Discussion from "Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#821  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 21, 2011 8:20 am

Hack is right about you equivocating here, if one were to define machines as arbitrary arrangements designed by humans to perform mechanical tasks by the manipulation of physical processes, then the flagellum et cetera would be analogous, because one could liken the natural structure that the flagellum is with human designed rotary motors in that they both manipulate forces in a particular way.

When I described flagella as machines, it was because they consist of parts and manipulate forces, the source of the arrangement and its origins are not implicit in the definition. Clear case of equivocation here and depending on how one defines machines both viewpoints are equally valid, there is no scope for disagreement here.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#822  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 21, 2011 8:40 am

Царь Славян wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:To state that you cannot infer intention from an object is to state that you cannot infer design from an object.
Non sequitur. If design exist, intention existed. But we don't actually have to know what exactly the designer intended todo, for us to infer design. If you find a super complicated device, made by super advance aliens, you would have no idea what it's for. You would not know their intention, but you could infer that the device is designed.


Again you are evading the point, whether intentionally or by miscomprehension.

To posit design, you must posit intent. Design is defined by intent. Without intent, there is no design, only the appearance of design like sand blowing up against a wall and leaving a 'designed' slope, or a mammal taking a crap and leaving a 'designed' spiral.

Царь Славян wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:You have absolutely destroyed the tenuous foundation on which design inference exists even before you have really thought about it.
No, you keep repeating this but this is not ture. What I have destroyed is YOUR SUPPOSED design detection method that hinges upon intentionallity. My method does not.


Then, fundamentally, you are demanding that our language change to accomodate your belief. Unfortunately for you, that is not going to happen. You are now delving into the realm of pseudoscience. Design necessarily implies intent, when you say you see design, you are saying that you see realised intent.

Царь Славян wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:That's how weak the hypothesis is. It doesn't even resist logical prodding, it has no chance of ever being testable, ergo, it is not scientific.
How many times do I have to keep repeating myself? Natural laws and chance. If an object can be explained by any of those two then the design hypothesis is falsified. Those are the forces that can render a design hypothesis null and void. I said it at least three times already. Why are you pretending I didn't say it?


I am saying it again because it's like you have a blind spot here and just can't see where your argument leads.

But following your ill-defined position of inferring design, everything could be designed. It's a typical form of pseudoscience when all roads lead to Rome.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jan 21, 2011 8:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 23449
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#823  Postby Viraldi » Jan 21, 2011 8:55 am

Царь Славян wrote:If you have no definition for reason then how can you claim it's a human characteristic in the first place?

Now I know you`re just plain lethargic as I already have done and insinuated so. Keep up.

Царь Славян wrote:According to you, isn't cognitive abillity [sic] of the brain, the same thing as any other natural process?

If you simplify as such, yes it is of the brain, but to associate it without difference as the same thing as any other natural process is explicitly showing similar illiteracy in reference to grouping physical processes with chemical processes.

Царь Славян wrote:No, saying atheis [sic] is true, means saying either It is true that God does not exist, It is true that someone does not believe in God.

A thousand gratitudes for fucking proving what I just said according to your context. According to what you said for the umpteenth time, pay attention to my emphasised reiteration: atheism is true is grammatically the same as gawd does not exist is true i.e. your expression of atheism is god does not exist which is linguistically inaccurate. Your failure to realise this grammatical error is duly noted once again. Even in the common understanding of atheism it does NOT even express that someone does not believe in gawd, but that it is the absence of theistic belief. Note that it doesn`t concern an individual, it`s merely the bloody definition. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gawd. Repeating this bullshit at this juncture will just be dismissed for your lack of research.

Царь Славян wrote:
Viraldi wrote:What`s the problem? NON SEQUITUR if not IGNORATIO ELENCHI
Explain why.

Let`s look at your original phrase and your variation respectively,

“By promoting philosophical or methodological naturalism, you are implying that God either does not exist, or that he is irrelevant, THUS you are either saying that atheism is true, or if not actually ture [sic], that it's the only relevant worldview.”

“By promoting philosophical or methodological naturalism, you are implying that God either does not exist, or that he is irrelevant, THUS you are either saying that it is true that a person who is an atheist does no [sic] believe in God, or if not actually ture [sic], that it's the only relevant worldview.”

Help me out Tsar, by the looks of it the variation is bordering non sequitur, while the original is bloody inaccurate anyhow (as I`ve dealt with here). The variation is precisely saying something tantamount to the following: by promoting theocracy or cosmic divine dictatorship, you are implying that either you are in favour of being ruled over an imperious, overweening oppressor or that you fancy such, THUS saying it is true that a person who is a theist does believe in gawd...

The term THUS (or therefore) is a sentence connector that mandates consistency by following the premise and subject thereof, but my explanation above similar to your variation is precisely pointing out that [the fact that a theist means a person who believes in gawd] is NOT consistent or does not follow (non sequitur) with the premise of the promotion or fancy of theocracy and whatnot. Albeit a fact that being a theist is to believe in gawd, it is an irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) and I may go so far as to establish it as a red herring as this has prolonged long enough.

Царь Славян wrote:So your point is?

It`s something that goes along ... make coherent and sound arguments, FFS.

Царь Славян wrote:This is my definition, so I'm the reference.

In other words, your orgulous and vacuous assertion can be dismissed, as I requested a significant reference.

:coffee:
AE wrote:“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.”
User avatar
Viraldi
 
Posts: 722
Age: 26

Country: USA
Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#824  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 21, 2011 9:31 am

Viraldi wrote:orgulous


Ooh new word! And it was contextualised so well, I doubt I'll ever forget it.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 23449
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#825  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jan 21, 2011 9:53 am

Царь Славян wrote:
ID is just creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing.
ID has no creation story, therefore it's not creationism.

And you can't cherry pick.
Depends no what's to be picked.

In biological evolution, there are four main processes: natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection and migration. Evolution is about the change in gene frequencies over time.
That's pretty much fine with me.

A apparently small genetic change can lead to large differences in morphology, biochemistry, physiology, behavior etc. Sometimes, a significant amount of genetic change can lead to relatively little change in phenotype. It all depends on the nature of the genetic change. For example, there are many isopmorphs of a protein that can do the same job, so different organisms can have a diverse DNA sequences and a different amino acid sequence, and yet in many cases, the protein or enzyme may work the same or in a similar manner.
Changes in signaling regulatory genes [or even some Genetic Regulatory Networks or pathways] can lead to profound changes in morphology at any level. Within species, for example, you can have size polymorphism, sexual dimorphism and specialization of castes, such as in the social hymenoptera.

In development, the embryo's four dimensional geometry changes according to the expression of homeobox genes and other transcription factors. These Genetic Regulatory Networks are both highly conserved in the early-expressed traits, and evolvable in the later expressed traits. (Davidson, 2006).
Okay, I agree. Is this supposed to be an argument against ID or something?

It is quite clear that your knowledge of biology is totally inadequate for you to make even a basic assessment of how biology works.
Really, how did you come to this conclusion?

As a consequence people like you are vulnerable to any crackpot pseudo-explanation that comes along.
I would disagree. I'd rather say that people who believe that they came from rocks are the ones who don't know much about biology.

Unless you can put aside your pre-conceived ideas and loo at the evidence objectively [with no thought as to whether or not you like the conclusions or implications], then you have no hope of ever gaining even a basic understanding of science or nature.
How do you know I haven't already done that? And maybe it is you, wishing to see evidence of having been brought about from a rock, that has this preconcieved ideas? Maybe people didn't come from rocks. Did that ever cross your mind? Maybe you should drop your beliefs about people coming from rocks and look at biology objectively?

Tsar, you are a willfully ignorant cunt, because any biologist would understand what the implications of GRN's in development and evolution. And any biologist would understand that ID is not science. Grow up, and don't splatter your stinking intellectual diarrhea here. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 64

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#826  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 21, 2011 10:20 am

Not just wilfully ignorant, but mendacious, dishonest and discoursively malfeasant.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#827  Postby Scar » Jan 21, 2011 10:24 am

In other words: A run-of-the-mill creationist.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 32
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#828  Postby Darkchilde » Jan 21, 2011 10:30 am

Царь Славян wrote:
DogMendonça wrote:Царь Славян

Are you a creationist?
If so, why? Did it came after or before religious belief?
I'm not a creationist. I'm an ID proponent. Why? Becasue that's the best current explanation for certain features in nature.


ID = creationism. You both infer design and purpose because of your religious beliefs, not because it is scientific. So, by being an ID proponent, you are admittedly a creationist.

Царь Славян wrote:
It's probably subjective, but for example, if someone thinks they can fly like Superman, I would think that it is a stupid idea!
Why?


Because people cannot fly like Superman! It is even dangerous to try.

Царь Славян wrote:
Probably wrong choice of words, as you are a creationist.
I am? Since when?


See above. ID=creationism.

Царь Славян wrote:
What I meant was that the universe is not exactly friendly for life.
Yet we're still here. And in order for us to be here for a second, it has to be finely tuned for life to exist in the first place. Because if the universe didn't support life, we would be here int he first place. Because biologically relevant structures couldn't be formed. Thus, there would be no possibility of life existing in the first place. Yet here we are...


Ah, the fine-tuning argument. How many times has this been refuted? And still you push that one? The universe is not fine tuned for life. There is no evidence of fine tuning.

Царь Славян wrote:
If I was the creator, I would probably make it so that the universe would be more friendly to life. And I would not create cancer and other illnesses like that.
That's very nice of you. But maybe somebody else would.

In order for anyone to say that "the universe was engineered for life", you have to have evidence. Where is your evidence?
I'm not saying that the whole universe was actually designed for life. I'm saying that the design hypothesis is a good starting position for scientific explanation. There is no way to actually show that the whole universe was designed. And the reason why the design hypothesis is a good working hypothesis for science is because we can describe many features of the universe with engineering principles. It makes for a good scientific inqury.


No, it is not a good starting position. Because there is no evidence for design. You do not postulate out of your arse. You postulate because you have some initial evidence, something that made you think of it. If you postulate design, you have to postulate a designer, you have to have some evidence of such an entity, a specific definition. You don't. There is no evidence for design or a designer.

Царь Славян wrote:
Non-sequitur. How do you go from a hostile to life universe to design? Where is the logical sequence and the evidence?
Because in order for life to exist in teh first place, the universe has to support it. So out of all possible ways the universe could exist, this one exists. One of the possible explanations is design.


For which you need a designer. Evidence please. As I said, you have absolutely no fucking evidence. Just a failed hypothesis.

Царь Славян wrote:
Really? No evidence for the multiple worlds interpretation of QM? Someone is very behind on their studies of physics. In fact, there are two major interpretations of Quantum Mechanics at this point, and both are backed up by evidence. One is the multiple worlds interpretation, and the other is the Copenhagen interpretation. The multiple worlds interpretation is also backed up by the experiments on quantum computing.


The Copenhagen interpretation fails the first test of being considered as science. It's logically flawed. It's interpretation that particles can be at two places at the same time is logical fallacy. An apple can't be in two places at the same time. Neither can a particle. And no, just because it's smaller won't help. Because a small apple, no matter how small, can't be in two places at the same time. Thus the interpretation is logically flawed. And if it's logically flawed it's mathematically flawed. And if it's mathematically flawed, then it's physically flawed, thus wrong. Physics can't violate math, and math can't violate logic. Please also keep in mind that nobody ever saw a particle. It's not an observation that a particle is at two places in teh same time, it's an interpretation, and a flawed one at that.

As for many worlds interpretation, it's not logically flawed, there could be more than this one universe. But as I said we have no evidence for them. And making things up without any evidence isn't science. Unless you can show me some evidence.


Okay, I don't even know where to start on the above. There is no logical flaw in either one of the interpretations. Both can explain and predict various phenomena quite well. Until we have more data to analyze and understand, both of the above interpretation stand.

Quantum superposition in a big object: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42019

You do not understand science. Reading religious books and ID books is not going to help you understand reality.

Царь Славян wrote:
Again: multiple worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Try "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch or "The Search for the Multiverse" by John Gribbin.
Is there actually an observation of another universe there?


Have you observed your designer, design and create the universe? The difference being, that we have evidence for teh multiple worlds interpretation. And, the two books above are written by real scientists, and not ID crackpots.

Царь Славян wrote:
How do the teeth and the eye imply design?
Teeth could be also designed, but it's a stretch, so I'll let that go. But an eye, among other things is a photo sensitive lense. And it's to improbable to have come about by chance. And we have no natural laws, to account for the eye. Thus, we can infer design from the eye.


Really? How do you infer design form the eye? I know that other members more qualified in biology than I am, have already educated you in the above. However you refuse to see it. Oh, and I have read a couple of papers on organisms that have only a photosensitive cell as "eyes".

Царь Славян wrote:
If I was the designer, I would make it so that everyone's teeth was always perfect, and the same for eyesight. If there is a designer, then he should be fired because he is totally incompetent. If he knew anything about design and engineering (as you claim), then he would have designed people with backup systems, with interchangeable parts, and so on and so forth.
Again, that's very nice of you, but this is at best an emotional not a scientific argument. You don't know the designer's intention for designing something. Just because you would design something in some way, doesn't mean someone else would also. Look at how many different car designs we have. Obviously different designers chose to make things differently.


So, if your designer exists, he definitely is an incompetent fool. So, you agree on that point with me.

Царь Славян wrote:
First of all, there are no backup systems. Where is the heart's backup system? If the heart goes, then goodbye. Even if you can get a new heart, you need all sorts of immuno-suppressants in order for your body to accept the heart.
Does that mean that the heart itself is not designed? There is no backup for a car's engine. If it goes out, your car stops. Thus cars are not designed. Rigth?


No, never said that. And read below.
Царь Славян wrote:
In a well-designed system, you only need to shut it down, replace the faulty part, and there it goes without much else needed. In a well-designed system, you leave room for adding functionality, and for improvements.
A badly designed system is still designed.


Yes, when there is evidence for design. So, since humans by your own admission are "badly designed" then your supposed designer is an incompetent fool.

Царь Славян wrote:
Let's take a computer for example: if you do buy them as they are served to you, then you may not understand it. However, I mostly like to built my computers, and to choose every part that I put in it. So, I choose the motherboard, model and manufacturer, the CPU, how much memory I will put initially, HDDs, graphics cards, USB, Firewire, eSATA, etc. And I will probably buy some stuff to extend my computer's capabilities and add them internally, not externally. There are more slots usually than I would need, very probably... Now, where is my improvements in the supposed design of me? Can I grow wings and fly? Absolutely not. Can I have a protective exoskeleton? No, nothing like that. Can I see in the infrared or something? I need external devices, that translate the infrared into visible light.


