Socrates, Unepierre, Wilson, Paley, Darwin, Huxley, Spencer: Each side making its case: Where does the scientific evidence lead? Towards Intelligent design, or naturalistic evolution to explain our existence?
Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2316-evolution-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from
Common descent, the tree of life, a failed hypothesis
How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action
Paley’s watchmaker argument
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2608-paley-s-watchmaker-argument
Has Paley’s Watchmaker argument been debunked?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2860-has-paley-s-watchmaker-argument-been-debunked
Syllogisms about irreducible complexity
People here fall for silly tricks and try to argue against them.
Recently a phony commenter introduced chatGPT arguments here and everyone rushed to counteract them as if they were real. But this commenter could not answer very simple questions if the answers were self generated.
The above video and arguments are cleverly done. Was chatGPT used to create the arguments? They range from very complicated and hard to follow to simple and straightforward.
A Google search turned up zero results for anyone named “Unepierre”. What are you talking about?
Besides Unpierre, the texts are actual quotes from the respective persons. Louis Unpierre is a face swap morph between Einstein and Louis Pasteur. Une Pierre is french and means Einstein ( German: One stone). The texts spoken by Unepierre are entirely mine. No chatbot was used in the video. At all. So, basically, Unepierre is my avatar.
A search for “Otangelo Grasso”, however, found the following amongst a lot of other references:
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Socrates didn’t speak American English with a Midwest accent. And again, I could be wrong, but I don’t think we have any “actual quotes” from Socrates…….
Seversky mocks Otangelo by using someone who cannot justify his own beliefs.
How appropriate from Seversky who only mocks and cannot justify his beliefs. Otangelo does indeed throw hundreds if not thousands of arguments against the wall hoping that some will resonate. That one or two do not have actual proof for support of Otangelo’s basic premise are also proof that his detractors do not have even a minimal case.
It’s like going through a thousand word essay and finding a typo and then exclaiming “I gotcha” to prove the essay wrong.
We do have Plato though.
Did Plato cite Socrates on design? I don’t know. If he did, to paraphrase it into American English would be a fair approach. ChuckDarwin proves ID once again.
Thank you Chuck!
Did the previous or something similar take place?
Plato thought so. Just not in Midwestern English.
Chuckdarwin
Socrates has resurrected, learned English, and is using it now in my videos to educate atheistic ignoramuses why chance is not a compelling thing to explain our existence…. :=P
Seversky
can you point out, why I was wrong, and Larry Moran was right on Glycolysis, and gluconeogenesis?
Here is the link:
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2419-where-did-glucose-come-from-in-a-prebiotic-world#5145
Or would you like to confess, that you have no idea on the matter, but just saw someone in the cheap attempt to discredit me, and thought you should try the same, by parroting others say?
@5
That is correct. So far as we know, Socrates never wrote anything. Everything we know about him comes from the surviving Socratic dialogues — the famous ones from Plato, a less well-known dialogue called Symposium by Xenophon, and a fragment of text from someone named Isocrates.
Regardless, there’s little doubt that Socrates/Plato endorsed what we today would call “intelligent design”. Plato endorses it many times in his dialogues against the more or less quasi-mechanistic cosmogonies of Anaxagoras and Empedocles. He doesn’t mention Leucippus or Democritus, though David Sedley (Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity) conjectures that Socrates was aware of at least Leucippus and saw his views as a threat to social order.
Sedley also suggests that the first people to really formalize the argument from design — the argument from order to a designing intelligence — were the Stoics, who were concerned to push back against Epicureanism.
Not being a classicist or expert in ancient philosophy, I don’t know what criticisms Sedley received or whether his book was highly regarded. But it made an impression on me at the time.
CD at 5,
You definitely could be wrong. My least favorite phrase used by the ‘cool kids.’
Otangelo at 7,
So you’re a Necromancer?
Related,
uh yeah. A creepy one… for instance.
Seversky
How does it matter who Otangelo is, or what his education is. Otangelo is quoting mainstream research.
Seversky, look at this list for example:
(from wikipedia)
Signaling everywhere…
Regulation/Coordination/Control everywhere …
Proofreading and checkpoints everywhere …
(of course, otherwise there won’t be any life)
And then, people like you or Chuckdarwin will attacking me (or Otangelo), when I say that biology is all about engineering.
G.K. Chesterton:
Jerry/6
I wasn’t aware that quoting from a competent authority in that field who disputes Otangelo’s claims constitutes mockery.
Which of my beliefs am I unable to justify?
Yes, it’s an online version of the Gish Gallop. We see similar from BA77 and kf.
Otangelo/8
I was not parroting, I was quoting directly from what was published on Larry Moran’s blog. I’m happy to confess I have no expertise in that field. That’s I why I went to someone who is a competent authority for his opinion on your claims. Larry Moran has spent his working life in that field, has published papers in scientific journals and written textbooks. Have you done the same?
Martin_r/13
And Larry Moran has conducted and published mainstream research. He doesn’t just quotemine it to support his creationist beliefs.
No one is denying that there are useful analogies between biology and engineering but, as PM1 has pointed out, the machines we design are also very different from biological organisms so we should be very cautious about how much they can inform us and how much they can mislead us.
Seversky
As per usual PM1’s argument misses the mark by a wide margin. While it is true that organisms as wholes are very different from machines (in a way that is extremely unhelpful to your position), it is also most certainly the case that aspects of organisms show strong similarities with machines. The complex functional specified organization/information that we observe in e.g. DNA must be explained (and your position cannot) irrespective of the high likelihood that a complete explanation of an organism involves much more.
Seversky
do you even read my posts ?
Show me where I was mentioning machines ….
So once again:
Signaling everywhere…
Regulation/Coordination/Control everywhere …
Proofreading and checkpoints everywhere …
Engineering … everywhere ….
And I have to repeat the following as well, especially for you Seversky, because you are a textbook example…
G.K. Chesterton:
Martin #13
Good grief !!
The essential signaling pathways for animal development 1
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2351-the-essential-signaling-pathways-for-animal-development
How Signaling in biology points to design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2745-how-signaling-in-biology-points-to-design
Signaling between organs and tissues: Interdependence points to design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3065-signaling-between-organs-and-tissues-interdependence-points-to-design
Cell Communication and signaling, evidence of design
http://reasonandscience.heaven.....-of-design
The Hippo signaling pathway in organ size control, tissue regeneration and stem cell self-renewal 1
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2350-the-hippo-signaling-pathway-in-organ-size-control-tissue-regeneration-and-stem-cell-self-renewal
How intracellular Calcium signaling, gradient, and its role as a universal intracellular regulator points to design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2448-howintracellular-calcium-signaling-gradient-and-its-role-as-a-universal-intracellular-regulator-points-to-design
Cell signaling & the origin of life
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3235-cell-signaling-the-origin-of-life
#15 Seversky
” I went to someone who is a competent authority for his opinion on your claims.”
Right. It’s said that people believe anything when the source is a scientist making claims.
That’s the best way to self-delusion and deception. The fact that someone has credentials does not make that person automatically right. In fact, what you copy/pasted, was indeed pseudo-scientific superficial blabbering from Moran. Neither he nor anyone else knows how the production of glucose, life essential, emerged on the prebiotic earth by natural means. If you think I am wrong, ask Larry Moran to come here and provide his explanations. He was inapt/unable then, five years ago, and I predict he is so as well today.
#16 Seversky
” the machines we design are also very different from biological organisms so we should be very cautious about how much they can inform us and how much they can mislead us.”
The factory maker argument
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2245-abiogenesis-the-factory-maker-argument
The Factory maker argument ( Paley’s watchmaker 2.0)
1. We have empirical experience and background knowledge that intelligent agents can and do create information storage mechanisms ( hardware), codes and languages, and instructional assembly information ( data) using a codified language ( software) information transmission systems ( post-delivery services, worldwide web) translation software, transistors, complex machines, automated robotic production lines, integrated circuit boards, energy turbines, and factories. Intelligence can conceptualize and create and design these things from scratch, select the building materials, create data that directs the making and joining of physical parts together in the right way, ( blueprints to create robots) and fine-tune them, to achieve a functional outcome.
2. We have no theoretical, conceptual, practical, or hypothesized and scientifically tested experimental evidence that unguided, nonintelligent, random causes and mechanisms can create and fabricate these things stochastically, or be instantiated by physical necessity and constraints.
3. All the mentioned things in premise 1 exist analogously to man-made artifacts in nature, not only in an analogous manner but literally so. Cells are in a literal sense chemical factories, driven by molecular machines (proteins), directed by data stored in the genome ( the nucleotide sequence), epigenetic data systems, and driven by energy (ATP).
4. Therefore, it is rational, logical, and plausible, to infer and prefer the conclusion that an intelligent agent with foresight created biological embodied life, rather than random events.
Otangelo
talking about Signaling … this is my favorite one:
Martin
amazing. Thanks for sharing.
Origenes/17
FSCO/I is an unproven metric but, yes, the origins of the laws, complexity, information we observe does demand explanation and we don’t have one. God is not an explanation of how, it is a speculation concerning a “who”.
And while analogies can be informative their evidentiary weight can only be determined by weighing both the similarities and differences if we are to avoid confirmation bias.
When somebody is right but has no love then he is wrong. (a Saint)
Otangelo/20
Which is an odd claim given how resistant people are to scientific explanations concerning evolution or vaccines, for example. It’s almost as if they will only accept science where they think it supports their religious beliefs such as in creationism.
I agree but it makes them more likely to be right than someone who has not put all that time and effort into studying and conducting research in that field.
If that’s the case then you have no better idea than Moran which means you are in no position to argue that it couldn’t have come about through natural means. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
If you are so certain that it couldn’t have came about through natural means, that implies you have an explanation of how it came about through non-natural means. What would that be?
#26 Seversky:
” that implies you have an explanation of how it came about through non-natural means. What would that be? ”
An agency with super intelligence and power, that we commonly call God. See here:
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2419-where-did-glucose-come-from-in-a-prebiotic-world#6109
Seversky@
You do not accept ‘intelligence’ as an explanation for complex specified functional organization/information. Why not?
I agree. As an aside, ID does not identify the source of intelligent design WRT biology. ID modestly offers ‘intelligent design’ as an explanation for the kind of information we encounter in biology. That’s all. What is the problem with that?
Intelligent design. ‘By who or what?’, you might ask, but that question is only appropriate after the design inference. Right?
Martin_r @22,
Thanks for the link. This is a fascinating possibility. Unfortunately, the article is paywalled, but I appreciate the approach that the author takes to interpreting parts of cellular communication from the perspective that it’s not just “junk,” but may have a purpose.
-Q