Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Specified complexity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    Also doesn't explain why ID "research" has produced nothing new in the 13+ years since then.
    "The Edge of Evolution" is a step forward, by Behe. And the Bio-complexity journal has a recent article (h/t to Roy) that works on formalizing specified complexity.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      "The Edge of Evolution" is a step forward, by Behe. And the Bio-complexity journal has a recent article (h/t to Roy) that works on formalizing specified complexity.
      The human and chimp genomes have been done for what, 20 years now? If there were clear evidence of design that was specific to humans, that should be more than enough time for anyone to identify it. The fact that nothing's been done with it is telling.
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Roy View Post
        Not quite - Berlinski is Jewish.
        Berlinski describes himself as a secular Jew as well as an agnostic.

        There is however reason to doubt his claim. Anyone who has heard him speak (plenty of videos on YouTube) or read what he has written cannot but help notice that many of his objections to evolution are grounded in religion (which is absolutely acceptable for those who say that they are religious but more than a bit suspect coming from someone who repeatedly declares that he isn't). This makes one suspect that he may be saying that he's agnostic for no other reason than he feels that it somehow gives credibility to the Intelligent Design movement because evolution deniers can therefore claim that not all of those who object to evolution do so on religious grounds.

        Then there is the issue of his having misrepresented his credentials in other ways, which tends to support the idea he is not being forthcoming in his claims about himself. He as often promoted himself as a mathematician and philosopher of science -- neither of which is true.

        While he has written books about mathematics that doesn't make one a mathematician (especially considering that some of his works have been criticized for making some fundamental mathematical errors). And while he is indeed a philosopher he is not a philosopher of science.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Surely you can, humans did not create life,

          Not yet, but it is likely they will.

          . . . for instance, yet life is present and is exquisitely designed.
          Not really, and it is only evolved to survive, and not most often exquisite.


          And the point then is that as man is in the image of God, then human designing and divine designing will be somewhat analogous.


          A creator of all things, which have the fingerprints of design all through them.

          Blessings,
          Lee[/QUOTE]
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            Not quite - Berlinski is Jewish.
            I agree to a certain extent with rogue06, Belinski believes in a literal Genesis and definitely takes the religious view concerning Creation. The rest of the science staff at Discovery Institute in fundamentalist Christian.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              The human and chimp genomes have been done for what, 20 years now? If there were clear evidence of design that was specific to humans, that should be more than enough time for anyone to identify it. The fact that nothing's been done with it is telling.
              I'm not sure what you're saying here, though, identify evidence of design in the genome?

              Blessings,
              Lee
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Not really, and it is only evolved to survive, and not most often exquisite.
                Thus we wouldn't expect a highly optimized amino acid set?

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  I agree to a certain extent with rogue06, Belinski believes in a literal Genesis and definitely takes the religious view concerning Creation. The rest of the science staff at Discovery Institute in fundamentalist Christian.
                  I actually got it part wrong. Berlinski is a confusing character and rogue06 described him well. He gives no scientific justification for his opposition to the science of evolution, nor a coherent alternative,
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Thus we wouldn't expect a highly optimized amino acid set?

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    Nonsense, and does not relate to your previous question. There is no problem with the evolution of the set of amino acids, and they do not have to be 'highly optimized.' In fact the set could have been different, and evolved because it worked best, and not because it was 'highly optimized.'
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      I'm not sure what you're saying here, though, identify evidence of design in the genome?
                      Yeah. The differences between humans and our fellow great apes are going to be genetic, meaning they're in the genome sequences. Most IDers don't accept that all those changes came about through evolution - they think there's some design involved (Behe is a bit of an exception there, i think). If they're right, then the the designer's intervention should involve DNA changes that will be identifiable as differences between the human and chimp (or human and bonobo) genomes. So, if design is actually scientific, then it should provide a method of identifying those differences. If specified complexity were science, for example, it should be able to provide a measure that could be applied to examining designed DNA sequences.

                      Yet for all the IDers' talk of "it'll be science real soon now", there's doesn't seem to have even been any discussion of examining the genomes for the designer's intervention, much less evidence. Which implies that they don't know how to apply their ideas to the most basic scientific issues, even when real scientists have already provided them with all the data they'd need to do so.

                      Meanwhile, biologists have used evolutionary concepts to identify a variety of DNA sequences that seem to have been important for human/chimp differences.


                      EDIT: oh, and i checked, and it's 15 years since the chimp genome was declared done. So my guesstimate of 20 was a bit off.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        There is no problem with the evolution of the set of amino acids, and they do not have to be 'highly optimized.' In fact the set could have been different, and evolved because it worked best, and not because it was 'highly optimized.'
                        So then a set that was highly optimized would be surprising. And if there is no problem with evolution of amino acid sets, why do we not see them changing today?

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          Yeah. The differences between humans and our fellow great apes are going to be genetic, meaning they're in the genome sequences. Most IDers don't accept that all those changes came about through evolution - they think there's some design involved (Behe is a bit of an exception there, i think). If they're right, then the the designer's intervention should involve DNA changes that will be identifiable as differences between the human and chimp (or human and bonobo) genomes. So, if design is actually scientific, then it should provide a method of identifying those differences. If specified complexity were science, for example, it should be able to provide a measure that could be applied to examining designed DNA sequences.
                          That's a good point, though I wonder if we know enough of the effects of DNA differences to be able to map these to behavioral differences. The behavioral differences are extensive, and I think specified complexity could be applied there.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            That's a good point, though I wonder if we know enough of the effects of DNA differences to be able to map these to behavioral differences. The behavioral differences are extensive, and I think specified complexity could be applied there.
                            It won't matter for this issue if the ID crowd can't even figure out how to analyze DNA first.
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              It won't matter for this issue if the ID crowd can't even figure out how to analyze DNA first.
                              Indeed, I think all that's been said so far is that DNA is both complex and specified, but no numbers have been produced to say how likely it is that a piece of DNA is designed.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                Indeed, I think all that's been said so far is that DNA is both complex and specified,
                                Playing with words will only get you playing with words.

                                Very misleading at best. It has not been shown that it is both complex nor specific beyond natural processes of evolution. Specified complexity nor irreducible complexity have been falsified by the scientific method of Methodological Naturalism




                                . . . but no numbers have been produced to say how likely it is that a piece of DNA is designed.


                                . . . but there are no numbers nor falsifiable hypothesis that have been produced to say how likely it is that a piece of DNA is Intelligently Designed.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X