Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9041 total)
81 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 80 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,914 Year: 3,560/14,102 Month: 180/321 Week: 40/59 Day: 1/4 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 26 of 146 (792340)
10-07-2016 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-06-2016 6:04 PM


mike the wiz writes:

While I acknowledge that you might not accept the present form of ID as anything other than a watered down form of creationism, can you accept that if a syllogism contains no premises that mention creation or God, then strictly speaking, technically, the syllogism itself is not creationist?

Technically? Okay, sure, I guess, in a technical sense, but we all know where you're going. Very few non-creationists make arguments like yours. You can't ask us to deny simple and obvious conclusions.

You say you have your own ID views distinct from mainstream ID, but your list of criteria for concluding intelligent design, like specified complexity, are just mainstream ID. Your attempts at logical argument add nothing to ID and for the most part aren't logical. If ID were truly science then it would be possible to draw connections between its tenets and the real world.

If something has the elements of design it is designed. (X is X, Law of identity)
Life has the elements of design
Therefore life is designed.

The problem is in your initial premise. I see that replies to you have divided into several camps on this point. One concedes that life is designed but argues that that says nothing about who or what did the designing, while another argues that evolution did the designing. Another camp calls it apparent design but not actual design. And yet another camp says it doesn't resemble any known form of design by intelligent beings (namely us) that we would recognize, the best we can do seeming to be a pale and very poor mimic of some of life's simpler processes, something we'll undoubtedly get better at, but not something we would have ever designed ourselves.

I'm in the camp that rejects your initial premise. By what criteria do you conclude that life or the Earth or the solar system or the universe has the qualities of design. Certainly not by any used by these realms of science, namely biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology.

Arguments like, "DNA looks designed," or "The solar system looks designed," or "The universe looks designed," have no evidentiary foundation in the way that Coyote's arguments for flint chips do. We *know* that humans manipulate flint, we know what it looks like, and we recognize it when we see it. But when we look at DNA there's nothing similar to compare to that we know was designed by intelligent beings. And if complexity is evidence of intelligent origin, this hasn't been demonstrated, either.

The common ID response, usually some form of "You're denying the obvious because you're beholden to your paradigm," draws the obvious response, "If skepticism is undeserved then provide an unbroken chain of evidence." This is often where the detailed arguments begin, like "Specified complexity can only originate with intelligence, and life has specified complexity," which draws the inevitable response, "Specified complexity is a made up concept, and life wasn't created in a single step but followed processes of very gradually increasing complexity following the known natural laws of the universe."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-06-2016 6:04 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 10:56 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 51 of 146 (792365)
10-07-2016 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Genomicus
10-07-2016 10:56 AM


Genomicus writes:

Not sure if you're referring strictly to DNA as a molecule here, in and of itself, or the whole genetic code. Because when it comes to the genetic code, there's plenty that's similar to it -- phenomena which we know are the products of agency. The canonical genetic code is a code in a very real sense -- this isn't metaphorical language employed by biologists. And codes and data transmission -- complete with error-correcting mechanisms, parity structure, etc. -- are known to be the products of intelligence.

It's fine to interpret my mention of DNA as a reference to the genetic code, and I think this is the strongest argument for ID. Placing it into Mike's preferred form:

  • Humans are intelligent and design codes.
  • DNA is a code.
  • DNA the was created by an intelligent designer

This isn't airtight, of course, since there could be non-intelligent origins for codes, but you and Mike acknowledge this. Your argument isn't that codes could only have been designed by an intelligence, but that codes exist in nature that are indistinguishable from human designed codes, and that therefore the possibility of intelligent origins for codes must be considered, or at least shouldn't be excluded.

Well, okay, but is this science or religion? In what branch of science or with what natural phenomena does science ever argue, "This could be the result of some agency far more intelligent and powerful than ourselves." None. With rare exceptions such arguments originate with religious adherents.

