|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence to expect given a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In none of these cases is anyone looking for some vague and nebulous "specificity". They are looking for evidence to support or deny a particular hypothesis and have a good idea of exactly what they are looking for. You might as well say that the scientists searching for the Higgs boson are looking for specificity, since they are looking for a predicted pattern in the data that will indicate that the Higgs boson is present. Likewise medical trials are looking for patterns that indicate that the treatment is successful - or for the absence of such patterns. So really "specificity" tells us nothing about looking for intelligence or design in particular. Any well-designed experiment or investigation that sets out to test a hypothesis will be looking for some specific "specificity". So, no, it is not "specificity" that is a sign of intelligence or design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
As I pointed out in Message 30 scientists don't use your "specificity" criterion. To be honest, even William Dembski would reject it, since he requires massive improbability in addition to a specification.
quote: But unguided processes and laws allow us to make predictions about the behaviour, which constitute specificity by your own definition. So there IS no distinction. The Gian't Causeway has a specification. The spectral lines of Sodium have a specification. They are produced by natural unguided processes. And one of the things expected of the natural unguided process of evolution is function. If you accept even the possibility that evolution can work, you have to accept that functional systems might be the result of evolution. So how can the existence of such systems be seen as a reason to reject evolution and accept design without begging the question ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Let us note that the argument is that there are SOME good designs in nature. (Which is true, but not that surprising given evolution).
It is asserted that a designer could explain these, which is also true, but it is speculation to say that a designer DID do it. And the induction bites back - we can equally well say that all known complex designs are the creation of humans (there are a few exceptions which I won't go into yet, except to say that they don't help Mikey's argument at all) It is asserted - without evidence - that the "good" designs require forethought not available to evolution. Indeed, nobody has found a definite example of this at all, which is rather surprising if there really were an intelligent designer operating. Evidence for the power of evolution-like mechanisms and for evolution is ignored. So is the fact that we have no candidate designer, nor any reason to think that a designer WOULD create those specific designs. In fact if there is a designer it seems that he operates almost exclusively by modifying existing designs. Even to the point of modifying land animals to an exclusively maritime life - more than once! This is exactly what we would expect if evolution is true, but is harder to explain on the assumption of a designer. Human designers go back to start from scratch often enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Of course that isn't true. Spectral line are produced by any excited atom. The signal of a pulsar is produced with no intelligence. Specificity in your sense is everywhere, produced by unintelligent sources and even the ID movement recognises this.
quote: Oh, some good old fashioned Creationist dishonesty. The big problem with this argument is that there is no measure of information associated with it, and therefore no way to investigate the claim at all. "There are no mutations that match our secret criteria" is not an argument - it is a deliberately vague assertion. In reality, the process of duplication and diversity increases the information in the genome by any reasonable measure, and we know that that happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I fail to see how the regular pulsed signal of a pulsar could be seen as anything other than specific. Both are specified in that they fit a pattern that can be predetermined.
quote: It's very simple. There is no way to take a single mutation or even a small series of mutations and work out if they qualifiy or not. And the only way to test the claim is to look at a single mutation, or a relatively small series of mutations and work out if they qualify or not.
quote: And now you are ignoring the fact that I referred to duplication and diversification and stated that it is an increase in information by any reasonable measure. If adding a new useful gene to the genome - even one similar to an existing gene doesn't qualify as an increase in information, what does ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I am afraid that is exactly what it is. I'm afraid you are just another creationist who doesn't understand his own argument.
quote: Actually they would note that the light produced fall into very narrow bands of frequencies rather than being spread across the spectrum. Specificity ! And you can take more atoms of the same element and get exactly the same pattern ! (IIRC spectral lines are also predictable from theory).
quote: And you will note that in both these cases it is not the vague concept of "specificity" that does the work.
quote: Typical creationist amorality. When caught being dishonest, start slandering the opposition. No, the fact that your test is worthless does NOT make all the observations in biology that support common descent miraculously vanish. Taxonomy, biogeography, fossils, genetics all continue to exist.
quote: In the same way that Wegener couldn't infer continental drift without a mechanism ? And before you go overboard on that comparison don't forget that Wegener's view was impossible given the then-current view of the structure of the Earth. Evolution is far from impossible - the fact that your test is rigged and worthless shows that you don't even have a valid objection to it! Think about it. If you can't identify which mutations fit your criteria then we can't know we've observed them even if they happen! Thus failing to "observe" them happening is simply a result of the fact that YOU failed to set up a valid test. So that's no objection to evolution. And worse still for you, it means that to the best of our knowledge there is nothing special about these mutations - and if there is nothing special about them then it isn't even valid to single them out as "adding information" - let alone think that there is some reason that they can't happen. Now given that we do know of processes which DO add information to the genome the whole "information argument" is really just blowing hot air.
quote: Really ? Does it contain more specificity than a salt crystal ? The cubic shape is a very good specification. DNA, on the other hand is not very specific at all. Large amounts of DNA may be changed freely with absolutely no effect. Other areas are relatively insensitive to change. Even for the very limited regions where the sequence is critical there are usually some changes which can be made. And that's just considering the mutations which don't have any significant effect ! If the specification is function, you need to throw in all the other ways of achieving the function, too. So obviously DNA is not that highly specified.
quote:The blood clotting system is an example. And here's an example where a protein from blood clotting has been duplicated and adapted to use in a venom Molecular evolution caught in action
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: It is according to your original definition, and according to Dembski, too. Looking at your examples:
quote: 1 is a better example of a specified pattern, because you don't need to understand English to recognise it.
quote: Since it's your idea of "information" that you refuse to explain that doesn't help. If you are going to rule out any examples on the grounds that they don't meet a criterion you won't explain there really isn't any point in me trying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Wrong. Here's your own definition:
Specificity can be defined like this: A distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose. Any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first In fact the bolded part - the part you want to ignore - is a BETTER definition of specificity than the part you are using. The word "specificity" is derived from "specific" an "specification". Anything with a specification must be specific - and a pattern is a very good specification. Moreover your repeating ABCABABCABC example is MUCH more specific than DNA because it is tightly controlled by a specification. Change any element of the sequence and the pattern is broken. Most bases of the genome can be changed without affecting anything 9including function). So if all we are considering is specificity, DNA is not very specific at all. So please stop using a horribly mangled version of Dembski's argument and abusing terminology. If you want to talk about something better labelled "functionality" - even given YOUR definition of "specificity" then do that. Not that it will help you..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I guess that you didn't notice that I quoted YOUR definition. Moreover the English language is not your exclusive domain. You can at least use it sensibly instead of inventing your own definitions for already existing words. Especially if you are going to change definitions mid-argument.
quote: No, I mean that Dembski is a not very nice guy with some crappy arguments - that are still better than yours. Dembski's arguemnts could at least work in principle. It's just not practical to use them in anything but very simple cases. Though I guess that you both misrepresent the work of others.
quote: OK, I'll help you. Here are some basic facts to start with. Specification is not the same as meaning. Nor is it the same as complexity. Nor is it the same as reacting to circumstances. Nor is human assessment limited to simply looking out the sounds without considering relevant information about the producers of the sound. Got all of those ? Simple repeated patterns are highly specific, but they are not complex, not necessarily meaningful and can be easily produced by unintelligent sources. That's why specificity is a very bad measure of intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You guys always have to resort to arrogant bullying to try to cover over your mistakes.
quote:Let's look at that definition, then.
2. Disposed or intended in a specified manner. Often used in combination: a well-meaning fellow; ill-meaning intentions
Is this really a meaning that can be applied to functional systems in living beings? I think not. And is it really identical to the meaning of "specificity". Let's look at that.
Noun 1. specificity - the quality of being specific rather than general; "add a desirable note of specificity to the discussion"; "the specificity of the symptoms of the disease" particularity, specialness - the quality of being particular and pertaining to a specific case or instance; "the particularity of human situations" 2. specificity - the quality of being specific to a particular organism; "host specificity of a parasite" particularity, specialness - the quality of being particular and pertaining to a specific case or instance; "the particularity of human situations" It seems pretty clear that something can specifity without having meaning. Which would mean that I was right. The rest of your post is just more of your arrogant bullying and slander. The fact that actually following my logic would require you to look up the meaning of specificity managed to completely escape you, as did the context of the usage of meaning that you chose to focus on. Or even the fact that showing that meaning could also be specificity is hopelessly inadequate to disproving the statement that you said that you were looking at. When will you guys learn? Trying to bully people into accepting your grossly inflated opinions of yourselves just doesn't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: That's a non-sequitur. There's no contradiction at all. Unless you are claiming that all organisms are designed from scratch to be exactly as they are now, which would be a rather silly claim. Why would design by incremental change not produce something "designed to do what it does NOW" ?
quote: Small changes add up.
quote: In fact I am not making that claim. What I AM claiming is that all modern species resemble earlier species. Consider the transitional sequences we have, despite the limits of the fossil record.
quote: Since all you have is a weak inductive argument - and a lot of dubious assumptions - then I guess that we can just dismiss your argument. It's nowhere near comparable to the evidence for evolution.
quote: But we also know that evolution-like methods can achieve better designs than humans in some applications. That's a known fact.
quote: But Mikey, it's only your assumption that evolution can't achieve great results. Putting your assumption into an analogy doesn't make it any better. It's still a dodgy assumption.
quote: Mikey you're using Gitt's argument, but by Gitt's standard DNA doesn't have any semantics. The mechanical processes of reproduction and development can completely interpret DNA - but Gitt says that mechanical processes can't deal with semantics. And the genome seems to be a bit of a mess, really, with a lot of DNA that carries no real information. And yes it is an induction of SOME good designs. Because as you know there are plenty of bad designs - and bad designs which only make sense as modification of previously existing designs.
quote: It shows that your induction has a problem. Your dataset is very limited and your conclusions are unsafe.
quote: Actually you CAN admit that they exist. In fact if you want to be honest you SHOULD admit that they exist, that it is not a simple case of loads of good designs and none that you think could be due to evolution. The mere fact that you have an apologetic that supposedly explains them away is not reason enough to ignore them. (Although the idea that Adam and Eve were quadrupeds seems a bit bizarre to me - do you really believe that human bipedalism is a "degeneration" due to the Fall ? If not then why is human anatomy a modified quadruped anatomy, with some attendant problems ?)
quote: Then it is rather counter-productive to dismiss better arguments out of hand.
quote: You mean that actual examples of evolution-like mechanisms producing complex designs don't count ? Why not ? Surely that's better than a dodgy analogy that begs the question ? Mikey, I concede that by desperate rationalisation and wilful ignorance you can keep to your beliefs. I just don't think that that any belief that requires such drastic steps is worth keeping.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You mean this is where you resort to false accusations because your argument fails. We know that the conclusions of scientists researching dolphin communication and archaeologists do not rely on your notion of specificity. Their inferences use other information which we do not have in the case of life (for instance both start with the existence of an intelligent agent, instead of concluding that one exists without other evidence)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
A notable feature of victims of the apologetic mentality is a tendency to invent their own "facts"
quote: How many of these people are microbiologists? I know for a fact that Behe is a biochemist, Dembski isn't any sort of biologist, Gonzalez is an astronomer, Snoke is a mathematician, Berlinski has no biological qualifications either, Meyer is a philosopher and Sewell is another mathematician.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That's YOUR big comeback? You THINK that there are SOME microbiologists in your list of microbiologists? You spattered off a list of ID supporters - they aren't all scientists despite your assertion above - and tried to pass it off as a list of microbiologists? Thanks for making my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The fact that you can't cite any of Berlinski's qualifications in biology supports my claim that he doesn't have any. Working as a research assistant is not a qualification.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024