How does any of that make any sense to you? Computers are engineerd. They can be further engineerd and added to. So can human beeings. There is a thing called genetic engineering. In due time when people will have more information about how genomes work, we will be able to furhter develop ourselves. Just we can't develop ourselves further, that doesn't mean we were not designed. Besides, pleople have come very far in medical science. Some people get surgery to have a new heart put in when the original one fails. Obviously we can be engineerd just as computers do. Just because we don't have shops around the corner to buy organs like we have for computer hardware, says nothing about original human design.

As I said, if people are intelligently designed, then the designer must be pretty stupid and should be fired.
Which still means we were designed, only you dislike the design. That is all.


The design argument is your postulate not mine. I am arguing against it. I do not see evidence for any design, and thus I do not accept the design hypothesis. However, since you apparently accept it, then by the above admission and all of the above, you have admitted to the following:

1. There is no evidence for design, just your belief for it. And I am quoting you here:

I'm not saying that the whole universe was actually designed for life. I'm saying that the design hypothesis is a good starting position for scientific explanation. There is no way to actually show that the whole universe was designed. And the reason why the design hypothesis is a good working hypothesis for science is because we can describe many features of the universe with engineering principles. It makes for a good scientific inqury.


2. If there is a designer, he has badly designed humans, therefore he is an incompetent fool.

A badly designed system is still designed.



Am I right or am I right? :P
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 50
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#829  Postby Lazar » Jan 21, 2011 10:40 am


!
MODNOTE
DB I am issuing you an official warning for the following (see bold) personal attack on another member.
Tsar, you are a willfully ignorant cunt, because any biologist would understand what the implications of GRN's in development and evolution. And any biologist would understand that ID is not science. Grow up, and don't splatter your stinking intellectual diarrhea here. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Please don't discuss moderation here but fell free to PM me or another mod to discuss.
Image

Spinozasgalt: "And how come no one ever sigs me?"
User avatar
Lazar
 
Posts: 2280
Age: 35
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#830  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 21, 2011 10:52 am

If Царь Славян wants to claims he's a cdesign proponentsist, then I say let him!

It still doesn't escape the fact that his claim that he is one because 'that's the best current explanation for certain features in nature' is utterly vacuous twaddle that relies on ignorance over substance and would last have been logically acceptable around 400 years ago, i.e. prior to the Enlightenment, prior to the advent of the scientific method, and prior to the massive explosion in knowledge and progress that has brought us to be having this nice little chat on the internet.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 23449
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#831  Postby Rumraket » Jan 21, 2011 11:11 am

Царь Славян wrote:
Flat out bold faced lie. ID is creationism in every possible way. Fuck, we even have the transitional forms in the books that were written after the 1987 courtcase that struck down creationism. Almost every single ID proponent, and certainly all of the founders of the ID movement and the members of the ID-"thinktank" The Discovery Institute have openly admitted to religious motivations.

Just because you invent a new label and attempt to avoid naming who's doing the designing doesn't mean we suddenly forget the history of the ID movement. Noone is fooled. It's Creationism, deal with it.
Derive the creation story from the main ID postulates and compare it to any other form of creationism and let's see if it's the same.

This wibble will get you nowhere. Everyone here knows where ID came from, who set it up and for what purpose.

You only avoid naming the designer in order to try and sneak religious bullshit into public schools. ID is creationism and no amount of lying or obfuscation is going to change this elementary fact.

You took a pig, dressed it up in a labcoat and told it to shut up about where it came from. GJ, but it's still a pig. Deal with it.

Wait... you are actually going to defend cherry picking data? ROFL.
I didn't say data. I said it edpends on WHAT is going to be picked. If we are going to be picking cherries, then yeah, I'll cherrypick...

What an infantile comment. We aren't here to pick cherries, we are discussing why ID doesn't qualify as science. You have effectively demonstrated that it is unfalsifiable and that any discovery would be consistent with a design claim and no amount of banana plucking is going to chance that fact.

It's simply obvious that you have no clue how changes can result in phenotypic and morphological change.
You base this assertation on?

Your posting history. It's like you went with Alice into wonderland and never came back, your only contact with the real world is the internet.

Fuck, you probably have a common ancestor with the Mad Hatter. :lol:

Especially your complete lack of understanding of proteins have been made explicit for all to see in this thread.
Cite us all an example.

Oh let's see... how about your TOTAL FAILURE in understanding the relationship in the whole DNA -> mRNA -> Protein translation process. How about the fact that you didn't know the Ribosome was found outside the cell nucleus? How about the fact that procaryotes don't even have a cell nucleus?

Your attempt to equivocate a sequence independent process (mRNA Capping by GTP) to a sequence-dependent process in a single transport protein, RanGTP.
What followed was a textbook example in discoursive dishonesty, when you attempted to lie your way out of the fact that you COLOSALLY failed to comprehend the litterature you yourself first presented, and I later had to explicitly educate you on, resulting in you hilariously pretending you knew all along.

How's that for starters?

Or how about your complete inability to comprehend the fact that evolution has been duplicating, mutating and shuffling functional domains(folds, reducible to patterns of polarity) ever since their origin, massively deflating the size of your strawman caricature of sequence space and the probability of evolving said functional folds?
You have been conveniently ignoring these statements in the paper for about 25 pages of this thread now.

Your consistent handwaving at all the papers presented that shot down your assertions testify this fact quite convincingly.
What exactly did I handwave?

All the fucking papers and articles on what GTP is and how it relates to mRNA, not proteins, and the papers on protein sequence space I presented to you, including the fact that the totality of your response to the Schneider Lab links and critique of Dembski's bullshit presented therein consisted of you saying "It's all wrong". That was it, that was your response.

Dembski even tried to address Schneider's critique by making testable claims about Schneider's work, which Schneider subsequently PUT TO AN EMPIRICAL TEST AND THEREFORE UNDENIABLY, PRACTICALLY REFUTED.

Every time we have presented articles by scientists working in the fields of information theory and computational evolution, that show problems for your probabilistic model and Demski's horribly mangled useage of their work, you have pretty much responded that "you aren't arguing with them, you are arguing with us".

All of it, handwaved away. Pathetic.

I guess he read this thread.
That doesn't explain how he came to that conclusion.

I read your posts and came to the same conclusion. Heck, when you simply INVENTED an explanation for the evolutionary development of function demonstrated in the Hyashi paper GFL provided, you effectively lost the debate. When asked for evidence to support your claim, all you could come up with was "I inferred it" and a link to the the wikipedia article on genetic redundancy.
Asking for evidence in support of your claim was simply ignored thereafter. Plain, totally ignored.

And let's not even get into your attempt at dodging the evidence in support of common descent. When GFL presented you with papers demonstrated the validity of the common descent by submitting the genetic data to a statistical test, your responses was "statistics can't prove common descent".
That's funny when one considers that you are effectively trying to use statistics to refute it.

I think the underlying problem is that you have no fucking clue what the statistical test consisted of and how it demonstrates the validity of the evolutionary postulate. You can of course impress the HELL out of me by going back through the thread, find the paper with the statistical test GFL provided and demonstrate in precise scientific and mathematically rigorous terms, why your probabilistic model of evolution is correct while the statistical weighing of probabilites presented in the test is not.

I'll be awaiting your "above average" mathematics. :whistle:

Says the guy who once again equivocated a horribly oversimplified Abiogenesis with Darwinian Evolution.
I don't remember saying that abiogenesis = evolution.

Funny how you are the guy who constantly reverts to claiming someone believes humans came from rocks. You are the one who brought it up. Rarely do I argue with someone this scared of natural origins. :whistle:

There you go with your "from rocks" nonsense again, equivocating Abiogenesis with Evolution through mutation and natural selection.
No, I'm not equivocation anything. I'm just combining those two flawed ideas and presenting your creation story to you.

But you ARE equivocating them, constantly. Your fear of a natural origins explanation is knocking on the door everywhere we look. Grow up and get over it.
Last edited by Rumraket on Jan 21, 2011 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13113
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#832  Postby byofrcs » Jan 21, 2011 2:36 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
That is engineering science (logistics etc). The references don't refer to biological studies that use the words evolutionary search. Everyone knows that genetic algorithms are very useful for solving real-world problems and engineers especially so but science in engineering is far different from science in biology when it comes to using the right words for activities that have no agency to those that have agency behind them.
What's the difference? What's the difference between an evolutionary computer search, and natural evolution? Here is a nice chart I made. Please point out where the difference in these 4 steps both processes have to take in order to produce the outcome.

Image



You missed the step before i.e. the step whereby the designer decides the fitness function and thus sets a goal or, with evolutionary model, where the environment has been formed without agency.

Using the example of the salinity of the sea then it is either a) the designer sets the salinity by causing salt content of the water or, b) the salt content of the water is not a goal but a result of what salts are available from rocks.



This has to be a language problem - a goal is a desired outcome. When someone has a goal then they have an outcome in mind for some activity e.g. a finish line in a race. With Evolutionary systems there is no desired outcome as there is no desire. The desire is only for things that have agency.

So immediately you use the word "goal" it is semantically overloaded to mean "agency". You are thus presuming a designer.
No, I'm not. You can use any word you wan't. Evolution has a goal set up by the fitness function of nature. And you don't have to call it a goal but it's an equivalent of a goal in computer search.



Goal in the English language very strongly implies agency, pre-planning, pre-definition and so on. What happens with natural selection is not equivalent to a computer search because of this pre-definition of goal by an agent.



To have a goal implies agency whilst outcome (or result etc ) is indifferent to agency. There is a lot of difference between the outcome if I close my eyes and kick a ball with no care for where it will end up and it crosses the boundary of playing field between the goals or if I have my eyes open and aim for the goal.
Goals can be set up by natural properties without agency. If you don't want to call tehm goals, you don't have to.



Then we are at an impasse because you call it a goal which implies agency. In your argument you thus hope to sway the view towards agency.


And we now come full circle - Abiogenesis.

Your understanding is just not right - we know with the Miller and Urey experiment and other experiments as well as studies of space that it is trivial to get the precursor chemicals for life - organic chemicals such as amino acids. Sure we haven't the
exact stepping stones for abiogenesis as it has probably occurred on Earth but then that took nature billions of years and humans have only be at this for 50 years or so we should expect some delays.
You can get the building blocks for anything in nature. But you can't get the information. There are natural building blocks for mountains, but not for Mount Rushmore.



Then you should be able to show me how easy this is given we have "Mount Rushmore". You should be able to explain exactly what the "information" is.

Equally your formula should be able to trivially show how to measure the information with napped flints. I think this would be very helpful to the people who study prehistory to allow them to quickly sort naturally occurring artefacts from man-made ones.


As I said "tooling marks that would suggest an assisted and un-natural weathering". The incongruence is the toolchain in use to form the object. If the designer managed to teach lichen to erode the rocks to set patterns then we would have problems. But we don't we have scree slopes and tooling marks.

This is interesting actually because with flint napped tools it is actually quite hard to work out man-made napped tools from just random rocks that are napped by natural events of rock movements. They highlighted this problem at the National Museum of Prehistory at Les Eyzies.
How do you know that chance could not have produced those marks? You call them tool marks. But how do you tell them apart from what chance could have produced?



Bingo - that is the problem that these archaeology people have. By cut marks in animal bones and by the presence of discarded napped flints its clear that sharp stone edges were used on animals and that these would crafted but you seem to have discovered some way of readily identifying design from random for these researchers. I imagine that they would be interested if your algorithms were trustworthy.


Science hasn't yet established that the flagellum are non-natural. Like SETI all the signals to date are naturally occurring (and I've had my PCs running on SETI@home since May 1999). If Science could establish that the flagellum are non-natural then this would be fantastic in the same way that if SETI found a signal that was un-natural.
Irrelevant. I have said that ID is doing the same thing as SETI. What is the difference in your opinion?


Very easy to answer this - SETI doesn't presume a designer for each anomalous signal but stringently re-checks and has so far discarded all to date. They err on the side of caution.

Intelligent Design supporters have a designer in mind and stick it onto selective biological features and then argue like crazy and refuse to accept the consensus view that they are doing it wrong. They presume agency and so do not err on the side of caution.



The result would be trusted through the sheer weight of support from the broad cross section of scientists. The current claims of design cannot simply be trusted because they do not have this weight of support.
Majortiy opinion is painfully irrelevant to science.Every idea is at first in the minority. It needs time to get to majority. And just because it's in teh minority now, doesn't mean it's wrong.



Wrong - if one person does something and everyone can't reproduce this are you then saying that the majority view is irrelevant ? That's stupid.



...and vast anounts of gasses and carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen and sulphur and phosphorus and sodium and chlorine and.......

Actually there won't be much "Earth".

We know that in a very short period of time organic chemicals can form and the bacteria contain these very same organic chemicals. What we don't know is the pathway from the organic chemicals to the autocatalytic set of chemicals that is a bacteria i.e. how to get the chemicals to self-assemble.
Tables, the one I have here, consists of wood and metal. Wood is found in nature, and so is metal, therefore, there is a natural explanation for a table. Is there? No, obviously not, the table I have here, was desigend. It's the pattern that this table exhibits that makes it not able to come about by natural laws, the material it is made of is irrelevant.


Trees are found in nature - not "wood" and the difference is that wood is processed by an agent with a purpose. Ore is found in nature - very rarely free "metal". Metal is ore that is processed for a purpose.

Bacteria flagellum do not use "processed" materials but materials that are commonly found in nature.

If you could show us a table made up of fallen logs and rocks then you would have trouble identifying that it was a table, though it could be purposed as a table (I have done this in forests in Sweden - fallen trees and rocks make a useful improvised table if you are walking in the forests and just happen to not be near an IKEA).



Roughly speaking I would say the probability of the steps in the toolchain. My napped stone example is a good one because it is hard to compare naturally napped flints and human napped flints. There are subtle differences and from this the probability of the shape being a goal of an agent verses the outcome of rocks bashing each other without intent (without agency).

A rough diamond verses a cut diamond would be another example. A cliff face verses Mount Rushmore is an extreme case as the human faces automatically imply design an obscure a more generic answer. Zoom in so that the faces cannot be seen and look at the rock face differences. Tools have been used in one place but not the other. What is the probability that the "tool" was naturally formed and so on. If the answer is that it is improbable then the object is incongruous to the environment and so it is fine to presume agency.
So you are saying that the pattern exhibited by Mount Rushmore is too improbable to have come about by chance?

Because they don't contain chemicals or sequences that are out of the ordinary for the environment they are in plus there are not just one but a number of different types of flagellum that have evolved.
The part of Mount Rushmore with faces is chemicaly identical to the part without faces.



Graphite is chemical related to diamond - the physics of the presentation also matters. With Mount Rushmore then the issue is that the National Parks Service says that the "granite was very resistant, eroding one inch every 10,000 years." thus we look at how the surface has weathered and we see that the natural wearing deviates. Thus the probability is there is a design.

Why are you continually bringing up an example that everyone says is designed and has clear marks of design i.e. no one says that Mount Rushmore is natural ? If anyone said Mount Rushmore was naturally occurring then it is easy to show the abnormalities - scree that as been blasted off by explosive shocks, and a surface finish that is wrong for the time periods.

Quite the reverse from the bacteria flagellum where only a few (a couple) people say it was designed and the majority (thousands) show how these are naturally formed.



Well you don't - you just have to care about the overwhelming majority percentage of scientists that say that Intelligent Design is not science. That the law agrees with this is just icing on the cake.
I don't care about that either. Majority opinion is irrelevant to any advance.

Not really because chance can come up with more patterns than a designer could ever hope to examine.
Chance can come up with as many patterns as the amount of probabilistic resources there are.

What the Intelligent Design supporters have not done is verify all the other possible patterns to see if there is a "better" design. They assume the current design is the best.
Where does it say that?



So there are better designs such that if the Intelligent Designer spent a bit more time they could have done better ?



So how do you tell if Mount Rushmore is "design, chance, or natural law". What mathematics do you use if you are not going to care about how it was made ?
Is there a known natural law that accounts for Mount Rushmore? No.
Does the Mount Rushmore conforma to an independently given pattern? Yes it does: „Faces of United States Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln.“

Then we calculate how improbable it is to get a Mount Rushmore by chance, and if it number is lower than ½ then it's reasonable to infer design.


I think we've already had fun with that - when I throw a 6 sided die with my eyes closed then it comes up with a "1" and you thus say that was "design".

You're going to have to explain this further as the way you present it is nonsense.



It makes the probability of a designer much more remote, so remote that it just appears that the designer is an unnecessary entity.
Not is the slightest. Because the flagellum is can not reasonably be explained by chance. Thereofre, if it did evolve, a designer set up evolution so it would bring about the flagellum.


But it is explained by natural selection. Once again you have latched onto the word "chance" as tightly as you have the word "goal".
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 55
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#833  Postby Rumraket » Jan 21, 2011 2:52 pm

The flagellum didn't evolve "by chance". It evolved by cumulative selection of functional (in the extant environment at the time) intermediates. This is clearly evidenced by the individual parts showing the expected (as in predicted) sequence homologies to each other, and functional paralogues in related non-flagellate structures in related organisms. Fuck, even the sequence of it's assembly is consistent with the evolutionary model.

Hey, remember where I told you about functional domains in proteins being reducible to patterns of polarity(the paper you keep ignoring), and that these domains are what evolution duplicates, mutates and shuffles, instead of the strawman caricature where evolution has to produce new entire folds one amino-acid at a time?
Well it turns out that not only do the individual parts in the flagellum which are postulated to be related, show the expected homologies to each other and their non-flagellate paralogues, but varations of the same functional folds are also found in these proteins in a sequence consistent with the evolutionary prediction.

Inb4 massive handwave and "it's all assumed to be true".
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13113
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#834  Postby DogMendonça » Jan 21, 2011 8:23 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
DogMendonça wrote:Царь Славян

Are you a creationist?
If so, why? Did it came after or before religious belief?
I'm not a creationist. I'm an ID proponent. Why? Becasue that's the best current explanation for certain features in nature.


How come ID isn´t creationist? It looks creationism to me.
And how do you explain the paradox of saying "this is better explained by an inteligence". It's a paradox because something inteligent in the origin of something requires an explanation. And What is that explanation? Or is it explaining away things?
That's what it looks to me.
User avatar
DogMendonça
 
Posts: 12

Portugal (pt)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#835  Postby hackenslash » Jan 21, 2011 9:26 pm

Lazar wrote:fell free


Intelligently? :lol:

Sorry, couldn't resist.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21383
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#836  Postby Alan C » Jan 21, 2011 9:56 pm

Yes, these 'intelligent' Design [I move that the 'I' in ID is changed to Incompetent] advocates repeatedly demonstrate that they are clueless with regard to design.
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
User avatar
Alan C
 
Posts: 1828
Age: 42
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#837  Postby hackenslash » Jan 21, 2011 10:24 pm

DogMendonça wrote:
Царь Славян wrote:
DogMendonça wrote:Царь Славян

Are you a creationist?
If so, why? Did it came after or before religious belief?
I'm not a creationist. I'm an ID proponent. Why? Becasue that's the best current explanation for certain features in nature.


How come ID isn´t creationist? It looks creationism to me.
And how do you explain the paradox of saying "this is better explained by an inteligence". It's a paradox because something inteligent in the origin of something requires an explanation. And What is that explanation? Or is it explaining away things?
That's what it looks to me.


Judge Jones certainly thinks that ID is cretinism in a stolen lab coat.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21383
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#838  Postby Skutter » Jan 21, 2011 10:57 pm

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.


My emphasis below.

As an icon of anti-evolution, the flagellum has fallen.

The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon the flimsiest of foundations – the assertion that because science has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick to recognize it for what it really is – the classic argument from ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and information theory.


http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... ticle.html
Skutter
 
Posts: 268

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#839  Postby Durro » Jan 21, 2011 11:41 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
The flagellum is not a machine, it's analogous to one.


Poster named GenesForLife would disagree with you. Take it up with him.


A description is not an analogy, they say they are molecular machines , they don't say they're just like a molecular machine.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post6 ... ne#p626563




!
MODNOTE
:naughty:

Царь Славян

I have previously cautioned you about quote mining and yet in the above post, you have clearly misrepresented the words of another member. In reading the entirety of GeneforLife's post, it is clear that he is vehemently disagreeing with you and is NOT saying that the bacterial flagellum is a machine. He was explaining the difference between a literal statement and an analogy.

As such, you have now earned your 1st formal warning for quote mining and violating the Forum Users' Agreement, a document that I strongly suggest that you revisit and become familiar with, for further instances of quote mining or any other rule violations may see you earn further warnings and/or other sanctions.

I ask all members not to derail the thread by discussing moderation here. If anyone has any queries, please contact me via PM, or contact one of the global moderators, or alternatively, you can discuss moderation issues in our feedback forum.

Durro
I'll start believing in Astrology the day that all Sagittarians get hit by a bus, as predicted.
User avatar
Durro
RS Donator
 
Posts: 16736
Age: 52
Male

Country: Brisbane, Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#840  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 11:03 am

Just like I predicted, you return to whine about the semantic difference between the casual summary "not good enough" and a pedantic dissection of a page of testimony where Behe's "they didn't answer the question the way I insist it be answered or I'll hold my breath and turn blue", funnily enough, turns out to be basically the same as the already mentioned "not good enough".

But everyone besides you already understood that. Do try to catch up, Tsar.
If somebody say that he does not agree with a particular viewpoint about cars, and you present him with a paper that claims that certain blowdryers and are produced in China, are you addressing his point? Is it semantics to say that you are not addressing his point?

Why bother. Since you don't understand the point to begin with, your choice quotations aren't going to help you get a win out of the loser Behe.
Which part did I not understand?


He SHOOTS. He SCORES ! But, but, but, he shot into the wrong goal. He's scored an OWN GOAL !!

I've never seen a better example of total idiocy of the ID view on display. Yes, the articles present a POSSIBLE PATHWAY. What the fuck do we need other than a possible pathway to totally refute your crazy claim that natural selection (Darwinian mechanism) could not have "created" such a "complicated" structure. We've got it. We've got 50+ scientific peer-reviewed journal articles detailing the possible pathway. And you're left with nothing. Less than nothing, because you just scored a point against your own team. Good going, Tsar.
The relevant probabilistic resources. Something what I have been talking about from the start.

Naughty, naughty, trying to move the goal posts. Doesn't work after you just scored that own goal.
How is that moving the goalpoast? If a road exists does that mean the cars are going down that road?

NO, that's where your invisible immaterial unspecified incomprehensible "designer" reached into the DNA with its ghostly fingers and twiddled the base pairs to get the "intended" result. Sure thing, Tsar. Keep trying to defend the indefensible.
I don't know what happened, but like I said, presenting a pathway, doesn't tell you what actually made evolution go down that pathway.

That's a flat out lie. No pro-ID papers have been published in legitimate biology journals. The papers which Dembski claims are pro-ID, aren't; they're just neutral mathematical/computer modeling reviews which don't actually mention ID, much less support it in print. The papers which you claim, aren't in legitimate biology journals and are reviewed by liars-for-Jesus on the editorial board.
ID can't be legit, as Spearthrower already proved, because people like you insist on making it unfalsifiable. Good "design" ? Cool, the "designer" wanted it that way. Bad "design" ? No problem, the "designer" wanted it that way. That's not legitimate science, that's not any kind of science, that's idiocy in action.
ID is not a biology only science. It applies to all fields of science.

That's a lie. That one's not your fault, though, so I forgive you - the asshole religious media is full of descriptions of the angry atheist - like Dawkins - when in reality he is the nicest, most polite, cheerful and helpful old man we could ever want to meet.
Just look at him when he speaks, he is angry and he is an atheist. Thus, he is an angry atheist.

You can describe it AS an engineered mechanism - or you can describe it AS a very very special creation of a very very special god - or you can describe it AS a natural outcome of physics operating after some specific initial condistions -- the only thing that matters is what you've got a legitimate model and evidence for.
So you agree that you can describe it as an engineerd mechanism?


It's not a scientific working hypothesis, because it's compatible with all imaginable features of the universe. Good features ? Cool, the "engineer" wanted it that way. Bad features ? No problem, the "engineer" wanted it that way. It's unfalsifiable. It doesn't lead to a testable model, it doesn't make any testable predictions.
No, it's not. You can't describe a random rock as a machine. But you can describe a flagellum as one.

Wrong again. Would you like to have your wrongness here explained one more time ? How many more times do you guess it will take before you finally get it ? Do you think you need to go away and study for a month, or will just a few days suffice ?
Please do explain it.

Thank you so much for admitting that you were lying before when you said that you had already answered the question about Rushmore. It means a lot to see you 'fessing up.
I waas talking about design detection in general.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest