Intelligent design

[Turtle]

___In all fairness, I have perspectives not commonly shared or understood; my own little gift from the world in the way of genetic mutation called autism. For the sake of argument, if I accept ID, how does/should this affect my course of action? Do I stop investigating the world with my scientific tools ? Go about it differently? Get more friends? Fewer friends? Do I quit trying or try harder? This is what I meant earlier when I asked "So what?".

___As much energy as I have expended in this thread, I might have created some new Katabatak Maps or discovered yet another new set of numbers. I joined in because others seemed interested, & I hoped to understand what the interest is. I don't. Good luck. :confused:

[TRoutMac]

In all fairness, I have perspectives not commonly shared or understood; my own little gift from the world in the way of genetic mutation called autism. For the sake of argument, if I accept ID, how does/should this affect my course of action? Do I stop investigating the world with my scientific tools ? Go about it differently? Get more friends? Fewer friends? Do I quit trying or try harder? This is what I meant earlier when I asked "So what?".

 

Whether you, or anyone else, thinks that the origin of life is or is not an important question is a separate issue. And if you don't see any compelling reason to be concerned one way or another, that's totally up to you. That's your personal determination and I respect that. Still, I hope you'll at least lurk here and keep an open mind. I think I've made a good case for why Intelligent Design is indeed a scientific theory, and an excellent one at that. Some people may not think it matters one way or another, and that's their business.

 

If science is supposed to look for the truth, then it should look for the truth even when it means it must occasionally admit mistakes… very large, rather embarrassing mistakes. And I don't think anyone here on this forum would suggest that science should continue in a direction which does not lead to truth just for the sake of saving face.

[pgrmdave]

___I noticed the thread is barely a month old & obviously Dave picked a ripe topic. The above is post #1. How well have we stayed on topic? Have we answered your questions Dave - to your satisfaction anyway?

 

Well, the first question was never really answered. The proponents of Intelligent Design look at the evidence and create a theory which fits all known evidence, but doesn't make any predictions that I can find. The second question was answered, to a degree. Intelligent design would be disproved if we could show that complex information can arise from less complex information. If we could show that simple information can, using only itself, rearrange itself into more complex information then Intelligent Design would be disproved, or at least greatly weakened. I do think that simple information can do so, and in fact I think that not only could evolution move from simple to complex, but that it is most likely to do so. I also think that it would be possible to create a simple computer program that could replicate into more complex versions of itself, which would help disprove it. And for those of you who would claim that the program was designed, hence helping Intelligent Design, remember, evolution NEVER claims to be about the creation of life, only about what happened AFTER it was created.

[C1ay]

I will reiterate just one example of a prediction that the Intelligent Design theory makes, which regards so-called "junk DNA". What is sometimes regarded as "junk DNA", especially by I.D. bashers, will eventually be revealed as being nothing of the sort. If Intelligent Design is true, then we will continue to uncover layer upon layer of coded instructions in stretches of DNA that was once regarded as "junk". Prior to the 1950s we were unaware of DNA at all, so it is obvious that we are moving in that direction and to write off reams of DNA as "junk" is presumptuous and premature.

That junk DNA may someday be found to have a bearing on life is not a prediction that means it was designed, only that we didn't understand those pieces of DNA. Please provide a prediction that will specifically yield evidence of an intelligent designer.

[TRoutMac]

Well, the first question was never really answered.

 

Dave, I listed several things early on in this thread in an answer to this question. While some of those items were disputed, I believe it was Erasmus (my apologies if it was someone else) who agreed that the prediction that actual meaning would eventually be discovered in "junk DNA" did qualify as a legitimate "prediction".

 

And speaking of which, "Junk DNA" is an example of exactly what I.D. bashers accuse I.D proponents of doing when they refer to I.D. as the "God of the Gaps" theory. To conclude that DNA which has no apparent role is automatically "junk" is to give up, scientifically… you fill the gap with the idea of "junk", which, apparently needs no further investigation. It's junk, so let's just forget about it. Again, I remind you that the first time scientists laid eyes on the DNA molecule, those scientists didn't understand any of it. It was all "junk".

 

 

 

 

 

The second question was answered, to a degree. Intelligent design would be disproved if we could show that complex information can arise from less complex information.

 

Either it was answered or it wasn't, Dave. Obviously, given your summary above, I'll put down your "to a degree" qualification as being nothing more than an expression of your reluctance to admit defeat on this point.

