quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I mentioned them because I didn’t want you, or anyone else, to claim that there was no reason to assume bats shared a common ancestor with other mammals. I’ve found it’s necessary to cover all the bases in discussions like this.

Well, actually, I had already established this; genetically, bats appear to be closely related to the clade that contains horses and carnivores; exactly as evolutionists always predicted because they are so incredibly bright.

quote:

It’s relevant as far as Occam’s Razor is concerned. You understand how that principle works, right? An unknown intelligent designer is one entity, and people working in a lab are separate entities. The existence of one does not imply the other. Therefore, even though the existence of the researchers in the lab (and their ability to modify genes) has been demonstrated, that does not make an unobserved intelligent designer any less of an unknown entity, and one whose existence shouldn’t be assumed unless it’s necessary in order to explain something.

That may be the worst exposition on Occam’s I have ever heard. Intelligence is one cause, regardless of the source.

quote:


In fact, if that is the way Occam’s works, then it devastates evolution, because evolution is predicated on the notion that unknown mutations produced the living systems we see based on the action of some mutations we have observed, or as you so aptly put it, “the existence of one does not imply the other”.

Indeed, we could go further using you very own arguments, “Therefore, even though the existence of the [mutations] in the lab (and their ability to modify genes) has been demonstrated, that does not make an unobserved [mutation] any less of an unknown entity, and one whose existence shouldn’t be assumed unless it’s necessary in order to explain something.”

Wow, who needs me!? You pretty much have done yourself in. Suicide by Occam’s razor.

I am not sure there is anything more that can be added.

quote:

Intelligence is not a cause. Intelligence is an attribute that an actual cause may or may not possess. In this case, it is the source of the intelligence, not the intelligence itself that is the cause.

quote:

The difference between the two causes that Agahnim discussed is that one - the researchers in the lab - is observed, while the other - the Designer - is not observed. There is no real difference between mutations observed in the lab and unobserved mutations in nature. It is a distinction without a difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I disagree; intelligence (or more particularly, an intelligent agent) is certainly a cause – that being, the means by which something happens. Certain things would not happen apart from the presence of intelligence.

quote:

Actually, we don’t know if there is a difference between the mutations observed in a lab and those which are unobserved; it is assumed that those in nature can do what no observed mutation is known to have done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Intelligence is not a cause. Intelligence is an attribute that an actual cause may or may not possess. In this case, it is the source of the intelligence, not the intelligence itself that is the cause.

I disagree; intelligence (or more particularly, an intelligent agent) is certainly a cause – that being, the means by which something happens. Certain things would not happen apart from the presence of intelligence.

quote:

quote:

The difference between the two causes that Agahnim discussed is that one - the researchers in the lab - is observed, while the other - the Designer - is not observed. There is no real difference between mutations observed in the lab and unobserved mutations in nature. It is a distinction without a difference.

Actually, we don’t know if there is a difference between the mutations observed in a lab and those which are unobserved; it is assumed that those in nature can do what no observed mutation is known to have done.

quote:

Example?

quote:

Also, you are going well beyond what has been observed. You are claiming that certain things are IMPOSSIBLE. Instead of arguing about what hasn't happened you are arguing for what can't happen. Those are two very different things.

For example, Lord Kelvin made the claim that a heavier than air craft was impossible. His proof? No one had made one. Therefore, it's impossible, right? According to your logic, it is, at least it was in 1895 when Lord Kelvin made the claim. You have not shown that the DNA sequences found in organisms are IMPOSSIBLE to produce through random mutation and natural selection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

In fact, if that is the way Occam’s works, then it devastates evolution, because evolution is predicated on the notion that unknown mutations produced the living systems we see based on the action of some mutations we have observed, or as you so aptly put it, “the existence of one does not imply the other”.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Language.

quote:

First off, it's likely that this statement is sort of an urban myth, as there were already 'heavier than air' craft flying in 1895.

quote:

Secondly, lots of scientists were skeptical of machine powered flight at that time; indeed, it was, as evolutionists are fond of saying, "a consensus'. So skepticism was warranted, and your own logic dictates that they were justified in being skeptical, as am I.

quote:

No, there wasn't. The only flying craft were hot air balloons and derigibles which were both lighter than air craft.

quote:

But they were incorrect to state that it was impossible as you are doing here. This is the foundation of ID, claiming that such-and-such is impossible and therefore requires intelligent input.

quote:

Evolution is predicated on the notion that mutations under selection produced the living systems we see. Neither mutations nor natural selection are unknown entities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No, there wasn't. The only flying craft were hot air balloons and derigibles which were both lighter than air craft.

They aren’t lighter than air. The gas inside them is lighter than air, but they aren’t.

quote:

And they also had kites and gliders at the time.

quote:

Actually, I think it is quite healthy to consider something impossible or at least so improbable as to not be worth taking seriously until it is demonstrated that such a thing actually exists. Fairies, unicorns, ghosts, perpetual motion machines, magic mutations, etc.

quote:

I know, I know, evolutionists think we should ‘just believe’ until the science is forthcoming, but I don’t have the fortitude and don’t want to waste my time when there are more promising alternatives.

quote:

I can't tell if you agree or disagree. You seem to be saying it is actually the intelligent agent that is the cause in agreement with me. You have asserted but not established that certain things would not happen apart from the presence of intellignece.

quote:

We know there is a real difference between the observed human intelligent agents and the unobserved intelligent Designer. Do you have some reason to suspect that there is a difference between mutations observed in the lab and those that occur in nature?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
The difference is this; it isn’t assumed that the unobserved intelligence is doing something that intelligence cannot do – that is produce complex interdependent information driven machinery. But in the case of evolution, I think it is very much the case that unobserved mutations are assumed to be able to do something we simply don’t see mutations we observe doing; namely producing complex interdependent information driven machinery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Evolution is predicated on the notion that mutations under selection produced the living systems we see. Neither mutations nor natural selection are unknown entities.

Sure, and neither are intelligent agents; but obviously the particular selective processes, mutations, and intelligent agents are unknown.

quote:

The difference is this; it isn’t assumed that the unobserved intelligence is doing something that intelligence cannot do – that is produce complex interdependent information driven machinery. But in the case of evolution, I think it is very much the case that unobserved mutations are assumed to be able to do something we simply don’t see mutations we observe doing; namely producing complex interdependent information driven machinery.

quote:

So then it becomes a matter of research. It seems to me that research on genes and genetic mutations (as well as natural selection) is moving ahead much more rapidly than research on biologically active invisible intelligent agents. And with good reason.

quote:

OK, so now we’re back to what I was asking you to explain earlier that you still haven’t yet. We’ve observed mutations causing several different components of this process, such as creating novel functions and working together to refine functions. The only thing that could make it unreasonable to assume mutations can produce systems like you’ve described is if these parts are unable to work together in order to cause them.

quote:

Here’s an analogy: unless there’s been a major advance in the past year or so, nobody has ever observed the formation of a black hole. However, we have observed several processes that are individual parts of a black hole’s formation, such as the effects of gravity and how enough of it can cause the space-time continuum to become curved. Since all of the individual components of a black hole’s formation have been observed separately, and these are the only processes necessary in order for a black hole to form, is it reasonable to assume that black holes are capable from forming as a result of these processes? Unless you disagree with astrophysics as well as evolution, I assume you would say the answer is yes.

quote:

I explained in post #74 how the individual components of evolution that have been observed should be capable of producing a system of interdependent mutations. If these processes are the only ones that are necessary for evolution to occur, then concluding that evolution happens is no less reasonable than concluding that black holes can form. In order for this to not be reasonable in the case of evolution, there would have to be a specific reason why these parts cannot work together in order to cause it. If you think there’s something that prevents this, what is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
First off, I think it needs to be pointed out you are lumping together several different processes and calling them all ‘mutations’.

quote:

We have seen changes . . .

quote:

What we have not seen are multiple mutations accumulating over time in a manner that produces novel capabilities derived from the complex interaction of interpedently and independent modifications;

quote:

Well, I think your analogy is too vague to be helpful; the existence of black holes was a specific prediction based on definitive and rigorous mathematical formula; their potential for existence has been understood as far back as the late 18 hundreds.

quote:

Well, as I have pointed out in this post, you have actually chronicled a few widely varying phenomena, none of which are particularly helpful in producing those structures and systems which are assumed to be the product of evolution.

quote:

First off, I think it needs to be pointed out you are lumping together several different processes and calling them all ‘mutations’.

We have seen changes that break components in the cell which had the effect of allowing the the cell to survive to reproduce in a highly selective environment. We have seen changes to regulatory processes that changed the expression of already extant genetic information into various phenotypes. And we have seen simple capabilities extended through the instance of a single mutation. No one doubts these things can happen, and they are readily observable.

What we have not seen are multiple mutations accumulating over time in a manner that produces novel capabilities derived from the complex interaction of interpedently and independent modifications; what has been observed does not justify the assumption that this has happened, and much that we know weighs against it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
First off, I think it needs to be pointed out you are lumping together several different processes and calling them all ‘mutations’.

We have seen changes that break components in the cell which had the effect of allowing the the cell to survive to reproduce in a highly selective environment. We have seen changes to regulatory processes that changed the expression of already extant genetic information into various phenotypes. And we have seen simple capabilities extended through the instance of a single mutation. No one doubts these things can happen, and they are readily observable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Perhaps glaudys, Agahnim, and Method could get together and decide (more than they already do, that is) what sort of questions/points you want to make. To be quite frank it's summer, and I'm not going to spend a lot of time weeding through the peculiarities of your various points, which often run together in a an rather amorphous blend. So since you all seem to agree (at least on the point 'Jack is evil and must be defeated") you could make joint posts when you start to overlap, and we might be able to have a cohesive conversation.

Just a suggestion.

quote:

I don't know if that would work or not. But I am certainly interested it understanding your concept of "mutation". To me it seems that you do not count a change in the DNA sequence of a regulatory gene as a mutation. Or am I reading you wrong?

I am also wondering if you count any change in any non-coding stretch of DNA as a mutation.

If I am not reading you wrong, then just what do you count and not count as mutations, and what is the basis of this classification?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I don't know if that would work or not. But I am certainly interested it understanding your concept of "mutation". To me it seems that you do not count a change in the DNA sequence of a regulatory gene as a mutation. Or am I reading you wrong?

I am also wondering if you count any change in any non-coding stretch of DNA as a mutation.

If I am not reading you wrong, then just what do you count and not count as mutations, and what is the basis of this classification?

Like 'species', it is not that I don't 'count' certain things as mutations, it is that 'mutation' is such a broad and arbitrary term that it really tells us nothing scientifically. I prefer to talk about specific changes to genomes, and how those changes affect the organism.

Science is better when it is specific.

quote:

Is a specific change to the genome a change in the DNA sequence which composes the genome? How does that differ from the definition of mutation which Method and I spoke of? I don't understand why you call it broad or arbitrary. A mutation is a change in a DNA sequence.

That is narrow, not broad. It isolates the word "mutation" to one and only one kind of change: a change in a DNA sequence. And thus, it is not arbitrary either, for one can examine any DNA sequence to determine whether it is the same or different from another. In particular, one can sequence the DNA of a parent and follow it through several generations noting the changes. How is this arbitrary? It is the same or it is different. Yes or no. Nothing arbitrary about it.