Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Disproving ID with a Mousetrap

slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 6:41:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Pretty much on the money. I've posted examples before. The electric organ of an electric eel is a repurposed collection of muscle cells. Pretty easy concept to have structure that is used for one thing change a bit and be used for something else.

Some of the other evolutionary pathways recently discovered dont offer any benefit at all until a number of changes stack up. Thus, every thing then becomes irreducible if it didnt kill you along the way.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 7:25:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 6:00:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Thanks, CP. I'd heard the counter-argument, but never seen it demonstrated.

Pretty funny. :)

It is not a counter arguement. There is genetic evidence that genetic changes can happen that are neutral to the organism and finally offer a benifit as a whole after the x'th change. Ireducible complexity is fictional and an incorrect arguement for ID.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 8:12:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 6:00:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Thanks, CP. I'd heard the counter-argument, but never seen it demonstrated.

Pretty funny. :)

If your interested in seeing more of that, check out Kenneth Miller's lecture on "The Collapse of Intelligent Design"
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 10:34:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Kenneth Miller should be a magician. He is a master at shifting your focus away from what is really going on, especially when his audience is eager to be shifted.

1. Irreducible Complexity is not the cornerstone of ID. The information of life is.

2. Irreducible Complexity as stated by the biologist who coined the phrase, says that all parts of the mousetrap must be present for it to function as a mousetrap . Miller even tacitly acknowledges this in the video.

3. Here's a question that has legitimate implications for Miller: Did the tie clip self assemble, or were intent and design required?

4. Hopefully it has occurred to all who watch this video the very different purpose a tie clip serves than the purpose a mousetrap serves. What requires explanation here is not only the selective pressures that morphed the tie clip into the mousetrap, but the real (not imagined) steps.

5. As engineer Dean Buckner explains, Miller is actually making a case for ID here:

"What Miller has demonstrated in his tie clip argument is actually an aspect of intelligent design: reuse of one component in another design. Applying something in this way takes both intelligence and intent. Engineers do this, sometimes in a premeditated and, systematic way, but at other times only after an unexpected moment of illumination. But in every case, intelligence is what lifts this new "signal" of function from the noise.

You're right about the mass of any object creating a second "function." Anything that weighs a few pounds or more can serve as a doorstop, but when complex items such as a computer laptop serve as a doorstop, it is only because at least one intelligence has intelligently recognized the changed economic value of a non-operating computer, created a room, learned to use a door, acted on a desire to keep the door open, and created a new capability in a simple machine (friction and mass to exert a horizontal force) to get the job done. Repurposing requires purposing in the first place, and is no easier in either direction.

It sounds as if Miller himself has repurposed a piece of flotsam from the wreck of Darwinism, and is clinging to it with all his might."

As a frequent champion of ID, I really don't like to focus much on irreducible complexity (sorry Ken) precisely because as long as a function or process can be imagined, there will be no end of hypothetical scenarios that people like Miller and Ruv can latch onto, somehow claiming some sort of scientific high ground. I much prefer to make genetic information, which is completely irrefutable on purely materialistic grounds, the focus of my ID apologetic. Nonetheless, that charades such as this can be offered as anything more than modest entertainment for an enthusiastic audience, is a pretty pathetic commentary on the current state of critical thinking.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 6:42:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 10:34:20 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Kenneth Miller should be a magician. He is a master at shifting your focus away from what is really going on, especially when his audience is eager to be shifted.

1. Irreducible Complexity is not the cornerstone of ID. The information of life is.

2. Irreducible Complexity as stated by the biologist who coined the phrase, says that all parts of the mousetrap must be present for it to function as a mousetrap . Miller even tacitly acknowledges this in the video.

3. Here's a question that has legitimate implications for Miller: Did the tie clip self assemble, or were intent and design required?

4. Hopefully it has occurred to all who watch this video the very different purpose a tie clip serves than the purpose a mousetrap serves. What requires explanation here is not only the selective pressures that morphed the tie clip into the mousetrap, but the real (not imagined) steps.

5. As engineer Dean Buckner explains, Miller is actually making a case for ID here:

"What Miller has demonstrated in his tie clip argument is actually an aspect of intelligent design: reuse of one component in another design. Applying something in this way takes both intelligence and intent. Engineers do this, sometimes in a premeditated and, systematic way, but at other times only after an unexpected moment of illumination. But in every case, intelligence is what lifts this new "signal" of function from the noise.

You're right about the mass of any object creating a second "function." Anything that weighs a few pounds or more can serve as a doorstop, but when complex items such as a computer laptop serve as a doorstop, it is only because at least one intelligence has intelligently recognized the changed economic value of a non-operating computer, created a room, learned to use a door, acted on a desire to keep the door open, and created a new capability in a simple machine (friction and mass to exert a horizontal force) to get the job done. Repurposing requires purposing in the first place, and is no easier in either direction.

It sounds as if Miller himself has repurposed a piece of flotsam from the wreck of Darwinism, and is clinging to it with all his might."

As a frequent champion of ID, I really don't like to focus much on irreducible complexity (sorry Ken) precisely because as long as a function or process can be imagined, there will be no end of hypothetical scenarios that people like Miller and Ruv can latch onto, somehow claiming some sort of scientific high ground. I much prefer to make genetic information, which is completely irrefutable on purely materialistic grounds, the focus of my ID apologetic. Nonetheless, that charades such as this can be offered as anything more than modest entertainment for an enthusiastic audience, is a pretty pathetic commentary on the current state of critical thinking.

Allow him to explain this without the mousetrap.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 10:51:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 5:51:23 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:


You mean the creator of all life knowing what a fallen world we would fall into has given organisms the benefit to deteriorate and yet re-purpose parts? You mean in his glory as a God of rejuvenation and healing has put into place mechanisms by which life exchanges information and adapt to a fallen world? amazing.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 7:17:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 10:34:20 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
1. Irreducible Complexity is not the cornerstone of ID. The information of life is.

Meaning, creationists have shifted the pseudoscientific rhetoric from vague complaints about organ function development to vaguer assertions about genetic teleology. Remember team: always appeal to popular prejudices, and if in doubt -- vaguer is safer.

5. As engineer Dean Buckner explains, Miller is actually making a case for ID here:
"What Miller has demonstrated in his tie clip argument is actually an aspect of intelligent design: reuse of one component in another design.

Or said another way: ID rhetoricians will claim any mutational success as evidence for intelligent species-steering, but will not own the vastly larger number of birth defects, nonfunctional mutations and species extinctions as evidence for non-design, or an absent or stupid designer.

Creationists' favourite food? Fresh, ripe cherries, because they adore picking them.

As a frequent champion of ID, I really don't like to focus much on irreducible complexity (sorry Ken)

Because you've distanced yourself, Joe, from the fallacies of previous debunked Creationist arguments, while pretending that the new song was always the old one, and that ID was 'always' talking about genetics rather than organ function.

And still, in all that rhetorical side-stepping, not a plan for a single credible experiment.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 10:18:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 10:34:20 AM, joepalcsak wrote:

"What Miller has demonstrated in his tie clip argument is actually an aspect of intelligent design: reuse of one component in another design. Applying something in this way takes both intelligence and intent. Engineers do this, sometimes in a premeditated and, systematic way, but at other times only after an unexpected moment of illumination. But in every case, intelligence is what lifts this new "signal" of function from the noise.


It could be an aspect of intelligent design, but it could also be an aspect of evolution, which is how it is currently explained. You can't devise a scientifically valid test of a hypothesis if the measure being tested unless outcomes from that metric space can be partitioned into mutually exclusive regions, each corresponding to only one hypothesis at most, which is not the case here. So saying that this is an aspect of ID requires a series of steps. Have those conditions been fulfilled?

You mentioned in another thread that there has been an increase in the number of peer-reviewed publications on ID (or which were 'ID-friendly', however that is defined). I haven't heard of this before, so I was hoping you could send me some reading material so that I can catch up. I have heard this claim before, and usually people are referring to papers posted by one of the 'creation science' institutions, which I hope you realize read more like parodies of scientific papers rather than work that qualifies as scientific. I'm assuming you are referring to papers in actual high quality scientific journals.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 3:28:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 10:34:20 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Kenneth Miller should be a magician. He is a master at shifting your focus away from what is really going on, especially when his audience is eager to be shifted.

1. Irreducible Complexity is not the cornerstone of ID. The information of life is.

Completely subjective as to what you consider a cornerstone of ID.

2. Irreducible Complexity as stated by the biologist who coined the phrase, says that all parts of the mousetrap must be present for it to function as a mousetrap . Miller even tacitly acknowledges this in the video.

Yes. That part of the argument is not in dispute. What is, is the claim that these parts of the mousetrap could not have formed becuase they have no other function and therefore no reason to exist without already being in its finished state. This is what is debunked by Ken MIller.

3. Here's a question that has legitimate implications for Miller: Did the tie clip self assemble, or were intent and design required?

Within the analogy, the tie clip did self assemble, yes.

4. Hopefully it has occurred to all who watch this video the very different purpose a tie clip serves than the purpose a mousetrap serves. What requires explanation here is not only the selective pressures that morphed the tie clip into the mousetrap, but the real (not imagined) steps.

Thats like asking what the exact steps are for a bacteria to become immune to antibiotics.

5. As engineer Dean Buckner explains, Miller is actually making a case for ID here:

"What Miller has demonstrated in his tie clip argument is actually an aspect of intelligent design: reuse of one component in another design. Applying something in this way takes both intelligence and intent. Engineers do this, sometimes in a premeditated and, systematic way, but at other times only after an unexpected moment of illumination. But in every case, intelligence is what lifts this new "signal" of function from the noise.

This would make lightning striking a pool of water and turning water into Oxygen and hydrogen, as intelligent design(reuse of one component in another design), when infact we all agree that this is something that a) doesnt take intelligence, and b) is something that occurs by nature.

You're right about the mass of any object creating a second "function." Anything that weighs a few pounds or more can serve as a doorstop, but when complex items such as a computer laptop serve as a doorstop, it is only because at least one intelligence has intelligently recognized the changed economic value of a non-operating computer, created a room, learned to use a door, acted on a desire to keep the door open, and created a new capability in a simple machine (friction and mass to exert a horizontal force) to get the job done. Repurposing requires purposing in the first place, and is no easier in either direction.

The computer doesnt have to be non-operating to be a doorstop.
The computer does not have to have a low economic value to be a doorstop.
The computer does not need to create a room or learn how to use a door to be a doorstop.
The person who left the computer as a doorstop, does not need to have a desire to keep the door open.

None of these are requirements from the computer to be a doorstop. And yet the computer can still be a doorstop.

It sounds as if Miller himself has repurposed a piece of flotsam from the wreck of Darwinism, and is clinging to it with all his might."

As a frequent champion of ID, I really don't like to focus much on irreducible complexity (sorry Ken) precisely because as long as a function or process can be imagined, there will be no end of hypothetical scenarios that people like Miller and Ruv can latch onto, somehow claiming some sort of scientific high ground. I much prefer to make genetic information, which is completely irrefutable on purely materialistic grounds, the focus of my ID apologetic. Nonetheless, that charades such as this can be offered as anything more than modest entertainment for an enthusiastic audience, is a pretty pathetic commentary on the current state of critical thinking.

The video was made in 2007. But maybe you werent there when ID first came out, because Irreducible complexity was a mainstay and one of the core arguments for it for a long time. I remember a time when Rainbows, the Flagellum, the Bombardier beetle, were used as evidence for irreducible complexity and ID. Now, since its been debunked so thoroughly, no one wants to go to it anymore.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 3:39:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"The point is not whether subsystems can be functional on their own but whether they can exhibit the same function in the same manner as the system in question. "

- William Dembski
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 3:41:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"By your great mass of words and facts you've lost the train of the argument. The issue is not whether pieces exist for cooption (whether in the same organism or, with the immune system, even in different organisms) but whether those pieces can properly be coordinated to produce the final function in the IC system under examination. For cooption to work there has to be coordination. Design is known to have the capability to effect such coordination. You're claiming that natural selection does as well, but there is no evidence of that. The only evidence is of isolated pieces waiting to be coordinated. That's why I insist on **detailed** Darwinian pathways (and no, you haven't provided them). Pathways are continuous trajectories that connect the dots. The issue is not whether the dots are in place but how to connect them. You've offered no evidence that natural selection can do that -- or is your evidence simply that it couldn't have been design and therefore natural selection is all that's left? That sounds like an argument from ignorance. "
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 3:43:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 11:47:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 3:43:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

So how do you determine whether something has a natural explanation that we have not yet been able to find, as opposed to whether it has a non-natural explanation and therefore no natural explanation exists?

Im sure you are aware that we used to be unable to explain how lightning works, or how flowers reproduce. If we still did not know the explanation, would we be justified in calling these as Intelligently designed?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 7:10:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 11:47:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2015 3:43:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

So how do you determine whether something has a natural explanation that we have not yet been able to find, as opposed to whether it has a non-natural explanation and therefore no natural explanation exists?

Im sure you are aware that we used to be unable to explain how lightning works, or how flowers reproduce. If we still did not know the explanation, would we be justified in calling these as Intelligently designed?

It's a difficult question to answer, so I can't possibly explain how to determine which is correct. ID theorists will argue that there have been vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution, and that these leaps can best be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 7:52:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 7:10:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 11:47:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2015 3:43:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

So how do you determine whether something has a natural explanation that we have not yet been able to find, as opposed to whether it has a non-natural explanation and therefore no natural explanation exists?

Im sure you are aware that we used to be unable to explain how lightning works, or how flowers reproduce. If we still did not know the explanation, would we be justified in calling these as Intelligently designed?

It's a difficult question to answer, so I can't possibly explain how to determine which is correct. ID theorists will argue that there have been vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution, and that these leaps can best be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.

Unfortunately most probable doe not ALWAYS equal what really happened, thus that notion shall be call the ID Circle fallacy. IE: Just because most circles one sees are the result of intelligent designers means that all circles one sees are intelligently designed, which would include rainbows and other cool naturally formed circles.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 8:20:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 7:10:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 11:47:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2015 3:43:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

So how do you determine whether something has a natural explanation that we have not yet been able to find, as opposed to whether it has a non-natural explanation and therefore no natural explanation exists?

Im sure you are aware that we used to be unable to explain how lightning works, or how flowers reproduce. If we still did not know the explanation, would we be justified in calling these as Intelligently designed?

It's a difficult question to answer, so I can't possibly explain how to determine which is correct. ID theorists will argue that there have been vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution, and that these leaps can best be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.

Isnt "improbable" subjective?

Also, if you cant explain how you determine which is correct, how are we supposed to accept that as science?
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 9:13:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 6:42:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:34:20 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Kenneth Miller should be a magician. He is a master at shifting your focus away from what is really going on, especially when his audience is eager to be shifted.

1. Irreducible Complexity is not the cornerstone of ID. The information of life is.

2. Irreducible Complexity as stated by the biologist who coined the phrase, says that all parts of the mousetrap must be present for it to function as a mousetrap . Miller even tacitly acknowledges this in the video.

3. Here's a question that has legitimate implications for Miller: Did the tie clip self assemble, or were intent and design required?

4. Hopefully it has occurred to all who watch this video the very different purpose a tie clip serves than the purpose a mousetrap serves. What requires explanation here is not only the selective pressures that morphed the tie clip into the mousetrap, but the real (not imagined) steps.

5. As engineer Dean Buckner explains, Miller is actually making a case for ID here:

"What Miller has demonstrated in his tie clip argument is actually an aspect of intelligent design: reuse of one component in another design. Applying something in this way takes both intelligence and intent. Engineers do this, sometimes in a premeditated and, systematic way, but at other times only after an unexpected moment of illumination. But in every case, intelligence is what lifts this new "signal" of function from the noise.

You're right about the mass of any object creating a second "function." Anything that weighs a few pounds or more can serve as a doorstop, but when complex items such as a computer laptop serve as a doorstop, it is only because at least one intelligence has intelligently recognized the changed economic value of a non-operating computer, created a room, learned to use a door, acted on a desire to keep the door open, and created a new capability in a simple machine (friction and mass to exert a horizontal force) to get the job done. Repurposing requires purposing in the first place, and is no easier in either direction.

It sounds as if Miller himself has repurposed a piece of flotsam from the wreck of Darwinism, and is clinging to it with all his might."

As a frequent champion of ID, I really don't like to focus much on irreducible complexity (sorry Ken) precisely because as long as a function or process can be imagined, there will be no end of hypothetical scenarios that people like Miller and Ruv can latch onto, somehow claiming some sort of scientific high ground. I much prefer to make genetic information, which is completely irrefutable on purely materialistic grounds, the focus of my ID apologetic. Nonetheless, that charades such as this can be offered as anything more than modest entertainment for an enthusiastic audience, is a pretty pathetic commentary on the current state of critical thinking.

Allow him to explain this without the mousetrap.



Thanks for sharing. Now, having invested 6 minutes plus in watching a second Ken Miller video from you, I would like to share some of my observations with you:

*Recall that the molecular machine in question is the flagellar motor.

*Recall that, as Miller himself notes, Behe calls a working system irreducibly complex where the removal of any part causes the system to cease functioning.

*In his example, Miller removes a whopping 40 parts from the falgellum. Not one, but 40. He then presents from what remains, not a working flagellum, but a completely different system: a toxin injection system. As I said, Miller should be a magician. In the video you provide, he has successfully shifted attention away from all of Behe's main points and seamlessly substituted his own straw man version of IC. Behe's point remains true throughout this entire presentation: remove a single part from the bacterial flagellum and it will cease to function. It will cease to function as a flagellum! Miller never recaptures that function.

*Finally - and this is the real kicker: do you know what the T3SS does? It injects toxins into plants and animals. Now, as you and I know, bacteria were swimming around, driven by their flagellar motors, long before there were such things as plants and animals. It is evident why bacteria would need flagella before the advent of plants and animals, but why would they have needed the T3SS? Do you see Miller's problem here? If there is any relationship at all between the flagellum and the T3SS, it would have to be that the T3SS devolved from the flagellum. Not a very good piece of evidence for Miller from any angle!
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 9:48:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 10:18:36 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:34:20 AM, joepalcsak wrote:

"What Miller has demonstrated in his tie clip argument is actually an aspect of intelligent design: reuse of one component in another design. Applying something in this way takes both intelligence and intent. Engineers do this, sometimes in a premeditated and, systematic way, but at other times only after an unexpected moment of illumination. But in every case, intelligence is what lifts this new "signal" of function from the noise.


It could be an aspect of intelligent design, but it could also be an aspect of evolution, which is how it is currently explained. You can't devise a scientifically valid test of a hypothesis if the measure being tested unless outcomes from that metric space can be partitioned into mutually exclusive regions, each corresponding to only one hypothesis at most, which is not the case here. So saying that this is an aspect of ID requires a series of steps. Have those conditions been fulfilled?

This is not a dodge, but recall that this is the observation of an engineer. Now to answer your question, I am going to have to turn it on you: can you provide an empirical example of purely natural processes reusing a component from one working system into another working system?

Please understand that we are indeed talking in terms of functioning machines here. If we exclude living systems (which we rightly do, as the origin of the molecular machines in living systems is at issue), I can't think of a single empirical example of purely natural processes accomplishing this.

The real question at hand is, are we talking about a process compatible with intelligent agency or a process compatible with purely natural processes? If, on one side of the ledger, we can cite no end of empirical examples of intelligent agents successfully reusing components from one working machine into another working machine, while on the other side of the ledger, we are without a single empirical example of purely natural processes doing so, the question must be considered settled unless and until such an empirical example would be forthcoming.

I would also ask you to understand that ID is not a theory about mechanism, as so many here on DDO wish it to be. ID, correctly understood, is an historical theory of casual adequacy for an event that occurred in the distant past. This is perfectly compatible with other historical sciences such as archaeology and forensics where a primary question seeks to discern whether an event was naturally caused or deliberately caused.

Frankly, both ID and evolution could be the correct answer here; ID as answering the question of causal adequacy and evolution answering the question of mechanism. could be! The question that I am concerned with here, is where do purely natural processes fit in?

You mentioned in another thread that there has been an increase in the number of peer-reviewed publications on ID (or which were 'ID-friendly', however that is defined). I haven't heard of this before, so I was hoping you could send me some reading material so that I can catch up. I have heard this claim before, and usually people are referring to papers posted by one of the 'creation science' institutions, which I hope you realize read more like parodies of scientific papers rather than work that qualifies as scientific. I'm assuming you are referring to papers in actual high quality scientific journals.

Here is an 81 page list for you:
http://www.discovery.org...
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 9:57:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 3:28:26 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:34:20 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Kenneth Miller should be a magician. He is a master at shifting your focus away from what is really going on, especially when his audience is eager to be shifted.

1. Irreducible Complexity is not the cornerstone of ID. The information of life is.

Completely subjective as to what you consider a cornerstone of ID.

Not really. The information of life has very clearly spearheaded the movement. This can be traced back at least to 1984, about a decade before "Darwin's Black Box"

2. Irreducible Complexity as stated by the biologist who coined the phrase, says that all parts of the mousetrap must be present for it to function as a mousetrap . Miller even tacitly acknowledges this in the video.

Yes. That part of the argument is not in dispute. What is, is the claim that these parts of the mousetrap could not have formed becuase they have no other function and therefore no reason to exist without already being in its finished state. This is what is debunked by Ken MIller.

This is Kenneth Miller's straw man version of Behe's claim.

3. Here's a question that has legitimate implications for Miller: Did the tie clip self assemble, or were intent and design required?

Within the analogy, the tie clip did self assemble, yes.

Really? Why I never!!!

4. Hopefully it has occurred to all who watch this video the very different purpose a tie clip serves than the purpose a mousetrap serves. What requires explanation here is not only the selective pressures that morphed the tie clip into the mousetrap, but the real (not imagined) steps.

Thats like asking what the exact steps are for a bacteria to become immune to antibiotics.

How much time do you have? In many cases these steps are in fact known. And all known cases involve pre existing traits and/or a loss of genetic information.

5. As engineer Dean Buckner explains, Miller is actually making a case for ID here:

"What Miller has demonstrated in his tie clip argument is actually an aspect of intelligent design: reuse of one component in another design. Applying something in this way takes both intelligence and intent. Engineers do this, sometimes in a premeditated and, systematic way, but at other times only after an unexpected moment of illumination. But in every case, intelligence is what lifts this new "signal" of function from the noise.

This would make lightning striking a pool of water and turning water into Oxygen and hydrogen, as intelligent design(reuse of one component in another design), when infact we all agree that this is something that a) doesnt take intelligence, and b) is something that occurs by nature.

Please elucidate the designs to which you refer

You're right about the mass of any object creating a second "function." Anything that weighs a few pounds or more can serve as a doorstop, but when complex items such as a computer laptop serve as a doorstop, it is only because at least one intelligence has intelligently recognized the changed economic value of a non-operating computer, created a room, learned to use a door, acted on a desire to keep the door open, and created a new capability in a simple machine (friction and mass to exert a horizontal force) to get the job done. Repurposing requires purposing in the first place, and is no easier in either direction.

The computer doesnt have to be non-operating to be a doorstop.
The computer does not have to have a low economic value to be a doorstop.
The computer does not need to create a room or learn how to use a door to be a doorstop.
The person who left the computer as a doorstop, does not need to have a desire to keep the door open.

None of these are requirements from the computer to be a doorstop. And yet the computer can still be a doorstop.

I cannot even imagine what point you are trying to make here.

It sounds as if Miller himself has repurposed a piece of flotsam from the wreck of Darwinism, and is clinging to it with all his might."

As a frequent champion of ID, I really don't like to focus much on irreducible complexity (sorry Ken) precisely because as long as a function or process can be imagined, there will be no end of hypothetical scenarios that people like Miller and Ruv can latch onto, somehow claiming some sort of scientific high ground. I much prefer to make genetic information, which is completely irrefutable on purely materialistic grounds, the focus of my ID apologetic. Nonetheless, that charades such as this can be offered as anything more than modest entertainment for an enthusiastic audience, is a pretty pathetic commentary on the current state of critical thinking.

The video was made in 2007. But maybe you werent there when ID first came out, because Irreducible complexity was a mainstay and one of the core arguments for it for a long time. I remember a time when Rainbows, the Flagellum, the Bombardier beetle, were used as evidence for irreducible complexity and ID. Now, since its been debunked so thoroughly, no one wants to go to it anymore.

It has been contested, not debunked. It's only natural when someone presents a proposition that the mainstream does not like - a proposition that the mainstream cannot ignore - that the mainstream will attack the proposition. But attack and refute are not the same thing, as I am clarifying in this forum.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 10:23:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 9:48:27 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 3/9/2015 10:18:36 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:34:20 AM, joepalcsak wrote:

"What Miller has demonstrated in his tie clip argument is actually an aspect of intelligent design: reuse of one component in another design. Applying something in this way takes both intelligence and intent. Engineers do this, sometimes in a premeditated and, systematic way, but at other times only after an unexpected moment of illumination. But in every case, intelligence is what lifts this new "signal" of function from the noise.


It could be an aspect of intelligent design, but it could also be an aspect of evolution, which is how it is currently explained. You can't devise a scientifically valid test of a hypothesis if the measure being tested unless outcomes from that metric space can be partitioned into mutually exclusive regions, each corresponding to only one hypothesis at most, which is not the case here. So saying that this is an aspect of ID requires a series of steps. Have those conditions been fulfilled?

This is not a dodge, but recall that this is the observation of an engineer. Now to answer your question, I am going to have to turn it on you: can you provide an empirical example of purely natural processes reusing a component from one working system into another working system?

Please understand that we are indeed talking in terms of functioning machines here. If we exclude living systems (which we rightly do, as the origin of the molecular machines in living systems is at issue), I can't think of a single empirical example of purely natural processes accomplishing this.

The real question at hand is, are we talking about a process compatible with intelligent agency or a process compatible with purely natural processes? If, on one side of the ledger, we can cite no end of empirical examples of intelligent agents successfully reusing components from one working machine into another working machine, while on the other side of the ledger, we are without a single empirical example of purely natural processes doing so, the question must be considered settled unless and until such an empirical example would be forthcoming.

I would also ask you to understand that ID is not a theory about mechanism, as so many here on DDO wish it to be. ID, correctly understood, is an historical theory of casual adequacy for an event that occurred in the distant past. This is perfectly compatible with other historical sciences such as archaeology and forensics where a primary question seeks to discern whether an event was naturally caused or deliberately caused.

Frankly, both ID and evolution could be the correct answer here; ID as answering the question of causal adequacy and evolution answering the question of mechanism. could be! The question that I am concerned with here, is where do purely natural processes fit in?

You mentioned in another thread that there has been an increase in the number of peer-reviewed publications on ID (or which were 'ID-friendly', however that is defined). I haven't heard of this before, so I was hoping you could send me some reading material so that I can catch up. I have heard this claim before, and usually people are referring to papers posted by one of the 'creation science' institutions, which I hope you realize read more like parodies of scientific papers rather than work that qualifies as scientific. I'm assuming you are referring to papers in actual high quality scientific journals.

Here is an 81 page list for you:
http://www.discovery.org...

The discovery institute is a poor organization to cite during a scientific debate. They don't actually publish in peer-reviewed journals.

"For a scientific publication to be peer-reviewed is for it to be assessed for its scientific merit by experts having knowledge of the research area equal to that of the author. Peer review is essentially a form of quality control in the modern scientific world. The fact that there is no published work supporting intelligent design in the peer-reviewed scientific literature strongly suggests that the Discovery Institute's claim that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory is false.".....
NCSE sent a questionnaire to the authors of every publication listed in the Bibliography, asking them whether they considered their work to provide scientific evidence for "intelligent design."[5] None of the 26 respondents (representing 34 of the 44 publications in the Bibliography) did; many were indignant at the suggestion. For example, Douglas H. Erwin (author of [8]), answered, "Of course not " [intelligent design] is a non sequitur, nothing but a fundamentally flawed attempt to promote creationism under a different guise. Nothing in this paper or any of my other work provides the slightest scintilla of support for 'intelligent design'. To argue that it does requires a deliberate and pernicious misreading of the papers."[6]Several respondents even went so far as to say that their work constituted scientific evidence against "intelligent design."

http://ncse.com...

I'll grant you that this is an older critique stemming from the injection of creationist propaganda into the school systems. However, it's a good example as to how that organization operates outside of the scientific community and the usual proceedings of science.

Furthermore; they have made statements such as
"Discovery Institute's Center ... seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."

"Discovery Institute's Center ... wants to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consistent with Christian and theistic convictions."

"The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders; free market economics domestically and internationally; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership; and the potential of science and technology to promote an improved future for individuals, families and communities."

http://ncse.com...

This shows a clear bias towards their "research" (I use that term loosely when discussing the discovery institute). No other research group could get away with a blatant agenda such as this and still be considered objective.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 9:49:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The discovery institute is a poor organization to cite during a scientific debate. They don't actually publish in peer-reviewed journals. </em

The DI provides the list of peer reviewed articles that Undeniable Reality requested. No one is claiming that they have published the papers. They have simply provided the list.

"For a scientific publication to be peer-reviewed is for it to be assessed for its scientific merit by experts having knowledge of the research area equal to that of the author. Peer review is essentially a form of quality control in the modern scientific world. The fact that there is no published work supporting intelligent design in the peer-reviewed scientific literature strongly suggests that the Discovery Institute's claim that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory is false.".

If you had bothered to check the list yourself, you would have discovered that it contains hundreds of publications by various authors; all of them peer reviewed. In light of this list, the claim that there is no published work supporting ID is utter nonsense

This shows a clear bias towards their "research" (I use that term loosely when discussing the discovery institute). No other research group could get away with a blatant agenda such as this and still be considered objective.

I really hope that the pure irony of this statement is not lost on anyone else who happens to be following this forum. Your sole source is the NCSE; an organization that exists as a lobby to keep students from even being exposed to the concept of ID. The NCSE is taxpayer funded which means that as a very economically productive member of American society, I am compelled to support with my own efforts an incredibly biased organization that is destructive to the free exchange of ideas. Not only does the NCSE "get away" with its blatant agenda, it does so at the expense of a people who, according to most surveys, do not see eye to eye with that agenda.

The list of hundreds of peer reviewed publications I have provided includes some publications which have positive implications for ID whether intended by the author(s) or not (Douglas H Erwin, whom you cite, has published work which, among other things, affirms critical points supporting the view of the Cambrian Explosion from an ID perspective. Erwin is free to believe what he wishes. Nonetheless, his work is harmonious with key ID points). It also includes work by several self professed ID advocates, to include Axe, Behe, Chui, Chen, Dembski, Durston, Ekkehard Lonnig, Marx, McIntosh, Meyer, Nelson, Snoke, Sternberg, Wells, and many, many others. I am more than confident that, in cherry picking a couple dozen authors, the NCSE did not bother to consult the above authors in their rigged questionnaire.

Any time you wish to discuss the substance of any of these papers, I am happy to have a conversation with you. But as it stands now, you have launched a completely unsubstantiated and clearly false attack.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 3:24:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 8:20:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/10/2015 7:10:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 11:47:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2015 3:43:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

So how do you determine whether something has a natural explanation that we have not yet been able to find, as opposed to whether it has a non-natural explanation and therefore no natural explanation exists?

Im sure you are aware that we used to be unable to explain how lightning works, or how flowers reproduce. If we still did not know the explanation, would we be justified in calling these as Intelligently designed?

It's a difficult question to answer, so I can't possibly explain how to determine which is correct. ID theorists will argue that there have been vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution, and that these leaps can best be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.

Isnt "improbable" subjective?

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Also, if you cant explain how you determine which is correct, how are we supposed to accept that as science?

I said that I can't.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 3:54:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 9:48:27 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 3/9/2015 10:18:36 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:34:20 AM, joepalcsak wrote:

"What Miller has demonstrated in his tie clip argument is actually an aspect of intelligent design: reuse of one component in another design. Applying something in this way takes both intelligence and intent. Engineers do this, sometimes in a premeditated and, systematic way, but at other times only after an unexpected moment of illumination. But in every case, intelligence is what lifts this new "signal" of function from the noise.


It could be an aspect of intelligent design, but it could also be an aspect of evolution, which is how it is currently explained. You can't devise a scientifically valid test of a hypothesis if the measure being tested unless outcomes from that metric space can be partitioned into mutually exclusive regions, each corresponding to only one hypothesis at most, which is not the case here. So saying that this is an aspect of ID requires a series of steps. Have those conditions been fulfilled?


I don't think you've actually addressed the point I made.

This is not a dodge, but recall that this is the observation of an engineer.
Does that count for something? We can find engineers who disagree with this point of view as well. Do we then ask what the most popular view is among engineers? Would that matter?

Now to answer your question, I am going to have to turn it on you: can you provide an empirical example of purely natural processes reusing a component from one working system into another working system?

Here's two papers that address this point [1,2]. But I'm not a biologist, so I don't know why you would ask me. However, even though I'm not a biologist, my understanding is that the bacterial flagellum contains parts like this [3], but more simply, don't most microbiological systems fit this description? The function of a cell membrane is different for single-cellular and multi-cellular organisms, or even between different organs of the same organism (i.e., for neurons versus muscle tissue).

To be clear, are you suggesting that if we had no example of the kind you suggested, that this increases the probability that the ID position is correct? Is that not an argument from ignorance, or rather, incredulity (since we're two non-biologists talking about what we personally are aware of).

[1] Muller, H. J. (1918) "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499.
[2] Muller, H. J. (1939) "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics." Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14:261-280.
[3] Aizawa, S.-I., 2001. Bacterial flagella and type III secretion systems, FEMS Microbiology Letters 202: 157-164.

Please understand that we are indeed talking in terms of functioning machines here. If we exclude living systems (which we rightly do, as the origin of the molecular machines in living systems is at issue), I can't think of a single empirical example of purely natural processes accomplishing this.
Again, how is whether or not either of us can think of examples relevant?

The real question at hand is, are we talking about a process compatible with intelligent agency or a process compatible with purely natural processes? If, on one side of the ledger, we can cite no end of empirical examples of intelligent agents successfully reusing components from one working machine into another working machine, while on the other side of the ledger, we are without a single empirical example of purely natural processes doing so, the question must be considered settled unless and until such an empirical example would be forthcoming.

Then do you have any examples of an intelligent designer that did not evolve on planet Earth that is capable of creating life? You see, once you put it back in context, this point doesn't help you at all.

I would also ask you to understand that ID is not a theory about mechanism, as so many here on DDO wish it to be. ID, correctly understood, is an historical theory of casual adequacy for an event that occurred in the distant past. This is perfectly compatible with other historical sciences such as archaeology and forensics where a primary question seeks to discern whether an event was naturally caused or deliberately caused.

That's already what I thought ID was.

Frankly, both ID and evolution could be the correct answer here; ID as answering the question of causal adequacy and evolution answering the question of mechanism. could be! The question that I am concerned with here, is where do purely natural processes fit in?

I agree that ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

You mentioned in another thread that there has been an increase in the number of peer-reviewed publications on ID (or which were 'ID-friendly', however that is defined). I haven't heard of this before, so I was hoping you could send me some reading material so that I can catch up. I have heard this claim before, and usually people are referring to papers posted by one of the 'creation science' institutions, which I hope you realize read more like parodies of scientific papers rather than work that qualifies as scientific. I'm assuming you are referring to papers in actual high quality scientific journals.

Here is an 81 page list for you:
http://www.discovery.org...

I think I did mention that I wasn't looking for papers from one of the creation science institutions (who's papers read more like parodies of scientific papers) and that I was specifically looking for papers in real high quality scientific journals. What you have here are mainly papers in pseudoscientific journals and conference proceedings (I looked them up), and a couple of papers in real journals (there are groups that evaluate legitimate journals from what are called predatory journals, since it's a growing problem), like The Quarterly Review of Biology (impact factor of 5+). So you don't have 81 papers of the type I asked for. You have a few papers. I'll take a look at them. Thanks.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 11:33:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 3:24:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 8:20:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/10/2015 7:10:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 11:47:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2015 3:43:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

So how do you determine whether something has a natural explanation that we have not yet been able to find, as opposed to whether it has a non-natural explanation and therefore no natural explanation exists?

Im sure you are aware that we used to be unable to explain how lightning works, or how flowers reproduce. If we still did not know the explanation, would we be justified in calling these as Intelligently designed?

It's a difficult question to answer, so I can't possibly explain how to determine which is correct. ID theorists will argue that there have been vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution, and that these leaps can best be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.

Isnt "improbable" subjective?


http://en.wikipedia.org...

How does that change the fact that improbable is subjective, especially since Dembsky is unable to provide a valid argument as to how he has accounted for enough variables to make the determination of the probability in the first place?


Also, if you cant explain how you determine which is correct, how are we supposed to accept that as science?

I said that I can't.

Okay. So all those IDers that claim it is, are wrong, in your eyes?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 11:58:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 11:33:49 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/11/2015 3:24:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 8:20:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/10/2015 7:10:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 11:47:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2015 3:43:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

So how do you determine whether something has a natural explanation that we have not yet been able to find, as opposed to whether it has a non-natural explanation and therefore no natural explanation exists?

Im sure you are aware that we used to be unable to explain how lightning works, or how flowers reproduce. If we still did not know the explanation, would we be justified in calling these as Intelligently designed?

It's a difficult question to answer, so I can't possibly explain how to determine which is correct. ID theorists will argue that there have been vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution, and that these leaps can best be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.

Isnt "improbable" subjective?


http://en.wikipedia.org...

How does that change the fact that improbable is subjective, especially since Dembsky is unable to provide a valid argument as to how he has accounted for enough variables to make the determination of the probability in the first place?

Read the section called "Calculation of Specified Complexity".


Also, if you cant explain how you determine which is correct, how are we supposed to accept that as science?

I said that I can't.

Okay. So all those IDers that claim it is, are wrong, in your eyes?

Not necessarily.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 12:02:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 11:58:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 11:33:49 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/11/2015 3:24:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 8:20:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/10/2015 7:10:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 11:47:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2015 3:43:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

So how do you determine whether something has a natural explanation that we have not yet been able to find, as opposed to whether it has a non-natural explanation and therefore no natural explanation exists?

Im sure you are aware that we used to be unable to explain how lightning works, or how flowers reproduce. If we still did not know the explanation, would we be justified in calling these as Intelligently designed?

It's a difficult question to answer, so I can't possibly explain how to determine which is correct. ID theorists will argue that there have been vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution, and that these leaps can best be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.

Isnt "improbable" subjective?


http://en.wikipedia.org...

How does that change the fact that improbable is subjective, especially since Dembsky is unable to provide a valid argument as to how he has accounted for enough variables to make the determination of the probability in the first place?


Read the section called "Calculation of Specified Complexity".

"However, Dembski says that the precise calculation of the relevant probability "has yet to be done", although he also claims that some methods for calculating these probabilities "are now in place"."

"These methods assume that all of the constituent parts of the flagellum must have been generated completely at random, a scenario that biologists do not seriously consider."

"According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation"."

Read the rest of the sections.



Also, if you cant explain how you determine which is correct, how are we supposed to accept that as science?

I said that I can't.

Okay. So all those IDers that claim it is, are wrong, in your eyes?

Not necessarily.

How so?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 12:14:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 12:02:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/12/2015 11:58:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 11:33:49 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/11/2015 3:24:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 8:20:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/10/2015 7:10:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 11:47:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2015 3:43:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

So how do you determine whether something has a natural explanation that we have not yet been able to find, as opposed to whether it has a non-natural explanation and therefore no natural explanation exists?

Im sure you are aware that we used to be unable to explain how lightning works, or how flowers reproduce. If we still did not know the explanation, would we be justified in calling these as Intelligently designed?

It's a difficult question to answer, so I can't possibly explain how to determine which is correct. ID theorists will argue that there have been vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution, and that these leaps can best be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.

Isnt "improbable" subjective?


http://en.wikipedia.org...

How does that change the fact that improbable is subjective, especially since Dembsky is unable to provide a valid argument as to how he has accounted for enough variables to make the determination of the probability in the first place?


Read the section called "Calculation of Specified Complexity".

"However, Dembski says that the precise calculation of the relevant probability "has yet to be done", although he also claims that some methods for calculating these probabilities "are now in place"."

He claims to have provided accurate estimations. Notice the word "precise".


"These methods assume that all of the constituent parts of the flagellum must have been generated completely at random, a scenario that biologists do not seriously consider."

That's technically incorrect. He claims that their cohesive configuration must have come about by random chance.

"According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation"."


So what? It's a controversial issue, so of course there will be disagreement.

Read the rest of the sections.



Also, if you cant explain how you determine which is correct, how are we supposed to accept that as science?

I said that I can't.

Okay. So all those IDers that claim it is, are wrong, in your eyes?

Not necessarily.

How so?

What do you mean? I simply leave open the question of whether someone has made a strong case one way or the other.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 12:29:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 12:14:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 12:02:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/12/2015 11:58:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 11:33:49 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/11/2015 3:24:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 8:20:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/10/2015 7:10:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/10/2015 11:47:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2015 3:43:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

So how do you determine whether something has a natural explanation that we have not yet been able to find, as opposed to whether it has a non-natural explanation and therefore no natural explanation exists?

Im sure you are aware that we used to be unable to explain how lightning works, or how flowers reproduce. If we still did not know the explanation, would we be justified in calling these as Intelligently designed?

It's a difficult question to answer, so I can't possibly explain how to determine which is correct. ID theorists will argue that there have been vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution, and that these leaps can best be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.

Isnt "improbable" subjective?


http://en.wikipedia.org...

How does that change the fact that improbable is subjective, especially since Dembsky is unable to provide a valid argument as to how he has accounted for enough variables to make the determination of the probability in the first place?


Read the section called "Calculation of Specified Complexity".

"However, Dembski says that the precise calculation of the relevant probability "has yet to be done", although he also claims that some methods for calculating these probabilities "are now in place"."

He claims to have provided accurate estimations. Notice the word "precise".

Notice the word "Claims.


"These methods assume that all of the constituent parts of the flagellum must have been generated completely at random, a scenario that biologists do not seriously consider."

That's technically incorrect. He claims that their cohesive configuration must have come about by random chance.

Source? And what does he mean by "Cohesive configuration"?

"According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation"."


So what? It's a controversial issue, so of course there will be disagreement.

So youre simply going to dismiss this as a "disagreement"?

Read the rest of the sections.



Also, if you cant explain how you determine which is correct, how are we supposed to accept that as science?

I said that I can't.

Okay. So all those IDers that claim it is, are wrong, in your eyes?

Not necessarily.

How so?

What do you mean? I simply leave open the question of whether someone has made a strong case one way or the other.

You said you cannot accept it as science. There are IDers who claim it is science. So in your eyes, they are wrong, are they not?