Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 2:03 PM
38 online now:
ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,554 Year: 3,591/19,786 Month: 586/1,087 Week: 176/212 Day: 18/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
15161718
19
20Next
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(4)
Message 271 of 294 (849075)
02-23-2019 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by AZPaul3
02-23-2019 11:33 AM


Re: Older never responded to message
So, they fear the court more than they fear their god?

But of course, how else could it be? Their god likes what they like and hates everybody and everything that they hate. Their god misunderstands everything, including the Bible, the same way that they misunderstand everything. Their god never punishes them for doing wrong nor holds them responsible for anything (but will punish everybody else).

That last, called "cheap grace", is built into their theology that, being fallible humans, they will inevitably "stumble" not only at times but also time after time. When that inevitably happens, all they have to do is ask their god for forgiveness, which their god, like any decent "invisible friend", always grants. (see footnote below)

In sharp contrast, the courts do not grant "cheap grace", but rather will hold you responsible for your acts. If a fundamentalist goes out and beats a black man or a homosexual or any of the groups that they hate, their god will forgive them in an instant whereas the courts will convict them and throw them in the slammer (sadly, actual mileage tends to vary). Even if they end up killing their victim, the outcome will be the same wherein their god always forgives them but the court does not.

So then rightly they have absolutely nothing to fear from their god, but very good reason to fear the courts.


FOOTNOTE:

On pages 133-134 of The Authoritarians, Bob Altemeyer describes the nature and consequences of "cheap grace" (coinage attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer). That section follows:

quote:
Cheap Grace. Unfortunately, fundamentalist Protestantism may directly promote hypocrisy among its members through one of its major theological principles: that if one accepts Jesus as a personal savior and asks for the forgiveness of one’s sins, one will be saved. But a lot depends on what “accepts” means. Is one’s life transformed? Do good works increase? Is the born-again person more like Jesus, holier? That would be all to the good. But because of some evangelist preachers, the interpretation has grown that all “accepts” means is a one-time verbal commitment. You say the magic words and you go to heaven, no matter what kind of life you lead afterwards. Many have thought that a pretty sweet deal. You’ve conned a free pass through the Pearly Gates from the Almighty and you can sin and debauch all you want for the rest of your life.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer coined the phrase “cheap grace” to denigrate this interpretation of the New Testament, and other writers have lamented the cheap grace that seems to ooze from some evangelists who seem to keep a sharp eye on the donations that follow. Sider (p. 57) summarizes the analysis of another professor of theology, John G. Stackhouse Jr., as follows: “Many evangelicals lie, cheat, and otherwise sin against others in an ‘already-forgiven bliss’ with an attitude of ‘I’m-cool-’cause-Jesus-loves-me-and-so-I-don’t-owe-you-a-thing.’”

Do only good little girls and boys go to heaven? Or does goodness, as the film star Mae West said many years ago, have nothing to do with it? I asked a large sample 134 of parents to respond to the following proposition: “If we have faith in Jesus, accepting him as our personal savior and asking forgiveness of our sins, we will be saved, no matter what kind of life we live afterwards.” Forty-two percent of the Christian high fundamentalists agreed with that statement. If that indicates the attitude of fundamentalists in general, a huge number of people are swilling in cheap grace. They fully expect that when the saints go marching in, they’re gonna be in that number because they once uttered a magic spell. The lives they’ve lived since are irrelevant, they believe.


On pages 134-136, Altemeyer describes the results of tests he conducted (as a retired university psychology professor, he had actively researched authoritarians for decades):

quote:
What do you do when you have done something morally wrong? What are you most likely to do to get over the guilt, to feel forgiven, to be at peace with yourself? Here are some possibilities.
I ask God for forgiveness, by prayer, going to Confession, or some other religious act.
I go out and do something nice for someone else, a “third party” not involved in what I did.
I rationalize the bad act. I tell myself it was not so bad, that I had no choice, etc.
I talk to someone close, such as a good friend or relative, about what I did.
I get very busy with some chore, assignment, or job to take my mind off what I did.
I discuss what I did with those who may have suffered, and make it up to them.
Nothing; I just forget it.

OK, whatever you typically do, how well does this work? How completely forgiven do you feel after you have done this?

0 = Not at all; I still feel just as guilty as before.
1 = A little less guilty
2 = Somewhat less guilty
3 = Moderately less guilty
4 = Appreciably less guilty
5 = Much less guilty
6 = Completely free of guilt

Most Christian fundamentalists who have answered these questions in my studies said they ask God for forgiveness. And you know what, that makes them feel remarkably cleansed. Their average response on the “How completely forgiven?”question was nearly a 5. Again, it’s just a verbal thing. No admission of wrong-doing to injured parties is required, no restitution, and no change in behavior. But it works really well: Instant Guilt-Be-Gone; just add a little prayer. And why wouldn’t you sin again, since it’s so easy to erase the transgression with your Easy-off, Easy-on religious practice? Fundamentalists therefore might feel little after-effect of their wrong-doings twitching away in their psyches. They have been to the River Jordan and had all their sins washed away, often on a weekly basis just like doing the laundry. But this very likely contributes to self-righteousness, and let’s remember that self-righteousness appears to be the major releaser of authoritarian aggression. So it could come down to this: “Hello Satan!” Yum, sin! “Get thee behind me, Satan!” Whack-whack-whack!

The non-fundamentalists in my samples did not have it so good. Their major ways of handling guilt were to discuss the immoral act with those who may have suffered and make it up to them (which they were twice as likely to do as fundamentalist were), or to talk with a friend about what they had done. Whatever they tried, it did not remove most of the guilt; their responses to the “How completely forgiven?” question averaged less than 3. But the residual guilt may help them avoid doing the same thing again, and when someone asks them how moral they are compared to other people, the unresolved, festering guilt may remind them that they are not as moral as they’d like to be.


I have certainly encountered that a lot in decades of trying to deal with creationists and I'm sure that most of us have had the same experiences.

Edited by dwise1, : Last paragraph: "a lot in decades of trying", not "a lot of decades of trying"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by AZPaul3, posted 02-23-2019 11:33 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 272 of 294 (849089)
02-24-2019 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by WookieeB
02-22-2019 1:19 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Dover is so overblown by evolutionists. It figures though, since the scientific support is fast waning, they have to rely on a federal judge giving a legal decision as their new science authority. Nevermind that his ruling is like +90% copied from an amicus brief provided to him by the ACLU.

Not that it'll affect you, but here's what Wesley Ellsberry wrote at Text Comparisons: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:

quote:
OK, so here is a list of numbers and what they mean for stuff being discussed here.

90.9% . This is the number the Discovery Institute has settled on as representing how much of the KvD decision.s section on whether ID is science (let.s call it .KvD-IDsci. for short) was copied from the plaintiff's proposed findings of fact section dealing with the same topic (ppfof-IDsci). How did they get that? Somebody at the DI eyeballed it and said that.s close enough. If they tasked someone else to do it again, there is no guarantee that the number would remain the same.

70% . the proportion of copied text to uncopied text *100 in KvD-IDsci taken from ppfof-IDsci when using parameters of a minimum of 5 words in a run and up to 2 words being changed, skipped, or deleted. This is a liberal matching criterion.

66% . the proportion of copied text to uncopied text *100 in KvD-IDsci taken from ppfof-IDsci when using parameters of a minimum of 10 words in a run and up to 4 words being changed, skipped, or deleted. This is a conservative matching criterion, and the standard one I use for text matching.

48% . the proportion of text copied by KvD-IDsci to text not copied there *100 in ppfof-IDsci, using parameters of a minimum of 10 words in a run and up to 4 words being changed, skipped, or deleted. This one has confused at least one person, who seems to have thought that this was another number applied to the analysis of KvD-IDsci. Instead, this number indicates how much of ppfof-IDsci was used by Judge Jones, not how much of KvD-IDsci came from there.

38% . the proportion of copied text to uncopied text *100 in the KvD decision taken from the plaintiffs.s proposed findings of fact when using parameters of a minimum of 10 words in a run and up to 4 words being changed, skipped, or deleted. The whole ruling has quite a bit of text that did not come from the PPFOF.

35% . the proportion of text copied from the complete KvD decision to text not copied there *100 in the full ppfof, using parameters of a minimum of 10 words in a run and up to 4 words being changed, skipped, or deleted. This number indicates how much of the full ppfof was used by Judge Jones in his complete decision, not how much of the decision came from the ppfof.


THe DI's original analysis is available at A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with
Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”
. They acknowledge that there is no reason why Jones should not copy the proposed findings of fact:

quote:
Proposed “findings of fact” are prepared to assist judges in writing their opinions, and judges are certainly allowed to draw on them. Indeed, judges routinely invite lawyers to propose findings of fact in order to verify what the lawyers believe to be the key factual issues in the case. Thus, in legal circles Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” would not be considered “plagiarism” nor a violation of judicial ethics.

Nonetheless, the extent to which Judge Jones simply copied the language submitted to him by the ACLU is stunning. For all practical purposes, Jones allowed ACLU attorneys to write nearly the entire section of his opinion analyzing whether intelligent design is science. As a result, this central part of Judge Jones’ ruling reflected essentially no original deliberative activity or independent examination of the record on Jones’ part. The revelation that Judge Jones in effect “dragged and dropped” large sections of the ACLU’s “Findings of Fact” into his opinion, errors and all, calls into serious question whether Jones exercised the kind of independent analysis that would make his “broad, stinging rebuke”27 of intelligent design appropriate.


They do describe the methodology a little:

quote:
This percentage was calculated by using MS Word’s “Word Count” function to determine the word count for all of the sections of the Kitzmiller decision that were taken verbatim or nearly verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” The resulting number (5,458) was then divided by the total number of words in the section on “Whether ID is science” (6,004; this number was also determined by MS Word’s “Word Count” function)

IOW Ellsberry is correct; they subjectively determined "verbatim or nearly verbatim" and then divided the word count of the proposed findings of fact by the word count of the "copied verbatim or nearly verbatim" part of the decision's findings of fact. This obviously does not take into account the critical question of how the words were arranged, or whether all of the proposed findings of fact were "copied". E.g. all the times "the" occurred in the proposed findings of fact and in the
This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 02-22-2019 1:19 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 273 of 294 (849101)
02-24-2019 3:43 PM


Behe busted lying in "Darwin's Descent"
At Coyne and Polar Bears: Why You Should Never Rely on Incompetent Reviewers Behe posts table S7 from Liu, S., et al. 2014. Population genomics reveal recent speciation and rapid evolutionary adaptation in polar bears. Cell 157:785-794 to prove that all mutations are harmful, which he claims he proved in Darwin's Descent.

But at https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/...r-bears-fat/4530/10 evograd points out that Behe extracted only what he likes from the table. At AtBC Occam's Aftershave posts a portion of the table with the parts that Behe removed circled:

Naughty, naughty Behe!


Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by WookieeB, posted 02-27-2019 12:31 PM JonF has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 274 of 294 (849109)
02-25-2019 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Tanypteryx
02-22-2019 2:27 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Tanypteryx writes:

Can you describe how these techniques can be applied to living organisms?


Why are you arbitrarily singling out living things? Applying design principles is agnostic with regards to the materials it works on. You can detect design when looking at certain rock formations. You can detect design when looking at certain magnetized deposits. You can detect design when looking at some formations of wood, flowers, or other organic products. You can detect design among elecromagnetic or light signals. There is no limitation on what you can consider for design. Why would living organisms be an exception?

What specific techniques from other scientific endeavors would be used and how would they differentiate design by an undetectable agent and the appearance of design resulting from evolution?

The techiques are used in other sciences that I already mentioned. Archaelogy, forensics, cryptography. SETI is good example of looking for design signs of something that clearly would not be from humans.
Why would one have to differentiate design from one agent (known) or another agent (unknown) or presumably evolution. Design is design.

Identifying artifacts made by humans seems to have little relationship to identifying organisms created by an undetectable agent.
Design detection is not focussing on what you are implying. It is not looking for whom made an artifact, it is just determining that an artifact was 'made'. So whether an item was made by a human or not, is not the important distinction. It is just whether a thing was 'made' or not.
Or in other words, why would there have to be no relationship between them?

Can you demonstrate that micro-evolution is a different process than evolution?

Not really, because I am thinking of them as the same process. You have to define the distinction if that is needed.
The only thing I am debating is what the process can realistically produce.

Tanypteryx writes:

Wookieeb writes:

There are other features though that would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for it to produce. Things that would be considered irreducibly complex would rarely, if ever, be able to be formed.


This assertion has not been demonstrated.

No, the assertion that evolution can produce such things is what has not been demonstrated. I don't need to prove a negative. Show me how an IC object can be produced via unguided evolution.

What do you consider a new body plan?
What regulatory networks are you talking about?

Body plans comprise the specific arrangements of specialized organs and tissues.
For networks, things like developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs) that control the timing and expression of pre-existing genes during animal development.

Can you show any examples of biologists claiming that evolution produces new body plans and regulatory networks?

Well, to an evolutionist, what else would account for them?

Can you describe anything that requires a "measure of complex and specified information"? Can you describe a measure of complex and specified information?

How about anything IC - ribosome, ATP synthase, eye, DNA transcription or replication, kinesin, or the always popular flagellum.
Complex - relates to odds, Shannon information.
Specified - matching a pattern (or function) that is independent of the properties of the medium.

Where we have knowledge of the origin of artifacts, it has always turned out to have been man-made.

Usually, but not always. Animals have left behind artifacts that are detectable as designed.

It also turns out that humans are detectable.

This is irrelevant as to whether something is designed or not. But what do you mean by "detectable"?

An assertion without any supporting evidence

What is asserted without evidence is that M+NS can produce any significant new information.

ID is a religious fantasy depending on an undetectable designer and magic. Grow up.

Nope, no religion needed for ID. Just an inference to the best explanation based on our uniform and repeated experience that complex specified information always comes from a mind. Stop strawmanning.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-22-2019 2:27 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by JonF, posted 02-25-2019 11:49 AM WookieeB has responded
 Message 282 by caffeine, posted 02-25-2019 1:45 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 283 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-25-2019 3:51 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6675
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 275 of 294 (849110)
02-25-2019 4:18 AM


Biology has been able to explain how organic life evolved on earth and geology astrophysics explains how inorganic material formed - and still forms - non-living structure. All are natural processes.
We still do not know how life began, that's work in progress.

I can look at a chair and say that it looks like someone made it - because I have experience of things that are made and things that occur naturally. I don't need to see the carpenter and get his evidence because I know how this all works - i've seen it and done it myself. But for non made-made things that have natural explanations for their existence, I really need you to produce this designer otherwise there's a very big and important piece of the explanation missing. But you can't do this.

Even worse, I know, and you know and everybody involved knows, that this whole thing is religious. You are not standing back objectively and saying 'I don't know who or what the designer is', you're saying goddidit, to each other but not to us. Claiming it's neutral is bullshit and harms whatever weak arguments you have because it shows that you are dishonest and have a not well hidden agenda that is non-scientific.

Neither of those things would matter if you could actually prove any of your claims - facts are fact no matter what motivates their discovery. But the sad facts are that you don't have any facts; everything you claim has been debunked. It doesn't stand up. You are unable to produce any real evidence. You even mention the bloody flagella for god's sake; something that has been shown not to be IC because all the parts necessary for it are available to it. I mean really??

You need to do a lot better than this and start answering questions properly, how do you know that something is designed if we have no experience or knowledge of the designer and we have natural explanations for what we see? Why is this outside influence necessary and why can't I see anything that can't be explained by a process that is already understood?

You're not talking to the congregation now, we've all seen these arguments before and there are some here with real scientific knowledge, bluffing isn't going to work.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Phat, posted 02-25-2019 9:13 AM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12164
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 276 of 294 (849114)
02-25-2019 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Tangle
02-25-2019 4:18 AM


Producing The Producer
But for non-made-made things that have natural explanations for their existence, I really need you to produce this designer otherwise there's a very big and important piece of the explanation missing. But you can't do this.
It would seem a bit of a chore to simply make God appear. You will say "of course...because he does not exist!" but you really can't expect anyone to "produce" anything whether he existed or he didn't. I suppose I could put in a prayer asking Him to get tangles attention. You will likely trot out the statistics (that you love) and show me how it has been proven that prayer does nothing. Maybe we best just call it a day and go fishing.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Tangle, posted 02-25-2019 4:18 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Tangle, posted 02-25-2019 9:40 AM Phat has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6675
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 277 of 294 (849116)
02-25-2019 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Phat
02-25-2019 9:13 AM


Re: Producing The Producer
Phat writes:

It would seem a bit of a chore to simply make God appear. You will say "of course...because he does not exist!"

Yup. Annoying I suppose but ...

but you really can't expect anyone to "produce" anything whether he existed or he didn't.

I do if they expect me to take any notice of their ideas. It's a simple fact that they say design but can't prove it by showing a designer. And sadly simply saying it's designed is not convincing anyone who isn't already a creationist - because we have natural processes that 'create' these things.

Without presenting the designer, all your friend can do is fabricate reasons why the natural processes that we have identified can't do some of the things that we say they do. They have been unable to show this. And in most cases they're just arguments from ignorance.

I suppose I could put in a prayer asking Him to get tangles attention. You will likely trot out the statistics (that you love) and show me how it has been proven that prayer does nothing.

I don't have to trot out statistics do I? You can test it empirically yourself right now. Pray and prove me wrong. Prayer hs never worked for you has it.

Maybe we best just call it a day and go fishing.

It's always best to go fishing, but if you want to convince anyone of any argument, you're going to have to produce some hard facts, not waffle.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Phat, posted 02-25-2019 9:13 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 02-25-2019 10:07 AM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12164
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 278 of 294 (849118)
02-25-2019 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Tangle
02-25-2019 9:40 AM


Re: Producing The Producer
It's always best to go fishing, but if you want to convince anyone of any argument, you're going to have to produce some hard facts, not waffle.
I've never really had any problem with Geology or Biology. I think that Biblical Creationism is an unneeded rabbit trail. If one wishes to believe that, they may as well believe that God routinely stops the sun and stars from spinning...just because He can. My challenge in my own personal view of faith is to discover what God actually does. I've no problem believing that He can hypothetically do anything.

Which does not mean that He is simply magic at my imaginative whim.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Tangle, posted 02-25-2019 9:40 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Tangle, posted 02-25-2019 10:59 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 280 by Theodoric, posted 02-25-2019 11:33 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6675
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 279 of 294 (849120)
02-25-2019 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Phat
02-25-2019 10:07 AM


Re: Producing The Producer
Phat writes:

I've no problem believing that He can hypothetically do anything.

Except help you with your problems and make this place happy and healthy for everyone it seems.

Which does not mean that He is simply magic at my imaginative whim.

Well there's your paradox again. He can do everything, but not that. God meet meatloaf.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 02-25-2019 10:07 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 280 of 294 (849123)
02-25-2019 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Phat
02-25-2019 10:07 AM


Re: Producing The Producer
I have decided that Last Thusdayism explains it all.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

Edited by Theodoric, : url


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 02-25-2019 10:07 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 281 of 294 (849125)
02-25-2019 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by WookieeB
02-25-2019 12:32 AM


Re: Older never responded to message
No, the assertion that evolution can produce such things is what has not been demonstrated. I don't need to prove a negative. Show me how an IC object can be produced via unguided evolution.

Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation (free registration required)

Also the many propoosed pathways such as Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Can you demonstrate any issues with that?

Can you describe anything that requires a "measure of complex and specified information"? Can you describe a measure of complex and specified information?

How about anything IC - ribosome, ATP synthase, eye, DNA transcription or replication, kinesin, or the always popular flagellum.
Complex - relates to odds, Shannon information.
Specified - matching a pattern (or function) that is independent of the properties of the medium.

