Intelligent Design

[rossum]

There is at least two who know. The sender and receiver. Otherwise it is not a message.

There is only one who must know, the sender. There is no guarantee that anyone will ever receive it.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No, I do not.
But I can recognize the design and the intelligence behind it.

Now you have the task of proving that design and intelligence using the scientific methods proposed by ID. Here is a comparison piece for you. This is some randomly generated nonsense using the standard rules for forming Tibetan words.

/gbi lu zho rbli 'shre’s wars zhu mskrads nre/
/ngab dstra dcigs 'lpye thind dlga dtso rtsa/
/co pra 'rdzo brja te 'a msnyi’s 'agd dsu ‘i/
/dshe tru brgag gag thasd mlda ga mno’ 'ngild/

Use your ID methods to determine the difference between the two. ID needs to be able to determine things in a way that does not depend on the observer’s knowledge of Tibetan.

rossum

 

[rossum]

And remain baffled why you have brought probability into the question concerning natural selection.

I was not discussing natural selection, I was discussing random mutations. I hope that you can see the connection between random mutations and random die rolls.

Using probability statistics biologists can work with random mutations. Where are the equivalent ID techniques? What predictive power do these ID techniques have? Once again, where is the scientific evidence for ID?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Using probability statistics biologists can work with random mutations. Where are the equivalent ID techniques? What predictive power do these ID techniques have? Once again, where is the scientific evidence for ID?

rossum

The scientific evidence is** in your own mind** - unless you regard yourself as nothing more than a biological machine!

 

[vz71]

There are many people who do not. Do you know what this means:
/gang zhig kun la mun pa gtan bcom zhing/
/'khor ba’i 'dam las 'gro ba drangs mdzad pa/
/don bzhin ston pa de la phyag 'tsal nas/
/chos mngon mdzod kyi bstan bcos rab/
rossum

/gbi lu zho rbli 'shre’s wars zhu mskrads nre/
/ngab dstra dcigs 'lpye thind dlga dtso rtsa/
/co pra 'rdzo brja te 'a msnyi’s 'agd dsu ‘i/
/dshe tru brgag gag thasd mlda ga mno’ 'ngild/

Use your ID methods to determine the difference between the two. ID needs to be able to determine things in a way that does not depend on the observer’s knowledge of Tibetan.

rossum

Both are intelligently designed.
You generated both texts.

In one, you utilized words.
In the other you utilized the rules for generating words.

I real test of ID would be a comparison of Moby Dick with random characters.

 

[vz71]

I was not discussing natural selection, I was discussing random mutations. I hope that you can see the connection between random mutations and random die rolls.

Using probability statistics biologists can work with random mutations. Where are the equivalent ID techniques? What predictive power do these ID techniques have? Once again, where is the scientific evidence for ID?

rossum

Earlier I spoke of house advantage.
That is the slight advantage the house has that will have a large effect over time.

What do you suppose the house advantage is for these random mutations that drive natural selection?

 

[rossum]

Both are intelligently designed.
You generated both texts.

In one, you utilized words.
In the other you utilized the rules for generating words.

Not exactly. In the first, Vasubandhu utilised words and his translator changed those words from Sanskrit into Tibetan; I merely copied them. In the second I utilised Java and the rules for Tibetan word construction together with a random number generator.

Each text has a different specification; the first is not randomly generated while the second has a large random (name removed by moderator)ut. Since they have different specifications then ID should be able to differentiate them. Remember that the ‘S’ in CSI stands for “Specified”. Where is the ID methodology to differentiate these two objectively?

Earlier I spoke of house advantage.
That is the slight advantage the house has that will have a large effect over time.

What do you suppose the house advantage is for these random mutations that drive natural selection?

Once again the ID side fails to answer questions. Since science is in the business of answering questions, this is yet more evidence of the scientific vacuity of ID.

Not all mutations are advantageous, more are deleterious. What mutations have an advantage depends on the environment. Evolution is a phenomenon of populations with imperfect replication living in an environment. The “imperfect replication” gives us mutations. The environment gives us a way to sieve those mutations and the population gives us enough mutations to be able to work with them statistically.

A mutation for eyes not to develop is a deleterious mutation in most environments. However, for a cave fish living in permanent darkness, not developing eyes is an advantage. The effort and energy that went into building useless eyes can instead be diverted to other purposes, such as breeding. That extra available energy will give fish with that mutation in that environment an advantage over their cousins without the mutation. Advantageous mutations spread through the population over generations by natural selection.

If you like, the house advantage is natural selection increasing the frequency of a particular advantageous mutation in a population. House disadvantage would be natural selection reducing the frequency of a deleterious mutation in a population.

rossum

 

[vz71]

Not exactly. In the first, Vasubandhu utilised words and his translator changed those words from Sanskrit into Tibetan; I merely copied them. In the second I utilised Java and the rules for Tibetan word construction together with a random number generator.

Each text has a different specification; the first is not randomly generated while the second has a large random (name removed by moderator)ut. Since they have different specifications then ID should be able to differentiate them. Remember that the ‘S’ in CSI stands for “Specified”. Where is the ID methodology to differentiate these two objectively?
rossum

Of course, before I feel foolish in front of everyone, tell me.
Were these rules you stated were applied to the second set really applied at all?
Don’t you think that running these through rules built by someone to simulate words apply an intelligent design to it all?

The design still shines.

 

[vz71]

Not all mutations are advantageous, more are deleterious.
rossum

I am glad you recognize that.
The house advantage for mutation then would appear to be stacked toward the disadvantageous mutations.

Clearly something else must be in the drivers seat.

 

[buffalo]

There is only one who must know, the sender. There is no guarantee that anyone will ever receive it.

rossum

If you are on the beach and you come across the formation, unless you put it there yourself, you are the receiver. The transaction occurs if you can decode its meaning.

 

[buffalo]

Now you have the task of proving that design and intelligence using the scientific methods proposed by ID. Here is a comparison piece for you. This is some randomly generated nonsense using the standard rules for forming Tibetan words.

/gbi lu zho rbli 'shre’s wars zhu mskrads nre/
/ngab dstra dcigs 'lpye thind dlga dtso rtsa/
/co pra 'rdzo brja te 'a msnyi’s 'agd dsu ‘i/
/dshe tru brgag gag thasd mlda ga mno’ 'ngild/

Use your ID methods to determine the difference between the two. ID needs to be able to determine things in a way that does not depend on the observer’s knowledge of Tibetan.

rossum

The study of linguistics is a science. In your case the combination of symbols, repeatability of symbols and structure would be studied. Additionally, code breaking techniques would be used.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I request that moderators split up specific issues regarding this topic.

 

[kbachler]

I am glad you recognize that.
The house advantage for mutation then would appear to be stacked toward the disadvantageous mutations.

Clearly something else must be in the drivers seat.

Yes, it is. Natural selection.

 

[kbachler]

Your claim is you do not know what SOS means?

No. My claim is that assigning a meaning based on my BELIEF and then assuming that ONLY that meaning is true IS NOT scientific.

SOS has a commonly understood meaning. But now consider if this arrangement of rocks were say, in Springfield, IL. Would this change your view of the meaning?

 

[kbachler]

I was referring to the combination of abiogenesis with Buddhism.

BTW Fortuitous abiogenesis is incompatible with the belief that God created life.

Why? I don’t see any incompatibility.

Consider baseball, a sport where “hitting” is not an exact science. To be a good pilot, you must safely deliver your plane 100% of the time. But to be a good hitter, you need be successful only 33% of the time.

A team full of 33% hitters would be considered a very successful hitting team. Given enough at bats, they will get a hit, won’t they?

If I am the owner of that team, would you say that having “fortuitous hitting” is incompatible with the belief that I brought good hitters to the team?

 

[kbachler]

It has scientific implications, e.g. that NeoDarwinism is false. In that sense it is a superior rival to a pseudoscientific theory! The claim that man is a naked ape is often thought to be scientific but in fact it is metaphysical because it amounts to physicalism and exceeds its brief.

Those aren’t scientific implications. In fact, I can’t think of any scientific implications. Man IS a naked ape in the sense that we (apes) are all primates and we happen to be nekkid.

I personally believe that there is a designer, and I personally believe that there is a design. But there isn’t scientific evidence for that. There is personal evidence and personal choice and personal belief.

 

[kbachler]

As an aspiring chemist at one time, I learned chemical processes are defined. You mix this with that and you get this purple stuff. Chemical reactions under varying temperatures, atmospheric pressures and so on, have one result. That’s it. One. You could send a chemical or mix of chemicals through any number of processes, and the result is the same, like making beer.

Peace,
Ed

Agreed. But if you have a process that varies slightly each time (as in the creation of life, as in the living of life) then there will be variation in the result.

 

[rossum]

Of course, before I feel foolish in front of everyone, tell me.
Were these rules you stated were applied to the second set really applied at all?
Don’t you think that running these through rules built by someone to simulate words apply an intelligent design to it all?

The design still shines.

Of course both pieces are designed; I am not disputing that. However each piece follows a different specification and only one of the two pieces makes sense to a Tibetan speaker. My question is not about design, it is about CSI.

There are two different specifications on display. What is the CSI of the first piece? What is the CSI of the second piece?

CSI is meant to be one of the methods that ID proponents, such as Dr Dembski, can scientifically tell design from non-design. All I am trying to do is to tease out the scientific background to DI-ID. It is what I have been asking for in many of my posts here and have no so far had any satisfactory reply. I am merely trying a different tack to get something reasonably substantial in the way of evidence from the ID side.

Can you calculate the CSI for these two cases?

rossum

 

[rossum]

I am glad you recognize that.
The house advantage for mutation then would appear to be stacked toward the disadvantageous mutations.

There are more disadvantageous mutations than there are advantageous mutations. However, do not forget that in just humans there are about 900 billion mutations per generation. Only a few of those 900 billion need to be advantageous.

Clearly something else must be in the drivers seat.

No. Clearly we are talking about the multiplying effect of populations over time.

rossum

 

[vz71]

Yes, it is. Natural selection.

you may want to re-read the thread.
Rossum has conceded the random element to this.