Intelligent Design

Non-probabilistic design arguments

Spread the love

Biochemist Michael Behe has stated:

“A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.”

One needs no probabilistic calculation to infer design before a car or cell. Why — as Behe says — “he immediately realizes that it was designed”? Because such dynamic systems show clear hallmarks of organization. Some of them are:

(1) hierarchy of devices and functions (see my previous post);
(2) hierarchy of tasks and actions, when the system is in operation;
(3) implementation of the control-power paradigm (see here);
(4) implementation of the communication paradigm between sub-systems.

Why organization implies intelligent design? Because chance and necessity cannot create organization in principle.

In fact chance is simply a brute force of un-correlation. Example, in coin tossing any outcome is unrelated to the previous ones. Since organization eminently implies relations, how can a producer of non relations create it? Not only chance can do nothing to organize, even it destroys organization if it enter into the systems.

The same, necessity (aka natural laws) per se cannot be the cause of organization because they don’t potentially contain it. Natural laws are relatively simple mathematical equations. These equations don’t implicitly contain the specifications of the least organized system, as the simple function y=x^2 doesn’t contain, say, Riemann’s zeta function, which is of a far higher order than the quadratic one.

Neither the couple natural laws + randomness can create organization. In fact natural laws are a processor. If randomness provides garbage in input to it this processor necessarily outputs garbage.

The usual objections to this non-probabilistic ID argument are:

Objection #1: “This ID argument may be ok for the machines but it doesn’t apply to biological systems because they self-reproduce”.
Reply: On the contrary, the ID inference applies to biology to greater reason, because self-reproduction needs organization of the highest order. That was mathematically proved by J. von Neumann more than half century ago.

Objection #2: “In biology natural selection creates organization by optimizing random variations”.
Reply: Natural selection is simply an additional post processor in the chain of chance and necessity. I said above they provide garbage, so natural selection cannot produce new organization from random variations, because again “garbage in garbage out”.

Objection #3: “Non-probabilistic ID arguments are not scientific because they aren’t quantitative”.
Reply: Science is full of non quantitative arguments. Even entire fields of mathematics are not quantitative. Also, in general, all quantitative arguments are necessarily based on non quantitative assumptions.

Objection #4: “Simple rules can create complex patterns”.
Reply: These patterns have nothing to do with the least organized system.

Objection #5: “Your arguments are only philosophical assumptions”.
Reply: No, they are pure technical, engineering issues.

Objection #6: “Devices, functions, tasks, control-power, communication are only ideas in your mind”.
Reply: No, they are real things you see with your eyes. You deny evidence.

Objection #7: “Organization is not a well defined concept”.
Reply: It is so well defined and known that all technology is based on it. In industry the descriptions of their internal organization are the starting point for the construction of all engineering products. More, some measures of complexity of a system indeed are based on its technical descriptions.

Objection #8: “Natural laws are able to produce ordered configurations”.
Reply: Organization is fully different and far higher than simple order.

Objection #9: “We know that a car is designed only because we see its designers”.
Reply: If we find a machine on Mars we infer design also without knowing its designers.

Objection #10: “Organization makes sense only if you can measure it”.
Reply: No, precise quantitative measures are only an add-on for a design inference in most cases. Similarly, to say that a woman is very beautiful I don’t need to measure her body exactly. It is true — as Norbert Wiener said — that “The amount of information in a system is a measure of its organization degree” but recognition of organization is possible also without precise measures of the amount of information (see here).

123 Replies to “Non-probabilistic design arguments

  1. 1
    Andre says:

    Objection #5: “Your arguments are only philosophical assumptions”.
    Reply: No, they are pure technical, engineering issues.

    True story

  2. 2
    gkbrown says:

    Sorry to post this question here, but I have been told as fact that mutations are caused by cosmic rays. I don’t believe it to be true as I cannot find any evidence, could someone point me to any evidence that supports this idea?

  3. 3
    Tamara Knight says:

    …but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed.

    Seriously? Can I suggest anybody who agrees with that Googles and/or YouTube for “Catweazle”. I think these responses are much more likely,

  4. 4
    Joe says:

    Can I suggest anybody who agrees with that Googles and/or YouTube for “Catweazle”

    Seriously? Can I suggest that anybody who agrees with that Googles “seriously”.

  5. 5
    Me_Think says:

    Few centuries ago people thought every thing – including natural phenomena – was designed (Devine). Weren’t they wrong?

  6. 6
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ Me Think with its unsupported tripe. A few centuries ago people thought Stonehenge was designed even though it was made from stones, which nature produces in abundance. And guess what? People of today think Stonehenge was designed also.

  7. 7
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 5
    Wow ! So everyone at ID is okay with a 1 in a million success non-probabilistic detector ? Great, just chuck out CSI, dFSCI etc, this is way more refreshing.

  8. 8
    Dionisio says:

    Across the nervous system, neurons form highly stereotypic patterns of synaptic connections that are designed to serve specific functions.

    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.029

    Please, note that this quote is not from an OP in UD. 🙂

    Comments?

  9. 9
  10. 10
    Joe says:

    Me Think:

    So everyone at ID is okay with a 1 in a million success non-probabilistic detector ?

    What are you talking about? Are you saying that forensic scientists and archaeologists are only correct 1 time in a million tries? Really?

  11. 11
    Andre says:

    Me_Think

    The superstitious people always blamed some god for lightning….

    Surprise in 2014 we still don’t know what causes it

    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....osmic.html

    True story…..

    And God kinda cracks a joke with us in Job about it….. 3800 years ago he said and I quote

    Job 38:35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?”

  12. 12
    Dionisio says:

    #11 Andre

    🙂

  13. 13
    Andre says:

    True story Dionisio, and here are the materialsts all running around proclaiming how biological systems originated but they like theists don’t even know what causes lightning…. but they know for sure there ain’t no God…… they are certain of it……

  14. 14
    Dionisio says:

    #9 link doesn’t work. It was written incorrectly. My mistake. Sorry.

  15. 15
    Adapa says:

    niwrad

    Why organization implies intelligent design? Because chance and necessity cannot create organization in principle.

    Chance alone can’t do it. Necessity (laws) alone can’t do it. But iterative processes that combine both chance and necessity with selection driven feedback do it quite nicely. Evolution is just such a process. It’s been empirically observed to produce both increased complexity and organization in life forms. There are numerous evolution simulating programs readily available where you can watch the combination of simple chance and laws produce all sorts of amazing and functional objects.

    Here is a good example where computer generated “soft robots” using just simple evolutionary processes evolved different ways to walk.

    Robot evolved walking

    The algorithm devised by the researchers was fairly straightforward. As biological evolution has shown time and time again, a simple set of rules, along with a ton of patience, can produce some rather remarkable things.

    In this case, a research team led by Jeff Clune created an evolution simulator by endowing (relatively immobile) soft robots called soft-voxels with four basic building blocks to work with, namely muscle (shown in red), soft tissue support (teal), expanding and contracting muscles (green), and bone for hard support (blue). And importantly, they also programmed the system such that the faster bots would reproduce more. Speed, therefore, became a beneficial mutation (or adaptation) which served to increase a voxel’s reproductive fitness.

    Once these parameters were set, all Clune and his team had to do was press the start button and let evolution do the rest.

    Watch the video and learn.

  16. 16
    Andre says:

    Adapa

    Simulations are intelligently designed, you can manipulate the system to do anything because you can guide the “evolution”

    sigh………

  17. 17
    Joe says:

    Adapa:

    Here is a good example where computer generated “soft robots” using just simple evolutionary processes evolved different ways to walk.

    But are they unguided evolutionary processes? Intelligent design is not anti-evolution and is OK with things being designed to evolve and evolving by design.

  18. 18
    Dionisio says:

    #13 Andre

    Good point. However, couldn’t it be that they are certain of it because they know almost everything and whatever they don’t know they can figure it out right away? Hey, why not? Remember, some folks are really really smart, ok? 🙂

    Did you see the quote in post #8? Did you notice the word ‘designed’ in that text? That quote is not from an OP in this UD blog. It’s from a recent article in a known biology journal. Doesn’t that quoted statement raise some fundamental questions?

  19. 19
    Adapa says:

    Andre

    Simulations are intelligently designed, you can manipulate the system to do anything because you can guide the “evolution”

    The evolutionary processes used in simulations like these are not designed. They are merely copied from real world empirically observed evolutionary processes. Speeding up the processes so they can be observed in real time doesn’t change the functioning of the processes.

    Do you think when the NOAA produces a hurricane simulator program to study the wind patters that is evidence that real hurricanes are designed?

    Sigh is right.

  20. 20
    Joe says:

    Adapa, The programs used are not copied from the real world. They are search heuristics actively searching for solutions.

    As for hurricanes, well we actually understand how they work.

  21. 21
    Silver Asiatic says:

    In fact chance is simply a brute force of un-correlation. Example, in coin tossing any outcome is unrelated to the previous ones. Since organization eminently implies relations, how can a producer of non relations create it? Not only chance can do nothing to organize, even it destroys organization if it enter into the systems.

    I’d call that irrefutable. The bold text is very clear, although some would say that chance patterns can show correlations. But in organization the relations include dependencies. This is especially true where we see relations in a hierarchy.

    As to the argument that it is “not measurable”, I think it’s true to say that “if it is observable, it is measurable”. In this case, organization is observable given the definitions you provided.

