Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

DLL Hell, Software Interdependencies, and Darwinian Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In our home we have six computers (distributed among me, my wife, and two daughters): two Macs, two Windows machines, and two Linux (Unix) machines. I’m the IT (Information Technology) or IS (Information Systems) guy in the household — whatever is is.

A chronic problem rears its ugly head on a regular basis when I attempt to update any of our computer systems: Software programs are often interdependent. DLLs are dynamic link libraries of executable code which are accessed by multiple programs, in order to save memory and disk space. But this interdependence can cause big problems. If the DLL is updated but the accessing program is not, all hell will break loose and the program will either severely malfunction or suffer an ignominious, catastrophic, instantaneous death. On the other hand, if the program is updated and the DLL is not, the same thing can happen.

I’m still trying to figure out how the circulatory avian lung evolved in a step-by-tiny-step fashion from the reptilian bellows lung, without encountering DLL hell, and how the hypothesized intermediates did not die of asphyxia at the moment of birth (or hatching), without the chance to reproduce.

Of course, we all know that this kind of challenge — no matter how obvious or compelling — presents no problem for the D-Fundies (Darwinian Fundamentalists), who are true believers in the clearly impossible, based on materialistic assumptions in which design could not possibly have played a role.

Comments
I’m glad ethos works for all your questions, and you feel no need for logos. :),
That seems interesting. Would you kindly translate for the philosophically impaired?Adel DiBagno
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Paul, the idea that something cannot exist and not exist in the same cirrcumstance has not been proven either. I just love it when conventionalists (ala Popper) turn to irrationality in order to protect their cherished paradigm. Sounds very sciency to me. Paul, can please provide a list of things that came into existence without a cause?Upright BiPed
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
bornagain77 (#54) wrote: "Everything That begins to exist has a cause." Isn't that a hypothesis rather than a fact? Have you proven it?PaulBurnett
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Legendary1, ------"Hmmm… on one side we have scientists of all political persuasions and all religions, all of whom come to the conclusion that evolution is true. Also on that side we have reams of carefully produced and peer-reviewed evidence. On the other side we have a group of conservative fundamentalist Christians, some of whom are lawyers, some engineers, and some lay-people who cite “common sense” as the reason they doubt evolution. I need to weigh this carefully to determine which side is more likely to be right." I'm glad ethos works for all your questions, and you feel no need for logos. :),Clive Hayden
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Thank you for sharing. As another candidate besides Information, what about Error, or less cynically, Humor?
My favorite abstraction is abstraction itself, so that gets my vote.R0b
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
RDK:
Knowing that something had a mechanism for its emergence is one thing. Knowing exactly how that happened in detail is another.
That's an accurate statement, although I don't know what it has to do with ID. Or evolution for that matter. If someone has the "exactly how that happened in detail" part handy I'd love to look it over. Science routinely answers some questions while leaving others. A thermometer may accurately measure temperature, and yet it will never determine the source of the heat it measures. It offers no explanation for what it detects. It seems like you're awfully generous in letting evolution off the hook when it comes to details, and unyielding in requiring that ID explain what it never claimed to.ScottAndrews
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Mr Bornagain77, Thank you for sharing. As another candidate besides Information, what about Error, or less cynically, Humor?Nakashima
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Everything That begins to exist has a cause; The Universe began to exist: Therefore the universe has a cause. Since the beginning of the universe was an absolute origin of space-time, matter-energy, The cause of the universe must be transcendent of space-time, matter-energy. Information is shown to be transcendent and dominate of space-time, matter-energy in quantum teleportation experiments. Thus information is the only known candidate to present itself for the creation of the universe. John 1:1 In the beginning was The Word (Logos)bornagain77
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
RDK your only argument was saying ID has it too easy. Well let the facts fall where they may- if ID provides an more easily applicable explanation so be it. Intelligence does operate on a choice basis. We can quickly get into the "what or who designed the designer" debate but I appeal to intelligence as the fundamental force from which all things come. That is we reach a point of infinite intelligence giving life to a sequence of other lesser intelligences. A top down view of specified complexity. The idea that you think evolution can only be critiqued where it works it absurd ans clearly shows your agenda which is devout preservation of the theory in crises. The fact that you obviously dont know what gave rise to your evolution is not a good reason to accept a promissory note on if and when we can expect and explanation. If the theory does not work find a new theory. It makes no sense to accept materialism as your rule book for science but then exempt your theory from having to abide it. That is the sign of a religious dogma. If material necessity, chance and contingency operate everywhere in the universe than lets judge they theory as being part of that whole. ID thinks the fundamental mechanical force needed to bridge the universal probability gaps is intelligence which is defined as a non material force acting in the physical world and inferred by effects and quantified in bits of information. For starters, it's just that easy. :)Frost122585
