Since Frontloading is a Hot Topic Again…

_{Jonathan Bartlett

January 21, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

Since frontloading is becoming a hotter topic in ID circles, I thought I would repost a video covering, in just 5 minutes, a short explanation of what is being proposed, and some of the evidences for it. There are minimalist and maximalist views of frontloading, but I think all of them share a fascination with what we are finding out about mutations today.

Comments

Ogre:
Because, that presents ID with a serious problem. Not only can you not tell, even in theory, if any string of 500 bits is random or designed, you can’t even tell if it was designed to be random… or (for that matter) if it is random that just happens to look designed.
Man you are dense. If anyone comes across any string of numbers they will be sure some agency did it. As I said yto your challenge- you are sadly and pathetically mistaken about what ID claims. So perhaps you should put a sock in it and actually find out what intelligent design claims, because all you are doing is proving that you are a clueless fool.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Because, that presents ID with a serious problem. Not only can you not tell, even in theory, if any string of 500 bits is random or designed, you can't even tell if it was designed to be random... or (for that matter) if it is random that just happens to look designed. I recently posted a string that was more than 500 bits. I challenged any IDist to use ID principles to determine if it was designed (by me) or random caused by white noise generated at random.org. Only Joe even acknowledged the challenge and then just to say it was irrelevant to ID (notice there are no quotes Joe, it's called a paraphrase). But if the designer can make information that is random, then my challenge is directly relevant. If the principles of ID cannot distinguish, even in theory between pure randomness and design, then how in the world can it possibly distinguish between something designed by an intelligence and something designed by several hundred million years of evolution? In fact, it's easily arguable that the 'I' part of ID has nothing to do with anything. There is nothing in the ID literature that requires the 'I' part... well except for a bunch of people saying, "oh, it's really complex and we can only think of one thing that makes complexity" (which, BTW, is wrong). If you think of evolution (i.e. natural selection) as a designer, then most of what ID people say actually makes sense. Of course, it's already been explored scientifically, so they aren't saying anything new (not that they really are anyway). But all that is a side note to the real point. If ID cannot distinguish among design and random, then there isn't a chance that it can do the one that it MUST do, which is distinguish between intelligent design and evolution. Consider, scientists have been asking IDists for almost 2 decades for someone, anyone to calculate the CFI of an organism. Of course GEM gives us this cute primer on CFI (or whatever it is) that has a fundamental flaw in it. Because that primer (and every ID principle) requires something that doesn't actually happen in the real world... that is pure randomness in the construction of DAN, RNA, and proteins. It's a proven fact that RNAs as small as 5 nucleotides can catalyze metabolic reactions. It's a proven fact that random chemical reactions can generate RNAs up to 100 nucleotides long. It's also proven that RNAs can and do evolve, and much more than the 'upper bound' that Michael Behe claims is impossible. So just one of those things, which are provable in the literature, discredits ID claims. Not only can ID not do the one thing it must do to support itself, the claims it makes are provably wrong. ... Sorry, got distracted and long winded (reading too much GEM).OgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Ogre:
Joe, you just described why your version of evolution and why all the mathematical attacks on evolution are wrong.
Umm I described front-loading and I don't need mathematical attacks. Evidence is a great tool to use against your lame position.
Because you described one of the fundamental principles of evolution… that is, you can only build on what is present.
Exactly. And your position requires building on stuff that is only present in your imagination.
However, again, what you absolutely must show (and we all know that you can’t) is that the alleles for all 673 HLA-A varients already existed in the human population prior to them being expressed.
As I have already told you, that doesn't have anything to do with front-loading. IOW it is just another one of your many strawmen.
Can the designer create a string of 500 bits or more that is random?
Yes. But I bet you think you are onto something- and guess what? Dembski already covered it, as did Newton and Occam...Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Certainly. Why?johnnyb_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Quick question. Can the designer create a string of 500 bits or more that is random? BTW: Joe, you just described why your version of evolution and why all the mathematical attacks on evolution are wrong. Because you described one of the fundamental principles of evolution... that is, you can only build on what is present. It's a basic concept and explains why no competent scientist would ever expect dogs to give birth to cats and why crocoducks aren't expected to exist. However, again, what you absolutely must show (and we all know that you can't) is that the alleles for all 673 HLA-A varients already existed in the human population prior to them being expressed. But that's a whole nother animal. I'd really like an answer to the first question. Thanks.OgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Front-loading = stacking the deck (present) in favor of certain outcomes (future) (depending on the nudge), ie design for the future through the present.Joe_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply