Engineer says, the atom has a designer. Trolls disagree.

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 15, 2012

Design inference, Engineering, Intelligent Design, News}

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

In “Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet” ( Ann Arbor News, May 24, 2012), engineer Lakhi Goenka, grieving the death of his son, reflects,

Atoms are machines that enable the physical, electromagnetic (including light), nuclear, chemical, and biological (including life) functioning of the universe. Atoms are a complex assembly of interacting particles that enable the entire functioning of the universe. They are the machine that enables all other machines. It is virtually impossible to explain the structure, complexity, internal dynamics, and resulting functionality of the atom from chance events or through evolutionary mechanisms. The atom is a machine that provides multiple functions, and every machine is the product of intelligence. The atom must have a designer.

Trolls respond here. Usual nonsense.

See also The strongest argument against design

Comments

Jerad: It seems clear that we need to go behind the curtain of talking points on stage to see the otherwise invisible wizard at work, so pardon an indirect response. Let me start with the premise that science -- if it is to be credible -- seeks truth, not to prop up a priori materialism, or to propagate scientism. Otherwise it becomes little better than materialist fairy-tale making and propaganda that demands genuflection before the holy lab coats worn by the materialist high priesthood. Accordingly a recognition of its true current state of the balance of well-warranted knowledge vs materialist mythology or the like on origins, in light of a healthy acknowledgement of limitations, is a first step to the ever elusive wisdom. In short, a direct acknowledgement of what we do not know is superior to the pretence that we have reconstructed the remote and unobservable past with a practical certainty that is comparable to the OBSERVATION that the planets orbit the sun, in more or less elliptical paths. Pardon, I must now speak to observations that reflect on patterns of engagement over some time. In that context, the selective hyperskepticism you evince is revealing of the uncorrected effects of our typical immersion in a sci edu culture (formal and informal) that is dominated by evo mat scientism and myth making. Per that indoctrination, you are perfectly at ease with gross exaggerations -- not mere extrapolations -- of the power of minor variation and adaptation, in the teeth of direct evidence that chance and/or mechanical necessity is not a credible cause of the FSCO/I we see all around us in the world of life. At the same time you are utterly unwilling to accept the inductive logic consequences of the fact that that the only OBSERVED -- and, the routinely observed -- causal factor responsible for FSCO/I is design. For, that out and out means that such FSCO/I is an empirically reliable sign of design as cause. But, you have been further indoctrinated with a fallacious talking point to resist this: life forms self replicate and can incrementally climb Mt Improbable so there, Mr Paley. Only, consistently, those who tell us this caricature the real Paley and set up a convenient strawman target by neatly omitting what he immediately -- Ch 1 is short -- went on to discuss in Ch 2 of Nat Theol: the implications of the thought exercise on what it would take to turn a time telling watch into a self replicating device, i.e. that we are looking at a further instance of FSCO/I in a context where by definition there was no existing self replication as an additional facility for a separately functional device -- oops, Mr Dawkins' imaginary self replicating molecule crashes in flames at this point -- to allow even the pretence that we can appeal to differential reproductive success. That is, there was no reproduction so no possibility of evolution. This immediately implies that the origin of self replication has to be explained in light of what we know on the origin of FSCO/I: it is only and routinely seen as the result of design, and related analyses -- per, monkeys at the keyboards -- show why it is practically impossible that blind chance and necessity could account for FSCO/I. Design is in the door, and it is on the table from the outset of life as a metabolising, self replicating C-Chemistry, aqueous medium, molecular nanotech, digital code and algorithm-using phenomenon. When the matter is put in these terms, it is at once evident why if science seeks truth about our world including its origins, design must sit to the table by right. However, as with many others, you have been indoctrinated to accept a dominant school of speculation's assertions over the actual evidence in front of you and what would otherwise be the patently superior explanation. but, we are told, science CANNOT tolerate the mere thought of a divine foot in the door, or the grand project of explanation per naturaliSTIC cause would collapse in a chaos of arbitrary supernatural activity. Rubbish. Irresponsible, propagandistic rubbish. Based on a willful, irresponsible strawman distortion of the real history of science and the theology of miracles. (But, since you have already, a priori, locked out corrective voices, few will know that. How apt are the Dominical words about what would be better than to cause one of the innocent children to stumble! As in, it would be better . . . ) In fact, it is the Bible-based. Judaeo-Christian doctrine of creation, sustaining and providence of the God of Order that was the matrix in which modern science was conceived, nurtured and born. Indeed, that is the root of that odd little diagnostically indicative term, LAWS of nature (as in, impressed by the Author of nature). Further to this, by their very nature as signs pointing beyond the usual course of the world, for good reason, miracles MUST be rare, almost vanishingly so relative to the number of ordinary events from minute to minute across the cosmos. For, there must be a natural order for the signposts to draw attention and point beyond it. Where also that very natural order points to the mind behind nature, indeed Boyle et al conceived science as thinking God's creative and sustaining thoughts after him, as his steward appointed to tend and make the best of this world. (And of course, you have been taught to imagine that it is Medieval Scholasticism, dripping with the blood of victims of the inquisition, that is guilty of the most relevant form of imposed a priorism. I am here to remind you, in the name of the ghosts of over 100 million victims of demonic ideologies justified on scientism and Darwinist notions of progress and superiority, that there is another a priorism that is a lot closer to home, as Lewontin so frankly acknowledged.) In such a context, unless the underlying assumptions and agendas are exposed, little progress can be made. Let us briefly sum up. We see good reason to accept that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design. Indeed, that design is the only empirically adequate cause of such. Design being familiar from our experience and observation of the world all around us. As is intelligence. In that context, we see since the 1970's that molecular nanotech is capable of being manipulated by knowledgeable practitioners of the relevant sciences. Indeed, we have seen Venter et al at work. In addition, since 1948 or so, we have seen the von Neumann self replicator and have seen how the subsequent discovery of DNA etc from 1953 on, has provided abundant confirmation of the architecture. (BTW, the same John von Neumann is the inventor of the dominant architecture for digital computers, so it is no accident that he would have spotted a pretty good model for a self replicating machine.) So, we have good reason to see that the gap we face between where we are and the sort of molecular nanotech lab that could do a metabolic constructor with self replicating facility from scratch, is one of progress, not fundamental breakthrough. We have more than enough in hand to know that setting up such a lab, though some generations away from where we are, is obviously feasible. And, contrary to your insinuation, we have long since picked and emphasised a life form and body plan to explore how it could have come about: the very first metabolising, self replicating one. The root of the tree of life. We need nothing more than the framework of design based on extensions of the past 60 years of progress on molecular biology to explain cell based life, including flagella and including a system whereby a zygote would develop into a complex multicellular animal etc. And surely, the use of designed carriers to transform test bench forms into novel plans is an approach we are already crudely working with at our level of technology. As in, genetically modified organisms. We even have protest movements over this. So, why not connect some dots! In short, the objections you are making crash in flames. But, even without seeing direct evidence of such a lab at origin of life and major body plans, we have abundant circumstantial evidence on reliable signs that both OOL and OO body plans shows more than enough FSCO/I -- including algorithmic coded info -- to sustain an inference that he best explanation of these signs is design. Indeed, the very existence of digitally coded algorithms in life forms is a sign that language, computer science, related mathematics, and associated engineering, purposeful planning and digital technology existed before life as we observe it. That is what the evidence is strongly pointing to. In that context, I in principle care very little about timelines and scenarios as to how tweredun in details, over 6,000 year ago or over 4 - 5 bn years ago makes but little difference. What is crucial is that he evidence implicates design, strongly. There was arson. Whodunit, follows. Design is in the door, and sitting at the table as of right, from the origin of that first self-replicating facility, thanks to that member of the suspected circle of "Martians" in the universities of the late Austrian Empire, John von Neumann. Get over it. Common design can readily fit a 4 BY scenario for life on earth, the only life we can scientifically investigate. Design that is deliberately robust and adaptable -- practically synonyms, makes sense. And, it makes another objection crash in flames: optimality is inherently brittle, ans subject to collapse because it is too adapted to special circumstances. A broader design philosophy is robustness through adaptability. And, surprise, that is built into how the genetic code works. For, it is set up so that small variations will not invariably be catastrophic. Indeed, there is evidence that it is about as good a design as we could get. The odds of our having just one code that is dominant (of course with dialects) AND it is that good, by chance are next to zero and just plain zero. Of course, that is not headlined. As usual. Actually, the fact that we have a CODE, indeed a digital symbolic code, and associated algorithms -- thus LANGUAGE -- at the foundation of biological life, is also not headlined. When we look at the world of life from this vantage point, a far more coherent, much better empirically warranted vista emerges. Sure, we can have biogeographic distribution, variation and adaptation. But, in that we recognise limits, and do not demand a steady stream of informational magic popping out of noise and being explained away by uninformative labels such as "emergence." Gene transfers and mosaics make sense, as do cases where the molecular trees do not fit a common pattern. Code libraries and re-use. The burst of top-level forms seen in Cambrian strata is no longer a mystery to be explained away on the increasingly threadbare notion of the poverty of the fossil record. (After 150 years of global search, billions of fossils in situ, millions in museum and over 1/4 million fossil species -- well over a thousand per year on average?) Similarly, Gould's note that the dominant pattern of the fossil record is sudden appearance and stasis them disappearance is not too hard to recognise: there are islands of function in life forms. And BTW, the convergence of disparate forms also makes sense. And so on. In short, never mind the raft of objecting talking points, a design view is inherently reasonable and is classically scientific. KFkairosfocus_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

