This video shows the magnificence of the creator!!!. The sequential/harmonic processes of this compilation, is an undeniable example on how intricate and perfectly designed life is!!! By the view point of a mathematician, the precision of the sequences/harmony of cellular replication is an undeniably pre-programed set of orders/commands that can only take place by an intelligence that has set these orders for specific cellular processes and sequences!!!
at 2:40 was that an mRNA strand on a ribosome transcribing genetic info on to a tRNA that was carrying an amino acid? just wondering because thats what it looked like.
@SoCalMiddie45 Close. At that part, they are showing a view from the "side" of the ribosome: as the incoming mRNA enters the ribosome, a tRNA molecule with an anticodon complimentary to the 3-letter sequence (codon) on the mRNA binds to it to initiate translation of the mRNA into protein.
correct me if I am wrong: helicase would be the one in the middle (the cerulean blue) . . . . dna polymerase would be the green ones . . ..because there's two of them, one of them would be the upper dna polymerase would be the one on the right and the other is the lower polymerase . . . .primase would be the violet one generating RNA primer and the particle coming off and on are the clamp to lock the lagging strand to the dna molecule
@Leability ...I think this is because it moves unnaturally for the scale of observation we are used to. Molecular interaction is shown as spastic and jittery but efficient and exacting: which is not something we could instinctively react properly to on our scaled sphere as an environment. Something that meticulous and that rapid in movement would be a survival threat compared to how lumbering & ponderous we are. The silly added factory sounds also make it seem unnatural (which they are).
wow look at all this intellectual conversation going on below me. I just gotta say though...the background noise could totally be ripped from a porno movie.
"evolutionary theory is under going a new synthesis to take into account new observations and advancements"
Professor Hunter described this process of reinventing Darwinism in the pro-ID website "Darwin's God". "how science works" according to you is pretending that the best naturalistic theory on offer is the only possible candidate until a "better" naturalistic alternative appears, while ID is safely ruled out on philosophical grounds, rather than confront the evidence supporting ID
@IDtaksovr ""how science works" according to you is pretending that the best naturalistic theory on offer is the only possible candidate until a "better" naturalistic alternative appears"
In general that is how science works yes, a theory is only accepted until it is falsified and then replaced (or adjusted if possible). As for example Netwon's laws of motion being replaced by Einstein mechanics (and gravity as well for both individuals).
@CliffStamp No, Newtonian gravity was not replaced, it was refined by Einstein. Even thow the "new" gravity maths was known at the time, the apollo moon landing used "classical" gravitational formulas. This was because for all practical pourposes, here on earth (or even to the moon) the difference is insignificant, Better example might be continental drift, which was replaced by tectonic theory.
But exactly what you said, that IS how sience works, except you forgot to mention "experimentially"
@kiritgupta "No, Newtonian gravity was not replaced, it was refined by Einstein. "
I went back to see if I could find the original comment I made to see context but could not. Yes you can still use Newtonian physics, it works as an approximation on large scales and low speeds, however General Relativity both proposes a completely different interpretation of what gravity actually is fundamentally and as well a completely new (and higher order tensor) representation.
@IDtaksovr ""how science works" according to you is pretending that the best naturalistic theory on offer is the only possible candidate until a "better" naturalistic alternative appears"
In general that is how science works yes, a theory is only accepted until it is falsified and then replaced (or adjusted if possible). As for example Netwon's laws of motion being replaced by Einstein mechanics (and gravity as well for both individuals).
"just send me the articles, I will not only pay for it, I will champion it...."
I'm talking about the court fees of ID proponents who are unfairly persecuted for going against the Darwinian orthodoxy. Will you pay for them to challenge cases such as unfair dismissal?
"they can send me the research and I will champion it directly......"
What about the ID proponents, such as David Coppedge, who are currently being demoted at work, merely for trying to discus ID as a scientific theory? Are you backing down on your promise to pay for their court fees?
@IDtaksovr "What about the ID proponents, such as David Coppedge, who are currently being demoted at work, merely for trying to discus ID as a scientific theory?"
Absolutely, tell them to send me all their research, they can then be removed from the entire conflict and I will absorb it completely.
"I will not accept your lists as lists of peer reviewed research."
Given that you casually dismiss dozens of peer revveiwed ID papers on lame pretexts, its clear that you will probably not give ID a fair and honest trial. That's not a problem. ID proponents don't expect Darwinists, whose world-view, academic prestige, financial well being etc is tied to propping up a materialistic scientific paradigm, to change their minds. We look principally to the next generation of scientists
IDtaksovr, LOL... not being peer reviewed is not exactly a "lame pretext" to reject something as peer reviewed. Likewise, peer review by the wrong field is not a lame excuse. Then of course we have the the ones that were at least reviewed by scientists, but were refuted and rejected.
I would be quite happy to give ID a fair and honest trial. Just answer CliffStamp's question on their hypothesis, or provide another demonstrably convergent method of determining the truth.
"For the central importance of random mutation, perhaps you could quote me Darwin's statement supporting it? "
Darwin didn't know about random mutations (or indeed genes in the modern sense). He mistakenly believed that simple recombination would lead inexorably to the creation of novel complexity. Modern NeoDarwinian theory recognized Random Mutation as the principle source of new genetic information, and natural selection as a filter. No other creative mechanism is proposed
IDtaksovr, how exactly does that fit in with RM being of central importance to Darwin's theory? And given it's pervasiveness within science, why do you think they got methodological naturalism from Darwin as opposed to scientists in general?
"RM being of central importance to Darwin's theory?..."
If I have to educate you on the basics of Darwins ideas, perhaps I over estimated you. Some kind of random undirected variation was essential to provide the input for natural selection. Darwin thought that it vame from the variation due merely to genetic recombination. This idea failed, but the random element was instead found to be provided instead by random genetic mutations, leving his principle of NS essentially untouched.
"No, in fact while it may be a core element of the modern evolutionary synthesis, it is not even in Darwin's theory, much less core to it....."
The fact that Darwin was wrong about the source of his random variation is really quite irrelevant. The core of modern NeoDarwinism is essentially unchanged i.e. some source of random variation being filtered by natural selection. Hence the reason why Darwin continues to be worshipped as a secular prophet.
IDtaksovr, LOL... So some of his ideas were wrong, and the ideas that weren't proven wrong, scientists think he didn't add enough detail and went on to improve his work. Some prophet.
No, Darwin being worshiped, and/or a secular prophet is a mistake of theists trying to fit him into their worldview. He isn't.
So it's quite irrelevant that Darwin only represents 1 part of the modern evolutionary synthesis? Hmm... well then, the people of the EU will be happy to know they're French.
"theists trying to fit him into their worldview. He isn't....."
Why do so many fervent atheist, like Richard Dawkins revere Darwin, to the point of calling themselves Darwinians? Why is Darwin revered by secular society like no other scientist? Why do Darwinists celebrate Darwin Day? Why are these celebrations full of humanists and atheists?
@IDtaksovr "Why do so many fervent atheist, like Richard Dawkins revere Darwin ..."
Dawkins is a biologist and currently writes and speaks as a career on evolution, it surprises you that he deeply respects the foundational scientist? Walk into any physics lab and ask the students there similar questions and you will find them much more familiar with Einstein, Feynman, etc., the relevant people in their field.
"he didn't add enough detail and went on to improve his work. Some prophet....."
Every religion has it's apologists. Darwin continues to be revered not for what he got wrong, but for what he got right (in the eyes of the devotees of naturalism) Naturalism is of course the umbrella religion, and Darwin championed the cause for accepting only fully naturalistic explanations, as he championed the apriori denial that intelligent causation played a part in the diversification of life.
IDtaksovr, in addition to CliffStamp's points, let me add such examples as Martin Luther King, Jr... who has a legal holiday in the United States.
Again, unlike prophets, there is nothing wrong with criticizing Darwin's work. Several parts have been disproven in the past, and if there are more things he got wrong, more will be disproven in the future. He's a scientist, not a prophet, and his hypothesis is as subject to disproof as any other scientist.
Regarding the naturalistic explanation part, given the pervasiveness of methodological naturalism in science, you have yet to show why this is something to lay at Darwin's feet, instead of the fact that it's demonstrably the best method of approaching truth that we have come up with.
@JustAnotherMutant "given the pervasiveness of methodological naturalism in science, you have yet to show why this is something to lay at Darwin's feet"
That of course has nothing to do with Darwin, who was a scientist, this is in the realm of the philosophy of science, so that is the issue of people like Popper, or to go way back, Aristotle and Plato/Socrates.
"you have yet to show why this is something to lay at Darwin's feet,....."
It is common knowledge that Darwin was heavily influenced by his mentor, Sir Charles Lyell, as well as other naturalists. Darwin's theory differered from a multitude of other evolutionary theories that were circulating at the time, principally in his demand that to explain evolution scientifically, meant to explain it by natural law. Darwin and Lyell actually pioneered this type of historical research
"methodological naturalism....the best method of approaching truth"
Methodological naturalism is invaluable to most sciences, and it is routinely relied upon by ID proponents. The problem is that while MN is essential for uncovering repeating mechanisms and processes, it breaks down when we try to apply it to explain the origin of intelligently caused artefacts. Does MN provide a complete explanation for the origin of the pyramids, or do we need to invoke intelligent causes as well?
