Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
31 online now:
caffeine, jar, JoeT, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,828 Year: 16,864/19,786 Month: 989/2,598 Week: 235/251 Day: 6/58 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 15 of 373 (644198)
12-16-2011 5:31 AM


Hello Mike,

I'm afraid I have to agree with Admin on this a little bit when he says that words like "amazing" and "beautiful" etc. are kind of relative to the person making the observation. It seems to me that the real question here is, "How can we scientifically detect intelligence?" Take for example Subbie's picture of the antenna. If we are looking only at appearance, it appears quite jumbled and not very ordered. So is order and complexity really a tell tale sign for intelligence? Consider the following line:

;kajh;kJSDNG;kqkgt;alk;kkajnv;lakjgfal;jhga;kjnvc;akj ert

These are merely randomly typed keys on the keyboard. If I were to calculate the odds of a blind man sitting down and typing that exact line, the odds are one in an astronomical number that he would. So in a sense we could say that that line is very complex. But it still is a far cry from being intelligently designed. So what then differentiates that line from one directly above or below it that we know was intelligently designed? Well to answer that we can actually look in other fields of science and see how scientists in those fields detect intelligence.

For example Archaeologists infer intelligence in an artifacts formation by looking for specified design clues. That is to say features that the archaeologist recognizes as being formed with purpose in mind. Marine biologists detect levels of intelligence in dolphins by studying specified communication patterns of the dolphins. That is to say, patterns that the biologist recognizes as having specific meanings to the dolphin community. And finally, SETI scientists search for extra terrestrial intelligence by looking for specific radio signals that are narrow in bandwidth and are known only to occur artificially by an intelligent source with an intended purpose.

Note that in all three of these scientific fields, intelligence is being detected by something that can be termed as "specificity." Specificity can be defined like this: A distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose. Any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response. Therefore if specificity is recognized by the scientific community as a sign of intelligence, then whenever we observe it we can conclude that its origins are from an intelligent source.

Looking back at Subbie's picture, if we were to pick this device up in the forest we would know it was intelligently designed just by the fact that metal ore doesn't naturally form in thin wire like shapes. We may not recognize the arrangement of those shapes but the wires themselves would spark a recognition response from an independent experience. Likewise the threads on the base with the hex shaped bases end. So we would recognize certain specificity features to the devise even if we didn't have a clue what it was "designed" for. The problem is that no one seems to have a problem with trying to detect intelligence in marine biology, archaeology, or extra terrestrial, and calling that scientific research. But for some reason the moment we apply these same exact constructs to try and detect intelligence in the design of life or the universe, is suddenly is deemed pseudoscience. And no body can seem to quantify for me the reasons why?

DNA uses specified base code sequences and arrangements as the blue prints to build the correct cells. Here we have a clear case of code being transmitted, and then received to producing a functional response match, completely independent of the first (specificity). Devoid of any observable evidence that shows how it can possibly form naturally, it should be concluded to have originated from an intelligent source. Yet seemingly, for completely unscientific personally biased reasons, that conclusion is rejected time and time again.

Many highly respected and prominent astronomers and astrophysicist describe the cosmos under these same kinds of specified descriptors. Hoyle said that it appears to have been monkeyed with by a super-intellect. Paul Davies said the universe is remarkably ordered on all scales, organized into coherent identifiable structures with great complexity. John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA) describes it as having exacting precision. George Greenstein says it is a "crafted" cosmos. Arno Penzias described it as delicately balanced exactly, appearing to have a supernatural plan. Roger Penrose says it appears to have purpose, and the list just goes on and on and on.

Likewise physicists often describe the very laws of physics to be specified and balanced perfectly for there to even be life. Electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, and rate of expansion, (we are told) all had to somehow be “monkeyed” with to make the big bang event a mathematical possibility.


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 6:20 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 12-16-2011 11:38 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2011 3:23 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 45 by bluegenes, posted 12-17-2011 8:13 AM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 19 of 373 (644209)
12-16-2011 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2011 6:20 AM


DNA does occur naturally. We observe it being produced by an entirely unintelligent process of reproduction with variation.

The key word here (your choice) is reproduction not "production." In a Ford plant where most of the workers have been replaced by machines, no one would think that the machines building machines, had "produced" themselves. My point is that there are no examples of life being observed forming from non life. Nor are there any examples of observed single celled life being observed advancing to multicelled life. Nor is there even a single example of a multicelled organism being observed having added beneficial "new" information to its chromosomal DNA, to even demonstrate that its possible.

without having to tackle all the evidence that they aren't.

