|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design in Universities | |||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Global Warming is not a good example because there really is a great deal of valid, but contradictory, evidence to support either view.
The problem with ID is that it is not valid science. It is only philosophy at this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: IF that is proven to be the case, I would then say that philosophies are like lenses through which science...and by extention all of humanity...views reality. Naturalism is the philosophical lens through which mainstream science would like to view the origin question. The question is, which lens brings the origin question into focus better? It seems to me we cant find that out until we try both lenses. We have tried the naturalism lens for long enough. For science to say, "No! we refuse to try that lens!" seems somehow...evasive. This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-08-2005 02:26 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: There is certainly no need for me to attempt to equate loss of information with entropy. That's been a part of science since the 1800s. Boltzmann, Shannon, Landauer and others long beat us there. Loss of information is increasing entropy. End of that story. If you don't believe that, I might just suggest you take a class or two. Not my problem.
quote: No, it wouldn't decrease, there would be maximum entropy because the organism is dead and there is no calculation for maximum entropy in that case. It's just maximum. Did Schrodinger calculate maximum entropy when he used S = K log 1/D to show rising entropy in the human body? No. What will be the calculation when the universe finally obtains its heat death and all is nothing more than a floating sea of random particles? The universe will be at perfect equilibrium and maximum entropy. It is dead, so what is the calculation for death? There isn't any, it's just dead and there is no progression left to calculate.
quote: OK??
quote: Well if you can get it done, you will be the first, and I for one would love to see this. But you do understand that was Boltzmann's stuff and not Shannon's information entropy don't you? I would hate to see you spend time fighting windmills. And you do know, I hope, that if you ever come up with a scenario in which an organism could somehow lose half of its protein coding genes and still remain alive (an absolutely ridiculous postulation) entropy would then not began to decrease. That would not reflect the accuracy of the study which clearly shows it increasing each generation and you are into daydreaming with mathematics at that point. Of course, at that juncture I would have to ask you to stop daydreaming and use the math you should be using in this situation, not the S calculated for a single generation, but the deltaS you so rightly suggested I use to better reflect what is occurring from generation to generation until mutational meltdown occurs. Think that through before you put too much effort into this.
quote: Boy. I do appreciate you guys attributing all of this science to me. Ned credited me with inventing stochastic mechanisms. Now here you are crediting me as inventing the use of combinatorials to calculate protein complexities. This stuff goes way back, people. It's not ID, it's science that supports ID. This book was published in 1984 and the math goes back to the references before them (sorry, the board software won't allow me to use the Greek):
quote: Gee. Everybody else uses this method but I cannot? All I did was this and then tossed it into Boltzmann's formula. This is just MATH used in SCIENCE not anything I or ID have originated. If you were not taught this, you need blame the secular humanist college professors you had who would not let you see these formulas. Not me.
quote: I have NEVER used Shannon entropy. I told you what that was and posted a link to the formula for you. Where did you see me sum over anything as in Shannon entropy? I did not.
quote: Yep. People going into the genomes of organisms and placing genes here and mutating other genes there happened all the time in nature a million years ago. Right? You are directly interfering with the second law. The second law can always be overcome by the addition of energy and intelligence from an outside source and this is exactly what you are attempting.
quote: No I'm not. The abstracted study I sent you to said that entropy DID increase in that system, entropy IS increasing in that system and suggests entropy will tend to increase in that system in the future. I did not provide the data, evolutionary biologists did. I just stuck the data into statistical formulas and let the chips fall where they may.
quote: No, I see you attempting to invent problems where none are because the mathematics are not acceptable to your religious beliefs. NO organism can live with half of their protein coding genes missing because organisms are made of PROTEINS. But all that's needed to rectify the math if you want to go this route is to use the proper math to get there, that is deltaS rather than S in this case. I anxiously await the chemist/physicist's math on this.
quote: Who cares? Neither is a water heater. You don't think water heaters interact with their surroundings?
quote: OK. Run with this. I'm anxious to get into the math with you. [1] C. B. Thaxton, W. L. Bradley and R. L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories New York: Philosophical Library, 1984, pg 136, 137. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Nope. Because you would then be throwing out an entire subset of biologists studying configurational entropy in protein folding (and many other fields). What a waste of good grant money: "Furthermore, these estimates assume that the crosslink effect lies simply in the configurational entropy of the unfolded chain, and that the presence of the crosslink in the folded protein introduces no conformational strain or other constraints in the native form." Why aren't the Darwinists doing a letter campaign toward these scientists and others like them something to the effect of, "There is no such thing as what your studying because if there were it would violate my religious beliefs!" Might want to think about doing this.
quote: Yes, I was and that is very honest on your part, Paul. Just don't call it entropy and your argument might walk.
quote: Sorry. Totally lost me. There were no beneficial mutations in that study at all, so I have no idea what you are referring to. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: I ain't? I always try to be self moderating (but I have flunked out of this a time or two); so....sometimes when an argument isn't going anywhere, I just end them. Saves the Mods some work, let's them know I'm not here to attack people or screw up their forums and keeps the threads cleaner.
quote: Of course there are tests. Do you really think anyone with a science background would be studying this stuff if there wasn't? Believe if you will and don't if you won't, but I am not a young earth creationist (but certainly respect those who are), I don't go to church and I just am not the religionist that people always assume I am. I have my beliefs as everyone with an IQ does, but that doesn't affect my science. There are MANY ways to empirically detect design and I would be glad to go as far into that as anyone would care to go.
quote: Then, sit right back in your easy chair.........(of course, when you ask a question like this, I cannot answer it in a paragraph, capice?) Let's begin by looking up the word specific (dictionary.com): "special, distinctive, or unique: specific qualities and attributes. A) Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: a specific remedy for warts. B) Concerned particularly with the subject specified. Often used in combination: 'age-specific voting patterns' (A. Dianne Schmidley).'" Specificity describes how important a certain part or sequence of information is in fulfilling a vital function in a given system. Consider the sparkplug in a lawnmower. That sparkplug is most important to the overall function of the apparatus to cut grass. When the gasoline is mixed with air in the carburetor, it is sucked into the cylinder, and some source is required to ignite the mixture in order to power the piston to rotate the cutting attachment. The sparkplug provides a spark at just the right time and the gasoline explodes, driving down the piston, and this provides the mechanical energy needed to cut the lawn. A sparkplug cannot be used as a wheel, a starter, a blade or anything else we can think of in our system, the lawnmower. There is only one role the sparkplug provides, but it is a role of such paramount importance that without it the entire system would die. Therefore, this is a highly specified part because it is 'specific' to one job, and that job is of utmost importance. The decal denoting the manufacturer of the lawnmower is also a part of the machine. However, if it is removed from the machine it affects nothing as the grass will continue to be cut. This particular part is not specified at all. I could remove the flywheel cover and nothing would happen. The handle on the rope is convenient as it serves me ergonomically when I start the engine but how specific is that part? I could conceivably wrap the rope around my hand, the engine would start and the lawn would never know the difference. The above describes specificity pertaining to a part in a machine or an organ in an organism or an organelle in a cell; and it works similarly when we are strictly discussing information. One example popular in intelligent design to show the specificity of information is an analogy of an archer shooting arrows toward a wall and those arrows communicating information to us according to how exact the aim of the archer is. If a skilled archer is blindfolded and stands a hundred yards from a huge wall, say the wall of a football stadium the size of the Astrodome, and is then asked to hit the wall with an arrow, we wouldn’t be surprised if he did hit it, because the wall is so large the odds are in his favor. In fact, the wall is an enormous target, and we might be surprised if he missed. This action would communicate to us as simple information when we observethe arrow hitting the wall. Now let’s repeat the experiment, painting the walls of this same stadium in black and white squares, each measuring 10 feet square, in a ‘checkerboard’ pattern as illustrated in the graphic.
