Specified Complexity or specified patterns?
backspace
'''....Dembski asserts that specified complexity is present in a
configuration when it can be described by a pattern that displays a
large amount of independently specified information and is also
complex, which he defines as having a low probability of occurrence.
He provides the following examples to demonstrate the concept: "A
single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A
long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A
Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." [10]....'''''
rephrase:
'''....Dembski asserts that functional patterns is present in a
configuration when it can be described by a pattern that displays a
large amount of independently specified information and is also
complex, which he defines as having a low probability of occurrence.
He provides the following examples to demonstrate the concept: "A
single letter of the alphabet is specified as representing itself. A
long sentence of random letters is complex representing only itself
and not specified. A Shakespearean sonnet represents something other
than itself. Such specificity can be complex or simple to
achieve functionality.
From experience it was deduced that the desired emotional *functional*
impact of the sonet would neccasity that the string be a certain
numerical length. The desired functionality will dictate the string
numberical complexity of the sonet. A specified or functional
implementation represents something other than itself: design.
Specificity is a synonym for functionality, the sonnet must achieve
some emotional function. " [10]....'''''
rephrase:
'''....Dembski asserts that DESIGN is present in a configuration when
it can be described
by a pattern that displays a large amount of functionality and is also
complex(numerically large), and thus a low probability of self-
occurrence. He provides the following examples to demonstrate the
concept: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified as representing
itself. A long sentence of random letters is complex (numerically
large) representing only itself and thus not specified. A
Shakespearean
sonnet represents something other than itself. Such specificity can be
complex or simple to achieve some functionality. From experience it
was deduced that the desired emotional *functional* impact of the
sonnet would neccasity that the string be a certain numerical length.
The desired functionality will dictate the complexity of the sonnet.
Specificity is a subset of functionality and the concept of Behe's
IC , extended with Irreducible Functionality. In formulating Specified
complexity we must use functionality
with specificity as synonym " [10]....'''''
rephrase:
'''....DESIGN is present in a configuration when it can be described
by a pattern that displays a large amount of functionality and
complexity(numerically large), and thus a low probability of self-
occurrence.
A single letter of the alphabet is specified as representing itself. A
long sentence of random letters is complex(numerically large)
representing only itself and thus not specified or functional. A
Shakespearean sonnet represents something other than itself. Such
functionality can be complex or simple to achieve some goal. The
individual sprockets, bevel gears etc. of a watch in scrambled heap
are specified but don't exhibit functional complexity or specified
complexity. From experience it was deduced that the desired emotional
*functional* impact of the sonnet would necessity that the string be a
certain numerical length. The desired functionality will dictate the
complexity of the sonnet.
A mechanical watch and chair are both functional, but the watch
exhibits larger complexity. The numerical expression of such
simplicity or complexity of a functional device is ''specified
complexity'' or ''functional complexity''.
On a scale of functional complexity the watch is more probable due to
design than the chair. Dembski devised a mathematical formula to
express this probability. " [10]....'''''
Specified => represents something other than itself. It terms of what
Dembski wrote, lets introduce a new term for design:
specified pattern <=> design.
When the cat kicks over the symbols containing the sonnet on the
floor, the symbols are a
pattern, they only represent themselves. We can also have a 'woven
pattern' or 'pattern template' as proxy for design. Thus all types of
design patterns must be classified as follows:
woven pattern = specified pattern.
design pattern = specified pattern.
pattern template = specified pattern.
'Complexity' is ambigious , not allowing a ready distinction between
patterns(represents only itself) and designs(represents something
other than itself).
specified complexity <=> specified design. Design implies
specification and is thus tautological. specified complexity <=>
specified pattern. Pattern, like random does not always imply
complexity , thus specified pattern isn't a tautology. We have
ambiguity with 'complexity', to clarify Behe's Irreducible complexity
it should rather be Irreducible functionality as described here:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Irreducible_Functionality
Irreducible Functionality(IF), IC and Specified complexity or
specified patterns are supportive concepts allowing us to adopt the
pattern/design dichotomy as a world view.
The sonnet represents something other than itself using a cluster of
symbols, thus design or specified pattern. A random mixture of the
same letters on wooden blocks, kicked over by the cat only represent
themselves. Dembski extended the pattern/design dichotomy with
different terms.
Design <=> Specified pattern or specified complexity. The assembly of
letters in the sonnet is specified,it represents a specified concept
or information. Thus specified pattern extends the notion of specified
complexity, a different way of saying design(represents something
other than itself).
Arkalen
How would describe the process that biologists refer to by the
word-string "natural selection" ?
Randy C
> Design <=> Specified pattern or specified complexity.
"Specified complexity" is nonsensical and fraudulent.
Complexity - as synonymous with "intricacy" - says NOTHING whether
something is intelligently designed. In fact things created by random
forces tend to be MORE intricate than things designed by intelligence.
WhenDembski DEFINES "complexity" he does sso by saying that it means
"unlikely to be produced by chance". But Dembski and others APPLY
"specified complexity: they fraudulently make "complexity" synonymous
with "intricacy". But "intricacy" is NOT the same thing as "unlikely
to be produced by chance".
The ONLY thing that gives us a clue as to whether or not something is
intelligently designed is its artificiality. But that is simply in
the eye of the beholder and cannot be quantified.
If we see a recognizable image of George Washington's face carved in a
rock, people who are familiar with that face intuitively know how
artificial such a carving is and would presume that it was
intelligently designed.
Someone from another country who had never seen George Washington's
face would be a bit less certain that it was intelligently designed.
Some alien from another planet who had never seen any human face might
not recognize it as artificial at all.
In other words, there is no science to "specified complexity".
> The assembly of
> letters in the sonnet is specified,it represents a specified concept
> or information. Thus specified pattern extends the notion of specified
> complexity, a different way of saying design(represents something
> other than itself).
But if someone unfamilar with English looked at that sonnet, they
would not understand the artificiality of it and would have no reason
to identify it as intelligently designed. From their perspective it
could be nothing but a random sequence of letters.
John Stockwell
Dembski is wrong. First of all, there is no intrinsic property of an
object
called "specification" that is independent of the context an object is
in. The context
brings the "specification" to the object. Nor is there an intrinsic
property of "function".
This also depends on the context of the object.
The Shakespearean sonnet example fails because Shakespearean sonnets
and the objects
that such a sonnet are compared with are all manufactured items. We
recognize this because,
for example we know how the medium came into existence, which is to
say by some form of
printing. All other assertions here are attempts to determine the
manufacturing process.
-John
Randy C
> > letters in the sonnet is specified,it represents a specified concept
> > or information. Thus specified pattern extends the notion of specified
> > complexity, a different way of saying design(represents something
> > other than itself).
> But if someone unfamilar with English looked at that sonnet, they
> would not understand the artificiality of it and would have no reason
> to identify it as intelligently designed. From their perspective it
> could be nothing but a random sequence of letters.
I think that this point is worth emphasizing.
Dembski has said:
"A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A
long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A
Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."
A Shakespearean sonnet would be recognized by an English speaking
person as intelligently designed.
But imagine this experiment:
1. Find a New Guinea tribesman who knew nothing about English and had
never even seen words written on a piece of paper.
2. Give that tribesman two pieces of paper.
3. One piece of paper has on it a typed Shakespearean sonnet.
4. On the other piece of paper there is something that a monkey had
typed (since monkeys typing are generally considered to be the
prototypical example of random letters).
5. Ask the tribesman to identify which sequence of letters was
intelligently designed and which one wasn't.
I contend that the tribesman would have no idea whatsoever which piece
of paper contained "intelligent design" and which one didn't.
Intelligent design is all in the eye of the beholder. We would
recognize a Shakespearean sonnet as intelligently designed because we,
as "beholders", know English.
But a "beholder" that didn't know English wouldn't have a clue.
You could try a similar experiment with someone like me.
I don't know Japanese. Neither do I know the Japanese character set.
You could probably show me two pieces of paper, one with a legitimate
Japanese character and one with some random brush strokes. I doubt
that I would be able to tell which is intelligently designed and which
one isn't.
There is clearly NO SCIENCE to ID. Period.
Burkhard
> > ...
> > Design <=> Specified pattern or specified complexity.
>
> "Specified complexity" is nonsensical and fraudulent.
>
> Complexity - as synonymous with "intricacy" - says NOTHING whether
> something is intelligently designed. In fact things created by random
> forces tend to be MORE intricate than things designed by intelligence.
>
> WhenDembski DEFINES "complexity" he does sso by saying that it means
> "unlikely to be produced by chance". But Dembski and others APPLY
> "specified complexity: they fraudulently make "complexity" synonymous
> with "intricacy". But "intricacy" is NOT the same thing as "unlikely
> to be produced by chance".
>
> The ONLY thing that gives us a clue as to whether or not something is
> intelligently designed is its artificiality. But that is simply in
> the eye of the beholder and cannot be quantified.
>
> If we see a recognizable image of George Washington's face carved in a
> rock, people who are familiar with that face intuitively know how
> artificial such a carving is and would presume that it was
> intelligently designed.
>
> Someone from another country who had never seen George Washington's
> face would be a bit less certain that it was intelligently designed.
>
> Some alien from another planet who had never seen any human face might
> not recognize it as artificial at all.
>
> In other words, there is no science to "specified complexity".
I'm not sure that follows. You woudl simply have a test that produces
lots of false negatives. The only thing a creationist needs however
is the ability to detect true positives.
To really blow the method out of the water, you need to show that it
also produces false positives - the "face on the moon" would be a good
example for that
John Vreeland
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity
>'''....Dembski asserts that specified complexity is present in a
>configuration when it can be described by a pattern that displays a
>large amount of independently specified information and is also
>complex, which he defines as having a low probability of occurrence.
This is a non-sequitur. Complexity does not imply anything about the
probability of an object's occurence. Some complex objects are highly
probable. Others are not.
