|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 10 Categories of Evidence For ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Proposed for the Intelligent Design Forum.
In this thread I would like to address an assertion often raised by ID detractors to the effect of: ID has no evidence to support it. I know I promised to also discuss methodologies to detect design and I will. But first, let's just concentrate on the one topic as this post is already way too long. ID has several areas of evidence that directly supports the overall concept. Here are five and 5 more will follow in a subsequent post. 1) Function found in nature. Function is an attribute assigned by intelligence to cause something to cause 'something else' to do something. I design a hammer and cause it to do something else: drive a nail. My body causes my brain to function and the brain then causes me to think (sometimes). My car is a designed mechanism that allows me to drive it to get something else from point A to point B (could be my body, mail or groceries). In fact, just looking up the word at dictionary.com and considering the first two definitions we can see the intelligence inherent in the word function: 1) The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed. 2) Assigned duty or activity. FACT: We see much function in nature. This is evidence that intelligence operated to design and assign function in order that in each case, one something (often quite different) causes something else. 2) The fossil record. Many IDists believe that species were designed very similar to the way they are today. Some evolution may have slightly affected their morphology of course, but when we look at the fossil record we would predict to see species coming into it fully formed, not evidence that species gradually evolved into their macroscopic forms as Darwin proposed. FACT: This is exactly what we see in the fossil record. There is no gradual evolution of bauplanes, but long periods of nothing interspersed with relatively sudden explosions of fully formed organisms. These organisms then stay this way until they go extinct in the record. This is direct evidence for intelligent design. 3) DNA found only in organisms. The DNA found in the cellular genome contains more information than in all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. ID predicts that DNA, a major building block of complex organisms, can only be created by an intelligent agent or by code preprogrammed by an intelligent agent. Furthermore, some of the building blocks for these nucleic acids are very unstable in nature. For example, Miller found that ribose, which is essential for both DNA and RNA, has a half life (t) of only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0 C. It’s even worse at high temperatures t = 73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100 C (the latter evidence is given for the benefit of heat-vent enthusiasts). This is no time at all when we view life as having formed over billions of years. FACT: DNA must be designed. 4) Mathematical calculations and evidence as in the form of the study I introduced in the Intelligent Design in Universities thread showing that nature has a tendency to disorganize: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it. FACT: This shows the human genome to be DEVOLVING not EVOLVING. This is what ID predicts. Darwinism predicts the exact opposite tendency. This devolving tendency in vertebrate genomes is direct evidence for intelligent design. 5) Existence of irreducibly complex systems in nature. ICSs are interesting little critters as they consist of several well matched parts that perform a function and all work together to cause an overall system function. These are well conceived systems that must be planned before they are designed in that Part A--Does job A--Part B, Does job B--Part C, Does job C--Part D, does job D; and the result is that all of these jobs work together to cause an overall function in the system as a whole. FACT: ICSs must be designed and the reality they are found everywhere in nature is evidence for intelligent design. Let's hold 'er here for now. Thank you AdminBen! I accidentally deleted the other 5 from my laptop, so I'll rewrite those as the thread progresses. This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-11-2005 06:35 AM Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: YES! Welcome, Parasomnium. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
I'll get to Parasomnium's post later as, it's long, he/she is out for the day and I have a study to peruse first.
quote: You mean what is the function of the person? If you want to just look at that, I would think in the nail driving process the person functions to swing the hammer.
quote: Well, I don't know where you get this, Gould, Eldredge and many other well known evolutionists honestly admit there is no evidence in the fossil record to support gradual evolution: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?" -Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89. MY NOTE ON THE ABOVE: It's a sad era in science when there are scientists who chose to DELIBERATELY mislead their readers. That's just the way it is today and it has spread like a cancer throughout academia.
quote: If extraordinary circumstances would have had to have been in place to accept naturalism and there is no evidence they were, why then, are you a naturalist? (Assuming you are). This is the very reason I became an ID theorist. That seems to be where the evidence points.
quote: The computer scientist ID theorists have ripped those programs apart. Computer programs will do whatever we program them to do. They show nothing that can be mirrored in the real world. And you don't think Darwin was an evolutionist: "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale [1]."
quote: Then they must be hiding those studies very well because those who study this can't seem to find them. Who showed this? When?
quote: There are no scientific mechanisms in Darwinism at all. I hope you have not been convinced there are. And, there is not one shred of evidence that can be shown experimentally or is capable of the falsification inherent in the scientific method to be validly considered science anywhere in Darwinism, I'm afraid.
quote: You misunderstand how the term intelligence is used in ID. It is not an attribute we need discover in systems. It is just a term to distinguish the type of design. If you see a picturesque scape of sand dunes, they may appear to be designed and in a way they are, by natural processes that could have gone one of many ways. But in the case of the architect of a shopping center, the plan is well thought out and detailed blueprints are first drawn up. That is ID, it just distinguishes intelligence from the natural. [1] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (New York: Atheneum, 1972), p. 184. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Then there is no DNA to consider and the point is moot. IOW, who cares?
quote: I'm having a great deal of trouble following your logic here. What does any of this have to do with DNA being designed or not?
quote: This is not science, just your opinion. I'm an IDist and predicted that DNA must be designed in the OP, who's to say then that ID has not predicted this?
quote: Again. This has nothing to do with whether DNA is designed. In those flu patients, it WAS designed by preprogrammed code.
quote: Your conclusion is a non sequitur, I'm afraid, because it is based on no premises. In fact, you never offered a single premise to show DNA as not designed--all of your examples were examples of DESIGNED DNA--therefore you cannot draw any logical conclusions to the contrary. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Well, I don't think I misunderstand genomes, I know they are a mess with tons of noise in there. An IDist would fully expect to find this as a direct result of evolution. This has little to say about the original design. Everything in nature degrades eventually even the universe as a whole until it will die it's heat death. I think you would agree that genomic noise is probably a result of evolution? Then we have no argument on this.
quote: I agree. Every hypothesis proposed must be testable and falsifiable. Of course, you cannot name me one tenet unique to Darwinism that this applies to, but I'll ignore this for now because by now you've figured out what a nice guy I am. So what tenets of ID do you not think testable and falsifiable? I'm certainly familiar with none. DNA simply does not form from less complex molecules in nature. How is that not testable? We cannot even make it in the lab. We can manage some simple RNA, but not DNA. And this is falsifiable, simply show an example of DNA forming outside an organism and propose a model where this could be done in nature. That's science, not religion. I know you don't want to accept this, but it's a fact.
quote: Well gee, Mammuthus. I wasn't exactly talking about the DNA from a danged bug splattered across your windshield. I know that we can find pieces of a dead skunk floating down the Arkansas River. But skunks designed that DNA from preprogrammed code most happily donated (I assume) by the mama and papa skunk. And..... right. The mutated flu strain came from another strain it did not drop out of a rock, now did it? Are we talking past one another here?
quote: Well good. This tells me you are enjoying our conversation. We'll see if you still are down the road,
quote: You KNOW it is designed. You will not admit that DNA is designed from pre-programmed code? I'm talking bios logos here. It's you that keeps wanting to throw gods, gremlins and fairies in here hoping (I guess) to persuade someone that DNA can just pop out of a bloody stalagmite???
quote: Nah...Let's stay on topic for now. I will get to that.
quote: I would test for it exactly as you do. There is no such thing as an ID biology. But yet you cannot see that the nucleic acids and resulting translated proteins were designed by preprogrammed code. Tell me, do you also believe that Windows XP can just poof out of a goat's butt?
quote: I never stated intelligence causes mutations. You are putting words into my mouth and attempting to take my argument much further than I initially framed it.
quote: Really? Tell me how you would falsify chemistry. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: I think you misunderstood me. Just because I stated that function is designed by intelligence doesn't necessarily extrapolate to, 'then all things created by intelligence has a function.' And no, gravity and orbiting planets don't have any function that I could define. They are just there or they are not. What kind of demonstration would you want?
quote: I didn't say that the fossil record demonstrates intelligence, it is just one of the five evidences I listed that work together to support the overall design concept. What I stated was that if organisms did not evolve and are designed fully formed, this is what we would expect to see in the record and this is exactly what we do see. It is just another piece of supporting evidence in the big picture.
quote: No. I don't think we DO agree on this. Your notion of it requires extraordinary circumstances. Mine just requires science and if we choose to view it as a guiding hand then some are glad to calculate and model that guiding hand for you. Can you do this with abiogenesis?
quote: Disagree. Royal Truman, Salvador Cordova and other IDists have taken Schneider's and Adami's work apart. What they are doing is choosing to "select" what they want to keep, and reject what they do not. This was also the basis of Dawkin's weasel deally. Think about it: Flipping 500 quarters and having them all come up heads is statistically impossible. But if I flip them, then intelligently select to keep all the heads and flip only the tails, it won't be long until I have all heads. Information grows. This is what the programs are doing and do you know what everyone but Darwinists call this? Intelligent design.
quote: So you are just going to openly admit here that there is no such thing as a theory of evolution? Are you sure you want me to accept this?
quote:No, we do not propose it has remained the same for all time. It could have been much more complex at one time. No one has ever proposed a credible way that the flagellum in E. Coli could have evolved I'll get into Ken Miller's work when I address the first post. quote: I always learn from people and probably will from you. Thank you for listening.
quote: Sure we can agree that nature designs things, mountains, clouds, beautiful valleys with streams, etc. But nature has it's limits. Nature does not design Sony TVs, lawnmowers or people. Here is where we differ as the latter were intelligently designed. But we need not know HOW it was designed in order to conclude it was. I'm sitting here watching my pride and joy, the big screen in front of me, and I would have no earthly idea HOW it was designed as I know nothing about that kind of thing. Do I then conclude it evolved? I mean it's made of atoms just as are kidneys. And I'll let you see the blueprints for the initial design of an organism when you present those for abiogenesis. Neither will ever produce them because we weren't there. It's really rather silly for either side to go there. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: No, I'm not saying that bacteria and viruses are the only organisms evolving, they are just among them. But I'm afraid I presented a study in the university thread done by evolutionary biologists that clearly show the human genome devolving for the last 6 million years, in fact I calculated it right down to the increasing entropy for each generation. Sorry.
quote: Now when did I say I don't accept evolution? That would be pretty silly since I am an evolutionist. I accept the science of evolution, it is the pseudo-science of Darwinism I reject. And yes, I think I learned the difference between evolution and abiogenesis in about the 10th grade.
quote: Because we do not know that the precursor of life WAS RNA. We can surmise this, but we don't know it. All I said was that DNA is not formed outside an organism by nature. This DNA is formed by pre-programmed code, is it not? Then it was designed. Period. You cannot win this argument because I am right!
quote: Well gee. That's not some unique tenet of Darwinism, that's just common sense. I think everyone knew a long time before Darwin that a Chimp would be closer genotypically to a Gorilla than it would an apple.
quote: No.
quote: Because it does not do so spontaneously, chemically speaking. That reaction is a non-spontaneous reaction that must be caused by something. In fact, it is caused by intellegent pre-programmed code in the long run. Do you disagree with this?
quote: Well if you think that complex code can just poof from the dust spontaneously, then you need to tell Bill Gates to fire all those programmers and just take a walk through the desert ever now and then. Reckon he would run across LongHorn?
quote: Good. Because mean people would probably sneer at you.
quote: Hmmm....This is only a tenet of your faith. Faith can be defined as the belief in something where there is no evidence to support it, and you have no evidence at all to base this conclusion on.
quote: Cool. So is ID.
quote: Even cooler; you will find this in ID as well.
quote: Nope. I'm afraid you didn't even get close with that. ID is not a hypothesis at all. It is an epistemology, I'm afraid. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: That's why I asked you to state what demonstration you might want. There is not one you can think of, is there? Yet, it's true I have defined it as having a link to intelligence because it is intelligence that must conceive it. Think of this series of functions: a motor turns a drive shaft which turns a wheel which gets me down the road. If we logically analyze this, what possible thing in nature could reason out this function and form it? Get down to the simplest function found in nature and it will always be the same logic. The concept of function is reason, not law.
quote: Well, you can let me have it the hard way or the easy way, I guess, but either way it is true. I might also state here that you certainly view Darwinism differently than do others, but I suppose this is your right. Darwin himself stated: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." You certainly do not seem to believe this, so I'll ask you: how the heck do you think the higher organisms formed if not by numerous, successive, slight modifications, over time?
quote: Not any that could form a living organism. If there were do you not think someone on your side probably would have mentioned this by now? And nothing in my belief system requires evolution to be guided. I am not a theistic evolutionist.
quote: Great. You can read this post and the one that follows it and tell me how many gods you find in the designer: http://EvC Forum: Foundations of ID
quote: I know you cannot tell me exactly how abiogenesis occurred. My point is that I hope you can see that similarly, I cannot give you an exact blueprint for design implementation. Conversely, I can certainly stay in science and get a lot closer than do my opponents. Read the above posts and I think you will see.
quote: I think he does. quote: Not using intelligence like those programs do, it doesn't. Natural selection is highly overplayed and could never be responsible for a billions of complex speciations. Never has anyone proposed a credible model how this could happen.
quote: Actually, it's mathematically and scientifically impossible. Want to see the math?
quote: But this is intelligence! You aren't randomly doing anything. You are looking at an arrangement of coins, intelligently making a choice of which ones you want to keep and intelligently rejecting the ones you do not want. This could not be a clearer case of intelligent design.
quote: Yes I have agreed that intelligence can increase information. Please don't try to twist that any differently. Everything you've presented has been intelligence, you just want to call it something else. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Ok. I read that paper but was not clear on how you are using it to bring an argument. Now I will read your post, examine each of your comments and add my input.
quote: Well, if I understand this, do note that they entered this experiment with a preset goal: "The motivation was to evolve an oscillator of a precise frequency without using capacitors." And note that they achieved that goal: "From 20 runs, 10 resulted in successful oscillation, attaining the target frequency within 1% and with minimum amplitude of 100 mV." Further note that there are all kinds of designed equipment in this experiment and as such this could represent nothing we would find in nature that I can grasp.
quote: How does anyone know this when you openly state above: "If they themselves don't know how the evolved circuits work, their intelligence cannot be responsible for the design..." And yet they conclude that the signal was "invented" by a mindless process of evolution? They could know this if they don't even understand it how it's working? There may be a perfectly good reason for this just not understood. In any case, no conclusions can be drawn at this point.
quote: Well, be careful here. I can pick up an AM signal with nothing more than a lemon and a copper penny. What does this show in nature? You are going to have to go light-years further than this to show anything at all. Electrical waves are not similar to genomes. Radio signals are not similar to evolving populations of organisms. If you are to show evolution with anything resembling a biological system, I would suggest we stay in biology. Have you guys simply given up doing this in biology and moving on?
quote: This doesn't mean anything. We can look up anything in another dictionary, pick definition 3, 6 or 8 and come up with a different definition because words can have more than one meanings and most do. The fact is that I like the definitions I used because they better support my case. Here is a rehash of another post: Yet, it's true I have defined it as having a link to intelligence because it is intelligence that must conceive it. Think of this series of functions: a motor turns a drive shaft which turns a wheel which gets me down the road. If we logically analyze this, what possible thing in nature could reason out this function and form it? Get down to the simplest function found in nature and it will always be the same logic. The concept of function is reason, not law.
quote: Why sure. I could scheme a definition of any word that twists its meaning. But you cannot state that cold weather being a function of the terrain is anything close to the way I'm using the word. In fact, to me, it is not even proper English because cold weather does not function. It's either cold or hot and that's it.
quote: I understand there is no goal in evolution. That was not my point. The fossil record is an accurate record of around 80% of the earth's biotic history. If creatures evolved the way Darwin suggested, do you really think there would be no evidence in the fossil record of one species evolving into another? Somewhere? Anywhere??
quote: And if the aliens arrived, then the system is designed by aliens. Why do you think life on earth could not be seeded by aliens? You do know there is a branch of ID called panspermia consisting of such notables in science as Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle who actively preach this notion, don't you? You see, there are only so many options here. Either life was designed or it wasn't. There is no 'it was kind of designed' out there. If higher organisms (Eukaryotes) evolved, we would expect to see some evidence of this in the record. My brand of ID sees the most probable option of origins as design in forms close to what organisms are today. And we would expect to see this in the record if it were true and this is exactly what we see. Look no further than the Cambrian explosion.
quote: You mean like it does with common descent? Anyhow, ID does not propose the tests, biology does and tests have been done: "When DNA is synthesized in the lab, the two strands are separated and new bases are added to the 3' end-thus DNA is assembled from the 5' to 3' end. DNA cannot be synthesized from scratch. A short piece of DNA, called a primer, is required for the reaction to begin. Primers are designed such that they are able to bind to the target DNA, the binding of which is the initiator for DNA synthesis." http://bioteach.ubc.ca/Bioinformatics/GenomeProjects/ Well gee. Intelligent designers in the lab have tried to synthesize these complex molecules from scratch and have not succeeded. Surely we can weigh this fact, compare it with the fact that no one has ever seen it form in nature outside an organism and draw a hypothesis from this. This is science. people, not religion. Have I said this enough, yet?
quote: I'll take that the way it was intended and leave it alone.
quote: I don't see how they are contradictory. And It is direct evidence for intelligent design because it supports a tenet of intelligent design: "loose" information will tend to degrade over time (become more disorganized) rather than evolve with complexity. Try this experiment sometimes, I have. Take a class of 5th graders. Write a three or four sentence poem on a piece of paper but don't show it to anyone. Whisper it to the first student, then have her pass it to the next student in a whisper, then when it reaches the last student, have him write what he heard on the board. Then write the original poem on the board. The information will likely have degraded to the point it is nonsensical to the original information. But add work into the system to stabilize it and see what happens. Have a student walk around the room with the original (the work) and correct each student (the intelligence) and this will stabilize this information. There is a concept in physics called Maxwell's Demon which translates the same concept into physical hypothesis. I'm just ratcheting it up a notch.
quote: Yep. Poor Ken tried with that article but just didn't get it done. Uncle Bill refuted him pretty good here. I do agree with Miller that there are homologous proteins in the protein exporting system and the type 3 secretory system but that doesn't show anything. There are homologous bricks in buildings but that does not suggest that one building evolved into the other. We find homology with genes, organs and all kinds of other structures. But what conclusions can be drawn from this? None, I'm afraid.
quote: Ahh...I messed up the quotes, but you'll figure it out. Perhaps that is not an IC system to begin with? Who said this: "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" This is taught nowhere in ID. IDists often find that when detractors begin to take apart an IC system and find it still functioning, it was never an IC system to begin with as in the above system. (and they knew that to begin with *wink*wink*) The very definition is a system that cannot be reduced beyond certain core parts and still function. Is it still functioning? Then that was not an IC system. Now I will give you some examples of an IC system you will NOT reduce and the system still function. You need to only consider those. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: I probably agree with this more than I disagree with it, but there are limits. Information easily manipulates other information. I am information, I can sit down and write a computer program which is information and that program can spew out all kinds of information. So, I agree that information is useful to model information. The deal is that the electrons flowing through the motherboard are matter. Where you guys miss the boat is that if your computer programs REALLY created more information than it initially contained, it would violate the first law of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of matter in that energy can be changed, but never created nor destroyed. Do you really think one could get more information out of the Encyclopedia Britannica than it contains? I don't. I think the only way a program can build information is to use other information already in that program and program it to flow where one wants it to flow.
quote: I can't support the negative because if something didn't happen there would be no evidence either way. You guys claim it happened, it will also be up to you to show it did.
quote: Why? We find all kind of things in the Cambrian where there is no evidence we find leading up to them. That doesn't falsify it and it's highly likely that finding one more would even if it were a mammal. You guys would just come up with a new story to explain it away.
quote: Like what? Papers, please......
quote: Well, no. Had evolution happened the way people postulate I would think it would explain diversity just fine.
quote: No, not only the supernatural. Designers can create information without a problem. It's nature that cannot. I can go to a random number generator and make it spit out as much information as you want. Nature cannot Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Hey, Jazz:
quote: No, because natural selection is not intelligent selection unless one wishes to view this from the perspective of the theistic evolutionist and then we have nature out and the supernatural in. If I observe a group of coins, intelligently select what I wish to keep and intelligently reject what I don't, that's design by intelligence: ID. NS doesn't work that way. The organism gets whatever environment it is in and that's the way it is. The next environment could conceivably remove everything the previous one caused. IOW, there is no constant selection toward anything in nature like there is with the coins. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Not really because in most situations information is matter. Can you think of information that is not matter? Boltzmann considered his atoms as information, Shannon's electrons flowing through switching stations were information, the chalk on the blackboard that communicates information is matter, the ink on the paper of a letter is matter, the information stored on computer chips that one sees on the computer monitor while typing is matter, the photons hitting the nerve behind the eyeball telling one how cute that girl is, is matter; the sound waves in the form of moving air hitting the eardrums allowing one to place information into his brain via hearing is matter. And finally, all information that has been communicated to an organism is matter in the form of neurons and the firing process of those cells as the organism processes data and stores information in the brain. How far off would I be Percy, to extrapolate Einstein's formula into I = MC^2??
quote: I'm not dissing genetic algorithms as I can see that they have their place in research (I tried to make that clear). But we cannot go so far as to think that the results actually translate into anything we see happening in nature. The people I have debated on this will normally just admit this up front. The problems these create in teaching the subject is that some people actually seem to think that the papers Adami has written using Avida simulations as in calculating entropy in the genome is also applicable to what we find in nature. This is simply nonsense as the simulations do not match real-life studies. So, we are fine here unless someone tries to extrapolate algorithms to real life. If they don't, I don't have a problem. Go for it.
quote: All of this is well and good, but you seem to be missing my point. This is intelligence. This resembles NOTHING that can be found in nature. Have fun with the programs but don't confuse this with real life. If you do, the next time you get lost in the woods, start playing the hot and cold game with the trees and see how quickly you find your car.
quote: On this, we can all agree.
quote: But all it does is to propose it. Therefore, thus far, you have an observation. Now what are you going to do experimentally to get this to the hypothesis level? You haven't even done that yet much less reached the theory level.
quote: It's still silly as there WERE no mammals on earth during that era. You cannot falsify something by proposing an impossibility as the falsification criteria. Did you know I can falsify that God is dead? The next time you are in your bedroom, just conjure up the devil and he will tell you. Can we stay in science here? Anyhow, I saw your point the first time around. But I also hope you grasped mine in that this is such a religiously biased 'science' that it wouldn't falsify anything. People would just back up, pluck a new theory out of the air to explain the mammal much as Gould and Eldredge did with punk eek and keep right on trucking as if no mammal was found there to begin with.
quote: No. Please keep my terms separate. I claimed that Darwinism isn't falsifiable.
quote: Actually, that would be better stated as "some" IDists accept common descent. Behe, Gene and others are in the minority but they do exist. Dembski, Cordova, myself and others take an opposing view. There are several camps developing in ID just as there are your closed universalists verses your flat universalists, relativity gravitists verses graviton gravitists in physics, etc.
quote: Why could this intelligence not have come from another universe? We don't have to get into metaphysics if one ponders how this could occur through a singularity in a black hole. It may not be so painfully obvious if you discard norms of mundane thinking and go a bit deeper.
quote: Not simple information. But it certainly does with complex specified information as in the type found in organisms. The latter is simply mathematically impossible. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Welcome Zyncod:
quote: Unfortunately, you have this exactly bass ackwards. Information is the opposite of entropy (see Boltzmann). Information is just like energy in that it is maxed when concentrated. As it diffuses, entropy increases. This is easily shown mathematically using a simple statistical formula like S = ln(W) where S is entropy and W is the microstates of the information. If we divide a teaspoon of sugar into 10 gridded areas and then the cup of tea in which it diffuses into 150 we have: State 1: S = ln(10) = 2.30 State 2: S = ln(150) = 5.01 deltaS = S(final) - S(intial), delta S = 5.01 - 2.30 = 2.71 The entropy and therefore the disorganization has increased. You have lost information.
quote: Ok, so what? My point is that DNA is not synthesized outside of an organism in nature. If you are taking issue with the article I posted, fine. But that doesn't change my argument. In fact, you seem to be agreeing with me on this.
quote: Oh I can imagine a lot of things, doesn't necessarily give it any credibility in science. How do you know this is CSI? You are going to have to calculate it out to show this. And you think that replication is the definition of life? Then further define the word replication and we will go from there. I shall be respectful and hold comments on this until you define your terms appropriately.
quote: I would explain this for you, but you base the entire question on a false conception of ID. ID espouses that the genotype of extant organisms are a result of both initial design and evolution. In fact, this is the way we explain the supposed incompetence of the designer as some Darwinists (I don't argue with evolutionists, I am one. I just argue with Darwinists) seem to picture. This is to be fully expected. Hence, you simply misunderstand ID when you assume that everything we see in the genotype is a result of design.
quote: No it can't. There is no such thing as evolutionary theory as you have taken nothing through the scientific method TO the theory level. I'm a science purest, so let's keep our terminology correct. Biology explains this, not Darwinism.
quote: There is no such thing as a theory of ID and ID has nothing to say about the non-working vitamin C synthesis allele in primates. Again, this is biology. What you need to do, is to come to learn to think about this using the proper perspective. As a Darwinist you view biology with a different paradigm than do I, an ID theorist. It's still all biology. There is no ID biology. There is no Darwinist biology. You have not staked a claim to anything in science other than to flood academia with pseudo-science. You seem to see this mutation as some quasi-divine uber-manifest of the god of Darwin in action speaking with epiphanic thunder-vox. I see it for what it is, biology, with a simple, common sense explanation. Lower life progressed to more complex life, both plant and animal, over time. At a given point in time vitamin C became quite prevalent in the diet as it is today. Now am I going to have to bring an argument to you that some plants today are rich in vitamin C like I had to with the other one I was recently discussing this with? No? Thank you. When this C became available in the diet, omnivores that ingested this C no longer needed to systemically produce C and natural selection caused this mutation. And in what organisms would this environment have selected for? ALL of them, people, chimps, gorillas, little funky tree monkeys, little monkin' tree.........So you are quite surprised to see this mutation in common with primates? Now. Since the rest of your post is based on a non-existent theory of ID, or non-existent ID theorems and badly confuses evolution, which is noted both in Darwinism AND ID with Darwinism, clarify all of that, respond to the above and we'll boogie with this discussion. Thanks for your post. Oh, again....welcome! Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: In what case? Where there is no intelligence, I would think if selection occurs we might rule out intelligence. But I don't know that there's a universal rule. Are you suggesting that natural selection was also intelligent selection? If you are a theistic evolutionist, I have no problem with this, but other than this, I would have to ask you where the intelligence came from.
quote: Who am I to rule out models before I consider them. Present one and I will. Describe this strict environment and explain what it is doing to the organism.
quote: I don't know that it does. Shouldn't we be trying to confirm or falsify common ancestry?
quote: First, please clarify yourself and come to use these terms more precisely. When you speak of evolution of the inner ear, this just means a change over time in the inner ear not how it originated. Second, I don't even recall discussing the inner ear. Can you link me back?? Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Well I'm not Dembski. I think I've pointed this out to you before, if not it was someone else and forget that. If you have questions for him, go over to one of his sites and ask him. Finally, I don't oppose any positions Behe has in ID because common descent doesn't have a thing to do with ID. As to the rest of your post....um...your posts are beginning to get a tad silly. I saw another one somewhere to me something to the effect that the second law no longer applies to chemical reactions in open system. I'll answer what I can of this one but don't expect a whole lot of enthusiasm in the future to answering this stuff. Design Dynamics
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024