At this point, the archer is blindfolded and asked to hit a white square. Again, it would not be surprising if he did hit it because, providing he hits the wall at all, he has a 50/50 chance of hitting a white square as opposed to a black one. But when the arrow hits a white square, this information becomes a little more specified to us, because the odds of the archer hitting the white square are a bit more against him doing so than just hitting the wall. Suppose this wall is then painted into an ever increasing number of smaller colored squares, first a wall of 4 squares, then 8 squares, 32 squares, 64 squares, etc., with each square being a different color. The odds of the archer hitting the color he is specifically instructed to hit will ever increase against him. With the simple two color checkerboard pattern, the archer had a one in two chance of hitting the specified color, or = 50% chance. With the four color checkerboard pattern, he had a one in four chance, or = 25% chance of hitting the color and so on. These odds will continue to decrease as the squares increase in number until eventually there will be a point where the odds of him hitting the color he is asked to hit will become so astronomically large against him that it becomes overwhelmingly unlikely he will hit it. But what if he continues to hit each color? There has to be a limit. if he continues to hit each color as asked past a certain barrier, this becomes complex specified information. But first let's draw another hypothesis (already threw you one) unique to ID: Specified information is inversely proportional to the probability of an event occurring.
Once the specificity reaches 1 chance in 10^150, or 500 bits if expressed in information content, it is simply impossible that nature could have caused the event. Ask me why, Mick. There is your next query.
quote: Probably, never really thought about it.
quote: You don't have to provide me a link to genbank. But ask the above question and we be moving on and doin' some ID. Lots of religion in this stuff, don't you guys think so far? Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: No you haven't. You came across as too aggressive. Please change this. I simply stopped you from asking the same silly question over and over to which there is no logical answer the way you phrased it. Get off the games and we can move on.
quote: Yes.
quote: Yes. Do I detect intelligence behind that wad of fur?
quote: No. Coin flips have their place in infodynamics but we wouldn't exactly want to take this stuff to a post grad class. People would be laughing at us. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Jon:
You are starting to impress me with your knowledge of science:
quote: Make them petition the Nobel Committee to take back Prigogine's Nobel Prize for his work in open system thermodynamics. Also, Nobel winner Schrodinger was simply wrong in his lectures on using S = K log 1/D in the human body because that is an open system. But what about Gibb's work in thermodynamics that can calculate so many thermodynamic reactions medically in an open system? Gee. These scientists that don't seem to know one iota about science are rather downers. Ho hum. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
JDB writes: Specified information is inversely proportional to the probability of an event occurring. Are you implying that, just because a living organism in its current state surpases some critical threshold of complexity that it cannot arise through simple, non-directed evolutionary processes? I would contend that evolution is an entirely adequate concept for explaining all living phenomena, independent of their apparent degree of complexity. What understanding is to be gained by postulating a 'designer'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: quote: Yes, that is the role of all philosophies. Philosophies ask the "why" questions, where science asks the "how" questions.
quote: Now, do you mean methodological naturalism or ontological naturalism? Methodological naturalism is the tenet of science that one can only use naturalistic, rather than supernaturalistic, explanations within scientific enquiry because there is no way to falsify supernatural explanations, and therefore no way to improve or correct errors. The supernatural is not specifically denied by MN; it could exist, but MN has no way of detecting the supernatural. MN makes science universal, as no scientist must accept a a priori belief in any supernatural entity to repeat another's research. Ontological Nnaturalism is the philosophical belief that "Nature is all there is", and may or may not be adhered to by a given scientist. Scientists are not required to accept Ontological Naturalism as a personal philosophy, but they must adhere to Methodological Naturalism in their scientific work for it to be considered science.
quote: Which method has the most positive evidence to support it?
quote: Limbo, humans have used the "supernatural lens" for most of our existence on the planet. It has only been in the last few hundred years that scientific inquiry has been able to proceed largely unfettered by religious entities demanding that scientific findings conform to their preferred religious view of how the world must be. Perhaps you can explain to me how inquiry will benefit by going back to allowing supernatural explanations? I especially would like to hear your thoughts on the issue of how we would correct errors. For example, let's say that supernatural explanations were permitted in science tomorrow, and it was decided that phenomena X was designed by God because we currently do not understand how it could have come about naturally. Does that mean that we should stop trying to understand how phenomena X works? Do we just stop asking such questions? What if there really is a naturalistic explanation for phenomena X but we just haven't thought of it yet, or perhaps we don't have sophisticated enough instruments to facilitate our understanding but could be built in the future. Do we just stop inquiry? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-08-2005 07:43 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Come on now, of course you do.
You know that the designer is a fellow human being. Therefore, you know almost everything there is to know about them from a "What sort of intellegent thing designed this mower?" standpoint. You do realize that the phrase, "they have no idea what a supernatural intelligent design would look like" has nothing to do with the actual visual appearance of the designer, don't you? It is referring to the fundamental nature of the designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Are you sure we are talking about the same post, in which I asked the following questions and made the following requests for information?
Show me any ID science that contains a testable prediction of some real world phenomena. "If ID were true, then we would predict that observed mechanism X would have the following characteristics; A, B, C, and D." What positive evidence, if found, would falsify this prediction? Tell me, what does the field of population genetics study, what theoretical basis do they use, and how do they express their findings? When did vitamin C "come into the diet"? What does this have to do with a broken gene caused by a retrovirus? But where is your evidence to show that vitamin c was "introduced" at a certain time into the environment, and why should a mutation by a retrovirus be connected to the appearance of a particular food source? Do you trust the "opinions" of the scientists who research and test vaccines, antibiotics, and all other drugs and medical therapies and procedures? What about geneticists who study the origins and spread of genetic disorders? What specific observation would you predict to see for a given species if there was some goal of a Designer for that species? I was actually looking for actual information and answers to these questions, you know. Why won't you answer them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You are not impressing me with your reading comprehension. I stated that the 2LoT applies to all systems, including open systems. You attempt to contradict me by listing great scientists who applied the 2LoT to open systems. Your examples support my claim.
Make them petition the Nobel Committee to take back Prigogine's Nobel Prize for his work in open system thermodynamics No need. Prigogine's work is completely compatible with the 2LoT, and is subject to its requirements; his work just requires a significantly more complicated statement of the second law because he's working in non-equilibrium situations.
Also, Nobel winner Schrodinger was simply wrong in his lectures on using S = K log 1/D in the human body because that is an open system. Nope,he was right. S = K log 1/D is a statement about the quantity of entropy in a system, open or closed, and is a correct statement when the system meets certain requirements, which the human body does over reasonably short periods of time.
But what about Gibb's work in thermodynamics that can calculate so many thermodynamic reactions medically in an open system? Yup, what about it? Another example of the 2LoT applying to open systems, which is what I said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Jonf quotes me:
2LOT applies to closed systems only And answers:
JonF writes: Oh, and you were doing so well! You are most probably right, my mistake. As I said, I'm not a physicist and I'm glad that a more knowledgeable physicist corrects me.
JonF writes: Some formulations of the 2LoT appear at first glance to apply only to closed systems, but any correct formulation of the 2LoT applies to all systems of sufficient size and over long enough periods of time (the 2LoT being at heart a statistical law), be those systems closed or open. Would I be correct in thinking that this is only logical because the ultimate system, the universe, is closed by definition (as far as the input of energy is concerned, anyway), and thus any part of it would have to have its entropy maximized in the long run - the long run being the time left until the heat death of the universe?
JonF writes: It is only in closed systems that overall entropy must increase (or stay the same, but in practice that never happens). Even in closed systems entropy can be rearranged to decrease in one part and increase (more) in the rest. Could you give an example of that? We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Jerry writes: quote: Couldn't be anymore irrelevant. I spend hours on my riding mower and have no idea what the designer of that looks like. All I care about is it is designed well, and cuts my grass. Yet another example of your very sloppy style of arguing: Mick was talking about design and for no apparent reason you switch to the designer. Why? Are you having trouble reading? We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024