Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   What exactly is ID?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 841 of 1273 (544311)
01-25-2010 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 838 by Brad H
01-25-2010 11:35 AM


Re: Numbers
Only those possibilities that are designed to be read and interpreted can produce a specific and useful function.
But you are claiming that ONLY those functions which you are interested in matter and all others don't.
That's the sharpshooter fallacy all over again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by Brad H, posted 01-25-2010 11:35 AM Brad H has not replied

Brad H
Member (Idle past 4954 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 842 of 1273 (544314)
01-25-2010 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 836 by Nuggin
01-25-2010 11:22 AM


Re: Moderator Request for Specifics
You are applying a SPECIFIC filter and then proclaiming because ONE filter works ONE way, ALL filters must work the same way - that's a load of crap.
That's the way that complex specified information works Nuggin. Two entities agree on a "filter" and when the conditions are met to pass the filter then some function is performed. The precise meaning of the symbols or code are understood by both the transmitter and the receiver of the information.
Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by Nuggin, posted 01-25-2010 11:22 AM Nuggin has not replied

Brad H
Member (Idle past 4954 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 843 of 1273 (544316)
01-25-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 840 by greyseal
01-25-2010 11:42 AM


Re: Numbers
I meant functionality in the sense of usefulness. Yes of course specificity is "in the eye of the beholder." That is to say that both the receiver and the transmitter have predetermined which conditions when met are interpretable as a condition to act upon. But I think that what should be considered useful and what is not useful, though they do very some, are basically universal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 840 by greyseal, posted 01-25-2010 11:42 AM greyseal has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 844 of 1273 (544317)
01-25-2010 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 834 by Brad H
01-25-2010 11:07 AM


Re: addition, subtraction, addition, subtraction, where does it end?
However what I am stating is that I have never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA.
Then you should look at Richard Lenski's ongoing long term evolution experiment in E. coli. They have used a plasmid free strain of E. Coli and grown them over 20,000 generations. They have identified multiple beneficial phenotypic changes and begun the task of associating them with specific genetic mutations.
One recent example is in the Stanek et al.(2009) paper in which they identify a mutation which confers a 5% fitness increase when it is introduced into the ancestral strain.
Whether this constitutes an increase in information or not depends on how you define, or more importantly measure, information. I'm sure Smooth Operator would classify this as a degradation of information as the mutation that was identified, which is an insertion upstream of a protein coding sequence, is predicted to lead to a reduction in binding affinity for a transcription factor and a subsequent reduction in the expression level of the coding sequence that the mutation sits in the upstream region of.
I understand your, bacteria aren't animals/multicellular organisms, objection but in this case elements like plasmids and conjugation have been excluded by experimental design, so it is a much closer analogue to the situation for an asexually reproducing animal, albeit with a much shorter generation time.
I'm sure if we scrutinised the many lab experiments invovling insect evolving pesticide resistance we would find some interesting candidates to identify just what does constitute an increase in information. Would a gene duplication conferring pesticide resistance be sufficient (this is purely hypothetical, I have no idea if there is a pesticide resistance mutatn of this type)?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by Brad H, posted 01-25-2010 11:07 AM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 935 by Brad H, posted 01-28-2010 1:40 PM Wounded King has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 845 of 1273 (544318)
01-25-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 828 by Straggler
01-25-2010 8:42 AM


