Intelligent design

[Erasmus00]

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.

 

Umm... he cited an actual computer simulation that Tom Ray did, and the results. You then told him that his claim was absurd, but never the less IT HAPPENED as described. A piece of software evolved, it became shorter, more compact, better able to reproduce. Parasitic versions emerged. Claiming that this is not an example of "speciation" is like saying that bacteria and viruses are the same thing.

-Will

[TRoutMac]

Umm... he cited an actual computer simulation that Tom Ray did, and the results. You then told him that his claim was absurd, but never the less IT HAPPENED as described. A piece of software evolved, it became shorter, more compact, better able to reproduce. Parasitic versions emerged. Claiming that this is not an example of "speciation" is like saying that bacteria and viruses are the same thing.

 

Erasmus, Dave is using this Tierra example, which shows one thing happening, to prove that something altogether different can happen. I've stated a thousand times that I do not dispute natural selection nor microevolution. Evolutionists only wish the existence of Tierra means what they claim it means. But it doesn't.

 

I'll ask once again: What useful function did the mutant program perform that the original program did not perform?

[Edge]

One question: there is a trial about if Intelligent Design should be allowed to be taught in schools (at least the basics), how is this trial going?

[TRoutMac]

Umm... he cited an actual computer simulation that Tom Ray did, and the results. You then told him that his claim was absurd, but never the less IT HAPPENED as described. A piece of software evolved, it became shorter, more compact, better able to reproduce.

 

Not only that, Erasmus, but as Dave himself alluded to before, this is really just an argument for Intelligent Design. The Intelligent Designer in this case had an idea, a concept, which was to design some software that would behave in a specific way, i.e., to simply copy itself elsewhere in memory then spawn the copy. That was his idea. The expression of this concept was in the source code he actually wrote, and that required Tom Ray's intelligence.

 

So, what you have here is really an argument to support the theory that an Intelligent Designer designed a genetic code that was mutable to some degree. And that's pretty much exactly what I.D. proponents are saying. Funny thing is, when I say it, it's not science and when you say it, it apparently is science.

 

And once again I must also ask this:

 

If, as Dave suggested, Intelligent Design might possibly explain the creation of life initially, and evolution might just explain the process, then how is anyone ever going to propose this theory? Detractors will say that's merely "repackaged creationism" like they do with the current Intelligent Design theory. Or they'll insist that it's an unscientific theory because it supposedly cannot be tested and makes no predictions. Or they'll just say it's another "God of the gaps" theory.

[Erasmus00]

I'll ask once again: What useful function did the mutant program perform that the original program did not perform?

 

In Tierra, in just a few iterative generations, the original program (a bacteria type replicator) mutated into different parasitic versions (virus type replicators.) If this isn't an example of speciation ,then what is? Further more, a much more compact, streamlined version emerged (only about 20 bits, as opposed to the 80bit seed programs). The programs still "perfom the same function" (reproduction) but all life performs only one function (reproduction, over and over again). However, the 20bit program's internal workings were much more efficient and streamlined (which is why it was so much shorter then the 80bit version).

-Will

[TRoutMac]

One question: there is a trial about if Intelligent Design should be allowed to be taught in schools (at least the basics), how is this trial going?

 

Well, I'm reluctant to make any predictions, but what I've read has left me with the impression than the ACLU is getting its clock cleaned; that the expert witnesses for the DASB are running rings around them, kickin' butt and takin' names. Just my subjective assessment. As we all know, there's no scoreboard. We don't know who wins until, well, until they win.

 

But seriously, it appears to me that all the ACLU has been able to do is insist repeatedly on its own authority that I.D. is not science (what a crock) and is religious (also a crock) while the DASB has been able to show in great detail, with real evidence and reason, why I.D. most certainly is scientific and is [/b]not[/b] religion.

 

Naturally, I'm hoping my assessment is correct.

[Erasmus00]

If, as Dave suggested, Intelligent Design might possibly explain the creation of life initially, and evolution might just explain the process, then how is anyone ever going to propose this theory? Detractors will say that's merely "repackaged creationism" like they do with the current Intelligent Design theory. Or they'll insist that it's an unscientific theory because it supposedly cannot be tested and makes no predictions. Or they'll just say it's another "God of the gaps" theory.

 

The theory that God started life off on Earth, and then evolution brought things to as they are today, is just as unscientific as the idea that God created everything as is. Its just as unscientific, because its just as impossible to test. But this discussion isn't about abiogenesis, its about evolution, which are very different things.

 

Now, again, unscientific doesn't mean wrong, it just means not science.

 

The idea, perhaps, that a mixture of basic chemicals and electric currents formed the first self-replicating molecules IS scientific, because we can throw a bunch of chemicals into a vial and run a current through it and see if self-replicators pop out.

-Will

[TRoutMac]

The programs still "perfom the same function"

 

That's what I thought. Next argument?

[Erasmus00]

That's what I thought. Next argument?

 

Way to cherry pick one line out of context. As is mentioned above all animals/plants/etc perform the same function to. That doesn't mean they aren't different species,etc. While all animals reproduce, they reproduce differently. While all tierra programs do the same thing (reproduction) the different species do it differently.