Let's confront the hypothesis of "DNA as an intelligently designed code" in a bit more detail. Upon first learning of the genetic code one could be forgiven for exclaiming, "My God, this couldn't have happened naturally." But then one asks where the DNA came from? From the parents. And where did their DNA come from? From their parents, and so forth back through all the ancestors and finally to when it wasn't even DNA. And how could species ever evolve? DNA copying is imperfect. And how does that not cause extinction of all life? Selection. And so forth with questions of ever broadening scope and answers that lead to an infinite supply of more questions.

No investigation of a bewildering scientific mystery finds discovery leading toward intelligent agency. What we learn is always in the direction of the natural. This is one of the things science gradually learned in the centuries after the Middle Ages, that divine providence (or intelligent agent in modern ID lingo) never turns out to be the answer. It is never argued in modern science, "We've tried and tried to find an answer for this, but we can't find one, so one has to consider a power far greater than ourselves."

IDists will argue, "No no, not a 'power far greater than ourselves,' just an intelligent agent. Intelligent, like we are, that's all." But it's hard to take them at their word - at heart they seek God, not aliens, for there's no answer for the infinite regression. If life here is the result of an intelligence, then where did that intelligence come from? Ultimately there had to have been a first intelligence, a god, and now the true motives of the IDist is revealed to be no different from the creationist.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 10:56 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 1:52 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 57 of 146 (792371)
10-08-2016 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Genomicus
10-07-2016 1:52 PM


Genomicus writes:

There's nothing inherently religious in what I am arguing. I'd call it exploratory science...etc...

All I can say in response is, yes, that's pretty much what one in your position would be expected to argue, making a plea to accept your position as reasonable with no arguments built around evidence, and with no hint of recognition that your position's infinite regression leads to theological questions of ultimate origins and not to scientific understanding. There is something *very* inherently religious in what you are arguing.

Conjuring molecular evolutionary fantasias not supported by historical evidence is exactly that -- an exercise in creative imagination, but not particularly a rigorous attempt at answering the question of how the genetic code, as an entity in biological history, actually emerged.

Just as the Earth's history is recorded in the rocks, life's history is recorded in the cells. About Earth's history Faith likes to call geological strata "stacks of rocks" as if they contain no evidence of time and process, and you seem to be making a very similar argument about life. "Evidence? What evidence? There's no evidence here, just an 'exercise in creative imagination,' nothing rigorous or scientific at all."

--Percy

PS - Some of your reply indicates a possible misunderstanding, so to clear that up, no one's denying the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, maybe even built upon different chemistry (maybe even a nebula a la Fred Hoyle's The Black Cloud). Your argument is different, that life possesses unnatural qualities that require an outside intelligent agency. In your view alien life is not just a possibility but a necessity, else we wouldn't be here. But there's still that annoying infinite regression...

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Fix more bad grammar. No change in meaning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 1:52 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Genomicus, posted 10-08-2016 11:04 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 58 of 146 (792372)
10-08-2016 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Genomicus
10-07-2016 1:15 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
Taq writes:

Does this high resolution look at a protein look designed, or just like a mass of atoms?

Genomicus writes:

Umm, that looks like a sophisticated two-part machine with interlocking modules.

Obviously it does not look like a machine. The image you offerred yourself *does* look machine-like because it was the intended purpose of the drawing to make masses of molecules look machine-like, likely as an aid to understanding. Your image was taken from ATP Synthase:

But two can play this game.

ATP_synthase_UPDATED

That's a machine. Well, it's a machine according to the scientific literature, at least.
...
Really? Then tell that to published biologists who extensively use terminology borrowed from engineering disciplines.

There's only one playing a game. Biologists are not indicating belief in ID when they make such drawings or refer to biological structures as machines. The Earth has an internal heat engine - I wonder how many cylinders it has?

This isn't discussion, this is word games.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 1:15 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Taq, posted 10-11-2016 4:50 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 63 of 146 (792396)
10-08-2016 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Genomicus
10-08-2016 11:04 AM


Genomicus writes:

Yes, that's pretty much all you can say in response, but just because you expected me to argue that doesn't invalidate my position.

Your position isn't invalid - it's unsupported by any evidence, and that's why you're arguing in the way you are. I see now that you're focused solely on design in life's origin, not design generally in life that would include the design of each species and so forth.

Arguments from analogy are perfectly reasonable.

Analogies are explanatory aids, not evidence.

This doesn't mean we jump up and down and declare that life was definitely engineered.

It doesn't mean that we try to sneak this into the classroom.

This might be more accurate if you were referring only to yourself. This isn't true of most of your fellow travelers.

But it does mean that it makes sense to be suspicious that agency has played a role in the origin of life.

Again, you have no evidence. There's nothing to be suspicious of.

There is no "infinite regression" in my position. That's more anthropocentric ideology. There is nothing that suggests that non-code-based self-replicators cannot emerge on other planets.

That's your argument? That life based upon "non-code-based self-replicators" arose elsewhere in the universe, that intelligent life eventually emerged there, then they traveled here and created "code-based self-replicators"?

Do you have evidence that life based upon "code-based self-replicators" can't arise naturally or at least not here? Any evidence that life based upon "non-code-based self-replicators" *can* arise naturally? Some explanation of how such life might even work? Do you have any arguments based upon evidence instead of analogies and an overactive imagination? (We'll leave aside science-fictiony interstellar travel.)

If any of the people you cite (Rebek, etc.) believe as you do then you should bring the evidence they offer in support into the discussion.

Just as the Earth's history is recorded in the rocks, life's history is recorded in the cells. About Earth's history Faith likes to call geological strata "stacks of rocks" as if they contain no evidence of time and process, and you seem to be making a very similar argument about life.

C'mon, Percy. You know very well that the geological evidence for common ancestry is magnitudes more robust than any historical evidence you can muster for life's origin through non-teleology.

C'mon yourself. Faith likes to ignore the geological evidence for geological history, and in similar fashion you like to ignore the biological evidence for life's history. The evidence for both geological and biological history peters out the further back in time you go, but we don't conclude from lack of this type of evidence that aliens built the Earth or created life. We instead seek other avenues of evidence. There's no *evidence* of design in any stage of life on Earth, including its origins.

Seeking purposeful design has sent you down unscientific corridors.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Genomicus, posted 10-08-2016 11:04 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Genomicus, posted 10-09-2016 1:24 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 65 of 146 (792404)
10-09-2016 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Genomicus
10-08-2016 10:04 PM


Genomicus writes:

Let's suppose that life on Earth could not have plausibly originated without the intervention of agency.

Let's have good reasons for what you're proposin' supposin'. What conditions make agentless abiogenesis possible elsewhere and impossible here?

It seems as if non-teleologists have succumbed to the relentless propaganda of creationism which says that if life on Earth could not have arisen without design, then a god -- and only a god -- must be invoked.

At least it is possible to understand their motivation. Heaven only knows your reasons for wanting code-based self-replicators here on Earth to have been designed and created by non-code-based self-replicators from another star. One could make sense of it if there were some compelling evidence, or heck, even non-compelling evidence, but there's only stories and analogies.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Genomicus, posted 10-08-2016 10:04 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Genomicus, posted 10-09-2016 1:29 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 68 of 146 (792410)
10-09-2016 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Genomicus
10-09-2016 1:24 AM


Genomicus writes:

I see now that you're focused solely on design in life's origin, not design generally in life that would include the design of each species and so forth.

Search my post history on EvC. I've never argued for the direct design of all biological species.

Thanks for the information.

That's an excellent essay on analogies, but it only repeats at much greater length my point that analogies are an aid to understanding, not evidence. That something looks designed is not evidence. Faith makes the same mistake when she argues that the layers of the Grand Canyon fairly shout Flood.

It's fine if you think you have enough hints and analogies to justify a serious exploration for evidence, but your hints and analogies are not themselves evidence, and you can't expect others to find them compelling in the way that you apparently do.

So the notion of teleology in biology is more correlational than theoretic, but the strong analogies between life's molecular fabric and actual engineered technology does mean that there is a perfectly rational basis for postulating a hypothesis of agency in the origin of life.

