|
Author
|
Topic: The process of elimination -> Biosignatures & Designsignatures
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 09. October 2002 09:07
There's been a recurring theme in some of the threads about ID being eliminative in its thrust, as opposed to just presenting positive evidence. I'd like to point out that this usually comes
in a derogatory way, as though eliminating natural causes is somehow an inferior way of doing science. However, this seems to be exclusively applied to ID. Scientists engage in the process of elimination all the time, the following is one example which BTW closely parallels ID:
quote:
In the latest study of a 4.5 billion-year-old Martian meteorite, researchers
have presented new evidence confirming that 25 percent of the magnetic material in the
meteorite was produced by ancient bacteria on Mars. These latest results were published in the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
The researchers used six physical properties they refer to as the Magnetite Assay
for Biogenicity (MAB) to compare all the magnetic material found in the ancient
meteorite -- using the MAB as a biosignature. A biosignature is a physical and/or
chemical marker of life that does not occur through random processes or human
intervention.
"No non-biologic magnetite population, whether produced by nature or in the
laboratory, has ever met the MAB criteria," said Kathie Thomas-Keprta, an
astrobiologist at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston and the lead
researcher on the study. "This means that one-quarter of the magnetite crystals
embedded in the carbonates in Martian meteorite ALH84001 require the
intervention of biology to explain their presence."
From http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/library/quest/080202-a.html
Therefore, using markers (in this case the criteria attached to biosignatures, in ID the criteria attached to designsignatures, namely specified complexity), to eliminate
natural causes is absolutely not unscientific. If you think it is, perhaps you should contact Lockheed Martin at the Johnson Space Center and let them know they're doing it all wrong.
[ 12. October 2002, 09:53: Message edited by: Cre8ionist ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 09. October 2002 10:09
Another example of eliminative induction is in testing interventions such as medical treatments.
A good experiment has controls for alternative hypothesis like natural history, placebo and bias, and is called the "randomized, double-blind, controlled trial." Of course a model would be nice to account for the seeming effectiveness of the therapy on a disorder after these types of tests, and it provides the deductive consequences for further investigation, model building and therapy improvement.
However, what are the limitations of deductivism? Is it as great as some people think? In the modern context the possibility of indeterminism has to be taken seriously. But isn't a Laplacian determinism presupposed in deductivism? What problems does deductivism face in fundamental science when dealing with an indeterministic universe? What practical problems does it face even when things are taken to be deterministic in the classical sense?
For more problems, I'd like to point to this book which explores the extent to which deductivism is limited in scientific explanations and confirmations.
"The Limitations Of Deductivism" ed. Grunbaum and Salmon.
[ 10. October 2002, 00:57: Message edited by: Mark Szlazak ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 09. October 2002 11:39
Creationist:
quote:
I'd like to point out that this usually comes
in a derogatory way, as though eliminating natural causes is somehow an inferior way of doing science. However, this seems to be exclusively applied to ID. Scientists engage in the process of elimination all the time, the following is one example which BTW closely parallels ID:
I would like to point out that elimination is indeed a basic component of doing science thus in that context ID does not contribute to scientific inquiry. But unlike ID, science does not use elimination to conclude the validity of a certain hypothesis but rather the invalidity of one. Science then goes on to propose another hypothesis which will have to withstand the attempts at disprove. When evidence supporting the hypothesis strenghten, so does the hypothesis.
While there may seem to be a superficial similarity between scientific approaches and ID approaches, I would argue that the main difference still remains that ID does not propose positive hypotheses.
The major problem with applying ID to biology is also that very good hypotheses exist on how life evolved supported by strong evidence. Additionally we do have evidence of bacteria on earth generating these biomarkers but do we have evidence of ID interventions or contributions to biology and evolution?
The argument goes as follows:
1. Characterize MV-1 biogenic magnetite
2. Characterize ALH84001 Martian magnetite
findings: MV-1 na dALH84001 are physically and chemically indisnguishable as far as magnetite is concerned
Hypothesis:
Common formation
Chance hypothesis is eliminated through 6 markers
Now the question is: Is the hypothesis an ID one or a regularity one? I suggest it is a regularity hypothesis where natural selection played a role in achieving the six markers.
What about other origins besides chance and bacterial?
Not observed naturaly on earth
Yet to be synthesized.
So not only eliminative but also positive in nature namely biogenic abundant on earth.
[ 09. October 2002, 11:57: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peroxisome
unregistered
|
posted 09. October 2002 13:01
quote:
There's been a recurring theme in some of the threads about ID being eliminative in its thrust, as opposed to just presenting positive evidence. I'd like to point out that this usually comes in a derogatory way, as though eliminating natural causes is somehow an inferior way of doing science.
Note that you can phrase a scientific hypothesis in a negative or positive way, e.g.
all non-biological magnetite never meets MAB criteria
Clearly, this is falsifiable. All you have to do is find some non-biological magnetite which meets the MAB criteria, and the hypothesis is bust. So this hypothesis makes clear predictions, and it is testable.
I dare say that there has been a fair number of magnetite samples assessed and tested in order to validate the hypothesis. This would be positive evidence for the magnetite 'hypothesis'.
[Moderator's note: the following is said in poor taste by someone who has very little interest in genuine dialogue, but who is interested in engaging in a Victorious Battle]
Finally, yes, you are correct that the ID hypothesis makes no testable predictions, is inherently un-falsifiable, and is based on an absence of evidence. I would say that that makes it non-science.
cheers
per
[ 11. October 2002, 09:59: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 11. October 2002 09:28
Hi Frances,
To me, little doubt exists as to similarity in usage of the biosignature (pointing to life)
and usage of the designsignature (pointing to intelligence). I'll use your post as
a springboard for my thoughts on the issue and have to leave it at that.
Scientific philosophy is truly a tricky animal, I suppose if I used your own description (below) to show that ID is rightly using the scientific method, you'd be able to figure a way
to move ID back out of the realm of science, for someone convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still, but I'll give it a try.
First though, this thread has already accomplished its goal, namely, establishing elimination as a part of science, and as I have pointed out, those using the designsignature are using elimination in the same scientific fashion as those using the biosignature.
Now to your description, you remark (emphasis added) that
quote:
... elimination is indeed a basic component of doing science thus in that context ID does not contribute to scientific inquiry.But unlike ID, science does not use elimination to conclude the validity of a certain hypothesis but rather the invalidity of one. Science then goes on to propose another hypothesis which will have to withstand the attempts at disprove . When evidence supporting the hypothesis strenghten, so does the hypothesis.
I believe that ID has concluded through the use of designsignatures (e.g., irreducible complexity, specified complexity) that the Darwinian mechanism is invalid as an explanation for their existence. I further think that ID is withstanding quite well, the attempts at disproof . Finally, it is gaining supporting evidence from virtually all sides.
And with that I think I've successfully used your own description to verify ID's inside the scientific arena.
Later you say:
quote:
While there may seem to be a superficial similarity between scientific approaches and ID
approaches, I would argue that the main difference still remains that ID does not propose
positive hypotheses.
The major problem with applying ID to biology is also that very good hypotheses exist on
how life evolved supported by strong evidence. Additionally we do have evidence of
bacteria on earth generating these biomarkers but do we have evidence of ID
interventions or contributions to biology and evolution?
The approaches are not superficial in their similarity, rather the similarities run deep, and I'll again use your own method to show this. First though, to the "evidence of ID
interventions or contributions to biology and evolution."
There is so much evidence, I'm having trouble deciding where to begin, I mean from artificial selection to gene splicing, one could go in many directions. Insulin manufactured through biotechnology is an example of an intelligent intervention in biology. As was the enzyme which Beadle and Tatum added to the mutant micro organism that restored normal growth back in the early 40s. I suppose though that the fundamental superiority of design would be a good launching pad for this one.
What makes ID superior and more powerful to Darwinian evolution is the ability of intelligent designers to choose between different courses of action. While Darwinian evolution is limited by the straitjacket of the survival of the fittest, ID is under no such constraint. It can and does use other options, such as the survival of the desirable. The mule serves as a simple example of this. Though sterile, mankind has been producing them as pack animals for at least 3000 years. Sterility is less a problem for designers than it is for nature alone.
Another example could be illustrated using the color of a banana & the color of a carrot.
One might argue that the banana evolved its color because it helps to ensure its survival. The same could be said of the carrot. However, many people know that the carrot's color was chosen and bred by the Dutch because it was their country's color. The earlier color was purple not orange. This is a case of intelligent intervention in biology. It would be difficult to say the
least to go into a lab without prior knowledge of the carrot's original color and deduce that an intelligence had intervened and purposely selected the present color.
The point is, human intelligent designers are all over biology, though their marks are sometimes indistinguishable from what life can already accomplish. Further, intelligent designers have the potential to do everything evolution is said to have done, and in a more accurate manner. In particular they can sequence strings far quicker an far more efficiently that Darwinian evolution can. The phrase "me thinks it is like a weasel" is a simple example of the superiority of an intelligence, I can type it in far less attempts than any supposed natural process.
Anyway, I'd better get back to the similarities, again I'll use your own method:
quote:
The argument goes as follows:
1. Characterize MV-1 biogenic magnetite
2. Characterize ALH84001 Martian magnetite
findings: MV-1 na dALH84001 are physically and chemically indisnguishable as far as
magnetite is concerned
Hypothesis:
Common formation
Chance hypothesis is eliminated through 6 markers
Now the question is: Is the hypothesis an ID one or a regularity one? I suggest it is a
regularity hypothesis where natural selection played a role in achieving the six markers.
What about other origins besides chance and bacterial?
Not observed naturaly on earth
Yet to be synthesized.
ID goes as follows:
1. Characterize biological specified complexity
2. Characterize man-made specified complexity
findings: biological specified complexity and man-made specified complexity are probabilistically indistinguishable
Biological specified complexity not observed to originate naturally on earth
Can only be synthesized.
Well, enough for now......................................Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 11. October 2002 11:38
Creationist
You make the following claim that "First though, this thread has already accomplished its goal, namely, establishing elimination as a part of science, and as I have pointed out, those using the designsignature are using elimination in the same scientific fashion as those using the biosignature. "
I disagree since as I have argued and shown science proposes a hypothesis and uses elimination (or more properly termed falsification) to reject alternatives. ID does NOT propose a hypothesis other than that ID is what remains once all other hypotheses have been eliminated (falsified). One should be careful not to equivocate elimination as used in science with elimination as used in ID. Elimination/falsfication in science is follwed by new hypotheses, Eliminations in ID is an ongoing business without any new hypotheses being generated by ID. Only through elimination of all hypotheses can ID be reliably infered.
In the case of the biogenic magnetite there is the following hypothesis backed up by positive data
1. Known bacteria on earth are known to be able to generate such magnetite
2. No known processes and/or intelligent design are known to generate such magnetite on earth
3. Chance processes are unlikely to generate such magnetite
Your response is that ID has a similar approach but all you show is appeal to analogy. Biological specified complexity is ARGUED not to originate naturally on earth yet the relevant hypotheses of regularity have not been eliminated. CSI has yet to be shown to be a reliable indicator of intelligent design. In fact I would argue that it has been shown to NOT be such a reliable indicator.
You propose an interesting argument why ID is superior and more powerful to Darwinian evolution since it allows for more 'arbitrary' solutions and yet evolutionary approaches have been more succesful than intelligent design in coming up with solutions in many areas. It might perhaps not be the most 'straightforward' approach but it surely seems to 'outsmart' us intelligent designers on many occasions.
Perhaps you can explain how designers could design a non-sterile mule btw?
Your example of the carrot merely confuses the issue between natural selection and non-natural selection but the mechanisms are purely Darwinian, after all the orange carrots are the ones that survive due to their attractiveness to the Dutch.
So far your arguments do not lend much assistance to the concept of ID in nature. That it may be more efficient does not mean that it actually happened. In light of the known natural mechanisms, one would have to reject ID.
[ 11. October 2002, 11:43: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peroxisome
unregistered
|
posted 13. October 2002 09:29
quote:
I believe that ID has concluded through the use of designsignatures (e.g., irreducible complexity, specified complexity) that the Darwinian mechanism is invalid as an explanation for their existence.
An interesting and consistent application of logic within ID. ID gates things (e.g. flagella) by SC and IC, and then proposes that they are designed, on the basis of IC and SC, and an absence of clear data for other explanations. It is an alternative argument to the "Darwinian mechanism" and does not- indeed logically can not- invalidate the Darwinian mechanism.
There are plenty of things that would invalidate parts of the darwinian mechanism; god (or any other designer- heaven forfend that s/he wouldn't be christian) coming along and making some lifeforms, with flagella, would work just nicely.
quote:
Biological specified complexity not observed to originate naturally on earth
Can only be synthesized.
Sentence 1 is rather obviously open to debate.
Sentence 2 is arguably dubious; for example, Cre8 is completely unable to demonstrate the de novo synthesis of any lifeform by a designer. I doubt whether he can demonstrate the de novo synthesis of biological specified complexity. But I will be delighted to be proved wrong.
per
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 13. October 2002 13:35
Hi peroxisome,
quote:
An interesting and consistent application of logic within ID. ID gates things (e.g. flagella) by SC and IC, and then proposes that they are designed, on the basis of IC and SC, and an absence of clear data for other explanations. It is an alternative argument to the
Darwinian mechanism" and does not- indeed logically can not- invalidate the Darwinian
mechanism.
I don't think Darwin would agree, he said quote:
if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1988), p. 154)
IC has met Darwin's criterion. IC in biology, does not arise by slight modifications, due to the constraints of natural selection.
quote:
There are plenty of things that would invalidate parts of the darwinian mechanism; god (or any other designer- heaven forfend that s/he wouldn't be christian) coming along and
making some lifeforms, with flagella, would work just nicely.
This is not so, if scientists create a lifeform with flagella how would this falsify the notion that chemical evolution got life started, then life accumulated flagella gradually?
I mean, I can make a waterfall, that doesn't mean that ID is responsible for all waterfalls. The idea of natural waterfalls is therefore not invalidated by the fact that I can design and create one. DE evades falsifiability through plasticity. Shape-shifting is the norm, and the simple use of terms like convergent evolution get evolutionists out of hot water on a regular basis.
quote:
Sentence 1 is rather obviously open to debate.
Sentence 2 is arguably dubious; for example, Cre8 is completely unable to demonstrate
the de novo synthesis of any lifeform by a designer. I doubt whether he can demonstrate
the de novo synthesis of biological specified complexity. But I will be delighted to be
proved wrong.
I don't have to demonstrate the de novo synthesis of a lifeform to validate 2. As to whether or not I can demonstrate the de novo synthesis of biological specified complexity, that's a more reasonable request, but still not the determining factor. Since biological specified complexity and man-made specified complexity are probabilistically indistinguishable.
