|
Author
|
Topic: Jefferson Airplane and Point Source Mutation
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 27. March 2005 17:54
Jim:
There is no Specified Complexity argument. Just as I stated earlier, specificity is a tool of science/math wherein:
Specificity is inversely proportional to the probability of an event occurring.
It's just a measurement. Probability mathematics have been used in infodynamics many moons before us cowboys in cheap tuxedos, ID types came along to point out its usefulness in quantifying biological systems.
You also have me scratching my head as it seems to me that you are placing evolution on one pole and intelligent design on another when evolution is a very real subset of ID. ID is not antithetical to evolution by any stretch of the imagination; evolution is most crucial to the epistemology.
Here's the deal: when methodological naturalism no longer offers the best explanation or, as in the case of IC systems such as the flagellum as mentioned in your above post, offers no explanation of origins of a system at all, should a free thinker just throw up his hands and choose to live in ignorance concluding that some things in biology are unknowable? Many of us think not and choose to also include teleology in our tool chest and that utility is quite useful in certain scenarios.
I see you reference Nicholas Matzke in a link. This is old hat to us as we are quite familiar with his and others contributions on the subject and have actively entertained these contributions only to conclude they are not very useful in understanding origins. Please see Dr. Dembski's rebuttal of the Matzke paper HERE.
Furthermore, although I am an IDist, I would differ with you in your assertion that an eye is because it was designed that way. Genetic change and environmental stimuli surely played a role in forming what we know today as the human eye.
There is nothing in ID even resembling a "spiritually induced mutation," or a notion to "cure AIDS and cancer by prayer." You seem to have teleology mixed up with theology, possibly even creationism; and unless you are prepared to show Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle, all teleologists living three to four hundred years before Christ, to be Christian Creationists, you have structured a tough row to hoe for yourself. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Finally, what does ID offer? ID offers fresh thought and a new perspective under which to examine the origins of life conceived by people, many of them scientists themselves, who have long understood that Darwinism has some serious problems when viewed objectively under the strict microscope of the scientific method.
ID is an epistemological scientific methodology--a body of thought that studies the nature of knowledge, its conjectures, foundations and its scope and validity. Teleology, not unlike methodological naturalism, is nothing more than another scaffold for theories and hypotheses and both have their relevant places. It's not an either/or call.
[ 27. March 2005, 19:13: Message edited by: Jerry D. Bauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 27. March 2005 17:57
*******Therefore, I will take your challenge and turn you last post into poetry.*******
Good. I for one look forward to seeing this. But remember, no fair using intelligent design to get from point A to point B.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 28. March 2005 20:33
Jerry,
I realize that there are many varieties of ID, almost as many as there are people who advocate it (same with evolution). What I read you to mean is this:
1) Intelligent Design requires evolution.
2) Intelligent Design does not attempt to explain biogenesis.
3) Intelligent Design does not explain variation or selection.
Essentially, it is just a philosophical background to science and not essential to understanding the mechanics of evolution any more than naturalism is.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 28. March 2005 20:49
Jerry,
Thanks for pointing me to Dembski's rebuttal. Interesting reading. The flagellum is defintely an icon for ID, or was as recently as two years ago when Dembski gave a series of talks at Southern Baptst Theological Seminary.
I want to talk about it more later, but there are some specific points in it of more interest to me.
quote:
For Behe, some form of intelligent guidance is additionally required. But clearly, if the bacterial flagellum is evolving under intelligent guidance, then existing designed structures are fair game for co-option into newly designed structures.
Here is the thing I cannot seem to find. What is the mechanism for "intelligent guidance?" This is what I refered to as "spiritually induced mutation." How is the abstract design implemented in the physical world?
For example, if Intelligent Design agrees with modern evolutionary theory that point mutation, transcription errors and such mechanisms are responsible for genetic changes, what is the means by which the organism knows to mutate. Somehow, it must be communicated to the system.
In TOE, it just happens - it is a mistake, and/or semi-random change. In ID, apparently it happens by design. If so, how is that design expressed?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 28. March 2005 20:52
Lazlo or anyone else,
Although I cannot find a good description of the process (maybe one of you can send me a link), ID proposes that there is a Design Detector and that we can readily detect design by using it.
For this challenge, we need a Poetry Detector, a process by which we can tell a random sequence of words from poetry.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 28. March 2005 22:56
Jim:
I don't want to seem rude, but I think you are on the wrong site as I'm coming to sense that you don't know what ID is. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This forum is WAY (I mean REALLY way) too advanced for you to begin at, and I can happily recommend http://www.arn.org (click on the forum at the top of page) for you to learn the intricacies of ID and the science, math and philosophy that enshrouds it.
With this said, I'll try to answer your questions:
1) There is only one ID (in its modern, scientific form) that I'm aware of, yet there are different paradigms through which it can be viewed depending on whether one is a hard scientist, philosopher, mathematician (see Dembski and Tipler's stuff), etc.
2) ID does not REQUIRE evolution but we study science and fully realize that evolution is a part of science. Therefore, I would think there is none of us that would state that designed biological systems are EXACTLY the way they were when they were initially designed, due to evolution. IOW, we recognize and study mutations of the SARS virus and the evolution of bacterial resistance of prokaryotes just as anyone else does.
3) Since biogenesis just means life from life as in my mother giving birth to me, I must assume you mean abiogenesis: life from non-life. Some of us do propose a model to explain abiogenesis based on the quantum mechanics of Heisenberg's wave-function observer and the reductionism of 'quantum mechanics yields a macroscopic product' as proposed by molecular design engineers. In fact, I believe that ID is the only origins methodology that has proposed a credible model for abiogenesis.
4) You are correct that ID does not explain variation or selection. This would be categorized under the science of biology. Of course, IDists use that biology just as anyone else does, there is no such thing as a separate ID biology. You will only hear this from our detractors who have not studied ID enough to even know what it is.
5) Teleology is the underpinning philosophy of ID, yet we operate under methodological naturalism in the lab just as anyone does; and should. I do disagree with your statement, "it is just a philosophical background to science and not essential to understanding the mechanics of evolution." ID, as I stated previously, is another scaffold for theories and hypotheses and I feel this alternative scaffolding must be used to fully understand the science behind the hypotheses inherent in evolution. Of course, I'm not positive what you mean by evolution to begin with. That term simply means a change in the gene pool of a population over time.
******Thanks for pointing me to Dembski's rebuttal. Interesting reading. The flagellum is defintely an icon for ID, or was as recently as two years ago when Dembski gave a series of talks at Southern Baptst Theological Seminary.******
You're very welcome. Matzke used to post here quite regularly under a pseudonym. I might disagree with you that the flagellum is really an icon to ID, but it does serve well to show one example of a biological irreducibly complex system.
There is nothing known as an "intelligent guidance" mechanism anywhere in the field of ID, I'm afraid. ID is a science based methodology that detects design in systems and artifacts in order that we may classify those objects. Nothing more. I think you may be confusing ID with theistic evolution. The latter is not science based, but both science and theology based. Furthermore, there is no design abstract to be implemented.
ID agrees with every scientific theory that has been taken through the scientific method to be shown as a theory of science. Organisms don't "know" how or when to mutate, most mutations are just random events. Furthermore, evolution is not intelligent design. Evolution is a process that happens TO designed biological systems.
quote:
For this challenge, we need a Poetry Detector, a process by which we can tell a random sequence of words from poetry.
Nah....we don't, as the differences through random change will be starkly obvious. Let's take a verse of Longfellow and pass it around a bit to see what happens when information is diffused from a more concentrated state, similar to the way genetic information would behave as it is diffused from progenitor down the line to many progeny.
To do this, I will use the language translator at altavista.com, pass the verse through several languages, then back to English and we will see what happens when information that has not been stabilized diffuses randomly: The verse:
"Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream!
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem."
From English to Dutch, Dutch to French, French to Spanish, then back to English:
", In mournful the life if soņa empty does not say is not only the numbers, For the soul, somme died this, and the things are not what they seem."
Gee. It seems that disorganization has increased dramatically here. Is there a law of science you can think of that would explain the cause of this effect?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 28. March 2005 23:07
Jerry,
Can you give me a link or describe yourself the process of Design Detection? I am sure it must be a complex algorithm, but it must be finite to useful.
Or are you saying, as with the Poetry Detector, that one does not need a Design Detector - that it is intuitively obvious that something is designed?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 28. March 2005 23:14
I thought I knew what ID was until I came to this site and read so many variations of it.
Pardon my typo. Of course I meant abiogenesis. You are the first I have found who mentioned it.
quote:
Some of us do propose a model to explain abiogenesis based on the quantum mechanics of Heisenberg's wave-function observer and the reductionism of 'quantum mechanics yields a macroscopic product' as proposed by molecular design engineers. In fact, I believe that ID is the only origins methodology that has proposed a credible model for abiogenesis.
As a student of QM, this really intrigues me. Can you explain, or provide a link to a site that discusses how the Intelligent Designer tweaks the wave function to get a specified result rather than a probablistic result.
This is the area that interests me most about ID the mechanism of implementing design. None of the major ID sites seem to discuss it. They spend all their time criticizing TOE and never explain how design is implemented.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 29. March 2005 00:17
Hey Jim:
There is more than one means of design detection. We work with science and math, not intuition. Comparison studies are one method to detect ID in a system as we can scientifically compare things we KNOW were designed with things we suspect were designed and calculate the differences and similarities using semiotics.
Math is another. We can calculate specificities and compare those calculations with UPBs developed by Emil Borel or Dembski.
There exists some methodologies that are quite different such as the design inference method:
quote:
1. Does something have a function?
ID: If the answer is no, a design inference is not made.
2. Is the thing an IC system?
ID: If the answer is no, a design inference is not made.
3. Does the IC system entail a minimally complex state with multiple parts whose existence is system-dependent and/or system-specific?
ID: If the answer is no, a design inference is not made.
4. Does the IC system exist in the last common ancestor without good evidence of an evolutionary history?
ID: If the answer is no, a design inference is not made.
5. Does the IC system demonstrate molecular punctuated equilibrium?
ID: If the answer is no, a design inference is not made.
6. Is there a historically appropriate continuum that demonstrates sloppy simplicity as part of the system in question?
ID: If the answer is yes, a design inference is not made.
Design candidates that make it through this screen can then be subjected to further analysis:
a. The minimally complex state identified can be used to estimate evolutionary noise since the design event. This can then be used to choose the best candidates for further analysis in terms of design.
b. The twin concepts of thematic IC and systematic IC can be used to reverse engineer the system to elucidate "design principles" potentially involved.
c. Equation of function with purpose is expected to be fruitful if the equation is accurate.
d. A pattern of design events can be inferred to suggest future lines of inquiry.
Finally, the one you seem to want to go to is called the Explanatory Filter (EF), introduced into science many moons ago but advanced and brought into ID as a tool by Dembski. He can be proud of this accomplishment as I've debated this many hours with many people I've long forgotten and I've never come even close to losing one of those debates.
*****As a student of QM, this really intrigues me. Can you explain, or provide a link to a site that discusses how the Intelligent Designer tweaks the wave function to get a specified result rather than a probablistic result.*****
Yes. You can read my musings on the Copenhagen Interpretation here ( Introduction of this concept into ID must be credited to Salvador Cordova. I just took it a few steps further).
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000549.html
Ask questions on that material and we can move forward from there.
******This is the area that interests me most about ID the mechanism of implementing design. None of the major ID sites seem to discuss it. They spend all their time criticizing TOE and never explain how design is implemented.******
TOE? Please define this and explain how this went through the scientific method via observation -----> hypothesis -----> theory, experimentally as theories of science must do in order to be rightfully termed theories of science.
[ 04. June 2005, 07:14: Message edited by: Jerry D. Bauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 29. March 2005 07:09
After reading Dembski's rebuttal to Matzke (and there are more than a few rebuttals to Dembksi's rebutttal) and reading critiques of various evolution simulators, of which my Poetry Generator would be one, I realize that it is a futile effort. Not one of you would be convinced of anything by it.
Here was my plan: if we consider the whole poem to be the organism, each line to a protein, and each word to be an amino acid that chains together to make the protein, then we can simulate genes/codons to create those amino acids as the SoundEx value of the word. My software, at a random interval would either substitute a word with the same soundex value, or randomly alter the soundex value and pull up a different word. If there was no matching word, the defective soundex value would be retained as "junk DNA" and be subject to future mutation.
But suppose I did write a program that successfully used transcription errors to simulate DNA trnascription and it produced an award winning poem. All you would then say is, "Aha, you programmed in those errors and that takes intelligent design and that proves that evolution occurs by Intelligent Design!"
When an evolutonary scientist looks at DNA transcription, he sees the result of a sloppy system that makes mistakes and thus produces variation. From what Jerry has posted here, you see design - the mistakes are intentional in the design, or perhaps are somehow guided (which is it).
You see it is easy to get confused about ID. You guys on this forum, like Charlie Wagner http://www.charliewagner.net/casefor.htm who believes that the Designer is personally in the design and assembly of each individual organism to other who, well, seem to dodge the question of how and when Design occurs.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 29. March 2005 09:09
quote:
ID, as I stated previously, is another scaffold for theories and hypotheses and I feel this alternative scaffolding must be used to fully understand the science behind the hypotheses inherent in evolution.
In your statement, you say that ID uses "methodological naturalism," which I suppose is distinguished from "philosophical naturalism" which seems to be the complaint of IDer's, even though I never had biology class that taught philosophical naturalism or athiesm as a worldview.
But how does you idea of ID as an intellectual framework match with Dr. William Dembski's statement on February 11, 2003 that Intelligent Design, by itself, is insufficient as a world view outside of a solidly Christian framework, recognizing God as the Intelligent Designer?
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 29. March 2005 10:30
from Jim
quote:
Here is the thing I cannot seem to find. What is the mechanism for "intelligent guidance?" This is what I referred to as "spiritually induced mutation." How is the abstract design implemented in the physical world?
That statement is one of the burning questions needing an answer, here at beginning of this century! The answer could be a model of mental causation. Pragmatic observation should lead us to believe it occurs. Naturalism needs to include a process where living things can be interacting with information and exhibit the results of this interaction, evidenced by their behavior in the environment. Cybernetics should tell us a lot about this process.
I am not so sophisticated as others who post here, and I find Jerry's responses to you valuable background.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 29. March 2005 18:08
You're quite correct that no one would be convinced by much of anything you will produce contrary to the ID concept (noting that you won't produce any science as there is none, of course). Most of us are very well schooled in science, have already seen this stuff and made up our minds years ago. The evidence is clear. My position is the correct position and I won't be changing my mind unless further evidence is produced to give me good reason to do so.
Your poetry generator won't work because of the simplicity of poetry and the complexity of homochiral proteins in the cell. Most of these proteins will average in as polymers of about 300-350 chained amino acids all of the same chirality (left handed in the case of proteins). We can easily determine through Le Chatelier's Principle that mixtures of amino acids in nature are racemic (50% left handed and 50% right handed) and must stay racemic due to chemical equilibrium.
Therefore, the odds that a single one of these proteins could form without intelligent design are one chance in 2^350 against you. This is one chance in about 10^105 and you are past Borel's UPB and quickly approaching Dembski's before we even get a simple protein. By the time we are up to the 3000 proteins required to produce a primitive prokaryote like E Coli, the math is so ridiculous as to be orbiting in outer space somewhere. Did you know it was this math that convinced astrophysicist Fred Hoyle to become an IDist? I think I can convince you as well if our conversation goes on long enough.
If you get that software programmed I would like to play with it a bit. But your problem smacks us in the face up front before you even start: "My software, at a random interval would either substitute a word with the same soundex value, or randomly alter the soundex value and pull up a different word."
When we have something examining a word, rejecting it because it doesn't like the word and substituting another word, this is intelligent design. Remember my cute little demon?
I've already shown you what happens when 'loose' information (information that is not fixed as in a library book or words carved in stone) is diffused from a more concentrated state. It degrades according to the second law of thermodynamics. I'm afraid you will not manage to overcome the effects of this law unless you add work (through writing code) and intelligence (in the form of preprogrammed code) into the system. Please remember what my old buddy Arthur Eddington had to say about this notion:
"If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
******"Aha, you programmed in those errors and that takes intelligent design and that proves that evolution occurs by Intelligent Design!"*******
I wish you would stop saying this as no one on here I am familiar with thinks that evolution (whatever that is as you won't define it) occurs by intelligent design. Wouldn't that entail little fairies living inside the cellular genome or something? Further, I have not posited that mutations are guided or a purposeful mistake. You seem to keep telling me I'm asserting this and I keep correcting you by pointing out that most mutations are random. They just happen for the most part and have not a darned thing to do with ID. These mistakes are not intentional in the design, nor are they somehow guided. You are confusing theistic evolution with ID when there are no similarities at all in two bodies of thought.
quote:
You see it is easy to get confused about ID. You guys on this forum, like Charlie Wagner http://www.charliewagner.net/casefor.htm who believes that the Designer is personally in the design and assembly of each individual organism to other who, well, seem to dodge the question of how and when Design occurs.
We do NOT feel that a designer is somehow IN the design. This would be quite difficult since we have no evidence at all to point to who/what the designer even was. And who the heck is Charlie Wagner? He DOES have a cute family but seems quite lacking in his understanding of ID. I mean the poor guy is struggling here to distinguish his daughter Leslie from a washing machine and a pear tree.
He is attempting to compare aggregate complexity with specified complexity but never quite gets there. And I sat through four years of science classes and do not remember a subject called 'Nelson's Law' coming up even once. When I plug that into Google, all I get are tons of pages by attorneys named Nelson. I hope you are not learning ID from similar pages. Remember, anyone can write one.
Finally, I am not dodging any of your questions but attempting to address them head on. I have explained that the 'how' of design can be modeled via quantum mechanics -----> macroscopic design and we can further that discussion if you care to do so. The WHEN of the design can be determined simply by looking at the fossil record. In that record we can see all kinds of organisms coming into the record fully formed as in the Cambrian Explosion. Sorry. ID is all science, I'm afraid. I have no metaphysics to offer you.
Methodological naturalism is taught in chemistry 101, normally. Chemistry majors are taught that it is scientifically erroneous to assign "God dun it" to chemical reactions just because the 'cause' of those reactions may be unknown. MN is a materialistic view and most useful, I must say. IOW, as I stated, MN certainly has its place in science.
As to: "But how does you idea of ID as an intellectual framework match with Dr. William Dembski's statement on February 11, 2003 that Intelligent Design, by itself, is insufficient as a world view outside of a solidly Christian framework, recognizing God as the Intelligent Designer?"
I'm afraid I would have no idea how my worldviews stack up with Dr. Dembski's as we have never discussed the matter. Perhaps that is one of his religious beliefs? We all have them, you know, even atheists.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 30. March 2005 13:20
Jerry,
Now am even more confused than before as to what Intelligent Design means.
You wrote:
quote:
...no one on here I am familiar with thinks that evolution ... occurs by intelligent design.
The context indicates you are talking microevolution, I guess.
Then you wrote:
quote:
The WHEN of the design can be determined simply by looking at the fossil record. In that record we can see all kinds of organisms coming into the record fully formed as in the Cambrian Explosion.
Where does Intelligent Design say that those fully formed organisms came from? You apprently do not think was macro-evolution (the change of one species into another through genetic alteration), so how did they get there?
I used to work for Compaq Computers. I got to meet and talk with the engineers who designed the computers. I also got to go out to the production floor and watch computers get manufactured. I witnessed how a complex structure went from the design phase to the creation phase.
So let's grant that Life is Designed? How is the Design implemented? How do Designs go from being an idea in the Designer's Mind to being an actually physcial reality?
How does Intelligent Design explain how the Design is implemented? If there was a period of Design during the Cambrian Explosion, from where did the new species come? How was the Design implemented?
You can answer this question yourself or feel free to point me to another source that explains this.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 30. March 2005 16:46
Well, I wasn't there during the Cambrian Explosion, so I can't show exactly how the design was implemented. Heck, I don't even know who/what the designer was. This would be similar to me demanding that a naturalist show me step by step how abiogenesis occurred. If it did occur, no one is positive on the HOW it did with great detail because we were not there to observe it. We can only propose models in that area as this is all that science can offer to explain historical events unless those events were a result of scientific law.
With this said, I have written much on how it COULD have occurred and proposed what I believe to be a credible model beginning with a Supreme Observer, quantum mechanics and ending up with a macroscopic organism being constantly reshaped by evolutionary variations and have done so using the science of molecular design.
Your Compaq Computer analogy isn't similar to our discussion because you are dealing with present design events caused by present design engineers. Piece of cake to just walk up to the designer and start asking questions. Put on your naturalist hat and try that same thing with natural selection.
******How does Intelligent Design explain how the Design is implemented? If there was a period of Design during the Cambrian Explosion, from where did the new species come? How was the Design implemented?******
Again, I have tried to answer this for you. Please see HERE and HERE. What I have attempted in those posts is to offer a model as to how the design was implemented.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic