Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 264 (543991)
01-22-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by greyseal
01-22-2010 3:42 PM


Hi greyseal,
Perhaps I can expand on what Percy was implying.
Is it fair to say that the "design" (whether we agree it was designed or not), if it appears natural and sub-optimal, speaks against being a blueprints-and-clay-model production of a deity?
We, as a model of intelligent designers, are increasingly using an evolutionary paradigm to find optimum designs for things, designs that would not be developed by normal "blueprints-and-clay-model" procedures.
These new designs outperform the "blueprints-and-clay-model" design process AND their design products.
Thus it makes sense to assume that this process could be used by an intelligent designer in order to reach an optimum design, and without having to put as much time into "blueprints-and-clay-models" or spend as much time refining and revising the output. It's like a feedback system that does the work for you.
One of the big questions has always been how is design accomplished - how does it get from drawing board to reality? With the evolutionary design paradigm this is built in.
Of course this results in a process that is indistinguishable from non-design using the same process, so the question reverts to whether the process is natural or designed.
I mean, why not give us the blood of an alligator? why put the funpark where the waste disposal is? nipples for men? rly? the fact we can get cancer, but a shark won't - that speaks volumes, unless you call the copout of "the fall". People choke on food - chimpanzees have a better design for chewing, drinking and breathing than we do, iirc, why did humans deserve second best?
Why assume that humans are the intended result?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by greyseal, posted 01-22-2010 3:42 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Apothecus, posted 01-22-2010 7:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 20 by greyseal, posted 01-23-2010 4:41 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 186 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 10:37 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 264 (544089)
01-23-2010 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by greyseal
01-23-2010 4:41 AM


perhaps missing the point?
Hi greyseal, it's a little more complicated than that.
... I think it pointless to posit a designer that can design things as they are now such as to make design non-evident, ...
The point is that an intelligent designer would use a effective means to accomplish their ends. We see that increasingly the use of evolutionary paradigms in design software allow a very effective means to accomplish our ends.
The advantage is two-fold: you end up with a good design, and you already have the design implemented in the process.
The designer would use this method because it is effective, not to deceive.
Of course you end up with something that is indistinguishable from non-design as we know it -- however we cannot be sure that what we know is really non-design: there is only a sample of one.
... as you then make ID untestable, unfalsifiable and altogether self-servingly circular and pointless.
And ignoring the issue is special pleading and begging the question, in order to arrive at the conclusion you want to reach. You end up with a straw man that you knock down, proving nothing.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by greyseal, posted 01-23-2010 4:41 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 01-23-2010 12:30 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 29 by greyseal, posted 01-24-2010 4:20 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 264 (544113)
01-23-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Blue Jay
01-23-2010 12:30 PM


evolving design
Hi Bluejay,
Just to clarify, are you saying that the evidence for this type of design would be indistinguishable from the evidence for Darwinian evolution? Or that this design process would actually be Darwinian evolution?
It hardly would seem fair to restrict intelligent designers from using a method that we use for improved designs, does it?
Intelligent Systems Division | NASA
quote:
The spectrum of antenna designs for applications in communication, radar, and remote sensing systems is vast, and there is an increasing need for high-performance, customized antennas. Current methods of designing and optimizing antennas by hand are time and labor intensive, limit complexity, increase the time and cost expended, and require that antenna engineers have significant knowledge of the universe of antenna designs.
The use of evolutionary programming techniques to automate the design of antennas has recently garnered much attention. Considerable research has been focused on determining whether evolutionary techniques can be used to automatically design and optimize antennas so that they outperform those designed by expert antenna designers, and even whether evolutionary techniques can be used to design antennas in cases where humans are simply unable to.
In the Evolvable Systems Group, we have been conducting research on automated antenna design. Our approach has been to encode antenna structure into a genome and use a GA to evolve an antenna that best meets the desired antenna performance as defined in a fitness function. Antenna evaluations are performed by first converting a genotype into an antenna structure, and then simulating this antenna using the Numerical Electromagnetic Code (NEC) antenna simulation software.
ST5 Antenna
The two best antennas found, one (ST5-3-10) from a GA that allowed branching and one (ST5-4W-03) from a GA that did not, were fabricated and tested. Antenna ST5-3-10 is a requirements-compliant antenna that was built and tested on an antenna test range.
Perhaps the best argument for ID (properly pursued) is that it uses a highly evolved design system ....
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 01-23-2010 12:30 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 01-23-2010 9:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 61 by Iblis, posted 01-26-2010 6:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 264 (544160)
01-24-2010 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by greyseal
01-24-2010 4:20 AM


Re: perhaps still missing the point?
Hi greyseal, sorry to be a wet blanket (devil's advocate) here, but the topic of this thread is:
Message 1: I propose a discussion on the question,
"What biological evidence is there against Intelligent Design?"
To answer this question properly one would need to know:
  • What biology looks like without design, and
  • What biology looks like with design.
Otherwise we are just making stuff up and pretending that our straw men are reality.
This is difficult with only a sample size of 1 to work with. This leaves us with making assumptions based on what we would do as designers, and this means using all the methods of design as we know it. It also involves assumptions of how involved the designer is in perfecting the design, versus allowing it to run it's course, and where we are in the process (see Bluejay's questions in Message 27). Consider taking a single E.coli. cell and inoculating a plate of agar+x in an experiment: do we fiddle with the DNA to make it mutate, or do we allow the experiment to run undisturbed?
If there is no difference between "evolution" and "evolution+1", ...
It's not ignoring the issue, special pleading or begging the question, I'm just mystified as to the point of basically supposing that there is a deity behind everything when there is no apparent need to (as the results, as you say, are identical). ...
We don't know if we are actually operating in "evolution" or "evolution+1" for starters.
But this is still missing the point -- the difference in biological evidence is between evolution and evolution, whether the universe was designed for evolution or not.
... why not save a step until you come up with a reason to doubt it?
... It's not that there can't be, it's that Occam's Razor comes into play until such time as your "evolution+1" idea can be tested.
In other words make an unfounded assumption and then base our straw man argument on that?
To me the fact that an intelligent designer could use evolution, that the evolutionary paradigms are proving extremely useful to human design that the assumption that they would not be used by a designer is an impractical assumption, is reason enough to be skeptical, to doubt, to ask questions.
Why rule out a possibility a priori if you are approaching a topic with an open mind?
RAZD, I usually agree with most of what you say, but this time I do not, because what you are positing is a process that gives us identical results to non-design.
Ah, so you disagree because you don't like the results? Cognitive dissonance is like that (sorry, I had to throw that in for the monthly installment).
It's not that I want to ignore the issue, it's just that your version of ID is impossible to test. You say that it's results are identical to what we would see should evolution (as we know it) occur naturally.
When you consider all the possibilities of an issue and find that there is no immediate conclusion to be derived from the available evidence, do you just throw out possibilities until you can reach a conclusion, or do you conclude that the available evidence is insufficient to reach a proper conclusion?
What's to test, in that case? the process itself is rendered invisible.
Well that is your problem is it not? If you want to really discuss biological evidence against design, then you need to be able to distinguish design from non-design. If you cannot make that distinction, then the answer is clear: that there can be no clear, unambiguous, empirical evidence that design is not involved.
It's not that I want to build up ID to be some strawman argument, it's that your version of ID is Last Thursdayism - if it's not, please come up with a way that we could actually measure, test and investigate your version of ID, otherwise this entire thread is pointless.
That is the problem isn't it?
Is it faith alone that tells you you're right? It may as well be...
No, it is the simple fact that the evidence pro and con are comparably incapable of showing whether god/s (etc) exist or not, the fact that the logical position is agnostic on the possibilities, regardless of what one believes or what their opinion on the matter is or involves.
I think we both agree that ID is creationism, deeply flawed and relatively easy to refute ...
ID as used by creationists is deeply flawed and relatively easy to refute, because at their core they are creationists and use creationist arguments that are deeply flawed and relatively easy to refute. This has no bearing on what the logical position of ID is (or would be) without being tied to creationism.
... I think your idea of ID is interesting and deserves a thread of it's own, but unless you can find a way to refute it, it's use as a theory, a teaching aid or an avenue of investigation is pointless.
See Is ID properly pursued?, one of my first topics on this forum (posted by my AbbyLeever alias almost 6 years ago).
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by greyseal, posted 01-24-2010 4:20 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by greyseal, posted 01-25-2010 1:51 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 42 by Taq, posted 01-25-2010 7:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 264 (544392)
01-25-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by greyseal
01-25-2010 1:51 AM


Re: perhaps still missing the point?
Hi greyseal.
I'd like to thank Bluejay for covering the basic points. Nice to see someone get it.
In other words make an unfounded assumption and then base our straw man argument on that?
Being agnostic on this issue is not making an unfounded assumption - it is saying that neither side has proven their case, and thus we cannot exclude one to the benefit of the other.
It's not that I don't agree it could be true, but you have said yourself that your idea posits a designer that has used evolution as it appears to work, and has set up the world as it appears to be, in such a way that it is impossible to tell if there was a designer (there's certainly no "made in paradise" labels or god stamps).
I don't think it's justifiable to say "because you can't disprove it, it must exist" - simple parsimony defeats such circular reasoning.
No, the point is that because you can't disprove it, you can't assume it is false. Simple logic dictates that non-invalidated possibilities need to be considered in any complete evaluation.
and the FACTS say
(?) --> universe --> earth --> abiogenesis (?) --> evolution --> us
Let's be honest eh?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by greyseal, posted 01-25-2010 1:51 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 01-26-2010 9:24 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 01-26-2010 12:31 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 54 by deerbreh, posted 01-26-2010 3:55 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 65 by greyseal, posted 01-27-2010 12:37 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 80 of 264 (544700)
01-27-2010 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by greyseal
01-27-2010 12:37 AM


Re: perhaps still missing the point?
Hi greyseal (and Bluejay)
No, the point is that because you can't prove it, you should not assume it is true.
And I'm not saying you have to, as there is a large grey area called I-don't-know. Places where people with interest in the question can pursue it, and others can let it slide until more evidence comes along.
true, but (and here's the rub) I can spend my time conjuring phantasms and contemplating the colour of the invisible unicorns (pink is the current trend), the noodlyness of invisible appendages, the precise orbit for optimum invisibility of orbiting teapots - OR I can consider these ideas and give them the brief airing they require (no proof FOR or AGAINST? okay - possible but has zero impact) and then go back to studying the facts.
And you are missing the point. You have already done this.
The point remains that you just cannot claim that there is biological evidence against a hypothetical ID, based on what you see from evolution, and then say that certain ID concepts cannot be considered as a counter argument.
If you want to argue against neutered straw men, then have fun playing with dolls.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by greyseal, posted 01-27-2010 12:37 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by greyseal, posted 01-28-2010 9:19 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 264 (544704)
01-27-2010 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by deerbreh
01-26-2010 3:55 PM


redirected OP
Hi deerbreh, sorry if I find little point in this thread.
I am going to try to redirect a bit if I might.
First of all, I did not intend to try to DISPROVE anything. What I asked for in the OP was biological evidence against ID. You CAN have biological evidence against special creation and ID (really one and the same) without having the burden of disproof.
You can have evidence against specific claims, such as WWFlood, Young Earth, Irreducible Complexity, etc. and these can show such claims to be illogical and invalidated concepts. The principle of falsification can be applied to scientific concepts to disprove false ones.
Just as we can have lots of biological evidence that supports evolution, yet evolutionary biologists, like all scientists avoid using the term proof.
Because we know that we can never cover all the bases, see all the evidence, so all we can say is that evidence to date shows that evolution is the best explanation we know for the diversity of life as we know it.
The only other alternative is to conjure up a trickster God - one who "plants evidence". The only Intelligent Designer that makes any sense is the one who is either incredibly inept or a cynic who likes to play tricks on people just for amusement.
Or one that is (a) not concerned with the results on earth, or (b) letting things run their course to see what occurs, or .... etc etc etc
Again, you are assuming a lot of self importance about humans that isn't necessarily justified.
The ID proponents have created the argument.
But are you understanding the argument and treating it fairly?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by deerbreh, posted 01-26-2010 3:55 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 01-28-2010 1:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 128 of 264 (545291)
02-02-2010 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by hawkes nightmare
02-02-2010 8:53 PM


