Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
fizz57
Junior Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 256 of 377 (608413)
03-10-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by slevesque
03-10-2011 1:56 AM


You need more then physics to explain DNA, RNA and life. You also need information theory.
I'll take you up on this, as it is a common fallacy that has a direct bearing on the Design interpretation.
You say you're taking Physics at University - while most Physics courses don't offer credits in information theory, I suggest you take a credit or two from Engineering or CompSci if your course structure lets you, as it is clearly a subject of great interest to you, and will probably be useful in nearly any career you choose.
If you do that, you'll see that the central concepts in "information theory" are essentially taken from another subject, this time one you'll certainly be doing a lot of - statistical mechanics. While the abstraction of "information" is a useful one for the theory, the fact remains that the only expression of information that we know about is in the configuration of physical entities such as particles or fields. Just like the abstract concept of charge in classical electromagnetism is only physically realised as a property of matter particles.
In other words, there is nothing mystical about "information". Just because we humans can "generate" information, it doesn't mean that nature cannot. After all, we humans are also good at generating hot air
but you are neglecting the information aspect that life contains, and this is what seperates it from simply being ''special chemistry''.
All chemistry, and indeed all physics beyond that of a single featureless particle (and possibly even that), contains "information". What is the difference between the isomers glucose and fructose if not the information encoded in the different arrangements of the same atoms? How is this different from the "information" in DNA?
When I use entropic techniques to solve a protein-folding problem, are you suggesting that a protein is more than "special chemistry"?
When I use information theory to tease out a pulsar's signal from the noise, are you suggesting that a pulsar is more than "special physics"?
"Information" cannot be taken as evidence for Design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 1:56 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 3:17 PM fizz57 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 257 of 377 (608419)
03-10-2011 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by slevesque
03-10-2011 2:06 AM


slevesque writes:
BUT, natural processes have been observed.
This is a fallacious reasoning once again. You cannot assert natural processes causes a particular thing just because we have observed natural processes in general.
Think about it, suppose I turned lead into gold and you told me I did so via a natural mean. But when I asked why you think this is so, you answered ''because I have observed natural processes''. This would clearly be illogical, just because you saw an appl fall to the ground, or an electric current create a magnetic field, or any other natural process it does not mean anything concerning turning lead into gold. You actually need to have at least a plausible naturalistic mechanism, and/or observed revelant natural processes.
When you put your imaginary Designer on the lab table to demonstrate the method and model used, then maybe, just maybe, ID and Creationism might be worth looking at.
I'll be honest jar, you have brought very little to this discussion appart from repeating useless things such as this ad nauseam ...
I am sorry that you think this is useless. But until you are able to understand just how important this point is, you will never be able to move beyond your world of fantasy.
This is not fallacious reasoning, in fact it is correct and essential.
Right now the ONLY possible options for anything, life, the universe, turning lead into gold, are natural processes and intervention by a known entity. There are no other options.
I'm sorry if you guys get tired of hearing it, but that's life. Get over it.
Until you can present verifiable evidence of some other entity and the method/model used to influence or intervene, Creationism and Intelligent Design will remain jokes, stuff to laugh about.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 2:06 AM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 258 of 377 (608422)
03-10-2011 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Percy
03-10-2011 7:00 AM


John Woodmorappe
Why anyone would quote John Woodmorappe is beyond me. The guy has been refuted countless times and I wonder if the creo's know that this is just a pen name for high school biology teacher Jan Peczkis.
He has also been shown to be deceitful and dishonest.
quote:
A creationist named John Woodmorappe has been caught quoting himself. In a "Revolution Against Evolution" Article entitled "A Hands-on Science Activity that Demonstrates the Atheism and Nihilism of Evolution" He states the following:
"Illinois high school science teacher Jan Peczkis writes: The misconception that evolution works towards a pre-determined goal is held by many high school and college students. This is understandable because evolution is an abstract and generally non-observable phenomenon, and living things do seem well-designed for their environments."
He forgot to mention something: He is Jan Peczkis. He quoted himself under his real name (J.W. is his pen name). Why? (For proof see the CreationWiki profile of J.W.)
The list goes on. In an exchange with Talk Origins author Steven Schimmrich, he states,
I find it amusing to see members of Schimmrich's group complain about the intensity of my responses in view of the scurrility of their own remarks (see below). Then again, perhaps some of these people are bullies/crybabies combined: they love to punch others but run home to mama in tears if someone punches them back. And everyone should know by now that I don't put up with any crap from anti-Creationists.
He goes on to compare his debate opponent to the Nazis... Several Times.
Besides the problems with his character, he's also a very illogical person. He is the creationist who proposed Tectonically Associated Biological Provinces (TABs) to explain the order of the fossil record. My understanding is that he believes different geologic rocks represent different ecosystems, which sank in to the earth and were stacked on top of one another like pancakes. Its far out, and not in a cool 70's-ish way. The problem with it is that it does not explain just why the layers on top contain fossils most similar to today's life. I mean, why can't dinosaurs be found on top and human beings in the middle?
Last, but not least, No Answers in Genesis has posted a devastating critique of his work on radiometric dating and more. It is well worth checking out.
Source

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 03-10-2011 7:00 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 3:20 PM Theodoric has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 259 of 377 (608426)
03-10-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by slevesque
03-10-2011 1:56 AM


Well I'm not the one who brought this up. All I am saying is that, if anything, observed lack of extraterrestial life is evidence against the existence of a naturalistic mechanism to get life. But of course, and I'll repeat myself, I totally agree we haven't searched enough for this to hold any weight.
Cool. I'll leave this then, we seem to be in tentative agreement.
You can't really apply this ''test'' (I wouldn't have chosen that word but oh well) to a supernatural designer, unless you are willing to embark on the theology of what a designer would or would not do.
I don't see why the same argument against natural life can't be used on designed life.
Seeing you speak in absolutes, I assume you are very near 100% sure that we will eventually find extraterrestial life. Seems like a faith-based statement, however.
I think the probability of life elsewhere follows logically from the science of evolution, but I admit, until we find anything, my certainty is not fully explained by the evidence. You could call it faith, but it's a faith I'm perfectly willing to abandon should new evidence come in to refute it.
You need more then physics to explain DNA, RNA and life. You also need information theory.
I'm not sure how information has more to do with RNA than with solar spectroscopy.
I also currently study physics at university, and I understand what you mean, but you are neglecting the information aspect that life contains, and this is what seperates it from simply being ''special chemistry''.
Again, there is information inherent in every chemical process, every physical process, and every biological process. How his information more relevant to RNA/DNA than to solar spectroscopy?
The chemical interactions between the molecules of a DNA strand tells us nothing about the information it contains, because it does not depend on the interactions but in the order of those molecules, and this must be viewed from the POV of information theory, not chemistry.
The order of the molecules is determined by chemical reactions.
This is why it is the fallacy of composition to attribute to life only the characteristics that it's individual components hold.
What is it about life that makes it more than the sum of its chemistry. I'll readily admit that humans, chimps, dolphins and other higher order life forms have emergent properties that make them more than chemistry, but that's not inherent to "life." What makes a single-celled organism more than chemistry?
''Pigs can fly'' isn't a universal negative.
True, but the argument that life can't form from non-life is usually stated as if there is a law that prevents it, which is a positive claim. If you don't believe that, then we can drop that argument, since you seem to be saying that it is possible for life to form from non-life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 1:56 AM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 260 of 377 (608432)
03-10-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by slevesque
03-09-2011 5:19 PM


You cannot ask him to prove a universal negative.
I can ask that arguments not be based on universal negatives.
It is the same as if I asked you evidence if you claimed ''supernatural creation is impossible''.
I am very careful to never make that claim. However, "IC can not evolve" is the basis for evidence in ID. ID is nothing more than negative arguments, false dichotomies, and arguments from incredulity.
All I'm saying is that, if anything, the fact life is only found on earth can only be seen as evidence against life arising naturally.
How did you determine that life is only found on Earth?
I think that's the basic idea behind the fallacy of composition.
In fact, my biology textbook when I was in Cegep would consistently emphasize that a biological system was more then it's individual components.
Emergence is a property of many non-living systems. The property of "wetness" is an emergent property of many water molecules interacting. I would say that emergence is a poor way to differentiate between living and non-living chemistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:19 PM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 261 of 377 (608434)
03-10-2011 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by havoc
03-09-2011 5:35 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
Explain color vision in the terms of slight changes required by Darwin.
This thread is asking for evidence of design, not evolution. It is incumbent on you to explain color vision in terms of design, and the evidence that supports it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 5:35 PM havoc has not replied

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


Message 262 of 377 (608435)
03-10-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:02 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
I dont think evolution could ever lead to this level of design.
Reality is not forced to conform to your incredulity. Please provide evidence, not opinion.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:02 PM havoc has not replied

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


Message 263 of 377 (608436)
03-10-2011 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:57 PM


Sure it is. His experiment proved Non life can not become life spontaniously did it not?
How did his experiment show this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:57 PM havoc has not replied

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


Message 264 of 377 (608437)
03-10-2011 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:15 PM


In eithre event Spontaneous generation has been disproven for a long long time.
How did Pasteur's experiments disprove abiogenesis? Did Pasteur even look for simple RNA replicators?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:15 PM havoc has not replied

Meddle
Member (Idle past 1271 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 265 of 377 (608457)
03-10-2011 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:57 PM


havoc in message 235 writes:
Sure it is. His experiment proved Non life can not become life spontaniously did it not?
havoc in message 236 writes:
If the experiment was consistant with the enviroment on your proto earth then I would have no problem with it.
You were so close to putting it all together. Do you think that Pasteur's experiment of cooked meat broth exposed to an oxygen atmosphere is an accurate portrayal of the proto earth's environment? This is why Pasteur's work is not a universal truth.
Edited by Malcolm, : Formatting failed!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:57 PM havoc has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 266 of 377 (608461)
03-10-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dr Adequate
03-10-2011 2:20 AM


Hi Dr.A,
Well, no.
Suppose you actually (apparently) saw me take an ingot of lead and turn it into an ingot of gold.
Now, you admittedly believe in supernatural forces. Nonetheless, wouldn't your first hypothesis be that I had used natural means to bring about this effect --- possibly some sort of conjuring trick? Would that not be more "logical" than the conclusion that I actually have supernatural powers?
Heck, what do you think when you actually see a conjuring trick? Has it ever even crossed your mind that (for example) Penn & Teller have supernatural powers from Satan, or have you always assumed that they are using purely natural means to produce their effects?
Whether or not miracles happen, we must admit that they are rare. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation of a given effect, we are compelled to believe as a default position that the cause was natural. This is not certain, but it is certainly the way to bet.
There are a couple of crucial points that you are omitting:
First, my example wasn't about an illusion trick. It was about a real observed phenomenon, lead really turning into gold. Just as none-life really turning into life, not just some illusion of it.
Second, even within your trick illusion example, you are forgetting that to support the claim 'it was done by a natural process' I have relevant observation of natural processes, ie experience of previous illusion tricks. (This is why I had bolded 'relevant', apparently you missed it)
But now imagine someone with no previous relevant observations, like a little kid who sees his first magic trick. From his point of view, the fact that he has seen 'natural processes' before is irrelevant, none of them correlate ot this.
This is why I'm saying claiming a naturalistic origin of any phenomenon cannot simply be supported by the fact you know natural processes exist in general. As I said, you have to have relevant obeservations and/or a possible natural mechanism.
When you think about it, this is all logical. When someone claims Jesus's ''ressurection'' had a natural cause, he isn't thinking ''because I have seen an apple fall to the ground'' but rather ''Because I know of certain natural plants that could produce this effect, or that I know that this could possibly have been a trick, etc.''.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2011 2:20 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2011 7:43 PM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 267 of 377 (608463)
03-10-2011 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Percy
03-10-2011 7:00 AM


Wow! The abstract concludes with a proposed solution for the conundrum introduced at the beginning and concludes in completely opposite fashion to what you thought! We really should create a quote mining archive. This one would deserve to be featured prominently.
Funny because I'm under the impression that you are the one quote mining me ...
read what I wrote right under the Koch quote:
quote:
... The proposed explanations come down to a watered-down version of the hopeful monster, where genes are rendered invisible to natural selection for some time, mutations accumulate, and then reappear all at once and are acted upon by natural selection all at once. It becomes a matter of chance if some good combination of mutations happened during that time.
  —slevesque
I agree that this is a layman's interpretation of a lot of technical terms, but I certainly never hid that Koch proposed a mechanism how to explain it.
Irreducible complexity is the modern form of the argument, "I can't imagine how this could have happened naturally, it must be due to something outside of nature."
''IC is an argument from ignorance'' is an oft-repeated strawman that I have seen so many times I couldn't count. Those who say this either: misunderstand the IC argument, or willfully misrepresent it.
The argument is proposing an accepted mechanism for IC systems: intelligent design. We have observed designers and engineers make IC systems fro mas long as we can remember, we know that intelligence can produce IC systems.
Conversely, the argument says that there are no know natural processes that can produce IC systems. It never states that such a process won't ultimately be discovered, but those who claim one exists have to make a case for it.
So the argument is actually an inference to the best possible explanation.
And no, irreducible complexity is not "discussed in the literature, but it is not named this way." That's because irreducible complexity is not a synonym for "things we as yet have no idea how they happened."
But the quote I provided isn't just some random ''something we don't know yet'' in science. You are clearly undervaluing it. It is a clear description of IC systems.
And all the naturalistic propositions to explain it all come down to the same thing: making multiple steps at a time. It is my contention that this could be deduced logically.
What characteristics makes an intelligent capable of producing an IC systems ? It is, as I said earlier, it's capacity to plan ahead, foresight. It can plan ahead that if you put all these pieces together in a specific way, you will get a useful outcome.
But as I said, nature (sorry for the reification) does not have this capacity. It deals only with the now, it cannot even learn from the past. So if each step towards any system is detrimental (as is the case with a IC system), it can't be done steo by step. The only logical option is therefore that, if it can do it, it will be by doing multiple steps at a time.
This reasoning is confirmed by the multiple proposed mechanism that Woodmorappe cites: they all boil down to hoping that multiple mutations (which are the steps in a biological setting) accumulate neutraly, and then all appear at once and hope that they produce a useful system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 03-10-2011 7:00 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Taq, posted 03-10-2011 3:15 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 03-10-2011 4:53 PM slevesque has replied

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


Message 268 of 377 (608465)
03-10-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by slevesque
03-10-2011 3:05 PM


I agree that this is a layman's interpretation of a lot of technical terms, but I certainly never hid that Koch proposed a mechanism how to explain it.
If you are going to quote Koch posing a problem you could at least quote Koch's answer to the problem. It is the honest thing to do.
The argument is proposing an accepted mechanism for IC systems: intelligent design. We have observed designers and engineers make IC systems fro mas long as we can remember, we know that intelligence can produce IC systems.
However, the only intelligence we know of that produces IC systems was not around when these biological IC systems came about. Therefore, ID fails as an explanation.
And all the naturalistic propositions to explain it all come down to the same thing: making multiple steps at a time. It is my contention that this could be deduced logically.
Then go for it.
What characteristics makes an intelligent capable of producing an IC systems ? It is, as I said earlier, it's capacity to plan ahead, foresight. It can plan ahead that if you put all these pieces together in a specific way, you will get a useful outcome.
You have not shown that IC systems require foresight.
So if each step towards any system is detrimental (as is the case with a IC system), . . .
There is no reason that an IC system must require detrimental mutations in an evolutionary pathway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 3:05 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 3:36 PM Taq has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 269 of 377 (608466)
03-10-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by fizz57
03-10-2011 8:44 AM


Hi fizz57, First time poster ? Welcome
I'll take you up on this, as it is a common fallacy that has a direct bearing on the Design interpretation.
You say you're taking Physics at University - while most Physics courses don't offer credits in information theory, I suggest you take a credit or two from Engineering or CompSci if your course structure lets you, as it is clearly a subject of great interest to you, and will probably be useful in nearly any career you choose.
I am doing bidisciplinary mathematics and physics, so hopefully I'll have some courses on the math side that touches on this since you are right I find it very interesting.
If you do that, you'll see that the central concepts in "information theory" are essentially taken from another subject, this time one you'll certainly be doing a lot of - statistical mechanics. While the abstraction of "information" is a useful one for the theory, the fact remains that the only expression of information that we know about is in the configuration of physical entities such as particles or fields. Just like the abstract concept of charge in classical electromagnetism is only physically realised as a property of matter particles.
In other words, there is nothing mystical about "information". Just because we humans can "generate" information, it doesn't mean that nature cannot. After all, we humans are also good at generating hot air
I agree there is nothing mystical about information, however I think there is a distinction to be made between what you are describing and the cas of DNA.
All chemistry, and indeed all physics beyond that of a single featureless particle (and possibly even that), contains "information". What is the difference between the isomers glucose and fructose if not the information encoded in the different arrangements of the same atoms? How is this different from the "information" in DNA?
When I use entropic techniques to solve a protein-folding problem, are you suggesting that a protein is more than "special chemistry"?
When I use information theory to tease out a pulsar's signal from the noise, are you suggesting that a pulsar is more than "special physics"?
The difference I see is that the information you are talking about is directly related to how it physically interacts with something else. For example, a protein's interaction with a receptor, or any other molecule, is what gives it any information.
However, the case seems to be different with DNA. The information in DNA does not come from any interaction it has, but from an established code which we have all seen:
Now, how this code was established is the crux of the matter. There seems to be no physical, chemical reason that this code should be what it is. It just is, and it is the sole thing that gives DNa any information value.
Can you see that there seems to be a very real difference between what we could call 'physical information' and 'coded information' ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by fizz57, posted 03-10-2011 8:44 AM fizz57 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Perdition, posted 03-10-2011 3:20 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 272 by Taq, posted 03-10-2011 3:31 PM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 270 of 377 (608467)
03-10-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Theodoric
03-10-2011 9:38 AM


Re: John Woodmorappe
But I didn't quote Woodmorappe, I just used the same Koch quote he used.
And besides, I agree that I don't personnally like him as a creationist, but your whole post is just a big ad hominem, even if it is/were true. His claims still can be evaluated on their own merits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2011 9:38 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2011 4:08 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 279 by Taq, posted 03-10-2011 4:09 PM slevesque 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