Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 286 of 396 (583896)
09-29-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Coyote
09-29-2010 1:04 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Well now that we know the chemical make up of the two objects we know that one's basic chemical shape repeated over and over forms the complexity of the shape, while the other would require some other forces to act upon it to place the metal in that shape. But we still have not enough information to determine if the complex nature of the metal shape fulfills a particularized purpose or is it just unusual anomaly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2010 1:04 PM Coyote has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 287 of 396 (583897)
09-29-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Just being real
09-29-2010 1:06 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
that was demonstrated by observation.
What observations demonstrated that ONLY intelligent agents can produce APC?
No all we need to observe are the cues for intelligence.
So far, your "cues" are based on negative arguments. You claim that no natural processes can produce APC but have yet to demonstrate that through experimentation.
It would seem that you need to take a step back. You first need to test the hypothesis that only intelligent agents can produce APC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 1:06 PM Just being real has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 288 of 396 (583900)
09-29-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Just being real
09-29-2010 1:01 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
There's a big difference between a proteins shape and its ability to form a coherent code.
So what is that difference, and how is it different than the inherent code found in all atoms? We can describe even the simple hydrogen atom using code. The code for hydrogen is 1s1 while the code for carbon is 1s22s22px12py1. Read more here:
electronic structure and atomic orbitals
The fact of the matter is that the shape of the protein is determined by natural laws just like a crystal. Individual protein molecules can even link up together and form crystals just like any other molecule, and using the same natural mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 1:01 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM Taq has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 289 of 396 (584102)
09-30-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Just being real
09-29-2010 12:58 PM


Once again.
JBR writes:
No, what you've pointed out is that biologic machines pre-programed to run existing DNA code can attach themselves to other pre-programed machines, as "designed." You have not pointed to a machine with no pre-existing code to make it perform such a task, doing so apart from any instructions, or just some other laws of physics placing them in that arrangement.
Have you shown that anything other than a "pre-programmed biologic machine" that depends on DNA can exhibit intelligence?
As I understood it, you claimed to have made observations that something called "apc" can only come from intelligent beings.
Could you detail those observations again.
If you need to assume that the DNA code is intelligently designed in order to reach your desired conclusion that it is intelligently designed, you are simply begging the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Just being real has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 290 of 396 (584121)
09-30-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Just being real
09-29-2010 12:58 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Hi JBR,
This I agree with;
Within any species several different alleles exist from which nature has to select. When conditions make the primary form of the organisms population less able to cope, its neighboring less dominant relatives with the pre-existing genes (which allow it to cope) are able to reproduce and thrive in the hostile environment. This is what we call "natural selection." Something that explains the survival of the species, but not the existence of the species. The point here is that the plants did not just make the mental decision to change their flowering times and sent. These differences already existed within the population but were not dominant until the change of environment selected these phenotypes over the previously dominant phenotypes.
This I don't;
A variation... that creationists would argue was designed into the species for survival.
Why would anyone want to argue that? we already know that it's not true.
We know that alleles are based on DNA sequences.
We know that DNA mutates.
We know that mutations in the DNA affect changes in these alleles.
We know that these changes include functional changes that allow the organism to independently develop new survival advantages.
What more do we need to know here? We basically know that new alleles can be derived simply through the regular process of evolution. The genome of an organism doesn't come pre-loaded with viable alleles that might cover any possibility. Those alleles originate from mutations. For your design claim to make sense, we would need to suppose that some designer is undetectably tampering with the DNA of living things in order to affect change, somehow tinkering with every single beneficial mutation that has ever occurred. In every living thing. Constantly. Invisibly. Undetectably. In fact, let's be honest; magically.
I don't think that's a very good example of the scientific method in action, do you? It's also a bit creepy. Your God, *ahem*, designer must be one serious control freak.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM Granny Magda has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 396 (584147)
09-30-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Just being real
09-29-2010 12:58 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Just Real writes:
If we can observe apc then we know for sure based on observation it was designed.
Isn't this just a circular argument? Doesn't APC really means complexity that must have been designed by intelligence? Under that definition, your statement that observing apc indicates design is inescapable. The real hypothesis in question here is found in your definition of APC. How is that tested? What experiments or observations would falsify that hypothesis? I believe your methodology for reolving that issue will go far in establishing that your version of ID is science. Or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by frako, posted 09-30-2010 3:52 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 292 of 396 (584149)
09-30-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by NoNukes
09-30-2010 3:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
no when you observe apc you see how evolution can make things that look designed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2010 3:46 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 293 of 396 (584160)
09-30-2010 4:20 PM


Hmm. "Things that look designed...."

