Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A thought on Intelligence behind Design
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 261 (43170)
06-17-2003 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Warren
06-17-2003 3:32 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
No genetic algorithm or evolutionary computation has designed a complex, multipart, functionally integrated, irreducibly complex system without stacking the deck by incorporating the very solution that was supposed to be attained from scratch.
So what? This is not a description of living systems, in my view. Living systems aren't well designed, or functionally integrated - they only work well enough to reproduce. If an intelligent designer had designed life, especially the human body, I'd send the design back. ("Bleeding every 28 days?! Unacceptable!")

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 3:32 PM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 261 (43179)
06-17-2003 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Warren
06-17-2003 4:16 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
The concept of IC in biology is mainly confined to systems within the cell such as molecular machines.
IC is a non-argument. Nothing is truly irreducably complex. Consider the arch. The arch is "irreducibly complex", by the standard definition - remove one component, and the whole thing fails. But arches aren't constructed all at once by fiat, they're built piece-by-piece. How do they do this? With scaffolds that support the system until all the pieces are in place. When that occurs, the scaffold is no longer needed, and is removed.
So, where you or Demski see irreducibly complex cellular machinery, I see systems that evolved using scaffolds that are no longer present. Sometimes they are - our cells contain both the "modern" aerobic respiration metabolisms and the "ancient", less-efficient anaerobic pathways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 4:16 PM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 261 (43185)
06-17-2003 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Warren
06-17-2003 5:16 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
There's a sheer possibility that wind and water erosion could sculpt Mount Rushmore but not a realistic one.
That's a subjective judgement - even if we didn't have photographic evidence of the carving of Mount Rushmore, we could reasonably assume that it was carved by sculptors because we see sculptors today, carving things out of stone. That's a process we can observe to this day.
We don't, on the other hand, observe any intelligent designers creating highly advanced life at this time. We don't observe gods waving things into being with irrational powers. What we do observe to this day are processes of random mutation and natural selection giving rise to complexity, so it in fact is highly reasonable to assume that they did so in the past, and that the diversity of life we see today is the result of only those processes.
Show me god creating life right now, and I'll give that theory some credence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 5:16 PM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 261 (43186)
06-17-2003 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Warren
06-17-2003 5:50 PM


Where is the evidence that it was random mutations and natural selection that evolved the flagellum?
Show me evidence for any alternative. Random mutation and natural selection is the simplest explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 5:50 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 8:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 261 (43209)
06-17-2003 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Warren
06-17-2003 8:28 PM


What if Mount Rushmore was on the moon? What would you conclude produced it?
We're not talking about Mount Rushmore on the moon; we're talking about life on Earth. So answer me this - when faced with trying to figure out what process gave rise to something, which is better: to explain it through the action of process we observe and can test in the present time; or to explain through the action of entities no longer present and inaccessable to scientific inquiry?
If you chose the latter you'd better have a good reason, because it's simply not good science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 8:28 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2003 8:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 261 (43217)
06-17-2003 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
06-17-2003 8:46 PM


the universe and earth is so impressive , so brilliant ,so awesome i just think it is logical to assume there is intelligence behind it,is that really so bad ?
It's only bad if that belief is so strong you won't listen to evidence to the contrary.
Haven't you ever seen clouds that you thought were beautiful, or funny? Just because you thought they were neat, does that have to mean that an intelligence was there to make them just for you to look at? Isn't it much more likely that your thoughts about impressiveness, awesomeness, and beauty are just in your head?
and why must everything have to be tested by science.
because science is a filter that separates out what we think it should be, what we'd like it to be, what we need it to be, and leaves us only with information about what is. In that sense, science is the best way to find out anything that can be known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2003 8:46 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2003 9:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 261 (43225)
06-17-2003 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Warren
06-17-2003 9:06 PM


Why didn't you answer my question? If Mount Rushmore was found on the moon what would you think produced it?
It's a stupid question. There's no Mount Rushmore on the moon because sculptors have never lived on the moon. What's your point?
You didn't answer my question, which is considerably more relevant- why do you think it's better to imagine entities and processes that don't exist today to explain things that the natural processes we see today can easily explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 9:06 PM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 261 (43251)
06-17-2003 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Warren
06-17-2003 10:04 PM


The point is simple. We don't need to observe intelligent designers making something in order to infer ID.
No, you do. Mount Rushmoon, we suspect, was sculpted because sculptors on earth make similar sculptures. Our experience with things that we have seen designed tells us that when we see something like that we have seen designed, it was probably designed as well. If we find mousetraps on mars, we would know that they were designed because on earth, mousetraps are designed.
Life is unlike anything that has ever been designed. So why assume it has been? Especially when natural processes are sufficient to account for the formation of life?
Since we're all up into stupid questions, let me ask you one - suppose you find a fizazzle on the moon. Was it designed? Can you know without knowledge of what a fizazzle is supposed to do, if anything?
No natural process could explain the existence of a mousetrap on Mars.
We're talking about life on earth, not mousetraps on mars, which don't exist. Life isn't a moustrap. It's nothing like a mousetrap, nor any other human artifact. So why apply the same rules as human artifacts?
You may say that complexity is evidence of design; I say that the complexity of living systems is far too great to have been designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 10:04 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Warren, posted 06-18-2003 1:35 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 261 (43275)
06-18-2003 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Warren
06-18-2003 1:35 AM


There is no evidence that geochemistry spawns molecular machines or codes, therefore, I suspect life is carbon-based nanotechnology. And so far, no one has given me a good reason to think my suspicion is mistaken.
I just don't see how you can ignore the fact that when humans do design, it's nothing like life. And when we don't design, when we use GP, which is the opposite of intelligent design, we get things that approach similarity with living systems - redundant parts, feedback effects, components put to multiple, unrelated uses. You just can't design this stuff.
I just find that too compelling to ignore. The evidence from design is not that life was designed; it's that life is too complex to have been designed. Maybe you can explain why you disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Warren, posted 06-18-2003 1:35 AM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 261 (43436)
06-19-2003 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Warren
06-19-2003 3:23 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
A message from the designer encoded in the cell is essentially a proof of ID. I asked you what evidence would cause you to merely suspect ID.
You're seriously objecting to his proposal because it's too good? it would prove your point too well, so you don't like it?
If there can't be any proof for ID, why should we suspect it at all?
ID is being investigated because of some subtle "clues" that lead people to suspect ID. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about ID being an accurate conjecture. If we're to accept that it is, we need proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 3:23 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 3:51 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 261 (43438)
06-19-2003 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Warren
06-19-2003 3:51 PM


I'm just pointing out that scientific investgations don't start out with proof. If we have proof of something then there is no need of an investigation.
And when the investigation fails to uncover evidence, at some point we recognize the fruitlessness of further research. And we certainly never accept the theory under investigation until there's some evidence. You don't have any.
What does proof have to do with science? There is likewise no proof that life ever existed on Mars, but scientists and engineers plan on looking for it (or its traces).
I just can't tell if you're joking. "What does proof have to do with science?" Proof is what we use to determine which theories to reject. Science isn't just random speculation; science has results.
People have been looking for evidence for ID for some time now. That none has been forthcoming is sufficient to reject the theory at this point.
Stick a fork in ID - it's done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 3:51 PM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 261 (43445)
06-19-2003 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Warren
06-19-2003 4:50 PM


You don't know what you are talking about. Scientific theories are based on evidence not proof.
I think you knew that I meant "proof" in the sense of a sufficient weight of evidence to grant tentative acceptance of a theory. You're just being disengenuous now.
In terms of a weight of evidence, you don't have any for ID. So why should we accept the propositions of ID? You've granted there's no clear evidence - you've rejected the idea that there could be, in fact. And you never answered my first question - why is it better to resort to the actions of unknown, untestable entities when known, observed, natural processes suffice (by your own admission) to explain the existence of life? (Ever heard of Occam's Razor?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 4:50 PM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 261 (43450)
06-19-2003 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Warren
06-19-2003 5:20 PM


How can you say there is no evidence for ID if you don't know what evidence for ID would look like? You could be looking right at it and not recognize it.
If you can't explain what it is, if no one can provide an explanation of what evidence for design would be, how can we look for it? How can a reasonable person propose a model of ID if no one can even explain what the evidence for the model would look like? Do you really expect us to take this stuff seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 5:20 PM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 78 of 261 (43451)
06-19-2003 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Warren
06-19-2003 5:30 PM


I never said known, observed, natural processes suffice to explain the origin of life.
You agreed that natural processes have a non-zero probability of creating life. If abiogenesis isn't against the laws of physics than it is possible, and natural explanations are sufficient. Or are you using a different definition of "sufficent" perhaps?
As for Occam's razor, one problem I have with using the razor at this level is that if ID were in fact behind the origin of life the razor would tell us otherwise.
Not so. Occam's razor doesn't rule out the possibility of human sculptors creating Mount Rushmore. So obviously Occam's razor can't eliminate the possibility of intelligent design where there is evidence of intelligent designers.
If humans had "Property of God" on their butts, Occam's razor couldn't stop us from proposing the existence of god. What Occam's razor does do is remind us not to needlessly invent entities who are forever removed from scientific inquiry.
It's interesting that you mention unknown, untestable entities when current abiogenesis explanations invoke thousands of unknown, untestable entities in the form of imaginary, ill-defined precursors to the cell, unobserved simple sloppy entities with imaginary functions, evolving via imaginary selective advantages, and existing in imaginary environments.
To the contrary. While abiogenesis theories will always be hampered by the lack of fossil records, nothing ever proposed in any natural abiogenesis theory will be physically impossible or unreplicatable under controlled conditions.
I can't show how life started on earth. I don't have a time machine. What I can do is propose a model and test it - does it work in the lab under assumed primordial conditions? If so, it's a viable explanation for the origin of life.
Where's your creator? How does it create? These are questions that can't be escaped, no matter how many ID theorists say who the creator is doesn't matter. It does matter. If the existence of a creator can be inferred from creation, then that creator falls under the purview of science. But if we can't ever find any independant evidence for the existence of said creator, we need to come up with an explanation for "creation" that doesn't involve a creator.
Hence, evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 5:30 PM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 114 of 261 (44213)
06-25-2003 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Warren
06-25-2003 6:39 PM


There is no evidence that non-intelligent processes can produce machines.
What, every time I see a stick lying on a round rock, I'm supposed to believe that somebody forgot their lever? A wedge (a simple machine) can never form naturally? (Looking in a rock garded, I see that they can and do.)
I think you're overlooking the simple machines that all complex machines are based on; things like cams and levers and wedges.
Also you seem to be overlooking circuit design through genetic programming, especially in cases where GP produced a circuit that did something much more complicated than what the programmers were trying to get.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Warren, posted 06-25-2003 6:39 PM Warren 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