Can we distinguish human v. natural excavations?

_{David L. Hagen

January 16, 2012

Culture, Design inference, Extraterrestrial life, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Large geometric shapes are being discovered beneath the Amazon forest. Have the discoverers evaluated their origins correctly? If so, why? Is there any way to distinguish between artifacts caused by human and extraterrestrial agents?
Once Hidden by Forest, Carvings in Land Attest to Amazon’s Lost World By SIMON ROMERO January 14, 2012

RIO BRANCO, Brazil — Edmar Araújo still remembers the awe.
As he cleared trees on his family’s land decades ago near Rio Branco, an outpost in the far western reaches of the Brazilian Amazon, a series of deep earthen avenues carved into the soil came into focus.
“These lines were too perfect not to have been made by man,” said Mr. Araújo, a 62-year-old cattleman. . . .
The deforestation that has stripped the Amazon since the 1970s has also exposed a long-hidden secret lurking underneath thick rain forest: flawlessly designed geometric shapes spanning hundreds of yards in diameter.

Alceu Ranzi, a Brazilian scholar who helped discover the squares, octagons, circles, rectangles and ovals that make up the land carvings, said these geoglyphs found on deforested land were as significant as the famous Nazca lines, the enigmatic animal symbols visible from the air in southern Peru.

“What impressed me the most about these geoglyphs was their geometric precision, and how they emerged from forest we had all been taught was untouched except by a few nomadic tribes,” said Mr. Ranzi, a paleontologist who first saw the geoglyphs in the 1970s and, years later, surveyed them by plane.

Hundreds of Geoglifos Discovered in the Amazon 2010.01.20

Geoglifos is the term applied in Brazil to geometric earthworks discovered after recent deforestation. Geoglyphs are not new in South American archaeology, but these are different—massive earthworks of tropical forest soil rather than desert surface alterations. The Amazon Geoglifos present geometric forms; circles, squares, ellipses, octagons, and more, with individual forms up to several hundred meters across. Some are connected by parallel walls. Their distribution spans hundreds of kilometers, and much of the area remains forested jungle.

POSTCARDS FROM THE AMAZON: Massive clues of Amazon area’s past 2010

The geoglyphs in Acre were made by digging ditches into the earth to create shapes like circles, squares, and diamonds. They are outlined by ditches up to 20 feet deep and range from 300 to 1,000 feet in diameter.

Squares

Circles

Ranzi geoglyphs Google search

—————————————-

For a serious discussion see Kairosfocus’ comment

Comments

Joe,
People against ID and Creation- what is the alternative?
Please provide a citation to a biologist making the claim that proteins spontaneously arise.
That is how ALL design detection is done- no exceptions.
What about dFSCI. That metric appears to indicate design and it's nothing to do with cause and effect.
Dude there isn’t any evidence that a protein can spontaeously arise (and buy a dictionary because spontaneous means more than instantly)
So, there's no evidence that protiens can arise via natural processess? Another joke, right? You are fooling with me! Recent systematic surveys indicate that protein evolution is not determined exclusively by selection on protein structure and function, but is also affected by the genomic position of the encoding genes, their expression patterns, their position in biological networks and possibly their robustness to mistranslation. Recent work has allowed insights into the relative importance of these factors. As such we know quite a lot about protein evolution. A simple search in google scholar would not doubt disabuse you of the notion that proteins cannot arise naturally.Peter Griffin_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PST}

OgreMk5 brings up an interesting point- just not the one he thought. Ya see evos need a methodology to determine design from non-design otherwise their whole position is baseless.Joe_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PST}

Peter:
No, don’t think so. That would mean that bridges are not artifacts!
That's just obtuse. Erosion does not produce the same type of bridge that humans do. That said with Newton’s First Rule all design inferences can be refuted just by demonstrating stochastic processes can account for the thing being investigated.
I don’t see how that follows. For example, I claim that invisible elf beings create flagellum.
Good for you. I don't see how that is even relevant. But anyway you need to go out and read pro-ID literature as it is obvious you don't know anything about it.Joe_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PST}

Joe,
They don’t know who designed it. They can assume human but that is about it until they start investigating and gathering data.
So who do you assume the designer is?
ya see if an archaeologist says she found an artifact and another scientists demonstrates taht erosion can produce it then it ain’t an artifact.
Well erosion *and* design can produce similar artifacts sometimes. So just because erosion can produce something means that that something is not an artifact in each and every case? No, don't think so. That would mean that bridges are not artifacts!
The way archaeologists find out about their designers is by studying the design and all other evidence left behind.
And what have you determined so far?
That said with Newton’s First Rule all design inferences can be refuted just by demonstrating stochastic processes can account for the thing being investigated.
I don't see how that follows. For example, I claim that invisible elf beings create flagellum. Until it can be shown that stochastic processes can account for them my claim stands as the best explanation? I'm sure you can see that makes science into a joke and I'm assuming you can't really be serious! After all, if you don't know anything about the designer then how can you connect the "cause" of the designer with the "effect" of the design?Peter Griffin_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PST}

