Actually, I don't think I'm saying anything that I have not said before.
As I have said, talking about SETI is simply an attempt to misdirect attention from the failings of ID.
SETI, as pointed out in the Summary above is looking for a very specific signature, one that we know with a very high degree of confidence exists, namely a technological civilization that lives on the surface of a planet, uses the radio portion of the spectrum for communication and has capability to modify their environment using basic raw materials like metals and semiconductors.
We have evidence that at least on such civilization exists.
But that is not the case with ID.
Where is the evidence of the existence of the designer comparable to what we have to create the radio signals SETI is listening for?
In addition, SETI has so far found no evidence of any signal that matches the criteria.
ID has no project comparable to SETI.
They have no specific signal they are listening for.
They have no program similar to SETI.
Where is the ID equivalent to SETI.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
That wasn't really explained and no evidence was presented that "front loaded genomes" exist, but it really doesn't much matter.
I've explained front-loading before, I've presented some clues in favor of front-loading, and you were present in the thread that I explained front-loading. Did you suddenly forget what front-loading is?
We do not see that when we look at examples of living critters. The humans brain is not then repeated in all mammals, the eagles eyes are not then repeated in all animals, good features, advances do not get incorporated across all the makes and models, species or kind, of mammals.
Have you ever tried putting the human brain in a shrew, jar?
Then what is preventing larger animals from having a human brain?
Human brains and the brains of larger animals (horses, etc.) are anatomically very similar. But anyways, it'd be pretty hard to front-load something as specific as a human brain.
Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
So, if we find that an orbiting body has an exotic shape (something not likely produced by gravity), we could reliably infer design - unless the author of this paper and many other scientists are wrong about inferring design
Which is exactly the point.
The thing that is controversial about ID is the belief (unsupported by any evidence) that we can recognize design solely by looking at biological specimens. I'm willing to believe that such a thing is possible in principle, but I haven't seen anyone describe a method for doing so.
In short, you are begging the question with this example.
In one sense, Jar is right. If you want to convince (and perhaps that is not your goal) that method Y can be used to determine that an organism is designed, you'll need to present some way to verify that such is the case. But we don't have any way to 'calibrate' method Y because there are no agreed upon examples of designed organisms.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
or the record: I discussed this prediction of the FLH on a thread on this site some months ago.
The most important part of this discussion would be whether this particular prediction is evidence that FLH is a superior hypothesis to evolution which simply explains the same result.
I think the answer is clearly NO. I will note that some of the discussion attached to the article in your link goes into some detail why this is the case.
Further, I would dispute whether this is really a 'prediction' is a true prediction at all. It is not enough that the designer be teleological, or that the designer is using front loading. Instead the designer must have a particular front loading mindset that results in something that we already know to be the case. In short this seems to be exactly the kind of giraffe's neck ad hoc argument Dr. Adequate discussed.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Why don't you take that up with the SETI scientists, cryptographers, and archaeologists?
Actually, it would appear that you need to take matters up with them because they are not detecting the design that you claim to be there.
When an archaeologist digs up a pot shard and an earthworm, which does the archaeologist take to the museum to display as the work of an intelligent agent? The archaeologist does not take the earthworm because the earthworm is not designed by an intelligent agent.
When a cryptographer looks at DNA, what is the decoded message they find? They don't. There is no intelligently coded message in DNA.
When SETI looks at the radiation created by stars do they claim that what they are seeing is designed? No. And yet you will claim that the universe is designed. SETI disagrees.
You claim that all of these studies are able to detect design, yet they do not detect design where you claim it is. Perhaps you want to rethink your argument?
Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
I'm a proponent of the ID hypothesis of front-loading, wherein eukaryotes, Metazoa, plants, and other "higher" taxa were front-loaded from genomes that were engineered and delivered to earth via directed panspermia.
What evidence led you to this conclusion?
The bacterial flagellum is a different case because (a) it is found in basal bacterial lineages, which means it could have been present in the LUCA, and therefore directly engineered,
Not really. Archael flagella are non-homologous, so it would appear that the two motility systems evolved independently in bacteria and archae.
