Darwinian Debating Device #17: “The Black Knight Taunt”

_{Barry Arrington
November 3, 2014

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

The essence of the “Black Knight Taunt” is to pretend overwhelming victory after suffering a crushing defeat. Here we have a classic example from a commenter named “keiths.”

In my No Bomb After 10 Years post I noted that after 10 years of debating origins I had never encountered a “science bomb” that would disabuse me of my ID position.

Amusingly, keiths insisted that he had posted just such a bomb over at The Skeptical Zone that proved that Darwinism is “trillions” of times better at explaining the data than ID. His argument failed at many levels. Yet, even more amusingly, he kept on insisting he had debunked ID after his so-called bomb had been defused by numerous commenters. See, e.g., here and here.

Here is the Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

In my example, WJM lopped off the Black Knight’s arms and KF took out his legs. Yet days later he was still posting shrill comments announcing his triumph.

In the clip above Arthur gives the only response to “The Black Knight Taunt.” We pick up the scene after Arthur has cut off the knight’s arms and legs:

Black Knight: Right, I’ll do you for that!
King Arthur: You’ll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I’m invincible!
King Arthur: …You’re a loony.

Arthur rides away.

Black Knight: Oh, oh, I see! Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!

Comments

Box, It's astonishing to me that you still don't get this, but let me try once more. Suppose you have two objects: 1. A coin with ONH stamped on both sides. 2. A trillion-sided die with ONH engraved on one and only one side. A friend of yours takes both objects into another room, out of your sight. She randomly picks one of the two objects and flips it. "I randomly picked one of the objects and flipped it, and it landed with ONH up," she shouts to you. Your job is to guess which of the objects she flipped -- the coin with ONH on both sides, or the trillion-sided die with ONH on only one side. If you can't figure out the best answer, I'm afraid there's little hope that you will ever understand my argument.keith s_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

Astroman Addressed to you in error, was meant for Enkidu, apologies!Andre_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

Atroman Apologies Parkour..... and it shows just how absolutely "crappy" the design of the spine is! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX7QNWEGcNIAndre_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Atavism = deformities! http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/atavism1.htm Enkidu, you need to do better than that!Andre_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Keith S You don't even have an argument, all you have is a word salad.......Andre_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Enkidu Atavistic legs does not prove a common ancestor.......... the busting of the myth done by a creationist. http://creation.com/the-strange-tale-of-the-leg-on-the-whaleAndre_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

William J Murray:
It’s just bizarre to me that you keep insisting (and apparently believing) that your argument is significant when, even if we stipulate your argument is 100% correct and it’s conclusion 100% valid, it is utterly trivial in nature because it assumes arguendo everything which ID theory challenges.
And it's bizarre to me that you can't see, or refuse to see, that I am treating both ID and unguided evolution fairly. If you disagree, tell me which of my numbered steps is unfair, and explain why. You keep dodging the question. Be brave and answer it this time.
I mean, the ID-side equivalent of your argument (as bad as it is) would be that if we assume natural forces could create trillions of alternatives to a nested hierarchy, and we assume that an intelligent designer could only have produced a nested hierarchy, then by your reasoning design would be a better explanation by a factor of trillions.
No, because gradual unguided evolution with primarily vertical inheritance will produce an objective nested hierarchy. It isn't an assumption. Vjtorley understands this even if you don't:
I’d now like to discuss the recent article by KeithS, over at The Skeptical Zone. His key point is a very simple one. What Darwinian evolution explains spectacularly well about life is the striking fact that organisms can be grouped into objective nested hierarchies. As we saw above, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains, which automatically generate nested hierarchies in replicating systems that branch. The process of Intelligent Design, on the other hand, need not generate organisms that can be grouped into objective nested hierarchies: all we can say is that it might.
You evidently think vjtorley is an idiot for saying that, but why? His statement makes perfect sense.
kf, Thinking of them as mindless automatons, even though I treat them as conscious entities, grants me comfort and equanimity in the face of their tireless, nonsensical output. Otherwise, it’s just too profoundly sad and troubling to subject myself to.
William, What's troubling to you is the fact that you can't rebut my argument, despite insisting that it's "inane" and "trivial". Pretty embarrassing to be unable to rebut a "trivial" argument, isn't it?keith s_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