    (1) hierarchy of devices and functions (see my previous post);
    (2) hierarchy of tasks and actions, when the system is in operation;
    (3) implementation of the control-power paradigm (see here);
    (4) implementation of the communication paradigm between sub-systems.

  22. 22
    Adapa says:

    Joe

    But are they unguided evolutionary processes?

    Yes. The walking robot processes were unguided.

    Intelligent design is not anti-evolution and is OK with things being designed to evolve and evolving by design.

    The walking ability that evolved in this experiment was neither. None of the different walking styles were pre-designed. They all were emergent behavior.

  23. 23
    Adapa says:

    Joe

    As for hurricanes, well we actually understand how they work.

    We actually understand how evolution works too Joe. Most of us do anyway. That you don’t isn’t our problem.

  24. 24
    Andre says:

    What does hurricanes have to do with living systems? Again the issue is not evolution Adapa, its the unguided claim you make…. simulations are biased period. They are not fair because the program is designed…..

    Seriously you can’t be that ignorant.

  25. 25
    Silver Asiatic says:

    And importantly, they also programmed the system such that the faster bots would reproduce more.

    I guess that’s how it works in the real world of evolution, right?

  26. 26
    Joe says:

    Adapa:

    he walking robot processes were unguided.

    Prove it.

    None of the different walking styles were pre-designed.

    They don’t have to be. The program gave the robot the ability to actively search for solutions. That is what it means to be designed to evolve and evolve by design.

  27. 27
    Andre says:

    Emergent… the Darwin code word for magic……

  28. 28
    Joe says:

    Adapa:

    We actually understand how evolution works too Joe.

    And yet you can’t say how many mutations it takes to produce specific biological structures. You can’t even say what makes an organism what it is. And you can’t even find the elusive “theory of evolution”.

    And it’s strange that no one can model unguided evolution seeing that you know how it works.

    It’s as if you are making it all up. Gee, I wonder why?

  29. 29
    Adapa says:

    Silver Asiatic

    And importantly, they also programmed the system such that the faster bots would reproduce more.

    I guess that’s how it works in the real world of evolution, right?

    That’s exactly how it works in the real world of evolution. Animals in a population that have a beneficial trait which gives them a higher probability of reproducing than their neighbors reproduce more. That’s how the beneficial trait spreads through the population.

    It’s science 101 guys. It shouldn’t be this hard for you.

  30. 30
    Adapa says:

    Joe

    The program gave the robot the ability to actively search for solutions.

    No it didn’t. It gave the robots the ability to mutate randomly then allowed selection to keep the ones that worked best for the next generation. They weren’t actively searching for solutions.

    Since you still don’t understand the basics try reading the actual paper provided in the linked article. With your skill set it should only take 3 minutes, right? 🙂

  31. 31
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa: Do you think when the NOAA produces a hurricane simulator program to study the wind patters that is evidence that real hurricanes are designed?

    Not necessarily. (Although, sometimes there may be an articular “hand” in them. Who knows?) But the meteorological systems by which they emerge may be designed. How many hurricanes do you see on Mars?

    Joe: The program gave the robot the ability to actively search for solutions.

    Adapa: No it didn’t. It gave the robots the ability to mutate randomly then allowed selection to keep the ones that worked best for the next generation. They weren’t actively searching for solutions.

    Some well-organized, intelligently designed processes are allowing whatever they are doing to do it. I haven’t had time to read the details, but I wonder how much intelligently designed active information is present in those robotic systems. And I wonder how much damage I could do to those intelligently designed robotic systems before they failed to operate at all.

    If someone has time to dig out the details, I would be interested.

  32. 32
    Adapa says:

    Andre

    What does hurricanes have to do with living systems? Again the issue is not evolution Adapa, its the unguided claim you make…. simulations are biased period. They are not fair because the program is designed…..

    That doesn’t even begin to make sense. Just because a natural process is simulated on a computer that somehow makes the simulation not “fair” (whatever that means)?

    Why don’t you show us how the walking robot evolution simulation wasn’t “fair”. Back up the big talk.

  33. 33
    Vishnu says:

    S.A. And importantly, they also programmed the system such that the faster bots would reproduce more. I guess that’s how it works in the real world of evolution, right?

    Adapa: That’s exactly how it works in the real world of evolution. Animals in a population that have a beneficial trait which gives them a higher probability of reproducing than their neighbors reproduce more. That’s how the beneficial trait spreads through the population. It’s science 101 guys. It shouldn’t be this hard for you.

    So then, as an intelligent designer I could manipulate the environment as part of my desired outcome for faster animals. Great. Thanks for the tip.

    Of course, we still have all those other details to work out, such as how the animals got there in the first place, what level of processes and systems I have to come up with, and when, etc, etc. Being an intelligent designer of a biosphere can be hard work!

  34. 34
    Adapa says:

    Vishnu

    Not necessarily. (Although, sometimes there may be an articular “hand” in them. Who knows?) But the meteorological systems by which they emerge may be designed. How many hurricanes do you see on Mars

    Sounds like you’re saying if some “hand” set up the laws and processes of nature then the evolution of complex systems could indeed emerge from those processes. Congratulations, you’re now a theistic evolutionist.

    All the ToE says is that the biological variations we see emerged as a consequence of observed natural laws and processes. It says nothing about where the laws and processes themselves originated.

    If someone has time to dig out the details, I would be interested.

    Have you tried contacting the author of the study? Most scientists are quite happy to answer questions about their work.

  35. 35
    Vishnu says:

    Andre: They are not fair because the program is designed…

    Adapa: That doesn’t even begin to make sense. Just because a natural process is simulated on a computer that somehow makes the simulation not “fair” (whatever that means)? Why don’t you show us how the walking robot evolution simulation wasn’t “fair”.

    If it’s true that blind-watchmaker evolution is what you have in mind as a comparison, then of course it’s not fair. The robotic systems were designed by humans and contain preposterous amounts of active information, put there by said human engineers.

    Have you run across anyone here that rejects the idea that intelligent human designers can create systems that can evolve within certain constrains?

    At any rate, I’d like to see the details of the software that’s running these robots. If you can direct me to it, that would be appreciated.

  36. 36
    Adapa says:

    Vishnu

    So then, as an intelligent designer I could manipulate the environment as part of my desired outcome for faster animals. Great. Thanks for the tip.

    If you were omnipotent sure you could. To folks on the ground it would look exactly like unguided natural causes.

    Of course, we still have all those other details to work out, such as how the animals got there in the first place, what level of processes and systems I have to come up with, and when, etc, etc. Being an intelligent designer of a biosphere can be hard work!

    If you were doing it all in one shot I agree. If you let natural processes do the work for you over 3.5 billion years then it’s a lot easier.

  37. 37
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa: Sounds like you’re saying if some “hand” set up the laws and processes of nature then the evolution of complex systems could indeed emerge from those processes. Congratulations, you’re now a theistic evolutionist.

    I’ve been called worse things.

    All the ToE says is that the biological variations we see emerged as a consequence of observed natural laws and processes. It says nothing about where the laws and processes themselves originated.

    What is a “natural law and process” in your mind? Can that be one that was deliberately established by an intelligent actor?

    Have you tried contacting the author of the study? Most scientists are quite happy to answer questions about their work.

    No. I don’t have a lot of time. But I may attempt it this weekend. Now, of course, you know that whatever software is running these robots, it is going to contain large amounts of active information created by the programmers. Or do you believe otherwise? And to the degree they have programmed these systems so they can evolve/adapt given their environment, that will demonstrate even more how brilliant the programmers are. Wouldn’t you say?

  38. 38
    Adapa says:

    Vishnu

    The robotic systems were designed by humans and contain preposterous amounts of active information, put there by said human engineers.

    Ah, the infamous Dembski/Marks hand wave, “active” information. When if became clear that simulations using unguided evolutionary processes produced new features exactly as evolutionary biologists said they would the ID community needed an excuse. Thus the meaningless buzz phrase “active information is being smuggled in” was born.

    Why don’t you describe this “active information”, show where it’s being smuggled in, and why it’s not part of the overall evolutionary process being simulated.

  39. 39
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa: If you were omnipotent sure you could. To folks on the ground it would look exactly like unguided natural causes.

    I am not convinced omnipotence (whatever that is) is necessary for the job. Just someone, or maybe a group of someones, who are perhaps an order of magnitude more intelligent than humans. Moreover, I personally “live on the ground”, and I am not at all convinced in the “unguided” part of your statement.

    If you were doing it all in one shot I agree. If you let natural processes do the work for you over 3.5 billion years then it’s a lot easier.

    Oh, I agree. Genetic algorithms would be great at filling niches (which I use myself in engineering), and front-loading in the expression of traits due to environmental cues at the right time and place. I can hardly imagine it being accomplished any differently, unless the designer(s) are not smart enough to pull it off without direct active control moment by moment, which I can’t imagine they are, since that would be quite tedious and boring. I think they only intervene for the Really Big Stuff, such as when a large infusion of information is required that could not have plausibly been front-loaded due to contrains on genome size, etc.

    Front-loaded and GAs are do a lot, but they can’t do everything.

  40. 40
    Vishnu says:

    Vishnu: The robotic systems were designed by humans and contain preposterous amounts of active information, put there by said human engineers.

    Adapa: Ah, the infamous Dembski/Marks hand wave, “active” information. When if became clear that simulations using unguided evolutionary processes produced new features exactly as evolutionary biologists said they would the ID community needed an excuse. Thus the meaningless buzz phrase “active information is being smuggled in” was born.

    Honestly, I’m not very familiar with how Dembski and Marks use the term. I’ve never read a single book from either one of them. Although it can’t be far from what I’m thinking as an engineer. For me, active information in a system is what the system relies on to do its functions, without which the processes would not function. These robots are not “evolving” in a vacuum. They are operating by design in certain ways with certain principles and constrains put there by the engineers. That information is necessarily “active.”

    Why don’t you describe this “active information”, show where it’s being smuggled in, and why it’s not part of the overall evolutionary process being simulated.

    Smuggled? I need to see the source code and data set that the robotic programmers used in setting the systems up. Are you saying that you don’t think is active information in the programming code and data sets that the robotic systems are using?

  41. 41
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa,

    Do you agree or disagree that Dawkins Weasel program contains active information?

  42. 42
    phoodoo says:

    Adapa,

    EVERY computer simulation of evolution that has ever been made are farces, which contain constraints and guidance as a fundamental part of their property.

    If you want to model evolution, the only computer model that would ever make sense is, just let a computer start copying things badly, and see if anything useful ever emerges.

    That is the claim of evolution.

    A program that says be a robot and walk (because your goal is to walk) , is already a prefabricated deceit, which has nothing to do with the claim of evolution. There is no goal to obtain in evolution.

  43. 43
    Andre says:

    Phoodoo it’s useless Adapa believes in magic and nothing is going to change his mind.

  44. 44
    ppolish says:

    MeThink, to paraphrase Paul Rand – “Everything is designed”. I’m a hard core IDer. Even that antelope is designed:0

  45. 45
    ppolish says:

    Everything is designed, not just “man stuff”.

    “The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of the mountain, or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean the Buddha – which is to demean oneself.”
    Robert Pirsig

  46. 46
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Vishnu

    So then, as an intelligent designer I could manipulate the environment as part of my desired outcome for faster animals. Great. Thanks for the tip.

    Of course, we still have all those other details to work out, such as how the animals got there in the first place, what level of processes and systems I have to come up with, and when, etc, etc. Being an intelligent designer of a biosphere can be hard work!

    LOL. We also have to explain why there are slower animals that reproduce more and what actually did the programming.

  47. 47
    Adapa says:

    Vishnu

    Honestly, I’m not very familiar with how Dembski and Marks use the term. I’ve never read a single book from either one of them. Although it can’t be far from what I’m thinking as an engineer. For me, active information in a system is what the system relies on to do its functions, without which the processes would not function. These robots are not “evolving” in a vacuum. They are operating by design in certain ways with certain principles and constrains put there by the engineers. That information is necessarily “active.”

    That’s not what “active information” means in ID complaints. According to Dembski it’s additional information that’s somehow introduced to produce the results above and beyond the simulated processes of random variation in a population and an environment to provide selection pressures. But no one from the ID side will ever explain what this additional “active information” is or how it gets into the results. Like I said, it’s a meaningless hand-wave of the ID refuting evidence.

    Do you agree or disagree that Dawkins Weasel program contains active information?

    The Dawkins Weasel program isn’t an evolution simulator. It’s a simple demonstration of the cumulative ability of selection. Why ID proponents still misrepresent the purpose of the program is unknown.

    Front-loaded and GAs are do a lot, but they can’t do everything.

    Given unlimited time and resources along with a variable environment what barrier would stop a GA from continuing to produce novelties? You’re basically making the same claim as “sure microevolution works but it can’t accumulate into macroevolution”. No one has ever shown any barrier to the accumulation of changes.

  48. 48
    Adapa says:

    Silver Asiatic

    We also have to explain why there are slower animals that reproduce more and what actually did the programming

    If being slower helps an animal survive in its environment by avoiding detection from predators then slowness is a beneficial trait that will lead to a better chance at reproduction. No one did the programming, it’s just natural evolutionary processes in action.

    Seriously SA, any decent high school level biology book can explain the details to you. Do you have any desire to learn?

  49. 49
    M. Holcumbrink says:

    niwrad,

    I think the most compelling non-probabilistic design argument is the recognition of “purpose” in an organized system. This is what triggers the realization that something was clearly designed. Even if the overall purpose of a system is unknown (e.g. signal transmission, transduction, motility), even the individual components have a clear purpose of their own, however small (e.g. this axle is attached to this cog, which is meant to turn this other axle). Purpose is clear, in any organized system, and sticks out like a sore thumb in an in-your-face kind of a way, which is distinct from and entirely absent in naturaly ordered systems (e.g. hurricanes, rivers, etc.). This is why Dawkins’s argumentation that there really isn’t any purpose involved in biological systems must be attempted. The attempt at reasoning away any semblance of purpose is key in materialistic evangelism. This is because “purpose” is transcendent; it cannot be explained by materialism. And yet it is there and ubiquitous in life systems. That is why life “reeks of design” – purpose radiates off of it from every nook and cranny in the biological world. You can see it plainly without any knowledge of statistics.

  50. 50
    niwrad says:

    Adapa #47

    Given unlimited time and resources along with a variable environment what barrier would stop a GA from continuing to produce novelties? … No one has ever shown any barrier to the accumulation of changes.

    Of course such “novelties” and ‘changes’ have nothing to do with new organization.
    Otherwise we would have that a finite chance+law system produces infinite organization (“no barrier”). Do you see how that is pure mathematical impossibility, like infinite from 0 by addition? and physical impossibility too, like perpetual motion machine?

  51. 51
    Adapa says:

    M. Holcumbrink

    That is why life “reeks of design” – purpose radiates off of it from every nook and cranny in the biological world. You can see it plainly without any knowledge of statistics.

    Really? What is the purpose of Ebola? Of rabies? Of Harlequin ichthyosis?

  52. 52
    Adapa says:

    niwrad

    Adapa #47: Given unlimited time and resources along with a variable environment what barrier would stop a GA from continuing to produce novelties? … No one has ever shown any barrier to the accumulation of changes.

    Of course such “novelties” and ‘changes’ have nothing to do with new organization. Otherwise we would have that a finite chance+law system produces infinite organization (“no barrier”).

    I said unlimited (i.e. infinite) time and resources, not finite.

    Do you see how that is pure mathematical impossibility, like infinite from 0 by addition?

    No. Demonstrate, not just assert, the barrier that makes it impossible for GAs to produce novelties beyond a certain level.

    Demonstrate the limit to addition that 1+1+1+1… can’t cross.

  53. 53
    niwrad says:

    Adapa

    Actually the addition is 0+0+0…. = 0.

    You are a nice boy. I don’t want to change anything in your brilliant mind. You should only toggle two key values in your person registry file:

    “IAmAnEvolutionist” -> 0
    “IAmAnIDer” -> 1

    With this little configuration change you could use your intelligence to serve the truth, instead of falsity.

  54. 54
    Adapa says:

    niwrad

    Actually the addition is 0+0+0…. = 0.

    Avoidance of question noted. I’ll accept your admission you can identify no barrier that prevents the accumulation of new features over time in either a GA or in actual biological evolution.

    Anything else you’d like me to correct your misunderstanding on?

  55. 55
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Adapa

    OP: And importantly, they also programmed the system such that the faster bots would reproduce more.

    Adapa: That’s exactly how it works in the real world of evolution.

    Adapa: If being slower helps an animal survive in its environment by avoiding detection from predators then slowness is a beneficial trait that will lead to a better chance at reproduction.

    Adapa – in your better moments, you seem like a thoughtful person.

  56. 56
    Joe says:

    Adapa:

    It gave the robots the ability to mutate randomly then allowed selection to keep the ones that worked best for the next generation.

    Umm, that means it had the ability to actively search for solutions.

    All the ToE says is that the biological variations we see emerged as a consequence of observed natural laws and processes.

    Please reference this alleged ToE so we can all see what it really says.

  57. 57
    niwrad says:

    Adapa

    Errata corrige.
    May be “you are a nice… girl”?

  58. 58
    M. Holcumbrink says:

    Adapa @ 51,

    In my comment at 49, I stated that an overall purpose of a system can be unknown, yet we can still recognize design at the component level. And if a box of screws falls down the oil stick port and ruins the engine, nobody would ask “what in the world is the purpose of the screws being in this engine – what a crappy design”. Sometimes things just end up where they were not meant to be. Besides, the problem of evil is distinct from the appearance of design.

  59. 59
    Adapa says:

    niwrad

    Adapa

    Errata corrige.
    May be “you are a nice… girl”?

    LOL! Maybe you’re about 10 years old? Or at least have the maturity level of a 10 year old.

    Why do so many IDers act like children when you point out their basic science misunderstandings?

    Meanwhile there’s still no barrier to the accumulation of GA or evolutionary changes.

  60. 60
    Adapa says:

    M. Holcumbrink

    In my comment at 49, I stated that an overall purpose of a system can be unknown, yet we can still recognize design at the component level. And if a box of screws falls down the oil stick port and ruins the engine, nobody would ask “what in the world is the purpose of the screws being in this engine – what a crappy design”. Sometimes things just end up where they were not meant to be. Besides, the problem of evil is distinct from the appearance of design.

    Are you saying that Ebola, rabies, and Harlequin ichthyosis are the equivalent of screws falling into an engine? That they weren’t designed?

    Behe in his Edge of Evolution says the Intelligent Designer purposely created resistance to anti-malarial drugs in the malaria parasite, the net result of which is more people die of malaria. Are there actually two Designers trying to destroy the other’s creations? Please clarify, thanks.

