Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 4:51 AM
14 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,955 Year: 4,992/19,786 Month: 1,114/873 Week: 10/460 Day: 10/91 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design explains many follies
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 1 of 302 (283993)
02-04-2006 6:54 PM


For those who believe in random chance:

If I put all the pieces of a small puzzle (may be 50) and shake them up even after million times, chances of them self assembling themselves is impossible. Now, one more to think about.

We all use computers for this forum. Well, if I look at the computer, it is very complex. It is too hard for me to understand how the microprocessor is coupled to various other electronic components and when it is powered on, there it goes. The first computer did nto self assemble. There was a man by the name Steve Jobs who is more intelligent than me and he knew all about the electronic components. He put them all together and laid them in the proper places and fed the electric power. This became the original DESIGN of the first Apple computer. Later on this one evolved into imac's and g-macs. So, in this situation, it was Steve Jobs who was the Intelligent Designer. As a biologist, it is very hard for me to imagine that a simple unicellular organism which is lot more complex than acomputer came into existence by self assembly without a designer. He could be an alien from Mars even.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by sidelined, posted 02-04-2006 8:28 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2006 8:36 PM inkorrekt has responded
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 8:38 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2006 8:52 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 02-04-2006 9:29 PM inkorrekt has responded
 Message 16 by Gary, posted 02-17-2006 1:58 AM inkorrekt has responded
 Message 17 by Chronos, posted 02-17-2006 8:25 PM inkorrekt has responded
 Message 47 by John 10:10, posted 03-17-2006 11:52 AM inkorrekt has responded
 Message 203 by carini, posted 04-07-2006 10:05 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 302 (284020)
02-04-2006 8:20 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 302 (284023)
02-04-2006 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by inkorrekt
02-04-2006 6:54 PM


inkorreckt

If I put all the pieces of a small puzzle (may be 50) and shake them up even after million times, chances of them self assembling themselves is impossible.

No the chance of them self assemblying is unlikely in the extreme but not impossible.

As a biologist, it is very hard for me to imagine that a simple unicellular organism which is lot more complex than acomputer came into existence by self assembly without a designer.

It is less improbable than the likelyhood of a designer self assembling is it not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by inkorrekt, posted 02-04-2006 6:54 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 302 (284030)
02-04-2006 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by inkorrekt
02-04-2006 6:54 PM


As a biologist, it is very hard for me to imagine that a simple unicellular organism which is lot more complex than acomputer came into existence by self assembly without a designer.

It may be hard for you to imagine, but evolving circuits via random "chance" (as you referred to it) and selection is an increasingly vibrant area of electronic engineering:

quote:
`Intrinsic' Hardware Evolution is the use of artificial evolution -- such as a Genetic Algorithm -- to design an electronic circuit automatically, where each fitness evaluation is the measurement of a circuit's performance when physically instantiated in a real reconfigurable VLSI chip. This paper makes a detailed case-study of the first such application of evolution directly to the configuration of a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). Evolution is allowed to explore beyond the scope of conventional design methods, resulting in a highly efficient circuit with a richer structure and dynamics and a greater respect for the natural properties of the implementation medium than is usual. The application is a simple, but not toy, problem: a tone-discrimination task. Practical details are considered throughout.

from a paper on the subject. (Sorry, URL too long to post.)

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-04-2006 08:37 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by inkorrekt, posted 02-04-2006 6:54 PM inkorrekt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:42 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 10 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:44 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 21 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 7:25 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 38 by inkorrekt, posted 02-25-2006 6:44 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 302 (284031)
02-04-2006 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by inkorrekt
02-04-2006 6:54 PM


Bad analogy
Unfortunately the analogies you provide are a little off.

First, jigsaw puzzle pieces don't combine as easily as amino acids. They aren't subject to reacting in different ways under different temperatures, dehydration, etc.

I'd like to see a jigsaw puzzle that assembles itself in some order in high temperature in water, then forms structures which can then 'eat' and reproduce new puzzles, and so on. Computer components are the same.

One thing about a completed jigsaw puzzle and a computer: We know how they were put together. We know the mechanics of the building. This is where ID and evolution differ. ToE can explain the design process, the work that goes into it, the forces that drive it etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by inkorrekt, posted 02-04-2006 6:54 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 6 of 302 (284034)
02-04-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by inkorrekt
02-04-2006 6:54 PM


Imperfect replicators
Perhaps I can offer a bit of insite here :)

1: the puzzle

Others have noted some of the trouble with you analogy. In addition, puzzles have one right way to be assembled. The components of life have multiple ways. One can not make statements about how unlikely they are until one knows all the "acceptable" outcomes.

In addtion, why did you pick 50 pieces? If the minimal imperfect replicator that size; bigger; smaller?

2: The computer
Computers do not f**k. Any analogy for life processes that does not involves imperfect reproduction with selection is NOT an analogy for evolutionary processes at all. Therefore this is useless as a point of discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by inkorrekt, posted 02-04-2006 6:54 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 84 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 302 (284046)
02-04-2006 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by inkorrekt
02-04-2006 6:54 PM


steve jobs -- not THAT intelligent
There was a man by the name Steve Jobs who is more intelligent than me and he knew all about the electronic components. He put them all together and laid them in the proper places and fed the electric power. This became the original DESIGN of the first Apple computer. Later on this one evolved into imac's and g-macs. So, in this situation, it was Steve Jobs who was the Intelligent Designer.

i have a computer in the second line of job's designs. coincidentally, jobs did not design the first apple -- his friends did. they also didn't design much of the first graphical computer: they "co-opted" it from xerox. anyways. the first of job's designs, "lisa," is a well known failure. didn't even make it to market, because the components were to expensive.

but on to the one i have. i happen to own an original macintosh plus. it was about the second or third kind of mac made, basically no different from the first except that it had more memory. all macs of this generation have a fatal flaw. they are all convection cooled -- there is no fan present in the macintosh. the flaw is that vents are not big enough. this causes the computer to overheat, spark, melt circuitry, and maybe even catch fire if you leave it on long enough. the video card goes first. there is no solution to this problem.

so, yes, brilliant design. the used the same design on the recent mac cube, which i hear you can make toast with.

For those who believe in random chance:

If I put all the pieces of a small puzzle (may be 50) and shake them up even after million times, chances of them self assembling themselves is impossible. Now, one more to think about.

but the problem is that this is not a good analogy for evolution. we are not trying to reproduce a design that already exist, or fit bits of things together from a complete starting point that has been jig-sawed apart. and it is not random.

now, if you had a computer algorithm that started with one piece of the puzzle, and tried a few different pieces at random to attach to it rejecting all the ones that didn't fit and keeping the ones that did -- see how fast your puzzle gets put together.

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 02-04-2006 09:32 PM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by inkorrekt, posted 02-04-2006 6:54 PM inkorrekt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by inkorrekt, posted 02-09-2006 10:39 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 8 of 302 (285361)
02-09-2006 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
02-04-2006 9:29 PM


Re: steve jobs -- not THAT intelligent
now, if you had a computer algorithm that started with one piece of the puzzle, and tried a few different pieces at random to attach to it rejecting all the ones that didn't fit and keeping the ones that did -- see how fast your puzzle gets put together""

Does it mean that the Super computer is the intelligent Designer?

Well, we can say anything about the failure of the first computer or who ever did it. In the context, this is not important. The issue here is who INVENTED the first computer? Did it require Intelligence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 02-04-2006 9:29 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 9 of 302 (286006)
02-12-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
02-04-2006 8:36 PM


Thanks for proving my point.
What about "artificial intrinsic evolution" of electronic circuits? Did it not require a Designer? Did it come from space?

Artificail intrinsic evolution will create Electroninc circuits ONLY after it is designed, tested and properly made to function. It cannot come into existence without a DESIGNER. Thanks for proving my point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2006 8:36 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2006 5:52 PM inkorrekt has responded

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 10 of 302 (286007)
02-12-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
02-04-2006 8:36 PM


Thanks for proving my point.
What about "artificial intrinsic evolution" of electronic circuits? Did it not require a Designer? Did it come from space?

Artificail intrinsic evolution will create Electroninc circuits ONLY after it is designed, tested and properly made to function. It cannot come into existence without a DESIGNER. Thanks for proving my point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2006 8:36 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ReverendDG, posted 02-16-2006 8:23 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Nuggin, posted 02-17-2006 12:55 AM inkorrekt has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 302 (286010)
02-12-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 5:42 PM


Re: Thanks for proving my point.
What about "artificial intrinsic evolution" of electronic circuits? Did it not require a Designer?

No, it didn't. It required a human being to copy what they observed occuring in nature. Humans didn't invent natural selection and random mutation. They observed these processes already occuring and merely imitated them.

Artificail intrinsic evolution will create Electroninc circuits ONLY after it is designed, tested and properly made to function. It cannot come into existence without a DESIGNER.

Now you're just moving the goalposts. Don't you remember your OP? The question wasn't whether or not mutation and evolution needed a designer, but whether or not they were capable of design. It would be far better for you to defend your original points than to try to shift the goalposts to another topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:42 PM inkorrekt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 7:29 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 12 of 302 (287419)
02-16-2006 6:05 PM


We percieved randomness as something without structure. And though percieved randomness has brought about quite a diverse universe full of complicated structures of inumerable and intricately balanced systems...who is to say weather or not there is intent behind it. A view for or against inteligent design is a simple testament as to wheather or not one believes in a higher power. That is religeon.
I am for intligent design in that it agrees with my beliefs.
I am agaist the promoters of inteligent design who want to teach it as science. I am still confused as to how intligent people can deny the overwhelming evidence of evolutinary theory. Science is a wonderful tool that is at it's best when helping to make sense of the physical world. Religeon is a wonderful tool that is at it's best when helping to make sense of the spiritual self and our relation to others. it encompasses feelings and motivations.....often given insight to a percieved meaning to life.
Science will never acheive this by it's very nature.
In the same light religeon is a very poor tool to use in understanding the laws of nature. Fact and belief are far too often from different worlds.
Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by AdminWounded, posted 02-16-2006 7:41 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded
 Message 18 by inkorrekt, posted 02-18-2006 3:07 AM 2ice_baked_taters has responded
 Message 25 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 7:34 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 302 (287459)
02-16-2006 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by 2ice_baked_taters
02-16-2006 6:05 PM


Hi 2ice_baked_taters,

Since your new here you might drop in to the Coffee House and start a topic about yourself, let us know a little about what your interests and beliefs are.

TTFN,

AW


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 02-16-2006 6:05 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2217 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 14 of 302 (287465)
02-16-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 5:44 PM


Re: Thanks for proving my point.
your point is useless, you are using a faulty analogy, conputer circuits can never reproduce, and we know they are designed there is evidence that they are designed, it says "Intel" on my motherboard. using comparisions to human designed things is faulty because human intelligence has yet to design life the way life is currently - everything about ID is out to deny evolution from the get-go
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:44 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 599 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 15 of 302 (287496)
02-17-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 5:44 PM


Not thinking about it deeply enough
Hey Ink, welcome to the boards.

I've read your openning post and have a few comments.

The puzzle analogy is essentially the Monkeys typing Hamlet analogy phrased differently.

The problem with all of these ideas is that they are theoretical experiments - but for all these experiments, we have to measure the success. By injecting an observer who judges the outcome, you automatically come out with Intelligence being involved in the experiment.

Your computer analogy is also one I've heard before - but here's something that people never point out.

If computers are very precise and the software is constructed of 1s and 0s, and they will only work if those numbers are in the right order and put there by an intelligent being - then what are bugs?

Why is it that a computer which is running fine will suddenly do something weird? (ie my MS Word no longer thinks that cookie is spelled correctly). Something has knocked one of the 1s into a 0 - that something (be it radiation, a magnetic field, etc) is not the result of intelligence. Yet, this change results in different behavior by the computer.

If I decide that this change is benificial and give the new software to friends, then essentially that program has evolved and spread it's code/DNA to new locations


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:44 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019