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

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


(2)
Message 294 of 396 (584195)
09-30-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Just being real
09-29-2010 1:06 PM


Defining Your Terms
that was demonstrated by observation.
How can it be? You haven't yet given us a criterion for identifying apc.
If I say that "all elephants are fruminous", then I can't claim this hypothesis to be proven by observation until I tell you what "fruminous" means. I can't even claim that it is a hypothesis until I tell you what "fruminous" means. If it turns out that it means "bright pink and octagonal", then the hypothesis has been disproven by observation. But until I tell you what it means, I'm not even putting forward a hypothesis.
Now you stand in a similar situation. You have, to be sure, given us examples. You say that a pointy stick possesses apc and that this, for example, does not:
But this gets me no nearing to knowing the criterion, it just tells me what you think of various things --- and surely the definition of apc can't just be that a thing has apc if you say it does.
Nor does looking at the words the acronym stands for help me much, since there is no sense in normal English in which a pointy stick is "abstruse".
So you must first define your terms. This is a basic part of science. No-one would have gotten Nobel Prizes for talking about quarks if they hadn't said what a quark was.
Only after you have defined your terms can a statement couched in these terms be submitted to scientific scrutiny. There is no scientific test for a claim that "telulant bimologies are wentiple".
I await your elucidation with interest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 1:06 PM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 295 of 396 (584485)
10-02-2010 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Theodoric
09-29-2010 10:33 AM


Re: Definitions
Never have heard that definition for abstruse. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Abstruse: hard to understand because of being extremely complex, intellectually demanding, highly abstract, etc.; deep; recondite

