Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 249 (345525)
08-31-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Parasomnium
08-30-2006 3:30 AM


Re: Selective blindness
Chimps may be 4% different, genetically from Humans, yet this fact is largely irrelevant, and not especially useful in anyway.
Largely irrelevant? Are you kidding? A 4% difference between chimps and humans means they are 96% similar. NINETY-SIX percent! And you call that irrelevant? For someone who recognizes design in nature (rightly so, I think), and who concludes a designer (erroneously, I think), you are remarkably blind to the biological implications of the huge similarity between chimps and humans.
Watermelons and Jelly fish are both 96% water, does that mean they are biologically related?
The similarities are irrelevant, because it’s the whole picture that is important. Chimps don't have 96% of our brain capacity, they don’t have 96% of the hospitals and colleges we have.
If we have 3 billion base pairs of DNA per cell, that means that Chimps have 120 million base pairs less DNA per cell than we have. The study of "similarities" doesn't reveal, the important differences, those that cause us to think, and question our world. It focuses on the physical differences which have very little explanatory power.
Focusing on the information or the design tells us why we build hospitals and colleges.
Complexity in nature simply is what it is, based on the millions of years it took for that complexity to evolve. Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it?
IF it could be shown that evolution took place to the extent theorized, then yeah sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Parasomnium, posted 08-30-2006 3:30 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 08-31-2006 7:52 PM Hughes has not replied
 Message 198 by nator, posted 08-31-2006 8:16 PM Hughes has not replied
 Message 207 by Parasomnium, posted 09-01-2006 3:52 AM Hughes has not replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 249 (345588)
08-31-2006 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by RAZD
08-30-2006 7:29 PM


Re: IC is falsified
Behe disagrees. Selected quotes below refute the idea that IC has been falsified by this particular test.
Thus, contrary to Miller's own criterion for "a true acid test," a multipart system was not "wiped out"--only one component of a multipart system was deleted.
The fact that there were two separate mutations in different genes--neither of which by itself allowed cell growth (Hall 1982a)--startled Hall, who knew that the odds against the mutations appearing randomly and independently were prohibitive (Hall 1982b). Hall's results and similar results from other laboratories led to research in the area dubbed "adaptive mutations." (Cairns 1998; Foster 1999; Hall 1998; McFadden and Al Khalili 1999; Shapiro 1997) As Hall later wrote,
Adaptive mutations are mutations that occur in nondividing or slowly dividing cells during prolonged nonlethal selection, and that appear to be specific to the challenge of the selection in the sense that the only mutations that arise are those that provide a growth advantage to the cell. The issue of the specificity has been controversial because it violates our most basic assumptions about the randomness of mutations with respect to their effect on the cell. (Hall 1997)
The mechanism(s) of adaptive mutation are currently unknown. While they are being sorted out, it is misleading to cite results of processes which "violate our most basic assumptions about the randomness of mutations" to argue for Darwinian evolution, as Miller does.
a strong reason to consider the lac/ebg results quite modest is that the ebg proteins--both the repressor and B-galactosidase--are homologous to the E. coli lac proteins and overlap the proteins in activity. Both of the unmutated ebg proteins already bind lactose.
The mutations reported by Hall simply enhance pre-existing activities of the proteins.
Such results hardly support extravagant claims for the creativeness of Darwinian processes.
Miller's prose ("Irreducible complexity. What good would the permease be without the galactosidase?") (Miller 1999, 146) obscures the facts that most of the system was already in place when the experiments began, that the system was carried through nonviable states by inclusion of IPTG, and that the system will not function without pre-existing components. In contrast to Miller, Hall himself is cautious and clear about the implications of his results.
Any one of the mutations alone could well be neutral (it is unlikely that any would be disadvantageous); but neutral mutations do enter populations by random chance events, and are fixed by a chance process termed genetic drift. (Hall 1982a)
However, if a mutation is not selected, the probability of its being fixed in a population is independent of the probability of the next mutation. Such a system is irreducibly complex, requiring several steps to be taken independently of each other before having selective value. If three mutations are required before there is any selective value, then the cumulative probability starts to become very small indeed, even considering the size of bacterial populations. In the present case Hall argued that a small selective value might accrue after the second mutation (in the ebg repressor). (Hall 1982a) However, I find his rationale unconvincing and having little experimental support. Furthermore, Professor Hall does not discuss the implications of the requirement for the preexisting lac permease gene.
"No doubt about it--the evolution of biochemical systems, even complex multipart ones, is explicable in terms of evolution. Behe is wrong." (Miller 1999, 147)
I disagree. Leaving aside the still-murky area of adaptive mutation, the admirably-careful work of Hall involved a series of micromutations stitched together by intelligent intervention. He showed that the activity of a deleted enzyme could be replaced only by mutations to a second, homologous protein with a nearly-identical active site; and only if the second repressor already bound lactose; and only if the system were also artificially supported by inclusion of IPTG; and only if the system were also allowed to use a preexisting permease. Such results are exactly what one expects of irreducible complexity requiring intelligent intervention, and of limited capabilities for Darwinian processes.
All previous quotes taken from:
“A True Acid Test” | Discovery Institute
Demonstrating two things. One, that ID is science if it's true as claimed by the opponents here, that IC was falsified. And two, that such an experiment as was discussed above, has an outcome, as predicted from ID theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2006 7:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 09-01-2006 7:40 AM Hughes has not replied
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2006 8:35 PM Hughes has not replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 249 (345726)
09-01-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
08-31-2006 12:50 AM


Re: What about creationism/ID?
Hi Hughes,
I realize you probably have limited time to deal with the many respondents, but that's all the more reason to use your time to actually address the topic. There are already existing threads for arguing against the theory of evolution and other scientific views, and almost all of your reply belongs in one of those threads, not here. This thread is for making the case that creationism/ID satisfies the criteria of science.
Percy, thanks. This is true, I don't have lots of time. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Since I’m new to this board, and have only read through both threads I’ve posted in, and haven’t had time to peruse all the others, I’m unaware of what the other threads may contain. Many things interest me, so I anticipate that I’ll be getting over there.
The topic is ID Scientific. And with reference to ToE, the fact that ToE is considered scientific, I feel it’s relevant to reference it (as you did in your contrasting paragraph). Because we all use the same data. There’s nothing new that ID has “discovered” that wasn’t already know. It’s simply a new model. One that I am arguing is equally scientific as ToE.
What has been most notable is what you claim ID does not explain. According to you, ID says nothing about relatedness, genetics or fossils. Also according to you, there is no evidence for ID in the classification system, in genetics or in fossils. As far as I can tell, according to you ID has no evidence and makes no predictions.
What I’ve said is that ID doesn’t need relatedness, or use it as evidence. As a contrast, Evolution makes vast connections without a factual basis. For example, Ford, Chevy, Toyota, and Honda all make a car that is similar in size and shape. Yet, we don’t conclude from similarity that they are even remotely related. We do categorize them into groups, because that well, that’s what we do, we categorize things. ID concludes that it has very little explanatory power.
I think Tanypteryx in Message 165 of the Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism thread makes the most relevant point regarding your arguments so far. The best characterization of your repeated claims of what ID does not tell us is when he says, "Those who argue against evolution are not interested in understanding the world around us." And you'd really prefer that others were as uninterested as yourself. What you're really interested in is protecting religious faith, not advancing science, and that's the real reason that ID fails as science.
I read that, just this morning. I couldn’t disagree more.
First is the idea that we’re not interested in understanding the world around us. I can’t speak for everyone, but I’ve not met anyone in this debate, on either side that would fit this criteria. In essence, we all share the same goal. The Truth. The truth in science, what is really happening in the world around us.
Second is how we get there. What you see as “really interested in is protecting religious faith, not advancing science” is really a different starting point, that leads to different conclusions.
I start with a universe that was started by a great designer.
You start with a universe that was nothing 15 billions years ago, then was something shortly after that. A mystery, I suppose, but faith non-the less.
I start with an Earth that was designed, once again, by a great designer.
You start with an Earth that was not designed, but formed somehow, by the natural forces, containing an unlimited natural ability to create life.
Both contain assumptions. Neither are demonstrable, testable or falsifiable.
So, am I interested in protecting my faith? Not in the least, that’s not even an issue. I do however start with different assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 08-31-2006 12:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 09-01-2006 1:24 PM Hughes has not replied
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 09-01-2006 1:34 PM Hughes has not replied
 Message 213 by nator, posted 09-01-2006 4:17 PM Hughes has not replied
 Message 214 by Chiroptera, posted 09-01-2006 4:21 PM Hughes has not replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 249 (346130)
09-02-2006 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by fallacycop
08-31-2006 1:34 AM


Can ID explain the complexity we observe today? this is potentially a serious problem for ID because all known itelligent designers (Human beings, that is) have time and skill limitations.
This is true. However, if it can be claimed that based on such small scale changes that limitless changes can be extrapolated, then how much more when considering designed things.
We observe structures that are designed, and can account for their complexity based on our observation. Limited designs, and a limited product admittedly. However, using even less extrapolation than is used with ToE, grand designs can logically been seen as coming from a designer.
The theory of evolution doesn't face simmilar problem because the process can keep working over extremely long periods of time and lead to apparently arbitrarily complex extructures. I would argue that the more complex something is, the harder it becomes to believe that it may have been designed and the bigger gets the likelyhood that it is a result of some natural process like evolution
Hmmm...more likely that it came from a chance driven process? Hmmm...wonder if we could work out the "likelyhoods". I wonder if there's a way to establish "odds" in this particular bet? Not that it's a bet, but the debate can certainly be framed that way. Too bad computers don't just write themselves their own programs from the silicone itself, else you might have something there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by fallacycop, posted 08-31-2006 1:34 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-02-2006 9:29 PM Hughes has not replied
 Message 224 by fallacycop, posted 09-03-2006 2:21 AM Hughes has not replied
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 09-03-2006 10:00 AM Hughes has not replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 249 (346146)
09-02-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by RAZD
08-31-2006 7:48 AM


This is addressed on Message 1 (Thread Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III)
How does the concept of ID contribute to calibrations? What does it show the calibrations should be?
Thanks, I posted in that thread.
ID as in all science endeavors doesn't displace the scientific method and principles of calibration.
How does ID explain the changes in complexity seen today - the one's happening now? What is the mechanism that it operates by?
You mean variation as seen now? Simple. It's called genetics, based on an original design scheme that has a built-in variation system. They two key differences with evolution are that the variation isn't unlimited, and that the designs didn't arrive via decent with modification (ToE). The designs preceded the variations.
How is the design transmitted? What is the process? Can we predict the next change? Shouldn't there be a trend if it is a design process?
How is the design transmitted? You mean originally, (as in the beginning), or today?
I think we are being misunderstood here, if you thought ID means that designing is still going on.
Surely if ID can be used in science then it should be able to contribute to making even better medicines by understanding the design process and working with it -- such as finding a cure for AIDS\HIV yes?
Exactly. Just as many developments (flight, radar are two examples) occurred as a result of close study of nature (what ID proposes was designed by an intelligence).
Edited by Hughes, : fixed quote commands

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2006 7:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2006 9:30 AM Hughes has not replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 249 (346157)
09-03-2006 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
08-31-2006 4:30 PM


You mean communications as in radio, television and journalism communications? Or communications as in Shannon Information? I don't see how you could have studied the latter and make statements like, "Information can only come from intelligent sources." Right near the beginning of his paper Shannon states that meaning is irrelevant to the engineering problem of communicating information. Intelligence has nothing to do with creating information.
And I agree, that they are separate issues. I wouldn't conclude from this that intelligence is therefore absent, simply because they are separate problems. One being strictly physical (engineering), the other information/abstract based.
I studied cross-cultural communications specifically.
I agree that communicating information within the cell fits within the formalism of information theory, but this has nothing to do with intelligence. You seem to sort of be nibbling around the edges of the faux information theories promoted by Gitt and Dembski.
I think that the strongest argument for design is the abstract nature of communication in cells.
When I say, "The grass is green" and you read those letters, you only understand the message if you can decode them. The letters "GREEN" have absolutely no direct or indirect correlation to "greeness" or "grass", unless both the originator of the message, and the receiver have agreed to an abstract set of rules governing said communication.
Edited by Admin, : Shrink image.
Edited by Admin, : Shrink image more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 08-31-2006 4:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 09-03-2006 8:26 AM Hughes has not replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 249 (346161)
09-03-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by fallacycop
08-31-2006 5:34 PM


Re: ROFL!!
Bridges and buildings are not very complex things. they have some complex aspects that's true. For instance, questions like what are the more efficient shapes for a bridge, or what is the most aerodynamical shape for the wing of an airplane are not easy to answer. That's why engeneers build wind tunels to test their ideas. They build wings, test them, drop the ones that don't work well, keep the ones that do, add new features to the latter, test again...
hum... They use a process that is basically equivalent to evolution in order to be able to design the more complex features of their projects. Often times a combination of random changes (mutation) plus some selection rule is the most efficient way to design a complex structure. look up evolutionary algorithms.
Computers are largely desined by other computers. The principles behind the design are quite simple.
Politics is not designed. it is an emergent behaviour. It is the sum of the individual actions taken by people. Just as weather is an emergent phenomenon. It is the sum of the behaviour of every single molecule in the atmosphere.
I grant you that many complex things have been designed by human beings, but nothing that comes even close to the complexity of life. There is a huge gap here that must be bridged by ID before we can start to consider whether ID is a scientific theory or not. As I see it, lifes complexity is a clean score for evolution in the evolution vs ID debate.
Life's complexity would be a clean score if evolution worked as you described. Unfortunately you are using intelligence to further "evolution" in each of your analogies. Bridges that work or don't, wings, and computers all incorporate intelligence to make and select those changes, that will effect a positive direction in movement in the design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by fallacycop, posted 08-31-2006 5:34 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by fallacycop, posted 09-03-2006 2:36 AM Hughes has not replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 249 (347186)
09-07-2006 1:21 AM


IS ID Science?
In a nut shell, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection. No different than detecting design in archeology, seti, or even cryptology.
how does a manufacturing plant relate to biological structures?
On a microscopic level, biological structures are manufacturing plants. An objective observer would say that a manufacturing plant was evidence of intelligent design. So too, the same conclusion can be made about the biological manufacturing plants.
how can you tell something is designed by an intelligence?
Detecting design, as in SETI involves detecting a message.
Yes, it is a weak idea, but it is still science.

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 09-07-2006 2:13 AM Hughes has not replied
 Message 240 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-07-2006 3:12 AM Hughes has not replied
 Message 241 by obvious Child, posted 09-07-2006 3:45 AM Hughes has not replied
 Message 242 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2006 4:58 AM Hughes has not replied
 Message 243 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2006 7:16 AM Hughes has not replied
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 09-07-2006 7:49 AM Hughes 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