Hawkes Nightmare old hat rehashed creationist garbage
Hi Hawkes Nightmare,
There is a thread for you and your PRATTs:
PRATT Party and Free for All, Message 1.
If you want to discuss your websites with Coyote, he is waiting for you there.
ok here's another. going back to the origional topic- can an evolutionist please explain where the bombardier beetle came from?
Yawn. This is OLD creationist junk, already refuted a thousand times.
see Message 20 of the above thread.
Not worth spending any more time on.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
Edited by RAZD, : moved to appropriate thread

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by hawkes nightmare, posted 02-02-2010 8:53 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 135 of 264 (545453)
02-03-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Blue Jay
02-03-2010 4:05 PM


False Dichotomies and a priori assumptions
Hi Bluejay,
You can't expect me to give a straight answer to a question that employs a premise that I think is false, requires me to implicitly accept a controversial usage of a term that has caused much strife on this very site, and assumes that my primary argument is wrong from the get-go.
Welcome to Straggler-World, where all issues are black and white and overloaded with preconditions that beg the question ... been there.
Just to let you know, I am enjoying your posts.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Blue Jay, posted 02-03-2010 4:05 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 1:24 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 141 of 264 (545548)
02-04-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Straggler
02-04-2010 1:24 AM


reality is not Straggler-World, Straggler-World is not reality
Hi Straggler-World
And yet even you have had to accept that there never is and never can be a complete absence of all objective evidence.
Except I never said that, in fact I have said this is a misrepresentation before, this is your made up version of events.
Mushrooms grow in the woods at night under a new moon during a storm is objective evidence, it can be independently verified, cataloged and documented.
In that sense, and that sense alone, there is never a "complete absence of evidence," however this hardly relates to having evidence for an argument that does not involve mushrooms. Even in situations that involve mushrooms it is not conclusive evidence as mushrooms can be shown to be growing in other conditions, places and times.
In other words it is only true in the most tautological useless sense. Like a lot of your conclusions.
Can there be a complete absence of all objective evidence that {X} is true? yes.
Can there be a complete absence of all objective evidence that {X} is false? yes.
Therefore, on any one topic it is entirely possible to have a complete absence of all objective evidence that {X} is true or false.
Curiously, that is the only objective evidence that matters concerning the reality of {X}.
That alone made it all worthwhile.
That's Straggler-World for you. You only read what you want to read, reject what other people say that you disagree with, and make up things to fit your perceptions.
It's fascinating to watch. The dancing around, the pretense, the posing.
Bluejay has had your lunch for some time now, yet you seem incapable of comprehending that simple fact. Why does that not surprise me in the slightest?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 1:24 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 8:28 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 184 of 264 (546161)
02-08-2010 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by xongsmith
02-08-2010 8:16 PM


Side issue on Complexity
Hi xongsmith,
How would you define "complexity" in biology?
What is the difference between a single cell organism and a multicellular organism?
The number of parts you need to make the whole, including
- the number of different parts
- the number of repetitions of similar parts
Some parts could fall into nested hierarchies to make components, depending on how complex the multicellular life is.
My guy is not measuring just the amount of information - it's the information needed to describe the population's characteristics and variation and specific details.
Would not greater complexity require more information to describe it?
ie is information ∝ complexity?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by xongsmith, posted 02-08-2010 8:16 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Straggler, posted 02-09-2010 7:11 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 229 of 264 (546477)
02-11-2010 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Blue Jay
02-11-2010 12:30 AM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Hi Bluejay,
Up until the point when you posted on this thread, I was very adamantly arguing that ID is not (necessarily) creationism.
And doing a great job at it.
You, and people like you, keep insisting that there is a difference between ID and creationism, but you do not seem to be able to envision an Intelligent Designer who isn’t the Creator.
It seems that the creationists can't understand that there is an inherent conflict between full commitment to ID and full commitment to their faith, and that as a result one or the other will suffer, usually this means that their portrayal of ID suffers, because it is weakened until it supports the faith.
It's part of the confirmation bias \ cognitive dissonance \ world view problem.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2010 12:30 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but 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