Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 121 of 261 (44310)
06-26-2003 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Warren
06-25-2003 2:36 PM


Re: Design
I demand niether proof nor certainty.
All I require is coherent explanation of why you assume
Intelligent Design.
I have not heard anything beyond incredulity ... feel
free to enlighten me.
By 'all machines have an IC core' I assume what you mean is
that some components of all machines are IC.
As pointed out before, the major problem with inferring ID from
IC is that it assumes that the current function was the
intended function. If this is not the case (and we cannot
know that it is) then the argument fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Warren, posted 06-25-2003 2:36 PM Warren has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 122 of 261 (44360)
06-26-2003 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Warren
06-25-2003 10:37 PM


I don't get it Warren. You have at least attempted an answer to just about everyone but me. What's the problem?
I find this particularly annoying when you then make statements like this...
warren writes:
until the last few decades, the cell had been viewed as a membranous sac that contained a soup. As it turns out however, cells are built around incredibly intricate molecule architectures populated by all kinds of really neat molecular machines.
Rather than viewing biological entities as their closest nonbiological analogy, why not view them as... biological entities?
Where is your assessment of Margulis' work? She is one of the pioneers which helped dispel that sac of soup imagery (specifically in bacteria), without rushing to the sac of nuts and bolts imagery.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 06-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Warren, posted 06-25-2003 10:37 PM Warren has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 123 of 261 (44361)
06-26-2003 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Warren
06-25-2003 10:37 PM


sorry, accidental double post. deleted.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 06-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Warren, posted 06-25-2003 10:37 PM Warren has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 124 of 261 (45039)
07-04-2003 4:55 AM


So .... has Warren left the building ...?

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 125 of 261 (46272)
07-16-2003 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Warren
06-25-2003 6:39 PM


Re: Intelligence, not just Design
Warren,
You say
"There is no evidence that non-intelligent processes can produce machines."
But there is. Conway's Game of Life is a perfect example. (I'm assuming you're familiar with it. If not, feel free to surf the net for information about it.) It produces complex structures that do things. A simple example would be a small structure that walks diagonally across the grid. If a machine is something more or less complex which is capable of doing something, then this is a machine: a machine that can walk. Yet the simple rules of the game state nothing about such emergent behaviour, they simply determine what happens to one cell of the grid as a result of the tally of "life" in the neighbouring cells. Nothing at all is said about the formation and behaviour of structures larger than one cell. And yet, here we are, staring in disbelief and awe at a running Game of Life and seeing this walker ambling by. And how about this: a lot of structures that arise in the Game of Life exhibit oscillation and it's sort of shockingly funny to watch a walker crash into such a beautiful flower-like structure and disrupt it completely.
So, the walker is designed perfectly for walking (or disrupting other things), the oscilators are designed perfectly for oscillating, yet the algorithm behind it all is a dumb application of three simple rules, repeated over and over again, on a grid initially seeded with random noise. No intelligence there, just a stupid algorithm, a bit akin to a chemical reaction. Methinks this is "evicence that non-intelligent processes can produce machines."
Cheers.
[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Warren, posted 06-25-2003 6:39 PM Warren has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 126 of 261 (46312)
07-17-2003 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Warren
06-25-2003 6:39 PM


Re: Intelligence, not just Design
quote:
There is no evidence that non-intelligent processes can produce machines
This has already been answered in terms of 'what is a machine?'
and Genetic Programming as an example of 'dumb design'.
I'll point out the minor technical detail that an absence of
evidence doesn't point to anything AT ALL!!! Even if there
were a lack of evidence.
It would be difficult to conceive of a dumb process producing a car,
I agree. But life is based on chemistry ... very complex, mulitple
interacting reactions that have, as an emergent property, what
we call life.
Chemical reactions CAN and DO happen all by themselves in nature.
I find it hard to understand how you cannot see that the whole
ID concept is founded in culturally programmed incredulity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Warren, posted 06-25-2003 6:39 PM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 261 (46374)
07-17-2003 4:29 PM


Intelligent Design
Peter<< I find it hard to understand how you cannot see that the whole ID concept is founded in culturally programmed incredulity. >>
Let's lay some considerations on the table.
1. You have provided no evidence that indicates the flagellum evolved.
2. You have provided no evidence that indicates RM&NS brought the flagellum into existence.
3. You have provided no argument that indicates a teleological explanation for the origin of the flagellum is wrong.
4. When asked what type of data about the flagellum would cause you to suspect ID, you are stumped.
5. You have no way of distinguishing a non-teleological origin from a teleological origin for the flagellum.
6. In light of 4 and 5, it seems safe to conclude that if the flagellum was indeed designed, you would tell us otherwise.
In light of 6, how much weight should I assign to your incredulity about ID?

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by MrHambre, posted 07-17-2003 5:15 PM Warren has replied
 Message 135 by Parasomnium, posted 07-18-2003 5:36 AM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 261 (46375)
07-17-2003 4:35 PM


Intelligent Design
Peter: "Chemical reactions CAN and DO happen all by themselves in nature."
Yeah, I guess this debate we are having reduces to nothing more than chemical reactions.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-17-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2003 5:50 PM Warren has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 129 of 261 (46377)
07-17-2003 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Warren
07-17-2003 4:29 PM


Design, hold the Intelligent
quote:
1. You have provided no evidence that indicates the flagellum evolved.
2. You have provided no evidence that indicates RM&NS brought the flagellum into existence.
Ian Musgrave at the University of Adelaide has published a detailed naturalistic model of a possible developmental pathway through which the BacFlag may have evolved from a bacterial secretory system. The model relies solely on step-by-step improvements made to the ancestor system through RM&NS. Page not found | Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences | University of Adelaide
If you're not satisfied with this model (and I'd bet you won't be), kindly show us a similarly detailed proposal for the process through which the BacFlag was intelligently designed.
quote:
3. You have provided no argument that indicates a teleological explanation for the origin of the flagellum is wrong.
4. When asked what type of data about the flagellum would cause you to suspect ID, you are stumped.
The burden is on intelligent-design creationists to show us why we should suspect that intelligence is responsible for a biological structure, since intelligence has never demonstrated the ability to produce any living organism or structure thereof.
quote:
5. You have no way of distinguishing a non-teleological origin from a teleological origin for the flagellum.
Neither do you. For proponents of IDC, the assumption of intelligent design is sufficient. The 'dual model' concept of intelligent design creationism simply argues that there is not enough evidence of evolution, therefore IDC wins by default despite the utter lack of positive evidence of IDC.
quote:
6. In light of 4 and 5, it seems safe to conclude that if the flagellum was indeed designed, you would tell us otherwise.
That would be safer to say if you were actually to prove that it was intelligently designed. Perhaps if there really were persuasive evidence of the intelligent design of any living thing, you would be correct in calling us dogmatic.
quote:
In light of 6, how much weight should I assign to your incredulity about ID?
Exactly the same weight you would assign to our incredulity and skepticism concerning any other theory that lacks evidence.
{edited to add link}
------------------
Quien busca, halla
[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 07-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Warren, posted 07-17-2003 4:29 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Warren, posted 07-17-2003 8:27 PM MrHambre has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 130 of 261 (46378)
07-17-2003 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Warren
07-17-2003 4:35 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
So, where are those "testable ID hypotheses ?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Warren, posted 07-17-2003 4:35 PM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 261 (46385)
07-17-2003 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by MrHambre
07-17-2003 5:15 PM


Re: Design, hold the Intelligent
Warren<<
1. You have provided no evidence that indicates the flagellum evolved.
2. You have provided no evidence that indicates RM&NS brought the flagellum into existence.>>
MrHambre<< Ian Musgrave at the University of Adelaide has published a detailed naturalistic model of a possible developmental pathway through which the BacFlag may have evolved from a bacterial secretory system.>>
Warrren<< I see. So imagining a vague story with potential pathways counts as the experimental evidence that establishes neo-Darwinian evolution as the cause behind flagellar origins.>>
Warren<<
3. You have provided no argument that indicates a teleological explanation for the origin of the flagellum is wrong.
4. When asked what type of data about the flagellum would cause you to suspect ID, you are stumped..>>
MrHambre<< The burden is on intelligent-design creationists to show us why we should suspect that intelligence is responsible for a biological structure, since intelligence has never demonstrated the ability to produce any living organism or structure thereof.>>
Warren<< Nonsense. Where is your evidence that any complex biological structure or organ was produced solely by non-teleological processes? Science has no test to distinguish between teleological and non-teleological causes, yet that has not stopped it from investigating non-teleological causes. Likewise, there is no reason why scientists can't investigate teleological causes. What's important is whether or not a certain methodology (teleological or non-teleological) helps us better understand some aspect of biotic reality. >>
Warrren<< 5. You have no way of distinguishing a non-teleological origin from a teleological origin for the flagellum.>>
MrHambre<< Neither do you. For proponents of IDC, the assumption of intelligent design is sufficient. The 'dual model' concept of intelligent design creationism simply argues that there is not enough evidence of evolution, therefore IDC wins by default despite the utter lack of positive evidence of IDC.>>
Warren<< Right back at you. The ID critic assumes non-teleological processes are sufficient to explain every aspect of biotic reality and challenges the ID proponent to either show them the designer or prove blind watchmaking impossible. Failing that the ID critic wins by default.>>
Warren <<. In light of 4 and 5, it seems safe to conclude that if the flagellum was indeed designed, you would tell us otherwise.>>
MrHambre<<:That would be safer to say if you were actually to prove that it was intelligently designed. Perhaps if there really were persuasive evidence of the intelligent design of any living thing, you would be correct in calling us dogmatic.>>
Warren<< What would you accept as evidence for ID? Seeing the designer in action? Proof that blind watchmaking is impossible? Yeah, you're open-minded alright.>>
Warren<< In light of 6, how much weight should I assign to your incredulity about ID?>>
MrHambre<< Exactly the same weight you would assign to our incredulity and skepticism concerning any other theory that lacks evidence.>>
Warren<< Your opinion that ID lacks evidence is worthless since you have yet to tell me what you would consider evidence for ID.>>
[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by MrHambre, posted 07-17-2003 5:15 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by MrHambre, posted 07-17-2003 9:37 PM Warren has replied
 Message 134 by Peter, posted 07-18-2003 3:33 AM Warren has not replied
 Message 165 by John, posted 07-19-2003 11:10 AM Warren has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 132 of 261 (46387)
07-17-2003 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Warren
07-17-2003 8:27 PM


Smoke and Mirrors
quote:
So imagining a vague story with potential pathways counts as the experimental evidence that establishes neo-Darwinian evolution as the cause behind flagellar origins.
Like I said, feel free to offer any proposal whatsoever that explains how the BacFlag was intelligently designed. No such thing?
Again, whenever you'd like to offer testable ID hypotheses we're listening. No such thing?
We're also waiting for an example of any biological organism or structure known to have been created by Intelligence. No such thing?
I guess all you have is the claim that we're just biased against all the substantive arguments for intelligent design creationism. That would be a lot more persuasive if you had some sort of real theory to promote.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Warren, posted 07-17-2003 8:27 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 1:15 AM MrHambre has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 261 (46396)
07-18-2003 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by MrHambre
07-17-2003 9:37 PM


Re: Smoke and Mirrors
MrHambre<< Like I said, feel free to offer any proposal whatsoever that explains how the BacFlag was intelligently designed. No such thing?
Again, whenever you'd like to offer testable ID hypotheses we're listening. No such thing?
We're also waiting for an example of any biological organism or structure known to have been created by Intelligence. No such thing?
I guess all you have is the claim that we're just biased against all the substantive arguments for intelligent design creationism. That would be a lot more persuasive if you had some sort of real theory to promote.>>
Where are your substantive arguments for the non-teleological origin of the flagellum? And do you really expect a teleological explanation to express itself the same as a non-teleological explanation? For the simple sake of argument, imagine the first cells deposited on this planet were bioengineered. How would one really determine the mechanism of design? Do you expect a design theorist to provide you with blueprints, protocols and recipes? And what are you going to bring to the table? A just so story? Can you provide an example of any complex biological structure known to have been created by random mutations and natural selection? And what do you offer as a testable hypothesis for the origin of the flagellum? I haven't seen one yet that doesn't appeal to lucky coincidence (the heart of the cooption stories). How does one test for lucky coincidence?
[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by MrHambre, posted 07-17-2003 9:37 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by MrHambre, posted 07-18-2003 11:24 AM Warren has replied
 Message 148 by NosyNed, posted 07-18-2003 4:46 PM Warren has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 134 of 261 (46399)
07-18-2003 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Warren
07-17-2003 8:27 PM


Re: Design, hold the Intelligent
quote:
Warren<< [...]Science has no test to distinguish between teleological and non-teleological causes, yet that has not stopped it from investigating non-teleological causes. [...]>>
And until there is such a method ID is dead in the water.
That's all anyone here has said: 'Show us the intelligence.'
quote:
Warrren<< I see. So imagining a vague story with potential pathways counts as the experimental evidence that establishes neo-Darwinian evolution as the cause behind flagellar origins.>>
No. It refutes the claim that IC cannot evolve though. ANY
biologically feasible evolutionary route refutes the claim
that IC sub-systems cannot evolve.
quote:
Warrren<< 5. You have no way of distinguishing a non-teleological origin from a teleological origin for the flagellum.>>
Neither do you.
You, however, don't even have a half-decent proposition about
how it could have come about, nor any evidence (of any form)
to suggest that life was intelligently designed.
quote:
Warren<< Right back at you. The ID critic assumes non-teleological processes are sufficient to explain every aspect of biotic reality and challenges the ID proponent to either show them the designer or prove blind watchmaking impossible. Failing that the ID critic wins by default.>>
What ID critics ask for is a testable hypothesis, some methods
of determination, and some evidence to support the stance.
None is forthcoming, and any refutation or even mild criticism
is met with evangelical vitriol.
quote:
Warren<< What would you accept as evidence for ID? Seeing the designer in action? Proof that blind watchmaking is impossible? Yeah, you're open-minded alright.>>
Tell me exactly what the IDer designed.
Show me the evidence that it WAS designed.
Show me the evidence that there was intelligence behind that design.
The above are the minimum necessary (including approriate defintion
of terms) to be able to critically assess your opinion.
quote:
Warren<< Your opinion that ID lacks evidence is worthless since you have yet to tell me what you would consider evidence for ID.>>
I could recite a whole host of evidential support for evolutionary
theory whether you tell me what you are looking for or not.
I have asked creationists 'What evidence would make you consider
evolution a possibility?' and got replies that amount to
'Nothing would.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Warren, posted 07-17-2003 8:27 PM Warren has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 135 of 261 (46405)
07-18-2003 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Warren
07-17-2003 4:29 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
( Peter, if you'll allow me: )
Warren,
You say,
"4. When asked what type of data about the flagellum would cause you to suspect ID, you are stumped."
Say I were to pick up such a flagellum (bear with me, I know of the practical impossibility of the scene I'm sketching) and I would say "My, that's a fine flagellum, I wonder how it came to be." Then I'd take out my eye-piece and would study the flagellum up close. I'd turn it over and to my astonishment I'd see some small lettering on it. It would read:
"Made in Heaven - For propelling purposes only - Pat. pend."
Now, that would constitute proof of intelligent design. (Especially the fact that They would have thought of patenting it.) Until some such story is reported in the media (and believe you me, it would be the scoop of the century, nay, the millennium) I think we'd better stick to simpler, testable hypotheses and not introduce unnecessary elements into the story, for which there is not a shred of evidence from other reliable sources, and which cannot be tested anyway.
Something else. You keep hammering on the teleological origins of biological features. All right then, may I ask you what, in your opinion, is the purpose of choking? Or the blind spot? Or the appendix?
By the way, Warren, could you please respond to my expos about the Game of Life as an example of design without intelligence? (See message 125.) I would appreciate it.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Warren, posted 07-17-2003 4:29 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