A simple case for intelligent design

[exchemist]

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

Audie, you be late, fine strapping wench that you arrr, aharr. International Talk Like a Pirate Day is the 19th of September.

 

[leroy]

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

Well, what do you consider vague in my definition? Which concept is not clear?

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

I asked you to provide an example of a test that would falsify the idea that life had a natural orgin. And so far you haven’t provided an answer………….why am I being dishonest?

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

Ok so for the purpose of this conversation with evolution I mean “The idea that complex organs came from simpler organs as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection”

as a proponent of ID I suggest that life and complex organs where guided in some way by an intelligent designer. (is my view clear or do you need more clarification on what my view is?)

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

Didn’t you say that scientific theories need to be falsifiable?...............so is evolution (as I define it) falsifiable ?

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

That is why I wanted to keep things simple and limit the conversation to the origin of life, but for some reason you didn’t find it acceptable

 

[Audie]

Audie, you be late, fine strapping wench that you arrr, aharr. International Talk Like a Pirate Day is the 19th of September.

So what is a pirate's favourite letter in the alphabet?

If ya knows so much about pirates.

Or about me.

"Strappin'", no.

Maybe ya meant, "snappin".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, what do you consider vague in my definition? Which concept is not clear?








I asked you to provide an example of a test that would falsify the idea that life had a natural orgin. And so far you haven’t provided an answer………….why am I being dishonest?






Ok so for the purpose of this conversation with evolution I mean “The idea that complex organs came from simpler organs as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection”

as a proponent of ID I suggest that life and complex organs where guided in some way by an intelligent designer. (is my view clear or do you need more clarification on what my view is?)




Didn’t you say that scientific theories need to be falsifiable?...............so is evolution (as I define it) falsifiable ?








That is why I wanted to keep things simple and limit the conversation to the origin of life, but for some reason you didn’t find it acceptable

Nope, we are done for now. You can answer @Jose Fly 's post first:

A simple case for intelligent design

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what is a pirate's favourite letter in the alphabet?

If ya knows so much about pirates.

Arrrrrr!

 

[Valjean]

with complex I simly mean specified complexity.

natral selection "tries" to produce organisms that would be adapted to their enviroment, but it doesnt try to produce complex organisms, agree? yes or no?....

No!
There is no intention in natural selection. It doesn't try to do anything. It all happens automatically, like crystals growing or water running downhill.

I told you, prove that life is not specified and complex or prove that specified complexity doesnt necesarly requirer a designer.

OK, I'm asking. What do you mean by "specified?"
You ask a very broad question. Can you name something specific you think requires a designer?

Complexity can be generated by very simple mechanisms or algorithms. Take 10 minutes to watch:

Perhaps life (self relplication) is not necesairly a complex system, maybe all you need is 4 or 5 natural ocurring aminoacids to produce a self replicating protein ........this is one of many possible scenarios that would falsify ID.

OK, I'm not following. There are many self-replicating molecules and structures -- all assembling and reproducing themselves by simple, intentionless chemistry.
Did you not see this in the video in post #19?

you belive that life had a natural origin....how can that statement be falsified?......ohhhhh thats right you dont anwer to direct questions.

The reasonable assumption would be that a given phenomenon was explainable and understandable. ID's assertion that a phenomenon occurred by magic and is inexplicable is the extraordinary claim. The burden's on ID.

If we find something that looks like the pyramids in Egypt in an other planet, it woudld be more that obvious that they where designed.

Not if there were a natural, observable mechanism that would account for the pyramid.

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

And biology explains the natural mechanism by which such unlikely patterns are easily and automatically created.

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

Hoyle's fallacy.
There is a mechanism that eliminates meaningless letters and preserves meaningful ones, so to speak. Do you not understand natural selection?
Weasel program - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

Arrrrrr!

Aye, so many may think.

But no.

 

[Audie]

No!
There is no intention in natural selection. It doesn't try to do anything. It all happens automatically, like crystals growing or water running downhill.
OK, I'm asking. What do you mean by "specified?"
You ask a very broad question. Can you name something specific you think requires a designer.

Complexity can be generated by very simple mechanisms or algorithms. Take 10 minutes to watch:

OK, I'm not following. There are many self-replicating molecules and structures -- all assembling and reproducing themselves by simple, intentionless chemistry.
Did you not see this in the video in post #19?
The reasonable assumption would be that a given phenomenon was explainable and understandable. ID's assertion that a phenomenon occurred by magic and is inexplicable is the extraordinary claim. The burden's on ID.
Not if there were a natural, observable mechanism that would account for the pyramid.
And biology explains the natural mechanism by which such unlikely patterns are easily and automatically created.
Hoyle's fallacy.
There is a mechanism that eliminates meaningless letters and preserves meaningful ones, so to speak. Do you not understand natural selection?
Weasel program - Wikipedia

Hey, play by Audies rules, and stay out for now, ya
swab!!! Or else.

 

[Polymath257]

No!
There is no intention in natural selection. It doesn't try to do anything. It all happens automatically, like crystals growing or water running downhill.
OK, I'm asking. What do you mean by "specified?"
You ask a very broad question. Can you name something specific you think requires a designer.

Complexity can be generated by very simple mechanisms or algorithms. Take 10 minutes to watch:

OK, I'm not following. There are many self-replicating molecules and structures -- all assembling and reproducing themselves by simple, intentionless chemistry.
Did you not see this in the video in post #19?
The reasonable assumption would be that a given phenomenon was explainable and understandable. ID's assertion that a phenomenon occurred by magic and is inexplicable is the extraordinary claim. The burden's on ID.
Not if there were a natural, observable mechanism that would account for the pyramid.
And biology explains the natural mechanism by which such unlikely patterns are easily and automatically created.
Hoyle's fallacy.
There is a mechanism that eliminates meaningless letters and preserves meaningful ones, so to speak. Do you not understand natural selection?
Weasel program - Wikipedia

One of the things that convinced me of the power of mutation and natural selection was when I wrote my own version of the weasel program. I allowed for 90 symbols in each location (uppercase, lower case, space, punctuation) and, if I recall, a line with 70 symbols.

If you *randomly* select 70 characters, then *randomly* select 70 again, etc, the predicted time to find a target string is more than the age of the universe, even with the fastest computers.

But, if you allow each string to have 50 'children' and select the child that is closest to the target as the new 'parent', the target string can *easily* be found in just a couple thousand generations. That is almost immediate.

The difference is dramatic. Mutation *and selection* allows for *very* fast convergence to an optimum. There is also a very strong drive to complexity (as seen by more sophisticated simulations).

Given this, anyone who claims complexity, even 'specified complexity', to be a marker of intelligence is just showing their lack of experience. Specified complexity in the real world is *always* a solution to some optimization problem and mutation with natural selection solve such problems very, very well.

 

[Skwim]

Oops, my bad. And I don't really care about this thread (I am not a proponent of ID but also think arguing about it on the internet is not going to change anyone's mind) but was chastised for this last week and so just wanted to be clear on the rules. But I clearly misread the category. Carry on .

Hell, I don't think arguing about anything on the internet changes anyone's mind. Well, rarely anyway.


.

 

[leroy]

@leroy let's make this very simple.

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

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

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

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

1 Life, or to be specific “replication” I would argue that replicating systems are specified and complex. And therefore designed.

2 I am not sure if I understood the question, but I don’t know which mechanisms where used by the designer, and I don’t think one needs to know/understand the mechanisms in order to infer design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 Life, or to be specific “replication” I would argue that replicating systems are specified and complex. And therefore designed.

2 I am not sure if I understood the question, but I don’t know which mechanisms where used by the designer, and I don’t think one needs to know/understand the mechanisms in order to infer design.

I don't think he will appreciate the circularity.

 

[leroy]

.

Given this, anyone who claims complexity, even 'specified complexity', to be a marker of intelligence is just showing their lack of experience. Specified complexity in the real world is *always* a solution to some optimization problem and mutation with natural selection solve such problems very, very well.

The problem is that “natural selection” doesn’t aims at complexity, it aims at adaptability. NS tries to produce creatures that are well adapted. There is no reason for why “simple life” evolved in to “complex life” natural selection could have maintained life “simple” but well adapted.

In other words, NS explains why are organisms adapted, but it doesn’t explain why are they complex.

 

[Jose Fly]

1 Life, or to be specific “replication” I would argue that replicating systems are specified and complex. And therefore designed.

Given that one of your criteria for "specified complexity" is "the pattern is independent from the forces of nature", how did you determine that life and replication arose via non-natural means?

2 I am not sure if I understood the question, but I don’t know which mechanisms where used by the designer, and I don’t think one needs to know/understand the mechanisms in order to infer design.

Ok, thanks for being honest.

 

[leroy]

I don't think he will appreciate the circularity.

I would ask you to explain why is this circular reasoning, but I know that you don’t answer to direct questions.

 

[leroy]

Nope, we are done for now. You can answer @Jose Fly 's post first:

A simple case for intelligent design

Avoiding answers once again?

 

[Valjean]

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

But organisms do -- and the mechanisms are (should be?) known to every schoolchild.

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

Natural origin is the default assumption. The burden of proof is on you, who are making an extraordinary claim.
If actual evidence of magic poofing were produced, it would at least introduce an alternative for consideration.

something is specified and complex if:

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

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

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

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

OK, I think I'm following, now. By"specified" you mean supernatural, -- with an inference of intention.
There is no evidence of this, nor is there any need of it, as all the complexity has been explained with ordinary, observable, intention-less chemistry.

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

But YouTube has at least a hundred videos, with examples, showing the intermediate stages from light sensitive cells to the various, complex eye designs we see today. You learned this in school.

Why is natural, selective breeding is so problematic? I don't see it.
What alternative explanation is there?

 

[leroy]

Given that one of your criteria for "specified complexity" is "the pattern is independent from the forces of nature", how did you determine that life and replication arose via non-natural means?

Because there is nothing in the properties of amino acids that would force them to organize themselves in the pattern required to produce self replicating agents.

In the case of ice crystals for example, we do have a natural principle that forces water to form hexagonal patters, therefore the pattern is not “independent” therefore ice crystals are not specified and complex.

If instead of ice you have hexagonal patterns of iron, you could conclude design, because there is nothing in the laws of nature that would force “iron” to organize itself in hexagonal patterns.

 

[Polymath257]

The problem is that “natural selection” doesn’t aims at complexity, it aims at adaptability. NS tries to produce creatures that are well adapted. There is no reason for why “simple life” evolved in to “complex life” natural selection could have maintained life “simple” but well adapted.

In other words, NS explains why are organisms adapted, but it doesn’t explain why are they complex.

Different species are competing for the same resources. That tends to produce complexity as they adapt to each other using those resources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would ask you to explain why is this circular reasoning, but I know that you don’t answer to direct questions.

I always answer properly asked questions. You should try it some time.