(b) I don't think you're going to find the molecular equivalent of the backward wiring of the eye in the core flagellar structure.
Sure we can. Secretory systems and flagella share a common system which can be traced using sequence comparisons:
quote:The structural features of the flagellum, along with the evidence of homology between FliI and ATP synthase subunits and between MotA/B and the secretion proteins TolQ-TolR, suggests that it originated as a primitive secretion system (16), first involving ATPase and then adding the rod, hook, and filament components by gene duplication and diversification. Its original role as a secretion apparatus is also supported by the clear links between the flagellum and the TTSS, a protein delivery system whose genetic architecture is similar to and derived from a flagellar gene complex (17, 20). http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full
Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
I think the answer is clearly NO.
Non-teleological evolution does not predict the deep homology of eukaryotic proteins with unnecessary but functional prokaryotic proteins, while front-loading necessarily predicts this. I can only reiterate what I said to Dr Adequate on why confirmation of a prediction of a model is superior to another model's explanation:
Consider the following example. Evolution predicts that if the bacterial flagellum evolved, a number of its components will share similarity with proteins that are more ancient than the bacterial flagellum. Can the hypothesis that the flagellum was engineered explain this? Yes. Engineers very often re-use parts in different systems. But the ID hypothesis does not predict that the flagellar components will share similarity with more ancient proteins. This is because engineers can also design from scratch. So, while ID can explain this, it does not predict it. Which means that, when it comes to similarity, evolution is the superior explanation (note that the similarity flagellar components share with other proteins is not incompatible with the hypothesis that it was engineered).
You say:
Further, I would dispute whether this is really a 'prediction' is a true prediction at all. It is not enough that the designer be teleological, or that the designer is using front loading. Instead the designer must have a particular front loading mindset that results in something that we already know to be the case.
However, I argued in that article why the front-loading hypothesis requires that eukaryotic proteins share deep homology with unnecessary but functional prokaryotic proteins. Front-loading basically would not work if we did not see this.
Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
You claim that all of these studies are able to detect design, yet they do not detect design where you claim it is. Perhaps you want to rethink your argument?
You're missing the point, Taq. I'm not looking for radio signals in the cell. But the principle of detecting design is the same among SETI scientists, and cryptographers.
Regardless, it is implicit that ID must invoke the supernatural at some stage. Really? Where?
If you are going with a natural designer then that natural designer had to come about in the last 13.7 billion years given the finite history of our universe. If designers can come about through natural means then there is every reason to think that we are a naturally occuring designer.
Well, such a hypothesis of a designer (why on earth do you capitalize designer?) ...
In case He smites me for disrespecting His holy Name.
... who is keen on giraffe's would have been inspired by the existence of giraffes ...
Yeah, that's what I mean by it being ad hoc. It could make a very specific prediction and yet this wouldn't make us think it was true.
... so you couldn't predict the existence of giraffes precisely because they already exist.
Well, it depends how you do it. Obviously a theory is allowed to predict things which are already known --- for example Newton's theory predicted Kepler's laws, of which Newton was already aware. The thing is that Newton didn't have to build Kepler's laws into his theory, he postulated the inverse square law and Kepler's laws came out.
Now if you could have one simple hypothesis about the Designer which predicted giraffes and porcupines and pangolins and badgers and so on, then you might be on to something. But I can't see it happening.
Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
You're missing the point, Taq. I'm not looking for radio signals in the cell. But the principle of detecting design is the same among SETI scientists, and cryptographers.
Actually, it's not. SETI is looking for a narrowband radiowave transmission. Whether SETI is able to discern any analog or binary embedded code is secondary. What they are looking for is a very narrowband signal that looks like this:
No prime numbers. No coded information. Just a narrowband signal. That's it. Why? Because no known astronomical process produces narrowband signals. They produce broadband signals.
As for cryptographers, name one that has found a coded message in DNA. If they have not, then I have no clue why you are pointing to cryptography. Care to enlighten?
Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
However, I argued in that article why the front-loading hypothesis requires that eukaryotic proteins share deep homology with unnecessary but functional prokaryotic proteins.
Can you give an example of a functional protein that shares deep homology amongst eukaryotes which is also unnecessary?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
