|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 12:24:11 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 190
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Perhaps you should as well. The a priori probability of the average evening of bridge is equally infinitesimal. Each hand is less likely than winning the lottery. Do you have anything reasonable to add or not? Apparently anything goes is your view of probabilities.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 12:25:52 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7796
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Now, what if we came upon an untterly unfamiliar script scrawled into the sand. By what could we recognize that it was created by intelligent, subjectivities rather than simply representing an example of the chaotic but equally probable examples of various configurations of sand that wind and water and wave-action (if we are at the beach) can produce? Is it lack of repetition? Or is it repetition? Is it something circumstantial, such as replication of teh same pattern in similar disparate media, such as being carved into nearby rock or scrawled with pigment? That seems like a good indicator. (Here, I would like to argue in passing that DNA represents the same medium rather than different organisms representing fundamentally different media. Organisms are not the media, but rather the depiction/symbol-candidate.)
Further, what is the definition of complexity? I would offer: when a series of objects cannot be generated by an algorithm shorter than the series itself. One can formulate this in terms of bytes, if you like.
Well, I think it's important to note that ID doesn't consider complexity in isolation, but always qualifies it in terms of its relationship to a purpose or pattern. In it's very simplest form, complexity is simply a measure of the number of elements that make up a structure or system. Thus "I" is less complex than "I was" which is less complex than "I was here".
But it is not only 'complexity' that ID contemplates, but specificity and necessity of the arrangement of complex structures. So while a we could consider two groups of rocks that are composed of an equal number of elements (and thus equally complex) it is the complexity plus the arrangement of those stones into a specific recognizable pattern or which fulfill a certain purpose that makes the complexity an indicator of intelligent activity.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 12:35:54 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 190
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
I did just now, but I didn't see any personal contact info. Do you mean I ouht to comment on the articles there? Maybe. Anyway, I don't think it is arrogant for me to honestly admit that he appears to me to be a sophist and bookseller. I don't say I am right, only that that is his appearance to me after giving him a read. Go there and write that you think he's a sophist bookseller that doesn't know real math and the design inference is a sham, and try to show him why. Should make for a real laugh for the other ID scientists there.
quote:
What in the world do you mean by "abductive reasoning?" Ever heard of google?
quote:
Again, however, the design inference is a sham: Then why are you using it now?
quote:
Yay, Method! I would do better to leave the discussion to you. Methods responses are even more poorly thought out and backed by data than yours!
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question..." Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion (p. 58-59)
Yet here is the atheist/materialist/Darwinist view of life :
Where we came from: Chance and necessity.
Where we are going: Eternal oblivion.
Our place in the grand scheme of things: There is no grand scheme of things.
Darwin loves you and has a big empty plan for your life.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 1:25:23 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 190
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
Statistical mechanics and combinatorial dependencies coupled with information theory literally demolish macro-evolutionism's "rm + ns + time = 13.6 million life forms" nonsense. NDE (neo-Darwinian evo) is anything but realistic. quote:
How does it destroy it? Try to avoid any Texas Sharpshooting*. This should be self-evident but under a Darwinian fundamentalist paradigm and sufficient indoctrination it isn't.
So in your own view, when does a complex functional machine become too complex to have originated naturally without any guidance or intelligence?
quote:
Prove that it can not arise through something other than intelligence. No, you must prove that it can. The only CCIS we know of are all based on intelligent designers. There are no instances of complex machinery containing and manipulating coded information in view of the construction of things other than themselves known. None. So the burden of proof is on those claiming that such systems can arise naturally. Again, code implies intelligence intrinsically - there is no such thing as code without intelligence since the word implies intelligence. This isn't hard. But it must have been restated a dozen times to you so far.
What is your problem? Don't believe the dictionaries? quote:
a set of rules or principles or laws (especially written ones)
a coding system used for transmitting messages requiring brevity or secrecy
attach a code to; "Code the pieces with numbers so that you can identify them later"
(computer science) the symbolic arrangement of data or instructions in a computer program or the set of such instructions
convert ordinary language into code; "We should encode the message for security reasons"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CODE
A comprehensive set of laws drawn up to cover completely a given subject. Covers diverse subjects, such as the criminal code, and the building code. www.titleguarantynm.com/glossary/glossary_c.asp
A system of symbols, numbers, or signals that conveys information to a computer. www.trimarkhardware.com/en/glossary.aspx
A collection of laws, rules, or regulations organized by subject matter.
www.legislature.state.oh.us/glossary.cfm
the usage of characters or words to represent words, sentences, or ideas. Morse code is a common example, where combinations of dots and dashes represent letters and numbers.
www.cdt.org/crypto/glossary.shtml
Need more? jgi!
quote:
Code implies intelligence by definition quote:
No, it implies a specific output from a specific input. It is a symbolic convention. Input from what to what output? According to what convention?
More squirming around the fact that code implies intelligence by definition won't change the fact.
quote:
Then how did we get by without it until Dembski produced it? Dembski merely described it mathematically and logically. It has always existed. quote:
Could you actually show someone using it in the field of biology? Absolutely! Already have. But you just pretend it ain't so. Genetic-ID or any other firm or domain deploying design detection routines to discover GMO's etc.. all the way down to you recognizing the pixels in fron of your nose as designed! This is not hard! Take off your Darwinist blinders for a minute and you'll see. Forensic medecine, archeology, arson detection.... the list is long in many other domains.
Claiming it can't apply in bio is a lame and bare assertion used to avoid the obvious conclusions that Darwinist/materialists cannot psychologically handle as it would undo their whole world-view. That's the simple truth.
quote:
You really should learn something about probability and the laws of information before handing out any further not so humble yet seriously erroneous opinions.
quote:
In your probabilities of the flagella evolving did you factor in all of the millions of alternate motility systems that could have evolved but didn't? Exactly. You shoot yourself in the foot again. Why, of all the possibilities do we see only certain things and not the others?
I said nothing of flagella. That's a minor example Behe used to explain the IC principle. There are millions more IC systems in bio. How do you explain in Darwinist terms the 247 nano-machines in yeast DNA? How does chance permit such inter-cooperating functional machines to arise?
Again:
the ATP energy or
the information coding the ATP, or
the system transcribing the genes to ATP proteins, or
the ATP energy needed to replicate the coded DNA, or
the ATP needed to power the transcription to the ATP, or
the photosynthesis system needed to convert photons to ATP?
Again : which came first DNA or the proteins it makes? DNA requires proteins to work, proteins are built from instructions sets or coded protein plans within DNA - go figure huh.
The DNA molecule contains the template for the ribosome. The ribosome is made up of RNA and 70 different proteins. But a ribosome is required to produce proteins. And DNA is required to specify the proteins. It’s the mother of all chicken/egg paradoxes!
The probability that such a system arose by chance = impossible. Combinatorial dependencies in working machines rule out the possibility of Darwinian evo. Combinatorial dependencies work with the rules of statistical mechanics. Some things simply are not possible without intelligence. Code is one. Complex inter-operative celluar machinery is another.
See http://telicthoughts.com/combinatorial-dependencies/
"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero." - -Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937).
Now, if you add up all the possible attempted, billion-per-second combinations, in the hypothetical primordial soup, you wind up with only 10 exp 74 throws of the chemical dice. This means that the odds of getting the required self-producing system out of our soup would be 1 in 10 exp 1,926. We wouldn't expect that to happen in the entire course of the earth's history.
Get a copy of Denton's 'Nature's Destiny' and read the 1st 11 chapters describing the intricate, inter-operative complexities of life systems. It would be a first step out of the quagmire of Darwinism's intrinsic contradictions.
Darwinism works by magic and miracle. It rules out (as you attempt to do here) all statistical improbabilities as a priori 'not worthy of notice' than goes on describing things based on the assumptions that "all things are possible to the one who believes".
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 1:44:54 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
ORIGINAL:
the ATP energy or
the information coding the ATP, or
the system transcribing the genes to ATP proteins, or
the ATP energy needed to replicate the coded DNA, or
the ATP needed to power the transcription to the ATP, or
the photosynthesis system needed to convert photons to ATP?
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html
* The main energy source of present life is ATP and other energized phosphate molecules. So, what was the prebiotic source of those? It turns out that inorganic polyphosphates (chains like phosphate-phosphate-phosphate-phosphate) have energetic bonds very similar to those of ATP (which is adenine-phosphate-phosphate-phosphate), and yet can be formed by the simple heating of certain rocks.
While ID'ists claim unsolvable problem after unsolvable problem, scientists are out there actually solving them...
quote:
Again : which came first DNA or the proteins it makes? DNA requires proteins to work, proteins are built from instructions sets or coded protein plans within DNA - go figure huh.
The DNA molecule contains the template for the ribosome. The ribosome is made up of RNA and 70 different proteins. But a ribosome is required to produce proteins. And DNA is required to specify the proteins. It’s the mother of all chicken/egg paradoxes!
The probability that such a system arose by chance = impossible. Combinatorial dependencies in working machines rule out the possibility of Darwinian evo. Combinatorial dependencies work with the rules of statistical mechanics. Some things simply are not possible without intelligence. Code is one. Complex inter-operative celluar machinery is another.
See http://telicthoughts.com/combinatorial-dependencies/
In gradual process where components may at some time become necessary or unnecessary, how in the world is combinatorial dependency a problem? Evolution explains and expects such a thing.
This is a ridiculous as the "form a cell from random intercolliding atoms or biogenesis is impossible!"... as if anyone would presently suggest cells form from just the perfect combination of single atoms bumping into each other at the same time.
And the chicken-egg problem isnt really a problem anymore.
quote:
Now, if you add up all the possible attempted, billion-per-second combinations, in the hypothetical primordial soup, you wind up with only 10 exp 74 throws of the chemical dice. This means that the odds of getting the required self-producing system out of our soup would be 1 in 10 exp 1,926. We wouldn't expect that to happen in the entire course of the earth's history.
Now your just blowing smoke. Anyone who claims to have any reliable measure of the probability of the formation of the first replicators is making **** up.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 2:09:05 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
In it's very simplest form, complexity is simply a measure of the number of elements that make up a structure or system. Thus "I" is less complex than "I was" which is less complex than "I was here".
That's a peculiar definition. How do we decide which discrete parts ought to be numbered then? Down to atoms, molecules, types of molecules, arbitrarily nameable subests of some kind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 2:13:49 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7796
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html
* The main energy source of present life is ATP and other energized phosphate molecules. So, what was the prebiotic source of those? It turns out that inorganic polyphosphates (chains like phosphate-phosphate-phosphate-phosphate) have energetic bonds very similar to those of ATP (which is adenine-phosphate-phosphate-phosphate), and yet can be formed by the simple heating of certain rocks.
While ID'ists claim unsolvable problem after unsolvable problem, scientists are out there actually solving them...
Evolutionists have the oddest notion of 'solved'. Apparently, if one merely states an untested (and concievably, untestable) proposition, one has 'solved' the problem. This may be perhaps why materialism is ultimately the real science stopper - it settles for conjecture, while true skeptics demand that hypothesis be tested and demonstrated.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 2:17:55 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Should make for a real laugh for the other ID scientists there.
Sort of like "ID science" as a phrase is a real laugh to real scientists?
Dembski is not a scientist. He has no science background. He has math and philosophy, neither of which are sciences.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 2:20:52 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html
* The main energy source of present life is ATP and other energized phosphate molecules. So, what was the prebiotic source of those? It turns out that inorganic polyphosphates (chains like phosphate-phosphate-phosphate-phosphate) have energetic bonds very similar to those of ATP (which is adenine-phosphate-phosphate-phosphate), and yet can be formed by the simple heating of certain rocks.
While ID'ists claim unsolvable problem after unsolvable problem, scientists are out there actually solving them...
Evolutionists have the oddest notion of 'solved'. Apparently, if one merely states an untested (and concievably, untestable) proposition, one has 'solved' the problem. This may be perhaps why materialism is ultimately the real science stopper - it settles for conjecture, while true skeptics demand that hypothesis be tested and demonstrated.
I didnt say it was 'solved'. But the ATP problem suddenly seems a lot less intractable now doesn't it? Contrary to being a science stopper, I imagine that discovery opened up many new avenues of biogenesis research.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 2:25:44 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
GHitch,
I have yet to receive a password from that website you suggested. I am awaiting completion of the registration process.
In the meantime, will you explain Dembski's basis for believing that the permutation represented by existing genomes could not have evolved.
Does it take too long? But how long does it take for a single trial of fitness for a gene within a population take?
I have yet to run across anything addressing this directly in Dembski's writings.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 2:31:09 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7796
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I didnt say it was 'solved'. But the ATP problem suddenly seems a lot less intractable now doesn't it? Contrary to being a science stopper, I imagine that discovery opened up many new avenues of biogenesis research.
You said, "scientists are out there actually solving them..." - are they or aren't they?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 2:47:02 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
bookseller:
"
"I'm not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics' objections. An additional advantage with this approach is that I can cite the website on which the objections appear, which typically gives me the last word in the exchange. And even if the critics choose to revise the objections on their website, books are far more permanent and influential than webpages."
--http://www.talkreason.org/articles/newmath.cfm
"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 2:54:34 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
One of the things I keep seeing in these conversations are claims that are just not backed up, or statements taken for granted that possibly should not be. Like this paraphrased quote from Dembski
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Dembski brings it up in several contexts, the first being the testability of ID. From p. 286, he sez (paraphrased):
But what about the predictive power of ID? ID offers one obvious prediction, namely, that nature should be full of SC and therefore be full of pointers to design. That prediciton is increasingly confirmed. What's more, once designed systems are in place, opeational and interacting (e.g an ecosystem or economy), ID predicts certain patterns of technological evolution, notable among these being sudden emergence, convergence to local optima and extinction. Although research in this area is only now beginning, preliminary results are that biology confirms these patters of technological evolution. Significantly, these patterns are non-Darwinian.
Emphasis added. What patterns is he referring to? Sudden emergence. convergence, extinction? What is non-Darwinian about these patterns?
quote:
Me: I was re-reading Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. He sez that until life-forms evolved which were capable of designing stuff, all design in nature was only apparent and a result of blind natural processes. IOW, no design until hooman beans hit the scene. Genrich Altshuller, the founder of TRIZ, undertook to study the evolution of technological systems, and he found their evolution is not random but follows certain patterns. So, in the era after the onset of true (not apparent) design, we can study how designed systems work. But if we apply TRIZ to biology and find the same patterns, isn't that suggestive of design even in biology?
I think one of the confusions here is to equate "blind natural processes" with "random". Just because a process is not intelligent doesn't mean it is random. In that respect, Altshuller's study of the evolution of technological systems does not counter the non-random processes that drive evolution. So, no, it is not necessarily suggestive of design.
quote:
But when Darwinism runs into intractable problems which haven't been solved in 150 years, there are no solutions in sight, ....
What is the basis for saying that Darwinism has run into intractable problems? And that there are no solutions in sight? These phrases are used as if they were commonly accepted as true, and I don't think that is the case.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 3:09:45 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7796
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Emphasis added. What patterns is he referring to? Sudden emergence. convergence, extinction? What is non-Darwinian about these patterns?
Well, convergence to local optima is problematic for Darwinism, but sudden emergence is completely anti-thetical to it.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 5:02:11 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Well, the burden of proof has been shifted. Recall that the claim of proponents of Darwinism and other naturalistic explanations of biology is that it all came about by blind natural processes.
This thread is about ID, not evolution. We are asking if ID is science so you must show that it is science. The first thing one must do is support claims with positive evidence. You and others have consistently shifted the burden of proof from ID onto evolution. This is a logical fallacy known as Negative proof. Your whole argument is based on a logical fallacy.
quote:
Design is excluded in principle.
Not at all. No one can show how it can be included as part of a research program. This is because ID is not science.
quote:
In this regard, ID is actually helpful to Darwinism cuz it should serve to spur you guys into greater efforts as opposed to "resting on your laurels."
Does this mean that IDers will continue to do nothing in the way of science?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 5:14:17 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
This should be self-evident but under a Darwinian fundamentalist paradigm and sufficient indoctrination it isn't.
So in your own view, when does a complex functional machine become too complex to have originated naturally without any guidance or intelligence?
You show me the limit including the math needed to demonstrate it.
quote:
quote:
Prove that it can not arise through something other than intelligence. No, you must prove that it can.
This thread is about ID, not evolution. Please show how these structures require an intelligent designer and include the mechanisms by which the designer implemented the designs and when it was done. Shifting the burden of proof is not what a scientific theory should do. Have you ever read a paper on evolution that states "no one has shown how an intelligent designer did it, therefore it had to evolve"? I haven't read any such paper, yet every argument for ID makes this fallacious argument.
quote:
The only CCIS we know of are all based on intelligent designers.
You are begging the question. If you claim that life contains CCIS then the origin of CCIS is unknown in a vast majority of cases.
quote:
So the burden of proof is on those claiming that such systems can arise naturally.
The burden of proof is also on those who claim that it came about through an intelligent designer. How did it happen? When did it happen? Do you have evidence for any of this?
quote:
the usage of characters or words to represent words, sentences, or ideas. Morse code is a common example, where combinations of dots and dashes represent letters and numbers.
www.cdt.org/crypto/glossary.shtml
DNA is not made up of abstract characters. If DNA is a code then the Sun is a clock.
quote:
Code implies intelligence by definition
Again, you are begging the question. You must show that it implies intelligence.
quote:
It is a symbolic convention. Input from what to what output? According to what convention?
More squirming around the fact that code implies intelligence by definition won't change the fact.
DNA is not symbolic.
quote:
Claiming it can't apply in bio is a lame and bare assertion used to avoid the obvious conclusions that Darwinist/materialists cannot psychologically handle as it would undo their whole world-view. That's the simple truth.
Don't blame me for you inability to apply Dembski's work to biology.
quote:
Exactly. You shoot yourself in the foot again. Why, of all the possibilities do we see only certain things and not the others?
You tell me. Show through ID why these other systems do not exist.
quote:
I said nothing of flagella. That's a minor example Behe used to explain the IC principle. There are millions more IC systems in bio. How do you explain in Darwinist terms the 247 nano-machines in yeast DNA? How does chance permit such inter-cooperating functional machines to arise?
Again, this is about ID. Show how the designer did it and when.
quote:
The DNA molecule contains the template for the ribosome. The ribosome is made up of RNA and 70 different proteins. But a ribosome is required to produce proteins. And DNA is required to specify the proteins. It’s the mother of all chicken/egg paradoxes!
The proteins simply stabilize the enzymatically active RNA. RNA makes protein from RNA. RNA is both a genetic and enzymatic molecule.
quote:
The probability that such a system arose by chance = impossible.
Prove it.
quote:
Combinatorial dependencies in working machines rule out the possibility of Darwinian evo.
This isn't about evolution. This thread is about ID. Can it stand on it's own or not?
quote:
"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero." - -Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937).
1937? Wow, cutting edge stuff.
quote:
Now, if you add up all the possible attempted, billion-per-second combinations, in the hypothetical primordial soup, you wind up with only 10 exp 74 throws of the chemical dice. This means that the odds of getting the required self-producing system out of our soup would be 1 in 10 exp 1,926. We wouldn't expect that to happen in the entire course of the earth's history.
What are the assumptions that you used to construct this calculation?
quote:
Darwinism works by magic and miracle. It rules out (as you attempt to do here) all statistical improbabilities as a priori 'not worthy of notice' than goes on describing things based on the assumptions that "all things are possible to the one who believes".
Again, this is about ID. How does the designer do it and when did the designer do it? Supply evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 7:51:49 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I didnt say it was 'solved'. But the ATP problem suddenly seems a lot less intractable now doesn't it? Contrary to being a science stopper, I imagine that discovery opened up many new avenues of biogenesis research.
You said, "scientists are out there actually solving them..." - are they or aren't they?
Solving? Yes. Making lots of progress? Yes. Solved (past tense)? No (depending on what you are talking about).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 8:05:35 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Emphasis added. What patterns is he referring to? Sudden emergence. convergence, extinction? What is non-Darwinian about these patterns?
Well, convergence to local optima is problematic for Darwinism, but sudden emergence is completely anti-thetical to it.
Why would convergence to local optima be problematic?
As for "sudden emergence" depends on a) how sudden and b) what the evidence for "sudden" is. A lot of people would point to the Cambrian explosion as sudden, but that is in geological terms and 10-15 million years is not at all the same thing as instantaneous appearance.
If "sudden emergence" in geological terms is what is being referred to, I don't see it being anti-thetical to Darwinism unless you are using a definition of Darwinism you have not made plain. I.e. do you distinguish between biological evolution in general and evolution by Darwinian mechanisms?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 8:10:34 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7796
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why would convergence to local optima be problematic?
Because it reduces variation and survivability overall.
quote:
As for "sudden emergence" depends on a) how sudden and b) what the evidence for "sudden" is. A lot of people would point to the Cambrian explosion as sudden, but that is in geological terms and 10-15 million years is not at all the same thing as instantaneous appearance.
If "sudden emergence" in geological terms is what is being referred to, I don't see it being anti-thetical to Darwinism unless you are using a definition of Darwinism you have not made plain. I.e. do you distinguish between biological evolution in general and evolution by Darwinian mechanisms?
Actually, sudden emergence is evidenced by a number of events, the Cambrian being one, the explosive development of angiosperms, beetles, and most recently, birds being the most notable others. In fact, explosions of biological diversity are increasingly becoming the rule rather than the exception.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 8:37:46 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Not really. ID doesn't say it can detect everything that is designed, only that when certain indicators are present, it can reliably say something is designed.
So anything can be designed, but some things are really, really designed. Is that it?
quote:
For example, if I found a rock on a path, it may be a product of intention (ID) or it may have been the product of ntural undirected occurences - there is sufficient evidence to know. If I found a group of rocks arranged in the words "I was here", then one has sufficient evidence to determine the intention of a mind.
What if I find a cloud in the sky that looks like a dragon. Does that take a designer?
And why does a discussion about biology fall back to a discussion about rocks? Can ID explain biology or not? If we observed rock designs mating with other rock designs to produce new, but slightly different rock designs why would we conclude that they need a designer?
quote:
quote:
Why not? What in ID says that not everything is reducible to mechanical or material processes?
That would be the "I".
Why?
quote:
Because, absent some novel force being found in the universe, the probabilities of undirected forces causing the specific and complex nature of such structures and systems is too improbable to consider as an option.
Why is it too improbable? Can you show me the math?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 8:43:04 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Why would convergence to local optima be problematic?
Because it reduces variation and survivability overall.
I still don't see the problem. Natural selection reduces variation and adaptation to specialized eco-niches may reduce survivability overall. I am not seeing anything here yet that is problematical for evolution/Darwinism. (I still don't know if you see these as being synonymous or not.) Perhaps you had better go into more detail on exactly what makes it "problematical for Darwinism".
quote:
As for "sudden emergence" depends on a) how sudden and b) what the evidence for "sudden" is. A lot of people would point to the Cambrian explosion as sudden, but that is in geological terms and 10-15 million years is not at all the same thing as instantaneous appearance.
If "sudden emergence" in geological terms is what is being referred to, I don't see it being anti-thetical to Darwinism unless you are using a definition of Darwinism you have not made plain. I.e. do you distinguish between biological evolution in general and evolution by Darwinian mechanisms?
Actually, sudden emergence is evidenced by a number of events, the Cambrian being one, the explosive development of angiosperms, beetles, and most recently, birds being the most notable others. In fact, explosions of biological diversity are increasingly becoming the rule rather than the exception.
Ok, you are looking at sudden emergence in geological time frames. That is surely not "completely anti-thetical" to evolution/Darwinism. Can you again be more specific as to exactly where you see the antithesis?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 8:47:17 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007 | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
