Intelligent design

[pgrmdave]

That's a good analogy, almost. Picture this, you have your scrabble bag, and you are draw three letters at random and put them in a random order. If it spells a word, it survives, if not, it dies. Once you have a few words, you 'mate' the words, throwing only the letters into a bag and choosing three out of those. You end up with different words. However, sometimes you accidentily pull out two letters when you meant to choose one, and you end up with a four letter word. Most of the time these four letters don't form a word, but once in a while they do.

[TRoutMac]

That's a good analogy, almost. Picture this, you have your scrabble bag, and you are draw three letters at random and put them in a random order. If it spells a word, it survives, if not, it dies. Once you have a few words, you 'mate' the words, throwing only the letters into a bag and choosing three out of those. You end up with different words. However, sometimes you accidentily pull out two letters when you meant to choose one, and you end up with a four letter word. Most of the time these four letters don't form a word, but once in a while they do.

 

For the time being I'm not going to dispute the above, but only because it doesn't answer my questions and I don't want to get sidetracked. If you would, please answer the specific questions… we'll get into the above soon enough. Thanks.

[pgrmdave]

You think that life was not designed, but you have to explain, then, why complex specified information is present in life, and also in man-made items which we know to be intelligently designed.

 

Evolution can produce complex specified information according to the theory, and man-made items are designed. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Diamonds form naturally. There are man-made designed diamonds. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

All the rules are the same except this time, I place a requirement on which word you must spell, and the word I choose is "RUN". Now, has this requirement significantly reduced the probability that you will produce the information I'm asking for without using your intelligence to choose letters? Would you agree that if you chose three letters at random from the bag and those letters happened to be U, R and N, would that not be incredibly fortuitous?

 

There is a slight problem with this analogy, evolution does not strive towards anything. Unless 'RUN' is the only combination which can possibly survive, the analogy is faulty. If we assume that any word can survive, or any word with 'U' in it, then it becomes more like evolution. Evolution doesn't produce a perfect product, only a working one.

[TRoutMac]

Evolution can produce complex specified information according to the theory, and man-made items are designed. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Diamonds form naturally. There are man-made designed diamonds. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

 

First of all, how can you "test" for the assertion that "evolution can produce complex specified information"?

 

Secondly, forget about diamonds. Diamonds don't have DNA. Nor do they possess complex specified information. Complex information? Yes. But complex specified information? No.

 

There is a slight problem with this analogy, evolution does not strive towards anything. Unless 'RUN' is the only combination which can possibly survive, the analogy is faulty. If we assume that any word can survive, or any word with 'U' in it, then it becomes more like evolution. Evolution doesn't produce a perfect product, only a working one.

 

Come on, Dave. You're not answering the questions. Your assessment of the analogy is not relevant because you are making assumptions about the point the analogy is intended to make, and that assumption is incorrect. The analogy is only intended to establish a basic understanding of probability and information. Nothing more.

 

Please answer those questions… it won't take much time. Just a "yes" or "no" will suffice.

[pgrmdave]

First of all, how can you "test" for the assertion that "evolution can produce complex specified information"?

 

There could be tests conducted, but they would require a long time, millions of years, far too long to be practicible. However, they can be shown to work mathematically, just like relativity, gravity, planetary orbits, and many other theories. We can see that DNA contains the instructions for creating bacteria. We see that the DNA is not always copied 'correctly' which results in slight differences. We see that some of these differences are beneficial, some are harmful, but most are neutral i.e. they don't hinder or help the reproductive process. We see that if one were to give the bacteria enough time, and isolate the bacteria into different environments, there is a good chance that they would develop differently. We can infer (this is the part where we disagree) that small changes in most generations over the course of millions of years with millions more generations can add up to a few major changes, which means a new species.

[Edge]

May I ask which are the doubts and "flaws" around evolution? I mean besides that there's no definite evidence to say that macroevolution is definitely true.

[TRoutMac]

May I ask which are the doubts and "flaws" around evolution? I mean besides that there's no definite evidence to say that macroevolution is definitely true.

 

Edge: Please visit the link I've provided below. It contains video clips of an interview with Michael Behe where he answers 22 specific questions, and if you took a sampling of his answers to just a few of these questions, you'd get a pretty good picture of what the flaws in macro-evolution are.

 

http://www.id.ucsb.edu/detche/video/biology/behe/interview/behe.html

 

Thanks.

[TRoutMac]

There could be tests conducted, but they would require a long time, millions of years, far too long to be practicible.

 

First of all, I realize I'm lopping off the rest of your post here and that you no doubt believe that the balance of your comments mitigates this first sentence, but how many times have I had to endure the accusation here that Intelligent Design is not "testable" even in the face of my explanations to the contrary? After all of that, you finally admit that a basic tenet of evolution is itself untestable! Have you any idea how aggravating that is?

 

Now look… I realize the time thing is a very real problem. You're right, it would take millions of years and, well, we just don't have that kind of time. Nor is it possible for us to travel back in time and start testing there. You're right, those are daunting obstacles to the proper empirical testing of evolutionary theory. But that doesn't get you out of having to test your hypothesis. The basic conclusion this forces is that, at its core, macro-evolution is untestable.

