Supernatural information supplier

Hey NoseyNed, In this message you said:"Yes, any old scenario will do. Since the whole ID arguement is that there is no possible way. Once there is a possible way (but not necessarily the way) the argument is done with."Whoa, not so!! ID says let's test objects and systems for evidence of design, making no claims that evolution is or is not possible. Maybe we test every animal known, and come up empty on the ID barometer, except humans. Or maybe certain structures test low and others high. I think ID should be treated as another possible scenario that could come into play at any point in the casual chain. And the problem with saying any old scenario will do is you allow in scenarios that have no basis in evidence or reality.Also:"We have connections from reptiles to mammals. I'm not sure how much there is from amphibians to reptiles, someone else will have to answer.What do you mean by "shown"?"Theoretical connections. It could have been. It's another scenario. I don't think there is any clearly defined evolutionary tree from fish to mammals. Just because an animal has similiar structures doesn't mean it is descended from the animal it resembles. A pile of bones can't tell you who begat who without some serious assumptions being made.And then lastly:"What you do not have is any reason to say there are any road blocks anywhere."It seems to me that with the evidence from the Cambrian Explosion period, we don't have speed limits or roadblocks so much as we have time constraints. This upward mobility had to happen rather quickly.Dennis

Hey Loudmouth, thanks for you reply in which you said:"ID claims that it is IMPOSSIBLE that evolution could have resulted in the characteristics we see today. Any scenario that could have happened proves them wrong."As I have mentioned to Ned, ID just claims to be able to tell if an object or system is designed. It makes no claims on the possibility or probability of evolution happening. And even if ID claims some object or system shows overwhelming evidence of having been designed, it wouldn't rule evolution out as having played a part, possibly even a large part. And the other problem with saying any old scenario will do is the privileged position it puts naturalism in. "Any old scenario will do as long as it is purely natural in it's mechanistic explanation" allows for solutions with little or no evidencial support.Where can I read more about this critter called acanthosteag? ThanksDennis

You seem to be forgetting the claims of IR (irreducible complexity), an argument for ID first advanced in detailed form by Behe, who many regard as the father of modern ID theory. IR argues that some microbiological systems are irreducibly complex, that taking away any single part would render them useless, and that therefore they could only have been designed. The bacterial flagellum is the most commonly mentioned example of IR.I'd like to also focus on your statement, "ID says let's test objects and systems for evidence of design..." Could you please describe how you conduct such a test? For example, tell us how you would test the bacterial flagellum for the presence of ID. Your posts so far have been remarkably free of any quantitative details, and this information would resolve this lack.My inquiry is rhetorical, of course, because I already know this test doesn't exist. Dembski has never defined a connection between his version of information theory and the real world. This is a typical Creationist attitude reflecting much ignorance. There is no indication that you understand how such relationships are implied from the data, and it seems that you are reaching conclusions based on insufficient information and personal incredulity. If you're truly interested in such things then we could discuss it in another thread, but for now I'd be happy if you could just focus for a bit on the topic at hand. This is once again way off-topic, but so egregious that I cannot refrain from addressing it. There are a few misconceptions reflected here.First, evolution does not strive upward. What evolution actually produces is increasing adaptation.The second misconception is that there were time constraints, that the evolution of the early Cambrian had to have happened quickly. It *did* happen quickly in a geologic sense, a mere blink of the eye in the context of the billions of years of geologic history. The Cambrian explosion occurred over just some 15 million years. But you can't compare millions of years to the thousands of years of dog evolution that was mentioned earlier.There's also somewhat of a misconception concerning the view of the early Cambrian evolutionary period as an explosion. Certainly it appears explosive at the boundary between the Precambrian and the Cambrian, and a good portion of it was a very real and high level of evolutionary change, but the Cambrian also brought with it the evolution of hard components in organisms, which makes them much more likely to preserve. But as time goes on we're finding that many novel Cambrian forms actually had softbodied predecessors in the Precambrian.Yet another misconception is that the Cambrian evolution was too intense and too rapid to be accounted for by known evolutionary mechanisms. This could not be further from the truth, especially given the huge number of new environmental niches made available by the presence of hard body parts.--Percy

quote:

---

As I have mentioned to Ned, ID just claims to be able to tell if an object or system is designed.

