Intelligent Design

[buffalo]

I didn’t say that it was. I said that you were demanding lower standards of evidence for your explanation of the origin of life than you demanded for ours, by classifying yours as ‘philosophy’ rather than ‘science’. So you are the one asserting that philosophy requires a lower standard of proof than science.

And, again, as regards your first demand that we have seen mindless things produce intelligent beings, we have answered that. You still whine that it is ‘unreasonable’ to expect you to meet the same standard, your own standard! That you demanded of us and that we met!

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe, limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Besides being provisional it cannot say anything about the supernatural.

Empirical science, observable, repeatable and predictable is science. When dealing with one-time events deep in history (not empirical) crosses into philosophy. Evo claims the god of BUC (bling unguided chance) and theism claims God the creator. Evo claims the god of BUC because it “cannot let the Divine foot in the door”.

 

[DrTaffy]

You really need to bone up on your biology.

A Venus Flytrap is organic. A mouse trap is not

Psst: all known life is also organic.

That is why a mousetrap is a feeble example. Not only have you failed to show that it could not have been designed by genetic algorithms, but your only argument relies on the crucial difference between mousetraps and everything that has been claimed to have developed by natural selection!

 

[buffalo]

Psst: all known life is also organic.

That is why a mousetrap is a feeble example. Not only have you failed to show that it could not have been designed by genetic algorithms, but your only argument relies on the crucial difference between mousetraps and everything that has been claimed to have developed by natural selection!

Natural selection is a conservative process.

 

[rossum]

Intelligent Design is focusing on odds. Beyond a certain threshold chance begins to exert less influence and design exerts more influence. (UPB)

Functional Complex Specificity is key here. In th case of the mousetrap certain pre-existing items were sought and gathered to produce a functional grouping. The odds of this happening by chance give way to purpose and design.

In biology we see these building blocks being used over and over. ID claims it is by design.

Professor Behe took a look at the odds of a simple IC system evolving. In his paper, Behe and Snoke (2004) he calculated that a simple IC system could evolve in about 20,000 years in a population of a billion bacteria.

20,000 years is very short compared to evolutionary timescales – the Cambrian Explosion alone took between 5 million and fifteen million years. One billion is a tiny population of bacteria, you have trillions of them in your gut. Behe’s own calculations showed that IC systems can evolve easily with small populations and with short timescales.

As to the “odds” calculations you refer to, I would need to see the actual maths, since far too many of the “odds” calculations posted on the internet are GIGO. They omit the effect of natural selection, and so do not accurately reflect the real odds of something evolving.

rossum

 

[DrTaffy]

Abiogenesis is a chemical process, not an evolutionary process.

I would qualify that. Depending on the definition of ‘life’ (I suppose) a simple molecule (e.g. an RNA sequence) could be capable of imperfect self-replication while not meeting the definition of ‘animate’ - yet it would still be subject to natural selection and evolution.

So ‘evolution’ could kick in before the (arguably arbitrary) transition from ‘non-living’ to ‘living’ self replicators.

 

[buffalo]

Professor Behe took a look at the odds of a simple IC system evolving. In his paper, Behe and Snoke (2004) he calculated that a simple IC system could evolve in about 20,000 years in a population of a billion bacteria.

20,000 years is very short compared to evolutionary timescales – the Cambrian Explosion alone took between 5 million and fifteen million years. One billion is a tiny population of bacteria, you have trillions of them in your gut. Behe’s own calculations showed that IC systems can evolve easily with small populations and with short timescales.

As to the “odds” calculations you refer to, I would need to see the actual maths, since far too many of the “odds” calculations posted on the internet are GIGO. They omit the effect of natural selection, and so do not accurately reflect the real odds of something evolving.

rossum

Where in the paper does it claim 20,000?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You still whine that it is ‘unreasonable’ to expect you to meet the same standard, your own standard! That you demanded of us and that we met!

You have met no standard. You have no proof of anything. It’s all speculation, and whining speculation at that.

“Could” is never the same as “Did.”

 

[buffalo]

You have met no standard. You have no proof of anything. It’s all speculation, and whining speculation at that.

“Could” is never the same as “Did.”

Or possible vs improbable.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Psst: all known life is also organic.

That is why a mousetrap is a feeble example.

I have a mousetrap laying beside me at this moment. -]It/-] She is determinably organic and by no means a feeble example. In fact, intelligently designed human contrivances are absolutely no match for her, which argues for greater intellectual (name removed by moderator)ut into her design rather than lesser.

And, no, she was not pulled magically from a hat - she has a genetic history. And, again, no, that genetic history does not, by itself, argue for random and unguided causality.

 

[rossum]

Where in the paper does it claim 20,000?

From the abstract: “We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10[sup]8[/sup] generations, …” When questioned under oath about his paper at the Dover/Kitzmiller trial, Professor Behe agreed that 10[sup]8[/sup] generations was about 20,000 years. See Day 12 AM part 1. Search the page for the text “20,000” to find the exact location.

Do you have the reference for your odds calculation?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

No. There are three indirect routes of evolution listed by Thornhill and Ussery (2000), alongside the direct route. The four are: serial direct evolution, parallel direct evolution, elimination of functional redundancy, and adoption from a different function. IC systems cannot evolve by the serial direct route. They can evolve by the other three.

In that case is there no such thing as controlled evolution?

Purpose is not an intrinsic property, it is an extrinsic property. The store keeper’s purpose for a hammer is to make a profit on its sale. The purchaser’s purpose for the hammer is to drive in nails. The purposes are different, the hammer is the same. The purposes are not intrinsic to the hammer.

So all your purposes are thrust upon you?

 

[tonyrey]

I have a mousetrap laying beside me at this moment. -]It/-] She is determinably organic and by no means a feeble example. In fact, intelligently designed human contrivances are absolutely no match for her, which argues for greater intellectual (name removed by moderator)ut into her design rather than lesser.

And, no, she was not pulled magically from a hat - she has a genetic history. And, again, no, that genetic history does not, by itself, argue for random and unguided causality.

But you are forgetting that **all **purposeful activity is necessarily and inevitably derived from purposeless activity. The role of the intellect is irrelevant because genetic algorithms have explained (away) the intellect…

 

[Hans_W]

Yet another example of the false identification of Design with Creationism and Fundamentalism which seems oblivious of the scandals in the Scientific Establishment…

Sorry, I am a bit behind here, living on the other side of the planet.

Could you please expand on these “scandals in the Scientific Establishment…”

 

[tonyrey]

I would qualify that. Depending on the definition of ‘life’ (I suppose) a simple molecule (e.g. an RNA sequence) could be capable of imperfect self-replication while not meeting the definition of ‘animate’ - yet it would still be subject to natural selection and evolution.

So ‘evolution’ could kick in before the (arguably arbitrary) transition from ‘non-living’ to ‘living’ self replicators.

Is there evidence that inanimate molecules have an urge to survive? If so how did it originate?

 

[Hans_W]

I suppose you missed the connection between Bradski being an atheist and his contention that the theory of evolution, at least on his view, means, precisely that no God is needed to bring about life.

Nobody can miss the apparent and perceived connection between atheism and evolution, unless you have never heard of Richard Dawkins.

It is simply wrong and if scientists make such statements, then they are stepping outside the constrains of their profession and express their personal opinions. Otherwise how do you explain a long list of religious scientists, experts working on the forefront of evolutionary science?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Purpose is not an intrinsic property, it is an extrinsic property. The store keeper’s purpose for a hammer is to make a profit on its sale. The purchaser’s purpose for the hammer is to drive in nails. The purposes are different, the hammer is the same. The purposes are not intrinsic to the hammer.

rossum

But the hammer would not exist except for those intelligently designed purposes for which it was made.

We were made because God had a purpose for us. To say we were made without an intelligently designed purpose is to say something vastly more far-fetched than that a hammer could be made without an intelligently designed purpose.

Logically, where does that get you?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nobody can miss the apparent and perceived connection between atheism and evolution, unless you have never heard of Richard Dawkins.

It is simply wrong and if scientists make such statements, then they are stepping outside the constrains of their profession and express their personal opinions. Otherwise how do you explain a long list of religious scientists, experts working on the forefront of evolutionary science?

And those scientists should be commended for their dedication and perseverance in the service of truth. However, to assume design of an intelligent variety CANNOT, in principle, be evidenced within genetic information as a necessary conclusion of evolutionary science is operating under a presupposition that intelligence CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be evidenced in the evolutionary process to begin with.

Anyone who presupposes THAT, is showing bias against that possibility as an a priori assumption. Neutrality ought to lead us to an appropriate conclusion, not a foregone one.

 

[buffalo]

Professor Behe took a look at the odds of a simple IC system evolving. In his paper, Behe and Snoke (2004) he calculated that a simple IC system could evolve in about 20,000 years in a population of a billion bacteria.

20,000 years is very short compared to evolutionary timescales – the Cambrian Explosion alone took between 5 million and fifteen million years. One billion is a tiny population of bacteria, you have trillions of them in your gut. Behe’s own calculations showed that IC systems can evolve easily with small populations and with short timescales.

As to the “odds” calculations you refer to, I would need to see the actual maths, since far too many of the “odds” calculations posted on the internet are GIGO. They omit the effect of natural selection, and so do not accurately reflect the real odds of something evolving.

rossum

The important point is 100 million generations.

Lenski’s experiment shows bacteria still bacteria, but adapted bacteria.

 

[Hans_W]

And those scientists should be commended for their dedication and perseverance in the service of truth. However, to assume design of an intelligent variety CANNOT, in principle, be evidenced within genetic information as a necessary conclusion of evolutionary science is operating under a presupposition that intelligence CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be evidenced in the evolutionary process to begin with.

Anyone who presupposes THAT, is showing bias against that possibility as an a priori assumption. Neutrality ought to lead us to an appropriate conclusion, not a foregone one.

It’s called methodological naturalism and it’s one of the prerequisites of doing science. An a priori assumption if you want, but only in a methodological, not ontological sense.

In my opinion, and I should highlight “opinion”, God upholds his creation at any moment in time, not just stepping in with a miracle when a new enzyme is needed. God created the world with a functional integrity, which means that there are no functional deficiencies, no gaps in its economy that would require God to act on a level that science would be qualified to detect.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In my opinion, and I should highlight “opinion”, God upholds his creation at any moment in time, not just stepping in with a miracle when a new enzyme is needed. God created the world with a functional integrity, which means that there are no functional deficiencies, no gaps in its economy that would require God to act on a level that science would be qualified to detect.

Then I will repeat to you what I said to another Catholic in this thread.

Does God perform miracles?

That is, does He ever “act on a level that science would be [un]qualified to detect”?