Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-17-2019 6:01 PM
155 online now:
candle2, DrJones*, marc9000, Tangle, Theodoric (5 members, 150 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,611 Year: 2,648/19,786 Month: 730/1,918 Week: 17/301 Day: 17/38 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
18Next
Author Topic:   A thought on Intelligence behind Design
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 808 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 181 of 261 (46720)
07-21-2003 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by PaulK
07-21-2003 12:28 PM


Re: Design, hold the Intelligent
Paul,

I had tongue in cheek, you know? But thanks for the response all the same.

db

------------------
Have you graduated from Sunday School?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2003 12:28 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 261 (46744)
07-21-2003 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by John
07-21-2003 10:37 AM


Re: Design, hold the Intelligent
Warren: "They want to see "Made by God" written in the cell. Or they want to see an example of something that couldn't possibly have evolved. Or they want to see an intelligent designer designing things."

John<< All reasonable requests. The first would certainly clench the deal. Finding a manufacturer's tag would certainly prove ID. Not finding such a tag does not disprove ID. I don't know why you find this so objectionable.>>

Warren<< These may be reasonable requests if one is seeking proof of ID but since when is proof required to produce a working hypothesis and begin an investigation? That's what I'm talking about. I never asked anyone what they would consider proof of ID. I asked what would count as evidence for ID. Another way I have put it is to ask what would cause one to merely suspect ID. I get the same answers either way. It's as if the ID critics don't understand the question or they can't conceive of a middle ground between evidence for ID and absolute proof of ID or something that would merely cause a suspicion rather than something that would convince the skeptic. Can you imagine the reaction if I were asked what would cause me to suspect a non-teleological origin of life and I said I would need to see life being created from non-life via non-intelligent processes, or I needed to see some biological thing that couldn't have been created by an intelligent agent?>>

John<< The second... well, every ID theorist I have ever read has made the Irreducible Complexity argument and that argument is just this-- that X couldn't have possibly evolved. This one is the ID theorist's fault. >>

Warren<< I know of no ID theorist that makes this claim. And that includes Dembski and Behe. I think you, Holmes and others are mis-interpreting what you read and this is because you fail to recognize that ID theorists make a distinction between evolution and Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution involves direct routes of evolution. Direct routes of evolution are the ones best supported by empirical and experimental evidence. The traditional examples of Darwin's finches (and their beaks), giraffe necks, elephant trunks, darkening wings in moths are all examples of direct evolution. And it is precisely this kind of evolution that can't produce an IC system. Yes, it's impossible for modifications along a linear axis to produce IC systems. But as Behe points out in his book it is theorectically possible that the evolution of an IC system could proceed via a circuitous route. Very unlikely but not impossible.

Mike Gene notes:

"Co-option is the most commonly cited circuitous means to generate an IC system. Bur this really isn't Darwinian evolution (i.e. step by step changes captured by selection.) This is essentially a return to raw coincidence to account for apparent design. The brilliance of Darwin was to minimize the role of chance in apparent design. But once we turn to the co-option explanation, we leave this explanatory appeal behind, as chance reasserts itself into a place of prominence. For it is chance that determines whether the various gene products just happen to come together to form a new functioning system, as selection was previously pruning these gene products in accord with various different functions. Thus, again the co-option explanation is really a return to using chance as an explanation for apparent design, and just as it was not convincing in pre-Darwinian days, it is not convincing today. If one is to invoke co-option, good supporting evidence is required.

But the problems with co-option are deeper. Once we leave the random tweaking of a protein along a linear axis guided by selection and instead appeal to multiple coincidences entailed by different, independent proteins being shaped for various other functions that just happen to coalesce into a brand new system, the role of coincidence itself is brought into question."

So to say that Darwinian evolution can't produce an IC system isn't the same as saying it's impossible for evolution to produce an IC system. But in such a case one is really only saying that one can't rule out an IC system originating via a series of lucky coincidences. It's not possible to prove this kind of evolution impossible but as Mike Gene says:

It must be comfy when your hypotheses about the world only need to be possible. Then to have a brand of metaphysics that converts the possible into the actual, unless the possible is proven impossible.

[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-21-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by John, posted 07-21-2003 10:37 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by MrHambre, posted 07-21-2003 5:53 PM Warren has not yet responded
 Message 185 by mark24, posted 07-21-2003 8:43 PM Warren has not yet responded
 Message 186 by John, posted 07-21-2003 11:55 PM Warren has not yet responded
 Message 192 by Silent H, posted 07-22-2003 1:45 PM Warren has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 183 of 261 (46747)
07-21-2003 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Warren
07-21-2003 5:01 PM


quote:
Direct routes of evolution are the ones best supported by empirical and experimental evidence.[...] And it is precisely this kind of evolution that can't produce an IC system. Yes, it's impossible for modifications along a linear axis to produce IC systems.
Care to provide any supporting evidence for this outrageous claim other than your evidently boundless personal incredulity?

quote:
Thus, again the co-option explanation is really a return to using chance as an explanation for apparent design, and just as it was not convincing in pre-Darwinian days, it is not convincing today. If one is to invoke co-option, good supporting evidence is required.
In the Darwinian framework, a structure has no function other than that selected for in the context of the organism. We've already discussed the bones of the inner ear being co-opted from vestigial reptilian jawbones. It is theorized that the bacterial flagellum originally served as a secretory system until it was co-opted for another purpose. Please let us know on what basis you assume that a biological structure could not have served any other purpose than the one it currently serves.

quote:
It must be comfy when your hypotheses about the world only need to be possible.
You must take similar comfort in knowing that your hypotheses about the world don't need to be possible, plausible, consistent, verifiable, testable, falsifiable, or even explanatory.

------------------
Quien busca, halla


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Warren, posted 07-21-2003 5:01 PM Warren has not yet responded

    
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 261 (46777)
07-21-2003 8:29 PM


Intelligent Design
Warren<< Direct routes of evolution are the ones best supported by empirical and experimental evidence.[...] And it is precisely this kind of evolution that can't produce an IC system. Yes, it's impossible for modifications along a linear axis to produce IC systems.>>

MrHambre<< Care to provide any supporting evidence for this outrageous claim other than your evidently boundless personal incredulity?>>

Warren<< If this is an outrageous claim then you should have no problem refuting it.>>

MrHambre<< Please let us know on what basis you assume that a biological structure could not have served any other purpose than the one it currently serves.>>

Warren: I don't assume that. I do however require evidence. I need evidence that a biological structure served another purpose than the one it currently serves.

MrHambre<< You must take similar comfort in knowing that your hypotheses about the world don't need to be possible, plausible, consistent, verifiable, testable, falsifiable, or even explanatory.>>

Warren<< You seem to know a lot about my hypotheses even though you've never seen one. Care to explain that? >>

[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-21-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by MrHambre, posted 07-22-2003 9:41 AM Warren has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3239 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 185 of 261 (46779)
07-21-2003 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Warren
07-21-2003 5:01 PM


Re: Design, hold the Intelligent
Warren,

It must be comfy when your hypotheses about the world only need to be possible.

Nonsense. You have to contend with the broad consensus provided by cladograms & phylogenetic analyses, that against all the odds, return similar evolutionary relationships. If we are to accept these analyses, then by definition IC must have evolved, the question becomes one of how.

Your argument simply seeks to ignore all of the congruent, corroborating evidence that clearly points to evolution having had occurred, & at the same time seeks to stand on a soapbox of incredulity & lack of evidence.

I don't assume that. I do however require evidence. I need evidence that a biological structure served another purpose than the one it currently serves.

Like the fossil evidence that so clearly points to mammalian inner ear bones being originally derived from reptilian jaw bones? Which, in a world of amazing coincidence is precisely what both morphological data & sequence data suggest. That's three independent lines of evidence suggesting that the IC structure formed by the malleus, incus, & stapes was derived from jaw bones.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Warren, posted 07-21-2003 5:01 PM Warren has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 261 (46802)
07-21-2003 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Warren
07-21-2003 5:01 PM


Re: Design, hold the Intelligent
quote:
Can you imagine the reaction if I were asked what would cause me to suspect a non-teleological origin of life and I said I would need to see life being created from non-life via non-intelligent processes, or I needed to see some biological thing that couldn't have been created by an intelligent agent?

Lol... we get asked stuff like this actually.

quote:
So to say that Darwinian evolution can't produce an IC system isn't the same as saying it's impossible for evolution to produce an IC system.

Sorry bud, but the evolution vs. Darwinian evolution just shows an ignorance of the theory of evolution. What has basically been done is that 'easy to track' changes are labeled Darwinian and 'difficult to track' changes are called 'evolution' -- ie. direct evolution vs. circuitous evolution. This distinction is unwarranted. Because we don't know exactly how some things evolved does not warrant claiming that the evolution was via some special process. And, the way this distinction was phrased makes it appear that chance is not a component of 'darwinian' evolution. The 'chance' processes are ascribed to a different 'evolution.'

Something I find interesting about this line of reasoning is that it doesn't much lead to an ID conclusion. The conclusion we have is that it isn't 'Darwinian' evolution but is instead some other form of evolution.

Co-option is the most commonly cited circuitous means to generate an IC system. Bur this really isn't Darwinian evolution (i.e. step by step changes captured by selection.) This is essentially a return to raw coincidence to account for apparent design.

This is BS. The author-- Mike Gene, as per your attribution-- misrepresents evolution flat out. This REALLY is 'darwinian' evolution. The author cuts his own throat actually. If an organism survives and reproduces, its 'changes' are captured by selection. Thus, any path, no matter how convoluted, counts as 'step by step changes captured by selection.' Evidence must be provided for that path, of course.

Lets back up a bit.

quote:
And it is precisely this kind of evolution that can't produce an IC system.

You've provided no evidence for this statement. Nor have you provided any evidence that IC systems exist at all. In fact the argument presented cuts the legs out of IC by the simple fact that it allows for IC systems to evolve. If they evolve, they are not IC.

quote:
Yes, it's impossible for modifications along a linear axis to produce IC systems.

What makes you think that anything at all about life is linear?

quote:
So to say that Darwinian evolution can't produce an IC system isn't the same as saying it's impossible for evolution to produce an IC system.

To say that evolution of any kind kind produce IC systems means those systems are not IC. Then how does one make the jump to a designer?

quote:
but as Mike Gene says

Who the frell is Mike Gene? Is this him? http://www.idthink.net/

I love this bit from the site!

quote:
Warning: Buyer beware. The internet is loaded with all kinds of kooky theories and arguments and who can say I am any different?

Lol...

To be fair the rest of the paragraph follows,

quote:
My advice would be simply this: don't trust me as any type of authority and balance my views with those who don't agree with me. If you are interested in origins, learn as much biology as possible and then attempt to arrive at your own informed conclusions about the arguments presented on this site and elsewhere. And grains of salt come in handy.

... but to be honest, Mike Gene is a clever expositor of the same old crap. I took the time to read a few of his articles.

quote:
It must be comfy when your hypotheses about the world only need to be possible.

Yes. It must be, but that isn't the case. See, a plausible pathway of evolution is sufficient to foil a claim of IC. It is not sufficient to prove that that is how the feature actually evolved.

quote:
Then to have a brand of metaphysics that converts the possible into the actual, unless the possible is proven impossible.

Did you intend for this to make sense?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Warren, posted 07-21-2003 5:01 PM Warren has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2003 3:49 AM John has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14715
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 187 of 261 (46814)
07-22-2003 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by John
07-21-2003 11:55 PM


Re: Design, hold the Intelligent
I can explain what Warren means.

Since Warren is pretending that the "ID theorists" aren't arguing that the flagellum could not evolve he has to pretend that the arguments that the flagellum could evolve are arguments FOR evolution rather than counters to the claims of Behe and Dembski.

When you think about it is quite simple - he covers over the evidence that shows that he is either grossly ignorant of ID or outright lying while turning it into a false attack on his opponents - which is his main line of approach here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by John, posted 07-21-2003 11:55 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by John, posted 07-22-2003 9:35 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 261 (46865)
07-22-2003 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by PaulK
07-22-2003 3:49 AM


Re: Design, hold the Intelligent
quote:
Since Warren is pretending that the "ID theorists" aren't arguing that the flagellum could not evolve he has to pretend that the arguments that the flagellum could evolve are arguments FOR evolution rather than counters to the claims of Behe and Dembski.

Well, right, that is what doesn't make sense-- kinda screws IC to say that something can evolve.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2003 3:49 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Peter, posted 07-22-2003 11:06 AM John has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 189 of 261 (46866)
07-22-2003 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Warren
07-21-2003 8:29 PM


The Credo of IDC
1) Since mousetraps and outboard motors were designed by intelligence, so were things like flagella and adenosine triphosphate. Q. E. D.

2) Here are the complex specified details: biological structures were designed by the designing intelligence at some time in the past using the mechanism of design.

3) We can tell that certain things were intelligently designed using eliminative induction. This means we're certain they didn't evolve, although we're not saying it's impossible that they could have evolved.

4) We can be sure that biological structures were intelligently designed because they look exactly the way we'd expect them to if an intelligence designed them to look the way they look. Corollary: it's not fair for evolutionists to ask why a designer would have designed things to look the way they look, since that would be tantamount to psychoanalyzing the designer, and only IDC theorists are allowed to do that.

Can I get a fellowship at the Discovery Institute now?

------------------
Quien busca, halla


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Warren, posted 07-21-2003 8:29 PM Warren has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Parasomnium, posted 07-22-2003 10:15 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 740 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 190 of 261 (46869)
07-22-2003 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by MrHambre
07-22-2003 9:41 AM


Re: The Credo of IDC
No. I'm sorry, but you don't qualify. What you say is crap all right, but your sentences are way too grammatical. You should also work on sloppier spelling.

Close, but no cigar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by MrHambre, posted 07-22-2003 9:41 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Silent H, posted 07-22-2003 1:55 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 191 of 261 (46879)
07-22-2003 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by John
07-22-2003 9:35 AM


Re: Design, hold the Intelligent
There is no reason to assume that IC cannot evolve .... unless
you are using it as evidence for design of course!!!

What's that book again? It's got a bit in it that starts
'there are none so blind...'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by John, posted 07-22-2003 9:35 AM John has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3863 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 192 of 261 (46903)
07-22-2003 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Warren
07-21-2003 5:01 PM


Re: Design, hold the Intelligent
warren writes:

These may be reasonable requests if one is seeking proof of ID but since when is proof required to produce a working hypothesis and begin an investigation? That's what I'm talking about.

Well you can keep talking about what would be necessary to produce a working hypothesis and begin an investigation, but that is not the end of the story in science.

Maybe you don't realize that ID critics are cutting ID a major amount of slack. In essence, most critics have said okay let's accept for the sake of argument that you have provided the necessary requirements for a working hypothesis. The next step is to begin an investigation.

HOW DO YOU BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION??????? That's the whole point Warren! There is no plausible method for investigation. At least none given by ID theorists.

So let's all say this together: ID has won. ID theorists have enough "ontological" reasons to begin an investigation.

Now let's get on with it you IDIOTs and stop arguing if you have the right to start an investigation.

Let's move to where most of us already are and looking at how to investigate such things. Now that you have won, Warren, what do you propose we do to investigate whether something is ID or not???

warren writes:

Can you imagine the reaction if I were asked what would cause me to suspect a non-teleological origin of life and I said I would need to see life being created from non-life via non-intelligent processes, or I needed to see some biological thing that couldn't have been created by an intelligent agent?

Laughter would probably be the response. Can't you look around you and see all the things not being assembled by an intelligent designer all the time?

Unless, you view all wombs and eggs as the designer's "factory" and he is busy working in all of them to create each new living being.

Granted a "designer" may have created initial life to be able to reproduce itself so it wouldn't have to work in eggs and wombs from now till eternity. It may even be POSSIBLE that we are programmed through our initial design to have some "endpoint".

But that teleology is not obvious, while the constant creation of new life without the immediate help of a hands-on designer (with an intended end "model" in mind) is obvious.

warren writes:

I know of no ID theorist that makes this claim. And that includes Dembski and Behe. I think you, Holmes and others are mis-interpreting what you read...

You can keep saying that as many times as you want to, but that doesn't make it so. Show me how I misinterpreted the article by dembski that I referenced. It makes no distinctions about evolution and darwinian evolution.

In it he is clearly talking about logical argument itself, which is applicable to ANY topic. He is arguing for the legitimacy of negative arguments as positive proof for one's own position. And he also argues that one can argue for "pragmatic" impossibility, which is to be differentiated from theoretical impossibility (which even I agree is impossible to argue).

Please respond to this in asome real way. Like why not actually read the article I referenced?

------------------
holmes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Warren, posted 07-21-2003 5:01 PM Warren has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3863 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 193 of 261 (46906)
07-22-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Parasomnium
07-22-2003 10:15 AM


Re: The Credo of IDC
parasomnium writes:

...your sentences are way too grammatical. You should also work on sloppier spelling.

Hey don't confuse ID theorists with their followers (who apparently can't read either, since I have yet to see one understanding Demsbki).

ID theorists like Dembski and Behe and Wells and maybe even Johnson are okay spellers and fine with grammar. In fact, it could be argued that Debski is overachieving in his spelling and grammar. Frankly, I think he uses a thesaurus even for simple words like "the".

I think Mr.Hambre did a fine job as an ID theorist.

Now, someone give him his honorary ID science diploma and make sure his straight jacket is tailored to match the official institute's "design".

------------------
holmes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Parasomnium, posted 07-22-2003 10:15 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Warren, posted 07-23-2003 7:37 PM Silent H has responded

    
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 261 (47134)
07-23-2003 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Silent H
07-22-2003 1:55 PM


Proving the impossible
Okay, I hope this quote from Dembski puts to rest the notion that he claims it's impossible for an IC system to evolve.

"Note that to attribute such an incapacity to the Darwinian mechanism isn't to say that it's logically impossible for the Darwinian mechanism to attain such structures. It's logically possible for just about anything to attain anything else via a vastly improbable or fortuitous event. For instance, it's logically possible that with my very limited chess ability I might defeat the reigning world champion, Vladimir Kramnik, in ten straight games. But if I do so, it will be despite my limited chess ability and not because of it. Likewise, if the Darwinian mechanism is the conduit by which a Darwinian pathway leads to an irreducibly complex biochemical system, then it is despite the intrinsic properties or capacities of that mechanism. Thus, in saying that irreducibly complex biochemical structures are inaccessible to Darwinian pathways, design proponents are saying that the Darwinian mechanism has no intrinsic capacity for generating such structures except as vastly improbable or fortuitous events. Accordingly, to attribute irreducible complexity to a direct Darwinian pathway is like attributing Mount Rushmore to wind and water erosion. There's a sheer possibility that wind and erosion could sculpt Mount Rushmore but not a realistic one.

Intelligent design's demonstration of the failure of Darwin's program is a combination of empirical and theoretical arguments. In both cases, however, the issue is one of connectivityŚcan the mechanism in question supply a step-by-step path connecting two otherwise disparate elements."

[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-23-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Silent H, posted 07-22-2003 1:55 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by mark24, posted 07-23-2003 7:52 PM Warren has not yet responded
 Message 196 by Silent H, posted 07-23-2003 11:35 PM Warren has not yet responded
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2003 4:03 AM Warren has not yet responded
 Message 198 by Peter, posted 07-24-2003 6:22 AM Warren has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3239 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 195 of 261 (47137)
07-23-2003 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Warren
07-23-2003 7:37 PM


Re: Proving the impossible
Warren,

Intelligent design's demonstration of the failure of Darwin's program is a combination of empirical and theoretical arguments. In both cases, however, the issue is one of connectivityŚcan the mechanism in question supply a step-by-step path connecting two otherwise disparate elements."

What empirical evidence supports the alleged "empirical argument"? I expect the subsequent argument to be logically sound. You do that for me, & I'll show you empirical evidence that supports the evolution of IC.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-26-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Warren, posted 07-23-2003 7:37 PM Warren has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019