Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9057 total)
477 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (6 members, 471 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,843 Year: 955/6,534 Month: 955/682 Week: 8/182 Day: 8/27 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID predict genetic similarity?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1221 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 167 (670390)
08-13-2012 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by herebedragons
08-13-2012 10:20 AM


Classifications systems
If you think about it, any classification system is "artificial" in that it depends solely on the criteria specified to define the classification system. Sure we try our best to classify things in a "natural" way, but we have to define what that "natural" system is.

This is one of my pet peeves, along with "that's just an assumption."

The fact that classification systems (and assumptions) are "artificial" (I would use the term "models" instead of "artificial") does not automatically make them wrong, or even suspect.

They may very well be wrong, and in need of correction or refinement, but it is an annoying habit of creationists and others who oppose the results of scientific investigation to use "assumption" and "classification systems" so as to imply they are wild-ass guesses. This is usually done because scientific investigations lead to conclusions which contract scripture, dogma, religious belief, etc.

If one disagrees with either a classification system or an assumption, one should be able to show precisely where it is incorrect, and propose some idea of an alternative. For example, DNA research is showing that some branches of our classification system are wrong, and it is showing where these branches should instead be placed. That is the correct way to do things.

But to claim or even imply that because these models are "artificial," or based on assumptions, that they are automatically incorrect is just plain sloppy reasoning--yet that is frequently the case in the creationist and ID literature.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by herebedragons, posted 08-13-2012 10:20 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by herebedragons, posted 08-14-2012 11:50 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1221 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 79 of 167 (670655)
08-16-2012 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Genomicus
08-16-2012 7:10 PM


Rational design and non-design
Yes, I know you have stacks of evidence for flawed design, but at the same time there are stacks of biological systems that, at their core, clearly display rational design and show no signs of flawed design.

To add another element to this discussion, here is a fascinating lecture discussing mathematical models of genetic networks. It has been found that genetic networks are "astonishingly robust" and come up with workable solutions quite easily.

It is close to an hour, but I recommend it highly.

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture)

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsbKzFdW2bM

ps. I've posted this several times before, but have yet to have a creationist or IDer respond with a discussion of the details.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Genomicus, posted 08-16-2012 7:10 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Genomicus, posted 08-16-2012 10:17 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1221 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 85 of 167 (670667)
08-17-2012 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Genomicus
08-16-2012 10:17 PM


Re: Rational design and non-design
I may or may not get around to watching the lecture, but for the moment, suffice it to say that if a biological system/network is not directly designed, there is no particular reason to expect rational design. Your example only works for those individuals who like to claim that pretty much everything was directly engineered.

The feedback system of natural selection does a pretty good job, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Genomicus, posted 08-16-2012 10:17 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Genomicus, posted 08-17-2012 10:08 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022