Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 2:23 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,788 Year: 11,824/19,786 Month: 1,605/2,641 Week: 114/708 Day: 48/66 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2286 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 16 of 112 (180188)
01-24-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
01-24-2005 10:21 AM


Re: Bump
Is that a suitable project for this thread> Maybe we should start a new thread for a more in-depth dissection of the papers put forward.

TTFN,

WK

P.S. I've just skimmed through the Axe paper.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 01-24-2005 10:21 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 01-24-2005 10:59 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 112 (180191)
01-24-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Wounded King
01-24-2005 10:45 AM


Re: Bump
Is that a suitable project for this thread

It could be if we treat it right. Essentially I am asking for the most recent developments. No one said anything here, but that was advanced at the other forum to CK and in essence would be Dembski's contribution to my question.

I suppose tearing them apart in detail would be worth a different thread. But general comments on if these show productive efforts from ID and a direction for research, would be worthwhile.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 01-24-2005 10:45 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by CK, posted 01-26-2005 7:21 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 18 of 112 (180943)
01-26-2005 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
01-24-2005 10:59 AM


Map? what's a map?
and then a familar face turned up:

Thread found here

(totally off topic but not worth a thread of it's own).

edited by AdminJar to fix long link

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-27-2005 06:18 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 01-24-2005 10:59 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-27-2005 12:19 AM CK has responded

  
Demosthenes Fan
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 112 (180966)
01-26-2005 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by CK
01-24-2005 10:37 AM


Re: Bump
Charles Knight writes:

I fail to see the SETI connection that they make - maybe I'm just stupid but I don't see how it links to intelligent design (in the manner they use it).
Can someone explain it to me?

Perhaps William Demski is using the Raelian’s view on the ID issue – hence the SETI connection. Though I doubt it, I just thought I would throw it out there.


"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife." ~ Douglas Adams

“I wish more people would shave with Occam's Razor.” Orson Scott Card


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by CK, posted 01-24-2005 10:37 AM CK has not yet responded

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 20 of 112 (180993)
01-27-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by CK
01-26-2005 7:21 PM


WILLOWevcTREE
Hey Charles-

Did you follow WT's link to www.iidb.org, where you can bask in the glory of a one-on-one great pyramid debate between WT (now going by the name "WILLOWevcTREE") and "Pervert Hobbit Fancier"? Such memories...

Back on topic, there is also the ID "journal" Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), which only seems to contain review and theoretical articles. (Again not quite what the thread is after).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by CK, posted 01-26-2005 7:21 PM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by CK, posted 01-27-2005 1:59 AM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 21 of 112 (181006)
01-27-2005 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by pink sasquatch
01-27-2005 12:19 AM


Come on IDers!
Why don't you want to take this one on?

What's the problem?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-27-2005 12:19 AM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Delusion, posted 01-27-2005 2:45 AM CK has not yet responded

  
Delusion
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 112 (181010)
01-27-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by CK
01-27-2005 1:59 AM


Re: Come on IDers!
Intelligent Design, as it stands now, does not even classify as a scientific 'theory' by the fact that it is not falsifiable. Any scientific advance in Intelligent Design would require 'complexity' as they define it to be quantized and somehow testable.

This thread is beating on a dead horse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by CK, posted 01-27-2005 1:59 AM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 01-27-2005 5:00 AM Delusion has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 23 of 112 (181032)
01-27-2005 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Delusion
01-27-2005 2:45 AM


Re: Come on IDers!
This thread is beating on a dead horse.

It's not designed to be, and I can say that since I'm the one that started it.

While I agree with your assessment regarding its current status as a scientific field of study, that does not mean that it cannot change or will not change. The question is if anyone in the ID camp is actually trying, and if they are not, or if there is no movement despite their efforts, does this mean something about that field?

Indeed even if what we feel is true, that second question to IDers prevents this thread from just beating on a dead horse. What are their assessments of a field which is static? Does it not have implications, even if just from a practical standpoint?

Any scientific advance in Intelligent Design would require 'complexity' as they define it to be quantized and somehow testable.

This is correct and one of the major challenges they face. Do we see any effort to truly define, measure, and calculate in an objective way, and then test the results? If so, have there been any results worth mentioning?

Again, if not, then should this say something to the IDist?

As a note of consolation to the IDist, it is readily known that in the past there certainly were scientific theories that were unable to get the evidence required for long periods of time, thus lack of success or ability to have success in the here and now, is not the sole criteria for a valid hypothesis which could become a theory.

Perhaps they would avail themselves this life preserver and admit that what they have is not a theory but a hypothesis that requires a lot more work and body of knowledge of biology, before being able to acquire the evidence they need.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Delusion, posted 01-27-2005 2:45 AM Delusion has not yet responded

    
mick
Member (Idle past 3178 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 24 of 112 (186828)
02-19-2005 5:18 PM


first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
I guess you all know about this, but just in case;
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177.

IDers seemed rather pleased to get this published, though it was swiftly retracted by the journal
http://www.biolsocwash.org/


Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by AdminNosy, posted 02-19-2005 5:47 PM mick has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 02-19-2005 6:04 PM mick has responded
 Message 27 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-19-2005 7:34 PM mick has not yet responded
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2005 7:36 PM mick has not yet responded

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


Message 25 of 112 (186833)
02-19-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mick
02-19-2005 5:18 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
Thanks, Mick, for this and the other helpful links you have posted.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mick, posted 02-19-2005 5:18 PM mick has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3224 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 112 (186836)
02-19-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mick
02-19-2005 5:18 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
As I am starting to envelope a phenotypic perspective of baramin differences in a decomposition of THE set of natural numbers as Mendel’s original thought an genetic reality of pea forms it might be possible to relate specific complexity to the modulo operation. I have no idea if this will relate to the hierarchy of organism order from which I was led to the idea
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=124&m=12#12
or if it continues to remain in the a posteriori relation of the difference of dominance and recessiveness in plants. It wont matter if life if discovered off Earth.

http://www.counterbalance.net/id-hvt/isthe-body.html

quote:

Is the flagellum complex? General considerations
Recall that, according to Dembski, to say that any biotic system X (such as the bacterial flagellum) is complex is to say that the probability of its actualization (its coming to be assembled or constructed as a distinct biotic structure) must be less than the “universal probability bound,” a = 10 - 150; or, to say it more concisely, X is complex if P(X) < a. Note that this makes the “complexity” of X a property, not of X itself, but of the means by which it came to be actualized. This unorthodox employment of the word complexity is an essential element in Dembski’s case for intelligent design.

It seems that the argument against ID is that the complexity is defined interms of some a priori or ar bitrary value (universal probability bound) and thus IS NOT SCIENCE but I am beginning to see how it might be possible to actualize a definition by Kroncker’s philosophy of math that is dependent on the MEANS to which ID plausibility is actualized rather than by subtraction or comparision to an unknown value. I have too many pedantic things to work on than to dedicate all my thought to this but if anyone finds something that EVCers don’t already know I’ll be happy to look into it.

This complexity would have to work orderwise for any kingdom and would supply what was lacking according to Muller and Neumann and in the link you provided to Meyer's paper as Meyer said,

Yet Muller and Newman insist that population genetics, and thus evolutionary biology, has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life. Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure.

So I suggest that modulo operations rather than 4-D ordertype the kinds of forms that change. I dont know if that really works or not.
Meyer had "Form, like life itself, is easy to recognize but often hard to define precisely. Yet, a reasonable working definition of form will suffice for our present purposes. Form can be defined as the four-dimensional topological relations of anatomical parts. This means that one can understand form as a unified arrangement of body parts or material components in a distinct shape or pattern (topology)--one that exists in three spatial dimensions and which arises in time during ontogeny."
Meyer's paper

As JonF had recently informed us
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=169&m=35#35 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=169&m=35#35">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=169&m=35#35
of the difference of Shannon and K measures the space USED by Meyer is not the one I have thought.

quote:

Thus, we can pose a question, not only about the origin of genetic information, but also about the origin of the information necessary to generate form and structure at levels higher than that present in individual proteins. We must also ask about the origin of the “specified complexity,” as opposed to mere complexity, that characterizes the new genes, proteins, cell types and body plans that arose in the Cambrian explosion. Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.

op.cit.

This is a rather important possiblity of mine as it not only justifies HMMorris'

quote:
These well-meaning folks did not really invent the idea of intelligent design, of course. Dembski often refers, for example, to the bacterial flagellum as a strong evidence for design (and indeed it is); but one of our ICR scientists (the late Dr. Dick Bliss) was using this example in his talks on creation a generation ago. And what about our monographs on the monarch butterfly, the bombardier beetle, and many other testimonies to divine design? Creationists have been documenting design for many years, going back to Paley's watchmaker and beyond.

Dembski uses the term "specified complexity" as the main criterion for recognizing design. This has essentially the same meaning as "organized complexity," which is more meaningful and which I have often used myself. He refers to the Borel number (1 in 1050) as what he calls a "universal probability bound," below which chance is precluded. He himself calculates the total conceivable number of specified events throughout cosmic history to be 10150 with one chance out of that number as being the limit of chance. In a book4 written a quarter of a century ago, I had estimated this number to be 10110, and had also referred to the Borel number for comparison. His treatment did add the term "universal probability bound" to the rhetoric.


http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-194a.htm
but it explains that SEQUENCES byHalberstamandRoth page 116
"we need a subtle modification of our defintion of 'probability space' (in view of the possiblility of X being non-enumerable). We can no longer insist that every probability measure should be defined for all subsets E of X.Instead...(The stipulation that mu should be 'countably additive' is now interpreted to mean that (3.1') is satisfied for every sequence {Ej} of disjoint events for which each...We must also abandon..."

would not need to be called for using Morris' number rather than Demsbski's AFTER the difference of creation science and scientific creationism IS NOT denied in this booleon representation of physical reality by ID people.
"Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from creation science, or scientific creationism."
Morris op. cit.

There would still be a questionable issue about larger man-made orders but I think these could hopefully be dealt with economically.

I have no idea if Dembski's insistance on this universal bound is due to his committment to this cited modification of probability spaces "in view of the possiblity of X being non-enumerable"(p116 SEQUENCES op.cit.). It seems reasonable that this was the case. Let the jury decide. I fear Dembski might have conflated the actual knoweldge of modulo operations on real numbers and those I might suppose to have already worked transfinitely. But that is just BS- or so I joke. BM. In any case Mendel thought the ratios were expressed in terms of true numbers, whether integers or behaving like transfinites and not mere approximations as any such modified probabilty space will give if the nature were really non-enumerable. Of course one can have the modification and finitness. I dont!

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-19-2005 19:53 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mick, posted 02-19-2005 5:18 PM mick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mick, posted 02-19-2005 10:23 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 27 of 112 (186854)
02-19-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mick
02-19-2005 5:18 PM


first id article published / same old tactics
Hey Mick, welcome to the forum.

I just scanned part of the review and I see it trotting out the usual propaganda tactics of omission and misrepresentation, just dressed up in the language (but not the logic) of science.

If I had been a reviewer of the manuscript, I would have probably rejected solely on the following line, following the tired old probability game:

A gene 999 bases in length represents one of 4^999 possible nucleotide sequences; a protein of 333 amino acids is one of 20^333 possibilities.

Which is it? Meyer just gave two probabilities for the same exact situation, which is problematic as self-contradiction, and more problematic because neither is correct.

I also enjoyed his total misrepresentation of theories of origin of novel genetic information, starting with:

Indeed, mutagenesis experiments cast doubt on each of the two scenarios by which neo-Darwinists envisioned new information arising from the mutation/selection mechanism (for review, see Lonnig 2001). For neo-Darwinism, new functional genes either arise from non-coding sections in the genome or from preexisting genes. Both scenarios are problematic.

Meyer might have something of a point if he hadn't ignored the fact that there are more than two scenarios. Specifically, he tries to refute novel genes arising from preexisting functional sequence by stating that the organism could not survive the alteration and thus loss of preexisting gene function. I guess Meyer never heard of genetic duplication events.

He also didn't bring up domain-level duplications and rearrangments, which have the capacity to rapidly create novel proteins.

While Meyer has references dotted throughout the review, he doesn't cite any evidence for his key assertions from which the rest of his argument follows. He repeatedly states:

New cell types require many new and specialized proteins.

Since he provides no reference for this repeated claim, I can only believe there is no evidence for it; that it is an argument from the obvious. Given the discussion going on in the thread Cells into Organs: could it evolve?, it would appear that Meyer is incorrect, or at least drastically overstating his case.

Another silly tidbit:

Yet, clearly, the properties of individual proteins (or, indeed, the lower-level parts in the hierarchy generally) do not fully determine the organization of the higher-level structures and organizational patterns (Harold 2001:125). It follows that the genetic information that codes for proteins does not determine these higher-level structures either.

He then goes on to argue for several paragraphs without further references that neoDarwinists have got it all wrong, since genetic information cannot code for pattern and organization. A bold argument considering it is founded on a single claim about proteins from a non-peer-reviewed book ...

There are other obvious errors of logic and omission in the review - maybe others can pick their favorite.

It is really too bad that the review passed "peer review".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mick, posted 02-19-2005 5:18 PM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2005 7:40 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19977
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 28 of 112 (186855)
02-19-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mick
02-19-2005 5:18 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
the retraction is actually at
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html

when dealing with sites using frames it is a little harder to get the exact addresses -- I right click to {open in another tab\window} and then you get just the page without the frame.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mick, posted 02-19-2005 5:18 PM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-19-2005 7:41 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19977
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 29 of 112 (186856)
02-19-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by pink sasquatch
02-19-2005 7:34 PM


Re: first id article published / same old tactics
yes, the question remains who "peered" at it. just the previous editor (an admitted IDist sympathizer?)?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-19-2005 7:34 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 30 of 112 (186857)
02-19-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
02-19-2005 7:36 PM


Not really the first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
Thanks for the link RAZD.

So... it was published in a "peer-reviewed journal", but it wasn't actually peer-reviewed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2005 7:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2005 7:53 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 02-19-2005 8:11 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded
 Message 34 by JonF, posted 02-20-2005 9:15 AM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019