I don't myself, and I think this is true of most scientists and engineers, divide the world into teleogists and non-teleogists. Most of us are just "show me the evidence and skip the nonsense and handwaving" kind of guys.

The entire point behind noting that non-code-based self-replicators exist and can plausibly evolve into intelligent entities was to refute this notion that any design hypothesis concerning life's origin must necessarily invoke gods. And that's a point you're not really responding to.

I never mentioned infinite regressions or gods in my last message. I dropped that argument once you began arguing that life here was designed by life elsewhere that arose naturally. You seem to have misinterpreted my requests for evidence for your "hypothesis" as arguments about infinite regressions and gods. That's not what they were. You had just stated that there were only the two steps of life elsewhere designing life here, and that's the argument I replied to. The questions stand: do you have any evidence that anything like this ever happened? Any evidence at all?

It's okay for you to take hints and analogies and announce that you believe them sufficient justification for investigation. No one can take away your right to feel this way. But you evidently feel the need to persuade others to feel the same way, and the clear answer you're getting is that you need some evidence.

By the way, the argument, "It's not right to lump me in with all those other shyster guys making similar arguments, I'm different," isn't particularly compelling, either.

Eh, I hardly ignore the biological evidence for life's history. I rely on such evidence every day for making robust molecular evolutionary hypotheses.

"Robust hypotheses" is your term. Self-boosterism is never a good sign. You sound like Trump. Instead of telling us how great your thinking and ideas are and how much you rely upon evidence, show us. Give us a sign.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Genomicus, posted 10-09-2016 1:24 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Genomicus, posted 10-09-2016 7:58 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 70 of 146 (792412)
10-09-2016 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Genomicus
10-09-2016 1:29 AM


Genomicus writes:

Let's suppose that life on Earth could not have plausibly originated without the intervention of agency.

Let's have good reasons for what you're proposin' supposin'. What conditions make agentless abiogenesis possible elsewhere and impossible here?

Not the point of my response to Edge. I said "Let's suppose that life on Earth could not have plausibly originated without the intervention of agency" to make the point that design hypotheses for the origin of life on Earth need not lead to any infinite regression.

Every time evidence is requested your answer is, "I was making a different point." Actually introducing real evidence into the discussion doesn't seem to be your point anywhere in this discussion.

Sure, you understand their motivation, but you've also fallen prey to their theological propaganda.

Another evidence-free assertion.

As near as I can tell the rationale for your position runs like this: The existence of biological codes and the resemblance of biological mechanisms to machines and factories and assembly lines and so forth justifies the hypothesis that life on Earth was designed and did not evolve naturally. But life must have evolved naturally somewhere. This last argument is included for fear of the infinite regression, and the presence of this argument proves there are no theological motives. There's no actual evidence at this point.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Genomicus, posted 10-09-2016 1:29 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 71 of 146 (792415)
10-09-2016 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Genomicus
10-09-2016 7:58 AM


I see you complained about the comparison to Trump in your Message 512 over at the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread. I didn't know you were sensitive to comparisons to Trump, so I withdraw the comparison and replace it with, "Self-praise is not a virtue and in this instance is mere empty assertion."

You're apparently unbothered by comparisons to Faith, so I'll mention that when Faith's ideas are challenged she starts finding problems with people, even provoking them. Do you have arguments beyond, "I think hints and analogies justify making this an area of active research"? Do you have any ideas for where such research would even start?

--Percy

PS - I"m "more-or-less insulated from the negative effects" of a Trump candidacy? Really? I think most people have an opposite opinion, that rare is the person not at threat. If Trump is elected then the maxim "Head for the hills" comes to mind, but with his thumb on the nuclear button no hill would be safe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Genomicus, posted 10-09-2016 7:58 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Genomicus, posted 10-09-2016 10:22 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 73 of 146 (792465)
10-10-2016 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Genomicus
10-09-2016 10:22 AM


Genomicus writes:

Thanks for your response. To be clear, when I stated that "I hardly ignore the biological evidence for life's history. I rely on such evidence every day for making robust molecular evolutionary hypotheses," the "robust hypotheses" I was referring to had nothing to with intelligent design or self-praise. It was in reference to published and ongoing molecular phylogenetics research relevant to bacterial systematics. The hypotheses are "robust" because, well, statistics and stuff.

Yes, precisely, bragging about your knowledge and thinking instead of giving us demonstrations of it.

I am completely aware, too, that no robust ID hypotheses have been proposed.

Good to know - I thought you were trying to convince us there were.

Well, I don't know -- I'm not the one who thought that drawing comparisons between one's debate opponent and a racist misogynist backed by Klansmen was a good idea.

Yeah, right, that was the context here, racism and misogynism, not ceaseless self-promotion without factual foundation.

Well, other than my argument that design hypotheses don't have to lead to invocations of the supernatural.

How many times do I have to remind you that I dropped that argument as soon as you argued that life here was designed by life elsewhere that arose naturally? You haven't so far been able to offer any support for that possibility. Your position now seems to be, "I have disproved the charge of theological motives by offering up this possibility but will not be addressing the expressed concerns about its lack of factual foundation."

See here, here, here, here, and here. When I have time to present my other lines of thinking, I'll put up a post here at EvC.

And when you do I'll read them, but for now I'll note that people with robust arguments can state them succinctly, and that greater length and detail are often just a smokescreen for hiding the absence of substance. The original question in this thread is why evolutionists can't see that the robustness of ID arguments invalidates accusations of theological motives, but you just said there are "no robust ID hypotheses," so just what more is there to say?

By the way, isn't the solar system just a giant clock? Must have been designed.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Genomicus, posted 10-09-2016 10:22 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Genomicus, posted 10-10-2016 10:54 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 75 of 146 (792477)
10-10-2016 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Genomicus
10-10-2016 10:54 AM


Genomicus writes:

Yes, precisely, bragging about your knowledge and thinking instead of giving us demonstrations of it.

I don't decide if a hypothesis is "robust." The statistics do. That's not bragging. That's statistics.

No, that was you making unsupported assertions that you "hardly ignore the biological evidence of life's history," and that you "rely on such evidence every day for making robust molecular evolutionary hypotheses." When challenged the story suddenly changed and the robust hypotheses weren't about ID but were "in reference to published and ongoing molecular phylogenetics research relevant to bacterial systematics," and that "the hypotheses are 'robust' because, well, statistics and stuff." Whatever you really meant, instead of claims of how substantially your thinking is based upon evidence and how strong your hypotheses are, it would be better to just attempt to demonstrate those claims through your discussion in this thread, and then let people make up their own minds.

To me you appear to be not only ignoring the evidence of life's history, but ignoring it while it's being called to your attention. We know the power of mutation and selection, it's unambiguously obvious throughout life's history, but you ignore it as you consider the transition from life to non-life and instead baldly state that DNA couldn't have emerged naturally.

Then when attempts are made to call your attention to what appear be self-promoting statements and evasions we get stuff like this:

Yeah, right, that was the context here, racism and misogynism, not ceaseless self-promotion without factual foundation.

Geez, Percy, you can't even admit that saying I "sound like Trump" was in bad taste. Check your damn privilege.

You seem to be drawing upon a deep well of privilege yourself, that you should be able to behave in any self-interested way you like without challenge. Your claims of offense are distracting from the topic, something that to me is pretty offensive in itself. Claims that can't be supported should be dropped, but aspersions shouldn't be cast at others merely for committing the sin of trying to get you to support your claims.

You asked explicitly if I had any other arguments beyond the analogies being discussed. I answered that question by affirming that my one other argument was related to theology and the origin of life.

Theology? Better check your Message 66 again. No mention of theology.

But that's fine if your motivations for seeking design in nature are theological. It's just not science, and it certainly isn't a scientific justification for considering the hypothesis of non-natural origins for natural phenomena.

You haven't so far been able to offer any support for that possibility. Your position now seems to be, "I have disproved the charge of theological motives by offering up this possibility but will not be addressing the expressed concerns about its lack of factual foundation."

My only intent was to refute the idea that any design hypothesis necessarily leads to an invocation of the supernatural.

And when your refutation was challenged you ignored that challenge, continue to ignore it, and are evading like crazy. I ask you once again, what is the factual foundation for your supposed refutation? By what evidence and reasoning do you conclude that life on Earth could not have arisen naturally? What is the difference between life here and life elsewhere that tells you that natural origins are impossible here but possible elsewhere? Conjectures that you just toss out without consideration or evidence can't be refutations of anything. This is what you said in Message 66:

Genomicus in Message 66 writes:

The strong analogies between life's molecular fabric and actual engineered technology does mean that there is a perfectly rational basis for postulating a hypothesis of agency in the origin of life.

I say your "refutation" has no rational basis, you say it does, so come on, back it up. You can't just claim how nice and wonderful everything you say is, you have to show it.

I'm not sure that anyone is saying that there is more to say.

Actually, it is me who has been very strongly and emphatically saying that there is more to say. You threw out some cockamamie hypothesis that you then claimed was a refutation of the infinite regression. I'm asking you to back it up with evidence and argument. If there *is* no evidence and argument then you are right, there is nothing more to say.

You've made this discussion more hostile than anticipated...

You're claiming offense again. When did you start believing that you just saying something makes it true, or just feeling something makes it valid? The hostility here is all you: Dance around the attempts to engage with your claims until you can grasp onto something you label offensive then exit in high dudgeon. Great act.

If you have evidence and argument it's time to get on with it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Genomicus, posted 10-10-2016 10:54 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 1:34 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(11)
Message 93 of 146 (793496)
10-31-2016 8:20 AM


  • The stars appear motionless in space...whoops!

  • The sun and planets look like they orbit the Earth...whoops!

  • The world looks flat...whoops!

  • The continents look like permanent and immovable features of the planet...whoops!

  • There are only four fundamental elements: earth, air, fire and water...whoops!

  • Heavier objects should fall faster...whoops!

  • Life looks designed...whoops!

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Genomicus, posted 11-01-2016 10:57 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 104 of 146 (793563)
11-02-2016 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Genomicus
11-01-2016 10:57 PM


Genomicus writes:

But when we look at life on a biochemical/molecular level, the analogy with engineering strengthens, rather than weakens.

For the sake of argument let's concede your point, that the analogy to engineered objects strengthens the more closely we approach the biochemical/molecular level. Let's call it a very interesting hypothesis that's worth exploring.

But this has been a hypothesis of ID for a very long time, so if this were actually a productive avenue of research then there should be a great deal of evidence by now. Where is it? And contrariwise, what evidence is there to exclude evolution (selection of modifications produced by descent) as the designer? Evolution is the only apparent "agent" out there.

The hypothesis you described earlier was that life here did not arise naturally but was designed by life from elsewhere that did arise naturally. Were you able to find any evidence for this hypothesis while you were away?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Genomicus, posted 11-01-2016 10:57 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 109 of 146 (793571)
11-02-2016 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Genomicus
11-02-2016 1:34 AM


Genomicus writes:

Robust molecular evolutionary hypotheses aren't ID hypotheses. If I had meant robust ID hypotheses, I would have said robust ID hypotheses. Idk, maybe you should consider upping your verbal comprehension game. Understanding what I wrote isn't hard, but the powers of your imagination were nevertheless able to attach your own story to it.

In other words, you were perfectly clear, if you do say so yourself.

Kinda hypocritical, Percy, because you're not following your own advice. Instead of claiming how I "like to ignore the biological evidence for life's history," it would be better to just attempt to demonstrate that claim through your discussion in this thread, and then let people make up their own minds.

In other words, you won't be coaxed into a defense of your ideas but will instead attack those who seek after such a defense, not in any original way, but just throwing their own criticisms back at them in ways that make no sense.

- Where have I denied the power of mutation and selection in shaping biological life on Earth?

- When have I denied the unambiguous evidence for the nature of life's history on Earth?

- What internally consistent armamentarium of evidence that documents the evolutionary history of life and that also supports the purported transition of non-life to biological life on Earth am I ignoring?

- Where have I baldly stated that DNA couldn't have emerged naturally?

It would do you well to actually read what I write instead of conjuring stuff up.

Discussion abhors a vacuum. If you have a defense of your idea that life here did not arise naturally but was designed by life from elsewhere that did arise naturally, now's the time. Otherwise we're left to ponder over your meager offerings and make of them what we will.

Apparently the meaning of the word "related" escapes the scope of your lexicon. My other argument was related to theology in the origin of life, as I was discussing how theology need not be invoked in an agency-based hypothesis for the origin of biological life on Earth. But sure, go ahead and keep ignoring what I'm actually saying and letting your lack of attention to detail permeate this discussion.

Gosh I'm awful. So what's your evidence again that code-based life couldn't have arisen naturally but non-code based life could? I mean, we're all intimately familiar with "Rebek and colleagues" and that "the analogs of genetic codes, bipartite complementarities found in nucleic acids, and ribosomes are hardly needed for the existence of non-biological autocatalytic systems." Why, I said as much in conversation just the other day.

Or putting it another way, your italicized text quoting yourself from Message 61 isn't exactly word salad, but it has the same effect because you just dumped it out there without preamble or explanation. As I said in my reply in Message 63, if you think any of the researchers you named (Rebek, etc.) has evidence supporting your ideas then you should describe it in this thread.

You mean non-teleologically, not "naturally." If a non-biological intelligence engineered life on Earth, then it'd still be natural.

We don't want to overcomplicate the discussion, though I guess we'll have to if you insist, but differentiating between designed and non-designed objects with the labels "unnatural" and "natural" is very common to both sides of the debate. I don't think we're talking about the natural versus the supernatural, so there should be no confusion.

Most* intelligent adults of sound judgment don't think it mature to draw comparisons between someone they're discussing stuff with and people like Donald Trump. But hey, you do you -- maybe you're the exception to that overall generalization of respectable adults.

*Based solely on personal experience and not statistical studies.

Well, just let me say that in my opinion your vocabulary is vastly superior to Donald Trump's even if your message is not.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 1:34 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 110 of 146 (793575)
11-02-2016 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Genomicus
11-02-2016 8:27 AM


Genomicus writes:

Well, I'm not a creationist, so you can leave the theological terminology and assumptions about me at the door.

You're an IDist. The guy you cited, Bruce Alberts, is cited by IDists all over the Internet, but if you read the paper (The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists) he isn't arguing for ID but for a more multidisciplinary approach to cell biology. Like most creationist and IDist citations, it misrepresents Alberts as advocating views he likely finds antithetical. Likely the same is true of other scientists you mentioned, like Margulis, Rebek and Penrose.

ID has been around for a long time. It's time to move past analogy and get to the evidence.

One principle is modularity.

Life is chock-full of modularity. Protein domains function as molecular modules that can be used in a wide array of biological contexts. Look 'em up.

I don't think DWise1 was arguing that life possesses no modularity but rather noting the lack of strict modularity. What you might like to think of as life's modules probably leak like sieves to provide a host of other related and unrelated side effects. This is consistent with evolution providing solutions that one way or another, and often in unexpected ways, just get the job done. In contrast, a designer would develop neatly and tightly modular designs that are supportable, maintainable and extensible.

"Complexity" is a vague term here, so it'd be useful if you broke down exactly what you mean by "complexity" in the context of engineering and molecular biology. Redundancy, for example, is often considered a form of "complexity," and is frequently cited as an instance of poor engineering.

Complexity is an ID argument. Mike the Wiz introduced the IDist claim that life possesses "specified complexity," and you introduced "irreducible complexity" into the discussion back in Message 33. Discussion of complexity will have to reflect what *you* mean by complexity, because in the absence of ID it would never come up.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Edited by Percy, : Another typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 8:27 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021