|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 1:24:13 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
A chemical, by itself has no meaning other than itself. DNA represents something other than itself. It's information content is instructions. Like all coded information systems. Instructions on building protein.
Then hydrogen and oxygen contain the instructions for making water. All atoms carry the same information.
quote:
Codons are chemically coded words.
No, they are not. They are a series of three nucleoside bases. Can you change the font of DNA? Nope. Can you italicize it or bold it? Nope. The reactions that DNA is a part of requires specific chemical and physical properties unlike words on a page.
quote:
The word is not the chemical, just as ink is not the word on a page or pixels themselves are words on your screen. This is simple.
To make a protein proteins, RNA, and DNA must chemically react with each other. Do you have to chemically react with the ink on the page in order to read it?
quote:
mRNA travels through the wall of the nucleus to the cytoplasm where the incredibly intricate process of translation occurs. The ribosome moves along the mRNA strand reading the information as it goes.
The ribosome chemically binds to the RNA strand which results in binding between the mRNA, ribozyme, and incoming tRNA. There is no reading. It is a chemical reaction through and through.
quote:
Take an organism of n genes, each has a possible 0 or 1 (on/off) state (like a binary digit or bit). This means there are 2 exp n possible expression states. Now if we have organism s A and B with 32,000 and 30,000 genes respectively, then the number of expression states for A is 2 exp 32,000 and B is 2 exp 30,000 - very large numbers - indeed far far greater than the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe (around 2 exp 80). So A has 2 exp 2000 times as many expression states as B.
So much for 98% similarity importance huh?
If humans and chimps were designed separately why would they share 98% similarity at the DNA level? Why would they even share the same codon usage?
quote:
Thus a relatively small difference in number of genes could account for very large differences in phenotype.
Which means that a few mutations in the right spots could result in drastic changes in morphology, right?
quote:
But there is very much more. Barry Commoner, Senior director of the Critical Genetics Project says, in 'Unraveling the DNA Myth' that there is more to life DNA. It has been shown that a single gene can give rise to many protein variants by means of what is being called 'alternative splicing'. Thus there is not a one to one correspondenceKwak between genes and proteins. A group of 150 proteins together with 5 molecules of RNA (spliceosome) assemble at various sites in the mRNA and form a molecular machine that cuts mRNA into segments, which are then recombined in different orders. There is a gene in the fruit fly know to give rise to 38,016 different proteins. Crick asserted that the discovery of just one type of cell in genetic info passed from protein to nucleic acid or from protein to protein would "shake the whole intellectual basis of molecular biology" But that's what is happening.
I fully agree that one gene=one feature is a usless idea in studying metazoans. Your point?
quote:
How anything like DNA could have survived without the living cell is a question Darwinists cannot answer.
Not yet. Your point? Is this another argument from ignorance?
How did DNA come about through an intelligent designer? When did this happen and how did this happen? If you can't answer this question does this mean that evolution is true by default?
quote:
So the implication of alternative splicing and error correction mechanisms is that DNA seems to depend on life for it's existence rather than life on DNA thus bringing serious doubt to the whole notion of RNA to DNA to life.
Why does it bring it into doubt? The organisms they are studying are the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. We would expect a lot of complexity. How does the current state of exon splicing cast doubt on the ability of enzymatic RNA to produce DNA?
quote:
Commoner says, "DNA did not create life; life created DNA". That's ID in a nutshell whether he realized it or not.
That is the RNA World hypothesis in a nutshell.
quote:
Miller and Levine expand on this by stating, "the largest stumbling block in bridging the gap between non-living and living still remains. All living cells are controlled by information stored in DNA, which is transcribed in RNA and then made into protein. This is a very complicated system and each of these three molecules requires the other two- either to put it together or to help it work. DNA, for example, carries information but cannot put that information to use, or even copy itself without the help of RNA and protein. "
So the chicken/egg dilemma has NOT been solved in the least.
Another argument from ignorance?
quote:
Thus there seems to be an irreducible symbiosis here that simplistic models of origins cannot reflect. Leslie Orgel states, "There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequebces of reactions can organize spontaneously - and every reason to believe they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cyle, for example, is negligible."
Care to quote the paragraph before and after this quote? Orgel is a pioneer in the RNA World hypothesis. I have a feeling she offered a solution in the same paper she made this quote in.
quote:
Then we have the geometry of proteins - 3D geometry. Proteins are made to fold into a precise 3D configuration on which their subsequent biochemical activity depends.It is now known that some proteins need othe guide proteins to help them fold correctly - otherwise they would remain inactive.
Not all proteins require chaperone proteins. Many of the proteins I study fold spontaneously into an active conformation. Every single peptide of length will assume a 3D geometric configuration that is salt and pH dependent.
quote:
Imagine a code structure that requires 3 dimensions rather than 2!!
It doesn't require it. Proteins that fold into a conformation that is beneificial to the organism will allow that organism to have more grandchildren and pass on that gene. The 3D geometry is a characteristic found in the protein but not found in the DNA or RNA. It is due to the chemical characteristics of the amino acids themselves.
quote:
Orders of magnitude more complex than previously supposed. Commoner thus asks, why the central dogma of Darwinism has continued to stand. He answers, "To some degree the theory has been protected from criticism by a device more common to religion than science: dissent, or merely the discovery of a discordant fact, is a punishable offense, a heresy that might easily lead to professional ostracism...."
More whining?
quote:
Yet hierarchies of complexity don't stop with translation of the code into protein. Proteomics is where the proteome is a complete set of all the protein variants of proteins that can arise out of a genome. It's staggering complexity is far greater that of the genome and one of science's greatest challenges.
Biologists are using the theory of evolution to discover this protein function in the fields of comparative genomics and phylogenomics. No one is using ID to discover new protein functions.
quote:
DNA is genetic software.
Which is not the same as human generated software.
quote:
In other words, contrary to what all Darwinists are trying to insist here, the message is not derivable from the physics and chemistry itself! The genetic text is not generated by the chemistry of the bonding between molecules.
Umm, yes it is. Change the chemical properties of the bases and see if DNA acts the same.
quote:
Hopefully some of you will actually think about these small bits of information on DNA - hardly exhaustive - and not do as Method, who is unable, since he is in serious denial of reality (like all atheists).
I work with DNA, RNA, and proteins. Do you?
quote:
Sorry guys, but Darwin is losing fast. Each new discovery, each new level of intricate complexity is revealing mind-boggling genius all along the way to an astronomically low probability that this all just sort of happened by a zillionth of a zillionth of a chance winning the lottery over and over and over again - millions of times in a row.
Please show your math for these probabilities.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 1:34:02 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1064
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
The characters are chemical, their meaning isn't. That's why it must be decoded. The chemical code contains the instructions for building protein.
Their meaning is chemical. These three nucleotides in a row gets turned into that one amino acid in a row.
A chemical, by itself has no meaning other than itself.
That's right. And that's all there is.
quote:
DNA represents something other than itself. It's information content is instructions.
No, it isn't. As you say yourself, "The ribosome then finds the amino acids that correspond to these codons." This is a mechanical/chemical process. Nothing is being instructed. No reading occurs. Ribosomes do not get ideas when they 'read' the code. They simply find chemical matches that have the appropriate binding properties.
Changing the topic, I also find your avatar/icon ironically amusing. Harris' original cartoon, of course, is captioned: "I think you should be more explicit here in step two." That is the actual scientific response to such a claim. It is, in the main, the antievolutionary crowd that is content to rely on a miraculous explanation.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 1:59:24 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 507
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Now proponents of EB and other naturalistic explanations of SC will argue that as long as there is some conceivable naturalistic explanation, the design inference can't be made. And that is an impossible burden of proof which would render EB and its ilk unfalsifiable and never let ID in the door. and dat's not very scientifick (or sportsmanlike, as Fezzik the Giant would say).
It is the ID proponents who have claimed there is no naturalistic explanation. All that is necessary to refute that claim is to show that there is some conceivable naturalistic explanation. To the extent that ID can be falsified, it has been.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/2/2008 9:58:58 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey Veritas,
ID'ers claim there is no probable naturalistic explanation. To say that all that is necessary to refute a design inference is show that there is "some conceivable naturalistic explanation", no matter how improbable, isn't reasonable (or sportsmanlike). Taking that approach to the controversy would effectively render the positive claim common to all naturalistic theories (it's all a result of blind natural processes of one kind or anudder) unfalsifiable. The competing claim of ID as to any given instance of SC can always be refute merely by positing a possible (not even probable) naturalistic explanation.
So ya gotta admit that, to the extent that Dembski has given us a workable and reliable method for detecting SC, an inference of design is not done in by merely suggesting the possible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/2/2008 10:00:13 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
But wedder Dembski's explanatory filter works is a big open question.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/3/2008 11:33:29 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Dishonesty much?
You have spent numerous posts bashing materialists for rejecting supernatural miracles. In this very post you claim that this is exactly what they are proposing. You need to make up your mind.
Sorry for the big words - I am simply saying that based on the list of pretend mechanisms for the origin of life proposed by materialists, a miracl would be no worse an alternative.
quote:
So what are the mechanisms of ID, btw. If not magic, what are they?
ID is concerned with causes - of which three are known. The cause with which ID concerns itself is the inteligence that derives from a mind, there are a variety of mechanisms possible.
_____________________________
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 - 8/3/2008 11:40:07 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is the ID proponents who have claimed there is no naturalistic explanation. All that is necessary to refute that claim is to show that there is some conceivable naturalistic explanation. To the extent that ID can be falsified, it has been.
Science doesn't advance on 'possible' explanations, but on demonstrated explanations. An explanation can't be said to be 'possible' simply by assertion.
_____________________________
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 - 8/4/2008 12:05:32 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 507
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Dishonesty much?
You have spent numerous posts bashing materialists for rejecting supernatural miracles. In this very post you claim that this is exactly what they are proposing. You need to make up your mind.
Sorry for the big words - I am simply saying that based on the list of pretend mechanisms for the origin of life proposed by materialists, a miracl would be no worse an alternative.
quote:
So what are the mechanisms of ID, btw. If not magic, what are they?
ID is concerned with causes - of which three are known. The cause with which ID concerns itself is the inteligence that derives from a mind, there are a variety of mechanisms possible.
What mechanisms do you claim are possible, and what evidence can we look for to see if the Designer actually used any of them?
We've been through this before and you failed to come up with anything. Unless you've got something new to offer, why do you keep making this claim when it has no support?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/4/2008 12:11:18 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 507
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
It is the ID proponents who have claimed there is no naturalistic explanation. All that is necessary to refute that claim is to show that there is some conceivable naturalistic explanation. To the extent that ID can be falsified, it has been.
Science doesn't advance on 'possible' explanations, but on demonstrated explanations. An explanation can't be said to be 'possible' simply by assertion.
What explanations has ID demonstrated that the Designer is supposed to have used? Any?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/4/2008 1:47:10 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
What mechanisms do you claim are possible, and what evidence can we look for to see if the Designer actually used any of them?
We've been through this before and you failed to come up with anything. Unless you've got something new to offer, why do you keep making this claim when it has no support?
quote:
What explanations has ID demonstrated that the Designer is supposed to have used? Any?
Actually, you are intentionally misrepresenting past conversations. I consistently and constantly suggest mechanisms. In fact, any mechanism that is used to manipulated and modify genetics or cellular mechanisms are potential mechanisms in this regard.
_____________________________
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 - 8/4/2008 8:53:48 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 507
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
What mechanisms do you claim are possible, and what evidence can we look for to see if the Designer actually used any of them?
We've been through this before and you failed to come up with anything. Unless you've got something new to offer, why do you keep making this claim when it has no support?
quote:
What explanations has ID demonstrated that the Designer is supposed to have used? Any?
Actually, you are intentionally misrepresenting past conversations. I consistently and constantly suggest mechanisms. In fact, any mechanism that is used to manipulated and modify genetics or cellular mechanisms are potential mechanisms in this regard.
Any mechanism that is used by known intelligent agents would leave plenty of tell-tale evidence behind. You have never given any mechanism that is used that leaves no evidence behind nor shown the evidence that the Designer's proposed mechanisms must have left behind.
I am misrepresenting nothing. You have never presented any methods nor any mechanisms that the Designer could have used for which there is any evidence.
You are the one being dishonest here.
You quoted some questions of mine and avoided answering them. If you're going to quote questions, you should answer them or admit you cannot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/4/2008 9:31:27 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Veritas sed:
quote:
Any mechanism that is used by known intelligent agents would leave plenty of tell-tale evidence behind.
Not nessararily. Let's say I slightly tinkered with the genetic code of some bacterium or udder and then released it into the wild. If a scientist came across the bug in the wild he would have no ability to know it was engineered.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/4/2008 9:52:26 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Veritas sed:
quote:
Any mechanism that is used by known intelligent agents would leave plenty of tell-tale evidence behind.
Not nessararily. Let's say I slightly tinkered with the genetic code of some bacterium or udder and then released it into the wild. If a scientist came across the bug in the wild he would have no ability to know it was engineered.
The human genetic code is "slightly tinkered with" every time a person is born. We all have about 160 genetic "mutations" at birth. Are all of these thought by ID'ers to be divinely executed?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/4/2008 9:57:02 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 507
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Veritas sed:
quote:
Any mechanism that is used by known intelligent agents would leave plenty of tell-tale evidence behind.
Not nessararily. Let's say I slightly tinkered with the genetic code of some bacterium or udder and then released it into the wild. If a scientist came across the bug in the wild he would have no ability to know it was engineered.
What happened to your lab? Where is the evidence of the Designer's lab?
If you tinkered with any of the more complex life forms we would expect at minimum to see nested hierarchy violations. Have the ID proponents found any evidence for this? Are they even looking?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/4/2008 10:00:45 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
But I am a loss to suggest tell-tale signs of ID other than what Dembski has already proposed: specified complexity. And Dembski admits that his explanatory filter will be unable to work in the example given above. i.e. it will be unable to detect design where the designer was just mimicking nature and trying not to be detected. (the problem of false negatives)
But do ID guys have to produce the mechanisms used by the designer? Nah. Its burden is to demonstrate it has formulated a reliable test for design. As I see it, it attempts this several ways. First, it establishes SC as a reliable criterion in other, non-biological contexts. Then it tries to apply the criterion to biological contexts and, in addition to showing SC is present, also demonstrate that all naturalistic mechanisms are eliminated as explanations.
As I've sed before, ID can (and should) practice EB and test the ability of Darwinism to produce SC. IOW, it should, to be credible, share the burden of EB.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/4/2008 10:04:30 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi Wayward,
quote:
The human genetic code is "slightly tinkered with" every time a person is born. We all have about 160 genetic "mutations" at birth. Are all of these thought by ID'ers to be divinely executed?
No. My point is that something designed isn't always detectable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/4/2008 10:07:33 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Any mechanism that is used by known intelligent agents would leave plenty of tell-tale evidence behind. You have never given any mechanism that is used that leaves no evidence behind nor shown the evidence that the Designer's proposed mechanisms must have left behind.
I am misrepresenting nothing. You have never presented any methods nor any mechanisms that the Designer could have used for which there is any evidence.
You are the one being dishonest here.
You quoted some questions of mine and avoided answering them. If you're going to quote questions, you should answer them or admit you cannot.
The fact that life is the product of information systems and nano-machinery is evidence of intelligence; in fact when ever we find such things outside of biology, we know them to be the product of intelligence. That is the tell-tale evidence. - your inability to comprehend it as such is a matter of either ignorance or unwillingness to acknowledge it because of your metaphysical predilictions, not lack of evidence.
The only way we know for such structures and systems to exist is for an intelligence agent to manipulate elements - whether through physical manipulation, or chemistry to produce such structures and systems. There are no unguided mechanism or means to do so - intelligence is the most reasonable cause.
_____________________________
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 - 8/4/2008 10:12:20 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
You guys should really pick up Behe's latest book for the full story on malaria, HIV and their ilk. They end up being good candidates to demonstrate the limits of the Darwinian mechanism of random genetic mutation and cumulative selection, this for the reason that they multiply very fast and produce brazillions of organisms. It does seem that, in these cases at least, that EB runs into a brick wall.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/4/2008 10:24:25 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 507
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Any mechanism that is used by known intelligent agents would leave plenty of tell-tale evidence behind. You have never given any mechanism that is used that leaves no evidence behind nor shown the evidence that the Designer's proposed mechanisms must have left behind.
I am misrepresenting nothing. You have never presented any methods nor any mechanisms that the Designer could have used for which there is any evidence.
You are the one being dishonest here.
You quoted some questions of mine and avoided answering them. If you're going to quote questions, you should answer them or admit you cannot.
The fact that life is the product of information systems and nano-machinery is evidence of intelligence; in fact when ever we find such things outside of biology, we know them to be the product of intelligence. That is the tell-tale evidence. - your inability to comprehend it as such is a matter of either ignorance or unwillingness to acknowledge it because of your metaphysical predilictions, not lack of evidence.
The only way we know for such structures and systems to exist is for an intelligence agent to manipulate elements - whether through physical manipulation, or chemistry to produce such structures and systems. There are no unguided mechanism or means to do so - intelligence is the most reasonable cause.
What you're saying is that you don't see how unguided mechanisms can produce such structures, so ID wins by default. I asked for evidence for the mechanisms the Designer used, and you respond with argument from ignorance.
What mechanisms did the Designer use, and what evidence did those mechanisms leave behind? Any? Are ID proponents looking for the Designer's lab? If not, why not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/4/2008 10:32:37 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
What you're saying is that you don't see how unguided mechanisms can produce such structures, so ID wins by default. I asked for evidence for the mechanisms the Designer used, and you respond with argument from ignorance.
Wrong; I said that there are several demonstrated mechanisms whereby genetics and cellular structures can be produced – an intelligent agent isn’t limited to one particular one.
quote:
What mechanisms did the Designer use, and what evidence did those mechanisms leave behind? Any? Are ID proponents looking for the Designer's lab? If not, why not?
Every cell of your body is evidence left behind by a Designer, because every cell is replete with information systems and nano-machinery which no unguided mechanism can produce.
_____________________________
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 - 8/4/2008 10:35:07 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 507
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
What you're saying is that you don't see how unguided mechanisms can produce such structures, so ID wins by default. I asked for evidence for the mechanisms the Designer used, and you respond with argument from ignorance.
Wrong; I said that there are several demonstrated mechanisms whereby genetics and cellular structures can be produced – an intelligent agent isn’t limited to one particular one.
So, which if any did the Designer use and what evidence did that (or those) mechanism(s) leave behind?
quote:
quote:
What mechanisms did the Designer use, and what evidence did those mechanisms leave behind? Any? Are ID proponents looking for the Designer's lab? If not, why not?
Every cell of your body is evidence left behind by a Designer, because every cell is replete with information systems and nano-machinery which no unguided mechanism can produce.
Again I get argument from ignorance, but no answer to my question.
So, ID proponents are not looking for the Designer's lab. Why not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/4/2008 10:50:42 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, which if any did the Designer use and what evidence did that (or those) mechanism(s) leave behind?
Genes are the product of information encoded on DNA and RNA molecules; evidence for the manipulation of the chemistry of that molecule is the existence of encoded information. If you are asking how the genome was manipulated, Craig Venter offers one interesting possibility – of course, as much as multiple means exist (or might exist) to produce such information, specific mechanisms are impossible to detect.
To see why this is so, one need simply consider the information being transmitted on this screen. There is no way for you (or anyone else) to tell specifically what machinery and networking mechanisms are being used to transmit this information. What is certain is that it cannot be the product of unguided mechanisms, so any explanation must begin at least with the existence of an intelligent agent.
quote:
Again I get argument from ignorance, but no answer to my question.
Well, no, the argument from ignorance is the one which says, “Though we don’t have a single example of information systems or machinery arising from unguided mechanisms, yet we are confident that this must have happened”. Indeed it goes far beyond ignorance into the realm of unadulterated blind faith.
quote:
So, ID proponents are not looking for the Designer's lab. Why not?
That is essentially what science is.
_____________________________
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 - 8/4/2008 5:12:54 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
But I am a loss to suggest tell-tale signs of ID other than what Dembski has already proposed: specified complexity. And Dembski admits that his explanatory filter will be unable to work in the example given above. i.e. it will be unable to detect design where the designer was just mimicking nature and trying not to be detected. (the problem of false negatives)
Hi,
I do not understand how specified complexity (as I think I understand Dembski understands it) can be practically applied.
Is SC defined as this? A set of objects that can be described by rather short statements? Can I be more precise in defining it any array of objects the order of which can be generated by an algorithm shorter than the array itself (if coded, in bytes)? I believe the latter, resembling the former, is an explicit way of defining an array as non-complex.
Or, how DOES he define it? I may have read where and how he does this, but I have forgotten.
This is a question of whether Dembski has useful and interesting concepts or is more interested in the appearance of such.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/5/2008 2:38:07 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I don't have NFL yet, but I think the theoretical explanation is in here: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf
I'm plowing through it now. The element of "specificiational complexity" refers to minimum description length (MDL). It is supposedly what prevents making a design inference where something is merely improbable. e.g shooting an arrow at a wall results in a highly improbable event, the hitting of this particular spot to the exclusion of numerous other possibilities. But unless you specified the target in advance claiming there was intent and aiming (design) behind the event is fallacious. In effect, such a claim draws a target around the arrow after it landed.
How is SC practically applied? Let's say we were looking a particular DNA sequence. We are trying to determine whether there is warrant to claim comes as a result of random mutation (chance) or design. This is akin, I spose, to any coin tossing example. It wouldn't be enuff to just look at the probability of each of the componensts in the sequence to turn up the way they do and find them highly improbable. This sequence has to have something called "low specificational complexity" (confusing terminology). Here Dembski gets into his MDL-Kolmogorov complexity. The gist I get out of it is that the pattern must be simple. That probbly is too simplistic.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/5/2008 4:55:11 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
The part title "Specifications via Compressibility" gets into it.
But this stuff is beyond me and I probbly will never grasp the details, just the general claim the specified element in specified complexity is established in terms of minimum description lenght. It sposedly allows us to specify the target "in advance."
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