-Will

[TRoutMac]

The theory that God started life off on Earth, and then evolution brought things to as they are today, is just as unscientific as the idea that God created everything as is. Its just as unscientific, because its just as impossible to test.

 

Who said anything about God? Dave's suggestion said nothing about God, only that an Intelligent Designer might have created the initial conditions. Care to try answering that again, but this time be honest about what theory has been proposed?

 

The idea, perhaps, that a mixture of basic chemicals and electric currents formed the first self-replicating molecules IS scientific, because we can throw a bunch of chemicals into a vial and run a current through it and see if self-replicators pop out.

 

Oh, geez… please tell me you're not talking about the Miller-Urey experiment.

[TRoutMac]

Way to cherry pick one line out of context. As is mentioned above all animals/plants/etc perform the same function to. That doesn't mean they aren't different species,etc. While all animals reproduce, they reproduce differently. While all tierra programs do the same thing (reproduction) the different species do it differently.

 

If you'll recall, I used the example of a web browser that "evolved" to add the function of e-mail. Or an accounting program that eventually "evolved" into an image-editing program. That's the software equivalent of the claims made by macro-evolutionists. Dave offered this Tierra thing to try to show me that this could be done, and yet we see that it cannot be done. In Tierra you have a software program which does "A" evolving into a software program that does "A". That's a little short of the mark, I'm afraid.

[Edge]

Well, I'm reluctant to make any predictions, but what I've read has left me with the impression than the ACLU is getting its clock cleaned; that the expert witnesses for the DASB are running rings around them, kickin' butt and takin' names. Just my subjective assessment. As we all know, there's no scoreboard. We don't know who wins until, well, until they win.

 

But seriously, it appears to me that all the ACLU has been able to do is insist repeatedly on its own authority that I.D. is not science (what a crock) and is religious (also a crock) while the DASB has been able to show in great detail, with real evidence and reason, why I.D. most certainly is scientific and is [/b]not[/b] religion.

 

Naturally, I'm hoping my assessment is correct.

Well, if ID really doesn't try to teach christianism, muslim, etc. and it just suggests the possibility that a higher being created the universe, then I guess it would be OK to teach it.

[TRoutMac]

Well, if ID really doesn't try to teach christianism, muslim, etc. and it just suggests that possibility that a higher being created the universe, then I guess it would be OK to teach it.

 

Intelligent Design theory does not identify the designer. It simply states that the complexity we see in living systems is best explained by reference to an Intelligent Designer. For more information about this, I'd suggest visiting the link below and to the right of the page, find the audio interview with Steven Meyer and click on it. He gives a very good summary of what the Intelligent Design theory is and what it is not.

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

 

There is no teaching of Christianity within the Intelligent Design theory, the identity of the designer is beyond the scope of the theory.

[Erasmus00]

If you'll recall, I used the example of a web browser that "evolved" to add the function of e-mail. Or an accounting program that eventually "evolved" into an image-editing program. That's the software equivalent of the claims made by macro-evolutionists. Dave offered this Tierra thing to try to show me that this could be done, and yet we see that it cannot be done. In Tierra you have a software program which does "A" evolving into a software program that does "A". That's a little short of the mark, I'm afraid.

 

And as I have said, your example is flawed. In "macro" evolution, an animal which does one thing (reproduce) evolves into an animal which does the exact same thing (reproduce). Never does an accounting program "evolve" into an image-editing program. All life is a program designed to do one thing, reproduce. Just as the programs in tierra are designed. However, sometimes the method of reprodction changes (virus perpetuate themselves differently then cats, or bacteria). The same thing happens in tierra.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

Who said anything about God? Dave's suggestion said nothing about God, only that an Intelligent Designer might have created the initial conditions. Care to try answering that again, but this time be honest about what theory has been proposed?

 

I'm sorry. In my vocabulary, an "intelligent designer" capable of building reproducing molecules and seeding foreign planets is a god. Replace the word God by "intelligent designer" and my point still stands.

-Will

[infamous]

I'm sorry. In my vocabulary, an "intelligent designer" capable of building reproducing molecules and seeding foreign planets is a god. Replace the word God by "intelligent designer" and my point still stands.

-Will

I agree Erasmus00; and I might add an observation to the mix. This is the Theology forum and if this thread is not about, Websters definition; the study of God and of religious doctrines and matters of divinity' then I suggest it should be moved to the Strange Claims Forum. I think it's high time for a little honesty to manifest itself with regard to the question of intelligent design. For someone to insist that one can separate intelligent design from divinity is a little absurd. Let it be known, if you folks keep insisting that this is not about Theology then I'll ask the Administrator to move it to the Strange Claims Forum.

[GAHD]

The one thing trout doesn't understand is that the smaller 'viral' programs evolved to read *other* programs in order to reproduce, a function not available in the other programs wich just self replicate. They evolved a new function. (I'm willing to bet he has 'ignored' me, because I made the tierra point much earlier, and received no responce.)