Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 256 of 396 (583743)
09-28-2010 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2010 11:04 AM


Beef Panang Curry with Iced Thai Tea
Dr Adequate writes:
Observing the real world is step #1, fantasizing about sky-fairies is step #2. What's going to give him trouble is step #3.
They've pretty much played out their string on those steps. That's why I think their superstitious hypothesis has failed--it had to be abandoned, and a new Step #3 invented.
Step #1
Primitive Superstitious Man: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: something bigger than us that we can't see is doing all this crazy shit."
Step #2
Historical Superstitious Man: "We can't find the bigger unseen thing anywhere, but he left records to tell us what will happen with all this crazy shit."
Step #3
Modern Superstitious Man: "We have a new hypothesis: we hypothesize that you cannot disprove this crazy shit."
Edited by Omnivorous, : concision

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2010 11:04 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 257 of 396 (583789)
09-28-2010 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Taq
09-28-2010 1:22 PM


How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Observation: The manner in which intelligent agents act and interact can be observed in the natural world and these actions can be described as producing abstruse particularized communication (apc). Only agents acting with intent and purpose can produce apc. Examples: scientists have studied the apc of honey bees and found that certain patterns of dance are very particularized and communicate intricate information to others in the hive. Likewise with dolphins and many other species, apc can clearly be seen. Natural materials used by an intelligent source display apc. For example a birds nest is comprised of twigs and leaves but is intentionally formed in a bowl shape. A stick in the hands of a chimpanzee displays apc when he uses it as a tool to retrieve ants from an ant hole. And of course the most complex is human apc observed in our language and machines etc... From our observations, apc is only a design product of an intelligent source and never occurs by natural unintentionally guided processes.
Hypothesis: We should be able to distinguish between intelligently designed objects, and naturally formed (unintentional) objects. Even though some natural processes produce very complex and intricate patterns, only intelligent sources produce this kind of complexity in a particularized form of communication of information. Therefore when we observe any object with apc, we theorize that it must have an intelligent source.
Experimentation: Within the ID paradigm on origins of life we can examine biological structures and see if we can detect apc. However since we are examining systems with reproductive capabilities (many generations after the fact), and since the opposing evolutionary theory suggests that such systems can improve or progress through natural processes of random mutations and natural selection, we must be careful to distinguish between actual apc, and the mere appearance of apc.
So the first stage of the experiment would be to study the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule of any biologic organism and measure the arrangement of its nucleotides with the Shannon algorithmic principle to see if it contains information. Secondly we would then compare this information with natural patterns to see if it differs in a way that can only be described as an abstruse and particularized form of communication. And finally in consideration of the above mentioned possibility of only observing the appearance of apc, we must examine all known human data bases on the subject to see if there have ever been any reported observed cases of either; 1.a deoxyribonucleic acid molecule forming by natural unguided processes (even on a very primitive level) or 2.any observed cases of a biological system, complete with reproductive capabilities, forming without the need of a deoxyribonucleic acid molecule.
Conclusion: Because apc has only been observed being produced by intelligent sources, and because biological structures exhibit incredibly high levels of shannon information in their DNA which also exhibit enormous amounts of apc, and because no observed biologic systems have ever been reported to exist apart from DNA nor have any even primitive forms of DNA ever been observed forming by natural processes, we can draw the logical conclusion that an intelligent source must at least be responsible for the first living reproducing organisms. Recognizing the implications of this conclusion Intelligent Design proponents leave it at this, and make no further attempts to determine or even speculate what that source may have been.
Two examples of published research that supports Intelligent Design are:
Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer, by biochemist (and creationist) Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]: The study concludes that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would be completely overcome by incredibly high numbers of errors. However the editing enzymes are made themselves by DNA. This is an incredible argument for design.
"Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds." by D. Axe, Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315. The study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, only about "one in 10 to the 64th signature consistent sequences forms a working domain and that the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10 to the 77th. The conclusion of the study is that "functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." And because evolution theory says that only organism with a functional advantage are preserved, his study shows how difficult it would be for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. The study also demonstrates that there are high levels of very particularized and abstruse structures in enzymes, a predicted indicator of intelligent design. Conformation that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design has even been made by Dr. Axe himself in interviews where he commented on the study.
Other scientific publications within the ID paradigm:
‘. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors, Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models," Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211—228 (2006).
W.-E. Lnnig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements," Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Lnnig, W.-E. Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.
"Inventions, Algorithms, and Biological Design," By John Bracht, CiteSeerX
"Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," by D. Axe, Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol 301:585-595 (2000).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Taq, posted 09-28-2010 1:22 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2010 11:04 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 259 by hooah212002, posted 09-29-2010 12:05 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 260 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 12:48 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 261 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 1:02 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 262 by frako, posted 09-29-2010 5:29 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 263 by bluegenes, posted 09-29-2010 5:47 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 271 by hooah212002, posted 09-29-2010 9:58 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 280 by Taq, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 346 by Boof, posted 10-13-2010 2:51 AM Just being real has replied

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


Message 258 of 396 (583791)
09-28-2010 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
A stick in the hands of a chimpanzee displays apc when he uses it as a tool to retrieve ants from an ant hole.
OK
Given a series of a dozen or more sticks, determine using a series of rules that apply universally, which display apc and which do not.
And determine, using the same set of rules, whether a quartz crystal, and ice cube, and an icicle do or do not display apc.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Coyote has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 259 of 396 (583795)
09-29-2010 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Could you provide a definition for "abstruse particularized communication" and what exactly would qualify as such? Going off your examples, I could find quite a few instances off the top of my head that blow this experiment out of the water, but depend on how you qualify "abstruse particularized communication".
Also, is this your own work? Forgive me if it doesn't strike me as something coming from someone who fought for so long trying to figure out what science was, then all of a sudden you come out with this.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM hooah212002 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 260 of 396 (583801)
09-29-2010 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Observation: The manner in which intelligent agents act and interact can be observed in the natural world and these actions can be described as producing abstruse particularized communication (apc). Only agents acting with intent and purpose can produce apc.
Is this an article of faith or a scientific discovery?
If it is a scientific discovery, where is the evidence for it?
From our observations, apc is only a design product of an intelligent source and never occurs by natural unintentionally guided processes.
Does my genome contain apc?
Only we know how that was produced --- by unintelligent processes of DNA replication, meiosis, and recombination. So if my genome contains apc, it would constitute a counterexample.
Hypothesis: We should be able to distinguish between intelligently designed objects, and naturally formed (unintentional) objects.
And yet it seems that "we" cannot.
---
But let me stop you there. You are clearly not following the scientific method as it has been explained to you. Writing words like "Observation", "Hypothesis" and "Experimentation" in front of bits of creationist dogma does not magically make you a follower of the scientific method any more than donning a lab coat would make you a scientist.
Your hypothesis is meant to predict the observations.
In your case the "observation" ("Only agents acting with intent and purpose can produce apc") is another hypothesis --- and one falsified by actual observation if my genome contains apc. And your "hypothesis" ("We should be able to distinguish between intelligently designed objects, and naturally formed (unintentional) objects.") predicts nothing about what kinds of things we should observe.
The stage at which you derive predictions from your hypothesis are simply lacking. Indeed, it seems itself to take the form of a prediction --- that there should be a method for distinguishing undesigned things (such as my genome) from designed things (such as a sharpened stick).
But I don't see where this is getting us or from what hypothesis you derived the prediction.
Now, try again. The scientific method does not consist of occasionally uttering certain magic words such as "hypothesis" and "experimentation". They are not magic. They have meaning and describe certain things that you have to do to do science.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 261 of 396 (583803)
09-29-2010 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


How Islam qualifies as a scientific theory
Observation! Mohammad is the prophet of Allah. Hypothesis! Allah is the one true God. Experimentation! Read the Koran. Conclusion! لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
See, I said the magic words! (Apart from this "prediction" thing that you all keep banging on about.) Behold, I have done SCIENCE!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 262 of 396 (583817)
09-29-2010 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
well what we know is that parts for the dna and rna molecules can be formed by natural causes, so it is not a big step to go to that these parts can combine to form dna and rna by some natural process although i think this question can and will be anwserd in a few years do to advancment in genetics.
p.s. synthetic life has already been made the only question left if if it could have been made naturally if i where a betting man i would say yes, though if science proves whit out a doubt that it could have not formed naturaly be it to the lack of materials, lack of conditions availible naturally then we will have to go to the quote of sherloc holms: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, but so far given the knowledge at hand and do to occams razor it is far more probable that life spawned on its own

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 263 of 396 (583819)
09-29-2010 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Just being real writes:
Only agents acting with intent and purpose can produce apc...........From our observations, apc is only a design product of an intelligent source and never occurs by natural unintentionally guided processes.
Wrong. Single celled organisms communicate by chemical codes, and can form themselves as a group into complex arrangements. They have no intelligence.
Both intelligent and unintelligent organisms are capable of complex communication.
You'll need to define what you're describing as "abstruse particularized communication" in a way that excludes the actions of all unintelligent creatures, and also excludes non-living processes, like chemical autocatalysts.
Then you hit a serious problem. Your attempts at observation are selective. Observation of all known intelligent beings tells us that they are dependent on complex communication and complex processes for their existence. All of this complexity is a prerequisite for the existence of humans, dolphins, apes, and anything other known beings that you wish to describe as intelligent.
So, how will you define "apc" in a way that doesn't make it an apparent prerequisite for all intelligent designers?
At present, you just appear to be begging the question when you say:
Jbs writes:
Only agents acting with intent and purpose can produce apc

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM bluegenes has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 264 of 396 (583822)
09-29-2010 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Coyote
09-28-2010 11:04 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
determine, using the same set of rules, whether a quartz crystal, and ice cube, and an icicle do or do not display apc.
There's no comparison between crystals and protein molecules. Though crystals appear to produce quite elaborate patterns, the information in the crystal is quite small in comparison to a protein molecule. Crystals are merely repeated information.
A simple example using letters of the alphabet can show the difference between the two types.
1. ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC
2. A CAT SAT ON THE MAT
Both have the same number of characters, both are very ordered, except only line two resembles the kind of particularized abstruse information found in a protein molecule. The first can be compressed into three characters and reproduced by a computer programed to repeat the sequence 7 times. The second line can not be compressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2010 11:04 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 9:29 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 273 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2010 10:52 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 09-29-2010 12:53 PM Just being real has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 265 of 396 (583823)
09-29-2010 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by hooah212002
09-29-2010 12:05 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Could you provide a definition for "abstruse particularized communication" and what exactly would qualify as such? Going off your examples, I could find quite a few instances off the top of my head that blow this experiment out of the water, but depend on how you qualify "abstruse particularized communication".
Abstruse: meaning highly complex.
Particularized: to be directed towards a specific object or purpose.
Communication: to exchange or share information.
The concept of apc is to abstrusely communicate or form an aperatice for the purpose of communicating particularized information.
Also, is this your own work? Forgive me if it doesn't strike me as something coming from someone who fought for so long trying to figure out what science was, then all of a sudden you come out with this.
If you are asking me if I came up with the theory of Intelligent Design, then of course not. The theory has been out there for awhile. If you are just asking did I copy and paste this from somewhere, the answer is no. With the exception of the examples of publications I have accumulated over the years from various sources, which I am pretty sure I copied and pasted the publications and their source references directly. Some I may have entered in manually from various hard copy sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by hooah212002, posted 09-29-2010 12:05 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by hooah212002, posted 09-29-2010 9:48 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 272 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 10:33 AM Just being real has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 266 of 396 (583824)
09-29-2010 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by bluegenes
09-29-2010 5:47 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Wrong. Single celled organisms communicate by chemical codes, and can form themselves as a group into complex arrangements. They have no intelligence.
I can program my cell phone to repeatedly dial my friends number until someone answers that number. If I were to walk away during the process and you came along and found the phone dialing the specific number, while it is true that there currently is no intelligent agents involved in the repetition of the process, it is not true that no intelligence was required to initiate the process.
Likewise single celled organisms perform repeating processes of communicating highly complex and particularized information, but there is no evidence that suggests this process could have initiated without the aid of intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by bluegenes, posted 09-29-2010 5:47 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by bluegenes, posted 09-29-2010 8:20 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 268 by frako, posted 09-29-2010 8:21 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 274 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 11:01 AM Just being real has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 267 of 396 (583830)
09-29-2010 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Jbr writes:
I can program my cell phone to repeatedly dial my friends number until someone answers that number. If I were to walk away during the process and you came along and found the phone dialing the specific number, while it is true that there currently is no intelligent agents involved in the repetition of the process, it is not true that no intelligence was required to initiate the process.
Likewise single celled organisms perform repeating processes of communicating highly complex and particularized information, but there is no evidence that suggests this process could have initiated without the aid of intelligence.
But you've missed my point. Your observation was based on looking at what you described as intelligent organisms, and claiming that your "apc" comes only from intelligence. I pointed out that it also comes from unintelligent organisms, so you have no observational basis for your claim.
I also pointed out that what we really observe is "apc" before intelligence, not the other way around.
Show me an intelligent designer who does not have your "apc" as a prerequisite, and I'll send you a million dollars.
Jbr writes:
but there is no evidence that suggests this process could have initiated without the aid of intelligence.
Are you seriously suggesting that there's no evidence that chemical processes can increase complexity? Is that supposed to be the observation at the base of your "theory"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM bluegenes has replied

frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 268 of 396 (583831)
09-29-2010 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Likewise single celled organisms perform repeating processes of communicating highly complex and particularized information, but there is no evidence that suggests this process could have initiated without the aid of intelligence.
well evolution is
it needs no intelligence to produce wonderus resoults all it needs is time and inacurate ofspring copies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM frako has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 269 of 396 (583835)
09-29-2010 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
The second line can not be compressed.
Wrong!!
Ever hear of data compression algorithms for computer data? Zip files?
With just a quick look I can see how line 2 can be easily compressed to 15. I don't doubt if I spent some time on it, I might be able to compress it even more.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 270 of 396 (583836)
09-29-2010 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Abstruse: meaning highly complex.
Particularized: to be directed towards a specific object or purpose.
Communication: to exchange or share information.
How cute. You gave me the definition for each individual word when I asked for the definition of the phrase you provided. The phrase seems to be of your own concoction, so we need an exact meaning for the phrase.
The concept of apc is to abstrusely communicate or form an aperatice for the purpose of communicating particularized information.
By "aperatice", do you instead mean apparatus? I fail to see how a stick to get ants is used for communicating, and not eating.
One example that comes to mind is the tobacco plant and how it thwarts off caterpillars so as to not get destroyed by them. Are tobacco plants intelligent?
{abe}
If you are asking me if I came up with the theory of Intelligent Design, then of course not.
Did you post the "theory" of ID? Don't be obtuse.
With the exception of the examples of publications I have accumulated over the years from various sources, which I am pretty sure I copied and pasted the publications and their source references directly. Some I may have entered in manually from various hard copy sources.
Usually when someone cites sources, they do so to support their position or work. You claim your sources to support ID.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM hooah212002 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