RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >   
  Topic: IDC != AntiEvolution?, Discuss...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2010,13:00   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2010,13:41   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

They don't have to.   It's so obviously the default position, that anything else has to be proven.  They need to proof, just faith.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3305
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2010,16:12   

Hey Joe,

Say it with me: Even if evolution is 100%, that does not mean that ID (or your religion) is in any way correct.

Man, this guy's a wimp.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2010,17:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 06 2010,17:12)
Hey Joe,

Say it with me: Even if evolution is 100%, that does not mean that ID (or your religion) is in any way correct.

Man, this guy's a wimp.

I don't know, not just anyone has the balls to sit in his mom's basement and type "I'll kick your ass, you assfaced asshole" into the comment box on a blog, like Joe does almost every day.  That takes some serious guts, you have to admit.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3305
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2010,18:25   



--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,00:34   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:50)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2010,05:53)
       
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,18:59)
             
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2010,20:37)
             
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
                         
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

                         
Quote

                           
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.

Talk about leaving the door open- Well Wes you brought up rigor.

Please give us an example of a technical standard of rigor pertaining to the blind watchmaker thesis- or whatever your position is.

Tell us how we would quantify or test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?

As for the validity of "specification" how do you think archaeologists determine rock from artifact?

Do you think they flip a coin?

No they look for signs of work- ie a specification.

How do forensic scientists determine accident from natural cause from criminal activity?

Do they also flip a coin?

Yes it is true that "specification" can be as simple as "it looks designed".

But if something looks designed and cannot be accounted for via any other known mechanism, then we should be allowed to carry on with the design inference.

See also:

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins

and
part 2

But anyway I am really interested in seeing the technical standard of rigor as applied to the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

Back over at the thread about Telic Thoughts, Steve Story observed:

             
Quote

One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant.


Now back to the current response.

"Rigor" is not a particular topic. Pull that in court and see how far you get.

To follow Joe G.'s digression, though, one finds that rigor is common in evolutionary science. Joe G. asked for an example, so one that deals with modes of speciation  would be

           
Quote

Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154, p.295-302.


Within that, they analyzed isotope ratios to test and exclude a hypothesis of depth parapatry as being operative in the O. universa speciation event.

Alternatively, open the journal Evolution at random and ask yourself the question, "Could Joe G. write something as rigorous as this article?"

But Joe's response, it seems, is rather reminiscent of something he wrote to me months ago. Here's my response from then:

           
Quote

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.


Let's have a look at some of Joe G.'s "discussion" in his links.

Joe G.:

         
Quote

Also the EF is a process YOU can choose to use or not. The “beauty” of the EF is that it is not pre-determined for a design output. It forces you to consider the alternatives first.

So what do these guys have to say?

   "We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational, [it would inhibit the course of science from even addressing phenomena that are not currently explicable.]"

Just how can a process that you can choose to use or not do something like that?

The EF is just if you have a question about how X came to be that way.


I've restored the remainder of the sentence in square brackets above.

One might note the conditional phrasing in our original statement. Then again, if one isn't particularly interested in reading for comprehension, one might not.

If one is applying Dembski's "design inference" as widely as Dembski himself asserts one ought to, there is no difficulty in seeing that our critique stands.

Joe G.:

         
Quote

They go on to say:

"[We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational,] and that Dembski's assertion that the filter reliably identifies rarefied design requires ignoring the state of background knowledge. If background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly."

As I said that goes for all of science. It is the nature of the beast. And that is why we call them scientific INFERENCES. Notice the title of Dembski’s book is “The Design INFERENCE”.

And I am still in the paper’s ABSTRACT!

From my experience a paper built on faulty premises is doomed to fail. And this paper passed peer-review!!!


It may be characteristic of science that inferences are not absolute, but it is not characteristic of Dembski's unretracted claims of reliability. Nor is it characteristic of science to ignore the state of background information and make declarations that further background knowledge cannot alter the result of an inference, as is the case for Dembski's claims.

WRE:

         
Quote

For instance, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. That's philosophical humor, by the way. Dembski is not going to solve the problem of induction. That means that he should have retracted his claim of reliability. Just to be clear, let's see what Dembski means by saying that his Explanatory Filter/Design Inference/Specified Complexity criterion is reliable.

