Guest Post: Design Detection

_{Barry Arrington

December 10, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Paul Giem provides the following guest post today:

The following three pictures were made to represent trays with 560 coins with either white (heads) or black (tails) showing. At least one of them was created by shaking coins and then spreading them out on a table (actually multiple shakes of 20 or so coins) and copying the pattern of heads and tails produced. Which one or ones are they, and why? Were the ones, if any, that were not done by this process designed, and if so by whom, and using what method?

Comments

RodW @13
One could use this technique to show that proteins are designed if there was no way, other than random assembly, of generating proteins. But of course there is.
Rod, if you could only give us some experimental proof that this is indeed possible like you claim, then you would have something. So the challenge is to produce a protein by the process you believe is responsible for producing the proteins that exist today. Nothing beats the scientific method when proposing solutions to problems! Oh, and when you have successfully generated a protein using that process, let us know please. We would be very interested in seeing if we can duplicate the results. Thanks.tjguy_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner (#125), I'll try one more time. You said,
And you totally ignored that in the same post I said with equal ease that they all can be said to be designed, i.e. you totally ignored my point.
You read that post (#115) and responded to it, but you have forgotten the entire exchange. My #115 was responding to your #82, which was responding to my #79, which was responding to your #65. You may recall that you said in #65,
All answers seem to be applicable to the OP. Yes, all three are designed because they are all made of designed coins or they all have a structured distinction of black and white sides. No, none of the three is designed because they are computer-generated images consisting of bits and bytes in virtual webspace, and any perception of structure, colour, words, etc. is objectively not there in the fundamental constituents of the images, but read into them by the observer.
If I read this correctly, it was a claim that the question of design did not have an unequivocal answer, because about any image one could (rationally) claim that it was either designed or undesigned, depending on one's presuppositions. My answer (#79) was to agree with you that they might all be designed, and in a certain sense all were designed:
You are correct. There can be layers of design. In fact, it is even possible (some of us actually think it is correct) that the entire universe is designed, and that in the “random” parts, it is designed to look random, but is not actually so. After all, even in random collections of atoms, the atoms themselves are anything but random. They are digitized and all have discrete sizes. The detection of design in some objects does not preclude undetectable design in other objects. I just illustrated that point to the satisfaction of most of the readers with image 2.
However, I vigorously dissented with your claim that none of them is designed
You are trying to tell me, and onlookers, that I didn’t design image 3, and that computers, and therefore computer-generated images, aren’t designed? That virtual webspace isn’t highly designed? That “any perception of structure, colour, words, etc. is objectively not there in the fundamental constituents of the images, but read into them by the observer”? Wow! I’ve got one thing to say; you haven’t gone over to the dark side. ;)
You then defended in #82 your idea that from one perspective none of them were designed:
Obviously, I am saying that it depends on the perspective. The bits and bytes are invisible and they are not letters. If you tell me that letters, words, etc. are designed, then you are taking a whole different level for your analysis – the level of English grammar and orthography – and you will have to specifically justify your selection of the level of analysis. As long as you have not done it – and you have not – the noise of basic bits and bytes is just as good as any other level.
I then thought you were going full postmodern on me, and left you to your own narrative in #115:
Well, I suppose you are right; if we start with the presupposition that there is no design anywhere, then the answer we will always get to the question of design is “no.” Somehow I don’t find that a very attractive starting presupposition, and would go so far as to say that its adoption would destroy science. But if that is what it takes for you to deny design, and you are willing to take it, far be it from me to interfere with your world. However, it would then appear that any further discussion with you would be fruitless, and without a change, I don’t expect to further communicate with you.
Of course, I didn't repeat post #79 in detail, as I had already replied to you and we had agreed that in certain aspects of the images they could be said to have all three been designed. But that background was already there. So while in #115 you can claim that I did not mention the point that all three images could be said to be designed, I did not ignore your point, as I had already agree with that part of it and there was no need to repeat it to someone with an adequate memory and good will. However, as your memory seems to be fading, I have repeated it again here. You said,
The point is that since all options can with equal success be determined as either designed or not, there’s no “design detection” going on at all. It’s mere design assumption that has its force elsewhere, not in empiricism.
If you are saying that you cannot tell that image 3 is designed in a way that is realistically incompatible with shaking coins together multiple times, spreading them out, and recording the heads and tails as white and black (or black and white), whereas image 1 is compatible with that story, then I am afraid I cannot help you.Paul Giem_{December 25, 2014
December
12
Dec
25
25
2014
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

