SETI, DNA, and intelligent pattern recognition
topmind
comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and
searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for patterns
in DNA make ID more of a "science"? SETI is often considered a
scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
research effort.
Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence). Their
argument seems to be that if you search enough random patterns you will
find something that *looks* like it was made by an intelligent being,
and it is allegedly too hard to filter out or reduce that possibility.
However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
million places. Most would probably consider that a decent form of
evidence (even if not perfect). However, would finding the same image
or data set in DNA not also be evidence of ID (or at least I.F. -
intelligent interference)? If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
signals?
I should point out that SETI currently only uses the spectrum width of
signals to identify potential sources. They have not even got deep into
to the pattern analysis stage yet. However, outside of the spectrum
width issue, if it is true that no signal pattern is evidence of
intelligence, then isn't SETI wasting their time?
Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
signal?
Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
(Please try not to let non-pattern issues from the other topic spill
into this one.)
-T-
Zachriel
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:1134187953.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Under the topic "Book-able view of ID as speculative science", the
> comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and
> searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for patterns
> in DNA make ID more of a "science"? SETI is often considered a
> scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
> Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
> research effort.
>
> Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
> intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence).
That's not necessarily true. But that's not actually the argument made by
Intelligent Design. Their claim is that the orderly nature alone of DNA
indicates design. However, there are many forms of non-designed order in the
universe, and there are plausible and well-tested mechanisms for generating
order in genetics.
> Their
> argument seems to be that if you search enough random patterns you will
> find something that *looks* like it was made by an intelligent being,
> and it is allegedly too hard to filter out or reduce that possibility.
Every possible finite sequence can be found in any infinitely long random
sequence. However, certain sequences are more likely to occur within any
finite length of random digits. But not all ordered sequences indicate
design. They may just indicate order.
>
> However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
> signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
> buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
> million places.
Interesting. A narrow-band signal such as the only known technological
organism in the universe might make with encodings of various numbers and
images that strongly resemble artifacts of that very technological organism.
I wonder what that might mean.
> Most would probably consider that a decent form of
> evidence (even if not perfect). However, would finding the same image
> or data set in DNA not also be evidence of ID (or at least I.F. -
> intelligent interference)?
That evidence does not exist, nor is that the argument made by Intelligent
Design. Those arguments revolve around fallacious assertions that supposedly
unexplained phenomena are evidence of supernatural intervention, such
assertions usually dressed up in fancy, scientific-sounding language.
Intelligent Design is a political movement that uses the language of science
to persuade gullible laypersons, not a scientific research program.
> If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
> signals?
Um, SETI doesn't claim to have detected intelligence. That's a very
significant difference, a fundamental one, in fact.
>
> I should point out that SETI currently only uses the spectrum width of
> signals to identify potential sources. They have not even got deep into
> to the pattern analysis stage yet. However, outside of the spectrum
> width issue, if it is true that no signal pattern is evidence of
> intelligence, then isn't SETI wasting their time?
You gave an example above of what might be considered an intelligent
transmission, most likely due to terrestrial contamination; but if shown to
be from another stellar system, possibly of great scientific interest.
>
> Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
> signal?
It is reasonable to suppose that if they resembled other known
technologically advanced organisms (humans), then it might be possible to
detect them. If they were too different, then it may not be possible to do
so.
>
> Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
The reason why SETI attempts to detect narrow-band transmissions is because
there is no known natural source of such signals, and at least one known
technologically advanced organism uses them for communication.
>
> (Please try not to let non-pattern issues from the other topic spill
> into this one.)
>
>
> -T-
>
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Bobby D. Bryant
I'm dubious.
> Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
Notice that one of the differences between SETI and ID is that the
SETI people aren't pretending that they have a magic formula they
can apply to observations to 'prove' that it came from an ETI.
Another important difference is that SETI is working from a hypothesis,
trying to observe something the hypothesis predicts. The closest
thing ID has to a hypothesis is "somebody did something and therefore
E.coli has a flagellum". It's hard to derive any kind of prediction
at all out of that.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
rupert....@gmail.com
To elaborate a bit, SETI researchers have decided what a signal from
another civilisation might look like, and are looking for it. ID is
looking at existing data and declaring any pattern they can find is
evidence for design.
If ID were science, they'd predict what they'd expect to find before
they went looking.
Also, "alternating sequences of pi and prime numbers"? That would be
obscure. Also, since any given sequence appears in pi if you go back
far enough, you're almost certain to find it.
Bobby D. Bryant
> To elaborate a bit, SETI researchers have decided what a signal from
> another civilisation might look like, and are looking for it. ID is
> looking at existing data and declaring any pattern they can find is
> evidence for design.
>
> If ID were science, they'd predict what they'd expect to find before
> they went looking.
And that's hard to do when you're pretending ignorance and lack of
interest regarding Who the designer is and what His motives were.
Deadrat
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:1134187953.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and
> searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for patterns
> in DNA make ID more of a "science"? SETI is often considered a
> scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
> Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
> research effort.
>
> Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
> intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence). Their
> argument seems to be that if you search enough random patterns you will
> find something that *looks* like it was made by an intelligent being,
Well, you'll find something that has a pattern, anyway.
> and it is allegedly too hard to filter out or reduce that possibility.
Yeah. Allegedly.
>
> However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
> signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
> buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
> million places.
Is that what you're looking for then? What's the encoding? Let's run
the experiment.
> Most would probably consider that a decent form of
> evidence (even if not perfect). However, would finding the same image
> or data set in DNA not also be evidence of ID (or at least I.F. -
> intelligent interference)? If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
> signals?
SETI has already been fooled. When pulsar signals were first received,
it was first thought their pattern was simply too regular to be natural.
Ooops.
>
> I should point out that SETI currently only uses the spectrum width of
> signals to identify potential sources. They have not even got deep into
> to the pattern analysis stage yet. However, outside of the spectrum
> width issue, if it is true that no signal pattern is evidence of
> intelligence, then isn't SETI wasting their time?
Confirmation would require two-way communication, and there just
too much delay involved
> Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
> signal?
>
> Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
Imagine my surprise.
Deadrat
Nic
There are similarities between ID and SETI.
They both make the assumption that you can infer something about the
cause of a pattern from the pattern itself. That is an assumption also
shared by geology, or any other branch of science. No big deal there.
ID and SETI make the further assumption that it is possible to detect
the effects and/or side effects of the operations of _intelligent_
agencies. There the similarity between ID and SETI ends.
SETI is presumably open to the possibility of a very low intelligence
producing quite elaborate patterns. Also SETI is presumably open to
the possibility of natural selection producing such patterns.
Various combinations of natural selection and modest intelligence may
also account for patterns. Consider the bee. A bee is not very
intelligent, but it is not of zero intelligence. It does not, as it
turns out, use the little intelligence it has to design its honeycomb.
Natural selection is responsible for the design of the honeycomb. On
some fanciful planet, creatures like bees may be emitting radio
signals. The discovery of such signals would no doubt be very welcome
to the SETI community.
You might say SETI looks for signs of life and machines (although I'm
not saying these two things are different) in the universe beyond the
earth.
ID on the other hand has plenty of signs of life and machines right
under its nose. Is the project of ID to look for signs of *other* life
or machines that might have operated in the past to bring about the
existence of the highly organised systems we find on earth? If that is
all it is, then ID has as much to say to biology as SETI has, and
history will be the judge.
Few would agree that ID has such a reasonable agenda! Pretend for the
moment that it did. Could such patterns be looked for? Well, signs of
the ancient activity of edogenous retrovirouses are readily recognised
for what they are. I would hope that signs of ancient alien barcoding
would be too.
Maybe history has already judged, and ID has been found wanting.
Nic
CreateThis
> "Wait, wait! I got another one!"
In science, if your hypothesis doesn't fit the facts, you change your
hypothesis. This frantic search for facts to fit your hypothesis has
the stench of desperation about it.
CT
Elf M. Sternberg
> Another important difference is that SETI is working from a hypothesis,
> trying to observe something the hypothesis predicts.
One of the limitations of the hypothesis is that those who
produce radio signals will be "like us."
The original IDist, Paley, wrote about finding a watch in a
forest and knowing that the watch was made by men, not that it grew
there. Paley failed to understand that he would only recognize a watch
for what it was because he had seen watches, or watch-like items,
before. His assumption that a man who had never seen a watch before
would recognize was simply false, and the anthropological record is full
of encounters with from cultures where mechanization was unknown, and
many treated mechanisms as something divine.
SETI might only recognize a signal that looks like "something
men do." Trying to find that ("something engineered the way humans
engineer things") in the biological evidence is a fool's errand,
suitable only to those of a mindset similar to the folks camped out
around Area 51.
Elf
Mark VandeWettering
> Under the topic "Book-able view of ID as speculative science", the
> comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals
> and searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for
> patterns in DNA make ID more of a "science"? SETI is often considered
> a scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
> Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
> research effort.
>
> Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
> intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence).
Really? Who?
> Their argument seems to be that if you search enough random
> patterns you will find something that *looks* like it was made by
> an intelligent being, and it is allegedly too hard to filter out or
> reduce that possibility.
Well, certainly that's a possibility, depending on how your test actually
works. After all, we have a wide variety of nutcases who think that the
Bible code is real. But reasonable analysis demonstrates that such naive
attempts to detect hidden design in the text of the Bible are fundamentally
and deeply flawed.
> However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
> signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
> buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers
> to a million places. Most would probably consider that a decent form
> of evidence (even if not perfect). However, would finding the same
> image or data set in DNA not also be evidence of ID (or at least I.F.
> - intelligent interference)? If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
> signals?
You've stacked two different hypotheticals here. We don't have an instance
of SETI detecting design (in the form of stereoscopic images or just repeated
beacons) or of anyone finding a million digits of pi encoded in DNA. Do you
really think it's valuable to muse in this direction?
> I should point out that SETI currently only uses the spectrum width
> of signals to identify potential sources. They have not even got
> deep into to the pattern analysis stage yet.
In fact, they explicitly hypothesize that alien civilizations
1. want to be found
2. so they transmit a continuous beacon wave
3. they do so using radio waves
4. they do so in a particular portion of the EM spectrum that
is relatively "quiet".
> However, outside of the
> spectrum width issue, if it is true that no signal pattern is evidence
> of intelligence, then isn't SETI wasting their time?
It depends on whether it works.
> Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
> signal?
It's an open question.
> Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
>
> (Please try not to let non-pattern issues from the other topic spill
> into this one.)
You might explain how talking about SETI should convince us that ID is
science.
For someone who nominally wants to teach people about ID, you sure do
spend a great deal of time talking about other subjects. Perhaps you
should examine my lecture on Egyptology, which begins with a description
of how transistors work.
Mark
topmind
> > Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
>
> Imagine my surprise.
Patronizing insults and rudeness, imagine my surprise.
-T-
Mark VandeWettering
You've basically been insulting us all with your dogged refusal to support
any of your arguments, or in fact, to make any kind of relevent argument
at all. Your intuition is highly questionable, and is not supported by
any kind of evidence, or even a basic argument.
The reason that we think that math is important is that properly applied,
it helps you to quantify the degree to which your intuition is meaningful.
After all, many people have the intuition when shooting craps that if they've
lost a dozen times in a row, that they are "due" for a win. They are wrong.
Mark
> -T-
topmind
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1134187953.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Under the topic "Book-able view of ID as speculative science", the
> > comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and
> > searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for patterns
> > in DNA make ID more of a "science"? SETI is often considered a
> > scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
> > Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
> > research effort.
> >
> > Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
> > intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence).
>
>
> That's not necessarily true. But that's not actually the argument made by
> Intelligent Design. Their claim is that the orderly nature alone of DNA
> indicates design. However, there are many forms of non-designed order in the
> universe, and there are plausible and well-tested mechanisms for generating
> order in genetics.
There are many variations of ID.
> >
> > However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
> > signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
> > buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
> > million places.
>
>
> Interesting. A narrow-band signal such as the only known technological
> organism in the universe might make with encodings of various numbers and
> images that strongly resemble artifacts of that very technological organism.
> I wonder what that might mean.
>
>
> > If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
> > signals?
>
>
> Um, SETI doesn't claim to have detected intelligence. That's a very
> significant difference, a fundamental one, in fact.
>
I am talking about the process of determining if a signal is from an
intelligent source. SETI's approach seem to be look for odd signals
and then study the best candidates further.
Crytology uses pattern-detection techniques to find out if there is an
encoded message. I wonder if that can be applied.
>
> >
> > I should point out that SETI currently only uses the spectrum width of
> > signals to identify potential sources. They have not even got deep into
> > to the pattern analysis stage yet. However, outside of the spectrum
> > width issue, if it is true that no signal pattern is evidence of
> > intelligence, then isn't SETI wasting their time?
>
>
> You gave an example above of what might be considered an intelligent
> transmission, most likely due to terrestrial contamination; but if shown to
> be from another stellar system, possibly of great scientific interest.
>
>
> >
> > Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
> > signal?
>
>
> It is reasonable to suppose that if they resembled other known
> technologically advanced organisms (humans), then it might be possible to
> detect them. If they were too different, then it may not be possible to do
> so.
>
>
> >
> > Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
>
>
> The reason why SETI attempts to detect narrow-band transmissions is because
> there is no known natural source of such signals, and at least one known
> technologically advanced organism uses them for communication.
One of the reasons we use narrow band is because it is more economical.
Wide band consumes too much energy and it is assumed that an
intelligent species would not want to waste power.
However, I suppose one could argue that perhaps some don't care if they
waste power, or that there may be multiple signals next to each other.
But, the theory is that it is easier detect what you are familiar with.
The same argument popped up regarding testing for water and
carbon-based life versus other kinds of life. The desigers of
life-detection experiments for space probes say it is much trickier to
detect non-water/carbon life because we don't know what to look for
yet. General-purpose detection is far more expensive.
Thus, the budget-minded focus on the lower-hanging fruit.
-T-
topmind
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2005-12-10, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
> >>
> >> Imagine my surprise.
> >
> > Patronizing insults and rudeness, imagine my surprise.
>
> You've basically been insulting us all with your dogged refusal to support
> any of your arguments,
A rather wide definition of "insult".
> or in fact, to make any kind of relevent argument
> at all. Your intuition is highly questionable, and is not supported by
> any kind of evidence, or even a basic argument.
Like I keep saying, my version of ID is purely speculative science. It
fits the likes of Multiple Universes of the Anthropic Principle in that
regard.
>
> The reason that we think that math is important is that properly applied,
> it helps you to quantify the degree to which your intuition is meaningful.
> After all, many people have the intuition when shooting craps that if they've
> lost a dozen times in a row, that they are "due" for a win. They are wrong.
Agreed, but speculative suggestions don't always start out with math.
Evolution didn't have much math for the first decades either.
Math is not a prerequisite to be "science". It is highly helpful in
general, but not a prerequisite.
I don't want to ignite another battle over the definition of "science"
here; save it for the other topic, please. Let's focus on detecting
intelligent patterns here.
>
> Mark
>
-T-
topmind
CreateThis wrote:
> topmind wrote:
>
> > "Wait, wait! I got another one!"
I did not say that. There is a mis-quote here. If it was meant as
sarcasm, it is not even funny.
>
> In science, if your hypothesis doesn't fit the facts, you change your
> hypothesis. This frantic search for facts to fit your hypothesis has
> the stench of desperation about it.
Whatever.
>
> CT
-T-
John Wilkins
> bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) writes:
>
>
>>Another important difference is that SETI is working from a hypothesis,
>>trying to observe something the hypothesis predicts.
>
>
> One of the limitations of the hypothesis is that those who
> produce radio signals will be "like us."
>
> The original IDist, Paley, wrote about finding a watch in a
> forest and knowing that the watch was made by men, not that it grew
> there. Paley failed to understand that he would only recognize a watch
> for what it was because he had seen watches, or watch-like items,
> before. His assumption that a man who had never seen a watch before
> would recognize was simply false, and the anthropological record is full
> of encounters with from cultures where mechanization was unknown, and
> many treated mechanisms as something divine.
Point of order, Mr Chairentity. The *original* IDist might have been Cicero.
The founders of the modern (post-17thC) natural theology movement that Paley
capped off were John Ray, Thomas Burnet, and Robert Hooke.
>
> SETI might only recognize a signal that looks like "something
> men do." Trying to find that ("something engineered the way humans
> engineer things") in the biological evidence is a fool's errand,
> suitable only to those of a mindset similar to the folks camped out
> around Area 51.
>
> Elf
>
>
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cicero
rja.ca...@excite.com
Deadrat wrote:
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1134187953.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Under the topic "Book-able view of ID as speculative science", the
> > comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and
> > searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for patterns
> > in DNA make ID more of a "science"? SETI is often considered a
> > scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
> > Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
> > research effort.
> >
> > Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
> > intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence). Their
> > argument seems to be that if you search enough random patterns you will
> > find something that *looks* like it was made by an intelligent being,
>
> Well, you'll find something that has a pattern, anyway.
If a strong pattern is found, it calls for an explanation. A weak,
statistically insignificant pattern wouldn't mean much.
Apparently there are patterns in most DNA; they do not seem to
represent messages from intelligence, nor artifacts of use of
intelligence in creating DNA. What I have in mind is repeats of the
same gene or of apparently damaged copies of genes that, as they are,
do nothing at all, or do something different. Mutation and selection
without a directing intelligence evidently has a "programming style" of
its own, and the state of natural genes is consistent with that.
Also not yet detected in the DNA system is any mechanism to prevent
macroevolution. I think twenty-first century science could take a fair
shot at creating artificial life with a somewhat different use of DNA,
life that can micro-evolve but not macro-evolve; this would consist of
"error"-correcting techniques selectively applied, between features
where evolution is allowed and where it is not; this does not seem to
exist in natural terrestrial life.
For that matter, has the Discovery Institute or some other leading
authority of Intelligent Design claimed to find patterns in DNA, or is
it idle speculation?
> > and it is allegedly too hard to filter out or reduce that possibility.
>
> Yeah. Allegedly.
>
> > However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
> > signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
> > buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
> > million places. Most would probably consider that a decent form of
> > evidence (even if not perfect). However, would finding the same image
> > or data set in DNA not also be evidence of ID (or at least I.F. -
> > intelligent interference)? If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
> > signals?
>
> SETI has already been fooled. When pulsar signals were first received,
> it was first thought their pattern was simply too regular to be natural.
> Ooops.
That wasn't SETI. It was Jocelyn Bell Burnell, working under Anthony
Hewish, at the University of Cambridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
http://cosmos.colorado.edu/stem/courses/common/documents/chapter7/Bell.html
They also weren't "fooled". They were temporarily at a loss to explain
their observation of a /rapid/ regular and astronomically powerful
signal at interstellar range. Before publication, they recruited other
astronomers to prove that the signal was well outside the solar system
and inside our galaxy, and was not "accelerating" in the sense of being
in orbit around a star (if you call that accelerating). And then they
found several more of them.
They had been trying to detect quasars using interplanetary
scintillation, so the pulsars were a diversion.
> > I should point out that SETI currently only uses the spectrum width of
> > signals to identify potential sources. They have not even got deep into
> > to the pattern analysis stage yet. However, outside of the spectrum
> > width issue, if it is true that no signal pattern is evidence of
> > intelligence, then isn't SETI wasting their time?
>
> Confirmation would require two-way communication, and there just
> too much delay involved
>
> > Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
> > signal?
> >
> > Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
>
> Imagine my surprise.
Confirmation might require only further, closer observation, once SETI
has found an interesting apparent signal. I've said that I personally
believe the initial observation is more likely to be detection of
industrial processes of an alien civilisation - for instance I'm pretty
sure that America broadcasts more radio energy into space than the
Pacific Ocean does, although I don't know how close you have to be to
tell; then there are actual intentional broadcasts, but they tend to be
aimed back at the planet and don't go out into space. On the other
hand, if a civilisation builds outposts in outer space, radio
communication directed at those outposts is likely to be narrowly
focussed but still go wide of the mark, so the SETI people might get
lucky and detect one of those.
So we could detect an alien civilisation by one-way eavesdropping or by
their determined effort to communicate. We also could fail to detect
an alien civilisation that is there.
If an initial signal of prime numbers and so forth is all that we ever
receive, it is not convincing - the life cycle of the cicada is one
means by which prime numbers can be created in nature, you could be
looking at a planet covered in cicadas without particular intelligence
being present - and the signal has to be a certain length to make an
explanation of mere coincidence unreasonable. And the more data we
examine, the longer a signal has to be to be not mere coincidence -
since as we look at more and more random data, we can expect to see
more coincidences.
Kleuskes & Moos
John Wilkins schreef:
> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> > bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) writes:
> >
> >
> >>Another important difference is that SETI is working from a hypothesis,
> >>trying to observe something the hypothesis predicts.
> >
> >
> > One of the limitations of the hypothesis is that those who
> > produce radio signals will be "like us."
> >
> > The original IDist, Paley, wrote about finding a watch in a
> > forest and knowing that the watch was made by men, not that it grew
> > there. Paley failed to understand that he would only recognize a watch
> > for what it was because he had seen watches, or watch-like items,
> > before. His assumption that a man who had never seen a watch before
> > would recognize was simply false, and the anthropological record is full
> > of encounters with from cultures where mechanization was unknown, and
> > many treated mechanisms as something divine.
>
> Point of order, Mr Chairentity. The *original* IDist might have been Cicero.
Marcus Tullius Cicero? I would have bet on Aristotle. Just out of
interest, which of his works are you referring to?
Daniel T.
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> Under the topic "Book-able view of ID as speculative science", the
> comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and
> searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for patterns
> in DNA make ID more of a "science"? SETI is often considered a
> scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
> Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
> research effort.
>
> Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
> intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence). Their
> argument seems to be that if you search enough random patterns you will
> find something that *looks* like it was made by an intelligent being,
> and it is allegedly too hard to filter out or reduce that possibility.
>
> However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
> signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
> buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
> million places. Most would probably consider that a decent form of
> evidence (even if not perfect). However, would finding the same image
> or data set in DNA not also be evidence of ID (or at least I.F. -
> intelligent interference)? If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
> signals?
SETI looks for *specific* patterns in the signal whereas ID looks for
*any* pattern. The former is science, the latter is not.
--
Magic depends on tradition and belief. It does not welcome observation,
nor does it profit by experiment. On the other hand, science is based
on experience; it is open to correction by observation and experiment.
catshark
Apparently, _The Nature of the Gods_. See, for example:
<http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Avalos.cfm>
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
"Intelligent Design" is the proposition
that God can be caught in a mousetrap.
- from Frank J. -
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134187953.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Under the topic "Book-able view of ID as speculative science", the
>> > comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and
>> > searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for patterns
>> > in DNA make ID more of a "science"? SETI is often considered a
>> > scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
>> > Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
>> > research effort.
>> >
>> > Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
>> > intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence).
>>
>>
>> That's not necessarily true. But that's not actually the argument made by
>> Intelligent Design. Their claim is that the orderly nature alone of DNA
>> indicates design. However, there are many forms of non-designed order in
>> the
>> universe, and there are plausible and well-tested mechanisms for
>> generating
>> order in genetics.
>
> There are many variations of ID.
"Intelligent Design" is the claim that there is a scientific basis to the
assertion that biology is designed. This claim is false. All such claims are
fallacious arguments disguised with scientific jargon. We know this is the
most reasonable definition because there is a political movement to teach
"Intelligent Design" as a scientific theory to children. Please note there
is no reasonable research program within the scientific community, that none
of the adherents have published scientific predictions of any significance.
But you are more than welcome to provide your own 'special' definition.
>
>
>> >
>> > However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
>> > signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
>> > buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
>> > million places.
>>
>>
>> Interesting. A narrow-band signal such as the only known technological
>> organism in the universe might make with encodings of various numbers and
>> images that strongly resemble artifacts of that very technological
>> organism.
>> I wonder what that might mean.
>>
>
>
>>
>> > If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
>> > signals?
>>
>>
>> Um, SETI doesn't claim to have detected intelligence. That's a very
>> significant difference, a fundamental one, in fact.
>>
>
> I am talking about the process of determining if a signal is from an
> intelligent source. SETI's approach seem to be look for odd signals
> and then study the best candidates further.
You asked what the difference was between ID and SETI, then ignored the
answer. That SETI is a rigorous approach rather than mere hand-waving is a
fundamental difference.
>
> Crytology uses pattern-detection techniques to find out if there is an
> encoded message. I wonder if that can be applied.
Sure it can, and please do. When you have actual evidence that DNA has an
encrypted message, please let us know. Meanwhile, you might look for
messages from the gods in tea-leaves or the entrails of chickens. The
principles of detection are the same.
>
>>
>> >
>> > I should point out that SETI currently only uses the spectrum width of
>> > signals to identify potential sources. They have not even got deep into
>> > to the pattern analysis stage yet. However, outside of the spectrum
>> > width issue, if it is true that no signal pattern is evidence of
>> > intelligence, then isn't SETI wasting their time?
>>
>>
>> You gave an example above of what might be considered an intelligent
>> transmission, most likely due to terrestrial contamination; but if shown
>> to
>> be from another stellar system, possibly of great scientific interest.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
>> > signal?
>>
>>
>> It is reasonable to suppose that if they resembled other known
>> technologically advanced organisms (humans), then it might be possible to
>> detect them. If they were too different, then it may not be possible to
>> do
>> so.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
>>
>>
>> The reason why SETI attempts to detect narrow-band transmissions is
>> because
>> there is no known natural source of such signals, and at least one known
>> technologically advanced organism uses them for communication.
>
> One of the reasons we use narrow band is because it is more economical.
> Wide band consumes too much energy and it is assumed that an
> intelligent species would not want to waste power.
The other reason is because there are no natural sources. Such a signal will
stick out like a sore thumb. But even then, SETI researchers will not claim
to have discovered ET.
>
> However, I suppose one could argue that perhaps some don't care if they
> waste power, or that there may be multiple signals next to each other.
>
> But, the theory is that it is easier detect what you are familiar with.
> The same argument popped up regarding testing for water and
> carbon-based life versus other kinds of life. The desigers of
> life-detection experiments for space probes say it is much trickier to
> detect non-water/carbon life because we don't know what to look for
> yet. General-purpose detection is far more expensive.
>
> Thus, the budget-minded focus on the lower-hanging fruit.
Actually, it's because all reasonable hypotheses of detection indicate that
we will recognize ET because of its resemblance to known technologically
advanced life-forms.
>
> -T-
>
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres — one
epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Zachriel
"Deadrat" <ephe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WVtmf.29177$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
That wasn't SETI. That was Bell & Hewish, Cambridge. They initially thought
the signals might be terrestrial contamination, though the hypothesis of ET
was soon considered as a vague possibility. I should think "fooled" would
only apply if that had been their conclusion, which is never was.
http://www.bigear.org/vol1no1/burnell.htm
Zachriel
>
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> On 2005-12-10, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
>> >>
>> >> Imagine my surprise.
>> >
>> > Patronizing insults and rudeness, imagine my surprise.
>>
>> You've basically been insulting us all with your dogged refusal to
>> support
>> any of your arguments,
>
> A rather wide definition of "insult".
>
>> or in fact, to make any kind of relevent argument
>> at all. Your intuition is highly questionable, and is not supported by
>> any kind of evidence, or even a basic argument.
>
> Like I keep saying, my version of ID is purely speculative science. It
> fits the likes of Multiple Universes of the Anthropic Principle in that
> regard.
Multiple Universes is a solution to specific quantum observations, and makes
specific predictions that are consistent with empirical results. Intelligent
Design doesn't make specific predictions. It's a political movement, and
scientific claptrap.
>
>>
>> The reason that we think that math is important is that properly applied,
>> it helps you to quantify the degree to which your intuition is
>> meaningful.
>> After all, many people have the intuition when shooting craps that if
>> they've
>> lost a dozen times in a row, that they are "due" for a win. They are
>> wrong.
>
> Agreed, but speculative suggestions don't always start out with math.
> Evolution didn't have much math for the first decades either.
But you are specifically pointing to pattern-recognition. Intuitive
pattern-recognition is notoriously bad as the mind often creates order where
none exists, or imposes personality to chaotic natural phenomena. Any
reasonable model of pattern-recognition will include mathematics. Certainly,
your intuition can point you in the right direction, but from there you must
rigorously apply the scientific method.
And if you were to actually investigate the phenomena at issue, then you
might actually learn something about that phenomena. You can download the
human genome and "look for secret messages". You might want to consider
using crytographic tools, an area of mathematics. Let us know how that goes.
>
> Math is not a prerequisite to be "science". It is highly helpful in
> general, but not a prerequisite.
No, the scientific method is prerequisite to be science: hypothesis,
prediction, observation, validation, repeat.. You appear to be stuck on
intuition, and haven't even made it to hypothesis, yet.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
> I don't want to ignite another battle over the definition of "science"
> here; save it for the other topic, please. Let's focus on detecting
> intelligent patterns here.
There is no battle over the essential definition of science. It is an
inductive process of matching theory to observation. Different areas of
science emphasize different aspects of the scientific method, but they
ultimately all come down to making predictions about empirical phenomena.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
> -T-
>
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Zachriel
"Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87u0dhi...@drizzle.com...
> bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) writes:
>
>> Another important difference is that SETI is working from a hypothesis,
>> trying to observe something the hypothesis predicts.
>
> One of the limitations of the hypothesis is that those who
> produce radio signals will be "like us."
>
> The original IDist, Paley, wrote about finding a watch in a
> forest and knowing that the watch was made by men, not that it grew
> there. Paley failed to understand that he would only recognize a watch
> for what it was because he had seen watches, or watch-like items,
> before. His assumption that a man who had never seen a watch before
> would recognize was simply false, and the anthropological record is full
> of encounters with from cultures where mechanization was unknown, and
> many treated mechanisms as something divine.
A fanciful example would be from the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy". The Sho
of the Kalahari desert are unfamiliar with modern culture and do not have a
tradition of property. From a singular coke bottle (dropped as litter from
an airplane), they learn jealousy and envy. The story is the humourous
journey of N!xau in his attempt to return the bottle to the end of the
world.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/
>
> SETI might only recognize a signal that looks like "something
> men do." Trying to find that ("something engineered the way humans
> engineer things") in the biological evidence is a fool's errand,
> suitable only to those of a mindset similar to the folks camped out
> around Area 51.
>
> Elf
>
>
--
TomS
<gjklp152vtoek2np5...@4ax.com>, catshark stated..."
Cicero has the "design of a watch" analogy:
De Natura Deorum, Book 2, Chapter 34, Section 87-88
"If at the sight of a statue or painted picture you know that art has
been employed, and from the distant view of the course of a ship feel
sure that it is made to move by art and intelligence, and if you
understand on looking at a horologe, whether one marked out with lines,
or working by means of water, that the hours are indicated by art and
not by chance, with what possible consistency can you suppose that the universe
which contains these same products of art, and their
constructors, and all things, is destitute of forethought and
intelligence? Why, if any one were to carry into Scythia or Britain the
globe which our friend Posidonius has lately constructed, each one of
the revolutions of which brings about the same movement in the sun and
moon and five wandering stars as is brought about each day and night
in the heavens, no one in those barbarous countries would doubt that
that globe was the work of intelligence."
The two kinds of "horologe", I take it, would be a sundial and a
water-clock (clepsydra); and the "globe" of Posidonius, a kind of
orrery (model of the motions of the planets).
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Matt Silberstein
<top...@technologist.com> in
<1134187953.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
If the SETI people said "gee, there could be a pattern in something
from space" and stopped there they would have the same footing as ID.
Instead they have laid out the class of patterns they are looking for,
they have presented the rational for picking those patterns, and they
have started work looking for the patterns. You have to actually *do
the work* to be science.
In addition the analogy does not really work. SETI is roughly "We
think that X might cause Y so we want to look for Y to suggest X
exists." ID is "We think that A caused B, and that the large body of
established science explaining B is wrong". You are add "There could
be a C that shows the existence of A, but I won't bother to say what
that C would look like". It is still not similar to SETI. If SETI
argued that currently explained phenomena were really made by Little
Green Men, then you might have an analogy. (But then few would see
SETI as science.)
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<top...@technologist.com> in
<1134203364.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134187953.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>I am talking about the process of determining if a signal is from an
>intelligent source. SETI's approach seem to be look for odd signals
>and then study the best candidates further.
If you don't understand what SETI is doing then don't compare your
notions to it.
>Crytology uses pattern-detection techniques to find out if there is an
>encoded message. I wonder if that can be applied.
Wonder on till truth makes things plain.
[snip]
>One of the reasons we use narrow band is because it is more economical.
> Wide band consumes too much energy and it is assumed that an
>intelligent species would not want to waste power.
>
>However, I suppose one could argue that perhaps some don't care if they
>waste power, or that there may be multiple signals next to each other.
>
>But, the theory is that it is easier detect what you are familiar with.
>The same argument popped up regarding testing for water and
>carbon-based life versus other kinds of life. The desigers of
>life-detection experiments for space probes say it is much trickier to
>detect non-water/carbon life because we don't know what to look for
>yet. General-purpose detection is far more expensive.
>
>Thus, the budget-minded focus on the lower-hanging fruit.
So I will repeat: if we look at life it does *not* look like human
made stuff. To the extent that we use SETI as an example, it offers no
comfort to ID. You can suggest any number of unevidenced beings who do
things unlike humans, but why you would call that Intelligent Design I
don't know.
Deadrat
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1134213344.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Deadrat wrote:
> > "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> > news:1134187953.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
> > > signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
> > > buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
> > > million places. Most would probably consider that a decent form of
> > > evidence (even if not perfect). However, would finding the same image
> > > or data set in DNA not also be evidence of ID (or at least I.F. -
> > > intelligent interference)? If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
> > > signals?
> >
> > SETI has already been fooled. When pulsar signals were first received,
> > it was first thought their pattern was simply too regular to be natural.
> > Ooops.
>
> That wasn't SETI. It was Jocelyn Bell Burnell, working under Anthony
> Hewish, at the University of Cambridge.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
> http://cosmos.colorado.edu/stem/courses/common/documents/chapter7/Bell.html
>
Sorry. I stand corrected. Thanks for the links.
> They also weren't "fooled". They were temporarily at a loss to explain
> their observation of a /rapid/ regular and astronomically powerful
> signal at interstellar range.
Of course. Let me retract and repharse. Topmind would have been
fooled into thinking he'd heard a signal from an intelligent life form because
he'd have detected a regular signal that looked like the signal from a
metronone, and only intellignent beings can construct metronomes.
> Before publication, they recruited other
> astronomers to prove that the signal was well outside the solar system
> and inside our galaxy, and was not "accelerating" in the sense of being
> in orbit around a star (if you call that accelerating). And then they
> found several more of them.
I wonder why did that? Perhaps it was because they were scientists.
<snip>
Deadrat
>
> > > Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
> >
> > Imagine my surprise.
>
> Patronizing insults and rudeness, imagine my surprise.
Insulting, rude, but not wrong. Your intellectual effort starts and stops with
your intuition. Most of your effort is devoted to complaining that other areas
of science (which you seem not to understand, by the way) aren't treated as
strictly as ID. The remainder is to wonder about patterns. Without mathematics,
all you've got is idle speculation. And there you sit.
Deadrat
>
> -T-
>
Kleuskes & Moos
Zachriel schreef:
> "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
> news:87u0dhi...@drizzle.com...
> > bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) writes:
> >
> >> Another important difference is that SETI is working from a hypothesis,
> >> trying to observe something the hypothesis predicts.
> >
> > One of the limitations of the hypothesis is that those who
> > produce radio signals will be "like us."
> >
> > The original IDist, Paley, wrote about finding a watch in a
> > forest and knowing that the watch was made by men, not that it grew
> > there. Paley failed to understand that he would only recognize a watch
> > for what it was because he had seen watches, or watch-like items,
> > before. His assumption that a man who had never seen a watch before
> > would recognize was simply false, and the anthropological record is full
> > of encounters with from cultures where mechanization was unknown, and
> > many treated mechanisms as something divine.
>
>
> A fanciful example would be from the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy". The Sho
> of the Kalahari desert are unfamiliar with modern culture and do not have a
> tradition of property. From a singular coke bottle (dropped as litter from
> an airplane), they learn jealousy and envy. The story is the humourous
> journey of N!xau in his attempt to return the bottle to the end of the
> world.
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/
:-) It's got local cult status here. Really a "must see".
Beautiful schoolteacher: "What do you do for a living"
Biologist: "I collect dung".
The image of a jeep (nicknamed The Antichrist) hanging in a tree still
makes me chuckle...
CreateThis
> There are many variations of ID.
Yeah, I bet you'll show us a new one tomorrow.
CT
Alan Wostenberg
they went looking. ". So on this view, when Europeans found the first
cave paintings 150 years ago{1}, they were unscientific to conclude
this was designed, because nobody predicted we'd find cave paintings in
Spain? We sometimes predict design, but we often recognize it after
the fact.
Deadrat
"Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:1134245525.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The cave paintings were a discovery of an artifact. Archaeologists might
have predicted that they'd eventually find such artifacts or that they wouldn't
because such things didn't exist. Those positions are both predictions.
Please given an example of times we predict design but recognize it later.
Deadrat
topmind
rupert....@gmail.com wrote:
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Under the topic "Book-able view of ID as speculative science", the
> > > comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and
> > > searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for patterns
> > > in DNA make ID more of a "science"? SETI is often considered a
> > > scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
> > > Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
> > > research effort.
> > >
> > > Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
> > > intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence). Their
> > > argument seems to be that if you search enough random patterns you will
> > > find something that *looks* like it was made by an intelligent being,
> > > and it is allegedly too hard to filter out or reduce that possibility.
> > >
> > > signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
> > > buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
> > > million places. Most would probably consider that a decent form of
> > > evidence (even if not perfect). However, would finding the same image
> > > or data set in DNA not also be evidence of ID (or at least I.F. -
> > > intelligent interference)? If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
> > > signals?
> > >
> > > signals to identify potential sources. They have not even got deep into
> > > to the pattern analysis stage yet. However, outside of the spectrum
> > > width issue, if it is true that no signal pattern is evidence of
> > > intelligence, then isn't SETI wasting their time?
> > >
> > > Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
> > > signal?
> >
> >
> >
> > > Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
> >
> > SETI people aren't pretending that they have a magic formula they
> > can apply to observations to 'prove' that it came from an ETI.
> >
> > Another important difference is that SETI is working from a hypothesis,
> > thing ID has to a hypothesis is "somebody did something and therefore
> > E.coli has a flagellum". It's hard to derive any kind of prediction
> > at all out of that.
> >
>
> To elaborate a bit, SETI researchers have decided what a signal from
> another civilisation might look like, and are looking for it.
Identificiation of *candidates* by studying spectrum width is only the
initial stage. A narrow signal was never officially claimed to be
evidence alone.
> ID is
> looking at existing data and declaring any pattern they can find is
> evidence for design.
Guilty until proven innocent? I would point out that Seti has gotten a
bit overjoyed over duds in the past. It is human nature not limited to
religion, even IF it did happen.
>
> If ID were science, they'd predict what they'd expect to find before
> they went looking.
That is NOT what exploration is about. Exploration is part of science
and exploration by definition does not necessarily know what will be
found.
>
> Also, "alternating sequences of pi and prime numbers"? That would be
> obscure. Also, since any given sequence appears in pi if you go back
> far enough, you're almost certain to find it.
No, I mean in digit *order*, not just "somewhere in there". (Note that
it may not be base 10).
> > --
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Austin, Texas
-T-
Alan Wostenberg
theorists with whom I'm familiar. For example, Behe explains at great
length why minimal functionality + irreducible complexity are tell-tale
signs of design. He went into the lab with viability tests and found
several irreducibly complex biomolecules. You might disagree with his
theory, but why is it unscientific?
topmind
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2005 00:29:24 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
> <top...@technologist.com> in
> <1134203364.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >Zachriel wrote:
> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1134187953.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >I am talking about the process of determining if a signal is from an
> >intelligent source. SETI's approach seem to be look for odd signals
> >and then study the best candidates further.
>
> If you don't understand what SETI is doing then don't compare your
> notions to it.
I just have not seen any formal plan about what further research is
done if a "good" signal is found. This is because they are exploring,
and exploration cannot always have a plan. You cannot plan for the
unknown and if you ignore the unknown you don't explore. To ask for
up-front detailed exploration plans is stupid.
> [snip]
>
> >One of the reasons we use narrow band is because it is more economical.
> > Wide band consumes too much energy and it is assumed that an
> >intelligent species would not want to waste power.
> >
> >However, I suppose one could argue that perhaps some don't care if they
> >waste power, or that there may be multiple signals next to each other.
> >
> >But, the theory is that it is easier detect what you are familiar with.
> >The same argument popped up regarding testing for water and
> >carbon-based life versus other kinds of life. The desigers of
> >life-detection experiments for space probes say it is much trickier to
> >detect non-water/carbon life because we don't know what to look for
> >yet. General-purpose detection is far more expensive.
> >
> >Thus, the budget-minded focus on the lower-hanging fruit.
>
> So I will repeat: if we look at life it does *not* look like human
> made stuff.
I disagree. They have these in common:
1. Processing chambers
2. Wires/nerves to communicate across the body
3. Pipes
4. Central processing units (brains)
5. Logic "gates" (brain tends to use continious gates instead of
descrete)
6. Valves
However, this is probably off topic.
> To the extent that we use SETI as an example, it offers no
> comfort to ID. You can suggest any number of unevidenced beings who do
> things unlike humans, but why you would call that Intelligent Design I
> don't know.
Exploring DNA patterns is not at the stage of labelling the source yet.
You are fighting a war that has yet to even start. Your slippery-slope
paranoia is showing through again.
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
-T-
topmind
Zachriel wrote:
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1134203783.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> On 2005-12-10, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> or in fact, to make any kind of relevent argument
> >> at all. Your intuition is highly questionable, and is not supported by
> >> any kind of evidence, or even a basic argument.
> >
> > Like I keep saying, my version of ID is purely speculative science. It
> > fits the likes of Multiple Universes of the Anthropic Principle in that
> > regard.
>
>
> Multiple Universes is a solution to specific quantum observations, and makes
> specific predictions that are consistent with empirical results.
Huh? Which MU are you talking about? I am talking about the universal
constants and the anthropic principle. What specific predictions are
you talking about?
> Intelligent
> Design doesn't make specific predictions. It's a political movement, and
> scientific claptrap.
My version of ID is NOT a religion. (Both, save that for the
"book-able" forum, not here.)
> >
> >>
> >> The reason that we think that math is important is that properly applied,
> >> it helps you to quantify the degree to which your intuition is
> >> meaningful.
> >> After all, many people have the intuition when shooting craps that if
> >> they've
> >> lost a dozen times in a row, that they are "due" for a win. They are
> >> wrong.
> >
> > Agreed, but speculative suggestions don't always start out with math.
> > Evolution didn't have much math for the first decades either.
>
>
> But you are specifically pointing to pattern-recognition. Intuitive
> pattern-recognition is notoriously bad as the mind often creates order where
> none exists, or imposes personality to chaotic natural phenomena.
That is why we use it ONLY for an initial candidate tool and NOT for
final results.
> Any
> reasonable model of pattern-recognition will include mathematics. Certainly,
> your intuition can point you in the right direction, but from there you must
> rigorously apply the scientific method.
>
> And if you were to actually investigate the phenomena at issue, then you
> might actually learn something about that phenomena. You can download the
> human genome and "look for secret messages". You might want to consider
> using crytographic tools, an area of mathematics. Let us know how that goes.
>
> >
> > Math is not a prerequisite to be "science". It is highly helpful in
> > general, but not a prerequisite.
>
>
> No, the scientific method is prerequisite to be science: hypothesis,
> prediction, observation, validation, repeat.. You appear to be stuck on
> intuition, and haven't even made it to hypothesis, yet.
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
Dude, you left out "exploration".
Going out in your back-yard and digging around just to explore *is*
science. Sending a probe to Venus just to see what is on Venus *is*
science. DNA sifting may be long-shot, but that alone does not make it
non-science. Perhaps a poor economic approach to science, but that is
not the issue.
>
>
> >
> > I don't want to ignite another battle over the definition of "science"
> > here; save it for the other topic, please. Let's focus on detecting
> > intelligent patterns here.
>
>
> There is no battle over the essential definition of science. It is an
> inductive process of matching theory to observation.
Why are you excluding exploration?
Zachriel
>
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134203783.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> >> On 2005-12-10, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >> or in fact, to make any kind of relevent argument
>> >> at all. Your intuition is highly questionable, and is not supported
>> >> by
>> >> any kind of evidence, or even a basic argument.
>> >
>> > Like I keep saying, my version of ID is purely speculative science. It
>> > fits the likes of Multiple Universes of the Anthropic Principle in that
>> > regard.
>>
>>
>> Multiple Universes is a solution to specific quantum observations, and
>> makes
>> specific predictions that are consistent with empirical results.
>
> Huh? Which MU are you talking about? I am talking about the universal
> constants and the anthropic principle. What specific predictions are
> you talking about?
Multiverses, also called many-worlds, is one of several interpretations of
quantum mechanics.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
Multiverse with respect to universal constants are speculative philosophy,
at best, and non-predictive.
>
>> Intelligent
>> Design doesn't make specific predictions. It's a political movement, and
>> scientific claptrap.
>
> My version of ID is NOT a religion. (Both, save that for the
> "book-able" forum, not here.)
That's fine. You are more than welcome to propose a specific theory.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The reason that we think that math is important is that properly
>> >> applied,
>> >> it helps you to quantify the degree to which your intuition is
>> >> meaningful.
>> >> After all, many people have the intuition when shooting craps that if
>> >> they've
>> >> lost a dozen times in a row, that they are "due" for a win. They are
>> >> wrong.
>> >
>> > Agreed, but speculative suggestions don't always start out with math.
>> > Evolution didn't have much math for the first decades either.
>>
>>
>> But you are specifically pointing to pattern-recognition. Intuitive
>> pattern-recognition is notoriously bad as the mind often creates order
>> where
>> none exists, or imposes personality to chaotic natural phenomena.
>
>
> That is why we use it ONLY for an initial candidate tool and NOT for
> final results.
And the candidate is? What exactly? Have you actually looked at the genome,
or compared various genomes?
>
>
>> Any
>> reasonable model of pattern-recognition will include mathematics.
>> Certainly,
>> your intuition can point you in the right direction, but from there you
>> must
>> rigorously apply the scientific method.
>>
>> And if you were to actually investigate the phenomena at issue, then you
>> might actually learn something about that phenomena. You can download the
>> human genome and "look for secret messages". You might want to consider
>> using crytographic tools, an area of mathematics. Let us know how that
>> goes.
>>
>> >
>> > Math is not a prerequisite to be "science". It is highly helpful in
>> > general, but not a prerequisite.
>>
>>
>> No, the scientific method is prerequisite to be science: hypothesis,
>> prediction, observation, validation, repeat.. You appear to be stuck on
>> intuition, and haven't even made it to hypothesis, yet.
>> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
> Dude, you left out "exploration".
Exploration is a type of observation. But observation alone is not the
scientific method. Speculation is a method of creating hypotheses. But
speculation alone is not the scientific method. You have to match theory to
fact, "speculation" to "exploration".
In your "explorations", what specific observations have you made?
>
> Going out in your back-yard and digging around just to explore *is*
> science.
Exploration is one component of the scientific method. Then from the
observations, you make predictions, dig more holes and test your
predictions. Then you publish so that others can replicate your results.
Admittedly, the division between the steps and the time between the steps,
and the importance of each step may vary considerably. But just digging in
your backyard alone is not science.
And just talking about digging in your backyard is not science.
Here's a hint. The first step in most scientific endeavors is to read the
existing literature to garner a knowledge of the observations and
conclusions of other scientists in the field of study. The primary evidences
in support of the Theory of Evolution span multiple fields of study from
geology (rocks) to biology (organisms) to genetics (heredity).
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
Let's talk about digging in your backyard. Donald Johanson knew from other
scientists that human ancestors probably evolved in Africa over the last few
million years. There were a number of important fossils of more modern
ancestors, but he was interested in the time when the lineage that branched
to humans split from other apes. So he made a prediction. He mounts an
expedition to Africa. He stakes his reputation and the money of his
investors. And in Africa, he looks in 3ź million year old strata. His
expedition finds a new species of organism that shows clear intermediate
features between humans and other apes. Lucy.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html
Why didn't he find it in his Cleveland backyard in ? Why did he look in
specific strata? Why did he look in Africa? Lucky guess?
Let's talk about digging in your backyard. John Horner had loved duck-billed
dinosaurs since he was a kid, but trained as a geologist. Other scientists
had determined that birds and dinosaurs were closely related, so he
hypothesized that they might lay eggs on or near the shoreline. So he looked
for a shoreline from that epoch of time, ironically in Montana. He found not
just eggs, but nests, and not just nests, but nesting colonies, and not just
colonies, but baby dinosaurs and even toddlers. And from this he could
reasonably determine the behavior of his beloved Maiasaur, Good Mother
Lizard.
This is exploration. This is observation. This is predictive. This is a new
world revealed. This is science.
> Sending a probe to Venus just to see what is on Venus *is*
> science. DNA sifting may be long-shot, but that alone does not make it
> non-science. Perhaps a poor economic approach to science, but that is
> not the issue.
That's fine. If you look at the data honestly and submit your results for
review by your scientific peers, that's great. Let us know what you find.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I don't want to ignite another battle over the definition of "science"
>> > here; save it for the other topic, please. Let's focus on detecting
>> > intelligent patterns here.
>>
>>
>> There is no battle over the essential definition of science. It is an
>> inductive process of matching theory to observation.
>
> Why are you excluding exploration?
I did not exclude exploration which is just an observational process. And
many (most) research programs start with observations. And if you want to
observe the "cryptic" structure of DNA, you are more than welcome to do so.
But until you actually do so, and put your ideas through the grinder of the
scientific method, it is not science.
>
>> Different areas of
>> science emphasize different aspects of the scientific method, but they
>> ultimately all come down to making predictions about empirical phenomena.
>> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>
> -T-
>
I went back and read your original post for this thread. The question you
raised was, 'Would searching for patterns in DNA make ID more of a
'science'?"
Searching for patterns in DNA would certainly be a component of the
scientific method. But searching for patterns in DNA is not "Intelligent
Design". Searching for patterns having already decided what the results will
be is not science. Intelligent Design is a *conclusion* based on wishful
thinking. If you wish to treat it as a rigorous hypothesis, and make
specific predictions about the data, again, please let us know when you have
something specific.
Your entire thread could be better summarized with "See you later. I'm going
to make a few observations. If I find anything, I'll let you know."
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml
Claiming that there is scientific evidence of intelligent design is false.
If you wish to search for evidence, please do, but some brilliant minds have
analyzed the heck out of it over several generations, and the Theory of
Evolution, Common Descent, mutation and natural selection, have been shown
to have a strong basis in *predictive* empirical science.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
Deadrat
For your proposition to make sense, the analogies must be more
than rough. And these "common" features show many differences.
For example, electric wiring is made of solid metal strands; nerves
are collections of discrete cells separated by gaps that mediate
signals chemically. CPUs are made of semiconductors that perform
as elementary logic gates; brains are not made of semiconductors
and it's far from clear that they operate like digital elements. I don't
know what a "continuous" gate even means. Computer memory, in
particular, doesn't seem to act human memory.
You have two additional problems with your thesis. One is that you
must consider how and when human machines are constructed to mimic
body parts. It's no surprise that mechanical arms kind of look like
human arms, and the resemblance tells you nothing about the origin of
human arms. The second is that some of these engineering solutions
are forced, e.g., the only way to transport a liquid is through some closed
connector like a pipe.
>
> 1. Processing chambers
> 2. Wires/nerves to communicate across the body
> 3. Pipes
> 4. Central processing units (brains)
> 5. Logic "gates" (brain tends to use continious gates instead of
> descrete)
> 6. Valves
>
> However, this is probably off topic.
>
> > To the extent that we use SETI as an example, it offers no
> > comfort to ID. You can suggest any number of unevidenced beings who do
> > things unlike humans, but why you would call that Intelligent Design I
> > don't know.
>
> Exploring DNA patterns is not at the stage of labelling the source yet.
> You are fighting a war that has yet to even start. Your slippery-slope
> paranoia is showing through again.
The argument has nothing to do with the source or the destination via
sliding. Unless you define what you mean by a DNA pattern and how
you expect to look for one and how you know one when you find it,
then you don't really have a scientific program.
Deadrat
>
> >
> > --
> > Matt Silberstein
> >
>
> -T-
>
Deadrat
But that's your problem. You haven't defined where your sequences start
or end. If your strings, their alphabets, their messages, and their encodings
are free variables, you're guaranteed to find something you can call
interesting.
Deadrat
Deadrat
His conclusion isn't supported by his evidence. First of all, as far as I
know, Behe hasn't given a rigorous definition of complexity. Secondly
I don't think his claim has to do with biomolecules; it has to do with
systems of molecule types that cannot work without the presence of each
type. Thirdly, he hasn't shown that there is no natural process that produce
his systems. Irreducible complexity was predicted by evolutionary theory
years ago.
Deadrat
Bobby D. Bryant
> Crytology uses pattern-detection techniques to find out if there is
> an encoded message.
I don't think that's correct. A good encryption scheme leaves the
message looking like a string of random bits.
Bobby D. Bryant
> rupert....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> If ID were science, they'd predict what they'd expect to find before
>> they went looking.
>
> That is NOT what exploration is about. Exploration is part of science
> and exploration by definition does not necessarily know what will be
> found.
IDologists aren't exploring anything, except ways to undercut teaching
science in the public schools.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "If ID were science, they'd predict what they'd expect to find
> before they went looking. ". So on this view, when Europeans found
> the first cave paintings 150 years ago{1}, they were unscientific to
> conclude this was designed, because nobody predicted we'd find cave
> paintings in Spain? We sometimes predict design, but we often
> recognize it after the fact.
I think it would be more correct to say "we can usually recognize
_human_ designs". It hardly follows that we would recognize the
designs of a being of unknown powers and unknowable motivations.
Also, the inference isn't particularly robust. The first Europeans to
see bowerbird bowers thought they were made by humans. More recently,
certain True Believers thought the Eltanin "antenna" was an alien
artifact. And then there's the monuments and tombstones on Mars...
Bobby D. Bryant
> bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) writes:
>
>> Another important difference is that SETI is working from a hypothesis,
>> trying to observe something the hypothesis predicts.
>
> One of the limitations of the hypothesis is that those who
> produce radio signals will be "like us."
>
> The original IDist, Paley, wrote about finding a watch in a
> forest and knowing that the watch was made by men, not that it grew
> there. Paley failed to understand that he would only recognize a watch
> for what it was because he had seen watches, or watch-like items,
> before.
And he certainly wouldn't conclude that it was made by a god.
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
>signal?
Effectively, no. Here's why:
Suppose we find a signal with an interesting pattern. Then we lock
the pattern away in a box so nobody could ask any questions about it.
I think you would agree that, in such a case, we could learn nothing
from the signal at all.
Suppose, instead of locking the signal away, we pass laws requiring
that we teach that we already know everything we need to know about
the signal, that nothing can be learned from it. And then we spend
millions to create a social movement belittling anybody who does ask
questions about the signal. People who try to investigate the origins
of the signal are singled out for persecution. This is not quite the
same thing as locking the signal away in a box, but it has the same
result. Some insight into the origin of the signal may be gained by
brave risk-takers, but to no avail. Suppressing the insight into the
signal is no different from suppressing the signal.
Now, it *is* possible to identify the origin of a signal if one is
allowed freely to investigate the origin of a signal (and if the
signal is rich enough). That, after all, is how we determined that
life evolved. But that option does not appear to be open in the
current social climate. It has been decreed that all we need to know
is that the signal must be from an intelligence. Nothing can be
determined about the signal then.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
catshark
Interesting. I checked an on-line copy of Paley's _Natural Theology; or,
Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity_ and I didn't find
any reference to Cicero's version of the watchmaker argument. There was a
reference to "what Cicero has called the insatiable variety of nature" and,
while the translation of _De Natura Deorum_ you found doesn't have the
exact phrase, it has "flowers, herbs, trees, and fruits, the incredible
multitude of all these being set off by a variety which cannot tire". Even
without that I'd suspect Paley was familiar with _De Natura Deorum_.
Sounds like it could be plagiarism. Do we have an early case of IDeologist
dishonesty here?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
ID requires a designer who can visualise all possible
combinations of chemistry over billions of years.
If that *isn't* a supernatural designer,
I'll eat my epistemological hat!
- John Wilkins -
topmind
I mean those trying to find (reverse engineer) the encryption pattern.
>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
-T-
topmind
They don't have to be air-tight to qualify as merely a scientific
hypothesis.
> And these "common" features show many differences.
> For example, electric wiring is made of solid metal strands; nerves
> are collections of discrete cells separated by gaps that mediate
> signals chemically. CPUs are made of semiconductors that perform
> as elementary logic gates; brains are not made of semiconductors
> and it's far from clear that they operate like digital elements. I don't
> know what a "continuous" gate even means.
Digital gates are usually based on binary inputs. The inputs are 1 or
zero. However, with neurons the inputs can be in a range. Usually when
they are simulated one uses ranges such as -1 to 1 or zero to 1, with
fractions in between allowed. It is possible to program Turing Complete
algorithms with neural net simulations. However, human programmers
generally don't find it very convenient. It shares some aspects of
"fuzzy logic", which can be powerful, but difficult to manage.
> Computer memory, in
> particular, doesn't seem to act human memory.
>
> You have two additional problems with your thesis. One is that you
> must consider how and when human machines are constructed to mimic
> body parts. It's no surprise that mechanical arms kind of look like
> human arms, and the resemblance tells you nothing about the origin of
> human arms. The second is that some of these engineering solutions
> are forced, e.g., the only way to transport a liquid is through some closed
> connector like a pipe.
Like I pointed out elsewhere, some insects don't need blood and fluid
pipes. It all floats together.
Still, just because we have not thought of many alternatives does not
mean they don't exist.
-T-
topmind
Just because it is a field where it is easy to make mistakes does not
invalidate it as research. It just means it is a tough field, not
necessarily a useless or invalid field.
I agree that *concluding* something was designed is often poor form,
but speculating on it and studying it for more clues is not. I am not
talking about final conclusions, but rather the exploration stage.
>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
-T-
Matt Silberstein
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> in
<1134245525.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
We figured that humans made the painting since humans were known to be
around at the time and have the physical capability and we had human
remains. When you have things like that for your proposed designers (I
hope you don't suggest that humans did it) let us know.
Earle Jones
"Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
*
The task of the ID folks is next to impossible. For whatever system or
process is proposed, it must be shown that there is no possible
evolutionary pathway to get there.
Every proposed "irreducibly complex" element proposed up to now -- the
blood-clotting cascade, the bacterial flagella, the human eye, etc. has
been shown to have a possible evolutionary path.
ID proponents can continue to propose "irreducibly complex" systems till
hell freezes over. They will never run out of proposed systems.
But how can they show that there is no possible evolutionary pathway?
My feeling is that they have already given up offering their beliefs on
ID to scientific argument. Rather, they have taken their arguments to
unsophisticated school boards and politicians (ie George Bush) in order
to force them into public schools.
earle*
"The American creationist movement has entirely bypassed the
scientific forum and has concentrated instead on political lobbying
and on taking its case to a fair-minded electorate...The reason for
this strategy is overwhelmingly apparent: no scientific case can be
made for the theories they advance."
--Kenneth R. Miller, "Scientific Creationism versus Evolution",
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1984),p.22.
"My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in
Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ."
--William Dembski, 'Intelligent Design', p 206
"We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement,
but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.
--William A. Dembski
ej
*
Matt Silberstein
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> in
<1134247010.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Except that Behe never makes any attempt to show that it is a
"tell-tale" sign of design. He makes some erroneous comments about a
mouse trap, but that is it. His theory is not scientific because he
never makes any attempt to connect the "pattern" with the claims
cause. "Design" is not a cause, it is a possible characteristic of
some possible causes.
Behe actually makes so many errors that the problem is not falling
over each other in pointing them out. For a start he never defines his
key terms: part, function, or system.* Then he gets evolution wrong
because he talks about some step-wise addition of parts when evolution
works by changing things. (He shows that he knows this when he
comments about "direct" evolution, but he never explores the concept.)
In addition decades before Behe it was predicted that evolution would
produce systems of the type Behe describes. Finally, Behe never went
and found any IC anything. He asserted that some systems might fit his
description, but he never actually demonstrated it.
*Behe makes a more subtle error here as well. He talks about "parts"
of the system, but evolution changes the DNA, the constructors so to
speak. The relationship between changing the DNA and changing the
resultant morphology is not at all simple or clear.
Bobby D. Bryant
Which is why I don't think it's true. A tolerably good encryption won't
have a discernable pattern to look for.
Bobby D. Bryant
Whereas the IDologists have been peddling "proofs" of ID in biology.
Bobby D. Bryant
And he tops it all off with a non sequitur about some Designer being
responsible since (he claims) evolution couldn't have been.
TomS
<1v5np1pdlsko4jptl...@4ax.com>, catshark stated..."
I suspect that Cicero was well enough known in those days
that an explicit reference to Cicero was not needed.
There are others who used the "watchmaker" analogy in the
18th century. Voltaire is one example.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Zachriel
"Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:1134247010.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
All sort of problems.
* He claimed, but did not show that the systems were irreducible.
* He claimed, but did not show that being irreducible is a "tell-tale" sign
of design. In fact, seemingly irreducible systems may be the result of
subtraction, the removal of a naturally occurring scaffolding such as found
in natural arches. Evolution posits just such an optimizing process.
* It is an argument from ignorance (his own in this case), that just because
scientists (or Behe in this case) don't know the process by which something
happened, that it must be God, er, intelligent design. This is the argument
that led to claims of angry sky-gods throwing lightning, and angels pushing
planets on crystal spheres.
* He does not make empirical predictions that can be subjected to
verification, other than challenges to recreate the entire history of the
evolution of biochemical pathways.
* Finally, his assertions are not consistent with the evidence, which shows
homologies within biochemistry (at issue), paleontology, biology, and
genetics.
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres — one
epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
TomS
<hkfnp1hv57mo9q4o9...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein stated..."
>
>On 10 Dec 2005 12:36:50 -0800, in talk.origins , "Alan Wostenberg"
><awost...@psalmweaver.com> in
><1134247010.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>As SETI scientists have "layed out a class of patterns", so have the ID
>>theorists with whom I'm familiar. For example, Behe explains at great
>>length why minimal functionality + irreducible complexity are tell-tale
>>signs of design. He went into the lab with viability tests and found
>>several irreducibly complex biomolecules. You might disagree with his
>>theory, but why is it unscientific?
>
>Except that Behe never makes any attempt to show that it is a
>"tell-tale" sign of design. He makes some erroneous comments about a
>mouse trap, but that is it. His theory is not scientific because he
>never makes any attempt to connect the "pattern" with the claims
>cause. "Design" is not a cause, it is a possible characteristic of
>some possible causes.
One of the signs of an *explanation* - whether scientific or
otherwise - is that there is a connection between the explanatory
factor and the thing being explained.
As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the "concept" (so to
speak) of "intelligent design" that makes a connection between the
intelligence of the designers and some feature of the world of life.
To do this would require putting some boundaries or giving us some
properties of what an intelligent designer might do, could do, or
did do. ID makes a point of declining to make any investigation
into the properties of intelligent designers (such as - but not
limited to - how many of them there once were, or when they acted,
or what, precisely, were the immediate results of a design act).
Any science - indeed, any investigation at all - does not stop
at the first result. The investigators often tell us that what is
more interesting about a proposed explanation is the questions it
raises, even more so than the answers it gives. Whenever someone
comes up with a novel idea in some field or other, people are eager
to see how far they can stretch it and apply it in unexpected ways,
to test its limits - and this is not only in the sciences. An artist
who discovers a new technique doesn't just make one brush stroke and
stop. A musician who finds a new sound doesn't play just one note.
It is *only* the questioners of ID who have raised questions
about ID. It is only they who have treated ID as if it were an
investigation into something. But the response from the advocates
of ID tells us that ID is not supposed to be treated like any other
study. It has a single, isolated, unrelated "concept". It has no
connection with the thing being explained - all that we are told is
that they can't think of any other explanation, therefore there must
have been "intelligent design" somewhere, in some unspecified place,
at some unspecified time, in the history of life. Why not say "loving
design" or "conflicting design"?
You don't have to compare ID to scientific theories. Compare ID
to the theory of music or the theory of the novel or the theory of
international law.
ID is not a "new paradigm" because it isn't new, of course, but
also because it isn't a paradigm. A single "concept" does not make
for a paradigm. A paradigm is a pattern, and there is no pattern to
ID. And the evidence that we have is that the advocates of ID show
no intention of exploring the consequences of their "concept", in
enlarging upon it, narrowing it down, modifying it.
>
>Behe actually makes so many errors that the problem is not falling
>over each other in pointing them out. For a start he never defines his
>key terms: part, function, or system.* Then he gets evolution wrong
>because he talks about some step-wise addition of parts when evolution
>works by changing things. (He shows that he knows this when he
>comments about "direct" evolution, but he never explores the concept.)
>In addition decades before Behe it was predicted that evolution would
>produce systems of the type Behe describes. Finally, Behe never went
>and found any IC anything. He asserted that some systems might fit his
>description, but he never actually demonstrated it.
The notion of "irreducible complexity" - although not by that
name - was fairly well known in the 1700s, when it was brought up as
an argument against the possibility of developmental biology. It was
argued that each individual complex living thing had to have been
created - as an individual - and not develop from an unformed
precursor.
>
>*Behe makes a more subtle error here as well. He talks about "parts"
>of the system, but evolution changes the DNA, the constructors so to
>speak. The relationship between changing the DNA and changing the
>resultant morphology is not at all simple or clear.
>
>
--
Nic
Zachriel wrote of topmind:
> Your entire thread could be better summarized with
> "See you later. I'm going to make a few observations.
> If I find anything, I'll let you know."
A very good 'last word' for this thread. Wish I'd said it!
<snip>
Matt Silberstein
<top...@technologist.com> in
<1134277504.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Encryption pattern? Please tell me what this refers to. You can get as
technical as you like and provide references if available. If there
are patterns then that means it was bad encryption, right?
Bobby D. Bryant
> On 10 Dec 2005 21:05:04 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
> <top...@technologist.com> in
> <1134277504.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Crytology uses pattern-detection techniques to find out if there is
>>> > an encoded message.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's correct. A good encryption scheme leaves the
>>> message looking like a string of random bits.
>>
>>I mean those trying to find (reverse engineer) the encryption pattern.
>
> Encryption pattern? Please tell me what this refers to. You can get as
> technical as you like and provide references if available. If there
> are patterns then that means it was bad encryption, right?
I get the impression that 'topmind' is a loki troll -- probably not
one of us regulars, though -- who is much better informed than the
typical creationist who posts here, but still knows just enough to
be dangerous on most of the topics he brings up. When he fumbles he
goes into the creationist mode of "argument by reasserting the claim".
(Lokis can't afford to admit that they're wrong either.)
AC
> "If ID were science, they'd predict what they'd expect to find before
> they went looking. ". So on this view, when Europeans found the first
> cave paintings 150 years ago{1}, they were unscientific to conclude
> this was designed, because nobody predicted we'd find cave paintings in
> Spain? We sometimes predict design, but we often recognize it after
> the fact.
>
The key difference between this and DNA is that we know paintings are done
by humans. We can look at old paintings of known origin, we can go observe
different painters actually painting using various materials.
Thus when we encounter an artifact that looks like a painting we have at
least some chance of recognizing its origins, though not even this is
perfect, and one can imagine some circumstances where a natural phenomona
may be responsible for what might look like a painting.
Recognizing design can be extremely difficult depending on the artifacts
involved. As I always say, I could walk through a field littered with
Mousterian tools and not recognize any as the product of design.
SETI is hoping to find radio signals being generated by some species that is
much like us. They are looking for the interstellar equivalent of a cave
painting.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
TomS
<1134277885....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, topmind stated..."
[...snip...]
>Just because it is a field where it is easy to make mistakes does not
>invalidate it as research. It just means it is a tough field, not
>necessarily a useless or invalid field.
>
>I agree that *concluding* something was designed is often poor form,
>but speculating on it and studying it for more clues is not. I am not
>talking about final conclusions, but rather the exploration stage.
Please let us know about the "exploration stage" in ID.
That is, an example of a group of researches investigating
something, using the methodology of ID, and debating among
themselves whether or not it meets the criteria for being
"intelligently designed". When they suggest additional tests, and
perform the tests, and some things are discarded as not being
designed, and others are tentatively accepted as being designed.
And then publish the results of their investigations for public
review.
In other words, acting like scientists - or like any
researchers.
seanw...@yahoo.com
> I get the impression that 'topmind' is a loki troll -- probably not
> one of us regulars, though -- who is much better informed than the
> typical creationist who posts here, but still knows just enough to
> be dangerous on most of the topics he brings up.
I'm assuming from the context that "Loki" means someone posting
opinions opposite to those they actually hold. If this is the case,
I'm afraid that Bryce Jacobs (a.k.a. topmind) is no such thing. I've
been reading this group since the spillover of a thread into
comp.object, where I've had Bryce in my killfile for some time.
Bryce seems to be that most unusual species of troll -- one that
doesn't realize what he is. He has a long history in comp.object of
posting strong opinions on topics he clearly knows nothing about. He
refuses to address difficult questions, frequently attempts to shift
the burden of proof, and constantly attempts to distract from the main
point of the discussion when it isn't going his way (which is most of
the time). If he follows true to form, he'll start claiming to have
addressed the arguments he has in fact ignored, but will never provide
a reference to the post in which he did so. If you're very lucky,
he'll declare himself victorious and leave your group . . . for a
while.
Enjoy him!
Sean
rja.ca...@excite.com
AC wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2005 12:12:05 -0800,
> Alan Wostenberg <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
> > "If ID were science, they'd predict what they'd expect to find before
> > they went looking. ". So on this view, when Europeans found the first
> > cave paintings 150 years ago{1}, they were unscientific to conclude
> > this was designed, because nobody predicted we'd find cave paintings in
> > Spain? We sometimes predict design, but we often recognize it after
> > the fact.
> >
> > {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
>
> The key difference between this and DNA is that we know paintings are done
> by humans. We can look at old paintings of known origin, we can go observe
> different painters actually painting using various materials.
>
> Thus when we encounter an artifact that looks like a painting we have at
> least some chance of recognizing its origins, though not even this is
> perfect, and one can imagine some circumstances where a natural phenomona
> may be responsible for what might look like a painting.
And what a painting means... for instance isn't there that cave
painting that someone decided represents phases of the moon or
something because it goes like ((|
We presume that prehistoric cave paintings are in fact paintings, and
are designed work, because the explanation seems reasonable. We
presume they are the work of close relatives to modern humans -
Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal - because that seems more likely than
attributing the work to any other intelligent beings - for instance
angels or demons; partly because the representational art seems to
represent human activities, notably hunting, and human interests,
notably prey. And sometimes you can make out fingerprints.
rja.ca...@excite.com
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Crytology uses pattern-detection techniques to find out if there is
> >> > an encoded message.
> >>
> >> I don't think that's correct. A good encryption scheme leaves the
> >> message looking like a string of random bits.
> >
> > I mean those trying to find (reverse engineer) the encryption pattern.
>
> Which is why I don't think it's true. A tolerably good encryption won't
> have a discernable pattern to look for.
Basic encryption conceals the content of a message but not the
existence of a message. For instance, 802.11whatever networks are
encrypted these days but you can buy a gadget that tells you whether
you're in one or not. To put it another way, there's a message and an
envelope, and the envelope isn't encrypted.
There's another category, steganography, where usually a message is
hidden inside a larger document, and while the appropriate decoding
method can detect that a hidden message is there, it may not be
otherwise detectable, except perhaps if you use very subtle analysis to
detect that something is wrong with the "randomness" of the message,
where secret data usually is hidden - for instance inside colour image
data you might find a slightly unusual choice of colours.
catshark
[...]
I suppose you're right.
>
> There are others who used the "watchmaker" analogy in the
>18th century. Voltaire is one example.
Do you have a cite on that?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Do you think everyone should have a blog?
Here is the counter-evidence: <http://dododreams.blogspot.com/>
Matt Silberstein
"rja.ca...@excite.com" <rja.ca...@excite.com> in
<1134333700....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Crytology uses pattern-detection techniques to find out if there is
>> >> > an encoded message.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think that's correct. A good encryption scheme leaves the
>> >> message looking like a string of random bits.
>> >
>> > I mean those trying to find (reverse engineer) the encryption pattern.
>>
>> Which is why I don't think it's true. A tolerably good encryption won't
>> have a discernable pattern to look for.
>
>Basic encryption conceals the content of a message but not the
>existence of a message. For instance, 802.11whatever networks are
>encrypted these days but you can buy a gadget that tells you whether
>you're in one or not. To put it another way, there's a message and an
>envelope, and the envelope isn't encrypted.
You have confused two issues. If the envelop is not encrypted then you
are not detecting a pattern in the encryption. The question is whether
you can distinguish an encrypted message (not envelop) from a random
string.
>There's another category, steganography, where usually a message is
>hidden inside a larger document, and while the appropriate decoding
>method can detect that a hidden message is there, it may not be
>otherwise detectable, except perhaps if you use very subtle analysis to
>detect that something is wrong with the "randomness" of the message,
>where secret data usually is hidden - for instance inside colour image
>data you might find a slightly unusual choice of colours.
Also a different issue.
R. Baldwin
news:1134187953.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and
> searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for patterns
> in DNA make ID more of a "science"? SETI is often considered a
> scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
> Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
> research effort.
>
> Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
> intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence). Their
> argument seems to be that if you search enough random patterns you will
> find something that *looks* like it was made by an intelligent being,
> and it is allegedly too hard to filter out or reduce that possibility.
>
> However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
> signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
> buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
> million places. Most would probably consider that a decent form of
> evidence (even if not perfect). However, would finding the same image
> or data set in DNA not also be evidence of ID (or at least I.F. -
> intelligent interference)? If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
> signals?
>
> I should point out that SETI currently only uses the spectrum width of
> signals to identify potential sources. They have not even got deep into
> to the pattern analysis stage yet. However, outside of the spectrum
> width issue, if it is true that no signal pattern is evidence of
> intelligence, then isn't SETI wasting their time?
>
> Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
> signal?
>
>
> (Please try not to let non-pattern issues from the other topic spill
> into this one.)
>
>
> -T-
>
SETI is not looking for any kind of encoded data or pattern. SETI is looking
for a high-power signal at a fixed frequency; that is, a fixed-frequency
beacon. The complexity of the signal SETI expects is entirely due orbital
mechanics and has nothing whatsoever to do with having data encoded on a
carrier.
Try to remember that any planet around another star is rotating around that
star just as Earth rotates around the sun, and both stars are rotating
around the center of the galaxy. A receiving antenna on Earth only looks
toward that remote planet for a very short time. If there were a beacon on
that planet, the receiver would register a short pulse as the antenna
rotates past the angle where it looks toward the remote planet. There is a
doppler shift in the pulse due to the relative motion of the two planets.
Zachriel
A valid hypothesis must be reasonably consistent with known observations and
be able to make predictions about specific empirical phenomena.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
Analogies can be notoriously misleading. If everything was common sense, we
wouldn't need the scientific method. The Earth moves. Ordinary matter is
composed of atoms. Stars are faraway suns. Continents collide and make
mountains. Life evolves.
You might say you are in the speculative stage and still developing your
hypothesis. How is that going, anyway? What is the most precise statement of
your (tentative?) assertion you have been able to devise thus far?
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Nic
rja.ca...@excite.com wrote:
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Crytology uses pattern-detection techniques to find out if there is
> > >> > an encoded message.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think that's correct. A good encryption scheme leaves the
> > >> message looking like a string of random bits.
> > >
> > > I mean those trying to find (reverse engineer) the encryption pattern.
> >
> > Which is why I don't think it's true. A tolerably good encryption won't
> > have a discernable pattern to look for.
>
> Basic encryption conceals the content of a message but not the
> existence of a message. For instance, 802.11whatever networks are
> encrypted these days but you can buy a gadget that tells you whether
> you're in one or not. To put it another way, there's a message and an
> envelope, and the envelope isn't encrypted.
In a medium where there is no prior reason to expect an encrypted
message, and in which unused parts of the medium are expected to be
random, I do not think it would be rational to attempt decryption,
unless the encrypted form has a patterned appearance. Are you saying
typical encrypted material (in which there has been no attempt to
disguise it as random or bury it amongst other stuff) would stand out
in some way?
> There's another category, steganography, where usually a message is
> hidden inside a larger document, and while the appropriate decoding
> method can detect that a hidden message is there, it may not be
> otherwise detectable, except perhaps if you use very subtle analysis to
> detect that something is wrong with the "randomness" of the message,
> where secret data usually is hidden - for instance inside colour image
> data you might find a slightly unusual choice of colours.
Attempts to hide things are an intelligent agent's way of deceiving
other intelligent agents.
In a real sense, science just has to allow itself to be deceived in
these cases, on pain of not being intelligent, but being paranoid
instead.
Nic
rja.ca...@excite.com
If we're still talking about SETI and about something like a digitally
encoded radio signal, or even about espionage radio transmissions, I
expect 0s and 1s to be distinguishable from noise - but I guess there
are maybe ways to transmit a signal without it looking like a signal...
although you probably /will/ have one definite location that radio
energy is coming from; that might still be detectable.
On the other hand, a transmission that uses a channel efficiently sure
/sounds/ like noise - for instance for phone modem versus an untuned FM
radio.
A printed message in code is obviously distinguishable from a blank
page, but not necessarily distinguishable from a computer printer
malfunction that causes random text to be spewed out... we used to have
that.
> > There's another category, steganography, where usually a message is
> > hidden inside a larger document, and while the appropriate decoding
> > method can detect that a hidden message is there, it may not be
> > otherwise detectable, except perhaps if you use very subtle analysis to
> > detect that something is wrong with the "randomness" of the message,
> > where secret data usually is hidden - for instance inside colour image
> > data you might find a slightly unusual choice of colours.
>
> Attempts to hide things are an intelligent agent's way of deceiving
> other intelligent agents.
> In a real sense, science just has to allow itself to be deceived in
> these cases, on pain of not being intelligent, but being paranoid
> instead.
Yeah, well... flowers look really different in ultraviolet, I'm told.
Like, it's extravagantly clear where a bee should stick its butt in.
That's one kind of natural hidden message - hidden from us. I expect
that polarised light could be another - maybe is. Suppose a species
"wants" to communicate without alerting predators (or alerting prey),
they develop a subtle signal system (such as flapping their wings just
so), then they develop polarised-light vision that allows them to read
the signal better, then they develop a signal that is only visible in
polarised light...
TomS
<e16pp1lvurtdf1222...@4ax.com>, catshark stated..."[...snip...]
>> There are others who used the "watchmaker" analogy in the
>>18th century. Voltaire is one example.
>
>Do you have a cite on that?
If you'll excuse me, I'll just refer to my article in talk.reason,
where a quotation from Voltaire is given:
<http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
Mark Isaak
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
Native Americans in the Oregon area have attributed some markings in
caves to a race of little people who live underground. Personally, I
think those markings are natural formations, because they do not look
typical of human art in either form or medium. However, they pass all
the tests which "Intelligent Design" proponents advocate for design,
so I guess that proves gnomes really do exist.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Matt Silberstein
<top...@technologist.com> in
<1134247168....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On 10 Dec 2005 00:29:24 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
>> <top...@technologist.com> in
>> <1134203364.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Zachriel wrote:
>> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1134187953.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >I am talking about the process of determining if a signal is from an
>> >intelligent source. SETI's approach seem to be look for odd signals
>> >and then study the best candidates further.
>>
>> If you don't understand what SETI is doing then don't compare your
>> notions to it.
>
>I just have not seen any formal plan about what further research is
>done if a "good" signal is found. This is because they are exploring,
>and exploration cannot always have a plan. You cannot plan for the
>unknown and if you ignore the unknown you don't explore. To ask for
>up-front detailed exploration plans is stupid.
So you have not seen these irrelevant things. Should I care? What you
should pay attention to is the work that has gone into deciding what
constitutes a good signal. Your failure, the total failure of all ID
proponents, to even attempt that task exposes the emptiness in the
idea. You have hand waved about a "pattern" in DNA. What pattern? Why
does that pattern show design and not evolution? You have tried two
notions, neither of which works. You have talked about finding pi, but
we already know it is there for some encoding system. Then you tried
to say that some pattern that was "unlikely" according to evolution
would show design. That is wrong for two reasons. First, ID is not the
default, "we don't know (yet)" is the default. Second, you have to
show the comparative probability of the pattern being the result of
design. You have nothing, so stop talking about not needing to detail
the follow-up.
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >One of the reasons we use narrow band is because it is more economical.
>> > Wide band consumes too much energy and it is assumed that an
>> >intelligent species would not want to waste power.
>> >
>> >However, I suppose one could argue that perhaps some don't care if they
>> >waste power, or that there may be multiple signals next to each other.
>> >
>> >But, the theory is that it is easier detect what you are familiar with.
>> >The same argument popped up regarding testing for water and
>> >carbon-based life versus other kinds of life. The desigers of
>> >life-detection experiments for space probes say it is much trickier to
>> >detect non-water/carbon life because we don't know what to look for
>> >yet. General-purpose detection is far more expensive.
>> >
>> >Thus, the budget-minded focus on the lower-hanging fruit.
>>
>> So I will repeat: if we look at life it does *not* look like human
>> made stuff.
>
>I disagree. They have these in common:
>
>1. Processing chambers
What does "processing chambers" mean? Is a thunderstorm cell a
"processing chamber"? How about stream eroding its bed?
>2. Wires/nerves to communicate across the body
Sorry, but machines don't have nerves except by stretched analogy and
life does not have wires.
>3. Pipes
Like a stream bed is an open pipe?
>4. Central processing units (brains)
ROTFLMAO. Most life, of course, has no such thing. Nor do computer
chips look like brains in any meaningful way. Nor, really, are they as
"central" as you might think.
>5. Logic "gates" (brain tends to use continious gates instead of
>descrete)
Except they are not gates.
>6. Valves
So because humans take ideas from life and have a good ability at
analogy life was designed. Try looking at how organisms are built/made
and compare that to human stuff. Except to the extent human design is
an evolutionary process there is no comparison.
>However, this is probably off topic.
Off topic? This was you original claim, stop trying to avoid backing
it up.
>> To the extent that we use SETI as an example, it offers no
>> comfort to ID. You can suggest any number of unevidenced beings who do
>> things unlike humans, but why you would call that Intelligent Design I
>> don't know.
>
>Exploring DNA patterns is not at the stage of labelling the source yet.
Sure we do: the course of all DNA was an ancestor with a slightly
different DNA.
>You are fighting a war that has yet to even start. Your slippery-slope
>paranoia is showing through again.
Your attempts to dismiss arguments with attempts at emotion don't
work. Try something else. I made no slippery slope argument, I don't
need to against ID. ID has had hundreds of years and has only moved
backwards. I have no fear of any steps forward.
Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> in
<92mmp1dj3sfo1pkj4...@4ax.com> wrote:
>On 10 Dec 2005 12:12:05 -0800, in talk.origins , "Alan Wostenberg"
><awost...@psalmweaver.com> in
><1134245525.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>"If ID were science, they'd predict what they'd expect to find before
>>they went looking. ". So on this view, when Europeans found the first
>>cave paintings 150 years ago{1}, they were unscientific to conclude
>>this was designed, because nobody predicted we'd find cave paintings in
>>Spain? We sometimes predict design, but we often recognize it after
>>the fact.
>>
>>{1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
Sorry, but we did already know of the kinds of things that humans can
do. They compared the work to the things made by humans and found
enough similarity and enough evidence of human existence at that time
and place. I suggest that you read some actual archaeology work and
how they actually detect *human* actions. It is not magic.
Alan Wostenberg
or process is proposed, it must be shown that there is no possible
evolutionary pathway to get there. ". When I watch the 9/11 disaster
on TV and saw the first jet hit, I thought "what a tragic accident".
But when the second hit another tower minutes later, I, like millions
of Americans, immediately conclude this was NO accident. I ruled out
chance, and inferred design, given just two datapoints.
In Behe's Darwin's Black Box he gives 5 examples. Sure, those could
have arisen by unknown indirect evolutionary pathways, just as it could
have been a double-fluke that September 11th.
Reasonable people don't conclude chance, when design is the best
explanation.
Deadrat
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:fpkrp11op2d9s9qc1...@4ax.com...
> On 10 Dec 2005 12:39:28 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
> <top...@technologist.com> in
> <1134247168....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Your attempts to dismiss arguments with attempts at emotion don't
> work. Try something else. I made no slippery slope argument, I don't
> need to against ID. ID has had hundreds of years and has only moved
> backwards. I have no fear of any steps forward.
>
Yup, that's ID. Two steps backwards and one step backwards.
Deadrat
Alan Wostenberg
rigorous definition of complexity". In Darwin's Black Box he defines
irreducible complexity as "a single system composed of several
well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function,
wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to
effectively cease functioning".
That definition may not be rigorous by your standards, but it is
operational. To test if a system is irreducibly complex, just knock out
one of it's parts, and see if it still functions. In Behe's mousetrap
example, you take away one of the 5 parts -- say the base. The system
doesn't catch fewer mice. It fails to catch any mice. He applies the
same viability test to molecular systems like the flagellum, and
concludes they are irreducibly complex.
In your note you said he "hasn't shown there is no natural process that
produces his systems". He's shown it can't be a direct gradual process,
because an irreducibly complex system by definition has no functional
precursors. Could it be by some indirect pathway? Sure. But nobody
knows. So those who believe it are not drawing a scientific conclusion.
He says when somebody shows a natural step-by-step mechanism, he'll
revise his conclusion.
You might disagree with his reasoning that irreducibly complex systems
are a hallmark of design, but why do you find the theory
*unscientific*? Unlike methodological naturalists, who accept only
natural causes, design theorists like Behe are open to natural or
intelligent causes. Go where the evidence takes us!
John Wilkins
> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:fpkrp11op2d9s9qc1...@4ax.com...
>
>>On 10 Dec 2005 12:39:28 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
>><top...@technologist.com> in
>><1134247168....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Your attempts to dismiss arguments with attempts at emotion don't
>>work. Try something else. I made no slippery slope argument, I don't
>>need to against ID. ID has had hundreds of years and has only moved
>>backwards. I have no fear of any steps forward.
>>
>
>
> Yup, that's ID. Two steps backwards and one step backwards.
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cicero
Deadrat
> Ratty, you say Behe's theory isn't science because he "hasn't given a
> rigorous definition of complexity". In Darwin's Black Box he defines
> irreducible complexity as "a single system composed of several
> well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function,
> wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to
> effectively cease functioning".
>
> That definition may not be rigorous by your standards, but it is
> operational. To test if a system is irreducibly complex, just knock out
> one of it's parts, and see if it still functions. In Behe's mousetrap
> example, you take away one of the 5 parts -- say the base. The system
> doesn't catch fewer mice. It fails to catch any mice. He applies the
> same viability test to molecular systems like the flagellum, and
> concludes they are irreducibly complex.
Behe's "theory" may not have a rigorous definition, but at least it doesn't
demonstrate anything.
Here's my favorite example, the Venus flytrap. The plant has a hinged
trap mechanism to catch insects and the physiology to digest those insects.
Take away the trap mechanism and the plant can't catch its food; take
away the ability to digest insects, and the hinge doesn't provide a useful
function. Irreducibly complex, right? How could these two things have
evolved simultaneously? Why would a plant evolve a hinged trap if it
couldn't digest insects and why would a plant evolve the ability to digest
insects in the absence of a mechanism to catch them?
The answer is found in related plants, the sundews, which eat insects
that they catch in a sticky residue that they excrete. There's the possible
pathway. Sundew evolves a trap and the "new" plant loses the (now)
unnecessary ability to excrete the residue.
>
> In your note you said he "hasn't shown there is no natural process that
> produces his systems". He's shown it can't be a direct gradual process,
> because an irreducibly complex system by definition has no functional
> precursors. Could it be by some indirect pathway? Sure. But nobody
> knows. So those who believe it are not drawing a scientific conclusion.
> He says when somebody shows a natural step-by-step mechanism, he'll
> revise his conclusion.
Of course he says that. But that's not good enough for his "theory." He has
to show that there is no other explanation. As long as there's a possible path,
say, via the missing scaffolding as in the flytrap/sundew example, then Behe's
got nothing. You might object that this task is impossible, the equivalent of
proving a negative. Well, to get close, Behe will have to show that the
probability of an alternate explanation is vanishingly small. But he's still lost
because he hasn't got a rigorous enough definition of system, part, function,
well-matched, or basic to do any analysis.
See the problem with pretending to do science?
>
> You might disagree with his reasoning that irreducibly complex systems
> are a hallmark of design, but why do you find the theory
> *unscientific*? Unlike methodological naturalists, who accept only
> natural causes, design theorists like Behe are open to natural or
> intelligent causes. Go where the evidence takes us!
But in science, you can't go where the tools don't help you. And once
you admit the possibility of supernatural causes, you're not doing science.
Deadrat
Richard Smol
topmind wrote:
> Under the topic "Book-able view of ID as speculative science", the
> comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and
> searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. Would searching for patterns
> in DNA make ID more of a "science"?
No, just as little as reasching for lumps on ones head can tell
anything about his personality.
> SETI is often considered a
> scientific endeavor. Some even consider SETI's work a waste of time.
> Some still label it as a "science", but an uneconomical expenditure of
> research effort.
SETI certainly makes use of scientific means. The problem is that the
only artifiicial patterns we know of are *human* and we are looking for
patterns resembling those. Aliens don't have to abide by the same rules
though. Still, it's the best bet we have. The universe is vast though,
so even if there would be millions of civilizations, we might not be
able to discern them.
> Some suggest that no pattern found in DNA could serve as evidence for
> intelligence (even if its not necessarily strong evidence). Their
> argument seems to be that if you search enough random patterns you will
> find something that *looks* like it was made by an intelligent being,
> and it is allegedly too hard to filter out or reduce that possibility.
No, the argument is that organisms show every sign of self-replicating,
self-organizing systems, up to and including errors in duplications due
to an imperfect copying mechanism.
> However, couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? Suppose a
> signal was found that contained stereoscopic images of geometric
> buildings or alternating sequential digits of Pi and prime numbers to a
> million places. Most would probably consider that a decent form of
> evidence (even if not perfect). However, would finding the same image
> or data set in DNA not also be evidence of ID (or at least I.F. -
> intelligent interference)? If not, why the diff between ID and SETI
> signals?
Receiving pictures out of the blue would certainly show that something
is going on, since it is statistically improbable that would just
happen. DNA didn't come out of the blue, since it's the process of
small, very probably steps, accumulated in billions of years
> I should point out that SETI currently only uses the spectrum width of
> signals to identify potential sources. They have not even got deep into
> to the pattern analysis stage yet. However, outside of the spectrum
> width issue, if it is true that no signal pattern is evidence of
> intelligence, then isn't SETI wasting their time?
The most SETI can provide is signs of likeliness of alien signals. Once
we find such signals, we'd have to investigate much further.
> Is it possible to identify alien intelligence using only a one-way
> signal?
>
> Intuitively I would say "yes", but have no math evidence either way.
>
> (Please try not to let non-pattern issues from the other topic spill
> into this one.)
Well, you logic is already convoluted with non-pattern issues, so
that's a moot point.
RS
R. Baldwin
news:dnlmh9$ter$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
> Deadrat wrote:
>> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:fpkrp11op2d9s9qc1...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On 10 Dec 2005 12:39:28 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
>>><top...@technologist.com> in
>>><1134247168....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Your attempts to dismiss arguments with attempts at emotion don't
>>>work. Try something else. I made no slippery slope argument, I don't
>>>need to against ID. ID has had hundreds of years and has only moved
>>>backwards. I have no fear of any steps forward.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yup, that's ID. Two steps backwards and one step backwards.
>>
> And then a step to the right...
>
Put your hands to your hips...
shane
But let's not do the time warp thingy again, once today was enough.[1]
1. Refer "Hmmmm" thread.
Ye Old One
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Reasonable people don't conclude chance, when design is the best
>explanation.
But design is NOT the best explination. It is unscientific mumbo-jumbo
that requires the belief in fairy tales.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>Behe's "theory" may not have a rigorous definition, but at least it doesn't
>demonstrate anything.
>
>Here's my favorite example, the Venus flytrap. The plant has a hinged
>trap mechanism to catch insects and the physiology to digest those insects.
>Take away the trap mechanism and the plant can't catch its food; take
>away the ability to digest insects, and the hinge doesn't provide a useful
>function. Irreducibly complex, right? How could these two things have
>evolved simultaneously?
Who said they developed simultaneously?
>Why would a plant evolve a hinged trap if it
>couldn't digest insects and why would a plant evolve the ability to digest
>insects in the absence of a mechanism to catch them?
The ability to close leaves is not uncommon in plants.
The ability to absorb food through the leaves is very common in
plants.
>
>The answer is found in related plants, the sundews, which eat insects
>that they catch in a sticky residue that they excrete. There's the possible
>pathway. Sundew evolves a trap and the "new" plant loses the (now)
>unnecessary ability to excrete the residue.
>
--
Bob.
BruceW
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> ...
> You might disagree with his reasoning that irreducibly complex systems
> are a hallmark of design, but why do you find the theory *unscientific*?
> Unlike methodological naturalists, who accept only natural causes,
> design theorists like Behe are open to natural or intelligent causes.
> Go where the evidence takes us!
A century ago, we had reason to believe that our sun was many millions,
maybe billions of years old, but we had no idea what could have kept it
going for such a long time. Should we had said: "We can't figure it out,
so it must be Intelligent Design"?
That's what Behe does. He can't figure it out, so he concludes ID. And
he does it despite the fact that there are known, natural mechanisms by
which so-called IC systems can arise.
You may call it "being open to intelligent causes". I call it "giving up".
> Go where the evidence takes us!
Yes, please, let's do.
-BruceW
catshark
>"On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:22:26 -0500, in article
><e16pp1lvurtdf1222...@4ax.com>, catshark stated..."
>>
>>On 11 Dec 2005 05:14:12 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>[...snip...]
>>> There are others who used the "watchmaker" analogy in the
>>>18th century. Voltaire is one example.
>>
>>Do you have a cite on that?
>
> If you'll excuse me, I'll just refer to my article in talk.reason,
>where a quotation from Voltaire is given:
>
><http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
[My original response went walkabout. Sorry if this duplicates.]
No excuse necessary. Thanks for the good article.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement,
but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.
- William A. Dembski -
John Wilkins
> On 12 Dec 2005 04:34:35 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:22:26 -0500, in article
>><e16pp1lvurtdf1222...@4ax.com>, catshark stated..."
>>
>>>On 11 Dec 2005 05:14:12 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>[...snip...]
>>
>>>> There are others who used the "watchmaker" analogy in the
>>>>18th century. Voltaire is one example.
>>>
>>>Do you have a cite on that?
>>
>> If you'll excuse me, I'll just refer to my article in talk.reason,
>>where a quotation from Voltaire is given:
>>
>><http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
>
>
> [My original response went walkabout. Sorry if this duplicates.]
>
> No excuse necessary. Thanks for the good article.
>
everything could be born from everything and grow all at once. Even less new
under the sun...
catshark
>" The task of the ID folks is next to impossible. For whatever system
>or process is proposed, it must be shown that there is no possible
>evolutionary pathway to get there. ". When I watch the 9/11 disaster
>on TV and saw the first jet hit, I thought "what a tragic accident".
>But when the second hit another tower minutes later, I, like millions
>of Americans, immediately conclude this was NO accident. I ruled out
>chance, and inferred design, given just two datapoints.
Your example reverses the inference that ID is trying to make. The
datapoints that count in your example are that planes *don't* fly into
buildings except in extraordinary circumstances. Millions of "air-miles"
are logged with no accidents of the sort on 9/11 at all. Thus, two large
airliners flying into a single building complex within minutes of each
other denotes a plan because any one such event is incredibly rare to begin
with and the timing and location of them when they do occur are random.
Behe admits that evolution, unlike plane *crashes*, takes place all the
time, to all life forms, and the theory accounts well for all but a tiny
fraction of the known attributes of life (and, as has been shown since
_Darwin's Black Box_ came out, can account for Behe's conundrums as well).
There is nothing about the nature or timing of Behe's examples that
indicate any *plan* (especially since Behe says nothing about the timing
except that they may have been "frontloaded" in some undetectable way).
>
>In Behe's Darwin's Black Box he gives 5 examples. Sure, those could
>have arisen by unknown indirect evolutionary pathways, just as it could
>have been a double-fluke that September 11th.
Behe's 5 examples are are a tiny sample of *questionable* cases awash in a
sea of evidence for evolution so vast that even Behe can't ignore it. At
most, they indicate that we may not know every detail about how life
develops (something we already knew, in any case). Both our knowledge and
experience of air travel told us that airline crashes are rare and random
as to location/timing and *that* is what made the *juxtaposition* of the
crashes a valid inference of a plan.
>
>Reasonable people don't conclude chance, when design is the best
>explanation.
But otherwise reasonable people may grasp at any straw to enable them to
cling to a belief that they cannot emotionally give up.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on
our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results.
- Michael J. Behe -
rja.ca...@excite.com
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> " The task of the ID folks is next to impossible. For whatever system
> or process is proposed, it must be shown that there is no possible
> evolutionary pathway to get there. ". When I watch the 9/11 disaster
> on TV and saw the first jet hit, I thought "what a tragic accident".
> But when the second hit another tower minutes later, I, like millions
> of Americans, immediately conclude this was NO accident. I ruled out
> chance, and inferred design, given just two datapoints.
I'm so glad you brought that up. What do you infer concerning American
Airlines flight 587?
For that matter, do you infer, as the Bush administration seems to have
done, that Iraq's intelligence is behind all that?
> In Behe's Darwin's Black Box he gives 5 examples. Sure, those could
> have arisen by unknown indirect evolutionary pathways, just as it could
> have been a double-fluke that September 11th.
I believe I've heard of three: the human eye, a bacterial flagellum,
and blood clotting (like that's hard). What are the others?
And does the fact that these do not seem to have happened at the same
time and place weaken your metaphor of 9/11? Or do you consider that
each of the 5 cases is a 9/11 of its own?
catshark
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
>Ratty, you say Behe's theory isn't science because he "hasn't given a
>rigorous definition of complexity". In Darwin's Black Box he defines
>irreducible complexity as "a single system composed of several
>well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function,
>wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to
>effectively cease functioning".
>
>That definition may not be rigorous by your standards,
Indeed not, until he can give us a rigorous definition of "function" and
tell us why that is important to evolution.
>but it is
>operational.
For a "function" of allowing the uninformed to continue to believe that
evolution is not the best scientific explanation for life?
>To test if a system is irreducibly complex, just knock out
>one of it's parts, and see if it still functions. In Behe's mousetrap
>example, you take away one of the 5 parts -- say the base. The system
>doesn't catch fewer mice. It fails to catch any mice. He applies the
>same viability test to molecular systems like the flagellum, and
>concludes they are irreducibly complex.
Behe's *metaphor* is poor:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/metaphors/>
But it can be said that it is as good as Behe gets.
>
>In your note you said he "hasn't shown there is no natural process that
>produces his systems". He's shown it can't be a direct gradual process,
>because an irreducibly complex system by definition has no functional
>precursors. Could it be by some indirect pathway? Sure. But nobody
>knows. So those who believe it are not drawing a scientific conclusion.
Let's see . . . we have a process that is, even Behe admits, well-evidenced
enough that Behe accepts common descent and evolution in all but a few
cases of isolated systems. As long as an indirect pathway potentially
exists, it is Behe that must come up with the evidence to show that it
didn't happen that way or else scientists will, in accord with the accepted
process of science, continue to go with the known and effective mechanism.
That is a fully scientific conclusion.
>He says when somebody shows a natural step-by-step mechanism, he'll
>revise his conclusion.
But you just said above that he he admits an indirect path is possible.
Why will he only change his opinion if a *direct* path is shown (other than
the fact that indirect paths have been shown to be possible, blowing his
argumentout of the wather and hedoesn't want to admit it)?
>
>You might disagree with his reasoning that irreducibly complex systems
>are a hallmark of design, but why do you find the theory
>*unscientific*? Unlike methodological naturalists, who accept only
>natural causes, design theorists like Behe are open to natural or
>intelligent causes.
The distinction is between natural and supernatural. Intelligence is fully
natural when tied to known intelligent beings.
>Go where the evidence takes us!
So you are one of those people who think we can catch God in a mousetrap?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
[I]n its relation to Christianity, intelligent design
should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation . . .
Bobby D. Bryant
I don't think it's a matter of giving up or can't figure it out. I think
he is _looking_ for a way to 'prove' that evolution won't work, and IC
is the best argument from incredulity he can come up with.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> Reasonable people don't conclude chance, when design is the best
> explanation.
Reasonable people don't conclude design when evolution is the best
explanation.
noctiluca
Good gracious of course they do. They, me, you, we do it all the time.
This choice is, in fact, one of the evidences to suggest we are
actually "reasonable."
When there is a thump outside my window at night my adrenalin level
reflects an intuition that there is an intelligent cause. When I can't
find my wallet I sometimes wonder whose design it was to frustrate my
efforts to get going on time. The best, most comprehensive explanation
for any unknown is that there is an omnipotent entity orchestrating
events. No further inquiry necessary.
But it is often the counterintuitive, less comprehensive explanation
that is the most reasonable. The ability to ignore our passions and
employ the methodologically naturalist heuristic is the key to
centuries of scientific success. The fact that certain scientists
cannot maintain enough professionalism to keep their passions from
unduly influencing their work does nothing to undermine that.
Robert
Deadrat
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:t82tp1lk4eic7iunh...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:04:17 GMT, "Deadrat" <ephe...@sbcglobal.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Behe's "theory" may not have a rigorous definition, but at least it doesn't
> >demonstrate anything.
> >
> >Here's my favorite example, the Venus flytrap. The plant has a hinged
> >trap mechanism to catch insects and the physiology to digest those insects.
> >Take away the trap mechanism and the plant can't catch its food; take
> >away the ability to digest insects, and the hinge doesn't provide a useful
> >function. Irreducibly complex, right? How could these two things have
> >evolved simultaneously?
>
> Who said they developed simultaneously?
Please post 100 times
I will read to the end of a post before replying.
Deadrat
<snip>
> Bob.
Mark Isaak
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
>In your note you said he "hasn't shown there is no natural process that
>produces his systems". He's shown it can't be a direct gradual process,
>because an irreducibly complex system by definition has no functional
>precursors.
Yes, an irreducibly complex system most certainly does have functional
precursors. Behe has ruled out one mechanism of immediate precursor
for the systems he considers, but that leaves plenty of others.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with evolutionary theory. It *predicted*
irreducible complexity (albeit not under that name) more than 60 years
ago. Irreducible complexity is evidence *for* evolution.
Alan Morgan
And pull your irreducibly complex leg joints in tiiiiight
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Mark VandeWettering
No ID theorists can explain anything about the formation of the bacterial
flagellum. They can't say when, where, how, or by whom it was designed.
Intelligent design doesn't propose an explanation. It is the decision
that since we don't have an explanation, no explanation must be possible.
It's absurd.
Mark