"given the pervasiveness of methodological naturalism in science, you have yet to show why this is something to lay at Darwin's feet"
MN was being routinely applied several centuries before Darwin, mainly by theistic scientists. Darwin is revered for championing a particular philosophical view that stated that ONLY naturalistic explanations may be used to explain life's diversity. Here, the world is assumed to be a self enclosed system of cause and effect, with no purposive forces
IDtaksovr, ok... so methodological naturalism was around long before him. He was a philosophical and methodological naturalist, but is somehow responsible for later philosophical naturalists and philosophical supernaturalists practicing methodological naturalism?
"He's a scientist, not a prophet, and his hypothesis is as subject to disproof as any other scientist....."
Would you be prepared to forsake Darwins major contribution to the Darwinism vs design debate i.e. the claim that only fully naturalistic theories may be proposed to explain the diversification of life? Is naturalism itself open to disproof?
IDtaksovr, while I don't believe that can be laid entirely at his feet, I have already answered this question. My sole attachment to methodological naturalism is its demonstrated ability to converge on an answer, getting us slowly but surely closer to the truth. If you can demonstrate another method with similar convergence ability, I will be happy to accept it.
"My sole attachment to methodological naturalism is its demonstrated ability to converge on an answer.."
I have repeatedly explained that MN is ONLY applicable to events that had a natural cause in the first place. If an object was designed, we need to invoke intelligent causes. You seem unaware of the fact that a great deal of evolutionary theory does not apply MN, and does not explain repeatable events. It uses abductive reasoning to reason from present evidence to past causes.
"If you can demonstrate another method with similar convergence ability, I will be happy to accept it..."
How about the method that Darwin himself pioneered, and the one that is used ubiquitously nowadays in the historical sciences. It is called the method of "inference to the best explanation". By Darwins own rules of reasoning, we to explain past events by invoking causes known to have the power to produce the effect in question. Multiple trials are compared, and the best is chosen
@IDtaksovr - Ah, I see that the "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS" is used by you with other people. I notice that when you start to get backed into a corner you just start throwing out a lot of BS, hoping that no one will notice that you are saying nothing.
Typical pseudo-intellectual creationist tactic. Creationists don't have to give correct information, they just have to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the uninformed. So, so sad. Learn some science, dude.
IDtaksovr, ok... so we start our research with an argument from ignorance. Now, how do we make the trials, and since appeals to probability are non-convergent, how do we compare these trials? Since practically everything in science started out as not known to have the power to produce the effect, how do we find anything new?
How do we test for design? After all, since we can't design a cell and have never observed them being designed, that is not known to have the power to produce the effect.
Note there are actually valid design theories, the constructal theory of Adrian Bejan for example states in order for systems to propogage they have to evolve so as to enhance imposed current flow. Lungs for example are an obvious example in biology. Note again this is apparent design, there is no intent, a system which does not have this property simply does not propogate.
CliffStamp, True, however that would be a different sense of the word design than IDtaksovr uses, and of course he is also against the methodology used.
@JustAnotherMutant "however that would be a different sense of the word design than IDtaksovr uses, and of course he is also against the methodology used"
Yes, but ironically, if you were going to argue design, then you would think that you would look at the actually accepted engineering design principles, how they were evaluated, tested and then accepted/applied.
"so we start our research with an argument from ignorance...."
The same charge could be laid on an archaeologist who refuses to accept that pyramids were formed by natural erosion, and who instead proposes that intelligent agency played a part. The archaeologist can only be accused of this if science is dogmatically defined as the search for purely natural causes to explain events. Clearly, such arbitrary limitations on scientific explanations would bar scientists from the truth
IDtaksovr, "causes known to have the power to produce the effect in question" gets us nowhere unless we already know the answer, because we're tossing out the answer unless we know it.
"causes known to have the power to produce the effect in question" gets us nowhere unless we already know the answer"
Then your argument is with a method that is essential for any historical science - and one that Darwin himself pioneered and used to make his case in TOOS. Darwin sought only "vera causa" to explain events occuring in the distant past. i.e. the true cause of a natural phenomenon, must be explained by an agency whose existence is independently evidenced.
@IDtaksovr "The same charge could be laid on an archaeologist who refuses to accept that pyramids were formed by natural erosion, and who instead proposes that intelligent agency played a part. "
Again, you show complete ignorance of statistical inference, write out the Bayesian equations for this inference and then the ID inference and then, here is the important part, actually do the math for both. Stop making vague assertions and actually provide some science.
When we try to explain the past origin of a feature, Darwin suggested that we propose onlt suitable causes that are known to have the power to produce the effect in question. Often many causes in different combinations can produce the same effect. Rivals are compared and either accepted or rejected depending on how well they account for all the relevant data. E.g. many competing scenarious have been suggested for the origin of the moon, say.
That will depend on the details of individual cases. The scientific community must weigh the evidence in favour of the various proposed mechanisms, as a judge must weigh competing versions of events, in a criminal trial, against all the available evidence. Darwin was a pioneer of this method. His method is essential to Darwinian theory, cosmology, archaeology, geology, and any science that attempts to explain one-off, unreapeatable events
"same method that you complained scientists were using when you called them Darwinists?...."
As you ought to know by now, a great deal of the research done under the Darwinian / naturalistic paradigm is entirely compatible with ID, and will look good in our portfolio in future. Darwins method of inference to the best explanation is fine, but his arbitrary decision to refuse to allow hypotheses involving intelligent causes to compete alongside fully naturalistic ones is not
IDtaksovr, LOL... well, seeing as how your display of the relentless buildup of research currently constitutes 1 paper in a journal with almost no scientific impact... I think that will be a while.
And as a side note, no... you'll need more research to show why it supports ID instead of the previous theory it was supporting.
"seeing as how your display of the relentless buildup of research currently constitutes 1 paper in a journal....."
You were burying your head in the sand on the repeated occasions in which I presented many more examples. Unfortunately they are still there waiting for you. There are six peer - reviewed ID papers at the evolutionary informatics lab website by William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
IDtaksovr, no, previously you provided me a list claiming it was a list of peer reviewed research, when in fact it was not.
With the list you have now provided,
Paper 1: reviewed in wrong field. That was posted to a computer science journal, not biology.
Paper 2: Not peer reviewed, proposes a "law" that has no consensus, and in fact is pretty much disproven by the fact that we have observed the generation of new genetic information.
So that's 2 lists you have provided me that are not in fact lists of peer reviewed papers. So your display of the relentless buildup of research currently constitutes 1 paper in a journal with almost no scientific impact
Did you have any actual lists of peer reviewed research supporting ID?
"practically everything in science started out as not known to have the power to produce the effect"
The method of "inference to the best explanation (IBE)" is used primarily in the historical sciences. The following paper explains the difference between a "historical science", like evolutionary theory and operations science, involving only real-time repeatable experiments. Free PDF:
"Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method" by Carol E. Cleland
"where in that paper are we using something other than methodological naturalism?."
The point of the paper was to educate you on the distinction between the "historical sciences" and "operations science" that deals purely with repeatable experiments. Different rules of reasoning are used in each case. Historical sciences often use abductive reasoning to create hypotheses about one-off unreapeatable events. The method is to compare competing explanations. Do you get this bit first?
IDtaksovr, If you are asking that, perhaps it is time for you to answer the question on the if you saw supporting evidence for CD in the fossils at the museum.
"if you saw supporting evidence for CD in the fossils at the museum....."
I couldn't understand your question, but the idea of common descent is accepted by many of the leading ID proponents. If any such descent did occur, then the dominant patterns in the fossil record do not support the Darwinian account.
IDtaksovr, I don't care how many proponents of ID accept CD vs divine fiat vs whatever else. That is entirely unimportant to the fossils at the museum being supporting evidence for CD or not.
If you didn't understand the question, then what makes you think you understood Carol Cleland's paper? If you don't understand the question, then you don't understand what evidence she's talking about.
" the fossils at the museum being supporting evidence for CD or not"
While the complexity does show an overall upward trend, it does so in an entirely erratic fashion. Museum examples are cherry picked to suit the Darwinian narrative, yet even the best examples show little evidence of gradual evolution. The fossil record may show evidence of CD in some sense, but nothing like the kind of patterns that would need to exist if something like Darwinian evo were the driving mechanism
"restricting your answer to the evidence supporting or not supporting CD...."
I don't have a problem with CD in principle. CD is fine with me and is compatable with some formulations of ID, so this is a waste of time. The problem with Darwinists is that rather than viewing CD as a scientific hypothesis, they require it as a philosophical necessity. CD then becomes a methodology that governs interpretation of the data, and CD itself is treated like an unchallengeable dogma.
IDtaksovr, actually no. CD is not unchallengeable dogma. It is testable and has undergone rigorous testing. Are you sure you understood Carol Cleland's paper? Your statement implies that you did not.
But I digress... I did not ask if you had problems with CD in principle, but the evidence you saw. So please try again, restricting your answer to the evidence supporting or not supporting CD.
IDtaksovr, LOL... ok... so you were an "evangelical Darwinist", but didn't even know if CD was testable? I would have been arguing against you back then as well.
Well, as your past comments indicate you are familiar with The Talk.Origins Archive, I recommend you read "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." . It is available in .pdf format on their site at /pdf/comdesc.pdf
"you were an "evangelical Darwinist", but didn't even know if CD was testable?"
I fell for the elaborate Darwinian facade, like you, and got carried away with all the propaganda that comes with being a Darwinist but I was willing to go where the evidence lead when the truth was pointed out. The fallacy of claiming direct evidence of universal common descent becomes apparent when you realise that all the evidence involves inferences of some sort, e.g. from philosophical principles
"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"
I am aware of this effort to make the case for CD. It correctly points out that:
"Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories". While mentioning a number of possible evolutionary mechanisms, the article fails to mention ID as a possible factor guiding CD. The tests all involve inferring a case for CD, but fail to mention that common design could also explain those evidences provided.