Oh please. The only possible "evidence" that could prove that they aren't would be an example of an observed case of life naturally forming from non life. I wasn't aware of any such evidence.

If you assert that DNA possesses this "specificity", then the scientific community does not recognize "specificity" as a sign of intelligence, since the scientific community does not identify DNA as a product of intelligence.

First let me just say I think your painting with an awfully broad brush since there are plenty of people in the scientific community who do see it as a product of intelligence. But since you call those people loons who practice pseudoscience, thanks for making my point. Its all well and good when we stick to lower or even possibly equal intelligence. But if it hints at a supreme intelligence... then suddenly all bets are off.

I think being wrong about physics and cosmology is off-topic. Stick to biology, eh?

No, if it fits within the topic of this thread (and it does) then I will discuss it. If you don't like it... bite me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 6:20 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2011 7:38 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 7:57 AM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 22 of 373 (644217)
12-16-2011 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NoNukes
12-16-2011 7:38 AM


we do have evidence that allows us to infer with a high degree of certainty that these things (not including abiogenesis) have indeed occurred.

Sure, I'm game, what "high degree of inferring evidence" do you have?

one might also add that we don't have even a single example of an observation of a human being brought to life from clay or a woman being created from a man's rib.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread say such a thing had occurred. I've only seen discussions about evidence for a designer. If you wish to discuss the possible validity of the claims of the Bible then perhaps we should defer that to another thread?

Using this logic, we'd have to say that the only possible evidence of a murder is eye witness testimony. Finger prints, dna evidence, ballistics, power residue, and even confessions don't mean doodly squat.

No because we have previously "observed" that finger prints, dna evidence, ballistics, powder residue, and even confessions can be directly connected to people. You've actually refuted your own argument. That's because if someone would have tried to use DNA evidence prior to the 1980's it would NOT have tied a criminal to a murder scene. That's because prior to 1985 no one had "observed" that DNA was unique to each human. With the exception of confession, the same can be said for each of those types of evidences. Which supports my point. There has to be a point in which it was clearly observed before it can later be "inferred."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2011 7:38 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2011 10:24 AM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 23 of 373 (644218)
12-16-2011 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2011 7:57 AM


We see DNA being produced naturally, unintelligently, without design. This is all we ever see happening in nature.

I'm only familiar with it be "RE produced" in nature. Please specify an example of it being "produced."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 7:57 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 8:10 AM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 25 of 373 (644221)
12-16-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2011 8:10 AM


If I hand print or copy Jules Verne's "Journey to the center of the earth" I haven't PRODUCED it I have only REPRODUCED it. That isn't the same thing. Biologic machines "designed" to reproduce is entirely different from a biological machine forming from scratch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 8:10 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2011 10:30 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 8:32 PM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 32 of 373 (644311)
12-17-2011 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by NoNukes
12-16-2011 10:24 AM


Direct observation is only one of the ways that we make determinations and reach conclusions.

Well I didn't say "directly" observed did I? I said clearly observed. That is to say observed in a manner that is 99.99% sure. Not to mention the fact that you are waffling your examples back and forth wildly. My original comment was referring to evidence or lack there of, that DNA formed by natural processes. I specifically mentioned the lack of even observed additions of new info in the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism. To which you compared to evidence in a criminal case. Then when I responded to the criminal case comment you immediately waffled back to refute my comments with things like, lack of observation of atoms. Your jumping all over the board and throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the mix, which doesn't even apply to the question of DNA formation. I haven't got time to keep chasing your bunnies my friend. Are you going to provide evidence that "highly infers" that single celled organisms became multi-celled etc... or not?

BTW we actually have been able to in a sense, observe atoms.

Your DNA is different from that of every single one of your ancestors.

So are you implying different kind, species, alleles, or just different copies? It's sad that I have to ask such a silly question just so you won't try to trip me up on simple wording.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2011 10:24 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 8:59 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 33 of 373 (644312)
12-17-2011 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by subbie
12-16-2011 11:38 AM


Sorry, but you missed the point. My specific question was whether the arrangement of the wires was by design. Care to give it another go?

