@IDtaksovr Since it has become painfully obvious that you cannot substantiate ID by way of *any* sort of substantive evidence, I won't keep on insisting on it from you. I'll just note that yet again, you've shown yourself to be a religious ideologue (or is it IDologue?) who is attempting to denigrate a substantial and successful area of science in order to push his god concept, hence your nonsense about "naturalism" which would be out of place in a scientific discussion. You won't be the last.
@IDtaksovr Easy: erosion. We build arches, but nobody proposes that Arches National Park is the result of design either.
Now, what your geologists would have a harder time explaining is the graffiti of the men who built the pyramids (such as can be found in the Great Pyramid of Khufu), the evidence of nearby quarrying, tools left on the site, etc. This is direct evidence for intelligent design. Do the proponents of ID in the biological realm have anything nearly as unambiguous?
"your geologists would have a harder time explaining is the graffiti of the men who built the pyramids (such as can be found in the Great Pyramid of Khufu), "
We have a genetic code with all the properties of a formal language = Egyptian heiroglyphics.
@IDtaksovr Actually, it doesn't have all the properties of a formal language. A formal language has arbitrary rules, but the rules by which DNA acts are not arbitrary, but are rooted in the stereochemistry underlying the system. Since all the elements of so-called "code" that so impress you can be accounted for as a result of this stereochemistry, it is not evidence for intelligent design.
Do you really want to start this issue up again when it's already established you know fuck-all about DNA?
"but the rules by which DNA acts are not arbitrary, but are rooted in the stereochemistry underlying the system."
The sequencing of amino acids has nothing to do with chemistry or "stereochemistry", and everything to do with information stored in the DNA. This is basic knowledge.
@IDtaksovr Actually, the sequence of amino acids (not sequencing) has everything to do with the chemistry of the system. The transfer RNA that binds to the messenger RNA at one end and binds to a single amino acid at the other does so because of its stereochemistry. Like I said, you really shouldn't be discussing this, because you really don't know even what an undergraduate knows about DNA transcription and translation. Mind you, complete ignorance does seem to be the only way to entertain ID.
But let's take this comical idea seriously for a little moment. You say that the information for the amino acid sequence is stored "in the DNA". Okay... where? It's one thing to blithely assert that it's stored "in the DNA", but it's another thing when you think about what DNA actually is. It's a macromolecule, with a phosphate-deoxyribose backbone attached to a series of nitrogenous bases. So where in this series of molecules can one "store" information?
"You say that the information for the amino acid sequence is stored "in the DNA". Okay... where?"
....In the non chemically determined sequence of nucleotides. Information is COPIED, from the DNA strand to be used in the production of precisely sequenced proteins. The sequencing of proteins has nothing to do with mere preferential chemical attraction. If you are ignorant of this basic fact, then I wouldn't bother to wave your biologist credentials about any more.
"the sequence of amino acids (not sequencing) has everything to do with the chemistry of the system. "
You have shown that you are ignorant of a question that you claim to have some expertise in. The SEQUENCING of the nucleotides in DNA is in no way determined by chemistry. You should know this. Why don't you know this?
If ID cannot address the few issues that I've brought up, then it is absolutely sunk as a biological theory. 1) You have to show that ID recognizes a real feature of the biological world, because "explain my abstract impression, scientists!" is not a reasonable demand. 2) A specific designer capable of creating all that which is attributed to it must be identified. 3) Specific evidence *for* ID must be adduced. And that's all before one will even get to difficult cases for ID like endosymbiosis.
@IDtaksovr I've been thinking about this for a bit, and this will by my final post to you. On the principle that you always lead off with your strongest argument, it is clear that you have *NO* evidence for ID. If you did, you wouldn't be haranguing me about my supposed "philosophical presuppositions" and the alleged "indoctrination" of my education when I'm only asking you questions that any open-minded but skeptical observer, with a reasonable background in the biological sciences, would ask.
@IDtaksovr So they independently decided to exclude the *same* cellular processes and objects, use the same angles, the same pans, even the same blue-green color scheme? At this level, there is no color, and scanning electron microscopy renders images in black and white. Obviously the "design inference" is a complete bust when even an IDist cannot recognize a case of plagiarism when he sees it. Do you have a substantive reason why evolution is implausible, or is it just the ooh and aah factor?
Yes , all the most important "cellular processes and objects" have been included by both teams. Is that a surprise? The blue in the "expelled" animation, and the blue - green of the Harvard one, are obviously trying to convey the same watery environment. The most obvious and effective angles and pans could have been independently discovered by intelligent animators.....
Ironically, You are using the intelligent design methodology of "inference to the best explanation". Wonderful!
@IDtaksovr There is no watery environment in cells. In fact, cells do a great deal to keep from being overwhelmed by too much water, otherwise they will burst. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the processes depicted by either XVIVO's team or Expelleds are the "most important". If they were so all-fired important, one would think they wouldn't waste time on "Hollywood" shots like panning down through a mesh of actin filaments, which demonstrates nothing biochemical. But both videos do it.
The cell is 70% water. Hence the blue green. The cells nucleus, nuclear pore complexes, DNA, ribosomes, Intracellular Vesicular Traffic, centrioles, mitacondria, cytockeleton, membrane etc, all seemed pretty important to me ...... but I could be wrong.
@IDtaksovr No, 70% of the cell by volume is cytoplasm. Only *one* part of cytoplasm is water--the other (and more important) constituents are ions, organic molecules, protein filaments, etc. Furthermore, the 1.5 minute animation that goes with Expelled does not explore the biochemistry of the mitochondrion, ribosomes, etc. so your retort is an own-goal. It might have done when it was even more derivative (perhaps a direct copy) of Inner Life, though. I admit I didn't see the earliest versions.
@IDtaksovr There is also no such thing as the "most obvious and effective angles and pans". There is no reason in this world why the angle of the vesicle being pulled by myosin V is "most effective" when shown off-center, and indeed other scientists who model the same process have come up with completely different angles (not to mention color schemes). And ID is "inference to NO explanation". Nothing in ID is capable of explaining any biological observation. It is utterly useless and boring.
"There is no reason in this world why the angle of the vesicle being pulled by myosin V is "most effective" when shown off-center,"
LOL. You're a director now!
The important point to remember is that both videos provide a spectacular representation of the cells intelligent design. Both are a nightmare for the darwinian orthodoxy. Soon the general public will be in hysterics at the suggestion that random mutation and natural selection could act as the "blind watchmaker"
@IDtaksovr Precisely how does either *video* function as evidence of "intelligent design"? Because "Ooh aah, it's complicated"? That level of complexity means more things can go wrong, and tracking the diseases that are caused by such needlessly baroque complexity are a major part of biomed research. Take mitochondrial diseases. Most but not all of its genes are now in the nuclear genome and mtDNA has codons with different products, precluding cross-translation where it's desirable. Why is that?
Feel free to postulate another cause, besides intelligence, that we reliably and repeatedly observe to produce sophisticated computer codes, and sophisticated information processing systems. It's ironic that Darwins own pioneering rules of reasoning concerning the causes of events that happened in the distant past, would later be used to argue the scientific case for intelligent design!
@IDtaksovr There are no sophisticated computer codes in the cell, because it is not a computer, and computer codes are generated all the time by evolutionary computation, e.g. Avida. But like all IDists you miss the point. You can look at the cell as it exists and say "it's designed", but you could make the claim with any other configuration of the cell. "Design" explains nothing about specific properties of life. It has no identified mechanism that makes one outcome more plausible than another.
LOL. There are "no sophisticated computer codes in the cell" yet Avida is being required to and is apparently "evolving" sophisticated codes all the time for some reason! There are two points here. Let me take you to school on the first assertion. Search for:
"An Imaginary Tour of a Biological Computer
(Why Computer Professionals and Molecular Biologists Should Start Collaborating)"
@IDtaksovr Okay, I read the article, which does not establish that there are any computer codes in the cell, sophisticated or otherwise. Evidently you cannot understand the use of metaphor in human communication.
Now as to the rest of the article, it seems like a talk delivered to non-experts by an enthusiastic non-expert. Some fairly basic things are wrong, and the only part I can see which would lend comfort to an IDist is his guff about a life force. But we've been through that. Most of...
LOL.Since the father of the supercomputer couldn't get through, take it from a witness who is rabidly hostile to ID: "The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal" (Richard Dawkins)
Did you hurt yourself by stumbling through the holes in your logic? So one argument to non-existent authority failed to convince, and your response is mo-betta quote mines. This is exactly why ID fails as science. It takes analogies for evidence and excludes considerations of the *actual* evidence for evolution in favor of quote mining. Evolution has not been toppled by the discovery of the "genetic code" except in the minds of people who don't contribute to science anyway.
Was there an argument in there Nullifidian? Hopefully my efforts have not been a complete waste of time though.
Perhaps you will hesitate in future, before making the idiotic claim that the genetic code isn't really a computer code. I can understand why you are driven by philosophical prejudice to initially reject the discovery of an exquisite computer code inside the cell, but you merely reveal your ignorance of what has been common knowledge among biologists for several decades
@IDtaksovr Actually, I will not hesitate to claim that the so-called "genetic code" is not a computer code, because the cell is *still* not a computer. That you can find someone calling it "computerlike" is not evidence of anything other than the existence of a metaphor. The actual basis for the "genetic code" is stereochemical, not digital. Though DNA bases can be represented as letters, they are *not* letters but macromolecules. If you persist in ignoring that, you'll never understand DNA.
"the "genetic code" is stereochemical, not digital."
Codes rely on the manipulation of symbols in meaningful ways, according to rules. Whether this is accomplised using electrical componets or biological molecules is utterly irrelevant. The four characters of DNA (base-4 digits) may be represented by the 2-bit binary numbers 00, 01, 10, 11, and codon triplets by three 2-bit binary numbers. Triplets of binary numbers are then assigned to their respective proteins.
There's your fundamental problem. You refuse to get past the fact that a representation is simply a metaphor, and tells us nothing about the underlying processes in the cell. It's rather like asserting that because the Mona Lisa can be rendered as a digital image and reduced to binary code, that this tells us something very important about how it was painted. In fact, it's plainly obvious that you don't understand how transcription and translation works.
"You refuse to get past the fact that a representation is simply a metaphor"
sadly, the "metaphor" is now a reality that is being applied to improve the crude electronic supercomputer, such as this massive parallel computing system, that was designed based on biological cells. See:
"Massively parallel computing on an organic molecular layer"
Humans are finally appying their considerable intelligence, in order to move away from the crude, and onto the sophisticated.
@IDtaksovr Is it even worth pointing out to you that the article in question has nothing to do with how DNA works?
However, I'm very glad that you're in favor of moving from the crude to the sophisticated. Perhaps you'll end up eschewing your crude caricatures of evolution and the primitive notions straight from 18th c. science that ID represents, and finally come to a sophisticated understanding of evolutionary biology. At the very least you might root your arguments in facts, not quote mines.
This is fun - like throwing buns at an elephant: Try "An autonomous molecular computer for logical control of gene expression"
Darwinian dogma, rooted in Victorian science and values, and "evidenced" by silly, speculative "just-so" stories abought how adaptions "may" have evolved and gargantuan extrapolations from microevolutionary observations, is now a laughing stock. In contrast, ID, rooted in information and information processing, is suited to the science of the 21st century
@IDtaksovr That also has nothing to do with gene regulation. So perhaps you might shut up until you've actually bothered to at least read the abstract, if not the papers of the articles you cite?
And ID cannot be the science of the 21st century, because IDists do not do science. It is purely an attempt to get round the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard and bring back "creation science" to the high school classroom. To that end, doing science is actually counterproductive, because they'd have to...
...make firm statements about the mechanisms, about what would and wouldn't be evidence for ID, and they'd have to subject their ideas to serious scientific scrutiny. None of these things would actually improve their image, and it also wouldn't help them sneak creationism in through the back door of the science classroom.
As for your tired guff about evolution, it is completely uninformed by any knowledge about what evolution is or what the evidence for it is. So really, who gives a damn?
ID predictions include the prediction that irreducibly complex structures will be found that defy the probabilistic capacity of chance and necessity based mechanisms. As Darwin stated:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
The unscientific "not possibly" is replaced by "not plausibly"
ID predicts the discovery of ever greater sophistication and purpose in the genome. The ideologically motivated darwinian "junk" DNA paradigm, having been recognized as "science stopping" and utterly useless to science, has been quietly replaced by an intelligent design approach, in which the DNA system is treated as a designed system, in need of REVERSE ENGINEERING.
@IDtaksovr This is really just perfect. The ID propagandists have managed to convince their legions of clueless followers that a scientific model with *natural selection* as a major mechanism is completely incompetent to explain the allegedly functional aspects of certain DNA. This is the best evidence ever that IDists will believe *anything* their favorite shills tell them, as long as it harmonizes with their a priori convictions and puts those "evolutionists" in the wrong. As to the merits...
...of the claim, there are none. "Junk DNA" has nothing to do with Darwinism--if that term is to mean anything at all. It was a challenge for people who believed that the majority of features at the molecular level were due to natural selection. And the fact remains that the majority of DNA is "junk", and there are sound arguments never touched by the IDiots as to why we should expect most of it to be junk. Ohno's genetic load argument is never discussed once in Wells' "The Myth of Junk DNA".
"Junk DNA" has nothing to do with Darwinism", "the fact remains that the majority of DNA is "junk"", "there are sound arguments never touched by the IDiots as to why we should expect most of it to be junk"
Hilarious! Priceless! Could you repeat that?
Can you show me anyone stupid enough to make the claim that "the majority of DNA is "junk"", nowadays. Even darwinists have been quietly disowning that science-stopping darwinian prediction for years, in case you haven't noticed.
@IDtaksovr You've just had someone tell you that the majority of DNA is junk. Do you need more? Tell you what: I'll present you with the names of others who accept that the majority of DNA is junk when you provide me with references demonstrating that junk DNA is a "Darwinian prediction" and "science-stopping". And not just your usual bullshit of citing article titles whose substance is thoroughly irrelevant to the issue at hand, but ones that actually demonstrate what you claim.
"The ID propagandists have managed to convince their legions of clueless followers that a scientific model with *natural selection* as a major mechanism is completely incompetent."
The burden of proof is on those true believers who assert that the darwinian mechanism IS competent to do much. Where is the EVIDENCE that it can do more than trivial tinkering? People who reject unevidenced claims, imaginative speculations and wild extrapolations aren't stupid. Those who believe them are.
"IDists will believe *anything* their favorite shills tell them, as long as it harmonizes with their a priori convictions"
Darwinists will believe *anything*, provided it appears to support their theory of mutation and selection, and I mean **ANYTHING**. The cell is an unfathomably complex, fully automated, self replicating factory complex, yet darwinists swallow the line that this, and indeed any level of complexity is within the reach of their blundering mechanism. What faith!
The question of what is, and what is not considered "science", at any given time in history, is settled by authority and convention , rather than by scientific experiment. The current orthodoxy, finding itself utterly incapable of answering the arguments from ID, have chosen to fall back on a gentlemens agreement.
The important question is: "is intelligent design TRUE?", rather than "does ID fit with some presently fashionable orthodox dogma?"
@IDtaksovr By the way, speaking of "wasting time", what do you call throwing out completely irrelevant references that even a perusal of the abstract would tell you has nothing to do with the issue of DNA transcription and translation? I call that obnoxious trolling. But it does nicely demonstrate how dishonest IDists are with their sources, another reason why ID is not science. If IDists pulled the same crap in published papers that they do online and in books, they'd never live it down.
@IDtaksovr "Victorian science and values...speculative "just-so" stories.. how adaptions "may""
U're still talking about this? U and I debated over a year ago and then the video we were debating/arguing off of was removed. I just stumbled upon you now. U're still spouting the same thing. U're obviously committed to ID. Has any new ID research yielded any results or addressed any problems? Why not apply "ID theory" to other sciences, or does ID theory only concern itself with biology?
@IDtaksovr If you did understand transcription and translation, you would have never written that "triplets of binary numbers are then assigned to their respective proteins". Codons are stereochemically associated with *amino acids*, not proteins, via the mediation of tRNA. In fact, this process of RNA mediation is remarkably inefficient and goes back to a time when RNA catalyzed its own replication as well as served as the genetic material. It would be much simpler to code directly from DNA.
"If you did understand transcription and translation, you would have never written"
If you understood transcription translation, you would know what I was talking about, without the need for me to explain every detail. The function of tRNA was clearly explained in the video I recommended. Please don't waste time with cheap shots.
@IDtaksovr It wasn't a cheap shot. You're lecturing me on DNA and recommending propaganda videos from the Discovery Institute to wow an audience of non-experts when I've forgotten more about molecular biology than you'll ever know. It is worth pointing out which one of us actually understands how DNA works.
"wow an audience of non-experts when I've forgotten more about molecular biology than you'll ever know."
You clearly have had a thorough indoctrination by the cult of naturalism, and have come through it able to ignore the "design" elephant in the room, by repeating the Cricks mantra: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
"In fact, this process of RNA mediation is remarkably inefficient and goes back to a time when RNA catalyzed its own replication as well as served as the genetic material."
LOL. Can I request your source for this laughable speculation?
@IDtaksovr Atkins JF, Gesteland RF, Cech TR. (2010) "RNA Worlds: From Life's Origins to Diversity in Gene Regulation" Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
LOL. You are using the speculative and widely criticised RNA world hypothesis, from a field that is currently in paradigm crisis, as some kind of "sure thing" from which to make to make bold, yet incredibly stupid pronouncements such as:
"RNA mediation is remarkably inefficient and goes back to a time when RNA catalyzed its own replication as well as"
THIS is the danger of confusing serious biological research, based on repeatable observations, with pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo
@IDtaksovr Yawn. You're still trolling. There's nothing of substance in your comments on the RNA world, but any time that you're prepared to deal with the evidence that the RNA world explains and ID hasn't bothered to even try, then I'll listen.
This goes back to the other issue, the scientific status of ID. The answer to "Is ID true?" is "No." In fact, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, it's not even wrong--it's just completely vacuous and explains nothing worth knowing about biology.
"There's nothing of substance in your comments on the RNA world"
The RNA world hypothesis is so laughably improbable, that it's supporters have turned to the multiverse for help!
"The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life"
Your assertion that:
"RNA mediation is remarkably inefficient and goes back to a time when RNA catalyzed its own replication....", turns out to be utterly baseless and silly
ID proponents see your argument that "ID isn't science" as utterly irrelevant. If fact, that is exactly the kind of argument used against Galileo, when he broke with the orthodox Aristotelian paradigm.
The problems with all this objections are that:
1) "Science" is what the community decide it should be, and this can change over time.
2) You beg the question by assuming a fully naturalistic origin to life and the species a priori.
@IDtaksovr I see ID proponents as utterly irrelevant. So who cares?
By the way, neither of your two "objections" actually address my reasons *why* I say ID isn't science. I do not need to presume a "fully naturalistic origin to life and the species a priori" to reject ID as science. All I need to do is observe the fact that ID is not a fruitful research program, and that IDists deliberately lie about science, misrepresent findings, quote mine, and never do a day's lab or field research.
"All I need to do is observe the fact that ID is not a fruitful research program,"
Before you blow any more smoke at the question of whether or not ID is "science", can you assure me that this is your principal objection? You do appear to concede that the definition of "scientyific" could change and that dogmatic naturalism rests entirely on opinion and consensus.
@IDtaksovr Actually, I concede nothing of the sort; I regard it as nonsense that fails to account for why there is such a premium among scientists of every generation (at least since the 16th c.) for explanations that are adequate, parsimonious, capable of providing specific reasons why one state of affairs exists rather than any other, and yet capable of harmonizing a range of evidence under one explanatory umbrella.
And yes, the fact that ID is completely vacuous is my main objection to it.
I know you're in the middle of a heated debate, but can you handle two science advocates at the same time? Are you suggesting that "naturalism" or "materialism" and ID are mutually exculsive? What about other life forms having seeded earth which is compatible with ID theory from over a year ago? You're arguments are relatively similar. Otherwise, why wouldn't you apply ID theory to sciences other than biology?
"Are you suggesting that "naturalism" or "materialism" and ID are mutually exculsive?"
ID proponents expect the "truth" to consist of a mixture of naturally caused events and intelligently caused events i.e. they admit both possibilities, and are open to following the evidence wherever it leads. The idea of lifeforms seeding earth is perfectly compatible with ID in principle. ID is freqently applied in physics, cosmology and Neuroscience, but I prefer to focus on biology.
@IDtaksovr "The idea of lifeforms seeding earth is perfectly compatible with ID in principle. ID is freqently applied in physics, cosmology and Neuroscience, but I prefer to focus on biology."
If the above comments are honest, then what's the deal with a grand focus on biology? And, more importantly, why are you complaining about "materialism" and or "naturalism" since you have agreed that they are compatible with ID???
"why are you complaining about "materialism" and or "naturalism" since you have agreed that they are compatible with ID?"
ID proponents have never denied, and do not seek to deny that natural explanations can explain many things. They simply take the reasonable position of allowing that they may not explain everything. Darwinists, and naturalists in general, begin with the narrow untestable assumption that everything, including any level of complexity, must have a natural explanation
@IDtaksovr "ID proponents... do not seek to deny that natural explanations can explain many things. They simply take the reasonable position of allowing that they may not explain everything. Darwinists"
Part 3a
I would say that nearly all scientists are open to all possibilities, while concentrating on the USEFUL possibilities. Are you open to "Darwinism"? What evidence would have to exist in order for you to find "darwinism" to be acceptable to YOU?
We know that the Darwinian mechanism has throw up occasional beneficial random mutations, that have led to a selective advantage and ultimately to "evolution". The key question for an ID proponent is how far can these incredibly limited observed changes be extrapolated to explain the appearance of design? This ought to be THE principle question that concern darwinists, rather than them assuming RM and NS has the power to produce all of lifes complexity
"What evidence would have to exist in order for you to find "darwinism" to be acceptable to YOU?"
In the first instance, I would be perfectly happy for the darwinian position to be held tentatively. Ultimately, if I am to believe the widely held assumption that RM and NS is a sufficient account for lifes diversity and complexity, I would require detailed testable models showing how something like a flagellum can originate via a series of selected beneficial mutations.
That's merely my personal preference. I can point you to many books, and ID proponents dealing with intelligent design in other areas. What relevance is this anyway?
@IDtaksovr "ID proponents... do not seek to deny that natural explanations can explain many things. They simply take the reasonable position of allowing that they may not explain everything. Darwinists"
Part 2a
I don't think you'll find any scientists that will write off any "explanation". Science is FAR more than an explanation. It's a tool used to solve problems and make predictions. "Explanation" is a symptom of it's USEFULNESS. I would say that scientists...
"I don't think you'll find any scientists that will write off any "explanation". "
Are you denying that scientists reject ID on the basis that it allows for the possibility of intelligent causation? Please give a straight forward answer to a straight forward question.
It's EXTREMELY relevant when looking at the logic and reasoning of your argument. Well, it depends on what your argument is I suppose. I haven't seen it laid out anywhere other than you having a pro-ID stance on biological sciences. But it is very peculiar that you would concentrate all your efforts on biology like most ID proponents. Perhaps you could outline your central argument?
"But it is very peculiar that you would concentrate all your efforts on biology..."
I have no intention of wasting my time by indulging your conspiracy theories. My "intention" to force a worldwide theocracy on helpless materialists has zero relevance to the scientific arguments that I am advancing. Rooting around for motives will do nothing to answer the scientific case for ID and against dogmatic naturalism, so I would argue that you waste your own time also, by doing this.
@IDtaksovr "lifeforms seeding earth is perfectly compatible with ID in principle "
Part 4b
Excellent! We've agreed that ID and 'naturalism' are NOT mutually exclusive. Let's take my question to the next level: Is ID and 'Darwinian' evolution mutually exclusive?
And finally, you completely skipped this question:
What evidence would have to exist in order for "darwinism" to be acceptable to YOU?
"We've agreed that ID and 'naturalism' are NOT mutually exclusive"
Nobody ever said they were, except for the Darwinists. ID proponents have no interest in challenging the theories of river formation, or mountain erosion, with ID alternatives. Having said that, ID penetrates even these disciplines when we study the properties of matter, and of the universe we have been given. While laws may proceed in a uniform and predictable manner, the laws themselves appear intelligently designed
"Is ID and 'Darwinian' evolution mutually exclusive?"
It depends what you mean. ID proponents have never disputed that RM and NS can explain relatively trivial changes. Beyond those, probability considerations, and all attempts to demonstrate that RM and NS are up to the task of generating the levels of complexity we observe, count against it.
On the other hand, ID and "darwinism" are certainly mutually exclusive. You cannot design via an entirely blind and purposeless process
@IDtaksovr "Without a credible evolutionary mechanism"
Part 4d
I can agree with you that there are unknowns in evolutionary theory, and I am sure there are plenty of additional mechanisms to be discovered. BUT, this same logic can be applied to ANY scientific theory INCLUDING 'ID theory'. The fossilization model, plate tectonics and a host of other scientific theories don't have any 'physical equations' like ur arguing for gravity and time. It could easily be argued...
