Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
27 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, PaulK (3 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 107 (406426)
06-19-2007 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:59 PM


Re: Processes
Should SETI also give up because no intelligent signals have yet been detected from outer space?

Just so you know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow_signal

Intelligent? Well, it's the only signal so far that can't be ruled out as intelligent.

I'm just sayin'. SETI has more results than so-called "intelligent design" advocates can point to.

I was told that on a "low level" they do not yet know why it happens.

So, you asked students who hadn't gotten to that part in class?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:59 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 06-22-2007 7:18 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 77 of 107 (406445)
06-20-2007 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:59 PM


Re: Processes
Jaywill writes:

Modulous writes:

However, detecting intelligent design in biological systems can be a scientific process.

I take this sentence to mean (if not a typo) that you don't deny that ID research is science.

This seems rather twisted since Modulous then goes on to quite clearly say why he doesn't consider any of the current ID 'research' to be science. What he very specifically says is that research into the topic ID claims to be about, could be done scientifically, the fact that the ID movement does not approach it in such a way, with some rare exceptions, is one reason why it is not taken seriously.

In those instances where ID researchers have approached the issue scientifically, such as in Behe and Snoke's published research on the evolution of simple structral motifs (2004), what they have found has given no support at all to ID hypotheses.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:59 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jaywill, posted 06-22-2007 7:38 AM Wounded King has responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 228 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 78 of 107 (406751)
06-22-2007 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by crashfrog
06-19-2007 11:00 PM


Re: Processes
Thanks for the Link. Quoted from link provided above:

Speculations on the origin

It has been speculated that interstellar scintillation of a weaker continuous signal — similar, in effect, to atmospheric twinkling—could be a possible explanation, although this still would not exclude the possibility of the signal being artificial in its nature. However, even by using the significantly more sensitive Very Large Array, such a signal could not be detected, and the probability that a signal below the Very Large Array level could be detected by the Big Ear radio telescope due to interstellar scintillation is low.[4] Other speculations include a rotating lighthouse-like source or a signal sweeping in frequency.

Ehman has stated his doubts that the signal is of intelligent extraterrestrial origin: "We should have seen it again when we looked for it 50 times. Something suggests it was an Earth-sourced signal that simply got reflected off a piece of space debris."[6]

He later recanted his skepticism somewhat after further research scientifically relegated an Earth-bound signal to be astronomically unlikely, due to the requirements of a space-borne reflector being bound to certain unrealistic requirements to sufficiently explain the nature of the signal. Also, the 1420 MHz signal is problematic in itself in that it is "protected spectrum" or bandwidth in which terrestrial transmitters are forbidden to transmit. In his most recent writings, Ehman resists "drawing vast conclusions from half-vast data."

Are you willing to allow ID researches the same freedom to speculate and possibly alter their opinions?

If SETI researchers have this freedom why do you want to nip ID in the bud before they have opportunity to speculate pro and con?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2007 11:00 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by mark24, posted 06-22-2007 8:07 AM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2007 9:19 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 228 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 79 of 107 (406755)
06-22-2007 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wounded King
06-20-2007 5:02 AM


Re: Processes
In those instances where ID researchers have approached the issue scientifically, such as in Behe and Snoke's published research on the evolution of simple structral motifs (2004), what they have found has given no support at all to ID hypotheses.

I would first want to know what was the stated purpose of the authors of the specific article to which you refer?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wounded King, posted 06-20-2007 5:02 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Wounded King, posted 06-22-2007 8:30 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3482 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 80 of 107 (406756)
06-22-2007 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by jaywill
06-22-2007 7:18 AM


Re: Processes
jaywill,

If SETI researchers have this freedom why do you want to nip ID in the bud before they have opportunity to speculate pro and con?

They've had thousands of years, & still nada.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 06-22-2007 7:18 AM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 81 of 107 (406759)
06-22-2007 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by jaywill
06-22-2007 7:38 AM


Re: Processes
Well then why don't you click on the reference link I provided and read the abstract of the paper? Or indeed read the whole paper since that is linked to from the abstract and is now freely available.

I'm still not sure what point you think you are making. If their point wasn't to provide any support for an ID hypothesis, either directly or by casting doubt on the efficacy of traditional evolutionary theories then it should be an even clearer indication of the paucity of ID research.

When the most prominent IDist researchers, i.e. Michael Behe and Doug Axe, aren't producing anything which touches on ID except in the most indirect manner by casting doubt on the feasibility of 'neo-darwinian' mechanisms, one has to wonder whether any science of ID actually exists.

The Biologic Institute, which Axe heads, was set up 2 years ago now to perform ID research in secret, we have yet to see any super secret results. I don't complain about that, my own publishing record is pretty meager, but I am but one man not a research institute. Indeed Axe has been funded by the Discovery institute to do research on design related issues for the past 8 years and none of his published works seem to offer any support to ID, for all they have been held up as peer reviewed ID research.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jaywill, posted 06-22-2007 7:38 AM jaywill has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 107 (406768)
06-22-2007 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by jaywill
06-22-2007 7:18 AM


Re: Processes
Are you willing to allow ID researches the same freedom to speculate and possibly alter their opinions?

There are no ID researchers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 06-22-2007 7:18 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 83 of 107 (406770)
06-22-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:59 PM


Re: Processes
I take this sentence to mean (if not a typo) that you don't deny that ID research is science.

The full paragraph was:

quote:
However, detecting intelligent design in biological systems can be a scientific process. The point is that no intelligent design has been scientifically detected in biological systems. If we were doing it scientifically (as in forensic science) we'd have to describe a process that would lead to the final result (the evidence). So far the ID movement, which you allude to, has been unable to describe a feasable and repeatable process that could interact in a predictable fashion to the development of life.

Which is basically what I am saying. That life was designed can be a scientific conclusion, but it cannot be a scientific theory. A scientific theory would need to describe physical mechanisms (the hows) before it could reach the conclusion. So far the ID movement has stated its conclusion without describing the hows. So yes, ID has the potential to have been a scientific area - but nobody has approached it in a scientific manner.

That sounds debatable. That sounds arguable. But let's say I take your statement at face value. So ID should give up because of this?

Should IDers give up? You can't give up what you haven't started yet.

Should SETI also give up because no intelligent signals have yet been detected from outer space?

Nope - but they know what an intelligent signal looks like because they have a theory as to what intelligent signals look like and what unintelligent signals look like. There is a strong theoretical framework describing how unintelligent signals are produced and how intelligent ones can be produced and the differences between the two.

Are you going to tell students of science who are interested in ID that they are wasting their time? Or should some continue to explore the possibilities?

If someone wants to develop a theoretical framework describing the mechanisms with which an intelligent agent could intervene to 'shape' the development of life then that is their own concern. Go for it if you want, but at this time nobody has actually done this - that's all I am saying.

I'm not sure how "repeatable" the Big Bang event is. Yet it is agreed upon by many as a valid scientific theory.

The Big Bang event is probably as repeatable as a murder. Ie - not at all. However the Big Bang isn't a scientific theory - it is a conclusion from a scientific theory (Relativity being the first theory involved and now work is well on its way to understand the big bang in more detail by synthesising it with quantum theories.

The natural process by which the Big Bang occured is described in detail?

The big bang is described in exquisite exquisite detail. More detail than any other event I can think of. So much detail it takes years to learn the broad strokes, and decades to learn more of the details.

The entire history is not completely mapped out - but that doesn't stop it from being science. Continuing investigation has lead to more and more detail being added into it. The Big Bang is simply 'the universe used to be much much denser'. We have an enormous amount of details on this, and how the universe changed through time from there on in - right up to the point where quantum processes and relativity processes need synthesising.

Then again - nobody is saying that there is a complete history. There are some good contenders being developed but we are missing some key pieces of evidence to discern between them. Those key pieces of evidence have been identified, described and experiments to gain that evidence have been proposed. The Large Hadron Collider was so keenly anticipated because it can help falsify some of these theories hopefully leaving us with only one highly confirmed, unfalsified theory.

Has the natural process which keeps a star burning been completely described in total?

I don't think so, but you may have misunderstood. I have been saying that the exploration and discovery and understanding of processes is science. Not knowing these processes doesn't render their discovery unscientific - quite the contrary. We have a methodology in place for process understanding and we call that methodology the scientific methodology. If you are using it you are engaging in science.

Since 'ID research' is not about discovering the processes of a designer it isn't scientific research into 'Design'. All they have done is attempt to show that the theory of evolution cannot not describe a complete history of life on earth using erroneous data or claiming fallacious conclusions. Criticising the theory of evolution can be a scientific endeavour, but the current criticism from the ID crowd is so untenable it can only really be described as pseudo-scientific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:59 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
whaler777
Junior Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 05-07-2007


Message 84 of 107 (407139)
06-24-2007 2:07 PM


For me the biggest questions i think of and can't make any sense of, is that if evolution exist than by chance how did we got here and what is our purpose here on planet earth if any? Also were did sin come from and why do we have it. Why are we hard wire to do kind things to one another and it feels good when we do it? Why do we all have urge to find out how we got here and is this all by chance?

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2007 4:03 PM whaler777 has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 107 (407152)
06-24-2007 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by whaler777
06-24-2007 2:07 PM


None of these questions are on-topic in this thread, but suffice to say - if you can't answer these questions for yourself (what is my purpose, why do people do things, where did I come from and what am I supposed to do) neither evolution nor any religion is going to answer them for you.

Your purpose is whatever you decide it is. The biological origins of humanity are described by evolution. You've asked questions, though, that can't be covered in a single thread, particularly one not on those topics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by whaler777, posted 06-24-2007 2:07 PM whaler777 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by whaler777, posted 06-28-2007 9:15 AM crashfrog has responded

  
whaler777
Junior Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 05-07-2007


Message 86 of 107 (407735)
06-28-2007 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
06-24-2007 4:03 PM


Thanks Crashfrog for replying,just as i expected complete run around on words you must dazzle people with your lingo. But as for me your going to have to do a better job of dazzling. But now come to think of it as i read between the lines you didn't have an answer.

Edited by whaler777, : No reason given.

Edited by whaler777, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2007 4:03 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Admin, posted 06-28-2007 9:23 AM whaler777 has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Chiroptera, posted 06-28-2007 1:52 PM whaler777 has not yet responded
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2007 2:13 PM whaler777 has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 87 of 107 (407736)
06-28-2007 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by whaler777
06-28-2007 9:15 AM


Hi Whaler777!

You're asking some rather large though relevant questions in a thread that's focused on a rather narrow topic. If you'd like to participate in discussions with a broader focus revolving around the meaning of life, why we're here, why is there sin, and so forth, you could propose a new topic in the Proposed New Topics forum.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by whaler777, posted 06-28-2007 9:15 AM whaler777 has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6803
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 88 of 107 (407795)
06-28-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by whaler777
06-28-2007 9:15 AM


Hey, whaler.

This has been ruled off-topic, but I will say that I think that crashfrog gave a perfectly good response to your post.

See you on the appropriate thread!


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by whaler777, posted 06-28-2007 9:15 AM whaler777 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 107 (407799)
06-28-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by whaler777
06-28-2007 9:15 AM


just as i expected complete run around on words you must dazzle people with your lingo.

What "lingo", exactly?

I'm sensitive to the fact that describing science often requires using (and therefore defining) terms that are not familiar to most people; but I don't see where I used any unfamiliar terms in my post to you.

It's plain English as far as I can tell. Exactly what part of my response did you have trouble understanding?

But as for me your going to have to do a better job of dazzling.

It was not my intent to "dazzle", but rather, to communicate my thoughts clearly. In your view, how did I fail at that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by whaler777, posted 06-28-2007 9:15 AM whaler777 has not yet responded

  
whaler777
Junior Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 05-07-2007


Message 90 of 107 (407929)
06-29-2007 10:39 AM


I apoligize for the response i made earlier. I was a little harsh and mainly it was due to reading most of these threads about people being closed mind thinking. By that i mean i saw most people defend evolution(evilution) with a death wish but refuse to look at other theories with same intensity(creation theory for example)and was wondering why would you?. There is a better chance in a tornado for 747 to be created from an airplane wrecking yard than for any of these theories to exist. But anyways your wright i'm probably in the wrong area for this discussion. Sorry.

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2007 11:09 AM whaler777 has not yet responded
 Message 93 by Taz, posted 06-29-2007 11:23 AM whaler777 has not yet responded
 Message 95 by dwise1, posted 06-29-2007 12:18 PM whaler777 has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019