Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   "Creation Science" experiments.
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 234 of 396 (583472)
09-27-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Just being real
09-26-2010 11:37 AM


Re: Not "pseudoscience" -- it IS pseudoscience
To you it is not science when the conclusions allow for an intelligent source for life and the universe.
If you had read the rest of the post you would realize the mistake that you just made. It is not the conclusion that is the problem. It is the dogmatic nature of the conclusion that is the problem. No matter what the evidence is the conclusion is still held as being true.
I don't think that is what they said at all.
Yeah, it is.
"Of greater concern to both supporters and skeptics of the RATE project is the issue of how to dispose of the tremendous quantities of heat generated by accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood. The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth. The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well."
RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems | The Institute for Creation Research
They have God magic away the heat so that it is no longer a problem. Does that sound like science to you? Can you point to other scientific studies that wish away contradictory evidence by claiming "God did it"? I can't.
The clear consequence of their accelerated decay model is the destruction of the Earth by massive amounts of heat. Obviously, the Earth is still here and has not suffered a massive meltdown. If this is not a problem for their model, then please tell us what would be.
They suggest that if several of the "world clocks" suggest a young earth and several suggest an old one, it is not being very responsible to only "cherry pick" the one's that best suits your world view.
None of the clocks do suggest a young earth. That is the problem.
Of course the RATE team are Biblical creationists and therefor their world view allows for a "Goddidit" as a possible explanation. That doesn't mean they quit the investigation at all.
So what experiments do you do after you decide that "Goddidit"? You pretty much have to close up the lab and go home, don't you?
But this highlights a very serious problem for creation science. No matter what the results of an experiment are they will still claim that the Earth is young, that there was a recent global flood, and that species were created separately. It doesn't matter what the evidence shows. They will still push the same conclusion. The RATE group demonstrates this perfectly. If you don't believe me, then tell us what type of geologic formation would be inconsistent with a global flood? I have yet to meet a YEC that will answer this question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Just being real, posted 09-26-2010 11:37 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 236 of 396 (583474)
09-27-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Just being real
09-26-2010 11:37 AM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
Again, that depends on how you are going to define science. If you define it in a way that excludes ID as an explanation from the beginning... well then I guess according to you... not.
Here is a simple rundown of the scientific method:
quote:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
source

Can you show us how we can test ID using those steps?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Just being real, posted 09-26-2010 11:37 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 5:26 AM Taq has replied

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


Message 254 of 396 (583665)
09-28-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Just being real
09-28-2010 5:26 AM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
So If I present an ID experiment that follows all of the above steps, am I to understand that we will accept it as "science?"
Yes, I will accept it. Also note that experimental tests must also test the null hypothesis, the conditions under which the hypothesis is false. IOW, you also need to describe possible experimental results that would falsify your hypothesis.
You must also show the rationale behind the construction of the hypothesis, and also show how your predictions differ from existing hypotheses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 5:26 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 275 of 396 (583880)
09-29-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
There's no comparison between crystals and protein molecules.
You might want to rethink that. Guess what methodology is used to determine the shape of a protein? Give up? X-ray crystallography!!! That's right. Scientists let proteins form crystals and then use X-rays to determine the shape of that crystal. Learn more here:
Proteincrystallography.org
Crystals are merely repeated information.
So are proteins. They are repeats of 20 amino acids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 1:01 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 280 of 396 (583887)
09-29-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
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.
You first need to demonstrate the italicized section before you can test the hypothesis.
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.
This doesn't test your hypothesis. In order to test your hypothesis we would need to observe this supposed designer producing these molecules. Disproving other hypotheses is not a valid test of another hypothesis.

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 284 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 1:06 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 281 of 396 (583888)
09-29-2010 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Just being real
09-29-2010 12:58 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
I did set up the rules to discern between design and non design. If we can observe apc then we know for sure based on observation it was designed. The fact that we do not observe apc may not necessarily tell us it is not designed.
Then what would? If random mutation produced a novel protein containing APC would this falisify intelligent design?

