A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

Except for the fact that I already defined the term, if the definition of SC is not clear you can always ask me and I will try to clarify the concept for you.

Nope, you didn't. But then don't worry, just like "kinds" creationists cannot properly define "complexity" either.



.

Show that natural selection would tend to produce more complexity.

With complexity I mean specified complexity.

I gave you an example, but you would not say whether that was complex or not. The evolution of the eye. Do you need some sources? I can give you some. Have you seen the Dawkins video on it? It is rather simple, you should be able to understand it.

I am not shifting the burden proof, I am answering to your question, I am just telling you how to falsify ID

Of course you are. There is no need to falsify a concept that has no evidence that supports it. Until you do that any such demand on your part is shifting the burden of proof. Let's try to be honest here.

I am not saying that ID only applies to abiogenesis, abiogenesis is just one of many other examples that I could have used.

It appears that way. You keep shifting the goal posts to abiogenesis. And you have not shown any examples where ID is need much less "many".

So what would falsify the assertion that life had a natural origin?

Wait a second, are you moving the goalposts or not? You need to learn how to crawl before you can run. You need to understand evolution first.

Teach us ID theorists a lesson and provide an example on how real science is falsifiable, and provide a real example of how the criteria of falsifiability works……

The theory of evolution could be falsified in multiple ways. A breaking of phylogeny would be an example. A Pegasus would be possible with creationism, it is not with evolution since it has traits that arose in different clades after a split in common ancestry. Another example would be a fossil that is seriously out of order. That does not mean a fossil that appears after a long absence, that would mean an appearance before it could have evolved, such as the well known example of a Precambrian Bunny Rabbit.

BTW you should be open to the supernatural, for example I can show that I have supernatural powers, I can predict the future with 100% accuracy, I can predict that you won’t answer to the question, and that you will find stupid excuses not to answer to the question.

But I answered your questions and had not stupid excuses. You must have been thinking of yourself when you made that prediction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not makng the assumption that there is only 1 pathway to life, but in any case the burden proof on you, you have to show that there are many different pathways.

The analogy of the book is still appropriate; there are many different combinations that would produce a book with meaningful words and sentences,

That can be done. But first you need to decide what you want to discuss. I don't discuss abiogenesis with those that cannot understand evolution. It is an exercise in futility, either they are not honest enough to let themselves learn how evolution works or not bright enough. They could never understand the much more difficult topic of abiogenesis. To illustrate this within ten years after Darwin's theory it was well understood and almost universally accepted. Abiogenesis is still a work in progress.

 

[leroy]

That depends. Are there crystal formations that naturally lead to pyramidal structures? Are there other phenomena there that lead to such?

Maybe, but stones do not naturally assemble on top of each other in such a way that they would produce something that looks like the pyramids in Egypt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe, but stones do not naturally assemble on top of each other in such a way that they would produce something that looks like the pyramids in Egypt.

Looks like a pyramid to me:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/martian-pyramid-photo/

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe, but stones do not naturally assemble on top of each other in such a way that they would produce something that looks like the pyramids in Egypt.

Biological systems are fundamentally different from geological ones.
The former can indeed self assemble. This is widely agreed upon,
evn by those to deny evolution. So the question becomes, is the
process of evolution (ie, genetic change as explained by the TOE)
a useful theory / explanation for evolution of species?
It's testable, disprovable, & even useful in various engineering fields.

 

[sayak83]

Strawman, nobody is denying the fact that amino acids can create long chains, the claim is that in order to have life you need a very precise and unlikely pattern.

There are many natural mechanism that can create ink, one can even get big volumes of ink by natural mechanism, but in order to have a book with meaningful words and sentences, you need ink in a very specific pattern.

No. There are plenty of known amino-acid sequences that have shown significant metabolic activity and can form within simple auto-catalytic networks. And such simple proteins formed through RNA activity will be quite sufficient for early cellular life. And several simple proto-proteins can self-replicate, making it easy for evolution to make them more efficient over the generations.

Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth

 

[leroy]

Nope, you didn't. But then don't worry, just like "kinds" creationists cannot properly define "complexity" either.

So that is your strategy? Pretend that the concept has not been defined? I provided a definition, what is wrong with it?

Of course you are. There is no need to falsify a concept that has no evidence that supports it. Until you do that any such demand on your part is shifting the burden of proof. Let's try to be honest here.

Again, I am answering to your question, you asked, “what would falsify ID”

It appears that way. You keep shifting the goal posts to abiogenesis. And you have not shown any examples where ID is need much less "many".

Shifting the goal post? Since my very first comment it is obvious that I was talking mainly about abiogenesis.

The theory of evolution could be falsified in multiple ways. A breaking of phylogeny would be an example. A Pegasus would be possible with creationism, it is not with evolution since it has traits that arose in different clades after a split in common ancestry. Another example would be a fossil that is seriously out of order. That does not mean a fossil that appears after a long absence, that would mean an appearance before it could have evolved, such as the well known example of a Precambrian Bunny Rabbit.

Ok lets keep things simple and talk about abiogenesis, what would falsify the idea that life had a natural origin?

 

[Audie]

I am not going to waste time here, but for those
who do want to pursue it, I'd suggest not
letting the OP get away with this gish.

Pick one narrow topic and stick with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So that is your strategy? Pretend that the concept has not been defined? I provided a definition, what is wrong with it?

If you provided a definition, I must have missed it. If it was nonsense I probably ignored it. Why don't you post it again? You have had two chances to do so now.

Again, I am answering to your question, you asked, “what would falsify ID”

You gave a failed test and I explained that to you.

Shifting the goal post? Since my very first comment it is obvious that I was talking mainly about abiogenesis.

Do you want me to quote you where you said there were problems with evolution?

Ok lets keep things simple and talk about abiogenesis, what would falsify the idea that life had a natural origin?

Nope, sorry, not until you clear up your misunderstandings of evolution. Until then it would be rather pointless.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am not going to waste time here, but for those
who do want to pursue it, I'd suggest not
letting the OP get away with this gish.

Pick one narrow topic and stick with it.

Not gonna happen.

Out of curiosity, I tallied the number of different members who posted rebuttals to @leroy after he put up the OP. Guess how many (I only counted actual rebuttals)?

24

That's nuts. Gish galloping is extremely easy when you have that many different people responding to you. You pick the ones you think you can counter, and ignore the ones you can't. And if anyone corners you or raises an issue you can't address, just ignore that and move on to one of the other 23 people who are all too eager to engage.

I guess on one hand that's encouraging, as it reflects how ID creationism is effectively dead. But OTOH, it pretty much eliminates any possibility of a real debate or discussion.

 

[PureX]

Existence as we know it has been and continues to be "designed" by the specific limitations within the ways that energy expresses itself. The expression of energy without limitation can produce only chaos. When everything is possible, nothing is possible. They are one and the same result. But existence is 'something'. And it thereby requires some form of imitation to give it order. And how those limitations create that order is called "design".

The problem for we humans is that design implies a designer, and complex (intelligent) design implies a designer's purpose. Yet, although we can clearly recognize the design, and we can even study it, and manipulate it, we still cannot see any car evidence of a designer, or of the designer's intent beyond just being what is. So w remain divided about it, based on our own personal suppositions, and desires.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And this observations are often false. Have you forgotten the images from Mars that were misinterpreted?

"Looks like" does not confirm intelligence.

I remember being terrified when this photo came out when I was a kid because I thought it meant that Mars was watching us.

 

[leroy]

If you provided a definition, I must have missed it. If it was nonsense I probably ignored it. Why don't you post it again? You have had two chances to do so now.

something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”

Do you want me to quote you where you said there were problems with evolution?

My original intent was to talk about abiogenesis, but sure I also have problems with “evolution” in particular I have problems with the idea that natural selection and random mutations can produce complex structures (like an eye)

Nope, sorry, not until you clear up your misunderstandings of evolution. Until then it would be rather pointless.

Translation: you can’t provide an example of a test that would falsify the idea that life had a natural origin.

What to talk about evolution….ok….can you provide an example of a test that would falsify the idea that complex organs came from simpler organs as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection?.................

ID doesn’t have anything against an old earth , universal common ancestry, nor phylogenetics, your examples of the Pegasus and the rabbit in the Cambrian are irrelevant.

As an evolutionist you clam that complex organs came from simpler organs as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection, how can that claim be falsified?

 

[Audie]

Not gonna happen.

Shows who is smarter than who.

 

[Polymath257]

something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”

And nothing to do with biology will satisfy #3. There *are* laws that dictate how the chemicals in biological systems interact. And those laws *do* limit the types of things that are possible.

In the case of DNA, there are laws that dictate how DNA interacts with the proteins that do transcription, how the resulting RNA interacts with ribosomes, how the tRNS interacts with amino acids, etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”

That was already rejected as being overly vague and worthless. Try again.

My original intent was to talk about abiogenesis, but sure I also have problems with “evolution” in particular I have problems with the idea that natural selection and random mutations can produce complex structures (like an eye)

And you disqualified yourself from that topic by mentioning "problems with evolution". The evolution of the eye is well understood. Here is a primer for you:

Translation: you can’t provide an example of a test that would falsify the idea that life had a natural origin.

Now if you can't be honest how do you expect people to have a discussion with you?

What to talk about evolution….ok….can you provide an example of a test that would falsify the idea that complex organs came from simpler organs as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection?.................

That is a rather worthless demand. Since we have observed countless examples of this why would we need a "test"? Once something has been observed, then there is no need to test the concept. Once again, the simple evolution of the eye does this for you.

ID doesn’t have anything against an old earth , universal common ancestry, nor phylogenetics, your examples of the Pegasus and the rabbit in the Cambrian are irrelevant.

No one brought up YEC creationism. No one has accused you of that. But perhaps you should specify which version of ID that you believe in. Bear in mind that practically all examples of "irreducible complexity" has been shown to be not irreducible.

As an evolutionist you clam that complex organs came from simpler organs as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection, how can that claim be falsified?

Why do you think that needs to be falsifiable? It has been observed. Through the fossil record, through genetics, through experimentation and modeling.

Perhaps you should stop Gishing and concentrate on one point at a time.

 

[Audie]

Perhaps you should stop Gishing and concentrate on one point at a time.

Takes two to tango.

 

[Jose Fly]

@leroy let's make this very simple.

You're trying to make a positive case for "intelligent design". For me, that boils down to two fundamental questions....

1) Can you point to something in the biological realm that you've determined to be "designed" and describe the methods by which you made the determination?

2) What specific mechanism(s) are responsible for the implementation of "design"?

If you can't answer those two basic, core questions, then there really isn't anything to discuss.

 

[Audie]

@leroy let's make this very simple.

You're trying to make a positive case for "intelligent design". For me, that boils down to two fundamental questions....

1) Can you point to something in the biological realm that you've determined to be "designed" and describe the methods by which you made the determination?

2) What specific mechanism(s) are responsible for the implementation of "design"?

If you can't answer those two basic, core questions, then there really isn't anything to discuss.

Listen up, ya swabs! Let our hero of the OP answer
this, and stay outta it till he does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Takes two to tango.

I will see what can be done.