 

Intelligent Design as a theory is both testable and can offer predictions, therefore it is scientific.

 

If we could show that simple information can, using only itself, rearrange itself into more complex information then Intelligent Design would be disproved, or at least greatly weakened.

 

This is where I like to use the expression "If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle." (sorry, a little off-color, but funny as heck, I think) You cannot show that information, that is to say, "instructions" which carry "meaning" (again, not "Shannon information") can arise spontaneously. If you can, please do. But remember, we're not talking about Shannon here. I've shown the difference very clearly and the distinction I drew was echoed by Buffy and perhaps by Turtle as well, if I'm not mistaken.

 

I contend that the very fact that we sit down at our various computers and apply our intelligence toward conjuring up these responses to each other proves that messages with meaning require absolutely an intelligent source. If this were not the case, we would be able to sit back and let the information we wished to communicate flow freely all by itself. Likewise, architects and engineers would have no reason to exist. The complicated plans conceived for building bridges, roads, houses and skyscrapers would simply appear out of nowhere, with no intelligence behind them.

 

I do think that simple information can do so, and in fact I think that not only could evolution move from simple to complex, but that it is most likely to do so.

 

I'm sorry, Dave. But you may as well be arguing for a perpetual motion machine here. Water flows uphill. I'm trying not to be insulting here, but to suggest that information (really, do I need to explain again what I mean by "information"?) can spawn itself is simply ludicrous. It's as ludicrous as the one-time belief that frogs spontaneously came into being beneath trees after a hard rain.

 

I also think that it would be possible to create a simple computer program that could replicate into more complex versions of itself, which would help disprove it. And for those of you who would claim that the program was designed, hence helping Intelligent Design, remember, evolution NEVER claims to be about the creation of life, only about what happened AFTER it was created.

 

Well-played, Dave… you headed me off at the pass there. But you've still got some problems. First of all, whether evolution claims to be about the creation of life or not seems to be a matter of opinion and maybe some semantics. But leave that aside…

 

What you're implying here is that Intelligent Design might possibly explain the creation of life initially, while evolution might just explain the process. Well, how is anyone ever going to propose such a theory? Won't someone else just say that's merely "repackaged creationism" again like they do with the current Intelligent Design theory? Or won't they insist that's an unscientific theory because it supposedly cannot be tested and makes no predictions? Won't the naysayers just say it's another "God of the gaps" theory?

[TRoutMac]

That junk DNA may someday be found to have a bearing on life is not a prediction that means it was designed, only that we didn't understand those pieces of DNA. Please provide a prediction that will specifically yield evidence of an intelligent designer.

 

You can't have it both ways. The existence of "junk DNA" is used frequently to argue against Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design would hold that there is meaning in so-called "junk DNA" or "non-coding DNA" and therefore would predict that such meaning and usefulness would be eventually be discovered. The evolutionary spin on "junk DNA" is that it represents obsolete, discarded genes once used, apparently, by ancestors and that it presently has no use. Therefore, evolutionary theory would predict that no usefulness would ever be found in "junk DNA". It's true, though, when that usefulness is discovered, evolutionists will simply alter their theory to accommodate the new evidence. Standard tactic.

 

Your attempts to move the goalposts notwithstanding, I have cited a valid prediction.

[goku]

i think the main perdiction that intelligent design makes is that humans will always be humans like we are now. animals will always be animals, they will never evolve into some speaking half human half animal freaks.

 

what would disprove ID?

if life came from nothing :hihi:

[TRoutMac]

i think the main prediction that intelligent design makes is that humans will always be humans like we are now. animals will always be animals, they will never evolve into some speaking half human half animal freaks.

 

Don't know that I'd say it's the "main" prediction, but, you could say it's another prediction. And even then, there are some qualifications. Intelligent Design doesn't reject microevolution, for example. So the human race could change to some degree over time, and in fact, it will. It's changing now. The sickle cell trait is one example. Mutations are happening, the gene pool is slowly becoming more and more degraded. But, we will always be recognizable as humans, though, and that's your point. We won't "evolve" into something else. Thank you!

[C1ay]

You can't have it both ways. The existence of "junk DNA" is used frequently to argue against Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design would hold that there is meaning in so-called "junk DNA" or "non-coding DNA" and therefore would predict that such meaning and usefulness would be eventually be discovered. The evolutionary spin on "junk DNA" is that it represents obsolete, discarded genes once used, apparently, by ancestors and that it presently has no use. Therefore, evolutionary theory would predict that no usefulness would ever be found in "junk DNA". It's true, though, when that usefulness is discovered, evolutionists will simply alter their theory to accommodate the new evidence. Standard tactic.

 

Your attempts to move the goalposts notwithstanding, I have cited a valid prediction.

I'm not trying to have it both ways or put any evolutionary spin on it. I'm only saying that a finding that junk DNA is not junk only proves that it's not junk, not that it was designed. Predicting that we may find this to be the case is not a prediction that proves that it must have been designed. The question remains, what prediction can you make that will yield evidence of an intelligent designer?

 

By the way, looking for holes or gaps in evolutionary theory only finds holes or gaps in evolutionary theory. It does not imply that ID has the answers that fill those holes and gaps, only that you found holes and gaps.

[pgrmdave]

I'm sorry, Dave. But you may as well be arguing for a perpetual motion machine here. Water flows uphill. I'm trying not to be insulting here, but to suggest that information (really, do I need to explain again what I mean by "information"?) can spawn itself is simply ludicrous.

 

Not really - the idea that a more complex set of instructions can be gotten from a less complex set of instructions isn't that impossible. It's bootstrapping. A simple set of instructions needs to be executed. Those instructions need to create copies of themselves, some of which are imperfect to a degree. A large majority of those imperfections will fail to function, but occasionally, one will function just as well as it's parent, even if it's different. Very rarely, one will function even better, and will soon begin to outnumber it's less successful predecessors. Don't believe me? It's been done. Read here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/meta/getalife/coretierra.html

 

"He built a computer program to model a virtual computer... and called his virtual world Tierra. However, Ray added a new feature to the virtual world that had been missing ... mutation... Every now and again, the machine code instruction which copied data between memory cells would randomly flip one of the bits during copying. If the data being copied was the machine code of the program itself as it tried to reproduce, the result would be a slightly different mutant program.... Conventional wisdom before Tierra was that randomly flipping bits of a machine code program could never result in improvement to that program--the chances against it were astronomical.

 

Like in the real world, Tierra had natural selection. Mutant programs that crashed were eliminated as unfit. In addition, a process called The Reaper would pick off the oldest programs to free up space--meaning this new virtual world had death, as well.... Ray decided to start his Tierra system off with a population of the most simple programs possible. He wrote a piece of code that simply copied itself elsewhere in memory then spawned the copy. It was 80 bytes long, so he named it 80. He spread a few 80s through the Tierra system's memory, and started the clock.

 

For the first few thousand generations, nothing much of interest happened. There were a few minor mutations that didn't break the code, but that was about it. Before long, though, there were a number of 81s--mutants with an extra byte of program code. A little later, a 79 appeared. Because the 79 had one less byte of code, it took less time to reproduce, and was more successful than the 80 or 81. It began to take over the Tierra ecosystem.

 

Next, something astonishing happened. A 45 appeared. Ray was initially mystified; he'd written the simplest code he could imagine and it was 80 bytes. A 79 seemed reasonable, but how could a 45 reproduce in only just over half the space? Examining the code of 45 provided the answer--and a new surprise. The 45 was a parasite: instead of reproducing itself, it hunted for the reproductive code of an 80, then called that code. It was almost like a biological virus, which reproduces by inserting its DNA into a host cell and using the cell's reproductive apparatus to build more viruses.

 

No parasite code had been written at any stage in Tierra's development, and the system had not been designed to support parasites; the fact that one program could make use of code in another was an accident. Yet the system had reproduction, death, natural selection and mutation, and that seemed to be enough to cause parasites to appear from nowhere. Suddenly Tierra was an ecosystem in balance. If there were too many 45s, then the 80s would die out, unable to compete; and then the 45s would die out too, unable to reproduce without a host.

 

It turned out that the 79s were immune to the 45 parasite. Ray placed some 45s in a Tierra world heavy with 79s, and soon a new 51 parasite appeared which was able to use 79s to reproduce. If the system was left running long enough, parasites of parasites began to appear.

 

Then came another surprise: after a long period of mutation and natural selection, another new program appeared. This was a 22, and it was completely self-contained, not a parasite. Somehow Tierra had evolved a program that was smaller than any human being had managed to come up with."