PeterJ, Also, do you think all the life forms that existed have left fossil remains?Jerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

PeterJ,
why aren’t there any examples of transitional fossils
All fossils are transitional from what came before to what came later!! Seriously, read Donald Prothero's book on evolution. Tons and tons of fossils. I can't possibly present the information better than he does.
But why then should it only be the ‘transitional fossils’ that are missing, when there are plenty of examples of everything else? Can you honestly answer that?
Life forms are continually changing and altering. All species are transitions along the way to . . . who knows!! Some particular life forms became fossils while others didn't OR we haven't found them yet. Lots of soft-bodied creatures don't leave fossils at all. If every stage of every life form left a fossil we'd be buried in them!!
Has there been some kind of magical sorting that left only the fully formed examples of any given creature for us to find, and everything else has been hidden, or destroyed?
Nope, nothing magical. Just some critters and plants became fossils and some didn't. I appreciate your honesty and I'm glad you've found answers that make sense to you. And that you beat your demons. I'm not going to try and change your mind but can I ask some questions? As a creationist do you think God/the designer created all the life forms we have fossils of independently and at the time indicated by the dating methods? Were the lifeforms just created out of nothing or . . . . Why were so many lifeforms created and then allowed to become extinct?Jerad_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

Jerad 'What is your explanatory alternative? Did the designer tinker with the life forms every few million years until he got what he wanted? How was that done? How were the new designs implemented? Were they incubated in an existing life form or grown in a test tube? How many new forms were created to make the population viable? What happened to the old versions? Were they killed off or were they out competed? I suppose this is where I really must nail my colours to the mast. Jerad, as someone who used to believe as you do, I can no longer look at the so called evidence for evolution, the fossil record especially, and confidently hold those beliefs. Over the years I have simply found myself having to face the fact that it just didn't happen that way. A big part of that of course came when I first became a Christian some 6 years ago in a drugs rehab, but more so after having investigated what I believed to be the ridiculous belief of 'special creation'. Since having looked into this phenomenon, at some depth it has to be said, I can now say to anyone who asks, and with great confidence, using the same evidence that you use, that creation is undoubtedly the best explanation. For instance, just look at the evidence for so called ‘transitional fossils’. (Perhaps you could site another example, as I have shown you, and will happily do so again, that even those people who are leading the field in whale evolution, such as Dr.Gingerich, Dr. Barnes, have publicly declared that many of the steps in the line of transition should not be classed as such. It would be good to look at something else, if you have the time) Imho, transitional fossils simply don’t exist, and when looking further into this I find the best explanation for this to be ‘gaps in the fossil record’, something you have sited on a number of occasions, but tell me this, why aren’t there any examples of transitional fossils. Look at the Cambrain fossils for instance; you have nothing prior to them, and nothing proceeding from them. I know it’s called ‘gaps’. You then have land fossils for instance, including somewhere in the region of 700 different species of dinosaur, but again you have no examples of any transitions leading up to them and none proceeding from them. You then have mammals, and what you find about these in the fossil record is more or less the same thing. Take for instance every mammal alive today, what you will find are fossils of each and every one of them, more or less the same as they are today, and again no transitions, and as we all know, there are no examples of anything proceeding from them. I know... that’s because the fossil record is incomplete. But why then should it only be the ‘transitional fossils’ that are missing, when there are plenty of examples of everything else? Can you honestly answer that? Has there been some kind of magical sorting that left only the fully formed examples of any given creature for us to find, and everything else has been hidden, or destroyed? PPeterJ_{July 7, 2012
July
07
Jul
7
07
2012
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Joe,
How, when, where and why did any bacterial flagellum evolve? Please be specific.
Good question!! I'll see what the current research says. I don't think that particular issue is clear yet as to when. How is: by a step-by-step process of molecular variation. Why is: mutations that were neutral or positive to the life form became fixed and were built upon. What's your alternate explanation?
there is more evidence for unicorns.
And your alternative explanation is . . . .
That said both common design and convergence can explain that data. Acculations of random mutations can’t explain anything requiring more than two new protein-to-protein binding sites.
Common design could explain it if you can be more specific regarding when, how and why. Pick a life form and go through the development from a design point of view.Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

PeterJ,
And just when I think there’s a sparkle of hope for you, that you’re on the verge of having your eyes opened to the truth, you go and drop in that old chestnut of yours the; ‘fossil, biogeographic, genetic and morphological data.’, as if that somehow helps your case.
Sorry about that. I do feel that the fossil, morphological, genetic and biogeographic evidence does support my case and needs to be explained for any hypothesis to be considered explanatory.
It is plainly obvious to everyone that you have a prior committment to Darwinian Evolution and no matter what you will always run back there. But why?
I've never denied it. I've been very open in my stance. Why? Because, as I've said, I think the evolutionary model has the most explanatory power and is the most parsimonious.
If you will remember we discussed the fossil record, you quickly sited ‘whale evolution’ as your best case, until I showed you evidence to the contrary, then you tried to point me to some stuff on Wiki, which was of no use to me, which you then followed up with ‘Well… there are large gaps in the fossil record which means there’s a lot of stuff missing’ Well if that is the case, then how can you or any one else confidently assert that the fossil record shows ‘evolution’? How do you know that what they suppose ‘hasn’t been found due to gaps’ ever existed in the first place?
Did I say that the whale record was my best case? I don't think so, just an example. But I think it is a good case with enough intermediate stages to make the progression clear. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What is your explanatory alternative? Did the designer tinker with the life forms every few million years until he got what he wanted? How was that done? How were the new designs implemented? Were they incubated in an existing life form or grown in a test tube? How many new forms were created to make the population viable? What happened to the old versions? Were they killed off or were they out competed?Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

Genomicus,
Not really. We can already manipulate DNA sequences fairly effectively. Give us another 30 years (at the most!)and we’ll be designing our own cellular machinery regularly.
True but still beyond us. Certainly beyond us if we were going to create a whole new creature. AND it requires supplies and labs and a lot of gear. Where are the designer's facilities?Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

KF,
if we were to make it a rule of any science that if it cannot answer all questions that someone wishes to pose, it would be disqualified from what it can answer to, such a science would not be able to progress. In short, you have fallen yet again into selective hyperskepticism.
I'm not saying ID is disqualified from anything, just that it lacks explanatory power at this stage and is therefore not as parsimonious.
We have that FSCO/I by whatever name is a well warranted sign of design. So, when we see it we are warranted to infer design, even were we unable to suggest how that could be done.
I hear your argument, I just disagree.
And as for questions on what a first life form looked like, we have the good evidence that life forms have dialects of the same D/RNA code, using the same five basic constituents, as well as about 20 amino acids, with appropriate and consistent chirality. We see the implementation using molecular nanotech in aqueous medium, exploiting C-chemistry, of nanomachines that act in co-ordination. We see variants on certain common proteins, and observe several thousand fold domains. More complex life forms are generally based on clusters of specialised cells developing from an original cell. All of this points to a unicellular molecular nanomachine archetype with metabolism, a constructor facility and a von Neumann self-replicator. The genetic code looks like at least 100,000 bits. The indicated cluster is well beyond the reasonable threshold where chance is a credible means of searching the space of configs, and until we have an integrated self replicating facility, we cannot have fixation of variation by differential reproductive success.
I'm going to wait a while yet and see what the OoL researchers can come up with. I think it's far too early to throw up our hands and say 'it must have been designed'.
But then, this has been pointed out to you over and over with reasons and you still keep only putting forth dismissive talking points. It is plain that you cannot account for such systems on chance and necessity without design.
I can't account for everything but I prefer my assumptions over yours.
As to what design is, it is specification of form and structure on goals in light of the forces and materials of nature, and often implies the construction of the entity.
Requiring a sophisticated, well equipped agent to implement. One that has left no independent physical evidence of it's existence.
Finally, please understand that you are dealing with a contentious context and that there are some pretty loaded terms. That is why I took such strong exception to the reference you made to the Middle Ages above in a context that strawmannishly distorted what I have stated for some weeks now to you in fairly explicit terms and what I have taken time to lay out at course unit length, for in this situation this is loaded language and is part of a very nasty line of talking points. Which, I pointed out.
I apologised before if I've caused offence and I do so again. But I don't understand what I've said that can be construed as 'part of a very nasty line of talking points'.
Alternate? The obvious. Common design.
Okay . . . when were the designs implemented? How often did the designer step in? Is the designer still working?Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

Jerad:
It’s not useless, it does address lots of hows and whys and whens.
How, when, where and why did any bacterial flagellum evolve? Please be specific.
AND there is a coherent and developing science about the origination of life.
there is more evidence for unicorns.
Give me an alternate model which accounts for the fossil, biogeographic, genetic and morphological data.
Jerad, your position can't get beyond prokaryotes so it doesn't expalin any of that- and your position has to start with prokaryotes. That said both common design and convergence can explain that data. Acculations of random mutations can't explain anything requiring more than two new protein-to-protein binding sites.Joe_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Alternate? The obvious. Common design.kairosfocus_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Jerad, As you can see I'm still here. Reading with great interest this little debate. And just when I think there's a sparkle of hope for you, that you're on the verge of having your eyes opened to the truth, you go and drop in that old chestnut of yours the; 'fossil, biogeographic, genetic and morphological data.', as if that somehow helps your case. It is plainly obvious to everyone that you have a prior committment to Darwinian Evolution and no matter what you will always run back there. But why? If you will remember we discussed the fossil record, you quickly sited 'whale evolution' as your best case, until I showed you evidence to the contrary, then you tried to point me to some stuff on Wiki, which was of no use to me, which you then followed up with 'Well... there are large gaps in the fossil record which means there's a lot of stuff missing' Well if that is the case, then how can you or any one else confidently assert that the fossil record shows 'evolution'? How do you know that what they suppose 'hasn't been found due to gaps' ever existed in the first place? Regards PPeterJ_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Joe,
By your “logic” the theory of evolution is useless because it does not address the origin of life, which is directly relevant to any subsequent evolution.
It's not useless, it does address lots of hows and whys and whens. AND there is a coherent and developing science about the origination of life. I'm just not competent to discuss it.
Says a nobody that doesn’t understand science
Now is a good chance to prove me wrong. Give me an alternate model which accounts for the fossil, biogeographic, genetic and morphological data.Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed,
Yes I know. You believe that “highly technical data left in some readable form would be indications of an advanced intelligence”, but you believe “that DNA is not designed” because “the process of self-replication with modifications can generate the DNA molecule and it’s functionality” even though ”Darwinian evolution depends on that system having already been established”. In other words, outside of tremendous equivocation, your first comments stand in stark contradiction to your last.
I think you'll find that I specified a difference between living and non-living systems. If I didn't then I certainly should have.
I tried to engage you on the only coherent model of the necessary material conditions for the transfer of recorded information (the very thing that all the other evidence is 100% dependent upon). I began by asking if it even mattered to you – if it would be acceptable to you as a material artifact. It wasn’t. Your comment was “I think that DNA is not designed … it developed through purely natural, unguided and undirected processes”.
I am a fallible human being and I get things wrong. I apologise. But, regardless of my response, can you suggest an alternative paradigm? One that explains all of the fossil, biogeographic, morphological and genetic evidence? If I've got it all wrong then give me another paradigm which explains the data.Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

I surmise from the general thrust of ID contentions that a designer capable of creating DNA sequences that would bridge some of the perceived gaps between hypothesised islands of functionality would have to have an intelligence greater than ours. Much greater.
Not really. We can already manipulate DNA sequences fairly effectively. Give us another 30 years (at the most!)and we'll be designing our own cellular machinery regularly.Genomicus_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Jerad: if we were to make it a rule of any science that if it cannot answer all questions that someone wishes to pose, it would be disqualified from what it can answer to, such a science would not be able to progress. In short, you have fallen yet again into selective hyperskepticism. To that the best answer is as Newton gave to his objectors, translated into modern terms. I feign no metaphysical speculative hypotheses. In short, it is enough to put forth what is well warranted empirically and analytically and such should not allow itself to be cowed by those who would put on metaphysical shackles. We have that FSCO/I by whatever name is a well warranted sign of design. So, when we see it we are warranted to infer design, even were we unable to suggest how that could be done. And as for questions on what a first life form looked like, we have the good evidence that life forms have dialects of the same D/RNA code, using the same five basic constituents, as well as about 20 amino acids, with appropriate and consistent chirality. We see the implementation using molecular nanotech in aqueous medium, exploiting C-chemistry, of nanomachines that act in co-ordination. We see variants on certain common proteins, and observe several thousand fold domains. More complex life forms are generally based on clusters of specialised cells developing from an original cell. All of this points to a unicellular molecular nanomachine archetype with metabolism, a constructor facility and a von Neumann self-replicator. The genetic code looks like at least 100,000 bits. The indicated cluster is well beyond the reasonable threshold where chance is a credible means of searching the space of configs, and until we have an integrated self replicating facility, we cannot have fixation of variation by differential reproductive success. All of this strongly implicates design, and once design is on the table, it is on the table. Indeed, the architecture of life is replete with signs that polint to intelligence as architect. And, contrary to what you wish to assert, such signs are evidence that demand explanation on adequate cause. The only observed adequate cause for this sort of thing -- FSCO/I -- is intelligence. But then, this has been pointed out to you over and over with reasons and you still keep only putting forth dismissive talking points. It is plain that you cannot account for such systems on chance and necessity without design. As to what design is, it is specification of form and structure on goals in light of the forces and materials of nature, and often implies the construction of the entity. Finally, please understand that you are dealing with a contentious context and that there are some pretty loaded terms. That is why I took such strong exception to the reference you made to the Middle Ages above in a context that strawmannishly distorted what I have stated for some weeks now to you in fairly explicit terms and what I have taken time to lay out at course unit length, for in this situation this is loaded language and is part of a very nasty line of talking points. Which, I pointed out. KFkairosfocus_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Jerad, By your "logic" the theory of evolution is useless because it does not address the origin of life, which is directly relevant to any subsequent evolution.
IF ID is a science then it has to ask and address the follow on questions.
Says a nobody that doesn't understand science...Joe_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Jerad,
I don’t believe evolution can create the first basic replicator. That’s a separate issue.
Yes I know. You believe that “highly technical data left in some readable form would be indications of an advanced intelligence”, but you believe “that DNA is not designed” because “the process of self-replication with modifications can generate the DNA molecule and it’s functionality” even though ”Darwinian evolution depends on that system having already been established”. In other words, outside of tremendous equivocation, your first comments stand in stark contradiction to your last.
Well, give me another model which explains the fossil, genetic, biogeographic and morphological data.
I tried to engage you on the only coherent model of the necessary material conditions for the transfer of recorded information (the very thing that all the other evidence is 100% dependent upon). I began by asking if it even mattered to you – if it would be acceptable to you as a material artifact. It wasn’t. Your comment was “I think that DNA is not designed … it developed through purely natural, unguided and undirected processes”. :|Upright BiPed_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Joe,
Your position can’t answer that and the question is irrelevant to ID.
It shouldn't be irrelevant. Not only do answers to such questions help support the ID inference but it also helps prove the point that ID is not a science stopper.
ID does not prevent anyone from asking nor trying to figure out those questions. IDists understand that the way to answer those questions is by investigating the design and all relevant evidence. That is what I have been telling you time and again yet you just ignore it.
I do not ignore it, I just don't see any speculation or hypothesis addressing the issues.
And as I said figuring out Stonehenge is still proving to be difficult and we have the capability of building one.
Well, we've got pretty good ideas of how it could have been done and why. How it was actually done will probably always be a bit mysterious since the humans around at the time left no written records.
We do not have the capability of constructing living organisms from inanimate matter.
Agreed. So isn't it just a matter of faith to say 'by design' when you haven't got a idea of how it happened? OoL researchers are trying to find a reproducible, plausible mechanism, what is ID doing?
Go back in time and give Edison a laptop and he couldn’t figure out how the thing was built.
But he would try!! He would ask lots of questions. He'd try and reproduce the thing. He wouldn't quit at just saying 'by design'. He'd be DESPERATE to figure it out.
Yes the design inference opens up other questions. And people are free to pursue them, you included. However that is NOT what ID was formulated to do. But it dioes prove that the design inference is not a dead end.
Yup. I agree. As long as people pursue the follow on questions. And offer some hypothesis. Because otherwise ID is just "the designer did it" and that's not a viable scientific theory. IF ID is a science then it has to ask and address the follow on questions. But what I see is . . . . not much. I promise to listen. I promise to consider. But I've got very little to consider and examine. Give me something to bite into. Give me some explanations.Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
How was the design implemented?
Your position can't answer that and the question is irrelevant to ID.
Well, archaeologists ask lots of questions regarding how men built the thing, what tools they used, where the stones came from, how they were moved, what its purpose was, etc.
You are either slow, obtuse or just trying to pick a fight. ID does not prevent anyone from asking nor trying to figure out those questions. IDists understand that the way to answer those questions is by investigating the design and all relevant evidence. That is what I have been telling you time and again yet you just ignore it. And as I said figuring out Stonehenge is still proving to be difficult and we have the capability of building one. We do not have the capability of constructing living organisms from inanimate matter. Go back in time and give Edison a laptop and he couldn't figure out how the thing was built. Yes the design inference opens up other questions. And people are free to pursue them, you included. However that is NOT what ID was formulated to do. But it dioes prove that the design inference is not a dead end.Joe_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Joe,
The how is “by design” which better explains the evidence than “it just happened”, which is all your position has to say.
How was the design implemented? Was the DNA sequenced in the lab and then implanted in an egg? Or was an existing creature modified? How was the the design incubated? In a test tube or in a living creature (of a different type apparently)? How was a viable population of new life forms generated? One creature/plant is not enough. How many were created? Where are/were the labs that did the work? You like mentioning Stonehenge. Well, archaeologists ask lots of questions regarding how men built the thing, what tools they used, where the stones came from, how they were moved, what its purpose was, etc. If archaeologists just said 'by design' they'd be ostracised and laughed at. It's the explaining which makes a hypothesis viable. Erich von Daniken claimed ancient astronauts must have helped ancient man build the pyramids, Stonehenge, the Nazca Lines, etc. But he didn't explain ALL the evidence AND just saying 'the aliens did it' isn't good enough. It was just wishful thinking. Any engineer, finding a designed object beyond his capacity to create, would not be happy just saying it it was created 'by design'. He'd be desperate to find out how it was made. He'd hypothesise what kind of machinery was necessary. What level of material science was required. What sort of location and raw materials were necessary.Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Jerad- The how is "by design" which better explains the evidence than "it just happened", which is all your position has to say.Joe_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, I don't believe evolution can create the first basic replicator. That's a separate issue.
However, you apparently find this type of discovery unreasonable. You absolve yourself of any intellectual responsibility by simply assuming that a process which doesn’t yet exist can create the necessary conditions of its existence. Like a good materialist in the last pew, you ignore the material you claim to follow.
Well, give me another model which explains the fossil, genetic, biogeographic and morphological data.Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Joe,
Evolutionary theory is silent on the how except for the vagie “descent with modification”. And that has no explanatory power at all. Heck the theory can’t even answer “if”, as in if the transformations required are even possible. You also ask for an “alternative”, for what? An alternative to nothing
Well, give me an alternative that gives adequate answers to the how, when and why then.
Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution so stop with the equivocating already.
But you keep saying evolutionary theory is not right, can't explain anything, has no evidence. But you think ID is better. So . . . tell me how it explains the how, when and why. Or at least the when.
It is the total inability of your position to provide supportable explanatory that has allowed ID to persist. That and the positive evidence for design is what convinved long-time atheist and ID opponent into an IDist.
Well, give me ID's explanation for the genetic, fossil, biogeographic and morphological data.Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, I’m sorry if I’ve confused or disappointed you. Or been unclear.
Frankly, I am not in the slightest bit confused by you. By your own words, you are a person who knows that Darwinian evolution requires a system of recorded information as a necessary condition in order to exist. And yet you also believe that Darwinian evolution can create a system of recorded information. So, by your chosen logic, a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen in order to create itself. As for “disappointment”, my only disappointment is that people like yourself who wrap themselves in the flags of science, logic, and post-enlightenment reason, are taken seriously when you demonstrably (and willfully) ignore the tremendous lessons of science, logic, and post-enlightenment reason. You and I may observe that a forest has burned to the ground. We may very easily speculate on the reason for this event, but we needn’t speculate on what is materially required for fire. Fire is a phenomenon which is coherently understood from a material perspective, and our speculations as to ‘how the forest burned down’ only need comport to the material understanding of fire. This exact same dynamic is in play with regard to the existence of recorded information transfer within the genome. We may speculate as to the origin of that system, but we needn’t speculate as to the material requirements of transferring recorded information. This is, again, something that is coherently understood from a material perspective, and our speculations as to its origin only need comport to our material understanding of the phenomenon. However, you apparently find this type of discovery unreasonable. You absolve yourself of any intellectual responsibility by simply assuming that a process which doesn’t yet exist can create the necessary conditions of its existence. Like a good materialist in the last pew, you ignore the material you claim to follow.Upright BiPed_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Jerad, here is a hint: It is the total inability of your position to provide supportable explanatory that has allowed ID to persist. That and the positive evidence for design is what convinved long-time atheist and ID opponent into an IDist.Joe_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Jeard- Evolutionary theory is silent on the how except for the vagie "descent with modification". And that has no explanatory power at all. Heck the theory can't even answer "if", as in if the transformations required are even possible. You also ask for an "alternative", for what? An alternative to nothing? Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution so stop with the equivocating already.Joe_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Joe,
Focus on your position as it has absolutely nothing-> no testable hypotheses, no evidence, no explanatory power, nothing.
I know what evolutionary theory says but I don't know what your answers to the how, when and why questions are. And until I do I can't evaluate ID's explanatory power independent of evolutionary theory. One theory being wrong doesn't make another one right.
Your position does not answer how except to say “mutations”- grow up already
Give me an alternative that has explanatory power and is not contradicted by the fossil, biogeographic, morphological and genetic data.Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

KF,
It is before self-replication was on the table. It has to rely on chem and physics alone, and get us to metabolism, a constructor and a von Neumann, coded algorithm based replicator. All, well beyond 500 – 1,000 bits.
What do you envision that replicator to be? How does your view compare with the current OoL research?
That puts design on the table as the best, empirically grounded explanation, per the evidence we do have on origin of FSCO/I. and once design is on the table, it is on the table.
It's on the table but if there wasn't a designer around at the time then it's just a hypothesis with no supporting data. AND it's currently lacking explanatory power. The chances of a minimally functional replicator arising naturally are probably exceedingly small. But it only had to happen once. Even if a huge sample space did have to be searched a random stab only has to get lucky one time.
As to the rest, when you begin to use loaded language and drumbeat repetition of long since cogently answered points, as well as suggesting things that turn me into a strawman caricature, that looks a lot like playing to the invisible-at-UD gallery. Invisible, in many cases because of repeat incivility offences.
If I have offended in any way then I unconditionally apologise and will strive to avoid incivility in the future. But I categorically deny that I am playing to any gallery.
Remember, just a few days ago I had to deal with dragging the name of a decent woman through sexual filth, and with the implications of snide allusions or outright open false accusations of mental instability. The photoshopped pictures tell us we are dealing with some sick puppies, as well as providing targetting info. Remember, too, these are the jokers who threatened my family
I'm sorry you have to deal with all that. But what does it have to do with me or my comments? I thought it was important to come to UD to find out what ID proponents think. I thought it would be appreciated that I'm attempting to find out what the design inference says. I never said I was looking to be converted or that I had any inclination to agree with ID. But I would like to understand since I think it's best for everyone if we meet as reasonable people and discuss things openly.Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Jerad- Focus on your position as it has absolutely nothing-> no testable hypotheses, no evidence, no explanatory power, nothing. Your position does not answer how except to say "mutations"- grow up alreadyJoe_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Joe,
And as I have told you several times now figuring out how the ancients constructed structures that are within our capability has proven to be difficult. That means things that are beyond our capability will be even more difficult.
You can still speculate. Hypothesise. Test the hypothesis. What is the hypothesis about how? If the how is too difficult then work on the when. Archaeology and forensics work on that independent of the 'how' and 'why'.Jerad_{July 6, 2012
July
07
Jul
6
06
2012
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply