>FMAJ: Because we have direct evidence of the "evolution" of life and
species and mutation and natural selection.
> DNAunion: We have direct evidence of intelligent design: computers, cars,
televisions.
>FMAJ: Cool but a non sequitor.
DNAunion: Why don't you learn the full meaning of phrases before you use
them. If you think something is irrelevant, then you should just use the
word irrelevant (of course, you would be wrong anyway, but at least you would
be using the correct word/phrase).
>FMAJ: We do not have evidence of inteligent design as it applies to
biology.
DNAunion: Hello? Is anyone home? Look numbskull, if you would have read
one more sentence, you would have seen that that is exactly what I provided
next. Duh!
>DNAunion: But more importantly, we have direct evidence of intelligent
design in biology: genetic engineering and rational design in protein
engineering.
>FMAJ: Again this is not evidence of biological design in existing
biological systems.
DNAunion: Don't change your wording now to try to save face - you already
blew it above. There is evidence of intelligent design in biology. It is
perfectly logical to conclude that any ETI civlization that is at least as
advanced as us could also design and create novel biological macromolecules.
>FMAJ: [Again this is not evidence of biological design in existing
biological systems]. That humans can manipulate nature is not in question.
DNAunion: Great, then you accept intelligent design of biological
macromolecules. Then why do you so strongly object to directed panspermia?
The majority of astronomers agree that ETIs exist, and those at SETI and
others calculate that there are about 10,000 intelligent ET civlizations -
each sophisticated enough to communicate across interstellar space via
electromagnetic waves - that exist now, and that such civilizations have been
appearing and vanishing at about a steady rate for quite some time,
maintaining an approximate "population" of 10,000 ETI civilizations on an
ongoing basis. If you can accept ETIs as plausible (as many scientists do)
and you state there is no question that humans (and by analogy, other
civilizations with human-like intelligence) can create novel biological
informational macromolecules, and since it is possible for us (and by
analogy, them) to detect planets orbiting distant stars, and since it is
possible to send spacecraft outside our own solar system, and since it is
possible to determine the approximate age and atmospheric composition of
extrasolar planets, etc., then exactly why do you rule out an intelligent
origin of life by ETIs?
>DNAunion: In addition, we have direct evidence of intelligent design
creating circuits that can undergo mutation and selection, thus nature no
longer has a monopoly on RM & NS as a creative mechanism. In addition, we
have direct evidence of intelligent design creating robots that can create
other robots: and self-replicating robots are highly probable before the end
of this century.
>FMAJ: You are confused, that RM*NS can be used succesfully to design things
is not evidence that ID is required for RM*NS to work.
DNAunion: You are stupid: that is not what I said. Oh, and, STRAWMAN!
>FMAJ: On the contrary, it shows that RM*NS can be powerful algorithms that
can generate CSI.
DNAunion: Support your claim. Show where RM & NS has produced 500 bits of
information.
>FMAJ: IC however is based on elimination.
>DNAunion: No, IC is based on observation. At the most, it is the creation
of an IC system that is based on elimination/inference. That's like
confusing a feather itself with the evolution of a feather from a scale.
>FMAJ: Please explain. IC is based on the observation of an IC system. It is
asserted that no Darwinian pathway exists, therefore it is designed.
DNAunion: Just as I said, and you objected to! Even though your first
statement borders on being a tautology, yes, IC is determined by observation,
not by the elimination of possible pathways: as you confirm here (DNAunion:
"No, IC is [not based on elimination, but is] based on observation"). That
no Darwinian pathway supposedly exists to produce an IC system is, as you
yourself state here, where the inferrence to ID comes from (DNAunion: "At
the most, it is the creation of an IC system that is based on
elimination/inference."). You are conflating IC with ID. You are conflating
a property with the mechanism claimed to have created the property. Just as
I said, and you now confirm.
>FMAJ: "By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed
of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where
the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by
slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any
precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional."
[Behe]
DNAunion: Yes, IC is determined by observation (checking to see if it is a
single system composed of several interaction……), just as I said (DNAunion:
"No, IC is [not based on elimination, but is] based on observation"). I
can't figure out why you are providing material that supports my statements
over yours, but go right ahead, I don't mind one bit.
>FMAJ: From Behe's Empty Box (http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/box/behe.htm):
"But read this argument carefully. Behe is not offering a way to detect
design, he is offering a way to falsify gradual Darwinian evolution, and by
elimination, conclude design. But there is one big problem- his falsifier
has been falsified. The conclusion that an "irreducibly complex system cannot
be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor
system" is simply wrong."
DNAunion: Exactly - thanks for supporting my statements some more! That
there is supposedly no Darwinian pathway that leads to the creation of an IC
system is, supposedly, evidence for ID. (DNAunion: "No, IC is [not based on
elimination, but is] based on observation. At the most, it is the creation
of an IC system that is based on elimination/inference.")
[further irrelevant material snipped]
>FMAJ: It is clear that there is a problem for IC/ID here, if natural
pathways cannot be excluded beforehand then IC is not a reliable detector of
design.
DNAunion: It is clear that there is a problem with FMAJ! He/she has
completely changed the topic of discussion. He/she started off trying to
show that my statements were wrong and his/her own were correct, but ended up
showing that I was right and that he/she was wrong. Then, without skipping a
beat, FMAJ flies off onto a different tangent.
>FMAJ: That's quite a difference.
> DNAunion: Sure, if it were true.
>FMAJ: So far you have given no evidence of it falsity.
DNAunion: So far you have given no evidence of its truth.
>FMAJ: In the case of IC definition and clear definition is very important
since design is infered through the absence of a Darwinian mechanism.
> DNAunion: I guess I don't get it.
>FMAJ: No problem I am quite patient.
DNAunion: You left out annoying.
> DNAUnion: Suppose I am learning about the workings of a four-stroke
reciprocating internal combustion engine and find that there is a single
system composed of several well-matched and interacting parts, each
contributing to the overall function, wherein the removal of any one of them
leads to loss of function. Under those conditions, based on the properties
of the system of interest alone, I would conclude intelligent
design. And I wouldn't necessarily have to eliminate Darwinian evolution,
the inference just followed from the inherent properties.
>FMAJ: Cool but this is not what IC is all about. If you just infer design
then you have merely asserted something:
DNAunion: As is the case for those that assert that birds evolved from
theropods. As is the case for those that assert that whales evolved from
wolf-like mesonychians. As is the case for those that assert that whales
evolved from hippo-like ungulates. As is the case for those that assert that
replication arose before metabolism. As is the case for those that assert
that metabolism arose before replication. As is the case for those that
assert life originated a deep-sea hydrothermal vents. As is the case for
those that assert that life arose on the rims of volcanoes. As is the case
for those that assert that proteins appeared before nucleic acids. As is the
case for those that assert that nucleic acids arose before proteins. As is
the case for those that assert there was a prebiotic soup. Etc.
>FMAJ: Design is "single system composed of several well-matched and
interacting parts, each contributing to the overall function, wherein the
removal of any one of them leads to loss of function".
DNAunion: This is the ultimate example of your confusion: you give the
definition of IC, yet claim it is the definition of design. Once you get the
distinction clear in your head, then perhaps your arguments will make more
sense.
>FMAJ: How does this eliminate natural selection? You would not have to
eliminate it to infer design but then design means nothing more than it's
definition
DNAunion: What definition of design? The incorrect one you gave above? The
rest of your statements here turns into mush as it is based on flawed ideas.
Therefore, I will not respond to it or include it.
[snip]
>DNAunion: Other instances of inferring design also don't need to
neccessarily eliminate Darwinian mechanisms. Say I take someone who has
lived pretty much in seclusion for his whole life to see Mt. Rushmore.
Seeing the specified and complex figures - multiple heads, each with eyes
with eyelids and eyebrows, and noses with nostrils, a mustache here, and
beard there, hair on the heads, fully-developed lips, etc. - all in the
correct places and all in the proper proportions, could that person not
conclude intelligent design without necessarily having to eliminate Darwinian
mechanisms?
>FMAJ: Sure we have now known pathways and can eliminate alternatives that's
how design is infered through elimination of chance and regularity. Unlike
your handwaving though, Dembski's argument relies on elimination. The same
applies to the Rushmore argument.
DNAunion: Try meditating before posting - it might help improve your
concentration, allowing you to write coherent replies. I have no idea what
you said, except that you tried to sneak in the charge of "handwaving" -
pretty typical of you so far.
> DNAunion: Of course, similar to what I did elsewhere, you could arge that
in fact Darwinian processes were eliminated - i.e., they were not taken into
consideration - we just didn't notice it.
>FMAJ: In all cases ID was infered through elimination. In the latter case
Darwinian processes were not relevant since your switched to a non biological
system.
DNAunion: Yes, but haven't you heard the big news? The basic Darwinian
mechanisms are no longer tied solely to biological entities. Humans have
intelligently designed hardware and software that can evolved by mutation and
selection. So now we have mutation and selection operating in both life and
in computers.
>FMAJ: And positive evidence of designers of such structures exist. Unlike
for biology.
DNAunion: I already pointed you in the direction of material supporting the
intelligent design of biological molecules (proteins and genomes). Your
claim is flat out wrong.
In addition to the journal I mentioned ("Protein Engineering") and the many
articles related to genetic engineering - all general references - here is a
specific reference you could check into. Bassil I. Dahiyat & Stephen L.
Mayo, De Novo Protein Design: Fully Automated Sequence Selection, Science,
Oct 3 1997, v278, n5335, p82(6).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 23:56:25 EDT