 

Computer programs evolved.

[Boerseun]

The sickle cell issue is interesting because it does appear to offer one slight advantage. But the fact that the advantage rides along with several other disadvantages reflects accurately this "degradation" of information. It's kind of like saying that a mutation which leaves you without arms is an advantage because you won't get tennis elbow. True, you won't get tennis elbow… but you have no arms!!

Out of context.

 

What you don't keep in mind is the external influences, changes in the species under discussion being demanded by the environment for survival. If tennis elbow was required for survival, those who didn't get it will die. True - tennis elbow is uncomfortable and painful, but if the environment demanded it, you better make sure you have it. Once the environment changes again (by spraying mozzies with DDT, for example) the set of demands required for survival changes. I am sure I've put it simply enough.

 

Sickle cell disease is one form of protection against death. The disadvantages coming with it, doesn't kill you, and is therefore a small price to pay to keep on living.

 

Your big toe is crucial for balance. People who've lost their big toes in accidents report difficulty in maintaining their balance. And this is for being able to stand up straight. You big toe's initial function, however, was for grasping. Grasping trees and branches as you were merrilly swinging from tree to tree as a tree-dwelling primate. Back then, you couldn't walk on two legs even if you tried - your big toe was in the way. Over thousands and thousands of generations, your big toe has moved to the front of your foot and is now aiding you in balancing yourself standing on two legs. You can't grip a branch with your big toe even if you tried. Your big toe still carries remnants of your tree-dwelling past. It's your most mobile toe, the one you have the most control over. The nerve bundles are there, your toe is just not in the proper position anymore.

 

Now what would your big toe be an example of? Irreducible complexity? Micro-evolution? Macro-evolution?

 

No - your big toe is an avid disregarder of meaningless semantics. Your big toe is a sworn witness toe the fact that you as an individual isn't evolving, you're just the result of millions of years of genetic combinations that's improved (if you want to see it that way) or degraded (if that's what the environment demanded at the time). But the species you belong to is evolving over epochs of time unimaginable to somebody who wants to ascribe all these wonderful variations (the results of statistical advantages and disadvantages) to something as unimaginative as a 'Supreme Being' or 'Intelligence'. Once you do that, you acknowledge that you aren't interested in digging deeper. Why - is it too much effort?

[Boerseun]

Somehow Tierra had evolved a program that was smaller than any human being had managed to come up with."

 

Computer programs evolved.

Awesome!!!

[TRoutMac]

Not really - the idea that a more complex set of instructions can be gotten from a less complex set of instructions isn't that impossible. It's bootstrapping.

 

In the statement above, is the "meaning" of the more complex set of instructions essentially the same as that of the less complex set of instructions?

 

Computer programs evolved.

 

Well, you just put Microsoft out of business.

 

This is really very funny, guys. What you're telling me, and you seem to be doing it with a straight face (which I can scarcely imagine) is that if I write a program for browsing the web and copy that program a bunch of times, the resultant copy errors will add the feature of e-mail into the web browser program. Is that about right?

 

We're still stuck in the fog between information in the "Shannon" sense and information in the "meaning" sense. Ignore the vehicle for information and what it consists of and just focus on the idea expressed by that vehicle.

 

Do ideas require intelligence?

[pgrmdave]

This is really very funny, guys. What you're telling me, and you seem to be doing it with a straight face (which I can scarcely imagine) is that if I write a program for browsing the web and copy that program a bunch of times, the resultant copy errors will add the feature of e-mail into the web browser program. Is that about right?

 

Over time it will evolve, or do you wish to ignore the fact that computer programs evolving has already occured? It went from 80 bytes to 22 bytes, that is quite a bit different, and justifies being called a 'new species' rather than simply an improvement on an old species.

[Erasmus00]

This is really very funny, guys. What you're telling me, and you seem to be doing it with a straight face (which I can scarcely imagine) is that if I write a program for browsing the web and copy that program a bunch of times, the resultant copy errors will add the feature of e-mail into the web browser program. Is that about right?

 

You need more then just the copy errors. You also need something to eliminate programs that crash, and older programs. In nature that happens automatically, in a computer simulation you need to add that in. As in the example above, with a few simple rules put in place (programs that crash are eliminated, old programs get eliminated, ocassional transcription errors) the programs becames more complex. You could argue that the game was the result of intelligent design, but I'd aruge that the rules were simple, and modeled off nature, and the original computer code just replicated itself over and over again. The simplest reproducing code the guy could come up with.

-Will

[TRoutMac]

Out of context. What you don't keep in mind is the external influences, changes in the species under discussion being demanded by the environment for survival. If tennis elbow was required for survival, those who didn't get it will die. True - tennis elbow is uncomfortable and painful, but if the environment demanded it, you better make sure you have it. Once the environment changes again (by spraying mozzies with DDT, for example) the set of demands required for survival changes. I am sure I've put it simply enough.

 

I recognize the difference, Boerseun, but my characterization still illustrates the spin that evolutionists place on the sickle cell phenomenon. It's exaggerated, but makes the point sufficiently.

 

Your big toe is crucial for balance. People who've lost their big toes in accidents report difficulty in maintaining their balance.

 

Oh, tell me about it. Three weeks ago I had a little incident involving my big toe, gravity, and a large kitchen cabinet. I don't think it's broken, but it could be. This definitely had an "impact" (pardon the pun) on my balance.

 

Having said that, my big toe was designed as a big toe, pretty much just as it is now. My big toe was never used to grasp limbs or things of that nature. That primates are able to use their feet in this way is a result of the fact that their feet were designed to be used in that manner. Ours weren't.

 

Now what would your big toe be an example of? Irreducible complexity? Micro-evolution? Macro-evolution?

 

My big toe is an example of both design and irreducible complexity. I don't know the extent of the damage from the cabinet, but I know that right now it doesn't have nearly the range of motion it once did and although it's virtually pain-free and I'm walking almost normally now, it has nevertheless been damaged, perhaps broken, and so it's lost some function. (at least until it heals completely) In other words, to function properly and efficiently, it needs all the parts it has and those parts must be shaped, aligned, oriented and configured just right. Any deviation from that (due to heavy cabinets, for example) results in a loss of function.

[TRoutMac]

Over time it will evolve, or do you wish to ignore the fact that computer programs evolving has already occured? It went from 80 bytes to 22 bytes, that is quite a bit different, and justifies being called a 'new species' rather than simply an improvement on an old species.

 

A computer program has never evolved such that, at one point in time that program served one function (accounting software, let's say) and at another point in time, the same program served a different function, let's say image editing. Neither has there ever been a computer program, let's say it's an accounting program, which at one point in time did not have the ability to handle payroll, which later "evolved" the ability to handle payroll. Yes, software goes through revisions from time to time (to often, I would say!) and new features are added, but the software instructions required to add new features are added by an intelligent agent. The new features are not the result of numerous copying cycles where corruption is introduced.

 

What you are claiming is so absurd, so contrary to everyone's collective experience as intelligent agents I can hardly even conceive of how you can possibly believe it. The evidence which disproves you is so ubiquitous, I don't even know where to start. Billboards. Buildings. Houses. Cars. Computers. Software. Signage. Airplanes. Spacecraft. Bridges. All the result of painstaking design and when mistakes in the various design processes are made, airplanes perform poorly or fall out of the sky, buildings and bridges collapse, space shuttles explode, software malfunctions, cars perform poorly or explode on impact, you get the idea.

 

And once again, no one is denying that natural selection exists. We are simply saying that natural selection prevents the kind of evolution you would like it to explain because the kind of evolution you want it to explain requires more "information" and again, for the millionth time, not shannon information.

 

Here's another way to express this which, hopefully will get us past your collective usage of "information", which is incongruent with my usage of "information":

 

You have a motorcycle and a car. Generally speaking, a car is more complex than a motorcycle. Therefore, the information which describes the car must express a bigger idea, an idea which is itself more complex than the idea expressed in the information which describes the motorcycle. Twice the number of wheels, larger engine, more seats, windows, roof, climate control, larger brakes and more of them, etc.

 

How much information (your usage, now) is needed to express these "ideas" might not correspond directly with the relative complexity of the two ideas at hand, but that does not change the fact that one idea is "bigger " than the other.

 

You cannot get a "bigger idea" without an intelligence to devise it.

 

Part of my point here is that the way you all are using the word "information" focuses on the vehicle, the code, the characters. But it ignores the idea which the information expresses. In fact, it pretends there is no idea expressed in information. DNA is the expression of an idea. An eagle is a bigger "idea" than a paramecium. A human is a bigger "idea" than an E. Coli bacterium.