So "complex specified information" is a synonym for "irreducibly complex"? Then why have two labels?

And we know of many ways IC can evolve and have at least one example. So therefore CSI can evolve?

BTW evolution can and does produce Shannon information. Evolution of biological information. Also see an information theory expert at Stephen Meyer's Bogus Information Theory:

quote:
Shannon's theory is a probabilistic theory. Shannon equated information with a reduction in uncertainty. He measured this by computing the reduction in entropy, where entropy is given by -log2 p and p is a probability. For example, if I flip two coins behind my back, you don't know how either of them turned out, so your information about the results is 0. If I now show you one coin, then I have reduced your uncertainty about the results by -log2 1/2 = 1 bit. If I show you both, I have reduced your uncertainty by -log2 1/4 = 2 bits. Shannon's theory is completely dependent on probability; without a well-defined probability distribution on the objects being discussed, one cannot compute Shannon information. If one cannot realistically estimate the probabilities, any discussion of the relevant information is likely to be bogus.

{emphasis added}
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by WookieeB, posted 02-25-2019 12:32 AM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by WookieeB, posted 02-27-2019 7:19 PM JonF has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1600
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 282 of 294 (849126)
02-25-2019 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by WookieeB
02-25-2019 12:32 AM


Re: Older never responded to message

Why are you arbitrarily singling out living things? Applying design principles is agnostic with regards to the materials it works on. You can detect design when looking at certain rock formations. You can detect design when looking at certain magnetized deposits. You can detect design when looking at some formations of wood, flowers, or other organic products. You can detect design among elecromagnetic or light signals. There is no limitation on what you can consider for design. Why would living organisms be an exception?

The techiques are used in other sciences that I already mentioned. Archaelogy, forensics, cryptography. SETI is good example of looking for design signs of something that clearly would not be from humans.
Why would one have to differentiate design from one agent (known) or another agent (unknown) or presumably evolution. Design is design.

How does this process work, exactly? I'm not familiar with the techniques for detecting design in cryptography or anything - of the topics you listed the only one I have read something on was archaeology. When archaeologists are trying to determine whether some objects were designed or not, at least in the examples I know the techniques rely fundamentally on knowing who the designers are and how they build things.

For example, the Lomekwi stone tools. These are purported tools dating all the way back to 3.3 million years ago, and whenever someone presents evidence of human-made tools this old, the argument is about how do we know these are actually tools, and not just some similar looking pieces of rock fractured entirely naturally?

To figure this out, archaeologists look at what rocks that have fractured naturally look like, and they look at what rocks that are intentionally broken by humans to make tools look like; and see which one the purported tools look most similar to. This can be a bit more sophisticated than simply looking - it can involve statistical analyses of the distribution of the shapes and size of stones in a particular sample, or of the prevalence of certain types of fracture. But it all depends fundamentally on the pre-existing knowledge of what human-made stone tools look like and what agglomerations of rocks gathered by other processes look like.

You seem to be saying archaeologists have a separate technique for figuring this out that would be independent of such knowledge. What is it, and why don't archaeologists use it to settle the interminable arguments over various proposed 'earliest' tools.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by WookieeB, posted 02-25-2019 12:32 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by caffeine, posted 02-26-2019 1:06 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1994
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 283 of 294 (849130)
02-25-2019 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by WookieeB
02-25-2019 12:32 AM


Re: Older never responded to message
WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

Can you describe how these techniques can be applied to living organisms?


Why are you arbitrarily singling out living things? Applying design principles is agnostic with regards to the materials it works on. You can detect design when looking at certain rock formations. You can detect design when looking at certain magnetized deposits. You can detect design when looking at some formations of wood, flowers, or other organic products. You can detect design among elecromagnetic or light signals. There is no limitation on what you can consider for design. Why would living organisms be an exception?

WookieeB writes:

Why are you arbitrarily singling out living things?

WTF?? We are discussing Biological Evolution

WookieeB writes:

Applying design principles is agnostic with regards to the materials it works on.

I have no idea what you are saying here. What design principals?

You can detect design when looking at certain rock formations.

