Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[Hockeycowboy]

OK...

There are many origin stories. Let's take three four:

1. God created everything as it is written in Genesis. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
2. God created everything last Thursday. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
3. Everything arose naturally over the course of 14.5 billion years.
4. Everything was created millions and billions of years ago by God, the Intelligence behind life and the information and systems supporting its diversity.

I've included your option. Now...
Please make some suggestions as to how scientists could differentiate between those options.

Easy...

By using currently accepted empirical methods....all complex information that’s been discovered, in most fields of science except in the life & earth sciences, always recognizes mind as its source.
Even SETI is set up that way, determining intelligence as the cause of even simple things, like patterns. They’ve so far looked in vain, but that’s the way they expect to achieve their objective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Easy...

By using currently accepted empirical methods....all complex information that’s been discovered, in most fields of science except in the life & earth sciences, always recognizes mind as its source.
Even SETI is set up that way, determining intelligence as the cause of even simple things, like patterns. They’ve so far looked in vain, but that’s the way they expect to achieve their objective.

You can't even properly define "complex information" . And there is a reason that to do not have any scientific evidence for your beliefs, do you know the reason?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You can't even properly define "complex information" . And there is a reason that to do not have any scientific evidence for your beliefs, do you know the reason?

No...teach me, oh Enlightened One!

 

[Subduction Zone]

No...teach me, oh Enlightened One!

It is obvious, if you understand the concept of scientific evidence. The first thing that you need to have scientific evidence is a testable hypothesis. If you don't have that you only have an ad hoc explanation, a just so story, and those are worthless in the world of science.

 

[Polymath257]

Easy...

By using currently accepted empirical methods....all complex information that’s been discovered, in most fields of science except in the life & earth sciences, always recognizes mind as its source.

Simply false. There are many physical situations that produce great levels of complexity and yet have no mind behind them. This is one reason that it can be tricky to determine when a mind is at work and when not.

Information, by the way, is simply negative entropy. Any time entropy is decreased locally, information is produced.

Even SETI is set up that way, determining intelligence as the cause of even simple things, like patterns. They’ve so far looked in vain, but that’s the way they expect to achieve their objective.

You are misunderstanding the process. Simple things *can* be evidence of an intelligence *if* we know that simplicity is unlikely to be produced naturally. Similarly, complexity may NOT be evidence for a mind if we know that the complexity *can* be produced naturally (say, by feedback mechanisms).

The key is to know what can and what cannot be produced naturally given the environment.

And it seems that the research into abiogenesis is doing *exactly* that: determining what can and what cannot be produced naturally.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You are misunderstanding the process.

I don’t think so.

Similarly, complexity may NOT be evidence for a mind if we know that the complexity *can* be produced naturally (say, by feedback mechanisms).

This is the 3rd time now, that you brought up feedback loops / mechanisms. Just provide an example of a natural one outside of biology That results in novel information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t think so.



This is the 3rd time now, that you brought up feedback loops / mechanisms. Just provide an example of a natural one outside of biology That results in novel information.

You have yet to define "information" in a consistent manner.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You have yet to define "information" in a consistent manner.

^^ this — what you posted — is information...specified and complex.

“ouvheYattoeymnernaaindeenif””ststniotenincomrafnoi” is nothing.

“Youhaveyettodefine"information"inaconsistentmanner” is discernible, complex, usable information.

“You have yet to define "information" in a consistent manner” is specified, complex information.

Not too hard to grasp, I hope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

^^ this — what you posted — is information...specified and complex.

“ouvheYattoeymnernaaindeenif””ststniotenincomrafnoi” is nothing.

“Youhaveyettodefine"information"inaconsistentmanner” is discernible, complex, usable information.

“You have yet to define "information" in a consistent manner” is specified, complex information.

Not too hard to grasp, I hope.

Sorry, but "specified and complex" is merely creationists trying to sound "sciencey". How would you tell what is and what is not "specified and complex". The mere phrase screams of a special pleading fallacy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I posted this vid in another thread, but wanted to post it here, too....

 

[Subduction Zone]

I posted this vid in another thread, but wanted to post it here, too....

Oh good. And this video refutes it:

But wait! There's more!! That video is a simplified presentation of this rather long paper:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

And that paper is based upon over two hundred peer reviewed papers, most of them linked for you at that source. Please forgive me for not creating links for all of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And of course Tony Reed is always good:

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Just an observation.

I happen to see awhile back a show on the making of human robots. Science and technology have certainly come a long way. These robots were very impressive. From their movements to their responses when being addressed. I can't imagine the hours of knowledge and work needed to produce such a thing.

Yet they do not come anywhere close to being a real human being.

So, I wondered, what would these, who made these magnificent robots, think, if someone told them no intelligence was needed to make that robot? I'm sure they would laugh you to scorn. In other words, if what you made required tremendous intelligence, and does not come close to the real thing, how is it there is no intelligence behind the real thing?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just an observation.

I happen to see awhile back a show on the making of human robots. Science and technology have certainly come a long way. These robots were very impressive. From their movements to their responses when being addressed. I can't imagine the hours of knowledge and work needed to produce such a thing.

Yet they do not come anywhere close to being a real human being.

So, I wondered, what would these, who made these magnificent robots, think, if someone told them no intelligence was needed to make that robot? I'm sure they would laugh you to scorn. In other words, if what you made required tremendous intelligence, and does not come close to the real thing, how is it there is no intelligence behind the real thing?

Good-Ole-Rebel

just an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Oh good. And this video refutes it:

But wait! There's more!! That video is a simplified presentation of this rather long paper:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

And that paper is based upon over two hundred peer reviewed papers, most of them linked for you at that source. Please forgive me for not creating links for all of them.

Forgiven. I’m just glad you provided a source, rather than your common non-referenced response.
It has issues, though.....

From 2006, eh?
I know Behe has more recent info.

And there’s the T3SS, which came after the BF....no help for your side, there. If anything, it shows devolution.

Too many suppositions: 7 “assumptions” (which are applicable), 9 “assumes”, 8 applicable “may be”s, 44 “suggest,-s,-ed,-ion,-ions”, 11 “possibles”, 14 “possibilities “ ....this is farcical. Nothing really substantive, especially since it mentions the T3SS so much. Probably why the paper hasn’t been updated.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And of course Tony Reed is always good:

Again, this video makes a faulty assumption, that T3SS was first. The evidence posits it came after the B.F.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Forgiven. I’m just glad you provided a source, rather than your common non-referenced response.
It has issues, though.....

From 2006, eh?
I know Behe has more recent info.

And there’s the T3SS, which came after the BF....no help for your side, there. If anything, it shows devolution.

Too many suppositions: 7 “assumptions” (which are applicable), 9 “assumes”, 8 applicable “may be”s, 44 “suggest,-s,-ed,-ion,-ions”, 11 “possibles”, 14 “possibilities “ ....this is farcical. Nothing really substantive, especially since it mentions the T3SS so much. Probably why the paper hasn’t been updated.

Please, you need something more than the same old PRATT's. If you did not understand Behe's claims you should have said so. His argument from ignorance was refuted using his standards over ten years ago as that video shows. Behe was the one that claimed that a flagellum would not work without all of the oarts, and yet it works fine. That is why his argument fails there is a pathway to the flagellum without miracles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, this video makes a faulty assumption, that T3SS was first. The evidence posits it came after the B.F.

What "evidence" is this? And it does not matter. You still do not understand Behe's argument.

I need to remind you that you not only appear not to understand the concept of evidence, you like every other creationist here (oops, how could I forget our latest member that has at least tried to understand the concept) have a faulty understanding of evidence. So first state the scientific hypothesis please and then the observation that supports it.

 

[Polymath257]

I don’t think so.

This is the 3rd time now, that you brought up feedback loops / mechanisms. Just provide an example of a natural one outside of biology That results in novel information.

Well, biology is characterized by the high degree of information (low local entropy), so asking for high information outside of life is rather begging the question.

But, feedback mechanisms produce complexity. For example, the water cycle produces the complexity of the weather.

 

[Polymath257]

Just an observation.

I happen to see awhile back a show on the making of human robots. Science and technology have certainly come a long way. These robots were very impressive. From their movements to their responses when being addressed. I can't imagine the hours of knowledge and work needed to produce such a thing.

Yet they do not come anywhere close to being a real human being.

So, I wondered, what would these, who made these magnificent robots, think, if someone told them no intelligence was needed to make that robot? I'm sure they would laugh you to scorn. In other words, if what you made required tremendous intelligence, and does not come close to the real thing, how is it there is no intelligence behind the real thing?

Good-Ole-Rebel

When you get robots that reproduce, with mutations, and have to deal with selection pressure, we can talk.