1221 replies to this topic

[johnross47]

 

 

What do you mean by "definitely"?  Give me an example?

Something that must have been created by an "intelligence".

 

CODE such as DNA

 

DNA is not a code except in the metaphoric sense. Don't you get tired of going round and round the same old arguments without ever reaching a conclusion? Don't you get tired of trotting out the same old discredited arguments every time you have a new audience, who might not have seen their previous failures?

[shadowhawk]

You can create a code with anything.  Sticks, stones, sound, light and DNA.  A code contains information.  But we have a topic where we hashed this over before.  See the discussion there and we can continue it if you want.

[shadowhawk]

Codes exist and random mutation has a hard time explaining them.

[serp777]

Codes exist and random mutation has a hard time explaining them.

Evolution is not entirely random, and neither is the code.

 

Although mutation is random, only those traits that assist the survival of the species in any way, shape, or form continue to exist. In that sense, it is selective towards some unattainable goal--E.G. a damped oscillation to try and find the genetic code that can best adapt for a particular environment. Given that there are too many dynamic variables, equilibrium is rarely reached.

 

Codes and patterns =/= intelligence.

 

For example, consider ants looking for food or fish in a school. Although each individual specimen is unintelligent, their group movements appear to reflect intelligence. In fact this "intelligence" can be respresented by a set of rules like: if another ant moves, then move in a similar patter. If food, then move towards food, and if predator, then escape.

Edited by serp777, 27 May 2014 - 11:14 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

Codes exist and random mutation has a hard time explaining them.

Evolution is not entirely random, and neither is the code.

 

Although mutation is random, only those traits that assist the survival of the species in any way, shape, or form continue to exist. In that sense, it is selective towards some unattainable goal--E.G. a damped oscillation to try and find the genetic code that can best adapt for a particular environment. Given that there are too many dynamic variables, equilibrium is rarely reached.

 

Codes and patterns =/= intelligence.

 

For example, consider ants looking for food or fish in a school. Although each individual specimen is unintelligent, their group movements appear to reflect intelligence. In fact this "intelligence" can be respresented by a set of rules like: if another ant moves, then move in a similar patter. If food, then move towards food, and if predator, then escape.

 

There is a distinction between patterns such as a snow flake and codes and design but that is another topic which we have already talked about.  http://www.longecity...de/#entry564639

 

In classic evolution, all new information comes from random mutation.  Natural selection selects from tjhis source but is it rich enough to allow increase in complexity?  ID says no and we are in the middle of the debate.

[serp777]

 

 

Codes exist and random mutation has a hard time explaining them.

Evolution is not entirely random, and neither is the code.

 

Although mutation is random, only those traits that assist the survival of the species in any way, shape, or form continue to exist. In that sense, it is selective towards some unattainable goal--E.G. a damped oscillation to try and find the genetic code that can best adapt for a particular environment. Given that there are too many dynamic variables, equilibrium is rarely reached.

 

Codes and patterns =/= intelligence.

 

For example, consider ants looking for food or fish in a school. Although each individual specimen is unintelligent, their group movements appear to reflect intelligence. In fact this "intelligence" can be respresented by a set of rules like: if another ant moves, then move in a similar patter. If food, then move towards food, and if predator, then escape.

 

There is a distinction between patterns such as a snow flake and codes and design but that is another topic which we have already talked about.  http://www.longecity...de/#entry564639

 

In classic evolution, all new information comes from random mutation.  Natural selection selects from tjhis source but is it rich enough to allow increase in complexity?  ID says no and we are in the middle of the debate.

 

Well ID makes another baseless assumption then. The word rich isn't really a scientific word. I assume you mean possible combinations. With DNA, there are vastly more combinations than there are atoms in the universe. If that's not "rich" then nothing is rich.

 

It's known biology that mutagenic viruses, for example, can introduce completely new strains of genetic info into the host, which can lead to additional complexity or features, or allow mutations from radiation to change that DNA to then become more complex. In fact viruses are one of the biggest causes of complexity evolution. Adding complexity is easy. Lots of complexity * lots of combinations = big diversity. Diversity is important for surviving attacks against viruses then; more chance to create an anti body.

 

Edited by serp777, 28 May 2014 - 03:27 AM.

[addx]

Natural selection selects from tjhis source but is it rich enough to allow increase in complexity?  ID says no and we are in the middle of the debate.

ID is nothing.

A bunch of clueless people say "no", based on no argument or anything, they just say it, they "feel" so.

And they want the scientific community to expand effort towards their claim based on their feelings. If a scientist then ignores or dismisses this "feeling" of theirs, they then say the person is a bad scientist and pretend to be offended emotionally by such display of "ignoring scientific gut feelings".

[platypus]

Evolution has clearly led to an increase in complexity during billions of years. This is visible in the fossil record and in the genomes of organisms. I'm not aware that "ID" has made any plausible arguments against evolution creating complexity. An intelligence is not needed to add complexity. 

[shadowhawk]

Well ID makes another baseless assumption then. The word rich isn't really a scientific word. I assume you mean possible combinations. With DNA, there are vastly more combinations than there are atoms in the universe. If that's not "rich" then nothing is rich.

 

It's known biology that mutagenic viruses, for example, can introduce completely new strains of genetic info into the host, which can lead to additional complexity or features, or allow mutations from radiation to change that DNA to then become more complex. In fact viruses are one of the biggest causes of complexity evolution. Adding complexity is easy. Lots of complexity * lots of combinations = big diversity. Diversity is important for surviving attacks against viruses then; more chance to create an anti body.

 

Rich is my word and I am not a Part of ID.  Rich means "a lot of."  Biology is a field of science and thus follows the Scientific method, what that is, and does not prove that mutations can introduce completely beneficial information.  In fact it is usually the opposite.  Mutations do not explain diversity.

[shadowhawk]

Evolution has clearly led to an increase in complexity during billions of years. This is visible in the fossil record and in the genomes of organisms. I'm not aware that "ID" has made any plausible arguments against evolution creating complexity. An intelligence is not needed to add complexity. 

Actually complexity came rather suddenly.  Read Darwin's Doubt.

[platypus]

 

Evolution has clearly led to an increase in complexity during billions of years. This is visible in the fossil record and in the genomes of organisms. I'm not aware that "ID" has made any plausible arguments against evolution creating complexity. An intelligence is not needed to add complexity. 

Actually complexity came rather suddenly.  Read Darwin's Doubt.

 

You should read this:

 

https://en.wikipedia...ted_equilibrium

[shadowhawk]

So, lets scientifically study it to see who is right.    No you want to censor Science.

[johnross47]

It's not generally regarded as scientifically proper to throw out insults every time you fail to counter somebody else's position.

[shadowhawk]

It's not generally regarded as scientifically proper to throw out insults every time you fail to counter somebody else's position.

 

And this remark is scientific?
 

[addx]

So, lets scientifically study it to see who is right.    No you want to censor Science.

Why don't you then start on some algorithms that explain and predict evolutions increase in level of complexity. You said you "believe" in evolution, but that it is not enough. If you just "believe" in it, you can't really say if it is enough. If you really think it is enough you should start then at showing how evolution can not possibility support the recorded jumps in complexity by showing that you can truly calculate what evolution is capable for and prove that there is an explained jump in complexity. That's how it needs to go. Your "belief" in this or that is not scientific fact. Nor is anyone else's. You have no basis on which you declare that evolution can't explain jumps in complexity except your "gut feeling" and a collected horde of other peoples "gut feelings" some of which have some scientific degrees, most often in philosophy or something like that. All those people together with you only sum up to a load of "gut feeling" and no algorithm. And you feel more connected with each other as deluded/retards by standing together to take offence at the world for not respecting your cherished gut feelings. You pledge to spread the word of the worldy bullies censoring your truths, your attempts. As if is a conspiracy. What is everyone trying to hide? Aliens? Gods? Maybe that's what you're desperately hoping to find.

Edited by addx, 29 May 2014 - 09:49 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

So, lets scientifically study it to see who is right.    No you want to censor Science.

Why don't you then start on some algorithms that explain and predict evolutions increase in level of complexity. You said you "believe" in evolution, but that it is not enough. If you just "believe" in it, you can't really say if it is enough. If you really think it is enough you should start then at showing how evolution can not possibility support the recorded jumps in complexity by showing that you can truly calculate what evolution is capable for and prove that there is an explained jump in complexity. That's how it needs to go. Your "belief" in this or that is not scientific fact. Nor is anyone else's. You have no basis on which you declare that evolution can't explain jumps in complexity except your "gut feeling" and a collected horde of other peoples "gut feelings" some of which have some scientific degrees, most often in philosophy or something like that. All those people together with you only sum up to a load of "gut feeling" and no algorithm. And you feel more connected with each other as deluded/retards by standing together to take offence at the world for not respecting your cherished gut feelings. You pledge to spread the word of the worldy bullies censoring your truths, your attempts. As if is a conspiracy. What is everyone trying to hide? Aliens? Gods? Maybe that's what you're desperately hoping to find.

 

What evolution are you talking about?  There is hot debate among evolutionists right now and it has changed over and over.  If you simply mean change then we don't need algorithims. but if you mean mutations have the power to explain diversity than that is another issue for science.  Anyway, scientific study not you or I should decide this.  ID is in.

[addx]

So, lets scientifically study it to see who is right.    No you want to censor Science.

Why don't you then start on some algorithms that explain and predict evolutions increase in level of complexity. You said you "believe" in evolution, but that it is not enough. If you just "believe" in it, you can't really say if it is enough. If you really think it is enough you should start then at showing how evolution can not possibility support the recorded jumps in complexity by showing that you can truly calculate what evolution is capable for and prove that there is an explained jump in complexity. That's how it needs to go. Your "belief" in this or that is not scientific fact. Nor is anyone else's. You have no basis on which you declare that evolution can't explain jumps in complexity except your "gut feeling" and a collected horde of other peoples "gut feelings" some of which have some scientific degrees, most often in philosophy or something like that. All those people together with you only sum up to a load of "gut feeling" and no algorithm. And you feel more connected with each other as deluded/retards by standing together to take offence at the world for not respecting your cherished gut feelings. You pledge to spread the word of the worldy bullies censoring your truths, your attempts. As if is a conspiracy. What is everyone trying to hide? Aliens? Gods? Maybe that's what you're desperately hoping to find.

What evolution are you talking about?  There is hot debate among evolutionists right now and it has changed over and over.  If you simply mean change then we don't need algorithims. but if you mean mutations have the power to explain diversity than that is another issue for science.  Anyway, scientific study not you or I should decide this.  ID is in.

Thanks for the update. I was behind on my reading of the bible digest.

[Duchykins]

Do not defend evolution. ID creationists half-win if you allow then to deflect; all they want is for the public to perceive a conflict in order to suggest ID, do not make it a conflict over evolution. Don't give them more opportunity to lie and straw man evolution. Just assume it wrong for the sake of argument.


Press ID's lack of biological mechanism, lack of ANY ATTEMPT at a scientific explanation.

And have fun!

Edited by Duchykins, 29 May 2014 - 10:43 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Do not defend evolution. ID creationists half-win if you allow then to deflect; all they want is for the public to perceive a conflict in order to suggest ID, do not make it a conflict over evolution. Don't give them more opportunity to lie and straw man evolution. Just assume it wrong for the sake of argument.


Press ID's lack of biological mechanism, lack of ANY ATTEMPT at a scientific explanation.

And have fun!

 

Just assume...yes that is what Science is all about!  Science does not rule things out by this method. 
 

[Duchykins]

Do not defend evolution. ID creationists half-win if you allow then to deflect; all they want is for the public to perceive a conflict in order to suggest ID, do not make it a conflict over evolution. Don't give them more opportunity to lie and straw man evolution. Just assume it wrong for the sake of argument.


Press ID's lack of biological mechanism, lack of ANY ATTEMPT at a scientific explanation.

And have fun!

 
Just assume...yes that is what Science is all about!  Science does not rule things out by this method. 
 

That just means you don't know what the null hypothesis is.




Unsurprisingly.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Do not defend evolution. ID creationists half-win if you allow then to deflect; all they want is for the public to perceive a conflict in order to suggest ID, do not make it a conflict over evolution. Don't give them more opportunity to lie and straw man evolution. Just assume it wrong for the sake of argument.


Press ID's lack of biological mechanism, lack of ANY ATTEMPT at a scientific explanation.

And have fun!

 
Just assume...yes that is what Science is all about!  Science does not rule things out by this method. 
 

That just means you don't know what the null hypothesis is.




Unsurprisingly.

 

I assume it doesn't mean assuming is science,
 

[Duchykins]

Null hypothesis: Intelligent Design does not propose a biological mechanism for species diversity.


Produce evidence showing that the hypothesis is wrong. That is a valid and well used scientific approach.

[Duchykins]

Logic/argument

Assume:

[shadowhawk]

Oh, you want intelligence and logic.  Otherwise you say it assumes something.  Design does propose a  mechanism for species diversity.

[Duchykins]

A magical mechanism, not a biological one. Not even a 'material' mechanism, according to your friend Stephen Meyer. You already admitted there is no biological mechanism by endorsing his arguments.

You do realize that if there is no material mechanism, there is no scientific explanation, remember? We went through this already. You would have to alter the definition of 'scientific' to include the immaterial in order for ID to have a 'scientific' mechanism. It is not a scientific explanation by current standards.

[shadowhawk]

Perhaps Intelligence seems like magic to you.  And who says science only deals with Biological issues?  That is part of the scientific method?

[shadowhawk]

[JohnBonham]

To me, Intelligent design is that feeling you get when you take a psychedelic and look at how beautiful and alive nature is... the constant flow of energy... that the Universe isn't just an outcome of random chance; that there's an underlying genius to it all. Doesn't mean there's a personified Creator behind it. It could just be self-organization. 

 

We aren't the cold, logical universe that science has mapped out. Science is a great tool but shouldn't be confused with the underlying reality. We just measured stuff and gave names to our measurements.

 

Doesn't give us a clue as to the WHY behind it all. 

 

The inquisitive mind's favorite question is "Why?"... which science is great at answering for the most part... but if that is taken to the extreme, it eventually leads to "Why do we exist at all?" and maybe the most important, "Why is nature beautiful to us?" And that's where science has, so far, been unable to take us. 

 

So I'm supposed to believe it's an accident that stars and elements capable of producing life are everywhere? The whole thing is an accident, an outcome of probabilities? 

 

Life has existed on Earth for 33% of the age of the Universe. I'd say that's a long time for a freak accident to happen. 

 

In fact, assuming we are random outcomes means you think we are more special than thinking we are just a normal part of a normal universe. A normal outcome. Probably replicated all over the place, we are just separated by such massive distances we think we're alone. 

Edited by JohnBonham, 31 May 2014 - 08:45 PM.

[addx]

Perhaps Intelligence seems like magic to you.

It seems to be magic for you. You said you "believe" in evolution but that some things are just to complicated to be created by randomness. So "intelligence" is required you said. You in fact imply that evolution could never create intelligence by itself so intelligence is always, for you, in its origin "magical" since you propose no other mechanical mechanism of its coming to be.

You say that the mechanical mechanism of evolution can not support all that we can see with no proof of the claim, you in fact also declare not to offer an alternative mechanical mechanism but have the nerve to demand a scientific investigation. It simply means you're demanding science to explore magic. You just don't wanna say it like that so it doesn't sound that ridiculous and are dancing and circling around this point trying to take offence at not respecting you ridiculous owning of what "science does or thinks"

[shadowhawk]

Why is there something rather than nothing?  Why is a never ending question and can't be answered.  There are many things in science which are not answered, including science itself.