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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 59 of 373 (644468)
12-18-2011 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by bluegenes
12-18-2011 8:07 AM


bluegenes writes:
You were talking about archaeology, and archaeologists perceiving intelligent design in objects they uncover.
Early in the thread Mike introduced the idea that archaeologists are looking for signs of intelligence, and I've been meaning to respond to this. Yours is the last post mentioning this, and I've got time now.
Archaeologists are not looking for signs of intelligence. They're seeking evidence of ancient human cultures. Archaeologists no more have a method for detecting intelligence than creationists.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2011 8:07 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2011 9:49 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 63 of 373 (644495)
12-18-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by bluegenes
12-18-2011 9:49 AM


NoNukes already provided the answer. I'll just add that if it were really true that archaeologists seek "the effect of intelligent tool use" it would mean they're able to distinguish it from "unintelligent tool use," whatever that is. But of course that's not what they do. They seek signs of what people do, intelligent or not, from coprolites, ancient footpaths and campfires to spearheads, buildings, housewares and artwork.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2011 9:49 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Coyote, posted 12-18-2011 12:01 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 66 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2011 2:17 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 67 of 373 (644511)
12-18-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by bluegenes
12-18-2011 2:17 PM


If you think archaeologists are detecting signs of intelligence rather than signs of human activity, then try to describe how archaeologists detect intelligence and how it differs from merely detecting human activity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2011 2:17 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2011 1:16 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 74 of 373 (644593)
12-19-2011 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Just being real
12-19-2011 10:14 AM


Just being real writes:
I'm going to say very clearly (again) no one has ever observed a case, through mutation or any other natural means, of added beneficially new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism.
If by "observed" you mean the actual mutation event was witnessed under the microscope, then you are probably correct. I doubt that mutation events can be witnessed firsthand, beneficial or not.
But if you mean that we've never discovered any beneficial mutations then you would be wrong.
A discussion about the possibility or lack thereof of beneficial mutations would be interesting, but I'm not sure it relates to the topic of this thread. If no beneficial mutations had ever been discovered, would that be evidence of a designer?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 10:14 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 9:49 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 79 of 373 (644629)
12-19-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by bluegenes
12-19-2011 1:16 PM


bluegenes writes:
Percy writes:
...then try to describe how archaeologists detect intelligence and how it differs from merely detecting human activity.
It's effectively a subset of detecting human activity. Largely because we're the only high level intelligent designers known to operate on this planet.
You've expressed it a bit differently this time. This time you've said that archaeologists detect "high level intelligent designers." That's not true, either, unless "high level intelligent designers" is a synonym for human beings. If you look at the Wikipedia article on archaeology, the word intelligent or intelligence doesn't even appear.
I've already pointed out that archaeologists do not have a specific formula.
They not only don't have a specific method for detecting intelligence, they're not even looking for it. The kinds of things archaeologists find can tell us about the intellectual level of achievement of an ancient society, but it can't tell us anything about the intelligence of the people themselves.
All species possess a specific blend of qualities that makes them unique, and biologists or paleontologists or archaeologists can seek out and study the expression of those qualities in nature. Recognizing the signs of a dung beetle tunnel or a Hadrosaur nesting ground or an ancient city is what is done, rather than seeking signs of a given level of intelligent expression.
But probably the most compelling reason that archaeologists do not seek out signs of intelligence is that it doesn't have a rigorous scientific definition, as IDists make clear in debate after debate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2011 1:16 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 12-20-2011 4:52 PM Percy has replied
 Message 134 by bluegenes, posted 12-21-2011 2:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 92 of 373 (644704)
12-20-2011 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Just being real
12-19-2011 9:49 PM


Hi JBR,
Yours is the familiar ID argument that because information cannot increase by natural means, and because only an intelligence can create information, therefore an intelligence created life.
But of course information, in this case biological information, can be created naturally. Let's say there's a gene in a population that has four alleles. An individual is born with a mutation in one of his alleles for this gene. The population now has five alleles for this gene, and no intelligence was involved.
On a grander scale information is being created naturally everywhere all the time. For example, an experimenter writing observations in his notebook is not creating information. He's only transcribing information from one form to another. Maybe he's counting tree rings. The number of tree rings was produced by nature, not by the experimenter. Or maybe he's just looking out the window to see if it's morning yet. The information produced from the rotating Earth was produced by nature.
The ID position confuses information with knowledge, and it erroneously holds that information is only information after a human being has recorded it, whether on clay tablets or in a notebook or in silicon memory. But information exists independent of people. Information does not require a person to bring it into existence.
Information theory is already a well established science. The proposals of Dembski, Gitt and Spetner upon which your position is based have not yet even been submitted for scientific scrutiny, let alone peer-reviewed or attained even a smattering of acceptance. Your position has no scientific foundation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 9:49 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 8:53 AM Percy has replied
 Message 114 by Just being real, posted 12-21-2011 12:52 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 97 of 373 (644724)
12-20-2011 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by NoNukes
12-20-2011 8:53 AM


Re: Information
Hi NN,
I'm going to respond to the third paragraph before I respond to the second:
NoNukes writes:
But if the information content results in a morphological change in an offspring, and the change is selected as a winner through natural selection, then the changed information content represents an increase in information. The new morphology is more well adapted to environment X even if it is less well adapted to environment Y.
You have to be careful not to inject human judgements about good and bad into determinations of whether information has increased or decreased. A deleterious mutation can increase information as easily as a beneficial one. The forces of selection determine whether a mutation has any long term persistence in a population, but increases and decreases in information are independent of whether a mutation improves or diminishes adaptation to an environment.
Information in the genome can also increase and decrease without any associated morphological change. Information is an independent entity. It doesn't have to be expressed in the physical organism outside the DNA to exist.
Coming back now to your second paragraph:
When a random mutation is made in DNA, it is clear that the information content is different but it is not clear whether the information content of the DNA has increased even on an individual basis.
The amount of information is a function of the number of possible states of a system. If the mutation results in an allele that does not already exist in the population, then the number of possible states of the system (in other words, the number of possible allele permutations across the genome) has increased.
Measuring information within the genome by considering two alleles the same only if all their nucleotides match is not the only valid approach. You could instead consider alleles the same as long as their corresponding codons code for the same amino acid. Or you could instead consider them the same if they produce the same protein. Or their may be other options that don't come to mind right now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 8:53 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 10:48 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 101 of 373 (644739)
12-20-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by NoNukes
12-20-2011 10:48 AM


Re: Information
Hi NN,
We may be looking at information at different levels. I'm looking at information at the population level. When a message is sent from one generation to the next by way of reproduction, the amount of information communicated to the next generation is a function of the number of possible permutations of alleles.
But I can see now that you prefer to look at it from the level of individuals because you say this:
NoNukes writes:
But you do not address the question of whether a mutation can result in an increase in the information state of an individual when compared to the individual's parents.
Since you use the plural "parents" I'll look at this in the context of sexual reproduction. The question I think you're asking me to consider is whether a mutation can cause an offspring to have a different amount of information than either of its parents.
If we're looking at this at the allele level then the answer is simple. Even in the complete absence of mutations offspring will almost always have different amounts of genetic information than either of their parents. Let's consider gene X and say that both parents have alleles A and B for this gene. By the luck of the draw the offspring receives allele A from both parents. Since both the parents have both alleles A and B while the offspring has only allele A, the offspring has less information for this gene than either parent.
Or take the case where one parent has AA and the other parent has BB. The offspring will receive AB and have more information for this gene than either parent.
When you add in mutations it becomes even more obvious that offspring can have differing amounts of information than their parents.
About the other part about whether beneficial versus deleterious makes a difference concerning whether a mutation causes an increase or decrease in information, I can't tell if we really disagree or are just expressing things differently. I don't agree that it's easier to find beneficial mutations in subsequent generations. Teasing out the effect of a mutation is much easier when its effect is overt and obvious, and this is much more often true of deleterious mutations.
I do agree that beneficial mutations are more likely to be preserved so they can be discovered, but that has no effect on whether the mutation event changed the amount of information.
This part makes me wonder if you're not even talking about genetic information:
So the population plus the environment preserves the information that mutation X is beneficial in that particular environment.
This is talking about information concerning whether a mutation is beneficial or not. That's not genetic information. That's sort of meta information relative to the environment and has nothing to do with whether there is more or less information in the genome.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 10:48 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 1:24 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 106 of 373 (644775)
12-20-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by NoNukes
12-20-2011 1:24 PM