Well given the definition of specificity and my lack of any knowledge about antennas, I have no recognition response and therefore I personally can not detect design in the actual arrangement. That doesn't mean there is none. It only means that I am not qualified to make that determination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 12-16-2011 11:38 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Granny Magda, posted 12-17-2011 8:27 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 53 by subbie, posted 12-17-2011 5:19 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 34 of 373 (644313)
12-17-2011 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2011 8:32 PM


And a copy is not the creation of anything. It is only a reproduction. Reproductions do not explain the existence of the originals... Doc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 8:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 6:20 AM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 50 of 373 (644405)
12-17-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 6:20 AM


In the case of DNA, it is the creation of DNA. This is how DNA is made. Every time. By reproduction with variation and sometimes recombination as well. This is how we get DNA. This is how you got yours and I got mine.

Lol. That's like saying that because every time the ice-cream man hands out a pop-cycle he decreases the over all temperature by 10-942 degree, that Mr. Good bar is therefore the cause of the last Ice Age.

Note that you are not in fact a copy of either of your parents.

I "note" no such thing Doc. When organisms REproduce, each organism often carries within it two alleles of the same gene. When organisms reproduce, their offspring receive one member of each pair of their chromosomes from each of their parents the two members of each pair, are the same genes, but are often different alleles. This means that the potential for variety in their offspring is great. For example if each parent, in humans, were to differ by only one allele in each of their 23 pairs of chromosomes, that would mean that the mother draws from a set of more than 8,400,000 different ones, and the same goes for the father. That makes the combined potential of variety of offspring more than 70 trillion.

However no "new" never before existed DNA "information" is being introduced. It is only a manipulation of the already existing information in the human gene pool. In order for you to demonstrate otherwise Doc, you would have to produce at least one example of observed added beneficially NEW information to the gene pool of any multi-celled organism. That is the only evidence that would conclusively prove that the neodarwinian theory is possible. And I'll give you a clue to save you from searching to long and hard... "no such examples exist."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 6:20 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 8:42 PM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 52 of 373 (644409)
12-17-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by bluegenes
12-17-2011 8:13 AM


And what objective purpose have you identified in life forms? Don't confuse function with intelligent purpose.

Ummm... tap, tap, tap, (on the screen). Did you miss the part of the definition for specificity that includes "function?" For example a combination lock requires a specific code to be entered before it performs the "function" of unlocking. Of course I'm not going to cite lame functions like, how a hand is perfectly fitted to grasp, or anything like that. However DNA, on the other hand, uses specified base code sequences and arrangements as the blue prints to build all the correct cells, in all the correct locations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by bluegenes, posted 12-17-2011 8:13 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2011 8:07 AM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 68 of 373 (644581)
12-19-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 8:42 PM


Are you pretending that no-one's observed adaptive evolution in multi-celled organisms?

No Doc. I'm going to say very clearly (again) no one has ever observed a case, through mutation or any other natural means, of added beneficially new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organim. That is what is needed to demonstrate that it is possible to get from one major kind to another. For a fish to gain lungs, legs and finally lap tops, a whole lot of new information must be added to the DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 8:42 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 10:31 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 12-19-2011 12:11 PM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 69 of 373 (644582)
12-19-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by bluegenes
12-18-2011 8:07 AM


what I wanted to know was: what intelligent purpose do we see in life forms? What are bacteria for from a designer's perspective? What's a giraffe for? What is Plasmodium falciparum for?

That's a very good question. Do you suppose that it is necessary to know every facet of somethings purpose just to be able to infer intelligent design? Could a child who never saw a gun, distinguish an AR-15 military assault riffle from naturally occurring things in the forest? Or would he have to know exactly what it does and why it was made first?

I want to know how biologists can see intelligent purpose in organisms in the same way that an archaeologist can perceive intelligent purpose in an arrowhead

Well I would say that in the same way an arrowhead sparks an independent recognition response in the archaeologist, the incredibly specific order of base code sequences and arrangements of DNA sparks an independent recognition response in the micro biologists who have cracked that code.

This illustrates your fundamental mistake. You look at DNA, and then at something which is intelligently designed by an organism (the combination lock by humans) and see an analogy between the two.I've already pointed out that both intelligent and unintelligent organisms use "specific codes". Chemical signals are actually used as the prime method of communication by unintelligent organisms far more often than by intelligent ones.

There is no fundamental mistake here BG. One could make the argument that a combination lock is not intelligent. The object that uses the specificity to perform basic functions does not need to be aware that it is doing so. However the lock example illustrates how we (the observers) can detect intelligence in somethings design when we see a specific independent recognition response take place. When the correct code is entered into the lock, or the correct code is read in the DNA sequence. It is still recognizable specificity. And thus far we humans have only "observed" specificity form from intelligent sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2011 8:07 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 10:28 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 77 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2011 1:55 PM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 72 of 373 (644589)
12-19-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dr Adequate
12-19-2011 10:28 AM


Did you just imply that "naturally occurring things in the forest" are not intelligently designed?

