|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 02. June 2007 14:23
IF:
quote:
quote:
LE: there are currently no valid scientific theories that can explain how biological systems create complex biological designs.
RM/NS?
He said "valid" theories.
There is no direct evidence that RM+NS can create complex biological designs. In fact no one has bothered to propose a detailed analysis (including all selectable intermediaries) for the evolution of even one biological system (from some other system) via RM+NS. (Hint: that's because it can't be done)
The theory of evolution is based on generalities, circular reasoning, and assumptions about the past. When examined closely and critically it absolutely breaks down!
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 02. June 2007 15:54
David,
Well said.
quote:
There is no direct evidence that RM+NS can create complex biological designs. In fact no one has bothered to propose a detailed analysis (including all selectable intermediaries) for the evolution of even one biological system (from some other system) via RM+NS.
However, I do believe a logically valid scientific theory could be conjectured directly from the materialist set of axioms which could be used to predict the evolution of complex biological designs [one from another]. They would have to make great effort to eliminate the deeply rooted circular reasoning present in all RM + NS theory. I predict that they will not, as the circular reasoning is camouflage for the set of far less than obvious assumptions.
Even if they were to construct a logically valid theory, it would be impossible to determine, as Popper demands we should, how well this theory corresponds to the facts. The best we could do along those lines is to say: If RM + NS designed the current biological systems then the world would look like it does. The world looks like it does. Therefore, RM + NS correspond well to the facts. And that is the very line we are being fed.
The set of assumptions one makes is the seed of one’s conclusions. We all MUST make assumptions about the past if we wish to talk about origins. Remember, none of us were there.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 02. June 2007 19:27
Daniel,
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 02. June 2007 19:38
Daniel, oops, wrong button! quote:
The theory of evolution is based on generalities, circular reasoning, and assumptions about the past. When examined closely and critically it absolutely breaks down!
But, it is the current accepted and taught theory in most if not all academic institutions (I wish someone would tell me where they teach a competing theory) everywhere, as well as the whole scientific community! If there is a better, simpler, or more productive theory with which to work and then subject itself to challenges (as all theories are supposed to be) it hasn't been properly presented or explained to the authorities who decide these issues anywhere in the world that I know of! Obviously, to me any way, if it were logically wrong then I'm sure the expert logicians somewhere would ring in and make a well-deserved named for themselves, don't you think?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 03. June 2007 08:46
Quote: There is no direct evidence that RM+NS can create complex biological designs.
My time today is limited. The issue is not really RM&NS which has been falsified and pretty much totally discredited except in certain ideological settings.
The key point is that there are no testable predictive theories anywhere in traditional science that can address design processes or intelligent causation. Scientists and engineers in the physical sciences use hard science predictive theories to evaluate the effectiveness of designs. They use physical science theories to evaluate how well a plane will fly or under what conditions a bridge is likely to collapse, but there are no testable predictive theories in the physical sciences or in traditional sciences capable of explaining or predicting the goal directed or purposeful changes associated with design or intelligent causation. Only teleological theories can successfully address design processes.
Second, there appear, at least currently, to be no individuals in academic institutions such as the Santa Fe Institute or Duke University who are capable of engaging in meaningful hard science analysis of teleological versus non-teleological theories.
The model or paradigm included in traditional hard science theories requires that causal relationship have the ‘permanent and universal’ form. This is in direct conflict with the dynamic and progressive and purposeful form of design processes or intelligent causation. Design and/or intelligent causation involves the transformation of some non-flying reptile into a design that can fly or transforms lumps of non-flying metal and cloth into flying machines.
Only teleological theories make it possible to satisfy both the permanent and universal requirement and to fit the dynamic changes associated with design and intelligent causation.