Yes, you can. Michelangelo's David comes to mind. What certain rock formations are you talking about?

You can detect design when looking at certain magnetized deposits.

Yes, you can. Hard disk drives come to mind. What certain magnetized deposits are you talking about?

You can detect design when looking at some formations of wood, flowers, or other organic products.

Yes you can. Furniture and decorations and art come to mind. What formations of wood, flowers, or other organic products are you talking about?

You can detect design among elecromagnetic or light signals.

Yep, television and radio are good examples of human design. What design among electromagnetic or light signals are you talking about?

There is no limitation on what you can consider for design.

Humans use all sorts of materials, but there actually are limitations. We can even design imaginary worlds in literature and art. Music, designed from sound.

Why would living organisms be an exception?

Humans are the only known designers and so far we have only been able to modify the designs of living organisms, not create completely new organisms from scratch. There is no evidence of your imaginary designer.

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

What specific techniques from other scientific endeavors would be used and how would they differentiate design by an undetectable agent and the appearance of design resulting from evolution?


The techiques are used in other sciences that I already mentioned. Archaelogy, forensics, cryptography. SETI is good example of looking for design signs of something that clearly would not be from humans.
Why would one have to differentiate design from one agent (known) or another agent (unknown) or presumably evolution. Design is design.

I asked for what specific techniques from other sciences would be used to differentiate between design by an undetectable agent and the appearance of design from evolution and you just respond by repeating your list of sciences, not techniques.

So you have no useful answer.

Design is design.

There is no evidence of design in living organisms. The only evidence of design is in man-made artifacts.

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

Identifying artifacts made by humans seems to have little relationship to identifying organisms created by an undetectable agent.

Design detection is not focussing on what you are implying. It is not looking for whom made an artifact, it is just determining that an artifact was 'made'. So whether an item was made by a human or not, is not the important distinction. It is just whether a thing was 'made' or not.
Or in other words, why would there have to be no relationship between them?

The only examples we have of designed artifacts are those made by humans. There are no features of living organisms that can be shown to be designed by anything other than evolution. Apparently you fail to see the rather obvious differences between non-living artifacts designed be humans and living organisms.

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

Can you demonstrate that micro-evolution is a different process than evolution?


Not really, because I am thinking of them as the same process. You have to define the distinction if that is needed.
The only thing I am debating is what the process can realistically produce.

Ok, I thought you were implying they were different processes. So far you have failed to demonstrate that you have any grasp of what the processes of evolution do produce.

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

Wookieeb writes:

There are other features though that would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for it to produce. Things that would be considered irreducibly complex would rarely, if ever, be able to be formed.


This assertion has not been demonstrated.

No, the assertion that evolution can produce such things is what has not been demonstrated. I don't need to prove a negative. Show me how an IC object can be produced via unguided evolution.

Nobody suggested that you prove a negative. You asserted "There are other features though that would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for it to produce. Things that would be considered irreducibly complex would rarely, if ever, be able to be formed."

I responded that you have not demonstrated that. So far, you have stated evolution cannot produce irreducibly complex features, but your IC features have been shown to not be IC after all.

I note that JonF answered this question nicely in Message 281

JonF writes:

No, the assertion that evolution can produce such things is what has not been demonstrated. I don't need to prove a negative. Show me how an IC object can be produced via unguided evolution.

Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation (free registration required)
Also the many propoosed pathways such as Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Can you demonstrate any issues with that?

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

What do you consider a new body plan?
What regulatory networks are you talking about?


Body plans comprise the specific arrangements of specialized organs and tissues.
For networks, things like developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs) that control the timing and expression of pre-existing genes during animal development.

I was asking what you consider a new body plan, in the context of something evolution cannot produce, not the definition of body plan.

What specific example of a new body plan are you referring to that cannot be the result of evolution?

WookieeB writes:

Can you show any examples of biologists claiming that evolution produces new body plans and regulatory networks?

Well, to an evolutionist, what else would account for them?

I see that I should have asked, "Can you show any examples of biologists claiming that evolution suddenly produces completely new body plans and regulatory networks?" I thought the what I was asking for was obvious, but I doubt you will be able to provide an example.

Where we have knowledge of the origin of artifacts, it has always turned out to have been man-made.

Usually, but not always. Animals have left behind artifacts that are detectable as designed.

Right, like paper wasp nests, but those examples are hardly evidence that living organisms have been designed by an undetectable designer. Evolution does account for these byproducts of living organisms.

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

It also turns out that humans are detectable.


This is irrelevant as to whether something is designed or not. But what do you mean by "detectable"?

I was just pointing out the contrast between the designers that we know about and your designer that is undetectable and indistinguishable from imaginary.

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

An assertion without any supporting evidence


What is asserted without evidence is that M+NS can produce any significant new information.

This is just silly. What is asserted, with whole libraries and millions of scientific papers full of evidence, is that the diversity of life on this planet is the result of the processes of biological evolution.

Significant is something you will always claim is not enough. New information is produced by every mutation. Modern genomes are the obvious products of billions of mutations that have been accumulating for billions of years. That is a whole shitload of new information.

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

ID is a religious fantasy depending on an undetectable designer and magic. Grow up.


Nope, no religion needed for ID. Just an inference to the best explanation based on our uniform and repeated experience that complex specified information always comes from a mind. Stop strawmanning.

You are fooling yourself. Your designer is completely undetectable and indistinguishable from imaginary. ID was the religious brainchild of Behe and the Discovery Institute. Their Wedge Document is irrefutable proof that ID is a religion.

Wedge strategy -Wikipedia

quote:
The Wedge Strategy is a creationist political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document. Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect politically conservative fundamentalist evangelical Protestant values.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by WookieeB, posted 02-25-2019 12:32 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 284 of 294 (849131)
02-25-2019 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-22-2019 6:39 PM


Re: I see not much has changed
Hi,.... Chicken....?

Thank you for for at least providing an example of what you think is an example of bad design. Providing real world examples as support of an idea is something that, unfortunately, your compatriots are very lax at doing.

Nevetheless, this example of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) doesn't really work well for you.

First, I would again point out that even a badly designed thing is still designed, which implies a designer.

Next, I thought evolution was supposed to be good at cleaning up things that don't work. With as old as the recurrent laryngeal nerve is supposed to have first developed, you would think that the all-powerful evolution would have corrected that badly working thing? If you assume evolution, the fact that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is conserved would point to it not being a 'bad design'.

Put simply, the argument that it is 'bad' is based on the assumption that all it does is connect to the larynx, but that it is bad routing because the route goes all the way from the brain, down to the heart and back up to the larynx. Presumably, all because the nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart and had to grow long as animals evolved. For the case of the giraffe that means 20' or so of extra nerve that would be better served by a direct route from the brain to the larynx.

Is it really a 'bad design'? No. If anyone would actually have consulted an anatomy book, they probably could have surmised that. For one, there already is a nerve that goes directly from the brain to the larynx - the superior laryngeal nerve. Next, the RLN doesn't only innervate the larynx. It also innervates the trachea and esophagus. There are like 27 connections the nerve makes on it's route down the throat. It also connects to other nerves coming from the heart. And there is a suggestion that the RLN helps in embryology when the arteries are being formed.

So there are numerous functions for the RLN. Far from being a 'bad design', it appears to be doing it's jobs just fine and well.

More detailed information:
http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1507

Lastly, let me urge you be more careful about the sites you are linking. It seems you didn't check your reference, as the site you linked was from an pro-ID site, and itself was a link to an audio podcast where a scientist was explaining how the RLN isn't a bad design.

So, what's the next "bad design' candidate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-22-2019 6:39 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-25-2019 6:10 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 285 of 294 (849132)
02-25-2019 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by AZPaul3
02-22-2019 7:02 PM


Re: I see not much has changed
Good to be back and glad to see the forum is still moving along. I'll need to spend some time getting into some of the other posts.

Also, great response!!!!


The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov

If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a persons body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson

What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by AZPaul3, posted 02-22-2019 7:02 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
15161718
19
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019