Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
 4 online now: Newest Member: Neptune7 Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Intelligent Design

# Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

Author Topic:   Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?
ringo
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

 (3)
 Message 31 of 507 (899358) 10-12-2022 3:39 PM Reply to: Message 29 by WookieeB10-11-2022 11:13 PM

Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
Vague doesn't mean circular,
Vague to vague to vague is circular.
WookieeB writes:
There was no demand for additional rigor in an answer based on the question.
So stop weaseling and be rigorous NOW. Define "design" and "purpose" with all the rigor that you can muster.
WookieeB writes:
You asked for definitions. I gave you definitions. You dont like mine? Fine.
I don't like your copypasta either. If you want to promote Intelligent Design, you need to show that you understand the definitions. You have given no such indication. What you have done is the typical IDist weaseling.
WookieeB writes:
ringo writes:
How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?
Observe; gather data; analyze the item/event. Estimate the relative likelyhood (probability) of the particular arrangement AND identify if it corresponds to some independent pattern.
How do you do that? Probability is math. Show us your calculations.
WookieeB writes:
If both the probability is low and there is a pattern detected, then we can infer purpose.
How do you determine the threshold of probability? I would suggest that any non-zero probability eliminates the need to postulate a designer.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."

 This message is a reply to: Message 29 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 11:13 PM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 32 by WookieeB, posted 10-25-2022 3:54 AM ringo has replied

WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019

 Message 32 of 507 (900207) 10-25-2022 3:54 AM Reply to: Message 31 by ringo10-12-2022 3:39 PM

Re: ID About to Fail?
Vague to vague to vague is circular.
You have a problem with definitions.
In no dictionary or thesaurus is vague connected to circular.
So stop weaseling and be rigorous NOW. Define "design" and "purpose" with all the rigor that you can muster.
Tsk, tsk. There is no obligation to explain more than is asked.
Design - purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
See there..."purpose" is used as part of the definition. So if you need to know what "purpose" is, look behind.
If you dont like that, then you have a problem with definitions. You want more variety, you can google the words yourself.
I don't like your copypasta either. If you want to promote Intelligent Design, you need to show that you understand the definitions. You have given no such indication.
My definitions for those words are sufficient. They apply equally to a discussion in ID as they do in any other discussion using those words. It is not my problem that....
You have a problem with definitions.
How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?
Observe; gather data; analyze the item/event. Estimate the relative likelyhood (probability) of the particular arrangement AND identify if it corresponds to some independent pattern.
How do you do that? Probability is math. Show us your calculations.
Some cases give you a good level of precision to probability. Other things you may not be able to be so precise, but you can usually provide a conservative rough estimate . And more often than not, you are dealing with multiple probabilities that coincide and depend on each other and when considered all (or most) of them together, they will usually push probabilities beyond a reasonable chance.
For instance, in your inquiry, I actually would infer that both A and B are purposeful. From your first question, you are referring to A and B as items where we do not know their origin. So they could be either there by undirected (not design) or directed (design) menthods.
First the precision probabilities. "A" and "B" both correspond to an independent pattern distinct from the question - that pattern being the English alphabet. They are also both the first and second characters of the alphabet, both showing as uppercase letters, and they are displayed per a possible search space of the UTF-8 (1 byte only which handles all the ASCII characters) encoding on the EvC forums. So these are 2x very specific entries from a 128 character list, which would be a probability of 1 in (128^2), which works out to 6.10 x 10^-5. (Based upon the rules, I could have defaulted to all of the UTF-8 available codepoints, which is what the website is encoded with, and allows 1,112,064 'valid' character codes (and feasibly up to over 2 million if allowing for the invalid codes).
That is probably the only hard numbers that can be identified, but all the other probabilities would be prohibitively low.
What could cause a random keyboard stroke? Perhaps an odd power surge, or maybe a cat walking across the keyboard, or debris falling from a fragile ceiling, or ...? I doubt there are any stats on cat-keyboard walkers or frequency of ceilings dropping debris but I would bet they are very low.
I thought there might be stats on the frequency of power surges in the USA, but I could not find much of anything. Someone had a throw away line that some in some ‘rare’ cases people get a surge a dozen or so times a day. For those special cases, that would work out to 1 surge every 1389 seconds. Of course, that would have to coincide precisely at the point in your message where you would be typing and left a moment for a random “A” or “B” Again, that would be about a probability of 2.3 x 10^5.
For this possible route, combining everything so far, we are pushing the ‘one chance in a trillion and still haven't considered a host of other factors (would a power surge actually cause a keystroke? Power surges are shorter than a second? Likelihood it just happened to occur in the proximity of the typing of a post (a wholly design event) that just so happened to have a contextually open hole, and many more.
So while exploring for numbers to plug into some of these questions is fun (and tedious), it is really not necessary. Common sense much more likely points to them being purposeful entries.
Ya, so “A” and “B” are both purposeful.

 This message is a reply to: Message 31 by ringo, posted 10-12-2022 3:39 PM ringo has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 33 by ringo, posted 10-25-2022 1:04 PM WookieeB has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

 Message 33 of 507 (900243) 10-25-2022 1:04 PM Reply to: Message 32 by WookieeB10-25-2022 3:54 AM

Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
There is no obligation to explain more than is asked.
I asked you to to be rigorous: "Define "design" and "purpose" with all the rigor that you can muster."
WookieeB writes:
Design - purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

