Intelligent Design???

[leroy]

What you provided was not a scientific view of randomness. The individual event may not be predicable, but the pattern, frequency, and consequences of mutations are not random as cited and bold in YOUR source.

You should use random in the proper context and not a causal factor that influences the consequences genetic change over time, as in evolution.

You are just playing semantic games, because you what to avoid a direct conversation because you know that it would imply answering to my questions and supporting your assertions.

“random” like most other words have many definitions, in the context of genetics and mutations random means

the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are usefull

This is what both lay man and scientists usually mean when they use the term random in the contexts of genetics and mutations, in another context random might have another definition.


But I am a very flexible man, please tell me what word should I use to describe the concept?

 

[leroy]

Not many? There is no specific limit for Neutral mutations in our present understanding of evolution. Actually, neutral and positive mutations are fairly rare, and negative mutations do not survive. That is why evolution is over a period of hundreds of thousands or millions of years,
.

Ok consider the relevant mutations that build flagellums from preexisting systems. Where mutations mainly neural or beneficial? What is your view?

At this point you don’t have to justify your view, all you have to do is explain it.

And

Where mutations “random” using this definition of “random”

the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are usefull

Remember you don’t have to use the word “random” if you don’t what, feel free to use some other word,

If you don’t answer directly clearly an unambiguously I won’t understand your view and any argument that I make would be a strwaman, because I would be attacking a position that you probably don’t hold.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And another argument based upon a strawman. Your argument ignores the existence of natural selection. When virtual monkeys typed out randomly under a virtual selection the writing of the works of Shakespeare were shown to be possible.

Creationists tend to be perfectly willing to look at variation. They tend to be perfectly willing to look at natural selection. They almost never look at them together.

Are you comparing DNA and life to a sonnet of some hundred words? Even Dawkins's Blind Watchmaker says the nucleus of every cell has a digitally organized database larger than the thirty-volume set of Encyclopedia Britannica!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Typing Shakespeare by monkeys is not an example of how the outcomes of cause and effect events are limited by the Laws of Nature as in evolution, nor the history of our universe since the beginning of expansion. An intelligent example would be how log would it take humans to type Shakespeare constrained by their memory and knowledge of Shakespeare. Like evolution and genetic replication there would be errors in replication' It is not a matter of debunking 'irreducible complexity' by science. It is a matter of whether the advocates of Intelligent Design can present a falsifiable hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, or Specific Complexity. At present none of the scientists associated with Intelligent Design have presented a falsifiable hypothesis positively supporting ID.

All the outcomes of cause and effect events involving the evolution of DNA are constrained by Laws of Nature, and the outcomes of each even are constrained by simply the chemistry as taught in high school, and demonstrated in simple experiments.

The above is a spin off of the watchmaker argument, and random assembly of a Boeing 707, which is unbelievably flawed.

From: These 5 Arguments for Intelligent Design Don't Make Any Sense

Watchmaker argument

"The argument: Over 200 years ago, the British theologian William Paley presented a seemingly irrefutable case in favor of God's creation of the world: if, Paley said, he happened to be out walking, and discovered a watch buried in the ground, he would have no choice but to invoke "an artificer, or artificers, who formed the watch for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use." This has been the battle cry of intelligent design advocates, and disbelievers in the theory of evolution, ever since Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1852: how could the intricate perfection of living organisms possibly have come about except by the will of a supernatural entity?

Why it's flawed: There are two ways to counter the Watchmaker argument, one serious and scientific, the other amusing and frivolous. Seriously and scientifically, Darwinian evolution by mutation and natural selection (Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker") does a much better job of explaining the supposed perfection of living organisms than the mysterious invocation of God or an intelligent designer. (The first position is supported by empirical evidence; the latter only by faith and wishful thinking.) Amusingly and frivolously, there are plenty of features in the living world that are anything but "perfect," and could only have been designed by an entity that wasn't getting enough sleep. A good example is Rubisco, the enormous, slow, and extremely inefficient protein that plants use to suck the carbon out of carbon dioxide."

Still waiting for a scientific reference that presents a falsifiable hypothesis that supports your assertions based on a religious agenda.



As with the problem with the monkeys with typewriters the point of irreducible complexity would be when the outcomes of cause and effect events are not constrained by the Laws of Nature. The choice of which keys the monkey strikes is not constrained by the Laws of Nature.

Are you comparing DNA and life to a sonnet of some hundred words? Even Dawkins's Blind Watchmaker says the nucleus of every cell has a digitally organized database larger than the thirty-volume set of Encyclopedia Britannica!

 

[exchemist]

Since I spent my working life dealing with ¨ evidence ¨ in a legal sense, where it is defined precisely and has specific rules that makes it evidence, I am drawn to the word, when used.

You state that ¨ there is no objective evidence ¨.................... What do you mean by objective evidence ? How is determined in this case and by whom ?

A fair question. As the context is ID, which claims to be a science, I'm referring to evidence acceptable in science. You will be familiar with the concepts of repeatability and reproducibility in forensic evidence, I expect. That's what I'm taking about: observation that can be repeated by different observers under different conditions and which still gives a consistent outcome.

I would be happy to admit that, strictly speaking, in human activity, there is no unimpeachable yardstick of total objectivity. There remains inevitably a subjective element to the observations of the most scrupulous experimentalist But reproducibility of observations is the means by which science tries to get as close to true objectivity as possible.

 

[leroy]

No. Please show the math or the observations demonstrating this. Simulations would be acceptable also.

That is easy the probability is 1/2N

coefficients are effectively neutral, and consequently have a probability of fixation approximately equal to 1/2N

Fixation (population genetics) - Wikipedia

Mutations form new alleles which thus arise at an initial frequency of 1/(2N). Because the probability that an allele will be fixed is equal to its frequency, there is a small probability (1/(2N)) that it will become fixed (by chance alone, if it is neutral to selection).

Population Size and Genetic Drift

. N= size of the population, so if the size of the population is 100 the probability of fixation of a neutral mutation would be 1/200

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you comparing DNA and life to a sonnet of some hundred words? Even Dawkins's Blind Watchmaker says the nucleus of every cell has a digitally organized database larger than the thirty-volume set of Encyclopedia Britannica!

Life has had close to three billion years to write that thirty volume set.

And now you are making the error of assuming that ancient life needs as much DNA as modern life. There is no reason to assume this. In fact you should see that the earliest of life would have had a very simple genome.

 

[Bear Wild]

Not much is required to claim religious, anyone can make the claim to justify what they believe, or make the claim that they are not religious or say they are spiritual and not religious.

The claim of Theistic Naturalism is indeed religious: From: Theistic Naturalism

“Theistic naturalism” is a term used to label an approach to divine action in which theistic belief is upheld but descriptions of events that invoke divine interference with the world are rejected. Historically, theistic naturalism is associated primarily with the deism of the eighteenth century, in which God was seen as little more than the world’s designer, and both miracles and the efficacy of intercessory prayer were denied. More recently, however, other kinds of theistic naturalism have been proposed.

Religious naturalism is a religion with formal structure in its beliefs. Are you familiar with the religion "Religious Naturalism"? If so what is it lacking to be a non-ambiguous religion and not a simple I believe in it?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok consider the relevant mutations that build flagellums from preexisting systems. Where mutations mainly neutral or beneficial? What is your view?

My views is reflected in the literature as cited. Initial mutations may be Neutral, but the mutations were ultimately beneficial.

 

[shunyadragon]

Religious naturalism is a religion with formal structure in its beliefs. Are you familiar with the religion "Religious Naturalism"? If so what is it lacking to be a non-ambiguous religion and not a simple I believe in it?

Religious Naturalism is more a philosophy believed by many different belief systems including the Baha'i Faith.

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=rel.....69i57j0l5.7111j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

'Religious Naturalism is a philosophy, or a set of attitudes and beliefs, that combines an appreciation of perceptions and values commonly associated with religions with a naturalistic understanding of the world (grounded in findings from science, and not including anything supernatural that may exist or act in ways ...

Charles Darwin was a religious naturalist.

It is also an association Religious Naturalist Association – encouraging awareness of the religious naturalist orientation

 

[Bear Wild]

Religious Naturalism is more a philosophy believed by many different belief systems including the Baha'i Faith.

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=rel.....69i57j0l5.7111j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

'Religious Naturalism is a philosophy, or a set of attitudes and beliefs, that combines an appreciation of perceptions and values commonly associated with religions with a naturalistic understanding of the world (grounded in findings from science, and not including anything supernatural that may exist or act in ways ...

Charles Darwin was a religious naturalist.

It is also an association Religious Naturalist Association – encouraging awareness of the religious naturalist orientation

I am well aware of the website and have followed it of some time now but have you read the works of David Crosby, Jerome Stone, or Ursula Goodenough. These works give the definition to the Religious Naturalist as it is defined now. It have been better defined with greater religious structure. What objections do you have to their presentation of Religious Naturalism. The works of David Crosby are especially good if you want to understand how it is defined I would recommend his books. Yes it can be used as a loose term with the origins starting with the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza and contributors such as George Santayana, John Dewy and Herbert Mead.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you comparing DNA and life to a sonnet of some hundred words? Even Dawkins's Blind Watchmaker says the nucleus of every cell has a digitally organized database larger than the thirty-volume set of Encyclopedia Britannica!

There is no possible comparison. Nothing in the combinations the monkey's can type on typewriters is constrained by the laws of nature, as evolution is in the evolution of the formation and mutation of DNA over time.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am well aware of the website and have followed it of some time now but have you read the works of David Crosby, Jerome Stone, or Ursula Goodenough. These works give the definition to the Religious Naturalist as it is defined now. It have been better defined with greater religious structure. What objections do you have to their presentation of Religious Naturalism. The works of David Crosby are especially good if you want to understand how it is defined I would recommend his books. Yes it can be used as a loose term with the origins starting with the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza and contributors such as George Santayana, John Dewy and Herbert Mead.

I have read the works referenced over time, and again it is more of a broad concept and philosophy that covers many belief systems and religions including the Baha'i Faith

 

[leroy]

Initial mutations may be Neutral, but the mutations were ultimately beneficial.

So where the mutations mainly neutral or beneficial? The key word here is “mainly” why cant you answer directly?

Out of the 100% of mutations responsible for building a flagellum, what percentage would you say could be attributed to neutral mutations?.these are muatiosn that where selected by genetic drift, and not by natural selection? 10% 50% 80%.........you are not expected to provide the exact value, just an approximate value

My views is reflected in the literature as cited.

the literature that you sited is consistent with Behe´s view and the literature doesn’t asserts, nor denies whether if mutations where mainly neural or beneficial,

your sources do not affirm nor deny if the mutations where random ether, so this is why I am asking you this questions and expecting a direct answer.

 

[shunyadragon]

So where the mutations mainly neutral or beneficial? The key word here is “mainly” why cant you answer directly?

Out of the 100% of mutations responsible for building a flagellum, what percentage would you say could be attributed to neutral mutations?.these are muatiosn that where selected by genetic drift, and not by natural selection? 10% 50% 80%.........you are not expected to provide the exact value, just an approximate value




the literature that you sited is consistent with Behe´s view and the literature doesn’t asserts, nor denies whether if mutations where mainly neural or beneficial,

your sources do not affirm nor deny if the mutations where random ether, so this is why I am asking you this questions and expecting a direct answer.

The research reference I referenced and others available deal with this.

No, Behe's view is based on religious assumptions and not science as referenced.

 

[leroy]

The research reference I referenced and others available deal with this.

Really? Care to copy-pase the exact portions of the article that provide an answer to my question?......why are you avoiding a direct answer? Honestly my questions could be answered in 1 or 2 words.

 

[shunyadragon]

Really? Care to copy-pase the exact portions of the article that provide an answer to my question?......why are you avoiding a direct answer? Honestly my questions could be answered in 1 or 2 words.

If your literate read

Really? Care to copy-pase the exact portions of the article that provide an answer to my question?......why are you avoiding a direct answer? Honestly my questions could be answered in 1 or 2 words.

for yourself. There are also a number of peer reviewed articles available that deal with this. I am through spoon feeding you. Do your own homework.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If your literate read

for yourself. There are also a number of peer reviewed articles available that deal with this. I am through spoon feeding you. Do your own homework.

Ooh, I don't know if this quite qualifies, but this is a rare example of @shunyadragon falling victim to Muphry's Law (and yes, that is the correct spelling)

 

[PruePhillip]

Please explain, because randomness does not cause mutations. One mutation may randomly occur, because it is unpredictable, and yes caused by the laws of nature, but the pattern, cause and nature of mutations over time is predictable understood and caused by the laws of nature.

Yes, true, but...
which way will a wing develop in a creature which ends up flying?
It's all random - it could come from extended fingers like a bat or
extended arm bones like a bird. Even four wings like some early
pro-birds - feathers on arms and legs.
And its random as to whether the creature will fly at all, or just
glide, or just stay on the ground.
What isn't random is the fact there will be adaptation to changing
conditions, and there will be shuffling of genes and switching of
"base pairs" in the DNA according to mathematical rules.

 

[Bear Wild]

I have read the works referenced over time, and again it is more of a broad concept and philosophy that covers many belief systems and religions including the Baha'i Faith

That is certainly not true of David Crosby or Jerome Stone or even Ursula Goodenough. David Crosby lays out a clear argument with reference to the metaphysics of Religious Naturalism as well as other aspects that is specific for that religious view. That does not mean that their are not other religious beliefs that share some things in common and religious beliefs that do not believe in a theistic view. Does the Baha'i believe that a god/theistic representative is not necessary?