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Mr Kairosfocus, They are not at all properly analogous to spontaneous chance variation plus — upon spontaneously achieving first complex function [!!!] — non-foresighted selection as mechanisms of claimed macroevolution. That appears not to be the case. The whole point of GAs like MESA is that GAs are analogous biological evolution, aka repeated iterations of a population experiencing heritable variation and selection. If Dr Dembski and other ID theorists agreed wth you, they would just declare ev, AVIDA, etc a category mistake and ignore them. Instead, they accept that GAs _are_ evolution, and attempt to use them to demonstrate certain aspects of evolution - for example the need for active information. "Evolution" is an abstraction. It doesn't need DNA, any more than "Flight" needs feathers.Nakashima
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
pubdef– OK, so let me get this straight: The “programming of life” is way beyond the capabilities of any intelligence we know about or can even conceive of. Therefore, life must have been designed by some intelligence. Um no. It’s that the programming of life is way beyond the capabilities of any intelligence we know about so we can be confident that it didn’t come about by accident. Now, you really didn’t mean to imply that since the programming of life is way beyond the capabilities of any intelligence we know about it means it came about by accident, did you?
Well, "accident" is not the word I would choose, but I do mean something like "ID seems to require the existence of something for which we really have no evidence." As far as comparing NDE with ID: let's look at the implications for scientific research. NDE tries to see how something we know something about (mutation, selection, what have you) may be capable of producing what we see. To the extent that "what we know something about" is insufficient, it tries to figure out how other things we can observe and test can help fill in the blanks. ID, on the other hand, proposes something we know nothing at all about -- an intelligence far superior to anything we have ever experienced. Then, it eschews any desire or responsibility to learn anything about it. (Is there any analogy to this in materialists science? Have you ever heard a scientists say "it is not within the purview of science to say what this is or how it works?" These are not rhetorical questions.) One more quick run at what I'm trying to say: You claim that evolution puts way more reliance on chance than it can bear. I'm asking you to consider whether you are doing the same to "intelligence."pubdef
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
By singleing it out from the rest of the pheneomna of the uiverse you have actually boxed it in- as all independent phenomena require their own facilitator and explanation. To say something exists without an mechanism for its emergence results in a situation that goes beyond contingency, necessity, and chance as explanatory mechanisms. Mechanisms which constitute the exact naturalistic principles from which the theory evolutionary is extended and justified.
Knowing that something had a mechanism for its emergence is one thing. Knowing exactly how that happened in detail is another. Humour me then: can you rigorously explain, in detail, how the emergence of the intelligence involved in intelligent design came about?
Now ID claims that intelligence is a non-physical explanation for the specified complexity of things. Hence, ID does not need to fallow a materialistic universal synthesis as it never claims this model to be the one true template of intelligence or for scientific inquiry. Intelligence is interwoven throughout the universe and it is the one natural acting force, cause and explanation that can pick and choose how and when it get’s involved. And this constitutes the explanatory benefit that an ID perspective beings to science.
Well that's just too easy isn't it? :) For some reason you think you can still play science and not heed to as scientific mindset. The supernatural has no place in science. If something is not natural--if it cannot be observed or tested--then science has no comment on it. I guess science has no comment on your intelligent designer, since it is literally undistinguishable from naturalistic processes only in the sense that it cannot be detected on its own merit. Perhaps we should apply Occam's Razor and cut out all the unnecessary parts? god exists god created the universe the universe exists god exists god created the universe the universe exists
RDK
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
...in fact, it needs to work in one particular set of search spaces (the organism's present environment, complete with selection pressures, etc.). Evolutionary processes exploit that variable. But anyway:
Before I lock off for now: RDK, the big difference between micro and macro-evo is that for us to get to first function we have to successfully cross a huge config space to get to an island of function, by unforesighted chance + necessity.