See there..."purpose" is used as part of the definition. So if you need to know what "purpose" is, look behind.
And you think that isn't circular?
WookieeB writes:
If you dont like that, then you have a problem with definitions.
I have a problem with schoolboy definitions. I asked you for rigor but apparently you don't have any.
WookieeB writes:
You want more variety, you can google the words yourself.
Of course I can - but I'm trying to determine what YOU know.
WookieeB writes:
My definitions for those words are sufficient.
Not even close. If you're trying to overturn all of science and replace it with voodoo, you need to convince US that you know something.
WookieeB writes:
"A" and "B" both correspond to an independent pattern distinct from the question - that pattern being the English alphabet. They are also both the first and second characters of the alphabet, both showing as uppercase letters, and they are displayed per a possible search space of the UTF-8 (1 byte only which handles all the ASCII characters) encoding on the EvC forums. So these are 2x very specific entries from a 128 character list, which would be a probability of 1 in (128^2), which works out to 6.10 x 10^-5. (Based upon the rules, I could have defaulted to all of the UTF-8 available codepoints, which is what the website is encoded with, and allows 1,112,064 'valid' character codes (and feasibly up to over 2 million if allowing for the invalid codes).
I asked, "How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?" What does your calculation tell us about purpose?
WookieeB writes:
So while exploring for numbers to plug into some of these questions is fun (and tedious), it is really not necessary. Common sense much more likely points to them being purposeful entries.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. If you talk about probabilities, you need to provide numbers. Solid numbers.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."

 This message is a reply to: Message 32 by WookieeB, posted 10-25-2022 3:54 AM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 34 by WookieeB, posted 10-25-2022 8:48 PM ringo has replied

WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019

 Message 34 of 507 (900261) 10-25-2022 8:48 PM Reply to: Message 33 by ringo10-25-2022 1:04 PM

Re: ID About to Fail?
ringo writes:
I asked you to to be rigorous: "Define "design" and "purpose" with all the rigor that you can muster."
DESIGN
dictionary.com definition
Webster definition
Cambridge dictionary definition
Longman dictionary definition
Here are a number of other synonyms for "Design" that could be used in most contexts:
architecture, arrangement, composition, construction, drawing, form, idea, layout, map, method, model, pattern, picture, plan, scheme, study, blueprint, chart, comp, conception, constitution, delineation, depiction, diagram, doodle, dummy, formation, makeup, outline, paste-up, perspective, tracery, tracing, treatment
PURPOSE
dictionary.com definition
Webster definition
Cambridge dictionary definition
Longman dictionary definition
Synonyms for "Purpose":
ambition, aspiration, desire, determination, direction, function, goal, idea, intent, objective, plan, principle, project, reason, scheme, scope, target, view, wish, animus, design, destination, end, expectation, hope, mission, object, point, premeditation, proposal, proposition, prospect, resolve, will, big idea, intendment, ulterior motive, whatfor, where one's headed, whole idea, why and wherefore, whyfor
Enough rigor?
And you think that isn't circular?
Define circular.
Not even close. If you're trying to overturn all of science and replace it with voodoo, you need to convince US that you know something.
I never said I was trying to overturn science. You asked for a definition - that's all. I gave you many definitions, that's all. You didn't like my definitions, so I gave you more. Now at this point, if you still don't like it, you are either lazy, too stupid to understand basic language, or are incapable of being clear in your requests.
I asked, "How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?" What does your calculation tell us about purpose?
You don't seem to be paying attention. I think someone should wave a hand over your head.
"A" and "B" seem to be purposeful. Both 'terms' correspond to multiple patterns independent of any mechanistic process that causes characters to appear on the screen in this forum. Some of those patterns would be the English alphabet and the idioms of language.
Now, how likely are "A" and "B" going to appear in the environment that they did totally by a random, undirected, purposeless, not-designed method? Not very likely at all. For one, we don't normally see such events occurring, so that is going to make it unlikely. Can I put a specific number on that? No. But since I visit many online forums of many different subjects pretty much every day in some fashion, and I have never heard anyone complain of purposeless characters/terms popping up in their postings, though it might be possible, it strikes me as extremely unlikely that it happens. But if I had to come up with a number, I guess I could go do a character count on all the postings of all the forums that I have ever been on in the last year, calculate a probability of maybe a couple events in the space of a hundred million range (minimum 350.000 characters daily). And that is just the likely hood of it happening somewhere (though not important where) in the last year.
In the case of your "A" and "B", we are talking about a more directed and meaningful location. I already broke down some of the probabilities (being as conservative as I could in the space of possibilities) and already was hitting probabilities in the 1 in 10^15 range, and we had barely scratched the surface. So, for a purposeless chance of something at minimum 1 in a couple trillion (and not even adding in the above paragraph), AND considering you referenced the possible-purposeless-entry at least 3 times without blinking (further indicating it actually was a purposeful entry), it meets the criteria to be 1)unlikely, and 2) matching an independent patter. That is 'how I, specifically, would decide that A and B are purposeful'.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. If you talk about probabilities, you need to provide numbers. Solid numbers.
But you don't, not always.
If you are willing, describe or name 5 things that are in the room where you are reading this post

 This message is a reply to: Message 33 by ringo, posted 10-25-2022 1:04 PM ringo has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 35 by dwise1, posted 10-26-2022 12:22 AM WookieeB has replied Message 36 by ringo, posted 10-26-2022 4:49 PM WookieeB has replied Message 38 by Taq, posted 10-26-2022 5:26 PM WookieeB has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5967
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2

 Message 35 of 507 (900267) 10-26-2022 12:22 AM Reply to: Message 34 by WookieeB10-25-2022 8:48 PM

Re: ID About to Fail?
ringo writes:
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. If you talk about probabilities, you need to provide numbers. Solid numbers.
But you don't, not always.
Numbers, not so much:
quote:
"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics."
I included that last to make a point. Statistics are data points, raw data devoid of meaning. Statistical analysis gives those data points meaning. Throw up big numbers and it sounds impressive and convincing, but provide some kind of context or analysis to show what those big numbers actually mean and suddenly they're not so impressive.
A prime example of this is Kent Hovind's "solar mass loss" claim (link is to my page on that claim at the top of which I present that "statistics" quote). Sun is losing 5 million tons of mass per second for about 5 billion (109) years amounts to a truly astronomical total amount of solar mass lost. Hovind just waves his hands to present a scenario of the ancient sun being immensely larger and so massive that it would have "sucked the earth in". But his entire claim is refuted by simply comparing the total mass lost to the sun's current mass: a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's total mass so the ancient sun would have been no larger than now (though the sun is slowing increasing in size) and so marginally more massive as to "suck the earth in" by less than 60,000 miles (every year, the earth is 3 million miles closer to the sun in the dead of winter than at the height of summer in the Northern Hemisphere). Kent Hovind went through extreme measures to avoid discussing his claim and I've seen him in subsequent presentations forbidding his audience to do the math or to listen to anybody who has done the math.
NOTE: the following is not an accusation, but rather an argument for the vital importance of establishing one's math model when calculating probabilities.
The same thing is done in probability arguments in which the numbers don't mean a thing until a proper math model is presented. At the very least, a math model must describe as accurately as possible the physical system that it's trying to describe. In physics, that can be very easy, but biology is far more complicated, messy, and wet than physics (hence the talk of biology suffering from "physics envy" because biological systems are much more difficult to model (but try to explain that to Kleinman) ).
Many models of highly complex systems require certain simplifying assumptions, such as replacing complex physical events (eg, the rolling of a die) with stochastic functions (eg, the probability of rolling a certain number). In some cases, this can be examined through an analogy. ringo's multiple references to "weasling" in his Message 31 seemed to invoke the WEASEL programs. Your apparent setting up an argument around randomly generating the alphabet (sorry, you seemed to engage in more hand-waving than actually presenting a model) only supported that.
When I first read Chapter Three, "Accumulating Small Changes", of Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (1986) in which he reported on his first "WEASEL" program to generate a line of Shakespeare ("METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"), I simply could not believe it. So, using his description of his program (he didn't provide a program listing) as a software specification, I wrote my own in my working language at the time, Pascal (I think he had done it in BASIC, an interpretive and hence slower language, on a Mac, but Pascal was complied and hence faster). I called mine MONKEY after Eddington's infinite monkeys (though that had nothing to do with evolution, but rather with the thermodynamics problem of the probability of all the gas molecules in a container all randomly moving to just one side of the container). Dawkins had left his program running over lunch, whereas my compiled MONKEY would succeed in less than a minute (within 30 seconds typically), each time, every time, without fail. Not being able to believe even my own results, I set out to analyze the probabilities involved. What I found was that, while the probability of progressing towards the target string was both improbable and became increasingly improbable the closer it got to the target string, the probability of every single attempt failing consistently every single time (ie, never ever succeeded, not ever once) became so virtually impossible as to make generating the target string inevitable.
I posted my files, including the source code of my program and my analysis of the probabilities, on CompuServe in 1990. Every single month thereafter (until about six years later when CompuServe finally severed all support for me through its anti-ASCII "improvements"), it was being downloaded. I openly requested any and all critiques of it and the only valid critique was that my Markov chains were off by one. The invalid ones argued against having MONKEY having a target string or against it being a direct model of evolution, both of which I addressed in my original posting (which included directly quoting Dawkins on those issues).
Most of the creationist/ID (same thing) "refutations" of WEASEL involve non-existent "locking rings" that were supposed to locking any successful letter -- that nonsense was invented either by Sobel or Dumbski, but they clearly do not exist. In a former collection of WEASEL programs, mine was included and labeled as being the most faithful one to the original (of which we still have no source code as far as I know). My own MONKEY was based on my software specification which I wrote based on Dawkins' description of his program. Nowhere in Dawkins' description did any kind of "locking rings" ever appear and hence they were not part of my own software spec. For that matter, I have always freely provided my source code (first the original Pascal, but now also in C), so if anyone would want to claim that the consistent and inevitable success of my MONKEY depends on "locking rings", then I ask only that they point that out in my source code. And if anyone would want to falsely claim that the executable is from other source code, then all they have to do is to compile it themselves and run it themselves.

Explicitly, my MONKEY page contains links to download files. My mathematical analysis of the probabilities involved is at MONKEY PROBABILITIES (MPROBS), directly available for download through my MONKEY page (exact-same link as above, but skeptics may follow both).

OK, arriving at probabilities through the proper math models. So what are the proper math models? That is the question that Kleinman seems incapable of understanding.
So, I would assume that the "model" you were trying to build up to is producing the alphabet in alphabetical order, which is what my MONKEY does.
You led with dice rolling. That is inherently stateless, not stateful. Inherently, subsequent rolls know nothing about the rolls before them. That's why you need cookies on the World Wide Web. Each and every web page rendering is stateless; it has no knowledge of what went before. So how can you go to Amazon and fill your shopping cart and check it out in the end? Cookies (or some similar mechanism to remember what you had entered in previous pages). Cookies can be abused, which is why you're told to guard against them, but at the same time you need (or needed) them to do any business online.
Typically (at least I've never seen any exception to this rule) creationists try to saddle evolution with single-step selection models. That is where you try to make an entire complex system all fall together in one single step. That seems to also be the typical saltationist creationist model of speciation in which an entire new species suddenly appears ("a snake lays an egg and a bird hatches" according to one clueless creationist) replete with entirely new complex features -- complete and utter nonsense that only a stupid lying creationist could ever seriously consider.
We can calculate the probability of the entire alphabet spontaneously falling together in alphabetical order in one single step: 1.6244×10-37. I posited a supercomputer that would make a million attempts every second. In order to arrive at a million-in-one chance of success would take about 195 trillion years -- nearly 10,000 times longer than the universe's estimated age of 20 billion years!
Of course, that model only describes creation ex nihilo, not evolution nor natural processes. That is why your model absolutely requires an external Creator. But your limitations are not ours.
Cumulative selection is based on evolutionary processes and so models those processes far better. It is stateful, always starting from the last position you had reached. Walking cross country, you cannot reliably arrive from NYC to Denver in one single very long step, yet after a series of shorter steps that led you to the vicinity of Denver, another short step to Denver is not unreasonable.
Clearly, a math model that depends on single step selection will very reliably fail while a model the depends on cumulative selection would almost be guaranteed to succeed. Clearly.
What is the probability of the synthesis of amino acids? Inevitable. What is the probability that amino acids will form protein-like structures (AKA proteinoids)? Inevitable. What is the probability that a number of those proteinoids would have autocatalytic properties? Inevitable.

So if your probability math model is going from nothing but basic chemicals to a complete unicellular life form in one single step (AKA "single-step selection"), then you can forget it since that model is doomed to failure.
But if the model is any kind of step-wise development of naturally occurring precursors eventually leading to a self-replicating structure of some kind (which will eventually lead to that complete unicellular life form) will follow the probability models of cumulative selection which is known to succeed.
So just what is your model? And why?

 This message is a reply to: Message 34 by WookieeB, posted 10-25-2022 8:48 PM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 40 by WookieeB, posted 11-06-2022 1:32 AM dwise1 has not replied Message 41 by WookieeB, posted 11-06-2022 1:36 AM dwise1 has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

 (2)
 Message 36 of 507 (900324) 10-26-2022 4:49 PM Reply to: Message 34 by WookieeB10-25-2022 8:48 PM

Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
Here are a number of other synonyms for "Design"...
So dictionary definitions and synonyms are all the rigor you can muster?
WookieeB writes:
Enough rigor?
No.
When I was in elementary school, there was no Internet. Computers filled whole rooms and cost millions of dollars. The first calculator I ever saw, two years after high school, could add, subtract, multiply and divide and cost more than \$100.
We had encyclopedias. They were our basic research tool. But our teachers told us not to copy from the encyclopedia, to put it in our own words. That would demonstrate that we understood the topic.
So, when I ask you for a definition, I'm not asking you to copy/paste something that took you three seconds to copy off the Internet. I'm asking you to explain it in your own words, to demonstrate that you understand it.
WookieeB writes:
Define circular.
Circular is using "designed" to define "purposeful" and using 'purposeful" to define "designed".
WookieeB writes:
I never said I was trying to overturn science.
Intelligent design is trying to overturn science. Defending Intelligent Design is trying to overturn science.
WookieeB writes:
Now at this point, if you still don't like it, you are either lazy, too stupid to understand basic language, or are incapable of being clear in your requests.
I would say that YOU are the one who is too lazy to put any thought into what design and purpose are. If I have not been clear, go ahead and ask me questions.
WookieeB writes:
You don't seem to be paying attention. I think someone should wave a hand over your head.

"A" and "B" seem to be purposeful.
You're the one who doesn't seem to be paying attention. I said, "How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?"
I'm asking how you decide that one thing is purposeful and another is not. (A am NOT talking about the letters "A" and "B", by the way.)
WookieeB writes:
If you are willing, describe or name 5 things that are in the room where you are reading this post
I don't see the point, but just to demonstrate that I'm trying to discuss in good faith, I'm looking at:
1. A computer.
2. Shelves of books. (I'm in a library.)
3. Chairs.
4. A fire extinguisher.
5. A clock.
I'm guessing we'll agree that they all have purpose and they were all designed.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."

 This message is a reply to: Message 34 by WookieeB, posted 10-25-2022 8:48 PM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 42 by WookieeB, posted 11-06-2022 1:53 AM ringo has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7

 (2)
 Message 37 of 507 (900329) 10-26-2022 5:16 PM Reply to: Message 15 by WookieeB10-11-2022 3:46 AM

Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieB writes:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
That's a subjective opinion. There's really no science there.
A purposeful arrangement of parts.
Again, that's a subjective opinion, not science.
Then you haven't been paying attention. 1) If an undirected process could be shown to be able to produce the specified complexity (ie, functional arrangement of parts, specified information), then that would falsify ID's claims.
That would require an objective measure of specified complexity, which doesn't exist.
Lenski's experiment would probably be the best yet modern attempt, since it has run 75,000 generations or so (equating to what would be about 2 million years of human development), but even there nothing novel has appeared.
What is or isn't novel is based on subjective opinion, not science.

 This message is a reply to: Message 15 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 3:46 AM WookieeB has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7

 (2)
 Message 38 of 507 (900331) 10-26-2022 5:26 PM Reply to: Message 34 by WookieeB10-25-2022 8:48 PM

Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieB writes:
DESIGN
dictionary.com definition
Webster definition
Cambridge dictionary definition
Longman dictionary definition
Argument from definition is not science, nor is it an experiment.
I never said I was trying to overturn science. You asked for a definition - that's all. I gave you many definitions, that's all. You didn't like my definitions, so I gave you more. Now at this point, if you still don't like it, you are either lazy, too stupid to understand basic language, or are incapable of being clear in your requests.
What we need are falsifiable and objective criteria and measurements of design. All we are getting is subjective opinions about what looks designed, or just bare assertions that something is designed.
On the flip side, you won't see any of us claiming that evolution is scientific because life looks evolved. That's meaningless. Instead, we have specific measurements we can make, such as phylogenetic signal, sequence conservation, or mutation frequencies. We have statistical tests and null hypotheses.
From what I can see, the argument for design boils down to the subjective opinion "It looks designed to me". That's it.
In the case of your "A" and "B", we are talking about a more directed and meaningful location. I already broke down some of the probabilities (being as conservative as I could in the space of possibilities) and already was hitting probabilities in the 1 in 10^15 range, and we had barely scratched the surface. So, for a purposeless chance of something at minimum 1 in a couple trillion (and not even adding in the above paragraph), AND considering you referenced the possible-purposeless-entry at least 3 times without blinking (further indicating it actually was a purposeful entry), it meets the criteria to be 1)unlikely, and 2) matching an independent patter. That is 'how I, specifically, would decide that A and B are purposeful'.
Every person is born with about 50 mutations in a 6 billion base diploid genome. The chances of getting those specific 50 mutations is 1 in 6 billion to the 50th power, or 1 in 8x10^488, which is a really big number. Therefore, you would claim that every single mutation seen in the human population is designed because they chances of each and every person being born with those exact mutations is so improbable. In fact, you would claim every single random process is actually designed because every single random process will produce extremely improbable results.
This is the Sharpshooter fallacy.

 This message is a reply to: Message 34 by WookieeB, posted 10-25-2022 8:48 PM WookieeB has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7

 (1)
 Message 39 of 507 (900333) 10-26-2022 5:40 PM

Where's the Beef?
What I find most interesting is why ID proponents strive so hard to deny that anything novel developed in experiments like those carried out by Lenski. If ID is true, why shouldn't we see something novel emerge in these types of experiments?
According to many ID proponents (e.g. Behe himself), design can be the result of some sort of guidance by a designer in otherwise natural processes, such as the guidance of mutations. So why shouldn't we see these guided mutations occurring in these experiments? Why shouldn't we see the emergence of irreducible complexity in Lenski's experiment? Why is the expectation that we won't see design?
Let's use the example of the bacterial flagellum. Behe seems to think that this structure could have come about through unlikely mutations in a process that would look the same as what we consider random mutations. If this is the case then we should see the slow buildup of mutations and structures until we get the full bacterial flagellum. So why don't we see this?

WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019

 Message 40 of 507 (901211) 11-06-2022 1:32 AM Reply to: Message 35 by dwise110-26-2022 12:22 AM

Re: ID About to Fail?
Responding in two parts. First, response to your review of what I prior wrote.
Throw up big numbers and it sounds impressive and convincing, but provide some kind of context or analysis to show what those big numbers actually mean and suddenly they're not so impressive.

The same thing is done in probability arguments in which the numbers don't mean a thing until a proper math model is presented. At the very least, a math model must describe as accurately as possible the physical system that it's trying to describe.
Yet in my example, I provided enough that is necessary. I did provide some numbers, and context for a scenario of a purposeless “A” and “B”.
And yes, I know (from the beginning) that ringo didnt actually mean to investigate how the first two letters of the alphabet showed up in his post, nor would I really expect either of those entries to likely be “purposeless”. Nevertheless, he demanded rigor for a question that he was vague about. So I just turned his idiom into a more precise example and went with the design explanation there. In my explanation I included hard numbers, and numbers that were not precise but were generally accurate estimations, and when all put together they should clearly show why the ‘example’ would fall into a ‘designed’ category vs not-designed.
Your apparent setting up an argument around randomly generating the alphabet (sorry, you seemed to engage in more hand-waving than actually presenting a model) only supported that.
And exactly how did I engage in hand-waving?
When I first read Chapter Three, "Accumulating Small Changes", of Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (1986) in which he reported on his first "WEASEL" program to generate a line of Shakespeare ("METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"), I simply could not believe it. So, using his description of his program (he didn't provide a program listing) as a software specification, I wrote my own in my working language at the time,.... I called mine MONKEY
Charming! I read your monkey page(s), and though I will give you credit for being thorough on what I would suspect you are referring to as the “proper math models”. Sure, it is doing well to compare a single-step selection vs a cumulative selection. But that comparison is really not the issue at hand. Many others have written about this, but the problem resides, in part, in having a target selection while claiming cumulative selection. I know you (and Dawkins) mentioned something about objections to using a target, but you both miss the point of it. More on that later
Most of the creationist/ID (same thing) "refutations" of WEASEL involve non-existent "locking rings" that were supposed to locking any successful letter
No, ID does not use that phrase. But if you want to quibble, the target phrase is the ‘locking’ part of the program.
So, I would assume that the "model" you were trying to build up to is producing the alphabet in
alphabetical order, which is what my MONKEY does.
No, that is not the model I was trying to build. Go back and read my response more carefully.

 This message is a reply to: Message 35 by dwise1, posted 10-26-2022 12:22 AM dwise1 has not replied

WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019

 Message 41 of 507 (901212) 11-06-2022 1:36 AM Reply to: Message 35 by dwise110-26-2022 12:22 AM

Re: ID About to Fail?
Part 2 of 2. Breaking down a new model you proposed and how it relates (or doesn't) to cumulative selection.
Typically (at least I've never seen any exception to this rule) creationists try to saddle evolution with single-step selection models. That is where you try to make an entire complex system all fall together in one single step. That seems to also be the typical salvationist creationist model of speciation in which an entire new species suddenly appears ("a snake lays an egg and a bird hatches" according to one clueless creationist) replete with entirely new complex features -- complete and utter nonsense that only a stupid lying creationist could ever seriously consider.
Hmm, I initially had a mostly rejecting answer for this paragraph of yours. But then I read it very carefully and came to the conclusion that in some cases I could agree with this. You had some very interesting turns of phrase in there.
First, some minor disagreements and quibbles. I am not a creationist, nor have I ever played one in any thespian endeavor. So, if you have actually heard this whole idea from a creationist, I really don’t care. Also, the last phrase (in italics) is all fluff and doesn’t matter to the argument, even if I might agree with the sentiment. I’m going to ignore it.
So the second sentence (bolded) is the important one. If truly, as you seem to indicate, the 2nd sentence explains the first, then I would probably agree with this beginning. But it may depend on what you mean by “an entire complex system”. I would define a “system” as individual components that are interconnected to perform a task. A “complex system”, with ‘complex’ relating to probability, would envision a large number of parts and/or very tight, constraining limits on how the parts are interconnected to achieve the system function. “Entire” further solidifies that everything needs to be in place for the task/function to succeed. More on this in a moment.
The third sentence is a little problematic. For one, mentioning “speciation” means there is a starting point, one that is in its own right a complete system. In your example, you infer this as a snake. The next phrasing - “an entire new species”, differentiates it from the speciation source, as in it is NOT a snake, and you infer it in your example as a bird. (Just for the record, the claim of a snake laying an egg and a bird hatching would never be something suggested by a serious ID proponent. From a creationist, perhaps, but not from ID) But from the context of the preceding sentences, one would have to conclude that the species source and the “new species” would each be “an entire complex system” in their own rights.
But also in that sentence, you further describe the “entire new species” as being “replete with entirely new complex features”. In a general sense, how would you define that? It sure sounds like that could also be their own “complex systems” in the same sense as before, or at the very least multiple “complex” and “new” parts making up the last new system.
So let’s take all this and consider it with your next example…
We can calculate the probability of the entire alphabet spontaneously falling together in alphabetical order in one single step: 1.6244×10-37. I posited a supercomputer that would make a million attempts every second. In order to arrive at a million-in-one chance of success would take about 195 trillion years -- nearly 10,000 times longer than the universe's estimated age of 20 billion years!
Yes, all good there with the probabilities and descriptions. In this case, the alphabet is taking the role of “an entire complex system”. The task would be just being an alphabet, the English one in this case. The ‘parts’ would correspond to the letters, with them being in the specific order we are used to (A to Z), but without any regard to case.
Continuing with this example…
Of course, that model only describes creation ex nihilo, not evolution nor natural processes. That is why your model absolutely requires an external Creator.
This is not correct. It does not have to be creation ex nihilo. It could have a starting point and work from there, just like your WEASEL/MONKEY example. And this model doesn’t “absolutely” require a creator, but it probably would result from a creator nonetheless.
For the alphabet example, let's start with generation 0 with characters in reverse order, 26 placeholders (ie: ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA) just to demonstrate 0% of a match starting out. Your example seems to model having all 26 letters potentially change or set at once, which is perfectly fine. So if the first change results in the Alphabet you would have just witnessed a 1.6244×10^37 event.
But your limitations are not ours.
Cumulative selection is based on evolutionary processes and so models those processes far better. It is stateful, always starting from the last position you had reached.
Sorry, but the limitations are yours. I don’t have much of a problem with your statement here on cumulative selection. The problem is, it just doesn't apply.
If the target is “an entire complex system”, the task/function of that system is to be the Alphabet. A result of: ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA doesn’t fulfill the task, and neither does: ZWDVUSQMYXATLFJIHGCEBRKPON.
And neither does: ABCVSNMYXFPZTLJIWDHGERKUOQ. But wait, does having it starting with ABC mean it will be selected for more than the other examples, and those letters might stick around? No, it will not! Why? Because ABCVSNMYXFPZTLJIWDHGERKUOQ does not fill the task or function of the Alphabet, and being the Alphabet is the system. Having 3 letters of the beginning of the alphabet, or 11.5% of interconnected parts in a system does not a system task/function make. So there is no reason 3 letters in the right spot would pull any weight, it wouldn't be selected for.
That is why cumulative selection would not work in most cases. If you are talking about a “complex system” with multiple parts, you need all the parts there for the system to work. Not one part, not ½ the parts, not even 98% of parts. You need 100% for function. There really is no “stateful” position that is of any value on the way to a complex system. You need that system instantiated all at once to function.
If the complexity is high enough (or low probability), you are not likely to see fruition of a completed system based on random events. But such systems are a hallmark of design.
Walking cross country, you cannot reliably arrive from NYC to Denver in one single very long step, yet after a series of shorter steps that led you to the vicinity of Denver, another short step to Denver is not unreasonable.
This scenario isn't an apples to apples comparison. Of course you cannot go from NYC to Denver in one step. Nobody would suggest that. You are trying to force a cumulative scenario here. But even so, if you allow for normal sized steps that can get you from NYC to Denver, you still have the same problem.
I calculated that it would take about 3,772,243 steps, minimally, to go from NYC to Denver. Could someone do that? Yes, of course. But if walking randomly, you are very unlikely to complete that journey unless something is helping you along, like with cumulative selection to a pre-selected target. If there was some process positively giving feedback as to movement toward Denver, of course you would make it there much faster than without a target to guide which would entail a wholly random direction for each step. But why would anyone realistically expect that kind of selection pressure.
Starting in NYC, you take a few random steps that head west. You are now 10 feet closer to Denver than before. But you are still 9,430,600 feet from Denver. What in the world would be giving any indication you are better suited for Denver than if you had gone 10 feet east? An evolutionary process would have no idea, as it would not even know what “Denver” is.
Clearly, a math model that depends on single step selection will very reliably fail while a model the depends on cumulative selection would almost be guaranteed to succeed. Clearly.
As you have described it, yes, this is true. Clearly.
What is the probability of the synthesis of amino acids? Inevitable. What is the probability that amino acids will form protein-like structures (AKA proteinoids)? Inevitable. What is the probability that a number of those proteinoids would have autocatalytic properties? Inevitable.
But here you are inferring that EVERYTHING is inevitable. But obviously that is not true. And the reason why is that your cumulative selection is obviously not realistic.
So if your probability math model is going from nothing but basic chemicals to a complete unicellular life form in one single step (AKA "single-step selection"), then you can forget it since that model is doomed to failure.
I agree. A random event going all in one step is doomed to fail. That is why I do not think it is done by a random event. It is done by a mind.
But if the model is any kind of step-wise development of naturally occurring precursors eventually leading to a self-replicating structure of some kind (which will eventually lead to that complete unicellular life form) will follow the probability models of cumulative selection which is known to succeed.
IF a self-replicating structure came about by step-wise development of precursors, and IF it could lead to a unicellular life form via the same process…, it wouldn’t have done it by cumulative selection. But otherwise I doubt it. Cumulative selection is not realistic in most scenarios. 1) Cumulative selection could not have a target in mind. So there would be no direction it is aiming for.
2) Any selected ‘step’ would have to exist on its own, there is nothing that would ‘know’ where or if it was heading anywhere after that, so having any target in mind would be meaningless.
3) Except for the selected ‘step’ existing itself, that would do nothing to help make a multi-part complex system, as you would need all the parts (steps) together to build the larger system. (like the ABCVSNMYXFPZTLJIWDHGERKUOQ)
4) If you envision multiple separate ‘parts’ somehow arriving on scene together (unlikely), there would also have to be an accounting for how the parts interact, or fit together. It is unlikely that such parts would be ‘fitted’ for each other arriving separately and with no relation to each other, so getting them to match is a matter of unlikely times unlikely, and that extends exponentially for each part that you would consider for the larger complex system.

 This message is a reply to: Message 35 by dwise1, posted 10-26-2022 12:22 AM dwise1 has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 45 by Taq, posted 11-07-2022 11:46 AM WookieeB has replied

WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019

 Message 42 of 507 (901213) 11-06-2022 1:53 AM Reply to: Message 36 by ringo10-26-2022 4:49 PM

So dictionary definitions and synonyms are all the rigor you can muster?
After I equated “design” with “purpose”, you asked:
“Now you need to define what "purposeful" means - and how you would distinguish purposeful from purposeless.”
I gave sufficient and satisfactory definitions of all those words. And that is all you asked for - definitions. You didn't ask for arguments relating to some other idea. There should be no call for me to write an essay as to the meaning of the words design, purpose, and purposeless when simple dictionary definitions suffice. My meaning of those words is the same as the many dictionary references I made.
Why do they have to be more?
So, when I ask you for a definition, I'm not asking you to copy/paste something that took you three seconds to copy off the Internet. I'm asking you to explain it in your own words, to demonstrate that you understand it.
And I already did that in Message 25. You didn't like my words, so I then gave you dictionary words in Message 29.
Why don’t you give an example of an acceptable answer for one of those. How would you define “purpose”?
ringo writes:
WookieeB writes:
Define circular.
Circular is using "designed" to define "purposeful" and using 'purposeful" to define "designed".
Well, that is not exactly a definition now is it. It’s your same, repeated example. *sigh*
How about the words “intention” and “objective” that I also used.
And circular, as I think you are using it, would only apply to an argument, not a definition. Phrases and words used to define something should reflect the same idea, so being “circular” is sort of the point there.
Intelligent design is trying to overturn science. Defending Intelligent Design is trying to overturn science.
Regardless of your opinion of ID, again…. I was merely defining some words, words you apparently have trouble understanding. My definitions were in no way objectionable nor constitute a defense of anything, other than defending that the concept of definitions allows the use of other words that mean the same thing.
I said, "How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?"

I'm asking how you decide that one thing is purposeful and another is not. (A am NOT talking about the letters "A" and "B", by the way.)​
No duh on the last part!
I answered you already. Via my own words, via dictionary definitions, via an example. You are the one being vague by labeling very generic A and B things, yet you want a detailed breakdown of each of those. Well, I had to take your vaguerities and create my own objects to use as an example.
But I will try to explain it using the things you saw.
1. A computer.
2. Shelves of books. (I'm in a library.)
3. Chairs.
4. A fire extinguisher.
5. A clock.

I'm guessing we'll agree that they all have purpose and they were all designed.
Yes, I think we would agree they have purpose and were designed. But how do you know that?
For the books, how do you know they were designed? I would give it to you that some person purposefully put the books on the shelves, and likely in an ordered way. But the books themselves, how do you know they were designed? Did you see each one, or any of them, have pages put together and bound between thick sheets of cardboard or another hard, flat substance? Would you even consider that maybe, just maybe, a paper, ink, and glue factory and a sewing shop happened to be in the path of a tornado, and the mixing of all that commotion produced the books, or even one book?
For the chairs, how do you know they were designed? I’m envisioning they are made mostly of wood and fabric (though the principle still applies if made of something different). If so, would you ever have guessed that those chairs came from Indonesia when Mount Marapi erupted, and the pyroclastic flow felled a large group of trees and swept over a clothing store, and in the aftermath rescuers happened to come upon these perfectly formed chairs that were made by the power of a volcano?
I highly doubt you would consider those options for books and chairs. Instead, I think you have intuitively reached the conclusion that the books, chairs, extinguisher, clock and computer were all designed objects. Is that unreasonable? Or would you truly have to go to each and every book you see, search through and find a name on it that most would refer to as an author, and then track down that individual to make sure they actually created the coded information that lies on the many pieces of paper in the form of patterns of ink? And then do a similar investigation for each and every item you see around you. Now of course you could do that investigation if you wanted, and I’m sure it would confirm your suspicions. But is that really necessary?
If not, why can you make such an intuitive conclusion of design? You may have heard about or seen some manufacturing process that makes things like books, computers, chairs, etc. But you still could not know for sure that the actual objects you see apply to the processes you may have heard of. So what is it that gives you the confidence, right when you see the items and probably without even thinking on it, that they were designed.
The reason you can make that determination is because you sense, probably in an instant, that those items appear to be an ordered and intentionally arranged series of parts that would be exceedingly unlikely to come about by some random event(s), AND you perceive the objects have a form (in some manner) that corresponds to a pattern that is not inherent to the basic matter they are made from.
You do not need to know who the person(s) was that designed or constructed the item, nor how they did so to make a determination that the items were designed.
The same principles that allow you to make a determination of design for the objects you specified apply to many, many other items you probably notice each day. Nearly every person has the same intuitive capability, and they make these types of observations every day.
The exact same principles apply to detecting design in:
animal artifacts (ie. nests, beaver dams)
extraterrestrial artifacts (if they exist)
Mt. Rushmore for 99% of people that have never heard of ‎Gutzon Borglum
and also much of life, which is a major consideration in ID.

 This message is a reply to: Message 36 by ringo, posted 10-26-2022 4:49 PM ringo has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 43 by Taq, posted 11-07-2022 10:43 AM WookieeB has not replied Message 44 by ringo, posted 11-07-2022 11:32 AM WookieeB has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7

 (2)
 Message 43 of 507 (901245) 11-07-2022 10:43 AM Reply to: Message 42 by WookieeB11-06-2022 1:53 AM

Taq writes:
I gave sufficient and satisfactory definitions of all those words. And that is all you asked for - definitions. You didn't ask for arguments relating to some other idea. There should be no call for me to write an essay as to the meaning of the words design, purpose, and purposeless when simple dictionary definitions suffice. My meaning of those words is the same as the many dictionary references I made.

Why do they have to be more?
Look at the title of this thread. In order for ID to be falsifiable you need objective criteria for determining purpose. Otherwise, all you have is a subjective opinion which does not get ID to being on the level of falsifiable or scientific.
In your opinion, life is designed. Ok. That's just an opinion, and one that science has no reason to take seriously.

 This message is a reply to: Message 42 by WookieeB, posted 11-06-2022 1:53 AM WookieeB has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

 Message 44 of 507 (901256) 11-07-2022 11:32 AM Reply to: Message 42 by WookieeB11-06-2022 1:53 AM

WookieeB writes:
I gave sufficient and satisfactory definitions of all those words. And that is all you asked for - definitions.
Stop being so legalistic. We're trying to have a discussion here.
WookieeB writes:
You didn't ask for arguments relating to some other idea.
It's supposed to be a DISCUSSION. Arguments are all that matters.
WookieeB writes:
There should be no call for me to write an essay as to the meaning of the words design, purpose, and purposeless when simple dictionary definitions suffice.
Nonsense. That's the first step in any discussion.
WookieeB writes:
My meaning of those words is the same as the many dictionary references I made.

Why do they have to be more?
Because they do not agree with your claims of ID.
WookieeB writes:
Why don’t you give an example of an acceptable answer for one of those. How would you define “purpose”?
The point is that you CAN'T define "purpose" in the context of ID. And you support that statement by your inability to define it. In the context of ID, the "purpose" of something would be the "designer's" purpose. And you claim to not be defining who the designer is. So how could you possibly know the purpose of an undefined designer?
Unless you're willing to have an actual discussion, you can stop wasting my time.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

 This message is a reply to: Message 42 by WookieeB, posted 11-06-2022 1:53 AM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 46 by WookieeB, posted 12-05-2022 1:18 AM ringo has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7

 (2)
 Message 45 of 507 (901261) 11-07-2022 11:46 AM Reply to: Message 41 by WookieeB11-06-2022 1:36 AM

Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
1) Cumulative selection could not have a target in mind. So there would be no direction it is aiming for.
Why would evolution need a target? This highlights one of the flaws of ID thinking.
ID thinking consistently suffers from the Sharpshooter fallacy. You are assuming that the adaptations we see were the targets, but they are simply where evolution landed. There is direction in evolution, but it is towards higher fitness and not towards a specific adaptation. This is why we often see different solutions to the same problem in independent lineages, such as the different camera eyes in vertebrates and cephalopods or the different wings on birds and bats.
2) Any selected ‘step’ would have to exist on its own, there is nothing that would ‘know’ where or if it was heading anywhere after that, so having any target in mind would be meaningless.
Nor does water know where downhill is, but it still flows downhill. Rain doesn't know that it's target is the Pacific ocean, but it still gets there. Natural processes didn't have the Grand Canyon as a target, yet it still produced it.
You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.
3) Except for the selected ‘step’ existing itself, that would do nothing to help make a multi-part complex system, as you would need all the parts (steps) together to build the larger system. (like the ABCVSNMYXFPZTLJIWDHGERKUOQ)
Why wouldn't adding parts create a multi-part complex system?
4) If you envision multiple separate ‘parts’ somehow arriving on scene together (unlikely), there would also have to be an accounting for how the parts interact, or fit together. It is unlikely that such parts would be ‘fitted’ for each other arriving separately and with no relation to each other, so getting them to match is a matter of unlikely times unlikely, and that extends exponentially for each part that you would consider for the larger complex system.
Nature is not limited by what you can imagine. You also assume that the modern parts are the same as the parts when they first arrived.
We could use the multipart complex mammalian middle ear as an example. It is made up of 3 highly adapted bones (i.e. the malleus, incus, and stapes). If you remove one the whole thing stops working. In the fossil record, we many transitional reptile to mammal fossils demonstrating how two bones in the reptilian lower jaw moved up into the mammalian middle ear.
Also, you reflexively challenge evolution as if ID is the automatic answer if other explanations fail. That is just a God of the Gaps. ID needs evidence of its own. It needs to explain where these things came from, and why we see specific patterns in nature, such as a nested hierarchy.

 This message is a reply to: Message 41 by WookieeB, posted 11-06-2022 1:36 AM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 47 by WookieeB, posted 12-05-2022 1:21 AM Taq has replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
Newer Topic | Older Topic