  61. 61
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa: That’s not what “active information” means in ID complaints. According to Dembski it’s additional information that’s somehow introduced to produce the results above and beyond the simulated processes of random variation in a population and an environment to provide selection pressures.

    I’ll have to check into that. Thanks

    V: Do you agree or disagree that Dawkins Weasel program contains active information?

    A: The Dawkins Weasel program isn’t an evolution simulator.

    It’s not an unguided evolution simulator, that’s for sure. But it does demonstrate in a rudimentary way how an accumulation of “traits” can occur towards a specific outcome, with varying degrees of fitness along a path that is not completely pre-determined.

    It’s a simple demonstration of the cumulative ability of selection.

    Correct. Can you find the active information in Dawkin’s Weasel program?

    Why ID proponents still misrepresent the purpose of the program is unknown.

    I’m not misrepresenting it. I bring it up merely because it’s an easy algorithm to grasp. The active information, of course, is in the target string and the fitness function which is intentionally designed to hit the target in a small number of iterations, no matter what specific random numbers come up.

    V: Front-loaded and GAs are do a lot, but they can’t do everything.

    A: Given unlimited time and resources along with a variable environment what barrier would stop a GA from continuing to produce novelties?

    It’s impossible to answer the question without having detailed understanding of all the processes and information in the system at its initial condition.

    You’re basically making the same claim as “sure microevolution works but it can’t accumulate into macroevolution”. No one has ever shown any barrier to the accumulation of changes.

    Likewise, no one has even shown that micro-evolution can be extrapolated on a system level to produce novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans. It’s an open question.

  62. 62
    niwrad says:

    Adapa

    After all “Ada”, beyond to be the name of a famous computer programming language especially used in avionics, seems a fem name…

    “Meanwhile there’s still no barrier to the accumulation of GA or evolutionary changes.”

    These changes are zero from the point of view of organization. Otherwise GAs would be massively used in industry to create ex novo entire projects for free. Unfortunately, as Dembski puts it, “No free lunch”. See:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

  63. 63
    Adapa says:

    Vishnu

    I’m not misrepresenting it. I bring it up merely because it’s an easy algorithm to grasp. The active information, of course, is in the target string and the fitness function which is intentionally designed to hit the target in a small number of iterations, no matter what specific random numbers come up.

    It’s still not an evolution simulator so has no relevance to the “walking robot” example I provided.

    It’s impossible to answer the question without having detailed understanding of all the processes and information in the system at its initial condition

    Which means that claims actual evolutionary processes have barriers are specious at best.

    Likewise, no one has even shown that micro-evolution can be extrapolated on a system level to produce novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans. It’s an open question.
    Actually that’s not true. Science has quite a bit of evidence on all of those topics. Take body plan development for example. In the last two decades a whole new branch of science called evolutionary developmental biology (EvoDevo for short) has arisen. There is a ton of work on HOX genes and how they produce body plans. A good layman’s overview is the book Endless Forms Most Beautiful by biologist Sean Carroll.

  64. 64
    Andre says:

    Does Adapa believe what he says?

    Went it is fast its a beneficial trait, when its slow its a beneficial trait…..

    The fit survive and those who survive are fit…..

    Adapa some advice, a theory that explains everything, really explains nothing… Evolution materialist style is such a theory….

  65. 65
    Adapa says:

    niwrad

    After all “Ada”, beyond to be the name of a famous computer programming language especially used in avionics, seems a fem name…

    My user name isn’t “Ada”.

    “Meanwhile there’s still no barrier to the accumulation of GA or evolutionary changes.”

    These changes are zero from the point of view of organization

    If a GA or an actual evolutionary process integrates a new part or new feature to an existing system which they are empirically observed to do then it has created new organization by definition.

  66. 66
    M. Holcumbrink says:

    Adapa @ 60,

    I’m not suggesting that the diseases were not designed as-is, but that they were never meant to be inside the human body. Ebola apparently does not harm bats, but is deadly to humans. Likewise, screws are beneficial when used as fasteners, but are not that great of a lubricant. And in regards to there being two designers, that is at least plausible, though I like the idea of decay being the main cause of much evil in the world, as opposed to sabotage, which is certainly a very distinct possibility; like when you pour sugar in someone’s gas tank. Is it not the holy grail of Governments across the globe to design the perfect deadly pathogen? Or at least to weaponize existing pathogens commonly found in the soil? Design can be implemented with evil intent, friend. That should go without saying.

    I hope that’s clear enough.

  67. 67
    M. Holcumbrink says:

    Adapa @ 60,

    Regarding what Behe says in Edge of Evolution, you will need to cite a chapter and page number. It is my understanding that Behe believes chloroquine resistance in malaria is the effect of a random mutation, not that chloroquine resistance was designed.

  68. 68
    Adapa says:

    Andre

    Does Adapa believe what he says?

    Went it is fast its a beneficial trait, when its slow its a beneficial trait…..

    You still don’t understand the concept that beneficial is only in reference to the local environment. If you’re in a place where speed helps you either catch food or escape predators then speed is beneficial (gazelles, cheetahs). If you’re in an environment where speed isn’t a benefit but moving slow to conserve energy or avoid detection helps you survive then moving slow is better (tortoises).

    Basic concepts here. Basic concepts.

    The fit survive and those who survive are fit…..

    That isn’t the definition of reproductive fitness. Fitness is your probability of surviving and reproducing relative to your neighbors. Not all of the fittest survive, not all of the survivors are the most fit but on average across the population that is the outcome.

    Another basic concept.

  69. 69
    Adapa says:

    M. Holcumbrink

    Regarding what Behe says in Edge of Evolution, you will need to cite a chapter and page number. It is my understanding that Behe believes chloroquine resistance in malaria is the effect of a random mutation, not that chloroquine resistance was designed.

    Behe’s whole point in the book is that things like certain malarial drug resistance are beyond evolution’s capability to produce and therefore must have been designed. Hence the title “Edge of Evolution”.

  70. 70
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa: It’s still not an evolution simulator so has no relevance to the “walking robot” example I provided.

    I’ll have to see about that.

    At any rate, I disagree. The Weasel system certainly evolves, but in an intelligent way toward a certain goal… unless you have some specific, limited definition of what “evolve” means.

    Intelligently designed evolution is still evolution.

    V: It’s impossible to answer the question without having detailed understanding of all the processes and information in the system at its initial condition.

    A: Which means that claims actual [blind] evolutionary processes have barriers are specious at best.

    It’s an open question.

    Science has quite a bit of evidence on all of those topics. Take body plan development for example. In the last two decades a whole new branch of science called evolutionary developmental biology (EvoDevo for short) has arisen. There is a ton of work on HOX genes and how they produce body plans. A good layman’s overview is the book Endless Forms Most Beautiful by biologist Sean Carroll.

    I know all about it. I’ll have more to say about it. I’ll leave you with this for now, HOX genes appears to me to be part of an intelligently designed evolution. Not a blind evolutionarily system.

  71. 71
    niwrad says:

    Adapa #65

    If a GA or an actual evolutionary process integrates a new part or new feature to an existing system which they are empirically observed to do then it has created new organization by definition.

    If that new “part/feature” is really organization then it must be potentially contained in the GA just from the beginning, by means of what Dembski and Mark call “active information” frontloaded into the system. You cannot get something from nothing.

  72. 72
    M. Holcumbrink says:

    Adapa @ 69,

    You are mistaken. Behe believes the “evolutionary warfare” between the malarial parasite and humans is within the boundary of what he calls the edge of evolution, because it involves at most two coordinated point mutations. He actually suggests a maximum number of coordinated mutations that a Darwinian process would be able to stumble upon, which is based on empirical data (can’t remember what it is – something like 3 or 4 point mutations, but it’s in the single digits). Adapa, have you even read the book?

  73. 73
    Adapa says:

    niwrad

    If that new “part/feature” is really organization then it must be potentially contained in the GA just from the beginning, by means of what Dembski and Mark call “active information” frontloaded into the system. You cannot get something from nothing.

    Then demonstrate it, don’t just assert it. Use the ‘walking robots’ example and show me where any additional “active information” above and beyond evolutionary processes was introduced.

  74. 74
    Adapa says:

    M. Holcumbrink

    You are mistaken. Behe believes the “evolutionary warfare” between the malarial parasite and humans is within the boundary of what he calls the edge of evolution, because it involves at most two coordinated point mutations. He actually suggests a maximum number of coordinated mutations that a Darwinian process would be able to stumble upon, which is based on empirical data (can’t remember what it is – something like 3 or 4 point mutations, but it’s in the single digits).

    Sorry M. Holcumbrink if you did read the book you have completely misunderstood Behe’s argument for ID. When talking about the malaria’s becoming resistant to current drugs, resistance that required two mutations he says:

    Behe p.61: “No mutation that is of the same complexity as chloroquine resistance in malaria arose by Darwinian evolution in the line leading to humans in the past ten million years”

    and

    Behe p. 237: “In other words, more than two evolutionary steps would have to be skipped to achieve resistance, effectively ruling out Darwinian evolution.”

    Since you missed the whole point of the book I don’t know what else to say.

  75. 75
    computerist says:

    Adapa,

    Even if you assume an evolutionary simulation has no more intelligent input beyond the initial setup/algorithm, and the algorithm iteratively stumbles upon “solutions” that increase its fitness thereby producing “new” information, you have to ask yourself a few questions:
    1) in real life biological systems, probabilistically most random mutations would be considered errors and this would be systematically disastrous unless you have the error-detection and prevention mechanism in place, while for computer programs it’s merely a condition that is treated passively (ie: no harm done), one therefore need not worry in a computer simulation about increasing the iterative frequency – ie: accumulating errors until those errors turn out to be a “solution”.
    2) Many evolutionary algorithms/simulations work their way top-down/reverse ie: one would specify the input parameters considered the output, the algorithm then traverses context-specific “search space” until the results matches the input. The results could be a circuit diagram/schematic or a new antenna or whatever. Under this circumstance additional intelligent input was obviously required, had it not, you may have had ANY solution, and that ANY solution would likely be non-functional.

  76. 76
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa and the soft robots,

    I just watched the video. Clever, cute, and fun.

    However, the first question that popped in my mind was, “how long will those intelligent designers (those guys who wrote the program) have to wait until their program generates an “animal” that spouts wings and flies around?”

    Second question is: can I get a copy of their source code? (I’ll try.)

    Obviously this soft robot program required an immense number of prerequisite processes and information to get started. For example, computers, factories, transportation systems, electicity generators, etc, etc, that built them (again, by by intelligent designers). And let’s not forgot the the designers themselves, with their 100 trillion brain cells each, with dendrite connections into the 100 (or more) trillions, wired up in a unique way that allows them to design factories, computers, and cute little robot programs.

    Which leads to my third question: how much prerequisite programming and information of Earth’s animals was required by an intelligent source?

    Personally, I’m not very bowled over by this cute toy that some intelligent students designed and programmed. I’ve known long for a long time that humans can devise evolutionary algorithms, and self-modifying ones. (I use them myself.) But in every case, where the origin is not in dispute, it always comes from some very intelligent human. So congrats to them, they’ve demonstrated once again that humans can be quite clever, and write a program on a very sophisticated computer to simulate a very limited aspect of biological evolution. Whoopie!

    Now, if they can come up with with a program that, given what we know about physics and chemistry, simulates an environment that would lead to something as sophisticated as the DNA/ribosomic replicator (which would be quite enough), and further leading to something as sophisticated as a prokaryote, well, then I’d be knocked out. For sure.

  77. 77
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa and soft robots,

    I’ve got the source code and am looking it over now.

    So, now….

    Adapa: Chance alone can’t do it. Necessity (laws) alone can’t do it. But iterative processes that combine both chance and necessity with selection driven feedback do it quite nicely. Evolution is just such a process.

    Can you demonstrate that completely unguided evolution could have produce the grand sweep of life without intelligent front-loading of information and fitness functions?

    It’s been empirically observed to produce both increased complexity and organization in life forms.

    What increased “organization” are you referring to?

    There are numerous evolution simulating programs readily available where you can watch the combination of simple chance and laws produce all sorts of amazing and functional objects.

    All programmed by highly intelligent humans. Not an example of completely unguided evolution.

    Here is a good example where computer generated “soft robots” using just simple evolutionary processes evolved different ways to walk.

    See my previous post.

  78. 78
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa,

    I asked (myself), “how long will those intelligent designers (those guys who wrote the [soft robot] program) have to wait until their program generates an “animal” that sprouts wings and flies around?”

    Looking at their fitness functions, I can say the answer is “never.” There will be no soft flying robots in that simulator, unless, of course, the intelligent designers put fitness and animation function in there for “flying.”

    There is an “edge” to their evolution.

  79. 79
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa,

    Another thing you’re not going to see this soft robot program do is create something that looks like a conveyor belt that loops around the screen.

    It will never build anything that looks like a mousetrap.

    it will never build anything that has gears.

    More “edges” to its evolution.

    By the way, I found a section of code in one of their modules that says, “this functionality was never coded.”

    That kinda made me laugh a little with a slight ironical tone.

  80. 80
    Adapa says:

    Vishnu

    Can you demonstrate that completely unguided evolution could have produce the grand sweep of life without intelligent front-loading of information and fitness functions?

    The simulation demonstrates that unguided evolutionary processes produce morphological novelties. There was no front loading of the morphotypes; the ‘fitness function’ is just a simulation of environmental selection pressures. No smuggled in “active information”, no special tricks. Just plain vanilla evolutionary processes doing their thing.

    All programmed by highly intelligent humans. Not an example of completely unguided evolution.

    Don’t be dense. If you program a simple gravity simulator that doesn’t mean gravity is guided.

    This board needs a facepalm emoticon. I just love when ID-Creationists try to hand wave away computer simulation results because the computer was intelligently designed or programmed.

    I asked (myself), “how long will those intelligent designers (those guys who wrote the [soft robot] program) have to wait until their program generates an “animal” that sprouts wings and flies around?” Looking at their fitness functions, I can say the answer is “never.” There will be no soft flying robots in that simulator, unless, of course, the intelligent designers put fitness and animation function in there for “flying.”

    Another facepalm worthy statement. The program was looking at one small specific problem – ground locomotion – being solved by unguided evolution. It wasn’t trying to recreate the entire Earth biosphere. Good grief…

  81. 81
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa:

    Well, I see clearly how your thinking works now…

    The simulation demonstrates that unguided evolutionary processes produce morphological novelties.

    False. The system has many implicit guides built into it. That’s what a fitness function is. It’s a bias, a weight, an influence, to so a certain thing or go a certain way. That’s why, while you may get different permutations of these limited kinds of shapes, you are never going to get a “flying” creature with “wings” (flapping or otherwise), nor a conveyer belt traversing around the display, nor the face of the child. Their fitness functions simply do not have those sorts of rewards in place to produce such “objects.” Their fitness functions can only generate objects with a certain pre-defined limited set of properties.

    Moreover, the soft robot functions will never produce anything remotely as sophisticated as the functions themselves and the infrastructure it takes to run them.

    There was no front loading of the morphotypes;

    No front loading of specific ones, but it does have specifications and boundries for what can occur, given the fitness functions. Do you think just any shape or function can emerge out of that program?

    the ‘fitness function’ is just a simulation of environmental selection pressures. No smuggled in “active information”, no special tricks. Just plain vanilla evolutionary processes doing their thing.

    Bwahaha. “Just” he says. That just seems to roll off your fingertips. You’re dead wrong. I’ve been studying their source code. There are limits to the kind of shapes their code can produce. You will never see any of these shapes sprout “wings” and “fly” around the “room.”

    Or do you think otherwise?

    Do you think their soft robot program is capable of generating “robots” that sprout “wings” and “fly” around their “room”? Please give a detailed explanation for your answer one way or the other.

  82. 82
    Box says:

    Niwrad’s design arguments are very strong.
    These arguments from organization stem, I believe, from holism. Allow me to explain. When we observe an organism, we observe a whole. We do not observe a bag of chemicals, as materialism/Darwinism wants us to believe.

    What we see is obviously more than parts. But how does one scientifically prove this? Can we measure ‘wholeness’, or ‘unity’? Not directly.
    So, we have to focus on properties that result from wholeness, like ‘organization’. Look how it all the parts work together! How can we explain this from the parts themselves? Why would the parts do this? How would they do this? Where does the information in order to this come from?

    – Another property that results from wholeness is (Wagner’s) “robustness”. In this post I argue that it is a mistake, wrt Darwinism, to bring this up.

  83. 83
    Adapa says:

    Vishnu

    False. The system has many implicit guides built into it. That’s what a fitness function is. It’s a bias, a weight, an influence, to so a certain thing or go a certain way.

    The parameters put on the fitness function don’t have anything to do with the processes being modeled themselves being somehow guided or directed towards a specific goal. Same for the boundaries on the morphology. Those are merely limits because the program is running on a computer with finite resources solving a specific problem.

    You don’t seem to have the faintest clue about what the computer simulation is actually simulating. You seem to think because the program has built in boundaries that real world evolution must have built in boundaries too. To go back to the gravity example, if you write a gravity simulator and the software limits the height you can drop a simulated object from to 1000′ does that mean in real life gravity doesn’t work above 1000′?

    Your don’t seem like a dumb guy but man you’re making some really dumb arguments here.

  84. 84
    M. Holcumbrink says:

    Adapa @ 74,

    You have clearly not read the book. The quote from p. 61 is about humans, not malaria (it even says so in the quote!). And the quote from p. 237 is in regards to the edge of evolution, which is two point mutations. Anything more than two point mutations is too improbable. So the malarial parasite with two point mutations is sitting at the edge, yet is still possible through a Darwinian process (but barely), which is Behe’s main point of the book, and which is why he uses chloroquine resistance as an example. Without having to buy the book, Adapa, you can read Behe’s main premise here, which is the last of three articles about chloroquine resistance that Behe wrote himself, which links to the other two. And I’m pretty sure Behe knows what is in his own book.

    If you are an example of the type of individual that get banned from UD, it is no marvel why it happens. Your comments are abysmally ignorant at best, and brazen lies at worst. I will not waste any more of my time on you.

  85. 85
    Adapa says:

    M. Holcumbrink you have clearly not read the book. You don’t even understand Behe’s principle argument for ID it contains. You are an example of why IDers get laughed and then ignored at by the scientific community. I won’t waste any more time on your abysmal ignorance and brazen lies.

  86. 86
    Vishnu says:

    Vishu: False. The system has many implicit guides built into it. That’s what a fitness function is. It’s a bias, a weight, an influence, to so a certain thing or go a certain way.

    Adapa: The parameters put on the fitness function don’t have anything to do with the processes being modeled themselves being somehow guided or directed towards a specific goal. Same for the boundaries on the morphology.

    That’s ridiculous to the point on incredulity.

    Of course there is a specific goal that the programmers intend: to produce objects with certain properties. The produced objects will always have certain properties no matter how hard you stomp your feet. The algorithms and fitness functions will see to it. That’s their job.

    Again: You will never see one of these soft robots sprout “wings” and “fly” around their “room.”

    Please answer:

    Why not?

    Those are merely limits because the program is running on a computer with finite resources solving a specific problem.

    It’s more than that: the program is designed to produce object with certain properties. I’ll say it again, so you really, really get it:

    You will never, ever see any of those soft robots spout “wings” and “fly” around their “room.” Even if there was trillions of bytes and super computer power at their disposal. The algorithms and fitness functions cannot produce such objects as flapping wings.

    Or do you think they can? If so, please explain how in detail.

    By the way, have you reviewed their source code as I have been doing tonight?

    You don’t seem to have the faintest clue about what the computer simulation is actually simulating.

    I think I do.

    You seem to think because the program has built in boundaries that real world evolution must have built in boundaries too.

    I haven’t even begun to deal with real world evolution. You haven’t even come to grips with what this toy software is doing. So I have no desire to go down that rabbit trail with you yet.

    To go back to the gravity example, if you write a gravity simulator and the software limits the height you can drop a simulated object from to 1000? does that mean in real life gravity doesn’t work above 1000??

    No. But it does mean that the simulator is incomplete. Moreover, I am reasonably sure that a simulator that is programmed to simulate gravity (to whatever degree) would never end up having a baseball, stop midair, and fly back up into the “sky.”

    And I’ll ask you:

    Why not?

    The soft robot simulator is wildly incomplete when it comes to modeling real world evolution. Moreover, nobody I know denies that programmers can write software to mimic certain aspects of evolution. (Reread my post @ 76) But in all such cases, they are designed to evolve along certain lines and will produce objects with certain predetermined properties.

    <Your don’t seem like a dumb guy but man you’re making some really dumb arguments here.

    No, I think you are completely missing my point.

    Perhaps I am missing yours. If your point is that human engineers can write algorithms that mimic certain aspects of evolution, I agree, would never disagree, and probably nobody on UD would disagree. But it you are asserting there is something profound going on with the soft robots, when it comes to “unguided” evolution you are mistaken. There are all sorts of guides in place… put there by the intelligent designers.

  87. 87
    Adapa says:

    Here M. Holcumbrink, here’s another Behe quote for you:

    Behe p.237: “Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria or at least something very similar to it.

    Malaria, Ebola, the Bubonic Plague, AIDS, Smallpox…

    The Intelligent Designer sure hates humans, doesn’t he?

  88. 88
    Vishnu says:

    Now, Adapa,

    If these programmers could come up with with a program that, given what we know about physics and chemistry, simulates an environment that would lead to something as sophisticated as the DNA/ribosomic replicator (which would be a quite feat, indeed), and further leading to something as sophisticated as a prokaryote, well, then I’d be knocked out. For sure.

    Now I ask you: how much prerequisite programming and information would be required by an intelligent designer/programmer to produce Earth’s animals, if any? What would it take to get such a system even started on earth? Do you have the foggiest idea?

    Please explain in detail, thanks.

  89. 89
    Vishnu says:

    Adapa: The Intelligent Designer sure hates humans, doesn’t he?

    That’s a “religious” topic. At the very least, it deals with the intent of a possible designer.

    How do such “arguments” help your “side”?

  90. 90
    Adapa says:

    Vishnu

    Of course there is a specific goal that the programmers intend: to produce objects with certain properties. The produced objects will always have certain properties no matter how hard you stomp your feet. The algorithms and fitness functions will see to it. That’s their job.

    You’re still mistaking limits to the program with limits to the real world process being modeled. Mistaking the map for the territory. Lots of ID proponents make the same mistake.

    The soft robot simulator is wildly incomplete when it comes to modeling real world evolution

    The program was not written to model the whole biosphere, only one tiny aspect of it. Why do you keep demanding the program do something it was never written to do?

    There are all sorts of guides in place… put there by the intelligent designers.

    Still wrong. There are software limits to the size/functions of the morphospace being explored but no guides or pre-specified targets as to what may evolve in that space. The wildly different varieties of “walkers” it produced show that clearly. The process itself is unguided just like in the real world.

    Amazing that you seem incapable of understanding the difference.

  91. 91
    Adapa says:

    Vishnu

    That’s a “religious” topic. At the very least, it deals with the intent of a possible designer.

    I didn’t mention religion at all. The simple fact is there are lots of nasty things out there that can kill us so if they were designed as you claim that says lots about the priorities of the Designer(s).

  92. 92
    Adapa says:

    Vishnu

    Now I ask you: how much prerequisite programming and information would be required by an intelligent designer/programmer to produce Earth’s animals, if any? What would it take to get such a system even started on earth? Do you have the foggiest idea?.

    That’s a question for you, not me. I’m not the one claiming all of life is like a giant front-loaded and intelligently designed computer program with targeted goals. All evolution requires is imperfect self-replicators competing for resources and the unguided processes take over from there.

  93. 93

    Adapa:

    The Intelligent Designer sure hates humans, doesn’t he?

    That is both speciest, and sexist. Shame on you Adapa.

  94. 94
    Vishnu says:

    Vishnu: The soft robot simulator is wildly incomplete when it comes to modeling real world evolution

    Adapa: The program was not written to model the whole biosphere, only one tiny aspect of it. Why do you keep demanding the program do something it was never written to do?

    I didn’t say it was and I don’t demand that it does. You’re the one who brought up the robot program and is using it as an example of unguided evolution. That is what I am objecting to.

    A: Still wrong. There are software limits (set by whom?) to the size/functions of the morphospace (designed by whom?) being explored but no guides (except for fitness functions and other modeling limits) or pre-specified targets as to what may evolve in that space.

    There are no pre-specified particular objects (as acknowledged several posts ago). Of course not, they are feeding their algorithms and fitness functions with random input within limits. But all of the objects that do emerge will have pre-specified properties, specified by the designers. With absolutely no exceptions.

    You will never see “wings” sprout and watch those robots “fly” around the “room.”

    Again I ask: why not?

    You’re using the word “unguided” in a sense that is idiosyncratic.

    The wildly different varieties of “walkers” it produced show that clearly. The process itself is unguided just like in the real world.

    Except for the fact that all the walkers exhibit certain pre-defined properties. And none of them ever spout “wings” and “fly.” No exceptions.

    You’re confusion guidance with predictability. Of course, there is going to be unpredictable particular objects because random values are being utilitized. However, the randomness is being guided by the algorithms and fitness parameters. It is guided evolution by definition.

    Amazing that you seem incapable of understanding the difference.

    The problem is your idiosyncratic way of using “unguided.”

    Let me give you something to think about: ever been to Disneyland? They have these small motor cars you can ride in. They have steering wheels that actually work. To some degree you can steer the car to the right and to the left. But only within limits. The cars are on a track, and you cannot drive outside the boundries. If you traced the number of paths that a given car has made over its lifetime, assuming 1000 passengers a day, over 20 years, there would be 7,300,000 different paths taken by each car, as the drivers steered it around the track. Each path would be unpredictable, because of random input from the drivers, but the fitness of any given point is determined by the track.

    Are these 7,300,000 paths guided or unguided?

    Let me give you something else to think about: do you know how slot machines work? They use random number generators that are filtered thru a translation table that is weighted to different values, depending on how management wants to set the odds. The outcomes are not predictable in advance, but they will, over time, fall in line with predictable statistics determined by the translation table.

    Is the outcome of the slot machine guided or unguided?

    When you add fitness functions (of any sort) you have a guided system, by definition. That’s what “guided” means.

    And with that, good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

  95. 95
    Adapa says:

    Vishnu

    There are no pre-specified particular objects (as acknowledged several posts ago). Of course not, they are feeding their algorithms and fitness functions with random input within limits. But all of the objects that do emerge will have pre-specified properties, specified by the designers. With absolutely no exceptions.

    Pre-specified limits to the morphospace in the program. No guidance or direction to any particular point in that space.

    Tell me, what are the pre-specified limits to the morphospace that natural evolution can explore? The only ones I can think of are maximum and minimum size limitations dictated by the laws of physics and the strength of organic materials such as bone.

    You’re using the word “unguided” in a sense that is idiosyncratic.

    I’m using the word “unguided” in the scientific, evolutionary biology sense of the word. Not externally or internally directed towards any pre-specified path or goal beyond “survive long enough to reproduce”. If you’re using it in some arcane engineering sense then you need to learn the proper terminology.

    The path of a rock bouncing down a rugged hill is still unpredictable and unguided even though it’s being acted on by gravity which pulls it down.

    The evolutionary path of a population over time is still unpredictable and unguided even though it’s being acted on by environmental selection pressures.

    The evolutionary path of a simulated “walker” population over time is still unpredictable and unguided even though it’s being acted on by the programmed “fitness function” environmental selection pressures.

    Is the outcome of the slot machine guided or unguided?

    Neither. It’s stochastic.

    And with that, good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

    Thanks V, you too.

  96. 96
    Andre says:

    Adapa

    Unguided in a scientific sense? What is that? Last point, the program is designed to have a desired out come…….

    Walking robots……

  97. 97
    niwrad says:

    Box #82

    Niwrad’s design arguments are very strong.

    Thanks Box, obviously “my” arguments are not properly “mine”, rather of all IDers, note I started from a quote by Behe.

    I agree with all you said. The beautiful thing is that the ID arguments based on organization are not limited. In the sense that organization may implement countless levels of increased abstraction. In my post I listed 4 basic properties of organization, but I could well add:
    (5) Use of feedback loops
    (6) Implementation of error detection/repair mechanisms (see
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....r-systems/ )
    (7) Use of information processing sub-systems

    and so on…

    Note that this hierarchy of levels somehow was crossed in history by human technology (until a certain level), and yet technology goes on…
    Intelligent design is so rich because its Source is infinite.

  98. 98
    niwrad says:

    Adapa

    Malaria, Ebola, the Bubonic Plague, AIDS, Smallpox… The Intelligent Designer sure hates humans, doesn’t he?

    Poor Adapa. I know for experience that when an ID opponent plays the evil card it is because he feels that is his last resource. To oppose moral issues to ID arguments is like to oppose sentiments to mathematical theorems.

    All the ID commenters did a wonderful job to explain that evolutionary algorithms don’t create organization, that blind evolution doesn’t work, that information is not free, etc. I thank all them, they saved me a lot of work.

    Adapa, good news for you, you can stop trying to defend the indefensible in any moment. Choose you when you want. It’s easy, regedit your config file as I suggested you in #53, and join the ID armada. All will welcome you as an old friend. We need intelligent people. You have intelligence but unfortunately you use it in the wrong direction.

  99. 99
    Joe says:

    Let’s see, if an intelligent designer designs an algorithm to solve a problem, and it does so by design, Adapa thinks that supports unguided evolution?

    Are our opponents really that desperate?

  100. 100
    Me_Think says:

    niward,
    Who gets to decide if the artifact/process is designed or not – the layman or the scientist ? If you are hoping that scientists would use this, then you are mistaken, neither will any ID paper as CSI, dFSCI etc will be of no use. So we have one more method of detecting design that joins CSI and can’t be used.

  101. 101
    Adapa says:

    niwrad

    All the ID commenters did a wonderful job to explain that evolutionary algorithms don’t create organization, that blind evolution doesn’t work, that information is not free, etc. I thank all them, they saved me a lot of work.

    They didn’t explain it niwrad, the asserted it. The simple example of the walking robot program demonstrated the claims are wrong on all three accounts.

    You guys keep up the Happy Backslapping club, don’t mind that real science just laughs at your silly layman’s ideas then ignores them.

  102. 102
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    Malaria, Ebola, the Bubonic Plague, AIDS, Smallpox…
    The Intelligent Designer sure hates humans, doesn’t he?

    Apart from the fact that that is a Theological, not a scientific, argument against ID,,,, Malaria, Ebola, the Bubonic Plague, AIDS, and Smallpox actually present strong scientific evidence against neo-Darwinism as well as strong scientific evidence for the Judeo-Christian belief that we live in a fallen world.
    All of those diseases that were listed were, as far as I can tell, orginally benign and only recently became pathogenic, as would be held in the Judeo-Christian worldview as a starting presupposition,,

    Setting a Molecular Clock for Malaria Parasites – July 8, 2010
    Excerpt: The ancestors of humans acquired the parasite 2.5 million years ago.
    “Malaria parasites undoubtedly were relatively benign for most of that history (in humans), becoming a major disease only after the origins of agriculture and dense human populations,” said Ricklefs.
    http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_s....._id=117259

    Bats and Viruses: Friend or Foe? – 2013
    Viral RNA specific to both Ebola and Marburg has been identified in a number of fruit bat species from Gabon and Democratic Republic of Congo,,,
    ,,,bats generally harbour viruses with no clinical signs of disease.,,,
    it seems unlikely that bats’ ability to asymptomatically carry viruses is a recently acquired trait.,,,
    Do Viruses Benefit the Host?
    The fact that bats harbour such a large number of viruses poses an important question: do these viruses provide any benefit to the host?,,,
    It seems plausible that some of the viruses that bats harbour may have oncolytic properties that confer antitumor activity to the host.,,,
    http://www.plospathogens.org/a.....at.1003651

    Genetic study now shows that bubonic plague (Black Death) was caused by loss of genes and streamlining (genetic entropy) of a non-pathogenic bacteria:

    The independent evolution of harmful organisms from one bacterial family – April 21, 2014
    Excerpt: For the first time, researchers have studied the Black Death bacterium’s entire family tree to fully understand how some of the family members evolve to become harmful.,,
    “Before this study, there was uncertainty about what path these species took to become pathogenic: had they split from a shared common pathogenic ancestor? Or had they evolved independently”,,,
    By examining the whole genomes of both the pathogenic and non-pathogenic species, they were able to determine that many of the metabolic functions, lost by the pathogenic species, were ancestral. These functions were probably important for growth in a range of niches, and have been lost rather than gained in specific family lines in the Yersinia family.
    “We commonly think bacteria must gain genes to allow them to become pathogens. However, we now know that the loss of genes and the streamlining of the pathogen’s metabolic capabilities are key features in the evolution of these disease-causing bacteria,”
    http://phys.org/news/2014-04-p.....erial.html

    As well, HIV originated relatively recently and has a benign relationship in sooty mangabeys

    “the AIDS virus originated relatively recently, as a mutation from SIV, the simian immuno-deficiency virus. According to Wikipedia, this virus was also benign in its original form:.. Unlike HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections in humans, SIV infections in their natural hosts appear in many cases to be non-pathogenic. Extensive studies in sooty mangabeys have established that SIVsmm infection does not cause any disease in these animals, despite high levels of circulating virus.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-448372

    The origin and history of smallpox is much less well understood, but it appears that smallpox has also been benign for most of its history and is only recently pathogenic:

    On the origins of smallpox – where and when did variola virus emerge? – March 2011
    Excerpt: Smallpox-like skin lesions have been observed on Egyptian mummies dating from as far back as 1580 B.C yet there is no mention of the disease at all in the Old or New testaments nor even the Hippocratic texts. There was some mention of a smallpox-like disease in China and India as early as 1500 B.C but the only unmistakable description can be found from the 4th century A.D in China. Interestingly there was no mention of smallpox in the American continents nor in sub-Saharan Africa prior to European exploration.,,,
    A rodent origin of smallpox?
    We can investigate the origin of smallpox through the molecular characterisation of other poxviruses. Variolataterapox virus) and camelpox viruses and they all are more related to each other than to other poxviruses, such as monkeypox. When their genomes were compared to that of variola, a time since divergence was estimated at between 16,000 and 68,000 years ago
    http://ruleof6ix.fieldofscienc.....-when.html

    Of related interest,

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    That all those diseases are only recently pathogenic is a direct contradiction to the Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ mantra which would have those microbes, due to ‘survival of the fittest’ competition, being pathogenic all along.

    Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video
    Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62031.html

    i.e. Since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful reproduction be realistically ‘selected’ for? Any other function besides reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded as so much excess baggage since it would, sooner or later, slow down successful reproduction. But that is not what we find. Time after time We find organisms cooperating with each other in ways that have nothing to with their individual ‘fitness to reproduce’: The following Darwinian researchers were recently very ‘surprised’ when they found with microbes were cooperating instead of competing as Darwin had postulated:

    Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014
    Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.
    Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case.
    “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?”
    The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,,
    The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,,
    Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.,,
    “Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”
    http://www.livescience.com/452.....f-bts.html

  103. 103
    bornagain77 says:

    Also of note, although most people think bacteria and viruses are almost always harmful to humans, in reality we are very much dependent on bacteria and viruses for our survival:

    NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012
    Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival.
    http://www.nih.gov/news/health.....gri-13.htm

    We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013
    Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,,
    I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-02-b.....tml#ajTabs

    The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Falkowski 2008
    Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. –
    Paul G. Falkowski – Professor Geological Sciences – Rutgers
    http://www.genetics.iastate.edu/delong1.pdf

    (Bacteriophage) Viruses in the gut protect from infection – 20 May 2013
    Excerpt: Barr and his colleagues,, show that animal mucus — whether from humans, fish or corals — is loaded with bacteria-killing viruses called phages. These protect their hosts from infection by destroying incoming bacteria. In return, the phages are exposed to a steady torrent of microbes in which to reproduce. “It’s a unique form of symbiosis, between animals and viruses,” says Rotem Sorek, a microbial geneticist ,,
    “It’s groundbreaking,” adds Frederic Bushman, a microbiologist ,, “The idea that phage can be viewed as part of the innate immune system is original and exciting.
    http://www.nature.com/news/vir.....on-1.13023

    Also of related interest, a virus is far more complex than many people have ever imagined, as these following videos clearly point out:

    Virus – Assembly Of A Nano-Machine – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofd_lgEymto

    Bacteriophage T4 DNA Packing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNQQz0NGUNQ

    Here is a short video of the Bacteriophage ‘landing’ on a bacterium:

    Bacteriophage T4 – landing – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz9VGH8dwY

    The first thought I had when I first saw the bacteriophage virus is that it looks very similar to the lunar lander of the Apollo program. The comparison is not without merit considering some of the relative distances to be traveled and the virus must somehow possess, as of yet unelucidated, orientation, guidance, docking, unloading, loading, etc… mechanisms. And please remember this level of complexity exists in a world that is far too small to be seen with the naked eye.

    Moreover, although Darwinist often claim that a loving God would never allow such devastating diseases as ‘Malaria, Ebola, the Bubonic Plague, AIDS, and Smallpox’ to exist, the fact of the matter is that Darwinists, as much as they may think that they do possess the wisdom of God, DO NOT possess the infinite wisdom of God.

    Of note: the problem of evil, and our reaction to tragedy in our lives, was almost central to Dr. Neal’s following talk on her near death experience.
    At around the 15:00 – 17:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Neal spoke about how she, when in the presense of God and being able to see things from that much higher perspective, finally understood why God allows evil in the world and how our limited perspective severely clouds our judgments and our reactions to those tragedies in our lives. (The take home message is to trust God no matter what)

    Dr. Mary Neal’s Near-Death Experience – (Life review portion starts at the 13:00 minute mark) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=as6yslz-RDw#t=787

    Music and Verse:

    Kerrie Roberts- No Matter What **With Lyrics**
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA3MSqufJP4

    Isaiah 45:7
    I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

  104. 104
    Adapa says:

    Wouldn’t be a proper UD thread without spamagain77 projectile vomiting his same mindless C&Ped crap everywhere. 🙂

  105. 105
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Adapa #68

    If you’re in a place where speed helps you either catch food or escape predators then speed is beneficial (gazelles, cheetahs). If you’re in an environment where speed isn’t a benefit but moving slow to conserve energy or avoid detection helps you survive then moving slow is better (tortoises).

    The evolution similation:

    And importantly, they also programmed the system such that the faster bots would reproduce more.

    Adapa’s response:

    That’s exactly how it works in the real world of evolution.

    Supposedly, a multitude of random environmental changes (which the simulator ignored) caused humans to evolve mind/consciousness merely to be able to reproduce as well as apes (but not as well as bacteria).

    That’s evolutionary story-telling at its finest.

  106. 106
    Adapa says:

    Silver Asiatic

    Supposedly, a multitude of random environmental changes (which the simulator ignored) caused humans to evolve mind/consciousness merely to be able to reproduce as well as apes (but not as well as bacteria).

    That’s evolutionary story-telling at its finest.

    Actually that’s a woefully scientifically ignorant layman embarrassing himself at its finest.

    You’d think the ID proponents here would at least make a minimal attempt at learning what actual evolutionary theory says and how the mechanisms work. But no…

  107. 107
    bornagain77 says:

    Adapa, is ad hominem a scientific response in your book?,,, I showed your argument to be without scientific merit. The proper response would be to either counter it with evidence that shows my analysis to be wrong or to admit that you were wrong. You did neither but merely attacked me. Why is this? Don’t you care for the truth in the least?

  108. 108
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Box 82

    Good post.

    So, we have to focus on properties that result from wholeness, like ‘organization’. Look how it all the parts work together! How can we explain this from the parts themselves? Why would the parts do this? How would they do this? Where does the information in order to this come from?

    True. ID is forced to argue from a reductionist model, bottom-up from molecules because that’s the materialist model. In the end, from that view, you don’t arrive at a wholeness because organization is hierarchical. There is an organizing principle at work. This is true of information. The sender can create all kinds of symbols and codes, but if the receiver doesn’t know them, there’s no communication. More importantly, the receiver doesn’t exist merely because there is a sender. Both have to have a relationship.

    Even in the biosphere, we see a holistic view. There is cooperation, harmony and the “balance of nature”. Individual parts cannot create this. Random chance destroys the organization, not builts it. Supposedly, bacteria evolved to create the entire biosphere of plants, birds, fish, mammals — each creating their own organized families and structures and also living side-by-side with each other.

    niwrad did a great job in this OP — and the non-response from opponents makes that very clear.

  109. 109
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Adapa:

    That’s exactly how it works in the real world of evolution.

    Ok, I can see why you avoided this.

    It seems like you’ve been reduced to name calling “spamagain77 projectile vomiting his same mindless C&Ped crap” and calling people ignorant “a woefully scientifically ignorant layman”.

  110. 110
    Adapa says:

    Silver Asiatic

    It seems like you’ve been reduced to name calling “spamagain77 projectile vomiting his same mindless C&Ped crap” and calling people ignorant “a woefully scientifically ignorant layman”.

    Those are simply empirical observations SA. If you wanted to have a productive, real science discussion you’d learn about the science being discussed so you could make intelligent comments. But you don’t.

  111. 111
    Joe says:

    Adapa:

    You’d think the ID proponents here would at least make a minimal attempt at learning what actual evolutionary theory says and how the mechanisms work.

    No one can find this alleged evolutionary theory so no one knows what it actually says. So please stop vomiting your nonsense.

    If you wanted to have a productive, real science discussion you’d learn about the science being discussed so you could make intelligent comments.

    Nice projection from the willfully ignorant evo who thinks something that does something by design is actually unguided.

  112. 112
    bornagain77 says:

    Adapa, your comments were personal attacks, not scientific responses.

    Moreover, I’ve spent several years learning the ‘science’ of Darwinism and have come to the firm conclusion that it is a non-falsifiable pseudo-science instead of a rigid science.
    Due to it not having a clearly defined basis in math, no matter what empirical finding, Darwinists are always able to make up a ‘just so’ story as to why it does not falsify Darwinism. Dr. Hunter puts the non-falsifiable situation between Darwinism and the empirical evidence like this:

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter

    further notes:

    Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science:

    1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis
    2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis
    3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’
    4. Information is not reducible to a material basis ,,,

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit

  113. 113
    niwrad says:

    Silver Asiatic #108

    niwrad did a great job in this OP — and the non-response from opponents makes that very clear.

    Thanks Silver Asiatic. You are right, opponents prefer discussions in the probabilistic sections of UD where to obfuscate is easier. After all they cannot come here and say that when they open up the hood of a car and see the engine they do NOT “immediately realize that it was designed.”

  114. 114
    Me_Think says:

    niward @ 113
    Take two slide – one containing coral sand and the other protein complex. Ask a layman to peer through a microscope (let’s give him a cryo microscope for protein complex as optic microscope won’t help). Ask him which is designed.
    He will invariably answer coral sand is designed because it looks far more complex than protien – which looks like a simple tubular blob even with a cryo microscope.

  115. 115
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ Me Think- Good luck trying to prove your case.

  116. 116
    gmilling says:

    Joe: //”LoL! @ Me Think- Good luck trying to prove your case.//

    What’s to prove? It is self evident. To a layman, the coral sand appears to be far more complex than a glob of protein.

  117. 117
    Silver Asiatic says:

    You have to prove it for a layman (undefined). Why doesn’t it appear that way to everyone?

  118. 118
    Joe says:

    gmilling, It is self-evident that you have no idea what you are saying.

  119. 119
    Joe says:

    But anyway, if coral sand is “it’s sand made up of tiny bits of coral and other ocean animals such as foraminifera, molluscs, and crustaceans”, then yes, it would have CSI as all of those organisms have CSI, even though they are dead. Those organisms contain more than one protein…

  120. 120
    Me_Think says:

    Silver Asiatic @ 117
    What do you mean by everyone ? You mean to ask why scientists will not use this method to declare design ? Seriously ?

    Joe @ 119
    LOL ! Even ordinary sand looks complicated under microscope

  121. 121
    Joe says:

    Me Think- science doesn’t seem to have any methodology wrt unguided evolution. And ordinary sand looks complicated to you, perhaps. BTW the design inference requires more than mere complexity

  122. 122
    Silver Asiatic says:

    gmilling:
    To a layman, the coral sand appears to be far more complex than a glob of protein.

    Silver Asiatic:
    Why doesn’t it appear that way to everyone?

    Me_Think:
    What do you mean by everyone ? You mean to ask … ?

    No, I meant to ask what I actually asked.

    I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand the dialogue above.

    But most importantly, your hypothetical case tells me that you’re missing something about the ID inference. For one thing, you’re using mere complexity as a measure. A pile of rocks is more complex than a short sentence in English.

    But as you look at the OP, the key point that “dynamic systems show clear hallmarks of organization”, and this is a strong indicator of design.

    Chance is a “force of un-correlation”. The more random, the less organization. Chance actually destroys organization in systems, and measures are taken (even in living cells) to defeat and prevent chance occurrences.

    Natural laws do not create organization because they are not the principle of organization where they operate. They are a function of organization themselves.

    Ok, if you want to discuss this, I will help you. The previous paragraph about natural laws offer your best avenue for attack. I will point out that Objection #8 in the OP is where you’ll find your best chance:

    Objection #8: “Natural laws are able to produce ordered configurations”.
    Reply: Organization is fully different and far higher than simple order.

    I understand the reply and I offered my own, but much more could be said about this.

    To niwrad: I think your brief explanation here:

    The same, necessity (aka natural laws) per se cannot be the cause of organization because they don’t potentially contain it. Natural laws are relatively simple mathematical equations. These equations don’t implicitly contain the specifications of the least organized system, as the simple function y=x^2 doesn’t contain, say, Riemann’s zeta function, which is of a far higher order than the quadratic one.

    … was good, but I also think it needs a more complete treatment and greater clarity. I’d suggest more examples. Also, it might not be true that natural laws are mathematical equations, but rather they are consistent, predictable natural forces which are defined by mathematics.

    Why don’t these forces produce organization?
    What do you mean by organization being of a higher order than simple order?

    Those are better areas for discussion, in my opinion.

  123. 123
    Silver Asiatic says:

    I think points 1-4 in the OP tell us why organization is different than simple order, or the kind of consistent patterns that natural law produces.

    This one, most especially:

    (4) implementation of the communication paradigm between sub-systems.

    With communication or informational systems, there is are necessary relationships established. There are dependencies.

Leave a Reply