Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science

On 9 Dec 2005 19:28:59 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
<topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
<1134185339.710751.8690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2005 22:55:56 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
>> <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
>> <1134024956.199783.132710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> >> On 6 Dec 2005 22:45:58 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
>> >> <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
>> >> <1133937958.501382.26500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> >> >> On 5 Dec 2005 22:25:51 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
>> >> >> <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
>> >> >> <1133850351.835235.16340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> Precisely. ID is untestable, by definition. An intelligent agent can act in
>> >> >> >> unpredictable ways. Any observation can be accounted for by invoking the
>> >> >> >> will of a clever designer who "wanted it that way". It is not possible to
>> >> >> >> separate this from natural processes even in principle. ID is therefore
>> >> >> >> untestable.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Not true. The prime/Pi example I gave would be evidence. Maybe not 100%
>> >> >> >proof, but still evidence.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sure it is "evidence". Whether it is evidence for something is a
>> >> >> different question. All observations are evidence. We can find any
>> >> >> string in any other string for a suitable after the fact coding
>> >> >> system. That means that your "test" tests nothing.
>> >> >
>> >> >But one can calculate the probability of that occuring through the
>> >> >field of how many were searched.
>> >>
>> >> When you can calculate the probability of it occurring via design vs
>> >> via non-design let me know. Until then you have nothing.
>> >
>> >
>> >By God.....I mean By Gum we have invented a new field: artificial
>> >pattern probability analysis (APPA).
>>
>> That already has an acronym: MTU. AKA Making Things Up.
>>
>> >And YOU thought nothing good could
>> >come out of ID.
>> >
>> >How f8cking ironic!
>> >
>> >Plus, it probably already exists as a nichey specialty somewhere.
>> >
>> >You have to admit it is an interesting question.
>>
>> No, I don't. Then again, I understand the problem and you don't seem
>> to. Creating a name for something does not mean much. To have
>> something useful you have to do the actual work. So, again, when you
>> can calculate the probability of something occurring by design vs.
>> non-design let us know. Until you can actually produce the calculation
>> hand waves about the probability of non-design are meaningless.
>
>Something does not have to have precise calculations to be considered a
>science.

That word "precise" is such a lovely bit of dishonesty. It seems so
reasonable, so detailed when in fact it serves to cover up a complete
lack of anything substantial. I don't ask for anything precise, give
me a ballpark figure. Give me something within an order of magnitude.
Within 3 orders of magnitude. Give me an idea of how you might start
to go about calculating the probability. You have nothing, zero, nada,
zilch. It is not a lack of precision that causes you the problem, it
is a lack of everything.

>Such an endevour would probably require an estimation of the
>probability of observers recognizing a pattern. This gets into the area
>of psychology, which is generally considered a "soft" science. However,
>it is STILL a science (by most uses).

Wow, that was an acrobatic maneuver. You somehow tried to drag this
into a discussion of the scientific value of psychology. Rather than
admit all you have is some subjective notion grabbed from you ass, you
play this game.

>Evo does not have precise probabilities of generating eyeballs and
>brains either. Again, you are being a hardass on ID but a softy on evo.

It is your claim that is being judged here, not evolution. I judge
evolution claims by the same standards. If you want probability
calculations go read _Nature_, you will find plenty of rigorous
valuable tests.

>> >> >> > (In that sense, maybe we can say it is
>> >> >> >trueifiable but not falsifiable, but even evo is that way.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Except, of course, it isn't. There are plenty of observations that, if
>> >> >> they had been made, would falsify evolution.
>> >> >
>> >> >It may have falsified it for EARTH, or for a particular animal, but
>> >> >that does not mean that it outright cannot happen.
>> >>
>> >> What an odd statement. Evolution is, first and foremost, a set of
>> >> claims about life on Earth and the history of that life. If and when
>> >> we have life elsewhere we can discuss that. I would make some
>> >> predictions, based on what I know about here, but those are
>> >> predictions to test. Nothing about life elsewhere would mean that life
>> >> here did/does or didn't/doesn't evolve.
>> >
>> >Huh? The process of evolution only can work on Earth? That is a weird
>> >claim.
>>
>> Nor it is what I wrote. I will try to explain it to you again. Let me
>> take a step back: the subject of the existent science of biology is
>> life on Earth. If and when we have evidence for life elsewhere we can
>> and would expand that science to study that as well. Real science, as
>> opposed to MTU Science, deals with evidence we have and things we
>> predict. The theory of evolution, that is, the existent actual
>> scientific theory of biological evolution, explains life on Earth.
>> That theory would likely be very useful in understanding life
>> elsewhere, but it does not put grand expansive necessary constraints
>> on that life. If and when we have evidence of that life we can discuss
>> that life.
>
>Regardless, proving that evo didn't happen for an observed set of
>specimens does not prove that evo didn't happen on Earth, period.

There are a variety of tests for a variety of things. There are tests
that, if they had gone differently, would have refuted descent with
modification. There are tests that would have refuted the whole tree,
there are tests that would refute portions of the tree. You complain
here that all of the evidence actually points to evolution. I don't
see that as a weakness for evolution, but you are free to try to
support that claim.

>> >> >> >Just because
>> >> >> >we can't observe evo
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Except we do observe it.
>> >> >
>> >> >(Something got moved or pasted out of context here.)
>> >>
>> >> Not really. You asserted that we can't observe evo, that statement is
>> >> wrong. We do observe it.
>> >
>> >I have been qualifying that with "large scale".
>>
>> Which is probably defined as "more than we have observed", a
>> self-fulfilling assertion.
>>
>> >We only observe things
>> >like months changing color or a single gene error expanding in a
>> >population of bacteria. Not eyeballs and brains forming out of soup.
>>
>> There is hundreds of millions of years difference between those two.
>> Can you narrow this a bit for us. For instance, is the observed
>> mutation rate high enough to produce the diversity we see? Is the
>> amount of morphological change observed high enough to produce the
>> diversity we see? (I know the answers to these, do you?) Not having a
>> "large scale" (which seems to mean hundreds of millions of years)
>> direct observation is not a weakness. The question is not what would
>> we like, but what would we expect given a model.
>
>Being able to generate change is not rock-solid evidence that evo can
>produce things such as eyeballs and brains.

Nor would anyone say that it is. If you want a full and complete
presentation go read a few textbooks and take some courses.

>Put another way,
>demonstrating the ability to merely change

I did not say a thing about "mere" change. if you don't understand my
points, fine, but don't assert your ignorance like an argument. I
referred to observed *rates* of change, which is *one* aspect of how
biologists have explored evolution. There are hundreds of others and
you are free to learn about them.

>does not directly link evo
>to the diversity we actually observe. Demonstrating change does not get
>evo off the observation hook.

Distorting claims does not get you off the dishonesty hook either.
There are millions of pieces of evidence for evolution, for common
descent. There are multiple ways to explore the question, each way can
support or refute the other. In the world we actually live in all this
evidence, from multiple areas, all support evolution. We have way more
that "demonstrated change". Observing change happening in front of us
does deal with the claim that it does not happen.

>It is a reasonable hypoth that mutations build up in a population
>faster than any "useful" selection, and the thing changes into a
>monster blob over time. (I don't agree with that, but it is reasonable
>to suspect such.)

And it is a testable claim. That is the interesting thing about actual
science rather that your MTU system. People think of stuff, then they
go out and test it. And if the reasonable idea conflicts with evidence
it is rejected.

>Thus, change alone does not mean it is responsible for all known
>changes to life or diversity. That is why the observation of evo is
>unfinished.

It is like you grab phrases randomly rather than trying for an
coherent argument. Since that is how you seem to read I suppose it
balances out.

>> >> >> >does not necessarily mean it is inborn false. One
>> >> >> >may prove that evo didn't make X, but that alone does not prove that
>> >> >> >evo does not happen. In that sense evo is not falsifiable either.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That is a stupid sense.
>> >> >
>> >> >Can you provide a test that proves evo is impossible if the test
>> >> >passes???
>> >>
>> >> Sure. Showing that inheritance was perfect would refute evolution.
>> >> Showing that life in the past was like life now would refute
>> >> evolution.
>> >
>> >No, that could possibly only mean that it stopped when the
>> >observing/fossils started.
>>
>> You are a silly man. If you want to play that creationist game then do
>> so. It is a bizarre version of the changing speed of light. In concept
>> we can imagine a world that just happen to change how it works when we
>> started looking. That violates the Copernican principle that we don't
>> have a privilege POV, but it is possible. You, unfortunately, would
>> have to do the hard work. That is, you would have to show us that some
>> sort of consistent picture of the world is possible under those
>> conditions. If you are going to hand wave about changing laws of
>> physics then you have left science.
>
>This not about the laws of physics, but about the patterns of
>evolution.

No, it is about your making things up. Just above you suggested that
evolution, that biology, suddenly changed how it works just as we
started looking. It is a very silly idea and certainly not a "pattern
of evolution".

>There are no simple equations that say the patterns should
>be this or that or how often speciation happens.

I am sorry that the world is not as simple as you want. Such is life,
literally.


>> >> Finding that the pattern of morphologic similarity was not
>> >> tree-like while finding that genetic sharing was quite rare would
>> >> refute evolution.
>> >
>> >No, that could simply mean that there are gaps in the record or that
>> >speciation splits are rare and that each "line" tends to stay a line.
>>
>> I gather that you did not understand the implications of "not tree
>> like". We know from observation that cross-species genetic transfer is
>> quite rare. Finding large scale sharing across life without a
>> mechanism for it would refute the current theory. Sure, we might be
>> able to develop a new theory, but that was not the question.


>It could mean that some bacteria etc. found a way to do large
>cross-species transfers. Evo does not predict the frequency of such,
>and thus could bend to fit both observations (lots of cross-DNA
>transfers/pollution or pure trees). In that sense it is bendable almost
>like a capricious creator. Whether we observe trees or graphs
>(networks), evo can bend to explain it.

Again, if the evidence were different then we would have to have a
different theory. That is what falsifiable means. ID does not have to
change since "The designers did it" works for all evidence. If life
formed a network we would have to explain it differently. If life
formed separate structures we would have to explain it differently. If
life did not change we would have to explain it differently.
>
>>
>> >> The problem is that there are fewer and fewer
>> >> possibilities to find these since all of the actual evidence supports
>> >> evolution.
>> >
>> >It might shrink its score, but not outright flunk it.
>>
>> I am not sure I understand what you mean. Simply put the observations
>> we have support the theory we have. If we had different observations
>> we would need a different theory. Just like in meteorology and physics
>> and astronomy.
>
>I asked for example observations that would outright flunk evo, but
>have not got any.

Sure I did. You don't understand them, but that is your problem, not
mine.

>> >> >Again:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Nobody can ever prove that evo didn't happen at some place at some time
>> >> >> >even if it was false.)
>> >>
>> >> What a silly comment. Nobody can ever prove that the back side of the
>> >> Moon does not dance a jig when we are not looking.
>> >
>> >Exaaaactly. You are a hardass on ID but a softy on everything else.
>>
>> No, we leave all of those ideas outside of science since they are
>> silly and meaningless. Designers that don't affect anything are not
>> scientific concepts. Designers which act exactly line natural forces
>> are not scientific concepts. Now please remember that you were
>> supposedly defending the argument that life looks designed. If you are
>> now arguing for a design whose actions are indistinguishable from
>> non-design then you have abandoned you initial assertion.
>
>This came about when you claimed that ID was not falsifiable but evo
>was. You use the same kind of "silliness" (your own label for it) to
>bash ID. In other words, evo could NOT make the very goal YOU set up.

Except that it can. I have given you several ways to falsify
evolution. "Is not" does not constitute a serious flaw. Life does not
look designed, ID is not falsifiable, the theory of evolution is
falsified and has not been falsified. You can ignore that all you
want, it will not change.
>
>>
>> >> Science uses the
>> >> Newtonian idea (not original with him) that the rules that seem to
>> >> operate here and now operated there and then. You are flailing here:
>> >> simply put if we observed different patterns in the data we would not
>> >> propose evolution as an explanation, no matter what patterns we
>> >> observe in the data ID serves equally well as an explanation.
>> >
>> >No. The stronger the evidence for evo the weaker the case for ID.
>>
>> ID does not serve as the default alternative.
>
>No, but stronger alternative theories tend to weaken a given theory.

SFW? You are trying to make it the alternative and that won't work. No
matter how you weaken the theory of evolution that will not make ID
viable.

>> Your initial argument
>> was Paley's, that life looks designed. Now you have shifted, without
>> saying so, to the current "evolution is impossible so it was designed"
>> argument.

>Heck no! I did not say that anywhere. I was debunking your "evo is
>falsifiable" claim. It is NOT absolutely falsifiable either. Thus, why
>bash ID for that trait? Glass houses.

The theory of evolution is falsifiable. You have agreed then ignored
the point. If the evidence were different we would have a different
theory. For some difference we would modify the theory, for others we
would have to abandon it. But "it was designed" fits everything.

>> That is false for different reasons than your first one. My
>> point was that no matter which of these we refuse the "the designers
>> made it look like evolution" argument" still stands. It is not science
>> though, no more than the claim that tiny angels push things around,
>> not gravity.
>
>Or that the Anthropic Principle made it that way out of mass
>probability. The only difference is that AP has not been barrowed by
>religion, and thus can be called "science" without massive fuss by
>those afraid of religious zealots.

And so you again slip into your ignorance about physics.

>I ain't sweaty afraid of the textbook slippery slope like you guys are,
>and this seems to be the difference. Thus, throw them a compromise by
>mentioning but debunking ID.

I have no problem with mentioning ID or even creationism as examples
of ideas rejected as empty or conflicting with the data. I would not
be surprised if Paley were mentioned occasionally.

>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> So please actually provide support for your MU/ST claims. You keep
>> >> saying this and you never back any of it up. If you don't like the
>> >> peer review standard then provide some other standard.
>> >
>> >Publication of MU/ST speculation in science magazines and books. I
>> >agree that is "weaker" than peer review, but still science.
>>
>> Sorry, but I want actual references.
>
>Go look up the indexes for Astronomy magazine. I don't remember the
>date.

If you have nothing you have nothing.

>Other anti-ID debaters on alt.athiest agreed that MU is considered
>"science". Thus, go argue with them first.

Sorry, but it is your job to support your claims.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: a good person is a person who...
    ... in the process of life that makes evolution work, ... Evolution is just a natural process. ... The difference between proof and extremely high probability is ... Only insofar as hedonism, as you put it, is only one component of the ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life? 2
    ... But there is equally a probability that he will win every time.. ... Not as stupid as you are, but certainly not as intelligent as a human being, and irrelevant to the question of intelligent life. ... you are once again confusing life with high-tech civilization. ... Same as evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Brain Dead People
    ... I dont think you have any notion of Logic... ... probability theory. ... From what we have learned about evolution, ... spawned all the life that currently exists on earth is very high. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: a good person is a person who...
    ... Fucksake Josh, I just realized what a loon you are. ... in the process of life that makes evolution work, ... Evolution is just a natural process. ... The difference between proof and extremely high probability is ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Christof Koch
    ... Simpler Origin for Life" from earlier this year by Prof. Robert Shapiro, ... Life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule. ... before proteins and DNA in the evolution of life. ...
    (talk.origins)