   I want, then, to argue that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I want to argue that the complexity-specification criterion successfully avoids false positives -- in other words, whenever it attributes design, it does so correctly.

   -- WA Dembski, "No Free Lunch", p.24

The above is not a typical statement for "scientific inquiry". It describes the operation of an oracle, not an inference.

Some may object that "success" need not refer to the 100% reliability that Dembski's words above seem plainly to invoke. But we have further testimony from Dembski that that is exactly what is meant.

   [...] Biologists worry about attributing something to design (here identified with creation) only to have it overturned later; this widespread and legitimate concern has prevented them from using intelligent design as a valid scientific explanation.

   Though perhaps justified in the past, this worry is no longer tenable. There now exists a rigorous criterion complexity-specification for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The great breakthrough in philosophy of science and probability theory of recent years has been to isolate and make precise this criterion. Michael Behe's criterion of irreducible complexity for establishing the design of biochemical systems is a special case of the complexity-specification criterion for detecting design (cf. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box).

   What does this criterion look like? Although a detailed explanation and justification is fairly technical (for a full account see my book The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press), the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. [...]


   -- W.A. Dembski, "Science and design", First Things, Oct. 1998, http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html, last accessed 2002/01/20.

Further, Dembski has never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for his Explanatory Filter. Instead, it has been left to critics like myself to propose empirical methods of determining whether Dembski's claims of reliability have any grounding in fact.

Dembski has, so far, not analyzed potential counterexamples. I proposed at Haverford College last June that Dembski "do the calculation" for the Krebs citric acid cycle and the impedance-matching apparatus of the mammalian middle ear. Dembski has not done so.


Joe G.:

         
Quote

Skipping down to the end they have their own flow chart. This one has “Don’t Know”, “regularity” and “chance”. IOW we don’t know but we know it wasn’t via agency involvement. Truly pathetic.


Joe G. obviously missed our discussion of ordinary design inferences.

         
Quote

So a revision to Dembski's filter is required beyond the first "Don't-know" branch. This sort of knowledge of designers is gained empirically, and is just another kind of regularity assignment. Because we know what these designers do to some degree of accuracy, we can assess the likelihood that E would occur, whether it is the creation of skirnobs or the Antikythera Device. That knowledge makes E a HP event, and so the filter short-circuits at the next branch and gives a design inference relative to a background knowledge set Bi available at time t. So now there appears to be two kinds of design - the ordinary kind based on a knowledge of the behavior of designers, and a "rarefied" design, based on an inference from ignorance, both of the possible causes of regularities and of the nature of the designer.


So the "don't know" options in our flow chart do not -- contrary to Joe G.'s falsehood about them -- exclude conclusions of design. They do avoid an erroneous conclusion of rarefied design, where there is no warrant to invoke a design inference based on what is known.

Joe G.:

         
Quote

I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile thereof, is just an illusion?

I also wonder if they have a better process for detecting design without being biased toward that end?


Yes, that's what the distinction between ordinary design inferences and rarefied design inferences was about. But one has to read the article to comprehend that.

Later, Jeff Shallit and I produced an alternative method we called specified anti-information (SAI) premised on the universal distribution. It can be found in the appendix to our long essay on Dembski's CSI.

Joe G.:
         
Quote

Part 2- It gets worse-

For some reason these clueless desk jockeys think that “design” is the default position when all other nodes get passed. Not so.

To reach the design inference there has to be signs of work, counterflow or some recognizable pattern. Or else we default to “it could be explainable by some small chance event”, i.e. “we don’t know”.

To get to “design” it not only has to pass through the other nodes. It has to have that second part also.

So it looks like this peer-reviewed paper is nothing but a strawman.


If Joe were familiar with Dembski's work, he might have recalled that Dembski provided propositional logic for his explanatory filter on page 49 of "The Design Inference". There, one finds that specification is used simply as another way of eliminating chance. Design is defined by Dembski as the set-theoretic complement of regularity and chance. (Later, Dembski collapses "regularity" into "chance" as well.)

Nor is "chance" equivalent to "don't know". Dembski's own pronouncements on what is decideable via his "design inference" do not admit that further evidence can bear upon a decision once the "explanatory filter" is applied. Even where Dembski does admit the "explanatory filter" cannot be used (the Oklo nuclear reactors), it is as a preliminary to use of the EF, not as a decision-point within the EF.

Nope, no straw involved, just actually reading what Dembski has claimed.

Joe G.:

         
Quote

Proudly strutting their strawman around, they say the following about “Charles”:

"    Although he has not heard of Dembski's filter, he knows the logic: whatever cannot be accounted for by natural law or chance must be the result of design."

That has nothing to do with Dembski. You jerks made that up because you don’t know what you are talking about. Obviously neither did the people who “reviewed” it.

If I were Dembski I would have sought out the both of you and knocked your teeth out.


Dembski has had several opportunities to get in my face about this if he thought I had gotten pp.36 or 49 of "The Design Inference" wrong. We were on stage together in 2001, 2002, and 2006. So far, I still have my teeth. Why should that be the case?

Perhaps it has something to do with this... William A. Dembski, "The Design Inference", p.36:

         
Quote

Defining design as the set-theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance guarantees that the three modes of explanation are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.


Apparently, Joe G. has either not read Dembski or not understood Dembski.

We,

Nice rant.

Too bad for you that if "specification" is not observed the design in not inferred.

IOW one can eliminate chance and necessity but if there isn't any specification then design is not the default.

As for your "rigorous" example- RotFLMAO!

YECs accept speciation Wes.

Do you have any examples of rigor pertaining to- for example- the alleged evolution of vision systems?

That would include the genes involved and the modifications to the genome that allowed for such a thing.

As for the EF Dembski even says that future knowledge may upset the design inference. And tat is how it is with scientific inferences.

Joe, you should direct your attention to p.49 of Dembski's "The Design Inference". Dembski gives his argument about specification being a way to eliminate chance there in first-order predicate logic. Notice premise 6: reg(E) V ch(E) V des(E). That's Dembski's claim that regularity, chance, and design form a partition of causal categories. Where specification does its work is in Dembski's Premise 4, which is the claim that specified events of small probability do not occur by chance. All specification does is provide a means to conclude, in Dembski's argument, that chance is excluded as a causal category for an event. With Premise 5, that regularity is not a cause for the event, that means that by Premise 6, an event that is neither due to regularity nor due to chance must be concluded to belong to the sole remaining category, due to design, by default. This application of Premise 6 follows after where specification is applied in the argument. Don't blame me, this is exactly what Dembski has laid out. And he did it in first-order predicate logic, so there isn't any wiggle-room left there to argue out of it. So, Joe G., which is it: did you not read Dembski, or not understand Dembski?

Some YECs may accept speciation as occurring, but not all of them do, and it is quite commonplace to find people in these discussions who dispute that there is any evidence of speciation having occurred. Joe G. asked for an example of rigor supporting "whatever" my views were, and got one. I think one airily dismissed example going down the line of a digression is enough.

Does Dembski say that future knowledge can overturn a design inference? Dembski says something to that effect on p.14 of "No Free Lunch", but it only goes so far as to show that Dembski is being inconsistent on this issue. Dembski stated clearly quite the opposite before. I provided it once already, but I guess I had better do it again in the hopes that maybe this time Joe G. will bother to read it:

   
Quote

 [...] Biologists worry about attributing something to design (here identified with creation) only to have it overturned later; this widespread and legitimate concern has prevented them from using intelligent design as a valid scientific explanation.

  Though perhaps justified in the past, this worry is no longer tenable. There now exists a rigorous criterion complexity-specification for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The great breakthrough in philosophy of science and probability theory of recent years has been to isolate and make precise this criterion. Michael Behe's criterion of irreducible complexity for establishing the design of biochemical systems is a special case of the complexity-specification criterion for detecting design (cf. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box).

  What does this criterion look like? Although a detailed explanation and justification is fairly technical (for a full account see my book The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press), the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. [...]

  -- W.A. Dembski, "Science and design", First Things, Oct. 1998, http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html, last accessed 2002/01/20.


I've bolded the part that Joe G. should pay particular attention to; it shows that Dembski did intend his "design inference" to be a final arbiter whenever it actually labeled an event as being due to design. If we believe Dembski on p.14 of NFL, he changed his mind about the reliability of his design inference, and we are right back in the bad old days of biologists worrying over premature and incorrect attributions of design. But... flip forward in NFL just another 10 pages to the bottom of p.24 and top of p.25, and we can find Demsbki again saying that we can trust his design inference to only yield "design" as a cause when it is actually the case. Or flip back 8 pages to p.6, where one finds a lightly edited version of the text that I quoted above. So we not only have Dembski being serially inconsistent, but also simultaneously inconsistent. I view Dembski's one statement of concession on p.14 of the NFL as a convenient falsehood to blunt a critique of his work that is not indicative of his actual stance on the reliability of his "design inference", especially since he repeats his claims of reliability in multiple places in the very same work.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 08 2010,06:33

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,01:37   

Wes, I am not going to "quote" the last post because I want to save the poor electrons.

Of course I agree with you.

Joe Gizzum has also missed Dembski's definition of "specification" as it is related to biology as exclusively  "function."

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,08:23   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

It's called reducibility- that is finding out what it is reducible to- ie finding out what it takes to get the thing in question.

And right now it appears to take quite a bit of agency involvement just to get the building blocks living organisms require.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,08:25   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 06 2010,16:12)
Hey Joe,

Say it with me: Even if evolution is 100%, that does not mean that ID (or your religion) is in any way correct.

Man, this guy's a wimp.

Ogre-  Say it with me- Even if ID and Creation are 100% bunk that still does not mean your sad position is in any way correct.

Now I have provided you with links that have my words defending the design inference.

Apparently you are too stupid to follow those links.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,09:51   

So if we use the EF and we do not observe a specification we do not infer design if there isn't any specification present.

That means that design is not the default once chance and necessity have been eliminated.

Also crystals are specified without being complex.

Which means specification does not exclude chance and necessity.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,09:55   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:51)

 So if we use the EF and we do not observe a specification we do not infer design if there isn't any specification present.

Care to back that up by using the EF and showing your working? Otherwise it's just a claim with no substance. You say "if we use the EF" like it's something you've done 100's of times before. I don't believe you.
 
Quote

That means that design is not the default once chance and necessity have been eliminated.

Oh? Perhaps if you could work through an example of the EF you could show that in action.
 
Quote

Also crystals are specified without being complex.

What's the value of the CSI in a salt crystal?
 
Quote

Which means specification does not exclude chance and necessity.

Again, these issues would be clarified if you would walk us through an example of the EF in action.

Can you do that? If not, on what basis do you have for claiming that the EF is useful at any level?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:00   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:55)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:51)

 So if we use the EF and we do not observe a specification we do not infer design if there isn't any specification present.

Care to back that up by using the EF and showing your working? Otherwise it's just a claim with no substance. You say "if we use the EF" like it's something you've done 100's of times before. I don't believe you.
 
Quote

That means that design is not the default once chance and necessity have been eliminated.

Oh? Perhaps if you could work through an example of the EF you could show that in action.
 
Quote

Also crystals are specified without being complex.

What's the value of the CSI in a salt crystal?
 
Quote

Which means specification does not exclude chance and necessity.

Again, these issues would be clarified if you would walk us through an example of the EF in action.

Can you do that? If not, on what basis do you have for claiming that the EF is useful at any level?

assface- how do you think scientists determine design?

Do you think they flip a coin?

I bet if you look close enough you will see the EF.

and BTW there isn't any CSI in a salt crystal

But thanks for continuing to expose your ignorance

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:03   

Quote
So if we use the EF...


Yes, lets.

You be the first to show us how the EF works on a biological example.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:05   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:00)


assface- how do you think scientists determine design?

They use the EF right? Then it should be easy for you to walk us through an example of it in use.

Or is that beyond you?
 
Quote

Do you think they flip a coin?

I don't know, perhaps they just make a claim "the bacterial flagellum is designed" and when they are asked for more details they respond "assface".

From your behaviour, that seems to be the method, as far as I can tell.
 
Quote

I bet if you look close enough you will see the EF.

It's you that is making the claim, therefore the burden of proof rests with you. Why don't you try "looking close enough" and then report back to me.
 
Quote
and BTW there isn't any CSI in a salt crystal

So CSI in salt crystal = 0.

Now we're getting somewhere!

 
Quote

But thanks for continuing to expose your ignorance

Then educate me, oh wise ID guru.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:07   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:03)
Quote
So if we use the EF...


Yes, lets.

You be the first to show us how the EF works on a biological example.

Go ahead Alan.

No one is stopping you.

Apply the EF to a living organism.

Oops- that's right you can't even demonstrate the building blocks required can arise without agency involvement.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:15   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,05:07)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:03)
   
Quote
So if we use the EF...


Yes, lets.

You be the first to show us how the EF works on a biological example.

Go ahead Alan.

No one is stopping you.

Apply the EF to a living organism.

Oops- that's right you can't even demonstrate the building blocks required can arise without agency involvement.

Joe,

I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot. You are the one claiming the EF can be shown to work. You don't want me suspecting you of bluster, do you? Do what Doug Axe can't. Demonstrate how the EF works on a real-life example.

  
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:19   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:15)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,05:07)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:03)
   
Quote
So if we use the EF...


Yes, lets.

You be the first to show us how the EF works on a biological example.

Go ahead Alan.

No one is stopping you.

Apply the EF to a living organism.

Oops- that's right you can't even demonstrate the building blocks required can arise without agency involvement.

Joe,

I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot. You are the one claiming the EF can be shown to work. You don't want me suspecting you of bluster, do you? Do what Doug Axe can't. Demonstrate how the EF works on a real-life example.

Alan,

You are as useful as a chocolate teapot and full of bluster.

How do you think scientists determine design?

Do you think they flip a coin?

And as I said you can't even get the building blocks without agency involvement.

What part of that don't you understand?

And you do realize that bashing ID does not support your position?

Why is it that you just don't jump in with the scientific data that supports your position and therefor refutes ID?

THAT is all YOU have to do.

Yet you don't.

I say it is because you can't- all you can do is bash ID with your ignorance.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:23   

Quote
You are as useful as a chocolate teapot and full of bluster.
You could at least think up your own insults, Joe.

So am I to take it you are unable to demonstrate the use of the EF?

ETA orthographe

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:24   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:19)
And as I said you can't even get the building blocks without agency involvement.

BZZT! Wrong again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8516319.stm
Quote
Scientists say that a meteorite that crashed into Earth 40 years ago contains millions of different carbon-containing, or organic, molecules.
Although they are not a sign of life, such organic compounds are life's building blocks, and are a sign of conditions in the early Solar System.
...
Scientists believe the Murchison meteorite could have originated before the Sun was formed, 4.65 billion years ago. The researchers say it probably passed through primordial clouds in the early Solar System, picking up organic chemicals.
Dr Schmitt-Kopplin hopes the findings might contribute to the debate over how life on Earth originated.

Oh dear.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:25   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:23)
Quote
You are as useful as a chocolate teapot and full of bluster.
You could at least think up your own insults, Joe.

So am I to take it you are unable to demonstrate the use of the EF?

ETA orthographe

Alan,

You can take it up your ass- as you like it- for all I care.

You obviously can't demonstrate the methodology used to determine living organisms are the result of blind, undirected processes.

So you HAVE to bash ID- it is all you have.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:27   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:19)
And as I said you can't even get the building blocks without agency involvement.

BZZT! Wrong again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8516319.stm
 
Quote
Scientists say that a meteorite that crashed into Earth 40 years ago contains millions of different carbon-containing, or organic, molecules.
Although they are not a sign of life, such organic compounds are life's building blocks, and are a sign of conditions in the early Solar System.
...
Scientists believe the Murchison meteorite could have originated before the Sun was formed, 4.65 billion years ago. The researchers say it probably passed through primordial clouds in the early Solar System, picking up organic chemicals.
Dr Schmitt-Kopplin hopes the findings might contribute to the debate over how life on Earth originated.

Oh dear.

oldmanwithitsheaduphisass-

Nucleotides assface- living organisms need nucletides.

And you can't get them without agency involvement.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:39   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:27)
oldmanwithitsheaduphisass-

Nucleotides assface- living organisms need nucletides.

And you can't get them without agency involvement.

Can't you? Then I guess it must be my imagination that there are several models for the natural origin of nucleotides. And zero models for the creation of nucleotides by intelligent design.

Still, when you say "building blocks" instead of something more specific you have to take what answers you get given.

No matter what model is presented we all know you'll simply claim "Nature cannot be explained by Nature" thus "winning" any argument (in your mind) by default.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:41   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:27)
oldmanwithitsheaduphisass-

Nucleotides assface- living organisms need nucletides.

And you can't get them without agency involvement.

Can't you? Then I guess it must be my imagination that there are several models for the natural origin of nucleotides. And zero models for the creation of nucleotides by intelligent design.

Still, when you say "building blocks" instead of something more specific you have to take what answers you get given.

No matter what model is presented we all know you'll simply claim "Nature cannot be explained by Nature" thus "winning" any argument (in your mind) by default.

It is imagination as such models do not exist.

There are models that demonstrate it takes agency involvement to get nucleotides.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:47   

Quote
There are models that demonstrate it takes agency involvement to get nucleotides.


Just one would be enough. Bring it on.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:48   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:41)
There are models that demonstrate it takes agency involvement to get nucleotides.

Flasks were designed, therefore any experiment that makes use of a flask proves ID.

It's the last gasp argument of an ID proponent that's got nothing else.

As long ago as 1997, if not before, the generation of nucleotides in open space has been discussed.
Link

Here's something with nice big letters dicussing UV light and nucleotides
Link

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:55   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:41)
There are models that demonstrate it takes agency involvement to get nucleotides.

Flasks were designed, therefore any experiment that makes use of a flask proves ID.

It's the last gasp argument of an ID proponent that's got nothing else.

As long ago as 1997, if not before, the generation of nucleotides in open space has been discussed.
Link

Here's something with nice big letters dicussing UV light and nucleotides
Link

I viewed that link on my computer. My computer was designed, therefore ID.

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:56   

Giovanna Costanzo, Samanta Pino, Fabiana Ciciriello and Ernesto Di Mauro
2009 “Generation of Long RNA Chains in Water” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 284, 33206-33216, November 27

Nuevo, Michel, Stefanie Milam, Scott Sandford, Jason Dworkin, Jamie Elsila
2009 “Formation of Uracil from the Ultraviolet Photo-Irradiation of Pyrimidine in Pure Water Ices,” Astrobiology vol. 9 no. 7, Oct. 1.

S N Rodin & A S Rodin “On the origin of the genetic code: signatures of its primordial complementarity in tRNAs and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases” Heredity aop, (2008) | doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6801086.

Ronald Breslow, Zhan-Ling Cheng
"On the origin of terrestrial homochirality for nucleosides and amino acids" PNAS June 9, 2009 vol. 106 no. 23 9144-9146

Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland,"Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" Nature 459, 239-242 (14 May 2009)

Philipp Baaske, Franz M. Weinert, Stefan Duhr, Kono H. Lemke, Michael J. Russell, and Dieter Braun
2007 "Extreme accumulation of nucleotides in simulated hydrothermal pore systems" PNAS | May 29, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 22 | 9346-9351

Egholm M, Buchardt O, Nielsen PE, Berg RH:
1992  "Peptide nucleic acids (PNA). Oligonucleotide analogs with an achiral peptide backbone." J Am Chem Soc  114:1895-1897.

Cohn CA, Hansson TK, Larsson HS, Sowerby SJ, Holm NG.
2001 "Fate of prebiotic adenine." Astrobiology. Winter;1(4):477-80

There is a lot more, but you get the idea.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,12:28   

I see Joe is still drivin' that Dodge.

Grand National, of course.  :)

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,16:21   

I used to participate here often, but as life gets busy, the whole IDC thing has taken a back seat to more pressing issues in my life.  I've dropped by and glanced a couple of threads over the last couple of years but that's about it.  

Today I had some time and wanted to catch up on the tard inspired IDcreationist scam and I found this thread.  What a freaking bounty for a gawker like me.

JoeG, I love you man.  You're like an intellectually stunted Davescot and I was so sad that he got the boot here. It's refreshing to see some quality tard in the forum like this.  Keep up the work, JoeG!  No doubt you have changed the minds of many scientists and atheists (and left handed people) here already!  

Praise jeebuz!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10130
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,16:37   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 11 2010,16:21)
I used to participate here often, but as life gets busy, the whole IDC thing has taken a back seat to more pressing issues in my life.  I've dropped by and glanced a couple of threads over the last couple of years but that's about it.  

Today I had some time and wanted to catch up on the tard inspired IDcreationist scam and I found this thread.  What a freaking bounty for a gawker like me.

JoeG, I love you man.  You're like an intellectually stunted Davescot and I was so sad that he got the boot here. It's refreshing to see some quality tard in the forum like this.  Keep up the work, JoeG!  No doubt you have changed the minds of many scientists and atheists (and left handed people) here already!  

Praise jeebuz!

Welcome back  ;)

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
  178 replies since Feb. 24 2010,09:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]