Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 331 of 507 (907733)
02-27-2023 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by sensei
02-27-2023 9:34 PM


Wow, still full of ignorance you are.
Yes, especially about this ID thing you keep skirting around.
Is your evidence only that you said it so it must be? That does seem to be the point of your rocket dialogue. Are you god?

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by sensei, posted 02-27-2023 9:34 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by sensei, posted 02-28-2023 3:42 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 332 of 507 (907742)
02-28-2023 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by AZPaul3
02-27-2023 9:54 PM


The rocket example shows how you totally did not understand the response to your demand, ignored it, changed your demand to argue that my response does not apply, just to go back to the original demand immediately after, which I already responded to.
If you can't keep up, then better just zip it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2023 9:54 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 333 of 507 (907746)
02-28-2023 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by sensei
02-27-2023 9:10 PM


Okay, never heard of such evolutinist dogma before.
Nor have I ever heard of such dogma, because it's not dogma. It's based both on the results of numerous experiments using evolutionary processes as well as my own 35 years of professional experience as an intelligent designer, AKA "design engineer".
So no dogma involved, but rather real world results. While all you have is bullshit.
Many of those experiments have been reported in engineering professional publications. Search keywords would include genetic algorithms, genetic programming, evolutionary programming, artificial life (a-life). These experiments involved actual devices designed with evolutionary algorithms and those resultant devices were both fully functional and extremely complex, even to the point of being irreducibly complex. Another common feature of these devices was that their designs were completely unlike anything that an intelligent designer would have come up, not only in the total absence of the hallmarks of intelligent design (eg, elegance, parsimony, modularity, well-defined structures), but also by using components in very novel ways that no human designer would have even thought of nor would ever have been able to develop.
One experiment used evolutionary programming to evolve an FPGA design for a balanced amplifier. As you will recall from your engineering classes or experience, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) is an integrated circuit of programmable digital circuits (eg, logic gates, flipflops) that can be "connected" by code in a PROM -- we used them all the time in our products. The amplifier that they created worked perfectly, but it was unlike anything achievable through intelligent design. It was extremely complex filled with interdependencies that made it irreducibly complex -- any change at all would completely break it. Its complexity would make the worst spaghetti code appear to be perfectly structured. Looking at the design, nobody could figure out how it worked or how it even could work, but it worked!
But the most astonishing thing about it was how it had used the FPGA: it made extensive use of the analog properties of the FPGA's digital circuits! No living intelligent designer could have ever been able to do that!
Here I'm referring to my electrical engineering (EE) training as you should with yours (oh yeah, that's right, you don't have any such training, do you?). While circuit analysis uses ideal components (eg, resistors, capacitors, inductors, diodes, transistors, wires, connectors), such ideal components do not exist in the real world. Rather, every real-world component contain other stray properties. For example, an inductor (coil) not only has inductance, but also an internal resistance and stray capacitances between the coils. Resistors can also have stray inductance. Conductors have internal resistance as well as inductance and stray capacitance with other conductors (a problem addressed with twisted pairs). A EE will use ideal components to design and analyze circuits, but he will need to deal with stray properties to solve the odd problems that will arise. And part of his problem will be that two components that are nominally the same will have different stray properties due to minute differences in their manufacture; ie, .
But digital circuits are something of a special case. They normally operate within two voltage ranges, one representing a binary "1" and the other voltage a binary "0". Between those two voltage ranges is a range of voltages that must never be used; my instructors in tech school called that range the "Forbidden Zone". Digital circuits need two very distinct logic levels, so voltages outside those very distinct ranges will be ambiguous and cause unexpected and unreliable results such as garbled data, computer crashes, etc.
What this amplifier design did was to operate those digital components in their Forbidden Zones! Now, every transistor in any digital device is designed and intended to operate at valid logic levels so they have highly specified digital properties, but they still have undocumented analog properties. Furthermore, each transistor's analog properties are unique to that individual transistor; "identical" transistors will have different analog properties. And it was those analog properties that the design used.
No human designer could possibly have designed that amplifier. Only evolutionary processes could have created that design.
Thomas Ray's a-life simulation, Tierra, created an environment for "organisms" which are virtual CPUs whose "DNA" is the program for them to reproduce while competing for resources. They quickly evolved different types of organisms such as parasites, non-parasites that are resistant to the parasites, and hyper-parasites that prey on the parasites, etc.
The point to bringing up Tierra is that the researchers had worked out the smallest possible program, but Tierra evolved an organism that had a greatly smaller program that used an approach that nobody had foreseen.
And in my own professional experience, we would use a kind of evolutionary approach to creating new software systems -- I worked primarily in embedded programming, working close to the metal. When we needed a new product (and hence new software) we could not afford the time and effort to write the new software from scratch, but rather we would copy over an existing product's software as our baseline and then modify it to perform the new tasks. The analogy is to how evolution works by taking something that already exists (or a copy thereof) and modifying it to perform a different or entirely new function. That repeated process of copying and modifying source code resulted in increasing complexity of our software, making it more difficult to maintain or to modify. Of course, it differed from evolution in that we could arbitrarily violate any nested hierarchy by completely rewriting or replacing entire sections of code, something that evolution cannot possibly do in nature.
So there is a great wealth of evidence that evolutionary processes generate complexity. And there is nothing about intelligent design that would cause us to expect it to generate such complexity, but rather just the opposite.
So then, no dogma involved here. Except by you.
Do you really think that intelligent design would generate complexity to the order of magnitude that we see in nature? Can you explain how the properties, goals, and criteria of intelligent design would not be violated by complexity?
Of course you will not even try, since you are a creationist and a troll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by sensei, posted 02-27-2023 9:10 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by sensei, posted 02-28-2023 1:35 PM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 334 of 507 (907774)
02-28-2023 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by sensei
02-27-2023 12:54 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
sensei writes:
Wrong again. Another claim that you cannot back up with facts. Just pathetic!
Then explain why a nested hierarchy is not a valid piece of evidence for common ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by sensei, posted 02-27-2023 12:54 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by sensei, posted 02-28-2023 1:47 PM Taq has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 335 of 507 (907797)
02-28-2023 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by dwise1
02-28-2023 4:19 AM


You wrote "Intelligent design does not create complexity, but rather parsimony and elegance. There is nothing elegant about life's complexity".
How do you measure complexity and elegance?
And are you talking about intelligent design by humans or intelligent design by a deity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by dwise1, posted 02-28-2023 4:19 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 336 of 507 (907799)
02-28-2023 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Taq
02-28-2023 11:21 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
I already explained that it is insufficient. Why would it be sufficient. Because you managed to get some predictions out of it?
Before we had advanced instruments, the Sun orbiting around Earth model made good predictions as well, about the position and movement of the Sun in our sky. By your standards, that model would have been proven and indisputable fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Taq, posted 02-28-2023 11:21 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Taq, posted 02-28-2023 4:09 PM sensei has replied

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


(2)
Message 337 of 507 (907813)
02-28-2023 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by sensei
02-28-2023 1:47 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
sensei writes:
I already explained that it is insufficient.
But is it evidence?
Why would it be sufficient. Because you managed to get some predictions out of it?
How do you think scientists test theories in science?
Here are 29+ predictions, by the way.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by sensei, posted 02-28-2023 1:47 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 3:55 AM Taq has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 338 of 507 (907839)
03-01-2023 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Taq
02-28-2023 4:09 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Does not mean that twisting parameters until your model fits, makes it sufficient proof. You do realize that theories have changed and even have been rejected after new data arrived, don't you?
But you don't allow for any critique, because you are a fool defending his precious treasure, ignoring real logic and real science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Taq, posted 02-28-2023 4:09 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Taq, posted 03-01-2023 11:14 AM sensei has replied

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


Message 339 of 507 (907869)
03-01-2023 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by sensei
03-01-2023 3:55 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
sensei writes:
Does not mean that twisting parameters until your model fits, makes it sufficient proof.
What parameters have been twisted???
You do realize that theories have changed and even have been rejected after new data arrived, don't you?
Yes. One of those theories is separate creation.
You do realize that theories are kept if their predictions are supported by observations, correct?
But you don't allow for any critique, because you are a fool defending his precious treasure, ignoring real logic and real science.
Who is stopping you from critiquing? Do you think people have to agree with you in order for you to criticize a theory?
You are using the logic of superstition, and are not using real science. You think you can throw out a theory if you believe a supernatural deity can exactly mimic a natural process. In real science, if the predictions of a theory match observations then the theory is supported.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 3:55 AM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 1:18 PM Taq has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 340 of 507 (907878)
03-01-2023 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Taq
03-01-2023 11:14 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
You should know for one, that by adding parameters and overfitting, in general, we can get very accurate "predictions" for the data.
Data fit does not equal high likelihood of correct model. You seem to be under such noobish assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Taq, posted 03-01-2023 11:14 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Taq, posted 03-01-2023 1:20 PM sensei has replied

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


Message 341 of 507 (907880)
03-01-2023 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by sensei
03-01-2023 1:18 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
sensei writes:
You should know for one, that by adding parameters and overfitting, in general, we can get very accurate "predictions" for the data.
‚Äč
What parameters have been added? What overfitting?
You seem to be under such noobish assumption.
What assumptions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 1:18 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 1:34 PM Taq has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 342 of 507 (907891)
03-01-2023 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Taq
03-01-2023 1:20 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Your assumption that data fit means correct model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Taq, posted 03-01-2023 1:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-01-2023 1:42 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 344 by AZPaul3, posted 03-01-2023 3:26 PM sensei has replied
 Message 345 by Taq, posted 03-01-2023 4:28 PM sensei has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4501
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 343 of 507 (907895)
03-01-2023 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by sensei
03-01-2023 1:34 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
sensei writes:
Your assumption that data fit means correct model.
So you think the model with the worst data-fit is correct? Hopefully you will never be in a situation where you have to make decisions that affect other people's lives!

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 1:34 PM sensei has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 344 of 507 (907900)
03-01-2023 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by sensei
03-01-2023 1:34 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Your assumption that data fit means correct model.
Well, should have expected that. You really are dumb as a stump.
Yes, sensei, the better the fit the stronger the model. Where do you kind of people come from that this needs to be explained? Went to school in Arkansas? This is basic reality for god sake, man.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 1:34 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by sensei, posted 03-05-2023 9:43 AM AZPaul3 has replied

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


Message 345 of 507 (907904)
03-01-2023 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by sensei
03-01-2023 1:34 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
sensei writes:
Your assumption that data fit means correct model.
So how do you think real science is done???
How do you think a theory is tested?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 1:34 PM sensei 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