---

I agree that biological systems are designed, but I think we disagree on what or who the designer is. Just as a river designs a riverbed through the laws of gravity and friction, so does evolution create design using natural laws.

quote:

---

[ID] makes no claims on the possibility or probability of evolution happening.

---

Yes it does. Dembski's Explanatory Filter was constructed to detect biological structures that could not happen through natural means (ie evolution). Behe's Irreducible Complexity is supposedly a barrier that evolution is not able to cross. If evolution can explain a certain feature, then what do we need ID for other than religious preconceptions?I don't know if you read my thread on Stonehenge, but I argued, rhetorically, that if I decide that humans did not construct Stonehenge then Stonehenge is evidence of alien influence on the Earth. You are playing the same game. You seem to be claiming that even if natural mechanisms can explain a natural phenomena we can still conclude that supernatural mechanisms, or ID, were involved. The supernatural is not necessary if the natural is sufficient.[qutoe]And even if ID claims some object or system shows overwhelming evidence of having been designed, it wouldn't rule evolution out as having played a part, possibly even a large part.[/quote]What if evolution played the whole part? Would we still need ID?What characteristics would a designed biological organism have that a totally evolved organism not have? What is the defining characteristic that separates an intelligently designed organism from an organism designed entirely by evolution?

quote:

---

And the other problem with saying any old scenario will do is the privileged position it puts naturalism in. "Any old scenario will do as long as it is purely natural in it's mechanistic explanation" allows for solutions with little or no evidencial support.

---

Naturalism is in a privileged position compared to supernaturalism. Naturalism is testable and falsifiable while supernaturalism is not. Again, go back to my example of Stonehenge. If Stonehenge is capable of being built by stone age man, do I have any right proposing that aliens built it? Even if I don't know exactly how stone age man built Stonehenge, isn't man a better explanation than aliens?

Of course, this is not great refutation of much, except for a completely evidenceless arguement from incredutlity. For the argument put forward by some ID'ers it is all that is needed.

quote:

---

As I have mentioned to Ned, ID just claims to be able to tell if an object or system is designed. It makes no claims on the possibility or
probability of evolution happening.

---

That is absolutely wrong. Both Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument and Dembski's CSI are based on claiming that the evolution of particular features is so improbable that we should reject the idea.Indeed CSI is DEFINED as being hugely improbably to occur by any menas other than intelligent intervention. That is what Dembski MEANS by "complex".So ID's claims to identify design in biology ARE claims about the probability of evolution. And so far they are no more than that - just claims with no support.

You actually read Models in Paleobiology? I'm impressed. To be fair it is best to say "Eldredge and Gould" rather than "Gould", Niles Eldredge was the primary author. Are you sure you read this paper? This paper uses population genetics to make predictions on stability and relatively rapid species changes, then shows that the fossil record supports this. There is no augmenting the role of mutations or NS. It offers no support for ID that I can see. Rapid speciation (over thousands of years) in no way implies a designer. In the interest of keeping on topic, I would be interested in hearing the connection (in your words) between PE and ID theory.Eldredge N and Gould SJ (1972) Punctuated equilibria: an alternative
to phyleticgradualism. In: Models in Paleobiology, edited by T.J.M. Schopf. FreemanCooper, San Francisco, CA, pp.82-115This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 12-13-2004 06:50 PM

Hey Loudmouth, thanks for the reply in which you said:"All of the functionality of a microbe, or any other living thing, is focused on passing ones genes to the next generation. Nothing more, nothing less. When viewed in this light everything makes a lot more sense within biology, well at least to me it does. It does away with the sense that DNA somehow has a purpose outside of itself."So you would claim that the only function of a human is to pass genes along to the next generation. That claim seems possible until I say that the only function for YOU is to pass genes along, and then suddenly I am sure you will give some analogy that says we have deluded ourselves or you may agree that this leaves humans in complete chaos and despair. I would also argue that DNA does have a purpose outside of itself, it interacts in intricate ways with microbiological machinery which enables you and I to be having this discussion. So if there is no purpose to that, perhaps you should let me know so I can get busy passing some genes along.Also:"Us humans give it meaning because we think of life as a special circumstance when in fact it isn't."I would argue here that there are alot of fortuitous coincindences which make complex life on earth possible that seem to refute your statement.

Hey NosyNed, thanks for the reply which read in part:"As as been shown over and over, IC systems can evolve. The existing forms do not have to appear all at once. The different parts can co-evolve."Please tell me where this has been shown over and over, I must have missed it. ThanksDennis

Famously, the evolution of the mammalian ear. It has been referenced here a number of times.I'm going to be away a fair bit for a few days so I encourge others to jump in here.

Hey Percy, thanks for your reply which read in part:"No argument, but that is the realm of religion, theology and philosphosphy, not of science. If ID is science, then it must fulfill the criteria of science. That you're making supernatural arguments in favor of ID means you have already lost the debate for ID as science."I think science should rethink this premise then and return to a pursuit of the truth wherever that may lead. ID is part of a thread of a fabric for me. It makes sense given alot of other evidences. I can't defend Dembski's math, but even if you are right and we are back to Paley's argument that we know design when we see it, well, don't we? Try defining pornography for me. Can't really, but we know it when we see it.Also:"This makes no sense given the advances of modern science accomplished through application of the scientific method."It makes no sense to you that science is based on reason and reason itself is a philosophical premise.And then:"The soul? Are you arguing science or religion?"Yes, call it a worldview. And a worldview should be based in truth which would entail science, philosophy, and religion if the evidence points that way. A science which insists upon being autonomous and untouchable from other areas of reason is a dangerous thing. The dogmatic proposal that all we see and know is based upon naturalistic or materialistic processes is itself a philosophical statement and must be examined as such.Besides, there is a growing amount of scientific evidence for something which lives on past absolute flat-line which implies strongly a supernatural element to mankind.And then also:"Perhaps you're thinking of multiverse theories, branes and such."Perhaps I am thinking that something coming from nothing implies something outside of that something which by definition, if the universe is that something and the universe is the natural, that other something is supernatural. Why would you allow one supernatural element into the discussion and not another?And also:"You attribute what we don't know to God. Even things we know but that you don't happen to accept you attribute to God. Your approach is the old God of the Gaps."I attribute what we don't know and what we know to God. How is it we know anything, if not from the fact that the information was preexistant? How is it we find ourselves in this unique moment in the history of the universe where these things we speak of can be known?And then:"By the way, should I presume by you're failure to address my descriptions of how mutations add information to the genome, and how changing DNA changes the physical organism itself (i.e., genotype changes causing phenotype changes) that you now understand and accept these points?"To go back to the analogy that is floating around on this thread, no, to add "nvkd;jo;" to the phrase "To be or not to be, that is the question" obviously adds no information. And then, should the proverbial monkey find something useful, the biological machinery has to be present to make the info functional.DennisThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-17-2004 10:12 AM

Well, since it does add information based on the only quantitative, rigorous definition of 'information' that I know of perhaps you should supply your definition of 'information' which makes this so obvious.

Hey Loudmouth, thanks for the reply which read in part:"Naturalism is in a privileged position compared to supernaturalism. Naturalism is testable and falsifiable while supernaturalism is not."Naturalism is not falsifiable because the potential scenarios are infinite. And accordingly all of the potential scenarios would have to be tested and fail before many naturalists would concede the case. Conversely, I agree with you that as long as a purely naturalistic explanation is sufficient, then supernatural explanations are not necessary to a point. But so many things are not sufficiiently explained by the purely natural (the information in a living creature being one), and to claim that there will be natural explanations in the future just leads into this unfalsifiable loop thinking.Dennis

I think you have a good point in there. I believe that what was meant was that suggested naturalistic solutions need to be testable to be of any value. Naturalism in general is perhaps a bit too broad. There may well be, someday, something which proves to be unexplainable through natural mechanisms. In the meantime suggesting that a gap in knowledge implies a need to a supernatural solution flies against all of our historic experience.Over and over, these gaps have been pointed to and over and over they have been closed. That doesn't prove they always will be. It just suggests which is the best approach to bet on if you want a safer wager.

Dr. Thomas Schneider, National Cancer Institute, "Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a reciever (or molecular machine)."