A simple case for intelligent design

[tas8831]

And justify your arbitrary exception, why is it that this "rule" only applies when the design inference has theological implications that you don't like?

Why theological?
Can your phony filter now 'detect' supernatural design?

As it stands, it can only detect human design, since we only know of human minds that design (as we define it), and all of Dembski's 'workable' examples have been on human activities (rigged election, etc.). His biological example (flagellum) was laughable since he employed the 'all at once' notion (strawman).

So this "mind" could be aliens, right?

Why do YOU jump to design=Jesus?

 

[tas8831]

So you admit that you have to know if a sequence of DNA is a functional gene or not before you can assess whether or not is has CSI,

yes

Then Dembski's filter is useless.

and if it does, it must have been made by a human mind

,
No, there are more things that one needs to know before claiming design (ether human or non human)

function by itself does not imply a mind

Seems internally inconsistent, but OK...

since a sequence of DNA that differs only by a single nucleotide from a functional gene has no CSI and was not made by a human mind.

If the gene only requires a single mutation in order to become functional, then it woudl probably still have CSI but it woudl be less specified than the gene with a function.

Seems rather arbitrary.

if everything else is equal design woudl become more and more likelly to be true as the degree of specificity increases.

Ah, and how would you determine this for a given DNA sequence?

 

[tas8831]

Still waiting for @leroy to actually APPLY Dembski's filter to something relevant.

 

[tas8831]

Well in an ideal world first one has to apply the test (any test) to things with known results in order to determine if the test works.

Yes - like the list of papers I have presented to you several times (the most recent of which you claimed they were trying to prove selectionism or some such nonsense) testing the use of DNA anaylsis to infer phylogenies.

But that was a direct test of the method using the actual parameters that it would be employing when used on unknowns - that is, my examples used algorithms on DNA sequence data to reconstruct phylogenies. And the methods were shown to be sound and reliable, and THEN they were used on DNA sequence data unknowns.

So the 'unknowns' that should be the targets of this phony 'filter' should be actual biological things, and since at some level, all biological things (entities, structures, processes, etc.) are controlled by DNA, it seems reasonable to apply this filter there.

And yet.... All we see are analogies to human activities. The one application to a biological structure (bacterial flagellum - well, one kind of flagellum, anyway) -of course! - concluded design, but that was only via Dembski's application of Behe's IC nonsense.


Why nothing since? And why aren't you, Dembski's acolyte on this forum, simply applying the filter all over the place to show us all to be wrong? All you are doing is rambling on ABOUT it, not actually applying it.

I showed a method being tested on relevant knowns, then showed the tested method being applied to 'unknowns'.

It is pretty easy when the method in question works.

When it doesn't, you are left with special pleading, analogies, walls of text, excuses, etc.

So first one should apply the test in things that are known to be design

By humans,.

and things that are known to be “no-design” and see if it works, and determine under what circumstances it works.

Apparently, it only works when human minds are involved. Thus, logically, the only thing the test works on is human antics.

If the test is successful then the second step would be to apply the test in things that we don’t know (like DNA) if are design or “no-design”

So why don;t you?
Oh, right - you have to be told if the DNA has function before you can ascribe function to it based on its 'CSI'...

Would you agree that at least the first step has been accomplished? If not why not?

No.
Explained above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But when applying this filter you cant interpret Design when in reality it is no-design

Clearly that is incorrect, as we have just seen and demonstrated, and by your own acknowledgement, with the example of the DNA sequence by @tas8831

As you yourself have acknowledged, if its origins weren't known, then it would be branded as "specified and complex", which you so passionatly claimed as being ONLY possible through artificial design.

But then upon learning how it came about naturally, you backtrack and then suddenly it is no longer "specified and complex" for some mysterious reason. "mysterious", because the nature, the function, the complexity, the comoposition,... all of it stays the same after the discovery. No properties of the DNA is altered by discovering how nature produced it.


So, yes, absolutely.... by your own admission, this "method" ABSOLUTELY leads to false positives. And it does so in the worst of ways: through the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity / awe / ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or suppose that Mt.Rushmore was made by talented artists and another face was not - done by a beginner, for example. And the face they carve is barely recognizable as a face.

It might even look less like a face then the infamous "face" on mars.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then Dembski's filter is useless.

Worse then useless.
Because even if it is known ahead of time that the genetic sequence as function, it will be falsely branded as "specified and complex" if it isn't known how such a sequence can come about naturally. As per his own admission.

And then upon learning how it could form naturally, then suddenly the sequence in question is no longer "specified and complex", again as per his own admission, eventhough NONE of the properties of the sequence in question change when discovering how the sequence can come about naturally.


It is starting to look like Dembski's "filter" is not just wrong. It's rather in the category of "not even wrong".

Ah, and how would you determine this for a given DNA sequence?

As we have seen in previous posts, he determines this based on ignorance of its origins.

If the origin is unknown, then it's "speficied and complex".
If the origin is known and it is artificial, then it's still "specified and complex".
If the origin is known and it is natural, then suddenly for some reason it is not longer "specified and complex".

 

[leroy]

N
I expect that you'll now do your very best to avoid addressing this simple point, that obviously "specified complexity" isn't based on the actual properties of an object at all. Because if it were, an object wouldn't cease to be "specified and complex" the second one finds out how it came about naturally.

No. It means that your test is useless.
It means that "specified complexity" has nothing to do with the properties of an object.

Again I'll refer you back to that functional DNA sequence.

Both before AND after the discovery of how it comes about naturally, the sequence is the exact same.

Learning how it came about, does not change its properties. It doesn't change the object under investigation ONE BIT.

Yet its properties BEFORE the discovery apparantly make it qualify as "specified and complex".
And AFTER the discovery, it does not.

The object didn't change. Its properties didn't change. Its function, shape, molecular composition, ... everything is still the exact same both before and after the discovery of how it came about.



This is CLEAR evidence that "specified complexity" is NOT determined by evaluating the properties of the object. If it were, then the DNA sequence would STAY "specified and complex" after the discovery.

In fact, it would also be judged "specified and complex" if its natural origins were already known when starting to apply the "test" to it.


Again, this seems black on white evidence that "specified complexity" is NOT determined by the actual properties and nature of an object.


Instead, it's determined purely based on incredulity, awe and ignorance.




This is where you are either wrong or dishonest about this specific example.

The actual data, stays the same both before and after discovering its natural origins.
That's the entire point. There is no "mis interpreting" going on. The observations of its properties are the exact same observations both before and after discovering its natural origins, with the exact same conclusions: it's functional, it's complex, its molecular composition is made of elements X and Y,....

The sequence didn't change. The function didn't change. The complexity didn't change. The shape, molecular composition,..... everything about it stays the exact same both before and after discovering how it came about.


This clearly and unambigously proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "specified complexity" is not being determined based on the properties of the actual object, but only on fallacious reasoning like arguments from awe, complexity, incredulity and ignorance.


I expect that you'll now do your very best to avoid addressing this simple point, that obviously "specified complexity" isn't based on the actual properties of an object at all. Because if it were, an object wouldn't cease to be "specified and complex" the second one finds out how it came about naturally.

Ok, i´ll adrees that specific point, but help me to understand your point.

I will make 3 comments, but quite frankly I don’t know if these comments are relevant because again, I am not sure if I understand your point.

1 If I don’t have enough information, I might wrongly infer no-SC, for example if you show me a bunch of seemingly meaningless letters I might wrongly assume that it is not specified, if you then tell me that actually these words have meaning in some language that I don understand, I would change my mind and proclaim design. (even if you have a few, spelling mistakes)

2 The DNA sequences that @tas showed are analogous to point 1, these seemingly random bases happen to represent a functional gene, so before this info I might wrong infer “no-SC”but after you told me that it represents a functional Gene I might change my mind and conclude “SC” both of the secuances that he showed would have the attribute of SC the one that is not functional but only requires 1 mutation to become functional, would be equivalent to a text with a few spelling mistakes (it would still have the atribute of SC)

his clearly and unambigously proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "specified complexity" is not being determined based on the properties of the actual object,

3 yes that is true, SC is not determined by ¨*just* the properties of the object, SC also depends on wether if there are natural laws with a bias in creating such pattern. If there is a pattern and a bias in natural laws for creating such pattern then you cant claim SC….As I said before if evolution (Darwinism) where true, there would be a bias in creating functional genes, and therefore they will fail the test.


So with that said, is there anything else that I am missing? did I adress the point that you are making, if not, woudl you clarify your point?

 

[leroy]

Just for the fun of it, where exactly did he make that claim? Can you quote him, using the quoting feature so it links back to the original post?



I'ld certaintly agree that at least to a certain extent, that seems to be a requirement... that the mechanism or at least part of the mechanism is known. How else would you be able to determine it was artificially made?

When you conclude something had a natural origin, then one can also only support such a conclusion when at least part of that natural process is unraveled / understood / discovered, right?




I think I just did. It's the case for concluding a natural origin and it is the case for concluding an artificial origin. Failing at both, one can only call the origin unknown.




I have no need for such exception.

So by you logic, one can´t conclude that pyramids where design, unless you know which mechanism was used by the designers? By your logic you can conclude as follows

Yes: Pyramids where Design, but I don’t know which mechanism was used by the designers.

In you mind, the lack of a mechanism can be used as conclusive evidence against the idea that pyramids where designed

is these correct?

 

[leroy]

Precisely.. That isn't scientific, then. You simply don't have the general ability to recognize patterns reliably.



And, by thinking you see a pattern when there is none, you can falsely determine Design. By failing to recognize alternative paths, you can falsely determine design. By misuse of probabilities (combinations), you can falsely determine design.

So, for example, think about Mt Rushmore vs that other rock formation you saw as not designed. In both cases, how do you determine the range of comparable rock formations to allow? Suppose, ahead of time, that you are an alien that doens't know what humans look like.

In particular, how do you determine how many combinations to consider in the case of the rock formation you saw as not designed? How do you decide which others are similar enough to be worthy of being included in the comparison?

were is your peer reviewd article concluding that eyes, brains, flagella etc can evolve by the process of random mutations and Natrual selection?

And I would like you to explain exactly what is it what you are claiming

1 that there is no objective way to detect design

2 that there are objective ways to detect design in some areas but not in biology

3 there are objective ways to detect design both in biology and in other areas, but the specific method that demski is proposing is flawed.

In this context by objective I simply mean that you can claim design even without prior knowledge of the existence of a designer, and without knowing a priori if it was designed, for example are there objective ways to detect design in other planets even if we know nothing about aliens?

So your points seem to be

1 I can’t detect patterns in a reliable way, well that might be true, but I can still detect patterns with some degree of certainty, you live your daily life under the assumption that you can detect patterns created by … after all how do you know that the posts of these formus are created by intelligent designers? ….. sure I can make mistakes and falsy conclude design, but so what? The same is true with any other test, someone who whats to date a rock might make a mistake and miscount the amout of parent element,but that doesn’t invalidates radiometric dating right?... any mistake that I might make can be detected and corrected.

2 Aliens and Mt Rushemore, I would say that the symmetry and the details in the faces would clearly be indicative of SC even for an alien, who has never seen a human, but I understand and grant you’re your point someone with less information might wrongly interpret the data and get wrong results.

3 At what point can someone proclaim SC? Again this is a probabilistic argument, and there is a gray area where proclaiming SC would be dubious, but so what? That doenst negate the fact that there something are so complex and so specified and proclaiming SC becomes uncontroversial.

4 it is not science: that is just a semantic objection, I dont know (or even care) if you what to call it science or not, the relevant question is if its a realiable tool or not? for example can you trust the filter in your dailly life, can you use the filter to know if somethign was designed?

 

[leroy]

Worse then useless.
Because even if it is known ahead of time that the genetic sequence as function, it will be falsely branded as "specified and complex" if it isn't known how such a sequence can come about naturally. As per his own admission.

And then upon learning how it could form naturally, then suddenly the sequence in question is no longer "specified and complex", again as per his own admission, eventhough NONE of the properties of the sequence in question change when discovering how the sequence can come about naturally.

Things don’t suddenly become SC, the thing is that if you have incomplete information you might make a mistake and mislabel the object as SC.

The same is true with any other test, you might wrongly assume that a sample is 1,000,000yo but in light of new data and information you can potentially notice that some of the daughter element was caused by contamination, and notice that the sample is actually 500,000yo.

Obviously the sample didn’t became younger suddenly, it is just that new information was given

If the origin is unknown, then it's "speficied and complex".
If the origin is known and it is artificial, then it's still "specified and complex".
If the origin is known and it is natural, then suddenly for some reason it is not longer "specified and complex".

That simply shows your lack of understanding and your unwillingness to make an effort in trying to understand the argument, something can be artificial or “with unkown origin” and still not be SC

 

[leroy]

Y

By humans,.
e.

Ok so can I interpret that by your own admission the test successfully predicts human design?

 

[leroy]

As we have seen in previous posts, he determines this based on ignorance of its origins.".

Its not based on ignorance, it’s based on the best and most accurate information that one can have to date.

In an ideal world, if one has absolute knowledge one can conclude SC with 100% certainty, given that we don’t have absolute knowledge the best we can do is make a conclusion based on the best information that we have.

All tests have the same limitation, it doesn’t matter what test you perform there will always be a possibility of misinterpreting the data, if you reject Demskies filter, then by that logic, you should reject all tests.

 

[leroy]

Clearly that is incorrect, as we have just seen and demonstrated, and by your own acknowledgement, with the example of the DNA sequence by @tas8831

As you yourself have acknowledged, if its origins weren't known, then it would be branded as "specified and complex", which you so passionatly claimed as being ONLY possible through artificial design.

But then upon learning how it came about naturally, you backtrack and then suddenly it is no longer "specified and complex" for some mysterious reason. "mysterious", because the nature, the function, the complexity, the comoposition,... all of it stays the same after the discovery. No properties of the DNA is altered by discovering how nature produced it.


So, yes, absolutely.... by your own admission, this "method" ABSOLUTELY leads to false positives. And it does so in the worst of ways: through the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity / awe / ignorance.

So in conclusion,

When someone knows with certainty that something is SC one can proclaim design with certainty, the problem is that given that we humans have limited knowledge we can never tell with 100% certainty if something is SC, at best we can make conclusions with the best available data, and we can knowing that there will always be a possibility of failure.

Can agree with this conclusion?

 

[leroy]

Still waiting for @leroy to actually APPLY Dembski's filter to something relevant.

Well what would be relevant for you?

 

[leroy]

Then Dembski's filter is useless.

Your strawman simply indicates your unwillingness to an effort in trying to understand the filter.

The intend of the filter is not to determine if a gene has a function, and the sand thing is that I have told you this multiple times and you still make the silly argument over and over again.

 

[leroy]

Or suppose that Mt.Rushmore was made by talented artists and another face was not - done by a beginner, for example. And the face they carve is barely recognizable as a face.

If the “face” doesn’t look like a face, but rather like a random pattern create by wind and erosion, then you cant claim SC and you can’t conclude design, this wouldn’t mean that the face is actually not-design it would simply mean that you have no bases in asserting design.

 

[Bear Wild]

Why theological?
Can your phony filter now 'detect' supernatural design?

As it stands, it can only detect human design, since we only know of human minds that design (as we define it), and all of Dembski's 'workable' examples have been on human activities (rigged election, etc.). His biological example (flagellum) was laughable since he employed the 'all at once' notion (strawman).

So this "mind" could be aliens, right?

Why do YOU jump to design=Jesus?

It is because that is the very intent of ID proponents. If evolution is not correct then the creation myth is the alternative. But of course that what they want to do in their agenda. Find a fault with evolution then say - see it is incorrect therefore we can now accept the biblical creation story.
Your point is so correct. Aliens have just as much chance of being the Intelligent designer after all there are movies made that show this to be true.
Personally I like the sky woman myth of the Algonquin or the norse myth that the world came from fiery realm of Muspell melting the melt the icy mountains of Niflheim causing the giant Ymir to emerge along with a cow, two more beings, this time the god Buri and his goddess wife. They had a son named Bor, and his son was named Odin, who became the king of all the gods.
No evidence available and just as likely as the creation story. In the end the only evidence comes from the scientific theory of evolution which frustrates proponents of ID to no end.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, i´ll adrees that specific point, but help me to understand your point.

I will make 3 comments, but quite frankly I don’t know if these comments are relevant because again, I am not sure if I understand your point.

My point is simple. The "attribute of specified complexity", like you like to call it, is not determined based on the properties of the object in question.

We try to find out if X is designed or not. Your dembski method says we need to look for "specified complexity". And supposedly we do that by studying the object in question. This means that from its properties, function, etc we conclude if it has "specified complexity" or not.

In the DNA sequences posted by @tas8831 , you agreed it would qualify the criteria.
And then its natural origins are discovered. You agreed that it then would no longer qualify the criteria.

Yet discovering its natural origins, doesn't change the object X. Its properties, its function, everything about it that previously made it qualify "specified complexity", is still there.

Yet, discoverning its natural origins disqualified it as "specified and complex".

This means that the properties of the object aren't actually the metric by which SC is determined.
Or at least, there is some other unstated metric.

If SC is purely based on the properties of an object, then object X would still qualify after discovering its natural origins.

I'll add that for this "method" to be meaningfull and usefull, it SHOULD be based on just the properties of the object. But clearly, it isn't.

1 If I don’t have enough information, I might wrongly infer no-SC,

And that "information" seems to be that you need to know its origins ahead of time.
Which makes the method useless, since the whole point of it is to find out its origins.

for example if you show me a bunch of seemingly meaningless letters I might wrongly assume that it is not specified, if you then tell me that actually these words have meaning in some language that I don understand, I would change my mind and proclaim design. (even if you have a few, spelling mistakes)

Exactly. Just like I said. You need to know ahead of time that it's of artificial origin or not.
Apparantly, the "criteria" to determine "specified complexity" is "is it of natural origin or not?"

Which is hilarious, since the whole point of your method is in fact to find out if it is of natural or artificial origin.
But for the method to work, you actually need to know already if it is one or the other. Absolutely hilarious.

2 The DNA sequences that @tas showed are analogous to point 1, these seemingly random bases happen to represent a functional gene, so before this info I might wrong infer “no-SC”but after you told me that it represents a functional Gene I might change my mind and conclude “SC” both of the secuances that he showed would have the attribute of SC the one that is not functional but only requires 1 mutation to become functional, would be equivalent to a text with a few spelling mistakes (it would still have the atribute of SC)

And if it gets discovered that the entire thing is of natural origins, then it loses the "attribute of SC".
Because "the attribute of SC" is not based on the actual properties of the object under investigation. It is rather based on already knowing if it is natural or not, and if it isn't, it employs pretty much the argument from ignorance to then call it designed (until shown otherwise).

3 yes that is true, SC is not determined by ¨*just* the properties of the object,

Which is ridiculous, if the point of the method is to find out if an object is designed or not.

SC also depends on wether if there are natural laws with a bias in creating such pattern

Yep. And by now, we know how that is meant exactly.

It sums up as "it was designed if nature can't / didn't produce it".
Kind of like "you're a bachelor if you aren't married" or "you're dead if you are not alive anymore".

So really, just stating the obvious.
And this piece of "criteria", moreover, is exactly what also sets up this entire thing as a monstrous argument from ignorance.

If there is a pattern and a bias in natural laws for creating such pattern then you cant claim SC

Why not? That makes no sense to me, considering the actual terms "specified complexity". Those terms clearly refer to properties of an object. So are these terms just very poorly chosen, or... ?

Sounds very arbitrary to me. Kind of like a get-of-jail free card to avoid having to deal with inevitable false positives based on the aspect of the argument from ignorance.

….As I said before if evolution (Darwinism) where true, there would be a bias in creating functional genes, and therefore they will fail the test.

Evolution is as true as it gets in scientific expalantory models of reality.

So with that said, is there anything else that I am missing?

Yes. The obvious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So by you logic, one can´t conclude that pyramids where design, unless you know which mechanism was used by the designers? By your logic you can conclude as follows

Yes: Pyramids where Design, but I don’t know which mechanism was used by the designers.

In you mind, the lack of a mechanism can be used as conclusive evidence against the idea that pyramids where designed

is these correct?

Read what I actually wrote. I mentioned several times "...or at least part of the mechanism".

The building of the pyramids involed several mechanisms.
For starts, the stones need to be crafted. They show signs of carving. We even know where to quarry was.

It's a building. Humans make buildings.
It's a bunch of carved rocks stacked together, forming rooms. I'ld say that's a building.

Carving is a mechanism. A well understood one. One that we fairly easily recognise. Humans, and non-human ancestors, have been doing it for quite some time now.

There's far more to the "process" of pyramid building then just figuring out how to get those heavy rocks to the top.

The evidence of carving alone, is already enough.