 

The balance of your post was essentially a list of evidences which you interpret as support for macro-evolution. Talk about subjective!! They may very well support micro-evolution. But although you may believe you can simply extrapolate that change to account for macro-evolution, extrapolations do not equate with proper testing of a hypothesis. Therefore, it is macro-evolution that is "untestable" and is therefore unscientific.

[Erasmus00]

They may very well support micro-evolution. But although you may believe you can simply extrapolate that change to account for macro-evolution, extrapolations do not equate with proper testing of a hypothesis. Therefore, it is macro-evolution that is "untestable" and is therefore unscientific.

 

Again, since you seem to always miss this point, do you really think that lots of small changes don't add to big changes? The logical conclusion of a bunch of "micro" evolution IS "macro" evolution.

-Will

[TRoutMac]

Again, since you seem to always miss this point, do you really think that lots of small changes don't add to big changes? The logical conclusion of a bunch of "micro" evolution IS "macro" evolution.

 

I don't miss the point, Erasmus. I reject it. It's only an assumption and has no hard evidence to support it.

 

For example, as I pointed out earlier, dog breeders for some strange reason always seem to end up with, well, dogs. For centuries dog breeders have used selective breeding (artificial selection as opposed to natural selection) to take advantage of the genetic information already present in the canine genome, creating an incredible array of different breeds of dogs, all of which have a common ancestor, and all of which are dogs. Lots of very, very different dogs, but dogs nonetheless. No one has ever produced a cow by breeding two dogs. Why? The information for a cow is not in the canine genome.

 

Artificial selection produces the "man-made" version of micro-evolution, while natural selection produces the "natural" version of micro-evolution. But both have the same limitations in what they can produce.

[Edge]

Well, what do we know? Pat Robertson threatened people telling them that "they rejected god" because PA rejected the "intelligent design" proposal.

 

That shows that the agenda behind it was to introduce the teaching of god into schools?

[TRoutMac]

Well, what do we know? Pat Robertson threatened people telling them that "they rejected god" because PA rejected the "intelligent design" proposal.

 

Let me clarify, if I may. First of all, the decision on the Kitzmiller vs. DASB trial which wrapped up last week has not yet been rendered. The judge in the case expects to announce a decision by the end of the year. What Robertson was referring to was the fact that in Tuesday's elections the 8 members of the Dover Area School Board who were behind the push to include Intelligent Design were voted out of office.

 

That shows that the agenda behind it was to introduce the teaching of god into schools?

 

Although I am a Christian, I would disagree with Robertson on many things. This statement is one of them.

 

In any case, a move toward teaching I.D. need not equate with teaching "God" as you put it. Again, I would recycle my contention that I.D. is more neutral with respect to religion than evolution is.

[Edge]

I understand the intention of Intelligent Design. My point is that Pat's declarations may lead people to think that there's a religious agenda behind this.

[TRoutMac]

I understand the intention of Intelligent Design. My point is that Pat's declarations may lead people to think that there's a religious agenda behind this.

 

Thanks, Edge. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't understand this about I.D. My fault.

 

And you make a good point. Robertson isn't really helping I.D. out by saying such things. My own opinion is that he's simply grandstanding, and that's just silly. Obviously, I really don't have all that much admiration for the man.

[Southtown]

The fact that we have seperate species at all, as opposed to vague gradients of variation, defies evolution by sporatic mutation of individual DNA. That is to say that every "related group" of genetic mutation leading to meaningful change has happened altogether and was then also naturally selected just as suddenly.

 

This is even true in the fossil record, which is not a record of history but more a snapshot of it. We don't see partial-species or partial-features, at least not on a scale suggesting of emergence or transition. What we see is perhaps individual genetic mutants, here-or-there, as opposed to plurality of transitionals. This stark rarity of transitionals can't simply be excepted by a few needles in the proverbial haystack.

 

The three records we have are in opposition to common descent: live biology, fossil biology, and recorded history.

 

- - - - -

 

Compare life to computers. I recall a term, boot-strapping. This term refers to the computer "re-learning" everything each and every time it's turned on, or "re-teaching" itself rather. It obviously comes from a real world example involving foot apparel and a catch phrase including the words "pull yourself up".

 

Well, this just happens to remind me of the origins argument. What I find interesting is the fact that the computer's memory is blank upon bootup, and the processor is just as blank, being useless without something to process. Instructing the processor and memory in this "blank" stage is why we have non-volatile EEPROMs soldered onto our motherboards by the manufacturer. Chips containing pre-written information are required to jump-start our PCs. The "kick-start" is literally hard-wired into the computer.

 

I see life in this same context. Most problems with evolutionary theory lie in the formation processes of fundamental biological activity, i.e. cellular structuring, reproduction, free-will, reasoning. How could these steps be beneficial when the number of mutations needed are astronomical? The odds involve not just repetitious mutations, but stacked mutations, successively dependent on the previous ones. What is needed is not just series of mutations but a very long, unbroken string of non-detrimental ones. Odds of success decrease exponentially along with this complexity.

 

Add to this analogy random mutations, ungoverned by necessity, of electrical components and pathways in a computer. How many would be beneficial? How many would start a fire? I'm not intending this analogy as evidence of creation, by the way. Don't get all critical on me. I'm just conveying my general perspective on the logical problems with evolutionary theory and abiogenesis, as I see them. And I have yet to be convinced that science has answers.

[Buffy]

The balance of your post was essentially a list of evidences which you interpret as support for macro-evolution. Talk about subjective!! They may very well support micro-evolution. But although you may believe you can simply extrapolate that change to account for macro-evolution, extrapolations do not equate with proper testing of a hypothesis. Therefore, it is macro-evolution that is "untestable" and is therefore unscientific.

Just a reminder here about these terms "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution": They have never been used in any clinical or scientific sense in evloutionary theory. They are colloquial terms that have been latched onto first by Creation theory and later by Intelligent Design, and typically are tautologically defined on the fly as, if it can be observed, then its "micro-evolution" with the anything larger being macro-evolution which would require an outside influence. If you inspect *any* scientific discussion on evolution as to the "measure" of differences, it is typically in terms of either cladistic "speciation" (which everyone accepts is subjective, after-the-fact classification) or quantification of DNA differences (which provide a fascinating proof that not much change in DNA is required to get radically different life forms, thus making it pretty easy to see the natural progression of species!). There is a gross generalization--with many known exceptions--that says that different species cannot produce offspring, but because of the exceptions, it is not a scientific distinction either. The distinction between "micro" and "macro" or the distinction between "species" and "breeds" is entirely subjective, but for the non-scientific observer provides a possibly compelling--although completely fallacious--argument that "macro" requires a designer. The scientific evidence is extensive that there are changes that occur over time and that there are clear linages shown in DNA that do link together radically different *existing* species. Why these relatively minor changes in the DNA would require a supernatural designer to step in to effect them is not at all obvious nor is the mechanism whereby that change would be effected.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

The fact that we have seperate species at all, as opposed to vague gradients of variation, defies evolution by sporatic mutation of individual DNA....This is even true in the fossil record, which is not a record of history but more a snapshot of it. We don't see partial-species or partial-features, at least not on a scale suggesting of emergence or transition. What we see is perhaps individual genetic mutants, here-or-there, as opposed to plurality of transitionals.

This is a subjective interpretation, which is highly dependent upon the assumption of a complete fossil record. As Bill Bryson said "Its really unbelievably hard to become a fossil." You're right: the fossil record is a snapshot. We often get one frame of "Birth of a Nation" followed immediately by "To Kill a Mockingbird." The inability to see all the transitions--especially if you accept punctuated equilibrium, which most of us do these days--does not invalidate the views. Moreover the remarkable commonality of the DNA we see shows that transitions are a lot easier than one would imagne, which brings me to your next point...

...I recall a term, boot-strapping. This term refers to the computer "re-learning" everything each and every time it's turned on, or "re-teaching" itself rather.

This is quite a misleading argument. Its actually surprising to hear because its so transparent. All that has to happen here is copying: something that DNA and disk drives do quite well. Once the original base code is written, it does not have to be "reinvented."

 

I'm glad your brought this up South, because its a great example of why Dembski's arguments are fallacious: once you have a complex computer program a "mutation" in computer code is just as likely to cause a change to a different *logical subroutine* than it is to corrupt a single instruction in the code. Thats why some random mutations turn on major changes that can be classified as "speciation."

 

The whole notion that the next step in evolution must be recreated from scratch each time is critical to Dembski's numbers making the probability "astronomical", when its obvious that the way that life evolves is from relatively small genetic changes production large functional changes, where the primary step is just plain copying which is not remarkable and billing it as "re-learning" is, ahem, overstating the issue.

 

This does not require any assumptions: its easy to see not only similarities between DNA in different species, but see those changes happening in a clear order that oddly enough closely follows the traditional attribute-defined "family tree" of classifications of groups of plants and animals.

 

Add to this analogy random mutations, ungoverned by necessity, of electrical components and pathways in a computer. How many would be beneficial? How many would start a fire?

A remarkable number! This is what neural networks are all about! Just feedback the input and kill things off everyso often and you get all kinds of cool results from random mutations. "Ungoverned by necessity?" Well, ultimately everything that evolves is: it does not even require rules, just limits on the environment. Environmental *stresses* are what *really* cause selection, and the whole idea that "pruning" occurs at every step to prevent changes that are not immediately useful is the core fallacy of Behe's arguments: Neural nets do leave stuff around, sometimes off to the side until a random mutation says "go turn that subroutine on" just for the heck of it. If that occurs during a stress and its useful, it will get selected, but it may also bring along other garbage that's turned off that may be useful later. Why not? We see this exactly in the "junk DNA" sequences: they're previous experiments that don't get discarded and may get turned on later into parts of flagella! Again this is not conjecture: we can see sequences in DNA that are unused in one species that are identical and turned on in another related one!

Don't get all critical on me. I'm just conveying my general perspective on the logical problems with evolutionary theory and abiogenesis, as I see them.

Just trying to help you see the light here South! Not being critical! :hihi:

 

Cheers,

Buffy