Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
35 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased accounts of intelligent design
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 91 of 133 (861510)
08-22-2019 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jedothek
08-22-2019 12:41 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
RAZD refers to my “trust in the ID”; but I have not exhibited such. I have pointed out the biased and illogical character of some opposition to ID.

Curiously, I was pointing out how your post to JonF also applied to you.

I cannot give an account of how, e.g., the genetic code is implemented once it has been intelligently designed. ...

So at this point it is hypothetical, design on paper maybe. As a designer myself I have several of these types of design in various stages of completion. As a professional designer, I also included how the design was to be implemented, what tools and materials were needed, what different work stations would accomplish.

Such lack of knowledge would appear to an open-minded investigator not as disproof of the hypothesis, however, but as an opportunity for further research.

Indeed, but to the open-minded skeptic it would also not be sufficient to entice one to engage in further research that could be a wild goose chase. They would leave it to those proposing this concept to pursue.

Now one could envisage mosquitoes as vectors carrying viral agents that insert DNA segments into targets, but the problem here is that, while this is a readily available delivery system, it doesn't appear to be used for this purpose: the viral inserts are random -- essentially environment induced mutations -- and don't lead to speciation or any visible change in survival or reproduction of target species other than death and reduced health/ability. That's a negative result.

Are there other delivery systems possible?

... Some who read Newton’s Principia correctly inquired how gravity worked; but the scientific community would have been wrong if it had said, “we don’t know how this works, so we’re going to ignore it ( or even assume it’s false).”

But the question was not how ID "works" but how it was implemented. Newton's gravity was implemented by the mass of the objects having attraction to other masses proportional to their size and the inverse square of their separation distance.

So far you have proposed that

Message 13 ... the world (e.g., the genetic code or the values of physical constants) exhibits signs of having been designed ...

Now, as a Deist, my belief is that the universe was created by god/s (or their equivalent) and then had no further interaction with it, maybe parting with the comment "now surprise us" ... and in this creation they would of course have set the values of all the physical constants. That would be evidence for how they designed the universe, but how would you test that, how could you tell that this was done in this particular case -- there are no other universes we are capable of comparing to this one. That leaves it a matter of faith/belief, not science.

The genetic code example seems to be an argument from incredulity more than anything else at this point (you have certainly not developed it beyond a cursory example at this point).

Got anything else?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jedothek, posted 08-22-2019 12:41 PM Jedothek has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by FLRW, posted 08-22-2019 1:48 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2019 5:09 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 115 by Jedothek, posted 08-23-2019 11:37 AM RAZD has responded

  
FLRW
Junior Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-08-2007


Message 92 of 133 (861511)
08-22-2019 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
08-22-2019 11:43 AM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID -- a philosophy
RAZD, strings are the basic component of atoms. Once atoms developed from the strings, then one of the common hypotheses for the origin of life is the RNA World, which postulates that the oceans had RNA (or RNA-like) molecules floating around and catalysing their own reproduction. These RNAs would have been the very first genomes.

We know already that aspartate, glutamate, glycine, alanine, serine, leucine, and valine - the most common amino acids - can be found in volcanic lava and other abiotic substrates. Amino acids are what RNAs interact with, so their natural presence hints that they could have acted as an "enabler" for the evolution of the very first genes, which would have been molecules that reacted with them for some benefit.

Fast forward a bit and these gene-molecules combined together into a chain, RNA, which uses the amino acids for energy, using that energy to trigger catalysising their own reproduction.

Put these wayward RNAs into a self-built bilipid membrane (lipids join together naturally) where amino acids can be concentrated, and you have yourself the very first protocell/"true organism".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2019 11:43 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by JonF, posted 08-22-2019 2:17 PM FLRW has not yet responded
 Message 96 by Theodoric, posted 08-22-2019 2:26 PM FLRW has responded
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2019 4:02 PM FLRW has not yet responded

    
FLRW
Junior Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-08-2007


(1)
Message 93 of 133 (861513)
08-22-2019 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
08-22-2019 1:32 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
Now, as a String Deist, my belief is that Strings were created by god/s (or their equivalent) and then had no further interaction with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2019 1:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 94 of 133 (861514)
08-22-2019 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jedothek
08-22-2019 12:41 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
We know how the genetic code works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jedothek, posted 08-22-2019 12:41 PM Jedothek has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 95 of 133 (861515)
08-22-2019 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by FLRW
08-22-2019 1:41 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID -- a philosophy
Strings are not theorized to be the basic components of atoms. They are theorized to be the basic components of quarks and other fundamental particles. Nobody has established that they exist, and nobody knows how to establish whether or not they exist with current technology or reasonably expected extensions of current technology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by FLRW, posted 08-22-2019 1:41 PM FLRW has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2019 3:24 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 96 of 133 (861516)
08-22-2019 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by FLRW
08-22-2019 1:41 PM


A new string theory?
I think you have a distorted idea of what current string theory postulates. Can you cite something that supports your ideas of string theory or is this a something new that you have developed. If it is something new could you please list your scientific credentials and the per reviewed papers you have published in support of it?
If not, then everything else you stated is just bunk.

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 92 by FLRW, posted 08-22-2019 1:41 PM FLRW has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by FLRW, posted 08-22-2019 2:52 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
FLRW
Junior Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-08-2007


Message 97 of 133 (861517)
08-22-2019 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Theodoric
08-22-2019 2:26 PM


Re: A new string theory?
Quarks are fundamental particles which combine to form protons / neutrons / mesons and other particles. The theory which describes this mechanism is called The Standard Model of physics and incorporates theories like quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. Another language in which these phenomena are explained is the quantum field theory. But one shortcoming of these models is that they are not able to incorporate the gravitational force. These theories can explain what gives rise to other three forces - electromagnetic force, weak force, strong force (which quarks exert) and how they interact. But cannot bring gravity into the equations.

This is where the string theory comes in. It so happens that the gravitational force pops right out of the equations of string theory rather naturally - along with the other 3 forces.
So it is believe that this formulation is a strong contender of being a unified theory of everything. The paradigm upon which the string theory is based is that instead of point like particles, the fundamental entities of nature are one dimensional strings - very very tiny strings - which vibrate and different vibrations are manifested as different fundamental particles. What I am asking is a god/creator controlling these vibrations?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Theodoric, posted 08-22-2019 2:26 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15389
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 98 of 133 (861518)
08-22-2019 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jedothek
08-22-2019 12:41 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
quote:
RAZD refers to my “trust in the ID”; but I have not exhibited such. I have pointed out the biased and illogical character of some opposition to ID.

It seems to me that you do place a lot of trust in ID and your criticisms follow from that, rather than any illogic in the objections.

Nevertheless let us consider the article you introduced in your first post.

According to that the predictions of ID are:

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.

1) is not much of a prediction since it was already known before modern ID originated as a new name for Creationism. Moreover the complexity observed seems to be more consistent with evolution than design

2) This seems to be true only to the extent that the fossil record is limited. Indeed the evidence seems inconsistent with the major ID viewpoints (odd that this is not mentioned). Note also that no proposed designer is limited to only creating new forms in the Cambrian (over a period of millions of years) or to creating forms which fit into the “tree of life”.

3) The convergence that occurs is consistent with evolution and does not fit patterns seen in human design (see Niles Eldredge’s study of trombones)

4) It is hardly surprising that small amounts of non-coding DNA should have function. But the vast majority in humans (and many other species) either has no function or a function that is independent of the sequence.

ID doesn’t seem to do well on any of these points. You can hardly expect to replace a major scientific theory with an idea that fares worse - on points chosen by its supporters. Even without the issues I raised in Message 35 - which also rule out ID as valid science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jedothek, posted 08-22-2019 12:41 PM Jedothek has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Jedothek, posted 08-23-2019 11:44 AM PaulK has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 99 of 133 (861519)
08-22-2019 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by JonF
08-22-2019 2:17 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID -- a philosophy
Strings are not theorized to be the basic components of atoms. They are theorized to be the basic components of quarks and other fundamental particles. Nobody has established that they exist, and nobody knows how to establish whether or not they exist with current technology or reasonably expected extensions of current technology

So the open-minded skeptic would say they are possible, but also the information available is not necessarily sufficient to entice one to engage in further research that could be a wild goose chase (sorry Sheldon). They would leave it to those proposing this concept to pursue.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by JonF, posted 08-22-2019 2:17 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 100 of 133 (861521)
08-22-2019 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by FLRW
08-22-2019 1:41 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID -- a philosophy
We know already that aspartate, glutamate, glycine, alanine, serine, leucine, and valine - the most common amino acids - can be found in volcanic lava and other abiotic substrates. Amino acids are what RNAs interact with, so their natural presence hints that they could have acted as an "enabler" for the evolution of the very first genes, which would have been molecules that reacted with them for some benefit.

Fast forward a bit and these gene-molecules combined together into a chain, RNA, which uses the amino acids for energy, using that energy to trigger catalysising their own reproduction.

Put these wayward RNAs into a self-built bilipid membrane (lipids join together naturally) where amino acids can be concentrated, and you have yourself the very first protocell/"true organism".

Indeed. Again I have an old thread on this: Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)

quote:
one of the questions for abiogenesis in how to get from pre-biotic molcules to a self-replicating cells. One of the element critical to that path is the formation of self-replicating molecules.

There are many known self-replicating molecules, and a brief listing of some of them is provided below. There is also a large variety of molecules that can self-replicate. Some of the more exciting research (see ref (1) below) confirmed my prediction that self-replicating molecules would compete for resources, and showing how they can dominate the population - chemical evolution: random formation plus selection of the fastest.

We can also see a hint of how DNA came to be the dominant replication system in ref (6) below:

quote:
Template-free production of RNA was completely suppressed by addition of DNA to the incubation mixture. When both DNA and RNA templates were present, transcription and replication competed, but T7 RNA polymerase preferred DNA as a template.

The DNA outcompetes the RNA production.

This does not explain all the questions of how life developed on earth over 3.5 billion years ago, but it goes a long way in showing how possible it was for life to develop from existing chemicals in the conditions that existed in the pre-biotic earth. The sheer number of possibilities also can hint that such processes were quite active, with many variations vying for resources, and that the replication system that life developed from was likely the best at self-replication - the fastest, most stable and aggressive replicators outcompeting their competitors. The likelihood is that, even if they had not existed, that another replication system would have been able to develop into life. Some initial elements of evolution - random variation and feedback selection - were evident in this pre-biotic world.

For those who want to visualize how the building blocks from the first thread and the self-replicating molecules mentioned here come together into a pre-biotic self-replicating proto-cell, see this video summary of work from Dr. Szostak:

NOTE: this starts with a review of creationist claims, and the actual science starts at about 2:40 into the video. You can move the button ahead to the 2:40 mark and not miss any of the science. You can also turn off the sound, unless you are very fond of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, as there is no narration.


Sounds like we are on the same page.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by FLRW, posted 08-22-2019 1:41 PM FLRW has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 101 of 133 (861524)
08-22-2019 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
08-22-2019 1:32 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
RAZD writes:

Now, as a Deist, my belief is that the universe was created by god/s (or their equivalent) and then had no further interaction with it…

I'm glad you used the word 'belief' there. I find deists really weird, they go rational, rational, rational, rational, whoops irrational.


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 91 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2019 1:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2019 10:11 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4512
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(3)
Message 102 of 133 (861536)
08-22-2019 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jedothek
08-22-2019 12:41 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
Such lack of knowledge would appear to an open-minded investigator not as disproof of the hypothesis, however, but as an opportunity for further research.

Then do that research. You have an entire "Institute" supposedly dedicated to doing just this sort of thing.

I’m thinking you are new to the Intelligent Design movement. You seem not to know that ID has been around a while. When first begun after creationism’s disaster in Edwards v. Aguillard they came up with lots of sciencey sounding hypotheses from specified complexity and irreducible complexity to the tautologies of a fine-tuned universe and the weak anthropic principle.

All of these were seen by the scientific community (yes, peer reviewed) and, in each and every case, these hypotheses were cast down.

Now you come in here complaining that your favorite pseudo-science is not given the respect you think it deserves. ID has already received its due review and has been rejected. No one is going to waste their valuable scientific talents on already reviewed and rejected junk science. That is what the Discovery Institute is for.

I asked you to show us the model, the actual equation, for determining, in the strict rigid way real science requires, the attributes of specified complexity. You probably did not even know that there actually was such a thing. See Specified Complexity.

“Dumbski” himself put it out there but when he went to apply it to his favorite flagellum of E. coli he failed. He could not calculate the specified complexity of the flagellum mechanism and was left to insisting in his prose, not from his formula, that the answer was *huge* and thus the mechanism was designed.

All of ID has been the same kind of fumble bumbling around whenever they were required to show their science in any open revealing way.

As a science, Intelligent Design is a disaster of its own making.

Unless you have something new to present to us, some new hypothesis for the community to inspect and assess, if all you have left is bitching about how unappreciated ID is as a science, then I suggest you go read your bible. It is the only consolation you are going to get.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jedothek, posted 08-22-2019 12:41 PM Jedothek has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 08-23-2019 9:28 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 103 of 133 (861543)
08-23-2019 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by AZPaul3
08-22-2019 11:17 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
So I read through the Wikipedia article on specified complexity and of course probably don't really understand it, so I have some questions I may not even be able to ask clearly, which will of course defeat any attempt to enter the discussion at all, but anyway...

All those mathematical calculations: what exactly is being calculated: something like the number of trials it would take for the natural processes to generate, say, that amazing e coli flagellum? The flagellum being one example of "specified complexity" or do I have that wrong? I did try to get how those terms are used but...

So if it's about number of trials are we talking about mutations adding information to get from some unspecified biological formation to the rotary flagellum? Am I anywhere in the ballpark?

I always imagine a whole series of completely useless trials between one and another biological formation along any supposed evolutionary track, such as between the reptilian ear and the mammalian ear that supposedly evolved from it, and I don't know if this is part of the calculations or not. I'm supposing the mathematical calculations shown in that article about specific complexity are the same sort of calculations that would be used to determine how many trials it would take to get from the reptilian to the mammalian ear? This raises questions of just what stages one should have in mind between the one and the other, if they are simply random or follow some kind of rational process? And how the latter kind of process might be justified by any known genetic principles? (why wouldn't you get part of the structure of the inner ear of the reptile showing up on the tail of the reptile as one of the "stages" to the structure of the mammalian ear?)_ Is there some formula for determining how many stages such an evolutionary process would have to go through?

And of course I'm convinced that for any kind of evolution to occur you have to lose genetic complexity from the genome of the creature that is evolving. I "know" that mutations can't possibly save this inevitable consequence of the processes of evolution but I can't prove it. But there, I said it anyway.

Cheers.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by AZPaul3, posted 08-22-2019 11:17 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by JonF, posted 08-23-2019 9:49 AM Faith has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 104 of 133 (861544)
08-23-2019 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
08-23-2019 9:28 AM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
Those calculations are there to impress people like you. They are meaningless, because they require making assumptions know to be untrue or are misapplied theorems or both. As it says early in the article,

quote:
The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.[2][3][4] A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states: "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6]

Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design, characterizing this approach as an argument from ignorance.[citation needed]


The process we envisage is one in which most or all of the steps are functional and confer a selective advantage. Neutral or slightly disadvantageous steps are possible (and observed) steps don't necessarily halt the process because unlikely things happen all the time.

Pallen and Matzke wrote a well-known paper on how the flagellum could have arisen from existing functional elements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 08-23-2019 9:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 08-23-2019 9:59 AM JonF has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 105 of 133 (861550)
08-23-2019 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by JonF
08-23-2019 9:49 AM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
The process we envisage is one in which most or all of the steps are functional and confer a selective advantage.

I have a long list of things I wish for too, that are never going to happen. In other words what you envisage doesn't have any rational or biological justification, it's just wishfulness reified. Of course it would be nice if all the steps were functional but since you must have mutations in mind, what genetic principle makes such functionality even a remote possibility, certainly for "most or all" of the steps. Even one such step would be hard to justify. And then not only are the functional but they "confer selective advantage?" And you don't think the ToE is a monumental fantasy?

Neutral or slightly disadvantageous steps are possible (and observed) steps don't necessarily halt the process because unlikely things happen all the time.

Some kind of calculations of the mathematical probabilities ought to show this is just plain impossible.

Pallen and Matzke wrote a well-known paper on how the flagellum could have arisen from existing functional elements.

I'm pretty sure I saw an outline of that reasoning somewhere some time ago. That's where known structures are put in a sequence to argue that evolution from one to another is possible. Like all those various eye designs from all over the taxonomic tree are arbitrarily placed according to some judgment of their fitting as developmental stages from a simple kind of eye to the most complex.

ABE: So we should scrap all the mathematical attempts? That's fine with me, they seem impossible anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by JonF, posted 08-23-2019 9:49 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by JonF, posted 08-23-2019 10:15 AM Faith has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019