Re: Information
NoNukes writes:
I'm also not sure it makes sense to measure information content outside of the context in which the information is being interpreted.
It depends upon whether the information measurement is dependent upon the context. Whether or not a mutation increases the information content in the genome is independent of the environment. Take your bacteria with its mutation and place it north or south, high or low, dry or wet, and the information change caused by the mutation will be the same.
Information theory is a mathematical science. For a population where the number of possible states in the system is a function of the messages (individual genomes) in the population, if the number of possible states in the system increases then the amount of information has increased. The latitude, altitude, temperature, humidity, tides, presence of predators, food availability, etc., do not matter.
You may be trying to answer a different question, one that WK mentioned a couple times. From the short excerpt he provided it looks like Frank is treating differential reproductive across successive generations and the responsible mutations as a response to information from the environment. This sounds fascinating, but I don't think it's the question being asked. Regarding whether mutations (of any type) can cause an increase in genomic information the answer is mathematical and is a resounding yes.
There's a simpler and non-mathematical way to answer this question. Take a bacteria that experiences a non-fatal deleterious point mutation resulting from the loss of a single nucleotide and that in this case it is a decrease in information. If the bacteria then experiences another point mutation that restores the original nucleotide then it must be a beneficial mutation and an increase in information. Most creationists see the unavoidable logic in this argument, but they then ask if there's any evidence that this has ever actually happened, and of course the answer is yes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 1:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 12-20-2011 3:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 109 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 4:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 118 by Wounded King, posted 12-21-2011 4:32 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 110 of 373 (644787)
12-20-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
12-20-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Looking For Intelligence
Straggler writes:
Isn't SETI an example of us looking for signs of intelligence rather than (by definition) human activity?
Sure, or at least that's what they say they're doing. I wonder if any of the SETI people have ever written about what distinguishes their efforts from IDists'. I thought a bit about replying in more detail, but I quickly realized I'm not aware of any scientifically rigorous definition of intelligence, and anyway SETI is probably off-topic.
This information sub-thread began with a rebuttal to the claim that archaeologists are seeking signs of intelligence rather than signs of human activity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 12-20-2011 4:52 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 120 of 373 (644851)
12-21-2011 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Just being real
12-21-2011 12:52 AM


Identifying Specified Information
Hi JBR,
Well, then, let's take what you say and try to turn it into evidence that one would expect to see if life were the product of an intelligent designer.
First we need to know how to identify specified information. You describe it as "information that has a very specified intent." Are there any objective methods for identifying intent? Isn't intent a subjective human interpretation? Don't juries argue about intent? Are you perhaps just taking what something does and defining its actions as intentional?
Someone raised the issue of SETI earlier, and that might be a good argument for you. Regarding the detection of specificity you could say that there's a gray area where specificity is very ambiguous and unclear, but that DNA obviously has specificity in spades. When challenged you could respond that SETI is doing the exact same thing when they seek narrow bandwidth electromagnetic transmissions. Like ID, SETI understands that there's a large gray area where intelligent origin cannot be established, but they claim that narrow bandwidth electromagnetic transmissions are obviously of intelligent origin.
When you say "common decent" don't you mean "common decency?"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Just being real, posted 12-21-2011 12:52 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 156 of 373 (645976)
01-01-2012 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Just being real
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:
Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.
There's a fundamental problem with this one: it's wrong.
Virtual particles flit in and out of existence all the time. Read the Wikipedia article on the Casimir effect, which explains one way we know these particles are real by way of their gravitational effect. Or read the Wikipedia article on Hawking radiation,which explains how black holes evaporate gradually over time by way of pairs of virtual particles spontaneously appearing with one inside and one outside the black hole. The one inside the black hole remains within, but the one outside often escapes, diminishing the black hole's mass by one particle.
A + B = C
"C" being something else that must infinitely exist from which the universe sprang.
Although the rationale differs significantly from your own, this is considered a valid idea within cosmology and has recently attracted growing attention.
Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources.
This is an ID assertion rather than a scientific observation.
Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified.
This is untrue. The term "specified" comes from ID and has no scientific foundation. It isn't a term often used by microbiologists.
There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes,...
Every case of cell division is an example of "DNA forming by natural unguided processes."
...and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes.
Every mutation that adds a new allele to a population is an example of adding information.
Scientific observation F: The more than 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems.
So to you it seems that anything with specific values is specified. There's a pile of rocks in my back yard with hundreds of parameters that make life possible for the life living there. Of course, that's not to say there aren't many other configurations of parameters that would serve that life just as well, but that's what you seem to be saying about the Earth. If the tilt of the Earth were different, could there be life? If the orbital distance were different, could there be life? If the moon distance were different (and it has been in its history), could there be life? If the Earth's rotation speed were different (and it has been in its history), could there be life? If there was more or less water, could there be life? If an additional planet made us the 4th instead of the 3rd planet from the sun, could there be life?
Scientific observation G: Physical forces such as electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, speed of light, centrifugal force of planetary movements, and rate of expansion are all fine tuned to the exact parameters need for life to exist. This is yet another life support system displaying a highly specified nature.
Change some of these and you do change the possibility of life, but the current values are the only example we have. All we know is that they are sufficient for life, not that they are necessary for life, and we do not know how many other permutations of values would be conducive to life.
Scientific observation H: The universe itself displays a highly specified nature as described by many astronomers and astrophysicists.
I believe that astronomers and astrophysicists are describing specific observations and measurements, rather than describing that it "displays a highly specified nature" as you claim.
D + E + F + G + H = I
"I" being some sort of intelligence that was involved in the formation of the universe and life.
Let me fix this for you:
"I'm still seeking evidence that some sort of intelligence was involved in the formation of the universe and life."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 5:01 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 11:42 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 171 of 373 (646034)
01-02-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Just being real
01-01-2012 11:42 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Rather than getting into details of what would really be a side discussion, let me try to steer the path more directly onto the topic. One way would be to ask if you can describe any overt evidence that we should expect to see if there were a designer.
Or another way, since you're simply claiming that the nature of the universe is evidence of the designer, perhaps you can describe what the universe would be like were there no designer. Isn't it true that no matter what were the nature of any universe, however similar or different from this universe, the nature of that universe is what life in that universe would offer as evidence of a designer?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 11:42 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Tangle, posted 01-02-2012 8:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 227 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 205 of 373 (646229)
01-03-2012 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:48 PM


mike the wiz writes:
If blood spatter is information, then everything in existence is information. If everything is information, then the atheist is dilluting the definition to the point of it not being viable.
The important distinction isn't whether an object contains information or not (for everything contains information), but the particular details of that information.
And for ID the question isn't whether an object contains information, for it most certainly does, but whether the information is specified or not.
And for the debate the question is whether intent, i.e., if or not the information was specified by an intelligence, can be ferreted out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 207 of 373 (646233)
01-03-2012 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 4:21 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
mike the wiz writes:
Do you ever plan on presenting any evidence that I have provided no evidence?
I neglected to mention it in my previous post, so let me mention it by responding to your reply to Jar's request for evidence.
This thread isn't asking for evidence of the designer. Rather, it is an opportunity for creationists to describe the evidence we should expect to see if a designer existed. Whether we've actually found that evidence yet doesn't matter.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 4:21 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Taq, posted 01-04-2012 12:06 PM Percy has seen this message but 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