"It is testable and has undergone rigorous testing....."
How to you test the claim that all life evolved from a single common ancestor? Ans: you don't - you assume it as a going in assumption. CD is a dogma under Darwinian evolution but a testable hypothesis under ID
IDtaksovr , ok... so you don't actually understand the type of evidence Carol Cleland is talking about. Why should I take your opinion on the meaning of it seriously?
We have a rich pool of intelligently designed objects from which to study and abstract rules. We also know a great deal about the kinds of things that natural causes can produce. Design is frequently so easy to spot that most people can instantly distinguish between a naturally caused and a man-made artefact. One characteristic that distinguishes natural objects from designed ones is irreducible complexity. Another is high information content
IDtaksovr, until you point out problems with the paper CliffStamp presented, IC is not sufficient to indicate design. We have also observed natural processes adding to the information content in DNA, so high information content is not sufficient to indicate design.
"until you point out problems with the paper CliffStamp presented,...."
I don't know what paper you are talking about, and you don't seem to want me to know, or else you would have re-posted the details. BTW if I do point out problems with the paper, does that mean that IC now IS "sufficient to indicate design"
IDtaksovr, depends on your level of refutation. If you just shrug it off, no. If you can provide a good enough refutation, at a minimum I'll stop complaining about your IC claims. If you can produce a successful testable hypothesis, yes, and CliffStamp has offered to publish it.
"I'll stop complaining about your IC claims. If you can produce a successful testable hypothesis..."
The property of IC is tested by removing components one at a time. I.e. if we remove any of the proteins involved in the construction of the flagellum, we either get a defective flagellum, or a flagellum that doesn't get built (because the cell has a sophisticated QC system to prevent wastage of resources) The ID hypothesis is that such IC systems are beyond the reach of RM and NS
"I'll stop complaining about your IC claims. If you can produce a successful testable hypothesis...."
You can disprove the ID hypothesis that IC systems are beyond the reach of the Darwinian mechanism any time, by evolving them in the lab. The irony is that if any of the serious sciences went around bragging about their theory, they would at least offer positive evidence why it can do what is claimed of it. In contrast, Darwinists challenge others to prove tthere theory cannot
IDtaksovr, seeing as how IC is not a hypothesis of the "Darwinists", according to you it should be Dr Behe producing the research to be considered a serious challenge, seeing as how he missed research about how RM/NS generate IC structures.
However you have pointed out machines as IC, and these days some of those are designed by random variation & selection. Likewise you were shown a paper demonstrating IC structures generated by random variation and selection.
"you have pointed out machines as IC, and these days some of those are designed by random variation & selection."
Can you tell me which IC machines you are referring to, when I pointed them out, and where I can see evidence that they were constructed without considerable assistance from intelligent agency?
"he missed research about how RM/NS generate IC structures...."
Whenever a paper defending the sufficiency of the RM and NS mechanism to generate IC structures is published, Behe has shot gaping holes in it. Invariably, the papers either do not address Behe's specific question, or they are fanciful "just-so" stories aka wishful speculations, rather than detailed testable models. Darwinists fear to address the IC problem for fear of attracting attention to an insurmountable hurdle
IDtaksovr, again, where is Dr Behe's research? Without that, you have stated he should not be taken seriously.
Meanwhile, we shown you a paper published long before Dr Behe's, proposing how IC structures are generated by RM/NS, and Dr Behe has no research to be considered a serious refutation of it. CliffStamp also pointed out a paper since his research, showing that random variation guided by selection can produce IC structures, making his basic premise not viable.
So no, we don't have "Darwinists" fearing to address the "IC problem"... we don't have any serious research to indicate IC might be a problem. In fact quite the opposite. We have convergence on IC not being a problem, and in fact being pretty likely.
Meanwhile, Dr Behe claims that the cell is different, but again... where is his research?
@JustAnotherMutant "So no, we don't have "Darwinists" fearing to address the "IC problem"."
What do you have to do to be a "Darwinist" exactly, is this term ever defined, is it just simply someone who would agree that evolution is a well supported theory with broad applications and predictive powers?
CliffStamp, LOL... That was my original thought, which works out to all but 1% of the scientists in the field, so in the context of this video, I was originally taking it as synonymous with "scientific community" or "scientists" depending on usage. However after IDtaksovr has attempted to define it, I think he may be using it as methodological naturalists. In the context of this video, that would be synonymous with my previous thoughts, however in larger context nets physicists, ...
@JustAnotherMutant I don't think it is close to one percent, I have never met one IRL. I would defend the theory, but I would rather be a Feynmanist, no offense to Darwin, but Feynman was simply a much more froody guy who always knew where his towel was.
CliffStamp, oops, yes, there was supposed to be a less than in there, and I'm not surprised we have never met one. "less than 1%" is yes, being generous and since I would be shocked if it even rounded to 1%, implies a much higher number than I think is likely. I think a percent of a percent would be a "worst case" estimate (or "best case" from IDtaksovr's POV).
Perhaps we should give him a list of scientists as possible alternatives to Darwin. They wouldn't stir the same fears in the hearts
CamW30, actually while he does mention some members of the "DI gang" as not being scientists, Dr Behe is not one of the ones he says this about. Dr Behe has in fact published several scientific articles. Dr Padian [correctly] points out that Dr Behe's ID work did not go through the peer review process, even though it is clear from Dr Behe's other work that he understands the process.
So while we avoid IDtaksovr's mistake of thinking that every paper of Dr Behe is supporting ID, let us not
@JustAnotherMutant - "So while we avoid IDtaksovr's mistake of thinking that every paper of Dr Behe is supporting ID, let us not"
Too true; I am sorry, I was just thinking in terms of ID articles. Yes, Behe has written papers that actual show up on PubMed. Behe did trumpet that Darwin's Black Box was peer-reviewed, when it wasn't.
IDtaksovr, LOL... that has nothing to do with IC. As I told CamW30, I do accept Dr Behe as a published scientist. However his proposal of IC lacks research and did not go through the peer review process. By your stated criteria, the former means that IC should not be taken seriously.
"I do accept Dr Behe as a published scientist. However his proposal of IC lacks research"
LOL Thousands of papers deal with dozens aspects of evolutionary theory and yet crucially, none seem to demonstrate the Darwinian evolution of IC structures that underly all life. Darwinism is now officially a religion. There is an elephant in the room, and the inability to deal with IC is it.
IDtaksovr, you have already said that unresearched opinions don't need to be taken seriously. So until Dr Behe does the research to confirm IC, by your rules, we don't need to take it seriously.
And again, we have IC structures developed by random variation guided by selection, both in engineering, and the paper presented to you by CliffStamp. Thus IC in and of itself is insufficient to indicate design. So we have a convergence in science, and it's not going towards IC being a problem.
"you have already said that unresearched opinions don't need to be taken seriously..."
No I didn't. Currently "unresearched opinions" will become the science of the future. Many ID avenues remain unresearched, due to underfunding, persecution, and lack of scientists who are aware of what ID really is. Many scientsis who might have been more sympathetic to ID have bought into the distortions being promoted by Darwinists.
IDtaksovr, nonsense. You have been making this claim multiple times about people pointing out the flaws in Dr Behe's claim of IC. The problem is that Dr Behe's claim itself is unresearched.
Behe's research has revealed an absence of papers successfully addressing the problem of the Darwinian evolution of IC systems. It is the Darwinists problem to fill that vacuum. Behe deserves credit, not persecution, just because he chose to wash the dirty laundry of Darwinism in public. While Behe cannot prove a negative, surely it is up to the Darwinists to make a positive case for the sufficieny of RM and NS
"both in engineering, and the paper presented to you by CliffStamp....."
Repeating a lie often enough does not make it anymore believeable, but if you repeat it often enough to yourself, you might come to believe it. CliffStamp presented nothing. I would like to expose the problems with whatever paper you are clinging to, but you have not provided me with anything to criticise yet.
IDtaksovr, The paper has been factually presented to you, so that is not a lie, no matter how many or how few times I repeat it. No matter how many times you claim it to be a lie, Youtube has maintained an electronic record of your factual incorrectness. Now of the facts contained within the paper, if you believe those are a lie, you are welcome to point out which parts are not factually correct.
"The paper has been factually presented to you, so that is not a lie...."
You must have "accidentally" sent it to the wrong place, or provided me with the wrong or insufficient details to find it. Your stubborn refusal to re-up the papers details speaks volumes about your confidence in this alleged refutation of IC.
IDtaksovr, LOL... no, CliffStamp posted it, not me. If it was posted to the wrong place, I never would have known about it. CliffStamp posted sufficient details for me to find it in less than 1 minute. I fear my stubborn refusal to repost what you didn't bother to actually read when CliffStamp posted has a different source than you imagine, but you are welcome to believe that if it makes you happy.
"CliffStamp also pointed out a paper since his research...."
I'll discuss Cliffstamps papers with Cliffstamp. If you have actually read the paper that he allegedly presented, then provide me with the title and we can discuss it.
Ooooh I,m so excited. Is it one of the hundreds of papers that were offered as evidence against Behe's claims that IC systems are beyond the reach of Darwinian mechanisms? There must be so many and CliffStamp must be having trouble choosing - thus the lengthy delay.