Are you asking scientists to completely and flawlessly document every single genetic change that occurred since the beginning of life (and possibly even before that, considering that the first signs of life are probably not what we would today call "life")? Good luck. Everybody is aware of the tentative nature of science. There are things we can observe directly, and things that can be inferred due to a strong amount of supporting evidence. The relationships of organisms on macroevolutionary scale can be inferred from what we know of microevolution (and you sell it short with claims of hyped evidence; we know quite enough to make such an inference), as well as that pesky fossil record that remains unexplainable to intelligent design.
Then, one may tinker around and reward differential functionality and reproductive success one’s heart’s content.
...so basically you're just questioning how life came about? How it got its first boost? Cool. So am I. But that's not in the realm of evolutionary biology. That's a field we call abiogenesis.
But, there is no credible empirical basis for showing the ability to get to shores of function in large config spaces [1,000 bits or more worth.]
ID attempts to refute that life came from non-life? A m I reading this correctly? Are you asserting that abiogenesis did not occur? That seems like an odd assertion. We can reasonably assume that there was a time in the universe where there was no life present (before the cooling of the first stars, for example). Today, we do have life. Therefore, life MUST have come from non-life. Unless you're also going to play the YEC card.
The empirical evidence on microevo — and too much of even that is misleading or exaggerated in significance (e.g. peppered moths, Darwin’s finches) — relates in general to a few base pairs shifting at random, orders of magnitude short of what is needed for 1st life [~ 600 k bits] or the dozens of novel body plans at eh Cambrian [~ 10's - 100's of m bits].
Could you please explain why you find the evidence for microevolution to be so misleading? What would it take to convince you? Vestigial structures? Human tails? Veriform appendix? Subterranean populations of animals that lost eyesight due to enough generations living in a lightless environment? Bacteria developing the ability to consume nylon, a man-made substance? Or how about bacteria developing the ability to consume PCP, a highly toxic chemical not known to occur naturally, that has been used as a wood preservative since the 1930's? Sorry if my attempts are a bit underwhelming; it's kind of hard to appease the rigorous and unending questions posed by creationists who oddly enough don't seem to press any other scientific field of relative worth with the same amount of vigor. But just what part of microevolution do you find hard to believe? In any case, this is exactly what I outlined in my last post. You're conflating the terms with each extreme end of the spectrum, when in fact there is a whole field in-between. You're pushing microevolution to a miniscule effect--very sill--and pushing macroevolution to a maximum effect, which is equally silly.
And, on Behe’s survey of malaria parasites, even a few base pairs worth of functional mutation is hard to do. And recall, the malaria parasite has in 1 year more reproductive events than all of the mammals would have had across time on any generally accepted timeline; up to the 100+ millions of years.
So the reproductive habits of one strain of parasite disproves the efficacy of the entire process of microevolution? Wow! I wish I could safely apply that to any other field of science! But in any case, I'll say what I said on the evolution fallacies thread: don't fix what isn't broken. The malaria parasite is highly specialized, and continues to devastate large numbers of people in areas where medical assistance is scarce. Even if you change the selection pressures, which I doubt Behe did a good job representing, then what incentive is there to change the current modus operandi?
The search resources are simply not there to get from micro-evo to macro-evo, RDK
I won't lie and tell you that I can come up with evidence that will convince you, because it won't; but the evidence is there; you just have to look hard enough. :)RDK
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
RDK, Above you have proclaimed something but did not support it. Science involved arguments so that we can reach a valid understanding. Unsupported proclamations are the stuff of politics and advertisement. Are we to believe that evolution happens within it's own special universal domain separate from the rest of reality? Does that sound like good science to you or a poor synthesis of evolution and it's place in reality? Are we to say that evolution is to be considered it's own entity? If so where did it originate from? And what evolutionary process evolved evolved evolution? By singleing it out from the rest of the pheneomna of the uiverse you have actually boxed it in- as all independent phenomena require their own facilitator and explanation. To say something exists without an mechanism for its emergence results in a situation that goes beyond contingency, necessity, and chance as explanatory mechanisms. Mechanisms which constitute the exact naturalistic principles from which the theory evolutionary is extended and justified. Without universal relationships with all other phenomena one leads oneself to a anti-scientific or supernatural conclusion or result. If however you actually look at evolution as it actually is, a part of the acting universe as a whole - then it becomes a process by which makes sense in regard to the greater cosmic whole. And it is in this proper domain we which we call reality that ID is able to challenge and critique DE's prowess. Nothing can be critiqued if it is kept in it's own impenetrable conceptual fortress. Now ID claims that intelligence is a non-physical explanation for the specified complexity of things. Hence, ID does not need to fallow a materialistic universal synthesis as it never claims this model to be the one true template of intelligence or for scientific inquiry. Intelligence is interwoven throughout the universe and it is the one natural acting force, cause and explanation that can pick and choose how and when it get's involved. And this constitutes the explanatory benefit that an ID perspective beings to science.Frost122585
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Hi kairosfocus
Nakashima-San: Genetic algorithms use tightly constrained, goal directed random walks to try to capture higher performing configurations. They are not at all properly analogous to spontaneous chance variation plus — upon spontaneously achieving first complex function [!!!] — non-foresighted selection as mechanisms of claimed macroevolution. And that’s why GA’s are not created by having a million monkeys bang away at keyboards at random. GEM of TKI
Actually you have it completely backwards. Reading a bit too much Dembski, eh? There are numerous problems with slapping search algorithms into an analogy for evolution. Evolution doesn't need to work in all possible landscapesRDK
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
"No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." Leonardo Da Vinci It is extremely interesting to note that the principle of Genetic Entropy lends itself very well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation: Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances. Using realistic estimates for the relevant biological parameters, we investigate the rate of mutation accumulation, the distribution of the fitness effects of the accumulating mutations, and the overall effect on mean genotypic fitness. Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net http://www.scpe.org/vols/vol08/no2/SCPE_8_2_02.pdf Whereas, evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can analyze it in any computer simulation: Accounting for Variations - Dr. David Berlinski: - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE EV Ware: Dissection of a Digital Organism excerpt: Ev purports to show "how life gains information." Specifically "that biological information... can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection." (We show that) It is the active information introduced by the computer programmer and not the evolutionary program that reduced the difficulty of the problem to a manageable level. http://www.evoinfo.org/Resources/EvWare/index.htmlbornagain77
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
Legendary1:
Generally what I see going on around here ... 1) Dunning-Kruger effect
Indeed, developed by Cornell people. Interestingly the same U that geneticist and ID proponent John Sanford comes from. The guy that wrote the book that's demolishing NDE. This should really be applied to you above the rest. Often the one who brings up such criticism, instead of an actual argument, is the one to whom this type of comment applies.
Contributors here have HUGE gaps in their knowledge of the science.
You don't have a clue who your talking to.
The deeper one’s ignorance, the deeper one’s unawareness of one’s ignorance, leading one to erroneously conclude that.
Again, this applies nicely to yourself by the fact that you even bring up such a comment.
2) Defense mechanisms like denial (no, there really is no evidence) and dismissal (biologists are “psuedo-scientists” and they tell “just-so stories).
Denial is the name of the game for Darwinists and atheists. There is no God and Dawkins is his prophet.
These two are a deadly combination: they turn people into creationists.
Well gee that would explain why most of the great scientists in history were creationists! Go home and suck your thumb a while child, might help soothe your profound betise.Borne
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Legendary1:
Hmmm… on one side we have scientists of all political persuasions and all religions, all of whom come to the conclusion that evolution is true.
Are you saying no scientists doubt Darwinian evolution? ROTFLMAO 1)This is a mere ad hom. 2)The underlying assumption on your part? No 'real' scientist doubts Darwinism. How many more times do we have to put up with such inane codswallop?
Also on that side we have reams of carefully produced and peer-reviewed evidence.
Reams of carefully invented speculation (also known as just-so stories) and tons of evidence of micro-evolution is all there is. Wake up and smell the mephitic deficiencies of NDE.
On the other side we have a group of conservative fundamentalist Christians, some of whom are lawyers, some engineers, and some lay-people who cite “common sense” as the reason they doubt evolution.
This repeats the underlying BS and foolish, propaganda-based assumptions of your 1st part. "All IDists are ignorant fanatical farmer hillbillies."?! Yet another Darwinist piece of slander. So, guys like Wells, Sternberg, Meyer, Kenyon, Wilder Smith, Dembski, Witt, Nelson and hundreds of others are in fact just unlearned fakes? No one will take you seriously if you keep spouting such salient falsehoods instead of bringing actual facts to the table.
I need to weigh this carefully to determine which side is more likely to be right.
You ought to weigh the weakness of your own ignorance-based comments here. Hint: you need some artificial gravity since thus far you're points are weightless. While you're at it, go back a few 100 years and join the flat earth consensus science of that day - you'd fit right in with your kind of swill-based arguments.Borne
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
KF, Let us not forget the importance of "active information in all of this." The difference between man and ape maybe 8% or maybe 1% but ultimately the reason why the effective genetic differences are so great have to do with the functioning of that code. The activity of our genes plays a greater role in "what" we are and thus “what we can come from” than merely the bits of information can reveal. A natural mountain with no signs of ID can have just as much information as Mt Rushmore but it is in the unlikelihood of the "specificity" that the improbabilities become unbridgeable. This is why ID needs to work out the idea of specificity and activity to come up with a case that correctly defines the greater improbability of active information because active information shows far greater signs of design and working intelligence than now regular non-active or minimally active code does. The challenge of active information may or may not pose a serious challenge to universal common ancestry but it in fact does pose an unbridgeable one to Neo DE. Wouldn't you say?Frost122585
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Before I lock off for now: RDK, the big difference between micro and macro-evo is that for us to get to first function we have to successfully cross a huge config space to get to an island of function, by unforesighted chance + necessity. Then, one may tinker around and reward differential functionality and reproductive success one's heart's content. But, there is no credible empirical basis for showing the ability to get to shores of function in large config spaces [1,000 bits or more worth.] The empirical evidence on microevo -- and too much of even that is misleading or exaggerated in significance (e.g. peppered moths, Darwin's finches) -- relates in general to a few base pairs shifting at random, orders of magnitude short of what is needed for 1st life [~ 600 k bits] or the dozens of novel body plans at eh Cambrian [~ 10's - 100's of m bits]. And, on Behe's survey of malaria parasites, even a few base pairs worth of functional mutation is hard to do. And recall, the malaria parasite has in 1 year more reproductive events than all of the mammals would have had across time on any generally accepted timeline; up to the 100+ millions of years. The search resources are simply not there to get from micro-evo to macro-evo, RDK GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Legendary1, Generally what I see here is the following: 1)Darwinist newcomer effect: Gotcha! In all seriousness I'm not trying to alienate you from the rest of the mostly respectful discourse that ensues here, but if you're going to off-handedly jump in and slap a set of general judgemental criteria on every ID proponent here then you should at least do so without blatantly expressing the same set of criteria that you underhandedly pin on us. If you truly believe that contributors here have such a HUGE gap in their knowledge, then you have some serious catching up to do =P Otherwise, I'll politely request that you please provide proof for your claim.
Defense mechanisms like denial... and dismissal... This mechanism works with number 1 above to keep people from filling in the huge gaps in their knowledge.
Welcome to the debate! We see materialists doing the exact same thing, and then calling it "evolutionary biology."
These two are a deadly combination: they turn people into creationists. Luckily the cure is simply education, but unfortunately, people need to stop feeling that the religion is threatened by education. It isn’t.
As I said, you have a lot of catching up to do. Junk DNA More on DNA The intelligent function of ribosomes Scroll down for a series of posts covering alot of what you apparently haven't read yet.(You especially might want to read the posts concerning the education standards in Texas) An article on academic freedom On that note you make the claim that religion isn't threatened by education, and I'd have to agree! Religion IS, however, threatened by a philosophically restricted education that entails a heavy materialistic socio-political bias. =D Kinda makes you wonder why Christianity has been on the decline within the past few decades doesn't it? After all, it's not like indoctrinating the next generation with philosophically restricted world views through the modern educational system could EVER have any effect on that right? I mean, it's not like their going to be the ones constituting the majority of the American population at some poi- oh wait...PaulN
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Legendary!, The theory of evolution is built on ignorance and relies on ignorance so that it is accepted.Joseph
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Nakashima-San: Genetic algorithms use tightly constrained, goal directed random walks to try to capture higher performing configurations. They are not at all properly analogous to spontaneous chance variation plus -- upon spontaneously achieving first complex function [!!!] -- non-foresighted selection as mechanisms of claimed macroevolution. And that's why GA's are not created by having a million monkeys bang away at keyboards at random. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
"I need to weigh this carefully to determine which side is more likely to be right." You do, but you won't.allanius
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Mr Bornagain77, Bill Gates will never use random number generators and selection software to write highly advanced computer codes... But these folks will!Nakashima
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Mr Legendary1, These two are a deadly combination: they turn people into creationists. Luckily the cure is simply education... That is actually the subject of a significant portion of the Lewontin review of Sagan's Demon Haunted World, which we are discussing on another thread. Your position is with Sagan. Lewontin does not think it is so simple.Nakashima
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Legend: Kindly help us -- apparently in your view, the ignorant, stupid, insane (or possibly wicked) -- out by showing how, for instance, the weak Anti-design argument correctives linked above, right, are grossly in error and how such error is compounded by too much ignorance to spot the errors. (If 30+ cases are too many, pick on say the first 4 - 8.) Then kindly go into the left hand column and show me how the information and thermodynamics anchored notes I have put up (and which are linked in every post I have made at UD) are similarly riddled by error compounded by malignant ignorance. Thanks in advance. GEM of TKI PS: Remember, the leading ID thinkers are in general PhD level practitioners in relevant fields. And us mere blog commenters and/or posters often have relevant graduate level education and professional experience. That is why we are (a) skeptical of the notion that chance + necessity can account for the evident highly complex designs we see around us, and (b) are confident that there are empirically well-warranted signs of design that point to the design of life and/or the cosmos.kairosfocus
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Generally what I see going on around here is a combination of the following: 1) Dunning-Kruger effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger Contributors here have HUGE gaps in their knowledge of the science. The deeper one's ignorance, the deeper one's unawareness of one's ignorance, leading one to erroneously conclude that one is more than competent enough to make sweeping judgments about entire fields of science. 2) Defense mechanisms like denial (no, there really is no evidence) and dismissal (biologists are "psuedo-scientists" and they tell "just-so stories). This mechanism works with number 1 above to keep people from filling in the huge gaps in their knowledge. These two are a deadly combination: they turn people into creationists. Luckily the cure is simply education, but unfortunately, people need to stop feeling that the religion is threatened by education. It isn't.Legendary1
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
The question is whether or not random changes can accumulate to produce highly complex, functionally integrated, interdependent, information-processing machinery and the information such systems process, given the available probabilistic resources, and even given unrealistically optimistic assumptions.
What mechanism is there in nature that actively limits microevolution from changing into macroevolution? This is decidedly the center of the debate, and it’s something the ID camp needs to answer. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same process on different scales; it is irrational to say that only one of them exists. When you seek to “refute” macroevolution, all you’re doing is reducing micro to a minimum effect and pushing macro to a maximum effect, when in fact there is a spectrum in between. And since creationist terms are perpetually undefined, it’s remarkably easy to employ a smokescreen and impossible to objectively determine what evidence would be required to support it. So now we’re asking you. When do two recently diverged species descendants become sufficiently distinctive that macroevolution has occurred? What is the minimal requirement?
These are the kinds of questions engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists tend to ask. These questions are never asked by pseudo-scientists like Darwinian evolutionists — they just make up stories with no rigorous analysis, and declare the problem solved.
You do realize that mathematics and investigative science are two completely different fields that are handled completely different when it comes to proof? In math, things are provable. In science, things are only provable beyond a shadow of a doubt (I.E., searching the most reasonable explanation with the data given).
Those of us who are involved in information theory, computer programming, engineering, mathematics, and other rigorous scientific disciplines tend not to be convinced by hand-waving declarations of consensus.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why they came to a consensus in the first place.RDK
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_0hm7ftjfn You might like this two: Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” - short video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XLcdaFKzYg Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review - Robert Villarreal - Concluding statement of Press Release video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEJPrMGksUg
That's some incredible stuff BA!! I'd been cautiously following the coverage on the shroud of Turin for a while now, but these new developments really puts the nail in the coffin! Thanks for sharing! Also, that's an impressive compilation of documents and videos for the Anthropic Hypothesis. I do intend to look through them thoroughly. =)PaulN
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9 10

Leave a Reply