Foundations of ID

Erm... This might be a silly question, Jerry, but have you ever seen a pig being intelligently designed by an omnipotent creator?This message has been edited by mick, 05-08-2005 09:46 PM

Yes, a mama and daddy pig and it's not a pretty sight.

---

Design Dynamics

I'm willing to be corrected by people who know more biology than me but I don't think bat and bird wings are all that similar.A quick Google seems to back this up. I quote from this article from the University of California, Irvine : You'll have to follow the link to see the illustrations - but they show the differences nicely. Again I'm at the limits of my knowledge here but doesn't your analogy have to have some element of selection to be meaningful ?

---

09/04/05 - Sharks attacked
30/04/05 - Wasps swatted
14/05/05 - More of the same ?

quote:

---

Again I'm at the limits of my knowledge here but doesn't your analogy have to have some element of selection to be meaningful?

---

No, because we are talking the chemical evolution of abiogenesis, not the selection of genetic traits in evolution. There is no evidence to suggest that pre-biotic structures even had genes. In fact, most would propose an RNA critter to model this.

---

Design Dynamics

Actually, if we look around us what we find is a near unending series of solutions to problems. We do not find the same idea being reused over and over again.Look at the number of different solutions for sensory reception.Look at the variety of solutions for motive capability.Look at the number of solutions for flight, energy acquisition, birth, vision, hearing, tactile, temperature control ...If life was designed the designer started from scratch every time (no short term memory?) and was totally incompetent.Perhaps ID stands for Incompetent Designer.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

you mean like taking each coin in turn and flipping it until a heads appears and then moving to the next one? a process that would easily average less than 100 flips (in a highly skewed distribution favoring sooner than longer to counterbalance all the ones that are much longer) to accomplish the goal. naturally.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yeah, I know. Maybe the designer was a genius but he hired some really dodgy outfit to do the implementation because they were cheap.Hey - maybe we're all the result of cosmic outsourcing !

---

09/04/05 - Sharks attacked
30/04/05 - Wasps swatted
14/05/05 - More of the same ?

Jar, the problem with your argument is that designers rarely ever mak e something the same over and over. Designers have a sense of art, too. Why only come up with one solution if (1) you have all the time in the universe to come up with as many as you want and (2) what you are creating are important to you.When I write programs for my projects, and when I have time, I try to be creative and add in extra features just so I could explore the different ways I can write programs.You never see an artist draw the same damn picture over and over. You never see a composer write the same damn music over and over. You never see an architect design the same building over and over.Why expect God to be so linear and limited?

also see posts on
{IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!} threadhttp://EvC Forum: IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!
by Jacintoand
EvC Forum: IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!
my reply where I take the calculation out a little further.they show that just one of the fallacious assumptions inbedded in calculations like Jerry's one listed here lead to much bigger results than is the mathematical realityand it is but the tip of the iceberg on problems with the improbable probability calculations.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thanks for the pointers.I'll point JDB at the links you provided and see what he has to say about them.

---

09/04/05 - Sharks attacked
30/04/05 - Wasps swatted
14/05/05 - More of the same ?

In Message 129 RAZD links to a post by Jacinto and one by himself which to my mind illustrate a serious flow in your probability argument.I would be interested in your view/rebuttal regarding what they say.

---

09/04/05 - Sharks attacked
30/04/05 - Wasps swatted
14/05/05 - More of the same ?

quote:

---

I would be interested in your view/rebuttal regarding what they say.

---

1) This guy reads DBB and is so upset with that mellow book that he suddenly converts from Christianity to Atheism and then from Creationism to Naturalism? Am I supposed to take the rest of this stuff seriously? Oh well, I'll give it a shot.His math on getting dealt a pattern in a 5 card hand is a little off but no big whup and I'll let it go as this is not really his point.

quote:

---

"That hand had only a 1 in 311,875,200 chance of occurring naturally, therefore it must have been intelligently arranged!"

---

This is ridiculous as no one on my side would consider 311,875,200 as anything unusual in nature. That works out (rounded) to only 10^8. Is this anywhere close to the 10^150 we consider as an upper probability barrier? No, this could easily happen by chance and says not one iota about ID.The rest of the post is nonsensical as he completely ignores the laws of chemistry concerning polypeptides in those calculations. Had he studied chemistry, he would know that polymerization of amino acids to polypeptides (AAs to proteins) or of nucleotides to polynucleotides (DNA), happen via condensation reactions.This can be accurately calculated using the enthalpy change concerning the formation of a dipeptide from amino acids and is known to be 5-8 kcal/mole for a variety of amino acids, using data compiled by Hutchens. His chance calculations are simply daydreaming and ignorance of science.Believe anything in that post at the peril of your own ignorance.NEXT:I don't really know what Razd is trying to say here, but his 1 in 2595.1 doesn't relate to my calculations as I use a very large upper probability bound in mine. His little number may, or may not be designed. Nothing in ID relates to numbers probabilities that low.This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-09-2005 12:54 AM

---

Design Dynamics

dear jerrythe point is that the calculations you use to get to your "10^150 we consider as an upper probability barrier" is based on the same mathematical error that results in a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 probability when a more proper calculation results in 1 in 2284.7from a 1 in 10¹⁵ to a 1 in 2285 is a big difference, and the ratio grows the further you extend it outand this still does not address other errors involved in the usual probability calculations, this is just the error due to one false assumption in your method of calculation.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

the point is that the calculations you use to get to your "10^150 we consider as an upper probability barrier" is based on the same mathematical error that results in a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 probability when a more proper calculation results in 1 in 2284.7

​

from a 1 in 1015 to a 1 in 2285 is a big difference, and the ratio grows the further you extend it out

​

and this still does not address other errors involved in the usual probability calculations, this is just the error due to one false assumption in your method of calculation.

---

Well gee, Razd. Why don't you take this a step further, precisely point out what my major mathematical error is, actually address the "error due to one false assumption in your [my-insertion mine] method" and we can discuss it.

---

Design Dynamics

well gosh, jerry, it is plainly stated in the other linked posts, especially the one you dismissed with several ad hominums ...the 1 in 10^{^15} calc is based on one particular sequence of combination while the 1 in 2285 calc doesn't yet ends up with the same final pattern.ps -- if you use the [Peek Mode] in your replies you can copy the coding for doing the superscripts without have to learn it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}