Intelligent Design

[kbachler]

I am curious VZ, Buffalo, and others who assume messages…

If at night you saw a light flashing in the distance at very regular intervals, would you assume a message? Would you assume design?

If instead of seeing the light, what if you picked up the electromagnetic signal on a radio? Would you assume a message? Would you assume design?

 

[vz71]

No, you are wrong because you assumed meaning of words.

You are right. I assumed the meaning of the words.

You were able to show the words meant something entirely different.
Therefore my explanation for the meaning of those words was in error.

We should however note that there is a meaning to be wrong about.
There was a design, and a purpose.
And there was an intelligence behind it.

Actually, I think I may be repeating myself.

Try to read my words again.

So I am wrong because the meaning of the words is really this and not that?

I can accept being wrong about the meaning of the design, the intelligent design still cannot be denied.
All you are doing is arguing over the meaning of the design at this point.

 

[vz71]

I am curious VZ, Buffalo, and others who assume messages…

If at night you saw a light flashing in the distance at very regular intervals, would you assume a message? Would you assume design?

If instead of seeing the light, what if you picked up the electromagnetic signal on a radio? Would you assume a message? Would you assume design?

No, I would not.

 

[rossum]

You generated both pieces.

False. I did not write the Abhidharmakosa, Vasubandhu wrote the Abhidharmakosa. Nor did I translate the Abhidharmakosa into Tibetan. All I did was to download a copy of the translation and paste a small part into my post.

You do not mention CSI, you specify to prove it was designed and that there was an intelligence behind it.

I have grown tired of asking the ID side for their evidence so now I am asking for something more specific. Dr Dembski has proposed CSI as a marker for design. I am merely asking for the different CSI values for two different pieces of design each following different specifications.

For example if we use the specification “A piece of meaningful Tibetan text” then the CSI of the second piece is zero because it does not meet that specification. If ID is science then why cannot ID calculate the CSI of two small pieces of text?

Alternatively, if you don’t want to calculate CSI then I can revert to my first question. Please show me the scientific evidence for ID.

rossum

 

[vz71]

I have grown tired of asking the ID side for their evidence so now I am asking for something more specific.
rossum

You asked, and I provided ample evidence of the text designs and the intelligence.

You did not ask about CSI until the after it was determined your initial round of questions on this example would not support your point.

It is interesting that you grow tired immedietely after your questions are answered.

 

[vz71]

You generated both pieces.

False. I did not write the Abhidharmakosa, Vasubandhu wrote the Abhidharmakosa. Nor did I translate the Abhidharmakosa into Tibetan. All I did was to download a copy of the translation and paste a small part into my post.
rossum

It is a truly odd position for me.

The more wrong I am concerning the meaning and origin of a given example, the more the design is proven out.

Oh well. If it requires proving my ignorance of the tibetan languages to show the design, bring it.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, it is. Natural selection.

It seems that natural selection as I have shown and now Lynn Margulis agree that natural selection is not a creative process.

 

[rossum]

There is no proof that there are 900 billion mutations at all.

Observe, ladies and gentlemen how the ID side works. Because they have no evidence for their position they assume that the evolution side has a similar lack of evidence. They, as so often, are wrong. Just because ID builds fantasies on no evidential basis does not mean that science does the same. Indeed science does not. Science builds on evidence. It is a gross mistake to assume that the lack of evidence found in ID is typical of science. That is why ID does not make it as science, there is no evidence to support it.

So, what is the evidence for 900 billion mutations?

Firstly, I assume you accept that the human population is 6 billion. Secondly I allow 150 mutations per individual in that population. My evidence for that figure? See: Researchers make first direct measurement of human genetic mutation rate They calculated that there are 100-200 new DNA mutations (single base changes in our DNA sequence that are different from the sequence inherited from our parents) from generation to generation.
I used 150 as an average figure between 100 and 200. If a population of 6 billion has 150 mutations each then that is 150 x 6 billion = 900 billion mutations in total. Every generation there are 900 billion mutations in the human population.

That link took me about 20 seconds to find on the web. I already knew the figure but wanted a link to confirm it for you. I suggest that in future, if you doubt some of my figures, you check for yourself first. That way you might learn something. I hope you have learned from this little exercise about how science can back up its figures with evidence.

Readers will notice that I an both willing and able to provide supporting evidence for my claims. That is how science works, it makes claims based on evidence. A request for evidence is always answered. That is why ID is not science, it makes claims that are not backed up by evidence.

But I am glad you brought in the hypothetical 900 billion number.

I didn’t; 900 billion is not hypothetical. It is real and is supported by the evidence. That appears to be a concept that ID has not quite grasped yet, something being supported by evidence. Where is your supporting evidence for ID? I have been asking for it in many of my posts on this thread and so far I have seen nothing.

You are happy to ask questions but you seem less willing to provide answers, especially when I ask for evidence.

ID is not looking good here, nor is it looking scientific.

rossum

 

[rossum]

As stated earlier: “Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

So why should we drop linguistics, cryptography, and analysis?

All of those are useful in discerning patterns.

I would be interested to see how you use the methods of cryptanalysis in identifying design in biological organisms. How, for example, do linear cryptanalysis, differential cryptanalysis or unicity distance apply to the blood clotting cascade?

Confession: I have an amateur interest in cryptography.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It seems that natural selection as I have shown and now Lynn Margulis agree that natural selection is not a creative process.

There is more to evolution that natural selection.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

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?

It would definitely increase the odds since the letter count is way up.

 

[buffalo]

But that is not a general technique. ID claims to have a general technique that is applicable to many different situations. CSI does not depend on linguistics. If it did then it could not be applied to the bacterial flagellum.

I am trying to elucidate the general ID methods here, not the specific methods linguists or cryptographers may use to analyse texts.

rossum

Why not? These methods can be built upon. Real work is being done using them.

 

[buffalo]

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.

rossum

Source?

 

[buffalo]

Thus, you have provided proof of the fallacy that we were trying to show that you were committing.

For you see, Springfield is the capital of Illinois. And in Springfield, SOS signifies Secretary of State - not a distress call at all. Rocks arranged in an SOS form could signify nothing, or a distress call, or the office of the secretary of state.

So you see, making assumptions about the meaning of an arrangement of rocks DOES change the view. If you assume the arrangement has meaning (when we don’t know that it does) they you have a message.

Good luck with the Martian face.

Fantastic example. Meaning is contextual which further requires a more defined key.

 

[buffalo]

Patterns can be purposeful without signifying intelligence.

Patterns by themselves do not indicate design, but designs always contain patterns.

 

[buffalo]

I am curious VZ, Buffalo, and others who assume messages…

If at night you saw a light flashing in the distance at very regular intervals, would you assume a message? Would you assume design?

If instead of seeing the light, what if you picked up the electromagnetic signal on a radio? Would you assume a message? Would you assume design?

I would call the SETI guys.

 

[buffalo]

Observe, ladies and gentlemen how the ID side works. Because they have no evidence for their position they assume that the evolution side has a similar lack of evidence. They, as so often, are wrong. Just because ID builds fantasies on no evidential basis does not mean that science does the same. Indeed science does not. Science builds on evidence. It is a gross mistake to assume that the lack of evidence found in ID is typical of science. That is why ID does not make it as science, there is no evidence to support it.

So, what is the evidence for 900 billion mutations?

Firstly, I assume you accept that the human population is 6 billion. Secondly I allow 150 mutations per individual in that population. My evidence for that figure? See: Researchers make first direct measurement of human genetic mutation rateThey calculated that there are 100-200 new DNA mutations (single base changes in our DNA sequence that are different from the sequence inherited from our parents) from generation to generation.I used 150 as an average figure between 100 and 200. If a population of 6 billion has 150 mutations each then that is 150 x 6 billion = 900 billion mutations in total. Every generation there are 900 billion mutations in the human population.

That link took me about 20 seconds to find on the web. I already knew the figure but wanted a link to confirm it for you. I suggest that in future, if you doubt some of my figures, you check for yourself first. That way you might learn something. I hope you have learned from this little exercise about how science can back up its figures with evidence.

Readers will notice that I an both willing and able to provide supporting evidence for my claims. That is how science works, it makes claims based on evidence. A request for evidence is always answered. That is why ID is not science, it makes claims that are not backed up by evidence.

I didn’t; 900 billion is not hypothetical. It is real and is supported by the evidence. That appears to be a concept that ID has not quite grasped yet, something being supported by evidence. Where is your supporting evidence for ID? I have been asking for it in many of my posts on this thread and so far I have seen nothing.

You are happy to ask questions but you seem less willing to provide answers, especially when I ask for evidence.

ID is not looking good here, nor is it looking scientific.

rossum

Ahhh - by the post I thought you meant that I passed on to my children 900 billion mutations.

At the end of these 900 billion mutations we are still human. Now what reality shows us that there is a growth of genetic defects in our children, requiring more care and cost. That points the arrow towards devolution.

Now a mutation does not necessarily impose itself on the language of DNA.

Yu cn still red this sentenc - and know what it means.

We now know that DNA actively fights through several iterations any mutation. The fact that we carry so low an amount of mutations testifies to the success of the design.

 

[buffalo]

I would be interested to see how you use the methods of cryptanalysis in identifying design in biological organisms. How, for example, do linear cryptanalysis, differential cryptanalysis or unicity distance apply to the blood clotting cascade?

Confession: I have an amateur interest in cryptography.

rossum

I will go one better:

The Linguistics of DNA Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics and Semantics

 

[buffalo]

There is more to evolution that natural selection.

rossum

That is the claim and has to be, now that natural selection has shown to be a maintenance process and not a creative one.

One has to be in denial that natural selection was one of the big guns. It has been neutralized by the findings of modern science.

http://www.briggsandstratton.com/~/media/FFE9EBED0C1E4BED96C0CC4F953F5BE5.ashx?w=160&h=123&as=1

 

[kbachler]

That is the claim and has to be, now that natural selection has shown to be a maintenance process and not a creative one.

One has to be in denial that natural selection was one of the big guns. It has been neutralized by the findings of modern science.

http://www.briggsandstratton.com/~/media/FFE9EBED0C1E4BED96C0CC4F953F5BE5.ashx?w=160&h=123&as=1

Sorry, it isn’t shown that natural selection is not a creative process.

You’re thinking: “Mutation occurs → creatures are selected for environmental fit.”

But it isn’t that simple. There is also:

(Existing gene pool) + (environmental change) → yields new environmental fit

And environmental change can be something large or something small, something geographically broad, or something regional.

This can be driven by expressing one gene over another, or one set of protein development over another. There is an interpretive aspect to natural selection, and within interpretation there lies room for “creative expression.”