Evidence for Design?

[rossum]

Do a targeted search for that particular order. You example is a misuse.

I don’t want a particular order, I just want the packs to be “well shuffled”, which excludes some orders, but the bulk of the possible orders are acceptable. I have a very large target.

Yockey has calculated that there are 2.3 x 10^93 different ways to make a working Cytochrome C, and there are even more ways to code for them in DNA. We are not looking for just one specific Cytochrome C, but for any one of the many possible working Cytochrome Cs.

The size of the target has an effect on the probability that we hit it.

rossum

 

[inocente]

Again, because something can happen doesn’t mean it will.

Do a targeted search for that particular order. You example is a misuse.

The Universal Probability Bound is a piece of silly hokum, an example of how easy it is to fool ourselves. It’s just one way of foolishly putting the cart before the horse in logic, which Richard Feynman lectured about many years back:

“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

We can see from Feynman’s example how ridiculous it is to work back from any given outcome and say it’s significant. We have to do the exact opposite – make a prediction and see if it’s true. It would indeed have been remarkable if Feynman had predicted ahead of time he would see ARW 357, but he didn’t so it’s just silly to exclaim it was unlikely, of course it was. Same with all these attempts by ID to pretend any particular outcome is gee whiz, although I’d agree they’ve managed to fool lots of people with that particular shell trick.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t want a particular order, I just want the packs to be “well shuffled”, which excludes some orders, but the bulk of the possible orders are acceptable. I have a very large target.

Yockey has calculated that there are 2.3 x 10^93 different ways to make a working Cytochrome C, and there are even more ways to code for them in DNA. We are not looking for just one specific Cytochrome C, but for any one of the many possible working Cytochrome Cs.

The size of the target has an effect on the probability that we hit it.

rossum

1. How would you test the hypothesis the bulk of the possible orders is acceptable?
2. How are the precise statistics calculated?
3. Is a working Cytochrome C the sole factor that needs to be taken into account?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The Universal Probability Bound is a piece of silly hokum, an example of how easy it is to fool ourselves. It’s just one way of foolishly putting the cart before the horse in logic, which Richard Feynman lectured about many years back:

“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

.

Nice:thumbsup:

 

[buffalo]

Not necessarily. There is an element of chance, plasticity and creativity in the way events unfold. Neither we nor animals are biological robots nor is the universe a machine composed of cogs which are turned inexorably in the iron grip of determinism!

Then one has to conclude that Adam did not look as He planned. Are you now rejecting a supernatural creation of Adam?

 

[buffalo]

I don’t want a particular order, I just want the packs to be “well shuffled”, which excludes some orders, but the bulk of the possible orders are acceptable. I have a very large target.

Yockey has calculated that there are 2.3 x 10^93 different ways to make a working Cytochrome C, and there are even more ways to code for them in DNA. We are not looking for just one specific Cytochrome C, but for any one of the many possible working Cytochrome Cs.

The size of the target has an effect on the probability that we hit it.

rossum

Shuffle them again. If the same order results, what should one conclude?

 

[buffalo]

The Universal Probability Bound is a piece of silly hokum, an example of how easy it is to fool ourselves. It’s just one way of foolishly putting the cart before the horse in logic, which Richard Feynman lectured about many years back:

“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

We can see from Feynman’s example how ridiculous it is to work back from any given outcome and say it’s significant. We have to do the exact opposite – make a prediction and see if it’s true. It would indeed have been remarkable if Feynman had predicted ahead of time he would see ARW 357, but he didn’t so it’s just silly to exclaim it was unlikely, of course it was. Same with all these attempts by ID to pretend any particular outcome is gee whiz, although I’d agree they’ve managed to fool lots of people with that particular shell trick.

No shell trick. What we are seeing is reverse engineering design and then coming up with the probabilities of a natural cause. Take a computer which we know is designed. Reverse engineer it and then calculate the odds of a natural cause. Take a rock, reverse engineer it and then calculate the odds. There is an immense difference and one can start to draw conclusions. The more sophisticated the object (FSCI) and IC the item is the greater the odds of design.

Bingo - some claim the fine tuning argument is just that. However, the way out is to use imaginary multi-universe scenarios to avoid the obvious. Now the odds go way up even beyond that of fine tuning.

Now let us examine the language/code of DNA. There are** no **examples naturally produced.

 

[rossum]

1. How would you test the hypothesis the bulk of the possible orders is acceptable?

By taking a random sample and examining them.

1. How are the precise statistics calculated?

I don’t need precise statistics. An accuracy of about 5 or so significant figures is usually sufficient.

1. Is a working Cytochrome C the sole factor that needs to be taken into account?

Of course not. It is merely an example of a case where someone has calculated the number of working amino acid sequences. Doing so for more proteins would be tedious and not very useful. It merely illustrates the point that we are not looking for “the” answer, we are looking for “one of the range of answers”. The size of the range of answers is an important element of a probability calculation. It cannot just be assumed to be 1, as is commonly the case. Hence my point about an incorrect model giving incorrect results.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Shuffle them again. If the same order results, what should one conclude?

How is this question relevant? You are just reinserting your single target criterion. In the vast majority of relevant cases, a single target is not relevant – there are many possible ways of hitting the target.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

How is this question relevant? You are just reinserting your single target criterion. In the vast majority of relevant cases, a single target is not relevant – there are many possible ways of hitting the target.

rossum

No - the more times the same result happens the less it is by chance.

 

[tonyrey]

Not necessarily. There is an element of chance, plasticity and creativity in the way events unfold. Neither we nor animals are biological robots nor is the universe a machine composed of cogs which are turned inexorably in the iron grip of determinism!

God does not control every detail of the physical world. If He did He would be **directly **responsible for every disease, disaster and deformity.

Are you now rejecting a supernatural creation of Adam? God created Adam’s soul directly but his body indirectly through the laws of nature.

 

[tonyrey]

By taking a random sample and examining them.

Your random swample would be far too small when they are billions of possibilities.

I don’t need precise statistics. An accuracy of about 5 or so significant figures is usually sufficient.

Not when you are unaware of the **total **number of possibilities.

Is a working Cytochrome C the sole factor that needs to be taken into account?

It is merely an example of a case where someone has calculated the number of working amino acid sequences. Doing so for more proteins would be tedious and not very useful. It merely illustrates the point that we are not looking for “the” answer, we are looking for “one of the range of answers”. The size of the range of answers is an important element of a probability calculation. It cannot just be assumed to be 1, as is commonly the case. Hence my point about an incorrect model giving incorrect results.

There is such an immense number of possibilities required for the formation, functioning and survival of a living cell it is immensely improbable that the sequence of events was ultimately fortuitous.

 

[rossum]

Your random swample would be far too small when they are billions of possibilities.

Not when you are unaware of the **total **number of possibilities.

Given the size of the population and the level of accuracy required it there are standard equations to work out how large a sample you need to attain a given level of accuracy. That is what all those political pollsters do. They work to about 3% accuracy, and pick their sample sizes to allow that level of accuracy. I would do the same.

There is such an immense number of possibilities required for the formation, functioning and survival of a living cell it is immensely improbable that the sequence of events was ultimately fortuitous.

There are also immense number of possible ways of forming a crude living cell. For your calculation to be valid, you will need to provide an estimate, to within the required degree of accuracy, of the number of different ways such a proto-cell could be built. That number is greater than one.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Your random swample would be far too small when they are billions of possibilities.

The size of the population is the number of possible universes!

There is such an immense number of possibilities required for the formation, functioning and survival of a living cell it is immensely improbable that the sequence of events was ultimately fortuitous.

There are also immense number of possible ways of forming a crude living cell. For your calculation to be valid, you will need to provide an estimate, to within the required degree of accuracy, of the number of different ways such a proto-cell could be built. That number is greater than one.

The number of possible ways of forming a crude living cell is obviously immensely smaller than the number of possible universes because many conditions have to be satisfied!

 

[rossum]

The size of the population is the number of possible universes!

My apologies, I thought we were discussing shuffled cards in this part. Indeed, we only have one sample universe.

The number of possible ways of forming a crude living cell is obviously immensely smaller than the number of possible universes because many conditions have to be satisfied!

Agreed. However, the anthropic principle tells us that life will only appear in universes where it is possible for life to appear. The fact that we are here means that our single sample universe is one of the subset of universes in which life is possible. We only have one sample, and that sample is a biased sample. Extrapolating accurate probabilities from a single biased sample is not a wise thing to do.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Agreed. However, the anthropic principle tells us that life will only appear in universes where it is possible for life to appear. The fact that we are here means that our single sample universe is one of the subset of universes in which life is possible. We only have one sample, and that sample is a biased sample. Extrapolating accurate probabilities from a single biased sample is not a wise thing to do.

rossum

I am not buying it rossum… The only way out for a materialist is the multiverse, unproven and unprovable. This is irrational. It demands faith that materialism is all there is. Materialists are not supposed to be resorting to faith now are they?

 

[rossum]

I am not buying it rossum… The only way out for a materialist is the multiverse, unproven and unprovable.

First, you need to learn that science does not do “proof”, that is for mathematics, not science. Science does evidence, and looks for the best answer we currently have that explains the evidence. For example, Newton used to give the best answers about gravity, but now it is Einstein.

We do have some indications of the existence of other universes in the multiverse, see ‘Multiverse’ theory suggested by microwave background.

I would hold fire on the “Science will never…” for a bit if I were you. Science has a way of doing things that once appeared impossible.

Materialists are not supposed to be resorting to faith now are they?

I wouldn’t know. I’m Buddhist, not Materialist.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

First, you need to learn that science does not do “proof”, that is for mathematics, not science. Science does evidence, and looks for the best answer we currently have that explains the evidence. For example, Newton used to give the best answers about gravity, but now it is Einstein.

We do have some indications of the existence of other universes in the multiverse, see ‘Multiverse’ theory suggested by microwave background.

I would hold fire on the “Science will never…” for a bit if I were you. Science has a way of doing things that once appeared impossible.

I wouldn’t know. I’m Buddhist, not Materialist.

rossum

The best answer for fine tuning is design. Again, materialists cannot/willnot concede.

		 			**[The Genesis problem      New Scientist            ](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328473.500-the-genesis-problem.html)**

THE term “big bang” was famously coined as a term of abuse. During a radio interview in 1949, cosmologist Fred Hoyle was pouring scorn on the idea that the universe simply popped into existence when he unwittingly invented a catchy name for the theory that eventually won out.
The big bang is now part of the furniture of modern cosmology, but Hoyle’s unease has not gone away. Many physicists have been fighting a rearguard action against it for decades, largely because of its theological overtones. If you have an instant of creation, don’t you need a creator?
Cosmologists thought they had a workaround. Over the years, they have tried on several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see “Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event”). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning.
Without an escape clause, physicists and philosophers must finally answer a problem that has been nagging at them for the best part of 50 years: how do you get a universe, complete with the laws of physics, out of nothing (see “Trying to make the cosmos out of nothing”)?

more…

 

[Daedelus76]

What kind of designer created Cotesia glomerata, a wasp whose larvae consume caterpillars alive, whose eggs are “designed” to paralyze the caterpillar and cripple its immune system (think of the film Alien ). Does this designer love the caterpillar, or just the wasps?

 

[buffalo]

What kind of designer created Cotesia glomerata, a wasp whose larvae consume caterpillars alive, whose eggs are “designed” to paralyze the caterpillar and cripple its immune system (think of the film Alien ). Does this designer love the caterpillar, or just the wasps?

Bogus argument. First, one has to know the intent of the designer. Second, original designs may have been corrupted.