Zack Kopplin: There is No Scientific Evidence Against Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter
May 5, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Joe: Biological mistakes are eliminated, duh. And only a fool thinks ID needs to know the future. The designer makes mistakes?velikovskys_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

BA: Carp and Vel: The test to falsify ID is, and always has been, for unguided material processes to create non-trivial functional information. How does that falsify ID? Both could be true. Carpathian's question is seems to be how does the designer adapt his designs to a changing environment, human design degrades over time. Of course without some knowledge of how the designer implements his design in the first place, this seems impossible.velikovskys_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Carpathian, are you going to show us your Wonderful Weasel program or not? The one you claim can accept any string and find it?Mung_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Well unguided evolution can't introduce a new organism into anything, so no worries.Joe_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

If you release a new organism into an environment it affects the whole ecosystem. If your new organism is a carrier of a virus that can be passed to humans, there could be an epidemic. Notice that the organism itself is successful but has a negative effect on other organisms. You have to be able to recall your mistake quickly or know what the future is going to be before you release your design.Carpathian_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

The same holds true for modeling.
With modeling you have to actually understand what it is you are modeling. With biological evolution we don't have such an understanding so we can't model it.Joe_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

How does it fail? Just because there are recalls doesn't mean it fails. Biological mistakes are eliminated, duh. And only a fool thinks ID needs to know the future.Joe_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Joe:
Intelligent Design is tested every day, and it passes those tests every day.
And it fails every day too. Look at all the car and truck recalls. How do we recall a ID biological mistake? It might be too late once discovered and that's why ID is so difficult to do by any entity that cannot foresee the future.Carpathian_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Mung:
You know what would require a truly intelligent designer? Coding a software program that models unguided evolution.
It sounds like you don't understand where the test equipment ends and the "device under test" begins. kairosfocus like to mention the noise of current flowing through a Zener diode as being random. Measuring that noise with an instrument does not mean that the current flow through the diode is no longer mostly random. Using "designed" instruments to measure "natural" objects does not mean that we can consider those "natural" objects to now be designed. The same holds true for modeling.Carpathian_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
It takes an intelligent designer to code a software program that models weather or planetary orbits too.
It is easy to model things that we understand. OTOH we don't even know what makes an organism what it is. And we have no idea how nor if a bacterial flagellum could evolve from a population that never had one. We couldn't model that if our lives depended on it.Joe_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic:
You might want to try to build the code without putting your own design-intelligence into it, and then let the software decide what to do after that.
That's what I intend on doing. I'll see how far purely random changes work and than I'll put in some feedback from the environment. This will be a proper controlled test, not a case of "let's change some random bits in the host OS and see what happens".Carpathian_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Mung: You know what would require a truly intelligent designer? Coding a software program that models unguided evolution. It takes an intelligent designer to code a software program that models weather or planetary orbits too.Zachriel_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

You know what would require a truly intelligent designer? Coding a software program that models unguided evolution.Mung_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

SA: You could try to build some software without intelligent design and see what you come up with. Carp: That is exactly what I intend on doing. I’m going to model code that will self-replicate and mutate both randomly and as a result of their own actions.
You might want to try to build the code without putting your own design-intelligence into it, and then let the software decide what to do after that. You're creating parameters based on assumptions of randomness and 'result of their own actions'. In the end, it's your decisions that are reflected in the software. You are the Intelligent Designer.Silver Asiatic_{May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Bright?from Louisiana? Just kidding. Does this dude have bio sci evidence FOR evolution? IF he IS bright then he should eh? I bet he does not. Just memorized things from high school. What do kids matter anyways. this dude is just famous because the establishment needed one to help fight creationism etc in that state. Its a fraud of the media. let the people decide what is taught in contentious issues in THEIR schools to THEIR kids in THEIR nation. Its freedom. Zack should like it or move to a nation more his style. Don't need him around eh.Robert Byers_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

Carp and Vel: The test to falsify ID is, and always has been, for unguided material processes to create non-trivial functional information. The main reasons why that will never happen are that unguided material processes do not have conscious awareness so as to take overall context of a particular situation into consideration. Nor do unguided material processes possess free will so as to implement desired intentions onto material substrates so as to arrange them for a desired purpose to accomplish a goal. The failure of computers to be able to take overall context into consideration is easily demonstrated with Google translate
What Is a Mind? More Hype from Big Data - Erik J. Larson - May 6, 2014 Excerpt: In 1979, University of Pittsburgh philosopher John Haugeland wrote an interesting article in the Journal of Philosophy, "Understanding Natural Language," about Artificial Intelligence. At that time, philosophy and AI were still paired, if uncomfortably. Haugeland's article is one of my all time favorite expositions of the deep mystery of how we interpret language. He gave a number of examples of sentences and longer narratives that, because of ambiguities at the lexical (word) level, he said required "holistic interpretation." That is, the ambiguities weren't resolvable except by taking a broader context into account. The words by themselves weren't enough. Well, I took the old 1979 examples Haugeland claimed were difficult for MT, and submitted them to Google Translate, as an informal "test" to see if his claims were still valid today.,,, ,,,Translation must account for context, so the fact that Google Translate generates the same phrase in radically different contexts is simply Haugeland's point about machine translation made afresh, in 2014. Erik J. Larson - Founder and CEO of a software company in Austin, Texas http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/what_is_a_mind085251.html
The fact that computers do not possess free will so as to implement desired intentions onto material substrates in order to accomplish a goal is reflected in the computers inability to create new axiomatic information:
Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information. http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf
The following site has some easy examples of the types of questions that would easily trip a computer up in a Turing test:
Artificial Intelligence or intelligent artifices? - June 3, 2013 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/artificial-intelligence-or-intelligent-artifices/
Since a computer does not possess free will so as to create new axiomatic information, nor does it possess conscious awareness so as to take overall context into consideration, then one of the simplest ways of defeating the Turing test is to tell, or to invent, a new joke:,,,
“(a computer) lacks the ability to distinguish between language and meta-language.,,, As known, jokes are difficult to understand and even more difficult to invent, given their subtle semantic traps and their complex linguistic squirms. The judge can reliably tell the human (from the computer)” Per niwrad https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/artificial-intelligence-or-intelligent-artifices/
Such as this joke:
Turing Test Extra Credit – Convince The Examiner That He’s The Computer – cartoon http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/turing_test.png
or this one
Turing Test - cartoon http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/turingTest.jpg
Here is a pertinent quote:
Can a Computer Think? - Michael Egnor - March 31, 2011 Excerpt: The Turing test isn't a test of a computer. Computers can't take tests, because computers can't think. The Turing test is a test of us. If a computer "passes" it, we fail it. We fail because of our hubris, a delusion that seems to be something original in us. The Turing test is a test of whether human beings have succumbed to the astonishingly naive hubris that we can create souls.,,, It's such irony that the first personal computer was an Apple. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/failing_the_turing_test045141.html
bornagain77_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Intelligent Design is tested every day, and it passes those tests every day.Joe_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Carpathian: What is wrong with testing ID? That would require something to test first.velikovskys_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Your failure is not understanding that ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive.Joe_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

bornagain77:
Carp, to put your failure in logic as simply as possible:
What failure in logic? I am agreeing with you that an extremely powerful entity is required as the designer and that humans do not possess the knowledge to do that safely. I intend on seeing how well an intelligence to the degree that humans possess can use ID. Both ID and evolution will be tested under the same conditions. What is wrong with testing ID?Carpathian_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Carp, to put your failure in logic as simply as possible:
Atheist's logic 101 - cartoon "If I can design life in my designed computer then I've proved no design was needed for life" http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/ee/v2/life-by-chance.jpg
If you finally understand your tremendous failure in logic, as a bonus, can you now prove to me that you are not merely a philosophical zombie?
Philosophical Zombies - cartoon http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11
bornagain77_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

What I’m going to try and do is measure the difference between ID and evolution.
Willfully ignorant it is, then.Joe_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

bornagain77:
Carp, how you can imagine something without foresight can design anything better that humans, or especially God, who both have foresight is beyond me.
But I agree with you and I've said it before. I believe ID cannot work for any beings without knowledge of the future. What I'm going to try and do is measure the difference between ID and evolution. In other words, at what rate can ID changes be made as opposed to evolution. With evolution I am restricted to small changes, while with ID I am restricted by my lack of knowledge of the future.Carpathian_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic:
You could try to build some software without intelligent design and see what you come up with.
That is exactly what I intend on doing. I'm going to model code that will self-replicate and mutate both randomly and as a result of their own actions.Carpathian_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Carp, how you can imagine something that is completely without foresight can design anything better than humans, or especially God, who both have foresight, is beyond me. Especially since you have ZERO empirical evidence that what you propose for unguided material processes is even remotely possible in reality. But then again, I've lately come to realize that empirical evidence is of little concern to the committed Darwinist. It seems as if a committed Darwinist can simply imagine something to be possible for unguided material processes then that imagination, no matter how far fetched, becomes a surety for him that no amount of contrary evidence or reasoning, no matter how sound, will ever convince him otherwise. of semi related interest. Here is a neat quote from Darwin I found yesterday: “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Charles Darwin – On the Origin Of Species – page 433 https://books.google.com/books?id=eTfRotZTXI0C&pg=PA433&lpg=PA433&dq#v=onepage&q&f=falsebornagain77_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

You could try to build some software without intelligent design and see what you come up with.Silver Asiatic_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Evolution is guided in the sense that it cannot serve up a mutation that will not survive in its ecosystem. That's why change is slow. I am going through this process now as I try and put together a system that will allow me to make changes for a future I can't know. The actual task of ID has become harder than evolution. With evolution, I simply make thousands of incredibly small changes and see what survives. With ID, I have to make huge DNA changes which require a lot of planning and foreknowledge.Carpathian_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Carpathian, it just happened, that's all, is not a scientific theory. Intelligently designed scientific experiments with their intelligently designed environments have repeatedly demonstrated that evolution is unguided.Mung_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Carp, 'design constraints' are inevitable in any system that is designed. Imagining that unguided material processes are up to the task of designing entire ecosystems that are well balanced in regards to multiple competing 'feedback' factors, when they cannot even design a single molecular machine is, to put it mildly, delusional.bornagain77_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: I believe that "changing" an organism is extremely difficult regardless of how it is done. The problem is at a higher level than the genetic code. A complete organism with new or changed functionality may harm the environment it's dropped into. That is where the negative feedback from the environment becomes the prime limiter of change. If a designer introduces a new predator into an ecosystem, what happens to the food chain and the success of prey to reproduce? Because of this, ID is severely limited in the speed in which it can make changes. Whether ID is slower or faster than evolution is something to be studied.Carpathian_{May 5, 2015
May
05
May
5
05
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply