|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 10 Categories of Evidence For ID | |||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Jerry,
First of all, I owe you an apology. We didn't get off on the right footing and that's partly my own fault. I should not have adopted the tone I have when I responded to you in previous encounters. I apologize for my behaviour. Having said that, and promising that I will behave, is there a chance you'll talk to me if I engage you in this thread? All in good spirit and without hostility?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Thank you.
I was hoping you'd say that, because as soon as I saw your proposal I started typing away at an answer in anticipation of the promotion of your topic. So you can imagine that I was a bit disappointed when I saw you withdraw it. All that work... Please don't feel overwhelmed by the length of my post, there are some lenghty quotes you might skip, if you like. I just wanted to address all of your five points. You can do with it what you want. Here goes... #1
Jerry Don Bauer writes: 1) Function found in nature. Function is an attribute assigned by intelligence to cause something to cause 'something else' to do something. Function does not necessarily imply intelligence. In this study, the spontaneous evolution of a radio is described. The researchers used a simulated evolutionary process in which the fitness of an electronic circuit as an oscillator was selected for. The surprising thing was that one of the solutions emerging out of this trial was a radio circuit that picked up AM signals and used them as output for the oscillator function. This is an example of function evolving without intelligence prompting it. Some excerpts:
quote: quote: quote: Comment: this precludes the ID counterargument that the experimenters themselves are the intelligence behind the design. If they themselves don't know how the evolved circuits work, their intelligence cannot be responsible for the design, even if their intelligence is involved in setting up the experiment.
quote: In other words: an unexpected and unconventional way of producing an oscillating signal had been "invented" by a mindless process of evolution.
quote: Note: "The evolutionary process had utilised...", as if it were intelligent. But the evolutionary process is a mindless one. It just looks like it's intelligent. That's what I think is the core problem with ID: ID-ists interpret what they see in nature as the product of genuine intelligence, whereas we can see from this simulation that the process of evolution is capable of fooling us.
quote: In other words, again to anticipate ID-ist counterarguments: the intelligence of the experimenters has nothing to do with the actual process of simulated evolution. Once the process is underway, it's on its own and can produce quite unexpected results.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: In fact, just looking up the word at dictionary.com and considering the first two definitions we can see the intelligence inherent in the word function: 1) The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed. 2) Assigned duty or activity. The definition of the word 'function' cannot be used as conclusive evidence, because there are also uses of 'function' that do not directly imply intelligence, for example:
Merriam-Webster writes: 6 : characteristic behavior of a chemical compound due to a particular reactive unit; also : FUNCTIONAL GROUP Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary writes: function (RESULT) [Show phonetics]noun FORMAL a function of sth something which results from something else, or which is as it is because of something else: His success is a function of his having worked so hard. The low temperatures here are a function of the terrain as much as of the climate. In the last quote, the bold sentence exemplifies a use of the word 'function' that does not imply intelligence as a causative factor.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: FACT: We see much function in nature. This is evidence that intelligence operated to design and assign function in order that in each case, one something (often quite different) causes something else. In view of the objections I made above, I think one cannot say that function in nature is evidence of intelligence operating. #2
Jerry Don Bauer writes: 2) The fossil record. [...] when we look at the fossil record we would predict to see species coming into it fully formed, not evidence that species gradually evolved into their macroscopic forms as Darwin proposed. Stating it that way suggests that evolutionists propose there is a goal in evolution, and that along the path toward that goal, there exist unfinished organisms. That is not the case, it's a distortion of evolutionist ideas. Each individual organism is a complete, "fully formed" example of its species in its own point in time. Species do evolve, but not "into their macroscopic forms", Darwin never proposed that. Evolution doesn't predict the a priori existence, for example, of an ideal horse that unfinished proto-horse species gradually morph into. Rather, it's the other way around: the modern horse happens to be one of the forms that proto-horse species have evolved into, but things could easily have gone in a different direction, and we might never have had the pleasure of riding these magnificent animals.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: FACT: This is exactly what we see in the fossil record. There is no gradual evolution of bauplanes [sic], but long periods of nothing interspersed with relatively sudden explosions of fully formed organisms. These organisms then stay this way until they go extinct in the record. This is direct evidence for intelligent design. How is that direct evidence for intelligent design? It is only direct evidence for the fact that, sometimes, new species seem to crop up in a relatively short span of time. How this happens cannot be deduced directly from the fossil record. It could easily be surmised that aliens arrive here every so often with a spaceship load of new animals they picked up somewhere and dump on earth. How would you determine which is to be preferred: ID or alien Noahs? In the absence of direct evidence for either theory, evolutionists discard both, unless and until such evidence is found. #3
Jerry Don Bauer writes: 3) DNA found only in organisms. [...] ID predicts that DNA, a major building block of complex organisms, can only be created by an intelligent agent or by code preprogrammed by an intelligent agent. The scientific method now requires a test to find out if the prediction is borne out. What test does ID propose? This is an honest question that deserves an honest answer. In fact, many evolutionists think the answer is long overdue.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: Furthermore, some of the building blocks for these nucleic acids are very unstable in nature. For example, Miller found that ribose, which is essential for both DNA and RNA, has a half life (t) of only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0 C. It’s even worse at high temperatures - 73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100 C (the latter evidence is given for the benefit of heat-vent enthusiasts). This is no time at all when we view life as having formed over billions of years.
I am no molecular biologist, but I would surmise that it is possible that the binding of ribose to other large organic molecules alters the chemical properties of the constituent parts and might thus lend some form of 'protection' against denaturisation. Encapsulation of ribose in vesicles of lipids might provide a similar effect. But I think I'd better let the real molecular biologists deal with this one, I just gave it a shot. #4
Jerry Don Bauer writes: 4) Mathematical calculations and evidence as in the form of the study I introduced in the Intelligent Design in Universities thread showing that nature has a tendency to disorganize: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it. FACT: This shows the human genome to be DEVOLVING not EVOLVING. This is what ID predicts. Darwinism predicts the exact opposite tendency. This devolving tendency in vertebrate genomes is direct evidence for intelligent design.
I will not repeat the evolutionist arguments from the thread you mentioned, but I would note that on the one hand you say that "energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it", whereas on the other hand you say that the human genome devolves, i.e. isn't stable. Aren't these contradictory claims? And again: how is this direct evidence for intelligent design? How does the fact that things get worse over time directly say anything about how things got to be in the first place? #5
Jerry Don Bauer writes: 5) Existence of irreducibly complex systems in nature. ICSs are interesting little critters as they consist of several well matched parts that perform a function and all work together to cause an overall system function. These are well conceived systems that must be planned before they are designed in that Part A--Does job A--Part B, Does job B--Part C, Does job C--Part D, does job D; and the result is that all of these jobs work together to cause an overall function in the system as a whole. In this article, by Ken Miller, irreducible complexity is shown to be a flawed concept. The paragon of IC, the flagellum, is seen to be reduced and still functioning:
quote: Then follows a technical explanation of what is said in the quote above. Another example from the same article deals with that other icon of IC, the vertebrate blood clotting system. This is a cascade of protein reactions which is claimed by IC not to function when even one of the many factors is missing.
quote: P.S.: I have to go soon, so I won't be able to post until the evening (Dutch time) This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 11-May-2005 12:56 PM 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: |
My my, this thread really took off like a rocket!
It's rather late here already, I just got home (a meeting took longer than expected) and only had time to skim through what has been said so far. I'll try to take some time tomorrow to answer. By then this thread will have grown a beard, no doubt, but anyway... 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 Don Bauer writes: do note that they entered this experiment with a preset goal: "The motivation was to evolve an oscillator of a precise frequency without using capacitors." But their goal never was to evolve a radio. That emerged on its own as a completely novel way of tackling the problem of survival in a world where only oscillators survive. It was "invented" by the mindless procedure that was followed in the experiment, which essentially did nothing but mimic the process of evolution.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: Further note that there are all kinds of designed equipment in this experiment The nature of the materials in inconsequential. For the process it was just "gefundenes fressen", or: whatever was available.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: quote: How does anyone know this when you openly state above: "If they themselves don't know how the evolved circuits work, their intelligence cannot be responsible for the design..." And yet they conclude that the signal was "invented" by a mindless process of evolution? They could know this if they don't even understand it how it's working? Well, it's pretty clear that the radio wasn't the experimenters' idea. So, whoever invented it, it wasn't them. Therefore, it must have arisen spontaneously from the mindless procedure. There are no other candidates.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: Electrical waves are not similar to genomes. Radio signals are not similar to evolving populations of organisms. The thing that evolved in the example was the radio, a piece of hardware. Nothing was said about evolving radio waves. Please try to avoid misinterpretations of what other people write.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: If you are to show evolution with anything resembling a biological system, I would suggest we stay in biology. The process of evolution consists of nothing more than random mutation of mutable material and selective pressure on the results of those mutations. This can be shown in any model that can handle these two mechanisms.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: I understand there is no goal in evolution. That was not my point. The fossil record is an accurate record of around 80% of the earth's biotic history. If creatures evolved the way Darwin suggested, do you really think there would be no evidence in the fossil record of one species evolving into another? Somewhere? Anywhere?? There is, but you refuse to accept it. What can I do? In the mean time, if I may ask, since you seem to emphasize the distinction between evolution and Darwinism, what exactly do you perceive as the difference between them?
Jerry Don Bauer writes: quote: And if the aliens arrived, then the system is designed by aliens. And what if they are aliens who are only smart enough to build space ships and know nothing at all about DNA? Anyway, who designed the aliens? Some other designer, probably? And who designed them? I hope you can see where this is going.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: Why do you think life on earth could not be seeded by aliens? I don't. But then, neither do I see any evidence for it. Nor do I see any evidence for ID. For science to harbour such theories, it needs at least some plausible reasons to start investigating them. Reasons, I might add, that cannot be explained any other way. I just think that evolution (Darwinism, if you like) explains things just fine, so, for now, it doesn't need these theories.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: Intelligent designers in the lab have tried to synthesize these complex molecules from scratch and have not succeeded. Surely we can weigh this fact, compare it with the fact that no one has ever seen it form in nature outside an organism and draw a hypothesis from this. I hope you realise that, the way you put it, it seems very much as though you are pleading against ID.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: quote: [...] It is direct evidence for intelligent design because it supports a tenet of intelligent design: "loose" information will tend to degrade over time (become more disorganized) rather than evolve with complexity. If that's true, then mustn't we also conclude that an ice crystal is intelligently designed? After all, when it melts, essentially the same thing happens. I just fail to see the connection between the degradation of something and any conclusions about its origin. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 12-May-2005 11:21 PM 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 Don Bauer writes: quote: You almost write like you think this mindless procedure is some form of ethereal intellect. How can you believe in what seems like some weird pocket of unknown fuzzy cognizance and still keep the atheist slogan as your sig? So tell me. Is this how you think evolution acts in a human genome? I used the word 'mindless' and I used scare-quotes around the word 'invented'. I think that should tell you exactly what I believe about the nature of the evolutionary process. You have a habit if misinterpreting what other people say, and it is beginning to look like you don't do this by accident. I thought we'd agreed to debate in good spirit, or am I mistaken?
Jerry Don Bauer writes: quote: So who's idea was it? Do you have any stereos sitting around the house that evolved into place? And if these things just evolve all the time, why in the heck do people have to manufacture them? I mean, if a simple radio can evolve, what is to stop it from further evolution and before you know it we have a Boze system sitting out in the desert? Why is it I have to pay people to manufacture radios when they just poof themselves from nothing? Your resorting to mocking suggests to me that you don't have a serious answer to offer. I had hoped for something more intelligent and substantial than this.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: quote: Well I don't think I can think of any material that isn't mutable. So I guess everything in nature just evolves. As long as some mutations are selected for and others are not, then evolution of whatever is subject to those circumstances is a certainty.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: How do Darwinists go back in time sometimes millions of years to do these breeding experiments in order to hypothesize what species evolved into other species? They cannot, as to even contemplate this is ludicrous. Yet, they readily draw these conclusions and teach them as theories of science without any empirical experimental evidence what-so-ever to support them and ignoring the fact that these theories have never been taken through the observation -----> hypothesis -----> theory process inherent in the scientific method in order for theories of science to be termed a theory of science to begin with. Let's apply that to ID, shall we? How do ID-ists go back in time (to which points in time should they go?) to observe the Intelligent Designer doing its thing? "They cannot, as to even contemplate this is ludicrous. Yet, they readily draw these conclusions and teach them as theories of science without any empirical experimental evidence what-so-ever to support them and ignoring the fact that these theories have never been taken through the observation -----> hypothesis -----> theory process inherent in the scientific method in order for theories of science to be termed a theory of science to begin with." Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Jerry Don Bauer writes: quote: Nah...Not the same thing. Darwinism doesn't predict that ice crystals don't melt. More mocking? How about a serious answer? This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 13-May-2005 09:12 AM 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 Don Bauer writes: Flipping 500 quarters and having them all come up heads is statistically impossible. 'All heads' is one out of 2500 possible configurations. So if I empty a bucket of 500 coins onto the floor, the chance that all of them will end up heads is 1 in 2500. But whatever configuration I end up with, it's always just one configuration out of 2500, therefore the chance of any one particular configuration is 1 in 2500, the one actually on the floor is no exception. After emptying the bucket, that configuration of coins is a fact. So, something you say is statistically impossible, has in fact happened. Now, if you were to predict the exact configuration before emptying the bucket, I might grant you that to be right would be so infinitessimally improbable as to be well-nigh impossible. That's wherein the problem lies. The improbability argument is always accompanied by the false picture of evolution working toward a predefined goal. If you say that you know that evolution has no goal and at the same time trot out the improbability argument, you demonstrate that you don't understand the reasoning behind the concept of evolution. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 09-Feb-2006 12:45 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Jerry Don Bauer writes: Lower life progressed to more complex life, both plant and animal, over time. It's intriguing that you should say that. What do you think caused this to happen? I mean this as a serious question and I expect a serious answer. 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: |
Everybody,
May I suggest we do not post in this thread until Jerry is back? Otherwise he will never be able to catch up with everything that's said here, a lot of which is addressed to him. Just a suggestion. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 13-May-2005 08:28 PM 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: |
{Retracted. I've noticed an enormous stupidity in my post. I'm working on a correction.}
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 15-May-2005 12:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Jerry Don Bauer writes: You can't just throw out 500 coins and reason that whatever pattern you get has the odds of 1/2^500 of occurring. The chance of getting any one particular pattern is 1 in 2500, whether you specify it in advance or not.
Jerry Don Bauer writes: You have to pre-conceive the pattern as I did with 500 heads. Only THEN do the odds become 1/2^500 it will occur. Some questions:
Anyway, please note that I had already anticipated your notion of preconception and dealt with it:
Parasomnium writes: Now, if you were to predict the exact configuration before emptying the bucket, I might grant you that to be right would be so infinitessimally improbable as to be well-nigh impossible. That's wherein the problem lies. The improbability argument is always accompanied by the false picture of evolution working toward a predefined goal. Either you forgot about that or you chose to ignore it. But I'd like an answer to it anyway. 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