Re: Creationism ID and PR - teaching science and philosophy
Hi Straggler, I'm going to agree with you on this.
The actual arguments and evidential claims in favour of ID are agnostic about who or what the designer is. Irreducible complexity, conservation of information, the obviousness of design in nature etc. etc. Whatever.
Those predominantly (but I maintain not exclusively) presently making those arguments and claims in a very high profile manner are not at all agnostic about who or what the designer is. They are creationist Christians. I don’t dispute that at all.
By simply saying ID is nonsense because creationism is obviously nonsense and all IDists are creationists really — as you are doing here - does no good to the pro-science cause in my opinion. It alienates those (whom I would argue are vast in number) who hold a vague and largely unconsidered notion of an intelligent designer but who are not in any way part of the creationist lobby.
Just because the concept originated in a covert consortium of embittered creationists, does not mean that the man in the street can look at the concept, accept it for what it says, and not pick up the creationist baggage that the consortium wallow in.
It pushes those people away from actually considering the issues and evidence straight into the eager arms of the creationists who are willing to adopt whatever strategy achieves the most publicly popular outcome in their favour. The wedge in action.
To my mind it is far better, indeed necessary, to make the scientific case against ID on it’s own merits. Intelligent Design is evidentially bankrupt. We can show that regardless of who is making the pro-ID arguments. Given the current climate we should be exposing ID for what it is to the most people possible. Not just creo-bashing for it’s own sake.
I have actually advocated teaching ID in as scientific a manner as possible, starting with the basic philosophy (ie - in a philosophy class, perhaps about the philosophy of science), and then seeing what logical conclusions can be derived and where this leads us in terms of scientific testing.
This could use the appeal of ID to the non-scientific people and to draw them in and get them interested in the science aspects of the issue.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 8:42 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 848 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 1:14 PM RAZD has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 846 of 1273 (544321)
01-25-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 824 by Brad H
01-25-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Moderator Request for Specifics
I also wanted to make sure ID proponents know our perspective is complimentary (not inferior) to the materialistic paradigm of gradual evolution.
Our critics say we are science stoppers and we stop all inquiry. In the true sense of the definition of science (as the way they define it), I would have to agree with them. But to infer a designer on our part does not answer the hows and the whys. ID proponents can investigate possible ways in the hows and then speculate about the whys.
Take the example of the recurrent largynal nerve found in humans and giraffes among other mammals. From their perspective, it is a design flaw that serves no better purpose than a direct route. I could say this is a science stopper in itself and it stops inquiry!!! By assuming it is a design flaw, theoretically all inquiry will stop from investigating the reasons why or the possible reasons for the what may appear to be an unusual configuration of the nerves.
I realized this from the debates and you see, I believe I have something to contribute to the subject since I tend to think differently from most people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 824 by Brad H, posted 01-25-2010 7:52 AM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 885 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2010 5:08 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 936 by Brad H, posted 01-28-2010 1:41 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 847 of 1273 (544323)
01-25-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 831 by Wounded King
01-25-2010 9:15 AM


Re: Sticking your fingers in your ears
Hi Wounded King,
If it was any other evc participant with a materialist bent of mind, I probably would have just deleted your the email and not given it any thought. You on the other hand have taken me to school on this forum. It's true. I have respect for your knowledge as a scientist and you are like a Goliath in these debates for me.
So you don't have time for debate but you have time to discuss your uninformed intuitions with similar minded people? To what end? So you can all feel good about how you agree with each other and Stephen Meyer? So that by sheer weight of accord you can suddenly make all of the evidence contrary to your preconceptions disappear?
Considering the sheer numbers of neo-Darwinists and naturalists on this forum and the amount of minds I have to debate with, it puts me on the defensive and steers me in ways were I may not wish to go. I have been there and done that. I need to discipline my time. I spend a lot less time one on one with individual design proponents and I can learn what they see also. I found it interesting that our debates (with you and a couple of others) did "not" persuade me much further toward your paradigms but it actually strengthened my paradigm.
Not only are you relying on second hand figures given to you by Smooth Operator, but you seem convinced that intuition and common sense are superior substitutes for actual knowledge and research.
No I am not saying that at all. There is a time for everything and intuition and common sense may or may not compliment actual knowledge and research.
It is worthwhile noting that protein binding sites do not need to be re-evolved to appear in diverse protein families, there is plenty of scope for swapping such sites between genes allowing for novel recombinations of binding sites and other active sites. So in theory each type of site need only evolve de novo once.
That is your hypothesis and since you accuse me of appealing to an authority as though other scientists never do this or appeal to the work of other scientists, I suggest you prove your hypothesis in the lab yourself King!
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 831 by Wounded King, posted 01-25-2010 9:15 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 856 by Wounded King, posted 01-25-2010 3:29 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 869 by Percy, posted 01-26-2010 2:45 AM traderdrew has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 848 of 1273 (544328)
01-25-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 845 by RAZD
01-25-2010 12:13 PM


Re: Creationism ID and PR - teaching science and philosophy
Hi Straggler, I'm going to agree with you on this.
(***Hallelujah Chorus Plays***)
I have actually advocated teaching ID in as scientific a manner as possible, starting with the basic philosophy (ie - in a philosophy class, perhaps about the philosophy of science), and then seeing what logical conclusions can be derived and where this leads us in terms of scientific testing.
I have previously vaguely advocated allowing ID into the science classroom as a socially relevant example of that which is not science. In an ideal situation where there is enough time in the curriculum (which I accept there is not) older or more advanced students could think through and dicuss the issues and have highlighted what exactly the differences between genuinely scientific theories are.
This could use the appeal of ID to the non-scientific people and to draw them in and get them interested in the science aspects of the issue.
I really don't want to start another dispute between you and I but in a thread called "What is ID" I have to take the opportunity to ask the following:
Where do you think ID starts? Because some fairly eminent theistic scientists and you yourself have advocated things like the fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe as being an indicator (evidence?) of a higher being of some sort. To me this seems like a sort of very dilute IDism.
Anyway answer that last point or not as you wish. I'm not gonna pursue it here whatever you say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 845 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2010 12:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 864 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2010 5:52 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 849 of 1273 (544330)
01-25-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by Huntard
01-25-2010 9:44 AM


Re: Creationism and ID
Well, he has said that he considers Adam and Eve literal people. So, I would venture a guess and say yes, he does think there is evidence for it.
Maybe he does. Or maybe he believes that based on faith in the bible alone. I don't know. I don't see how you can either? Unless he actually claims that Adam and Eve are physically evidenced I don't see how we can assert that this is his argument and ignore the actual ID arguments he is making.
All I have seen him claim physical evidence for is ID.
Which I am pretty sure he also considers evidence for creationism.
So you accept that in terms of argument at least ID and creationism are not the same thing?
Anyway - Maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. But until he makes that claim I don't see how it helps anyone to just insist that this is what he must mean really
As I said here - Message 828
There is the Adam and Eve quote. And can you honestly say Dembski thinks the evidence he cites for ID is not also evidence for creationism?
I think he probably does. But who cares what you or I think his underlying motivation for making ID arguments is? Does this and this alone invalidate the arguments for ID as presented? No. So why does it matter?
Isn't conflating the argument being presented with the person or motivation for making that argument just an ad-hominem attack in the true sense of the phrase?
Our side of the debate has the evidence on it's side. We don't need to stoop to the same low levels as these guys. Let's follow the evidence and let that defeat the ID arguments. Leave the logical fallacies to the creos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by Huntard, posted 01-25-2010 9:44 AM Huntard has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 850 of 1273 (544333)
01-25-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 839 by Nuggin
01-25-2010 11:40 AM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
It is my position that you can not argue that there is evidence of design unless you can tell the mechanism of design.
Well anyone who is an IDist would claim that an intelligent designer is the mechanism. We can probably both agree that this is evidentially bankrupt and intellectually feeble but I don't see what this has to do with ID and creationism being the same thing?
Surely Intelligent Design in it's most base form is the claim that there is physical evidence of purposeful design in nature?
People arguing FOR ID are claiming that it was a "designer", but when pressed for a mechanism it always falls back to "magic!".
OK.
Well a "designer" who is using "magic!" is the Jewish Wizard the Christians are claiming Created everything.
Trying to pretend that they are making an argument without invoking the Jewish Wizard is dishonest on their part.
Except that not everyone who believes that "it cannot all be random" believes in a Jewish wizard. Not in the past, not now and very probably not in the future.
There is a reason Creationists win in open debates and we win in court. That's RULES OF EVIDENCE.
Well quite.
So stick to the evidence againt the ID arguments being presented and stop making the claim that an argument must be wrong purely because the person making it is a creationist really. We don't need to make those sorts of arguments. We can do better than stoop to their level.
That is my point.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by Nuggin, posted 01-25-2010 11:40 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 851 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2010 2:04 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 854 by Nuggin, posted 01-25-2010 3:10 PM Straggler has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 851 of 1273 (544334)
01-25-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 850 by Straggler
01-25-2010 1:55 PM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
...but I don't see what this has to do with ID and creationism being the same thing?
ID is to creationism as Paranthropus boisei is to Homo ergaster.*
It was "designed" to fool the public, but it ran into the courts and expert witnesses.
Looks like it will have to be replaced soon with some other dodge to sneak fundamentalism back into the schools. What'll it be next time?
========
* an offshoot or subset doomed to quick extinction.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 850 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 1:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 852 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 2:20 PM Coyote has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 852 of 1273 (544335)
01-25-2010 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 851 by Coyote
01-25-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
ID is to creationism as Paranthropus boisei is to Homo ergaster.
ID as in the Christian creationist movement? Quite possibly.
But ID in the sense of humans justifying belief in some sort of supernatural designer by insitisting that some aspect of nature or other could only have come about by purposeful design? I suspect that this notion will be with us for quite some time.
It was "designed" to fool the public, but it ran into the courts and expert witnesses.
If you are defining ID to be Christian creationist ID then yes. But the argument from design in a more general sense is more emotionally powerful and alluring than I think you give it credit for.
I think there are a lot of people in the world who would agree with the sentiment that "it can't all just be random". As misguided as I think you and I agree that this argument is in terms of concept and phraseology.
Looks like it will have to be replaced soon with some other dodge to sneak fundamentalism back into the schools. What'll it be next time?
Given that ID has been around so long in one form or another and that it seems like almost second nature for us as a species to invoke a purposeful designer wherever we see order or function in nature - I would hazard the guess that it wil be another form of ID repackaged to appeal to the masses.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 851 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2010 2:04 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 865 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2010 6:38 PM Straggler has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 853 of 1273 (544342)
01-25-2010 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 839 by Nuggin
01-25-2010 11:40 AM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
It is my position that you can not argue that there is evidence of design unless you can tell the mechanism of design.
Sure you can. If we find encoded into our DNA the blueprint for a wormhole generator, then I'll be fairly convinced of the evidence of design without considering the mechanism of how it was done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by Nuggin, posted 01-25-2010 11:40 AM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 854 of 1273 (544349)
01-25-2010 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 850 by Straggler
01-25-2010 1:55 PM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
Except that not everyone who believes that "it cannot all be random" believes in a Jewish wizard. Not in the past, not now and very probably not in the future.
So people keep claiming, but we haven't found any yet. There are all these THEORETICAL non-Creationist ID supporters and yet every ID supporter we find turns out to be just another Creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 850 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 1:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 855 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 3:24 PM Nuggin has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 855 of 1273 (544352)
01-25-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 854 by Nuggin
01-25-2010 3:10 PM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
Except that not everyone who believes that "it cannot all be random" believes in a Jewish wizard. Not in the past, not now and very probably not in the future.
So people keep claiming, but we haven't found any yet. There are all these THEORETICAL non-Creationist ID supporters and yet every ID supporter we find turns out to be just another Creationist.
Oh come on! Are you seriously claiming that everyone who considers nature to exhibit design of any sort at all must be a Christian a Jew or a Moslem? You are looking at this through the cultural blinkers of a North American fighting a limited and transient political battle with Christian fundamentalist advocates of your "Jewish wizard".
Have you read about Hindus and their own creation/evolution debate at all? Hindu views on evolution - Wikipedia
What about the position I described in Message 786 of this thread where some very non-religious people were happy to accept design of some sort? I would go so far as to say that this is the predominant view in Western Europe. But even if I am wrong on that it isn't an uncommon view.
I will quote myself from before:
Strag previously writes:
Well it's Friday and I have been down the pub as usual.
And I have asked a deeply limited if vaguely representative cross section of British society what they think and this is the result (of at least a couple of people deeply paraphrased)
"Yes I think nature indicates design and purpose from a higher intelligence but not of the sort any religion I have ever heard of meaningfully suggests. Certainly not Jesus as our saviour or any such thing. Religion is bollocks. But belief in a higher being that watches over us in a moral sense and that created things in some way is perfectly justified"
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 854 by Nuggin, posted 01-25-2010 3:10 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 857 by Nuggin, posted 01-25-2010 3:44 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024