The resolution of the scientific issues associated with design and intelligent causation can only be resolved using hard science testing. To get this addressed by scientists, groups like the Santa Fe Institute and Duke University- just to name a couple- need to be directly challenged. We need to be able to demonstrate that they are cowards or incompetents with respect to hard science analysis. If they accept the challenge and find individual capable of understanding hard science analysis, then teleological theories will prevail.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 03. June 2007 11:13
In my last post (May 23), I expressed skepticism regarding Falsifiability, as the only criteria for acceptable scientific theory. Falsifiability much easier to apply in the mathematical sciences, having well defined range of possible solutions, but in the practical sciences Falsifiability is often difficult to use. In the same time I agree that without prediction and testability of hypothesis, it should not be accepted. Therefore I took some time to define prediction and testability for hypothesis I described in my previous postings:
15, May 2007 21:10
16, May 2007 20:34
17, May 2007 22:07
18, May 2007 20:46
20. May 2007 07:09
Please find below the draft of predictions from proposed hypothesis.
PREDICTION 1
Electrons’ jiggling-like motion should cause effect that in quantum mechanics is called “wave packet” or “electron cloud”. Electron’s motion within this “cloud” should have a constant speed of light.
EXPLANATION 1
Freeing particles from deterministic force field and replacing it with a "Free will" and “Goal-driven” continuous search for interaction should produce particle’s “jiggling” motion perceived as a “packet of wave” phenomenon described by quantum mechanics as a “wave function”. Because electromagnetic wave propagates with a speed of light, it is natural to conclude that ELECTRON wave-like jiggling motion also HAS A CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT. This should not contradict with theory of Relativity (limiting particle speed below the speed of light), because this theory implies to particle motion caused by external force only.
PREDICTION 2
Physical properties of elementary particles, within its population, may vary and depend on particles' history (previous experience). This may cause some subtle but detectable differences between atoms and molecules formed (and tested) on Earth and on the Moon.
EXPLANATION 2
Because the external force, as a physical reality does not exist, elementary particles interactions could be described in term of informational* (knowledge) exchange. Because particles may have a unique experience, the intensity of informational exchange among them may vary.
Atoms and molecules built from these elementary particles may have detectable structural and functional differences.
* The equivalence of physical forces and informational exchange may explain a resemblance between Thermodynamics and Information theory.
PREDICTION 3
Enzymes synthesized outside of a living cell (in vitro), even having identical to natural enzyme primary structure (amino acid sequence), will never accurately replicate their natural (in vivo) tertiary structure and performance.
EXPLANATION 3
For enzymes, the correct three dimensional (tertiary) structures are essential to function correctly and "failure" of folding correctly produces inactive enzymes. Protein folding is a process by which a polypeptide folds into its characteristic tertiary structure based on the interaction among its amino acids and surroundings. According to proposed hypothesis, these interactions are informational (knowledge) exchange and are unique to living cell. Based on Prediction 2, this should cause a unique energy landscape (knowledge) following a unique protein folding that cannot be replicated during a synthetic process outside of living cell.
PREDICTION 4
Life phenomenon doesn’t have to be based on organic material only, and could be created in any non-equilibrium chemical or physical self-organized systems. To succeed, these processes should occur in the open system of ABUNDANT DIMENTION and should have enough ENERGY AND MATERIAL RESOURCES to provide enough time for the system to develop in the direction out of equilibrium, creating increasingly complex systems that eventually will be perceived as purposeful, adaptive behavior associated with Life phenomenon.
EXPLANATION 4
From thermodynamics point of view, the non-equilibrium self-organized system emerges as it approaches a thermodynamically critical point far enough from equilibrium (Edge of Chaos) where a small change can push it into chaotic behavior. As a result this system moves further from an equilibrium that eventually causes the various types of the self-organization processes (see “dissipative structures”). Observed in laboratory environment these processes eventually reach equilibrium, because of a limited volume of reagents. In contrast when this process started in the ABUNDANT DIMENTION of PREBIOTIC SEA, the non-equilibrium self-organized system able to continue developing in the direction out from equilibrium for billions of years creating increasingly complex system and eventually the simplest forms of life emerged on our planet. Without ABUNDANT DIMENTION of PREBIOTIC SEA, ABUNDANT AMOUNT of CHEMICAL INGREDIENTS, ENERGY and TIME, Life would not emerge on our planet, because systems would reach equilibrium too soon.
From of the proposed hypothesis (intelligent matter) point of view, the same mechanisms of life emergence could be described as follow.
As a result of self-organization processes the increasingly complex hierarchical systems (atom, molecule, macromolecule, etc.) emerge. According to Principle of Computational Equivalence (Stephen Wolfram) this process can be viewed as computations to achieve an optimal (minimum free energy) system’s state of existence. Building these systems is a task of enormous complexity (see “many-body problem”) even for today’s science. For example, to perform accurate calculations for even very small protein molecule folding using today’s most powerful computers would take around 300 years. In the same time electrons collectively* solves these problems in no time.
*According to Molecular Orbital Theory, electrons are not assigned to individual bonds between atoms, but are delocalized over an entire molecule.
The complexity (degrees of freedom) of systems is increasing exponentially with a size, while solving problem ability is growing only logarithmically. At a critical point when a complexity of problem to define equilibrium, exceeds a system’s problem solving ability, the inevitable mistake will occur that causes a system development in the direction away from the goal.
THE CONTINUOUS ATTEMPTS (goal-driven behavior) TO FIND EQUILIBRIUM should cause development of these systems FURTHER AND FURTHER FROM THE GOAL, creating increasingly complex systems and eventually the simplest forms of Life.
The described above mechanism is a road map to a process of Abiogenesis only, but to understand emergence of biological systems the deeper look into fundamental properties of matter may be required.
[ 03. June 2007, 12:41: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 03. June 2007 11:16
LE,
quote:
... The resolution of the scientific issues associated with design and intelligent causation can only be resolved using hard science testing. To get this addressed by scientists, groups like the Santa Fe Institute and Duke University- just to name a couple- need to be directly challenged. We need to be able to demonstrate that they are cowards or incompetents with respect to hard science analysis. If they accept the challenge and find individual capable of understanding hard science analysis, then teleological theories will prevail.
So, you assert that the burden of proof to show that you are either correct or are wrong is on the entire academic and scientific community?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 03. June 2007 14:25
IF:
quote:
But, it is the current accepted and taught theory in most if not all academic institutions (I wish someone would tell me where they teach a competing theory) everywhere, as well as the whole scientific community! If there is a better, simpler, or more productive theory with which to work and then subject itself to challenges (as all theories are supposed to be) it hasn't been properly presented or explained to the authorities who decide these issues anywhere in the world that I know of!
Unfortunately you are correct. There is a current paradigm that is seen as unchallengeable. Just witness the venom present in the attacks upon ID theory and upon anyone who dares to doubt the currently accepted groupthink. This is not the first time in history that a false idea has so permeated the scientific establishment that it was seen as beyond reproach. Ever hear of the "Ptolemaic theory of the heavens" or the "phlogiston theory of combustion"? Both of these theories became so ingrained within the scientific community at some point that dissent was simply not tolerated by the scientific "establishment", yet both proved horribly wrong.
quote:
Obviously, to me any way, if it were logically wrong then I'm sure the expert logicians somewhere would ring in and make a well-deserved named for themselves, don't you think?
Ever hear of the July 1966 Wistar Symposium? The title of the conference was "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution". This symposium was arranged by Murray Eden, a professor of electrical engineering at MIT and the French mathematician Marcel Schutzenberger as a challenge to conventional biological thought after they had modeled RM+NS using probability theory and had consistently failed to produce positive results. Many leading biologists were invited. Their mathematical challenge went unanswered but the circular argument was presented by the biologists that, since obviously evolution had occurred, their calculations must be somehow incorrect. No mathematical counter arguments were ever presented, just this foolish bit of head-in-the-sand circular reasoning.
Of course there have been dozens of books written on the absolute bankruptcy of the theory of evolution. There are also several that lay out alternate hypotheses. It's really up to you to research all this for yourself and weigh the evidence for or against all the current theories and hypotheses. If you're relying on a scientific "consensus" you'll always be disappointed. Remember the scientific "consensus" on whether or not eggs were good for you? What about butter? Coffee? Sugar? The "consensus" can change at any time. The truth is, none of us really know what preconceived ideas went into the findings of any scientific study. Is it only the coffee drinking scientists who find benefits in coffee? We just don't know.
Don't trust the paradigm.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 03. June 2007 14:43
miosim:
quote:
PREDICTION 4
Life phenomenon doesn’t have to be based on organic material only, and could be created in any non-equilibrium chemical or physical self-organized systems.
Michael Denton (a molecular biologist) makes a convincing argument against this type of prediction in his book "Nature's Destiny".
He argues that no other medium can possibly produce and support life but the current carbon, water, oxygen, hydrogen medium.
This book, along with his other "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" are among the best I've ever read.
"Evolution..." shows the insurmountable problems with the Neo-Darwinian theory, and "Nature's Destiny" presents a strong case for a teleological design theory - along with tests for falsification.
As far as I can tell, Denton is not a Christian and does not present his ideas as an extension of his religious beliefs. (I've heard he's an agnostic) He just accumulates facts and evidence for design and against the theory of evolution. So even Zarathustra can read these books without the fear that somehow "God" might rub off on him.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 03. June 2007 19:11
Daniel, quote:
Unfortunately you are correct. There is a current paradigm that is seen as unchallengeable [ref:RM/NS]. Just witness the venom present in the attacks upon ID theory and upon anyone who dares to doubt the currently accepted groupthink.
You are correct! However, how do you think challenges to the prevailing views were handled prior to the introduction of RM/NS? quote:
This is not the first time in history that a false idea has so permeated the scientific establishment that it was seen as beyond reproach. Ever hear of the "Ptolemaic theory of the heavens" or the "phlogiston theory of combustion"? Both of these theories became so ingrained within the scientific community at some point that dissent was simply not tolerated by the scientific "establishment", yet both proved horribly wrong.
Fortunately, you are correct. That is the prime feature of any "good" theory! It is the king-of-the-hill, so to speak, until a better theory is developed that overthrows it. To be fair I think that you should also include the witch theory, the political inferiority of women and races of people theory, the divine sanction of the monarchy theory, etc.
quote:
quote:
Obviously, to me any way, if it were logically wrong then I'm sure the expert logicians somewhere would ring in and make a well-deserved named for themselves, don't you think? Ever hear of the July 1966 Wistar Symposium?
No! quote:
The title of the conference was "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution". This symposium was arranged by Murray Eden, a professor of electrical engineering at MIT and the French mathematician Marcel Schutzenberger as a challenge to conventional biological thought after they had modeled RM+NS using probability theory and had consistently failed to produce positive results. Many leading biologists were invited. Their mathematical challenge went unanswered but the circular argument was presented by the biologists that, since obviously evolution had occurred, their calculations must be somehow incorrect. No mathematical counter arguments were ever presented, just this foolish bit of head-in-the-sand circular reasoning.
How about in Russia, England, France, Japan, etc.? How about in light of recent discoveries?
quote:
Of course there have been dozens of books written on the absolute bankruptcy of the theory of evolution. There are also several that lay out alternate hypotheses. It's really up to you to research all this for yourself and weigh the evidence for or against all the current theories and hypotheses.
Are you saying that my choice in this matter is either the consensus opinion of scientists and academics all over the world or the minority opinion of those same two groups?
quote:
If you're relying on a scientific "consensus" you'll always be disappointed. Remember the scientific "consensus" on whether or not eggs were good for you? What about butter? Coffee? Sugar? The "consensus" can change at any time.
I don't know about "always" but if the evidence improves what is the alternative?
quote:
The truth is, none of us really know what preconceived ideas went into the findings of any scientific study. Is it only the coffee drinking scientists who find benefits in coffee? We just don't know.
That is absolutely correct! That has been the case throughout history and throughout the world and among each separate group that attempts to make a living by influencing groups of people who don't have the time or inclination to investigate for themselves. It is the obligation of those same people to make sure that they are being told the truth. in the best way that they can.
quote:
Don't trust the paradigm.
>>If there is enough time to investigate then I agree.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 03. June 2007 20:07
Daniel,
I didn’t read "Nature's Destiny", but I visited “Amazon.com” and read few Excerpts from it and some reader reviews. I am not impressed yet.
On page 10
“…All elements necessary for life – carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and iron, etc. – are manufactured in the nuclear furnaces in the interiors of the stars. The crucial release of these key building blocks is one of result of supernova explosion. … Over the past three decades, facts such as this drown from astrophysics and cosmology has led many physicists that the cosmos appears to be finely tuned for life…”
Do you think that this example is good evidence that “cosmos appears to be finely tuned for life”? Do you have a better evidences that this one?
From this book reader review:
“…Denton's assessment of the periodic table finds that only Carbon fits the needs of life: it is capable of forming covalent bonds, and it forms appropriate organic compounds over the narrow range of temperatures where water, a solvent far superior to its closest rival, is liquid. Only silicon comes close to carbon in its utility for life, but it cannot form the same diversity of compounds as carbon.
This and other arguments remind me the argument that 1950 Chevrolet sedan is the best car you can get based on the fact that all its parts are perfectly fit each other and an attempt to replace its carburetor with a 2007 Toyota fuel injector failed, because it doesn’t fit at all.
[ 03. June 2007, 20:07: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. June 2007 06:16
I believe that the Prescrbed Evolutionary Hypothesis presents evidence both indirect and direct that evolution has resulted form predetermined highly specified information which has unfolded over the course of time. As a matter of fact, the headings "The Indirect Evidence" and "The Direct Evidence" are used in my 2005 paper available right here at "brainstorms."
I recommend that material be reconsidered before claiming that there are no viable alternatives to the Darwinian fairy tale.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 04. June 2007, 09:07: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 04. June 2007 08:59
IF,
Quote: So, you assert that the burden of proof to show that you are either correct or are wrong is on the entire academic and scientific community?
What I am saying if that the Santa Fe Institute or Duke or Harvard wish to continue to make the assertion that they are competent to discuss and teach any of the life sciences, then they need to demonstrate that they can bring forward at least on individual who is willing and competent to express some of the life science ‘theories’ in a testable predictive form and at least one individual who is competent to test and evaluate predictive hard science teleological theories.
Find an individual or individuals from any of these institutions who are competent to formulate and test hard science theories in any of the life sciences and I will be happy to seem them get involved in evaluating any of the teleological intelligence based theories I can formulate. The challenge to all these institutions making dubious claims to being qualified to discuss and teach life science is to produce individual who can actually evaluate hard science predictive theories addressing intelligent behavior, design, or behaviors of living systems.
The reality is that while most of these institutions will have a handful of people who can effectively perform intelligent design operations, you can expect to have an extremely difficult time finding even a single individual who can actually explicitly evaluate the hard science theories involved. You will find quite a number of people willing to argue that ‘science’ doesn’t really need to involve ‘testable predictive theories’, but very few individuals who even know what a testable predictive scientific theory is.
Any of the posters or lurkers here who has contacts with an academic institution is welcome to try to find an academic who actually has a working knowledge of hard science predictive theories dealing with design, intelligence or life science. The probability of finding such an individual will be extremely low.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 04. June 2007 09:18
IF,
Quote: But, it is the current accepted and taught theory in most if not all academic institutions (I wish someone would tell me where they teach a competing theory) everywhere, as well as the whole scientific community! If there is a better, simpler, or more productive theory with which to work and then subject itself to challenges (as all theories are supposed to be) it hasn't been properly presented or explained to the authorities who decide these issues anywhere in the world that I know of!
Yet if you carefully read the literature, you will find that at least the experts don’t even claim the theory exists. What the experts, like Gould who wrote a very long book on the topic, believe is that someday someone will actually be able to develop a scientific theory based on Darwinian concepts. In the mean time evolutionary biologists refuse to permit any competing teleological theories to be presented or discussed. Because they are still waiting for someone to present a testable form of Darwinian theory, they refuse to consider or recognize any of the multitude of unambiguous falsifications of Darwinian theories that have been developed.
Darwinists have been asked over and over again to present a testable form of their supposed theory and they are never willing or able to produce such a theory. To the uninformed ideologues, the Darwinian theory supposedly exists somewhere in the literature, but only true believers can see it. When their theories are presented in testable form and falsified, the Darwinists argue that the testable form presented was a straw-man version.
It is somewhat surprising that anyone with any real knowledge of the subject of evolution still believes in the imaginary Darwinian theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
