation MUST BE ID, unless it is shown to have a naturalistic explanation later, correct?John Paul:
You can NOT stop an inference by what may be found out in the future. The future may also confirm ID. ID is inferred by what we know NOW. IOW ID is based on our current state of knowledge. However the ToE was started out of ignorance and keeps hoping to find the answers. Not very good science.Bottom line is, and you would know this if you had read anything about ID witten by IDists, ID ied on positive is based on positive evidence. Saying anything to the contrary is a blatant misrepresentation.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IOW bringing up bacteria evolving into bacteria does not help your case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mam:
Sure it does. You creos argue that accumulated mutation events cannot lead to speciation gradually.John Paul:
Who, when and where were these allged arguments made?Mam:
Can you provide
1. a testable hypothesis of design
2. that is falsifiable?If you can you will be the first to do soJohn Paul:
That is not true. I have read Dembski do just that. Go figure...
Dembski's design explanatory filter shows us how to test the idea of design and it would be falsified by showing us an object that exhibits specified complexity that arose via purely natural processes.The positive evidence for design is specified complexity and information-rich systems.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speciation? Creationists have known and understood speciation occurs for over 200 years- dating back to the Creationist Karl von Linne.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MaM:
Creationists have been researching how genetic imprinting can cause mating incompatibility? They sure keep their "understanding" well guarded from the rest of the world then.John Paul:
Mendel was a Creationist and is the father of genetics. Speciation is ambiguous at best. Wolves and dogs can interbreed yet they are seperate species.The Linnean classification system was borne out of the search for the Created Kinds.Newton understood this world and the universe to be the product of the Creator. He conducted his science under that framework.

Mendel was a Creationist and is the father of genetics.MrJ:
Mendel was not a creationist in the modern sense.John Paul:
Sure he was. As was Pasteur, Newton, Kepler, Copernicus et al.The Linnean classification system was borne out of the search for the Created Kinds.MrJ:
This is simply false.John Paul:
No, Linne was searching for the Created Kinds. That is a fact. He came up with binimial nomenclature to name these kinds.

Schrafinator states:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[IDC] closes off curiosity and stops research cold, because you have already decided that a given IC system could not possibly have had a naturalistic explanation, without any doubt, no need to look any further.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
Despite John Paul's claim that you're misrepresenting his pet theory, you're absolutely right.John Paul:
And the stupidity and misrepresentations continue. 1) ID is NOT my pet theory. 2) ID does NOT close off curiosity any more than archaelogists', anthropologists', SETI researchers', forensic scientists' et al. curiousity is closed off. As I have stated several times there is still much work to do. Was our curiousity of Stonehenge gone when we discovered it or determined it was the product of intelligent design? No. The notion that our curiousity is closed off by ID is dumber than dumb.MrH:
Dembski's explanatory filter (as outlined in The Design Inference and elsewhere) is the procedure through which we're supposed to be able to determine whether an 'artifact' is the product of intelliegnt design.John Paul:
And it works rather well.MrH:
First, according to Dembski, we're supposed to gauge the probability that this phenomenon was the product of chance alone. Then we assess the probability that the phenomenon is the result of physical laws or natural mechanisms. If it cannot be determined to be the result of 'chance' or 'necessity,' we are led to the conclusion of design, meaning intelligent agency.John Paul:
Not quite. The object has to exhibit specified complexity AND have a small probability, before ID is inferred.Dembski's design explanatory filter can be falsified. Just show one instance where specified complexity arose via purely natural processes. Instead of whining this is where you should focus your efforts.BTW, Darwinism has nothing to say about the origins of life. The mechanisms of Darwinism do not apply to the origins of life.