No I just implied that even a child on its own plane operating within its limited and undeveloped level of knowledge and understanding could distinguish between something with characteristics of specificity and something just functioning under natural unguided processes and laws. And I thought you were the PhD. here?

Er ... except that those "micro biologists" do not attribute it to design.

We do love that broad brush don't we?

Now, let us know if you can come up with an objective criterion for determining whether such an event has taken place, and I'll get back to you.

Gee Doc. I don't know... maybe some sort of a controlled study where a group of multi-celled organisms where observed over several generations. The parent groups DNA being mapped out and over "X" amount of generations the decedents are observed to have added beneficially new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA. Again I thought you were the PhD. here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 10:28 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 11:51 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 75 by nwr, posted 12-19-2011 12:44 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2011 2:12 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 85 of 373 (644665)
12-19-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
12-19-2011 11:51 AM


And the things that you gave as examples of things without "characteristics of specificity"
From a child's vantage point
were, apparently, "naturally occurring things in the forest"
From a child's vantage point
But aren't you meant to be claiming that naturally occurring things do exhibit this vague, ill-defined property?
Perhaps vague to the intentionally obtuse, but yes that is correct. Its like when my seven year old turns on the computer and watches it boot up. He can see it do all kinds of things that it "naturally" was pre-programed to do. Even my seven year old can easily distinguish between those actions, as opposed to when someone is IMiing him on the net. The boot up and basic operation of the system running in the background is all intelligently designed to run a "naturally basic function within the system. But the instant messages however are clearly intelligently being generated from his aunt Val. At his age he may not understand the operating system and how intricately designed it is, but this will come as his plane of understanding and knowledge base develops. Likewise a biologist can go out to that same forest and pick up a tree frog, take it back to the lab and examine its DNA and see high levels of specificity. Therefore he is capable of doing what the child could not. And detect design even within the "operating system."

When I used my child and the AR-15 analogy, I didn't expect for you to stretch my words beyond the breaking point of all congruity. I find it comical that you were waiting with bated breath for my arguments to hide behind vocabulary manipulation and yet you are the first out of that gate.

My statement about "the micro biologists who have cracked that code" was exactly as broad as yours, since we were talking about the same people.

I'll give you that. In the future I'll be more careful to say "MANY" micro biologists...

I'm still waiting for the actual criterion. We need an operational definition. Whether through incompetence or a kind of low cunning, creationist maunderings about "information" are usually too vague to provide one.

Look I'm not like you and trying to trip you up on your own words here. I just want any study that demonstrates how that increase of information from single celled life, to multi-celled, to fins, to lungs to legs, could possibly have came about. Loss of information can sometimes be beneficial to the organisms survival, but it doesn't explain how the increase happened to begin with. Nor do copies, nor copy errors etc. At some point mutations must occur that produce beneficially new never before existed information in the chromosomal DNA. DNA that almost ALL biologists agree is highly specified, and many biologists attribute to a designer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 11:51 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2011 4:17 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 12-20-2011 12:00 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 86 of 373 (644666)
12-19-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
12-19-2011 12:11 PM


If by "observed" you mean the actual mutation event was witnessed under the microscope...
No, no, of course not, I don't expect anyone to actually witness the event. I agree that would just be silly.
But if you mean that we've never discovered any beneficial mutations then you would be wrong.
I'm not denying that beneficial mutations occur Percy. I am denying that a beneficial mutation has ever occurred that increased the information in the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism. That type of increase would be necessary in order to go from fins to legs, to lungs, and finally to lap tops.

A discussion about the possibility or lack thereof of beneficial mutations would be interesting, but I'm not sure it relates to the topic of this thread. If no beneficial mutations had ever been discovered, would that be evidence of a designer?

Sure it relates and here is how. Most scientists utilize specificity (rather or not they call it that) as the tell tale sign of intelligent design. That is because specificity has only been observed coming from intelligent sources. Interestingly this same property can be observed in the base code arrangements of the DNA of all living things. If no one has proof that this kind of specificity could in fact have arisen by purely random, naturally occurring unguided processes, then we must attribute DNA's origin to the only observations we have made. An intelligent cause. In order for someone to demonstrate that it could have arisen naturally, they have to come up with examples of beneficial mutations occurring that increases the DNA code. Therefore it is directly tied to a discussion on "Evidence to expect given a designer."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 12-19-2011 12:11 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 12-20-2011 7:17 AM Just being real has 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