Jump to content


Photo

How To Scientifically/logically Evaluate/qualify Something Like Id


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#81 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 14 May 2016 - 11:26 PM

Intelligence:capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts,meanings, etc. http://www.dictionar...se/intelligence
 
Intelligence: The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. http://www.oxforddic...sh/intelligence
 
 
 
Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.  The difference between this...
 
Dep-11.jpeg
 
 
And this...
 
20-awesome-and-intricate-sandcastles-you
 
 
This alone DWARFS (by exponential magnitudes) the Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity in any Sand Castle.  
The Amazing Kinesin ...
 
Kinesin2_zpsf77fcb80.jpg
 
 
 
All of what makes helicopters and computers designed is THAT THEY ARE Designed.  They're not "Emergent Properties" of Copper, Iron Ores, and Silicon.
 
All objects "Decay"/wear out, it's called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
 
 
 
Everything in the Universe is 'a part' of Nature. 
 
 
 
Life is the Quintessential Example of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.
 
 
 
regards

What are these Enoch2021? Experiments?
In other threads you have been insisting that scientific theories and hypotheses can only be confirmed through experiments.
Since Mike the Wiz wants to evaluate ID scientifically (see thread title), I expect to see references to experiments.

#82 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 May 2016 - 12:15 AM

Mike the Wiz,
before I answer your OP, do you mind to answer this post in the appropriate thread.
Many thanks:
http://evolutionfair...ethod/?p=129851

#83 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Mexico

Posted 15 May 2016 - 03:56 PM

What are these Enoch2021? Experiments?
In other threads you have been insisting that scientific theories and hypotheses can only be confirmed through experiments.
Since Mike the Wiz wants to evaluate ID scientifically (see thread title), I expect to see references to experiments.

 

Mr driewerf,

 

The two photos that Enoch provided clearly show a marked distinction between known naturally produced phenomenon and intelligence produced phenomenon. (The sand dunes compared to the sand castle) The distinction here is clear. The scientific research is literally full of numerous experiments designed to reveal the nature of evolution. It is available to anyone who wishes to read it.

 

So it is really not the experimental evidence that it is lacking. It is the INTERPRETATION of these experiments that is controversial and is producing the divergence in scientific communities. That is, that what is demonstrated is in fact the result of evolution ACTING on naturally derived information systems or intelligently designed systems. And how do we discern the difference?

 

Another question you could ask yourself is, given the fact that living systems do contain information (few dispute that DNA contains information);

Do the scientific experiments pertinent to evolution demonstrate that the information contained within a population's DNA, accumulate in any significant way to produce more complex information needed to generate new features as would be expected in the Neo-Darwinian evolution model? What scientific experiments demonstrate this? 



#84 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 193 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 15 May 2016 - 10:30 PM

Mr driewerf,

 

The two photos that Enoch provided clearly show a marked distinction between known naturally produced phenomenon and intelligence produced phenomenon. (The sand dunes compared to the sand castle) The distinction here is clear. The scientific research is literally full of numerous experiments designed to reveal the nature of evolution. It is available to anyone who wishes to read it.

...

I am New here, so please bear with me. When you say, "numerous experiments designed to reveal the nature of evolution" What do you mean by the  phrase "Nature of Evolution" and when using the word "Evolution" Are you referring to Finches Beaks, Dogs Ears, Colors of Moths and Bear Coats Etc.. OR are you referring to the Miraculous MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all..?

"Evolution" sure seems to be quite a duplicitous and ambivalent term... I'm sure that is just an accident. .LOL

...

So it is really not the experimental evidence that it is lacking. It is the INTERPRETATION of these experiments that is controversial and is producing the divergence in scientific communities. That is, that what is demonstrated is in fact the result of evolution ACTING on naturally derived information systems or intelligently designed systems. And how do we discern the difference?

...

It would seem that we discern the difference by using Logic and Reason much the way William Paley did.. If something appears to be designed, it is because IT WAS ! ( And Yes, that would include Ice Crystals, Snowflakes, and Breathtaking Beautiful Peak Fall Foliage found in New England and other places...

,,,

Another question you could ask yourself is, given the fact that living systems do contain information (few dispute that DNA contains information);

Do the scientific experiments pertinent to evolution demonstrate that the information contained within a population's DNA, accumulate in any significant way to produce more complex information needed to generate new features as would be expected in the Neo-Darwinian evolution model? What scientific experiments demonstrate this? 