I don't normally do dares :-D, but take a look at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5505/884
It has "A schematic model of the designed protein 5-Helix. Three N-peptide
segments (N40, gray) and two C-peptide segments (C38, blue) are alternately linked (N-C-N-C-N) using short Gly/Ser peptide sequences (red loops) (21). The sequences of each segment in single-letter amino acid code are: N40, QLLSGIVQQQNNLLRAIEAQQHLLQLTVWGIKQLQARILA; C38,
HTTWMEWDREINNYTSLIHSLIEESQNQQEKNEQELLE; N-to-C linker, GGSGG; and C-to-N linker, GSSGG"
This protein was designed in the effort to fight HIV, remember there are 3 N40 segments and 2 C-peptide segments as well as the linkage. ......................Cre8
[ 13. October 2002, 13:38: Message edited by: Cre8ionist ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 13. October 2002 15:54
Creationist
when you state that quote:
IC has met Darwin's criterion. IC in biology, does not arise by slight modifications, due to the constraints of natural selection.
you ignore that possible indirect Darwinian pathways to IC have been proposed. Thus the claim that IC in biology does not arise by slight modifications due to constraints of natural selection is a meaningless and incorrect assertion.
As far as your example of CSI, could you show us that this protein fulfills the necessary requirements?
From the article "we designed a small protein". Designed perhaps, specified perhaps complex? Hardly that obvious...
Furthermore it was hardly 'de novo/'
"THe design of 5-0helix was based on the N36/C34 six helix bundle cyrstal structure"
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 14. October 2002 19:10
Hey Frances,
quote:
you ignore that possible indirect Darwinian pathways to IC have been proposed. Thus the
claim that IC in biology does not arise by slight modifications due to constraints of natural
selection is a meaningless and incorrect assertion.
Not quite, take the origin of life (an IC system) , there have been
no possible indirect pathways proposed, in my opinion. What have been proposed are bits
and pieces of the machinary. It's like pointing to iron, rubber, and glass and saying that's a possible pathway for the natural origin of an automobile. I personally do not consider these pathways viable, but I do review the data. Naturalistic origin of life research ignores the very possiblity of ID, and therefore, basically through reverse discrimination, is guilty of your charge. When design is admitted into the research, only then will progress on the question of life's origin really come to be.
quote:
As far as your example of CSI, could you show us that this protein fulfills the necessary
requirements?
From the article "we designed a small protein". Designed perhaps, specified perhaps
complex? Hardly that obvious...
Furthermore it was hardly 'de novo/'
"THe design of 5-0helix was based on the N36/C34 six helix bundle cyrstal structure"
I don't normally do the math for people, and I've been assured that there's no need for an
ID detecting computer program! :-D
It should be simple enough for you to figure out (don't think you'd like my method), but here's Crick to help you:
quote:
This is an easy excercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is , if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20<sup> 200</sup>, and is approximately equal to 10<sup>260</sup>, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros!
I included the amino acid list for you in my earlier post.
The bit about de novo is a straitjacket which I don't feel the need to wear. The fact that something is based upon something else does nothing to strenghthen your case. Dembski's latest book is based on NFL theorems, yet it is SC nonetheless. Practically speaking, most SC is based on earlier SC.
Also, your whole point rests on what we can do today, our ability to design and create complex proteins is on the rise, not the decline. You may question the complexity of a given example now, how about in 10 or 20 years. I'm afraid your line of questioning can't last long. What then?
................................Cre8
[ 14. October 2002, 19:58: Message edited by: Cre8ionist ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 15. October 2002 01:05
Hi creationist
I am somewhat surprised. When you claimed that IC in biology, does not arise by slight modifications, due to the constraints of natural selection. I pointed out reasons why I believe you were wrong. But rather than address your claims or my reasons you now move to 'origin of life' being IC. Without even asking you to support your claim of ICness, I would just point out that your claim involved Darwinian mechanisms. Let's not change the topic...
As far as your claim that science ignores the possibility of ID, that also is incorrect. Show us evidence of ID and science will deal with it accordingly. Remember though that ID ala Dembski is not based on positive hypotheses but rather the elimination of all other hypotheses.
Perhaps you could explain how ID would contribute to the origins of life when according to Dembski ID does not deal in pathways and mechanisms. So what would ID have to contribute I wonder? Do you have any ideas?
When asked to support your claims of CSI of the small protein you respond with another non sequitur and a common fallacy among those who object to evolution, namely the suggestion that evolution is purely random.
So when asked to support your claim your response is about a protein of 200 amino acids. How many amino acids however were in the helix-5 protein? And how have you eliminated natural hypotheses for this protein? I understand that Dembski's math may be daunting, in fact so daunting that I doubt we will ever see any application of his ideas in any realistic setting but you suggest that a chance occurrence of the protein, which is quite a bit smaller than 200 aminoacids is a relevant hypothesis?
If you suggest that such a protein is evidence of CSI then let me point you to the following examples
quote:
A simple mutation in gene that codes for a molecule called apoprotein A1, causing an Arginine amino acid to be replaced by a Cysteine amino acid has been found in a small population of people just outside Milan, Italy. These people appear not to develop atherosclerosis due to the way this mutant protein handles lipids. This mutation is particularly interesting, because it has been traced back through the generations, and it is known in which person the mutation originally occurred.
or
quote:
At first, the virus was thought to attack the lymphocyte by attaching to a receptor known as CD4. Some time later, some individuals were found who – despite having repeated exposure to HIV – never became infected with the virus and never developed AIDS or any immune deficiency. These people were investigated, and it was found that they had a mutation in the gene coding for another receptor called CCR5. Soon after, it was discovered that HIV utilises not only the CD4 receptor, but also the CCR5 receptor to get into the lymphocyte and cause damage. Therefore, people who had inherited two copies of the mutated CCR5 gene (ie, were homozygous), were essentially immune to HIV.
See Here
If we want to apply Dembski's hypotheses then we should at least make an effort to apply them correctly. We should perhaps listen to Dembski who warns against 'just so' stories.
[ 15. October 2002, 01:13: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 15. October 2002 09:13
Hi Frances,
Admittedly I'm not a biologist, but I count 216 amino acids if you multiply
N40 x 3 + C38 x 2 + 4 linkers as it appears you should (this puts it past Dembski's upperlimit by far), isn't that what's meant by-
quote:
Three N-peptide segments (N40, gray) and two C-peptide segments (C38, blue) are alternately linked (N-C-N-C-N) using short Gly/Ser peptide sequences (red loops) (21). The sequences of each segment in single-letter amino acid code are: N40,
QLLSGIVQQQNNLLRAIEAQQHLLQLTVWGIKQLQARILA; C38,
HTTWMEWDREINNYTSLIHSLIEESQNQQEKNEQELLE; N-to-C linker, GGSGG; and C-to-N linker, GSSGG.
?
Perhaps you could enlighten me here?
In any case, you failed to address the main point of my post which appeared last:
quote:
your whole point rests on what we can do today, our ability to design and create
complex proteins is on the rise, not the decline. You may question the complexity of a given
example now, how about in 10 or 20 years? I'm afraid your line of questioning can't last
long. What then?
It would seem to be futile to argue against biological SC being created by human intelligence, at least that's the way I see it.
As to the origin of life, my fault entirely, I actually had included the flagellum in the original, and subsequently deleted it during the edit. Sorry, I don't believe there's been any proposed pathway for it either, but that's kinda been over done. Didn't actually mean to change the subject.
Do I really need to provide all the quotes from scientists who say that if it's not natural, it's not science? Many think ID is outside of science since it's a non-natural explanation. Are you not aware of this?
.................................................................Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 16. October 2002 01:00
You still have not addressed why CSI should be calculated from a chance hypothesis. As I pointed out, your 'calculation' considers merely the chance hypothesis. In order for something to be CSI should one not consider the relevant hypotheses? Is the repetition of the same N or C peptide totally chance related?
quote:
The design of 5-Helix was based on the N36/C34 six-helix bundle crystal structure (7). For the 5-Helix protein, each peptide region was extended (compared with N36 and C34) by three residues on its NH2-terminus and one residue on its COOH-terminus, generating the final N40 and C38 segments (representing residues 543 to 582 and 625 to 662, respectively, of HIV-1 HXB2 gp160). Three N40 and two C38 segments were joined using a -GGSGG- linker (38) after N40 and a -GSSGG- linker after C38. All constructs include an NH2-terminal Met for translation initiation. Two distinct 5-Helix proteins that differ only at their COOH-termini were generated for this study: (i) His-tagged 5-Helix, which ends in -GG(H)6, and (ii) untagged 5-Helix, which ends in -GGR. In addition, a third construct, denoted 6-Helix, was generated in which the 5-Helix backbone was connected to the His-tagged C-peptide, C37-H6 [sequence given in (39)], through a trypsin-cleavable linker (-GGR-). All DNA constructs were assembled from polymerase chain reaction cassettes sequentially cloned into the pAED4 vector [ D. S. Doering and P. Matsudaira, Biochemistry 35, 12677 (1996)
So why should we calculate 'de novo' chance as a measure of CSI here?
You ask quote:
Do I really need to provide all the quotes from scientists who say that if it's not natural, it's not science? Many think ID is outside of science since it's a non-natural explanation. Are you not aware of this?
Perhaps what you mean to say is that science cannot deal in supernatural causes? If you believe that ID refers to supernatural then you may have proven a point. But what interests me even more is the context for your statement. Why did you make this statement in response to my posting?
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 17. October 2002 20:05
Hi, last first:
quote:
Perhaps what you mean to say is that science cannot deal in supernatural causes? If you
believe that ID refers to supernatural then you may have proven a point. But what interests
me even more is the context for your statement. Why did you make this statement in
response to my posting?
The reason is simple, your earlier post contained:
quote:
As far as your claim that science ignores the possibility of ID, that also is incorrect. Show us evidence of ID and science will deal with it accordingly.
Perhaps you forgot.
Anyway, Dembski wrote a piece on "Scientific Naturalism" awhile back in which he said,
"Naturalism includes an epistemological doctrine about how the things permitted under this
metaphysical doctrine are to be explained-i.e., they are to be explained
naturalistically. I am not sure that naturalistic explanation is a perfectly clear
notion, but what is clear is that naturalistic explanation excludes any sort of
appeal to nonmaterial intervention, divine meddling, etc." (emphasis mine)
George Gaylord Simpson put it this way, "There is neither need nor excuse for postulation of nonmaterial intervention in the origin of life, the rise of man, or any other part of the long history of the material cosmos."
I'd be more than happy to discuss this at length, but this is probably the wrong place.
Here's Dembski's essay:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter7.html
Back to the topic at hand:
quote:
You still have not addressed why CSI should be calculated from a chance hypothesis. As I
pointed out, your 'calculation' considers merely the chance hypothesis. In order for
something to be CSI should one not consider the relevant hypotheses? Is the repetition of
the same N or C peptide totally chance related?
Claims of natural mechanisms are taken into account in Dembski's notion of SC.
The C in (S)pecified (C)omplexity is a calculation corresponding to low probability. 1 chance in 10/150 is the threshold set by Dembski. It is this threshold which must be achieved by
Darwinian evolutionists to falsify Dembski. DE's claim they can climb Mt. Improbable, Dembski's actually made it more of an anthill, is DE really up to the task?
As to repetition, it depends on the circumstance, in our case for example, 1 of N wouldn't do, so ID was employed to get the proper number of amino acids, in the proper sequence, hence N's complexity was fully specified.
When I copy part of your post and paste it between "quote" marks I'm intentionally repeating your message, though I'm not typing each character, I'm still specifying the message, and if it's long enough, it's still SC.
And once again, you never answered my question on the future of your line of questioning, but I can't bring myself to post it again. There really are no valid reasons to pursue it any further that I can see.
To bring this all back, there's also no reason to call biosignatures science and designsignatures non-science since they both fit your method of scientific reasoning as I have shown..........................Cre8
[ 17. October 2002, 20:10: Message edited by: Cre8ionist ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 18. October 2002 01:09
Dear C,
I thank you for your response. I am under the impression that we need to discuss in some more detail what science is and what ID is since some of your suggestions seem to be at odds with both Dembski's work as well as the scientific method.
Let's first deal with a minor side issue or two. I asked you for evidence of ID and that science would not ignore it, to which you responded with the non sequitur that there are scientists who claim that ID is outside of science. What relevance does this have to my claim? Show evidence of ID and science will deal with it. ID however does NOT deal in evidence but merely the absence of evidence.
I am assuming that you are familiar with Dembski's design inference. Design is infered after elimination of chance hypotheses where chance hypotheses seem to include true chance as well as regularities. ID does not propose any mechanisms or pathways which according to Dembski are irrelevant to ID.
When I asked you why you considered CSI to be calculated from a chance hypothesis you responded with a truism, CS has to take into account natural mechanisms but that is not what your calculation did. You merely proposed a purely chance mechanism.
And now we get to my main objection to your claims namely that "Darwinian evolutionist must falsify Dembski". If you read Dembski's work then it is not up to evolutionists to provide for probability calculations. In fact, it seems unlikely that any meaningful probabilities can be provided anyway. But that is ID's problem since it totally relies on elimination of alternatives through probabilities.
Science however does not deal in proof, evolutionists do not have to prove their hypothesis. Science deals in falsification. Real science does not really spend to much effort on finding supporting evidence but formulates ways to falsify a hypothesis and such falsifications are attempted. When falsification fails the hypothesis has gained in strength, when the hypothesis fails we move on to the next hypothesis. To suggest that the burden of 'proof' is in the hands of the evolutionists is at odds with both ID as well as scientific approaches.
As far as your question about Mt Improbable, an anthill seems far less of a problem would you not agree?
Under your approach ID is the default assumption until scientists can show that there is a hypothesis with appropriate probability that explains the observations. Such an approach of course makes ID extremely succeptible to false positives and thus I doubt that you will find many ID theorists that would propose such an approach.
Now to another one of your claims. I asked about repetition of the protein sequence. Let me ask you something, if a gene duplicates does the information double or not?
When I copy parts of a text that are not CS but together they add up to something that is CS does this not prove that CS can be generated by such approaches as copying and pasting and an occasional copying error ? Does that not sound a lot like Darwinism?
And finally you seem to still be claiming that biosignatures and ID are similar but as I have shown biosignatures propose a theory that is not based on elimination strictly but rather on the fact that on earth the magnetite signature seems strictly related to biology and that chance is an unlikely candidate.
What theory does ID propose? I am still waiting....
Seems that ID and biosignatures are inherently different. ID can never be tentative since that would make it open to false positives and according to Dembski that does not happen but if it is not open to false positives and if it is never tentative then how can it be falsified? Dembski hints to the inability to falsify it when discussin Oklo reactor, even if it could be shown that Oklo is CSI, he would then not allow for elimination of ID as the explanation despite the absence of any supporting evidence that ID was involved. At most what can be disproven is a negative claim, xxx can never arise naturally. But that hardly disproves ID.
So let me conclude by stating that your arguments about what science should do seem to be at odds with both scientific practice and the works of ID theorists. Furthermore if you believe that copying repetitions increases CS information then you have a problem in that nature could do the same and generate CSI in contradiction with Dembski's suggestions.
Finally you ask about the relevance of future designs in protein land. Unless one can show that nature exhibits CSI such progress is irrelevant. It merely helps us show that humans can generate CSI but it still does not help us eliminate natural pathways. Nor does it help us establish if ID is present in nature based on this unless we suppose that human motives and methods apply.
I hope that you have come to realize that ID's claims are yet to be supported and more relevantly I believe that the likelihood that ID will be able to formulate probability estimates for any relevant biological systems will be nil. Thus the likelihood that ID will succesfully apply the design inference will be negligible. And that assumes that there are no risks of false positives....
All in all rather than relying on negative inferences, it's time for ID to propose positive hypotheses open to falsfication.
IMHO of course.
In Christ
F
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic