A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

If you don't know if the stuff has meaning, function etc. Then you can't apply the test.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Then it seems as if you are admitting that your test is pointless.

 

[leroy]

If you are going to claim that this filter can detect 'design' in living things, then testing it on computers seems rather... stupid.

The papers I cited that you ignorantly claimed were all about 'selectionism' were, in fact about testing a method of analysis using known biological entities, then applying those methods.

You think testing a detection method on a computer then merely asserting it works for the flagellum (it didn't) and thus all biology seems rather stretch, no?

So you are claiming that Demsbki's filter is used to detect HUMAN design?
'reasoning'... snicker...

What is the basis of this hypothesis when trying to detect "design' is not to detect human design?

Ah, so since HUMANS design things that are being tested, then the filter can detect HUMAN design (if it works)

How was this high degree of certainty calculated?

Show us your hypothesis regarding what the first living thing designed by a human looked like.

And show how this is done.

Human design, right?
I mean, you've only tested it on things a human designed, so you can really only test for human design.

No and no.

See above.

Of course - in your walk-through, you never demonstrated how you knew in the first place that the first human-designed living thing had 'purpose' or 'meaning' such that CSI could be deduced.

.......................................

Ok let's move on with baby steps.

Do you grant that the test is successful in detecting "human design"?

Please answer with a clear direct and unabigous yes or no.

This discussion has become long a boaring, so please try to provide a clear and direct direct answer so that we can move on.


If your answer is no then justify your answer. Why not? Spot your specific points of disagreement

 

[leroy]

Then it seems as if you are admitting that your test is pointless.

Yes it is pointless if your goal is to detect "meaning"

Before applying the test you have to kvow if something has a meaning, pattern, function etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it is pointless if your goal is to detect "meaning"

Before applying the test you have to kvow if something has a meaning, pattern, function etc.

Right, and the ID supporters cannot even come up with a functional definition for "meaning". It means all that they have is hand waving and no hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

Ah, so you admit the Dembski filter is worthless without prior knowledge.

So if I present 2 nearly identical sequences of DNA, one from a gene, one from a pseudogene, you could tell that one had all kinds of CSI, and the other almost none?

So then the common use of SETI as justification for Dembski-style ID stuff was bogus after all, thanks!

So... how would you determine function or a meaning or some other independently given pattern in a sequence of DNA to determine if it has sufficient CSI or not?

Are you familiar with the concepts of begging the question and circular argument?

No problem at all - for me.
It shows how useless the Dembski filter is.

Hey - still waiting for you to explain how these papers:

The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

[...]

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

[...]

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

[...]


We can hereby CONCLUDE that the results of an application of those methods have merit.

Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

[...]

Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

[...]

A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

[...]

Are all about 'selectionism.' Especially how you gleaned that from just the titles.

Granted I was wrong, i misinterpreted the data

 

[leroy]

Right, and the ID supporters cannot even come up with a functional definition for "meaning". It means all that they have is hand waving and no hypothesis.

More semantic games.... Jajaja


If I define meaning as: what a concept is about

You will probably make me define "concept"

If I define concept you will ask me to define the words in that definition, making an endless game of definitions

 

[leroy]

Since you refuse to elaborate on your claim and provide even a poor argument, your claim can be ignored.

Translation, you can't find any points of disagreement so you will simply ignore it

 

[Subduction Zone]

More semantic games.... Jajaja


If I define meaning as: what a concept is about

You will probably make me define "concept"

If I define concept you will ask me to define the words in that definition, making an endless game of definitions

No, semantic games are your strategy. What is and what is not a scientific hypothesis is quite clear and ID supporters cannot seem to form one.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Translation, you can't find any points of disagreement so you will simply ignore it

No, you cannot support your claims and he does not think that you are worth his time. You try to play the game of shifting the burden of proof. It does not seem to be working.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Translation, you can't find any points of disagreement so you will simply ignore it

No. You have not made an argument. You have repeated claims with all effort to shed YOUR burden of proof and force it on others. You have gone to the extent of trying to pass that burden of proof off to Dembski and he is not a participant of this thread. At least he has tried to argue his position. You apparently, never will.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Granted I was wrong, i misinterpreted the data

Ignored more and misrepresented the rest to boot. Full service creationism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More semantic games.... Jajaja


If I define meaning as: what a concept is about

You will probably make me define "concept"

If I define concept you will ask me to define the words in that definition, making an endless game of definitions

just present your argument for design. No outlines of how you might go about it. No dumping of the opinions of others. At least without explanation and demonstration of their relevance and established validity. No more of your semantic games. No more gish gallops laced with unsupported assumptions and logical fallacies. You claim the high ground, so act like it. Make your argument supporting your claim. Show us all or let it go as another failed attempt to supplant science with religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By that logic, we know that intelligent designers excist and that ID happens.

The "designers" we know about are humans, and they aren't the ones that created humans or any other species.

And let's not play this silly game of "the designer can be anyone", because we all know that by "designer", you really mean the god you happen to believe in.

Ok what would falsify the claim that life had a natural origin

I didn't make such a claim. I merely said it's more likely to have natural origins.
If you wish to discuss a specific claim, you're going to have to dig into the various hypothesis of abiogenesis.

I don't pretend to know how life started. I do not know. Abiogenesis researchers are trying to find out.

Or even more specific, what would falsify your favorite abiogebesis hypothesis?

I don't have a "favorite" abiogenesis hypothesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you grant that the test is successful in detecting "human design"?

No.

I gave you two pictures of "faces" in rocks 2 pages ago (A simple case for intelligent design). Apply your "test" to those pictures to detect "human design". Or explain how you would go about it to apply the test.

If your answer is no then justify your answer. Why not? Spot your specific points of disagreement

Because it works from an assumed conclusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes it is pointless if your goal is to detect "meaning"

Before applying the test you have to kvow if something has a meaning, pattern, function etc.

And if it has meaning, pattern, function, then it is designed, right?

So basically, if you know it is designed, then it is designed.

Nice test you got there......

If I'm missing something, just say so, but seems to me that that is exactly how it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

More semantic games.... Jajaja

It's not mere "semantics" to ask you to properly define your terms in clear and unambigous ways.

If I define meaning as: what a concept is about
You will probably make me define "concept"

Sort of. I'ld request a less vague definition.

If I define concept you will ask me to define the words in that definition, making an endless game of definitions

If you continue to be vague and ambigous, then we'll keep asking for clarification, yes.

 

[tas8831]

.......................................

Ok let's move on with baby steps.

Do you grant that the test is successful in detecting "human design"?

I have seen such claims, yes, but I have seen no practical applications. In fact, just a couple of days ago, when looking some things up for a response to you, I came across the transcript of a speech that Dembski had made, and the title seemed to imply that he had provided examples of his 'filter' at work. Yet I wasted about 5 minutes reading the thing and all he did was declare that it could be used on various things. He didn't even provide an analogy of it being used on knowns. Just asserted that it works.

Please answer with a clear direct and unabigous yes or no.

If you provide an unambiguous example of it doing so, OK. Like Dembski, all you've done is provide hypotheticals and then wildly extrapolate it.

This discussion has become long a boaring, so please try to provide a clear and direct direct answer so that we can move on.

Not as boring as the discussion in which I have been trying to get you to understand the failure of ReMine and Batten re: Haldane's model.

If your answer is no then justify your answer. Why not? Spot your specific points of disagreement

Not seen an example of it actually working on anything. All I have seen is it failing when applied to DNA sequences.

By the way - I started a thread just for you - too bad that you've not seen it. But it is really a recap of an issue that you avoided anyway, so here it is - betting you will have no relevant, scientific input:

Creationist electrical engineer Walter ReMine wrote:

Take an ape-like creature from 10 million years ago, substitute a maximum of 500,000 selectively
significant nucleotides and you would have a poet philosopher?... Is this enough to account for the significantly improved skulls, jaws, teeth, feet, speech, upright posture, abstract thought, and appreciation of music, to name just a few?
- The Biotic Message, p. 209​

Clearly, ReMine thinks that 500,000 beneficial mutations is just not enough to get a human from an apelike ancestor.
He never says why he thinks this, but it has become a mantra among creationists that even if evolution were true, there are not enough beneficial mutations to explain us evolving from an apelike ancestor.

So... the challenge -

How many mutations would it have taken to get a human pelvis (left) from an Australopithecine pelvis (right)?

Show your work please.

I was once told by a creationist computer tech that it must be 1 million! He could not explain why, he just "knew" it.
And yet... We actually know that a single mutation can produce this kind of pelvis:

from normal human phenotype parent... so, I'm thinking a million is maybe ~999,990 too many...

But I digress

 

[tas8831]

Yes it is pointless if your goal is to detect "meaning"

Before applying the test you have to kvow if something has a meaning, pattern, function etc.

Right.

So you have to know that it was designed and in possession of the criteria for having been designed by humans in order to apply a 'filter' to determine whether or not it meets the criteria for having been designed by humans.

Golly, I cannot understand why Dembski is not a household name...

 

[tas8831]

Granted I was wrong, i misinterpreted the data

Thank you for the admission, but no data had been supplied, and if you had googled and read the papers (easy enough to do), then you would not have needed to examine the data for the abstracts alone make it clear that none of the 6 papers were about "supporting selectionism".

 

[tas8831]

If you don't know if the stuff has meaning, function etc. Then you can't apply the test.

Why is this so hard to understand?

It is not hard to understand at all - what does seem really hard to understand is how it is that creationists, despite admitting that the filter basically has to be told ahead of time what an object of interest is and what it does, still want to claim that this filter 'works' on unknowns.

In the 6 papers I cited for you recently, the first 3 are tests of the methods on knowns. RELEVANT knowns. Actual knowns - knowns of the very type that the methods would be applied to.

Not abstractions, not non-DNA or simulated character state matrices, but actual DNA sequence data.

What Demsbki's acolytes do is 'test' Dembski's filter on HUMAN-MADE artifacts, then extrapolate that to living things.

That would be like testing phylogenetics software on marbles.