IDtaksovr, you have not presented a successful testable hypothesis of IC yet, so he is currently choosing between nothing and nothing. If you desire to speed that up, post away.
"you have not presented a successful testable hypothesis of IC yet...."
Many have been presented, from the hypothesis that IC structures are beyond the probabilistic reach of naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms, to the hypothesis that most of our "junk" DNA will turn out to have function, to our hypothesis that far deeper levels of complexity in the cell await discovery etc. While you can continue to bury your head in the sand, the ID hypotheses will continue to pile up.
@IDtaksovr "the hypothesis that IC structures are beyond the probabilistic reach of naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms, to the hypothesis that most of our "junk" DNA will turn out to have function, to our hypothesis that far deeper levels of complexity in the cell await discovery etc"
Are you seriously asserting that ID "scientists" actually think the above lay statements are examples of a hypothesis?
IDtaksovr, I don't recall any formulation of IC that included junk DNA having function. I likewise don't recall any formulation of IC that deeper levels of complexity await us in the cell. Likewise, since we're talking about CliffStamp's offer to publish, we are not talking about any peer reviewed paper that might have been presented, or hiding within the lists of non-peer reviewed research you have presented.
So, where is your formulation of the hypothesis of IC? As Cliffstamp mentioned, we're talking about
"Then state the hypothesis, and note the peer reviewed journal which accepts the hypothesis and the empirical evidence which is used to advance it and the conditions under which the hypothesis can be both demonstrated and falsified."
(except of course the peer reviewed journal, since we're talking about unpublished research).
"I likewise don't recall any formulation of IC that deeper levels of complexity await us in the cell."
The fact that you are ignorant of the kind of testable hypotheses being promoted by ID proponents doesn't prevent them from being testable ID hypotheses. All that matters is: are the hypotheses testable and can we do meaningful research on them?
@IDtaksovr "All that matters is: are the hypotheses testable and can we do meaningful research on them?"
Your lay statements do not quality as a hypothesis, if you are curious to know why then you can be so educated, but first I want to know the name of at least one scientist in the ID movement who thinks those statements you made actually quality to be a hypothesis - and then the definition of hypothesis they are using to support that position.
IDtaksovr, if you wish to call me ignorant, you are welcome to do so, after all there are far more things I am ignorant of than things I know, so in the grand scheme of things, calling me ignorant is more accurate than calling me knowledgeable. After you get around to posting the testable hypotheses for IC, we will gladly accept that this is one of those areas.
"if you wish to call me ignorant, you are welcome to do so,...."
I said that just because you are ignorant of ID hypotheses, that doesn't mean their aren't any. There could be many reasons why a person is unaware of ID hypotheses - some more excuseable than others. Why do you try to imply that I was making a general insult. I have never suggested that you were "ignorant" in general. There is also something called "wilful ignorance"......
IDtaksovr, Correct. I stated that I am ignorant in general, and that being ignorant in general is not an insult, but an accurate assessment of the facts. As I said, "After you get around to posting the testable hypotheses for IC, we will gladly accept that this is one of those areas [in which I am ignorant]."
@JustAnotherMutant - IDtaksovr has no science background. His understanding of genetics is laughable. My 15 yr. old has a better grasp of genetics than this tool.
He hasn't any real, learned knowledge. He only has "acquired" knowledge. He just parrots what he reads & watches in videos, with no deep understanding. This is evident in the elementary mistakes he makes when trying to discuss genetic issues.
He wants people to think that he's smart; but he isn't even close.
CamW30, yes... I find it interesting that he claims to have been a "evangelical Darwinist", and yet he has shown that he doesn't know what the meaning of peer review, hypothesis, theory,... in science, doesn't know what the modern evolutionary synthesis proposes, and has a familiarity with the details equal to creationist quote miners...
With all that, he somehow felt qualified to be evangelical.
We are currently reverse engineering cells to find out how they work, and re-engineering cells in order to tailor them to our needs, as we would reverse engineer and re-engineer any super advanced technology. While we do try to design cells in our own humble way, it is perverse to try to present our own limitations as designers as a reason to think that the cell was not designed, and instead was the producd by a mindless process
IDtaksovr, they use RM/NS to design machinery these days. So, that adds RM/NS to our list of things that could account for the appearance of design.
If it's perverse to try to present our own limits as designers, why did you say "invoking causes known to have the power to produce the effect in question"?
And as a point of interest, these are the same cells that just last were vastly more complex than our most advanced nanotech? I guess we had some drastic advances in science over the last week, eh?
"the same cells that just last were vastly more complex than our most advanced nanotech?."
They are the same cells that our best scientists can only hope to imitate and modify at present. That may change in future. The point is, you really nead to leave your brain at the door nowadays if you are a Darwinian biochemists. The suggestion that systems that are currently beyond out best intelligent agents ought to be explained by a blind purposeless process, might lead to schizophrenia
IDtaksovr, the point is that your description of these varies wildly. When we are talking about CD/ToE they are vastly more complex than anything we can create. When we are talking about ID they suddenly become just barely out of reach. Pick their complexity, stick with it.
"talking about CD/ToE they are vastly more complex than anything we can create......"
The cell is vastly more complex than anything we can create at present, and may always be out of our reach, as far as generating cell from scratch is concerned. This puts the cell ligh-years beyond the reach of the clunky, clumsy Darwinian mechanism. ID proponents believe that a super intelligence is needed to explain the cell. Darwinists think that NO intelligence is whats needed!
"you must demonstrate the capacity of super intelligence to design the cell"
You are saying that ID proponents need to provide a conclusive demonstration at the very start of their research programme. Is that fair, given that Darwinists have been trying to explain the diversity of life for over 150 years and are now in a mess. Demostrating that intelligent agents can produce some IC systems shows that ID is a promising avenue. Decades of research will be needed to elaborate on this
Whenever I see a title like "Evolution vs. Creationism", I know that the Darwinist just doesn't get it. Present something with a title like intelligent design versus fully naturalistic evolution and I will gladly watch it.
@IDtaksovr - "Whenever I see a title like "Evolution vs. Creationism", I know that the Darwinist just doesn't get it."
Whatever, dude. I just thought you might like to have peer-review explained to you. Don't watch it, it might change your misconceptions & we wouldn't want that.
ID still isn't science & creation scientists aren't.
"we're talking about your proposed rules for scientific research...."
The ID methodology is the same as that being used in historical sciences. The method of inference to the best explanation (IBE) is used widely in anything from cosmology to evolutionary biology and pataeontology. The ONLY significant difference is that ID allows for the possibility that intelligent causes may be considered. Intelligent causes are however already being appealed to in some sciences.
"they use RM/NS to design machinery these days" An observed case of RM and NS evolving IC structures will always carry far more weight than an intelligently designed simulation / gross approximation, so lets exaust actual cases observed in nature first, before moving on to simulations.
Whenever we see IC structures in everyday life, we assume that an intelligent agent was behind them. ID merely generalizes this inference from human designers to all other kinds of intelligent agency.
This is really cool
twitchalmighty 1 week ago in playlist biology
i enjoyed this vid
staranjela 1 week ago
some really good stuff here
simysimss 1 week ago
some great inforamtion here thanks
jayejayeee 1 week ago
To tell you the truth, screw evolution... adaptation makes more sense.
cHiKaDiNg58 2 weeks ago
This video shows the magnificence of the creator!!!. The sequential/harmonic processes of this compilation, is an undeniable example on how intricate and perfectly designed life is!!! By the view point of a mathematician, the precision of the sequences/harmony of cellular replication is an undeniably pre-programed set of orders/commands that can only take place by an intelligence that has set these orders for specific cellular processes and sequences!!!
benhilelson 4 months ago
And the video game Clayfighter
Raflegan 5 months ago
And the opening of the movie Eraserhead too.
Raflegan 5 months ago
I think I've seen this before on Fraggle Rock.
Raflegan 5 months ago
wtf is happening in this video?
Keon994 6 months ago
i mean 2:30-240
SoCalMiddie45 6 months ago
at 2:40 was that an mRNA strand on a ribosome transcribing genetic info on to a tRNA that was carrying an amino acid? just wondering because thats what it looked like.
SoCalMiddie45 6 months ago
@SoCalMiddie45 Close. At that part, they are showing a view from the "side" of the ribosome: as the incoming mRNA enters the ribosome, a tRNA molecule with an anticodon complimentary to the 3-letter sequence (codon) on the mRNA binds to it to initiate translation of the mRNA into protein.
sclarcher 5 months ago
Dude...my DNA totally acts in this movie
Guardian9191 8 months ago
Dude, this film was bad ass! Thanks to the creators of this film and thanks for posting it! Fuckin' sweeeeeet!
MardukHail 8 months ago
Long live Evolution! The truth is in genetics!!
bodhidharma78 9 months ago 6
correct me if I am wrong: helicase would be the one in the middle (the cerulean blue) . . . . dna polymerase would be the green ones . . ..because there's two of them, one of them would be the upper dna polymerase would be the one on the right and the other is the lower polymerase . . . .primase would be the violet one generating RNA primer and the particle coming off and on are the clamp to lock the lagging strand to the dna molecule
mysteriouswitchgal 9 months ago
WEEEEEEEE!!!!
didizee 9 months ago
this looks so scary for some reason
Leability 9 months ago
@Leability because you suck.
