ID for Dummies

[Stratnerd]

I'd like to understand ID since it appears to have a very bold claim, which is, I think, to be able to detect the presence of beings of higher intelligence by examining their supposed products. Is that correct? I would be grateful if someone would take the time and explain how that is done.

[RufusAtticus]

Idism in One Lesson (http://people.musc.edu/~reulansn/IDism/hunch.html)

[Captain Ochre]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/thaxton/docs/inpursuit.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-detect.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-program.html

That should get you started. I recommend that you read the popular material produced by the leading ID advocate prior to seeking a greater understanding of it in this forum.

[Captain Ochre]

02-24-2003 @ 08:45 PM
RufusAtticus:

Idism in One Lesson (http://people.musc.edu/~reulansn/IDism/hunch.html)

http://www.alexchiu.com/cell/intro.htm


this should suffice for refutation of RA's link . . .

:bonk:

[RufusAtticus]

02-24-2003 @ 04:17 PM
Captain Ochre:

That should get you started. I recommend that you read the popular material produced by the leading ID advocate prior to seeking a greater understanding of it in this forum.

Of course, since IDism has nothing but popular material. They keep saying that they will get around to doing science, but we're still waiting.

[Captain Ochre]

02-24-2003 @ 09:48 PM
RufusAtticus:



Of course, since IDism has nothing but popular material.


Dembski wrote the first version of his ID work in decidedly non-popular terms, and came out with a simplified edition for the popular audience.


They keep saying that they will get around to doing science, but we're still waiting.

Forensics already does a form of ID research, whenever they assist in adducing evidence in favor of premeditated murder rather than death by natural causes (or accident, which is the same thing in our context).

[RufusAtticus]

02-24-2003 @ 05:00 PM
Captain Ochre:

Dembski wrote the first version of his ID work in decidedly non-popular terms, and came out with a simplified edition for the popular audience.[/b]

And in what scientific journal did he publish it?

[b]Forensics already does a form of ID research, whenever they assist in adducing evidence in favor of premeditated murder rather than death by natural causes (or accident, which is the same thing in our context).

So then I guess you can tell me where forensiscs uses specified complexity or irreducible complexity. Or how about what techniques employed by forensic scientists inspired the Johnson et al.'s movement?

[Captain Ochre]

02-24-2003 @ 10:43 PM
RufusAtticus:

And in what scientific journal did he publish it?


As if to equate "not published in a scientific journal" with "unscientific"?
Nice red herring.
What scientific journal published Newton's work?


So then I guess you can tell me where forensiscs uses specified complexity or irreducible complexity.


Sure, though they don't use those terms. When a forensic pathologist, for instance, finds poisonous chemicals in the alimentary tract that apparently killed a person, he directs investigation into possible ways the chemicals were introduced. If naturalistic means do not appear plausible, then investigators infer probable involvement of an intelligence in poisoning the victim. The more specifically complex the introduction of the poison appears to be, the stronger the inference to design (murder).


Or how about what techniques employed by forensic scientists inspired the Johnson et al.'s movement?

Don't know. You'd have to ask them.

[J. J. Ramsey]

There is an interesting short article in the archive of the ASA mailing list entitled Science and supernatural explanations (was: working in the flesh?) (http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199702/0110.html). From the article:


As scientists study the initial conditions, final conditions, and known natural mechanisms, they could reach three possible conclusions:

1) Sound empirical models predict that known natural mechanisms can account for the event. (*1*) (Let's call these "natural events.")

2) We do not have sound (or sufficiently thorough) empirical models, but we believe that known natural mechanisms can account for the event, and future improvements in empirical knowledge, elegant models, and computing power will eventually allow us to prove this. (For this letter, let's call these "non-empirical events.")

3) No known natural mechanisms could account for this event. There are empirically sound reasons for ruling out all known natural mechanisms. (For this article, let's call these "non-mechanistic events.")


I urge you to read the whole article from the mailing list. The above is just a teaser to give you a flavor of what it is about.

[RufusAtticus]

02-24-2003 @ 06:25 PM
Captain Ochre:

As if to equate "not published in a scientific journal" with "unscientific"?
Nice red herring.
What scientific journal published Newton's work?
[/b]

Sorry, but Dembski is working in the 20th and 21st centuries not the 17th and 18th centuries. Science is done a little differently nowadays. The fact that he and his ID cronies don't follow the scientific process and instead pump out popular books for the masses and try to get ID put into science class rooms before it is even submitted to and evaluated by the scientific community, doesn't show their methods in a good light.

Sure, though they don't use those terms. When a forensic pathologist, for instance, finds poisonous chemicals in the alimentary tract that apparently killed a person, he directs investigation into possible ways the chemicals were introduced. If naturalistic means do not appear plausible, then investigators infer probable involvement of an intelligence in poisoning the victim. The more specifically complex the introduction of the poison appears to be, the stronger the inference to design (murder).

So the forensic scientists conclude that a supernatural intelligence was at work. You've been watching too many X-files.

Don't know. You'd have to ask them.

Well if your claims about ID and forensics are true then you should be able to find them, correct?

[Stratnerd]

The more specifically complex the introduction of the poison appears to be, the stronger the inference to design (murder). but how does one quantify specifically complex? But I can think of simple ways that I drug can be introduced into a body and exceeding complex natural means of the same. Take alkaloid poisoning: which would be more "specifically complex": a person pours cyanide into a person's mouth or a person OD's on cherry bark tea, which by itself may not kill a person, but this person was stressed and didn't eat much that day which made the concentration of alkaloids higher in the stomach aggrevated by a lower pH? All you know is this is a mafia type with many enemies but a penchant for natural and exotic teas.

Since it sound like there are probability distributions association with ID please outline how one calculated the Pr of each of these events to show how I would figure out how this person croaked.

Anyways, I'm still waiting for more time to read over the links and thanks for posting them. Kinda dissapointed it turned into a not-so serious discussion.

[Captain Ochre]

02-25-2003 @ 12:17 AM
RufusAtticus:



Sorry, but Dembski is working in the 20th and 21st centuries not the 17th and 18th centuries. Science is done a little differently nowadays.


Well, sure, but it's a fallacy of anachronism to claim that Newton wasn't doing science then, and special pleading to call anything not journal-published "science". Time will tell, with Dembski; your opinion is neither here nor there.


The fact that he and his ID cronies don't follow the scientific process and instead pump out popular books for the masses and try to get ID put into science class rooms before it is even submitted to and evaluated by the scientific community, doesn't show their methods in a good light.


You're right--it makes Dembski seem an awful lot like Dawkins, Gould, and Sagan.


So the forensic scientists conclude that a supernatural intelligence was at work.


The term "supernatural" has no place in the ID movement, afaics. The forensic scientist concludes that an intelligence was probably at work. Critics always seem to find an excuse to mention that term "supernatural" . . .


You've been watching too many X-files.


You construct too many straw men.


Well if your claims about ID and forensics are true then you should be able to find them, correct?

Whether or not my claims are correct has no bearing on whether or not I could uncover the examples that inspired the modern ID movement.

Bearing that in mind, look it up yourself, if you're interested.

[Blake Reas]

Rufus,

If you are going to say Dembski is wrong and that is his science is a throw back to the 17th century why don't you show us? I would much like you to show us he is wrong than just say it over and over.

In Christ,'
Blake:hrm:

[Blake Reas]

02-24-2003 @ 08:33 PM
Stratnerd:

I'd like to understand ID since it appears to have a very bold claim, which is, I think, to be able to detect the presence of beings of higher intelligence by examining their supposed products. Is that correct? I would be grateful if someone would take the time and explain how that is done.

www.discovery.org
www.arn.org or com can't remember
www.iscid.org There is a good discussion board there. I never participate because it is out of my league :help:

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. I will try and get Dembski's homepage I have to find it though

[UPDATE} :: I found it woo hoo http://www.designinference.com/ :yipee:

[Stratnerd]

Thanks for the links. I went through several on Dembski's web page and those at ARN but I haven't found what I'm looking for which is

1. How does one quantify complexity of a biological trait?
2. How does one quantify specificity?
3. Do you look at the genome or the phenotype? Why?
4. What physical law must be broken to increase information?
5. How do you deal with history and the problem with a changing environmental context and coadaptation?

CO, you said that IDist don't say increases in information can't happen but, rather, it hasn't been observed. However, Dembski has an article "Why Evolutionary Algorithms Cannot Generate Specified Complexity".

more on that later, though.

[Captain Ochre]

02-25-2003 @ 06:33 AM
Stratnerd:

Thanks for the links. I went through several on Dembski's web page and those at ARN but I haven't found what I'm looking for which is

1. How does one quantify complexity of a biological trait?

Like anything else, I suspect. Why should biology be different?


2. How does one quantify specificity?


You don't. Specificity is or isn't. Or, you could say that it's proportional to complexity.


3. Do you look at the genome or the phenotype? Why?


You could look at either, but the genotype is more intriguing since the codes don't necessarily relate to function. Only when the codes are translated (employed in cell function) is their function expressed phenotypically.


4. What physical law must be broken to increase information?

None, so far as I'm aware--why do you ask?


5. How do you deal with history and the problem with a changing environmental context and coadaptation?


Not sure what you mean, here. Why should I deal with it?


CO, you said that IDist don't say increases in information can't happen but, rather, it hasn't been observed. However, Dembski has an article "Why Evolutionary Algorithms Cannot Generate Specified Complexity".

more on that later, though.

I suspect it's because the algorithms simulate phenotypes rather than genotypes. I look forward to your expansion on that topic. Have fun reading. It's good for you. :smile:

[Stratnerd]

Like anything else, I suspect. Why should biology be different? OK, how do you quantify complexity, generically speaking?

You don't. Specificity is or isn't. Is hair specific? If you have resistence to a drug, but only at particular temperatures is this specific compared to a different genotype that is resistent at a wider range of T's? Or are they both specific?

Or, you could say that it's proportional to complexity. I thought Dembski pointed out that you can have complexity without specificity and vice versa.

You could look at either, but the genotype is more intriguing since the codes don't necessarily relate to function. Only when the codes are translated (employed in cell function) is their function expressed phenotypically. If you wanted to detect ID which would be better?

None, so far as I'm aware--why do you ask? I was looking for a reason that information couldn't increase...

5. How do you deal with history and the problem with a changing environmental context and coadaptation?

Not sure what you mean, here. Why should I deal with it?

OK, I thought you might understand "you" by the context replace with ID-ist?

I look forward to your expansion on that topic. Have fun reading. huh? So are you saying "bug off it's your problem"? -"your" meaning "mine" in case there's confusion. I can find the links myself but there's so much fluff in the way I was hoping that you (meaning you) or someone else could provide the guts of ID. Or are you saying you are willing to give an answer but you think it's over my head?

[Vorkosigan]

Like anything else, I suspect. Why should biology be different?

Cap'n, there is only one way to spot design, and that is with experience of designed objects of the type one is looking at. This is true of forensic science, archaeology, and every other field where designed objects have to be differentiated from those arises through natural processes.

Consider the Calico Site in California, where Louis Leakey removed thousands of stone tools from a site supposedly more than 200,000 years old. The tools massively controversial. Are they geofacts or artifacts? Subsequent research has shown that they are all geofacts, based on statistical studies. These statistical models are not drawn from some theory or definition, but from empirical experience with known stone tools.

Similarly, the controversy over whether tektites were designed or natural was resolved not by some definition, but by an empirical test -- chemical assay.

Without a large enough statistical sample for valid analysis, there is no way to simply look at the universe and see design, because design can only be known by comparison with known designed objects.

As for specified complexity; it is a concept without a real referent, existing only in the minds of Id'ers. The use of "complexity" as a marker of design is dumb idea -- many designed objects are quite simple (think of dugout canoes or stone tools) while natural ones are complex. Or, the object itself is quite simple but the processes that produced it are extremely complex, requiring many steps done in order, like bark cloth or a vaccine. "Complexity" is entirely subjective, and extremely naive.

Cap'n, can you give us an actual definition of "complexity" and then use it to differentiate a known designed object from an known natural one?

Vorkosigan

[RufusAtticus]

02-24-2003 @ 10:56 PM
Blake Reas:
If you are going to say Dembski is wrong and that is his science is a throw back to the 17th century why don't you show us? I would much like you to show us he is wrong than just say it over and over.

I'd be glad to if he ever descides to do science.

02-24-2003 @ 09:01 PM
Captain Ochre:
The term "supernatural" has no place in the ID movement, afaics. The forensic scientist concludes that an intelligence was probably at work. Critics always seem to find an excuse to mention that term "supernatural" . . .

Do you even read your own argument? You said that a "naturalistic means do not appear plausible." If that is the situation, then the only other possibility is that a supernatural cause was responsible. As long as the idism complains about naturalism, they will be advocating for supernaturalism.

Whether or not my claims are correct has no bearing on whether or not I could uncover the examples that inspired the modern ID movement.

However, whether they have support does.

Bearing that in mind, look it up yourself, if you're interested.

It's your claim. You support it.

[Captain Ochre]

02-25-2003 @ 08:03 AM
Vorkosigan:

Like anything else, I suspect. Why should biology be different?

Cap'n, there is only one way to spot design, and that is with experience of designed objects of the type one is looking at.


Oh, so if you found a flying saucer in a cornfield, then you would know that it was designed because you had experience with them from watching "X-Files"?


This is true of forensic science, archaeology, and every other field where designed objects have to be differentiated from those arises through natural processes.


Still looks like special pleading, to me, but let's see what you add below.


Consider the Calico Site in California, where Louis Leakey removed thousands of stone tools from a site supposedly more than 200,000 years old. The tools massively controversial. Are they geofacts or artifacts? Subsequent research has shown that they are all geofacts, based on statistical studies. These statistical models are not drawn from some theory or definition, but from empirical experience with known stone tools.


Poor example, imo, since primitive tools give very subtle hints of specification. Rocks make dandy tools, sometimes, but they tend to still be essentially rocks. Perhaps if you gave a concrete example, such as a rock shaped like a hoe (or pruning shears?:smile:).


Similarly, the controversy over whether tektites were designed or natural was resolved not by some definition, but by an empirical test -- chemical assay.


In the case of tektites, the form and chemistry itself was at issue rather than the function (and specificity).


Without a large enough statistical sample for valid analysis, there is no way to simply look at the universe and see design, because design can only be known by comparison with known designed objects.


You're still powered by an apparent case of special pleading, Vorko (may I call you Vorko?).


As for specified complexity; it is a concept without a real referent, existing only in the minds of Id'ers. The use of "complexity" as a marker of design is dumb idea -- many designed objects are quite simple (think of dugout canoes or stone tools) while natural ones are complex.


It seem doubtful that you are familiar with Dembski's work, since you use the example above. Dembski doesn't pretend to be able to identify any object with design. His filter is calculated to identify a certain class of specified complexity as being (very) probably designed. If I designed my own rock, for instance, and put it in a box of "natural" rocks, Dembski doesn't claim to be able to pick out my rock from the others.
You're arguing a straw man.


Or, the object itself is quite simple but the processes that produced it are extremely complex, requiring many steps done in order, like bark cloth or a vaccine. "Complexity" is entirely subjective, and extremely naive.


You've unloaded another inappropriate example much like your previous one (which part of the vaccine is supposed to be at issue, btw--the serum?).


Cap'n, can you give us an actual definition of "complexity" and then use it to differentiate a known designed object from an known natural one?


No; I'm not an expert on ID theory by any means. However, I appear to be more familiar with it than you are, afaics.

[J. J. Ramsey]

Vorkosigan:

Cap'n, there is only one way to spot design, and that is with experience of designed objects of the type one is looking at.

Captain Ochre:
Oh, so if you found a flying saucer in a cornfield, then you would know that it was designed because you had experience with them from watching "X-Files"?


No, but he might know from experience with machines in general, and from knowing the sorts of things that nature cannot make.

[Captain Ochre]

02-25-2003 @ 03:34 PM
RufusAtticus:


Do you even read your own argument? You said that a "naturalistic means do not appear plausible."


Shall we place that quotation back in its original context?
See below:

When a forensic pathologist, for instance, finds poisonous chemicals in the alimentary tract that apparently killed a person, he directs investigation into possible ways the chemicals were introduced. If naturalistic means do not appear plausible, then investigators infer probable involvement of an intelligence in poisoning the victim.

Hmmm. That's funny, when I made the statement originally, it was if naturalistic means do not appear plausible, and now you're trying to say that I'm claiming that naturalistic means are not plausible, complete with a neatly trimmed quotation.
Okay, I think I see what you're getting at. There is a problem with the term "naturalistic" which I have already noted, which is that it does not recognize intelligence. We're seeing this now in the neurosciences, as scientists study the brain and find that their presupposition of naturalism leads them to a non-rational (preceding states of matter) explanation for human thought. All other kinds of thought too, ftm. So, when I say "naturalistic" cause, read it as "unintelligent" cause. Your own post to me would be an enigma to the naturalistic framework, but once they get to work on it, you weren't directly responsible for what you wrote (see again Darrow's defense techniques for an illustration of why this would be so).


If that is the situation, then the only other possibility is that a supernatural cause was responsible. As long as the idism complains about naturalism, they will be advocating for supernaturalism.


Well the conversation would be bound for a semantic stalemate if we were bound to those two terms. If you will either use "supernatural" to mean "intelligent", or explain rational thought in terms of physical laws ("naturalistically"), then that issue will be satisfactorily resolved, imo.


It's your claim. You support it.

What claim would that be, again? Quote me--in context.

[Stratnerd]

from another thread that seems more appropriate here:

I commented on the lack of Dembski or anyone else publishing on the internet the algorithm for quantifying specificity and complexity. CO responded:
Try hostile book reviews. See what they say.
How does that suggestion make sense? You would think that if Dembski was more serious about promoting ID and not making a $$ he would publish the algorithms so everyone would be calculating these values (and comparing it to what?).

Is ID an attractive "theory" for you - if so why? Anyone.... anyone...

[Captain Ochre]

02-26-2003 @ 03:35 AM
Stratnerd:

How does that suggestion make sense?


If book reviews critique Dembski for not presenting ID criteria, then you confirm your idea that it's not in the book, so you can stop your search and wait for Dembski to publish something that includes what you seek.
If book review critique Dembski's methodology, then you will have a chance to get a opinion and maybe even a description of it.
Remind me not to help you anymore. :bonk:


You would think that if Dembski was more serious about promoting ID and not making a $$ he would publish the algorithms so everyone would be calculating these values


It's not nice to undersell your publisher.


(and comparing it to what?).


Things which are known to be designed, of course.


Is ID an attractive "theory" for you - if so why? Anyone.... anyone...

I think that I see application of one of Jinx72's arguments taking form right before my eyes.

[Vorkosigan]

Captain Ochre:[/i]
Oh, so if you found a flying saucer in a cornfield, then you would know that it was designed because you had experience with them from watching[/b]

A saucer would be an artifact. By definition.

Poor example, imo, since primitive tools give very subtle hints of specification. Rocks make dandy tools, sometimes, but they tend to still be essentially rocks. Perhaps if you gave a concrete example, such as a rock shaped like a hoe (or pruning shears?:smile:).

That's the point. Complexity cannot be a pointer of design (nor can non-complexity). Specified complexity is even worse. Complexity has nothing at all to do with design.

In the case of tektites, the form and chemistry itself was at issue rather than the function (and specificity).

Precisely. Because the only way you can tell whether something is designed is by previous experience with known designed objects. Ever worked on an archaeology dig? If you have, I am sure you've pulled out artifacts only to have your teacher smile, and after suitable reminiscing about her similar experience, tell you that you have a nice collection of geofacts. Dembski's argument is fundamentally a circle; in order to know something has been designed, you have to know it was designed.

You're still powered by an apparent case of special pleading, Vorko (may I call you Vorko?).

As you wish. But someday a galactic mercenary fleet (http://www.dendarii.com/) might descend on you to repay that mortal insult to the family honor.

It seem doubtful that you are familiar with Dembski's work, since you use the example above. Dembski doesn't pretend to be able to identify any object with design. His filter is calculated to identify a certain class of specified complexity as being (very) probably designed.

I am familiar with Dembski's work, and his filter doesn't work at all. If it did, believe me, it would be instantly adopted by everyone working in fields involving technology.

If I designed my own rock, for instance, and put it in a box of "natural" rocks, Dembski doesn't claim to be able to pick out my rock from the others.

You're arguing a straw man.

No, you've missed the thrust of the argument. Complexity cannot be a pointer to design, and specified complexity doesn't exist until and unless you already have experience with a known designed argument. This is a simplified form of the argument presented here (http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/sc_resp_wre.html) and also here (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/specified.complexity.html).

You've unloaded another inappropriate example much like your previous one (which part of the vaccine is supposed to be at issue, btw--the serum?).

Exactly! The whole idea of "complexity" is subjective. Is it the concept of the vaccine that is complex? The idea of inoculation -- which after all is quite old -- the serum development process? The public health system? Dembski never really sets out the limit of the system's complexity so we can view where "specificity" resides.

No; I'm not an expert on ID theory by any means. However, I appear to be more familiar with it than you are, afaics.

LOL.

Vorkosigan

[RufusAtticus]

02-25-2003 @ 05:44 PM
Captain Ochre:

Hmmm. That's funny, when I made the statement originally, it was if naturalistic means do not appear plausible, and now you're trying to say that I'm claiming that naturalistic means are not plausible, complete with a neatly trimmed quotation.[/b]

If a forensic scientists concludes that naturalistic means was not responsible then the only posibility left is that a supernaturalistic means did it. It is that simple. Now you can't say that they conclude that naturalistic means were not probable and then conclude that a human did it. What you have tried to do here is redefine terms as you go along. Using a different defination of "natural" then the one you are trying to disprove, might allow you to cheet in an argument. It's good rhetoric, but it's bad logic.

[Captain Ochre]

02-26-2003 @ 02:43 PM
Vorkosigan:

Captain Ochre:[/i]
Oh, so if you found a flying saucer in a cornfield, then you would know that it was designed because you had experience with them from watching[/b]

A saucer would be an artifact. By definition.


Kindly be precise regarding the supposed definition (without begging the question).


Poor example, imo, since primitive tools give very subtle hints of specification. Rocks make dandy tools, sometimes, but they tend to still be essentially rocks. Perhaps if you gave a concrete example, such as a rock shaped like a hoe (or pruning shears?:smile:).

That's the point. Complexity cannot be a pointer of design (nor can non-complexity). Specified complexity is even worse. Complexity has nothing at all to do with design.


Well, you're saying "that's the point" but your example is missing that mark by a mile (aren't pruning shears more complex--and more specified--than the average rock?). I suspect that the latter portions of this post will discuss the why of the matter, if memory serves (and the editing was minimal).


In the case of tektites, the form and chemistry itself was at issue rather than the function (and specificity).

Precisely. Because the only way you can tell whether something is designed is by previous experience with known designed objects. Ever worked on an archaeology dig? If you have, I am sure you've pulled out artifacts only to have your teacher smile, and after suitable reminiscing about her similar experience, tell you that you have a nice collection of geofacts. Dembski's argument is fundamentally a circle; in order to know something has been designed, you have to know it was designed.


Now that you're agreeing with me, explain how your "point" argues against Dembski, eh? It looks like you're picking up on one of my points (made elsewhere): Thoroughgoing naturalism doesn't know what to make of "intelligence" in the first place: It is a foreign assumption.


You're still powered by an apparent case of special pleading, Vorko (may I call you Vorko?).

As you wish. But someday a galactic mercenary fleet (http://www.dendarii.com/) might descend on you to repay that mortal insult to the family honor.


I'll roll those dice. :smile: (thanks)


It seem doubtful that you are familiar with Dembski's work, since you use the example above. Dembski doesn't pretend to be able to identify any object with design. His filter is calculated to identify a certain class of specified complexity as being (very) probably designed.

I am familiar with Dembski's work, and his filter doesn't work at all. If it did, believe me, it would be instantly adopted by everyone working in fields involving technology.


(arguments by assertion, and if/then fallacy, respectively)
Did you wish to address the fact that you've used examples that Dembski wouldn't bother using the filter on, as if they prove something?


If I designed my own rock, for instance, and put it in a box of "natural" rocks, Dembski doesn't claim to be able to pick out my rock from the others.

You're arguing a straw man.

No, you've missed the thrust of the argument. Complexity cannot be a pointer to design, and specified complexity doesn't exist until and unless you already have experience with a known designed argument.


You've already been refuted by counterexample; you just haven't realized it yet. Here it is again, tailored to your most recent comment:
Where did we get the first "known" designed thing, so that we can later dependably identify design?
Have fun with that one.


You've unloaded another inappropriate example much like your previous one (which part of the vaccine is supposed to be at issue, btw--the serum?).

Exactly! The whole idea of "complexity" is subjective.


Non sequitur. The microbe does not have to be weakened/killed in a specific manner in order to make a vaccine effective, and it's another example that Dembski wouldn't bother using the filter on (straw man).


Is it the concept of the vaccine that is complex? The idea of inoculation -- which after all is quite old -- the serum development process? The public health system? Dembski never really sets out the limit of the system's complexity so we can view where "specificity" resides.


I don't see any attempt on your part to take any of the supposed testing points and see whether or not they meet the minimum information level set by Dembski for application of the filter . . .


No; I'm not an expert on ID theory by any means. However, I appear to be more familiar with it than you are, afaics.

LOL.

Vorkosigan

Did you read Demski's book (The Design Inference) ? Yea or nay, please.

You've got an obvious fallacy (begging the question) in your presentation that seems to have escaped you. If only previous experience allows us to identify design, then how did we identify design in the first place?
If all of design is subjective, then how dare you dispute anybody's perception of design?

[Captain Ochre]

02-26-2003 @ 03:23 PM
RufusAtticus:



If a forensic scientists concludes that naturalistic means was not responsible then the only posibility left is that a supernaturalistic means did it. It is that simple. Now you can't say that they conclude that naturalistic means were not probable and then conclude that a human did it. What you have tried to do here is redefine terms as you go along. Using a different defination of "natural" then the one you are trying to disprove, might allow you to cheet in an argument. It's good rhetoric, but it's bad logic.

Hmmm. You ignored my explanation except to dismiss it with the implication that I equivocated. I did no such thing. I provided two different options for understanding "natural" and showed that both of them lead to a logical pitfall for you.
It's time for you to deal with what I write, and not what you wished I had written.

[Captain Ochre]

02-25-2003 @ 10:31 PM
J. J. Ramsey:



No, but he might know from experience with machines in general, and from knowing the sorts of things that nature cannot make.


What is it about "machines in general" that means that they are designed or not?
How do we know what sorts of things nature cannot make?

You appear to be on the fast track to question-begging, Mister Ramsey.

[J. J. Ramsey]

J. J. Ramsey:
No, but he might know from experience with machines in general, and from knowing the sorts of things that nature cannot make.

Captain Ochre:
What is it about "machines in general" that means that they are designed or not? How do we know what sorts of things nature cannot make?


Well, for starters, machines often have sharp angles and edges, are composed of macroscopic discrete parts that can be disassembled, and cannot regenerate. Some machines are composed of materials not used in known lifeforms, such as metal, plastics, rubber, or glass.

[Pilgrim]

With the exception of plastic, the same could be said of many rocks and trees.

[J. J. Ramsey]

02-26-2003 @ 02:06 PM
Pilgrim:

With the exception of plastic, the same could be said of many rocks and trees.

Not really. Trees aren't made of macroscopic discrete parts, but interconnected tissues. Rocks may have veins of metal in them, of course, but trees don't. Sharp angles and edges occasionally happen in them, but not nearly to the degree one sees them in constructed objects.

[Captain Ochre]

02-26-2003 @ 06:42 PM
J. J. Ramsey:



Well, for starters,


For non-starters, you mean? :wink:
Read on.


machines often have sharp angles and edges, are composed of macroscopic discrete parts that can be disassembled, and cannot regenerate. Some machines are composed of materials not used in known lifeforms, such as metal, plastics, rubber, or glass.

1) Machines "often" have sharp angles and edges? So what? Cars frequently have four wheels. No such thing as a three-wheeled car?
2) Composed of macroscopic parts that can be disassembled?
There's a minimum size for machines that isn't arbitrary? Clue me in (or are you simply begging the question, just as I thought?). Can't molecules be disassembled? I seem to recall that they can. Do you disagree? Shall we make this our main point of contention?
3) Cannot regenerate? That seems like another arbitrary one, to me. It seems rather odd, to say that least, that a machine with a feature that supposedly intelligent beings have difficulty achieving would be the mark of unintelligent design. I'd call it counter-intuitive, I would.
4) Now what a machine is made of determines whether or not it was designed? Bad news for the scientist who dreams of building his own human being from scratch, eh? "Since you used the same materials that a regular human is made of, you cannot be credited with designing that human." Even better if we let an silica-based humanoid try to create carbon-based life-form and he ends up accidentally with the genetic twin of Steve Reeves on the slab!

Add to that the fact that microscopic machines do have metallic and glass elements. Plastic is a knock-off of organic matter--so that one's weird to try to attack me with, anyway. Obviously rubber trees use rubber in their machinery of life.

Did I miss anything?

[Pilgrim]

02-26-2003 @ 02:15 PM
J. J. Ramsey:



Not really. Trees aren't made of macroscopic discrete parts, but interconnected tissues. Rocks may have veins of metal in them, of course, but trees don't. Sharp angles and edges occasionally happen in them, but not nearly to the degree one sees them in constructed objects.

I'd need to see some study on that. My experience in rock climbing tells me that rocks have many sharp edges and angles.

[Captain Ochre]

02-26-2003 @ 07:21 PM
Pilgrim:



I'd need to see some study on that. My experience in rock climbing tells me that rocks have many sharp edges and angles.

:rofl:

It should also lead us to believe that quartz crystals were intelligently designed, come to think of it.

[J. J. Ramsey]

J. J. Ramsey:
Well, for starters,

Captain Ochre:
For non-starters, you mean?

JJR:
machines often have sharp angles and edges, are composed of macroscopic discrete parts that can be disassembled, and cannot regenerate. Some machines are composed of materials not used in known lifeforms, such as metal, plastics, rubber, or glass.

1) Machines "often" have sharp angles and edges? So what? Cars frequently have four wheels. No such thing as a three-wheeled car?
2) Composed of macroscopic parts that can be disassembled?
. . .

Did I miss anything?


Um, YES, Captain Ochre. You missed the fact that I was talking about the kind of machines that human beings design!

This all got started from this post:


Vorkosigan:
Cap'n, there is only one way to spot design, and that is with experience of designed objects of the type one is looking at.

Captain Ochre:
Oh, so if you found a flying saucer in a cornfield, then you would know that it was designed because you had experience with them from watching "X-Files"?

JJR:
No, but he might know from experience with machines in general, and from knowing the sorts of things that nature cannot make.


Obviously, humans' experience with things known to be humanly designed might have a bearing on whether they would recognize a flying saucer as a designed object, as would knowledge of what nature cannot do. Speaking of which . . .

Take a look at the edges and angles you see on a rock. Now look at the edges and angles you see on a door, or your computer, or your desk. Notice a difference? That's what I meant when I said that "Sharp angles and edges occasionally happen in them [rocks], but not nearly to the degree one sees them in constructed objects." I'm sorry if I was not clear on that. However, you could have always asked what I meant instead of resorting to insult. :no:

[Captain Ochre]

02-26-2003 @ 07:37 PM
J. J. Ramsey:



Uh, yes, Captain Ochre. You missed the fact that I was talking about the kind of machines that human beings design!


With respect to ID theory, that begs the question, doesn't it? The crux and the key with design are the complexity and the specificity, just as Dembski claims, afaics. If I make a warning out of corn kernels saying "watch out for falling rocks!" will Mister Ramsey ignore it since it's not composed of metal, glass, or plastic?


This all got started from this post:



Obviously, humans' experience with things known to be humanly designed might have a bearing on whether they would recognize a flying saucer as a designed object.

If the flying saucer is made of something other than something humans (supposedly) make things out of, how does this assist in the determination?
Forty-five (extremely) little green men spend billions of light-years travelling to Earth, only to have J. J. Ramsey take one look at their spaceship through his microscope and declare: "That's too small to have been intelligently designed."
If they travel here in a synthetic "banana" that happens to support their type of life, then J. J. will make the same conclusion: "Not designed!"

[J. J. Ramsey]

J. J. Ramsey:
Uh, yes, Captain Ochre. You missed the fact that I was talking about the kind of machines that human beings design!

Captain Ochre:
With respect to ID theory, that begs the question, doesn't it?


You must be mistaking me for someone else (Vorkosigan, maybe?) who was actually dealing with the question that you accuse me of begging. :doh: All I dealt with was your comment:


Oh, so if you found a flying saucer in a cornfield, then you would know that it was designed because you had experience with them from watching "X-Files"?


I then proceded to point out that we humans had enough experience with designed objects to have a fair idea of how to recognize a foreign one like a flying saucer. In short, in your flippancy, you made a bad example, and one that probably belongs more in the Amphitheater (http://theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=6) than here.

Now you can continue to make fun of my comments on the flying saucer tangent, or you can get on with debating ID. Just don't mistake one for the other. :whip:

Let's see if we can get off the topic of alien first contact and back on to the matter of ID, shall we?

I had said earlier that:


he might know [how to identify a flying saucer as a designed object] from experience with machines in general, and from knowing the sorts of things that nature cannot make.


For flying saucers, obviously, both the knowledge of human fabrication methods and the knowledge of what sorts of things nature cannot make could potentially be brought to bear on the question of whether a flying saucer was designed. For whatever designed things might be in nature, human fabrication techniques are not useful examples of comparison (and contrary to Cap'n Ochre's reading of my posts, I never said otherwise). It is the latter -- the knowledge of what sorts of things nature cannot make -- that is most helpful to the question of ID.

I hope that gets the thread back on topic. You may now return to your regular scheduled discussion.

[Stratnerd]

If book reviews critique Dembski for not presenting ID criteria, then you confirm your idea that it's not in the book, so you can stop your search and wait for Dembski to publish something that includes what you seek. If book review critique Dembski's methodology, then you will have a chance to get a opinion and maybe even a description of it. - Remind me not to help you anymore.
Where would you expect to find a misrepresentation of Dembski's methods - a fellow ID-ist or the opposition... just bad advice.

It's not nice to undersell your publisher.
still lame... very lame

[Captain Ochre]

02-26-2003 @ 09:36 PM
J. J. Ramsey:



You must be mistaking me for someone else (Vorkosigan, maybe?) who was actually dealing with the question that you accuse me of begging. :doh: All I dealt with was your comment:

You're defending yourself by admitting that you took my comment out-of-context?:hrm:
Explain?


I then proceded to point out that we humans had enough experience with designed objects to have a fair idea of how to recognize a foreign one like a flying saucer. In short, in your flippancy, you made a bad example, and one that probably belongs more in the Amphitheater (http://theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=6) than here.


What, exactly, was my supposed mistake (and/or the bad example and why)? Your own criteria fail to justify identifying the saucer as designed, unless you take my initial "X-Files" comment seriously (do you?).


Now you can continue to make fun of my comments on the flying saucer tangent, or you can get on with debating ID. Just don't mistake one for the other. :whip:


Okay, then; I'll make fun of you for contributing a blatantly out-of-context comment to a discussion of ID, while I continue discussing ID with the real thread participants.

The question you commented on was plainly directed to Vorko, as a test of his supposed design criteria.
Did you find Vorko's claim questionable at all? The one that I questioned via counterexample?


Let's see if we can get off the topic of alien first contact and back on to the matter of ID, shall we?


Who said anything about alien first contact until you, now? I offered an (counter) example of an potential alien artifact to test Vorko's design criteria. He remained free to find it "natural" according to his criteria, and we didn't even discuss whether or not the "artifact"--if such it be--were manned (or "unmanned" in the occupied alien sense).


For flying saucers, obviously, both the knowledge of human fabrication methods and the knowledge of what sorts of things nature cannot make could potentially be brought to bear on the question of whether a flying saucer was designed.


Incorrect--at least they can't be brought to bear in anything more than a probabilistic sense (such as "It's like nothing we've seen before"). You just don't get it, do you J. J.?
Well, you did say "potentially" . . . but then again we could look on the underside of the saucer to find who made it written in plain English (potentially).
But then, Vorko has claimed that there was only one design criteria . . .


For whatever designed things might be in nature, human fabrication techniques are not useful examples of comparison (and contrary to Cap'n Ochre's reading of my posts, I never said otherwise).


. . . which brings us back to the fact that you were responding to a quotation (a question, in fact) taken out-of-context.


It is the latter -- the knowledge of what sorts of things nature cannot make -- that is most helpful to the question of ID.


On that, we agree. Is human intelligence "natural"? Are humans "natural"?
So; what sorts of things is nature unable to make (perhaps you'll end up joining the discussion instead of merely posting to the thread)?

If you had been paying attention to the context, you would have noted that the thoroughgoing naturalist must count humans and human intelligence in the realm of the natural. Otherwise, he isn't staying true to his worldview. That ends up being a problem of inconsistency.

[Captain Ochre]

02-26-2003 @ 09:43 PM
Stratnerd:


Where would you expect to find a misrepresentation of Dembski's methods - a fellow ID-ist or the opposition... just bad advice.


I don't know which would misrepresent it more. That depends on bias, motive, and intelligence. That's beside the point, however. I typically direct skeptics to skeptical sources, so I don't have to listen to them whine about how the sympathetic sources are biased and unreliable. If a skeptical source critiques Dembski's specific methodology, then you know (or should) that Dembski presented a specific methodology.

You forgot to remind me not to help you anymore.

[Stratnerd]

That depends on.... motive

BINGO!

You forgot to remind me not to help you anymore.

sorry, I thought you had a clue.

[Captain Ochre]

02-26-2003 @ 10:33 PM
Stratnerd:



BINGO!



Sorry, Charlie.

It depends on the things that you edited out, as well.

[Stratnerd]

sorry but I find much less likely to find a proper reprentation of one's work by going to an opponent regardless of intelligence or bias. those other things can only increase the chances of misrepresentation.

You forgot to remind me not to help you anymore. i'm just looking for some answers and I'd appreciate it if you at least attempt some assistance. i don't think my response is an indication of my stupidity (that we be obvious for other reasons).

[Captain Ochre]

02-26-2003 @ 11:26 PM
Stratnerd:

sorry but I find much less likely to find a proper reprentation of one's work by going to an opponent regardless of intelligence or bias. those other things can only increase the chances of misrepresentation.


That hasn't been my experience, so I must disregard any relevance your opinion would have otherwise had.
For example, the same atheists who define atheism as "lack of belief in a god or gods"--nothing more or less turn around and in the next breath say "atheists don't claim that there is no god" or "atheists don't believe in the supernatural" and the like.



i'm just looking for some answers and I'd appreciate it if you at least attempt some assistance.


Tried that. It resulted in complaints from you.
If you don't like the assistance that I offer, fine. Seek it elsewhere.

:cheers:

[Stratnerd]

It resulted in complaints from you.

Well golly... I must agree with everything to have a discussion with you?

[Captain Ochre]

02-27-2003 @ 12:08 AM
Stratnerd:



Well golly... I must agree with everything to have a discussion with you?

Are you discussing things with me, or asking me for help? You seem to change your story on that one from time to time.

[Stratnerd]

:argh: I'd like to hear what the ID-ist have to say about ID. I also happen to think that the best way to learn about ID is to hear it from them. I don't read creationists books to learn how evolution happens. I may not agree with something you have to say but maybe I'm wrong and you could enlighten me - I consider that help.

[Captain Ochre]

02-27-2003 @ 12:28 AM
Stratnerd:

:argh: I'd like to hear what the ID-ist have to say about ID. I also happen to think that the best way to learn about ID is to hear it from them. I don't read creationists books to learn how evolution happens. I may not agree with something you have to say but maybe I'm wrong and you could enlighten me - I consider that help.

IIRC, you asked what the particulars of the ID theory are. I referred you to Dembski's online work. You said that you didn't find anything there (though I might point out that Dembski has a great deal of material online--and you may not have read it all). Therefore, I suggested that you try to find the method describe in a critique. I've explained why this avenue of inquiry is reasonable, and I continue to think so; if I felt like it, I could give you additional reasons why it's good approach.
I've described myself as a non-expert on ID. You want your answers from me? I don't think so. If you're that enthusiastic about it, go to a library and get Dembski's book on loan. That's all the help that I can reasonably give you. Take it or leave it. If you wish to discuss other issues with me (including other aspects of ID) feel free to do so.

[J. J. Ramsey]

J. J. Ramsey:
You must be mistaking me for someone else (Vorkosigan, maybe?) who was actually dealing with the question that you accuse me of begging. All I dealt with was your comment:

You're defending yourself by admitting that you took my comment out-of-context?


"Out-of-context" is a stretch, Captain Ochre. The flying-saucer comment (from Post #24189, in this thread) was pretty much self-contained.


quote:
I then proceded to point out that we humans had enough experience with designed objects to have a fair idea of how to recognize a foreign one like a flying saucer. In short, in your flippancy, you made a bad example, and one that probably belongs more in the Amphitheater than here.

What, exactly, was my supposed mistake (and/or the bad example and why)? Your own criteria fail to justify identifying the saucer as designed, unless you take my initial "X-Files" comment seriously (do you?).


The short answer is that you gave a flippant response that implied that experience with humanly designed objects had no bearing on determining whether a foreign object like a flying saucer would be designed, when that was flat out not true.

The long answer is as follows.


Vorko said:

Cap'n, there is only one way to spot design [emphasis mine], and that is with experience of designed objects of the type one is looking at.


Now the problem with Vorko's statement is that it is both right and wrong, and it all comes down to what it means to "spot design."

If one is talking about spotting design in the sense or distinguishing designed artificial objects like arrowheads, ruins, televisions, or flying saucers from the surrounding natural environment, then Vorko's comment makes sense. Complexity may enter into figuring out what is and isn't designed, but it is more a matter of knowing the sorts of traits that human artifacts have that nature cannot produce.

If one is talking about spotting design within nature itself, then Vorko's statement is false, because one is not dealing with the design of artificial objects set apart from the natural world, but the design of parts of nature that fold back in with the rest of nature. To determine design in nature, then, one is looking for different kinds of discontinuities then the ones used to discern artificial objects. The discontinuities one looks for in determining whether one has spotted an artificial designed object are signs that the object has or had been set apart from nature. The discontinuities one looks for in determining whether one has spotted a natural designed object are signs that the object could not have arisen by natural processes alone.

The two means of spotting design overlap, but are not the same.

Now to your mistake. You attacked the wrong kind of spotting design, trying to point out problems in Vorko's scheme of distinguishing artificial objects. The flying saucer example of yours was flawed in part because humans' experience with their own artificial designed objects would be enough to determine that a flying saucer was yet another artificial designed object.

And now for a personal bone to pick, Cap'n Ochre. When I pointed out your error, I saw no need to deal with anything but the error -- which dealt with artificial objects. I figured you would see the obvious problem in your response to the flying saucer example and move on. When you asked "What is it about 'machines in general' that means that they are designed or not?" I discussed, gee, what a surprise, machines. It was you who mistakenly assumed that I was speaking of biological entities :dufus:, in spite of me talking in terms of metal, glass, and discrete parts. Then you accuse me of begging a question that I did not pose, and make insulting questions like :dunce: "if I make a warning out of corn kernels saying 'watch out for falling rocks!' will Mister Ramsey ignore it since it's not composed of metal, glass, or plastic?" that do not follow from anything but a distorted understanding of answers to questions that you yourself posed. Your polemical ridicule was misrepresentation, period, and if it weren't for it being unintentional, it would be slander.

[Captain Ochre]

02-27-2003 @ 03:34 AM
J. J. Ramsey:



"Out-of-context" is a stretch, Captain Ochre. The flying-saucer comment (from Post #24189, in this thread) was pretty much self-contained.


Nonsense; the question could not be understood apart from Vorko's statement, which you attempted anyway.


The short answer is that you gave a flippant response that implied that experience with humanly designed objects had no bearing on determining whether a foreign object like a flying saucer would be designed, when that was flat out not true.


More nonsense. As I already explained, the flying saucer comment was directly intended as a counterexample to Vorko's claim that the only manner in which design may be determined is via objects of the same type. Unless Vorko has experience with flying saucers (we'll assume until a contrary reason is provided that "X-Files" doesn't count), his statement is refuted by counterexample. Your subsequent comment, intended to explore other ways in which design might be detected in such an object was superfluous to the discussion underway; perhaps more appropriately delivered to Vorko.
As for what I supposedly "implied", I don't take responsibility for your illogical leaps of imagination. If taken in context with Vorko's statement, my own means pretty much what I have described it to mean and you haven't provided a good reason to take it otherwise.


The long answer is as follows.



Now the problem with Vorko's statement is that it is both right and wrong, and it all comes down to what it means to "spot design."

If one is talking about spotting design in the sense or distinguishing designed artificial objects like arrowheads, ruins, televisions, or flying saucers from the surrounding natural environment, then Vorko's comment makes sense. Complexity may enter into figuring out what is and isn't designed, but it is more a matter of knowing the sorts of traits that human artifacts have that nature cannot produce.


That would appear to rule out (probabilistically) the flying saucer as a geological formation that had unearthed itself from a few feet below the surface of the ground . . .


If one is talking about spotting design within nature itself, then Vorko's statement is false, because one is not dealing with the design of artificial objects set apart from the natural world, but the design of parts of nature that fold back in with the rest of nature. To determine design in nature, then, one is looking for different kinds of discontinuities then the ones used to discern artificial objects.


Not necessarily, which was part of the point of my corn kernel illustration.


The discontinuities one looks for in determining whether one has spotted an artificial designed object are signs that the object has or had been set apart from nature. The discontinuities one looks for in determining whether one has spotted a natural designed object are signs that the object could not have arisen by natural processes alone.


And here I thought that I had filled in for you the context regarding the futility of the naturalist distinguishing between "artificial" and "natural".
Immune, are you?


The two means of spotting design overlap, but are not the same.

Now to your mistake. You attacked the wrong kind of spotting design, trying to point out problems in Vorko's scheme of distinguishing artificial objects. The flying saucer example of yours was flawed in part because humans' experience with their own artificial designed objects would be enough to determine that a flying saucer was yet another artificial designed object.


Thanks for reinforcing the fact of the immunity that I mentioned above. Your disregard for context is appalling.
If Vorko takes the tack you suggest, and says that since we know that humans artificially designed X, therefore hitherto unknown object Z, manifesting analogous traits {a,b,c} is designed, then he is begging the question with respect to naturalism, which cannot even start to tell us that supposedly known artificially designed object X was intelligently designed without borrowing a non-naturalistic concept (intelligence). It just pushes the problem back a step.


And now for a personal bone to pick, Cap'n Ochre. When I pointed out your error, I saw no need to deal with anything but the error -- which dealt with artificial objects.


It's your error to think that taking artificial objects as axiomatically designed fixes the problem, and that's why your perception of error on my part is a corollary error to the first one.


I figured you would see the obvious problem in your response to the flying saucer example and move on. When you asked "What is it about 'machines in general' that means that they are designed or not?" I discussed, gee, what a surprise, machines. It was you who mistakenly assumed that I was speaking of biological entities :dufus:, in spite of me talking in terms of metal, glass, and discrete parts.


I did not assume that you were talking about biological entities. I used biological entities as a counterexample to your preposterous claim simply because of the abundance of cellular machinery. It was simply a bonus that such machinery included the materials you expected to see in artificially designed objects occurring at the molecular level, making the counterexample that much more devastating, were you sufficiently aware to perceive it.
Heh. You assumed that I assumed you were talking about biological entities?
:rofl:


Then you accuse me of begging a question that I did not pose,


You presumed to answer my query directed at Vorko, in response to his claim (which even you find flawed). If you had been aware of what you were doing, then you would have been begging the question to post as you did. And, for the record, I didn't accuse you of begging the question. I stated that you appeared to be on the fast track in that direction, or words to that effect.


and make insulting questions like :dunce: "if I make a warning out of corn kernels saying 'watch out for falling rocks!' will Mister Ramsey ignore it since it's not composed of metal, glass, or plastic?"


What, precisely, is insulting about that question? Did you miss the opportunity to appreciate design which transcended all of the specific critieria you had yet offered? Apparently so, and I don't see what you found offensive, frankly.


that do not follow from anything but a distorted understanding of answers to questions that you yourself posed. Your polemical ridicule was misrepresentation, period, and if it weren't for it being unintentional, it would be slander.

You, sir, are deluded, afaics. In what way do you imagine that you were misrepresented? Are you a female, that I shouldn't have called you "Mister" (despite the fact that it's a military designation used of males & females)? What?

[Vorkosigan]

The discontinuities one looks for in determining whether one has spotted an artificial designed object are signs that the object has or had been set apart from nature. The discontinuities one looks for in determining whether one has spotted a natural designed object are signs that the object could not have arisen by natural processes alone.

You're just begging the question here. What are the signs that something could not have arisen by natural processes alone? My point is that unless one has experience with objects produced by a particular entity, one cannot determine that they are the results of the action of that entity. The whole issue of finding design is that it is entirely empirical, not theoretical, in nature.

ID wants to claim that some Intelligent Designer intervened in natural processes to produce the organisms we see today on earth. The problem is that until you see the Designer actively create something, then you cannot tell what it has made and what it has not.

Even if you managed to isolate some configuration of processes within an organism and said "look, this is not explainable under our current paradigm" you would not be any closer to ID. Somehow you would have to demonstrate that such an entity/process can only be explained by Intelligent Design, and can never be explained by any naturalistic paradigm.

Vorkosigan

[J. J. Ramsey]

JJR:
The short answer is that you gave a flippant response that implied that experience with humanly designed objects had no bearing on determining whether a foreign object like a flying saucer would be designed, when that was flat out not true.

Ochre:
More nonsense. As I already explained, the flying saucer comment was directly intended as a counterexample to Vorko's claim that the only manner in which design may be determined is via objects of the same type. Unless Vorko has experience with flying saucers (we'll assume until a contrary reason is provided that "X-Files" doesn't count), his statement is refuted by counterexample.


The problem, Ochre, is a far too narrow interpretation of "type." Obviously, humans do not make functional flying saucers. However, we do make vehicles, and we make machines. Those are certainly objects of the same type as a flying saucer. Those objects tend to have certain features, such as long edges and seams. If the flying saucers has these similar features then, hmm, we may be looking at an artificially designed object. As you yourself put it,


That would appear to rule out (probabilistically) the flying saucer as a geological formation that had unearthed itself from a few feet below the surface of the ground . . .


. . . which was the point I was trying to get at.



JJR:
The discontinuities one looks for in determining whether one has spotted an artificial designed object are signs that the object has or had been set apart from nature. The discontinuities one looks for in determining whether one has spotted a natural designed object are signs that the object could not have arisen by natural processes alone.

Ochre:
And here I thought that I had filled in for you the context regarding the futility of the naturalist distinguishing between "artificial" and "natural".


Oh, you mean this quote:


Is human intelligence "natural"? Are humans "natural"? So; what sorts of things is nature unable to make?


Obviously, human beings are biological organisms, and in that sense human intelligence is "natural." However, in the context of discovering artifacts, the question under consideration is whether an object thought to be an artifact could be formed without human intervention. Thus, forces such as erosion, animal activity, etc. are considered "natural," while human activity is considered artificial, not "natural," so something that humans could create but that the aforemention natural forces could not would be considered something that "nature is unable to make."


If you had been paying attention to the context, you would have noted that the thoroughgoing naturalist must count humans and human intelligence in the realm of the natural. Otherwise, he isn't staying true to his worldview.


This is a fallacy of ambiguity, playing on the different meanings of the term "natural." If distinguishing between natural and supernatural, as naturalists would do in articulating their worldview, human activity definitely falls under the category of "natural." In dealing, however, with the question of whether something is an artificial or a natural object, human activity is artificial, not natural.


If Vorko takes the tack you suggest, and says that since we know that humans artificially designed X, therefore hitherto unknown object Z, manifesting analogous traits {a,b,c} is designed, then he is begging the question with respect to naturalism,


Vorko would not be begging the question of naturalism at all because he wouldn't be dealing with naturalism at all.


JJR:
And now for a personal bone to pick, Cap'n Ochre. When I pointed out your error, I saw no need to deal with anything but the error -- which dealt with artificial objects.

I figured you would see the obvious problem in your response to the flying saucer example and move on. When you asked "What is it about 'machines in general' that means that they are designed or not?" I discussed, gee, what a surprise, machines. It was you who mistakenly assumed that I was speaking of biological entities, in spite of me talking in terms of metal, glass, and discrete parts.

Ochre:
I did not assume that you were talking about biological entities. I used biological entities as a counterexample to your preposterous claim simply because of the abundance of cellular machinery.


Fallacy of ambiguity, again. If one is talking about "cellular machinery," one is using the term "machinery" in a looser sense than the one used when discussing artifacts, flying saucers, etc. By referring to metal, glass, and discrete parts -- not to mention the flying saucer stuff, it should have been apparent that I was using "machine" to mean something artificial.


JJR:
and make insulting questions like "if I make a warning out of corn kernels saying 'watch out for falling rocks!' will Mister Ramsey ignore it since it's not composed of metal, glass, or plastic?"

Ochre:
What, precisely, is insulting about that question?


What is insulting is that you tried to ridicule me by misinterpreting what I had to say. If you can't say something nice, say something accurate. Don't be slapdash.

[J. J. Ramsey]

02-27-2003 @ 06:53 AM
Vorkosigan:

The discontinuities one looks for in determining whether one has spotted an artificial designed object are signs that the object has or had been set apart from nature. The discontinuities one looks for in determining whether one has spotted a natural designed object are signs that the object could not have arisen by natural processes alone.

You're just begging the question here.


No, I'm pointing out that you have conflated two different questions, one dealing with whether something is natural or artificial and designed, and one dealing with design in something of nature.


What are the signs that something could not have arisen by natural processes alone?


That is the $64,000 dollar question, and the one that ID is supposed to answer. Depending on who you ask, that question is either answered or has yet to be answered.


My point is that unless one has experience with objects produced by a particular entity, one cannot determine that they are the results of the action of that entity.


You may want to be careful about the "particular entity" part. It might have been better for you to say that your point was that unless one has experience with objects produced by intelligent entities, one cannot determine that they are the results of the action of intelligent entities.

That said, your objection has its limits. As I said before, it makes sense when speaking of objects made from the stuff of the natural world and set apart as tools or art. It is not so good at dealing with the question of design of natural things never set apart.


ID wants to claim that some Intelligent Designer intervened in natural processes to produce the organisms we see today on earth. The problem is that until you see the Designer actively create something, then you cannot tell what it has made and what it has not.


I think that is an underestimation of what an after-the-fact investigation can do.


Even if you managed to isolate some configuration of processes within an organism and said "look, this is not explainable under our current paradigm" you would not be any closer to ID.


No, one would be one step closer to ID, because the failure of the current paradigm would open the door to ID as an alternate explanation. Obviously, opening the door for ID is not the same as proving it, but it is a start.


Somehow you would have to demonstrate that such an entity/process can only be explained by Intelligent Design, and can never be explained by any naturalistic paradigm.


And now we are back to the $64,000 dollar question.

[Stratnerd]

JJ,

>Somehow you would have to demonstrate that such an >entity/process can only be explained by Intelligent Design, and >can never be explained by any naturalistic paradigm.

Dembski, I think, suggests that you can't calculate the probabilities associated with an object. What those probabilities relate to I'm not sure... do you have an idea?

[Captain Ochre]

02-27-2003 @ 02:52 PM
J. J. Ramsey:



The problem, Ochre, is a far too narrow interpretation of "type."


Perhaps. Ideally, argument will hash out those details over time, but occasionally someone will complain about the process.


Obviously, humans do not make functional flying saucers. However, we do make vehicles, and we make machines. Those are certainly objects of the same type as a flying saucer.


Are they? I think that you assume too much.


Those objects tend to have certain features, such as long edges and seams.


Like seeds, only bigger? The spaceship in Buckaroo Banzai looked like a murex; another resembled a lion's paw (shell). You assume too much.


If the flying saucers has these similar features then, hmm, we may be looking at an artificially designed object. As you yourself put it,



. . . which was the point I was trying to get at.


It's a good point, but what is it doing in the context of my conversation with Vorko?


Oh, you mean this quote:


Yes, in part.


Obviously, human beings are biological organisms, and in that sense human intelligence is "natural." However, in the context of discovering artifacts, the question under consideration is whether an object thought to be an artifact could be formed without human intervention. Thus, forces such as erosion, animal activity, etc. are considered "natural," while human activity is considered artificial, not "natural," so something that humans could create but that the aforemention natural forces could not would be considered something that "nature is unable to make."


If you consider "human intervention" from a purely naturalistic standpoint, you'll find yourself arguing in a circle. Now, I agree with your suggestion, as far as it goes, but with respect to ID, detecting design in principle, and my conversation with Vorko your comment doesn't belong, afaics. Settling on human examples as the standard is arbitrary.


This is a fallacy of ambiguity, playing on the different meanings of the term "natural." If distinguishing between natural and supernatural, as naturalists would do in articulating their worldview, human activity definitely falls under the category of "natural." In dealing, however, with the question of whether something is an artificial or a natural object, human activity is artificial, not natural.


It's ambiguous, alright, but I didn't commit any fallacy. I'm specifically pointing out the ambiguity to draw attention to the fact that, naturalistically speaking, the human standard is arbitrary (unscientific).


Vorko would not be begging the question of naturalism at all because he wouldn't be dealing with naturalism at all.


The statement of mine you're commenting on specifically says "with respect to naturalism"--thus you're begging the question by claiming that he wouldn't be dealing with naturalism at all.


Fallacy of ambiguity, again. If one is talking about "cellular machinery," one is using the term "machinery" in a looser sense than the one used when discussing artifacts, flying saucers, etc. By referring to metal, glass, and discrete parts -- not to mention the flying saucer stuff, it should have been apparent that I was using "machine" to mean something artificial.


The thing you haven't been getting so far is that saying that something is designed simply because humans made it begs the question in terms of the modern model of science, which uses MN as its standard throughout.
Until you realize that's part & parcel of our subject, you will continue to post things that don't fit our context unless you simply stop posting to the thread. In assuming that you wouldn't beg the question by judging one machine's design based on another machine's design (moving the question back a step), I went with the meaning that best appeared to fit the context.
For review, your logic was X is designed because it is similar to object Y, which we know to be designed.
We know that Y is designed because it is similar to object Z . . . and so on--or you get to the supposed "fact" that it was designed, but that's precisely where the thoroughgoing naturalist can't follow. This realization is crucial to removing one of the biggest objections to Dembski's ideas (basically to the effect that he isn't willing to assume that "nature" is unintelligent).


What is insulting is that you tried to ridicule me by misinterpreting what I had to say.


That's ridiculous. Did you mean "misrepresenting" what you had to say? If that misrepresentation is actually based on misinterpretation, then in what respect would I be ridiculing you?
Apparently you object to the mere fact that my counterexample exercised a bit of levity through colorful and slightly ridiculous imagery. For all of that, it was just a counterexample.
The fact that you apparently were not properly following the content of the conversation you joined has, in fact, led to a degree of misunderstanding. I admit that I took your comments in what I believed was the best light--that you were contributing in keeping with the immediate flow of conversation. As it happens, your comments taken in their actual best light were mol irrelevant to the conversation in progress. I acknowledge that failure of my judgment.


If you can't say something nice, say something accurate. Don't be slapdash.

What did I say that was inaccurate (let alone not nice)? If it's not nice to disagree, then what are we doing here?

[J. J. Ramsey]

Ochre:

The fact that you apparently were not properly following the content of the conversation you joined has, in fact, led to a degree of misunderstanding. I admit that I took your comments in what I believed was the best light--that you were contributing in keeping with the immediate flow of conversation. As it happens, your comments taken in their actual best light were mol irrelevant to the conversation in progress. I acknowledge that failure of my judgment.


Thank you. :thumb:


JJR:
Obviously, humans do not make functional flying saucers. However, we do make vehicles, and we make machines. Those are certainly objects of the same type as a flying saucer.

Ochre:
Are they? I think that you assume too much.

. . . The spaceship in Buckaroo Banzai looked like a murex; another resembled a lion's paw (shell).


Well I was assuming that a flying saucer was, well, saucer-shaped.


JJR:
If the flying saucers has these similar features then, hmm, we may be looking at an artificially designed object.

. . . which was the point I was trying to get at.

Ochre:
It's a good point, but what is it doing in the context of my conversation with Vorko?


Mostly just torpedoing your "X-Files" remark. In the end, though, it did bring up a good point: comparison with human designs is not the only way of determining design per se.


JJR:
Obviously, human beings are biological organisms, and in that sense human intelligence is "natural." However, in the context of discovering artifacts, the question under consideration is whether an object thought to be an artifact could be formed without human intervention. Thus, forces such as erosion, animal activity, etc. are considered "natural," while human activity is considered artificial, not "natural," so something that humans could create but that the aforemention natural forces could not would be considered something that "nature is unable to make."

Ochre:
If you consider "human intervention" from a purely naturalistic standpoint, you'll find yourself arguing in a circle. . . .

JJR:
This is a fallacy of ambiguity, playing on the different meanings of the term "natural." If distinguishing between natural and supernatural, as naturalists would do in articulating their worldview, human activity definitely falls under the category of "natural." In dealing, however, with the question of whether something is an artificial or a natural object, human activity is artificial, not natural.

Ochre:
It's ambiguous, alright, but I didn't commit any fallacy. I'm specifically pointing out the ambiguity to draw attention to the fact that, naturalistically speaking, the human standard is arbitrary (unscientific).


Ochre, I think you missed my point entirely. The term "natural" has very different meanings depending on the context. If one is defining the term "naturalism," then "natural" means anything that is not supernatural, matter, physical laws, etc. If one is dealing with determining whether or not an object has been created by humans, then "natural" tends to be used to refer to things other than human activity, such as erosion, earthquakes, maybe animal activity. That is simply how the language gets used, and it really doesn't have anything to do with some arbitrary "human standard" or even metaphysics. It's just a semantic matter. You cannot assume that "natural" always refers to the "natural" in "naturalism."


Ochre:
If Vorko takes the tack you suggest, and says that since we know that humans artificially designed X, therefore hitherto unknown object Z, manifesting analogous traits {a,b,c} is designed, then he is begging the question with respect to naturalism,

JJR:
Vorko would not be begging the question of naturalism at all because he wouldn't be dealing with naturalism at all.

Ochre:
The statement of mine you're commenting on specifically says "with respect to naturalism"--thus you're begging the question by claiming that he wouldn't be dealing with naturalism at all.


:doh: Ochre, this makes no sense at all. How does inferring that an object is designed based on similarities with known designed objects even involve naturalism, let alone beg the question of it. Are you implying that a theist could not make the same inference?


The thing you haven't been getting so far is that saying that something is designed simply because humans made it begs the question in terms of the modern model of science, which uses MN as its standard throughout.


Ochre, this doesn't track at all. If by "made" you mean "fabricated," then saying that "something is designed simply because humans made it" is just common sense, and not even something that deals with naturalism at all. Are you sure your beef isn't with the following statement: "something is designed only if because humans made it." Now that is a questionable assertion even under naturalism.


For review, your logic was X is designed because it is similar to object Y, which we know to be designed.
We know that Y is designed because it is similar to object Z . . . and so on--or you get to the supposed "fact" that it was designed, but that's precisely where the thoroughgoing naturalist can't follow.


It looks like you are trying to build a chain of design inferences, but going back to where? Explain yourself.


This realization is crucial to removing one of the biggest objections to Dembski's ideas (basically to the effect that he isn't willing to assume that "nature" is unintelligent).


This seems backwards. ID arguments would seem to depend upon nature being unintelligent and insufficient to create all the biological diversity that we see, leaving room for an intelligent designer to work.

[Captain Ochre]

02-27-2003 @ 05:29 PM
J. J. Ramsey:


Well I was assuming that a flying saucer was, well, saucer-shaped.


:wink: Like I said, you assumed too much.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=flying%20saucer


Mostly just torpedoing your "X-Files" remark. In the end, though, it did bring up a good point: comparison with human designs is not the only way of determining design per se.


:thumb:
Cool.


Ochre, I think you missed my point entirely. The term "natural" has very different meanings depending on the context. If one is defining the term "naturalism," then "natural" means anything that is not supernatural, matter, physical laws, etc. If one is dealing with determining whether or not an object has been created by humans, then "natural" tends to be used to refer to things other than human activity, such as erosion, earthquakes, maybe animal activity. That is simply how the language gets used, and it really doesn't have anything to do with some arbitrary "human standard" or even metaphysics. It's just a semantic matter. You cannot assume that "natural" always refers to the "natural" in "naturalism."


The above is correct, but I don't make the assumption you think I'm making. I believe that I clarified this point elsewhere, but it won't hurt to repeat it again:
The modern scientific enterprise, the one that Dembski is expected to bend & kiss the feet thereof, is a framework of methodological naturalism. The objections to ID are founded primarily on MN presuppostions, specifically the notion that nature is not designed by an intelligence, but is rather a product of natural causes and laws (natural in that definition is either indicative of circularity, or leads to exactly the problem of defining intelligence that I have noted elsewhere).


:doh: Ochre, this makes no sense at all. How does inferring that an object is designed based on similarities with known designed objects even involve naturalism, let alone beg the question of it. Are you implying that a theist could not make the same inference?


1) Sure, it makes sense.
2) Inferring design based on similarities with known designed objects involves (methodological) naturalism if you're going to make the modern scientist happy, and the practice is ultimately inconsistent for the thoroughgoing philosophical naturalist. If you presuppose that intelligence exists, and everybody agrees to that, then it only begst the question in the sense that every propositional truth begs the question! :smile:
3) Only a theist who was working from a strict MN viewpoint could not make the inference.


Ochre, this doesn't track at all. If by "made" you mean "fabricated," then saying that "something is designed simply because humans made it" is just common sense, and not even something that deals with naturalism at all.


No, J. J. it is definitely not common sense for the philosophical naturalist to take for granted human intelligence. On the contrary, the PN, if consistent, must explain human intelligence in terms of natural causes and laws, in effect classifying human intelligence as "natural" in the same sense as the formation of oil deposits.
If it's science, the modern scientist says, then it's naturalism (methodological).


Are you sure your beef isn't with the following statement: "something is designed only if because humans made it." Now that is a questionable assertion even under naturalism.


Yes I'm quite certain that my beef isn't solely with the statement you suggest.


It looks like you are trying to build a chain of design inferences, but going back to where? Explain yourself.


I'm explaining you, J. J.. :smile:
It's an infinite regress, unless you make it axiomatic that humans are intelligent. The PN/MN cannot do that and remain true to his philosophy or discipline. He would be making what we call "an exception".


This seems backwards. ID arguments would seem to depend upon nature being unintelligent and insufficient to create all the biological diversity that we see, leaving room for an intelligent designer to work.

Not quite. It is the naturalist who sees nature as unintelligent, yet able to account for biological diversity & the like. Yet, if the naturalist cannot quantify intelligence in the first place, on what grounds is nature deemed unintelligent? That's where MN leads science astray from the strict pursuit of truth into justification of philosophical naturalism. Some scientists are frank in describing science as the game of seeing how much can be explained in terms of philosophical naturalism.
A design theorist, on the question of the ultimate designer would have the option of finding nature itself intelligent, or, alternatively, of positing a transcendent intelligence (or ID programs might eventually show that the universe is apparently unintelligent, for all we know!). ID per se would not distinguish between the two.

[Captain Ochre]

02-27-2003 @ 06:38 PM
J. J. Ramsey:



So what you are saying is that naturalism, including methodological naturalism (MN), cannot account for human intelligence?

It's my opinion that it cannot be done; I'm not sure that I can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, I can critique attempts to understand human intelligence using a MN framework, noting that they typically end up with causally determined thought processes and consequently keeping everything "natural" in the PN sense.

[J. J. Ramsey]

JJR:
How does inferring that an object is designed based on similarities with known designed objects even involve naturalism, let alone beg the question of it. . . .

Ochre:
Inferring design based on similarities with known designed objects involves (methodological) naturalism if you're going to make the modern scientist happy, and the practice is ultimately inconsistent for the thoroughgoing philosophical naturalist. If you presuppose that intelligence exists, and everybody agrees to that, then it only begst the question in the sense that every propositional truth begs the question!


Ochre, I can hardly believe I am reading this. I have seen Socrates reason better than this. :frown: I am sorry, but this is so wrong. :no:

"Inferring design based on similarities with known designed objects" involves just a bit of observation and reasoning:


One observes that people have intelligence, that they use that intelligence to design and create things, and that those things tend to have certain peculiar features.
Seeing that the peculiar features of designed objects are also present in an unknown object, one uses some inductive reasoning to conclude that this unknown object is also designed.


That's it. That is all that is necessary. Methodological naturalism doesn't even get a chance to be brought to bear on the matter.

Now to what I presume would be your objections:

Objection #1: Methodological naturalism (MN) cannot explain intelligence. This is a questionable assertion at best; however, it is thoroughly irrelevant. MN is an incredibly weak form of naturalism; it doesn't even assert that the supernatural does not exist, only that it is not science's business. MN is content to explain something supernatural as something that has no scientific explanation. If intelligence is supernatural, it would just be one of those inexplicable things.

Objection #2: Philosophical naturalism (PN) cannot explain intelligence. This is also a questionable assertion, but even a PN could simply write off intelligence as something with a natural, but as yet unknown explanation. In practice, a PN would consider a natural explanation of intelligence as a partially solved problem, and would note that it is affected by trauma to the brain, drugs, brain tumors, certain diseases, etc., implying that whatever the cause of intelligence, it is organic and originates from the brain.

Objection #3: Intelligence was never explained. Your objection would be correct, but it would also be beside the point. All that is necessary is to observe that intelligence exists. One does not have to know why or how to know that. Neither an MN nor a PN would have to account for why intelligence exists to acknowledge that it exists. At worst, it would be a gap -- not an inconsistency -- in the MN and PN worldviews.

[Captain Ochre]

02-27-2003 @ 08:13 PM
J. J. Ramsey:



Ochre, I can hardly believe I am reading this.


I can hardly believe that you're reading it, either, given that you reach your conclusion below without any obvious reason behind it.


I have seen Socrates reason better than this. :frown: I am sorry, but this is so wrong. :no:


Why?


"Inferring design based on similarities with known designed objects" involves just a bit of observation and reasoning:


One observes that people have intelligence, that they use that intelligence to design and create things, and that those things tend to have certain peculiar features.
Seeing that the peculiar features of designed objects are also present in an unknown object, one uses some inductive reasoning to conclude that this unknown object is also designed.


That's it. That is all that is necessary. Methodological naturalism doesn't even get a chance to be brought to bear on the matter.


Agreed, and thus what you wrote has zero bearing on what I wrote above, leaving me with no clue as to why you say I'm wrong.


Now to what I presume would be your objections:


Well, I just agreed to what you wrote above, so I suppose that we can dispense with "my" objections.

I'm still waiting for your objections to what I wrote.

[J. J. Ramsey]

JJR:
I have seen Socrates reason better than this. I am sorry, but this is so wrong.

Ochre:
Why?


Because you had written the following:


Inferring design based on similarities with known designed objects involves (methodological) naturalism if you're going to make the modern scientist happy, and the practice is ultimately inconsistent for the thoroughgoing philosophical naturalist. [emphasis mine]


Oddly enough, you agreed with what I wrote below, even though it contradicted you.


JJR:
"Inferring design based on similarities with known designed objects" involves just a bit of observation and reasoning:

. . .Methodological naturalism doesn't even get a chance to be brought to bear on the matter. [emphasis mine]


Now do you see the problem?

[Socrates]

JJR: I have seen Socrates reason better than this.

As if Ramsey would know logical reasoning if he tripped over it. With "Christians" like Ramsey fanatically attacking the idea of design in creation and worshipping the false gospel of MN, who needs atheists?

[Captain Ochre]

02-27-2003 @ 10:02 PM
J. J. Ramsey:



Because you had written the following:



Oddly enough, you agreed with what I wrote below, even though it contradicted you.



Now do you see the problem?

No.

Do you know what a "thoroughgoing philosophical naturalist" is? You continue to provide the impression that you don't comprehend what I write.

[edit to add]
Perhaps you should do a direct comparison of what I wrote that supposedly contradicts the bit that you wrote that I agree with,and specify the alleged contradiction.

[atkinson]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/thaxton/docs/inpursuit.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-detect.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-program.html

That should get you started. I recommend that you read the popular material produced by the leading ID advocate prior to seeking a greater understanding of it in this forum.
There's a lot of dancing around defining "design" and a tacit assumption that design is somehow involved in life. Yet the living creatures we know were all born, or hatched, or sprouted, and not made (though genetic modification is opening the topic to great quibble). At no point in the process of reproduction does design appear. Indeed, every critter with a family tree bears traces of its history; its genetic makeup gives testimony that it was not designed, but is a derivative of its lineage.

Designed artifacts lack such a hierarchical history; instead, one sees developmental jumps as ideas are copied and new technologies are exploited.

[kofh2u]

There's a lot of dancing around defining "design" and a tacit assumption that design is somehow involved in life. Yet the living creatures we know were all born, or hatched, or sprouted, and not made (though genetic modification is opening the topic to great quibble). At no point in the process of reproduction does design appear. Indeed, every critter with a family tree bears traces of its history; its genetic makeup gives testimony that it was not designed, but is a derivative of its lineage.

Designed artifacts lack such a hierarchical history; instead, one sees developmental jumps as ideas are copied and new technologies are exploited.


I was attracted by the "dummirs" motif.

You seem to be down to earth in your reply. You question the definition of design.

I have been trying to get those real smart guys who are arguing really state of the art genetics, guys like sylas (did I spell his name right?) to define "intelligent."

They are so exuberant in proving eachother wrong about opinions on the stupidity of 64 codons for 22 amino acids, and the improbability of DNA self replication that I just feel like a dummy, same as you on this design thingee.

What's "intelligent?"

Is it what sykas and those guys got,...

... or is there a definition? Can I othereise evaluate whether this idea of an intelligence at work in the "design" that you ask to be defined? See what I mean?

I don't know,.. the more I read sylas et al, the more I need the "for dummies" approach.

What's up? U no?
Intelligence =
design =


dave

[Captain Ochre]

There's a lot of dancing around defining "design"

I find that hard to believe. "Design" describes anything with some sort of structure. "Intelligent" is the thorny term.
Perhaps you could produce a representative quotation where you see the alleged dancing.

and a tacit assumption that design is somehow involved in life.

Design is unquestionably involved in life. The question is whether or not intelligence is involved in the design. Granted, Dembski sometimes uses "design" as a synonym for "intelligent design" but that should not be an insurmountable roadblock to understanding.
I don't see the "tacit assumption" that you suggest. It is richly described as an inference. Perhaps you'd use those terms interchangeably?
:wink:

Yet the living creatures we know were all born, or hatched, or sprouted, and not made (though genetic modification is opening the topic to great quibble).

Almost like a tacit assumption of no intelligent involvement in the design?

At no point in the process of reproduction does design appear.

You could say the same thing at an auto factory, couldn't you?
:hrm:

Indeed, every critter with a family tree bears traces of its history; its genetic makeup gives testimony that it was not designed, but is a derivative of its lineage.

You mean that that hydrogen molecule over there might be your great-great ^N grandfather?
Think about it.

Designed artifacts lack such a hierarchical history; instead, one sees developmental jumps as ideas are copied and new technologies are exploited.

One sees developmental jumps in biology as information is copied and new technologies are exploited, afaics.
Perhaps you should elaborate.

[geochron]

I find that hard to believe. "Design" describes anything with some sort of structure.



I don't think it does, at least in this context. People don't often describe mica as designed, for instance. "Structured" describes anything with some sort of structure, "Designed" is distinct since it includes structure and purpose or intent, and a sense that the structure is in some way determined by the purpose. (I think this view is defensible having looked up "design" in Chambers.)



Design is unquestionably involved in life. The question is whether or not intelligence is involved in the design.



Structure is unquestionably involved in life, design is sometimes applied loosely in the evolutionary view, intelligent involvement would make things strictly designed.

The ID movement seems to me to combine two assertions

1. It is possible to look at a structure in isolation and determine whether it must have been assmebled by some agency. (There is a class of structures that can only have been assembled, and another class that might have been assembled)

2. There are some structures among living things that can only have arisen if some agency intentionally assembled them.

---------------------------

I thought the flying saucer thought experiment was quite illuminating - it's easy to imagine flying saucers from the movies, which look like what humans might design so the example is in danger of becoming circular.

So here's how I would recast it. Aliens arrive on the Earth in a weird looking "spaceship". They tell us that they are hitchhikers and that what we think is a ship is a natural space-going organism. How would we decide if they were telling the truth?

[atkinson]

I find that hard to believe. "Design" describes anything with some sort of structure. Perhaps this is the chief confusion. If "design" is simply taken to mean "form," then the ascription of intelligence makes no sense. Dembski seems to regard "design" as "something deliberately created by a designer."
Design is unquestionably involved in life. Each creature certainly has a form, and thus a "design." This use of the word "design" ought not be equivocated with Dembski's use as "deliberate creation," unless someone can point to "deliberate creation" in the reproductive process. A seed germinates, sprouts, grows, matures into a plant, distributes pollen, and produces more seed. No deliberate creation is in sight. If there is no deliberate creation in the current generation, or in the previous generation, or the one before that, why suppose there was ever any deliberate creation, intelligent or stupid?

At no point in the process of reproduction does design appear.
You could say the same thing at an auto factory, couldn't you?
I certainly wouldn't conflate biological growth with assembly of automobiles.
Indeed, every critter with a family tree bears traces of its history; its genetic makeup gives testimony that it was not designed, but is a derivative of its lineage.

You mean that that hydrogen molecule over there might be your great-great ^N grandfather?
Think about it.
hydrogen molecule = critter with a family tree ?


Designed artifacts lack such a hierarchical history; instead, one sees developmental jumps as ideas are copied and new technologies are exploited.
One sees developmental jumps in biology as information is copied and new technologies are exploited, afaics.
Perhaps you should elaborate.
Um, what new technologies are exploited in biology? Perhaps you should elaborate.

[kofh2u]

Perhaps this is the chief confusion.
If "design" is simply taken to mean "form," then the ascription of intelligence makes no sense.

.


That's my point.

Intelligence has defied definition, and I submit it has something to do with our ability to image in our mind whatever it is "out there" and external to the rather total blackness of a mind receiving seven sensory inpits which are then manipulated to reflect meanings.
These "meanings" are the theoretical assumptions that seem to collaterate our thinking. Intelligence, then, is something that is a function of mere human satisfaction with human analysis.

In this, design or pattern confirms the quality of mind itself as a "pattern seeking device."

So, what ID really is arging is that in understanding the external realit in some frzmewotk of logical analysis, WE are intelligent, while it implies no such necessary corallary that another entity such as ourself exists in the manufacture of these "objects" w investigate... unless we assume that the exte nal Reality IS the designer... t at is, the creator is discovered in knowledge of the creation itself...



Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"

[shunyadragon]

Sure, though they don't use those terms. When a forensic pathologist, for instance, finds poisonous chemicals in the alimentary tract that apparently killed a person, he directs investigation into possible ways the chemicals were introduced. If naturalistic means do not appear plausible, then investigators infer probable involvement of an intelligence in poisoning the victim. The more specifically complex the introduction of the poison appears to be, the stronger the inference to design (murder). Science explains the complexity of organs and organisms using similar methods as the forensic pathologist. It does not happen all at once. It is step by step process.

Other than that your analogy is false. Forensic pathologist is simply looking at the logic of a few limited choices. He is not looking for the thousands of step by step processes that lead to complex organs and organisms that scientist have found evidence for.



Don't know. You'd have to ask them.[/QUOTE]

[Captain Ochre]

I don't think it does, at least in this context. People don't often describe mica as designed, for instance.

"Designed" isn't necessarily the same thing as "design".
"This context" is actually a very broad context with many specific subcontexts.
You'll see "design" as a synonym for a structure of indeterminate design origin, in this context.

"Structured" describes anything with some sort of structure, "Designed" is distinct since it includes structure and purpose or intent, and a sense that the structure is in some way determined by the purpose. (I think this view is defensible having looked up "design" in Chambers.)

2: an arrangement scheme; "the awkward design of the keyboard made operation difficult"; "it was an excellent design for living"; "a plan for seating guests" [syn: plan]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=design

Note that in biology, the gross morphological arrangement of an organism is commonly called a "body plan".
Please also note that "intelligent design" is redundant if "design" is automatically taken to be intelligent.

Structure is unquestionably involved in life, design is sometimes applied loosely in the evolutionary view, intelligent involvement would make things strictly designed.

Right. Note that you have a loose sense and the verb ("designed") sense. The term "Intelligent Design" is either redundant, or it uses the looser sense of "design".
Charitable reading suggests the latter.

The ID movement seems to me to combine two assertions

1. It is possible to look at a structure in isolation and determine whether it must have been assmebled by some agency. (There is a class of structures that can only have been assembled, and another class that might have been assembled)

Not quite. ID is explicitly an inductive enterprise (as is typically the case with scientific propositions). More properly, Dembski's filter proposes that a certain degree of specified complexity allows us to firmly (not deductively) conclude that intelligence is behind the design--that is, there is a class of structures that were very probably designed.
It's perhaps unfair to call this an "assertion" of the ID movement--but hopefully that's just a quibble on my part.

2. There are some structures among living things that can only have arisen if some agency intentionally assembled them.

In MOL the same sense that it is certain that the Sun will rise tomorrow, yes.

[Captain Ochre]

Perhaps this is the chief confusion. If "design" is simply taken to mean "form," then the ascription of intelligence makes no sense.

Why not? Is it impossible for intelligence to determine the form of a thing?
Do tell.

Dembski seems to regard "design" as "something deliberately created by a designer."

Sometimes (most times) yes, sometimes no.
He's not obligated to only use one shade of meaning for the term.
OTOH, it's a good idea for him to be clear in context which one is being used. If you wish to accuse him of ambiguity or equivocation, I'll like to see specific example(s).

Each creature certainly has a form, and thus a "design." This use of the word "design" ought not be equivocated with Dembski's use as "deliberate creation," unless someone can point to "deliberate creation" in the reproductive process.

I agree, but I do not accept that an equivocation has occurred (pending your demonstration of a specific case).

A seed germinates, sprouts, grows, matures into a plant, distributes pollen, and produces more seed. No deliberate creation is in sight. If there is no deliberate creation in the current generation, or in the previous generation, or the one before that, why suppose there was ever any deliberate creation, intelligent or stupid?

Because the information content remains MOL constant from generation to generation according to direct observation, and because our other direct observations tend to associate intelligence with the production of the types of complexities that we observe in biology (of course).

I certainly wouldn't conflate biological growth with assembly of automobiles.

Red herring, afaics. Where's the conflation? Are analogies necessarily guilty of conflation?

hydrogen molecule = critter with a family tree ?

In terms of descent, yes, if not in terms of having ancestors (according to certain naturalistic models).

Um, what new technologies are exploited in biology?

Legs, wings, fins, organs, organelles ...
Need I go on?
What good is a newly evolved leg or wing if you can't use (exploit) it?
:huh:

Perhaps you should elaborate.

Happy to, since you're apparently reluctant to do so yourself.

[atkinson]

Perhaps this is the chief confusion. If "design" is simply taken to mean "form," then the ascription of intelligence makes no sense.

Why not? Is it impossible for intelligence to determine the form of a thing? Do tell.

Each creature certainly has a form, and thus a "design." This use of the word "design" ought not be equivocated with Dembski's use as "deliberate creation," unless someone can point to "deliberate creation" in the reproductive process.

I agree, but I do not accept that an equivocation has occurred (pending your demonstration of a specific case).
When you point to a living cell, exclaim “look at this design” (with the meaning “examine this structure”) and then claim “this design is a complicated one, and therefore must have had a designer,” as Dembski does, this is equivocation.

Each snowflake has a design in that it has a unique shape, or form. The snowflake shape arises as a natural result of the formation of ice crystals, and not as a deliberate creation. It makes no sense to speak of this form as intelligent (or stupid).

If an object is clearly designed, one might consider the designer intelligent (or stupid).

Living things undergo change from generation to generation, but I don’t think it is proper to refer to changes in a population with the word “design” when the only force for change is variation and subsequent selection. The artificial selection of animal husbandry might barely, just barely, be considered an act of design, but I think it’s a stretch.


A seed germinates, sprouts, grows, matures into a plant, distributes pollen, and produces more seed. No deliberate creation is in sight. If there is no deliberate creation in the current generation, or in the previous generation, or the one before that, why suppose there was ever any deliberate creation, intelligent or stupid?

Because the information content remains MOL constant from generation to generation according to direct observation, and because our other direct observations tend to associate intelligence with the production of the types of complexities that we observe in biology (of course).
Direct observations? That seems a rather large claim. Can you cite a single direct observation that associates intelligence with the production of the types of complexities that we observe in biology? [And you might point out the relevance of information content.]

At no point in the process of reproduction does design appear.

You could say the same thing at an auto factory, couldn't you?

I certainly wouldn't conflate biological growth with assembly of automobiles.

Red herring, afaics.
That red herring seems to be all yours.


Indeed, every critter with a family tree bears traces of its history; its genetic makeup gives testimony that it was not designed, but is a derivative of its lineage.

You mean that that hydrogen molecule over there might be your great-great ^N grandfather? Think about it.

hydrogen molecule = critter with a family tree ?

In terms of descent, yes, if not in terms of having ancestors (according to certain naturalistic models).
I lost you there. This sounds like some sort of leg-pull. Is it your claim that a critter with a family tree must be descended from a hydrogen molecule?


Designed artifacts lack such a hierarchical history; instead, one sees developmental jumps as ideas are copied and new technologies are exploited.
One sees developmental jumps in biology as information is copied and new technologies are exploited, afaics.

Um, what new technologies are exploited in biology?

Legs, wings, fins, organs, organelles ...Need I go on?
Ah. Your view of technology has rather a different time scale than what I had in mind. A designed artifact, such as an automobile, changes from model to model as rapidly as good ideas can be incorporated. [And I’d be happy to call this process “intelligent design.”]

A replicating population only copies genetic material, with some variation. It does not import new ideas. So much history is retained from generation to generation that developmental “jumps” take a while to spread through the population. A population of living organisms is a good example of a process that does not use design.

[Jake]

Ah. Your view of technology has rather a different time scale than what I had in mind. A designed artifact, such as an automobile, changes from model to model as rapidly as good ideas can be incorporated. [And I’d be happy to call this process “intelligent design.”]

A replicating population only copies genetic material, with some variation. It does not import new ideas. So much history is retained from generation to generation that developmental “jumps” take a while to spread through the population. A population of living organisms is a good example of a process that does not use design.

I would also point out that developments in biology are of a hierarchical nature, retaining and modifying old features to make new ones. A wing is clearly a modified arm, a coccyx is a modified tail etc. etc. This is why mitochondria produce ATP but put it into the mitochondrial lumen, from where it must be exported into the cell - thats what they used to do as bacteria.

Sometimes developmental jumps can occur due to horizontal gene transfer. For example, afaik leghemoglobin is the only plant-based hemoglobin molecule, and is thought to have been originally transferred to the legumes that utilise it via horizontal transfer. (It absorbs oxygen to ensure nitrogen fixation can go ahead in root nodules.) However, even in such cases as these, the history of the molecule in question is usually obvious.

The pattern of development in automobile design is markedly different to that found in biology.

[Captain Ochre]

When you point to a living cell, exclaim “look at this design” (with the meaning “examine this structure”) and then claim “this design is a complicated one, and therefore must have had a designer,” as Dembski does, this is equivocation.

Eh--not so fast. Where does Dembski supposedly do this? Be specific. Dembski as written plenty, and there's an abundance available on the Internet. There's little excuse for you to fail to provide a specific example via quotation unless you're just making it up.

Each snowflake has a design in that it has a unique shape, or form.

Sounds to me as though you're just assuming that. :wink:
You've examined each snowflake and noted the differences?

The snowflake shape arises as a natural result of the formation of ice crystals, and not as a deliberate creation. It makes no sense to speak of this form as intelligent (or stupid).

I agree. Where did Dembski refer to snowflake structure either as intelligent design or as "design" in the sense of being the work of an intelligent other?


If an object is clearly designed, one might consider the designer intelligent (or stupid).

Scientifically speaking, you can't refer to anything as being "clearly designed" without stepping outside of the methodologically naturalistic framework that the scientific establishment insists upon.
I defy you to identify a "clearly designed" object without employing a "Design Inference".
Your thoughts are as much at whim of previous states of matter as are the genetic codes of "unintelligently designed" organisms, according to naturalism.

Living things undergo change from generation to generation, but I don’t think it is proper to refer to changes in a population with the word “design” when the only force for change is variation and subsequent selection. The artificial selection of animal husbandry might barely, just barely, be considered an act of design, but I think it’s a stretch.

I agree, but you'd have to point out specifically where you think that stretch is occurring in the literature.

Direct observations? That seems a rather large claim. Can you cite a single direct observation that associates intelligence with the production of the types of complexities that we observe in biology? [And you might point out the relevance of information content.]
That red herring seems to be all yours.

I'm not sure how you managed to miss the point.
Living organisms are known to have information content encrypted in their DNA. That information level changes relatively little from one generation to the next. It's basic biology, and nobody (afaics) is here suggesting that the small changes are other than determined by environmental factors (though it might still be argued that the ability to so change reflects the anticipation of a designer).
You can extrapolate back in time under the assumption that the DNA strand was encrypted without intelligent intervention--but extrapolation isn't good science when YEC's do it. The double standard will be challenged.

I lost you there. This sounds like some sort of leg-pull. Is it your claim that a critter with a family tree must be descended from a hydrogen molecule?

It's my claim that certain evolutionary models assert molecular evolution stemming from an initial state of hydrogen molecules, and I also assert that the living/nonliving distinction is a bit arbitrary in science.
Science has trouble defining life.

Ah. Your view of technology has rather a different time scale than what I had in mind. A designed artifact, such as an automobile, changes from model to model as rapidly as good ideas can be incorporated. [And I’d be happy to call this process “intelligent design.”]

The amount of time elapsed seems like an insufficient criterion for judging intelligence, IMO.
Scientifically speaking, how can you judge automobile design as a product of intelligence? Aren't you simply assuming intelligence?

A replicating population only copies genetic material, with some variation. It does not import new ideas.

Leaving aside DNA briefly, what does it mean to import a new idea, if it doesn't mean copy it?
After I obtain your answer to that question, perhaps I can appreciate the distinction that you're attempting to make.

So much history is retained from generation to generation that developmental “jumps” take a while to spread through the population. A population of living organisms is a good example of a process that does not use design.

Similarly, new ideas in technology take awhile to spread through the "population".
Take air conditioning, for example. A few generations ago, there were few air conditioners. Now, there are many.

[atkinson]

I would also point out that developments in biology are of a hierarchical nature . . . . The pattern of development in automobile design is markedly different to that found in biology.
Indeed.

[The Barbarian]

Scientifically speaking, you can't refer to anything as being "clearly designed" without stepping outside of the methodologically naturalistic framework that the scientific establishment insists upon.

There's no "establishment" insisting on methodological naturalism. Scientists have to use it, because it doesn't work any other way. "And then a miracle occurs" is not a useful way to do science. Try relaxing the methodological naturalism you use when repairing your car, for example.

It's my claim that certain evolutionary models assert molecular evolution stemming from an initial state of hydrogen molecules,

I would be interested in seeing one. Not edited quotes, a model that does that. You are aware that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life, are you not?

and I also assert that the living/nonliving distinction is a bit arbitrary in science. Science has trouble defining life.

Yep. Some think viruses are alive. But scientists have built replicating chemical systems that are more "alive" than viruses. This has nothing to to with evolution, but it does suggest that God was telling the truth when He said that life arose from the Earth.

[atkinson]

When you point to a living cell, exclaim “look at this design” (with the meaning “examine this structure”) and then claim “this design is a complicated one, and therefore must have had a designer,” as Dembski does, this is equivocation.

Eh--not so fast. Where does Dembski supposedly do this? Be specific. Dembski as written plenty, and there's an abundance available on the Internet. There's little excuse for you to fail to provide a specific example via quotation unless you're just making it up.
Have a look at the companion to your llinks:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html

Dembski offers a rather idiosyncratic definition of complexity (which he calls "actual specified complexity"), claims (without support) to have established "that the Darwinian mechanism cannot generate actual specified complexity" and repeats his thesis that "specified complexity" necessarily indicates design. The usage clearly means "has a designer" rather than "has a shape."

But quite apart from any juxtaposition of (design=complex structure) and (design=has designer), Dembski's notions of complexity have not advanced his argument. Tom Schneider, in his paper "Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" at http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/specified.complexity.html
describes a program that generates the "complex specified information" that Dembski claims can only be produced by a designer. [He also includes a link to download his program, if you wish to try the experiment yourself.]

[atkinson]

If an object is clearly designed, one might consider the designer intelligent (or stupid).

Scientifically speaking, you can't refer to anything as being "clearly designed" without stepping outside of the methodologically naturalistic framework that the scientific establishment insists upon.
I defy you to identify a "clearly designed" object without employing a "Design Inference".
Your thoughts are as much at whim of previous states of matter as are the genetic codes of "unintelligently designed" organisms, according to naturalism.

Grab lump of clay, shape it into a cup, and fire the cup. The cup is clearly designed (you did it yourself), and no "design inference" is needed.

[atkinson]

Ah. Your view of technology has rather a different time scale than what I had in mind. A designed artifact, such as an automobile, changes from model to model as rapidly as good ideas can be incorporated. [And I’d be happy to call this process “intelligent design.”]

The amount of time elapsed seems like an insufficient criterion for judging intelligence, IMO.
Scientifically speaking, how can you judge automobile design as a product of intelligence? Aren't you simply assuming intelligence?
The automobile is designed by people, who are, one can assume, intelligent. [Even if management and workers may tend to regard each other as stupid :-]

[atkinson]

A replicating population only copies genetic material, with some variation. It does not import new ideas.

Leaving aside DNA briefly, what does it mean to import a new idea, if it doesn't mean copy it?
After I obtain your answer to that question, perhaps I can appreciate the distinction that you're attempting to make.
The automobile manufacturer sees a competitor with a GPS, and copies the idea. Copying an idea does not refer to xerographic replication, but imitation: the manufacturer adds a GPS, too.

[atkinson]

So much history is retained from generation to generation that developmental “jumps” take a while to spread through the population. A population of living organisms is a good example of a process that does not use design.

Similarly, new ideas in technology take awhile to spread through the "population".

Take air conditioning, for example. A few generations ago, there were few air conditioners. Now, there are many.
Very different time scales are involved. For a genetic innovation to spread over a population, the number of generations required is proportional to the logarithm of the population size. A technological innovation can spread (and vanish again) in less than a generation. I agree with your surmise that "The amount of time elapsed seems like an insufficient criterion for judging intelligence," yet rapid spread of ideas suggests that intelligence might be at work. [I don't like to admit that a rapidly spreading fad, such as young men siting the belt-line of their trousers below the buttocks, might involve intelligence.]

First edit to color all of Ochre's words.
Second edit to explain the edits.

[NeilUnreal]

the Darwinian mechanism cannot generate actual specified complexity

Yes, but that limitation doesn't hold for the "actual Darwinian mechanism." :lol:

-Neil

[Captain Ochre]

There's no "establishment" insisting on methodological naturalism. Scientists have to use it, because it doesn't work any other way.

Bunkum, but feel free to argue for your assertion.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/ntse.html

"And then a miracle occurs" is not a useful way to do science. Try relaxing the methodological naturalism you use when repairing your car, for example.

Is that the legendary example that proves the rule?

I would be interested in seeing one. Not edited quotes, a model that does that.

Heavier stars evolve into supergiants, and it is the nuclear reactions in the interiors of these stars that gave rise to the heavy elements in the universe. Such massive stars start by burning hydrogen into helium in the core, then helium to carbon, and then carbon to heavier elements, all the way up to iron. At each stage, once the fuel is consumed in the core, the star contracts and gravitational energy is released, heating the core to temperatures high enough to enable the next stage to begin. The abundant elements carbon and oxygen are made by helium fusion, and the elements up to iron are made in subsequent steps. However, beyond iron most elements are made by successive "neutral capture", though some of the rarer nuclides are made by proton capture reactions.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/universe/universe2.html

Roughly the same thing:
http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/10/0.html

See 2d (roughly the same thing again):
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1005.htm

You are aware that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life, are you not?

I am aware that the Darwinian/neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution (frequently equated with common descent) makes no claims about the origin of life, however pre-biological theories of evolution abound.
You were aware of that, were you not?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1978DoSSR.243R.299G
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01k.html
http://trc.ucdavis.edu/trc/freshSem/fall03/dieckmann_thorsten.html

Yep. Some think viruses are alive. But scientists have built replicating chemical systems that are more "alive" than viruses. This has nothing to to with evolution, but it does suggest that God was telling the truth when He said that life arose from the Earth.

If you can't draw the line, then why exclude a hydrogen molecule from being your ancestor?

[Captain Ochre]

You don't feel like replying all-at-once, eh?
Pasting bits to document programs works well for me when I want to work on something for awhile before posting.

Have a look at the companion to your llinks:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html

Dembski offers a rather idiosyncratic definition of complexity (which he calls "actual specified complexity"),

Dembski utterly distinguishes "specified complexity" from mere complexity.
Your description appears to do him an injustice.

claims (without support) to have established "that the Darwinian mechanism cannot generate actual specified complexity" and repeats his thesis that "specified complexity" necessarily indicates design. The usage clearly means "has a designer" rather than "has a shape."

Let's place the quotation in context, shall we?
Thus, to claim that laws, even radically new ones, can produce specified complexity is in my view to commit a category mistake. It is to attribute to laws something they are intrinsically incapable of delivering-indeed, all our evidence points to intelligence as the sole source for specified complexity. Even so, in arguing that evolutionary algorithms cannot generate specified complexity and in noting that specified complexity is reliably correlated with intelligence, I have not refuted Darwinism or denied the capacity of evolutionary algorithms to solve interesting problems. In the case of Darwinism, what I have established is that the Darwinian mechanism cannot generate actual specified complexity. What I have not established is that living things exhibit actual specified complexity. That is a separate question.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html

Dembski supported his claim via arguing for the category mistake, or at least attempted support.
To claim that he hasn't (adequately) supported it, you'd have to address his attempt to support it, instead of asserting that the attempt either never happened or baldly claiming that the support was inadequate.

But quite apart from any juxtaposition of (design=complex structure) and (design=has designer), Dembski's notions of complexity have not advanced his argument. Tom Schneider, in his paper "Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" at http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/specified.complexity.html
describes a program that generates the "complex specified information" that Dembski claims can only be produced by a designer. [He also includes a link to download his program, if you wish to try the experiment yourself.]

I've seen it, and I've also seen other other Schneider's writings, like this one:
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/rebuttal.html

I haven't yet fully evaluated Schneider's ev program versus Dembski's claims, but in the meantime Schneider strikes me as a bit unhinged (based on the types of arguments he uses at the above linked document).

You don't appear to have produced any evidence that Dembski has used "design" equivocally.
Perhaps it wasn't entirely clear that's what I was asking of you.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There's no "establishment" insisting on methodological naturalism. Scientists have to use it, because it doesn't work any other way.

Bunkum,

Nope. Just the way it works. Your plumber, for example, might believe in demons, but you should be concerned, if he wants to do an exorcism on your blocked pipes. Plumbing also must be methodologically naturalistic. In principle, demons of blockage could be preventing you from using your toilet, but a plumber must expect natural processes and deal with them.

but feel free to argue for your assertion.

See above. It pretty much argues for itself. \
Barbarian observes:
"And then a miracle occurs" is not a useful way to do science. Try relaxing the methodological naturalism you use when repairing your car, for example.

Is that the legendary example that proves the rule?

Lots of examples. Using everyday things is a lot more effective in arguments, because people who don't actually do science are more inclined to see science as a mysterious process. Everyday things that require a scientific approach are much better for showing the absurdity of assuming supernatural causes for natural events.

Barbarian on the notion that evolutionary theory is about stars forming:
I would be interested in seeing one. Not edited quotes, a model that does that.

Heavier stars evolve into supergiants, and it is the nuclear reactions in the interiors of these stars that gave rise to the heavy elements in the universe.

Actually, main sequence stars can form everything up to carbon, but unless a star goes supernova, the material stays in the star. However, evolutionary theory says nothing about this.

Barbarian asks:
You are aware that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life, are you not?

I am aware that the Darwinian/neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution (frequently equated with common descent) makes no claims about the origin of life, however pre-biological theories of evolution abound.
You were aware of that, were you not?

They are theories of abiogenesis. Something else entirely. Perhaps you said "evolution", when you meant "science?"

Barbarian on the notion that atoms are alive:
Yep. Some think viruses are alive. But scientists have built replicating chemical systems that are more "alive" than viruses. This has nothing to to with evolution, but it does suggest that God was telling the truth when He said that life arose from the Earth.

If you can't draw the line, then why exclude a hydrogen molecule from being your ancestor?

We can be very sure that a hydrogen atom is not alive, since it has no qualities defining living things. More complicated chemical systesms have some of the defining characteristics of living things. Even if, in the fossil record, there is no clear dividing line between fish and tetrapods, there are still fish and there are tetrapods.

Your second error is as an earlier creationist made when he responded to the observation that human and chimp DNA is very, very similar, by pointing out that humans and clouds are both mostly water, and therefore must be related.

It would be like saying the a trash bag and a CD must have the same information, because they are both plastic. Humans might be largely made up of hydrogen atoms, but they aren't descended from them.

[atkinson]

Let's place the quotation in context, shall we?
Thus, to claim that laws, even radically new ones, can produce specified complexity is in my view to commit a category mistake. It is to attribute to laws something they are intrinsically incapable of delivering-indeed, all our evidence points to intelligence as the sole source for specified complexity. Even so, in arguing that evolutionary algorithms cannot generate specified complexity and in noting that specified complexity is reliably correlated with intelligence, I have not refuted Darwinism or denied the capacity of evolutionary algorithms to solve interesting problems. In the case of Darwinism, what I have established is that the Darwinian mechanism cannot generate actual specified complexity. What I have not established is that living things exhibit actual specified complexity. That is a separate question.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html

Dembski supported his claim via arguing for the category mistake, or at least attempted support.
To claim that he hasn't (adequately) supported it, you'd have to address his attempt to support it, instead of asserting that the attempt either never happened or baldly claiming that the support was inadequate.


Yes, take a hard look at the bolded sentence. The statement is absolutely true, but utterly vacuous, as he has presented no evidence that intelligence is the sole source for "specified complexity." Yet this is exactly what he wants to demonstrate; it is the central pillar of his argumentation.

I am willing to grant that Dembski’s idiosyncratic definition “utterly distinguishes ‘specified complexity’ from mere complexity,” and thereby provides evidence of Dembski’s intelligence. I wonder about his scientific honesty, though, for the “all our evidence” part suggests that there is some to offer, yet he keeps it private.

[Captain Ochre]

Grab lump of clay, shape it into a cup, and fire the cup. The cup is clearly designed (you did it yourself), and no "design inference" is needed.

What utter hogwash.
You inferred that I am intelligent (at least enough to design something in that sense of the term).

Watch:
The tornado grabs a lump of clay, shapes it into a saucer (after that, the sun fires it).
The tornado clearly designed the cup (the tornado did it by itself).

You must be a scientist, to be so blind to your presuppositions.
:wink:

[Captain Ochre]

The automobile is designed by people, who are, one can assume, intelligent. [Even if management and workers may tend to regard each other as stupid :-]

I charge you with having assumed intelligence, and you cheerfully admit it, as though it isn't a problem for your claim.

What are we going to do with you, atkinson?

[Captain Ochre]

Replying to post #82.

The automobile manufacturer sees a competitor with a GPS, and copies the idea. Copying an idea does not refer to xerographic replication, but imitation: the manufacturer adds a GPS, too.

Is that a difference with a distinction?

It seems to me as though you are special pleading that the method of copying makes a critical difference (as: "A rubbed copy of a gravestone carving is not a photographic reproduction ..."), but you're not explaining the significance of the supposed difference in terms of the the intelligence comparison.

I'm starting to get the impression that you're intentionally evading the key questions.
I hope I'm wrong, but time will tell.

[Captain Ochre]

Replying to post #83.

Very different time scales are involved.

If I determine that 2+2=4 17 million times faster than you do it, can I then claim that you aren't really thinking when you finally reach the same conclusion?
If you think that elapsed time is relevant, then please explain why it should be considered so.

And hurry.
:wink:

For a genetic innovation to spread over a population, the number of generations required is proportional to the logarithm of the population size. A technological innovation can spread (and vanish again) in less than a generation. I agree with your surmise that "The amount of time elapsed seems like an insufficient criterion for judging intelligence," yet rapid spread of ideas suggests that intelligence might be at work.

That's certainly unequivocal.
:wink:
A suggestion of a "might".
Wow.

[I don't like to admit that a rapidly spreading fad, such as young men siting the belt-line of their trousers below the buttocks, might involve intelligence.]

Fairly recently, a large group of elephant seals got the idea of hurling themselves off a cliff to their deaths. So it was reported, anyway.
That's a sign of intelligence, then.
Seem like you might take your own criticism more seriously.

[Captain Ochre]

Replying to post #87.


Nope. Just the way it works. Your plumber, for example, might believe in demons, but you should be concerned, if he wants to do an exorcism on your blocked pipes.

No problem. My plumber has found that increasing the water pressure within the pipe will drive out the demons of pipe blockage.
When that fails, he tries to physically threaten the blockage demon with a metal device that he superstitiously calls his "snake".

Plumbing also must be methodologically naturalistic. In principle, demons of blockage could be preventing you from using your toilet, but a plumber must expect natural processes and deal with them.

See counterexample, above.

See above. It pretty much argues for itself. \

:lol:
We can't fault your optimism.

Lots of examples. Using everyday things is a lot more effective in arguments, because people who don't actually do science are more inclined to see science as a mysterious process. Everyday things that require a scientific approach are much better for showing the absurdity of assuming supernatural causes for natural events.

So, my plumber won't be able to clear my pipes by chasing away the blockage demon with increased pressure?
He's succeeded with it before. Are you saying that it was just a coincidence? Is he really using methodological naturalism and just keeping it a secret?

Barbarian on the notion that evolutionary theory is about stars forming:
I would be interested in seeing one. Not edited quotes, a model that does that.

Actually, main sequence stars can form everything up to carbon, but unless a star goes supernova, the material stays in the star. However, evolutionary theory says nothing about this.

I just gave you links to evolutionary theories that claim otherwise. Apparently you're fixated on biological evolution even though I specified "chemical evolution".
So, I guess three citations wasn't enough. How about ten? Twenty? Fifty? Just let me know.

Barbarian asks:
You are aware that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life, are you not?

They are theories of abiogenesis. Something else entirely. Perhaps you said "evolution", when you meant "science?"

:Sarcasmotron ON:
Right. I meant to say "pre-biological theories of science abound".
:Sarcosmotron OFF:

Look; I cited three articles referring to chemical evolution, and the articles were specific to the hydrogen precursors that you had asked about specifically. I can easily (I expect) find 10, 20, or 50 citations that refer to abiogenesis as "chemical evolution".

You can admit that you're wrong now, or we can drag it out and make it even worse for you.

We can be very sure that a hydrogen atom is not alive, since it has no qualities defining living things.

That's convenient enough for you to say, since you haven't presented so much as one quality that defines a living thing, let alone demonstrate that a hydrogen molecule lacks any of those unmentioned qualities.

More complicated chemical systesms have some of the defining characteristics of living things.

Such as?
:smile:

Even if, in the fossil record, there is no clear dividing line between fish and tetrapods, there are still fish and there are tetrapods.

I wasn't accusing you of having denied that hydrogen molecules once existed, afaics.
:huh:

Your second error is as an earlier creationist made when he responded to the observation that human and chimp DNA is very, very similar, by pointing out that humans and clouds are both mostly water, and therefore must be related.

You err in supposing that I have erred.
Try to quote me asserting that you are descended from molecules (such as a hydrogen molecule). After you fail, consider offering an apology for misrepresenting the facts.
You'll find that I've just been asking questions, and following up on the answers.

It would be like saying the a trash bag and a CD must have the same information, because they are both plastic. Humans might be largely made up of hydrogen atoms, but they aren't descended from them.

Argument by assertion is very, very nice. That's why I like it. Because it's very nice.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian on methodological naturalism:
Nope. Just the way it works. Your plumber, for example, might believe in demons, but you should be concerned, if he wants to do an exorcism on your blocked pipes.

No problem. My plumber has found that increasing the water pressure within the pipe will drive out the demons of pipe blockage.
When that fails, he tries to physically threaten the blockage demon with a metal device that he superstitiously calls his "snake".

This is sort of a model of the way creationists claim ID is "just as good as science." The only reason that assuming ID in plumbing problems sounds stupid, is most people understand plumbing to some degree.

Plumbing also must be methodologically naturalistic. In principle, demons of blockage could be preventing you from using your toilet, but a plumber must expect natural processes and deal with them.

See counterexample, above.

Suppose a pumber really believed that. You'd have good reason to doubt his sanity. This is the way scientists think about ID.

Barbarian on using everyday things to show the fallacies of ID:
Lots of examples. Using everyday things is a lot more effective in arguments, because people who don't actually do science are more inclined to see science as a mysterious process. Everyday things that require a scientific approach are much better for showing the absurdity of assuming supernatural causes for natural events.

So, my plumber won't be able to clear my pipes by chasing away the blockage demon with increased pressure?{/quote]

Very possibly not. His model assumes magical forces, when there might be something more involved than a simple clog. Methodological naturalism would let him then find the cause.

[quote]He's succeeded with it before.

People in Nepal have succeeded in keeping demons out of their temples by turning prayer wheels. ID is more popular there, than among most scientists.

Barbarian on the notion that evolutionary theory is about stars forming:
I would be interested in seeing one. Not edited quotes, a model that does that.

(CO supposes the process happens in supernovas)

Actually, main sequence stars can form everything up to carbon, but unless a star goes supernova, the material stays in the star. However, evolutionary theory says nothing about this.

I just gave you links to evolutionary theories that claim otherwise. Apparently you're fixated on biological evolution even though I specified "chemical evolution".

Hmmm.... you said:

"It's my claim that certain evolutionary models assert molecular evolution stemming from an initial state of hydrogen molecules,..."

That's abiogenesis, not evolution. It matters which you are talking about. If you confuse them, you'll make a lot of errors. How about we use "descent with modification" or "DWM" so we keep it straight this time?

So, I guess three citations wasn't enough. How about ten? Twenty? Fifty? Just let me know.

The citations are fine. You just got confused on the nomenclature, again.

Barbarian asks:
You are aware that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life, are you not?

They are theories of abiogenesis. Something else entirely. Perhaps you said "evolution", when you meant "science?"

Right. I meant to say "pre-biological theories of science abound".

That would have been closer. "Abiogenesis" would be the correct word, however.

Look; I cited three articles referring to chemical evolution, and the articles were specific to the hydrogen precursors that you had asked about specifically. I can easily (I expect) find 10, 20, or 50 citations that refer to abiogenesis as "chemical evolution".

I can find that many talking about brachial arches in embryos as "gill slits". Doesn't matter. I can find scores of sites that spell "Voigtlander" as "Voightlander." If you know what you're talking about, it matters.

You can admit that you're wrong now, or we can drag it out and make it even worse for you.

Ah, now I remember you. Hmmm... well, no, I don't think so. Considering how our last conversation went, I think things are moving along nicely.

Barbarian observes:
We can be very sure that a hydrogen atom is not alive, since it has no qualities defining living things.

That's convenient enough for you to say, since you haven't presented so much as one quality that defines a living thing, let alone demonstrate that a hydrogen molecule lacks any of those unmentioned qualities.

I'd certainly be open to your argument showing me that hydrogen is alive.

Barbarian observes:
More complicated chemical systems have some of the defining characteristics of living things.

Such as?

Self-replication, for one.

Barbarian observes:
Even if, in the fossil record, there is no clear dividing line between fish and tetrapods, there are still fish and there are tetrapods.

I wasn't accusing you of having denied that hydrogen molecules once existed, afaics.

You seemed to be annoyed by my assertion that there are living things and non-living things, or possibly by my observation that there are degrees of "aliveness."

Barbarian observes:
Your second error is as an earlier creationist made when he responded to the observation that human and chimp DNA is very, very similar, by pointing out that humans and clouds are both mostly water, and therefore must be related.

You err in supposing that I have erred.

Nope. You're focusing on a chemical, and assuming that life is somehow a combination of chemicals.

Try to quote me asserting that you are descended from molecules (such as a hydrogen molecule). After you fail, consider offering an apology for misrepresenting the facts.

Oh, the creationist in question was, like you, being facetious. I'm pretty sure he knows humans aren't related to clouds, just as I'm pretty sure you weren't serious when you raised the issue of "descent from hydrogen."

You'll find that I've just been asking questions, and following up on the answers.

I count quite a few assertions so far. I'm sure, if you perform as usual, there will be many more.

Barbarian on likening "descent" and hydrogen:
It would be like saying the a trash bag and a CD must have the same information, because they are both plastic. Humans might be largely made up of hydrogen atoms, but they aren't descended from them.

[Captain Ochre]

This is sort of a model of the way creationists claim ID is "just as good as science." The only reason that assuming ID in plumbing problems sounds stupid, is most people understand plumbing to some degree.

Nice job of ignoring the fact that your claim has been contradicted by counterexample.

Suppose a pumber really believed that. You'd have good reason to doubt his sanity.

Why should I doubt his sanity? All plumbers take the risk of angering the clog demons when they presume to drive them off. You think that the clog demon isn't going to try to bug his mind a little bit for revenge?
:hrm:

This is the way scientists think about ID.

Right, since the appeal to ridicule is so scientific.
:wink:

Barbarian on using everyday things to show the fallacies of ID:
Lots of examples. Using everyday things is a lot more effective in arguments, because people who don't actually do science are more inclined to see science as a mysterious process. Everyday things that require a scientific approach are much better for showing the absurdity of assuming supernatural causes for natural events.

[quote]So, my plumber won't be able to clear my pipes by chasing away the blockage demon with increased pressure?{/quote]

Very possibly not. His model assumes magical forces, when there might be something more involved than a simple clog.

So that's a problem? Seems to me as though if he were a flaming methodological naturalist the problem might be more than a simple clog.

Methodological naturalism would let him then find the cause.

Very possibly not. He might be just as well off replacing the haunted pipe wiith a non-haunted pipe.
Your case has been destroyed by counterexample. Deal with it.

People in Nepal have succeeded in keeping demons out of their temples by turning prayer wheels. ID is more popular there, than among most scientists.

I doubt it, but you can try to support your assertion if you think it's important.

Barbarian on the notion that evolutionary theory is about stars forming:
I would be interested in seeing one. Not edited quotes, a model that does that.

(CO supposes the process happens in supernovas)

CO quoted a "secular" educational site that supposes that the process happens in supernovas.

Actually, main sequence stars can form everything up to carbon, but unless a star goes supernova, the material stays in the star. However, evolutionary theory says nothing about this.

The evolutionary model that I cited says exactly what it says about it.

Hmmm.... you said:

"It's my claim that certain evolutionary models assert molecular evolution stemming from an initial state of hydrogen molecules,..."

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

:rofl:
You just don't know when to quit.
Molecular evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (specifically) until we start talking about specific steps that lead to what somebody defines as a living thing.
And we can certainly do that. There are plenty of proposals regarding chemical evolution that are also ideas regarding abiogenesis.
You seem to ignore the linked material, but I'll try yet again:
"Chemical evolution is a hypothesis which tries to explain how life might possibly develop from non-life."
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chemical%20Evolution
"(abiogenesis--the origin of life by chemical evolution)"
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:s2KYC17RmAAJ:fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Archean.pdf++abiogenesis+%22chemical+evolution+%22+site:.edu&hl=en

It matters which you are talking about. If you confuse them, you'll make a lot of errors.

Heh. You're the one confusing them. Since when is a "chemical evolution" model not an "evolutionary" model?
Who gets to pick the meaning that I'm using when I compose a sentence?
Me?
You?
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

Shall I link you to a site that explains the fallacy of equivocation?

How about we use "descent with modification" or "DWM" so we keep it straight this time?

Fine! I'm not talking about biological evolution except as it is included in a larger model that includes chemical evolution. If I refer merely to biological evolution, then I'll use DWM so that you won't get confused again.

The citations are fine. You just got confused on the nomenclature, again.

:lol:
Keep right on making the mistakes. Explain to me again how the formation of more complex molecules from an initial hydrogen state is "abiogenesis".

That would have been closer. "Abiogenesis" would be the correct word, however.

Incorrect, since models that claim that all complex molecules resulted ultimately from an initial state of hydrogen molecules are inadequately described under the heading "abiogenesis". That'd be comparable to calling a auto repair (& maintenance) shop an oil change shop.
"Pre-biological models of abiogenesis exist" is little more than a redundancy.
:bonk:

I can find that many talking about brachial arches in embryos as "gill slits". Doesn't matter. I can find scores of sites that spell "Voigtlander" as "Voightlander." If you know what you're talking about, it matters.

Find one with an .edu suffix that uses "gill slits" where "brachial arches" is meant, then we'll talk.
Until then, I've got good citations and you've got squat.

Ah, now I remember you. Hmmm... well, no, I don't think so. Considering how our last conversation went, I think things are moving along nicely.

Suit yourself.
:smile:

I'd certainly be open to your argument showing me that hydrogen is alive.

That's a nifty way to try to wriggle off the hook for providing criteria for classification of living things.
I haven't argued that hydrogen is alive. You've asserted that it isn't. If anybody has a burden of proof, it's you.

Self-replication, for one.

So, sterile creatures are not alive?
:smile:

At least you finally gave us one, even if it doesn't seem to be very useful.

You seemed to be annoyed by my assertion that there are living things and non-living things, or possibly by my observation that there are degrees of "aliveness."

If I were annoyed (I'm not--I'm merely amused), it would be by the fact that you've be dodging when it comes time to support your assertions.

Nope. You're focusing on a chemical, and assuming that life is somehow a combination of chemicals.

:rofl:
I don't suppose that you'd admit that you think that life is somehow a combination of chemicals.
So you're not a materialist/naturalist at all, is that it?
:smile:
How is it an error, IYO, to suppose that life is a combination of chemicals?


I count quite a few assertions so far. I'm sure, if you perform as usual, there will be many more.

None like the one you impute to me.
I've supported all of my (actual) assertions that have been challenged, afaics. If you think differently, then feel free to give example(s). Quote me, and provide links to the original documents if you would.

[The Barbarian]

Nice job of ignoring the fact that your claim has been contradicted by counterexample.

Arguing that plumbers can work by supposing demons are clogging pipes seems rather, um, IDish to me.

Why should I doubt his sanity? All plumbers take the risk of angering the clog demons when they presume to drive them off.

But notice that you suppose that the plumber uses a methodologically-naturalistic approach to fixing the problem. He just substitutes "demon" for "clog". As long as he doesn't try an exorcism instead of the materialistic approach, it still works. Not surprisingly, this is what we see happening with the professional IDers. They tout Intelligent Design, but when they actually do work, they fall back on materialistic approaches.

Right, since the appeal to ridicule is so scientific.
:wink:

Actually, it kind of works for me, as long as you're the one doing it. Remember the last time? You forgot which side of the argument you were on, and messed it up beyond recovery.

Barbarian on using everyday things to show the fallacies of ID:
Lots of examples. Using everyday things is a lot more effective in arguments, because people who don't actually do science are more inclined to see science as a mysterious process. Everyday things that require a scientific approach are much better for showing the absurdity of assuming supernatural causes for natural events.

So that's a problem? Seems to me as though if he were a flaming methodological naturalist the problem might be more than a simple clog.

Could be. Plumbers know how to trouble-shoot in a methodologically naturalistic way.

Very possibly not. He might be just as well off replacing the haunted pipe wiith a non-haunted pipe.

Again, instead of an ID solution, we get methodological naturalism.

Your case has been destroyed by counterexample.

I think you just gave away the farm again, Cap'n.

Deal with it.

I am trying to keep a straight face, I promise.

Cap'n quoted a "secular" educational site that supposes that the process happens in supernovas.

It does. But it also happens, up to carbon in main sequence stars. And in giant stars not large enough to go supernova, it can go up to iron. It's good to google, but you often get only part of the story.

The evolutionary model that I cited says exactly what it says about it.

Actually, you've confused abiogenesis, the Hertzsprung/Russel diagram, and Darwin's theory, again. I suggested that you use "descent with modification" for Evolutionary theory so that you don't get confused again.

You just don't know when to quit.

I could never pass up a heckler handing me a great straight line.

Molecular evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (specifically) until we start talking about specific steps that lead to what somebody defines as a living thing.

Tell me about molecular evolution that doesn't lead to abiogenesis.

(a little softshoe)

also[/b] ideas regarding abiogenesis.

Do you know of any that aren't?

You seem to ignore the linked material, but I'll try yet again:
"Chemical evolution is a hypothesis which tries to explain how life might possibly develop from non-life."
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chemical%20Evolution
"(abiogenesis--the origin of life by chemical evolution)"
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:s2KYC17RmAAJ:fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Archean.pdf++abiogenesis+%22chemical+evolution+%22+site:.edu&hl=en

O.K. But this is abiogenesis. It's not about descent with modification. We might as well be talking about the evolution of stars or the internal combustion engine. If you don't like talking about evolution as it regards biology (this is the biology board, after all), pick one of the other kinds and talk about that.

Heh. You're the one confusing them. Since when is a "chemical evolution" model not an "evolutionary" model?

We talk about the evolution of automobile styling, too, but I hope you understand that too does not have anything to do with descent with modfication.

Let's pick one thing and deal with that. You decide. Right now, you're jumping from one to another, and we're getting nowhere.

Who gets to pick the meaning that I'm using when I compose a sentence?

Conventional usage determines the meaning other people get. You get to decide whether you use what other people do, or whether you muddle the message.

Shall I link you to a site that explains the fallacy of equivocation?

No, you gave us a very nice demonstration.

Fine! I'm not talking about biological evolution except as it is included in a larger model that includes chemical evolution. If I refer merely to biological evolution, then I'll use DWM so that you won't get confused again.

Well, the important thing is that you don't get confused again. If you use sloppy terminology and confuse people, they can always ask you to clarify.

Keep right on making the mistakes. Explain to me again how the formation of more complex molecules from an initial hydrogen state is "abiogenesis".

I don't know that anyone thinks reactions from an initial hydrogen state would be abiogenesis.

Incorrect, since models that claim that all complex molecules resulted ultimately from an initial state of hydrogen molecules are inadequately described under the heading "abiogenesis".

You do know that most kinds of molecules have more than one kind of element in them, don't you. Only hydrogen is made up of hydrogen molecules.

Find one with an .edu suffix that uses "gill slits" where "brachial arches" is meant, then we'll talk.

Let's see...
"Chordata is characterized by a suite of apomorphies including a dorsal hollow nerve cord, notochord, pharyngeal gill slits, and a post anal tail"
http://www.lander.edu/rsfox/310BotryllusLab.html

"At some time in their life cycle, chordates have a pair of lateral gill slits or pouches used to obtain oxygen in a liquid environment. In the case of humans, other mammals, birds, and reptiles, lungs replace rudimentary gill slits after the embryonic stage of development."
http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/animal_3.htm

Until then, I've got good citations and you've got squat.

Reality just gave you another slap upside the head, Cap'n. How could I know that "gill slits" is an incorrect, but often used term for brachial arches among biologists? Because I spend time with biologists. And I know what I'm talking about. You figured there wouldn't be any, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Suit yourself. (smile)

I did.... (bigger smile)

That's a nifty way to try to wriggle off the hook for providing criteria for classification of living things.

Don't get mad. You asked what a characteristic of living things found in some chemical systems might be, and I gave you one.

I haven't argued that hydrogen is alive.

So why did you bring it up?

So, sterile creatures are not alive? :smile:

Evolutionarily, they are dead ends, since they can't pass on their genes. That would be like arguing that a good sense of smell is not a trait of dogs, because you know one without a sense of smell.

At least you finally gave us one, even if it doesn't seem to be very useful.

For living things, replication is fairly important. Can you guess why?

If I were annoyed (I'm not--I'm merely amused),

I see the denial, but you don't act amused. You act kind of upset.

it would be by the fact that you've be dodging when it comes time to support your assertions.

See above. You just embarassed yourself, assuming that I wouldn't be able to back something up. In fact, Cap'n, it's so common to use "gill slits" as an informal term for brachial arches that I figured everyone would know it here.

I still figure everyone but one knew it.

I don't suppose that you'd admit that you think that life is somehow a combination of chemicals.

Remember, that was your second error in your "hydrogen is alive" idea.

So you're not a materialist/naturalist at all, is that it?

Nope. Life is more than chemicals. But even a materialist would tell you that. Life isn't the material, it's the process. Remember, it's good to learn about this stuff first, before you tell us about it.

[atkinson]

So much history is retained from generation to generation that developmental "jumps" take a while to spread through the population. A population of living organisms is a good example of a process that does not use design.

Similarly, new ideas in technology take awhile to spread through the "population".

Take air conditioning, for example. A few generations ago, there were few air conditioners. Now, there are many.

Very different time scales are involved. For a genetic innovation to spread over a population, the number of generations required is proportional to the logarithm of the population size. A technological innovation can spread (and vanish again) in less than a generation. I agree with your surmise that "The amount of time elapsed seems like an insufficient criterion for judging intelligence," yet rapid spread of ideas suggests that intelligence might be at work

If I determine that 2+2=4 17 million times faster than you do it, can I then claim that you aren't really thinking when you finally reach the same conclusion?
If you think that elapsed time is relevant, then please explain why it should be considered so.

And hurry.
A replicating population only copies genetic material, with some variation. It does not import new ideas.

Leaving aside DNA briefly, what does it mean to import a new idea, if it doesn't mean copy it?
After I obtain your answer to that question, perhaps I can appreciate the distinction that you're attempting to make.

The automobile manufacturer sees a competitor with a GPS, and copies the idea. Copying an idea does not refer to xerographic replication, but imitation: the manufacturer adds a GPS, too.

Is that a difference with a distinction?

It seems to me as though you are special pleading that the method of copying makes a critical difference (as: "A rubbed copy of a gravestone carving is not a photographic reproduction ..."), but you're not explaining the significance of the supposed difference in terms of the the intelligence comparison.

I'm starting to get the impression that you're intentionally evading the key questions.
I hope I'm wrong, but time will tell
And I’m starting to get the impression that you are not here for serious discussion, but for an argument, and I’m not inclined to offer either the five-minute argument or the full half hour. I hope I'm wrong.

I am indeed not explaining the significance of the "supposed" difference between copying genetic material and transferring information by imitation in terms of intelligence. Intelligence is a side-issue that seems to me irrelevant to the question of design; I don’t see that prepending the word "intelligent" to "design" adds anything substantial, or that prepending "stupid" instead would subtract anything.

The question I am asking is:

Where might design appear in a self-sustaining population?

[atkinson]

Grab lump of clay, shape it into a cup, and fire the cup. The cup is clearly designed (you did it yourself), and no "design inference" is needed.

What utter hogwash.
You inferred that I am intelligent (at least enough to design something in that sense of the term).

Watch:
The tornado grabs a lump of clay, shapes it into a saucer (after that, the sun fires it).
The tornado clearly designed the cup (the tornado did it by itself).

You must be a scientist, to be so blind to your presuppositions.

I inferred that you were intelligent enough to see that a cup of your design was designed by an intelligent being, and supposed you would not quibble about your own intelligence.

There is no inference of design. Since you designed it, you have certain knowledge that the cup was designed. The tornado grabs a lump of clay, shapes it into a saucer, and the sun fires it. The tornado clearly shaped the saucer (all by itself), but did not design the saucer, and there is no application of intelligence anywhere in the process.

And so here are examples of a cup that is clearly an intelligent design, and a saucer that is clearly not. The word “clearly” is justified because the history of the artifacts is known, their genesis recorded. If the artifacts are separated from their history, the word “clearly” would downgrade to “possibly” or “plausibly.”

[I sha’n’t apologise for my presupposition that your creation of a cup shows intelligence, for I am sure any reasonable person would presuppose the same, and not call attention to this axiom, either. I was blind to the possibility of cavil. Let me now state explicitly: I assume that humans are capable of intelligent activity (if they set their minds to it).]

[Captain Ochre]

I inferred that you were intelligent enough to see that a cup of your design was designed by an intelligent being, and supposed you would not quibble about your own intelligence.

It's not a quibble when I had already predicted that you would be forced to infer intelligence.

There is no inference of design.

Now, that is equivocation.
If you infer that I am intelligent and that I produced a design, then you have inferred design in the "intelligent design" sense unless you specify (or puzzlingly intended to mean) that the "design" that I produced had no intentional features.

Since you designed it, you have certain knowledge that the cup was designed.

Don't try to put it on me. This is all about you. You're giving me an example (supposedly) where you detect design without inferring it, so you suggest that I infer or assume it for you.
That's a bit rich, don't you think?

The tornado grabs a lump of clay, shapes it into a saucer, and the sun fires it. The tornado clearly shaped the saucer (all by itself), but did not design the saucer, and there is no application of intelligence anywhere in the process.

You just assumed that the tornado didn't design the saucer intelligently--unless you inferred it.
:bonk:

And so here are examples of a cup that is clearly an intelligent design, and a saucer that is clearly not.

:rofl:
All through the magic of having assumed the conclusion beforehand (unless you did things the right way and reasonably inferred it as I predicted you would have to do).

The word “clearly” is justified because the history of the artifacts is known, their genesis recorded. If the artifacts are separated from their history, the word “clearly” would downgrade to “possibly” or “plausibly.”

That's called "inference" and the inference itself is based on the assumption that intelligence exists.
You can't even justify intelligence based on methodological naturalism. "Intelligence" is causally determined either in the classical sense or in a somewhat looser sense that allows for quantum effects--but even the latter is a step away from methodological naturalism. You can't have lawful randomness. It's a contradiction.

[I sha’n’t apologise for my presupposition that your creation of a cup shows intelligence, for I am sure any reasonable person would presuppose the same, and not call attention to this axiom, either. I was blind to the possibility of cavil.

It's hardly a trivial point, but your attempt to handwave it is noted.

Let me now state explicitly: I assume that humans are capable of intelligent activity (if they set their minds to it).]

Thank you for conceding my point. Well, one of them.
It's a start, anyway.

[Captain Ochre]

Arguing that plumbers can work by supposing demons are clogging pipes seems rather, um, IDish to me.

Right, and you have to assume ID is false and discredited in order to show that ID is false and discredited ...

But notice that you suppose that the plumber uses a methodologically-naturalistic approach to fixing the problem. He just substitutes "demon" for "clog".

He'd only be using methodological naturalism if he assumes that the demons act according to law. We have no evidence that he makes any such assumption.
By your logic there, magical incantations that are expected to have the effect of vanishing a subject are examples of the the application of methodological naturalism.
That is a very preposterous stretch, unless we take it to its logical conclusion to show that "supernatural" is an incoherent term for non-lawful events (absolutely everything--God and miracles included--is natural).

As long as he doesn't try an exorcism instead of the materialistic approach, it still works. Not surprisingly, this is what we see happening with the professional IDers. They tout Intelligent Design, but when they actually do work, they fall back on materialistic approaches.

That's quite the overgeneralization.
Methodological naturalism is an available tool for the "supernaturalist" (as some might call Christian scientists).
Thoroughgoing MN is indistinguishable from philosophical naturalism, and it actually undercuts the attempts of science to correlate data in terms on non-scientific assumptions (such as intelligence).

Actually, it kind of works for me, as long as you're the one doing it. Remember the last time? You forgot which side of the argument you were on, and messed it up beyond recovery.

Are you talking about your embarassingly inept performance in this thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=140319&highlight=ochre#post140319
Or something else?

Could be. Plumbers know how to trouble-shoot in a methodologically naturalistic way.

Only if we classify all cause-and-effect as methodological naturalism--which isn't the case with MN at all.

Again, instead of an ID solution, we get methodological naturalism.

If I say "Abracadabra" ten times every minute and on the average an elephant appears out of thin air very close to once every ten times, it would apparently qualify as methodological naturalism as you have redefined it.

I think you just gave away the farm again, Cap'n.

You're entitled to your opinion.

It does. But it also happens, up to carbon in main sequence stars. And in giant stars not large enough to go supernova, it can go up to iron. It's good to google, but you often get only part of the story.

I've got the only part of the story I need from the link: Molecular evolution in so many words.
Keep ignoring it with your straight face.

Actually, you've confused abiogenesis, the Hertzsprung/Russel diagram, and Darwin's theory, again. I suggested that you use "descent with modification" for Evolutionary theory so that you don't get confused again.

Your equivocation tricks are getting old.

Tell me about molecular evolution that doesn't lead to abiogenesis.

Hydrogen molecules fusing into Helium molecules.

(a little softshoe)

You don't have to tell us that you're dancing.

There are plenty of proposals regarding chemical evolution that are also ideas regarding abiogenesis.

Do you know of any that aren't?

Of course. Chemical evolution is proposed as a subset of evolutionary change within biological evolution.
Can't you make up your mind between arguing that molecular evolution isn't abiogenesis and arguing that molecular evolution is abiogenesis but under the wrong name?

O.K. But this is abiogenesis. It's not about descent with modification. We might as well be talking about the evolution of stars or the internal combustion engine. If you don't like talking about evolution as it regards biology (this is the biology board, after all), pick one of the other kinds and talk about that.

Our thread is about ID, and evolution was used in the generic sense and specifically described beyond that as molecular evolution. Sounds like you're making excuses for having equivocated.
If you don't want ID threads in biology, then complain to a moderator.
I'm not the one who started the thread, afaics.

We talk about the evolution of automobile styling, too, but I hope you understand that too does not have anything to do with descent with modfication.

No, really?
:bonk:

Let's pick one thing and deal with that. You decide. Right now, you're jumping from one to another, and we're getting nowhere.

I've been on the same topic all along. You decided to infer that biological evolution was what I was talking about (incorrectly), then you somehow got your other foot into your mouth, also.

Conventional usage determines the meaning other people get. You get to decide whether you use what other people do, or whether you muddle the message.

I just cited the conventional usage. For some reason, you ignored that conventional usage in favor of what you wanted to read. It's the biology forum, so supposedly you're justified.
It's not like the immediate context could help you.

No, you gave us a very nice demonstration.

And you'll point it out specifically?
:lol:

Please try.

Well, the important thing is that you don't get confused again. If you use sloppy terminology and confuse people, they can always ask you to clarify.

Try to pick up on your own clue that you're projecting in the psychological sense.


I don't know that anyone thinks reactions from an initial hydrogen state would be abiogenesis.

Good, then you won't be trying to assert that the molecular evolution from hydrogen to helium (for example) constitutes abiogenesis.
Unfortunately you've gone pretty far elsewhere in claiming that the two are the same thing.

You do know that most kinds of molecules have more than one kind of element in them, don't you. Only hydrogen is made up of hydrogen molecules.

No, really?

:lol:
You must be pretty desperate.

Let's see...
"Chordata is characterized by a suite of apomorphies including a dorsal hollow nerve cord, notochord, pharyngeal gill slits, and a post anal tail"
http://www.lander.edu/rsfox/310BotryllusLab.html

"At some time in their life cycle, chordates have a pair of lateral gill slits or pouches used to obtain oxygen in a liquid environment. In the case of humans, other mammals, birds, and reptiles, lungs replace rudimentary gill slits after the embryonic stage of development."
http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/animal_3.htm

Reality just gave you another slap upside the head, Cap'n.

You're right. I'm surprised that you could be bothered to actually try to back up one of your assertions. Score one for me for prompting you to do it.

How could I know that "gill slits" is an incorrect, but often used term for brachial arches among biologists? Because I spend time with biologists. And I know what I'm talking about. You figured there wouldn't be any, because you don't know what you're talking about.]

I hope you find your tale comforting. I'm well aware of the sympathy that evolutionists have for recapitulation ideas, so it's not surprise at all that literature with misnomers persists. I'm just forcing you to practice bearing your BoP as a prerequisite to challenging my citations (since asserting that my citations aren't good enough just won't cut it).

I did.... (bigger smile)

Right, so what point of mine did you undercut with your brilliant research (biggest smile)?

Don't get mad. You asked what a characteristic of living things found in some chemical systems might be, and I gave you one.

Mad? You must be very insecure to think that your behaviors so easily produce disapproval.
Perhaps you forgot the context of the request. If so, you can go back and review it.

So why did you bring it up?

To prod the conversation toward the fact that MN doesn't provide any account of intelligence whatsoever. MN works among a set of presuppositions, but if all of those presuppositions are naturalistic then certain conclusions become untenable (like the purely (MN) scientific notion that The Barbarian is an intelligent being).

Evolutionarily, they are dead ends, since they can't pass on their genes.

Hmmm. You appear to have dodged the question. I asked you if sterile creatures were alive or not, since we're discussing the criteria for designating things as being alive or not.
There have been billions upon billions of apparently living organisms that have turned out to be evolutionary dead ends, afaics.
Are you able to recycle the red herring into a real answer?

That would be like arguing that a good sense of smell is not a trait of dogs, because you know one without a sense of smell.

What would be like making that argument? I asked you a question, and you dodged it. What argument do you think I'm making, or if you don't think that I had made an argument here then what are you talking about?

For living things, replication is fairly important. Can you guess why?

Because reproduction can serve as a distraction from the criteria for judging whether or not something is alive?

I see the denial, but you don't act amused. You act kind of upset.

Really? In what way, specifically?

See above. You just embarassed yourself, assuming that I wouldn't be able to back something up.

:lol:
^laughter of the severely upset, right?^

:rofl:

In fact, Cap'n, it's so common to use "gill slits" as an informal term for brachial arches that I figured everyone would know it here.

I still figure everyone but one knew it.

Let's see how often you try to bring the conversation back to this irrelevancy.
:smile:

Remember, that was your second error in your "hydrogen is alive" idea.

Your charges of error are in error.
Let's see you dodge again, just for fun:
How is it an error, IYO, to suppose that life is a combination of chemicals?

Nope. Life is more than chemicals.

Riiiiiiight, since it's probably the chemicals plus how the chemicals interact with each other and the environment.
Way to split that hair, buddy!

But even a materialist would tell you that.

Some materialists play semantic games, true.

Life isn't the material, it's the process.

A materialist would tell me that without the material, there is no process. So, let's get back to the relevant question: If a thing (made of chemicals, we'll assume) doesn't reproduce, is it therefore not alive?

[Jake]

Hey guys, as a mostly silent observer of this thread, Ive completely lost track of what you are arguing about. I think the original points were about ID right? Whilst I hate to interrupt what must be a stimulating row, is there any chance we could get back on topic?

How about this as a start off:

'The pattern of morphological differences and changes found in the fossil and DNA/RNA records is consistent with prolonged periods of genetic inheritance, as opposed to the continuous intervention of a 'human like' designer, whose actions could reasonably be inferred to result in abrupt and unpredictable adoption of design features as and when they became available/were required. Discuss.'

This goes to the heart of the matter; unless we can make predictions aout the nature of the designer, we can point at absolutely anything and say 'that's designed'. This then becomes an article of faith, not science. Whilst I do not insist that the designer must have 'human like' attributes, some prediction, no matter how small must be present to distinguish the effects of the designer from the observed processes of M+NS.

[Beef_Cream]

'The pattern of morphological differences and changes found in the fossil and DNA/RNA records is consistent with prolonged periods of genetic inheritance, as opposed to the continuous intervention of a 'human like' designer, whose actions could reasonably be inferred to result in abrupt and unpredictable adoption of design features as and when they became available/were required. Discuss.'

Jake, I will give this a go.

I agree with the first statement:

'The pattern of morphological differences and changes found in the fossil and DNA/RNA records is consistent with prolonged periods of genetic inheritance

However I would then disagree with the second point. I do not think the intervention of a designer would necessarily lead to abrupt and unpredictable design features. I would say that the methods of the designer can be inferred from all of the process of evolution. If a designer were at any point intervening then I would say they were probably responsible for the beginning of the process. They established a system that would use the basic mechanisms of NS/RM in order to progress. I would say that due to the regularities of the systems they had employed and are mainly adopted that any intervention would be to run within the system and not provide huge steps from the continuous base progression employed. If they were to ‘tinker’ as it were then the mechanism would be as an aid to the usual NS/RM employed and so would not cause anomalies that digress far from the properties these two employ. I think the consistency of evolution reflects on the designer’s nature and I think that any intervention would reflect the consistency.

So for prediction of whether design can be inferred are probably best using the methods of Behe and others. Are there any features of nature which provide problems for NS/RM. Which mechanism is best for accounting for the anomalies, design, symbiosis, self organisation etc.

Regards

Beef :smile:

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, I can't help having a little fun with Cap'n O. But there are some good points, particularly his confusion over matter and process as the definition of life.

[Jake]

Jake, I will give this a go.

I agree with the first statement:

'The pattern of morphological differences and changes found in the fossil and DNA/RNA records is consistent with prolonged periods of genetic inheritance

However I would then disagree with the second point. I do not think the intervention of a designer would necessarily lead to abrupt and unpredictable design features.

Looking at the whole of your reply, I don't think we have any significant disagreement here, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first post. What I mean is that observed changes seem to have occurred in a predictable fashion, altering existing systems to produce new ones (such as a wing from a limb, jawbones turning into ear-bones etc.) with a pattern consistent with a continuous genetic lineage.

What we do not see is the sudden appearance of systems with no 'history', so to speak. This is the sort of pattern one finds in evolving human designs, such as the automobile. Things are invented and are adopted by different manufacturers with a pattern that is quite different from what we see in nature. This is what I mean by 'abrupt and unpredictable'.

I would say that the methods of the designer can be inferred from all of the process of evolution. If a designer were at any point intervening then I would say they were probably responsible for the beginning of the process. They established a system that would use the basic mechanisms of NS/RM in order to progress. I would say that due to the regularities of the systems they had employed and are mainly adopted that any intervention would be to run within the system and not provide huge steps from the continuous base progression employed. If they were to ‘tinker’ as it were then the mechanism would be as an aid to the usual NS/RM employed and so would not cause anomalies that digress far from the properties these two employ. I think the consistency of evolution reflects on the designer’s nature and I think that any intervention would reflect the consistency.

This seems like a theistic evolutionary POV. There is no conflict between such a view and science as long as evidence is provided for other forces if they are to be scientific, or faith is the reason for believing the hand of God is at work. I don't see a problem with faith and science co-existing.

So for prediction of whether design can be inferred are probably best using the methods of Behe and others. Are there any features of nature which provide problems for NS/RM. Which mechanism is best for accounting for the anomalies, design, symbiosis, self organisation etc.

Regards

Beef :smile:

In principle I agree with you. Behe has made a valid statement that if systems could not have come about by evolutionary processes, there must have been another force at work. The consensus is that he has not proven his argument, but this does not stop him doing this in the future.

Thanks for the reply,
Jake

[Beef_Cream]

Looking at the whole of your reply, I don't think we have any significant disagreement here, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first post. What I mean is that observed changes seem to have occurred in a predictable fashion, altering existing systems to produce new ones (such as a wing from a limb, jawbones turning into ear-bones etc.) with a pattern consistent with a continuous genetic lineage.

What we do not see is the sudden appearance of systems with no 'history', so to speak. This is the sort of pattern one finds in evolving human designs, such as the automobile. Things are invented and are adopted by different manufacturers with a pattern that is quite different from what we see in nature. This is what I mean by 'abrupt and unpredictable'.

I think a key point here is this:

“different manufacturers”

Now this is what causes evolving human ideas to take sudden shifts, the input of a different source of intelligence. Now if a human were working alone to develop an idea it is unlikely that, without external influence changing his mind, he is likely to have a complete overhaul, unless the original concept wasn’t working at all. He is likely to make slight adjustments to gradually improve it. A kaizen approach.

Now to apply this to your original intention and to couple with current ID theory, I think most of the systems ID proposed are designed would not greatly effect the continuous genetic lineage. So I would say one of the predictions of ID would not originally be that of sudden jumps or leaps. Though ID would be well equipped to account for these features if they arise.

Also, though this is definitely not an area I am familiar with whilst the genetic lineage is consistent the fossil records in certain stages do exhibit unpredictable tendencies which may be evidence of the shifts you might attribute with design. Pre Cambrian fossils found in China were certainly not of the form that was to be expected and the Cambrian explosion itself is still a large leap that would not have been originally predicted, the appearance of so many different forms in such an abrupt time scale. Punctauted equilibrium was proposed to deal with the jumps in the fossil record.

I would say genetic lineage is generally agreed and away from the discussion involved in design as the features of it can be covered under both accounts.

This seems like a theistic evolutionary POV. There is no conflict between such a view and science as long as evidence is provided for other forces if they are to be scientific, or faith is the reason for believing the hand of God is at work. I don't see a problem with faith and science co-existing.

I agree entirely. I also do not think there is a huge difference between ID and evolution. It seems to really be the extent of the mechanisms of NS/RM and what they can/can’t achieve. And then how much that design is used and more importantly where it can be proven to be used. ID can propose the mechanism gain support in certain areas but once it extrapolates deign further than can be proven in jumps to metaphysics.


In principle I agree with you. Behe has made a valid statement that if systems could not have come about by evolutionary processes, there must have been another force at work. The consensus is that he has not proven his argument, but this does not stop him doing this in the future.

Thanks for the reply,
Jake

I enjoy Behe’s arguments as I think they are well thought out have a strong base premise and even if wrong have provided fruitful discussions over the evolution of these systems.

Regards

Beef :smile:

[Jake]

I think a key point here is this:

“different manufacturers”

Now this is what causes evolving human ideas to take sudden shifts, the input of a different source of intelligence. Now if a human were working alone to develop an idea it is unlikely that, without external influence changing his mind, he is likely to have a complete overhaul, unless the original concept wasn’t working at all. He is likely to make slight adjustments to gradually improve it. A kaizen approach.

Now to apply this to your original intention and to couple with current ID theory, I think most of the systems ID proposed are designed would not greatly effect the continuous genetic lineage. So I would say one of the predictions of ID would not originally be that of sudden jumps or leaps. Though ID would be well equipped to account for these features if they arise.

Also, though this is definitely not an area I am familiar with whilst the genetic lineage is consistent the fossil records in certain stages do exhibit unpredictable tendencies which may be evidence of the shifts you might attribute with design. Pre Cambrian fossils found in China were certainly not of the form that was to be expected and the Cambrian explosion itself is still a large leap that would not have been originally predicted, the appearance of so many different forms in such an abrupt time scale. Punctauted equilibrium was proposed to deal with the jumps in the fossil record.

I would say genetic lineage is generally agreed and away from the discussion involved in design as the features of it can be covered under both accounts.

I was thinking of multiple designers; the pattern one would see for a single designer would indeed be different and would include less horizontal transfer of ideas throughout the group. However, I think we would expect to see organs/appendages/proteins scrapped and replaced as newer designs came along. To design a human digestive system and just leave the appendix in because it was there before doesn't really make sense.

It seems we are arguing from pretty much the same side with respect to this subject, despite our differing views. My main point was that a human-like designer cannot be inferred from the pattern we see in the fossil/genetic records, because the patterns you would see would be very different from what we do see.

I agree entirely. I also do not think there is a huge difference between ID and evolution. It seems to really be the extent of the mechanisms of NS/RM and what they can/can’t achieve. And then how much that design is used and more importantly where it can be proven to be used. ID can propose the mechanism gain support in certain areas but once it extrapolates deign further than can be proven in jumps to metaphysics.

ID (by which I mean 'scientific' ID, not untestable belief in creation) must either show how M+NS is prohibited from producing what we see in nature, or must provide details of how we can positively detect the hand of a designer in nature. If it cannot positively show evidence a designer, and cannot rule out the possibility of things arising from M+NS, then it reduces to an assertion that design exists.

Personally I would be fascinated by evidence of design in nature, every scientist would. I just don't think it has been proven to exist.

I enjoy Behe’s arguments as I think they are well thought out have a strong base premise and even if wrong have provided fruitful discussions over the evolution of these systems.

Regards

Beef :smile:

I guess they have, although it is important to recognise that they have been dismissed by the scientific community. Behe; whether knowingly or un-knowingly, created and knocked down a straw man of evolution. Discussion of his work to date is all very well, but it needs to be stated that there is no longer a scientific debate going on.

Cheers,
Jake

[DunnySaze]

Now to apply this to your original intention and to couple with current ID theory, I think most of the systems ID proposed are designed would not greatly effect the continuous genetic lineage.

That would depend on exactly how the design was implimented. That ID 'theory' can't tell us about that (so the advocates say) doesn't mean it can be ignored. Was the design for these structures loaded into the genome right from the start or added piecemeal along the way? Was each flagella added separately for each bacterial species or was only one flagella designed and the rest derived? Can't we test for these in the extant molecular record?

So I would say one of the predictions of ID would not originally be that of sudden jumps or leaps. Though ID would be well equipped to account for these features if they arise.

The problem with ID is that it is well equipped to account for any features that arise.

Pre Cambrian fossils found in China were certainly not of the form that was to be expected ...

Really? What forms would you have expected from these finds?

We already know the fossil record is patchy. It certainly hasn't preserved an example of every species that has ever lived, waiting for us to find. In some instances we have a good gradation of intermediate forms (e.g. horses) and in other cases less so.

Nevertheless, we do have some interesting examples of Pre-Cambrian fossil forms. For example, this week's Science (June 3) describes the finding of a bilaterian fossils (Vernanimalcula guizhouena) in the Doushantuo Formation of China, some 570 Ma old. This predates the Cambrian by 40-50,000,000 years and is precisely the kind of thing we'd expect to find if evolution were correct.

Of course you could always say that where we don't have knowledge, that some other process (like intelligent design) is at work.

and the Cambrian explosion itself is still a large leap that would not have been originally predicted, the appearance of so many different forms in such an abrupt time scale. Punctauted equilibrium was proposed to deal with the jumps in the fossil record.

No, we would indeed predict that older forms existed from which these forms derived, just like the specimen mentioned above. I expect there are other still older examples as well.

I would say genetic lineage is generally agreed and away from the discussion involved in design as the features of it can be covered under both accounts.

I'm having trying to discern an account which cannot be covered from the ID perspective. Dembski tell us we can refute ID just by finding an evolutionary pathway that leads to a flagella. This makes little sense. Why can't we instead simply say in that case that the flagella is another of those systems that can be accounted for by evolution and move onto another epitome?

I agree entirely. I also do not think there is a huge difference between ID and evolution. It seems to really be the extent of the mechanisms of NS/RM and what they can/can’t achieve.

It's really about what one is willing to believe is explainable by normal evolutionary means. There is a big difference between hasn't been explained and can't be explained.

And then how much that design is used and more importantly where it can be proven to be used.

Proving it is the sticky part.

I enjoy Behe’s arguments as I think they are well thought out have a strong base premise and even if wrong have provided fruitful discussions over the evolution of these systems.

I don't see where he has contributed anything to increasing our understanding with this argument. Maybe if you count bringing it to the attention of more people.

[atkinson]

Your game is not my kind of discussion. Thanks for your efforts.

[Captain Ochre]

Sorry, I can't help having a little fun with Cap'n O. But there are some good points, particularly his confusion over matter and process as the definition of life.

I betrayed absolutely no such confusion.
You asserted that it would be a mistake to suppose that life is a combination of chemicals after you erroneously asserted that I was advancing the idea that life is a combination of chemicals.

"You're focusing on a chemical, and assuming that life is somehow a combination of chemicals."
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=582477&postcount=95

You apparently assumed that I assumed that life is somehow a combination of chemicals.
You seem to have zero chance of reasonably supporting that assumption.

It's illustrative of your debate style that the example that "particularly" illustrates your good points is a non-point.

[Captain Ochre]

And I’m starting to get the impression that you are not here for serious discussion, but for an argument, and I’m not inclined to offer either the five-minute argument or the full half hour. I hope I'm wrong.

I'd be quite happy if you would admit that intelligence must either be assumed or inferred into the methodologically naturalistic framework.
It takes two to argue. If you disagree with me, then naturally I'd like to hear why you would disagree.
You seem to agree with me, while wanting to simultaneously present the impression that you disagee with me and that I'm playing some sort of game.

I am indeed not explaining the significance of the "supposed" difference between copying genetic material and transferring information by imitation in terms of intelligence. Intelligence is a side-issue that seems to me irrelevant to the question of design; I don’t see that prepending the word "intelligent" to "design" adds anything substantial, or that prepending "stupid" instead would subtract anything.

"Design" in terms of the intentional arrangement of a structure absolutely demands intelligence, afaics.
I don't see either how or why you would deny it.

The question I am asking is:

Where might design appear in a self-sustaining population?

Your question is short on context and is therefore not clear.
A self-sustaining population of settlers might design a water-powered millstone.
Maybe that's not what you're looking for. If it's not what you're looking for, then consider providing some contextual hints as to what you really mean to ask.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian admits:
Sorry, I can't help having a little fun with Cap'n O. But there are some good points, particularly his confusion over matter and process as the definition of life.

I betrayed absolutely no such confusion.

You certainly did. You even brought wanted to discuss the life of hydrogen.

Barbarian observes:
Arguing that plumbers can work by supposing demons are clogging pipes seems rather, um, IDish to me.

Right,...[/b]

Of course, there's no need to assume intelligence whatever. Naturalism works just fine. It's the major problem with ID.

[quote]and you have to assume ID is false and discredited in order to show that ID is false and discredited ...

Nope. I just have to show the consequences of assuming intelligence in natural systems.

Barbarian on Cap'n O's "Intelligent Design" plumber:
But notice that you suppose that the plumber uses a methodologically-naturalistic approach to fixing the problem. He just substitutes "demon" for "clog".

He'd only be using methodological naturalism if he assumes that the demons act according to law. We have no evidence that he makes any such assumption.

Wrong. He uses methodological naturalism, because it works. He might still insist that it's demons, but like most professional IDers, he used MN when he needs results.

By your logic there, magical incantations that are expected to have the effect of vanishing a subject are examples of the the application of methodological naturalism.

Nope.

That is a very preposterous stretch,

Not to mention a fairly goofy misrepresentation.

Barbarian observes:
As long as he doesn't try an exorcism instead of the materialistic approach, it still works. Not surprisingly, this is what we see happening with the professional IDers. They tout Intelligent Design, but when they actually do work, they fall back on materialistic approaches.

That's quite the overgeneralization.

True, too. If you doubt it, show me one significant discovery made by any of them, using ID instead of science.

Methodological naturalism is an available tool for the "supernaturalist" (as some might call Christian scientists).

Most Christians who are scientists don't think much of ID.

Thoroughgoing MN is indistinguishable from philosophical naturalism,

Nope. You've gotten confused about the difference between "methodological" and "philosophical" naturalism. Do we need to review?

and it actually undercuts the attempts of science to correlate data in terms on non-scientific assumptions (such as intelligence).

I have no idea of what that was supposed to mean. Is there a typo or two in there?

Barbarian on Cap'n O's obfuscations:
Actually, it kind of works for me, as long as you're the one doing it. Remember the last time? You forgot which side of the argument you were on, and messed it up beyond recovery.

(Cap'n O remembers, but insists he was the victor)

Didn't seem like it. You sort of fell apart at the end, arguing both sides of the question in different posts. I'm not the only one who noticed.

Barbarian observes:
Could be. Plumbers know how to trouble-shoot in a methodologically naturalistic way.

Only if we classify all cause-and-effect as methodological naturalism--

Nope. Just a working assumption that natural phenomena have natural causes.

Barbarian on the ID Plumber using standard plumbing methods:
Again, instead of an ID solution, we get methodological naturalism.

If I say "Abracadabra" ten times every minute and on the average an elephant appears out of thin air very close to once every ten times, it would apparently qualify as methodological naturalism as you have redefined it.

Hm... if it actually happened, methodological naturalism would mean we would hypothesize that some natural phenomenon linked speaking with the sudden appearance of an elephant.

If I shout on a very cold day, a cloud of water vapor frequently appears out of thin air. It would work the same way.

(Cap'n O suggests an ID plumber would replace the pipes, a very MN idea)

Barbarian on Cap'n O
I think you just gave away the farm again, Cap'n.

Barbarian on Cap'n O's idea that fusion occurs in supernovas:
It does. But it also happens, up to carbon in main sequence stars. And in giant stars not large enough to go supernova, it can go up to iron. It's good to google, but you often get only part of the story.

I've got the only part of the story I need from the link: Molecular evolution in so many words.

As I said, googling is good, but you still need to know what you're talking about.

Barbarian on Cap'n O's confusion about "evolution":
Actually, you've confused abiogenesis, the Hertzsprung/Russel diagram, and Darwin's theory, again. I suggested that you use "descent with modification" for Evolutionary theory so that you don't get confused again.

Your equivocation tricks are getting old.

I'm suggesting that if you stayed with just one of those, it would be easier for you.

Barbarian suggests:
Tell me about molecular evolution that doesn't lead to abiogenesis.

Hydrogen molecules fusing into Helium molecules.

Hydrogen molecules can't fuse into helium molecules. They certainly don't do so in stars. Perhaps you mean atoms? The word you want is "nucleosynthesis." Molecular evolution never happens in stars, because molecules never form.

There are plenty of proposals regarding chemical evolution that are also ideas regarding abiogenesis.

Barbarian asks:
Do you know of any that aren't?

Of course. Chemical evolution is proposed as a subset of evolutionary change within biological evolution.

Hmm... not in Darwin's theory. Not in the modern synthesis. Sorry, no.

Can't you make up your mind between arguing that molecular evolution isn't abiogenesis and arguing that molecular evolution is abiogenesis but under the wrong name?

Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. I'm trying to explain to you that "molecular evolution" is not the fusion of hydrogen into helium.

Barbarian observes:
O.K. But this is abiogenesis. It's not about descent with modification. We might as well be talking about the evolution of stars or the internal combustion engine. If you don't like talking about evolution as it regards biology (this is the biology board, after all), pick one of the other kinds and talk about that.

Our thread is about ID, and evolution was used in the generic sense and specifically described beyond that as molecular evolution.

I know you think so, but hydrogen to helium is not "molecular evolution.

Barbarian on the general use of "evolution" as "change."
We talk about the evolution of automobile styling, too, but I hope you understand that too does not have anything to do with descent with modfication.

No, really?

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but you often have some misconceptions like "fusion is molecular evolution."

Barbarian suggests:
Let's pick one thing and deal with that. You decide. Right now, you're jumping from one to another, and we're getting nowhere.

I've been on the same topic all along.

I know you think you were, but stars and fusion have nothing to do with molecular evolution.

(Cap'n O defends his personal definitions)

Barbarian observes:
Conventional usage determines the meaning other people get. You get to decide whether you use what other people do, or whether you muddle the message.

I just cited the conventional usage. For some reason, you ignored that conventional usage in favor of what you wanted to read.

Sorry, molecules don't even exist in stars.

(Cap'n O offers more examples of equivocatoin)

Barbarian observes:
No, you gave us a very nice demonstration.

(denial)

Yep. That's our Cap'n O.

Barbarian on why precision of usage would be useful:
Well, the important thing is that you don't get confused again. If you use sloppy terminology and confuse people, they can always ask you to clarify.

(denial and accusations of "projection")

I don't know that anyone thinks reactions from an initial hydrogen state would be abiogenesis.

Good, then you won't be trying to assert that the molecular evolution from hydrogen to helium (for example) constitutes abiogenesis.

Cap'n, there is no "molecular evolution" of hydrogen to helium. You've been rather badly misled about that.

Unfortunately you've gone pretty far elsewhere in claiming that the two are the same thing.

You seem to be confused about what "molecule" means.

Barbarian checks for understanding:
You do know that most kinds of molecules have more than one kind of element in them, don't you. Only hydrogen is made up of hydrogen molecules.

No, really?

And you know by now that molecules of hydrogen don't fuse into molecules of helium, right?

You must be pretty desperate.

Nope. I teach. Not everyone gets it the first time around.

(Barbarian observes that brachial arches are often informally referred to as "gill slits.")

Cap'n O reacts badly and presents a challenge:
Find one with an .edu suffix that uses "gill slits" where "brachial arches" is meant, then we'll talk. Until then, I've got good citations and you've got squat.

Barbarian observes:
Let's see...
"Chordata is characterized by a suite of apomorphies including a dorsal hollow nerve cord, notochord, pharyngeal gill slits, and a post anal tail"
http://www.lander.edu/rsfox/310BotryllusLab.html

"At some time in their life cycle, chordates have a pair of lateral gill slits or pouches used to obtain oxygen in a liquid environment. In the case of humans, other mammals, birds, and reptiles, lungs replace rudimentary gill slits after the embryonic stage of development."
http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/animal_3.htm

Reality just gave you another slap upside the head, Cap'n. How could I know that "gill slits" is an incorrect, but often used term for brachial arches among biologists? Because I spend time with biologists. And I know what I'm talking about. You figured there wouldn't be any, because you don't know what you're talking about.

You're right. I'm surprised that you could be bothered to actually try to back up one of your assertions.

It always surprises you. No matter who does it to you. It must be like waking up in a new world each day.

I hope you find your tale comforting. I'm well aware of the sympathy that evolutionists have for recapitulation ideas, so it's not surprise at all that literature with misnomers persists.

Cap'n, the reason that we call it an error, is because modern evolutionary theory refutes recapitulation.

I'm just forcing you to practice bearing your BoP as a prerequisite to challenging my citations (since asserting that my citations aren't good enough just won't cut it).

I don't doubt that they're good. You just don't understand what they say a good deal of the time. If you get nothing else from this exchange, please remember that "molecular evolution" has nothing to to with hydrogen fusing to become helium.

Barbarian observes:
Don't get mad. You asked what a characteristic of living things found in some chemical systems might be, and I gave you one.

Mad? You must be very insecure to think that your behaviors so easily produce disapproval.

People infer mental states from the way you write. You seem upset most of the time.

(Barbarian askes Cap'n O why he brought up the idea of hydrogen being alive)
So why did you bring it up?

To prod the conversation toward the fact that MN doesn't provide any account of intelligence whatsoever.

No, that's wrong. There are a good number of theories about intelligence. All methodologically naturalistic.

MN works among a set of presuppositions,

One, actually. "Natural phenomena have natural causes."

(Cap'n O asks if sterile organisms are dead)

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionarily, they are dead ends, since they can't pass on their genes. That would be like arguing that a good sense of smell is not a trait of dogs, because you know one without a sense of smell.

Hmmm. You appear to have dodged the question.

More precisely, I pointed out the error in your question. You're assuming that when scientists say one feature of living things is they reproduce, that means if any specimen of a given species is sterile, it must be dead. I hope I don't have to explain why that's an error.

(Cap'n O thinks that reproduction is not a useful requirement for living things)

Barbarian observes:
For living things, replication is fairly important. Can you guess why?

Because reproduction can serve as a distraction from the criteria for judging whether or not something is alive?

Nope. Keep thinking.

(Cap'n O insists he's not upset)

Barbarian observes:
I see the denial, but you don't act amused. You act kind of upset.

Really? In what way, specifically?

You seem kinda sullen, especially when you realize you've messed up. And you just don't appear to be having a good time, Cap'n.

(Barbarian on "you've got squat" as a prelude to a pratfall)
See above. You just embarassed yourself, assuming that I wouldn't be able to back something up.

Barbarian observes:
In fact, Cap'n, it's so common to use "gill slits" as an informal term for brachial arches that I figured everyone would know it here.

I still figure everyone but one knew it.

Let's see how often you try to bring the conversation back to this irrelevancy.

It didn't seem "irrelevant" to you when you thought you knew what you were talking about. You were kinda aggressive with me about it. You need a little caution, especially when you don't know the subject very well.

Your charges of error are in error.
Let's see you dodge again, just for fun:
How is it an error, IYO, to suppose that life is a combination of chemicals?

It's like that other creationist, who thought since humans and clouds were mostly water, evolution should say humans and clouds are closely related. Matter isn't life.

Riiiiiiight, since it's probably the chemicals plus how the chemicals interact with each other and the environment.

Nope. It's just the process.

Way to split that hair, buddy!

But as you can see, if you don't make the distinction, you end up with "clouds are related to humans." Sometimes distinctions are important.

[DunnySaze]

Hydrogen molecules can't fuse into helium molecules. They certainly don't do so in stars. Perhaps you mean atoms? The word you want is "nucleosynthesis." Molecular evolution never happens in stars, because molecules never form.

...

You seem to be confused about what "molecule" means.

...

And you know by now that molecules of hydrogen don't fuse into molecules of helium, right?

Molecules of helium? Now I'm confused. Helium generally doesn't form molecules of any kind, does it?

[atkinson]

Check out http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/650-1.html and http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.650.html

[Captain Ochre]

Barbarian admits:
You certainly did. You even brought wanted to discuss the life of hydrogen.

If you were able to report accurately, you'd be saying that I've been asking how methodological naturalism can rule out a hydrogen molecule being somebody's ancestor.
It's really great the way you punctuate your responses with straw man summarizations.

Of course, there's no need to assume intelligence whatever. Naturalism works just fine. It's the major problem with ID.

The problem with MN is that you can never have intelligence without either an assumption or an inference.
You don't seem to like the inference.
That leaves you with the assumption, afaics.
Call it "science".

Nope. I just have to show the consequences of assuming intelligence in natural systems.

Are you a natural system?
Should I assume that you are intelligent?
You wouldn't want me to infer that you are intelligent, would you?

Wrong. He uses methodological naturalism, because it works. He might still insist that it's demons, but like most professional IDers, he used MN when he needs results.

You appear to beg the question with your response.
Is there any chance that replacing the haunted pipe with a non-haunted pipe will achieve a positive result?


Nope.

Yup.
Arguments by assertion are fair game for counterarguments by assertion.

Not to mention a fairly goofy misrepresentation.

You seem to have skipped the step of describing how you were allegedly misrepresented (unless I'm misreading your somewhat ambiguous response).

Barbarian observes:
As long as he doesn't try an exorcism instead of the materialistic approach, it still works.

How is the replacing of the haunted pipe with a non-haunted pipe a materialistic approach?
One science that you appear to understand is the science of argument by assertion.
:smile:

True, too. If you doubt it, show me one significant discovery made by any of them, using ID instead of science.

The fallacy of shifting the burden of proof--and you probably didn't even blush.

Most Christians who are scientists don't think much of ID.

You avoided the point with your response, I note.
Would you care to either agree or disagree with what I wrote, or shall I expect yet another red herring in response?

Nope. You've gotten confused about the difference between "methodological" and "philosophical" naturalism. Do we need to review?

Absolutely.

I have no idea of what that was supposed to mean. Is there a typo or two in there?

No.

Barbarian on Cap'n O's obfuscations:

I guess that one's more well-poisoning than it is a straw man ...


(Cap'n O remembers, but insists he was the victor)

Hmmm. Another straw man.

Didn't seem like it. You sort of fell apart at the end, arguing both sides of the question in different posts. I'm not the only one who noticed.

Your red herring approach apparently succeeded with at least one person.
Attorneys (and ad-men) are well aware that fallacies are valuable in persuading an audience.

Nope. Just a working assumption that natural phenomena have natural causes.

So, you're admitting that the pipe-blockage demon is a natural cause? Haven't you just made a mockery of the term "supernatural" (not that doing so is necessarily a bad thing)?

Hm... if it actually happened, methodological naturalism would mean we would hypothesize that some natural phenomenon linked speaking with the sudden appearance of an elephant.

Right. Any probabilistic cause & effect would be interpreted in a similar way.
Apparently you describe any expected effect from any cause as "methodological naturalism".
Jesus would have been using methodological naturalism when he turned water into wine, under that standard.


(Cap'n O suggests an ID plumber would replace the pipes, a very MN idea)

Explain why replacing a pipe is a methodologically naturalistic practice.
You can't, of course, without making up some specifically MN rationale for the pipe replacement, but it would be fun to see you try.

Barbarian on Cap'n O's idea that fusion occurs in supernovas:

Hmmm. Another inaccurate report.
Perhaps you and DivineOb have something in common.

Barbarian on Cap'n O's confusion about "evolution":
Actually, you've confused abiogenesis, the Hertzsprung/Russel diagram, and Darwin's theory, again.

Prove it. Or don't you believe in supporting your assertions?

Hydrogen molecules can't fuse into helium molecules. They certainly don't do so in stars. Perhaps you mean atoms?

Perhaps you're quibbling?
:smile:

The word you want is "nucleosynthesis." Molecular evolution never happens in stars, because molecules never form.

The nuclear fusion of four hydrogen atoms #1 into one helium molecule #2 is the fuel for young stars
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-bbgCHy94AoJ:www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2001/pdf/5459.pdf+nuclear+fusion+%22helium+molecule%22&hl=en

All the stuff we, and the Earth around us, are made of, like iron and oxygen and carbon, has come from that initial material being fused to form heavier elements in the cores of stars. But the heaviest elements, like iron, are only formed in the massive stars which end their lives in supernovae. Our blood has iron in the hemoglobin which is vital to our ability to breath. So without supernovae, most forms of life on Earth, including us, would not be possible. And much of the material the Earth is made of would not exist.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980202b.html


Hmm... not in Darwin's theory. Not in the modern synthesis. Sorry, no.

Excellent argument by assertion.

So, IYO, molecules have existed statically since the formation of life?

Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. I'm trying to explain to you that "molecular evolution" is not the fusion of hydrogen into helium.

Nice red herring, but you're just equivocating again. "Molecular evolution" is usually descriptive of a string of changes such as the formation of larger molecules by supernovae, or to the formation of life-ready pre-biotic molecules.
When you ask for an example, I give you an example of one step in the process, such as hydrogen->helium, rather than the full description. If you're asking for the full description, then you're pegging yourself as a sandbagger.

Barbarian observes:
O.K. But this is abiogenesis. It's not about descent with modification.

It's evolution, and it's molecular evolution.
Yet you haven't apologized.

We might as well be talking about the evolution of stars or the internal combustion engine. If you don't like talking about evolution as it regards biology (this is the biology board, after all), pick one of the other kinds and talk about that.

You can ask the moderators to move the thread, but I'm quite on-topic in discussing pre-biological evolution in a thread concerned with ID and ID criticism.
You'll have to take your attempt to stifle real debate elsewhere.

I know you think so, but hydrogen to helium is not "molecular evolution.

I know you'll try to tap-dance your way around it, but hydrogen to helium is an example of molecular evolution.
Think of hydrogen to helium/non-life to life as an analog for finch-beak variation/common descent.

Barbarian on the general use of "evolution" as "change."
We talk about the evolution of automobile styling, too, but I hope you understand that too does not have anything to do with descent with modfication.

No, really?
:bonk:

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but you often have some misconceptions like "fusion is molecular evolution."

That's not a misconception. Starting with all hydrogen, the fusion of hydrogen into helium is an example of molecular evolution, and a crucial step in the larger process according to published hypotheses.
You can try to equivocate your way around it, if you like.

I know you think you were, but stars and fusion have nothing to do with molecular evolution.

:lol:
"Molecular Evolution in Collapsing Prestellar Cores"
Y. Aikawa, N. Ohashi, Shu-ichiro Inutsuka, E. Herbst, and S. Takakuwa (2001)
The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 552, pp.639-653.
http://www-tap.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~inutsuka/Papers/index_j.html

"Molecular Evolution in Protoplanetary Disks: Theory and Comparison with the Observational Data"
http://www.ph1.uni-koeln.de/zermatt1998/abstracts/abslistp2.html

"This proposal, in contrast, offers a coherent and rigidly deterministic framework governing the mechanisms of cosmological evolution which extends to all classes of energy transduction reactions from astrophysical to biochemical."
http://www.originoflife.org.uk/advanced9.htm


(Cap'n O defends his personal definitions)

CO cited evidence that his definitions were not personal. Your poisoning of the well proceeds something like Chinese water torture.

(Cap'n O offers more examples of equivocatoin)

Barbarian observes:
No, you gave us a very nice demonstration.

(denial)

Yep. That's our Cap'n O.

You were invited to provide a specific example. There's no need for me to deny unless and until you come up with an accusation that isn't an empty assertion.
Still waiting.

Barbarian on why precision of usage would be useful:
Well, the important thing is that you don't get confused again. If you use sloppy terminology and confuse people, they can always ask you to clarify.

(denial and accusations of "projection")

Hmmm. Another straw man. You provided clues that suggested that you are projecting. I suggested that you pay attention to them.
Apparently you have no intention of looking at the evidence.

Cap'n, there is no "molecular evolution" of hydrogen to helium. You've been rather badly misled about that.

Correct me without arguing by assertion, then. It will be easy for you because you are extremely intelligent (or so I assume).
:lol:

You seem to be confused about what "molecule" means.

Why do you say so, apart from the red herring effect?

Barbarian checks for understanding:
You do know that most kinds of molecules have more than one kind of element in them, don't you. Only hydrogen is made up of hydrogen molecules.

"Unfortunately you've gone pretty far elsewhere in claiming that the two are the same thing."
That's what you're responding to from me.
Why the red herring barrage?

And you know by now that molecules of hydrogen don't fuse into molecules of helium, right?

That's one clear return to the Well of Quibbling.

Nope. I teach. Not everyone gets it the first time around.

Why use teaching techniques indicative of desperation if you aren't desperate?

(Barbarian observes that brachial arches are often informally referred to as "gill slits.")

Cap'n O reacts badly and presents a challenge:
Find one with an .edu suffix that uses "gill slits" where "brachial arches" is meant, then we'll talk. Until then, I've got good citations and you've got squat.

See, that's a great example of what I'm talking about. What is "reacts badly" supposed to teach us? We have no assessment from you about what is supposedly bad about my reaction, we simply have your reaction to it, where you describe it as "reacts badly".
Why the need for apparent psychologizing of your opponent? Seems as though a non-desperate participant could do without that sort of cheesiness.

It always surprises you.

Only because the vast majority of your statements such as the one directly above typically go unsupported.

Cap'n, the reason that we call it an error, is because modern evolutionary theory refutes recapitulation.

Haeckel's version of it is discredited, but the modern scientist has dressed it in new robes.

"Gould admits a reluctance to give up embryonic recapitulation, but clearly states the elusive facts on the matter and calls for a halt to the distribution of the fraud (Gould 42-49)."
http://faculty.whatcom.ctc.edu/swinans/ludeman4.htm

The "Gould" is Stephen Jay.

I don't doubt that they're good. You just don't understand what they say a good deal of the time. If you get nothing else from this exchange, please remember that "molecular evolution" has nothing to to with hydrogen fusing to become helium.

Right, just as "water" has nothing at all to do with cell biology.
But feel free to surprise me again by providing a citation in support of your claim.

People infer mental states from the way you write. You seem upset most of the time.

Right, and I'm asking you what I've written that you use to leap off into Inferenceville.
You wouldn't be dodging now, would you? Have I upset you by asking? Perhaps you would have answered the query if you were not upset.

(Barbarian askes Cap'n O why he brought up the idea of hydrogen being alive)
So why did you bring it up?

Heh--pretty tricky manufacturing a new context out of whole cloth, B.

No, that's wrong. There are a good number of theories about intelligence. All methodologically naturalistic.

To whatever extent the theory is methodologically naturalistic, it will rely on the assumption of intelligence to explain intelligence.
The key move is maintaining the illusion of the intentionality of causally determined actions.

One, actually. "Natural phenomena have natural causes."

Well aside from the fact that you truncated my statement and took it the wrong way, that one assumption would not allow you to do science at all. You'd also have to assume that the phenomena that you intended to investigate was "natural"--whatever that means.
If you can't tell me what an unnatural cause is, then what you're really saying would seem to be "All phenomena have natural causes".
"All phenomena have natural causes" would seem to be one of the phenomena with a natural cause.
Is "All phenomena have natural causes" a manifestation of intelligence?
Is the intelligence assumed (that assumption would be a phenomenon with a natural cause, of course), or is it inferred (likewise the inference would be a phenomenon with a natural cause)?
Is the inference a manifestation of intelligence?

(Cap'n O asks if sterile organisms are dead)

Barbarian dodges (Ed.):
Evolutionarily, they are dead ends, since they can't pass on their genes. That would be like arguing that a good sense of smell is not a trait of dogs, because you know one without a sense of smell.

More precisely, I pointed out the error in your question. You're assuming that when scientists say one feature of living things is they reproduce, that means if any specimen of a given species is sterile, it must be dead. I hope I don't have to explain why that's an error.

Heh. You're shameless.
I didn't assume anything of the kind. I asked you for a criterion that we could use to determine whether or not something is alive or dead, and you gave me a non-differentiating criterion.
That's like you asking me how we know whether or not an organism can see, and I reply "Well, having eyes is one criterion".
Then when you ask me whether or not Stevie Wonder can see, I claim that there's an error in your question.

There's no error in the question. You're just intent on dodging.

(Cap'n O thinks that reproduction is not a useful requirement for living things)

That's the funniest strawman yet. Maybe you built it unintentionally. I'll assume that you fell into the false assumption unintentionally.
When I said it's not very useful, I referred to our inability to use reproduction as a differential criterion.

(B denies that he's diverting the reproduction topic into a red herring)


(Cap'n O insists he's not upset)

Barbarian observes:
I see the denial, but you don't act amused. You act kind of upset.

Hmmm. It really looks like you're lying. Why would you call the following an insistence that I'm not upset?
Really? In what way, specifically?

Then you proceed to avoid answering the question. I'm a bit concerned that I may have upset you by asking the question as to why you think I'm upset.
That's not the case, I hope.
Why did you not answer the question?

You seem kinda sullen, especially when you realize you've messed up.

1) Why do you think I seem sullen? What did I write, specifically, that makes you think that? The smilies, perhaps?
2) When did I realize that I messed up in the course of the current thread? What did I write that makes you think that?

And you just don't appear to be having a good time, Cap'n.

Really? What evidence leads you to that conclusion?

(Barbarian on "you've got squat" as a prelude to a pratfall)
See above. You just embarassed yourself, assuming that I wouldn't be able to back something up.

So you are using your faerie story to comfort yourself.
I didn't assume that you wouldn't be able to back something up. I figured that it was unlikely that you would try. Since you met the challenge, I keep my promise that we can talk about the relative states of our evidence on the chemical and molecular evolution topic--only you seem to have already conceded that my citations were appropriate.
That's almost as good as admitting that your comments were a red herring, of course.

It didn't seem "irrelevant" to you when you thought you knew what you were talking about.

You appear to be topically equivocating.
It is irrelevant to our topic that I used "molecule" instead of "atom".
Regardless, going from an all-hydrogen state to one that includes helium is 1) an example of molecular evolution and 2) the initial step in the broader process of the chemical evolution of heavier elements and molecules.

You were kinda aggressive with me about it. You need a little caution, especially when you don't know the subject very well.

I'll remember that when I go to discuss biblical Hebrew. Thanks.


Nope. It's just the process.

Apparently you don't intend to surprise me with any support of your claims.

[HRG_new]

Molecules of helium? Now I'm confused. Helium generally doesn't form molecules of any kind, does it?

No it doesn't. The ground state of the helium atom is too low that it could enter in energetically favored molecules, although the ion HeNe+ has been observed.

When molecular evolution and helium molecules were mentioned together, this thread definitely took off in a surrealistic direction :tongue:

[Beef_Cream]

For those interested I have written a thread about my current thoughts on ID here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=583923#post583923 )

[The Barbarian]

No it doesn't. The ground state of the helium atom is too low that it could enter in energetically favored molecules, although the ion HeNe+ has been observed.

When molecular evolution and helium molecules were mentioned together, this thread definitely took off in a surrealistic direction

It was sort of ...interesting. But then Cap'n O is a surrealistic guy.

[Captain Ochre]

No it doesn't. The ground state of the helium atom is too low that it could enter in energetically favored molecules, although the ion HeNe+ has been observed.

When molecular evolution and helium molecules were mentioned together, this thread definitely took off in a surrealistic direction :tongue:

Indeed, since nitpicking took over for addresssing the point.

"Giant Helium Molecules"
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/650-1.html

The Barbarian is bent on showing the utility of the red herring fallacy.
Apparently HR is eager to help.

[Captain Ochre]

Your game is not my kind of discussion. Thanks for your efforts.

This thread was supposed to be about ID, or the inference to design.

Pointing out that MN obligates us to either assume and/or infer intelligence is a "game"?

It's not a game, it's the basic issue of the discussion.
If you think it's a game, you could at least attempt to justify that characterization.

[The Barbarian]

Indeed, since nitpicking took over for addresssing the point.

"Giant Helium Molecules"
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/650-1.html

The Barbarian is bent on showing the utility of the red herring fallacy.
Apparently HR is eager to help.

Let's take a look at the link...

"At the École Normale Supérieure, researchers trap a cloud of helium atoms with magnetic fields. Each helium atom is in a long-lived "metastable" state and carries nearly 20 eV of internal energy, which is more than 10 billion times its average energy of motion. In the confines of a magnetic trap, the hottest He atoms evaporate and the colder atoms remain, lowering the temperature of the cloud to 10 microkelvins (millionths of a degree above absolute zero). Then, a laser pairs up He atoms through a process called "photoassociation," in which light of a precise color changes the state of the atoms so that they attract each other more strongly. This attraction comes about through light-induced "dipoles" (momentary separations of positive and negative charge in each He) to cause the atoms to bind to each other. To detect the molecules, the researchers record a temperature rise in the cloud that results from the successful absorption of the laser light. In a typical experiment, one percent of the atoms absorbs the light, corresponding to the formation of about 100,000 molecules. In each of the molecules, the atoms are sufficiently far apart that they resist destructive "auto-ionization" effects, in which an electron jumps from one atom to the other and breaks apart the molecule. In fact, the atoms are so distant from each other that the researchers had to account for the finite speed of light: each atom of the pair sees the other the way it was a femtosecond earlier. The researchers had to include this "retardation" effect in their calculations to get agreement with the measured data. The molecules last for an average of 50 nanoseconds--a remarkably long time due to the huge amounts of internal energy in each He atom."

Under conditions never seen in nature, scientists can form a few helium atoms into molecules that last for a few millionths of a second. And Cap'n O thinks that means they can form in stars.

And (of course) he's accusing other of splitting hairs. Sorry, Cap'n. This one won't fly. There are no helium or hydrogen molecules in stars. Stars are made of plasma, which has no molecules. Plasma is made up of ions of the elements, with their free electrons. No molecules.

[Captain Ochre]

Let's take a look at the link...

The same link that atkinson posted when it was said that there ain't no helium molecules.
Hadn't noticed before since atkinson didn't bless us with any commentary.

"At the École Normale Supérieure, researchers trap a cloud of helium atoms with magnetic fields. Each helium atom is in a long-lived "metastable" state and carries nearly 20 eV of internal energy, which is more than 10 billion times its average energy of motion. In the confines of a magnetic trap, the hottest He atoms evaporate and the colder atoms remain, lowering the temperature of the cloud to 10 microkelvins (millionths of a degree above absolute zero). Then, a laser pairs up He atoms through a process called "photoassociation," in which light of a precise color changes the state of the atoms so that they attract each other more strongly. This attraction comes about through light-induced "dipoles" (momentary separations of positive and negative charge in each He) to cause the atoms to bind to each other. To detect the molecules, the researchers record a temperature rise in the cloud that results from the successful absorption of the laser light. In a typical experiment, one percent of the atoms absorbs the light, corresponding to the formation of about 100,000 molecules. In each of the molecules, the atoms are sufficiently far apart that they resist destructive "auto-ionization" effects, in which an electron jumps from one atom to the other and breaks apart the molecule. In fact, the atoms are so distant from each other that the researchers had to account for the finite speed of light: each atom of the pair sees the other the way it was a femtosecond earlier. The researchers had to include this "retardation" effect in their calculations to get agreement with the measured data. The molecules last for an average of 50 nanoseconds--a remarkably long time due to the huge amounts of internal energy in each He atom."

Under conditions never seen in nature, scientists can form a few helium atoms into molecules that last for a few millionths of a second. And Cap'n O thinks that means they can form in stars.

Oh? Where did I draw any conclusion whatsoever from the linked material that you quoted?
Like atkinson, I posted it to contradict what had been said by another poster (granted that HRG planted a pretty big hedge in his statement).
Does that stop The Barbarian from leaping to a conclusion and building a straw man out of it?
No, apparently not.

And (of course) he's accusing other of splitting hairs. Sorry, Cap'n. This one won't fly.

The red herring should never be confused with the flying fish ...

There are no helium or hydrogen molecules in stars. Stars are made of plasma, which has no molecules. Plasma is made up of ions of the elements, with their free electrons. No molecules.

Still waving that red herring?
I've posted links that demonstrate the theory (loose sense) that I had mentioned, that all chemical and molecular diversity stemmed from a hydrogen state.
You've been pushing the same red herring (nitpicking terminology) for awhile, now.
Let's see how long it continues.

[The Barbarian]

Cap'n O says:
The same link that atkinson posted when it was said that there ain't no helium molecules.
Hadn't noticed before since atkinson didn't bless us with any commentary.

I merely told you that there weren't any in stars, contrary to your claim. There aren't any hydrogen molecules in them, either. Can't be.

Oh? Where did I draw any conclusion whatsoever from the linked material that you quoted?

If not, why did you bring it up?

Still waving that red herring?

You have a lot of odd misconceptions. There are no helium molecules in nature, as you asserted. There are no molecules in stars at all, as you asserted. If youi want to try to start abiogenesis at the fusion of hydrogen, you need to get it right. Otherwise, everything else, downstream is wrong.

Assuming there's a point to your starting at hydrogen. If not, then it doesn't matter.

I've posted links that demonstrate the theory (loose sense)

(Cap'n O loves the "loose sense")

that I had mentioned, that all chemical and molecular diversity stemmed from a hydrogen state.

Actually, there was helium and maybe a little lithium before there were stars. You need to understand why, if you want to try to build abiogenesis from the start.

You've been pushing the same red herring (nitpicking terminology) for awhile, now.

If you can't get the fundamentals right, how can you hope to base anything on them? You can't just google, find a few terms and then put your own meanings on them.

Learn about it first, and then come back and tell us about it.