Dr. McIntosh's contention that 'non-material information' must be constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium has been borne out empirically. i.e. It is now found that 'non-local', beyond space-time matter-energy, Quantum entanglement/information 'holds' DNA (and proteins) together: Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/ In fact, matter and energy are now both shown to reduce to ‘quantum information’. In fact an entire human can now, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe: Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video https://vimeo.com/75163272 Thus not only is Information not reducible to a 3-Dimensional energy-matter basis, as is presupposed in Darwinism, but in actuality energy and matter both reduce to a information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism: Verse and Music: John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Redeemed – Big Daddy Weave http://myktis.com/songs/redeemed/bornagain77_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Moreover, as if the princess and the pea paradox were not devastating enough as to undermining any credibility Natural Selection might have had as to having the causal adequacy to explain the highly integrated levels of overlapping functional information found in life, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is now known to not even be on the right playing field in the first place: “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf Here is, what a Darwinist termed, a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway (which operates as if it were ’4-Dimensional): ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 And remember, Darwinian evolution has yet to explain a single gene/protein of those ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathways. "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. - Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/ The reason why a ‘higher dimensional’ 4-Dimensional structure, such as a ‘horrendously complex metabolic pathway, would be, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible to a 3-Dimensional process, such as Natural Selection, is best illustrated by ‘flatland’: Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Dr. Quantum – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4 I personally hold that the reason why internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional instead of three dimensional is because of exactly what Darwinian evolution has consistently failed to explain the origination of. i.e. functional information. ‘Higher dimensional’ information, which is bursting at the seams in life, simply cannot be reduced to any 3-dimensional energy-matter basis: John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Moreover, Dr. Andy C. McIntosh, who is the Professor of Thermodynamics Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy), has written a peer-reviewed paper in which he holds that it is 'non-material information' which is constraining the local thermodynamics of a cell to be in such a extremely high non-equilibrium state: Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. A.C. McINTOSH - Dr Andy C. McIntosh is the Professor of Thermodynamics Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds. (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420 Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - May 2013 Excerpt: The third view then that we have proposed in this paper is the top down approach. In this paradigm, the information is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy. It is the information which is the active ingredient, and the matter and energy are passive to the laws of thermodynamics within the system. As a consequence of this approach, we have developed in this paper some suggested principles of information exchange which have some parallels with the laws of thermodynamics which undergird this approach.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0008bornagain77_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Another reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that the two foundational pillars of Darwinian evolution, Random Mutation/Variation and Natural Selection, are both now shown to be severely compromised as to having the causal adequacy that Darwinists have presupposed for them. For instance in regards to random mutation, although Darwinian evolution appeals to ‘unguided’ random mutations/variations to DNA as the main creative source for all evolutionary novelty, there are now known to be extensive layers of error correction in the cell to protect against any unguided “random” changes happening to DNA in the first place: The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective – February 2011 Excerpt: “Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation.” http://benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/articles/V005/1TOEVOLJ.pdf Moreover, for the vast majority of times that changes do happen to DNA, they are now known to be ‘directed changes’ by sophisticated molecular machines, not unguided ‘random changes’ from a cosmic ray, chemical imbalance, or some such entropy driven event as that: How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 Shapiro on Random Mutation: “What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html What should be needless to say, having ‘cell-mediated processes’ direct changes to DNA is in direct contradiction to the ‘undirected randomness’ which is held to be foundational to neo-Darwinian thought. Moreover, Natural Selection, that other great pillar upon which Darwinian evolution rests, has also been undermined as having the causal adequacy that neo-Darwinists have attributed to it. First off, to the extent that Natural Selection does do anything, Natural Selection is found to be a eliminative force not a generative force: "Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing…. Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics, 2001 (pp. 199-200) William Provine - Professor of Evolutionary Biology - Cornell University "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk From a Frog to a Prince - video (17:00 minute mark Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information) - No Beneficial Mutations - Gitt - Spetner - Denton - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClleN8ysimg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1031 "A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals,'.. the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man " ' . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!" —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.] http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/2evlch15.htm "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- As well, Natural Selection, to the extent it does do anything, is grossly inadequate to do the work required of it because of what is termed ‘the princess and the pea’ paradox. The devastating ‘princess and the pea’ paradox is clearly elucidated by Dr. John Sanford, at the 8:14 minute mark, of this following video,,, Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video http://vimeo.com/35088933 Dr. Sanford points out, in the preceding video, that Natural Selection acts at the coarse level of the entire organism (phenotype) and yet the vast majority of mutations have effects that are only ‘slightly detrimental’, and have no noticeable effect on phenotypes, and are thus far below the power of Natural Selection to remove from genomes before they spread throughout the population. Here is a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Sanford on the subject: “Selection Threshold Severely Constrains Capture of Beneficial Mutations” - John Sanford - September 6, 2013 Excerpt of concluding comments: Our findings raise a very interesting theoretical problem — in a large genome, how do the millions of low-impact (yet functional) nucleotides arise? It is universally agreed that selection works very well for high-impact mutations. However, unless some new and as yet undiscovered process is operating in nature, there should be selection breakdown for the great majority of mutations that have small impact on fitness.,,, We show that selection breakdown is not just a simple function of population size, but is seriously impacted by other factors, especially selection interference. We are convinced that our formulation and methodology (i.e., genetic accounting) provide the most biologically-realistic analysis of selection breakdown to date. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0011bornagain77_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Well Astroman, thanks for the ad hominem, I'm sure you would also probably spit on me if you could.,,, but in regards to the actual merit of my claims, I have already cited several references in regards to claim number 1, i.e. 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis, and I notice that you have not even attempted to list the mathematical equation for Darwinism that we can test against,, (since there is in fact no testable, rigid, equation for you to list that would make Darwinism a proper scientific theory), but in regards to my other claims,,,, 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis” ,,let's see how they hold up and if you can, rather than the usual Darwinian vitriol, give a substantive response to the claims? Another primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that Darwinian evolution does not have a demonstrated empirical basis to support its claims (in fact empirical evidence also consistently shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),, The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Don’t Mess With ID (Overview of Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’ and Durrett and Schmidt’s paper at the 20:00 minute mark) – Paul Giem – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeYJ29-I7o An Open Letter to Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers - Michael Behe July 21, 2014 Dear Professors Miller and Myers, Talk is cheap. Let's see your numbers. In your recent post on and earlier reviews of my book The Edge of Evolution you toss out a lot of words, but no calculations. You downplay FRS Nicholas White's straightforward estimate that -- considering the number of cells per malaria patient (a trillion), times the number of ill people over the years (billions), divided by the number of independent events (fewer than ten) -- the development of chloroquine-resistance in malaria is an event of probability about 1 in 10^20 malaria-cell replications. Okay, if you don't like that, what's your estimate? Let's see your numbers.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.htmlbornagain77_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus:
(d) All along, it is commonly known that designers, if they wish to can and do use designs that fall into tree pattern hierarchies, so this issue would be inherently incapable of distinguishing design from non-design on basic inductive reasoning, where one goes for that which makes a difference between two hypotheses.
It sounds to me like you are saying automobile designs from human designers started off as slow horseless carriages, which later developed into the Chevy and Ford lineages that in time will be self-driving and perhaps qualify as (machine) intelligence. A tremendous amount of combined intelligence is required to develop (and maintain) modern automobile technology. And living things are much more complex than that. Without intelligence the creating of even a simple antique automobile would be like a tornado passing through an iron ore deposit and tar pit self-assembling an all gassed up and ready to go Model-T (or design of its own that works even better). One small step at a time would have tornado's making gears, wheels, motors, that are swept up again to fit together different ways until something works, then tornadoes make more of that. Cell organelles on their own self-assemble, but development into a human such as ourselves requires complex social cells together developing into complex self-sustaining multicellular colonies with intelligence of their own from a brain (connected to many sensors) to control muscle movement. It makes more sense that there is also a mind boggling amount of intelligence (in addition to our brain) required for our lineage to have developed into us. Critics generally assume that a "designer" intelligence must be a figment of religious imagination. Yet I'm finding plenty of scientific evidence to conclude that our cell nuclei contains a (genetic) brain (as complex as the one on our shoulders) surrounded by a cell layer that has a brain in it for moment to moment awareness needed to be say a neuron that has to properly migrate and differentiate then learn to wire and fire the right way with others in their cellular community. In this case our "designer" is a trinity where consciousness part is from the behavior of matter level, with two intelligence levels on top of that to create (and 24/7 be in) us. Our human body only lasts so long, but the rest stay going through time by having offspring that have offspring and so on. Even where one does not have offspring of their own the Designer's systematics has us working in parallel, which happens by the same couple having more than one offspring each with their own human intelligence and consciousness. From that perspective all do not need to reproduce, what matters is to peacefully work together to stay going through time or the part of the Designer that is at work on planet Earth will suffer a loss but not be gone (it's a big big universe, as is our Designer). I found (d) to be a starting point to work from to scientifically explain further into the (once) unknown. I'm not sure whether that's what you intended, but what you said caught my attention. The only way to explain why was to start at the beginning on into novel tornado metaphor to the bigger picture. After several hours of thought I finally ended when I reached "universe" and I now have to say that what you said got me going real good, but it was well worth my effort. I don't think I ever summed all this up so well. I'm hoping that my example of what happens when the scientific evidence is followed wherever it leads (from what you said) already completely demolished all arguments that assumed (d) had no scientific value and cannot somehow be true, and that you are OK with what I ended up explaining pertaining to how our "designer" works.Gary S. Gaulin_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Astroman, And yet the fact remains that there is no mathematical basis for evolution, nor any empirical basis. And your religious beliefs, are strong as they are, don't change this.phoodoo_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 at 176 said: "The reason I don’t consider evolutionary theory to be a science is because it has no,,, 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis" There you go lying again. Actually, you don't consider evolutionary theory to be a science because you are a delusional God wannabe who won't accept anything that challenges your insane religious beliefs.Astroman_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Andre said: "Astro man Bingo!!!!! Bad design does not mean not designed. But every point you raised in that rant as been refuted……. Check out parkcour to see how badly designed we supposedly are." I haven't said said anything about bad design, and what "rant" are you talking about? What is "parkcour"?Astroman_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

picture of Rich's reductive materialism and Leggett's inequality in the same room: https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7274/6860972458_886b8c8e92_z.jpgbornagain77_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

That's great BA77. Hands up all here who are YECs?Rich_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

Rich, contrary to what you believe, we are all very Young Earth Creationists now, Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables - Scott Aaronson Excerpt: "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html :) Moreover, this contention is far from just some flaky theory, but this contention has now been confirmed to be true by an incomprehensible 120 standard deviations: Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,, (to which Anton Zeilinger responded) When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/ And to further solidify the case that 'consciousness precedes reality' the violation of Leggett's inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett's inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision: Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: "This represents a violation of (Leggett's) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results." The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video: Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449 Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJUbornagain77_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Silly Joe. We all know you're a YEC.Rich_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

lifepsy, You're clearly in denial about this, but vjtorley isn't:
I’d now like to discuss the recent article by KeithS, over at The Skeptical Zone. His key point is a very simple one. What Darwinian evolution explains spectacularly well about life is the striking fact that organisms can be grouped into objective nested hierarchies. As we saw above, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains, which automatically generate nested hierarchies in replicating systems that branch. The process of Intelligent Design, on the other hand, need not generate organisms that can be grouped into objective nested hierarchies: all we can say is that it might.
keith s_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

I am not a Bible believer nor a YEC that understands evolutionism/ evolutionary "theory" better than keith s. keith s is too dim to understand that transitional forms would ruin an ONH and his position requires numerous transitional forms. And it is sad watching him ignore that devastating refutation,Joe_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

How would rabbits in the pre-cambrian falsify an alleged theory that can't even explain rabbits?Joe_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

lifepsy:
I’m a Bible believing Young Earth Creationist that understands evolution “theory” better than you do.
:-)keith s_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Keith S, 200
universal common descent — particularly of the ‘ID by guided evolution’ variety – can produce patterns that make it impossible to recover an objective nested hierarchy.
Like I said, you're in denial. Loss and/or reversal of traits and/or incomplete lineage sorting during guided or UNguided evolution could potentially mask the signal of common descent to such an extent to where identification of the objective nested hierarchy is impossible. We have real-world examples of this. Retroposon insertions are supposed to be top dog of recovering an objective phylogeny because of the implausibility of homoplasies. Yet an objective nested hierarchy is irrecoverable among the entire placental mammal "tree". The signal has supposedly been masked by incomplete lineage sorting, leaving a complex "mosaic of traits" that inherently contradict any notion of a single objective nested hierarchy. "Effects of alternating divergence, hybridization, introgression, and incomplete lineage sorting might complicate our search for a clear dichotomy at the base of this tree and leave us with an indistinct, effective ‘soft’ polytomy, leading sometimes to one or the other solution depending on the size of the data set and the particular markers examined." Mosaic retroposon insertion patterns in placental mammals 2009 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/figure/F4/ Here we can see that such "unguided" evolutionary patterns on a larger scale throughout the animal kingdom could easily confound any semblance of an objective nested hierarchy. (Keith S, I'm sure you will ignore all of this because it is inconvenient to your thesis, but I post it for others' benefit.)
....and that this subset just happens to be the subset that creates a recoverable, objective, nested hierarchy of the kind that is predicted by unguided evolution.
That's a complete joke, seeing as how "unguided evolution" could accommodate a countless number of different data sets, and just about any number of inherent discrepancies within those data sets. As far as I can tell from your posts, you're basically just making things up and claiming victory. Btw, I am most certainly not a "Common Descent IDer". I'm a Bible believing Young Earth Creationist that understands evolution "theory" better than you do.lifepsy_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

With opponents like Mung, who needs allies?keith s_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

keiths:
If people start disappearing, look for us at The Skeptical Zone, where discussion is open and everyone is welcome.
Mung:
Everyone but the truth.
And yet we've welcomed you there, Mung. You've even posted OPs! Therefore, by your own logic, what you say at TSZ is false. Have you ever made it more than a couple of comments without shooting yourself in the foot?keith s_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Mung: "Everyone but the truth." Posturing. There is nothing stopping the truth from visiting or residing there.Rich_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

keiths:
Based on past experience, the ban hammer may fall at any moment. Barry and KF don’t like being embarrassed, and that tends to happen frequently when ID critics are around.
keiths is deluded. He has no argument and he knows it, so he claims that his inevitable banning will be because he has an irrefutable argument. Posturing. keiths:
If people start disappearing, look for us at The Skeptical Zone, where discussion is open and everyone is welcome.
Everyone but the truth.Mung_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Keith #200: And because a digital camera predicts the action of taking a picture we actually observe on our computer screen, out of the hundreds of alternative actions available to a mobile phone, it is literally hundreds of times better than a mobile phone at explaining a picture.
see: #41, #108, #159.Box_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Phinehas
Someone pointed out on a different thread that the usual structure of armies is that of an objective nested hierarchy. Is this true or not?
It is not true. Human armies are the subjective creations of multiple human designers. heck, there are trillions of possible army hierarchies. How could any one of them be objective? But if armies were created by evolution, well then, there would be only one army hierarchy and it would be objective. Like ant armies. And human armies. All the product not of design, but of evolution. Atten Hut!Mung_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply