Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Zack Kopplin: There is No Scientific Evidence Against Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Zack Kopplin is the face of rational thought. Kopplin is a bright, energetic young man opposing the forces of anti intellectualism and ignorance that deny science and the fact of evolution, and seek to inject religious beliefs into the public schools. There’s only one problem. While we are delighted to see young people get involved in public policy issues, Kopplin is feverishly promoting precisely what he claims to be opposing.  Read more

Comments
If you were handed a brand new species by a lab you couldn’t introduce it.
If they handed me brand new wings I couldn't use them either.
It might end up being carrier for a virus that would kill off all humans from the planet.
It may end up saving us and the planet.
The only way to do it is to know absolutely what was going to happen before it happens.
No risk, no reward. Joe
Joe: There is no retreat. If you were handed a brand new species by a lab you couldn't introduce it. It might end up being carrier for a virus that would kill off all humans from the planet. The only way to do it is to know absolutely what was going to happen before it happens. There is no way out of that problem for biological ID. Humans can't do it. Carpathian
Keep retreating, Carpathian. Joe
Joe:
And yet we do biological design properly.
We have genetically tweaked some but we have never designed even the simplest of organisms. Carpathian
Carpathian:
I have mentioned that humans have introduced species into existing ecosystems with bad results.
And I have mentioned that humans have introduced species into existing ecosystems with good results.
It has to do with ID because biological ID is impossible if you introduce brand new organisms into existing ecosystems without knowing what the results would be beforehand.
That has nothing to do with ID and it is obviously false.
Humans can’t do biological ID properly because we have no foresight of the future.
And yet we do biological design properly. Joe
Joe:
Carpathian- What does that have to do with ID? And if you think that humans have never introduced a new species into a new ecosystem without adverse effects then you are deluded.
I have mentioned that humans have introduced species into existing ecosystems with bad results. It has to do with ID because biological ID is impossible if you introduce brand new organisms into existing ecosystems without knowing what the results would be beforehand. Humans can't do biological ID properly because we have no foresight of the future. Carpathian
int CountMaxCompares(char *Target, char *PopMember) { int MatchingCount, Position; MatchingCount, Position = 0; while( Target[Position] && PopMember[Position] ) There are some issues here. 1. What if the length of the target string is not the same as the length of the population member string? 2. How does the code determine that the end of the target string has been reached? 3. Your while loop will terminate the first time a zero is encountered in either the target or the population member. Is that what you designed it to do or was that just an oversight? Maybe you should get your code to compile and run before asking us to. ;) Hey, but thanks for trying. You're being a good sport. Mung
Carpathian- What does that have to do with ID? And if you think that humans have never introduced a new species into a new ecosystem without adverse effects then you are deluded. Joe
Joe: Then show me how to introduce a new organism into an ecosystem. Just come up with the steps and you'll see no one on Earth could do it. Carpathian
Carpathian:
Because biological ID is impossible without knowing virtually everything about an environment and exactly how it interacts before you tamper with it.
What does that have to do with ID? Please be specific. HINT- ID doesn't say anything about that- you made it up.
You need to be able to foresee the future and be infallible otherwise biological ID can’t work.
That is your opinion. And only an opinion. Joe
Joe:
Tell us why that is a requirement.
Because biological ID is impossible without knowing virtually everything about an environment and exactly how it interacts before you tamper with it. This is impossible for anything that is simply intelligent. You need to be able to foresee the future and be infallible otherwise biological ID can't work. Carpathian
Carpathian:
Show me the steps required to introduce a new successful predator to fit in the food chain between a lion and cheetah in Africa.
Tell us why that is a requirement. Tell us why you think your straw men mean something. Nice of you to keep ignoring what I post, though.
I can’t reach the conclusion of design if a particular design is impossible for any known designers.
More stupid talk. Joe
Silver Asiatic:
… as stated many times before ID is about observing evidence of design. You can (and have to) reach the conclusion that the thing was designed first, before determining the who and how.
I can't reach the conclusion of design if a particular design is impossible for any known designers. At one time, an very powerful entity may have created life, but the way life changes now, it seems to have not had or needed an intelligent agent. If I walk into an elementary school art class and see the Mona Lisa on an easel, I will not attribute that design to the children. I might test some adults and find none of them with technical and artistic talent to paint that picture. I might come to the conclusion though, that at one time there was such a talented individual. The same goes for ID. Carpathian
Joe: Show me the steps required to introduce a new successful predator to fit in the food chain between a lion and cheetah in Africa. What steps would you take to ensure that the new predator won't cause a drop in prey for the current predators. How many would you release initially to ensure a large enough gene pool yet small enough not to cause a sudden drop in prey populations? What diseases would they be vulnerable to? What will the climate be like in a hundred years in the future when you release the design? How do you recall mistakes in order to repair them? Will mistakes be made? If not, what powers does the designer possess in order to be infallible? Carpathian
Humans can’t do biological design, so what can? If we can’t find a candidate that fits the requirements of biological design, we can probably rule out ID.
SETI observes coded language emerging from the surface of a planet. Humans can't live on that planet. If we can't find a candidate that fits the requirements of that particular language, then we rule out intelligent design? ... as stated many times before ID is about observing evidence of design. You can (and have to) reach the conclusion that the thing was designed first, before determining the who and how. Silver Asiatic
Carpathian:
The designer is tightly coupled to design.
True
While I can’t design a house, an architect can.
I can design a house and I am not an architect. I designed and built the addition to our house.
Humans can’t do biological design, so what can?
Humans have done biological design.
If we can’t find a candidate that fits the requirements of biological design, we can probably rule out ID.
That's stupid talk. We haven't found the designers of Nan Madol- we don't know the techniques they used. All we have is Nan Madol and the knowledge that mother nature could never have produced it. Joe
Joe:
We can determine intelligent design BEFORE answering those questions. As a matter of fact we have to determine intelligent design is present before we even ask those questions. ID makes claims on the DESIGN. Those claims can and have been tested- and ID has passed those tests.
The designer is tightly coupled to design. While I can't design a house, an architect can. Humans can't do biological design, so what can? If we can't find a candidate that fits the requirements of biological design, we can probably rule out ID. Carpathian
Mung:
Carpathian, I realized I posted in the wrong thread. But still. Wasn’t your claim that the two modules didn’t need to be aware of each other?
Correct. Since the target string is supplied as a parameter, there is no target information within any module. The same goes for populations. You could have any size and the modules would simply look at all of them until it came across a null pointer which indicates an end to the array. Different population sizes will lead to different performance in the search. No code needs to be recompiled to change the target or population size. You could introduce a a means to change them on the fly in the middle of looking for a target and see how it changes to hunting for the new target.
c = CountMaxCompares(Target,Pop[x]);
The left string is a pointer to the target string, the right is a pointer to a member of an array of strings (members of a population). All it does is return a count of how many chars in each string are identical. It would look something like this: int CountMaxCompares(char *Target, char *PopMember) { int MatchingCount, Position; MatchingCount, Position = 0; while( Target[Position] && PopMember[Position] ) { if(Target[Position] == PopMember[Position] ) { MatchingCount++; } Position++; } return(MatchingCount); } Carpathian
Funny vel, you claim that ID would raise the bar higher IF unguided material processes were EVER observed to generate non-trivial functional information/complexity, such as a code or a molecular machine. Thus you tacitly admit that that particular threshold has never been met. But you pretend to know the future actions of prominent IDists IF that threshold were EVER met. Tell you what vel, instead of you playing a mind reader as to what Behe, Meyer, Dembski and other prominent IDists might do IF unguided material processes were EVER observed to generate non-trivial functional information/complexity, such as a code or a molecular machine, (much less life itself), why don't you just go ahead and be honest and admit that you don't have the evidence? Or is honesty towards the evidence just too painful a burden for you to bear? As to 'moving the goalposts' for falsification, it is the height of hypocrisy for a Darwinist, you, to accuse IDists of that. For instance on epigenetics, Dr. Hunter noted this blatant goal post shifting just the other day on the part of Darwinists:
Chuan He: Evolution Created Epigenetics - May 3, 2015 Excerpt: They never predicted it, then they denied it could be heritable, and then they denied it could cause lasting change. “It” in this case is epigenetics and in spite of being wrong, wrong and wrong again, and in spite of the fact that there is no scientific explanation for how epigenetics could have evolved, evolutionists nonetheless insist that it, in fact, must have evolved. Evolution loses every battle but claims to win the war. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/05/chuan-he-evolution-created-epigenetics.html
I would have never believed that supposed scientists (i.e. Darwinists) could ever be so dishonest towards the empirical evidence if I had not witnessed it for myself these past few years. verse and music:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. MercyMe - Flawless (Official Music Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjLlLPZderk
bornagain77
Carpathian: How do you track down and change all the instances of your designed object to make a change? I like that question. :) Mung
Carpathian, I realized I posted in the wrong thread. But still. Wasn't your claim that the two modules didn't need to be aware of each other? Don't worry, I'll track down what you wrote :) Wasn't your claim that you would not have to change either of them? So your oracle knows what the target is, and it knows how to compare your population members to the target. How does it know that? Which module contains your CountMaxCompares function? For me to compile your code and test it I need that function :) [Actual I have no plans to compile it. I'll will re-write it in another language.] Mung
vel:
Make a claim on how ,who,what or when.
We can determine intelligent design BEFORE answering those questions. As a matter of fact we have to determine intelligent design is present before we even ask those questions. ID makes claims on the DESIGN. Those claims can and have been tested- and ID has passed those tests. OTOH unguided evolution has nothing but morons attacking ID with their blissful ignorance. Joe
How do you track down and change all the instances of your designed object to make a change?
Ask Noah. ;) Joe
Carpathian': How do you track down and change all the instances of your designed object to make a change? Since the most likely unnamed designer is both omnipotent and omniscient anything is possible so ID does not worry about actual practical problems of design, finite knowledge ,finite abilities , finite resources. velikovskys
BA: You ask “How does that falsify ID?” A dumber question perhaps could not be asked. I bow to your expertise on dumb ID specifically claims that intelligence, and only intelligence, can generate non-trivial functional information. Actually it claims to be the best explanation, what exactly is the dividing line between trivial and non trivial functional information? Thus, if what are perceived to be unguided material processes were ever observed to create non-trivial information/complexity, such as a code or a molecular machine, then that would falsify ID in its primary claim! Nope, ID would merely raise the bar which separates trivial from non trivial, see Lenski . Second, it would not disprove the actual first claim of ID that life was designed, the metric of design would have to be changed,see csi You are welcome to try to falsify ID. Make a claim on how ,who,what or when. velikovskys
Silver Asiatic:
Every mutation in every organism affects the whole ecosystem. Every response to environmental change does the same. Every change in bacteria colonies does the same.
I agree and that is exactly why ID cannot be used by anyone without the ability to see the future. As for the 'Best' in the code, it refers to best comparison count of two strings. It has nothing to do with biological fitness. I could have called it "IndexOfHighestComparisonCount" and it would have made no difference to the program. Carpathian
Vel, as to: "The test to falsify ID is, and always has been, for unguided material processes to create non-trivial functional information." You ask "How does that falsify ID?" A dumber question perhaps could not be asked. ID specifically claims that intelligence, and only intelligence, can generate non-trivial functional information. Thus, if what are perceived to be unguided material processes were ever observed to create non-trivial information/complexity, such as a code or a molecular machine, then that would falsify ID in its primary claim! You are welcome to try to falsify ID. Many Darwinists have been trying for years to falsify that primary claim of ID and no example presented thus far by Darwinists, that I'm aware of, has withstood scrutiny.
It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_
It is interesting to note that neo-Darwinism has no such falsification threshold that Darwinists will accept as a falsification of their theory. In fact, No matter how vast the probabilities against Darwinism are shown to be, Darwinists never accept that Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate as to the generation of non-trivial functional information. Alvin Plantinga has a humorous video on the issue:
Darwinism Not Proved Completely Impossible Therefore It Must Be True According to Darwinists - Alvin Plantinga - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/
of related note
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge http://izquotes.com/quote/147518
Also of note: Regardless of whether or not Darwinists are willing to accept falsification of their theory, the fact of the matter is that the recent finding of 'non-local' quantum information in molecular biology has in fact, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, falsified the materialistic claim that information is 'emergent' from a material basis. Thus since neo-Darwinism is based on reductive materialistic premises, neo-Darwinism is empirically falsified in its claim that information emerges from, or is reducible to, a material basis. bornagain77
Carpathian
If you release a new organism into an environment it affects the whole ecosystem.
At least you understand how it is impossible to model unguided evolution. Every mutation in every organism affects the whole ecosystem. Every response to environmental change does the same. Every change in bacteria colonies does the same. But you also haven't explained how you can model unguided evolution without adding your own intelligence. In the code you provided you appear to have a variable that counts the "best" of something. That's a teleological term - indicating direction. Evolution doesn't have the "best" of anything. Even "the most capable of surviving and leaving the most viable offspring" is not measurable since that term is affected by changes in the entire biosphere. You'll necessarily add your own assumptions and intelligent design to the model. Silver Asiatic
velikovskys:
Carpathian’s question is seems to be how does the designer adapt his designs to a changing environment, human design degrades over time.
Exactly. How do you track down and change all the instances of your designed object to make a change? Carpathian
I was under the impression you had done some programming. I must have mistaken you for someone else. char *Environment(char *Target, char *Pop[]) { int x, c, Best, BestCount; BestCount, Best, x, c = 0; while( Pop[x]) { c = CountMaxCompares(Target,Pop[x]); if( c > BestCount ) { BestCount = c; Best = x; } x++; } return(Pop[Best]); } This the oracle. Notice the oracle does not contain within itself anything relating to the actual target. You could enter a DNA string and it would work. The return value points to the new population string to mutate throughout the population. I don't think I need to write anything else. I also don't know if it will run as is but maybe someone could try it if they feel like it. Carpathian
1 2

Leave a Reply