SteRusJon (#121, 123), Nice pickup. Evolution can only give us nested hierarchies, we see only nested hierarchies (except for the exceptions), therefore evolution gives us the best explanation for what we see. (move along here; no exceptions worth mentioning to see ;) ). But of course, this is irrelevant to the basic problem of design detection; can we detect design, and if so how? Zachriel will do anything to distract from the fact that design can be detected in image 3, and with a little work in image 2, but not in image 1, at least as far as the arrangements of heads and tails is concerned.Paul Giem_{December 25, 2014
December
12
Dec
25
25
2014
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Paul Giem #115
Well, I suppose you are right; if we start with the presupposition that there is no design anywhere, then the answer we will always get to the question of design is “no.” Somehow I don’t find that a very attractive starting presupposition, and would go so far as to say that its adoption would destroy science. But if that is what it takes for you to deny design, and you are willing to take it, far be it from me to interfere with your world. However, it would then appear that any further discussion with you would be fruitless, and without a change, I don’t expect to further communicate with you.
And you totally ignored that in the same post I said with equal ease that they all can be said to be designed, i.e. you totally ignored my point. The point is that since all options can with equal success be determined as either designed or not, there's no "design detection" going on at all. It's mere design assumption that has its force elsewhere, not in empiricism.E.Seigner_{December 21, 2014
December
12
Dec
21
21
2014
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

SteRusJon: So you are saying that evolution was unscientific pretty much from the beginning. Not at all. There is a clear signal of the nested hierarchy, so that remains a fundamental observation. Along with the fossil succession, this is strong evidence for branching descent. Some of the mechanisms which cause deviation from the nested hierarchy are discussed by Darwin, including hybridization and convergence.Zachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, "See Darwin 1859." So you are saying that evolution was unscientific pretty much from the beginning. Thanks for the admission. :) StephenSteRusJon_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

SteRusJon: You gotta just love a theory where anomalies are so welcome. See Darwin 1859.Zachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Zachriel says, "anomalies [are] often crucial to the theory" regarding nested hierarchies. You gotta just love a theory where anomalies are so welcome. :) StephenSteRusJon_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Paul:
Again, the issue is not whether the circle is designed; it may or may not be. What is designed is the copying of the binary digits of pi.
I've stated this above, Paul: yes, everything you've done, using Dembski's approach, "formally" meets all the requirements. And, yes, you, as an intelligent agent, "designed" it. But we're talking about design 'detection.' My objection simply comes down to this: your pattern doesn't repeat itself in any way, shape or form. So, e.g., if pi were 3.14279811256333321759---just to throw out some numbers---the repetition of '3333' from time to time would make me comfortable that "I" had found a "pattern." Technically you're right; but it is because you've told us what you've done. We're I to 'run into' this pattern all on my own, I would of course marvel at the discovery; but, I don't think I would be confident that I was dealing with a true "pattern." Now, I've built up to sets of numbers, binary digits, one just the result of random tossing, and another designed by me. You can't really tell the two apart. But, if I told you how I fashioned the 'designed' one, then once you verified the numbers, you would indeed feel comfortable saying that you'd found a 'design.' Why? Because it exhibits a true pattern, one where once I got you started, you'd know, from background knowledge, what to expect from the rest of the digits. Beleive me, Paul, I would prefer to say to you: Yes, Paul, you're right; this really is "design." But I'm not comfortable doing that. I'm just being honest. And not knowing why I was having this reservation, upon reflecting, I realized that it had everything to do with the quasi-randomness of pi. (http://mathoverflow.net/questions/26942/is-pi-a-good-random-number-generator)PaV_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: Shakespearean sonnets are arranged within the set of all English sonnets. English sonnets are arranged within the set of all English text. English text is arranged within the set of all text. Or we might arrange all sonnets together, then by language. Or by author, then by poetic form. Poems don't form an objective nested hierarchy. fifthmonarchyman: and that is relevant because why? It provides historical ordering. Any explanation has to be consistent with this history. fifthmonarchyman: Cool please provide an example of an algorithm producing lossless information integration and you will have disproved the paper and my hypothesis and we can move on We already addressed this. Evolution and consciousness are not lossless integration of information. They are lossy. Paul Giem: First, when pi was defined as the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle, Euclidean geometry was the only kind of geometry known. That's right. Paul Giem: This true in any geometry, Euclidean or non-euclidean, as long as the geometry is continuous and has a continuous first derivative And if it isn't, it doesn't. Paul Giem: In fact, he rather likes it, as it allows him to argue that what we say makes no sense. Not at all. You can define it anyway you like, and most people use the constant value. While we admit it to be a nitpick, you had said it was inconceivable to have another value. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3sLhnDJJn0 Paul Giem: I am inclined to assume that pi is the result of natural mathematical law. Or more precisely, the result of the choice of geometric or algebraic axioms. Paul Giem: He is wrong about the nested series (try nesting the origin of flight in stick insects; a classic non-nested hierarchy, and note that every time horizontal gene transfer is alleged, it destroys the claim of nested hierarchy), The nested hierarchy was never proposed to be a perfect pattern, with anomalies often crucial to the theory. See Darwin 1859.Zachriel_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Paul @113
The probability is only 1/512 for 3 dots, 1 dot, 4 dots, 1 dot no matter how many factors you consider. In fact, if one throws in other factors the combined probability becomes less.
Yes, strictly speaking, the probability remains the same. But if we start with a reference to match against - say, we were looking for something in the English language, and we found the digits 3.141 we probably wouldn't even notice it. But if we're looking for Pi and we find those digits in the very first characters of the string, doesn't that add something to our measure? It's just an interesting thing to consider. @116
Zachriel will argue anything, attempting to either disprove, or failing that distract from, the obvious point of the original post.
I've had to draw the same conclusion. @117
But if that is what it takes for you to deny design, and you are willing to take it, far be it from me to interfere with your world. However, it would then appear that any further discussion with you would be fruitless, and without a change, I don’t expect to further communicate with you.
As above, I've had to reach that conclusion also.Silver Asiatic_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Paul, You are right of course. sorry about the off topic distraction. I think irrational constants like Pi are odd and even spooky. The strange part is that the approximations we see in nature never quite match the perfect form we have in our imagination. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman (various) Zachriel will argue anything, attempting to either disprove, or failing that distract from, the obvious point of the original post. At a certain point, it is not worth feeding the troll. He is wrong about the nested series (try nesting the origin of flight in stick insects; a classic non-nested hierarchy, and note that every time horizontal gene transfer is alleged, it destroys the claim of nested hierarchy), but that is a discussion for another day. For now, we note that the only arguments proposed so far against the obvious design of image 3 and the not so obvious, but more certain design of image 2, involve departures from reason.Paul Giem_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner (#82), I think I understand you. What you are saying is that if you presuppose that bits and bytes in virtual webspace cannot have any design, then
No, none of the three is designed because they are computer-generated images consisting of bits and bytes in virtual webspace, and any perception of structure, colour, words, etc. is objectively not there in the fundamental constituents of the images, but read into them by the observer.
Well, I suppose you are right; if we start with the presupposition that there is no design anywhere, then the answer we will always get to the question of design is "no." Somehow I don't find that a very attractive starting presupposition, and would go so far as to say that its adoption would destroy science. But if that is what it takes for you to deny design, and you are willing to take it, far be it from me to interfere with your world. However, it would then appear that any further discussion with you would be fruitless, and without a change, I don't expect to further communicate with you.Paul Giem_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

SteRusJon (#100, 106, 108), You are so right. (#1 rule of anti-ID rhetoric– Make no concessions! Ever!). Zachriel is a troll (you and I both agree on it, so it must be true according to his own reasoning! :) ). Zachriel misses two important points. First, when pi was defined as the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle, Euclidean geometry was the only kind of geometry known. In that geometry, all circles have the same value for pi, which had other interesting properties. Thus, there was no difference between that definition and "the smallest positive solution in radians for the equation cos(x) = 0", or "the smallest positive solution in radians for the equation sin(x) = -1" or "the limit for the series 4 - 4/3 + 4/5 - 4/7 + 4/9 - 4/11 + ... ", or some equivalent definition. The reason why pi is not defined as 3.14159 is because it is not precise enough, and would no longer match the other definitions. The fact that the other definitions all match each other is interesting mathematically. In fact, as you pointed out, pi can still be defined as the limit of the relationship between the diameter of a circle to its circumference as the diameter approaches zero. This true in any geometry, Euclidean or non-euclidean, as long as the geometry is continuous and has a continuous first derivative. Thus it would have geometric meaning in a non-Euclidean universe. That is why I said that I cannot conceive of a universe where pi is not accurately approximated by 3.1415926... As you and Zachriel agree, defining pi in his way leads to the conclusion that pi is not a constant. Thus, almost all the value of defining pi would be removed. But Zachriel doesn't mind this happening. In fact, he rather likes it, as it allows him to argue that what we say makes no sense. That is why I won't engage him on that subject at this time. He is obviously trolling. Second, what he is saying is irrelevant to this post. My point on the design of image 2 stands, whether pi is "really" a number or not. The point is that conventional calculations of pi give the binary series that matches the heads and tails of image 2. This is true even if in some special cases the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is 3, or 2, or 4. The design inference still stands. When our opponents have to resort to such tactics to try to deny design, or distract from the discussion, we have won.Paul Giem_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic (#86), The probability is only 1/512 for 3 dots, 1 dot, 4 dots, 1 dot no matter how many factors you consider. In fact, if one throws in other factors the combined probability becomes less. For example, if the image had started out with white instead of black, it still would have been amazing. That gets us to 1/256. If instead it had started with HHTTHTTHT (the first 9 digits of binary pi), it would have been just as amazing, and if it had started with TTHHTHHTH it still would have had a 1/512 chance of being found. Design detection is generally not on very safe ground if something happens that has a pedestrian probability of occurring. 1/20 is used as a standard cutoff, but that means that 1 in every 20 random sets of numbers will be declared as statistically significant when it really isn't. But don't worry too much about it. My main point in image 2 was that design that is clearly there may not be obvious to the human eye unaided by mathematics.Paul Giem_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

ZAc says, The biological nested hierarchy refers to arranging organisms by trait. I say. As does the y-axes. Shakespearean sonnets are arranged within the set of all English sonnets English sonnets are arranged within the set of all English text English text is arranged within the set of all text etc etc Zach says However, you are related by descent, and the descendant cannot precede its own ancestor. I say, and that is relevant because why? zac says, evolutionary algorithms are quite adept at producing integrated information. I say, http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0126 Cool please provide an example of an algorithm producing lossless information integration and you will have disproved the paper and my hypothesis and we can move on peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: The nested the nested hierarchy is entailed necessarily in my hypothesis. The biological nested hierarchy refers to arranging organisms by trait. fifthmonarchyman: Branching descent and fossil succession are irrelevant because knowing that an IC configuration comes at a certain point in time and relational space tells you nothing about what produced it. Of course they're relevant, because they provide historical ordering. Any claim has to be consistent with this historical ordering. fifthmonarchyman: Just because I am related to my father and I came after my father in time in no way proves that I can be explained algorithmically However, you are related by descent, and the descendant cannot precede its own ancestor. fifthmonarchyman: IC configurations are not arrived at by adaptation. If you mean integrated information, evolutionary algorithms are quite adept at producing integrated information.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Zac says, We start with the evidence for branching descent; the nested hierarchy and fossil succession; I say, The nested the nested hierarchy is entailed necessarily in my hypothesis. Remember the y-axes? Branching descent and fossil succession are irrelevant because knowing that an IC configuration comes at a certain point in time and relational space tells you nothing about what produced it. Just because I am related to my father and I came after my father in time in no way proves that I can be explained algorithmically you said. which provides the historical context for understanding the specifics of adaptation. I say, IC configurations are not arrived at by adaptation. That is the lesson of the game. I could agree with you about all the details of adaptation but until you demonstrate that you can fool an observer with mere adaptation we will be wasting our time and spinning our wheels. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

SteRusJon: Pi is by definition a constant in Euclidean geometry. As we said, if you define pi as 3.14159... then pi is 3.14159. However, if you define it as the relationship of the measured circumference of the circle to its diameter, then it may not be 3.14159.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, Like I said. "#1 rule of anti-ID rhetoric– Make no concessions! Ever!" Pi is by definition a constant in Euclidean geometry. That constant carries over into non-Euclidean geometries intact. If you wish to absurdly redefine a constant as "not a constant" or a "function" then you are out in your own world of your own imaginings and not discussing the same thing as Paul and I. If you are invoking variables and functions as replacements for pi you are not talking about pi. There is no getting through to some people. Especially when they have an agenda that drives their rhetoric. I made my case. The last ~~absurdity~~ word is yours. StephenSteRusJon_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

SteRusJon: The notion of pi as a constant that represents the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of all circles is not conceivable So not only is it conceivable to have another value, but it's also conceivable the value may not be constant! SteRusJon: Anyone who conceivably lived in a non-Euclidean world would derive the exact same value for pi as we have and teach their math students formulas such as those above. Not necessarily. It's conceivable that they would define pi as a function.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, The notion of pi as a constant that represents the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of all circles is not conceivable in non-Euclidean worlds simply because circles in non-Euclidean worlds do not have that property. At best you can redefine pi as the limit of the ratio of the circumference to the diameter as the diameter approaches zero and arrive at the same value as the Euclidean value and apply the correct formulas such as: In hyperbolic geometry the circumference of a circle of radius r is greater than 2?r. It is in fact equal to 2pi R sinh r/R. (R is a factor representing the curvature of the system. See wikipedia article on hyperbolic geometry for info)) Where hyperbolic functions (not trig for this geometry) are brought to bear to "correct" for the effect of curvature on properties of circles in such non-Euclidean worlds. For spherical geometry, if r is the radius of the circle on a sphere (of radius a), then the circumference of the circle is equal to 2pi r ((sin(r/a)/(r/a)) (note the trig function here from Euclidean geometry, as well) Anyone who conceivably lived in a non-Euclidean world would derive the exact same value for pi as we have and teach their math students formulas such as those above. If you wish to redefine pi so as to no longer be the constant of the Euclidean world then you are not talking about the same thing as Paul and I are. If you look closely at the definition of pi, you find that it requires a Euclidean context since it is defined as a constant. The ratio of the circumference to diameter is not constant in non-Euclidean worlds so pi cannot be defined in that way in them. By rearranging the formulas I have given above you can solve for pi and arrive at a definition within those worlds for pi, as a constant, which has, lo and behold, the exact same value with which we are so familiar. Stephen #1 rule of anti-ID rhetoric-- Make no concessions! Ever!SteRusJon_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: or are you claiming that the only evidences that can be considered scientific are those that don’t challenge your materialistic worldview? Z: Not sure much of anything can challenge a view we don’t hold.
None of you hold the materialistic worldview?Silver Asiatic_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: Not vague possible pathways but detailed step by step repeatable accounts. We start with the evidence for branching descent; the nested hierarchy and fossil succession; which provides the historical context for understanding the specifics of adaptation.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Zac said, There has to be evidence, of which there is ample.Evolution typically creates highly integrated information. I say, please present it here. Not vague possible pathways but detailed step by step repeatable accounts. thanks in advance peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: From my perspective I have a well defined hypothesis and I made every effort to define my terms so that there would be no ambiguity. Your hypothesis only had very indirect entailments, and even then, indistinguishable from more ordinary causes. You did attempt to define your terms, but you confusingly used existing terms with other well-established meanings, and seemed to conflate the meanings. fifthmonarchyman: So you agree that we must at most remain agnostic until positive evidence is provided that Darwinian evolution can produce IC* configurations? There has to be evidence, of which there is ample. fifthmonarchyman: *Defined as configurations with a greater amount of information in the repertoire of a whole system regarding its previous state than there is in the sum of the all the mechanisms’ considered individually. Yes, even using your strange habit of calling integrated information "IC". Evolution typically creates highly integrated information.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

SteRusJon, If you define pi as 3.14159..., then pi is 3.14159..., of course. We explicitly defined pi as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. As the question concerned what was conceivable, and as someone living on a curved space might directly measure this ratio, the notion is conceivable, and actually quite common.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Zachriel,
Your lack of imagination is not evidence. Pi, the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, can be different in non-Euclidean geometries.
If you look into it a little, you will find that pi is the same value in the non-Euclidean geometries as it is in the Euclidian one. In practice, since such things as the ratio of the circumference of circle to its diameter can be different than that of another circle in non-Euclidean geometries, the constant Euclidean value of pi is used in non-Euclidean geometries and "corrected" by means of trigonometric functions (which are also based on Euclidean geometry) to compensate for the curvatures of the planes and spaces. The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not equal to pi, nor defined to be pi, in non-Euclidean geometries. In non_euclidian geometries, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is just the ratio of that circle's circumference to its diameter. Nothing more. Pi is always 11.001001000011111101101010100010001000010110100011... (binary) and mathematically demonstrated to be irrational (and therefore non-terminating and non-repeating) and determined by mathematical methods based on the properties of Euclidean circles. StephenSteRusJon_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Zac says, The problem with that discussion was that you kept redefining terminology to match your preconceptions. I say, That is your understanding mine is quite different. From my perspective I have a well defined hypothesis and I made every effort to define my terms so that there would be no ambiguity. What makes your view scientific and mine not? You say, You are correct that you can’t conclude whether it was capable or not without evidence or proof. I say, So you agree that we must at most remain agnostic until positive evidence is provided that Darwinian evolution can produce IC* configurations? *Defined as configurations with a greater amount of information in the repertoire of a whole system regarding its previous state than there is in the sum of the all the mechanisms' considered individually. Peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply