It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Testing Intelligent Design Theory?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I will address this specific reference in some detail later. However I wanted to take a moment to address your closing paragraph.


Originally posted by melatonin
I know at times it seems we are talking past each other here, I'm sorry that is the case,

I'm not sure what you mean by 'talking past each other' I've definitely tried to address every point you've brought up. If there's something I've missed, please point it out to me.


I just believe all your experiments will ever do is show that this looks designed,

Well then I am doing okay, because that's what the experiments were conceived to do. However you did leave out another option. My experiment can falsify the idea that a system need to have been designed.



we can never test for an ID mechanism,

Did I say this? I may have. I'm not fond of 'never' statements generally. I suppose it's conceivable that you test for an ID mechanism if you were to find some ancient DNA synthesizer buried in precambrian rock or something else equally as unlikely. Let me rephrase: I personally cannot currently conceive of a method for testing for and ID mechanism, but maybe someone else can... got to consider all possibilities, right?


it will always be description. It really should be conceived as "the principle of irreducible complexity" not a hypothesis of ID, because as you admit, it is untestable.

Ummm... I'm not comfortable with this statement as it stands. I would move to clarify by stating I acknowledge that I believe testing for the mechanism of ID to not be possible. But I fully believe that IDT is capable of operating with the framework of the scientific method, including hypothesis formation, testability, falsifiability, and some degree of predictability.


Science will not collapse because of it, but I do wonder of the motivations of many of its proponents.

Why? What seems disingenuous about Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Wells, etc? What leads you to believe that their motivations could be nefarious?


A while back, a long-term member of an ID organisation, who has a faith and is a scientist, left an ID organisation because he deemed they were not interested in science.

Who? Which organization?


Behe has previously claimed the lack of evidence for whale evolution, is he really that certian of NS or is it a smokescreen.

Yes, we've discussed this mistake that Behe made like 12 years ago in a previous post. I've got a long list a F*&# Ups that happened a lot sooner than 12 years ago... does that somehow make my motivations questionable?

Ummm... pretty much NOBODY denies that Natural selection occurs. Not even the most die hard creationists deny NS exists. It has to. It's a description of an observation... it can't not exist. So I don't believe Behe's support of NS is any type of a smokescreen. No IDTist has an issue with NS. I can't imagine why you keep bringing it up.


What is this really all about? In the scientific community, it will force many researchers to focus on proposed IC systems taking resources away from other valid questions;

Oh, Okay, I see. Somehow now the validity of people's research programs is decided by individuals in anonymous on line forums. What's a valid research program? Why is researching the 'RNA world' hypothesis a more noble pursuit than pursuing a hypothesis from design? That's completely subjective. Worthy research program is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I've got a whole list of research that I think is completely frivolous. Furthermore, I would argue that objectively the inherent worth of ANY origins science is pretty much equal. Leslie Orgel's research program certainly pulls money away from such 'worthwhile' pursuits as AIDS research. Stuart Kaufmann is pulling money away from disease research as well. Really, based on this logic pretty much the entire field of origins science should be eliminated. Perhaps we should assemble a list of frivolous scientific pursuits and send it to the funding agencies.




posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
so you think solving the issue of malaria is more important than showing that flagella may be designed? There is research that assesses the conditions under which cornflakes go soggy and why they do this (ID approacch would to just test the sogginess without any attempt at why this is so) - I would question if this is more important than malaria. But who am I to question this, I don't give grant money, but I do think helping millions of people survive is more important than why a cornflake goes soggy, lol. Is the sogginess of cornflakes as valuable as solving the malaria issue?

I have already stated how we would falsify NS. For instance at the time of darwin, we would expect by NS that a chimp is closely related to a human, we couldn't explain why but by pure morphology. Fossil evidence was being collected, say we found evidence of human fossils in pre-cambrian strata, this would be completely out of the ordinary for NS, we doubt the finding, proposing some other possibility. We find many more this would be very hard for NS to explain. Another....fossil evidence has shown no evidence of humans in PC strata, but eventually we develop DNA technology - we find that in matter of fact we are more related to a worm than a chimp - NS would have a lot of difficulty explaining this. Now, if we had evidence of both situations, NS woulod be blown out the water never to reappear. Although, I would suggest one of these would be sufficient. This is the beauty of NS, it had independent evidence, the DNA, species we previously thought to be related are no longer and have moved elsewhere. we have morphology, physical fossils, DNA evidence etc etc...Admittedly the are all based on relatedness, but the weight of evidence and a mechanism outweighs any doubts.

ID can never do this (unless, as you suggest, we find some DNA production device, lol - good concept, fits with my extrapolations of where this all ends up), all it will say is this system looks designed, but what does that show other than "some systems have the appearance of design"? - we already know this, as you state even Dawkins admits this. Problem is, appearances can be deceiving, just like the blood coag. cascade. So you are testing what we know by describing and assessing that other approaches do not work. What we need to do is show why, and how, it was designed - isn't that what's science is all about?

So you accept that primates are related, we currently suggest this is due to NS. OK, now domestic dogs, they are related, however, they are intelligent selection. How do we tell these apart?

My futuristic idea - how would we tell NS life on this planet from ID life on the planet we seeded?

So you suggest we have a series of experiments all assessing possible mechanisms by which flagella would evolve. Isn't NDT research doing that anyway? What is the aim of this research from an ID viewpoint? To show that a system we think according to ID principals is designed, may be designed? You are still, from an ID position, aiming for either negative results (which is what you say is no results - I would question that it is always no results, it happens a lot in replication of new theories - but generally the lack of replication proposes an alternative mechanism, your mechanism is ID did it), or you are actually testing from an NDT viewpoint and are doing what NDT'ers do anyway.
-
How do we really tell any naturally occuring object from a non-naturally occuring object?

If I have chemical X and we think it is designed, how do we test it? Is the mechanism just too complicated to describe with current knowledge, or was it ID?


Edit: LCkob, if you want pm me with an e-mail contact, I can't pm until I have 20 posts


[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Here is your defector, OK he was from the DI, but he seems convinced of the ID movements intentions...




Bob Davidson is a scientist — a doctor, and for 28 years a nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school.

He's also a devout Christian who believes we're here because of God. It was these twin devotions to science and religion that first attracted him to Seattle's Discovery Institute. That's the think tank that this summer has pushed "intelligent design" — a replacement theory for evolution — all the way to the lips of President Bush and into the national conversation.

Davidson says he was seeking a place where people "believe in a Creator and also believe in science.

"I thought it was refreshing," he says.

Not anymore. He's concluded the institute is an affront to both science and religion.

"When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."

I got Davidson's name off a list of 400 people with scientific degrees, provided by the Discovery Institute, who are said to doubt the "central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution." Davidson, at 78 a UW professor emeritus, says he shouldn't be on the list because he believes "the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

He's only one scientist, one opinion in our ongoing debate about evolution and faith.

But I bring you Davidson's views because I suspect he is a bellwether for the Discovery Institute and intelligent design, as more scientists learn about them. He was attracted to an institute that embraced both science and religion, yet he found its critique of existing science wrong and its new theory empty.




He was shocked, he says, when he saw the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis."

"It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," he says. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it."

Davidson began to believe the institute is an "elaborate, clever marketing program" to tear down evolution for religious reasons. He read its writings on intelligent design — the notion that some of life is so complex it must have been designed — and found them lacking in scientific merit.

Then Davidson, who attends First Presbyterian Church in Bellevue, heard a sermon in which the pastor argued it's foolish to try to use science to understand God.

Science is about measuring things, and God is immeasurable, the pastor said.

"It just clicked with me that this whole movement is wrongheaded on all counts," Davidson said. "It's a misuse of science, and a misuse of religion.

"Why can't we just keep the two separate?"

That's a good question, especially coming from someone who believes strongly in both.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...




Also, just a quick issue with something you said before. Is all biological behavior ID'ed?



[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
maybe we should put religion and science in time out at opposite corners of the room until they can learn to play nice.

if you didn't realize that ID theory was there to start a brawl between science and religion before reading this thread...

...yeah



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
melatonin... thanks for your thought provoking posts
am having a blast!!


Originally posted by melatonin
so you think solving the issue of malaria is more important than showing that flagella may be designed?

Absolutely. That's why origins science is my hobby, not my business.


There is research that assesses the conditions under which cornflakes go soggy and why they do this (ID approacch would to just test the sogginess without any attempt at why this is so) - I would question if this is more important than malaria. But who am I to question this, I don't give grant money, but I do think helping millions of people survive is more important than why a cornflake goes soggy, lol. Is the sogginess of cornflakes as valuable as solving the malaria issue?

You know... I heard about this corn flakes stuff... isn't that done by food scientists behind the doors or places like Kelloggs.. What the hell is that shellaque that they put on Waffle Crisp anyway? That stuff is impenetratable by milk.

But I do agree... who am I to question this... which is why I support the 'right' for lack of a better word, of IDTists to test their theories provide they fall within the realm of methodological naturalism.


I have already stated how we would falsify NS. For instance at the time of darwin, we would expect by NS that a chimp is closely related to a human, we couldn't explain why but by pure morphology. Fossil evidence was being collected, say we found evidence of human fossils in pre-cambrian strata, this would be completely out of the ordinary for NS, we doubt the finding, proposing some other possibility. We find many more this would be very hard for NS to explain. Another....fossil evidence has shown no evidence of humans in PC strata, but eventually we develop DNA technology - we find that in matter of fact we are more related to a worm than a chimp - NS would have a lot of difficulty explaining this. Now, if we had evidence of both situations, NS woulod be blown out the water never to reappear. Although, I would suggest one of these would be sufficient. This is the beauty of NS, it had independent evidence, the DNA, species we previously thought to be related are no longer and have moved elsewhere. we have morphology, physical fossils, DNA evidence etc etc...Admittedly the are all based on relatedness, but the weight of evidence and a mechanism outweighs any doubts.
Darwinian theory was developed in conjunction with the observed fossil strata, etc. The theory was authored with these observances in mind. The theory fits with those facts because it was designed around them. Now... I am not saying that it isn't a good explanation, but what I am saying is that you're simply not going to observe these things. The DNA evidence you propose would not support theories of common descent, but that isn't the case. As I mentioned before, one certainly can infer from common descent from DNA evidence. Other inferences are equally reasonable though.


ID can never do this (unless, as you suggest, we find some DNA production device, lol - good concept, fits with my extrapolations of where this all ends up), all it will say is this system looks designed, but what does that show other than "some systems have the appearance of design"?

I've been thinking a great deal about this since you and I have started discussing this. I've changed my mind about IDT not being able to reveal anything about mechanism. I think hypotheses tested from a position of design are perfectly capable of revealing mechanistic information about allegedly IC sytems, not about the designer per se, but really what origins science is interested in is how things came to be so mechanistic info about a system is a positive thing, irrespective of the basis of hypothesis.

Take my example before that tests the relatedness of functionality, gene homology and generation times. Suppose a bunch of allegedly IC systems were studied, and suddenly it appeared that these IC papers appeared to be converging on a some specific numbers. For example suppose that there was an absolute relationship between a minimal enzyme function and a certain degree of genetic homology, coupled with a certain amount of time in culture or other selective criteria. Perhaps it just so happens that minimal functional complexes can be obtained via this particular combination of genetic homologies and selective pressure. In short, unrelated components, that wouldn't have previously been even considered related could be now obvious candidates. I'm doing a bad job explaining this because I think in terms of 'data' not necessarily in terms of words. But I now actually believe that IDT hypotheses are in fact capable of yielding mechanistic information about the origin of the system in question, which is really important. We are interested in the system in question, and not the designer.

Besides Darwin didn't understand anything about the mechanism of heredity when he wrote the theory. His theory had nothing to do with discovering the mechanism by which variation occurs. It was only later that this mechanism was in place. Good thing people didn't just dismiss that as being intractable and not worthy, huh?


we already know this, as you state even Dawkins admits this. Problem is, appearances can be deceiving, just like the blood coag. cascade.

Yep... that's why you test.


So you are testing what we know by describing and assessing that other approaches do not work. What we need to do is show why, and how, it was designed - isn't that what's science is all about?

Science is never about why.

One more time for clarity:

Science is never about why.

Science is generally about how... I am now further convinced that IDT can contribute to this how, again, not about the designer, but about the origins of the system in question... which is really what we're interested in.


So you accept that primates are related, we currently suggest this is due to NS. OK, now domestic dogs, they are related, however, they are intelligent selection. How do we tell these apart?

How is this even relevant? Selection is selection; natural selection and intelligent selection are different only in the basis of their selective pressure.

But if you absolutely require an answer, I would say you could infer intelligent selection from something like a bulldog. Bulldogs of course not being able to breathe properly due to their shortened respiratory tract, and requiring birth by C-section, certainly argue against natural selection... kind of argues against 'intelligen' selection as well, but I suppose that's a personal opinion.


So you suggest we have a series of experiments all assessing possible mechanisms by which flagella would evolve. Isn't NDT research doing that anyway?

It's not 'assessing possible mechanisms by which flagella would evolve.' Those mechanisms are clearly defined by NDT. It's testing for the inference of design based on a combination of genetic homology, enzyme functionality, and genetic change. NDTists don't base any of their hypotheses from design.


What is the aim of this research from an ID viewpoint? To show that a system we think according to ID principals is designed, may be designed? You are still, from an ID position, aiming for either negative results (which is what you say is no results - I would question that it is always no results,

I very clearly stated in my other post that it was not 'negative results.' In fact, I very specifically laid out ways in which the measurements could be quantified. To say it would yield negative results seems like deliberate obfuscation of the issues at hand. Please correct me if I am wrong.


it happens a lot in replication of new theories - but generally the lack of replication proposes an alternative mechanism, your mechanism is ID did it), or you are actually testing from an NDT viewpoint and are doing what NDT'ers do anyway.

Again, please see my above rebuttal re: Darwin and his mechanism. When this theory was first conceptualized, the mechanism of heredity wasn't known. The theory persisted, and later other branches of study were able to fill in those gaps.


How do we really tell any naturally occuring object from a non-naturally occuring object?

Inference based on experience.


If I have chemical X and we think it is designed, how do we test it? Is the mechanism just too complicated to describe with current knowledge, or was it ID?

The question is totally irrelevant, and seemingly just more deliberate obfuscation of the real issues at hand. The question is irrelevant because, chemicals are not assumed to undergo natural selection, and evolve from simpler components in a process of continuous refinement and improvement. There are no chemicals that exist that defy current knowledge. If you've got one, let's talk about it.

There are however biological systems that defy current knowledge. IDT attempts to address those.


Here is your defector, OK he was from the DI, but he seems convinced of the ID movements intentions...

Thanks for the follow up



Bob Davidson is a scientist — a doctor, and for 28 years a nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school.

Not anymore. He's concluded the institute is an affront to both science and religion.

"When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."

Well, he's certainly entitled to his opinion, and is free to change his mind.


I got Davidson's name off a list of 400 people with scientific degrees, provided by the Discovery Institute, who are said to doubt the "central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution."

They've asked me to sign that list. I haven't for a couple of reasons... mostly because I don't want my name and scientific reputation exploited for the DI's purposes.

I can't say I agree with DI on all issues either. There are some things in the 'Wedge' document that don't sit well with me personally, but I honestly try to be as objective as possible about these things, and I don't think their philosophy is a danger to science or anything like that.


Davidson, at 78 a UW professor emeritus, says he shouldn't be on the list because he believes "the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

So why did he sign this list in the first place? He believes the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming but went ahead and signed a document that said he "doubts the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution." Ummm... okay.


But I bring you Davidson's views because I suspect he is a bellwether for the Discovery Institute and intelligent design, as more scientists learn about them. He was attracted to an institute that embraced both science and religion, yet he found its critique of existing science wrong and its new theory empty.
Well I did ask for the info too.... Me personally... I don't think anyone would describe me as religious.


He was shocked, he says, when he saw the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis."

Okay... now it sounds like this guy did pretty much ZERO research before signing on to the DI. It's not like they hide this info. Too bad for Bob Davidson... I guess he'll learn to actually read about which organizations he chooses to support.


"It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," he says. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it."

What's laughable is that he claims to believe this but went ahead and signed the document and joined the DI. What's the mechanism for this? Sounds like he was totally ignorant about what he was getting into, he was having an Alzheimer's moment, or he's under some sort of pressure to renounce the DI. I'll leave the speculation to you.



Also, just a quick issue with something you said before. Is all biological behavior ID'ed?

Ummm... I don't think I ever said all biological behavior is IDed. I rarely use all or never arguments. So... I would say know all biological behavior is not IDed.

I think there are many examples of unintelligent biological behavior.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Iffin I done told Ya oncet; I done told Ya a thousand times,
ID ain't no theory. ID is not a theory. ID never was a theory. ID never will be a theory.
Oh! Did I mention that ID ain't no theory? Well, if I didn't, let me say here that ID is no theory.
I even suggested that you find out why ID is NO theory (it's really simple) so that in future, when you're waxing eloquently on your religious assumptions...you won't sound as if you don't know the definition of...theory!
Just a thought.
skep



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
On the defector issue, it seems the DI institute has become more extreme creationist over time, apparently their mission statement is more about creation than ID, than it was in the past. Even Dembski said at a recent conference that ID offers a biblical alternative to darwinian evolution, he makes these crazy statements all the time, "ToE is in crises" he believes...

I do like soggy cornflakes, so from a purely selfish POV, I would like to know how to ensure that, lol.

OK, on the issues you raise, I agree that you can test for IC by the absence of the development of a system under experimentation, for the conditions used. The basis is that we think these proteins (or whatever) will recombine to produce an analagous system to the IC system. Which is really testing NDT, I feel this is the case, but by default it also tests IC. As I said though, you cannot really predict IC, you can observe and state "this system looks IC" - But overall you are still not testing IDH because you can't test it - by extension if an IC system is truly ID, you can't determine if it actually is, you can say "this still looks IC, studies have yet to develop it under certain conditions, but we accept other mechanisms are possible". But you are really testing an NDT hypothesis and trying to falsify it (as you say yourself, you would account for NDT explanations and test them - I just wonder why you don't approach it from NDT anyway, you get the same results, but you just seem to want to hold the ID banner).

Now, as for the examples I suggested, it is correct that the only way would be by historical evidence, you could look at a bulldog and surmise "why the hell does this dog have these problems" - but this was a product of intelligence and for a less obvious dog you couldn't, so you can't tell between IS and NS. If ID existed, there are many processes/anatomy that would be designed much better. if anything the IDH should be 'silly' design hypothesis. I could give examples (the biochemical pathways would fit for instance) of anatomy, but I'm sure you know of many. ToE would predict this problem, there is no teleology or purpose other than to survive. The point of the "chemical X" question, is because if you cannot really tell if a simple molecule is ID, how can you tell a complex biological process is? As for the futuristic suggestion, you could not tell between NS on our planet and seeded ID on an alien planet, so again we could not see design (except for the historical evidence). If you are basing your inference on experience and one proposed IC system is definitely not IC, what does that tell you about your experience and inference? I would say, you cannot infer from observation, experience, and supposed probability an IC system.

The reason I mention biological behaviour is because you said dreams are obviously due to intelligence. Well, I don't know if that is the case really, we do not know their purpose/function at all, there a many competing theories, from consolidation of memories to "noise in the machine", or those crazy freudian interpretations. We don't design a dream (I know you didn't imply this), it just happens. In Psychology, schizophrenia has no obvious function at all (but we do have a tentative ToE explanation - it just seems to do those sort of things, god knows how ID would...oh yes, he would actually, lol), neither does OCD, but they are genetic (MZ/DZ twins show this)

I wonder why you don't test "why?" In psychology/neuroscience it is a driving force to find out how the mind developed and the reasons why. For instance, why do we have empathy? because it maybe an adaptive behaviour that enables kin bonding and altruism, how? By representing a conspecifics emotional state possibly through mirror neurons.....Why do some people exhibit confabulation after brain injury? (confabulation is unprovoked fantastical lying), because we think the damage to a certain area of the brain causes this. How? Because damage to areas of the prefrontal cortex may reduce "reality checking"? Why do psychopaths exhibit aggressive and unfeeling behaviour. How? because they have a dysfuntional PFC that is a major element of social cognition. If anything I probably conflate why and how to an extent, but I see it as raising a "why" and getting a "how". So for the Ic issue, I would ask - why is this system IC and the answer would end up because ID did it. But, of course, that's just my approach.

But you are approaching the design issue using knowledge of NDT processes, if you can't test a system positively, i.e. showing it is formed by design (and I mean, at the end say eureka this is IC) what else are you doing? Why not approach it from an NDT angle and do the same experiment. Again, maybe it's just the way I approach issues.

I can't see how you could propose a mechanism for an IC system, it would have to conform to physical laws and therefore is possible by NDT? As stated an IC is impossible to develop by NS (or those that are above dembski's probability bound, except for those that are but evolved), and NS conforms to physical laws, therefore under the right conditions it could happen? (EDIT: I missed where you talked about quantification- now that is a way to go, if you could produce some index of IC now that would be even better, i.e. some independent predictor, not just observation).

Darwin's theory was good, it was definitely wrong in places, but he proposed mechanisms. His mechanism was wrong but it was falsififiable. The theory has since been refined by a mountain of converging evidence, and has not a shread of evidence to falsify it, bar the current gaps in knowledge.

Also, I've read a bit more on the dembski numbers issue, he suggests that for a specified system the probability of occuring by chance is his universal probability bound, but evolution does not specify end point (i.e. it is not specified - it has no pre-defined goal). However, say that something that has a chance of 1 in 10-150 of happening, is in fact impossible. First of all, something that has a non-zero chance is per definition not impossible. Anything that has a non-zero chance of happening might take three times the age of the universe before it happens, or it might happen at the very first try. So accounting for the arbitrary values he sets, NS is not teleogical, the fact he only allows for one genetic process, the fact that chemical processes are not random, this really has no validity or predictive value (see below) whatsoever.

here's another blood coagulation article, apparently whales lack a certain part of the proposed IC system. taking account of dembski maths, did this process really fit his impossibility prediction? I would hope not for his sake.

Semba U, Shibuya Y, Okabe H, Yamamoto T., 1998. "Whale Hageman factor (factor XII): prevented production due to pseudogene conversion." Thromb Res. 1998 1 April;90(1):31-7.

And right back at you, we're having a good discussion, no flaming, just issues


I really think Behe would have been better just keeping quiet and doing the experiments from an NDT angle, the experiments are the same, the results would be the same, you could collect the info without the problems - when, and if (I do doubt this), you get enough data, then you hit them were it hurts (well that's my supervisors philosophy - but he doesn't have any real data either, lol)

anyway, I'm off to bed...

and I couldn't sleep for long and have just edited big time (so, matt, do reread)....







[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Damn it! I had written you a really thorough reply, and I got shafted when I went to post it. I don't have the fortitude to reply to you again tonight... will have to wait until tomorrow. I hate that. I've learned this lesson before.. you just get lazy I guess. I'm glad it didn't happen like 4 posts ago. One of those took me like 2.5 hours.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Damn it! I had written you a really thorough reply, and I got shafted when I went to post it. I don't have the fortitude to reply to you again tonight... will have to wait until tomorrow. I hate that. I've learned this lesson before.. you just get lazy I guess. I'm glad it didn't happen like 4 posts ago. One of those took me like 2.5 hours.


haha, I know the feeling. I lost one the other day, and replied in a rush with the most incoherent post ever, lol.

Ok I thought I would add this here...

The main aim of experimental methodology (well I can speak for psychology anyway) is to show cause and effect. The problem with pure observation is you can't be sure of what you are seeing. So we set the conditions and cause, we measure an effect. The problem of not showing a true cause and depending on observation is there are many other explanations. Observation is just not enough to make a strong conclusion. IC is just an observation of a particular effect, your cause would be assumed to ID. As you can't test ID, you must purely assume it, leaving open other reasonable explanations (and no matter what you feel, under these conditions NDT will always be preferred). Ok a couple of thought experiments...

I make the observation that people with long hair are genarally shorter in height than people with short hair. I form a hypothesis and measure height and hair length of 100 people. I assess the data by correlation and find a good, significant, negative correlation. My conclusion - hair length is a predictor of height.

Of course, a correlation cannot show cause and effect (it is quasi-experimental), just a relationship, and in this case a spurious (illusory) correlation. We must look for other causes. Observation is insufficient, we need to show why hair length predicts height.



Another example, this time I make an observation that giving homeopathic medicine makes my friends better. I develop a proper experiment; 100 poorly friends were given homeopathic medicine and show that in a significant proportion of cases, my friends report an improvement in their condition. Therefore I conclude homeopathic medicines improve well-being.

Now this is a true pseudoscience, how can a solution of 1/100000000 of some substance make people better? The data seems to show the cause and effect. We need a mechanism here, and they have none. If we set a double-blind placebo experiment, we would likely find no difference, therefore proper conclusion - psychological placebo effects (even prayers can do this).



I was just trying to show why mechanism/explanation are important (probably poor examples, but it's 7.10am, so give me some leeway, lol). Otherwise we have nothing more than observation, it is really quite meaningless unless you can show why this observation happens (we need cause and effect), to just say - this system is ID because it appears IC is not enough. This is where your tautology comes in - you define IC system as ID, the IC system is ID because it's shown to be IC. Circular and vacuous. If you could reliably predict IC systems, which Behe can't, then we might get somewhere, even better we could try to quantify it, great.



[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Melatonin,

Pretty busy day for me at work today... had yesterday off MLK day. Most likely I won't be able to get to reply to your issues until later this evening.. could even be tomorrow. I can probably reply piecemeal in between experiments, but would rather stay focused on one task at a time. Hang in there, bud.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
no problem Matt, hope it goes well



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
First things first

Welcome to ATS melatonin... been gone for a few weeks and i come back to find an actual scientist arguing for the ID opposition. Very cool and i wanted to compliment you on your excellent posts... we rarely see intelligent opposition around here, it's much appreciated. When we get into the specifics of the real (scientific) debate it's probably best us layman stay out of the way, and your opinion is certainly more qualified than mine. So i'll let you guys continue and i, as usual, will be following along and reading what i can.



I see my good friend skep has called me out... here we go.



Rren

Uh, hummm... skep.




Iffin I done told Ya oncet; I done told Ya a thousand times,
ID ain't no theory. ID is not a theory. ID never was a theory. ID never will be a theory.


Brilliant! Did you wish to comment on the ID hypothesis then? Did you wish to advocate the origins theory that you prefer? I assume based on your "ID never will be a theory" comment that not only have you "de-bunked" ID but you also have an airtight origins theory to take its place. Please sir don't tease us... post it! I can't wait. And i thought Christmas was over.


Oh! Did I mention that ID ain't no theory? Well, if I didn't, let me say here that ID is no theory.
I even suggested that you find out why ID is NO theory (it's really simple) so that in future, when you're waxing eloquently on your religious assumptions...you won't sound as if you don't know the definition of...theory!
Just a thought.
skep


When did i wax "... eloquently on your[my] religious assumptions..." specifically? Can i accuse you of the same with your atheistic assumptions (metaphysical naturalism) with the same authority? To your point [not sure if you had one, i'm reaching here] what defintion of "theory" are you working under? How many [currently accepted] "theories" (yup they carry it in the title) are not really theories based on your criteria(of "positive" evidence i assume)... you may be suprised. If your contention is that ID is unscientific because it violates methological naturalism then you'd be wrong in your assumption as has been talked about ad nauseum and instead of arguing against any of the proposed experiments you chose to fall back on your ID is BS talking points. I'm impressed... really, but you may want to read up on the definition of ID... just a thought.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
First things first

Welcome to ATS melatonin... been gone for a few weeks and i come back to find an actual scientist arguing for the ID opposition. Very cool and i wanted to compliment you on your excellent posts... we rarely see intelligent opposition around here, it's much appreciated. When we get into the specifics of the real (scientific) debate it's probably best us layman stay out of the way, and your opinion is certainly more qualified than mine. So i'll let you guys continue and i, as usual, will be following along and reading what i can.



Hi Rren, thanks for the welcome



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
On the defector issue, it seems the DI institute has become more extreme creationist over time, apparently their mission statement is more about creation than ID, than it was in the past. Even Dembski said at a recent conference that ID offers a biblical alternative to darwinian evolution, he makes these crazy statements all the time, "ToE is in crises" he believes...

Could be true... I don't follow the politics of the DI too much... I do try to keep on their articles/press releases, etc. I haven't gotten that impression, but it could be the case.


OK, on the issues you raise, I agree that you can test for IC by the absence of the development of a system under experimentation, for the conditions used.

Okay... again, my experiment wasn't based on the absence of development. As I tried to explain, you can make a correlation between levels of enzyme functionality and genetic homology in critical locations of the protein. You can further relate this change in the gene of interest over time to have a quantifiable system. Each one of the mutants would retain a certain degree of enzyme functionality would be a point on a graph so to speak. Not only does this method guarantee positive results, it leads to a possible way to detect a 'mechanism' within allegedly IC systems. Again, it won't tell you about the designer, but it IS capable of yielding information about the system being studied, which is really what we're interested in anyway.


The basis is that we think these proteins (or whatever) will recombine to produce an analagous system to the IC system. Which is really testing NDT,

Not necessarily. For example, in my choice of organism, I would likely choose Pseudomonas aeruginosa an organism that is not only noted for its ability to adapt in a wide variety of circumstances, but further maintains extrachromosomal DNA for the purpose of adaptation. Theory has it that this organism engages in a directed mutation of this extrachromosomal DNA. Given that this mutation isn't random, but is under some sort of cellular direction, it technically wouldn't qualify as an NDT mechanism.
Deliberate mutation of specific regions of DNA reserved for adaptation doesn't fall under typical NDT dogma.


I feel this is the case, but by default it also tests IC. As I said though, you cannot really predict IC, you can observe and state "this system looks IC" - But overall you are still not testing IDH because you can't test it

I am going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here to as well. You are falsifying ID hypotheses for particular systems. This can, collectively falsify ID. Furthermore, things are generally falsified in one fell swoop... it took a lot experiments and a lot of time to falsify the hypothesis that Protein was the hereditary material. Its unreasonable to think that a hypothesis, much less a theory can be falsified via one experiment.

Finally, you're not thinking creatively about the experiments I've proposed. I said that I think they are fully capable of revealing a naturalistic method for the formation of IC systems. If this happenend, if some minimal level of genetic homology coupled with some minimal level of funtionality led to some spontaneous organization of components that NS could then act on, well then this could falsify a huge component of the ID hypothesis.


- by extension if an IC system is truly ID, you can't determine if it actually is, you can say "this still looks IC, studies have yet to develop it under certain conditions, but we accept other mechanisms are possible".

Yeah... well with respect to the uncertainty you refer to here... I say "Welcome to the world of Origins 'Science,' where everything is speculation based on fact."


But you are really testing an NDT hypothesis and trying to falsify it (as you say yourself,

I don't think I said this. I think I said that IDT and NDT can be tested via the same experiments. It's a matter of a difference of your basis of hypothesis. Sort of like the idea that you can often express an argument inductively or deductively,


you would account for NDT explanations and test them - I just wonder why you don't approach it from NDT anyway, you get the same results, but you just seem to want to hold the ID banner).

I would direct you back to the flagella experiment that is evolving via this discussion. This experiment yields positive, quantifiable results that are capable of describing a naturalistic mechanism for the formation of IC systemsm, that functions via a system of directed hypermutation of extrachromosomal DNA... distinctly not a test of NDT.


Now, as for the examples I suggested, it is correct that the only way would be by historical evidence,

I was operating under the assumption we were treating this like an origins issue, since that is the issue we are discussing, and didn't have access to historical records.


you could look at a bulldog and surmise "why the hell does this dog have these problems" - but this was a product of intelligence and for a less obvious dog you couldn't, so you can't tell between IS and NS.

I don't know is this is true either. Coyotes and wolves, animals not subject to artificial selection to a degree where it's affected their genomes, have particular characteristics not observed in pure bred dogs. For example you don't see solid colored coyotes... there's a good degree of lateral uniformity within coyotes and wolves, this isn't true of dogs. Those things alone are indicators of AS.

I seem to recall when I answered this previously, you argued this was a case for ET being superior to IDT... I guess you edited it out. I wish I had gotten my response up last night, but I'm glad you removed it.


If ID existed, there are many processes/anatomy that would be designed much better. if anything the IDH should be 'silly' design hypothesis. I could give examples (the biochemical pathways would fit for instance) of anatomy, but I'm sure you know of many. ToE would predict this problem,

Actually, I don't. We can discuss them here. Personally I believe those arguments are pseudo-theological and distinctly not scientific, but I would be more than happy to discuss them here with you.


there is no teleology or purpose other than to survive. The point of the "chemical X" question, is because if you cannot really tell if a simple molecule is ID, how can you tell a complex biological process is?

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that simple molecules arise via natural processes. There's no reason to assume simple molecules are IDed if they don't appear to be so. I've never read an OChem text and had it say. Gosh these indole rings are so complex as to suggest they've been designed.

Furthermore simple molecules aren't alleged to have arisen via a process by which they were expanded upon and improved by natural selection. Simple molecules are not thought to undergo any type of process even resembling evolution, so the point is moot.


If you are basing your inference on experience and one proposed IC system is definitely not IC, what does that tell you about your experience and inference? I would say, you cannot infer from observation, experience, and supposed probability an IC system.

You've now taken my words and manipulated them into a context in which I did not write them. You didn't ask about IC systems, you asked about naturally occuring vs. non-naturally occuring items.

You wrote:


How do we really tell any naturally occuring object from a non-naturally occuring object?

To which I replied: Inference based on experience, which is basically true. When I come across a 2 X 4 in the woods, I infer that it's a product of design based on my experience. I didn't say that a natural process couldn't create something that resembled a perfectly man-made 2 X 4, I said my experience would lead me to believe this.

Had you asked what would lead you to a hypothesis that a system is IC, I would have given you a different answer.


The reason I mention biological behaviour is because you said dreams are obviously due to intelligence. Well, I don't know if that is the case really, we do not know their purpose/function at all, there a many competing theories, from consolidation of memories to "noise in the machine", or those crazy freudian interpretations. We don't design a dream (I know you didn't imply this), it just happens. In Psychology, schizophrenia has no obvious function at all (but we do have a tentative ToE explanation - it just seems to do those sort of things, god knows how ID would...oh yes, he would actually, lol), neither does OCD, but they are genetic (MZ/DZ twins show this)

Do plants dream? Why not? They lack the apparatus. The same apparatus that gives rise to dreams is the same apparatus that gives rise to intelligence. There doesn't need to be purpose in something for it to be the product of intelligence. Irrespective of whether or not dreams are designed, or just noise in the machine, they occur as a result of possessing the apparatus that leads to intelligent behavior, and are related to it by proxy.


I wonder why you don't test "why?" In psychology/neuroscience it is a driving force to find out how the mind developed and the reasons why.

I think I meant why in the philosophical sense and I may have overreacted. For example, you can ask "Why did that earthquake occur?" An acceptable answer would be Because of stress and shifting in tectonic plates... but that's more of a how description, but can be interpreted as why.


For instance, why do we have empathy?

Yes, but isn't the question you're really asking some more like "What are the selective pressures and physical/molecular changes that resulted in empathy?" more so than 'why do we have empathy?'


So for the Ic issue, I would ask - why is this system IC and the answer would end up because ID did it. But, of course, that's just my approach.

This is not true. If you ask why a system appears to be IC, no respectable IDTist would say because it's designed. That's circular reasoning, and I know it's fun to accuse IDTists of this, but since I've not said this, and no other IDTist reasons in this manner, it just seems like deliberate obfuscation of the real issues... again.


But you are approaching the design issue using knowledge of NDT processes,

Ummm... yes... that's what you do, you evaluate in the context of existing theories. Science wouldn't get very far if we didn't evaluate info in the context of existing theories.


if you can't test a system positively,

You can test the system positively. We've talked in some detail about how this can be done.


Why not approach it from an NDT angle and do the same experiment. Again, maybe it's just the way I approach issues.

Some feel that the alternative basis of hypothesis is a better approach. The case of non-coding DNA represents this quite nicely... ignored for years because it was assumed to be a mistake. Now, more and more non-coding DNA is being shown to have a function... not be necessarily indespensible, but have a function.


I can't see how you could propose a mechanism for an IC system, it would have to conform to physical laws and therefore is possible by NDT?

As I stated very clearly before. Testing for design is perfectly capable of yielding a naturalistic mechanism by which IC systems could have developed. Please re-read my above description. All biological processes governed by physical laws do not fall under the heading of NDT, believe it or not.


As stated an IC is impossible to develop by NS

Via our current understanding of NS, as I've mentioned a couple of times now, operating from a different set of assumptions and experimental method one could potentially yield useful information about ID.

All this talk about mechanism just seems like more obfuscation to me. Darwin didn't know the mechanism of heredity when he proposed his theory. They had no idea if what the hereditary material was. It wasn't until other researchers from other sciences figured this out that the connection was made. Where would be today if people had dismissed Darwin for not understanding the intimate details of his theory? Yes, it might take some time to discover new mechanisms. Welcome to the world of research.


(EDIT: I missed where you talked about quantification- now that is a way to go, if you could produce some index of IC now that would be even better, i.e. some independent predictor, not just observation).

See? This is what I am talking about... we definitely could put some numbers on this stuff and learn some really useful stuff. We won't learn about the mechanism of IDing, but we may learn about the way IC systems arise, and that's the more important piece of info anyway.


Darwin's theory was good, ... The theory has since been refined by a mountain of converging evidence, and has not a shread of evidence to falsify it, bar the current gaps in knowledge.

Hmmm... seems to me that the entire cambrian fossil collection argues against the concept of organism changing gradually, but hey, I'm no paleontologist. Gaps in knowledge are not evidence.


So accounting for the arbitrary values he sets,

Again, the values aren't arbitrary. Whether or not you agree with his assessment is one thing, but to call the number arbitrary is false.


he only allows for one genetic process, the fact that chemical processes are not random, this really has no validity or predictive value (see below) whatsoever.

I don't know what you mean with respect to 'allows for one genetic process,' please clarify. I don't recall Dembski saying chemical processess are random. The interaction of reactants is random, based on diffusion and concentration, but reactions are not random. Where does Dembski say this.


here's another blood coagulation article, apparently whales lack a certain part of the proposed IC system. taking account of dembski maths, did this process really fit his impossibility prediction? I would hope not for his sake.

Semba U, Shibuya Y, Okabe H, Yamamoto T., 1998. "Whale Hageman factor (factor XII): prevented production due to pseudogene conversion." Thromb Res. 1998 1 April;90(1):31-7.

I actually looked into this in some detail. I have an answer for you, but it will have to wait until I am home and have my copy of DBB handy.

*EDIT* Upon reviewing a whole bunch of articles about blood-clotting cascades, and my copy of DBB, I've come to a conclusion re: this Hagemann factor issue.

Behe makes a big deal about the whole cascade, explaining it in detail from pages 81-85, he talks about the individual components of the cascade, their interactions, how they work, he even has an extremely difficult to follow graphic on pg 82.

The real information however comes on pg. 86.

Taken from Darwin's Black Box, special emphasis by mattison0922
"The function of the blood clotting system is to form a solid barrier a the right time and place that able to stop blood flow out of an injured vessel. The components of the system (beyond the fork in the pathway) are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart Factor, and proaccelerin. ...none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a blood clot. Yet in the absence of any one of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails.

pg 86

So it would appear that Behe never defined Hagemann factor as a component of the IC blood system. The four proteins defined as part of the 'irreducible core' doesn't include the particular factor you mention. Apparently, Behe hypothesizes that this protein isn't part of the IC system, and that the IC system is composed of only four proteins, Hagemann Factor not being one of these.


And right back at you, we're having a good discussion, no flaming, just issues

keep up the good posts. I am learning a lot.


I really think Behe would have been better just keeping quiet and doing the experiments from an NDT angle,

There's no question about this. He'd be able to get grants. He wouldn't be openly mocked by his peers. His publications "peer-reviewed" wouldn't be overly scrutinized, there'd be no restrictions on him teaching. He'd be a lot better off if he just dropped the whole ID thing.

Kind of makes you wonder why he toughs it out.


The main aim of experimental methodology (well I can speak for psychology anyway) is to show cause and effect. The problem with pure observation is you can't be sure of what you are seeing. So we set the conditions and cause, we measure an effect. The problem of not showing a true cause and depending on observation is there are many other explanations. Observation is just not enough to make a strong conclusion. IC is just an observation of a particular effect, your cause would be assumed to ID. As you can't test ID, you must purely assume it, leaving open other reasonable explanations (and no matter what you feel, under these conditions NDT will always be preferred). Ok a couple of thought experiments...

The essence of your argument is true. But as I've pointed out my experiments, experiments based from a hypothesis of ID can yield quantifiable results. I further contend that said quantifiable results could provide significant insight into a naturalistic mechanism whereby IC systems might arise and be subsequently selected and improved.


Another example, this time I make an observation that giving homeopathic medicine makes my friends better. I develop a proper experiment; 100 poorly friends were given homeopathic medicine and show that in a significant proportion of cases, my friends report an improvement in their condition. Therefore I conclude homeopathic medicines improve well-being.

Now this is a true pseudoscience, how can a solution of 1/100000000 of some substance make people better?

Interestingly enough, a few bold scientists have postulated a mechanism by which this might occur. Admittedly the concept of water memory seems out there to me, but what the hell do I know.

The highly uncontrolled experiments of Dr. Masura Emoto, seem to support this notion... note the use of the words "highly uncontrolled."

Please note also that I didn't come out in support of Either water memory or Emoto's stuff... just tossed it out there for consideration.


The data seems to show the cause and effect. We need a mechanism here, and they have none. If we set a double-blind placebo experiment, we would likely find no difference, therefore proper conclusion - psychological placebo effects (even prayers can do this).

Maybe, but now we have water memory... there are a couple of researchers actually doing this stuff too. I knew a guy who considered doing a post-doc with one of them... he went to MIT instead... probably a better career move.


[edit on 17-1-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Hey Matt, I'll try and answer you completely later. But just some evidence for and against homeopathy, the weight of evidence is against them in tightly controlled conditions....

Walach (1997) 12 found that the effects of homeopathy were not significantly different from those of a placebo.
Ernst (1999) 13 was more ambiguous and did not find evidence of effects greater than placebo. However, he suggests that studies were not of good enough quality to point in either direction.
Rodrigues & Moritz (2003) 14 concluded that "ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable", because of serious shortcomings in terms of publication bias and lack of methodologically sound trials validating homeopathy.
White et al. (2003) [1] found that there was no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.
Shang et al. (2005) 15 state in The Lancet, a leading medical journal, that no convincing evidence has been found that homeopathy performs any better than placebo, whereas under the same evaluative criteria conventional medicine performs better than placebo, and concluded that doctors should be able to inform patients of the "lack of benefit." The trial results were derived from a comparative review of 8 trials of homeopathy versus 6 of trials of conventional medicine selected from two groups of 110 matching trials, based on predetermined criteria of internal validity that sought to extract the best-quality trials in both groups.
Reviews suggesting an effect above placebo include:

Kleijnen et al (1991) [2] concluded that "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias."
Linde et al (1997),[3] who concluded "the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo". However in his latter 1999 study this conclusion was largely withdrawn 18 and questions have been raised about the original study17.
Linde & Melchart (1998) 10 found that there was evidence to support homeopathy but this evidence was not very strong.
Cucherat et al (2000) 11 found some evidence in support of homeopathy, but (like Linde & Melchart) found that higher quality studies were more likely to disprove homeopathy.

Some simple poorly designed anatomy...

Certain flatfish are born with an eye on both lateral sides of their body (i.e. one is beneath) and during growth the one eye moves to be in a more adaptive place on top of its body.

The uretha in human males passes close to the prostate gland resulting in 1/3 males needing surgery at sometime in their lives.

etc etc. certainly not ID, do you think it would be possible to improve on the flagella using our mere intelligence?

And the presence of cyanobacteria in the 3.8million old strata has been suggested to be derived from volcanic bacteria...but who knows for certain, not me, lol.

I'm sorry Matt, maybe it's my lack of molecular biology knowledge, but I don't think you can convince me that you could ever have true positve evidence of IC, only show that ToE seems not to work in the conditions used. The fact that Behe and Dembski seem unable to predict IC consolidates my opinion


but I wish you luck in that endeavour


Edit: aah I just read the edit on blood coag, apparently Miller asked Behe about this in a public debate, Behe had no issue with it not being part of the blood coag cascade. Then Miller brought up the dolphin study. Miller suggests this falsifies Blood Coag as IC, others may disagree.

Page 87 DBB: Because of the nature of a cascade, a new protein would immediately have to be regulated. From the beginning, a new step in the cascade would require both a proenzyme and also an activating enzyme to switch on the proenzyme at the correct time and place.Since each step necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway.

but we already know that Behe's lierature searching abilities are not very efficient...

p.179:
There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.

Although researcher had been examining a ToE explanation of the Krebs cycle (which does look an amazingly complex biochemical process) since 1981, and culminated in published solution in 1996.


[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Hey Matt, I'll try and answer you completely later. But just some evidence for and against homeopathy, the weight of evidence is against them in tightly controlled conditions....

Cool... will address other issues later.

But I did want to address this.


but we already know that Behe's lierature searching abilities are not very efficient...

p.179:
There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.

Although researcher had been examining a ToE explanation of the Krebs cycle (which does look an amazingly complex biochemical process) since 1981, and culminated in published solution in 1996.


What year was DBB published?

Oh yeah... geez 1996... indicating that he probably wrote this long before this paper was published.

I am currently looking for this ref. myself... post it if you've got it.

*EDIT* Nevermind... found it... got it in my archives... pretty nicely marked up too, I haven't read the whole thing for some time... it was in my 'highlighter' phase though... so I am going to estimate sometime around 2000.... but either way, I've got notes written right here on the article.

Have you read this paper? My suggestion would be to check it out before you cite as a refutation of IC. This paper doesn't even deal with the enzymes involved with the pathway... this is the way to refute IC, bydiscussing evolution of the enzymes, not by discussing the interconversion of organic molecules. This paper has nothing to do with the evolution of the enzymes of the Kreb's cycle or their regulation, other than just a cursory mention. The predominant focus of this paper is not on the evolution of IC systems of other systems, it's about the chemical conversion of organic molecules relevant to Krebs. *EDIT*

[edit on 17-1-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
Hey Matt, I'll try and answer you completely later. But just some evidence for and against homeopathy, the weight of evidence is against them in tightly controlled conditions....

Cool... will address other issues later.

But I did want to address this.


but we already know that Behe's lierature searching abilities are not very efficient...

p.179:
There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.

Although researcher had been examining a ToE explanation of the Krebs cycle (which does look an amazingly complex biochemical process) since 1981, and culminated in published solution in 1996.


What year was DBB published?

Oh yeah... geez 1996... indicating that he probably wrote this long before this paper was published.

I am currently looking for this ref. myself... post it if you've got it.


It meant to suggest that that articles were being published since 1981 on the krebs, culminating in a completed process in 1996. Here's the the ref...

The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution.
Journal of Molecular Evolution, Sep 1996, 43: 293-303
Melendez-Hevia, Waddell & Cascante

and they cite many other analyses of Krebs cycle evolution from 1981 through to 1992, and a couple of books on metabolic evolution from 1992.

And the Dembski maths involves these calculations...

Dembski's original definition
Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

10 power 80, the number of elementary particles in the known physical universe.
10 power 45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10 power 25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10-150 = 10-80 x 10-45 x 10-25.

corresponding to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. But what about the chemistry, certain molecules have a tendency to interact. But he changed this last year to another form.

EDIT: I didn't claim the Krebs was IC, just amazingly complex, I suggested it as an indication that Behe didn't research very well, if he thought there were no papers on the evolution of biochemical processes...






[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
It meant to suggest that that articles were being published since 1981 on the krebs, culminating in a completed process in 1996. Here's the the ref...

The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution.
Journal of Molecular Evolution, Sep 1996, 43: 293-303
Melendez-Hevia, Waddell & Cascante

and they cite many other analyses of Krebs cycle evolution from 1981 through to 1992, and a couple of books on metabolic evolution from 1992.

Please see my edit in the above post.


And the Dembski maths involves these calculations...

Dembski's original definition
Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

10 power 80, the number of elementary particles in the known physical universe.
10 power 45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10 power 25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10-150 = 10-80 x 10-45 x 10-25.

Yeah... thanks for the clarification... I knew that his assumption wasn't arbitrary... He's a smart guy... not incredibly well written IMO, but extremely smart.


corresponding to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. But what about the chemistry, certain molecules have a tendency to interact. But he changed this last year to another form.

Hmmm... I'm not sure if the chemistry matters... obviously things interact, and if I recall is limited by diffusion... ie the fastest enzymes are limited by the diffusion constant, which I believe to be 10^-9. Limiting it by the probability of diffusion, etc is a less conservative assumption than limiting by maximum rate at which transitions can occur. It seems like this is the more conservatiive approach.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
It meant to suggest that that articles were being published since 1981 on the krebs, culminating in a completed process in 1996. Here's the the ref...

The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution.
Journal of Molecular Evolution, Sep 1996, 43: 293-303
Melendez-Hevia, Waddell & Cascante

and they cite many other analyses of Krebs cycle evolution from 1981 through to 1992, and a couple of books on metabolic evolution from 1992.

Please see my edit in the above post.


And the Dembski maths involves these calculations...

Dembski's original definition
Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

10 power 80, the number of elementary particles in the known physical universe.
10 power 45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10 power 25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10-150 = 10-80 x 10-45 x 10-25.

Yeah... thanks for the clarification... I knew that his assumption wasn't arbitrary... He's a smart guy... not incredibly well written IMO, but extremely smart.


corresponding to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. But what about the chemistry, certain molecules have a tendency to interact. But he changed this last year to another form.

Hmmm... I'm not sure if the chemistry matters... obviously things interact, and if I recall is limited by diffusion... ie the fastest enzymes are limited by the diffusion constant, which I believe to be 10^-9. Limiting it by the probability of diffusion, etc is a less conservative assumption than limiting by maximum rate at which transitions can occur. It seems like this is the more conservatiive approach.


Well the new system of calculation is arbitrary....

Dembski has recently (as of 2005) refined his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities:

An upper bound on the computational resources of the universe in its entire history. This is estimated by Seth Lloyd as 10-120 elementary logic operations on a register of 10-90 bits.
The (variable) descriptive complexity of the event under consideration.
If the latter quantity equals 10-30, then the overall universal probability bound corresponds to the original value. Dembski has said, "For many design inferences that come up in practice, it seems safe to assume that [it] will not exceed 10-30."
wikipedia

so the calculation gives the same value

so when dembski defines complexity he assesses what he think is the liklihood of something occuring and another arbitrary value of the "computational resources of the universe". Chemistry is very important, for instance carbon has a tendency to bond with hydrogen, Cl is quite unlikely to bond with Br etc. Chemistry is anything but random.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Well the new system of calculation is arbitrary....

Doesn't sound quite arbitrary to me, but as I mentioned, I have some difficulty with this Dembski stuff.


Dembski has recently (as of 2005) refined his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities:

An upper bound on the computational resources of the universe in its entire history. This is estimated by Seth Lloyd as 10-120 elementary logic operations on a register of 10-90 bits.
The (variable) descriptive complexity of the event under consideration.
If the latter quantity equals 10-30, then the overall universal probability bound corresponds to the original value. Dembski has said, "For many design inferences that come up in practice, it seems safe to assume that [it] will not exceed 10-30."

Ummm... yeah... difficulties with Dembski's stuff, might be an understatement....


Chemistry is very important, for instance carbon has a tendency to bond with hydrogen, Cl is quite unlikely to bond with Br etc. Chemistry is anything but random.

Obviously chemistry is 'important' and what you're saying is true... but if you assume, as a function of your equation, the maximum rate that physical changes can occur, aren't you in effect working the chemistry out of it. What I mean is that accounting for these things would limit the probability further, making the number smaller by 10^-9, ie 10^-159, at least, possibly more if you want to consider things like relative concentrations. The point is that factoring in the chemistry makes the problem less solvable, not more.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join