Peter:
Who, exactly, is making the claim that proteins spontaneously arise?
People against ID and Creation- what is the alternative?
That you can tell design from non-design because of “cause and effect” relationships.
That is how ALL design detection is done- no exceptions.
Could you go into a little more detail about how, for example, cause and effect relationships would allow you to tell which protein was random and which was functional out of a given two?
Dude there isn't any evidence that a protein can spontaeously arise (and buy a dictionary because spontaneous means more than instantly) As for the OP well I would have to go there and look- then try to determine what could cause the effect in question.Joe_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PST}

Hi Joe,
Well Peter if there were any evidence, ANY at all that proteins could spontaneously arise (no, not instantly but without the help of a living organism), then we wouldn’t be having this talk.
Who, exactly, is making the claim that proteins spontaneously arise? As far as I can tell, it's you making that claim! I.E. that functional proteins are so rare that they only way the can exist is to be brought into existence by a designer directly.
As for as anyone knows to get proteins you need a ribosome and proteins and DNA and transcription, translation- quite a bit.
Sure, but that's not how you "get" a protein is it? That might be how you work with them but what I'm asking his how that specific configuration was identified as functional?
The point being is that there aren’t any known stochastic processes that can produce a protein from amino acids.
Sure, if you have amino-acid-->RANDOM PROCESS-->protein then I agree. But I'm not claiming that and I don't know anybody who is. And anyway, I'm asking you about your claim, made with great specificity just a moment ago. That you can tell design from non-design because of "cause and effect" relationships. Could you go into a little more detail about how, for example, cause and effect relationships would allow you to tell which protein was random and which was functional out of a given two? Or even address the topic of the post, and tell us how to determine design in the patterns observed?Peter Griffin_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST}

Peter, Design detection is used successfully in many fields. You and Ogre are confused.Joe_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PST}

Peter:]
Archaeologists relate their artifacts to a “designer” they already know about. Humans, or their ancestors.
TThey don't know who designed it. They can assume human but that is about it until they start investigating and gathering data.
Joe, we know many things about the designers archaeologists ascribe the creation of artifacts to. That’s why then can assign such.
Cause and effect relationships Peter- ya see if an archaeologist says she found an artifact and another scientists demonstrates taht erosion can produce it then it ain't an artifact.
What do we know about the “designer” that allows you to, with such certainty, talk about “cause and effect” relationships?
The way archaeologists find out about their designers is by studying the design and all other evidence left behind. That said with Newton's First Rule all design inferences can be refuted just by demonstrating stochastic processes can account for the thing being investigated.Joe_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PST}

Elizabeth,
But isn’t the OP about distinguishing between two sets of designers?
Indeed it is, but you have to wonder why DLH asks that question when the simple detection of design has yet to be shown in any rigorous manner, rigor sufficient to silence the majority of critics anyway as per the first comment.Peter Griffin_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PST}

Well Peter if there were any evidence, ANY at all that proteins could spontaneously arise (no, not instantly but without the help of a living organism), then we wouldn't be having this talk. As for as anyone knows to get proteins you need a ribosome and proteins and DNA and transcription, translation- quite a bit. The point being is that there aren't any known stochastic processes that can produce a protein from amino acids.Joe_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PST}

That's a good point. Archaeologists relate their artifacts to a "designer" they already know about. Humans, or their ancestors. Joe, we know many things about the designers archaeologists ascribe the creation of artifacts to. That's why then can assign such. What do we know about the "designer" that allows you to, with such certainty, talk about "cause and effect" relationships? What property does your designer have that allows you to ascribe the creation of, for example, proteins, to it?Peter Griffin_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PST}

But isn't the OP about distinguishing between two sets of designers?Elizabeth Liddle_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PST}

Actually they claim to be able to match MOs. In other words they try to match objects with the work of known designers. In all those fields there are arguments about false positives. And that is considering that you have samples of the designer's work and know the designer's methods and capabilities. You still have arguments about false positives.Petrushka_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PST}

Joe, Could you go into a little detail? With regard to the origin of proteins, what was the "cause" you mention, and what is the "effect" there?Peter Griffin_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PST}

Is there any way to distinguish between artifacts caused by human and extraterrestrial agents?
Perhaps gpuccio or KF could calculate the dFSCI in the artifacts in question? Those that have none are not designed. Those that have some are (presumably) designed. And perhaps there will be a big difference in the values between Earth and Alien dFSCI, which would make sense as by definition the Aliens would be more advanced as them visiting us! So once the calculation is done and if we do see a big difference then perhaps that could be the way to determine Alien and Human artifacts in some cases.Peter Griffin_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PST}

Geez OgreMk5, archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers say they know how to tell design from non-design. It is all about cause and effect relationships. And I have seen your "challenge" and it is total BS, just as I have told you.Joe_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PST}

I've had several different requests for any ID proponent to use ID principles to tell the difference between randomness and design for quite some time now. I can provide links if anyone would like to try. If you can't tell the difference between random and design, then how can you tell the difference between two designs? ----------------- {OgreMk5 - please address the post above. On random v. design start by addressing the explanatory filter. The issue is whether there exist at least some cases where CSI - complex specified information can be detected - not whether all cases can be. In many cases of large strings, it can be very difficult to find the CSI. e.g. the NSA spends billions of dollars to try to decipher strings. DLH} OgreMk5_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PST}

Here's a chance for ID research to come into its own. What does ID say about these shapes - designed or not?Grunty_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply