|
Author
|
Topic: The Argument from Design: Design for who?
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
Message 16 of 39 (146053)
09-30-2004 12:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:20 PM
|
|
Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
I told you what would satisfy me. Expecting me to be satisfied with something far less is unreasonable on your part. How, for instance, was it shown that all relevant chance hypotheses had been considered as Dembski's method requires ? Indeed what exactly does the probability represent ? What is the specification and what chance hypotheses were employed ? Your article doesn't say - clearly it falls short of showing that the probability represents CSI. Moroever if your accusation of double standards is not a lie you should be able to reference the posts where: a) I claimed that a specific piece of work had been done b) I refused to produce an example. Please take careful note of these requirements instead of producing something else and then complaining that I should accept whatever you offer even if it falls far short of supporting your own claim.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:20 PM | | ID man has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:57 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 17 of 39 (146054)
09-30-2004 12:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Zhimbo
09-30-2004 12:39 PM
|
|
Does the eye benefit the "population"? Does blod clotting? Does the bacterial flagellum? Yes it does. He's already... though clumsily... heading in the direction I was talking about. I think we can all agree that though any specific feature benefits the individual, there becomes a problem for the population if individuals are being lost. Thus the advantages to any individual is an advantage to the population. One may start bringing up impacts on OTHER populations, but generally life finds balances between populations until disrupted by environmental issues.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 12:39 PM | | Zhimbo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 1:07 PM | | Silent H has replied |
|
ID man
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 18 of 39 (146055)
09-30-2004 12:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Zhimbo
09-30-2004 12:39 PM
|
|
quote:
Zhimbo:
So, you're saying that it is a general principle of biological design that it benefits "the population"?
Not exactly but by benefitting one or a few organisms that in turn can benefit the population.
quote:
Zhimbo:
Does the eye benefit the "population"?
The eye isn't any good without a complete vision system. However if one or a few members of a population could see they could help the others find food or shelter. Then they could pass on their beneficial traits.
quote:
Zhimbo:
Does blod clotting?
Yes blood clotting benefits any organism or population that can bleed. Do I need to explain why?
quote:
Zhimbo:
Does the bacterial flagellum?
If food doesn't come to you, you have to go to it. So yes the bac flag benefits the organism and the population. All of these benefit the population because of heredity.
"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 12:39 PM | | Zhimbo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 1:14 PM | | ID man has not replied |
|
ID man
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 19 of 39 (146059)
09-30-2004 12:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
09-30-2004 12:46 PM
|
|
Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
quote:
PaulK:
Moroever if your accusation of double standards is not a lie you should be able to reference the posts where:
a) I claimed that a specific piece of work had been done
b) I refused to produce an example.
If you are an evolutionist then the claim that metazoans can evolve from non-metazoans has not been substantiated. Neither has the claim that the vision system, nervous system, or respiratory system evolved. Then there is the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting cascade etc. As a matter of fact non of the grandiose claims made by evolutionists (some mentioned above) have been substantiated yet in public schools they are being taught that these did in fact evolve via naturalistic, ie nature acting alone, mechanisms, ie RM & NS. So the question is are you an evolutionist?
"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 12:46 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1413 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 20 of 39 (146064)
09-30-2004 1:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:26 PM
|
|
An ID man wager
I'm starting to see a little of our old pal John Paul in ID man, since both of them are great at moving goalposts. Right now ID man is demanding evidence that random mutation and natural selection can even account for beak differences among various finch species. When he's provided with Pub Med articles on such research (or would Jonathan Weiner's Beak of the Finch suffice? Didn't think so), will he: 1) Dismiss the research as tainted by naturalistic assumptions, 2) Deny that such mutations are actually 'random' (the way he defines it), or 3) Assert that such minor evolutionary changes are irrelevant to the molecular basis of heredity and life itself and the physical laws of the universe? regards, Esteban Hambre
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:26 PM | | ID man has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 25 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:18 PM | | MrHambre has not replied |
|
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6032 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: 07-28-2001
|
|
|
Message 21 of 39 (146069)
09-30-2004 1:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
09-30-2004 12:51 PM
|
|
Holmes sez:
" there becomes a problem for the population if individuals are being lost. Thus the advantages to any individual is an advantage to the population." ID Man, is this really what you mean? If so, that's hardly design "for" the population. That's design for the individual. The benefit to population occurs only in the sense that a population, by definition, is made of individuals. Of course, this is holmes' version, so I don't want to put his words in in your mouth. And did I get your point right, holmes?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 12:51 PM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 1:44 PM | | Zhimbo has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 22 of 39 (146071)
09-30-2004 1:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:57 PM
|
|
Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
Thank you for admitting that you do not have an example where I claimed a piece of work had been done and then produced an example. Therefore we have now established that your claim of "double standards" was indeed a lie.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:57 PM | | ID man has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 23 of 39 (146073)
09-30-2004 1:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:57 PM
|
|
If you are an evolutionist then the claim that metazoans can evolve from non-metazoans has not been substantiated. IDman, you are making an error. The claim from evolutionary theory is NOT that they did some specific research which proves something... and then it turns out they did not do the research. That is specifically what PaulK is discussing. Dembski introduced a mathematical way to detect design. If IC is a form of CSI then there must be some application of that mathematical process. Where did Behe use this math? Certainly all evos have used the tools they discuss using... it's usually right in the journal article!
So the question is are you an evolutionist? I am a scientist that believes evolutionary theory currently represents the best model for species diversity. Does that make me an evolutionist? That said, the bigger question is whether you are a creationist. I seem to have proved so as you continue to dodge all of my posts now that I boxed you into a corner.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:57 PM | | ID man has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 27 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:27 PM | | Silent H has replied |
|
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6032 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: 07-28-2001
|
|
|
Message 24 of 39 (146074)
09-30-2004 1:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:51 PM
|
|
"All of these benefit the population because of heredity." Well, yes, it seems you're arguing the evolutionary position here. All of this *benefit* to the population occurs because of design for the individual. Indeed, for non-social animals I don't see how your reasoning applies at all, other than individuals are required for a population to exist, by definition. You see, my distinction was between design *for* a designer, vs. design for an individual. I'm more than willing to ammend the second class to "design for an individual and to the extent that the individual's genes are propagated by helping the population, design for the population". I think that is at least as damaging to the analogy to human artifacts as my original formulation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:51 PM | | ID man has not replied |
|
ID man
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 25 of 39 (146075)
09-30-2004 1:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by MrHambre
09-30-2004 1:00 PM
|
|
Re: An ID man wager
quote:
MrHambre:
When he's provided with Pub Med articles on such research (or would Jonathan Weiner's Beak of the Finch suffice? Didn't think so), will he:
Well I am not the Pope but when was I provided with any pub med articles on such research on the beak of the finch? Why didn't you provide a link? What goalposts did I move? Just because you don't understand ID, obvious, doesn't mean the goalposts are moving. 3) Minor evolutionary changes are irrelevant to how birds came about in the first place. It wouldn't bother me one bit if RM & NS can account for minor changes. I believe that sickle-cell anemia to be such a case for RM & NS. It is either RM & NS accounted for SCA or RM & NS corrupted the program that would allow for that change to be non-detrimental. Either way I understand that RM and NS have some qualities. Just not all the qualities you say they have.
"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by MrHambre, posted 09-30-2004 1:00 PM | | MrHambre has not replied |
|
ID man
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 26 of 39 (146079)
09-30-2004 1:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
09-30-2004 1:08 PM
|
|
Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
quote:
PaulK:
Thank you for admitting that you do not have an example where I claimed a piece of work had been done and then produced an example.
I never made such an admission. Your refusal to look at the work I cited is typical of willful ignorance.
quote:
PaulK:
Therefore we have now established that your claim of "double standards" was indeed a lie.
You have established that you can twist and spin with the best of them.
"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 1:08 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
ID man
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 27 of 39 (146080)
09-30-2004 1:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by Silent H
09-30-2004 1:12 PM
|
|
If you are an evolutionist then the claim that metazoans can evolve from non-metazoans has not been substantiated. quote:
holmes:
IDman, you are making an error. The claim from evolutionary theory is NOT that they did some specific research which proves something... and then it turns out they did not do the research.
You miss the point. Evolutionists tell us that metazoans evolved from some non-metazoan population. They can't substantiate that claim with evidence. They also make other claim s that cannot and have not been substantuated. Then when told that evidence for a designer is in the design, ie the structures we see under the microscope, they say that isn't enough.
So the question is are you an evolutionist? quote:
holmes:
I am a scientist that believes evolutionary theory currently represents the best model for species diversity.
I was asking PaulK. However that species can diversify does not explain how that species came about in the first place. IOW the theory of BS starts out with the complexity that needs explaining.
"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 1:12 PM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 2:07 PM | | ID man has not replied |
|
ID man
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 28 of 39 (146083)
09-30-2004 1:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
09-30-2004 1:08 PM
|
|
Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PaulK: Moroever if your accusation of double standards is not a lie you should be able to reference the posts where: a) I claimed that a specific piece of work had been done b) I refused to produce an example. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are an evolutionist then the claim that metazoans can evolve from non-metazoans has not been substantiated. Neither has the claim that the vision system, nervous system, or respiratory system evolved. Then there is the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting cascade etc. As a matter of fact non of the grandiose claims made by evolutionists (some mentioned above) have been substantiated yet in public schools they are being taught that these did in fact evolve via naturalistic, ie nature acting alone, mechanisms, ie RM & NS. So the question is are you an evolutionist? PaulK's refusal to answer this post is his admittance that double-standards indeed do exist. Thanks Paul
"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 1:08 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 1:53 PM | | ID man has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 29 of 39 (146095)
09-30-2004 1:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Zhimbo
09-30-2004 1:07 PM
|
|
And did I get your point right, holmes? Not exactly. Individual characteristics could be an offshoot of a 'design" for a population. Let's go back to the robot population. If we made them self-reproducing and able to adjust hardware or software then a "population" of robots that began without vision might eventually invent vision for itself, perhaps even accidentally. Our invention was of a population of individuals that reproduce and alter themselves to stay on top of environmental conditions. Out of this sprang vision and if it becomes useful for individual robots would spread among them, making the population stronger... which was the intention all along. Its slightly more complex than what you were describing.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 1:07 PM | | Zhimbo has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 30 of 39 (146102)
09-30-2004 1:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by ID man
09-30-2004 1:22 PM
|
|
Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
You implicitly made such an admission by refusing to produce an actual example - which was required to support your claim of a double standard.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:22 PM | | ID man has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2