Many weather patterns are very complex and orderly, yet they have an
unfortunate tendency to recur.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
backspace
> On Fri, 6 May 2011 07:21:58 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity
> >'''....Dembski asserts that specified complexity is present in a
> >configuration when it can be described by a pattern that displays a
> >large amount of independently specified information and is also
> >complex, which he defines as having a low probability of occurrence.
>
> This is a non-sequitur. Complexity does not imply anything about the
> probability of an object's occurence. Some complex objects are highly
> probable. Others are not.
>
> Many weather patterns are very complex and orderly, yet they have an
> unfortunate tendency to recur.
Depends what we mean with complexity. Weather patterns only represent
themselves, they have no encoding /decoding mechanism.
backspace
You differ with the pattern/design dichotomy in the sense that in
every instance of design we know who the designer is, not so with
Tigers and cats because nobody has seen this Designer. You have a very
good point which must be addressed and has been addressed by many.
Your mistake in logic though is to say that therefore such a Designer
does not exist, this error is something that John Wilkins have
repeatedly pointed out and took a lot of verbal abuse for doing so.
My point in posting this is that Dembski has reformulated the YEC/
theist pattern / design dichotomy in different terms.
John Stockwell
My point is that we do not "detect design" we model manufacture. Every
example that
Dembski has put forth as an example of his "design detecting
algorithm" is a case of taking objects
that we know _a priori_ are manufactured. At most Dembski passes an
attempt at determining the
manufacturing process as "detecting design".
As far as Tigers and other cats, as well as the rest of biology, we
are interesed in the *process* by
which they came into existence. People who advocate "intelligent
design" for the origin of species
fail to deliver a process by those species came into existence. (A
divine guy speaking them into
existence is not a process.)
Darwin gave us a process, it is the process of reproduction with
variation and natural selection.
If a divine Designer exists, then to the best of our knowledge, this
is the process that this "Designer"
uses to manufacture biology.
-John
Glenn
Has Dembski actually claimed that specification is an intrinsic
property of objects? Or that objects have an intrinsic property of
function? Please cite.
>
> The Shakespearean sonnet example fails because Shakespearean sonnets
> and the objects
> that such a sonnet are compared with are all manufactured items. We
> recognize this because,
> for example we know how the medium came into existence, which is to
> say by some form of
> printing. All other assertions here are attempts to determine the
> manufacturing process.
>
John, sonnets are not "manufactured items", they are intelligently
designed poetry. We do not recognize sonnets because of our knowledge
of specific methods of communicating them. You are correct that we
recognize printing, as one example, to be a manufacturing process. But
because the cat walked over the keyboard and the pc printed out "ahpih
pqhr cjqerjqhpihi qg b" does not provide us with evidence of an
example of an intelligently designed sonnet.
In other words, we do not know how the "medium" came into existence
because we are familiar with printing.
Frank J
Too bad he's an OEC. And not even the "kind" who is convinced that
common descent is not true.
John Stockwell
Why don't you ask "backspace" since I am replying to his account of
Dembski,
not Dembski's
>
> > The Shakespearean sonnet example fails because Shakespearean sonnets
> > and the objects
> > that such a sonnet are compared with are all manufactured items. We
> > recognize this because,
> > for example we know how the medium came into existence, which is to
> > say by some form of
> > printing. All other assertions here are attempts to determine the
> > manufacturing process.
>
> John, sonnets are not "manufactured items", they are intelligently
> designed poetry.
Poetry is a designation of a form of literature. All literature is
manufactured by
a process of word organization by the author, and is presented in some
medium.
> We do not recognize sonnets because of our knowledge
> of specific methods of communicating them. You are correct that we
> recognize printing, as one example, to be a manufacturing process. But
> because the cat walked over the keyboard and the pc printed out "ahpih
> pqhr cjqerjqhpihi qg b" does not provide us with evidence of an
> example of an intelligently designed sonnet.
> In other words, we do not know how the "medium" came into existence
> because we are familiar with printing.
On the contrary, creating lines of text by allowing your cat to walk
across the
keyboard is a manufacturing process. We might not call it literature.
We would call
it text. It is the same as if you had painstakingly selected each
letter in the string
of gibberish with some purpose in mind. All we are describing are
different manufacturing
processes.
-John
James Beck
You have research difficulties starting with #2. Who 'gives?' Are the
New Guinea tribesmen really expected *not* to recognize the similarity
between themselves and the researchers? Then there's 'paper.' They
might think it magical, but they know that it doesn't occur naturally,
at least not locally. 'Typing' is artificial looking, as well. I'd bet
that they'd figure it out very quickly, though they might guess that
the gods did it.
>I contend that the tribesman would have no idea whatsoever which piece
>of paper contained "intelligent design" and which one didn't.
>
>Intelligent design is all in the eye of the beholder. We would
>recognize a Shakespearean sonnet as intelligently designed because we,
>as "beholders", know English.
>
>But a "beholder" that didn't know English wouldn't have a clue.
>
>You could try a similar experiment with someone like me.
>
>I don't know Japanese. Neither do I know the Japanese character set.
>You could probably show me two pieces of paper, one with a legitimate
>Japanese character and one with some random brush strokes. I doubt
>that I would be able to tell which is intelligently designed and which
>one isn't.
That's a somewhat more plausible experiment, but if you had enough
samples, I think you'd be able to formulate and test hypotheses.
Randy C
>
> >1. Find a New Guinea tribesman who knew nothing about English and had
> >never even seen words written on a piece of paper.
> >2. Give that tribesman two pieces of paper.
> >3. One piece of paper has on it a typed Shakespearean sonnet.
> >4. On the other piece of paper there is something that a monkey had
> >typed (since monkeys typing are generally considered to be the
> >prototypical example of random letters).
> >5. Ask the tribesman to identify which sequence of letters was
> >intelligently designed and which one wasn't.
>
> You have research difficulties starting with #2. Who 'gives?' Are the
> New Guinea tribesmen really expected *not* to recognize the similarity
> between themselves and the researchers? Then there's 'paper.' They
> might think it magical, but they know that it doesn't occur naturally,
> at least not locally. 'Typing' is artificial looking, as well. I'd bet
> that they'd figure it out very quickly, though they might guess that
> the gods did it.
You completely ignored point 5.
I'm not asking the tribesman about the paper or about the typing. I'm
saying that they wouldn't be able to identify which sequence of
letters was intelligently designed and which was the result of a
random process. I was very specific about that.
This hypothetical example demonstrates that recongizing ID is nothing
but something in the eye of the beholder.
It's sort of like art appreciation.
It is impossible for it to be scientific.
backspace
No sequence of letters, or any arrangement of any object or script
such as Chinese script has any meaning,not now , not ever.
Meaning like information has no physical location, meaning can be
represented with objects with an encoding and decoding mechanism.
In other words even if the monkeys was able to type out the works of
shakespear, it like Chinese script to native English would be
meaningless if there did not *apriori* exist a decoding human or
being. Only the idea it encodes for has meaning, but such meaning
isn't a subset of space,time or matter.
We have a chicken and egg problem:
Which came first meaning or the symbolic representation of meaning
between an encoder and decoder?
For example in each and every instance of any engineered structure
like a bride or car, it only existed in an abstract form before
physically. Such a physical structure in turn only symbolically
represents some higher meaning.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
>On May 7, 4:56 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >But imagine this experiment:
>>
>> > >1. Find a New Guinea tribesman who knew nothing about English and had
>> > >never even seen words written on a piece of paper.
>> > >2. Give that tribesman two pieces of paper.
>> > >3. One piece of paper has on it a typed Shakespearean sonnet.
>> > >4. On the other piece of paper there is something that a monkey had
>> > >typed (since monkeys typing are generally considered to be the
>> > >prototypical example of random letters).
>> > >5. Ask the tribesman to identify which sequence of letters was
>> > >intelligently designed and which one wasn't.
>> > You have research difficulties starting with #2. Who 'gives?' Are the
>> > New Guinea tribesmen really expected *not* to recognize the similarity
>> > between themselves and the researchers? Then there's 'paper.' They
>> > might think it magical, but they know that it doesn't occur naturally,
>> > at least not locally. 'Typing' is artificial looking, as well. I'd bet
>> > that they'd figure it out very quickly, though they might guess that
>> > the gods did it.
>> You completely ignored point 5.
....and everything else; his "answers" address nothing.
>> I'm not asking the tribesman about the paper or about the typing. I'm
>> saying that they wouldn't be able to identify which sequence of
>> letters was intelligently designed and which was the result of a
>> random process. I was very specific about that.
>>
>> This hypothetical example demonstrates that recongizing ID is nothing
>> but something in the eye of the beholder.
>>
>> It's sort of like art appreciation.
>>
>> It is impossible for it to be scientific.
>No sequence of letters, or any arrangement of any object or script
>such as Chinese script has any meaning,not now , not ever.
It seems your posts are specifically formulated to
demonstrate this claim. But what's true for your posts is
not generally true.
>Meaning like information has no physical location, meaning can be
>represented with objects with an encoding and decoding mechanism.
>
>In other words even if the monkeys was able to type out the works of
>shakespear, it like Chinese script to native English would be
>meaningless if there did not *apriori* exist a decoding human or
>being.
You do realize that this confirms Randy's point, right?
>Only the idea it encodes for has meaning, but such meaning
>isn't a subset of space,time or matter.
And this means...what? That thoughts per se aren't physical
(although the processes in the brain which allow them
*are*)? Who says otherwise?
>We have a chicken and egg problem:
>Which came first meaning or the symbolic representation of meaning
>between an encoder and decoder?
And like the chicken/egg problem it's not a problem at all,
but a statement of a mutual requirement for functionality.
>For example in each and every instance of any engineered structure
>like a bride or car, it only existed in an abstract form before
>physically.
Brides are constructed?
That aside, what's your point? That plans precede
implementation? Who denies that?
> Such a physical structure in turn only symbolically
>represents some higher meaning.
Nope; a physical structure need not (and usually does not)
represent anything other than itself and its function.
As usual, you make many assertions but provide zero evidence
that those assertions have any actual meaning, and you don't
address points made by others. IOW, you post non-responsive
bafflegab.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
David Hare-Scott
earth today?
David
David Hare-Scott
This is an unsupported assumption.
>
>We have a chicken and egg problem:
>Which came first meaning or the symbolic representation of meaning
>between an encoder and decoder?
>
No we don't
>For example in each and every instance of any engineered structure
>like a bride or car, it only existed in an abstract form before
>physically. Such a physical structure in turn only symbolically
>represents some higher meaning.
Crap.
D
backspace
> On Sat, 7 May 2011 10:51:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
In Revelations those Xtians beheaded during the Great Tribulation, the
7 year period known as the time of Jacob's trouble , cry out to God
for revenge. God tells them to wait a little while(they are dead
remember) until the others are also killed. Everybody will know when
the tribulation starts, it will be announced with the arch-angel
blowing the trumpet, as the Rapture takes place.
We are now in the dispensation of grace, the time that God has
patience for he wishes that all be saved. When his patience with
Epicureanism and tautological thinking runs out , the rapture takes
place.
In your head is the representation of consciousness , but not
consciousness itself. You will never cease to exist, merely go over
into another dimension.
Frank J
Sorry, I can't resist: "Were you there?"
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
[Crickets...]
>> >Only the idea it encodes for has meaning, but such meaning
>> >isn't a subset of space,time or matter.
>>
>> And this means...what? That thoughts per se aren't physical
>> (although the processes in the brain which allow them
>> *are*)? Who says otherwise?
>
>In Revelations those Xtians beheaded during the Great Tribulation, the
>7 year period known as the time of Jacob's trouble , cry out to God
>for revenge. God tells them to wait a little while(they are dead
>remember) until the others are also killed. Everybody will know when
>the tribulation starts, it will be announced with the arch-angel
>blowing the trumpet, as the Rapture takes place.
>
>We are now in the dispensation of grace, the time that God has
>patience for he wishes that all be saved. When his patience with
>Epicureanism and tautological thinking runs out , the rapture takes
>place.
Sorry; I meant "Who *in this discussion* says otherwise?".
And what relevance has a Biblical reference to a discussion
about whether thought is physical?
IOW, this doesn't address my question.
>In your head is the representation of consciousness , but not
>consciousness itself. You will never cease to exist, merely go over
>into another dimension.
And, its non-relevance aside, your evidence that this claim
is correct is...?
RAM
> In your head is the representation of consciousness , but not
> consciousness itself. You will never cease to exist, merely go over
> into another dimension.
You don't know this. Wy even try to use it as an explanation of
anything?
Not only that it smacks of pagan/Hindu mysticism. Changing horses in
mid-dimension?
David Hare-Scott
Is your theology evolving in weird directions or has it always been
like this and only now you are opening up to tell us?
David
James Beck
I ignored #5 because, before they took your head as a trophy, the
tribesmen would sensibly have concluded that both pieces of paper,
each with regular black markings on it, handed to them by another man,
were intelligently designed, even if they don't understand the
contents.
As a thought experiment, it is the contents that matter, so a better
example might be that you cannot tell the difference between the
random numbers from a message encrypted using a one-time pad and a
coincidentally identically sized and formatted set of random numbers
that encrypt nothing. One is intelligently designed; the other is not,
and there is no way to tell them apart by looking at the random
numbers themselves.
Now, if you had a messenger, you might suspect a designer, though you
could not reasonably prove it. By the time the old testament was
written, I imagine that people were becoming cynical about the god
story, so you see a lot of messengers from god rather than simple
inspiration. That adds weight to the story, but since it's hard to
imagine that a worthwhile god would need a messenger, maybe that's the
birth of marketing. Regardless, in that case it would be the
messenger, not the table of random numbers, that 'signifies that it is
something other than itself.'
On the other hand, in your example, given a little time, you might be
able to tell the difference between the sonnet and the
monkey-business. The former is clearly non-random. One sample of the
latter might not be apparently more random than the former (though it
probably would be), but with more samples, you would be increasingly
likely to converge on the correct answer.
You can't have a science of intelligent design because the existence
of a designer is a singularity that is not subject to empirical
investigation. Just as differential analysis of the tables of random
numbers cannot tell you whether there is an encrypted message, much
less what it says, the designer either exists or it doesn't, and there
is no way to tell.
Randy C
> of a designer is a singularity that is not subject to empirical
> investigation. Just as differential analysis of the tables of random
> numbers cannot tell you whether there is an encrypted message, much
> less what it says, the designer either exists or it doesn't, and there
> is no way to tell.
Yes and no.
One of my favorite examples of possibly identifying ID without knowing
who the designer is was suggested by Arthur C Clarke in the book “2001
– A Space Odyssey”. In the book a stone monolith is discovered on the
Moon. It is a “perfect” rectangle (within the technology of the
humans of the time to measure) with dimensions in the ratio of 1x4x9.
Those are, of course, the exact squares of the first three integers.
If such a monolith was, in fact, discovered on the Moon, would humans
insist that it was intelligently designed even though they didn’t know
who the designer was?
I contend that they would, just like in the book. In fact, in the
book, it is clear that the intent of the monolith was to be a message
from one intelligent species to another that there is that second
species.
There is only one reason that they would believe it was intelligently
designed – its artificiality. Factors such as complexity, etc. would
be irrelevant.
If a “perfect” rectangle was found with dimensions of, say,
1x4.743x9.172 people would probably suspect some naturalistic process
such as those that create crystals. But the 1x4x9 is simply too
convenient to be ignored.
In real life you probably would still have both believers and skeptics
in either case. It would be great if there was some methodology to
recognize ID. Unfortunately there isn’t.
Walter Bushell
<c3399b0a-537e-409b...@w24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example in each and every instance of any engineered structure
> like a bride or car, it only existed in an abstract form before
> physically. Such a physical structure in turn only symbolically
> represents some higher meaning.
A bride is a engineered structure? Perchance you meant "bribe"?
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Burkhard
> In article
> <c3399b0a-537e-409b-93be-7b30f937c...@w24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For example in each and every instance of any engineered structure
> > like a bride or car, it only existed in an abstract form before
> > physically. Such a physical structure in turn only symbolically
> > represents some higher meaning.
>
> A bride is a engineered structure? Perchance you meant "bribe"?
>
I think he was spot on:
http://weheartit.com/entry/2726365
Kermit
This may be the record of a psychotic's hallucinations, a joke, a
divinely inspired narrative, a fantasy for entertainment, a coded
message, a metaphor the meaning of which is lost through time and
translation, or a shamanistic training manual. I favor the first
interpretation myself, if only because it seems the most likely.
For someone who thinks that ordinary words have no meaning, you sure
hold in surprising esteem a random sequence of images by an unknown
person for an unknown purpose (if any).
Kermit
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article
><c3399b0a-537e-409b...@w24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For example in each and every instance of any engineered structure
>> like a bride or car, it only existed in an abstract form before
>> physically. Such a physical structure in turn only symbolically
>> represents some higher meaning.
>
>A bride is a engineered structure? Perchance you meant "bribe"?
I suspect "bridge".
Which in no way makes his assertion correct, of course. As I
pointed out, and as he ignored.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
[More crickets...]
James Beck
Interesting muddle.
In claiming that they can recognize design in biology, geology, etc.,
the ID crowd behaves like materialists, at least until they are asked
for evidence. At that point, they commonly accuse everyone else of
being materialists.
I am a materialist. I recognize design every day. Some of it is
intelligent, some not. Some of it is suitable, some not. Although
there are limits to my ability to recognize design, what I do not have
(so far) is any evidence of a non-human designer operating in things
like biology, etc. That does not mean that life was not designed, just
that I have comprehended no evidence that it was designed. By
contrast, there is a lot of evidence for evolution.
By comparison, you seem to posture as a materialist until you have to
rely on your senses. Still, if you are confused about how to recognize
intelligent design, one method you might try is Consumer Reports. In
the meantime, as Kant might have said, the only things we know for
certain are in our heads; you can construct thought experiments to
discover the limits of your ability to recognize design.
In that context, Clarke's monolith is a bit of minimalist silliness.
Presumably, the aliens that made us knew what they had to work with.
Why not simply broadcast intelligible instructions as the first
monolith did? "You've done great so far. We're proud of you. We'll
meet you at Jupiter. Here are plans for a much better space ship."
The monolith is his way of describing the minimum sort of evidence he
would require, but gods and super-aliens are not constrained to
provide minimal evidence. I'd like mine direct and obvious.
Randy C
> Interesting muddle.
Please give a specific example of "direct and obvious" instructions
that would be necessarily understood by a completely different
intelligent species.
I think that Clarke's monolith did exactly that. When the top of the
monolith was directly exposed to sunlight, a directional radio signal
went to Jupiter. That told the humans that the way to work with the
aliens was to go to Jupiter. So they went there. The trip was
eventful because of the nonsense with HAL the computer, but the
message got through in the book and I have little doubt that it would
if it happened in real life as well.
But leaving a stone tablet, say, with symbols wouldn't necessarily
mean anything. Who knows that this alien intelligent species would
even recognize the symbols much less be able to interpret them?
But, relevant to this discussion forum, no one trield to apply any
sort of nonsensical "specified complexity" algorithms because there
are no such algorithms that can be used to identify ID.
James Beck
The fictional aliens allegedly learned enough about our brains to
reprogram them, remotedly, no less and via ESP(?), but somehow failed
to notice that we had a huge visual cortex, ears, nose, tongue, and a
distributed sensory network that would enable the tool use they wanted
to program in? Then, they lure Bowman to a trans-galactic hotel suite
that looks and feels like the real thing? Be serious.
The monolith is a half-baked, corny plot device. You're supposed to
suspend disbelief and enjoy the story, not drink the Kool-Aid. The
lunar monolith could simply have lit up and broadcast instructions to
our deliberately pre-engineered brains, i.e., Go to Japetus. See you
in 18 months. That would have been a dull story. No subplot with
neurotic HAL. No murders. No struggle to survive against the odds.
>But, relevant to this discussion forum, no one trield to apply any
>sort of nonsensical "specified complexity" algorithms because there
>are no such algorithms that can be used to identify ID.
No one here applies specified complexity algorithms because the term
doesn't mean anything, except perhaps, something like subjective
probability. That amounts to opinion. The weight of opinion in the
outcome of a well-designed, unbiased experiment is unshockingly
identical to zero.
However, that is not the same as the claim that there are no
algorithms to identify design. There are a number of methods for
pattern recognition analysis of digital sound and photography, as well
as, for digitized language, and for many kinds of numerical data.
These algorithms can be benchmarked and tested.
In a more prosaic example of a seemingly-random-brick wall, not only
may there may be a pattern in the bricks, we may also be able to
detect regularities in the moss growing on the wall (or the ground
nearby) that reveal patterns of earlier modification, construction,
repair, etc. Technical archeologists, satellite, and photo-Intel
analysts, among others, use such tools. None of them give us any
evidence that nature is designed, but they may tell us that a human
city is buried nearby.
There are also human designs that are difficult to detect using
digital computers; optical smoothing in the brain in a sense recreates
the pattern created by the designer/artist. See for example, Madonna
(Dali, 1958), Lincoln in DaliVision (Dali, 1975), Paranoia (Dali,
1944), the pointillist works of Seurat, et al, and continuous line
drawings by Costa Vavagiakis, et al. Since the brain, in a sense,
fills in the missing pieces, it can sometimes be tricked. When we
think that's a possibility, we design instruments, methods, and
experiments to find out, to the best approximation that we can.
Not to mention that we behave as if we can detect our own designs, and
we seem to be pretty good at it. We also detect design by other
animals. That twig that chimps design to fish for termites is pretty
intelligent. Works for ants, too.
Randy C
Not at all.
I suggest that *IF** humans found, in fact, a monolith with these
characteristics they would know that it was intelligently designed.
(Note "perfectly" is defined as within the ability of humans to
measure.)
1. "Perfectly" black.
2. "Perfectly" rectangular.
3. Dimensions "perfectly" in the ratio of 1x4x9.
> >But, relevant to this discussion forum, no one trield to apply any
> >sort of nonsensical "specified complexity" algorithms because there
> >are no such algorithms that can be used to identify ID.
> No one here applies specified complexity algorithms because the term
> doesn't mean anything, except perhaps, something like subjective
> probability. That amounts to opinion. The weight of opinion in the
> outcome of a well-designed, unbiased experiment is unshockingly
> identical to zero.
Yes. Recognizing Intelligent Design is nothing more than a matter of
opinion. There are NO objective tools that can be applied to that
discussion.
There would, in fact, be many applications outside of denying
evolution for which such tools could be used. I mentioned a day or
two ago about someone paying $28,000 for a piece of toast that
supposedly had an image of the Virgin Mary in it. If the image is
truly miraculous, it would be an example of intelligent design.
Otherwise it is simply a piece of toast.
Generally before someone buys a picture supposedly painted by an
important artist - Rembrandt, let's say - they hire someone to confirm
that the painting is valid. Art experts can apply objective tools in
order to help determine the validity of the painting. If ID actually
had such tools, this piece of toast would represent a near-perfect
opportunity to use them.
No one even considered doing that. Why not? Because, in fact, there
are
Specified complexity is nothing but a useless fraud.
> intelligent. Works for ants, too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Arkalen
Would that really imply a designer, though ? Naturalistic processes can
involve mathematically "perfect" numbers, all the more so when you get
down to atomic levels, and that's the level that tends to dictate the
shape of a crystal.
That is not to say I don't think obviously-designed objects exist (if we
found Paley's watch on Mars, say) but I'm not sure Clarke's monolith is
such a good example.
Burkhard
I'm wondering if the number of artefacts mattered too? Intuitively, I
would be more inclined to infer design if it was just one "out of
context" specimen then if we had thousands, littering the landscape
without obvious pattern. In the latter case, I would guess e.g. a
race of aliens with strange metabolism and really strong and unusually
formed sphincter....
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> Recognizing Intelligent Design is nothing more than a matter of
> opinion. There are NO objective tools that can be applied to that
> discussion.
>
> There would, in fact, be many applications outside of denying
> evolution for which such tools could be used. I mentioned a day or
> two ago about someone paying $28,000 for a piece of toast that
> supposedly had an image of the Virgin Mary in it. If the image is
> truly miraculous, it would be an example of intelligent design.
> Otherwise it is simply a piece of toast.
I wonder if I should be surprised that the words "painted onto bread"
apparently appear on only one web page known to Google (other than
copies of the article you are now reading), namely
<http://daveroberts-hell-in-africa.blogspot.com/
2008_06_01_archive.html>
A toaster that brands a weather forecast indicator onto your breakfast
fibre ration is documented here.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/04/bread_as_a_display_device/>
So design (not equal) miracle!
James Beck
> On May 12, 12:41 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 8:29 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 10 May 2011 04:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Randy C
>
> > > <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > I suggest that *IF** humans found, in fact, a monolith with these
> > characteristics they would know that it was intelligently designed.
> > (Note "perfectly" is defined as within the ability of humans to
> > measure.)
>
> > 1. "Perfectly" black.
> > 2. "Perfectly" rectangular.
> > 3. Dimensions "perfectly" in the ratio of 1x4x9.
>
> I'm wondering if the number of artefacts mattered too? Intuitively, I
> would be more inclined to infer design if it was just one "out of
> context" specimen then if we had thousands, littering the landscape
> without obvious pattern. In the latter case, I would guess e.g. a
> race of aliens with strange metabolism and really strong and unusually
> formed sphincter....
April Fool, 2012 (assuming the world doesn't end). Lunar Lander Found
Alien Coprolites - Cover Up Exposed
[snip]
James Beck
> On May 11, 8:29 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 10 May 2011 04:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Randy C
>
> > <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I suggest that *IF** humans found, in fact, a monolith with these
> characteristics they would know that it was intelligently designed.
> (Note "perfectly" is defined as within the ability of humans to
> measure.)
>
> 1. "Perfectly" black.
> 2. "Perfectly" rectangular.
> 3. Dimensions "perfectly" in the ratio of 1x4x9.
Previously, your claim was that we could not recognize it as designed.
Now they can know it. Your thinking improves rapidly. Still, why does
it need to be perfect? Would you recognize an innocuous-looking hollow
rock like the ones people use to 'hide' their spare house key as
designed? Both the people who buy them and most burglars seem to.
> > >But, relevant to this discussion forum, no one trield to apply any
> > >sort of nonsensical "specified complexity" algorithms because there
> > >are no such algorithms that can be used to identify ID.
> > No one here applies specified complexity algorithms because the term
> > doesn't mean anything, except perhaps, something like subjective
> > probability. That amounts to opinion. The weight of opinion in the
> > outcome of a well-designed, unbiased experiment is unshockingly
> > identical to zero.
>
> Yes. Recognizing Intelligent Design is nothing more than a matter of
> opinion. There are NO objective tools that can be applied to that
> discussion.
No. This is false. We have a palette of tools for recognizing design
that has produced no evidence of a Designer. but that is not the same
thing. Likewise, the Designer (if any) could choose to show up and we
could watch it working, maybe jab it with biopsy needles, and so
forth.
> There would, in fact, be many applications outside of denying
> evolution for which such tools could be used. I mentioned a day or
> two ago about someone paying $28,000 for a piece of toast that
> supposedly had an image of the Virgin Mary in it. If the image is
> truly miraculous, it would be an example of intelligent design.
> Otherwise it is simply a piece of toast.
You're not (I hope) denying that there's a pattern in the toast. After
all, there is a pretty obvious face, and she's hot, in a Hollywood-
sort of way, even if she doesn't make me think of virginity. Reminds
me of Greer Garson (Pride and Prejudice, 1940), or Maureen O'Hara
(Black Swan, 1942). Also, we can easily replicate the face-in-the-
toast miracle. It's hard to get it that perfect, but an artist could
probably do it in less than a loaf of tries.
> Generally before someone buys a picture supposedly painted by an
> important artist - Rembrandt, let's say - they hire someone to confirm
> that the painting is valid. Art experts can apply objective tools in
> order to help determine the validity of the painting. If ID actually
> had such tools, this piece of toast would represent a near-perfect
> opportunity to use them.
Why would this be a 'near-perfect opportunity' for the ID folks?
> No one even considered doing that. Why not? Because, in fact, there
> are
They didn't do it because they have some common sense. Mrs. Duyser
(the probable designer) claims that the sandwich has been perfectly
preserved for 10 years, but also warned the auction participants that
the sandwich is "not intended for consumption." Maybe she tripled the
preservative load for Twinkies and she's afraid of the liability if
someone actually eats her miracle.
Cheese only Gans could love.
> Specified complexity is nothing but a useless fraud.
On the contrary. It's an inventive fiction that seems to comfort some
people. I have no problem with people trying to be happy. I just don't
want them near my grandchildren, at least not before they're old
enough to fight back, say 40 or so (I've recently discovered that I
somehow became old enough to have some. Consequences. Consequences.).
[snip]
John Stockwell
> > > The assembly of
> > > letters in the sonnet is specified,it represents a specified concept
> > > or information. Thus specified pattern extends the notion of specified
> > > complexity, a different way of saying design(represents something
> > > other than itself).
> > But if someone unfamilar with English looked at that sonnet, they
> > would not understand the artificiality of it and would have no reason
> > to identify it as intelligently designed. From their perspective it
> > could be nothing but a random sequence of letters.
>
> I think that this point is worth emphasizing.
>
> Dembski has said:
>
> "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A
> long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A
> Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."
>
> A Shakespearean sonnet would be recognized by an English speaking
> person as intelligently designed.
>
> But imagine this experiment:
>
> 1. Find a New Guinea tribesman who knew nothing about English and had
> never even seen words written on a piece of paper.
> 2. Give that tribesman two pieces of paper.
> 3. One piece of paper has on it a typed Shakespearean sonnet.
> 4. On the other piece of paper there is something that a monkey had
> typed (since monkeys typing are generally considered to be the
> prototypical example of random letters).
> 5. Ask the tribesman to identify which sequence of letters was
> intelligently designed and which one wasn't.
>
> I contend that the tribesman would have no idea whatsoever which piece
> of paper contained "intelligent design" and which one didn't.
>
> Intelligent design is all in the eye of the beholder. We would
> recognize a Shakespearean sonnet as intelligently designed because we,
> as "beholders", know English.
>
> But a "beholder" that didn't know English wouldn't have a clue.
>
> You could try a similar experiment with someone like me.
>
> I don't know Japanese. Neither do I know the Japanese character set.
> You could probably show me two pieces of paper, one with a legitimate
> Japanese character and one with some random brush strokes. I doubt
> that I would be able to tell which is intelligently designed and which
> one isn't.
>
> There is clearly NO SCIENCE to ID. Period.
We do not identify design,
we model manufacture. In each case, you are asking the tribesman about
a manufactured
item. If he is aware of what paper is, then he will say "both of them
are designed" because
he will recognize them as being made of paper, of regular size, and
characteristically like
the other stuff that outsiders look at.
If he sees the paper as a piece of bark, he will marvel
at the regular and identical shape of both of these, and know that he
would have to cut very
carefully to make such straight edges and say "both of them". If the
paper is of irregular shape,
he might say "what stranges
pieces of bark" . Maybe it will be a tossup, but neither will look
more "designed" than the other.
-John
John Stockwell
Rather, we know now to manufacture black slabs of specific dimensions.
It is the knowledge
of manufacturing processes that give us a notion of "artificiality".
From the Online Dictionary,
the word "artificial" refers to how an object is made, not whether it
was "designed".
artificial [ˌɑːtɪˈfɪʃəl]
adj
1. produced by man; not occurring naturally artificial materials of
great strength
2. made in imitation of a natural product, esp as a substitute; not
genuine artificial cream
3. pretended; assumed; insincere an artificial manner
4. lacking in spontaneity; affected an artificial laugh
5. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology relating to
superficial characteristics not based on the interrelationships of
organisms an artificial classification
[from Latin artificiālis belonging to art, from artificium skill,
artifice]
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
And BS runs away again...
Randy C
> It is the knowledge
> of manufacturing processes that give us a notion of "artificiality".
Which exactly correlates with a claim I've made numerous times on this
forum.
The ONLY test for intelligent design is artificiality.
Artificiality isn't quantifiable.
Therefore ID cannot be science.
Q.E.D.
James Beck
We can watch a chimp pick a leafy twig and strip it to make a tool to
fish for termites. We can even copy the chimp, make our own tool, and
eat termites, too. The leafy twig isn't artificial; neither is the
stripped twig. I find them in my garden all summer long.
It is, however, a tool. If it is not designed, please attempt to
explain why it isn't. Make your argument as specific as you can, and
as complex as you think it needs to be.
Randy C
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 12:02:19 -0700 (PDT), Randy C
>
It is a tool if you watch the chimp construct it.
It is merely a twig if you find it in your back yard.
In one case it is a tool.
In the other case it isn't.
In one case it is "intelligently" designed.
In the other case it isn't.
You can't tell by looking at it.
So ID is a useless fraud.
How do you quantify how artificial a stick found in a jungle is
compared to a stick found in your back yard in North America?
You can't.
Artificiality can't be quantified.
Yet that is the ONLY factor we use in determining if something is
intelligently designed.
Therefore ID is not and cannot be science.
John Stockwell
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 12:02:19 -0700 (PDT), Randy C
>
> <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Rather, we know now to manufacture black slabs of specific dimensions.
> >> It is the knowledge
> >> of manufacturing processes that give us a notion of "artificiality".
>
> >Which exactly correlates with a claim I've made numerous times on this
> >forum.
>
> >The ONLY test for intelligent design is artificiality.
>
> >Artificiality isn't quantifiable.
>
> >Therefore ID cannot be science.
>
> >Q.E.D.
>
> We can watch a chimp pick a leafy twig and strip it to make a tool to
> fish for termites. We can even copy the chimp, make our own tool, and
> eat termites, too. The leafy twig isn't artificial; neither is the
> stripped twig. I find them in my garden all summer long.
>
> It is, however, a tool. If it is not designed, please attempt to
> explain why it isn't. Make your argument as specific as you can, and
> as complex as you think it needs to be.
You have describe a manufacturing process. As to what "design" means
in
this context, we have now way of knowing, as this would be a
speculation on the
mental processes of a chimpanzee. That is a totally different
question.
-John
James Beck
Nonsense. If I emulate the chimp and end up with a belly full of
termites, what difference does it make what the chimp's thought
process was? It may have been miming the original designer-chimp, but
for all I know, chimpX emulated a designer-human. Barring instinct,
whether the chimp I copied had any thought process (as I would
understand it) is irrelevant. The evidence suggests that it is not a
mimetic zombie using this technology, but that humans who copy it
probably are. Oh well. Can't have everything.
However, since you chose the word 'manufacturing,' which common
definition of that word do you believe does not imply some ultimate
design?
You appear to have written me a message. Who (or what) designed it for
you? The question of whether you did it yourself, or you're a puppet
with some ultimate Designer's hand up your ass is the traditional turf
of philosophers and theologians. They're wonderful people. Consult
them at your own risk.
James Beck
Not quite the null set, is it? Thank you for honestly providing at
least one criterion for detecting design. It was incomplete though; we
need to see at least one chimp design and use the tool.
Now, if, having previously observed chimps using tools of this sort,
you found a number of similar twigs scattered around a termite mound,
along with some associated clumps of chimp hair, would you hypothesize
that they were chimp-tools?
How about if you found a hundred termite mounds with similar evidence
in chimp habitats, and no termite mounds with similar evidence in non-
chimp habitats? How might you predict what you would find at the next
termite mound?
hersheyh
Actually, shouldn't it be that artificiality cannot be discriminated
from non-artificiality merely by examination of the object itself. In
some cases, when we know, *from previous knowledge*, that the object
is *only* produced by a *known* intelligent agent (such as watches on
the heath or termite mounds), we can conditionally infer that that
object was manufactured by that kind of intelligent agent (modern
industrial humans in the case of watches; termites in the case of
termite mounds). Another example is that rocks can be polished by
either a human using a tumbler or by grit moved by water in nature.
In one case, the object is an "artifact" produced by an intelligent
agent. In the other it is a "natural object" produced by
unintelligent natural forces. The object divorced from context or
prior knowledge is unassignable as "artifact" or "natural object".
But it is the ability to distinguish between (have knowledge of) the
modes of manufacture that allows assignment, not quantification.
TomS
<cdc81e67-2d55-4c24...@n11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, hersheyh
stated..."
But the advocates of ID do not *distinguish*.
They only tell us about things that are "intelligently designed".
They never give us a definition, description, or even an example,
of what is *not* "intelligently designed.
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
James Beck
Not quite the null set, is it? Thank you for honestly providing at
James Beck
Not quite the null set, is it? Thank you for honestly providing at
Randy C
> > You can't.
I’ve consistently asserted that artificiality is the only thing that
can determine whether or not something is intelligently designed.
But artificiality cannot be quantified so it becomes merely something
in the eye of the beholder.
> Now, if, having previously observed chimps using tools of this sort,
> you found a number of similar twigs scattered around a termite mound,
> along with some associated clumps of chimp hair, would you hypothesize
> that they were chimp-tools?
> How about if you found a hundred termite mounds with similar evidence
> in chimp habitats, and no termite mounds with similar evidence in non-
> chimp habitats? How might you predict what you would find at the next
> termite mound?
But I was talking about the quantification of evidence for ID. Your
example doesn’t address that claim.
There are many factors that you would have to consider. How much
chimp hair was found? How close was to the stick?
Then there is the stick itself. How close is that to the termite
mound? Does it have to be lying on top of the termite mound? What if
it is five feet away? How about 50 feet?
How about the length of the stick? What if it is only an inch long?
How about six inches? How about six feet?
The chimps take the leaves off of the stick. What if there was one
leaf left on it? Would that make it a non-tool? How about two
leaves? How about 10?
If you find a large clump of chimp on a six-inch stick, completely
stripped of leaves lying on a termite mound you have very likely found
an intelligently designed tool.
But if you find three chimp hairs ten feet away from a three-foot-long
stick with three leaves still on it and the stick itself is 15 feet
away from the nearest termite mound, you probably haven’t found an
intelligently designed tool.
Then there are all of the permutations and combinations of factors in
between those two examples.
How do you quantify things in order to determine whether or not any
particular stick is an actual tool and which isn’t? If ID was valid,
you might be able to develop a formula to determine the likelihood
that any particular stick under any particular set of circumstances is
an intelligently designed tool. At a minimum it should be able to
give you a probability. You feed in the amount of chimp hair found,
the length of the stick, how many leaves it has left on it, etc, and
the formula tells you that the probability that the stick is an
intelligently designed tool is 0.612. Then you have something.
But obviously you can’t quantify artificiality so such a tool is
impossible.
Therefore ID, especially specified complexity, is a useless fraud.
hersheyh
Artificiality can be *observed*. So can non-artificiality in some
cases. It cannot be automatically inferred without bringing in prior
knowledge. There may be cases where two observers can come to
different conclusions, but in most cases, if the requirements for
"artificiality" are defined properly and rigorously enough, the
classification of "artificial" and "natural" can be done in ways that
are both public and reproducible. Typically that requires that the
observers either personally observe the artificers at work or know,
from the accumulated evidence-based work of others, that the objects
require a specific artificer. It is possible that a few people
actually "see" ghosts and spirits (after all, it is possible for a
brain-damaged person to confuse his wife for a hat; visual agnosia).
But aside from those few brain-damaged (or willfully deluded)
individuals (not naming names, just backspacing), most people can
"observe" events similarly as our public or empirical reality.
Categorization of events or objects into clearly specified groups
(even if you have to include a category of "unable to determine") is
not necessarily quantitative in nature. One can make qualitative
distinctions that are not private (such as the distinction between red
and blue) that most people with normal color vision will do quite
similarly. Such categorization is not entirely subjective if the
categories are sufficiently well defined and described and the
observers are competent to perceive the distinctions. Unfortunately,
backspace is consistently using intentionally ill-defined and private
definitions in describing his categories.
Although I certainly agree that ID and specified complexity are
useless and frauds, it is not because of "quantification". It is
because they use intentionally sloppy and slippery categories and
insist on choices being made without recognizing that they are
bringing in outside knowledge to infer a designer rather than, as they
delude themselves, using the properties of the object to infer a
designer.
James Beck
There are threats to valid inference, but these are empirical
questions.
[snip]
Randy C
> >particular stick is an actual tool and which isn’t?
> There are threats to valid inference, but these are empirical
> questions.
Meaning what?
How do we find the empircal answers to those empirical questions?
Again (repeating my previous question):
How do you quantify things in order to determine whether or not any
particular strick is an actual tool and which isn't?
James Beck
With you to here; however, consider that 'specified complexity' and
'irreducible complexity' are just alternative ways to say 'design.'
'Design' is readily understandable in human terms. In manufacturing,
you could also have 're-specified complexity' aka redesign. IC has a
discrete binary value. Either the design is the most suitable for its
intended purpose, or it isn't. By contrast, SC is continuous; some
specifications are empirically better for the intended purpose than
others. Neither idea is inherently fraudulent.
The problem starts with the anthropomorphizing of a god/Designer. This
is an old, invalid, and entirely familiar argument. The intellectual
fraud lies in the pretense that saying IC or SC adds anything to it.
I'm simply unwilling to let nihilism be any part of my answer to ID.
That's not to say that they can't win; they can show me either a
Designer, or a recurring, observable, known impossibility.
James Beck
How do you know that your toothbrush will be where you left it?
How do you know that the keys on your keyboard will reproduce the
letters in your message?
How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?
The blue pill is the one you want.
backspace
''.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more
or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the
survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of
evolution....'''
1)The robots in the factory became more or less common depending on
the contracts available to the company
2)The sand on the see shore becomes more or less common depending on
the waves.
In what sense did the mystery author use ns , 1 or 2? Why is there no
citation, thus according to who is this ns.
For example if somebody wrote what happens, happens, there can't be a
citation because it is a truism. An attribute of truisms are
that nobody says so, with theories , somebody has to say so such a
Newton, Einstein etc. E=mc2 didn't appear all by itself: somebody
said so. With 'what will be, will be' - nobody says so.
backspace
''....Natural selection states simply that the frequency of inherited
traits that help an organism to survive tend to increase over the
generations in a population. Similarly the frequencies of inherited
traits that reduce the probability of an organism surviving tend to
reduce over the generations. This is a tautology and inevitably
true. ....'''
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/37e8006cf9a3e9e1?hl=en
"One thing that should be noted, is that in logic a tautology is
something that is _true by definition_. If natural selection _were_ a
tautology, that would mean it had to be true, which is perhaps a
conclusion creationists would not want to reach" (John Wilkins, 2009).
What happens, happens also has to be true, imagine if it weren't .
What happens, happens isn't scientific theory but a logical validity.
We are after falsifiable theories of evolution, not a collection of
truisms and tautologies.
1=1 is true by definition, but not Newton's falsifiable inverse square
law, there are means to disprove it. In contrast nobody can prove or
refute that what happens, indeed does happen to happen.
Question to Atheists: Are you people perhaps insane?
Randy C
> Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more
> or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the
> survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of
> evolution....'''
>
> 1)The robots in the factory became more or less common depending on
> the contracts available to the company
> 2)The sand on the see shore becomes more or less common depending on
> the waves.
>
> In what sense did the mystery author use ns , 1 or 2? Why is there no
> citation, thus according to who is this ns.
Neither.
You get the part where living things can reproduce through natural
processes and their offspring will share their parent’s
characteristics don’t you?
Robots and sand don’t reproduce through natural processes. If you put
two robots in the warehouse next to each other, you don’t have to
worry that you’ll find some miniature robot there in nine months. So
any analogy comparing living things to non-living things is bound to
be flawed in some way.
But I would say that alternative 1) is closer than alternative 2).
But it is difficult to say. With humans doing the selection, it is
possible that the less popular robot may be discontinued which would
be analogous to becoming extinct. Extinction, of course, is something
we see all of the time in the natural world.
On the other hand, the company may invest in some design changes to
the less popular robot and that less popular robot may even become
more popular over time. That’s not really analogous to what we would
expect to see in the natural world.
backspace
> > ''.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> > Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more
> > or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the
> > survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of
> > evolution....'''
>
> > 1)The robots in the factory became more or less common depending on
> > the contracts available to the company
> > 2)The sand on the see shore becomes more or less common depending on
> > the waves.
>
> > In what sense did the mystery author use ns , 1 or 2? Why is there no
> > citation, thus according to who is this ns.
>
> Neither.
>
> You get the part where living things can reproduce through natural
> processes and their offspring will share their parent’s
> characteristics don’t you?
''.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more
or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the
survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of
evolution....'''
Rephrase:
Natural selection is the process traits become more , stasis or less
common. It is a key mechanism of
evolution....'''
Rephrase:
Traits become more , stasis or less common. It is a key mechanism of
evolution....'''
Rephrase:
Temperature of a room increases, decreases or remains the same. This
is a key logical validity that can be generalized to
anything .....'''
Things increase, decrease or remain the same. Mutations are either
harmful, contributory or neutral. These are all assumed validities, by
stating them they become truisms. The reason Wikipedia doesn't cite
anybody for the opening paragraph is because they have reformulated a
generalized validity - positive, negative or neutral. Nobody says so,
because it isn't a theory.
Randy C
Your rephrasal doesn't make any sense.
> Rephrase:
> Temperature of a room increases, decreases or remains the same. This
> is a key logical validity that can be generalized to
> anything .....'''
And plants that favor warmer temperatures will grow better in warmer
rooms, and vice versa.
If you have two rooms - one getting warmer and one getting colder -
the plants favoring warmer temperatures will tend to flourish in the
warmer room whereas plants favoring colder temperatures will tend to
flourish in the cooler room.
> Things increase, decrease or remain the same. Mutations are either
> harmful, contributory or neutral. These are all assumed validities, by
> stating them they become truisms. The reason Wikipedia doesn't cite
> anybody for the opening paragraph is because they have reformulated a
> generalized validity - positive, negative or neutral. Nobody says so,
> because it isn't a theory.
Of course it is a very valid theory.
Beneficial mutations will tend to be reproduced more often than
neutral mutations which will be reproduced more often than negative
mutations.
Let's look at a casino. Three sorts of things can happen: people will
be winners, losers or break even.
Here's a theory regarding that:
Losers will leave the casino more quickly than winners or even those
breaking even.
I believe that is a valid theory as well. It involves three possible
outcomes. (I can even confirm it in my own case. I don't gamble
much. But when I do, I walk into the casino with a set amount of
money that I am willing to lose. The amount of time I spend in the
casino is directly related to how successful I am.)
So how does the fact that a theory includes three possible outcomes,
by itself, make something NOT a theory?
Bob Casanova
>http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Natural_selection
Your interpretation is incorrect. While the Wiki article is
correct, John's statement is also correct. Natural selection
is the process by which this increase or decrease based on
fitness takes place; it is not the fitness (or lack of same)
itself. Compare with Newton's Laws, which describe
equivalent tautologies ("things fall down", as a minimum).
Is Newtonian mechanics a tautology? How about SR, which
describes them more precisely?
>Question to Atheists: Are you people perhaps insane?
Do we keep responding to your vacuities and expecting
different results? You may have a point there...assuming any
of us actually *do* expect different results and aren't just
having fun playing Poke the Smug Moron.
And how does "atheists" enter this? Many religious
scientists (and others, including a couple of Popes) accept
evolution as a scientific subject with scientific theories.
Have you bought into the "Anyone who accepts evolution is an
atheist" idiocy, per Ray and Tony?
backspace
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 08:07:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
If pigs had wheels mounted on ball bearings , instead of trotters, on
what scale of porcine fitness would they be?
Burkhard
.. is not a rephrase , since you omit a part that contributes
empirical content
>
> Rephrase:
> Temperature of a room increases, decreases or remains the same. This
> is a key logical validity that can be generalized to
> anything .....'''
Is not a rephrase, since it omits a party that contributes empirical
content. If you wanted an analogous formulation, it would be: The
thermostat increases, decreases or keeps constant the room
temperature. This is a key principle of heating system engineering
>
> Things increase, decrease or remain the same. Mutations are either
> harmful, contributory or neutral. These are all assumed validities, by
> stating them they become truisms.
There is nothing in the meaning of the word "mutation" that would
imply that all three possibilities are covered. It is an empirical
fact, not a fact about the dictionary. We woudl well have found out
that mutations are always harmful, or always neutral, or always
beneficial. For this, we have to look into the world, not into books
>The reason Wikipedia doesn't cite
> anybody for the opening paragraph is because they have reformulated a
> generalized validity - positive, negative or neutral. Nobody says so,
> because it isn't a theory.
No, they haven't cited anyone for the same reason that they don;t cite
anyone in the opening line of the article on the US:
"The United States of America (also referred to as the United States,
the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic
comprising fifty states and a federal district. "
It is neither necessary nor desirable to have a cite for something
that everybody with basic knowledge in the field knows and understands
Randy C
> > >truisms and tautologies.
This discussion forum is, of course, associated with the Talk Origins
web site. Have you ever visited that site? If you had you might have
seen http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ . On that web page and
its associated links, Dr. Douglas Theobald give numerous pieces of
evidence supporting macro-evolution. Most relevantly, he also lists
numerous things that would falsify macro-evolution.
My favorite example continues to be this one, primarily because it is
so easy to understand:
The fossil record could show a chronological progression in which bird
wings are gradually transformed into reptilian arms; however, the
opposite is the case. Additionally, a strong falsification would be if
it were positively demonstrated that the primitive structures of an
organism's predicted ancestors could not be reasonably modified into
the modern organism's derived structures. A clear fanciful example,
though completely serious, is the macroevolutionary impossibility of
ever finding an animal such as a Pegasus. Since a Pegasus would be a
mammal closely related to the horse, its wings would be considered
derived characters. However, Pegasus wings cannot be modifications of
its ancestors' structures, since the immediate predicted ancestors of
Pegasi and horses had no possible structures there to modify (Futuyma
1998, p. 110).
Analogously, we predict that we should never find birds with both
wings and arms, or mollusks harboring chloroplasts, even though these
structures could be quite useful for these organisms. Equivalently, it
would be a strong falsification if the phylogenetic tree had no
structural continuity, but rather had functional continuity or had no
recognizable continuity of any kind...
So...
If you found a living or fossilized Pegasus, you would falsify
evolution. The same is true for many other chimeras found in human
myths - the Sphinx (with the body of a lion and the upper part of a
human female), the Griffin (the body of a lion but the head and wings
of an eagle), the Minotaur (the head of a bull on the body of a man)
and Centaurs (human from the head to the loins, while the remainder of
the body was that of a horse) are all creatures that evolution could
never explain.
The fact that these are mythical creatures should not bother
creationists. That's because myths are often based on facts. There
are a number of examples of organisms once thought to be mythical that
eventually were found to be real. The web site
http://listverse.com/2010/04/16/10-beasts-that-used-to-be-mythical/
lists ten such creatures. So the fact that some creature is thought
to be a myth does not eliminate the possiblity of it being real.
Moreover creationists insist that the mythical creature we call a
dragon was real. Why? Because the Bible speaks of them.
I don't think that anyone would dispute that finding a living or
fossilized Pegasus (or living or fossilized examples of the other
creatures listed above) would indisputably falsify Darwinian
evolution.
Burkhard
That would depend pretty much on their environment. Probably a lot if
there are lots of paved roads, not a lot if there are lots of swamps.
Fitness in the ToE is only ever fitness relative to specific
environmental conditions.
backspace
> The fossil record could show a chronological progression in which bird
> wings are gradually transformed into reptilian arms; however, the
> opposite is the case. Additionally, a strong falsification would be if
Tiktaalik had no kids , thus how could he have been the ancestor of
anybody?
backspace
The previous revisions to the wikipedia tautology article had the
following opening:#
Natural selection is the process by which those with favorable traits
become more common.
I pointed out that favorable and more common are dissimilar terms that
alludes to the same fact. Becoming more common implies they were
favorable, it says the same thing twice making it a rhetorical
tautology. Few months later the opening paragraph was changed and a
tautology replaced with a truism.
Christopher Denney
> > > >We are after falsifiable theories of evolution, not a collection of
> > > >truisms and tautologies.
>
> This discussion forum is, of course, associated with the Talk Origins
> web site. Have you ever visited that site? If you had you might have
> lists ten such creatures. So the fact that some creature is thought
> to be a myth does not eliminate the possiblity of it being real.
>
> Moreover creationists insist that the mythical creature we call a
> dragon was real. Why? Because the Bible speaks of them.
>
> I don't think that anyone would dispute that finding a living or
> fossilized Pegasus (or living or fossilized examples of the other
> creatures listed above) would indisputably falsify Darwinian
> evolution.
I always love it when folks start listing the things that would
falsify evolution, and the anti-evos whine that "those are all
impossible" failing to understand why that makes us smile.
Burkhard
Only that they aren't
>Becoming more common implies they were
> favorable, it says the same thing twice making it a rhetorical
> tautology.
Only that they don't
Christopher Denney
Did you miss your dose today, or take two?
David Hare-Scott
Why are you playing Chinese whispers with yourself? This is one of
your more foolish but nevertheless endearing habits. I was wondering
what you think it achieves?
David
Randy C
>
> > The fossil record could show a chronological progression in which bird
> > wings are gradually transformed into reptilian arms; however, the
> > opposite is the case. Additionally, a strong falsification would be if
>
> anybody?
And the relevance of that comment to my post is...????
I know that creationists are forced to grasp as straws, but this straw
is lost in a pile of needles.
In the part that you [snipped] I talked about chimeras such as Pegasi
and Sphinxes and centaurs.
No Tiktaaliks mentioned.
Your concession of intellectual defeat is hereby accepted.
backspace
You are assuming that the creature had kids during his lifetime before
becoming fossilized. How do you actually know they had kids?
Boikat
Is there any reason to assume otherwise? Any *rational* reason?
> How do you actually know they had kids?-
How do you know it didn't? Besides, what makes you think the fossil
found was the only Tiktaalik to ever have lived?
As Randy said, you're grasping at straws.
Boikat
backspace
If there was a giant flood covering the earth then none of the fossils
would have had kids that survived. We have to make assumptions,
Epicureans don't understand how they are reasoning in a circle.
Randy C
I was talking about Pegasi and Centaurs.
What does Tiktaalik - with or without children - have to do with
those?
Randy C
And if Santa Claus had a workshop at the North Pole...
> ...then none of the fossils would have had kids that survived. We have to make assumptions,
Or we have to accept facts.
One of those facts is that the Biblical flood is nothing but a myth.
> Epicureans don't understand how they are reasoning in a circle.
The circle comes from people who believe that the flood was real.
Moreover I was STILL not talking about Tiktaalik.
Admit that I provided an example (that I borrowed from Talk Origins)
of something that would falsify evolution. I will accept your
concession and we can move on.
Ernest Major
<50d2a40e-d4b5-4f9e...@32g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> writes
We can infer from the existence of fossils of Tiktaalik roseae that some
individuals of that species had kids. In general it is rare that we can
infer that the individual represented by any particular fossil had kids;
it is also uncommon that we can infer that the individual represented by
any particular fossil didn't have kids. I know of no reason why we can
infer either way for the individuals represented by fossil specimens of
Tiktaalik roseae.
How do *you* know that Tiktaalik has *no* kids?
--
alias Ernest Major
Randy C
> >anybody?
>
> We can infer from the existence of fossils of Tiktaalik roseae that some
> individuals of that species had kids. In general it is rare that we can
> infer that the individual represented by any particular fossil had kids;
> it is also uncommon that we can infer that the individual represented by
> any particular fossil didn't have kids. I know of no reason why we can
> infer either way for the individuals represented by fossil specimens of
> Tiktaalik roseae.
>
> How do *you* know that Tiktaalik has *no* kids?
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Backspace suggested that there was a global flood (ahem) that might
have been killed Tiktaalik before he could reproduce.
While the most significant problem with that claim is obviously the
fact that this supposed flood is nothing but a myth, another problem
is that Tiktaalik had fish gills,
fish scales and fish fins meaning that almost certainly it could live
in water and, therefore, could have survived a flood.
Ernest Major
<7adfe874-c86e-4a43...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Randy C <randy...@gmail.com> writes
there's no reason to exclude the possibility of Tiktaalik having kids
*before* the flood.
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@gmail.com
> On May 18, 8:16 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On May 18, 2:29 am, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 17, 3:18 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > The fossil record could show a chronological progression in which bird
> > > > > > wings are gradually transformed into reptilian arms; however, the
> > > > > > opposite is the case. Additionally, a strong falsification would be if
>
> > > > > anybody?
>
> > > > And the relevance of that comment to my post is...????
>
> > > > I know that creationists are forced to grasp as straws, but this straw
> > > > is lost in a pile of needles.
>
> > > > In the part that you [snipped] I talked about chimeras such as Pegasi
> > > > and Sphinxes and centaurs.
>
> > > > No Tiktaaliks mentioned.
>
> > > > Your concession of intellectual defeat is hereby accepted.
>
> > > You are assuming that the creature had kids during his lifetime before
> > > becoming fossilized.
>
>
> > > How do you actually know they had kids?-
>
> > How do you know it didn't? Besides, what makes you think the fossil
> > found was the only Tiktaalik to ever have lived?
>
> > As Randy said, you're grasping at straws.
>
> > Boikat
>
> would have had kids that survived.
If God had decided to kill them all with lightning bolts they would
have had no kids.
If aliens had decided to collect all the individuals of Tiktaalik and
whisk them off to a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri there would be no
kids, on on earth at least, descended from Tiktaalik.
As there is no scrap of evidence to support divine intervenation using
lightning bolts or floods, or alien invasion, they are not things we
need to consider.
None of that would change one iota that fact that Tiktaalik is a
transitional form of the kind predicted by evolutionary theory, and
found in the geological and geographical context predicted by
evolutionary and other scientific theories.
> We have to make assumptions,
James Beck
Very good, Stephanus. A clear syllogism. As we discussed before, now
it is appropriate for you to bring some acceptable geological evidence
that such a flood occurred.
We have some archeological evidence that the Noachian flood story is a
retelling of the Egyptian creation myth, and a lot of evidence
supporting evolution. Unfortunately, there is no geological evidence
that a global flood, as described in the biblical creation myths, ever
occurred, even if it were physically possible.
While it is true that we make assumptions, they have to be at least
plausible. Assuming the conclusion, as you have done here, doesn't
meet that standard.
hersheyh
If you are defining something it is rather important to describe it in
different words. It is possible, at least in imagination, for those
with "favorable" traits to become less common. I certainly agree that
in the real empirical world it is an empirically observable fact that
(at least most of the time) those traits that become more common in a
particular environment are those that 1) exist in the organism, and 2)
significantly increase the reproductive success of that trait relative
to other existing traits in that environment, all else being equal.
That one can imagine the theoretical possibility (and there are actual
examples) where this does not occur tells us that the definition is
not a tautology, but is, instead, the most common empirical
observation. There are comparisons of traits where there is no
natural selection and examples where selection does not result in an
increase in the frequency of the trait that increases reproductive
fitness (especially in small populations or when not all else is
equal).
Notice that I did not use the word "favorable" in the second sentence
that more accurately describes natural selection. It is possible for
someone who is in a death cult to claim that "increases in
reproductive success" are "unfavorable" and "undesirable" or "sinful"
and that "chastity", "abstinence", or "early death" are "favorable"
traits in his diseased mind. Moreover, what is "favorable" depends on
one's individual perspective. From the perspective of the malaria
parasite, a trait that makes it resistant to quinine is "favorable",
whereas from the perspective of the host it is "unfavorable".
Although biologists use terms like "beneficial" and "favorable", they
all only use it from the perspective of the organism they are
discussing. But some dimwitted individuals have a problem with that
and try to make a play on words game. These same dimwits apparently
think that if something actually happens almost all the time in the
real world (like gravity causing most objects to fall toward the
center of the earth), that gravity is a rhetorical tautology. Which
is why I use the objective criteria of "relative reproductive success"
of the trait rather than words like "favorable" to describe those
traits that, in a relative sense, become more common.
Burkhard
If there was a giant flood an no fossil had kids that survived, how
comes there is still life?
>We have to make assumptions,
True. And then we can test them
Boikat
"If" worms had hands and could use machine guns, birds would not fuck
with them in the morning, either. There was no biblical flood.
Besides, fool, Tiktaalik was mostly fish. It had gills and fins. So
a flood would not have been a problem.
> then none of the fossils
> would have had kids that survived.
Why would a flood be a problem for an mostly aquatic creature?
> We have to make assumptions,
That's fine, if the a *sane* assumptions, based upon actual evidence.
> Epicureans don't understand how they are reasoning in a circle.
But, then again, "Epicurians" aren't the ones running around making
groundless claims and holkding baseless assumptions based upon the
writting of a book, assembled over generations, and claiming "the
book" is "factual" because it says so in "the book". You were saying
something about "circular reasoning"?
Boikat
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
One more assertion regarding that of which you have zero
knowledge.
That seems to be a specialty of yours.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
Thanks for confirming via posted idiocy that you were
incorrect.
Bob Casanova
>On May 18, 8:16 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Epicureans?
I don't think that word means what you think it means...
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
>On May 18, 8:16 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On May 18, 12:56 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 18, 2:29 am, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 17, 3:18 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 17, 9:13 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > The fossil record could show a chronological progression in which bird
>> > > > > wings are gradually transformed into reptilian arms; however, the
>> > > > > opposite is the case. Additionally, a strong falsification would be if
>>
>> > > > Tiktaalik had no kids, thus how could he have been the ancestor of
>> > > > anybody?
>>
>> > > And the relevance of that comment to my post is...????
>>
>> > > I know that creationists are forced to grasp as straws, but this straw
>> > > is lost in a pile of needles.
>>
>> > > In the part that you [snipped] I talked about chimeras such as Pegasi
>> > > and Sphinxes and centaurs.
>>
>> > > No Tiktaaliks mentioned.
>>
>> > > Your concession of intellectual defeat is hereby accepted.
>>
>> > You are assuming that the creature had kids during his lifetime before
>> > becoming fossilized.
>>
>> Is there any reason to assume otherwise? Any *rational* reason?
>>
>> > How do you actually know they had kids?-
>>
>> How do you know it didn't? Besides, what makes you think the fossil
>> found was the only Tiktaalik to ever have lived?
>>
>> As Randy said, you're grasping at straws.
>If there was a giant flood covering the earth...
There wasn't, and it's irrelevant anyway since Tiktaalik had
gills as well as primitive lungs. Do you ever actually think
before posting?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by James Beck
<jdbec...@gmail.com>:
....and that such a flood would be a major problem for a
creature with gills. ("*Please* don't throw me in that briar
patch!")
>We have some archeological evidence that the Noachian flood story is a
>retelling of the Egyptian creation myth, and a lot of evidence
>supporting evolution. Unfortunately, there is no geological evidence
>that a global flood, as described in the biblical creation myths, ever
>occurred, even if it were physically possible.
>
>While it is true that we make assumptions, they have to be at least
>plausible. Assuming the conclusion, as you have done here, doesn't
>meet that standard.
hersheyh
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 06:29:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by James Beck
Given that the creationuts imply that the flood would have to carry
enough silt to deposit around the fossils it created, such a flood
would indeed cause problems for creatures with gills. Hard to survive
breathing stuff that is too thin to plow and too thick to drink.
Mark Isaak
>> >Tiktaalik had no kids , thus how could he have been the ancestor of
>> >anybody?
>>
>> We can infer from the existence of fossils of Tiktaalik roseae that
>> some individuals of that species had kids. In general it is rare that
>> we can infer that the individual represented by any particular fossil
>> had kids; it is also uncommon that we can infer that the individual
>> represented by any particular fossil didn't have kids. I know of no
>> reason why we can infer either way for the individuals represented by
>> fossil specimens of Tiktaalik roseae.
>>
>> How do *you* know that Tiktaalik has *no* kids? -- alias Ernest Major
>
> Backspace suggested that there was a global flood (ahem) that might
> have killed Tiktaalik before he could reproduce.
In global floods from many cultures, people turn into fish, frogs, or
stones as the flood comes. If the flood were truly ambitious, then it
would turn someone into all three -- a fossilized tetrapod fish -- which
is exactly what we see in Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik is evidence for the
deluge! Too bad for backspace it is not the Christian deluge.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by hersheyh
<hers...@yahoo.com>:
True. I guess that's why all the fish died in the Flood.
No, wait a minute...
John Stockwell
> On May 13, 9:13 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 4:46 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 12 May 2011 12:02:19 -0700 (PDT), Randy C
>
> > > <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Rather, we know now to manufacture black slabs of specific dimensions.
> > > >> It is the knowledge
> > > >> of manufacturing processes that give us a notion of "artificiality".
>
> > > >Which exactly correlates with a claim I've made numerous times on this
> > > >forum.
>
> > > >The ONLY test for intelligent design is artificiality.
>
> > > >Artificiality isn't quantifiable.
>
> > > >Therefore ID cannot be science.
>
> > > >Q.E.D.
>
> > > We can watch a chimp pick a leafy twig and strip it to make a tool to
> > > fish for termites. We can even copy the chimp, make our own tool, and
> > > eat termites, too. The leafy twig isn't artificial; neither is the
> > > stripped twig. I find them in my garden all summer long.
>
> > > It is, however, a tool. If it is not designed, please attempt to
> > > explain why it isn't. Make your argument as specific as you can, and
> > > as complex as you think it needs to be.
>
> > You have describe a manufacturing process. As to what "design" means
> > in
> > this context, we have now way of knowing, as this would be a
> > speculation on the
> > mental processes of a chimpanzee. That is a totally different
> > question.
>
> > -John
>
> Nonsense. If I emulate the chimp and end up with a belly full of
> termites, what difference does it make what the chimp's thought
> process was? It may have been miming the original designer-chimp, but
> for all I know, chimpX emulated a designer-human. Barring instinct,
> whether the chimp I copied had any thought process (as I would
> understand it) is irrelevant. The evidence suggests that it is not a
> mimetic zombie using this technology, but that humans who copy it
> probably are. Oh well. Can't have everything.
>
> However, since you chose the word 'manufacturing,' which common
> definition of that word do you believe does not imply some ultimate
> design?
>
> You appear to have written me a message. Who (or what) designed it for
> you? The question of whether you did it yourself, or you're a puppet
> with some ultimate Designer's hand up your ass is the traditional turf
> of philosophers and theologians. They're wonderful people. Consult
> them at your own risk.
We only have in hand manufactured items. If we speculate about design,
it is
only after we have modeled manufacture. We don't jump from objects to
design without
that step.
-John
Randy C
>
> No, wait a minute...
I get the joke.
But note that there are two different kinds of fish:
1. Freshwater
2. Saltwater
Never the twain shall meet...
Oh, wait. Sorry about that.
But they can't live in the same water for any length of time. The
Bible says that the flood lasted for more than a year.
So...all of them must have died.
If that is NOT the case, then freshwater fish would have had an
unparalleled opportunity to travel very far in waters that existed all
over the Earth.
Possibly the most well known freshwater fish is the piranha. If given
an entire year to swim whereever it wanted to go, it probably could
have swum to Africa and certainly Central America.
But guess what? They only live in the Amazon River basin.
Evolution has a perfect explanation for that.
That undeniable fact is totally inconsistent with the Bible.
Then, of course, we have the thousands of other freshwater fish who
live in similar, very specific and local environments.
Strange how that could be after a global flood...
Hey. I have an explanation!
The global flood is nothing but a myth.
Yup. That explains everything.
James Beck
I see. Do you need to know how to make a tree before you can think of
one?