A simple case for intelligent design

[Polymath257]

Design can also be detected and tested. Archeologists, forensic scientists cryptographers etc detect design all the time .

the point is that the existance of dark matter can be implied, making your comment wrong.

they detect it by knowing in detail what sorts of things can arise naturally and what sorts of things cannot. For example, determining if certain markings on bone are the result of intelligent design or are naturally produced requires a deep knowledge of how natural processes can affect bones.

 

[leroy]

they detect it by knowing in detail what sorts of things can arise naturally and what sorts of things cannot. For example, determining if certain markings on bone are the result of intelligent design or are naturally produced requires a deep knowledge of how natural processes can affect bones.

Well based on the knowledge that we have abiogenesis can't occure.


Perhaps a deeper knowledge on how amino acids work might change this. But up to this point all the evidence says that amino acids don't organize themselves in to something that you would call life.

 

[Polymath257]

Well based on the knowledge that we have abiogenesis can't occure.

No, based on the knowledge we have, there are many potential pathways for abiogenesis to occur.

Perhaps a deeper knowledge on how amino acids work might change this. But up to this point all the evidence says that amino acids don't organize themselves in to something that you would call life.

So focused on amino acids. Early life was probably RNA based, not protein based.

 

[leroy]

OK, so to be 'specified' means that natural processes are unlikely to produced the observed complexity? Which means we have to thoroughly understand what the natural process can and cannot produce *before* we can say the observed complexity is 'specified', right?

Would you say that we understand the chemistry of biologically relevant chemicals to the degree that we can tell what sorts of things can arise naturally and what sorts of things cannot?

Do you disagree that an intelligent agent, by the very process of elimination required to show the complexity is specified' should be the *last* explanation proposed?

Specificity means that natural mechanisms don't have a bias towards producing that pattern. Specificity by itself does not imply that it is unlikely.

For example trowing 3 dice and getting "6" "6" "6" would be specified ...... But it wouldn't be very unlikely (you can get that pattern by chance)

But if you have 100 dice all facing "6" you can infer inteligent design , because there would be both specificity and complexity.

Would you say that we understand the chemistry of biologically relevant chemicals to the degree that we can tell what sorts of things can arise naturally and what sorts of things cannot?

In that case "nature can't do it" should be the default answer until proven otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

Specificity means that natural mechanisms don't have a bias towards producing that pattern. Specificity by itself does not imply that it is unlikely.

For example trowing 3 dice and getting "6" "6" "6" would be specified ...... But it wouldn't be very unlikely (you can get that pattern by chance)

Just as much likelihood as every other sequence of three rolls.

But if you have 100 dice all facing "6" you can infer inteligent design , because there would be both specificity and complexity.

Actually, of course, this is *not* complex. It is simple. And *that* is the issue. A complex sequence of rolls is *exactly* what we expect. A *simple* sequence is unlikely and requires further explanation.

In that case "nature can't do it" should be the default answer until proven otherwise.

Actually, that is precisely the *opposite* of what the default should be. Given the number of situations where people thought 'nature can't do it' and they turned out to be wrong, and the non-existence of the contrary, the default should be that there *is* a natural explanation until we understand completely enough to say that no such is possible.

 

[gnostic]

Design can also be detected and tested. Archeologists, forensic scientists cryptographers etc detect design all the time .

Do you know what “archaeology” is?

Archaeology is the the study of human history, through what people build/construct (eg cities, towns, both public and private buildings, roads, bridges, tombs, etc) or what they make (artefacts, like art works, minted coins, pottery, combs, tools, weapons, etc, all “man-made”.

So of course, archaeology involved designs, because they all involved discoveries of man-made construction or man-made objects.

Do you understand what is cryptology?

Cryptography is also “man-made” writing, reading, encrypting or deciphering codes. They are written, read, breaking all by people, humans.

As to forensic science, it is the study of how people died, whether it by natural causes (which could be of old age or diseases) or by killing (murders, through gunshot, blows). It is the later (the killing), is the main reasons that forensic science is used to gather evidences against perpetrators for some crimes committed, which are to be used for court of law. Forensic science is used to determine how crimes were committed, by gathering evidences.

All these have nothing too do with the Designer of Intelligent Design, whether that “designer” or “designers” be god, alien, or some other mythological beings.

No invisible and all-powerful Designer, Creator or God involved in town-planning, architecture, sculptures, making coins, tools or weapons made (archaeology), nor are they involved encrypting or deciphering hidden codes (cryptology), nor solving crimes through finding evidences (solving).

What does any of these (archaeology, cryptology or forensic science) have to do with Intelligent Design or with Creationism?

Again, you are making silly comparisons of the real world that involved human activities to that of the supernatural, which are ID.

 

[exchemist]

Well based on the knowledge that we have abiogenesis can't occure.


Perhaps a deeper knowledge on how amino acids work might change this. But up to this point all the evidence says that amino acids don't organize themselves in to something that you would call life.

There is no such evidence. The lack of a natural explanation for something we observe is not evidence that it is naturally impossible. We lack natural explanations for a lot of things in nature, but nobody concludes from that they cannot have happened naturally.

If people reasoned like you, science would never solve any problems at all!

 

[exchemist]

Design can also be detected and tested. Archeologists, forensic scientists cryptographers etc detect design all the time .

the point is that the existance of dark matter can be implied, making your comment wrong.

Human design can be detected and tested. These scientific disciplines detect human design, relying on our common cultural heritage and the dexterity and limitations of human hands, tools and brains.

No such presumptions can be made for any putative design by a non-human agency. There are no criteria that can be agreed for artifacts produced by such an agency.

This point has been made to you before, but you have ignored it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First, can I take it that you now understand is what meant when people say all extant species are transitional? In other words, can I check first that you have understood my explanation of your last question, before we move onto your next?

I understood before you asked. I likewise understood that for countless species, we cannot find the precedent species in the record.

The issue is no known species show true ancilliary or vestigial systems--systems required for organisms to change "kinds" or "families". There, multiple changes are needed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you persist in trying to introduce migration from the sea to the land into an example about otters? The point of the otter example is to show how migration from land-dwelling to aquatic can be a gradual continuum. I hope you see this point by now. An otter is equally happy to eat voles, frogs or fish and can catch them all. It is air-breathing but is an excellent swimmer and diver and has webbed feet to help it. The stoat and mink, its cousins, are also not bad swimmers but prefer to catch rabbits on the whole.

Now if you can accept that there is no reason for the otter to starve during its evolution from some proto-stoat, we can if you like move on to the separate issue of the evolution of tetrapods from fish. But let's close out the otter example before jumping to a new topic. You don't want to be accused of Gish Galloping, I'm sure.

Of course it can be a gradual continuum, gradual continuum being the just-so story for every anomaly in evolution we ever encounter. Some animals for example, gave rise to new families of animals when they just-so developed circulatory systems that worked in tandem with respiratory systems and endocrine systems and thermoregulatory systems... just-so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Regarding your (2), have you ever thought about what happens when a crystal forms? Its entropy decreases. There is no rule that entropy never decreases. This a myth, propagated by creationists who either do not understand thermodynamics or deliberately lie about it to their flocks, who do not understand it either.

Chemical processes (including biochemical processes) occur when there is a decrease in what is called the "free energy" of the reactants as they change into products. The free energy is a combination of 3 main factors: the internal energy due to chemical bonding, the entropy change of the process and the temperature. We went over this on this thread recently with one of your co-creationists. See post 781.

Crystals and other highly ordered states form, in spite of a decrease of entropy, if the energy released by forming more and/or stronger bonds is enough to outweigh this. The influence of entropy is a function of temperature, stronger at higher temperatures. This is why crystals tend to dissolve on heating, why ice melts, etc. But these processes are reversible: if the temperature drops, the crystals can re-form. Even though their entropy reduces.

What is true is that in an isolated system (one that does not exchange matter or energy with the outside world), entropy can only increase. But living cells and test tubes with crystals in are not isolated systems.

So your creationist sources are deliberately mixing up two different things and telling you lies.

This, you see, is why people with some science training get so exasperated with creationists. Not only do they not bother to learn any science, they are actively fed falsehoods, by soi-disant Christians who then have the cheek to claim some sort of moral high ground, based on their knowledge of the bible.

Why are you shifting to a moral discussion? It's soi-disant skeptics who claim to understand morality IMHO.

There is no evidence for how animals can shift kinds/families in evolution. In general, things tend toward disorder/entropy, DNA is a language/information code that directs amino acids to make other amino acids to form life processes that are irreducibly complex, etc., requiring continual just-so stories from evolutionists.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1. During cellular development, you have billions and billions of bubbles over millions and millions of years. At some point patterns develop and evolve into life. It's lottery math. If you buy enough lottery tickets eventually you are going to win. No matter how small the probability may be, given enough attempts at playing the game, at some point you will win.

2. Life would not function without entropy. It's pressing against the edge of entropy that allows life to function. Life is feedback loop of a biological process heading towards entropy that reinvents its initial condition. Life creates a hill for a ball to roll down a hill and then takes the energy to recreate the ball at the top of the hill. Life is semantically a self-referential process.

3. It's not an attack on your character but your unwillingness to accept every possible explanation of the data or facts. There may be more than one explanation to the same experiences.

Do you not see the orders of complexity required in your just-so story:

"During cellular development, you have billions and billions of bubbles over millions and millions of years. At some point patterns develop and evolve into life.">?

 

[BilliardsBall]

BB, whether life or DNA is “simple” or “complex” is not the issue.

The issue is when you assume complexity = designed, and followed by designed = “DESIGNER”.

It is this type of rationalizing, which involved false equivocation, circular reasoning, wishful thinking, baseless (baseless as in “no evidences”) speculation.

It is exactly this type of assumptions and rationalization that I find intellectually dishonest.

And the problem is that you do it frequently.

You have shown you are using the same dishonest tactics as those people at the Discovery Institute and at AiG.

I didn't assume complexity equals designed. I assumed maximal, theoretically near-infinite complexity, combined with the likelihood of most mutations to be not beneficial, and working against natural law/entropy, etc. equals designed. Then you said it's logical to look for complex aliens elsewhere using SETI, but not for any of them to have perhaps created life on Earth. I call that a double-standard.

It makes you "feel better" to constantly say I'm dishonest. What is bothering you so much that you need to assault my character to feel better?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I presented another creation story along with its mythology to make it easier for you to see how myth is often a mixture of fact and actual events. In the case of the Iroquois (actual name Haudenosaunee) The great peace maker (Dekanawida) comes to Hiawatha to form a peace between the warring tribes with the help of Jigonhasasee and created a peace and a confederacy between the tribes. This confederacy created the first democracy known in North America and because of Jigonhasasee an Iroquois woman the chiefs would be selected by the women of the confederacy. This confederacy became the model for the democracy established in the formation United States of America. Even the three branches of the government was modeled of the Iroquois confederacy.
Did a great peace maker talk to Hiawatha, was there an actual Hiawatha and Jigonhasasee and did the process including burring the weapons under the great tree of peace actually occur? Does it matter how much is factual and how much is myth? To those people of the Haudenosaunee it is the myth that matters and which they believe no matter what the factual details were. It is the myth that teaches them what is important and resulted in their government. A government which created the model to create the government of the United States.
If the bible is mostly myth created to teach the important lessons for the followers of the Jewish faith, what difference does it matter how much is absolute fact or myth. Does it change what you should believe? Would you stop believing if it is a mixture of myth and historic facts?
Whether there was an ark or not for instance does not change what is important to the followers of that faith.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, however, I didn't ask you "whether I should believe based on myth or facts" or "how important it is that the Bible contain a certain percentage of myth and facts". Rather, I asked you, and ask you again, how did you ascertain the knowledge required to say, "Genesis chapter X is myth and Genesis chapter Y is fact" and so on?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you mean the taxonomic category of "family" and what do you mean by kinds?

There are examples of change in populations and speciation. The evolution of a nylon digestion in bacteria would be an example of change at the population level and, considering the state of bacterial taxonomy, this might even qualify as a speciation-level event. The evolutionary radiation of the cichlid species flock found in Lake Victoria in Africa is a more recent speciation event that includes the evolution of entirely new genera. This occurred within the last 15,000 years and is considered and example of one of the fastest radiation/speciation events yet recorded. That is over 500 species of cichlids from a small number of original species for the period.

Then there is the change over time observed in the fossil record and these changes are visible. The examples are numerous and include a number of well known and extant vertebrate lines including horses and whales.

Other examples that come to mind, are evolution and speciation by hybridization in goat's beard (Tragopogon) and by similiar means in the grey tree frog, Hyla chrysoscelis evolving by ploidy into H. versicolor with both species extant and often with overlapping ranges.

These are just examples off the top of my head. You could, of course, wave your hand and declare them null, since the daughter species are still fish, or frogs or flowers, but this would be disingenuous as they are examples of evolution per the theory.

Demanding examples of changes at the family level is more or less a straw man argument against evolution based on either a purposeful misunderstanding or a naive understanding of the evolution of life and the family concept in taxonomy.

I'm not "waving my hand", but asking for evidence that demonstrates how speciation gave rise to changes at the taxonomic level of "family", for example, dozens of organic systems must change to move animals from land to air or sea to land or land to sea...

I'm not waving my hand to say that frogs speciating to frogs show evolution without showing rise to changes at the taxonomic level of "family" (the Bible says "each after their kind").

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not a very good analogy, given that books are artificial constructs that do not reproduce. Upon studying the books, their content, style, the materials they were made from, where they were found and their ages, it could be determined with a high probability of certainty that the books were by two different authors. I am uncertain how the length of the books is relevant to determining authorship, unless one author was noted for only producing short works and the other was not.

Fossils are not just scanned superficially and declared similar based on the subjective opinion that they "sure look similar" by the person caring out the observations. Fossils are described based on their source, geological position, dating, geographical location, shape, size and other quantifiable characters and these are compared and contrasted with the same characters found in other fossils. Changes are observed and are not a hidden aspect of the fossil record that cannot really be seen. Your claim is incorrect. When viewed as a whole, series of fossils reveal transitions that often jump out rather vividly.

Can you give a specific example of two species, showing speciation between families?

 

[exchemist]

Of course it can be a gradual continuum, gradual continuum being the just-so story for every anomaly in evolution we ever encounter. Some animals for example, gave rise to new families of animals when they just-so developed circulatory systems that worked in tandem with respiratory systems and endocrine systems and thermoregulatory systems... just-so.

Good, so we now agree that given a "continuum", there need not be a crisis at some stage, by which a creature is unable to function. Yes?

You may call it a "just so" story if you like, but the logical point is made: if evolution proceeds in such a gradual manner, that disposes of your earlier objection that the creature cannot survive the changes.

So do we now need to go through the evolution from fish to tetrapod, or are you now happy that, if evolution proceeds by a "continuum" of small changes, there need not be any crisis for the organism as it changes?

If you are, then can I further take it that it is the gradual process that you do not believe?

 

[exchemist]

Why are you shifting to a moral discussion? It's soi-disant skeptics who claim to understand morality IMHO.

There is no evidence for how animals can shift kinds/families in evolution. In general, things tend toward disorder/entropy, DNA is a language/information code that directs amino acids to make other amino acids to form life processes that are irreducibly complex, etc., requiring continual just-so stories from evolutionists.

I'm not shifting to a moral discussion, except insofar as reliance on lies for an argument is something that needs to be shown up. (I'm not calling you personally a liar of course. You are presumably just repeating in good faith what you have read somewhere, not knowing any better.)

In general, whole systems do indeed tend to higher entropy, which can, naively at least, be interpreted as "disorder" at the micro level. But that is beside the point, which is there are plenty of occasions in chemistry in which ordered structures form spontaneously. So "entropy" is neither here nor there in the debate about abiogenesis.

 

[tas8831]

The car analogy is not part of the argument I simply used the analogy to explain the concept of specified complexity.

So do you understand the concept? Yes or no? if not, please let me know what do you find confusing and I will explain.

I do understand the concept - the problem is, even the professional ID advocates end up using such analogies AS their evidence.

A concept I have a hard time with, however, is the tendency for some to ignore questions asked of them when they respond:

And how was this 'trillions and trillions of possible ways' thing calculated, based on what parameters?

 

[Jose Fly]

Can you give a specific example of two species, showing speciation between families?