Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   What is science?
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 136 of 152 (116074)
06-17-2004 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by John Paul
06-17-2004 1:17 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
John Paul asks again:
quote:
Can you provide any evidence that DNA replication or the reproduction of a cell or cellular differentiation is a natural process, ie created by nature?
Well, the fact that it happens at the subcellular level, acts according to understood chemical laws, and takes place automatically whether or not the organism being replicated intends to be replicated, I'd say it qualifies as a natural process. Once again, if you can demonstrate that such a process requires a directing intelligence, please do so.
But what are we discussing here? There seem to be so many moving goalposts here I can't figure out what we're trying to establish: whether humans are natural, whether a natural process creates humans, whether the process that created the process that created humans is natural, etc. etc.
I answered your question concerning the natural process of DNA replication. Now please offer an example, one example, of anything in biology being created by intelligent design.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:17 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2004 1:41 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 140 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:47 PM MrHambre has not replied

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


Message 137 of 152 (116075)
06-17-2004 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by John Paul
06-17-2004 1:17 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
John Paul claims:
quote:
Once again MrH has refused to show that nature can do anything in biology.
And yes I consider bacteria and trees to be intelligent agents. You may not understand their intelligence but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
These babies are on their way to WinAce!
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:17 PM John Paul has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 138 of 152 (116076)
06-17-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by MrHambre
06-17-2004 1:35 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
Surely you are an example of design. You have parts that we identify easily. We have found out that all the body parts have functioning purposes, and we can even repair the body. Because designers recognise design by those things that can be seen to "work".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by MrHambre, posted 06-17-2004 1:35 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by JonF, posted 06-17-2004 1:44 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 139 of 152 (116078)
06-17-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by mike the wiz
06-17-2004 1:41 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
Surely you are an example of design.
Well, yes, in a way you could say that ... but the issue is whether the designer is an intelligent entity or an unintelligent purely natural process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2004 1:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 152 (116079)
06-17-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by MrHambre
06-17-2004 1:35 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
MrH:
Well, the fact that it happens at the subcellular level, acts according to understood chemical laws, and takes place automatically whether or not the organism being replicated intends to be replicated, I'd say it qualifies as a natural process.
John Paul:
Do you the evidence that shows "acts according to understood chemical laws"?
MrH:
But what are we discussing here?
John Paul:
The thread topic is "What is science?". So that is what we are supposed to be discussing. The fact remains that detecting intelligent design is already part of science.
MrH:
I answered your question concerning the natural process of DNA replication.
John Paul:
Your "answer" was no more than an assertion.
MrH:
Once again, if you can demonstrate that such a process requires a directing intelligence, please do so.
John Paul:
Your continued misrepresentation is duly noted. A directing intelligence is not required any more than it is required by a computer program. All the instructions were designed in.
This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-17-2004 12:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by MrHambre, posted 06-17-2004 1:35 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 152 (116080)
06-17-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by John Paul
06-17-2004 12:32 PM


Re: Inference and Investigation
Hi John Paul. Thanks for your reply:
quote:
John Paul:
If cancer cells were cells unto themselves, ie not a part of an organism, then I would say that yes we would infer ID. However we never see cancer cells except in an organism, which we would infer that organism is a product of ID. I would infer cancer cell are a defect in the design. A defect that ID should be able to correct. How so? Once we start looking at organisms as a result of ID we will start looking at genomes as an intelligent construct. I believe this will help us decipher genomes and by doing that help us fix the defects.
That's an interesting take. Let me follow your first couple of statemtents logically. It seems that you state that if the cancer cells lived successfully outside an organism all by themselves, then we could infer ID. However, it seems that ID is often claimed on a multitude of events and organisms that are wholly dependent upon their hosts. The bacterial flagellum, for example, is entirely dependent upon the bacteria for growth and nutrients, is it not? Or a process that Behe has referred to like the Kreb's cycle - is this process somehow seen independent of an organism?
So how can we not infer ID on cancer cells in the same manner?
You further explain that since we know that cancer cells are, for the lack of a better term, cells that have gone awry, we conclude that the tumors are a defect in the ID product? Well my next question is, how would we differentiate between a defect in ID with an actual ID product itself? What is the mechanism we would use to differentiate a defect from an actual deliberate design?
And this also brings up another question - what is a defect in ID? An evolutionist might claim that a defect is a mutation event occurring. Would you agree with this assessment? If there is a program within the DNA of common cells that demonstrate ID, what happens to this program that causes a defect in that ID, which may eventually lead to something as harmful as malignant tumor cells?
To me it seems that cancer cells fit well with Behe and Dembski's ID theory. I have personally not run Dembski's EF on it, but logically speaking, it seems highly improbable statistically for random natural processes to have altered all the genes required for a functional cell to become a cancerous cell. Furthermore, the only way a cell could turn into a malignant cancer cell naturally would be for all the genes to change at once. So to me, cancer cells fit Behe's description of ID rather well.
Your thoughts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:32 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 2:00 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 152 (116082)
06-17-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by MisterOpus1
06-17-2004 1:52 PM


Re: Inference and Investigation
Guys, so no one thinks I am running away- I have to go but will return to this board hopefully in a couple of days- Saturday or Sunday. I apologize for any inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by MisterOpus1, posted 06-17-2004 1:52 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by MisterOpus1, posted 06-17-2004 2:06 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 144 by Admin, posted 06-17-2004 2:25 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 152 by mark24, posted 06-17-2004 7:35 PM John Paul has not replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 152 (116083)
06-17-2004 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by John Paul
06-17-2004 2:00 PM


Re: Inference and Investigation
N/P. Hope to hear from you soon.
Opus1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 2:00 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 144 of 152 (116088)
06-17-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by John Paul
06-17-2004 2:00 PM


Attendance Rules (there aren't any)
Hi John Paul!
I'm replying to you because you mention it, both here and in a couple other messages, but this information is for everyone.
Conspicuous by its absence from the Forum Guidelines is any mention of maintaining a continuous presence here. There is also no requirement that a discussion be completed once begun. Those who wish to be courteous often provide notice that they'll be away.
But neither can periodic absences be used, inadvertently or not, as a method of topic avoidance.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 2:00 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 145 of 152 (116099)
06-17-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by John Paul
06-17-2004 11:48 AM


Re: Just to be clear
John Paul writes:
1) Science already uses processes to detect design- fact.
I wish you had responded to my earlier Message 118, because one of the points addressed this issue (all the points are attempts to lead us toward common use of terminology). I believe you're again referring to areas like archeology. These sciences are looking for evidence not of design, but of human presence, activity or involvement. The issue is rarely whether something is designed, but rather if something is man-made or man-caused.
Even at those times when the issue is one of "designed or not", archeologists and anthropologists are not looking for specified complexity or irreducible complexity. For example, the anthropologist may examine a rock for signs of human modification, but your criteria of specified complexity and so forth are not something he considers, and they appear singularly unhelpful in making such a determination anyway.
If it were really a fact that science already uses your approach for detecting design then we wouldn't be having this discussion because we would already agree with you. The evolutionists here are for the most part just trying to represent the current state of science, and they are not trying to introduce novel, new or controversial science. The true fact here is that the approaches you advocate are not currently accepted within science.
2) MrH says that we observe humans building structures and that is why archaeologists infer ID when they observe similar structures. To respond to MrH's point I will link to "natural bridges"...
I think you may have misinterpreted what MrH was saying. Certainly he wasn't advocating a process so boneheaded it couldn't tell the difference between a man-made and a natural bridge.
3) For some (unknown?) reason evolutionists say that those processes cannot be applied to biology.
Whatever the reason, it isn't used in any of the other branches of science, either, probably because it's so subjective. You need to develop a set of objective criteria that enables independent researchers to arrive at similar conclusions.
4) Biological organisms reproduce. This reproduction process is of itself IC:
Cell biologist Joseph Francis argues...
I haven't heard of Joseph Francis before, but if Behe has some company than more power to them. The fact of the matter is that ID has very few advocates within the scientific community, and it is still not an accepted idea within science, let alone an established theory with a history of successes.
The reality is that ID is based on our current state of knowledge.
This would be much more persuasive if there were anything to ID beyond opinion and a subjective set of criteria.
6) It has been posted that by inferring ID researchers would just give-up. That couldn't be further from the truth. Archaeologists don't just give up when they make a find. There is still much to do.
If IDists are encouraged and energized by what they find then I hope they move forward and gather enough evidence to convince others within the scientific community. As it stands right now, what you're doing constitutes a special pleading for scientific status for a concept that most scientists believe doesn't qualify.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 11:48 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 146 of 152 (116109)
06-17-2004 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by John Paul
06-17-2004 12:00 PM


Re: That Science Thing
John Paul writes:
Despite the FACT there aren't any intelligent design creationists, naturalists have never shown that nature can account for specified complexity.
As I said in Message 118, I think it important to define the term specified complexity. I know you've said you believe DNA has specified complexity, arguing that we only see complexity of this nature and magnitude being produced by people, but I think most scientists have the opposite perspective, that man-made designs pale in comparison to those produced in nature. The multiplicity of interacting subsystems seems orders of magnitude beyond what we're able to produce.
To me we seem more like the bumbler who has chanced across a magnificent contraption and who is able by sheer perseverence to tease out some of its workings and mechanisms, but who is completely unable himself to produce anything of similar complexity.
That is one big IF. Also ID is more about how life came to be in the first place.
As has been mentioned many times, it only pushes the question of life origins from earth to elsewhere in the universe.
That is not what I said. IF life is the product of purely natural processes, and it is the most complex structure we observe, it stands to reason that nature could create something as simple as an arrow-head, an axe and tool-like structures.
The complexity of life derives from its self-replicative and inheritance properties, since they enable complexity to accumulate. Your argument would only make sense if arrowheads and tools also had these properties.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:00 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 147 of 152 (116124)
06-17-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by John Paul
06-17-2004 12:26 PM


Re: reproduction IC?
John Paul writes:
PS writes:
I don't agree (on the IC part). Reproduction can be reduced to DNA replication, which at it's heart is a chemical reaction.
Funny that scientists disagree with you. Did you read the article I linked to? Would DNA replicate outside of a cell? No because it needs proteins to help it.
You've mistaken PS's desire to keep things simple for a belief that reproduction really involves only DNA and nothing more, and this couldn't be further from the truth. His point is that if you look at cell replication you see only chemical reactions. There is nothing non-natural in the process.
John Paul writes:
PS writes:
Taking apart a bacterium as we see it today gives the appearance of being IC, but most of the processes that are included could have evolved to aid DNA replication, and thus reproduction.
That is the assertion but can you substantiate it with any evidence?
This is really your entire point in a nutshell: if we don't have direct evidence of an event, it not only didn't happen, but it constitutes disconfirming evidence for evolution. Leaving this issue aside for now, I'll instead say that though we will likely never tease out the specific evolutionary pathways for the popular IC examples, though any proposals are likely to be speculative, these issues have no bearing on the validity of the TOE. The key issue here is the lack of available evidence to interpret, and this doesn't bear on theory at all.
We do know that reproduction is imperfect and that change is accumulative, and we have cross-confirming evidence across many fields and levels. This is the only mechanism observed to ever happen, and so we can be very secure that evolution has produced the variety of species we see today.
We can use the TOE as an interpretive framework for looking at biological structures and species in order to speculate on evolutionary paths, but these speculations are not part of the TOE, and the TOE does not stand or fall based upon whether we ever figure this out. The basis for the TOE is evidence, and this shouldn't be confused with speculations based upon its interpretive framework.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:26 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 148 of 152 (116131)
06-17-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by John Paul
06-17-2004 12:35 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
John Paul writes:
Really? Humans create baby humans. Humans would be considered an intelligent agent. Nature has never been observed giving life. Nature has been observed taking life.
Much of your argumentation today consists of non sequiturs like this. Reproduction is ubiquitous in nature and not unique to humans, and we certainly made no contributions to the nature of the reproductive process. As the song says, "Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it," and we can take no credit for it. (Actually, the song is about love, but you get the point.) We can only twiddle as best we can with the reproductive process that was already in place when we came along.
You appear to be evading MrH's point that no intelligent agent has ever been observed playing a design role in biology. Or playing any role at all anywhere ever. This point itself is mere twiddling around the edges of the main point concerning the definition of science, and it all comes back to evidence. Science requires it and you have none.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:35 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 149 of 152 (116137)
06-17-2004 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by John Paul
06-17-2004 1:17 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
John Paul writes:
MrH's continued dishonesty is duly noted. My above response was NOT in response to MrH's request that I "provide an example of intelligent agency being responsible for the design of a biological organism or structure". Rather it was in response to this:
MrH:
Again, no intelligent agency has ever been observed creating a baby, a tree, a bacterium, or anything in biology.
Who do you think you're kidding? I've seen numerous instances from you today of fairly strained misinterpretations, this just the latest. Either you have a problem with the English language, or you're doing it on purpose. I know it's one-on-many, but the Forum Guidelines have no requirements on the timeliness of replies. If the problem is needing to make too many responses then slow down and take your time. There's no hurry. Take a month if you need to, but please cut out the nonsense. I've invested some effort asking the evolutionists to engage you seriously and sincerely, and you need to respect that your ideas are getting some worthy attention and not just blow it off with replies like this. And in this case, not once but twice!
Can you provide any evidence that DNA replication or the reproduction of a cell or cellular differentiation is a natural process, ie created by nature?
This specific question is part of a much broader theological issue, one quite appropriate to this thread given its title What is science?. How do we know that what we observe is really all there is? But this is a question that goes far beyond biology, and it's why we have to answer the question of what constitutes evidence and valid inference before we can have a meaningful discussion. We're not very likely going to find common ground if one of us believes evidence need not be confined to that which is available to observation, or if one of us believes that proposed mechanisms do not have to be well founded in evidence.
And yes I consider bacteria and trees to be intelligent agents. You may not understand their intelligence but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
You can't define terms any way you choose. We're not going to have a Humpty-Dumpty "my words mean just what I choose them to mean" kind of discussion. If you're going to discuss issues in biology then you're going to have to use terms the same way everyone else in biology does. You can correct people's usage of terms, you can suggest alternative definitions if you like, but you must persuade others of the value of using your definitions, not just use them and let comprehension wither.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:17 PM John Paul has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 150 of 152 (116139)
06-17-2004 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by John Paul
06-17-2004 12:26 PM


Re: reproduction IC?
JohnPaul writes:
Would DNA replicate outside of a cell? No because it needs proteins to help it.
You are absolutely incorrect: DNA can replicate outside of a cell - it's happening in my lab right now. It also doesn't require "proteins" to replicate - it only requires a single "protein" to efficiently replicate.
I'm sure you can argue that it wouldn't happen outside of the lab - but I don't believe that either you or I can discuss the probability of minimal cell-free replicating systems (possibly solely RNA-based) existing in a 'primordial soup'. (Though I'm guessing your answer would be zero...)
As far as my assertion that bacterial reproduction is not IC - DNA replication is a process within bacterial reproduction that can occur without the rest of the bacterium - therefore the bacterial reproduction itself is not IC by (my) definition. I did read the article you referenced - no matter how long it discusses cell division, it remains that DNA replication can occur without it - it does in fact, to form polyploid cells and syncytia (both are in your body right now).
If there was an seemingly unasserted statement on my part, it was: with DNA replication at the core of a hypothetical minimal system, and with DNA changes at the heart of evolution - evolution can occur in that system. Hypothetical. Though, in line with evolutionary thought, I believe.
Oh. By the way - humans do not "design" their babies; you should know that since you reference all of the IC in life - if we can't understand the complexity, how can we design it? I'd give you more arguments, but that would be beating a dead horse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:26 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024