Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


(1)
Message 376 of 638 (736726)
09-12-2014 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2014 12:38 PM


Re: Answer Pt. 2 : Design And Evolution
My mistake. I apologise. Your reference to dialog did not bring to mind that post. Your mention of Alice did not trigger a memory of that post. Your reference to dialog did bring to mind the quotes which some members have that automatically follow their comments and I did not see such quotes on your post. I mistakenly inferred sarcasm with an Alice in Wonderland reference and reacted based on a triggered emotional response. The remainder of your post (as construed) and the entirety of your post (as properly construed) was civil and courteously expressed.
Again, I apologize

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2014 12:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2014 2:39 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 377 of 638 (736728)
09-12-2014 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by taiji2
09-12-2014 5:51 AM


Re: Welcome
If, therefore, the scientific community has not addressed, studied, and developed supportable theory about ideas, the scope of study required to form any conclusions in the ID debate is flawed.
Ergo, ID is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 5:51 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 378 of 638 (736729)
09-12-2014 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2014 10:24 AM


Re: Answer Pt. 1: Ideas
quote:
quote:
My opening questions were to get answers from science on the nature of ideas. Given that ideas have no form or mass and leave no footprint (in the materialist sense), does science consider ideas real.
Well yes, for the same reason that Alice does in my dialog.
My take was that Alice observed ideas therefore they are real. My take was that Alice does not speculate the nature of ideas but takes them as a given in nature. If this is correct, and does not conflict with a scientific view, then I asked a question and you answered.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2014 10:24 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 379 of 638 (736733)
09-12-2014 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by taiji2
09-12-2014 1:47 PM


Re: Answer Pt. 2 : Design And Evolution
My mistake. I apologise. Your reference to dialog did not bring to mind that post. Your mention of Alice did not trigger a memory of that post. Your reference to dialog did bring to mind the quotes which some members have that automatically follow their comments and I did not see such quotes on your post. I mistakenly inferred sarcasm with an Alice in Wonderland reference and reacted based on a triggered emotional response. The remainder of your post (as construed) and the entirety of your post (as properly construed) was civil and courteously expressed.
Again, I apologize
We're good, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 1:47 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 380 of 638 (736736)
09-12-2014 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2014 10:24 AM


Re: Answer Pt. 1: Ideas
taiji2 writes:
I am speaking objective study. I am not speaking of subjective study such as psychology.
Dr. Absolute writes:
I'm not sure why you dismiss psychology as "subjective". How do you feel about neuroscience?
I dismiss psychology as subjective because it deals with the interpretation of ideas and their effect on the patient which I do not find relevant in the argument for ID. If I have a misconception as to what psychology is, I apologize - my understanding of the field is limited to a lay perspective.
Dr. Absolute writes:
If these are not objective studies of ideas, what would one look like if we had one? Is it actually your opinion that a true, "objective" science of ideas would require us to be able to weigh ideas, pour them into test tubes, see what color they are? If not, what are you after?
Physics for instance is the study of matter and its motion through time space along with related concepts such as energy and force (wiki). My lay understanding is that physicists seek to understand everything about matter within that purview.
But I am not aguing a separate branch of science by any means. A small group of scientists that study ideas as a real phenomena in nature would do. Not the psychological, sociological, etc. effect of ideas... we already have those.
I cannot suggest what are the propositions that would be considered by that group or what theories might be derived (I would leave that for greater minds). I cannot argue that such a science is possible. I cannot argue that pursuing such a science has any logical purpose. What I can argue is that within the context of a discussion of ID, things would be much more clear if a science existed within which to argue the validity of an Original Design Idea. I can argue that if science has not made an effort to study ideas as a real phenomena then science such as evolution should not be very comfortable that their theories are falsifiable. Perhaps given this logic, the correct place to put the study of ideas would be within the science of evolution (as a precept for falsifiability).
The bottom line is that a discussion of ID is a discussion of the possibility of an original idea or design if you will. How can such a discussion be declared closed if a science of ideas is possible but not pursued. Prove with science that ideas are real, but that an original idea is not and you have your final conclusion. And, quite frankly, until scientists themselves do this, they will never put the matter to bed.
I don't mind being perfectly clear where I am coming from. I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in any of the Abrahimic dogma. I was raised a Baptist, but discarded that notion early in life. I have dabbled with the eastern religions and have settled on the Taoist cosmology as the one which most closely fits my acceptable worldview: in a nutshell... an Original Self Awareness (with ideas if you will) creating from Wu Chi (nothingness) the Tai Chi (duality) and from the Tai Chi all things. Nothing is said about the mechanisms for doing thus.
Core Taoism really doesn't have a dogma (temple Taoism does, but that is not what I read). Their cosmological view is simple and very non-restrictive. Evolution fits nicely within it, if you can get used to the idea that there is a primordial intelligence and that it had some agency in bringing something forth out of nothing.
I hope this helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2014 10:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2014 4:33 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 474 by Larni, posted 09-15-2014 11:42 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 381 of 638 (736737)
09-12-2014 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2014 10:24 AM


Re: Answer Pt. 1: Ideas
Dr. Absolute writes:
That's a long way to get to a rather forced conclusion. After all, if that line of reasoning worked, well, the theory of gravity is an idea. Quantum electrodynamics is an idea. The laws of thermodynamics ... ideas. The germ theory of disease? An idea. Pythagoras' theorem? Idea. And so on. So if your reasoning worked, you could say of pretty much anything: "If, therefore, the scientific community has not addressed, studied, and developed supportable theory about ideas, the scope of study required to form any conclusions about [fill it the blank] is flawed." You have come up with an argument which, if correct, would stop scientists from sciencing altogether, when all you were aiming at was stopping them from talking about ID. Which is excessive, firstly because we need them to do science and secondly because they hardly ever do talk about ID.
(As a minor point, wouldn't your argument also apply to the proponents of ID as well as its critics? I don't see them with an "objective" theory of ideas, whatever that is. "If, therefore, the ID community has not addressed, studied, and developed supportable theory about ideas, the scope of study required to form any conclusions in the ID debate is flawed.")
However, your argument is not a good one and does not prove that everyone is wrong about everything. For one thing, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. By your argument, any discussion, by scientists, of the theory of gravity (an idea) would have to be fatally flawed. So how do they get those communications satellites to stay up? Their discussion of the germ theory of disease, likewise flawed ... but they abolished smallpox. All without this objective theory of ideas of which you speak.
Or perhaps they have one after all. For there is one sense in which all science is nothing but the study of ideas. It is the study of whether ideas about the natural world are good or bad. It largely ignores what one might call the ontology of ideas, but it is almost nothing but the study of their quality, and it does so with what in human affairs is the acme of objectivity. I would therefore suggest that so long as scientists confine themselves to saying whether this idea of design is a good or a bad one, they're on safe ground.
Does my previous narrative suffice, or is there anything here I need to cover?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2014 10:24 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 382 of 638 (736738)
09-12-2014 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2014 10:36 AM


Re: Answer Pt. 2 : Design And Evolution
taiji2 writes:
My challenge to you is to show me anything in nature that doesn't reek of sophisticated design.
Dr. Absolute writes:
Sure. A lemon tree. An owl. A moth. A nudibranch.
Now you may say that these "reek of sophisticated design"; but I can answer that they actually reek of evolution, and then where are we? Such conclusory assertions can't be used to support design or evolution.
And I would argue you are right and so am I. My model sees evolution within ID. No conflicts there. If we are going to run up on disagreements, it will be at the spark of life moment. The original cell. My proposition is that this was a complex cell front loaded for evolutionary potential, the product of Intelligent Design. I believe this proposition falsifiable within DNA research.
taiji2 writes:
I ask you to give me acceptable mathmatics of chance to support the notion that the huge jumps in complexity occured within random selection due to chance mutation.
Dr. Absolute writes:
No-one has the notion that "huge jumps in complexity occurred", so it is unnecessary to support this notion.
ok, take out the word huge and try again. Where I am going with this is that if junk DNA turns out to have elements of future potential (never previously used DNA) that are ready and available when a niche opportunity arises, there would be no need for chance mutation due to viruses for instance to occur simultaneous to the niche situation for evolution to occur. The time-line for evolution should prove shorter than chance mutation would require. Observation of chance mutation frequency and the application of the mathmatics of chance might be able to prove or disprove this proposition.
taiji2 writes:
One further question. Has anyone discussed the possibility that "junk" DNA might represent unused potential (can be switched on in the future) as well as true junk (has been switched off in the past)?
Dr. Absolute writes:
People have had similar ideas. But there is a rather fatal objection to them. These genes for the future would be subject to mutation, corrupting the data, but not to purifying selection kicking such corruptions out of the gene pool. Such genes would therefore be strafed into nonsense by mutation before the lineage got around to using them.
I disagree with the notion of a fatal objection. Viral mutations might interfere with original design as a possibility, even a probability.... but as the exception, not the rule. The notion that genes would be strafed into nonsense needs some data or premise to support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2014 10:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2014 5:06 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 383 of 638 (736739)
09-12-2014 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Coyote
09-12-2014 11:03 AM


Re: Welcome
taiji2 writes:
My challenge to you is to show me anything in nature that doesn't reek of sophisticated design.
Coyote writes:
The human knee.
I presume this was a joke. It made me smile. If not, I strongly disagree. We are down to opinions I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Coyote, posted 09-12-2014 11:03 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Taq, posted 09-12-2014 5:14 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 402 by Coyote, posted 09-12-2014 9:27 PM taiji2 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 384 of 638 (736741)
09-12-2014 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by taiji2
09-12-2014 3:42 PM


Re: Answer Pt. 1: Ideas
I dismiss psychology as subjective because it deals with the interpretation of ideas and their effect on the patient which I do not find relevant in the argument for ID. If I have a misconception as to what psychology is, I apologize - my understanding of the field is limited to a lay perspective.
I think you may be confusing psychology with psychoanalysis.
What I can argue is that within the context of a discussion of ID, things would be much more clear if a science existed within which to argue the validity of an Original Design Idea. I can argue that if science has not made an effort to study ideas as a real phenomena then science such as evolution should not be very comfortable that their theories are falsifiable.
Suppose someone criticizes the theory of gravity by saying "No, actually it's love that makes the planets go round". People reply by pointing out that the theory of gravity works just fine, is supported by observation, and that his "love" hypothesis needs some work, like any sort of real substance or predictive power.
"Aha!" he replies. "Exactly! My hypothesis has massive holes in it. For one thing, we don't have an objective science of love as a real phenomenon in nature. Until we have that, how can you dismiss my hypothesis? How can you be comfortable that your ideas are falsifiable? How can such a discussion be declared closed if a science of love is possible but not pursued?"
At this juncture we might point out that the holes in his hypothesis are not a problem for our theory, and then maybe throw things at him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 3:42 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 5:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 385 of 638 (736742)
09-12-2014 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Tanypteryx
09-12-2014 11:58 AM


Re: Welcome
taiji2 writes:
My challenge to you is to show me anything in nature that doesn't reek of sophisticated design.
Tanypteryx writes:
Hemorrhoids
If they can't be viewed as damaged good design (like a bent muffler on a car?), then they should indeed be viewed as reeking of sophisticated design. Purpose of design: maximum discomfort and aggravation perhaps?
Tanypteryx writes:
Excretory system combined with sexual system
Not my place to argue why the architect put the sewer so close to the playground.
That's two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-12-2014 11:58 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Tangle, posted 09-12-2014 5:04 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 389 by Taq, posted 09-12-2014 5:15 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 390 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2014 5:18 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 395 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-12-2014 5:52 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 386 of 638 (736744)
09-12-2014 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by taiji2
09-12-2014 4:33 PM


Re: Welcome
taietc writes:
That's two.
How many do you need?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 4:33 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 5:31 PM Tangle has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 387 of 638 (736745)
09-12-2014 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by taiji2
09-12-2014 4:13 PM


Re: Answer Pt 2 : Design And Evolution
The notion that genes would be strafed into nonsense needs some data or premise to support.
Well, we can measure, or at least provide good estimates of, the mutation rates of various organisms. These mutations would by hypothesis by neutral, since they would be affecting genes that weren't being used yet. Now, there is a beautiful piece of math that proves that the rate of fixation of neutral mutations in a gene pool is equal to the rate of incidence of neutral mutations in the individual. So if you take the mutation rate per base pair per generation (let's say 10-10, which is the smallest figure I can find with a quick look round the internet, and take some suitable conservative guess such as a billion generations since the origin of life, well, we get 1-(1-10-10)1,000,000,000 = ~10% chance that any given base pair would be damaged.
(And note that I've chosen those figures to favor you: you don't get mutation rates that low except in bacteria, which have a shorter generation time.)
The average gene size is ~3000 bases, so on that basis we would expect 300 random changes per gene, when even one can be fatal to the operation of a gene. So it's extremely unlikely that one of these genes-in-waiting would work when it finally gets switched on.
This is all very back-of-the-envelope, but since I've chosen my figures so as to favor your hypothesis, I don't see how you could do any better for yourself with more rigor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 4:13 PM taiji2 has not replied

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


Message 388 of 638 (736747)
09-12-2014 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by taiji2
09-12-2014 4:21 PM


Re: Welcome
We are down to opinions I think.
It started with your opinion that there is sophisticated design.
I think it is much more fruitful to look at the objective morphological and genetic data to see if the pattern of shared and derived features matches what we would expect to see from design and evolution. What do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 4:21 PM taiji2 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 389 of 638 (736748)
09-12-2014 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by taiji2
09-12-2014 4:33 PM


Re: Welcome
Not my place to argue why the architect put the sewer so close to the playground.
You can't ask someone to point to bad design, and then produce an excuse of why no one is allowed to judge designs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 4:33 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 6:16 PM Taq has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 390 of 638 (736749)
09-12-2014 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by taiji2
09-12-2014 4:33 PM


Re: Welcome
You said that everything "reeks" of "sophisticated design". Your position now seems to be that you can imagine that anything might be designed, even if you can't for the life of you think why a sophisticated designer would have done it, which is "not your place to argue". This hardly supports your original claim. Indeed, it renders it utterly unfalsifiable. We could point to anything, a fish that only swims backwards, a monkey with no sense of balance, an armadillo that explodes when it hears loud noises, or whatever --- anything, no matter how laughably inept and stupid --- and you could say "Oh, well, it's not my place to argue why the designer, in his infinite wisdom, chose to do that."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 4:33 PM taiji2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Taq, posted 09-12-2014 5:31 PM Dr Adequate 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