..

A great question!! I have never seen one,  How about you?



#85 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 May 2016 - 11:52 PM

Mr driewerf,
 
The two photos that Enoch provided clearly show a marked distinction between known naturally produced phenomenon and intelligence produced phenomenon. (The sand dunes compared to the sand castle) The distinction here is clear.

I know that very well. But Enoch2021 has been shouting weeks and months that the only way to verify scientific theories is through experiments. Since you can't do experiments on sunspots, tides, plate tectonics and other areas, he denied the scientific character of these. Observation or measurement alone are not  valid ways of doing science, in his opinion. He went so far as ridiculing eminent scientists like Antonie Vajn Leeuwenhoek, the founfing father of microscopy and microbiology.

What was the "Independent Variable"....his Eyelids?   :kaffeetrinker:

And now Mike the Wiz has opened a thread with the word scientific in the thread title. Do we see Enoch2021 post any experiment? No.
Does he post any reference to experiments himself? No. So can we say "double standard"?
 
 

The scientific research is literally full of numerous experiments designed to reveal the nature of evolution. It is available to anyone who wishes to read it.

I know. Many thanks nonetheless.
 

So it is really not the experimental evidence that it is lacking. It is the INTERPRETATION of these experiments that is controversial and is producing the divergence in scientific communities. That is, that what is demonstrated is in fact the result of evolution ACTING on naturally derived information systems or intelligently designed systems. And how do we discern the difference?

It's a little bit more than just the interpretation that is controversial. It's the very scientific method that will often be questioned.  
 

Another question you could ask yourself is, given the fact that living systems do contain information (few dispute that DNA contains information);
Do the scientific experiments pertinent to evolution demonstrate that the information contained within a population's DNA, accumulate in any significant way to produce more complex information needed to generate new features as would be expected in the Neo-Darwinian evolution model? What scientific experiments demonstrate this?

 

The information in DNA does not necesseraly accumulate. It can be sometimes simply modified without having more information, just different.

Let me explain, first with an analogy. I see from your profile that you are 50 years, so you remember phone books. If, from one edition to another a family moved from one adres to another, the information in the telephone book needed to be adapted from one edition to another. Not accumulated but adapted.

Now, what does this means in terms of biochemistry (and evolution)? If in a protein the change of an amino acid to another (say from arginine to lysine) producies a better protein, then the information in the DNA has been modified, not accumulated.

Yes, there has been instances of adding new DNA, of an accumulation; think of gene duplication. But it is not always the case.
 



#86 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Mexico

Posted 16 May 2016 - 01:34 AM

Mr driewerf,

 

Admittedly, I have not read all of the post in this thread. But the impressive sand castle in Enoch’s post was eye-catching and he makes some valid points.

 

We seem to both be in agreement that there are plenty of scientific research papers on the topic of evolution. The vast majority, over many decades, have been from the pre-supposition that Neo-Darwinian Evolution is true. And with the discovery of DNA, it is generally understood that information is a key aspect to life and its functions. The origin of life, and whether its information in naturally derived or intelligently designed is a matter of historical science and is therefore not obtainable from direct scientific observation.

 

So again, there is ample literature to read if one wants to understand more of the nature of evolution. Change does happen, that much is clear. But in order for Neo-Darwinian evolution to be true, it must not only be possible for information, complex specified information, to move in an increasing direction, but it must be demonstrated to occur with some frequency, relatively speaking, based on the great number of species, living and extinct. It is reasonable to assume that a LUCA would have much less information within its genome than would more complex multi-cellular organisms.

 

 

 

 

The information in DNA does not necesseraly accumulate. It can be sometimes simply modified without having more information, just different.

Let me explain, first with an analogy. I see from your profile that you are 50 years, so you remember phone books. If, from one edition to another a family moved from one adres to another, the information in the telephone book needed to be adapted from one edition to another. Not accumulated but adapted.

Now, what does this means in terms of biochemistry (and evolution)? If in a protein the change of an amino acid to another (say from arginine to lysine) producies a better protein, then the information in the DNA has been modified, not accumulated.

Yes, there has been instances of adding new DNA, of an accumulation; think of gene duplication. But it is not always the case.
 

I do agree that DNA can be modified. But this is modification of what must already exist...and that of which must have already "accumulated" information to a great deal in order to provide evidence for the LUCA model of evolution. Adaptations are not in dispute. Think of this as the difference between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. We can discuss this more if you wish.

 

The advent of Information Theory is much more recent than Darwin’s Theory, and although this theory was developed to understand and improve the transmission of communications, it is proving to have applications to biologic systems. It should be possible to begin quantifying changes in DNA in a more revealing way. It can be noted that information, in other forms is DEGRADED by natural processes and is not known to  increase in meaningful complexity. Can DNA prove to be an exception? In my search into peer-reviewed papers, I have not been able to find such. 

 

 

As for your point regarding amino acids for the purpose of protein building in organisms, you may find it useful to read some of Doug Axe's work. If true, the rarity of FUNCTIONAL proteins is quite problematic and would suggest that mutations is not the way to find better proteins.



#87 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Mexico

Posted 16 May 2016 - 01:48 AM

Welcome Blitzking,

 

Hope you enjoy this forum. I am also a newcomer here.

 

 

...

I am New here, so please bear with me. When you say, "numerous experiments designed to reveal the nature of evolution" What do you mean by the  phrase "Nature of Evolution" and when using the word "Evolution" Are you referring to Finches Beaks, Dogs Ears, Colors of Moths and Bear Coats Etc.. OR are you referring to the Miraculous MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all..?

"Evolution" sure seems to be quite a duplicitous and ambivalent term... I'm sure that is just an accident. .LOL

...

 

...

It would seem that we discern the difference by using Logic and Reason much the way William Paley did.. If something appears to be designed, it is because IT WAS ! ( And Yes, that would include Ice Crystals, Snowflakes, and Breathtaking Beautiful Peak Fall Foliage found in New England and other places...

,,,

 

A great question!! I have never seen one,  How about you?

 

What I mean when I say Evolution is simply change over time. Natural Selection is true. But Neo-Darwinian evolution proponents would assume that because small changes can be observed over short lengths of time, therefore Macro-levels changes can occur over great lengths of time. This would seem logical until one delves deeper.....which I have. :)

 

And no, I have never seen a scientific experiment that shows the more complex information needed to generate new features.

 

Look forward to discussing more with you in this forum.



#88 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 May 2016 - 05:09 PM

I know that very well. But Enoch2021 has been shouting weeks and months that the only way to verify scientific theories is through experiments. Since you can't do experiments on sunspots, tides, plate tectonics and other areas, he denied the scientific character of these. Observation or measurement alone are not  valid ways of doing science, in his opinion. 

 

1.  Years, not weeks or months.

 

2.  That's not my 'opinion', it's called The Scientific Method.--- Errr SCIENCE.

 

Ya see, To be "something" it has to exhibit characteristics/traits of that something. Bananas grow on trees: they are green, yellow, red, purple, ect contain complex/simple Carbs chalk full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6.  That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries.  It's how we differentiate between Tumble Weeds and Texas Toast.  
It's the same with "Science"...
"Science" exhibits characteristics/traits of it's Method, "The Scientific Method"...without it , it's not "Science".  Science without TESTING/Experiment is like Water without Hydrogen....it's painfully Non-Sequitur.

 

 

He went so far as ridiculing eminent scientists like Antonie Vajn Leeuwenhoek, the founfing father of microscopy and microbiology.

 

 

1.  You ever heard of Spell Check?  It's now automatic --- when you see the red squiggly line, it's misspellD.

 

2.  When/where did I take him to the Woodshed ??  Please post THE EXACT "Context" for us....?

 

 

Do we see Enoch2021 post any experiment? No.

 

I've posted this one a 'few' times...

 

Soooo (Slightly Abbreviated), "A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser"---Yoon Ho Kim et al.
 
Entangled Photons (Signal and Idler) are generated via a laser interacting with a nonlinear optical crystal and sent to the Double-Slit.  Post slit passage, a Prism diverts the path of the Signal Photon (which is directed to D0 at each firing) and it's Sister Photon (Idler). The Paths of the "Idler" Entangled Photons, are caused to diverge to two different paths by another Prism. These "Idlers" will be detected @ either of The Detectors (D1, D2, D3, D4), depending on the paths taken.
Due to the Experimental Set-Up, The "PATHS" taken to Detectors D1 and D2 CAN NOT be " KNOWN " as these Photons could have come out of either Slit A of Slit B. Conversely, any Photons Detected @ D3 could have only come out of Slit B and any that hit D4 could have only come out of Slit A, respectively. 
** The Signal Photon from either slit, ALWAYS arrive @ D0 before any "Idler" Photon reaches another Detector.

Ok, So the Laser fires out of either Slit A or Slit B (Unknown) and the "Signal" Photon arrives at D0. The Entangled Twin (Idler) hits a Beam Splitter, either BSa, BSb, BSc (half-silvered mirrors), which @ either of these...there is a 50/50 chance it will either reflect off or pass through. If it reflects off either BSa or BSb it will hit either D3 or D4. It " ALWAYS " displays a "CLUMP Pattern" (Particles---Wave Collapse) @ these Detectors!! Why, Because we KNOW the PATH INFORMATION due to the Experimental Setup....the only way that the Entangled Photon "Idler" can hit D4 is if it came out of Slit A and the Only way that it can hit D3 is if it came out of Slit B...we know the PATH INFORMATION :) Ergo, it displays a "Clump Pattern" (Particles---Wave Collapse)... EVERY Time! 

Conversely, if the Entangled Twin passes through BSa, BSb, or (passes through or reflects off BSc) it will hit either D1 or D2 (via reflecting off Ma/Mb Full Mirrors) due to the Experimental Setup.... BUT there are 2 Different Paths (Either Slit A or B) it could have taken to hit each and either D1 or D2....that is, we " DON'T KNOW " the specific PATH Information (It's ERASED/obfuscated). So guess what Happens EVERY SINGLE TIME it arrives @ either of these Detectors, eh? That's Right...an Interference Pattern develops(Waves)...because we DON'T KNOW the PATH Information.

So if you argue that it's the physical interaction of Photons with the: Detectors/ 2 Prisms/ 3 Half-Silvered/ and 2 Full Mirrors..."De-coherence" (lol) that are causing collapse, THEN D1 and D2 should cause collapse "No Interference" (Particles---Wave Collapse) every single time...the EXACT OPPOSITE happens!! The only difference between D1/D2 and D3/D4 is what WE "KNOW" about these Four Stations. Also, if it was just "Random", then there should be some "No Interference" (Particles---Wave Collapse) @ D1/D2 and some "Interference Patterns" (Waves) @ D3 and D4; But that's not what happens: ONLY "Interference Patterns" (Waves) @ D1/D2 and ONLY "No Interference" Patterns (Particles---Wave Collapse) @ D3 and D4.

As I said, KNOWER or KNOWING of "which-path" Information...Causes Collapse!

Now for the truly disturbing part (If you're a Materialist). The "Signal" Photon "KNEW" beforehand @ which Detector it's Entangled Sister "Idler" would end up..in the FUTURE! You ask, How So?  The Coincidence Counter correlates the arrival of a signal photon at detector D0 with the arrival of its twin at D1, D2, D3, or D4. If the correlation is with an idler arriving at D3 or D4 "Known Paths", D0 will display "No Interference" that matches perfectly the patterns discovered @ the 2 Detectors. If the correlation is with an idler arriving at D1 or D2 "Unknown Paths", D0 will display "Interference" that matches perfectly with those respective Detectors. "The RUB", the Signal Photon arrives at D0 8ns EARLIER than any Idler Photon!!!  i.e., Time and Space are utterly MEANINGLESS with respect to QM Phenomena.
 
So either the Photons have Highly Sophisticated Computers/Jeanne Dixon/ or Nostradamus on Board... that can Predict The Future, OR your World-View has just Crashed and Burned in Six Million Dollar Man Style.
 
In conclusion, this Experiment Validates:
 
1.  knowledge (Knowing) the "which-path information" alone causes Wave Function Collapse.
2.  Decoherence (physical interaction with the measuring devices) DOES NOT cause Wave Function Collapse.
3.  QM Phenomena transcend Time and Space.
 
Sir Rudolph Peierls, PhD Nuclear Physics....
 
"The moment at which you can throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscience of the fact that the experiment has given one result... You see, the QUANTUM MECHANICAL DESCRIPTION is in terms of KNOWLEDGE, and knowledge requires SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS." {Emphasis Mine}
The Ghost in the Atom, p. 73-74
 
So there goes your mind-numbing Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.  :kaffeetrinker: 
 
 
What I mean when I say Evolution is simply change over time.
 
Really?? Are you saying this is a Scientific Theory?
 
An complete imbecile @ the beginning of time observing 2 consecutive generations of his family and a family of squirrels could have come to the same conclusion. 
 
Please Define: Scientific Theory...?
 
 
Natural Selection is true.
 
Based on.....?   :checklist:
 
 
But Neo-Darwinian evolution proponents would assume that because small changes can be observed over short lengths of time, therefore Macro-levels changes can occur over great lengths of time. This would seem logical until one delves deeper.....which I have.

 

 

Like this deep??...

 

"The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis [Neo-Darwinism] are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone. What’s next? "
Koonin, E.V. : The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?; Trends in Genetics; 2009 Nov; 25(11): 473-475
 
"What's Next", Eugene?  Well, as before, countless ad hoc "Rescue Hypotheses"... added ad nauseam, to a Non-Existent Scientific Theory, of course. 
 
And Pray Tell, how can the "Tenets" be overturned if they were VALIDATED by Experiment ?? Are you saying the EXPERIMENTS were Erroneous or that there WERE NO EXPERIMENTS...?  And if there were NO EXPERIMENTS, than what kinda Fairytale "Just So" Story Game are we playing HERE !!
 
 
regards


#89 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 20 May 2016 - 09:54 AM

Mike the Wiz,
before I answer your OP, do you mind to answer this post in the appropriate thread.
Many thanks:
http://evolutionfair...ethod/?p=129851

Mike the Wiz?

#90 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 May 2016 - 11:11 AM

Mr driewerf,
 
Admittedly, I have not read all of the post in this thread. But the impressive sand castle in Enoch’s post was eye-catching and he makes some valid points.

Really? Which points then? Can you explain me how sandcastles help to scientifically or logically evaluate intelligent design (for these are the themes of this thread)? I realy don't see it.
 

We seem to both be in agreement that there are plenty of scientific research papers on the topic of evolution. The vast majority, over many decades, have been from the pre-supposition that Neo-Darwinian Evolution is true.

 

Wrong. There has never been a pre-supposition  (isn't this a superfluous redundancy?). In the 19th to the first half of the 20st century the ToE was under intense scrutiny. Having passed all the tests, it is now the conclusion that the ToE is right. I insist on that word conclusion: a conclusion is only reached after testing a theory.

 

And with the discovery of DNA, it is generally understood that information is a key aspect to life and its functions. The origin of life, and whether its information in naturally derived or intelligently designed is a matter of historical science and is therefore not obtainable from direct scientific observation.

 

1) We can still see the results of past events, and these events are still subject of scientific research.

2) We see mutations, both beneficial and harmfull happening, in the wild and in the lab. These observed instances are direct evidence that DNA can change without any intelligence guiding.
 

So again, there is ample literature to read if one wants to understand more of the nature of evolution. Change does happen, that much is clear. But in order for Neo-Darwinian evolution to be true, it must not only be possible for information, complex specified information, to move in an increasing direction, but it must be demonstrated to occur with some frequency, relatively speaking, based on the great number of species, living and extinct. It is reasonable to assume that a LUCA would have much less information within its genome than would more complex multi-cellular organisms.

 

I'm not very sure about what you mean with the part in red, so I suspend my opinion about that part. About the rest I agree.

 
 

I do agree that DNA can be modified. But this is modification of what must already exist...and that of which must have already "accumulated" information to a great deal in order to provide evidence for the LUCA model of evolution. Adaptations are not in dispute. Think of this as the difference between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. We can discuss this more if you wish.

 

I look forward to discuss this further.
 

The advent of Information Theory is much more recent than Darwin’s Theory, and although this theory was developed to understand and improve the transmission of communications, it is proving to have applications to biologic systems. It should be possible to begin quantifying changes in DNA in a more revealing way. It can be noted that information, in other forms is DEGRADED by natural processes and is not known to  increase in meaningful complexity. Can DNA prove to be an exception? In my search into peer-reviewed papers, I have not been able to find such. 

 If I interpret you correctly, I think you are mistaken about DNA and evolution in general.

There is no absolute "good" or "better". There is "better adapted to the given environment". If the climate goes colder then those genes that adapt better to cold will give an advantage. If the climate goes warmer, then those genes that favours the release of body heat will be beneficial. But neither the "cold genes" nor the "warm genes" are better in against an absolute scale. But yes, when a population is in a changing environment, DNA through mutation and natural selection can adapt for that change (if not too brutal).
 

As for your point regarding amino acids for the purpose of protein building in organisms, you may find it useful to read some of Doug Axe's work. If true, the rarity of FUNCTIONAL proteins is quite problematic and would suggest that mutations is not the way to find better proteins.

 

The rarity of functional proteins? What does that mean? Every cell, literally every cell   -- from the smallest bactteria to all the cells of the sequoia tree --  contains functional proteins. Organisms can't afford to synthesize non functional proteins, and thus waste energy and materials. 



#91 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 May 2016 - 03:02 PM

I'm sorry but I lost track of this thread. My initial discussion/purpose, was to show the absolutely undeniably sound logic I used in message one to show that a test for ID can be used, an evaluation where we go through steps even a child could understand.

 

The point is, objectively it can be shown that life is designed, by that evaluation. Either something logically qualifies as ID because it has the usual elements of design, like a human would qualify as a human if they had the usual elements of humans, or it does not qualify because it has none of those elements.

 

The point is that the evaluation is objective, meaning that if you can't conclude something is designed even if we can test to see that it is, then it is not possible that you are being objective, because you choose to accept the conjecture of an indirect theory and ignore test-results under your nose.

 

The sophistry and rhetoric used to try and go against my argument, only counts as fallacious fluff to me, designed to evade and escape obvious reality, that life is not only intelligently designed, but it over-qualifies on every level, beating human design on every level.



#92 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Mexico

Posted 30 May 2016 - 07:19 AM

Really? Which points then? Can you explain me how sandcastles help to scientifically or logically evaluate intelligent design (for these are the themes of this thread)? I realy don't see it.

Here are some points that Enoch makes which are valid:

All of what makes helicopters and computers designed is THAT THEY ARE Designed.  They're not "Emergent Properties" of Copper, Iron Ores, and Silicon. 
All objects "Decay"/wear out, it's called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Life is the Quintessential Example of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.

 

It should be obvious, even to a 5 year old that there is a distinct difference between the sand dune and the sand castle. Why then, should it be so difficult to accept that concept when viewing living systems?

 

The sand dune, large as it is, is merely sand grains arranged by the forces of wind and gravity forming repeating undulating patterns whose frequency could be predicted or accounted for by factors such as prevailing wind direction, speed, and the cohesive factors of sand grains which are related to grain size and material. The steepest angles, called the angle of repose  is usually about 30-33 degrees.

 

The sand castle, on the other hand, defies known properties of sand dune formation. There are features such as vertical walls which are not predicted by the angle of repose. Other angles are independent of wind speed, direction, or other known forms of energy....except for, of course, human intervention. There are shapes representing human faces. 

 

In the case of these sand castles, we can intuitively distinguish the natural one from the one Intelligently Designed. Why then, is not so readily recognized in living systems?

 

 

Sorry, will have to come back to the rest of your post later.....

 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#93 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Mexico

Posted 30 May 2016 - 08:11 AM

 

Wrong. There has never been a pre-supposition  (isn't this a superfluous redundancy?). In the 19th to the first half of the 20st century the ToE was under intense scrutiny. Having passed all the tests, it is now the conclusion that the ToE is right. I insist on that word conclusion: a conclusion is only reached after testing a theory.

 

 

Pre-supposition definition:

pre·sup·po·si·tion
ˌprēˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/
noun
 
  1. a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.
     
     
    Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I said, 

    "The vast majority, over many decades, have been from the pre-supposition that Neo-Darwinian Evolution is true."

     

    Now if you want to go back a century or more, yes science was more critical of ToE. Now, over the last several decades, it is generally accepted and yes....it is pre-assumed to be true. And this is a big problem with much of the scientific research. A pre-supposition will "color" the interpretations and the conclusions. Objectivity is compromised. This is sad but true.

     

    You said, "Having passed all the tests, it is now the conclusion that the ToE is right."

     

    This is another big problem. It is not discerning as to the nature of evolution. Yes, living organisms evolve. But this statement alone is not sufficient to conclude that, since evolution is true, therefore all living organisms evolved from a UCA. The more critical and objectively thinking scientists are now questioning this interpretation.

     

    Perhaps a Top-down model fits the empirical data better than a Bottom-up model. 

     

    Think about it.



#94 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 May 2016 - 08:57 AM

Pre-supposition definition:
pre·sup·po·si·tion

ˌprēˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/

noun





  • a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.

Oké.  
 
 

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I said, 
"The vast majority, over many decades, have been from the pre-supposition that Neo-Darwinian Evolution is true."
 
Now if you want to go back a century or more, yes science was more critical of ToE. Now, over the last several decades, it is generally accepted and yes....it is pre-assumed to be true. And this is a big problem with much of the scientific research. A pre-supposition will "color" the interpretations and the conclusions. Objectivity is compromised. This is sad but true.
 
You said, "Having passed all the tests, it is now the conclusion that the ToE is right."
 
This is another big problem. It is not discerning as to the nature of evolution. Yes, living organisms evolve. But this statement alone is not sufficient to conclude that, since evolution is true, therefore all living organisms evolved from a UCA. The more critical and objectively thinking scientists are now questioning this interpretation.
 
Perhaps a Top-down model fits the empirical data better than a Bottom-up model. 
 
Think about it.

Look Gneiss girl,
In the 17th century the geocentric model as formulated by Ptolemy was replaced by the heliocentric model. Will you also complain that astronomers today presuppose a heliocentric solar system?
 
So, equally, after 150 years of research science can definitely come to a conclusion. And neodarwinism or modern synthesis refers to the incorporation on Gregor Mendel's genetics in the ToE. Do you believe this is still presupposed or have we reached a conclusion, in your opinion?



#95 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Mexico

Posted 30 May 2016 - 11:05 AM

Oké.  
 
 

Look Gneiss girl,
In the 17th century the geocentric model as formulated by Ptolemy was replaced by the heliocentric model. Will you also complain that astronomers today presuppose a heliocentric solar system?
 
So, equally, after 150 years of research science can definitely come to a conclusion. And neodarwinism or modern synthesis refers to the incorporation on Gregor Mendel's genetics in the ToE. Do you believe this is still presupposed or have we reached a conclusion, in your opinion?

Mr driewerf,

 

I think you are getting bogged down in needless discussion. Re:  Will you also complain that astronomers today presuppose a heliocentric solar system?”

 

I would say, that just because we recognize a “heliocentric solar system” therefore, it must be true that our sun is the center of the Universe. That is an extrapolation not supported by the data.

 

In the same way, just because organisms have been observed to evolve....change over time, therefore every living creature must have evolved from a simple single celled creature. This is the Neo-Darwinian theory or evolution...the LUCA model. 

 

You can speak of Gregor Mendel's experiments on genetics and you will see how combinations of ALREADY existing genes interact, how they are dominant/recessive to each other, etc. 

 

This does not demonstrate how a bacteria can evolve multicellular tissue, grow a stem, develop pigment cells for purple, form vascular tissue to transport nutrients, etc.

 

This is what Neo-Darwinian evolution proposes. This is what the scientific research much demonstrate as possible, objectively, and without gross assumptions


  • Bonedigger likes this

#96 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Mexico

Posted 31 May 2016 - 08:22 AM

Mr driewerf

 

 

1) We can still see the results of past events, and these events are still subject of scientific research.

2) We see mutations, both beneficial and harmfull happening, in the wild and in the lab. These observed instances are direct evidence that DNA can change without any intelligence guiding.
 

 

 If I interpret you correctly, I think you are mistaken about DNA and evolution in general.

There is no absolute "good" or "better". There is "better adapted to the given environment". If the climate goes colder then those genes that adapt better to cold will give an advantage. If the climate goes warmer, then those genes that favours the release of body heat will be beneficial. But neither the "cold genes" nor the "warm genes" are better in against an absolute scale. But yes, when a population is in a changing environment, DNA through mutation and natural selection can adapt for that change (if not too brutal).

 

Yes, I agree that we can see the effects of evolution. IS what is demonstrated, the result of evolution ACTING on naturally derived information systems or intelligently designed systems? And how do we discern the difference? Intelligent Design is not directing evolution in the lab or in nature. Evolution is a process that ACTS on living systems, but the INFORMATION itself can only be the product of an intelligence. This is because information is only KNOWN to be produced by intelligence. It does not arise from random natural process. This is the fundamental distinction between ToE and ID Theory.

 

Now when scientists are devising an experiment to test a particular aspect of evolution, what are they looking for? The pre-suppositions are usually that evolution/change will happen and what is the change? It is usually a morphological change that is being looked for. Decades of research on E.coli have yielded only slight increase in cell size and modification in diet. The degree of evolution is quite underwhelming, yet scientists conclude success....evolution is observed.

 

Now then, look at the same experiments and same empirical data from an INFORMATION standpoint. Mutation in the code of the DNA can be expected to make subtle changes, some of which may useful (beneficial) in changing environments. BUT, the further away one mutates the genetic code from the original, the less likely these changes will ACCUMULATE to become something significant enough to become a Macro-evolutionary change. That is because mutations are not sufficient to "write" new code.... the COMPLEX, SPECIFIED INFORMATION(CSI)  These kinds of changes are not observed in the lab or in nature. We should discuss this in more detail as to the "why?"

 

In regards to the rarity of functional proteins, it is important because all life uses proteins, and of course they must be functional. If mutations are writing the "code" for new functional proteins...that are going to be needed if there is to be new features produced....they will, of course need to be functional. That is why I said you should look into Doug Axe.

 

Here is an article that cites his work that is short and concise to read:

 

https://winteryknigh...in-by-chance-2/

 

Here is a good video to explain more:

 

 

So it should be obvious that functional protein sequences are not only rare...they are extremely rare! Mutations are not going to suffice. 

 

And here is a video that hints at the complexity of molecular machines in the body and how proteins are interacting with each other in very specific ways:

 


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#97 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 04 June 2016 - 07:44 AM

Oké.  
 
 

Look Gneiss girl,
In the 17th century the geocentric model as formulated by Ptolemy was replaced by the heliocentric model. Will you also complain that astronomers today presuppose a heliocentric solar system?
 
So, equally, after 150 years of research science can definitely come to a conclusion. And neodarwinism or modern synthesis refers to the incorporation on Gregor Mendel's genetics in the ToE. Do you believe this is still presupposed or have we reached a conclusion, in your opinion?

Science doesn't work unless you make a number of valid presuppositions. Do you agree or disagree?



#98 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 04 June 2016 - 09:05 AM

Science doesn't work unless you make a number of valid presuppositions. Do you agree or disagree?

Evolution is not presupposed. It has been concluded after 150 years of research.



#99 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Mexico

Posted 04 June 2016 - 09:20 AM

Evolution is not presupposed. It has been concluded after 150 years of research.

It is human nature to make presuppositions, some valid, and some.....not so much.

 

Evolution, in regards to today's research, is presupposed. But here is the problem. Evolution....change over time....is true. BUT, Neo-Darwinian proponents make the presupposition that since organisms are witnessed to change over time....THEREFORE, it is true that all Life originated from a UCA...a "simple, single celled organism. This is a gross assumption and one that is not supported by the scientific evidence. 

 

So in this case, the presupposition is not valid because it does not discern the nature of the evolutionary change such as its direction. A more accurate presupposition would be that evolution, being true, what kind of change can be predicted? Does it better fit a Top-down model or a Bottom-up model?

 

Here is a presupposition that is valid. DNA is information. How might evolution, though natural processes, affect the information contained in an organism's genome?



#100 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 June 2016 - 12:08 AM

Evolution is not presupposed. It has been concluded after 150 years of research.

 

.... :get_a_clue:

 

Show me a paper / article discussing the validity of evolution that DOESN'T presuppose that evolution is real or is a "fact"....

 

What do you think Darwin did? Did he not presuppose? Or did Darwin conduct 150 years of research BEFORE he wrote his book?... (Funny since he died when he was 73, and the fact that he had zero training in science and scientific methods, what-so-ever).

 

What "research" was conducted? (And before you do I don't want articles that are based on the presumption that "evolution is true", since that would be proving Mark, Gneiss Girl and myself correct).

 

 

Perhaps you can answer this with your examples of "research"...

 

 

A scientific hypothesis is created from an observation, and is then tested via experimentation.

 

Observation- Similarities in fossils.

Hypothesis- Evolution was the cause of similarities.

Experiment- ????

 

Now what experimentation, or research, was conducted to determine that evolution was indeed the cause of similarities in fossils?

 

 

If you can't answer this simple question then on what basis can you claim

"Evolution is not presupposed. It has been concluded after 150 years of research."


  • mike the wiz likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users