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 10:33 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 296 of 396 (584486)
10-02-2010 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Taq
09-29-2010 1:20 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
It would seem that you need to take a step back. You first need to test the hypothesis that only intelligent agents can produce APC.
How do you test an an easily observable phenomena?...i.e.."only humans can communicate in the English language." (note: not copying sounds but actually communicate) If no other species has ever been observed intentionally putting together English words and forming sentences, that may be an argument from the negative, but it is a true observation none the less.
Likewise abstruse particularized communication has never been observed forming by naturally unguided processes. (note: I said formed and not copied or reproduced) Perhaps this is an argument from the negative, but it is still an observable fact none the less.
So what is that difference, and how is it different than the inherent code found in all atoms? We can describe even the simple hydrogen atom using code.,
Quote: "Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail because they lack specificity." -Leslie Orgel (biochemist) "The Origins of Life," 189
The capacity to carry complex information is only the half of it. It's ability to function depends on the precise sequential arrangement of the base nucleotides within the DNA. This was the sequence hypothesis that was confirmed clear back in the early 1960's by Francis Crick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Taq, posted 09-29-2010 1:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by bluegenes, posted 10-02-2010 8:03 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 322 by Taq, posted 10-04-2010 4:05 PM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 297 of 396 (584487)
10-02-2010 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Granny Magda
09-30-2010 1:39 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
We know that these changes include functional changes that allow the organism to independently develop new survival advantages.
I am not convinced that there is any real evidence to support this statement. The closest I have seen only involves certain types of bacteria which function much differently than most other living organisms. I would have to see at least one example of improved functional mutations observed taking place in a non-bacterial multi-celled organism first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Granny Magda, posted 09-30-2010 1:39 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2010 1:47 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 307 by Coragyps, posted 10-02-2010 2:52 PM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 298 of 396 (584488)
10-02-2010 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by NoNukes
09-30-2010 3:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Isn't this just a circular argument? Doesn't APC really means complexity that must have been designed by intelligence? Under that definition, your statement that observing apc indicates design is inescapable. The real hypothesis in question here is found in your definition of APC. How is that? What experiments or observations would falsify that hypothesis? I believe your methodology for reolving that issue will go far in establishing that your version of ID is science. Or not. .
I don't know why you consider it "circular" reasoning? Unless that's just your blanket defense for any argument that you disagree with. Circular arguments are when someone says A is equal to B and we know this is true because B is equal to C and C is equal to A. I am saying that apc equals intelligence because to the best of my knowledge no one has ever reported observing apc form by natural unguided processes.
Your questioning of my observation that apc has only been observed coming from intelligent agents is similar to asking me "how do I know that only humans create cars?" All it would take to disprove this notion is to present at least one example of another species creating a car. Likewise all it would take to disprove the notion that only intelligent agents produce apc is to show some example of it being produced by a non-intelligent agent.
But seeing that some seem to be having trouble grasping exactly what I am talking about here let me attempt to define apc a little more clearly. Among evolutionists, the idea is that of a blind man op orating one of those mechanical cranes for a quarter to try and retrieve a stuffed animal. They will say that out of a box full of stuffed animals, he is bound to grab something. So they will say it is the same with the complex nature of the DNA molecule. Out of a warehouse full wall to wall with possibilities, they will say that the one drawn just happened to produce what we see today. They will tell you, "yes its complex" and "yes it appears to be designed, but so does about a billion other choices that could have happened." I have even been accused of shooting at a barn with a blindfold on and then after the fact painting the bulls-eye around my bullet hole.
But is this really an accurate picture of what is happening? I don't think its even close. That's because in order to form functional genes and proteins, "just any old arrangement" of bases will not work. The overwhelming majority of arrangements of bases and amino acids perform no biological function at all. The chance formation of working proteins would have required functionally appropriate amino acids to attach themselves by chance to a growing chain of other amino acids, over and over, and over and over, many times over despite the overwhelming majority of possible failing outcomes to form. It is equivalent to saying that a man who managed to hit the winning lottery ticket five hundred times in a row, did so by chance.
Consider how even a fairly short protein of only 150 amino acids represents one sequence among 10 to the 195th number of possible combination's. And then how there is another one out of 10 to the 45th chance that each amino acid will form a peptide bond. And still even another one out of 10 to the 45th chance of attaining at random only L-amino acids in a peptide chain of 150 amino acids long.
We are not talking about retrieving a stuffed animal with the claw out of a warehouse wall to wall filled with possibilities here. We are talking about a blind man operating a claw over a warehouse the size of Texas with only one chance to retrieve one out of a possibility of only one. A "blind stab at it" simply will not work. We are talking about information that is not only abstruse, but that is particularized for communicating a very specific purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2010 3:46 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by frako, posted 10-02-2010 4:55 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 301 by hooah212002, posted 10-02-2010 10:47 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 302 by ringo, posted 10-02-2010 11:03 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 303 by jar, posted 10-02-2010 11:12 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 304 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2010 12:38 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 306 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2010 2:27 PM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 299 of 396 (584490)
10-02-2010 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Just being real
10-02-2010 4:44 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
The technology, dubbed Embedded and Communicating Agents, has allowed researchers at Sony’s Computer Science Laboratory in France, for example, to add a new level of intelligence to the AIBO dog. Instead of teaching the dog new tricks, the algorithms, design principles and mechanisms developed by the project allow the robotic pet to learn new tricks itself and share its knowledge with others.
What has been achieved at Sony shows that the technology gives the robot the ability to develop its own language with which to describe its environment and interact with other AIBOs — it sees a ball and it can tell another one where the ball is, if it’s moving and what colour it is, and the other is capable of recognising it, Nolfi says.
The most important aspect, however, is how it learns to communicate and interact. Whereas we humans use the word ‘ball’ to refer to a ball, the AIBO dogs start from scratch to develop common agreement on a word to use to refer the ball. They also develop the language structures to express, for instance, that the ball is rolling to the left. This, the researchers achieved through instilling their robots with a sense of ‘curiosity.’
from http://www.physorg.com/news70202621.html
they are robots but they where not programed to communicate this way they where programed to learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:47 PM frako has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 300 of 396 (584493)
10-02-2010 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Just being real
10-02-2010 4:44 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
JBS quoting Orgel writes:
Quote: "Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail because they lack specificity." -Leslie Orgel (biochemist) "The Origins of Life,"
Now, follow your thoughts through. Supposing, for the sake of argument, life is the only thing that has "specified complexity". All the living intelligent designers you observe will certainly contain loads of "specified complexity".
But, if life is distinguished from all else by this characteristic, and life cannot be evoked as an explanation for the origin of life, then clearly life must have come from something non-living that does not have "specified complexity". Something simpler than itself.
Would all intelligent designers have "specified complexity"? If so, intelligent design cannot be a requirement for the production of "specified complexity", can it?
Are specified complexity and your "apc" the same thing, and if not, what's the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM bluegenes 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