InsanePickle007 9 months ago
@Leability lick my balls and let me fuck yo ass till you shit
zerox505 9 months ago
@zerox505 you r so fucking insane and pervert...u sould kill urself
discouniverse 7 months ago
@discouniverse hahaha
zerox505 7 months ago
@Leability ...I think this is because it moves unnaturally for the scale of observation we are used to. Molecular interaction is shown as spastic and jittery but efficient and exacting: which is not something we could instinctively react properly to on our scaled sphere as an environment. Something that meticulous and that rapid in movement would be a survival threat compared to how lumbering & ponderous we are. The silly added factory sounds also make it seem unnatural (which they are).
Raflegan 5 months ago
wow look at all this intellectual conversation going on below me. I just gotta say though...the background noise could totally be ripped from a porno movie.
dilbon191 10 months ago
@dilbon191 sorry to bring the average IQ down in here hahahaa
dilbon191 10 months ago
Comment removed
dilbon191 10 months ago
Looks like design to me.Far more advance then any human design.
Gordenacama 1 year ago
@CliffSta
"evolutionary theory is under going a new synthesis to take into account new observations and advancements"
Professor Hunter described this process of reinventing Darwinism in the pro-ID website "Darwin's God". "how science works" according to you is pretending that the best naturalistic theory on offer is the only possible candidate until a "better" naturalistic alternative appears, while ID is safely ruled out on philosophical grounds, rather than confront the evidence supporting ID
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr ""how science works" according to you is pretending that the best naturalistic theory on offer is the only possible candidate until a "better" naturalistic alternative appears"
In general that is how science works yes, a theory is only accepted until it is falsified and then replaced (or adjusted if possible). As for example Netwon's laws of motion being replaced by Einstein mechanics (and gravity as well for both individuals).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp No, Newtonian gravity was not replaced, it was refined by Einstein. Even thow the "new" gravity maths was known at the time, the apollo moon landing used "classical" gravitational formulas. This was because for all practical pourposes, here on earth (or even to the moon) the difference is insignificant, Better example might be continental drift, which was replaced by tectonic theory.
But exactly what you said, that IS how sience works, except you forgot to mention "experimentially"
kiritgupta 1 year ago
@kiritgupta "No, Newtonian gravity was not replaced, it was refined by Einstein. "
I went back to see if I could find the original comment I made to see context but could not. Yes you can still use Newtonian physics, it works as an approximation on large scales and low speeds, however General Relativity both proposes a completely different interpretation of what gravity actually is fundamentally and as well a completely new (and higher order tensor) representation.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IDtaksovr ""how science works" according to you is pretending that the best naturalistic theory on offer is the only possible candidate until a "better" naturalistic alternative appears"
In general that is how science works yes, a theory is only accepted until it is falsified and then replaced (or adjusted if possible). As for example Netwon's laws of motion being replaced by Einstein mechanics (and gravity as well for both individuals).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp
"have quite a number of lawyers who are friends who would not hesitate to take on a discrimination case of this nature....."
But are you willing to pay for it?
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr "But are you willing to pay for it?"
Again, yes, just send me the articles, I will not only pay for it, I will champion it.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp
"just send me the articles, I will not only pay for it, I will champion it...."
I'm talking about the court fees of ID proponents who are unfairly persecuted for going against the Darwinian orthodoxy. Will you pay for them to challenge cases such as unfair dismissal?
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IDtaksovr "Will you pay for them to challenge cases such as unfair dismissal?"
Again, they don't need to fear that at all, they can send me the research and I will champion it directly.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp
"they can send me the research and I will champion it directly......"
What about the ID proponents, such as David Coppedge, who are currently being demoted at work, merely for trying to discus ID as a scientific theory? Are you backing down on your promise to pay for their court fees?
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IDtaksovr "What about the ID proponents, such as David Coppedge, who are currently being demoted at work, merely for trying to discus ID as a scientific theory?"
Absolutely, tell them to send me all their research, they can then be removed from the entire conflict and I will absorb it completely.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnotherM
"I will not accept your lists as lists of peer reviewed research."
Given that you casually dismiss dozens of peer revveiwed ID papers on lame pretexts, its clear that you will probably not give ID a fair and honest trial. That's not a problem. ID proponents don't expect Darwinists, whose world-view, academic prestige, financial well being etc is tied to propping up a materialistic scientific paradigm, to change their minds. We look principally to the next generation of scientists
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, LOL... not being peer reviewed is not exactly a "lame pretext" to reject something as peer reviewed. Likewise, peer review by the wrong field is not a lame excuse. Then of course we have the the ones that were at least reviewed by scientists, but were refuted and rejected.
I would be quite happy to give ID a fair and honest trial. Just answer CliffStamp's question on their hypothesis, or provide another demonstrably convergent method of determining the truth.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"For the central importance of random mutation, perhaps you could quote me Darwin's statement supporting it? "
Darwin didn't know about random mutations (or indeed genes in the modern sense). He mistakenly believed that simple recombination would lead inexorably to the creation of novel complexity. Modern NeoDarwinian theory recognized Random Mutation as the principle source of new genetic information, and natural selection as a filter. No other creative mechanism is proposed
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, how exactly does that fit in with RM being of central importance to Darwin's theory? And given it's pervasiveness within science, why do you think they got methodological naturalism from Darwin as opposed to scientists in general?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnothe
"RM being of central importance to Darwin's theory?..."
If I have to educate you on the basics of Darwins ideas, perhaps I over estimated you. Some kind of random undirected variation was essential to provide the input for natural selection. Darwin thought that it vame from the variation due merely to genetic recombination. This idea failed, but the random element was instead found to be provided instead by random genetic mutations, leving his principle of NS essentially untouched.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, right... so you're telling me it's central to his theory, even though in his theory he proposed a different mechanism entirely.
No, in fact while it may be a core element of the modern evolutionary synthesis, it is not even in Darwin's theory, much less core to it.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"No, in fact while it may be a core element of the modern evolutionary synthesis, it is not even in Darwin's theory, much less core to it....."
The fact that Darwin was wrong about the source of his random variation is really quite irrelevant. The core of modern NeoDarwinism is essentially unchanged i.e. some source of random variation being filtered by natural selection. Hence the reason why Darwin continues to be worshipped as a secular prophet.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, LOL... So some of his ideas were wrong, and the ideas that weren't proven wrong, scientists think he didn't add enough detail and went on to improve his work. Some prophet.
No, Darwin being worshiped, and/or a secular prophet is a mistake of theists trying to fit him into their worldview. He isn't.
So it's quite irrelevant that Darwin only represents 1 part of the modern evolutionary synthesis? Hmm... well then, the people of the EU will be happy to know they're French.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"theists trying to fit him into their worldview. He isn't....."
Why do so many fervent atheist, like Richard Dawkins revere Darwin, to the point of calling themselves Darwinians? Why is Darwin revered by secular society like no other scientist? Why do Darwinists celebrate Darwin Day? Why are these celebrations full of humanists and atheists?
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr "Why do so many fervent atheist, like Richard Dawkins revere Darwin ..."
Dawkins is a biologist and currently writes and speaks as a career on evolution, it surprises you that he deeply respects the foundational scientist? Walk into any physics lab and ask the students there similar questions and you will find them much more familiar with Einstein, Feynman, etc., the relevant people in their field.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JustAnotherM
"he didn't add enough detail and went on to improve his work. Some prophet....."
Every religion has it's apologists. Darwin continues to be revered not for what he got wrong, but for what he got right (in the eyes of the devotees of naturalism) Naturalism is of course the umbrella religion, and Darwin championed the cause for accepting only fully naturalistic explanations, as he championed the apriori denial that intelligent causation played a part in the diversification of life.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, in addition to CliffStamp's points, let me add such examples as Martin Luther King, Jr... who has a legal holiday in the United States.
Again, unlike prophets, there is nothing wrong with criticizing Darwin's work. Several parts have been disproven in the past, and if there are more things he got wrong, more will be disproven in the future. He's a scientist, not a prophet, and his hypothesis is as subject to disproof as any other scientist.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
Regarding the naturalistic explanation part, given the pervasiveness of methodological naturalism in science, you have yet to show why this is something to lay at Darwin's feet, instead of the fact that it's demonstrably the best method of approaching truth that we have come up with.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant "given the pervasiveness of methodological naturalism in science, you have yet to show why this is something to lay at Darwin's feet"
That of course has nothing to do with Darwin, who was a scientist, this is in the realm of the philosophy of science, so that is the issue of people like Popper, or to go way back, Aristotle and Plato/Socrates.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnotherMuta
"you have yet to show why this is something to lay at Darwin's feet,....."
It is common knowledge that Darwin was heavily influenced by his mentor, Sir Charles Lyell, as well as other naturalists. Darwin's theory differered from a multitude of other evolutionary theories that were circulating at the time, principally in his demand that to explain evolution scientifically, meant to explain it by natural law. Darwin and Lyell actually pioneered this type of historical research
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@JustAnothe
"methodological naturalism....the best method of approaching truth"
Methodological naturalism is invaluable to most sciences, and it is routinely relied upon by ID proponents. The problem is that while MN is essential for uncovering repeating mechanisms and processes, it breaks down when we try to apply it to explain the origin of intelligently caused artefacts. Does MN provide a complete explanation for the origin of the pyramids, or do we need to invoke intelligent causes as well?
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, what would make an intelligence a non-natural cause?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherM
"given the pervasiveness of methodological naturalism in science, you have yet to show why this is something to lay at Darwin's feet"
MN was being routinely applied several centuries before Darwin, mainly by theistic scientists. Darwin is revered for championing a particular philosophical view that stated that ONLY naturalistic explanations may be used to explain life's diversity. Here, the world is assumed to be a self enclosed system of cause and effect, with no purposive forces
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, ok... so methodological naturalism was around long before him. He was a philosophical and methodological naturalist, but is somehow responsible for later philosophical naturalists and philosophical supernaturalists practicing methodological naturalism?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"He's a scientist, not a prophet, and his hypothesis is as subject to disproof as any other scientist....."
Would you be prepared to forsake Darwins major contribution to the Darwinism vs design debate i.e. the claim that only fully naturalistic theories may be proposed to explain the diversification of life? Is naturalism itself open to disproof?
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, while I don't believe that can be laid entirely at his feet, I have already answered this question. My sole attachment to methodological naturalism is its demonstrated ability to converge on an answer, getting us slowly but surely closer to the truth. If you can demonstrate another method with similar convergence ability, I will be happy to accept it.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMu
"My sole attachment to methodological naturalism is its demonstrated ability to converge on an answer.."
I have repeatedly explained that MN is ONLY applicable to events that had a natural cause in the first place. If an object was designed, we need to invoke intelligent causes. You seem unaware of the fact that a great deal of evolutionary theory does not apply MN, and does not explain repeatable events. It uses abductive reasoning to reason from present evidence to past causes.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@JustAnoth
"If you can demonstrate another method with similar convergence ability, I will be happy to accept it..."
How about the method that Darwin himself pioneered, and the one that is used ubiquitously nowadays in the historical sciences. It is called the method of "inference to the best explanation". By Darwins own rules of reasoning, we to explain past events by invoking causes known to have the power to produce the effect in question. Multiple trials are compared, and the best is chosen
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr - Ah, I see that the "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS" is used by you with other people. I notice that when you start to get backed into a corner you just start throwing out a lot of BS, hoping that no one will notice that you are saying nothing.
Typical pseudo-intellectual creationist tactic. Creationists don't have to give correct information, they just have to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the uninformed. So, so sad. Learn some science, dude.
CamW30 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, ok... so we start our research with an argument from ignorance. Now, how do we make the trials, and since appeals to probability are non-convergent, how do we compare these trials? Since practically everything in science started out as not known to have the power to produce the effect, how do we find anything new?
How do we test for design? After all, since we can't design a cell and have never observed them being designed, that is not known to have the power to produce the effect.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant "How do we test for design?"
Note there are actually valid design theories, the constructal theory of Adrian Bejan for example states in order for systems to propogage they have to evolve so as to enhance imposed current flow. Lungs for example are an obvious example in biology. Note again this is apparent design, there is no intent, a system which does not have this property simply does not propogate.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
CliffStamp, True, however that would be a different sense of the word design than IDtaksovr uses, and of course he is also against the methodology used.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnotherMutant "however that would be a different sense of the word design than IDtaksovr uses, and of course he is also against the methodology used"
Yes, but ironically, if you were going to argue design, then you would think that you would look at the actually accepted engineering design principles, how they were evaluated, tested and then accepted/applied.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
CliffStamp, If I recall IDtaksovr's "research" correctly, they found that the designer did it that way for reasons we can't yet understand. :)
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMu
"so we start our research with an argument from ignorance...."
The same charge could be laid on an archaeologist who refuses to accept that pyramids were formed by natural erosion, and who instead proposes that intelligent agency played a part. The archaeologist can only be accused of this if science is dogmatically defined as the search for purely natural causes to explain events. Clearly, such arbitrary limitations on scientific explanations would bar scientists from the truth
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, "causes known to have the power to produce the effect in question" gets us nowhere unless we already know the answer, because we're tossing out the answer unless we know it.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"causes known to have the power to produce the effect in question" gets us nowhere unless we already know the answer"
Then your argument is with a method that is essential for any historical science - and one that Darwin himself pioneered and used to make his case in TOOS. Darwin sought only "vera causa" to explain events occuring in the distant past. i.e. the true cause of a natural phenomenon, must be explained by an agency whose existence is independently evidenced.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr "The same charge could be laid on an archaeologist who refuses to accept that pyramids were formed by natural erosion, and who instead proposes that intelligent agency played a part. "
Again, you show complete ignorance of statistical inference, write out the Bayesian equations for this inference and then the ID inference and then, here is the important part, actually do the math for both. Stop making vague assertions and actually provide some science.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"how do we make the trials......"
When we try to explain the past origin of a feature, Darwin suggested that we propose onlt suitable causes that are known to have the power to produce the effect in question. Often many causes in different combinations can produce the same effect. Rivals are compared and either accepted or rejected depending on how well they account for all the relevant data. E.g. many competing scenarious have been suggested for the origin of the moon, say.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutan
"how do we compare these trials?...."
That will depend on the details of individual cases. The scientific community must weigh the evidence in favour of the various proposed mechanisms, as a judge must weigh competing versions of events, in a criminal trial, against all the available evidence. Darwin was a pioneer of this method. His method is essential to Darwinian theory, cosmology, archaeology, geology, and any science that attempts to explain one-off, unreapeatable events
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, is this his same method that you complained scientists were using when you called them Darwinists?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"same method that you complained scientists were using when you called them Darwinists?...."
As you ought to know by now, a great deal of the research done under the Darwinian / naturalistic paradigm is entirely compatible with ID, and will look good in our portfolio in future. Darwins method of inference to the best explanation is fine, but his arbitrary decision to refuse to allow hypotheses involving intelligent causes to compete alongside fully naturalistic ones is not
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, LOL... well, seeing as how your display of the relentless buildup of research currently constitutes 1 paper in a journal with almost no scientific impact... I think that will be a while.
And as a side note, no... you'll need more research to show why it supports ID instead of the previous theory it was supporting.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnotherMutant
"seeing as how your display of the relentless buildup of research currently constitutes 1 paper in a journal....."
You were burying your head in the sand on the repeated occasions in which I presented many more examples. Unfortunately they are still there waiting for you. There are six peer - reviewed ID papers at the evolutionary informatics lab website by William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, no, previously you provided me a list claiming it was a list of peer reviewed research, when in fact it was not.
With the list you have now provided,
Paper 1: reviewed in wrong field. That was posted to a computer science journal, not biology.
Paper 2: Not peer reviewed, proposes a "law" that has no consensus, and in fact is pretty much disproven by the fact that we have observed the generation of new genetic information.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So that's 2 lists you have provided me that are not in fact lists of peer reviewed papers. So your display of the relentless buildup of research currently constitutes 1 paper in a journal with almost no scientific impact
Did you have any actual lists of peer reviewed research supporting ID?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMu
"practically everything in science started out as not known to have the power to produce the effect"
The method of "inference to the best explanation (IBE)" is used primarily in the historical sciences. The following paper explains the difference between a "historical science", like evolutionary theory and operations science, involving only real-time repeatable experiments. Free PDF:
"Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method" by Carol E. Cleland
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, where in that paper are we using something other than methodological naturalism?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnother
"where in that paper are we using something other than methodological naturalism?."
The point of the paper was to educate you on the distinction between the "historical sciences" and "operations science" that deals purely with repeatable experiments. Different rules of reasoning are used in each case. Historical sciences often use abductive reasoning to create hypotheses about one-off unreapeatable events. The method is to compare competing explanations. Do you get this bit first?
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, If you are asking that, perhaps it is time for you to answer the question on the if you saw supporting evidence for CD in the fossils at the museum.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"if you saw supporting evidence for CD in the fossils at the museum....."
I couldn't understand your question, but the idea of common descent is accepted by many of the leading ID proponents. If any such descent did occur, then the dominant patterns in the fossil record do not support the Darwinian account.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, I don't care how many proponents of ID accept CD vs divine fiat vs whatever else. That is entirely unimportant to the fossils at the museum being supporting evidence for CD or not.
If you didn't understand the question, then what makes you think you understood Carol Cleland's paper? If you don't understand the question, then you don't understand what evidence she's talking about.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnoth
" the fossils at the museum being supporting evidence for CD or not"
While the complexity does show an overall upward trend, it does so in an entirely erratic fashion. Museum examples are cherry picked to suit the Darwinian narrative, yet even the best examples show little evidence of gradual evolution. The fossil record may show evidence of CD in some sense, but nothing like the kind of patterns that would need to exist if something like Darwinian evo were the driving mechanism
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, please try again, restricting your answer to the evidence supporting or not supporting CD.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"restricting your answer to the evidence supporting or not supporting CD...."
I don't have a problem with CD in principle. CD is fine with me and is compatable with some formulations of ID, so this is a waste of time. The problem with Darwinists is that rather than viewing CD as a scientific hypothesis, they require it as a philosophical necessity. CD then becomes a methodology that governs interpretation of the data, and CD itself is treated like an unchallengeable dogma.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IDtaksovr, actually no. CD is not unchallengeable dogma. It is testable and has undergone rigorous testing. Are you sure you understood Carol Cleland's paper? Your statement implies that you did not.
But I digress... I did not ask if you had problems with CD in principle, but the evidence you saw. So please try again, restricting your answer to the evidence supporting or not supporting CD.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"CD is not unchallengeable dogma....."
Well what are the falsification criteria for CD then? -
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, LOL... ok... so you were an "evangelical Darwinist", but didn't even know if CD was testable? I would have been arguing against you back then as well.
Well, as your past comments indicate you are familiar with The Talk.Origins Archive, I recommend you read "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." . It is available in .pdf format on their site at /pdf/comdesc.pdf
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnother
"you were an "evangelical Darwinist", but didn't even know if CD was testable?"
I fell for the elaborate Darwinian facade, like you, and got carried away with all the propaganda that comes with being a Darwinist but I was willing to go where the evidence lead when the truth was pointed out. The fallacy of claiming direct evidence of universal common descent becomes apparent when you realise that all the evidence involves inferences of some sort, e.g. from philosophical principles
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@JustAnotherM
"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"
I am aware of this effort to make the case for CD. It correctly points out that:
"Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories". While mentioning a number of possible evolutionary mechanisms, the article fails to mention ID as a possible factor guiding CD. The tests all involve inferring a case for CD, but fail to mention that common design could also explain those evidences provided.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, so what?
It shows that you are incorrect about it being unchallengeable dogma. CD is in fact a testable scientific position.
Now if ID has the same and some of that is evidence supporting ID, again... all you have to do is answer CliffStamp's question.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnotherMutant
"It is testable and has undergone rigorous testing....."
How to you test the claim that all life evolved from a single common ancestor? Ans: you don't - you assume it as a going in assumption. CD is a dogma under Darwinian evolution but a testable hypothesis under ID
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr , ok... so you don't actually understand the type of evidence Carol Cleland is talking about. Why should I take your opinion on the meaning of it seriously?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IDtaksovr "How to you test the claim that all life evolved from a single common ancestor? "
Are you really ignorant of the research that has tested this hypothesis, there are peer reviewed papers exactly on this subject.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"How do we test for design?...."
We have a rich pool of intelligently designed objects from which to study and abstract rules. We also know a great deal about the kinds of things that natural causes can produce. Design is frequently so easy to spot that most people can instantly distinguish between a naturally caused and a man-made artefact. One characteristic that distinguishes natural objects from designed ones is irreducible complexity. Another is high information content
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, until you point out problems with the paper CliffStamp presented, IC is not sufficient to indicate design. We have also observed natural processes adding to the information content in DNA, so high information content is not sufficient to indicate design.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnotherMutant
"until you point out problems with the paper CliffStamp presented,...."
I don't know what paper you are talking about, and you don't seem to want me to know, or else you would have re-posted the details. BTW if I do point out problems with the paper, does that mean that IC now IS "sufficient to indicate design"
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, depends on your level of refutation. If you just shrug it off, no. If you can provide a good enough refutation, at a minimum I'll stop complaining about your IC claims. If you can produce a successful testable hypothesis, yes, and CliffStamp has offered to publish it.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnother
"I'll stop complaining about your IC claims. If you can produce a successful testable hypothesis..."
The property of IC is tested by removing components one at a time. I.e. if we remove any of the proteins involved in the construction of the flagellum, we either get a defective flagellum, or a flagellum that doesn't get built (because the cell has a sophisticated QC system to prevent wastage of resources) The ID hypothesis is that such IC systems are beyond the reach of RM and NS
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@JustAnotherM
"I'll stop complaining about your IC claims. If you can produce a successful testable hypothesis...."
You can disprove the ID hypothesis that IC systems are beyond the reach of the Darwinian mechanism any time, by evolving them in the lab. The irony is that if any of the serious sciences went around bragging about their theory, they would at least offer positive evidence why it can do what is claimed of it. In contrast, Darwinists challenge others to prove tthere theory cannot
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, seeing as how IC is not a hypothesis of the "Darwinists", according to you it should be Dr Behe producing the research to be considered a serious challenge, seeing as how he missed research about how RM/NS generate IC structures.
However you have pointed out machines as IC, and these days some of those are designed by random variation & selection. Likewise you were shown a paper demonstrating IC structures generated by random variation and selection.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnotherMutant
"you have pointed out machines as IC, and these days some of those are designed by random variation & selection."
Can you tell me which IC machines you are referring to, when I pointed them out, and where I can see evidence that they were constructed without considerable assistance from intelligent agency?
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMu
"he missed research about how RM/NS generate IC structures...."
Whenever a paper defending the sufficiency of the RM and NS mechanism to generate IC structures is published, Behe has shot gaping holes in it. Invariably, the papers either do not address Behe's specific question, or they are fanciful "just-so" stories aka wishful speculations, rather than detailed testable models. Darwinists fear to address the IC problem for fear of attracting attention to an insurmountable hurdle
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, again, where is Dr Behe's research? Without that, you have stated he should not be taken seriously.
Meanwhile, we shown you a paper published long before Dr Behe's, proposing how IC structures are generated by RM/NS, and Dr Behe has no research to be considered a serious refutation of it. CliffStamp also pointed out a paper since his research, showing that random variation guided by selection can produce IC structures, making his basic premise not viable.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
So no, we don't have "Darwinists" fearing to address the "IC problem"... we don't have any serious research to indicate IC might be a problem. In fact quite the opposite. We have convergence on IC not being a problem, and in fact being pretty likely.
Meanwhile, Dr Behe claims that the cell is different, but again... where is his research?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant "So no, we don't have "Darwinists" fearing to address the "IC problem"."
What do you have to do to be a "Darwinist" exactly, is this term ever defined, is it just simply someone who would agree that evolution is a well supported theory with broad applications and predictive powers?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
CliffStamp, LOL... That was my original thought, which works out to all but 1% of the scientists in the field, so in the context of this video, I was originally taking it as synonymous with "scientific community" or "scientists" depending on usage. However after IDtaksovr has attempted to define it, I think he may be using it as methodological naturalists. In the context of this video, that would be synonymous with my previous thoughts, however in larger context nets physicists, ...
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant I don't think it is close to one percent, I have never met one IRL. I would defend the theory, but I would rather be a Feynmanist, no offense to Darwin, but Feynman was simply a much more froody guy who always knew where his towel was.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
CliffStamp, oops, yes, there was supposed to be a less than in there, and I'm not surprised we have never met one. "less than 1%" is yes, being generous and since I would be shocked if it even rounded to 1%, implies a much higher number than I think is likely. I think a percent of a percent would be a "worst case" estimate (or "best case" from IDtaksovr's POV).
Perhaps we should give him a list of scientists as possible alternatives to Darwin. They wouldn't stir the same fears in the hearts
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
of people brought up to believe Darwin is the source of modern atheism, Nazism, ..., so I don't know if any will take.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant - "Behe has no research to be considered a serious refutation of it"
Behe & the DI gang aren't scientists. See: watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI
Padian rips them a new one.
CamW30 1 year ago
CamW30, actually while he does mention some members of the "DI gang" as not being scientists, Dr Behe is not one of the ones he says this about. Dr Behe has in fact published several scientific articles. Dr Padian [correctly] points out that Dr Behe's ID work did not go through the peer review process, even though it is clear from Dr Behe's other work that he understands the process.
So while we avoid IDtaksovr's mistake of thinking that every paper of Dr Behe is supporting ID, let us not
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
make the similar mistake of thinking that every paper of Dr Behe is non-scientific, or that Dr Behe is not a scientist.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant - "So while we avoid IDtaksovr's mistake of thinking that every paper of Dr Behe is supporting ID, let us not"
Too true; I am sorry, I was just thinking in terms of ID articles. Yes, Behe has written papers that actual show up on PubMed. Behe did trumpet that Darwin's Black Box was peer-reviewed, when it wasn't.
CamW30 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"where is Dr Behe's research? Without that, you have stated he should not be taken seriously...."
His latest paper is called:
“Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and “the first rule of adaptive evolution.”
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, LOL... that has nothing to do with IC. As I told CamW30, I do accept Dr Behe as a published scientist. However his proposal of IC lacks research and did not go through the peer review process. By your stated criteria, the former means that IC should not be taken seriously.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnotherMutant
"I do accept Dr Behe as a published scientist. However his proposal of IC lacks research"
LOL Thousands of papers deal with dozens aspects of evolutionary theory and yet crucially, none seem to demonstrate the Darwinian evolution of IC structures that underly all life. Darwinism is now officially a religion. There is an elephant in the room, and the inability to deal with IC is it.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, you have already said that unresearched opinions don't need to be taken seriously. So until Dr Behe does the research to confirm IC, by your rules, we don't need to take it seriously.
And again, we have IC structures developed by random variation guided by selection, both in engineering, and the paper presented to you by CliffStamp. Thus IC in and of itself is insufficient to indicate design. So we have a convergence in science, and it's not going towards IC being a problem.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"you have already said that unresearched opinions don't need to be taken seriously..."
No I didn't. Currently "unresearched opinions" will become the science of the future. Many ID avenues remain unresearched, due to underfunding, persecution, and lack of scientists who are aware of what ID really is. Many scientsis who might have been more sympathetic to ID have bought into the distortions being promoted by Darwinists.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, nonsense. You have been making this claim multiple times about people pointing out the flaws in Dr Behe's claim of IC. The problem is that Dr Behe's claim itself is unresearched.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"Dr Behe's claim itself is unresearched...."
Behe's research has revealed an absence of papers successfully addressing the problem of the Darwinian evolution of IC systems. It is the Darwinists problem to fill that vacuum. Behe deserves credit, not persecution, just because he chose to wash the dirty laundry of Darwinism in public. While Behe cannot prove a negative, surely it is up to the Darwinists to make a positive case for the sufficieny of RM and NS
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr. where is his research that it is a problem? Surely it is up to Dr Behe to prove that there is actually an issue.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnotherMutant
"both in engineering, and the paper presented to you by CliffStamp....."
Repeating a lie often enough does not make it anymore believeable, but if you repeat it often enough to yourself, you might come to believe it. CliffStamp presented nothing. I would like to expose the problems with whatever paper you are clinging to, but you have not provided me with anything to criticise yet.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, The paper has been factually presented to you, so that is not a lie, no matter how many or how few times I repeat it. No matter how many times you claim it to be a lie, Youtube has maintained an electronic record of your factual incorrectness. Now of the facts contained within the paper, if you believe those are a lie, you are welcome to point out which parts are not factually correct.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"The paper has been factually presented to you, so that is not a lie...."
You must have "accidentally" sent it to the wrong place, or provided me with the wrong or insufficient details to find it. Your stubborn refusal to re-up the papers details speaks volumes about your confidence in this alleged refutation of IC.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, LOL... no, CliffStamp posted it, not me. If it was posted to the wrong place, I never would have known about it. CliffStamp posted sufficient details for me to find it in less than 1 minute. I fear my stubborn refusal to repost what you didn't bother to actually read when CliffStamp posted has a different source than you imagine, but you are welcome to believe that if it makes you happy.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"we shown you a paper published long before Dr Behe's, proposing how IC structures are generated by RM/NS"
Sigh! Which paper was that?
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"CliffStamp also pointed out a paper since his research...."
I'll discuss Cliffstamps papers with Cliffstamp. If you have actually read the paper that he allegedly presented, then provide me with the title and we can discuss it.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, the links in question are at /comment_servlet?all_comments=1&v=GkdRdik73kU.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
sorry, posts in question.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"and CliffStamp has offered to publish it......"
Ooooh I,m so excited. Is it one of the hundreds of papers that were offered as evidence against Behe's claims that IC systems are beyond the reach of Darwinian mechanisms? There must be so many and CliffStamp must be having trouble choosing - thus the lengthy delay.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, you have not presented a successful testable hypothesis of IC yet, so he is currently choosing between nothing and nothing. If you desire to speed that up, post away.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"you have not presented a successful testable hypothesis of IC yet...."
Many have been presented, from the hypothesis that IC structures are beyond the probabilistic reach of naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms, to the hypothesis that most of our "junk" DNA will turn out to have function, to our hypothesis that far deeper levels of complexity in the cell await discovery etc. While you can continue to bury your head in the sand, the ID hypotheses will continue to pile up.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr "the hypothesis that IC structures are beyond the probabilistic reach of naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms, to the hypothesis that most of our "junk" DNA will turn out to have function, to our hypothesis that far deeper levels of complexity in the cell await discovery etc"
Are you seriously asserting that ID "scientists" actually think the above lay statements are examples of a hypothesis?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, I don't recall any formulation of IC that included junk DNA having function. I likewise don't recall any formulation of IC that deeper levels of complexity await us in the cell. Likewise, since we're talking about CliffStamp's offer to publish, we are not talking about any peer reviewed paper that might have been presented, or hiding within the lists of non-peer reviewed research you have presented.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So, where is your formulation of the hypothesis of IC? As Cliffstamp mentioned, we're talking about
"Then state the hypothesis, and note the peer reviewed journal which accepts the hypothesis and the empirical evidence which is used to advance it and the conditions under which the hypothesis can be both demonstrated and falsified."
(except of course the peer reviewed journal, since we're talking about unpublished research).
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
And of course you mentioned scientists needing to provide research to be taken seriously, so please also include your research results.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnotherMutant
"I likewise don't recall any formulation of IC that deeper levels of complexity await us in the cell."
The fact that you are ignorant of the kind of testable hypotheses being promoted by ID proponents doesn't prevent them from being testable ID hypotheses. All that matters is: are the hypotheses testable and can we do meaningful research on them?
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr "All that matters is: are the hypotheses testable and can we do meaningful research on them?"
Your lay statements do not quality as a hypothesis, if you are curious to know why then you can be so educated, but first I want to know the name of at least one scientist in the ID movement who thinks those statements you made actually quality to be a hypothesis - and then the definition of hypothesis they are using to support that position.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, if you wish to call me ignorant, you are welcome to do so, after all there are far more things I am ignorant of than things I know, so in the grand scheme of things, calling me ignorant is more accurate than calling me knowledgeable. After you get around to posting the testable hypotheses for IC, we will gladly accept that this is one of those areas.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"if you wish to call me ignorant, you are welcome to do so,...."
I said that just because you are ignorant of ID hypotheses, that doesn't mean their aren't any. There could be many reasons why a person is unaware of ID hypotheses - some more excuseable than others. Why do you try to imply that I was making a general insult. I have never suggested that you were "ignorant" in general. There is also something called "wilful ignorance"......
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IDtaksovr, Correct. I stated that I am ignorant in general, and that being ignorant in general is not an insult, but an accurate assessment of the facts. As I said, "After you get around to posting the testable hypotheses for IC, we will gladly accept that this is one of those areas [in which I am ignorant]."
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant - IDtaksovr has no science background. His understanding of genetics is laughable. My 15 yr. old has a better grasp of genetics than this tool.
He hasn't any real, learned knowledge. He only has "acquired" knowledge. He just parrots what he reads & watches in videos, with no deep understanding. This is evident in the elementary mistakes he makes when trying to discuss genetic issues.
He wants people to think that he's smart; but he isn't even close.
CamW30 1 year ago
CamW30, yes... I find it interesting that he claims to have been a "evangelical Darwinist", and yet he has shown that he doesn't know what the meaning of peer review, hypothesis, theory,... in science, doesn't know what the modern evolutionary synthesis proposes, and has a familiarity with the details equal to creationist quote miners...
With all that, he somehow felt qualified to be evangelical.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"After all, since we can't design a cell....."
We are currently reverse engineering cells to find out how they work, and re-engineering cells in order to tailor them to our needs, as we would reverse engineer and re-engineer any super advanced technology. While we do try to design cells in our own humble way, it is perverse to try to present our own limitations as designers as a reason to think that the cell was not designed, and instead was the producd by a mindless process
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, they use RM/NS to design machinery these days. So, that adds RM/NS to our list of things that could account for the appearance of design.
If it's perverse to try to present our own limits as designers, why did you say "invoking causes known to have the power to produce the effect in question"?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
And as a point of interest, these are the same cells that just last were vastly more complex than our most advanced nanotech? I guess we had some drastic advances in science over the last week, eh?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnother
"the same cells that just last were vastly more complex than our most advanced nanotech?."
They are the same cells that our best scientists can only hope to imitate and modify at present. That may change in future. The point is, you really nead to leave your brain at the door nowadays if you are a Darwinian biochemists. The suggestion that systems that are currently beyond out best intelligent agents ought to be explained by a blind purposeless process, might lead to schizophrenia
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, the point is that your description of these varies wildly. When we are talking about CD/ToE they are vastly more complex than anything we can create. When we are talking about ID they suddenly become just barely out of reach. Pick their complexity, stick with it.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"talking about CD/ToE they are vastly more complex than anything we can create......"
The cell is vastly more complex than anything we can create at present, and may always be out of our reach, as far as generating cell from scratch is concerned. This puts the cell ligh-years beyond the reach of the clunky, clumsy Darwinian mechanism. ID proponents believe that a super intelligence is needed to explain the cell. Darwinists think that NO intelligence is whats needed!
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, by your stated rules, you must demonstrate the capacity of super intelligence to design the cell, and you have failed to demonstrate this.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnoth
"you must demonstrate the capacity of super intelligence to design the cell"
You are saying that ID proponents need to provide a conclusive demonstration at the very start of their research programme. Is that fair, given that Darwinists have been trying to explain the diversity of life for over 150 years and are now in a mess. Demostrating that intelligent agents can produce some IC systems shows that ID is a promising avenue. Decades of research will be needed to elaborate on this
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr - "You are saying that ID proponents need to provide a conclusive demonstration at the very start of their research programme."
You still have no idea how science works. Perhaps this will help:
watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
"watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI"
Whenever I see a title like "Evolution vs. Creationism", I know that the Darwinist just doesn't get it. Present something with a title like intelligent design versus fully naturalistic evolution and I will gladly watch it.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr - "Whenever I see a title like "Evolution vs. Creationism", I know that the Darwinist just doesn't get it."
Whatever, dude. I just thought you might like to have peer-review explained to you. Don't watch it, it might change your misconceptions & we wouldn't want that.
ID still isn't science & creation scientists aren't.
CamW30 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr "You are saying that ID proponents need to provide a conclusive demonstration at the very start of their research programme. "
No, they need to provide a hypothesis, the research comes later, again what is the hypothesis.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, we're talking about your proposed rules for scientific research here, not the current scientific method. Please keep track of your chains.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"we're talking about your proposed rules for scientific research...."
The ID methodology is the same as that being used in historical sciences. The method of inference to the best explanation (IBE) is used widely in anything from cosmology to evolutionary biology and pataeontology. The ONLY significant difference is that ID allows for the possibility that intelligent causes may be considered. Intelligent causes are however already being appealed to in some sciences.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, then perhaps you should consider a reformulation of the rules, since I'm going with your posted rules here.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMut
"they use RM/NS to design machinery these days" An observed case of RM and NS evolving IC structures will always carry far more weight than an intelligently designed simulation / gross approximation, so lets exaust actual cases observed in nature first, before moving on to simulations.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
IDtaksovr, You said that the machines are IC structures. That would make those the examples you were looking for.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant
"You said that the machines are IC structures. "
Whenever we see IC structures in everyday life, we assume that an intelligent agent was behind them. ID merely generalizes this inference from human designers to all other kinds of intelligent agency.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago