What would refute creationism?

[leroy]

It has gained zero traction in the evidence-based scientific community, for starters.

Mmmm what exactly do you mean by failed concept?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So nothing, all I am saying is that there might be other mechanisms apart from random variation and natural selection. I simply presented a possible mechanism

You agreed with this point a few months ago………………did you change you rmind?

Sorry, but you didn't. You posts just the abstract to an article. The abstract is useless. We cannot tell exactly what the authors claims are. We cannot see his methodology. He may simply be posting a slight variation on what we already know. And it could even be the work of a crank. It could be the work of a genius with a new ground breaking hypothesis. The problem is that that abstract is almost devoid of information. It does not help other side in this argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mmmm what exactly do you mean by failed concept?

A claim was made, it was not supported, in fact the evidence probably goes against it. That is what a "failed concept" would be.

 

[gnostic]

sure,
the author of this article
Natural genetic engineering in evolution - PubMed


proposes a different mechanism that explains how organisms change and adapt

Sorry, this article description or abstract is too short, to provide anything of use that would refute evolutionary mechanisms of Mutations or that of Natural Selection.

Nor do the abstract contain any analysis to data from which were obtained testable evidence or experiments that support what the article that I don’t have access to.

Nor do the link provide us details if the full article have been peer-reviewed, by its peers, eg fellow genetic engineers, or molecular biologists, geneticists, etc. Like @Subduction Zone said, the abstract reveal nothing more than abstract, but without reviews by peers, we don’t know how well-received the paper were by others, or if the “alternative” being used by genetic engineers or pathologists or a.

Nor do the abstract implies anything that it supports for Dembski’s Specified Complexity or for Intelligent Design.

If you have access to the full article, then perhaps you can quote some portions of that contain analysis of tests plus data, that showed it is alternative to Evolution.

Otherwise I don’t have any way to tell of what use this article have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, this article description or abstract is too short, to provide anything of use that would refute evolutionary mechanisms of Mutations or that of Natural Selection.

Nor do the abstract contain any analysis to data from which were obtained testable evidence or experiments that support what the article that I don’t have access to.

Nor do the link provide us details if the full article have been peer-reviewed, by its peers, eg fellow genetic engineers, or molecular biologists, geneticists, etc. Like @Subduction Zone said, the abstract reveal nothing more than abstract, but without reviews by peers, we don’t know how well-received the paper were by others, or if the “alternative” being used by genetic engineers or pathologists or a.

Nor do the abstract implies anything that it supports for Dembski’s Specified Complexity or for Intelligent Design.

If you have access to the full article, then perhaps you can quote some portions of that contain analysis of tests plus data, that showed it is alternative to Evolution.

Otherwise I don’t have any way to tell of what use this article have.

Time and time again I have seen people apparently only read the titles to articles and they somehow think that is evidence for them. In fact quite often the articles sited refute their claims. Do these people think that just because they ignore the articles that refute them that the people that debate against them will do the same?

 

[leroy]

Sorry, but you didn't. You posts just the abstract to an article. The abstract is useless. We cannot tell exactly what the authors claims are. We cannot see his methodology. He may simply be posting a slight variation on what we already know. And it could even be the work of a crank. It could be the work of a genius with a new ground breaking hypothesis. The problem is that that abstract is almost devoid of information. It does not help other side in this argument.

Well I supported my claim with the abstract of a peer reviewed paper, this is much more than what you have ever done

 

[gnostic]

Not necesairly


The criteria is pattern with meaning or function that:

1 is complex (has many parts) and many possible combinations

2 few possible combinations have meaning of function

3 combinations with meaning and function are as unlikely as any other combination

Knowing how it came about is not part of the criteria, knowing it´s origin might help but it is not necessary






We don’t know how dark matter came to be, but still dark matter is not SC thereefore not know how it came about doesnt mean SC

Maybe, but you don’t need to know that in order to disqualify it





I can dig a hole, this hole would be ID, but not SC therefore design doesn’t mean SC






Which is the natural process that can produce them.

Natural selection isn't a property of the eye. It does not change the workings of it, it doesn't change how many parts it has, it doesn't change how those parts interact, it doesn't change anything about the eye.

It merely explains how it can come about naturally.




You are contradicting yourself, since before knowing about the mechanism, as per your own acknowledgement, they would qualify as SC.

make up your mind.

[/QUOTE]
No, Leroy.

Dembski is a crank, and people (biologists, biochemists) who already looked over SC, thought it is pseudoscience, that it doesn’t even qualify as being a hypothesis.

Even mathematicians who looked at his so-called “equations” don’t think it do what Dembski claimed it do. So his equations are just more quacks, smoke-and-mirrors.

When are you going to understand that Dembski is a fraud and that SC is a fraud?

By continuously persisting on Specified Complexity and by defending a fake “scientific” model, doesn’t speak well for your own integrity.

What you are doing now would be like a qualified paleontologist defending the fraudulent discovery of the Piltdown man by Charles Dawson. Dawson made many fake discoveries, but he was no archaeologist and no paleontologist. Any fools defending don’t know what frauds are.

That you have defending Dembski and advocating for SC, just show you are either dishonest or gullible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I supported my claim with the abstract of a peer reviewed paper, this is much more than what you have ever done

No. The first rule for supporting yourself is to find a paper that supports what you said. You might as well have posted a link to a random article. You have no idea if that article supports you or not.

Just links are not good enough. You need to quote the parts of the article that are applicable to your argument. You did not even read the article.

This sort of extreme ignorance is why you are sooooooo easy to refute.

 

[leroy]

Nor do the abstract implies anything that it supports for Dembski’s Specified Complexity or for Intelligent Design.
ve.

I never made that claim

I will only support my claims if you make a previous commitment in really having an honest conversation . where you actually spot your specific points of disagreement and explain why you disagree

 

[leroy]

Time and time again I have seen people apparently only read the titles to articles and they somehow think that is evidence for them. In fact quite often the articles sited refute their claims. Do these people think that just because they ignore the articles that refute them that the people that debate against them will do the same?

What changed your mind? You previously agreed with me on this point, you even accused me for making a trivial and uncontroversial claim

 

[leroy]

No, Leroy.

Dembski is a crank, and people (biologists, biochemists) who already looked over SC, thought it is pseudoscience, that it doesn’t even qualify as being a hypothesis.

Even mathematicians who looked at his so-called “equations” don’t think it do what Dembski claimed it do. So his equations are just more quacks, smoke-and-mirrors.

When are you going to understand that Dembski is a fraud and that SC is a fraud?

By continuously persisting on Specified Complexity and by defending a fake “scientific” model, doesn’t speak well for your own integrity.

What you are doing now would be like a qualified paleontologist defending the fraudulent discovery of the Piltdown man by Charles Dawson. Dawson made many fake discoveries, but he was no archaeologist and no paleontologist. Any fools defending don’t know what frauds are.

That you have defending Dembski and advocating for SC, just show you are either dishonest or gullible.

When are you going to understand that Dembski is a fraud and that SC is a fraud?

When?..........I don’t know, perhaps when you show evidence against what Dembski (or me) have said

 

[leroy]

No. The first rule for supporting yourself is to find a paper that supports what you said. You might as well have posted a link to a random article. You have no idea if that article supports you or not.

Just links are not good enough. You need to quote the parts of the article that are applicable to your argument. You did not even read the article.

This sort of extreme ignorance is why you are sooooooo easy to refute.

a

rticle that are applicable to your argument.

Here comes a good one

¿according to you what is my argument?

 

[gnostic]

When?..........I don’t know, perhaps when you show evidence against what Dembski (or me) have said

Here is a portion of the review by Jeffrey Shallit, on Dembski's "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence", under the section of "1. Mathematical Difficulties":

Has Dembski succeeded in making ID intellectually respectable? No.
Let me not pull any punches: Dembski's No Free Lunch is a poorly
written piece of propaganda and pseudomathematics.

What, precisely, is wrong with NFL? A detailed list of problems would
require dozens of pages, if not more: the recent critical review by
Richard Wein (2002) weighs in at 37,000 words. In this review I
restrict myself to six major themes: mathematical difficulties,
grandiose claims, equivocation, poor writing, misrepresentation, and
poor scholarship.

1. Mathematical difficulties.
For an event to contain CSI, it must be improbable. But improbable
with respect to which probability distribution? An event may appear
very improbable with respect to one distribution while being
significantly more probable with respect to another. Dembski wishes to
infer design in the absence of a causal history---hence, in the absence
of any historical basis for probability estimates---yet omits any
detailed discussion of how, after observing an event, we decide what
class of events it was drawn from.

Furthermore, Dembski appears to use two different methods of evaluating
the probability of an event. If a human being was involved in the
event's production, he typically estimates its probability relative to
a uniform probability hypothesis. For Dembski, a Shakespearean sonnet
exhibits CSI because it would be unlikely to be produced by choosing
several hundred letters uniformly at random from the alphabet. On the
other hand, if no human being was involved, Dembski nearly always bases
his probability calculations on the known causal history of the event
in question. This flexibility in the choice of a distribution allows
Dembski to conclude or reject design almost at whim.

Another significant error occurs on pages 152--154 of NFL, where
Dembski offers what appears to be a complete proof that deterministic
functions cannot generate CSI. This proof is a crucial step justifying
his "Law of the Conservation of Information" mentioned earlier.
First, he assumes that j is an event containing CSI, i is another
event, and f(i) = j for some function f. Next, he argues that "i
constitutes specified information at least as complex as j". (Here
the complexity of j is measured by -log_2 p, where p is the probability
that a random event would match a chosen pattern to which j conforms.)
Dembski's argument is full of the trappings of genuine mathematics:
domains, subsets, inverse maps, and homomorphisms of boolean algebras;
it looks convincing at first glance. There is no doubt that it really
is intended to be a proof, because on page 154 he states "Bottom
line: for functions to generate CSI they must employ preexisting
CSI."

But further down on that page we learn that the proof just presented
was, in fact, not a proof at all. Dembski's reasoning "did not take
seriously the possibility that functions might add information".
Strange --- a reader might suppose this was ruled out by the argument just covered. But no! He apparently forgot that "the information in f must now itself be taken into account". (Exercise: exactly where in the argument on pages 152--154 does this omission occur?) To handle this, Dembski introduces an operator U such that if f(i) = j then U(i, f) = j and blithely states (p. 155) "Clearly, the information inherent in (i,f) is no less than that in j." But it is not so
clear.

For one thing, it is not "information" that is at stake here, but
Dembski's CSI. It is certainly possible that both i and f could
fail to be specified in Dembski's technical sense, while at the same
time j is specified. For example, consider the case where
i is an encoded English message and f is an unknown and obscure
decryption function. If our background knowledge does not
include f, we may recognize j = f(i) as matching a pattern while
i and f do not.

For another, Dembski's notion of information is a statistical one; it
measures "information" through a rescaled form of probability. But
what is the probability distribution corresponding to f? We are not
told. It would certainly be possible at least in some cases, to
invent a probability distribution for f and reason about it, but
this crucial point is simply not addressed in sufficient detail.

Dembski also overlooks the possibility that additional information can
be accumulated simply by iterating f. If f is a length-increasing
mapping on strings, this makes measuring the information content of f problematic, since choosing the correct associated probability
distribution becomes more obscure.

Dembski confuses things even further by stating "Note that in the case of algorithms U is a universal Turing machine". Does this mean that CSI could, in fact, be increased if f were noncomputable (in the theory of computation sense)? How, indeed, would the CSI of a noncomputable f even be defined? (Lest the reader think this is a fine technical point, let me observe that Pour-El and Zhong (1997) have shown that the unique solution of a certain wave equation with computable initial conditions is uncomputable.) None of this is explored.

Omissions such as these cast serious doubt on Dembski's claims.

That's only regarding to Dembski's incompetency with maths. Shallit go on to show other problems with Specified Complexity.

Here is the link from Shallit's review. And there are lot more to Shallit's criticism on Dembski's SC.

You brought up the origin of the eye, as one of the Intelligent Design's argument. Another criticism on Dembski maths, from Martin Nowak, in The Evolution Wars, page 6, which is Time's article:

Mathematical arguments against evolution are equally misguided, says Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology. "You cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about," he says. "We don't have the information to make this calculation." Nowak, who describes himself as a person of faith, sees no contradiction between Darwin's theory and belief in God. "Science does not produce any evidence against God," he observes. "Science and religion ask different questions."

Meaning: You cannot have mathematical equation on the origin of the eye, if you don't have the necessary data or "information" from the physical evidence. Such equations about the origin of the eye, is bogus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What changed your mind? You previously agreed with me on this point, you even accused me for making a trivial and uncontroversial claim

When did I agree with you on this point? And how do you think that your link helped you? You cannot even tell which point he tries to make.

 

[Subduction Zone]

a
Here comes a good one

¿according to you what is my argument?

The problem is that no one knows exactly what you are trying to claim, since you back off every time that you have been shown to be wrong and know it. But you seemed to be trying to make a point and could not do so with the source that you used no matter what your point was.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please quote a comment that I have ignored, I am human, I can make mistakes, perhaps I overead something.

The conversation is this forums look like this

1 you say “Leroy you ignored my comment”

2 I answer: can you quote it so that I can address

3 you reply: no


Do you honestly think that this is the way one should behave in a forum where people are suppose to share ideas with each other?

I would suggest that you stop ignoring posts that make you uncomfortable, that point out your many errors and actually share some real ideas.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

and what makes you think that I woudl disagree with that?

Pretty much everything you post goes to disagreeing with the facts.

yes

Claims and hypothesis can be falsified even if they are not a “scientific theory”

What makes you think I disagree with that? I even said that of the hypotheses regarding abiogenesis.

Sort of straw man you building for yourself there. You were talking about abiogenesis and I pointed out that we don't have a have theory of abiogenesis to falsify. It answers your question.

What you are basically saying is that “ I know that nature did it and nothing, no evidence real or hypothetical would convince to the contrary”

No. You are saying I am saying that. I am not. Never have. Show me posts where I have said this.

Have you noticed There is no much difference between fanatic YEC and you ?

Be careful what you say. Wouldn't want anyone to think you were making personal comments about others for lack of the ability to defend your claims. Do you honestly think that this is the way one should behave in a forum where people are supposed to share ideas with each other?

But in answer to your derogatory claim, there is no evidence to support it. Much like all of your other claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is an oversimplification on how science works, nobody drops a model just because it fails a test, (otherwise you would have to drop evolution, the big bang, and pretty much everything else)

For example you will not drop evolution and the tree just because you found a gorilla fossil that is 6 million years older than predicted (https://phys.org/news/2016-02-gorilla-fossil-humans-million-years.html) ……… you would simply add this to the list of incorrect predictions and trust that incorrect predictions are statistically insignificant compared to the correct predictions ………..science is not as rigid as you seem to believe, one doesn’t drop complete scientific models just because they failed a test


As I said YEC fails, not because they missed a test, but because the ratio between fails and succeeds is heavily inclined towards the failures.

Finding evidence that alters the timeline of evolution for a particular line might be based on a predication using the theory, but it not a test of the theory. It is not a small detail, but it is telling that you do not know any better than to think it is.

One more thing we do not agree on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

and what makes you think that I woudl disagree with that?



yes

Claims and hypothesis can be falsified even if they are not a “scientific theory”


What you are basically saying is that “ I know that nature did it and nothing, no evidence real or hypothetical would convince to the contrary”

Have you noticed There is no much difference between fanatic YEC and you ?

Let's see.

I have degrees in science. 30 years experience in science. I practice science as a vocation. I spend time learning about science related to the phenomena and theory of evolution. As well as keeping up with the latest (also the same old) claims of pseudoscience like intelligent design and creation science.

I read technical works in biology to increase my understanding. I try to avoid logical fallacies and the tactics that I see creationists use in these debates. I learn from my mistakes and don't double down on them.

And I don't have to resort to derogatory comments about other members of a discussion, because my arguments are flawed and my assertions are empty and free of evidence.

No, I don't think anyone would reasonably confuse my views on science to be anything like the expressions of creationists in the same discussions.

 

[rational experiences]

Human man does. Owns why its fake.

Creationism is a Big con.

Man looked at dusts. Dusts are a Separate body on earth and you are present one human...any human to look and see. State separateness.

You know learn about dusts. You didn't invent dusts.

You build a machine thesis evolution...as you are already present as biology. Asserted whole one body biology as compared to separate body the dust. A human.

You build a machine. You claim consciously machine took your human life position.

Human reason. Remove body dusts it blocked the view of natural present already water single microbes. No man is God the warning.

An outright human lie. It's just science always about earths products for the machine.

Humans aware today say AI man human is a big con.

Machine and one human is any scientist man or woman human. Proven bodily.

Thesis I know I wanted to use time shift sun mass to take biology on earth back to the single celled highest AI status. Myself. Inventor. Image voice noise sound recording.

I want it only for my machine equals electricity he says in a calculus. Not in reality.

I don't want to be human. I wanted to be a God. Said the theist.

I achieved it before for myself...Stephen Hawking body warning the theist cosmos. Yet what I hadn't achieved was total bio nature's time shift.

Today the same con is chosen.

Men claiming biological evolution creationism yet are researching direct to machine for a thesis machine only reaction.

Said it's about ice saviour humans survival cell still bio existing mass natural bio life body ... it was healed.

Gases in technology don't get healed they get destroyed bodily removed in science.

Another con.

To get biologies saviour. A huge asteroid star has to arrive pushing over sun mass earths heavens owns as light. It's dark mass asteroid.

Light travel asteroid pushed along by gases alight.

Earths light is constant.

To burn I start removal of saviour ice. To get living dinosaur heavens thesis.

To then gain instant snap freeze himself the incentive I'm the man god creator earths saviour I want heavens control man.

Lightning mass to be controlled to invented electricity. In calculus it would mean huge sun lightning mass instant snap freeze about equals electricity in a calculation not nature's reality.

Meanwhile earths transmitter circuit not a small pyramid circuit is too week a stream to make his collider work.

Yet if he makes stars mass fall larger and greater seeing he's using the end data includes all effects. Then he'd have the mass he calculates for.

Seeing scientific thesis is a calculus and never ever was it natural history.

As natural history natural is not man controlled as man human you weren't there as fake God the science man.

Once humans who owned intelligence put scientific human theists in gaol.

Predictive God man. I said military will take over governing. Did. Blew up the asteroid.