Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
27 online now:
caffeine, PaulK, Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,933 Year: 20,969/19,786 Month: 1,366/2,023 Week: 317/557 Day: 10/47 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 373 (644493)
12-18-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by bluegenes
12-18-2011 9:49 AM


I think that they frequently look for signs of intelligently designed artifacts as evidence for ancient human cultures.

Perhaps this is what archaeologist do in effect, but it cannot be true that scientist actually search for intelligence. If their search was truly for intelligence, then design proponents could describe that procedure in detail and at least make the attempt to apply it to nature.

In fact what archaeologist do is search for non-naturally occurring objects or arrangements of objects based on their knowledge of the types of things man makes, their knowledge of man's forming techniques and their knowledge of how things occur in nature. There is a high probability that such objects are made by men.

The real technique is of course useless to people who want to believe that some of the things that occur in nature are actually designed. Archaeologists would have already sorted those things into the scrap pile.

Sometimes a triangular shaped rock was produced by erosion but still gets used as an arrowhead. Those things might get correctly identified as artifacts based on contextual clues. What would be the analogous tool that IDers could use?

Design proponents claim that real scientists simply know designed objects when they see them and that Iders should allowed to claim the same ability for biological things. But scientists don't do the sort of hand waving IDers accuse scientist of doing.

Edited by NoNukes, : Clear up an ambiguous "they"


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2011 1:18 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31672
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 62 of 373 (644494)
12-18-2011 11:27 AM


on the designer
We know and have evidence that some critters design things. We have direct evidence for example that humans exist and that humans do and have in the past create tools and artifacts.

When SETI searches for signals they are actually looking for signal not just of life, not just of intelligence but rather for signs of technology similar to human technology.

When an archeologist examines findings he is not looking for just intelligence, but for signs of technology similar to human technology.

In both cases we have evidence of the designer.

Until the Intelligent Design folk can present evidence of the Designer comparable to the body of evidence that supports human design, they have nothing.


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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18996
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Coyote, posted 12-18-2011 12:01 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 66 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2011 2:17 PM Percy has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 64 of 373 (644499)
12-18-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
12-18-2011 11:28 AM


How archaeologists do it...
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.

To archaeologists, artifacts are things made or used by people.

Detecting this manufacture is often easy, but detecting use is sometimes impossible.

We study tools from archaeological sites and ethnographic settings where these tools are still in use in order to learn their characteristics; we learn to replicate those tools, and we study rocks and other materials from natural occurrences such as stream beds. From this we can come up with general rules that cover most situations. For example, stone tools almost always have bifacial flaking.

But what is difficult is the pretty rock that was brought back and used for a door stop or paperweight. Although used by people, and thus considered to be artifacts, these may not have any use wear or other characteristics of an artifact.

But, pertaining to the subject, we go about these studies systematically, working from the known to the unknown, and working from evidence.

This is the opposite of "design studies" which assume the conclusion and then scratch about for any evidence to support that conclusion.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 12-18-2011 11:28 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 799 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 65 of 373 (644502)
12-18-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes
12-18-2011 11:15 AM


NoNukes writes:

bluegenes writes:

I think that they frequently look for signs of intelligently designed artifacts as evidence for ancient human cultures.

Perhaps this is what archaeologist do in effect, but it cannot be true that scientist actually search for intelligence. If their search was truly for intelligence, then design proponents could describe that procedure in detail and at least make the attempt to apply it to nature.

They (design proponents) can't apply the complex combination of observations and knowledge of archaeologists to biology because, as I said in the post you're replying to:

"Archaeologists don't have a strict formula, certainly, but use a number of observations. They certainly don't have a formula that would apply universally, and therefore nothing that could be used by those who argue for intelligent design by unknown designers in the biosphere."

NoNukes writes:

Design proponents claim that real scientists simply know designed objects when they see them and that Iders should allowed to claim the same ability for biological things.

Sort of. More precisely, what they tend to do is try to argue by analogy. That's why I've pointed out to Just Being Real that our intelligently designed canals are no reason to infer that rivers are intelligently designed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 12-18-2011 11:15 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 799 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 66 of 373 (644509)
12-18-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
12-18-2011 11:28 AM


Percy writes:

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.

Would it? Or would it mean that they would just have to distinguish it from "everything else"?

Percy writes:

But of course that's not what they do.

What, never?

Percy writes:

They seek signs of what people do, intelligent or not, from coprolites, ancient footpaths and campfires to spearheads, buildings, housewares and artwork.

Sure. And how do they distinguish the rocks in the picture below from a natural formation? The excessive presence of human coprolites?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 12-18-2011 11:28 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 12-18-2011 2:38 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18996
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


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 responded

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

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 68 of 373 (644581)
12-19-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 8:42 PM


Are you pretending that no-one's observed adaptive evolution in multi-celled organisms?

No Doc. 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 organim. That is what is needed to demonstrate that it is possible to get from one major kind to another. For a fish to gain lungs, legs and finally lap tops, a whole lot of new information must be added to the DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 8:42 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 10:31 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 12-19-2011 12:11 PM Just being real has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 69 of 373 (644582)
12-19-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by bluegenes
12-18-2011 8:07 AM


what I wanted to know was: what intelligent purpose do we see in life forms? What are bacteria for from a designer's perspective? What's a giraffe for? What is Plasmodium falciparum for?

That's a very good question. Do you suppose that it is necessary to know every facet of somethings purpose just to be able to infer intelligent design? Could a child who never saw a gun, distinguish an AR-15 military assault riffle from naturally occurring things in the forest? Or would he have to know exactly what it does and why it was made first?

I want to know how biologists can see intelligent purpose in organisms in the same way that an archaeologist can perceive intelligent purpose in an arrowhead

Well I would say that in the same way an arrowhead sparks an independent recognition response in the archaeologist, the incredibly specific order of base code sequences and arrangements of DNA sparks an independent recognition response in the micro biologists who have cracked that code.

This illustrates your fundamental mistake. You look at DNA, and then at something which is intelligently designed by an organism (the combination lock by humans) and see an analogy between the two.I've already pointed out that both intelligent and unintelligent organisms use "specific codes". Chemical signals are actually used as the prime method of communication by unintelligent organisms far more often than by intelligent ones.

There is no fundamental mistake here BG. One could make the argument that a combination lock is not intelligent. The object that uses the specificity to perform basic functions does not need to be aware that it is doing so. However the lock example illustrates how we (the observers) can detect intelligence in somethings design when we see a specific independent recognition response take place. When the correct code is entered into the lock, or the correct code is read in the DNA sequence. It is still recognizable specificity. And thus far we humans have only "observed" specificity form from intelligent sources.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 10:28 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 77 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2011 1:55 PM Just being real has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 70 of 373 (644585)
12-19-2011 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Just being real
12-19-2011 10:14 AM


Do you suppose that it is necessary to know every facet of somethings purpose just to be able to infer intelligent design? Could a child who never saw a gun, distinguish an AR-15 military assault riffle from naturally occurring things in the forest?

Did you just imply that "naturally occurring things in the forest" are not intelligently designed?

Well I would say that in the same way an arrowhead sparks an independent recognition response in the archaeologist, the incredibly specific order of base code sequences and arrangements of DNA sparks an independent recognition response in the micro biologists who have cracked that code.

Er ... except that those "micro biologists" do not attribute it to design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 10:14 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 11:28 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 71 of 373 (644586)
12-19-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Just being real
12-19-2011 10:14 AM


Jbr writes:

No Doc. 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 organim. That is what is needed to demonstrate that it is possible to get from one major kind to another. For a fish to gain lungs, legs and finally lap tops, a whole lot of new information must be added to the DNA.

So, the second option then.

Dr Adequate writes:

Are you pretending that no-one's observed adaptive evolution in multi-celled organisms? Or are you planning to take refuge from this fact in vacuity of language and undefined terms?

I thought it would be one or the other.

Now, let us know if you can come up with an objective criterion for determining whether such an event has taken place, and I'll get back to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 10:14 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 72 of 373 (644589)
12-19-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dr Adequate
12-19-2011 10:28 AM


Did you just imply that "naturally occurring things in the forest" are not intelligently designed?

No I just implied that even a child on its own plane operating within its limited and undeveloped level of knowledge and understanding could distinguish between something with characteristics of specificity and something just functioning under natural unguided processes and laws. And I thought you were the PhD. here?

Er ... except that those "micro biologists" do not attribute it to design.

We do love that broad brush don't we?

Now, let us know if you can come up with an objective criterion for determining whether such an event has taken place, and I'll get back to you.

Gee Doc. I don't know... maybe some sort of a controlled study where a group of multi-celled organisms where observed over several generations. The parent groups DNA being mapped out and over "X" amount of generations the decedents are observed to have added beneficially new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA. Again I thought you were the PhD. here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 10:28 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 11:51 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 75 by nwr, posted 12-19-2011 12:44 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2011 2:12 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 73 of 373 (644590)
12-19-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Just being real
12-19-2011 11:28 AM


No I just implied that even a child on its own plane operating within its limited and undeveloped level of knowledge and understanding could distinguish between something with characteristics of specificity and something just functioning under natural unguided processes and laws.

And the things that you gave as examples of things without "characteristics of specificity" were, apparently, "naturally occurring things in the forest". But aren't you meant to be claiming that naturally occurring things do exhibit this vague, ill-defined property?

We do love that broad brush don't we?

My statement about "the micro biologists who have cracked that code" was exactly as broad as yours, since we were talking about the same people.

Mine was, of course, much more accurate.

Gee Doc. I don't know... maybe some sort of a controlled study where a group of multi-celled organisms where observed over several generations. The parent groups DNA being mapped out and over "X" amount of generations the decedents are observed to have added beneficially new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA.

I'm still waiting for the actual criterion. We need an operational definition. Whether through incompetence or a kind of low cunning, creationist maunderings about "information" are usually too vague to provide one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 11:28 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 9:49 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18996
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


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 responded

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

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5587
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(2)
Message 75 of 373 (644603)
12-19-2011 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Just being real
12-19-2011 11:28 AM


Just being real writes:
No I just implied that even a child on its own plane operating within its limited and undeveloped level of knowledge and understanding could distinguish between something with characteristics of specificity and something just functioning under natural unguided processes and laws.

Yes, you are right.

Remembering back to when I was a child, I could easily distinguish between designed things and natural things. Clocks, radios, furniture, houses - they were all designed things. Plants, animals, insects - they were all natural things.

Isn't it strange that what is so obvious to a child becomes non-obvious to people who grow up to be theists?


Christianity claims the moral high ground it its rhetoric. It has long since abandoned the moral high ground in its practices

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 11:28 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019