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

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


Message 322 of 396 (584922)
10-04-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Just being real
10-02-2010 4:44 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
How do you test an an easily observable phenomena?...
How do you test a claim that extends to every instance of APC that has ever occurred? Have we observed every instance where APC was produced? No.
Can you test to see if humans produce APC? Yes. However, extending this observation to EVERY instance of APC can not be supported.
Likewise abstruse particularized communication has never been observed forming by naturally unguided processes. (note: I said formed and not copied or reproduced)
So if I observed random mutations producing a novel protein that exhibits APC would that falsify your hypothesis?
Perhaps this is an argument from the negative, but it is still an observable fact none the less.
Not unless you can observe every single instance where APC is produced.
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,"
So how do we determine if something has specified complexity or not? What experiments can we run to establish this?
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.
So if I demonstrated that two proteins have the same function but differ in their amino acid sequence will this disprove your hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 324 of 396 (584926)
10-04-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:47 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Several precise mathematical laws have been formulated by computer scientists which express the Law of Conservation of Information. This law states that within certain limits the amount of information in a computer in its initial state (counting software and hardware) equals or exceeds the amount of information in its final state.
So if we are able to show that Shannon Information can increase due to blind evolutionary mechanisms will this falsify ID?
These genetic algorithms at first appear to solve the information problem, but in truth after closer analysis, it is only at the expense of the programmers first supplying information about proximity to target sequences, selection criteria, or loops of precisely sequenced instructions.
It is the same information supplied by the environment in evolution. When a DNA binding protein evolves and upregulates a needed protein then those mutations are selected for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:47 PM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 344 of 396 (586309)
10-12-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Just being real
10-12-2010 3:02 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
We have only observed specified complexity come from intelligent sources. There are no known examples of observed specified complexity originating from a natural unintelligent source. It may very well be that a lightning strike in a pool of goo, created me and you. But currently we have never observed any natural process produce such specified complexity as we see in the DNA molocule.
So what observation, if made, would falsify these statements?
If I observe that random mutations produce a novel and functional protein would that falsify it? If not, why? How do we determine if something has specified complexity to begin with? If I showed you two DNA sequences could you determine how much specified complexity each one contains, if any?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 3:02 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 345 of 396 (586335)
10-12-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Just being real
10-12-2010 4:02 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Well I understand your desire to trivialize this as a "distraction," but bacteria have a definite biological need to rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources. As I said, one of the main ways that they appear to have been designed to do this, is through plasmid mutations.
What experiments can we run to determine that bacteria were designed to do this?
And no, I don't at all deny that some have had beneficial mutations take place within the chromosomal DNA. But I think the exact mechanism is controversial because some results suggest a directed mutation specifically enabling adaptation to the environment.
Which results are these?
And even though most of these chromosomal mutations involves certain environmental conditions that make these mutations phenotypically beneficial, they frequently eliminate or reduce pre-existing cellular systems and functions. Therefore they require the prior existence of the targeted cellular systems, rather than providing a genetic mechanism that accounts for the origin of biological systems or functions.
You mean something like descent with modification, otherwise known as evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 4:02 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 359 of 396 (586451)
10-13-2010 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Just being real
10-13-2010 8:05 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Your statement presumes to know the intentions of the designer.
The above statement is immediately followed by . . .
Some species could actually be designed to have an abnormally large amount of offspring to "fail" from our view point because they serve a purpose for the survival of other organisms.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
No I think that burden of proof lays upon the one using the study with the "mutated bacteria" as evidence for natural evolution and a mechanism to demonstrate how life could have arrived.
That is what we are asking you for in this thread: experiments we can run in order to infer the Intelligent Design origin of bacteria. If you want to claim that bacteria are designed then you need to supply the experiments which demonstrate this.
If we ran an experiment where mutations conferring antibiotic resistance occurred in the absence of antibiotic would this falsify ID? What experimental results with respect to the modification of DNA would falsify ID?
Well go right ahead. Knock yourself out. Your the one trying to pass off ecol i bacteria and others as evidence for how life could have arrived and developed to its current advanced state.
From my reading, the only assertions were related to how each generation is modified from the last generation, not how life originated to begin with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Just being real, posted 10-13-2010 8:05 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 360 of 396 (586452)
10-13-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Just being real
10-13-2010 8:06 AM


Re: The Origins of "Specified Complexity".
No you keep conflating different forms of specified complexity. One is originated by the organism and the other is just a copied reproduction programmed by some other intelligent source.
How did you determine that it was programmed by an intelligent source? So does the following DNA sequence contain specified complexity, and how did you determine this?
GAGGTTAGCCGAAAAAGCACGTGGTGGCGCCCACCGACTGTTCCCAGACTGTAGCTCTTTGTTCTGTCAAGGCCCGACCTTCATCGCGGCCGATTCCTTC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Just being real, posted 10-13-2010 8:06 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 372 of 396 (587571)
10-19-2010 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:12 AM


No. The patterns are the result of natural laws of physics at work in weather patterns. They are no different than the patterns observed in crystals. Interesting, complex, but not particularized (specific).
Why aren't they particularized?
Would a novel protein that arises from observed random mutations be considered particularized?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:12 AM Just being real 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