The "unknowns" are the greatest friend to darwinian theory, because it is only in areas of ignorance that darwinists are free to speculate endlessly, while avoiding contact with the facts. Darwinism, and indeed any other naturalistic account of the origin of life's diversity, are increasingly under seige from our ever greater appreciation of the unfathomable complexity of living systems being revealed by modern science.
@IDtaksovr "ID and "darwinism" are certainly mutually exclusive"
Part 3d
You obviously put a lot of effort into answering them. However, there is a question that has been left in the dust back in part b. I will rewrite them here for easy reference: What evidence would have to exist in order for "darwinism" to be acceptable to YOU?
"the Book of Nature"
What does the medieval, metaphorical book of nature have to do with finding 'truth' today as you described??
@IDtaksovr "ID and "darwinism" are certainly mutually exclusive"
Part 2d
Regardless, as an alternative, perhaps a designer/s created evolution with the 'appearance' of purposelessness. Much like the appearance/'illusion' of intelligent design as supported by most scientists. it seems unsound to base the mutual exclusiveness of ID and 'darwinism' (both purported scientific theories by you) in the philosophy of purpose.
"a designer/s created evolution with the 'appearance' of purposelessness."
That's the line taken by "theistic evolution". Darwinists argue over the value of theistic evolutionists. Some say they are "useful idiots", whereas others argue that they are just "idiots".
I prefer to go with the evidence, and nothing in the evidence suggests the capacity of the darwinian mechanism to produce life's diversity, and there's loads of evidence for ID, so why bother to accomodate darwinism?
"darwinist who completely, 100% denies..natural causes and intelligent causes"
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference R. Dawkins
"Quote one 'darwinist who completely, 100% denies considering both natural causes and intelligent causes"
And those irate Nobel Laureates:
"...derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is .... the result of
an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. ....In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent"
@IDtaksovr "It was OK to criticise "plate tectonics". "
Then do it! It would be logically consistent with 'ID theory'. Let's look for patterns of design and info in rock strata and stars. Are u even concerned SETI closed down?? 'Darwinian' anything isn't special to anyone but IDist. Modern biology doesn't even recognize any differentiation in evolution (Darwinian vs microevolution). All this 'Darwinian' fascination is perpetuated by ID'ists and, interestingly religious groups.
"Then do it! It would be logically consistent with 'ID theory'."
If geologists were to learn that the earths crust moved in accordance with sophisticated computer codes, or required sophisticated, irreducibly complex machinery, then this would certainly be a question of interest to ID proponents. Until that time, I an happy to consider the best naturalistic theory on offer, that accounts for the movements and features of the earths crust..
"Let's look for patterns of design and info in rock strata......"
Archaeologists do this, when the discriminate between naturally occurring rock fragments and arrow heads.
If you find any evidence of design in other areas, then let me know. Meanwhile, I am happy to concentrate on the area where the evidence of intelligent design in living systems is most striking. Living systems are packed with designed features and can be observe directly in great detail.
"Modern biology doesn't even recognize any differentiation in evolution (Darwinian vs microevolution)"
Modern biology is serious science. Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, doesn't recognise anything, because the theory lacks any solid substance or structure. This is made apparent by the retreat of darwinian evo into obscurantism, due to the fact that most of it's major predictions and concepts have crumbled under scrutiny. Those that remain are shrouded in a protective fog.
@IDtaksovr "Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, doesn't recognise anything"
part 12g
I don't even know where to begin on this other than to say that you're not answering many of my questions or asking me any and/or engaging me. You just make a bunch of assertions and demand nothing in return from me. This is an extremely common theme I've noticed with ID'ists. Why is that? I have my own theory, but perhaps you could shed some light on this social discourse phenomena.
Even your best buddy, Dawkins, doesn't rule out intelligent design. Who vehemently, 100% denies intelligent design? BUT since your arguments are one of purpose, complexity and other philosophical and subjective NON-SCIENTIFIC arguments and concepts, perhaps they have good reason to voice concern. Philosophy ISN'T science. But let's be fair here..NOW: What would an ‘ID theory’ lab exercise cover and or look like?
Dawkins, doesn't rule out intelligent design....your arguments are of purpose, complexity and other philosophical and subjective NON-SCIENTIFIC arguments and concepts, perhaps they have good reason to voice concern. Philosophy ISN'T science
LOL. So even Dawkins doesn't rule out ID, BUT WAIT, ID is composed of "philosophical and subjective NON-SCIENTIFIC arguments and concepts" and "Philosophy ISN'T science"
You have wasted my time with wordplay. Clearly Dawkins denies ID in SCIENCE.
@IDtaksovr "a Nobel prize was awarded for a breakthrough in evolutionary biology, and still haven't answered."
part 3e
This one's is partially my fault. I never was talking to you about Nobel prizes, but Nullifidian was. However, I think you accidentally replied to me because I was replying to a couple comments of Nullifidian.
Still, what difference does it make anyway since evolutionary biology isn't a category for the Nobel?? We SHOULDN'T EXPECT one for evol. bio!!
I asked you: "When was the last time someone received the Nobel Prize for break throughs in evolutionary biology?.....", before Nullifidian decided to blunder in with his contribution.
@IDtaksovr “I've wasted enough time on you over this point.” [point: ID's Near-sighted, illogical focus on RM and NS while completely ignoring the other sciences]
Part 2e
“I've wasted enough time on u over this point.”
Translation: I offer up a good point, so u don't want to debate it. Like a child putting their figures in their ears. Because of the validity of my argument, u simply label it a "waste of time" and hope I don't bring it up again. O.k, I'll let it go.
"Translation: I offer up a good point, so u don't want to debate it...."
I genuinely don't see the relevance in your probing. I have given you a number of straight forward answer why I focus my attention of the evidence for ID in biology, rather than physics, cosmology, neuroscience etc. I have explained that I DO have some religious motivation. Please tell me what secret you want me to admit to, and I'll do my best - but I don't see how it is going to advance your cause or mine.
"To suggest that the process as a whole is 'blind' or 'purposeless' simply isn't accurate."
I'm an ID proponent, and I am agreeing wholeheartedly with you. But those pesky 38 nobel laureates are DISSAGREEING wholeheartedly with you. Your claim that the evolutionary process contains foresight (i.e. not blind, but rather having an end goal in mind), and purpose ( i.e. made in some fashion, with a specific purpose in mind) is something I accept. This places you firmly in the ID camp.
You are either lazy, or sloppy, or you are deliberately indulging in time wasting obfuscation, when you try to argue that darwinian evolution is not "blind" and not "purposeless". By equivocating on the generally understood definitions of "blind" and "purpopseless", you only serve to mire your own position in a FOG OF CONFUSION, while at the same time placing yourself OUTSIDE the orthodox understanding of darwinian theory.
Do you mean the ID proponents at the Discovery institute? Do you mean that nearly all Discovery institute 'scientists' are philosophers and theologists? And the few that aren't, like Jonathan Wells spent years in prison? Do you really think ex-cons and philosophers make credible scientists? If so, what is your reasoning?
"nearly all Discovery institute 'scientists' are philosophers and theologists?.... the few that aren't like Jonathan Wells"
Wells does have a PhD and religious studies, and his time spent in prison was for refusing to fight in Vietnam as a matter of principle. Dirty, ill informed and irrelevant adhominem attacks don't get a response from now on.
Why o why do you consistently make religious references of faith, cults etc when describing 'Darwinists'? You seem to use 'faith' as a negative adjective to describe 'Darwinists' which implies that you think faith is a bad/silly ideology. Why attack faith this way? Do you think faith is silly or bad?
"You seem to use 'faith' as a negative adjective to describe 'Darwinists'...you think faith is a bad/silly ideology"
Some faiths and ideologies clearly are "bad/silly"- like the eugenic movement. I point out the fact that the darwinian belief in the "creative" power of RM and NS is rooted in a mixture of philosophical commitment and pure faith, rather than observations or experiments, because most darwinists, unlike traditional believers, are completely oblivious to their indoctrination
@IDtaksovr "This says NOTHING [defintion of evolution] whatsoever about the degree of change to be expected, or the degree that is possible... devoid of any scientific significance."
part 6f
Is this a serious reply? Should the definition of evolution include what animals will morphologically and physiologically 'change' into? Should germ theory's definition include detailed information about super bugs and their capabilities? Is this serious?
"Should the definition of evolution include what animals will morphologically and physiologically 'change' into?"
In the case of naturalistic evo theories that claim to account for TOOS via some evolutionary process due to some kind of blind and purposeless mechanism, at the very least, the mechanism ought to be defined, and a clear indication of it's scope of applicability i.e. does it operate within species, families, phyla etc, or does it claim to explain all of life's diversity
"Dirty, ill informed and irrelevant adhominem attacks"
You never answered my question in part 8f. You don't need to defend Wells. The question remains: Do you really think ex-cons and philosophers make credible scientists?
If ur going to insist that one listens to ID proponents, then it is reasonable to ask WHY. I ask if they make credible scientific resources. U have a knack for avoiding valid questions.
@IDtaksovr "when you try to argue that Darwinian evolution is not "blind" and not "purposeless""
part 9g
Evolution is a directed process. It can’t be blind if it’s directed. Directed by mechanisms, the environment, selective pressures, etc. The process as a WHOLE is directed. If you accept micro evol., then think of any micro evolution example of adaptation. How would anything adapt appropriately if nothing was directing it?
"GET it straight and be honest. Watch Expelled, Dawkins verbally admits ID plausibility."
Of course. What a hilarious gaffe. In fairness to Dawkins, though, he makes it clear that the alien intelligence must itself have evolved via a blind and purposeless process. If you have watched the entire video, rather than that clip where he makes a fool of himself, then you will know that.
@IDtaksovr "If geologists were to learn that the earths crust moved... with computer codes"
part 7g
U have defined the universal inferred signature of ID, which, apparently includes: computer codes + IC machines. Using this definition, then anything absent of these criteria are NOT designed, or, at the very least, unworthy of further investigation. So, as far as ur concerned, only life is Intelligently designed? It’s not even worth researching until a REAL scientist discovers it?
@IDtaksovr "Archaeologists...discriminate between naturally occurring rock fragments and arrow heads."
part 6g
Here's an actual reply! "Wasting my time" as a retort was getting old. Human made stuff is all good and fine, but are they finding signatures of design like u might propose of DNA(code/IC machines)..is anyone even looking? Shouldn't they ALSO be looking for signatures in rock itself? A preoccupation with life's design implies that only life was designed. Right?
@IDtaksovr Are u even concerned SETI closed down??
part 5g
"This is due to lack of aliens, not lack of a solid methodology for detecting design"
I think it's a lack of funding, not aliens. How committed to ID theory are u, or science for that matter, when you can so easily abandon the search for a pattern or signature of design from space?? Or, when ID’ists put NO effort at all looking for patterns and info in geology? U never answered the question about SETI!
If the aliens were forthcoming, I doubt funding would be a problem. You are putting the cart befor the horse. SETI is a worthwhile programme, which applies the intelligent design methodology of detecting design by looking for low probability and high specificity signals. SETI should continue, because even a failure to detect alien life, despite exhaustive searching, would be an important finding, just as detecting alien intelligence would
Quote one 'darwinist who completely, 100% denies considering both natural causes and intelligent causes.
"Quote one 'darwinist who accepts that intelligent causes played a part in the origin...of life. Can you? I can't."
U r answering a question with a question and changing the context. U REPEATEDLY claim that 'Darwinists' reject ID. Even ur buddy Dawkins considers it. If u can't answer, admit ur wrong and move on, but don't play dishonest games.
If you are telling the truth, rather than attempting to mislead people, provide me with a single quote where Dawkins claims to be willing to accept that the origin of life might require ID an an explanation, or the origin of species. He claims neither of these in the expelled movie - only that detecting alien design might be feasible and scientific. Well I'm waiting?????
@IDtaksovr "work miles beyond it's observed range"
part 3g
Yeah, I suppose I can agree. However, 'Darwinists' DON'T rule out intelligent causation as you routinely insist. 'Darwinists', along with geologists that work with plate tectonics and medicine that works with germ theory, have only the current BEST tool for the job (evolutionary theory). It will change as new discoveries are made. Until then, we are left with a hammer until someone comes up with a nail gun.
@IDtaksovr "work miles beyond it's observed range"
part 3g
Yeah, I suppose I can agree. However, 'Darwinists' DON'T rule out intelligent causation as you routinely insist. 'Darwinists', along with geologists that work with plate tectonics and medicine that works with germ theory, have only the current BEST tool for the job (evolutionary theory). It will change as new discoveries are made. Until then, we are left with a hammer until someone comes up with a nail gun.
@IDtaksovr "stunning...scientific discovery in history"
part 2g
For example, why would this be important at all to science? In science, facts are a dime a dozen and doesn’t really do anything. What impact would the simple fact that everything is designed by a designer/s have on science or people? It would be an interesting fact, but I don't know how it would be a 'game changer' unless you can propose utility.
"For example, why would this be important at all to science?"
It would undermine the dogmatic naturalistic approach, in which only naturalistic explanations may be offered. I would have thought this would be patently obvious to you. Imagine the effect on "geological" explanations, if some enlightened researcher broke with dogmatic naturalism to suggest that these pyramid things might have required the input of intelligent agents, rather than being purely products of natural laws.
@IDtaksovr " Is this question disinteresting or too narrowly focused for you?" "inferred from... observations"
Part 1g
That is a little on the narrow side for me. The good news... I have the answer. The answer to ur question is YES! U can infer whatever u want about whatever u've observed or whatever arbitrary statistical variables you wish to calculate. Ur inference may not be USEFUL, but does it matter 2 u? Can we move on to logic, reasons and utility? For example...
It seems that you are desperately trying to avoid certain questions, Fortunately, the majority of the general public would be extremely interested if science could reliably infer evidence of intelligent causation in the universe.
Even laymen realise that your "utility principle" is widely ignored by scientists in a great deal of cutting edge scientific research e.g. cosmology, string theory, multiverse theory, ....
@IDtaksovr "I am happy to consider the best naturalistic theory on offer"
Part 4h
Hence, Wegenerism theory is in serious trouble. It lacks any mathematical representation as seen in physics and it's predictive power useless in light of the 2004/11 tsunami. Worst yet, Wegenerism theory is taught in schools to religiously indoctrinate children. Given this, wouldn't you agree that Wegenerism is in serious trouble?
u accept Wegenerism, counter argue. OR, admit Wegenerism is a religion
@IDtaksovr "I am happy to consider the best naturalistic theory on offer"
Part 3h
Plate tectonic theory has only been shown to be destructive as evidenced by earthquakes, NOT creative or pattern producing. Can random forces create patterns as reliable as Old Faithful? The evidence that Old Faithful was designed is obvious and ignored by you and your naturalistic indoctrination. Wegenerists discourage inquiry and deny purposeful design. Hence Wegenerism theory...
I'm glad you brought this example up, as it allows me to put ID and naturalism in context. Natural laws fall WITHIN the broader ID paradigm. The laws, constants and initial conditions of the universe exhibit powerful evidence of intelligent design, yet these laws behave in a regular and repeatable fashion. "Natural" laws. While natural laws themselves appear intelligently designed, the products of these laws may or may not.
@IDtaksovr "irrelevant adhominem attacks don't get a response from now on."
part 1i
Even if my adhominem attacks were actually adhominem attacks (which they are NOT) then,.... Why am I defending this?? You complain that 'Darwinists' are close minded which is an ad hominem! Regardless, I don't complain about your ad ignorantiam arguments. I welcome them. If you don't like my 'ad hominem' attacks, then simply ask me why my 'attack' is relevant so we can actually debate.
"Even if my adhominem attacks were actually adhominem attacks (which they are NOT)"
An adhominem attack involves attacking a persons character, rather than his arguments. Even IF your crude attempt to portray Wells as a typical "ex-con" was accurate (you really shouldn't trust Wikipedia as an accurate and objective source) your comment still clearly commits the ad hominem fallacy. The clear implication - "ex-cons" cannot make credible scientists...... WRONG!
@IDtaksovr " I an happy to consider the best naturalistic theory on offer"
part 2h
ROLE REVERSAL..Plate tectonic theory is over-hyped and perpetuated by ‘Wegenerists’ (Alfred Wegener was the first to publish 'The Origin of Continents and Oceans' in 1915, much like Darwin was the first to publish "The Origin of Species'). It is pure speculation that tiny crust movements that do nothing but destroy could possibly account for complex and beautiful mountain ranges.
"Plate tectonic theory is over-hyped and perpetuated by ‘Wegenerists’"
If others wish to provide alternative naturalistic explanations, then I'm pleased for them, and they should be allowed to do so without persecution. Until clear evidence emerges of the involvement of intelligent agency in the motions of the earths crust, such as codes or machines, or specified series of numbers etc, then ID proponents would judge that natural laws will account adequately for the crusts motions
@IDtaksovr "Mountains may be complex (i.e. improbable) and beautiful"
part 5i
ROLE REVERSAL: has anyone ever witnessed the stunning complexity of mountain formation?
"Until clear evidence emerges of the involvement of intelligent agency in the motions of the earths crust"
What more evidence do you need other signatures of design such found in the patterns of Old Faithful? I suspect u don't even know how indoctrinated you r.
"has anyone ever witnessed the stunning complexity of mountain formation?"
We observe an increase in mountain hight year by year, due to measured plate motion. We judge that such collisions can be reasonably extrapolated to account for larger increases over millions of years, yet the mountains themselves, while highly complex (i.e. improbable) do not match any pre-specified pattern. If we saw a mountain grow to look like 5 American presidents, say, then ID would apply
Old faithful might appear designed, yet natural explanations need to be pursued FIRST. Geyser's and geyser origin can readily be explained by appealing to natural laws. If you want to make an argument for why ID applies to geysers, then present it here. If geysers lacked plausible naturalistic explanations and eruptions occurred in a specified way e.g. morse code signals, or sequentially arranged prime numbers, then ID would apply
"pure speculation that tiny crust movements that do nothing but destroy could possibly account for complex and beautiful mountain ranges"
Mountains may be complex (i.e. improbable) and beautiful, but they are not specified, in the sense that they do not match a pre-specified pattern. If you found two identical mountains, then you might reliably infer intelligent agency. The combination of huge improbability and the fact that both mountains are identical, suggests intelligent copying
@IDtaksovr "If geologists were to learn that the earths crust moved... with computer codes and IC machines"
part 6i
ROLE REVERSAL: Where does it say in ID theory that the ONLY signatures of design reside in computer codes and IC machines? Do the pyramids have IC machine signatures? Nonrandom patterns are MORE than enough to infer design. You seem to be nonsensically limiting a designer's signature implying only life can be designed. Don't even get me started...
"Where does it say in ID theory that the ONLY signatures of design reside in computer codes and IC machines?"
It doesn't. In order to reach a design inference, we first need to provisionally rule out chance and natural law as potential explanations. We then look for exceedingly high improbability and clear specificity. You are right. So what's the problem?
@IDtaksovr "Mountains may be complex (i.e. improbable) and beautiful, but they are not specified"
part 4i
ROLE REVERSAL: You have been horribly indoctrinated by Wegenerism and over-hyped speculation and inference of naturalism. Clones (mountain clones) doesn't discount intelligent mountain formation. Identical twins can occur via known natural causation or induced. Unlike the natural processes that produce identical twins, has anyone ever witnessed...
"Identical twins can occur via known natural causation "
ID proponents believe that identical twins (i.e. life) arises from a designed process relying on vast amounts of info. Identical mountains are never observed to arise naturally. If you can present me with evidence of two such mountains, then I will stand corrected. You "beg the question" in your "twins" example by assuming that twins occur naturally, and that identical twins have arisen via a naturalistic process
@IDtaksovr Rather, the complex beauty of mountain ranges/Yellowstone is designed.
part 3i
Your response a couple days ago to the above: "This is idiotic"
Your response today: “I'm glad you brought this example up"
I would surmise that u liked my 'Wegenerism' argument today simply to use it to further obscure the difference between naturalism and ID, all the while you're never addressing my questions. Let’s continue role reversal:
@IDtaksovr "What evidence would have to exist in order for ID to be acceptable???"
part 2i
Your question is fair, but you rarely answer my questions, especially those about evidence. I would be happy to answer ur question, but first, actually answer my question about evidence. At this point, it is clear that any question about specific evidence either gets ignored, or you parrot the question back with slight modifications. I asked first, so you first.
There is a clear logical order to presenting evidence and deciding what might be reasonably accepted as evidence. That order is very simple. FIRST, the acceptance criteria must be specified, THEN the "evidence" may be presented, and measured against this criteria. Don't you agree?
@IDtaksovr "FIRST, the acceptance criteria must be specified..."
I suppose you know this is complete horseshit, don't you? Do you think that Darwin went around to various creationists soliciting what evidence they would accept for evolution? No. He published and let posterity and further research take care of the rest.
If you have a *geniune* scientific theory capable of addressing the evidence even better than evolution, present it and let scientists judge. If not, continue on this same path.
@IDtaksovr " I an happy to consider the best naturalistic theory on offer, that accounts for the movements and features of the earths crust.."
part 1h
U can accept plate tectonic theory. Now that we've established that, let's do a little role reversal. btw, you never answered my previous question: What evidence would have to exist in order for plate tectonic theory to be acceptable? U've admitted that it's acceptable despite any evidence, so let's move on to role reversal..
"What evidence would have to exist in order for plate tectonic theory to be acceptable?"
The important point is that challenges to plate tectonic theory must not be ruled out a priori, simply because they fall ouside the orthodox scientific view. The first decision we make is whether fully naturalistic explanations might be causally adequte or whether intelligent causation may apply. What evidence would have to exist in order for ID to be acceptable???
@IDtaksovr "here is abundant evidence and reason to believe that the ‘Darwinian’ mechanism is hopelessly inadequate... I haven't even started on that yet."
part 5f
Then what's taking so long for all this OBJECTIVE EMPIRICAL evidence that you are suspiciously withholding despite repeated attempts to get you to divulge?
" you need at least a basic understanding of the philosophy of science."
Hiding behind philosophy when debating observable and measurable science isn't appropriate. to pt 6f
@IDtaksovr "Darwinism, and indeed any other naturalistic account of the origin of life's diversity"
part 4f
Evolutionary theory isn't an origin story or a theory that address abiogenesis. Although you haven't defined 'Darwinism', if you're talking about NS and RM, then stop confusing 'Darwinism' with abiogenesis. These have little if anything to do with one another. If you're so exuberant about others learning about ID, then perhaps you should learn about evolution.
@IDtaksovr Since it has become painfully obvious that you cannot substantiate ID by way of *any* sort of substantive evidence, I won't keep on insisting on it from you. I'll just note that yet again, you've shown yourself to be a religious ideologue (or is it IDologue?) who is attempting to denigrate a substantial and successful area of science in order to push his god concept, hence your nonsense about "naturalism" which would be out of place in a scientific discussion. You won't be the last.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr Easy: erosion. We build arches, but nobody proposes that Arches National Park is the result of design either.
Now, what your geologists would have a harder time explaining is the graffiti of the men who built the pyramids (such as can be found in the Great Pyramid of Khufu), the evidence of nearby quarrying, tools left on the site, etc. This is direct evidence for intelligent design. Do the proponents of ID in the biological realm have anything nearly as unambiguous?
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"your geologists would have a harder time explaining is the graffiti of the men who built the pyramids (such as can be found in the Great Pyramid of Khufu), "
We have a genetic code with all the properties of a formal language = Egyptian heiroglyphics.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr Actually, it doesn't have all the properties of a formal language. A formal language has arbitrary rules, but the rules by which DNA acts are not arbitrary, but are rooted in the stereochemistry underlying the system. Since all the elements of so-called "code" that so impress you can be accounted for as a result of this stereochemistry, it is not evidence for intelligent design.
Do you really want to start this issue up again when it's already established you know fuck-all about DNA?
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"but the rules by which DNA acts are not arbitrary, but are rooted in the stereochemistry underlying the system."
The sequencing of amino acids has nothing to do with chemistry or "stereochemistry", and everything to do with information stored in the DNA. This is basic knowledge.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr Actually, the sequence of amino acids (not sequencing) has everything to do with the chemistry of the system. The transfer RNA that binds to the messenger RNA at one end and binds to a single amino acid at the other does so because of its stereochemistry. Like I said, you really shouldn't be discussing this, because you really don't know even what an undergraduate knows about DNA transcription and translation. Mind you, complete ignorance does seem to be the only way to entertain ID.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
But let's take this comical idea seriously for a little moment. You say that the information for the amino acid sequence is stored "in the DNA". Okay... where? It's one thing to blithely assert that it's stored "in the DNA", but it's another thing when you think about what DNA actually is. It's a macromolecule, with a phosphate-deoxyribose backbone attached to a series of nitrogenous bases. So where in this series of molecules can one "store" information?
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"You say that the information for the amino acid sequence is stored "in the DNA". Okay... where?"
....In the non chemically determined sequence of nucleotides. Information is COPIED, from the DNA strand to be used in the production of precisely sequenced proteins. The sequencing of proteins has nothing to do with mere preferential chemical attraction. If you are ignorant of this basic fact, then I wouldn't bother to wave your biologist credentials about any more.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "The sequencing of proteins has nothing to do with mere preferential chemical attraction."
LOL!
Right, the protein sequencing fairies push the amino acids into place.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nullifidian
"the sequence of amino acids (not sequencing) has everything to do with the chemistry of the system. "
You have shown that you are ignorant of a question that you claim to have some expertise in. The SEQUENCING of the nucleotides in DNA is in no way determined by chemistry. You should know this. Why don't you know this?
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
If ID cannot address the few issues that I've brought up, then it is absolutely sunk as a biological theory. 1) You have to show that ID recognizes a real feature of the biological world, because "explain my abstract impression, scientists!" is not a reasonable demand. 2) A specific designer capable of creating all that which is attributed to it must be identified. 3) Specific evidence *for* ID must be adduced. And that's all before one will even get to difficult cases for ID like endosymbiosis.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr I've been thinking about this for a bit, and this will by my final post to you. On the principle that you always lead off with your strongest argument, it is clear that you have *NO* evidence for ID. If you did, you wouldn't be haranguing me about my supposed "philosophical presuppositions" and the alleged "indoctrination" of my education when I'm only asking you questions that any open-minded but skeptical observer, with a reasonable background in the biological sciences, would ask.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr So they independently decided to exclude the *same* cellular processes and objects, use the same angles, the same pans, even the same blue-green color scheme? At this level, there is no color, and scanning electron microscopy renders images in black and white. Obviously the "design inference" is a complete bust when even an IDist cannot recognize a case of plagiarism when he sees it. Do you have a substantive reason why evolution is implausible, or is it just the ooh and aah factor?
Nullifidian 4 months ago
@Nullifidian
Yes , all the most important "cellular processes and objects" have been included by both teams. Is that a surprise? The blue in the "expelled" animation, and the blue - green of the Harvard one, are obviously trying to convey the same watery environment. The most obvious and effective angles and pans could have been independently discovered by intelligent animators.....
Ironically, You are using the intelligent design methodology of "inference to the best explanation". Wonderful!
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr There is no watery environment in cells. In fact, cells do a great deal to keep from being overwhelmed by too much water, otherwise they will burst. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the processes depicted by either XVIVO's team or Expelleds are the "most important". If they were so all-fired important, one would think they wouldn't waste time on "Hollywood" shots like panning down through a mesh of actin filaments, which demonstrates nothing biochemical. But both videos do it.
Nullifidian 4 months ago
@Nullifidian
The cell is 70% water. Hence the blue green. The cells nucleus, nuclear pore complexes, DNA, ribosomes, Intracellular Vesicular Traffic, centrioles, mitacondria, cytockeleton, membrane etc, all seemed pretty important to me ...... but I could be wrong.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr No, 70% of the cell by volume is cytoplasm. Only *one* part of cytoplasm is water--the other (and more important) constituents are ions, organic molecules, protein filaments, etc. Furthermore, the 1.5 minute animation that goes with Expelled does not explore the biochemistry of the mitochondrion, ribosomes, etc. so your retort is an own-goal. It might have done when it was even more derivative (perhaps a direct copy) of Inner Life, though. I admit I didn't see the earliest versions.
Nullifidian 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr There is also no such thing as the "most obvious and effective angles and pans". There is no reason in this world why the angle of the vesicle being pulled by myosin V is "most effective" when shown off-center, and indeed other scientists who model the same process have come up with completely different angles (not to mention color schemes). And ID is "inference to NO explanation". Nothing in ID is capable of explaining any biological observation. It is utterly useless and boring.
Nullifidian 4 months ago
@Nullifidian
"There is no reason in this world why the angle of the vesicle being pulled by myosin V is "most effective" when shown off-center,"
LOL. You're a director now!
The important point to remember is that both videos provide a spectacular representation of the cells intelligent design. Both are a nightmare for the darwinian orthodoxy. Soon the general public will be in hysterics at the suggestion that random mutation and natural selection could act as the "blind watchmaker"
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr Precisely how does either *video* function as evidence of "intelligent design"? Because "Ooh aah, it's complicated"? That level of complexity means more things can go wrong, and tracking the diseases that are caused by such needlessly baroque complexity are a major part of biomed research. Take mitochondrial diseases. Most but not all of its genes are now in the nuclear genome and mtDNA has codons with different products, precluding cross-translation where it's desirable. Why is that?
Nullifidian 4 months ago
@Nullifidian
"And ID is "inference to NO explanation""
Feel free to postulate another cause, besides intelligence, that we reliably and repeatedly observe to produce sophisticated computer codes, and sophisticated information processing systems. It's ironic that Darwins own pioneering rules of reasoning concerning the causes of events that happened in the distant past, would later be used to argue the scientific case for intelligent design!
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr There are no sophisticated computer codes in the cell, because it is not a computer, and computer codes are generated all the time by evolutionary computation, e.g. Avida. But like all IDists you miss the point. You can look at the cell as it exists and say "it's designed", but you could make the claim with any other configuration of the cell. "Design" explains nothing about specific properties of life. It has no identified mechanism that makes one outcome more plausible than another.
Nullifidian 4 months ago
@Nullifidian
LOL. There are "no sophisticated computer codes in the cell" yet Avida is being required to and is apparently "evolving" sophisticated codes all the time for some reason! There are two points here. Let me take you to school on the first assertion. Search for:
"An Imaginary Tour of a Biological Computer
(Why Computer Professionals and Molecular Biologists Should Start Collaborating)"
by Seymour Cray (father of the supercomputer).
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr Okay, I read the article, which does not establish that there are any computer codes in the cell, sophisticated or otherwise. Evidently you cannot understand the use of metaphor in human communication.
Now as to the rest of the article, it seems like a talk delivered to non-experts by an enthusiastic non-expert. Some fairly basic things are wrong, and the only part I can see which would lend comfort to an IDist is his guff about a life force. But we've been through that. Most of...
Nullifidian 4 months ago
@Nullifid
LOL.Since the father of the supercomputer couldn't get through, take it from a witness who is rabidly hostile to ID: "The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal" (Richard Dawkins)
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@Nullifidian
And here's another quote from a "non-expert". Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that
"DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised." OUCH!
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr "OUCH!"
Did you hurt yourself by stumbling through the holes in your logic? So one argument to non-existent authority failed to convince, and your response is mo-betta quote mines. This is exactly why ID fails as science. It takes analogies for evidence and excludes considerations of the *actual* evidence for evolution in favor of quote mining. Evolution has not been toppled by the discovery of the "genetic code" except in the minds of people who don't contribute to science anyway.
Nullifidian 4 months ago
@Nullifidian
Was there an argument in there Nullifidian? Hopefully my efforts have not been a complete waste of time though.
Perhaps you will hesitate in future, before making the idiotic claim that the genetic code isn't really a computer code. I can understand why you are driven by philosophical prejudice to initially reject the discovery of an exquisite computer code inside the cell, but you merely reveal your ignorance of what has been common knowledge among biologists for several decades
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr Actually, I will not hesitate to claim that the so-called "genetic code" is not a computer code, because the cell is *still* not a computer. That you can find someone calling it "computerlike" is not evidence of anything other than the existence of a metaphor. The actual basis for the "genetic code" is stereochemical, not digital. Though DNA bases can be represented as letters, they are *not* letters but macromolecules. If you persist in ignoring that, you'll never understand DNA.
Nullifidian 4 months ago
@Nullifidian
"the "genetic code" is stereochemical, not digital."
Codes rely on the manipulation of symbols in meaningful ways, according to rules. Whether this is accomplised using electrical componets or biological molecules is utterly irrelevant. The four characters of DNA (base-4 digits) may be represented by the 2-bit binary numbers 00, 01, 10, 11, and codon triplets by three 2-bit binary numbers. Triplets of binary numbers are then assigned to their respective proteins.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "...may be represented by..."
There's your fundamental problem. You refuse to get past the fact that a representation is simply a metaphor, and tells us nothing about the underlying processes in the cell. It's rather like asserting that because the Mona Lisa can be rendered as a digital image and reduced to binary code, that this tells us something very important about how it was painted. In fact, it's plainly obvious that you don't understand how transcription and translation works.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"You refuse to get past the fact that a representation is simply a metaphor"
sadly, the "metaphor" is now a reality that is being applied to improve the crude electronic supercomputer, such as this massive parallel computing system, that was designed based on biological cells. See:
"Massively parallel computing on an organic molecular layer"
Humans are finally appying their considerable intelligence, in order to move away from the crude, and onto the sophisticated.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr Is it even worth pointing out to you that the article in question has nothing to do with how DNA works?
However, I'm very glad that you're in favor of moving from the crude to the sophisticated. Perhaps you'll end up eschewing your crude caricatures of evolution and the primitive notions straight from 18th c. science that ID represents, and finally come to a sophisticated understanding of evolutionary biology. At the very least you might root your arguments in facts, not quote mines.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
This is fun - like throwing buns at an elephant: Try "An autonomous molecular computer for logical control of gene expression"
Darwinian dogma, rooted in Victorian science and values, and "evidenced" by silly, speculative "just-so" stories abought how adaptions "may" have evolved and gargantuan extrapolations from microevolutionary observations, is now a laughing stock. In contrast, ID, rooted in information and information processing, is suited to the science of the 21st century
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr That also has nothing to do with gene regulation. So perhaps you might shut up until you've actually bothered to at least read the abstract, if not the papers of the articles you cite?
And ID cannot be the science of the 21st century, because IDists do not do science. It is purely an attempt to get round the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard and bring back "creation science" to the high school classroom. To that end, doing science is actually counterproductive, because they'd have to...
Nullifidian 3 months ago
...make firm statements about the mechanisms, about what would and wouldn't be evidence for ID, and they'd have to subject their ideas to serious scientific scrutiny. None of these things would actually improve their image, and it also wouldn't help them sneak creationism in through the back door of the science classroom.
As for your tired guff about evolution, it is completely uninformed by any knowledge about what evolution is or what the evidence for it is. So really, who gives a damn?
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidia
"what would and wouldn't be evidence for ID"
ID predictions include the prediction that irreducibly complex structures will be found that defy the probabilistic capacity of chance and necessity based mechanisms. As Darwin stated:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
The unscientific "not possibly" is replaced by "not plausibly"
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"what would and wouldn't be evidence for ID"
ID predicts the discovery of ever greater sophistication and purpose in the genome. The ideologically motivated darwinian "junk" DNA paradigm, having been recognized as "science stopping" and utterly useless to science, has been quietly replaced by an intelligent design approach, in which the DNA system is treated as a designed system, in need of REVERSE ENGINEERING.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr This is really just perfect. The ID propagandists have managed to convince their legions of clueless followers that a scientific model with *natural selection* as a major mechanism is completely incompetent to explain the allegedly functional aspects of certain DNA. This is the best evidence ever that IDists will believe *anything* their favorite shills tell them, as long as it harmonizes with their a priori convictions and puts those "evolutionists" in the wrong. As to the merits...
Nullifidian 3 months ago
...of the claim, there are none. "Junk DNA" has nothing to do with Darwinism--if that term is to mean anything at all. It was a challenge for people who believed that the majority of features at the molecular level were due to natural selection. And the fact remains that the majority of DNA is "junk", and there are sound arguments never touched by the IDiots as to why we should expect most of it to be junk. Ohno's genetic load argument is never discussed once in Wells' "The Myth of Junk DNA".
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"Junk DNA" has nothing to do with Darwinism", "the fact remains that the majority of DNA is "junk"", "there are sound arguments never touched by the IDiots as to why we should expect most of it to be junk"
Hilarious! Priceless! Could you repeat that?
Can you show me anyone stupid enough to make the claim that "the majority of DNA is "junk"", nowadays. Even darwinists have been quietly disowning that science-stopping darwinian prediction for years, in case you haven't noticed.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr You've just had someone tell you that the majority of DNA is junk. Do you need more? Tell you what: I'll present you with the names of others who accept that the majority of DNA is junk when you provide me with references demonstrating that junk DNA is a "Darwinian prediction" and "science-stopping". And not just your usual bullshit of citing article titles whose substance is thoroughly irrelevant to the issue at hand, but ones that actually demonstrate what you claim.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"I'll present you with the names of others who accept that the majority of DNA is junk when you provide me with references "
LOL. You don't have any!
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@Nullifid
"The ID propagandists have managed to convince their legions of clueless followers that a scientific model with *natural selection* as a major mechanism is completely incompetent."
The burden of proof is on those true believers who assert that the darwinian mechanism IS competent to do much. Where is the EVIDENCE that it can do more than trivial tinkering? People who reject unevidenced claims, imaginative speculations and wild extrapolations aren't stupid. Those who believe them are.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"IDists will believe *anything* their favorite shills tell them, as long as it harmonizes with their a priori convictions"
Darwinists will believe *anything*, provided it appears to support their theory of mutation and selection, and I mean **ANYTHING**. The cell is an unfathomably complex, fully automated, self replicating factory complex, yet darwinists swallow the line that this, and indeed any level of complexity is within the reach of their blundering mechanism. What faith!
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"IDists do not do science"
The question of what is, and what is not considered "science", at any given time in history, is settled by authority and convention , rather than by scientific experiment. The current orthodoxy, finding itself utterly incapable of answering the arguments from ID, have chosen to fall back on a gentlemens agreement.
The important question is: "is intelligent design TRUE?", rather than "does ID fit with some presently fashionable orthodox dogma?"
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr By the way, speaking of "wasting time", what do you call throwing out completely irrelevant references that even a perusal of the abstract would tell you has nothing to do with the issue of DNA transcription and translation? I call that obnoxious trolling. But it does nicely demonstrate how dishonest IDists are with their sources, another reason why ID is not science. If IDists pulled the same crap in published papers that they do online and in books, they'd never live it down.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "Victorian science and values...speculative "just-so" stories.. how adaptions "may""
U're still talking about this? U and I debated over a year ago and then the video we were debating/arguing off of was removed. I just stumbled upon you now. U're still spouting the same thing. U're obviously committed to ID. Has any new ID research yielded any results or addressed any problems? Why not apply "ID theory" to other sciences, or does ID theory only concern itself with biology?
blaisingm 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr If you did understand transcription and translation, you would have never written that "triplets of binary numbers are then assigned to their respective proteins". Codons are stereochemically associated with *amino acids*, not proteins, via the mediation of tRNA. In fact, this process of RNA mediation is remarkably inefficient and goes back to a time when RNA catalyzed its own replication as well as served as the genetic material. It would be much simpler to code directly from DNA.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"If you did understand transcription and translation, you would have never written"
If you understood transcription translation, you would know what I was talking about, without the need for me to explain every detail. The function of tRNA was clearly explained in the video I recommended. Please don't waste time with cheap shots.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr It wasn't a cheap shot. You're lecturing me on DNA and recommending propaganda videos from the Discovery Institute to wow an audience of non-experts when I've forgotten more about molecular biology than you'll ever know. It is worth pointing out which one of us actually understands how DNA works.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nullifidian
"wow an audience of non-experts when I've forgotten more about molecular biology than you'll ever know."
You clearly have had a thorough indoctrination by the cult of naturalism, and have come through it able to ignore the "design" elephant in the room, by repeating the Cricks mantra: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"In fact, this process of RNA mediation is remarkably inefficient and goes back to a time when RNA catalyzed its own replication as well as served as the genetic material."
LOL. Can I request your source for this laughable speculation?
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr Atkins JF, Gesteland RF, Cech TR. (2010) "RNA Worlds: From Life's Origins to Diversity in Gene Regulation" Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
LOL. You are using the speculative and widely criticised RNA world hypothesis, from a field that is currently in paradigm crisis, as some kind of "sure thing" from which to make to make bold, yet incredibly stupid pronouncements such as:
"RNA mediation is remarkably inefficient and goes back to a time when RNA catalyzed its own replication as well as"
THIS is the danger of confusing serious biological research, based on repeatable observations, with pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr Yawn. You're still trolling. There's nothing of substance in your comments on the RNA world, but any time that you're prepared to deal with the evidence that the RNA world explains and ID hasn't bothered to even try, then I'll listen.
This goes back to the other issue, the scientific status of ID. The answer to "Is ID true?" is "No." In fact, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, it's not even wrong--it's just completely vacuous and explains nothing worth knowing about biology.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"There's nothing of substance in your comments on the RNA world"
The RNA world hypothesis is so laughably improbable, that it's supporters have turned to the multiverse for help!
"The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life"
Your assertion that:
"RNA mediation is remarkably inefficient and goes back to a time when RNA catalyzed its own replication....", turns out to be utterly baseless and silly
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"....., the scientific status of ID."
ID proponents see your argument that "ID isn't science" as utterly irrelevant. If fact, that is exactly the kind of argument used against Galileo, when he broke with the orthodox Aristotelian paradigm.
The problems with all this objections are that:
1) "Science" is what the community decide it should be, and this can change over time.
2) You beg the question by assuming a fully naturalistic origin to life and the species a priori.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr I see ID proponents as utterly irrelevant. So who cares?
By the way, neither of your two "objections" actually address my reasons *why* I say ID isn't science. I do not need to presume a "fully naturalistic origin to life and the species a priori" to reject ID as science. All I need to do is observe the fact that ID is not a fruitful research program, and that IDists deliberately lie about science, misrepresent findings, quote mine, and never do a day's lab or field research.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian
"All I need to do is observe the fact that ID is not a fruitful research program,"
Before you blow any more smoke at the question of whether or not ID is "science", can you assure me that this is your principal objection? You do appear to concede that the definition of "scientyific" could change and that dogmatic naturalism rests entirely on opinion and consensus.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr Actually, I concede nothing of the sort; I regard it as nonsense that fails to account for why there is such a premium among scientists of every generation (at least since the 16th c.) for explanations that are adequate, parsimonious, capable of providing specific reasons why one state of affairs exists rather than any other, and yet capable of harmonizing a range of evidence under one explanatory umbrella.
And yes, the fact that ID is completely vacuous is my main objection to it.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "dogmatic naturalism"
I know you're in the middle of a heated debate, but can you handle two science advocates at the same time? Are you suggesting that "naturalism" or "materialism" and ID are mutually exculsive? What about other life forms having seeded earth which is compatible with ID theory from over a year ago? You're arguments are relatively similar. Otherwise, why wouldn't you apply ID theory to sciences other than biology?
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Are you suggesting that "naturalism" or "materialism" and ID are mutually exculsive?"
ID proponents expect the "truth" to consist of a mixture of naturally caused events and intelligently caused events i.e. they admit both possibilities, and are open to following the evidence wherever it leads. The idea of lifeforms seeding earth is perfectly compatible with ID in principle. ID is freqently applied in physics, cosmology and Neuroscience, but I prefer to focus on biology.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "The idea of lifeforms seeding earth is perfectly compatible with ID in principle. ID is freqently applied in physics, cosmology and Neuroscience, but I prefer to focus on biology."
If the above comments are honest, then what's the deal with a grand focus on biology? And, more importantly, why are you complaining about "materialism" and or "naturalism" since you have agreed that they are compatible with ID???
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaising
"why are you complaining about "materialism" and or "naturalism" since you have agreed that they are compatible with ID?"
ID proponents have never denied, and do not seek to deny that natural explanations can explain many things. They simply take the reasonable position of allowing that they may not explain everything. Darwinists, and naturalists in general, begin with the narrow untestable assumption that everything, including any level of complexity, must have a natural explanation
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "ID proponents... do not seek to deny that natural explanations can explain many things. They simply take the reasonable position of allowing that they may not explain everything. Darwinists"
Part 3a
I would say that nearly all scientists are open to all possibilities, while concentrating on the USEFUL possibilities. Are you open to "Darwinism"? What evidence would have to exist in order for you to find "darwinism" to be acceptable to YOU?
end a
blaisingm 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blaisingm
"Are you open to "Darwinism"?"
We know that the Darwinian mechanism has throw up occasional beneficial random mutations, that have led to a selective advantage and ultimately to "evolution". The key question for an ID proponent is how far can these incredibly limited observed changes be extrapolated to explain the appearance of design? This ought to be THE principle question that concern darwinists, rather than them assuming RM and NS has the power to produce all of lifes complexity
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blaisingm
"What evidence would have to exist in order for you to find "darwinism" to be acceptable to YOU?"
In the first instance, I would be perfectly happy for the darwinian position to be held tentatively. Ultimately, if I am to believe the widely held assumption that RM and NS is a sufficient account for lifes diversity and complexity, I would require detailed testable models showing how something like a flagellum can originate via a series of selected beneficial mutations.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"what's the deal with a grand focus on biology?"
That's merely my personal preference. I can point you to many books, and ID proponents dealing with intelligent design in other areas. What relevance is this anyway?
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "ID proponents... do not seek to deny that natural explanations can explain many things. They simply take the reasonable position of allowing that they may not explain everything. Darwinists"
Part 2a
I don't think you'll find any scientists that will write off any "explanation". Science is FAR more than an explanation. It's a tool used to solve problems and make predictions. "Explanation" is a symptom of it's USEFULNESS. I would say that scientists...
Continue to part 3a
blaisingm 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blaisingm
"I don't think you'll find any scientists that will write off any "explanation". "
Are you denying that scientists reject ID on the basis that it allows for the possibility of intelligent causation? Please give a straight forward answer to a straight forward question.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "What relevance is this anyway?"
part 1a
It's EXTREMELY relevant when looking at the logic and reasoning of your argument. Well, it depends on what your argument is I suppose. I haven't seen it laid out anywhere other than you having a pro-ID stance on biological sciences. But it is very peculiar that you would concentrate all your efforts on biology like most ID proponents. Perhaps you could outline your central argument?
Continue to part 2a
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"But it is very peculiar that you would concentrate all your efforts on biology..."
I have no intention of wasting my time by indulging your conspiracy theories. My "intention" to force a worldwide theocracy on helpless materialists has zero relevance to the scientific arguments that I am advancing. Rooting around for motives will do nothing to answer the scientific case for ID and against dogmatic naturalism, so I would argue that you waste your own time also, by doing this.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IDtaksovr "lifeforms seeding earth is perfectly compatible with ID in principle "
Part 4b
Excellent! We've agreed that ID and 'naturalism' are NOT mutually exclusive. Let's take my question to the next level: Is ID and 'Darwinian' evolution mutually exclusive?
And finally, you completely skipped this question:
What evidence would have to exist in order for "darwinism" to be acceptable to YOU?
end b
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaising
"We've agreed that ID and 'naturalism' are NOT mutually exclusive"
Nobody ever said they were, except for the Darwinists. ID proponents have no interest in challenging the theories of river formation, or mountain erosion, with ID alternatives. Having said that, ID penetrates even these disciplines when we study the properties of matter, and of the universe we have been given. While laws may proceed in a uniform and predictable manner, the laws themselves appear intelligently designed
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Is ID and 'Darwinian' evolution mutually exclusive?"
It depends what you mean. ID proponents have never disputed that RM and NS can explain relatively trivial changes. Beyond those, probability considerations, and all attempts to demonstrate that RM and NS are up to the task of generating the levels of complexity we observe, count against it.
On the other hand, ID and "darwinism" are certainly mutually exclusive. You cannot design via an entirely blind and purposeless process
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "Without a credible evolutionary mechanism"
Part 4d
I can agree with you that there are unknowns in evolutionary theory, and I am sure there are plenty of additional mechanisms to be discovered. BUT, this same logic can be applied to ANY scientific theory INCLUDING 'ID theory'. The fossilization model, plate tectonics and a host of other scientific theories don't have any 'physical equations' like ur arguing for gravity and time. It could easily be argued...
Continue to part 5d
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"...there are unknowns in evolutionary theory,"
The "unknowns" are the greatest friend to darwinian theory, because it is only in areas of ignorance that darwinists are free to speculate endlessly, while avoiding contact with the facts. Darwinism, and indeed any other naturalistic account of the origin of life's diversity, are increasingly under seige from our ever greater appreciation of the unfathomable complexity of living systems being revealed by modern science.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IDtaksovr "Detailed testable models that demonstrate the darwinian evolution"
part 8e
O.k., this is a fair demand of evolution. We'll return to this. Now, what evidence do you need of plate tectonics before it is acceptable to you?
end e
blaisingm 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "ID and "darwinism" are certainly mutually exclusive"
Part 3d
You obviously put a lot of effort into answering them. However, there is a question that has been left in the dust back in part b. I will rewrite them here for easy reference: What evidence would have to exist in order for "darwinism" to be acceptable to YOU?
"the Book of Nature"
What does the medieval, metaphorical book of nature have to do with finding 'truth' today as you described??
Continue to part 4d
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"What evidence would have to exist in order for "darwinism" to be acceptable to YOU?"
Detailed testable models that demonstrate the darwinian evolution of irreducibly complex cellular machines and processes.
Detailed testable models showing the darwinian evolution of complkex adaptions, such as wings and eyes.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
"What does the medieval, metaphorical book of nature"
I'll leave you to do a little reading around the subject of natural theology.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "ID and "darwinism" are certainly mutually exclusive"
Part 2d
Regardless, as an alternative, perhaps a designer/s created evolution with the 'appearance' of purposelessness. Much like the appearance/'illusion' of intelligent design as supported by most scientists. it seems unsound to base the mutual exclusiveness of ID and 'darwinism' (both purported scientific theories by you) in the philosophy of purpose.
Oh, thank you for answering my questions...
Continue to part 3d
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"a designer/s created evolution with the 'appearance' of purposelessness."
That's the line taken by "theistic evolution". Darwinists argue over the value of theistic evolutionists. Some say they are "useful idiots", whereas others argue that they are just "idiots".
I prefer to go with the evidence, and nothing in the evidence suggests the capacity of the darwinian mechanism to produce life's diversity, and there's loads of evidence for ID, so why bother to accomodate darwinism?
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "Unlike darwinists who dogmatically deny any purposeful design a priori"
part 6e
Yeah, quote one 'darwinist' who completely, 100% denies purposeful design. Can you name one? I can't.
"ID proponents consider both natural causes and intelligent causes to have played a part"
Quote one 'darwinist who completely, 100% denies considering both natural causes and intelligent causes. Can you? I can't.
continue to part 7e
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisi
"darwinist who completely, 100% denies..natural causes and intelligent causes"
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference R. Dawkins
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@blaisin
"Quote one 'darwinist who completely, 100% denies considering both natural causes and intelligent causes"
And those irate Nobel Laureates:
"...derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is .... the result of
an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. ....In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent"
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Quote one 'darwinist who completely, 100% denies considering both natural causes and intelligent causes."
Quote one 'darwinist who accepts that intelligent causes played a part in the origin / diversification of life. Can you? I can't.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "It was OK to criticise "plate tectonics". "
Then do it! It would be logically consistent with 'ID theory'. Let's look for patterns of design and info in rock strata and stars. Are u even concerned SETI closed down?? 'Darwinian' anything isn't special to anyone but IDist. Modern biology doesn't even recognize any differentiation in evolution (Darwinian vs microevolution). All this 'Darwinian' fascination is perpetuated by ID'ists and, interestingly religious groups.
to pt 6e
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Then do it! It would be logically consistent with 'ID theory'."
If geologists were to learn that the earths crust moved in accordance with sophisticated computer codes, or required sophisticated, irreducibly complex machinery, then this would certainly be a question of interest to ID proponents. Until that time, I an happy to consider the best naturalistic theory on offer, that accounts for the movements and features of the earths crust..
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Let's look for patterns of design and info in rock strata......"
Archaeologists do this, when the discriminate between naturally occurring rock fragments and arrow heads.
If you find any evidence of design in other areas, then let me know. Meanwhile, I am happy to concentrate on the area where the evidence of intelligent design in living systems is most striking. Living systems are packed with designed features and can be observe directly in great detail.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Are u even concerned SETI closed down??"
"This is due to lack of aliens, not lack of a solid methodology for detecting design"
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Modern biology doesn't even recognize any differentiation in evolution (Darwinian vs microevolution)"
Modern biology is serious science. Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, doesn't recognise anything, because the theory lacks any solid substance or structure. This is made apparent by the retreat of darwinian evo into obscurantism, due to the fact that most of it's major predictions and concepts have crumbled under scrutiny. Those that remain are shrouded in a protective fog.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, doesn't recognise anything"
part 12g
I don't even know where to begin on this other than to say that you're not answering many of my questions or asking me any and/or engaging me. You just make a bunch of assertions and demand nothing in return from me. This is an extremely common theme I've noticed with ID'ists. Why is that? I have my own theory, but perhaps you could shed some light on this social discourse phenomena.
end g
blaisingm 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr " 'free thought' and inquiry."
Part 4e
Even your best buddy, Dawkins, doesn't rule out intelligent design. Who vehemently, 100% denies intelligent design? BUT since your arguments are one of purpose, complexity and other philosophical and subjective NON-SCIENTIFIC arguments and concepts, perhaps they have good reason to voice concern. Philosophy ISN'T science. But let's be fair here..NOW: What would an ‘ID theory’ lab exercise cover and or look like?
Continue to part 5e
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisin
Dawkins, doesn't rule out intelligent design....your arguments are of purpose, complexity and other philosophical and subjective NON-SCIENTIFIC arguments and concepts, perhaps they have good reason to voice concern. Philosophy ISN'T science
LOL. So even Dawkins doesn't rule out ID, BUT WAIT, ID is composed of "philosophical and subjective NON-SCIENTIFIC arguments and concepts" and "Philosophy ISN'T science"
You have wasted my time with wordplay. Clearly Dawkins denies ID in SCIENCE.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "a Nobel prize was awarded for a breakthrough in evolutionary biology, and still haven't answered."
part 3e
This one's is partially my fault. I never was talking to you about Nobel prizes, but Nullifidian was. However, I think you accidentally replied to me because I was replying to a couple comments of Nullifidian.
Still, what difference does it make anyway since evolutionary biology isn't a category for the Nobel?? We SHOULDN'T EXPECT one for evol. bio!!
Cont to part 4e
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"I never was talking to you about Nobel prizes"
I asked you: "When was the last time someone received the Nobel Prize for break throughs in evolutionary biology?.....", before Nullifidian decided to blunder in with his contribution.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr “I've wasted enough time on you over this point.” [point: ID's Near-sighted, illogical focus on RM and NS while completely ignoring the other sciences]
Part 2e
“I've wasted enough time on u over this point.”
Translation: I offer up a good point, so u don't want to debate it. Like a child putting their figures in their ears. Because of the validity of my argument, u simply label it a "waste of time" and hope I don't bring it up again. O.k, I'll let it go.
Continue to part 3e
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Translation: I offer up a good point, so u don't want to debate it...."
I genuinely don't see the relevance in your probing. I have given you a number of straight forward answer why I focus my attention of the evidence for ID in biology, rather than physics, cosmology, neuroscience etc. I have explained that I DO have some religious motivation. Please tell me what secret you want me to admit to, and I'll do my best - but I don't see how it is going to advance your cause or mine.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr
Part 1e
What does the medieval, metaphorical book of nature have to do with finding 'truth' today as you described?
“I'll leave you to do a little reading around the subject of natural theology.”
To suggest that the process as a whole is 'blind' or 'purposeless' simply isn't accurate.
“It IS. It sooOOOOOOO IS.”
These are just lazy replies. But let’s move on to your ‘coup de grace’ counter argument….
Continue to part 2e
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"To suggest that the process as a whole is 'blind' or 'purposeless' simply isn't accurate."
I'm an ID proponent, and I am agreeing wholeheartedly with you. But those pesky 38 nobel laureates are DISSAGREEING wholeheartedly with you. Your claim that the evolutionary process contains foresight (i.e. not blind, but rather having an end goal in mind), and purpose ( i.e. made in some fashion, with a specific purpose in mind) is something I accept. This places you firmly in the ID camp.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"These are just lazy replies"
You are either lazy, or sloppy, or you are deliberately indulging in time wasting obfuscation, when you try to argue that darwinian evolution is not "blind" and not "purposeless". By equivocating on the generally understood definitions of "blind" and "purpopseless", you only serve to mire your own position in a FOG OF CONFUSION, while at the same time placing yourself OUTSIDE the orthodox understanding of darwinian theory.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "Learn about ID from ID proponents"
Part 8f
Do you mean the ID proponents at the Discovery institute? Do you mean that nearly all Discovery institute 'scientists' are philosophers and theologists? And the few that aren't, like Jonathan Wells spent years in prison? Do you really think ex-cons and philosophers make credible scientists? If so, what is your reasoning?
end f
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"nearly all Discovery institute 'scientists' are philosophers and theologists?.... the few that aren't like Jonathan Wells"
Wells does have a PhD and religious studies, and his time spent in prison was for refusing to fight in Vietnam as a matter of principle. Dirty, ill informed and irrelevant adhominem attacks don't get a response from now on.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr " true believer, like yourself,"
part 7f
Why o why do you consistently make religious references of faith, cults etc when describing 'Darwinists'? You seem to use 'faith' as a negative adjective to describe 'Darwinists' which implies that you think faith is a bad/silly ideology. Why attack faith this way? Do you think faith is silly or bad?
continue to part 8f
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blais
"You seem to use 'faith' as a negative adjective to describe 'Darwinists'...you think faith is a bad/silly ideology"
Some faiths and ideologies clearly are "bad/silly"- like the eugenic movement. I point out the fact that the darwinian belief in the "creative" power of RM and NS is rooted in a mixture of philosophical commitment and pure faith, rather than observations or experiments, because most darwinists, unlike traditional believers, are completely oblivious to their indoctrination
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "This says NOTHING [defintion of evolution] whatsoever about the degree of change to be expected, or the degree that is possible... devoid of any scientific significance."
part 6f
Is this a serious reply? Should the definition of evolution include what animals will morphologically and physiologically 'change' into? Should germ theory's definition include detailed information about super bugs and their capabilities? Is this serious?
continue part 7f
blaisingm 3 months ago
@bla
"Should the definition of evolution include what animals will morphologically and physiologically 'change' into?"
In the case of naturalistic evo theories that claim to account for TOOS via some evolutionary process due to some kind of blind and purposeless mechanism, at the very least, the mechanism ought to be defined, and a clear indication of it's scope of applicability i.e. does it operate within species, families, phyla etc, or does it claim to explain all of life's diversity
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "Learn about ID from ID proponents"
Part 10g
"Dirty, ill informed and irrelevant adhominem attacks"
You never answered my question in part 8f. You don't need to defend Wells. The question remains: Do you really think ex-cons and philosophers make credible scientists?
If ur going to insist that one listens to ID proponents, then it is reasonable to ask WHY. I ask if they make credible scientific resources. U have a knack for avoiding valid questions.
to part 11g
blaisingm 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "when you try to argue that Darwinian evolution is not "blind" and not "purposeless""
part 9g
Evolution is a directed process. It can’t be blind if it’s directed. Directed by mechanisms, the environment, selective pressures, etc. The process as a WHOLE is directed. If you accept micro evol., then think of any micro evolution example of adaptation. How would anything adapt appropriately if nothing was directing it?
continue to part 10g
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Evolution is a directed process. It can’t be blind if it’s directed."
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of
an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection....." Signed: 38 ardently darwinian Nobel Laureates.
"Unguided, unplanned" process equals "undirected, blind" process. Your argument is with those Nobels, before it is with me.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "ID is composed of "philosophical and subjective NON-SCIENTIFIC arguments and concepts""
I DIDNT SAY THAT. I said YOUR arguments are composed of: philosophical and subjective NON-SCIENTIFIC arguments. I said NOTHING of 'ID theory'.
GET it straight and be honest. Watch Expelled, Dawkins verbally admits ID plausibility.
Regardless, what’s ur point? That Dawkins can’t entertain ID because he doesn’t think it’s science? I'm saying that ur arguments don't strengthen ID.
to pt 9g
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"GET it straight and be honest. Watch Expelled, Dawkins verbally admits ID plausibility."
Of course. What a hilarious gaffe. In fairness to Dawkins, though, he makes it clear that the alien intelligence must itself have evolved via a blind and purposeless process. If you have watched the entire video, rather than that clip where he makes a fool of himself, then you will know that.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"I said YOUR arguments are composed of: philosophical and subjective NON-SCIENTIFIC arguments."
So are yours. Yah Boo!
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "If geologists were to learn that the earths crust moved... with computer codes"
part 7g
U have defined the universal inferred signature of ID, which, apparently includes: computer codes + IC machines. Using this definition, then anything absent of these criteria are NOT designed, or, at the very least, unworthy of further investigation. So, as far as ur concerned, only life is Intelligently designed? It’s not even worth researching until a REAL scientist discovers it?
to 8g
blaisingm 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "Archaeologists...discriminate between naturally occurring rock fragments and arrow heads."
part 6g
Here's an actual reply! "Wasting my time" as a retort was getting old. Human made stuff is all good and fine, but are they finding signatures of design like u might propose of DNA(code/IC machines)..is anyone even looking? Shouldn't they ALSO be looking for signatures in rock itself? A preoccupation with life's design implies that only life was designed. Right?
to part 7g
blaisingm 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr Are u even concerned SETI closed down??
part 5g
"This is due to lack of aliens, not lack of a solid methodology for detecting design"
I think it's a lack of funding, not aliens. How committed to ID theory are u, or science for that matter, when you can so easily abandon the search for a pattern or signature of design from space?? Or, when ID’ists put NO effort at all looking for patterns and info in geology? U never answered the question about SETI!
to part 6g
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"I think it's a lack of funding, not aliens."
If the aliens were forthcoming, I doubt funding would be a problem. You are putting the cart befor the horse. SETI is a worthwhile programme, which applies the intelligent design methodology of detecting design by looking for low probability and high specificity signals. SETI should continue, because even a failure to detect alien life, despite exhaustive searching, would be an important finding, just as detecting alien intelligence would
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr
Part 4g
Quote one 'darwinist who completely, 100% denies considering both natural causes and intelligent causes.
"Quote one 'darwinist who accepts that intelligent causes played a part in the origin...of life. Can you? I can't."
U r answering a question with a question and changing the context. U REPEATEDLY claim that 'Darwinists' reject ID. Even ur buddy Dawkins considers it. If u can't answer, admit ur wrong and move on, but don't play dishonest games.
to part 5g
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Even ur buddy Dawkins considers it."
If you are telling the truth, rather than attempting to mislead people, provide me with a single quote where Dawkins claims to be willing to accept that the origin of life might require ID an an explanation, or the origin of species. He claims neither of these in the expelled movie - only that detecting alien design might be feasible and scientific. Well I'm waiting?????
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "work miles beyond it's observed range"
part 3g
Yeah, I suppose I can agree. However, 'Darwinists' DON'T rule out intelligent causation as you routinely insist. 'Darwinists', along with geologists that work with plate tectonics and medicine that works with germ theory, have only the current BEST tool for the job (evolutionary theory). It will change as new discoveries are made. Until then, we are left with a hammer until someone comes up with a nail gun.
to part 4g
blaisingm 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IDtaksovr "work miles beyond it's observed range"
part 3g
Yeah, I suppose I can agree. However, 'Darwinists' DON'T rule out intelligent causation as you routinely insist. 'Darwinists', along with geologists that work with plate tectonics and medicine that works with germ theory, have only the current BEST tool for the job (evolutionary theory). It will change as new discoveries are made. Until then, we are left with a hammer until someone comes up with a nail gun.
to part 4g
blaisingm 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "stunning...scientific discovery in history"
part 2g
For example, why would this be important at all to science? In science, facts are a dime a dozen and doesn’t really do anything. What impact would the simple fact that everything is designed by a designer/s have on science or people? It would be an interesting fact, but I don't know how it would be a 'game changer' unless you can propose utility.
continue to part 3g
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"For example, why would this be important at all to science?"
It would undermine the dogmatic naturalistic approach, in which only naturalistic explanations may be offered. I would have thought this would be patently obvious to you. Imagine the effect on "geological" explanations, if some enlightened researcher broke with dogmatic naturalism to suggest that these pyramid things might have required the input of intelligent agents, rather than being purely products of natural laws.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IDtaksovr " Is this question disinteresting or too narrowly focused for you?" "inferred from... observations"
Part 1g
That is a little on the narrow side for me. The good news... I have the answer. The answer to ur question is YES! U can infer whatever u want about whatever u've observed or whatever arbitrary statistical variables you wish to calculate. Ur inference may not be USEFUL, but does it matter 2 u? Can we move on to logic, reasons and utility? For example...
to part 2g
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"That is a little on the narrow side for me."
It seems that you are desperately trying to avoid certain questions, Fortunately, the majority of the general public would be extremely interested if science could reliably infer evidence of intelligent causation in the universe.
Even laymen realise that your "utility principle" is widely ignored by scientists in a great deal of cutting edge scientific research e.g. cosmology, string theory, multiverse theory, ....
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "I am happy to consider the best naturalistic theory on offer"
Part 4h
Hence, Wegenerism theory is in serious trouble. It lacks any mathematical representation as seen in physics and it's predictive power useless in light of the 2004/11 tsunami. Worst yet, Wegenerism theory is taught in schools to religiously indoctrinate children. Given this, wouldn't you agree that Wegenerism is in serious trouble?
u accept Wegenerism, counter argue. OR, admit Wegenerism is a religion
end h
blaisingm 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "I am happy to consider the best naturalistic theory on offer"
Part 3h
Plate tectonic theory has only been shown to be destructive as evidenced by earthquakes, NOT creative or pattern producing. Can random forces create patterns as reliable as Old Faithful? The evidence that Old Faithful was designed is obvious and ignored by you and your naturalistic indoctrination. Wegenerists discourage inquiry and deny purposeful design. Hence Wegenerism theory...
continue to part 4h
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Plate tectonic theory "
I'm glad you brought this example up, as it allows me to put ID and naturalism in context. Natural laws fall WITHIN the broader ID paradigm. The laws, constants and initial conditions of the universe exhibit powerful evidence of intelligent design, yet these laws behave in a regular and repeatable fashion. "Natural" laws. While natural laws themselves appear intelligently designed, the products of these laws may or may not.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "irrelevant adhominem attacks don't get a response from now on."
part 1i
Even if my adhominem attacks were actually adhominem attacks (which they are NOT) then,.... Why am I defending this?? You complain that 'Darwinists' are close minded which is an ad hominem! Regardless, I don't complain about your ad ignorantiam arguments. I welcome them. If you don't like my 'ad hominem' attacks, then simply ask me why my 'attack' is relevant so we can actually debate.
continue to pt 2i
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Even if my adhominem attacks were actually adhominem attacks (which they are NOT)"
An adhominem attack involves attacking a persons character, rather than his arguments. Even IF your crude attempt to portray Wells as a typical "ex-con" was accurate (you really shouldn't trust Wikipedia as an accurate and objective source) your comment still clearly commits the ad hominem fallacy. The clear implication - "ex-cons" cannot make credible scientists...... WRONG!
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr " I an happy to consider the best naturalistic theory on offer"
part 2h
ROLE REVERSAL..Plate tectonic theory is over-hyped and perpetuated by ‘Wegenerists’ (Alfred Wegener was the first to publish 'The Origin of Continents and Oceans' in 1915, much like Darwin was the first to publish "The Origin of Species'). It is pure speculation that tiny crust movements that do nothing but destroy could possibly account for complex and beautiful mountain ranges.
to pt 3h
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Plate tectonic theory is over-hyped and perpetuated by ‘Wegenerists’"
If others wish to provide alternative naturalistic explanations, then I'm pleased for them, and they should be allowed to do so without persecution. Until clear evidence emerges of the involvement of intelligent agency in the motions of the earths crust, such as codes or machines, or specified series of numbers etc, then ID proponents would judge that natural laws will account adequately for the crusts motions
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "Mountains may be complex (i.e. improbable) and beautiful"
part 5i
ROLE REVERSAL: has anyone ever witnessed the stunning complexity of mountain formation?
"Until clear evidence emerges of the involvement of intelligent agency in the motions of the earths crust"
What more evidence do you need other signatures of design such found in the patterns of Old Faithful? I suspect u don't even know how indoctrinated you r.
Continue to part 6i
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisin
"has anyone ever witnessed the stunning complexity of mountain formation?"
We observe an increase in mountain hight year by year, due to measured plate motion. We judge that such collisions can be reasonably extrapolated to account for larger increases over millions of years, yet the mountains themselves, while highly complex (i.e. improbable) do not match any pre-specified pattern. If we saw a mountain grow to look like 5 American presidents, say, then ID would apply
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"...... the patterns of Old Faithful? "
Old faithful might appear designed, yet natural explanations need to be pursued FIRST. Geyser's and geyser origin can readily be explained by appealing to natural laws. If you want to make an argument for why ID applies to geysers, then present it here. If geysers lacked plausible naturalistic explanations and eruptions occurred in a specified way e.g. morse code signals, or sequentially arranged prime numbers, then ID would apply
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@blais
"pure speculation that tiny crust movements that do nothing but destroy could possibly account for complex and beautiful mountain ranges"
Mountains may be complex (i.e. improbable) and beautiful, but they are not specified, in the sense that they do not match a pre-specified pattern. If you found two identical mountains, then you might reliably infer intelligent agency. The combination of huge improbability and the fact that both mountains are identical, suggests intelligent copying
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "If geologists were to learn that the earths crust moved... with computer codes and IC machines"
part 6i
ROLE REVERSAL: Where does it say in ID theory that the ONLY signatures of design reside in computer codes and IC machines? Do the pyramids have IC machine signatures? Nonrandom patterns are MORE than enough to infer design. You seem to be nonsensically limiting a designer's signature implying only life can be designed. Don't even get me started...
continue to part 7i
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Where does it say in ID theory that the ONLY signatures of design reside in computer codes and IC machines?"
It doesn't. In order to reach a design inference, we first need to provisionally rule out chance and natural law as potential explanations. We then look for exceedingly high improbability and clear specificity. You are right. So what's the problem?
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "Mountains may be complex (i.e. improbable) and beautiful, but they are not specified"
part 4i
ROLE REVERSAL: You have been horribly indoctrinated by Wegenerism and over-hyped speculation and inference of naturalism. Clones (mountain clones) doesn't discount intelligent mountain formation. Identical twins can occur via known natural causation or induced. Unlike the natural processes that produce identical twins, has anyone ever witnessed...
Continue to part 5i
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Identical twins can occur via known natural causation "
ID proponents believe that identical twins (i.e. life) arises from a designed process relying on vast amounts of info. Identical mountains are never observed to arise naturally. If you can present me with evidence of two such mountains, then I will stand corrected. You "beg the question" in your "twins" example by assuming that twins occur naturally, and that identical twins have arisen via a naturalistic process
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr Rather, the complex beauty of mountain ranges/Yellowstone is designed.
part 3i
Your response a couple days ago to the above: "This is idiotic"
Your response today: “I'm glad you brought this example up"
I would surmise that u liked my 'Wegenerism' argument today simply to use it to further obscure the difference between naturalism and ID, all the while you're never addressing my questions. Let’s continue role reversal:
continue to part 4i
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"Your response today: “I'm glad you brought this example up""
Sometimes a comment, while foolish, can present a "teachable moment". Perhaps I was feeling more generous the second time around.
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "What evidence would have to exist in order for ID to be acceptable???"
part 2i
Your question is fair, but you rarely answer my questions, especially those about evidence. I would be happy to answer ur question, but first, actually answer my question about evidence. At this point, it is clear that any question about specific evidence either gets ignored, or you parrot the question back with slight modifications. I asked first, so you first.
Cont to part 3i
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"I asked first, so you first."
There is a clear logical order to presenting evidence and deciding what might be reasonably accepted as evidence. That order is very simple. FIRST, the acceptance criteria must be specified, THEN the "evidence" may be presented, and measured against this criteria. Don't you agree?
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "FIRST, the acceptance criteria must be specified..."
I suppose you know this is complete horseshit, don't you? Do you think that Darwin went around to various creationists soliciting what evidence they would accept for evolution? No. He published and let posterity and further research take care of the rest.
If you have a *geniune* scientific theory capable of addressing the evidence even better than evolution, present it and let scientists judge. If not, continue on this same path.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr " I an happy to consider the best naturalistic theory on offer, that accounts for the movements and features of the earths crust.."
part 1h
U can accept plate tectonic theory. Now that we've established that, let's do a little role reversal. btw, you never answered my previous question: What evidence would have to exist in order for plate tectonic theory to be acceptable? U've admitted that it's acceptable despite any evidence, so let's move on to role reversal..
to pt 2h
blaisingm 3 months ago
@blaisingm
"U can accept plate tectonic theory."
I said "consider", rather than "accept". If you need to twist my words.....
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blaisingm
"What evidence would have to exist in order for plate tectonic theory to be acceptable?"
The important point is that challenges to plate tectonic theory must not be ruled out a priori, simply because they fall ouside the orthodox scientific view. The first decision we make is whether fully naturalistic explanations might be causally adequte or whether intelligent causation may apply. What evidence would have to exist in order for ID to be acceptable???
IDtaksovr 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "here is abundant evidence and reason to believe that the ‘Darwinian’ mechanism is hopelessly inadequate... I haven't even started on that yet."
part 5f
Then what's taking so long for all this OBJECTIVE EMPIRICAL evidence that you are suspiciously withholding despite repeated attempts to get you to divulge?
" you need at least a basic understanding of the philosophy of science."
Hiding behind philosophy when debating observable and measurable science isn't appropriate. to pt 6f
blaisingm 3 months ago
@IDtaksovr "Darwinism, and indeed any other naturalistic account of the origin of life's diversity"
part 4f
Evolutionary theory isn't an origin story or a theory that address abiogenesis. Although you haven't defined 'Darwinism', if you're talking about NS and RM, then stop confusing 'Darwinism' with abiogenesis. These have little if anything to do with one another. If you're so exuberant about others learning about ID, then perhaps you should learn about evolution.
Continue to part 5f
blaisingm 3 months ago