|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 02. September 2007 14:20
Daniel,
quote:
That's the problem with the "theory" of evolution - it predicts nothing and accepts everything as evidence of it's validity. Therefore, it cannot ever be falsified.
Would "backtracking" count as evidence of planning?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 02. September 2007 19:42
IF,
What do you mean by "backtracking"?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 02. September 2007 20:25
Daniel,
Backtracking would be figuring out what to do to the genotype to change the phenotype.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 03. September 2007 13:16
Does "figuring out" entail "planning"?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 03. September 2007 13:22
Let me just say this. As a proponent of ID, I fully expect that further research will show that the genetic code is more sophisticated than previously thought, that the inner workings of the cell are more intricate - and the controls more precise - than previously thought, and etc.
There is already mounting evidence that DNA regions "overlap" - that is, they encode for more than one thing. This is fully expected from an ID perspective.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 03. September 2007 13:38
Does "figuring out" entail "planning"?
Ans. It depends on who or what is doing the figuring! Also, insight is a difficult to describe form of figuring and is often tough to distinguish from instinct and/or chance.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 03. September 2007 13:54
Daniel,
quote:
There is already mounting evidence that DNA regions "overlap" - that is, they encode for more than one thing. This is fully expected from an ID perspective.
Why do you say that it is fully expected?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 04. September 2007 06:41
Quote: Let me just say this. As a proponent of ID, I fully expect that further research will show that the genetic code is more sophisticated than previously thought, that the inner workings of the cell are more intricate - and the controls more precise - than previously thought, and etc.
The above quote illustrates the far reaching impact of the scientific incompetence that is pervasive and controlling in genetics and evolutionary biology. Genetic determinism is a set of theories that asserts that the information required to develop a living organism is stored in genetic materials.
If genetic determinism were expressed as a set of real scientific theories, then the theory would be subject to formal testing. Formal scientific testing of such theories would quickly reveal that the volume of information required to assemble a complex multi-cellular organism is at least millions of times greater than the information that can be stored genetic materials.
If you follow real science or hard science methodology you find that all stored information theories are easily falsified and only ‘development results from goal-directed intelligence’ theories pass testing. These conclusions, although they conflict directly with widely held beliefs of academic science, are readily confirmed by select the best theories analysis.
But academic science does not require theories to be expressed in a testable form, academic science does not require academics to address contradictory evidence, and academic science does not require scientists to accept the conclusions of formal testing. Thus in academic science, it is perfectly legitimate to ignore evidence that directly contradicts favored theories and it is perfectly legitimate to ignore people that point out that contradictory evidence is being ignored.
Following the logic and standards established by academic biology with respect to genetic determinism, many ID supporters like Daniel believe that if genetic material can ‘magically’ store all the information required to develop a complex organism, it is just as reasonable to assume that genetic material was front-loaded by God to contain all the information ever required to produce evolutionary change. By the logic and standards of academic science this belief is just as reasonable as the more conventional form of genetic determinism. But both genetic front-loading and conventional genetic determinism fail as scientific theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 04. September 2007 07:24
LE,
quote:
If genetic determinism were expressed as a set of real scientific theories, then the theory would be subject to formal testing. Formal scientific testing of such theories would quickly reveal that the volume of information required to assemble a complex multi-cellular organism is at least millions of times greater than the information that can be stored genetic materials.
Evidently, you are not familiar with Conways's Game Of Life, Fractal Geometry, or Chaos Theory because with that statement you don't see how just a few rules can create such rich, beautiful, even amazingly complex patterns. Or do you simply think that those are not "Hard Science" studies therefore, not worthy of your time?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 05. September 2007 05:52
IF,
The abilities to use buzz words and perform google searches does not qualify as scientific knowledge. If you are going to attempt to explain the storage capacity of DNA relative to the problem of development, then you need to actually address the issue. Simple mathematical algorithms in specialized situations may produce interesting and almost magical results. It is not, however, a valid scientific argument to suggest that apparent magic in one area means there must be a magical explanation in another area.
The fact remains that development processes require volumes of information far in excess of what can be stored in genetic materials. There is also extensive evidence that what information is stored in genetic materials is very different than most of the types of information critical to development.
You, or any of your academic friends are welcome to develop scientific theories that show genetic materials can store the information required for development. However, until you do, genetic determinism remains a prime example of the scientific incompetence of academic scientists. It also provides an explanation of why so many ID supporters who follow the principles and stanards of academic science, end up supporting unsound versions of ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 05. September 2007 07:11
LE,
quote:
The abilities to use buzz words and perform google searches does not qualify as scientific knowledge.
I call it research but it doesn't end there! It just starts there! It's called exposure to new ideas. It ends, for me, in books many different books. Hopefully, younger smarter folks continue on from that point into the schools and laboratories.
quote:
If you are going to attempt to explain the storage capacity of DNA relative to the problem of development, then you need to actually address the issue.
Agree and it is going on very slowly, tediously, and thankfully in labs all over the world.
quote:
Simple mathematical algorithms in specialized situations may produce interesting and almost magical results. It is not, however, a valid scientific argument to suggest that apparent magic in one area means there must be a magical explanation in another area.
Magic and magical but only in the enchanting even inspirational sense! Insights often come from such experiences.
Note: magic in the sense that I think you are using it is based on knowing a simple trick. I often tell my friends that if you know the "simple" trick you can saw your opponents in half in front of witnesses and get away with it! But, if you don't know it then your in trouble for even trying!
quote:
The fact remains that development processes require volumes of information far in excess of what can be stored in genetic materials.
Those processes are called epigenetic. Read how theorized chemical gradients keep developmental organisms symetrical or how those same chemical gradients allow nerve cells to connect up with muscles then theorized feedback allow the inefficient connections to die off.
quote:
There is also extensive evidence that what information is stored in genetic materials is very different than most of the types of information critical to development.
Do you have a reference or link?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 05. September 2007 13:53
quote:
quote:
Daniel,
quote:There is already mounting evidence that DNA regions "overlap" - that is, they encode for more than one thing. This is fully expected from an ID perspective.
IF: Why do you say that it is fully expected?
Because the idea of intelligent design presupposes a designer capable of designing life. This presupposes an extreme intelligence behind all that we see. From that perspective, one would expect to find extreme sophistication of design coupled with unparalleled ingenuity the deeper one delves into the design of life. An overlapping genetic code - one in which regions that encode for proteins overlap regions that encode for RNA utilizing the same code with different starting and stopping points - does not surprise us in the least. In fact we fully expect such things.
quote:
LifeEngineer:
If genetic determinism were expressed as a set of real scientific theories, then the theory would be subject to formal testing. Formal scientific testing of such theories would quickly reveal that the volume of information required to assemble a complex multi-cellular organism is at least millions of times greater than the information that can be stored genetic materials.
Does your falsification of genetic determinism take into account multiple levels of coding such as that discussed above?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 05. September 2007 14:53
Daniel,
quote:
Because the idea of intelligent design presupposes a designer capable of designing life. This presupposes an extreme intelligence behind all that we see. From that perspective, one would expect to find extreme sophistication of design coupled with unparalleled ingenuity the deeper one delves into the design of life.
Do you think that there could be some errors as well?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 06. September 2007 03:39
Daniel,
Your question seems to suggest that you are confusing scientific falsification with the academic double standard of proof. The academic double standard requires that in order to reject an established theory you must disprove all possible forms of the theory in a manner that will be understood and accepted by all the scientific incompetents supporting the theory. By contrast, if you wish to propose a new theory, the academic double standard requires that you offer indisputable proof supporting your theory that will be understood and accepted by all the scientific incompetents opposing the new theory. Quite obviously genetic determinism has not been falsified or replaced under the academic double standard.
The actual scientific standard for falsification and replacement of genetic determinism is quite a bit different. Using real scientific standards, genetic determinism theories are falsified when explicitly formulated predictive theories are presented for testing and when these theories are falsified (and replaced by teleological theories).
There currently is no actual set of scientific genetic determinism theories since there is currently no known method of storing enough information in genetic materials that could explain the known complexity of development processes. Nor, it might be added, is there any known method of producing or explaining evolutionary change by any change process operating on genetic materials. Systems designers working with any type of complex operating system and/or any type of automated assembly process have good methods of estimating the volume of information required for complex assembly and operation. They also understand all sorts of sophisticated methods of storing this information. Finally, systems developers and real scientists have all sorts of sophisticated and effective methods of reverse engineering and analyzing information storage and information utilization. Despite a very extensive and sophisticated body of knowledge relating to automated assembly processes and the information storage requirements associated with automated assembly, all the available evidence suggests that genetic determinism is a nonsensical and unworkable concept. Nobody is actually formulating sets of real scientific theories compatible with the genetic determinism concept because anybody with the competence to understand the issues involved knows that the concept is absurd and unworkable.
By contrast, it is not terribly difficult to formulate sets of intelligence based teleological theories that fit our current knowledge of both developmental processes and evolutionary change processes.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 06. September 2007 03:47
IF,
As discussed earlier, it is important to recognize a distinction between those who are willing and able to demonstrate scientific competence and those who are unable and unwilling to even attempt to demonstrate such competence. You have clearly indicated by your comments that you are unable to demonstrate scientific competence. Given the fact that you are unable to demonstrate even an elementary understanding of predictive theories, there is not much reason anyone should take your ability to use buzz words and Google searches as an indication that your subjective opinions have any type of scientific validity.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
