RE: ID is not science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Jhud -> RE: ID is not science (8/6/2008 4:22:32 PM)

quote:

Are you talking about ID here? Finally we agree!


Actually, ID is eminently falsifiable - life origins researchers have simply failed to falsify it.

quote:

I know your smart enough to know this isnt true, which is why I say its intellectually dishonest. If abiogenesis research has nothing to do with science, whats it about then? More evil scientists wanting to explain away God so they can do whatever they want? I know your smart enough not to buy into that old canard either. Hypothesis get posited, researched and if they are falsified, they are discarded. That is science. That is what abiogenesis research is: science.


I never said they were evil, I simply said that this particular group of scientists has failed to produce any real science. It's pure, unadulterated speculation at this point - there are no testable hypothesis from the life from non-living matter camp. There is nothing to test, and nothing to falsify.



Method -> RE: ID is not science (8/6/2008 9:34:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
No, they aren't doing research, they are simply publicizing untestable and unfalsifiable, speculations.


Are these untestable and unfalsifiable speculations?

quote:

Science. 1995 Jul 21;269(5222):364-70.

Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences.

Ekland EH, Szostak JW, Bartel DP.
Collaborators (1)

Szostak JW.

Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.

Seven families of RNA ligases, previously isolated from random RNA sequences, fall into three classes on the basis of secondary structure and regiospecificity of ligation. Two of the three classes of ribozymes have been engineered to act as true enzymes, catalyzing the multiple-turnover transformation of substrates into products. The most complex of these ribozymes has a minimal catalytic domain of 93 nucleotides. An optimized version of this ribozyme has a kcat exceeding one per second, a value far greater than that of most natural RNA catalysts and approaching that of comparable protein enzymes. The fact that such a large and complex ligase emerged from a very limited sampling of sequence space implies the existence of a large number of distinct RNA structures of equivalent complexity and activity.


That doesn't sound like speculation to me. RNA ligases forming from random polymerization. Sounds like an early step in abiogenesis to me. Even better, the mechanisms that they give are not magic like those of ID.

This is exactly what is being investigated and the results are not untestable or unfalsifiable. So what research is ID producing along the same lines?


quote:

If you want to pretend that is 'research' then be my guest - but don't try to tell us this is 'real science' because it has nothing to do with science.


I guess this is the only reaction that ID supporters can take. Try to make fun of real scientists doing real scientists while they sit on their hands doing nothing.



Carico -> RE: ID is not science (8/6/2008 9:45:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
No, they aren't doing research, they are simply publicizing untestable and unfalsifiable, speculations.


Are these untestable and unfalsifiable speculations?

quote:

Science. 1995 Jul 21;269(5222):364-70.

Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences.

Ekland EH, Szostak JW, Bartel DP.
Collaborators (1)

Szostak JW.

Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.

Seven families of RNA ligases, previously isolated from random RNA sequences, fall into three classes on the basis of secondary structure and regiospecificity of ligation. Two of the three classes of ribozymes have been engineered to act as true enzymes, catalyzing the multiple-turnover transformation of substrates into products. The most complex of these ribozymes has a minimal catalytic domain of 93 nucleotides. An optimized version of this ribozyme has a kcat exceeding one per second, a value far greater than that of most natural RNA catalysts and approaching that of comparable protein enzymes. The fact that such a large and complex ligase emerged from a very limited sampling of sequence space implies the existence of a large number of distinct RNA structures of equivalent complexity and activity.


That doesn't sound like speculation to me. RNA ligases forming from random polymerization. Sounds like an early step in abiogenesis to me. Even better, the mechanisms that they give are not magic like those of ID.

This is exactly what is being investigated and the results are not untestable or unfalsifiable. So what research is ID producing along the same lines?


quote:

If you want to pretend that is 'research' then be my guest - but don't try to tell us this is 'real science' because it has nothing to do with science.


I guess this is the only reaction that ID supporters can take. Try to make fun of real scientists doing real scientists while they sit on their hands doing nothing.

We creationists just observe reality, not invent it. that's why we know the difference between humans and animals and evolutionists don't. [;)]



Method -> RE: ID is not science (8/6/2008 10:00:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
We creationists just observe reality, not invent it.


Then show me where someone has observed a supernatural deity producing life in the lab.

quote:

that's why we know the difference between humans and animals and evolutionists don't. [;)]


Humans are not multicellular organisms that consume energy and react to stimulus? That's a new one on me.



hellohellohi -> RE: ID is not science (8/6/2008 10:08:54 PM)

quote:

We creationists just observe reality, not invent it.


It was perhaps a commission of a kind of science when God told Adam to name all the animals and things. Perhaps science ought to be properly understood as the process of naming things and refining names. An humble enterprise. It may look very little form what it does today, though, but framed as such, perhaps fewer scientists would get tempted into moving from their observations of what is, coupled with speculations and wishes for what might be, to implying what "ought."



Method -> RE: ID is not science (8/6/2008 10:16:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, ID is eminently falsifiable - life origins researchers have simply failed to falsify it.


We have already seen how IDers shift the goalposts. Several potential pathways for IC systems have been found which is all that is needed to falsify ID.

quote:

I never said they were evil, I simply said that this particular group of scientists has failed to produce any real science. It's pure, unadulterated speculation at this point - there are no testable hypothesis from the life from non-living matter camp. There is nothing to test, and nothing to falsify.


The hypothesis that randomly assembled RNA strands can have ligase activity has been confirmed.



hellohellohi -> RE: ID is not science (8/6/2008 10:30:33 PM)

quote:

Actually, ID is eminently falsifiable - life origins researchers have simply failed to falsify it.


Falsifiability, I would say, is a red herring in this instance and perhaps forever and always. Look above/elsewhere for my argument about this. Anyways...

The thing to question or to answer about ID depending on who you are is whether it doesn't posit a "mysterious" origin for life rather than one that is, a priori, amenable to observation and investigation. I would point out, as I hope you have seen me before doing, that consciousness (an intelligence) is not precisely amenable to empirical investigation. The only method for investigating known consciousnesses is interview. A theoretical intelligence is trivially mysterious in that we do not know what or whom such is, but I suggest that granting explanatory power to an entity which promises to remain mysterious, since its forces of creation are apparently superfluous at this point, would be to institutionalize mystery. This is not scientific, as science must find ways to ask questions, otherwise it is out of business; it ceases to be. Granting explanatory power to a designer for which we have not yet begun to develop a theory of mind is rather empty, as well, since all designers act out of certain exigencies as well as out of freedom. It would be far more interesting to express what these criteria and constraints of a hypothetical designer would be, in addition to questions of the origins of the designer itself: is it biological, for instance?

A scienctist is a lazy bookseller unless he asks these kinds of questions. Otherwise, he is an ideologue trying to erect a soapbox out of ostensibly empirical planks.



ferdgoodfellow -> RE: ID is not science (8/7/2008 8:47:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

quote:

ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow

But I am a loss to suggest tell-tale signs of ID other than what Dembski has already proposed: specified complexity.


I don't see how that helps since there is nothing specified in biology. For example, there are (as of right now) 6 billion ways to put together a human at the genetic level. So much for specification. Also, there is no observed goal in nature so there is not a specific target that evolution is aiming for. Specified complexity fails in describing biology.


Behe claims that Darwinian processes fail to completely explain biology.

quote:



quote:

Behe is a good example. He is looking at experiments already conducted by nature to see how well EB has performed. Malaria is his primary example and he claims it is the "Michelson-Morley" experiment that demonstrates the limits of the Darwinian mechanism.


How did this demonstrate the limits of Darwinian mechanisms? From recollection, the malaria were under a single selective pressure away from their current state and they evolved a single solution. How does this demonstrate limits when the overwhelming selective pressure is stasis.

Also, how did Behe determine that there were no other possible solutions? How did Behe determine that given different selective pressures that they could not evolve a new morphology or lifestyle?


Apparently malaria is good at adapting to the different drugs science has thrown at them in past decades. There are brazillions of the little critters, their lifespan is short and they reproduce very fast. So the chances of generating beneficial mutations which will confer anbiotic resistance to the organism are great. This is a very fine demonstration of the evolutionary process, and we see it play out over the course of mere years.

But there is one obstacle that malaria hasn't been able to mutate around in over 10,000 years since it appeared in humans: sickle hemoglobin. Brazillions upon brazillions of generations of malaria failed to mutate around it. This strongly suggests malaria has run into an evolutionary brick wall. Some mutations are easier dan udders, and some mutations are impossible for a given organism.

And if, in this instance, EB is incapable, how then do we get off claiming that it is capable in overcoming even greater challenges.

That's the gist of his reasoning. Apparently, when we get down at the molecular level and get a handle on the actual changes involved in order to achieve a beneficial mutation, we can, as in Powerball, calculate the odds.

Behe borrows terminology from Jerry Coyne and Allen Orr, namely "biologically reasonable." Is it biologically reasonable to expect X to occur by reason of random mutation and natural selection at the molecular level? He offer two criteria to make this assessment: 1) Steps. The more intermediate evolutionary steps that must be climbed to achieve some bio goal without reaping a net benefit, the more unlikely a Darwinian explanation. 2) Coherence. A telltale signature of planning is the coherent ordering of steps toward a goal. Random mutation, however, is incoherent; that is, any given evolutionary step taken by a population of organism is unlikely to be connected to its predecessor.



ferdgoodfellow -> RE: ID is not science (8/7/2008 8:55:33 AM)

Guys (and gals),

I will have to drop out for a time as my personal and business affairs are in danger of descending into total dungtitude if I don't devote more time to them and less to this stuff, as interesting as it is. I very much appreciate discussing this stuff with folks as knowledgable as you are. I wish I could respond better to your various points and questions, but I yam but a Bear of Very Little Brain (BOVLB) who managed to get through collitch without taking one hard science course.

Thank you and God bless you all.

cordially

ferd



gluadys -> RE: ID is not science (8/7/2008 9:12:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
2) Coherence. A telltale signature of planning is the coherent ordering of steps toward a goal. Random mutation, however, is incoherent; that is, any given evolutionary step taken by a population of organism is unlikely to be connected to its predecessor.


I am not sure this is so telltale. Any evolutionary pathway will look coherent after the fact.

quote:

but I yam but a Bear of Very Little Brain (BOVLB) who managed to get through collitch without taking one hard science course.


Whaddayano. Me likewise. My majors were language and literature. Never took any hard science past high school.



hellohellohi -> RE: ID is not science (8/7/2008 10:47:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow

Guys (and gals),

I will have to drop out for a time as my personal and business affairs are in danger of descending into total dungtitude if I don't devote more time to them and less to this stuff, as interesting as it is. I very much appreciate discussing this stuff with folks as knowledgable as you are. I wish I could respond better to your various points and questions, but I yam but a Bear of Very Little Brain (BOVLB) who managed to get through collitch without taking one hard science course.

Thank you and God bless you all.

cordially

ferd


see ya fellow



RCC -> RE: ID is not science (8/20/2008 9:40:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Solving? Yes. Making lots of progress? Yes. Solved (past tense)? No (depending on what you are talking about).


Well in this case we are talking about the origination of life - in what way have we 'solved' this puzzle, other than to offer numerous possibilities, none of which is demonstrable:

Indeed, I think it is enlightening to do an occasional review of proposed 'solutions' to the origin of life.

the Latest - it came from diamonds.
It came from meteorites
It came from volcanoes
It came from comets
It came from deep oceans
It came from mica sheets
It came from clay
It came from zeolites
It came from interstellar dust
It came from sphalerite

There is no reason scientifically not to consider the possiblity (particularly as scientists are obviously grasping at straws) of intelligence as an option.

Rather than scientists "grasping at straws," the multiplicity of hypotheses suggests that many naturalistic paths to the origin of life are conceivable. The difficulty of the question lies primarily in the sparseness and indirect nature of the evidence from that era, 4 billion years ago. Molecules don't fossilize, and much of the geological evidence from that period has been destroyed or buried.

But let's suppose that ID is correct and God intervened to create the first life forms on earth, as well as to create virulent bacteria, while apparently declining to intervene to help the victims of natural disasters and epidemics. Here's the question for which I've never seen an answer, even an unsatisfactory one, from an IDist: If ID is correct on the origin of life, it means that God either was unable to create a universe in which life would spontaneously assemble through naturalistic processes, or He chose not to do so. How is this position more supportive of Christian belief than the view that God created a universe in which life (and human beings) could arise providentially through purely naturalistic processes?



Jhud -> RE: ID is not science (8/20/2008 10:29:36 AM)

quote:

Rather than scientists "grasping at straws," the multiplicity of hypotheses suggests that many naturalistic paths to the origin of life are conceivable. The difficulty of the question lies primarily in the sparseness and indirect nature of the evidence from that era, 4 billion years ago. Molecules don't fossilize, and much of the geological evidence from that period has been destroyed or buried.


The reality is, if ones proposal for the origin of life isn’t demonstrated (or demonstrable) then one can multiply hypothesis until the cows come home – it doesn’t really advance the proposition that life arose through ungided means. The only thing that would advance that proposition is demonstrating in some manner that this can happen.

quote:

But let's suppose that ID is correct and God intervened to create the first life forms on earth, as well as to create virulent bacteria, while apparently declining to intervene to help the victims of natural disasters and epidemics. Here's the question for which I've never seen an answer, even an unsatisfactory one, from an IDist: If ID is correct on the origin of life, it means that God either was unable to create a universe in which life would spontaneously assemble through naturalistic processes, or He chose not to do so. How is this position more supportive of Christian belief than the view that God created a universe in which life (and human beings) could arise providentially through purely naturalistic processes?


The reason you have never received a satisfactory answer is because you are asking an inherently contradictory question. If the universe was designed with the intention of life arising through natural processes, then those processes by there very nature wouldn’t be ‘spontaneous’.



Page: <<   < prev  14 15 16 17 [18]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI