Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
- From: "neverbetter" <neverbetter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Feb 2006 14:49:44 -0800
Wall Of Sleep kirjoitti:
Deadrat wrote:
"Wall Of Sleep" <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:5JnLf.17452$gh4.12341@xxxxxxxxxxx
Jack Dominey wrote:
In <bPQJf.1474$0z.983@trnddc01>, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jack Dominey wrote:
In <mU4Jf.38502$Eq.14469@trnddc02>, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jack Dominey wrote:
Please try to make a consistent argument. You said DNA "bears the
hallmarks of intelligent [sic] designed languages everywhere." Natural
languages are human products, but that does not make them "designed".
They actually change through the effect of thousands of people
interacting over long time periods. The analogy between DNA and
natural languages has nothing to do with design.
I take it you have abandoned this line of argument?
No. The analogy has to do with the fact that it takes intelligence to
utilize language.
Has *what* to do with that fact?
OK, I'll see if I can make this a bit clearer.
All languages are systems of complex specified information. In fact, all
known systems which contain complex specified information (outside of
nature) are *known* to be the product of intelligent agency.
DNA is a system of complex specified information (CSI), therefore it is
logical to deduce that DNA could very well be the product of intelligent
agency.
Is that clearer?
It's clear; it's just wrong. All known systems of humans are the product
of intelligent agency. That is to say, humans. That's because we know
who made them -- humans.
No, it doesn't matter if we know that humans made them. We can deduce
intelligent agency *without* the knowledge that the agents were human.
It is only *assumed* they were human because we've never had any
evidence to point to them not being human. The test would still be the
same though if an artifact were of alien origin would it not? We'd just
be perplexed as to "who?" and "how?".
> When it comes to systems that are not
known to be made by humans, you aren't permitted to apply
conclusions reached for human-made systems.
Why not? How does SETI work? Maybe you should inform them that they're
wasting their time. In fact, how would we be able to know if there was
intelligent life anywhere else in the universe if we can't use the same
methods of determining intelligent design we use with human designs? If
we found real canals on Mars, would we have to assume evolution - since
Martians couldn't be "human"? I'm of the opinion that the "If it ain't
human - it ain't intelligent" rule is not good science.
> You have to provide
independent evidence for the systems not known to be made by
humans.
You're saying that Intelligence=>CSI. It is not logically correct to
conclude from this that CSI=>Intelligence.
Is that not clear?
Umm... No it's not.
Let me ask you this: (If you only answer one point in this entire post,
make it *this one* please.) What test would you propose for determining
intelligent design on another planet?
Would you use *any* criteria used to determine intelligent design among
humans? Why or why not?
Anthropologists, archaeologists, forensic scientists and searchers for
extra-terrestrial intelligence all use similar methods. What's wrong
with them?
Language is spoken and understood, the fact that human
languages evolve over time is irrelevant.
So what exactly are you saying is "designed" about languages
themselves?
See above.
I didn't really state it very clearly.
You seem to be consistent in that regard.
Whatever.
The "language" of DNA has not changed over time like the English
language has. The same coding produces the same amino acids - then and
now. In that sense it is more of an "eternal" language - the "Language
of Life" if you will.
Actually the genetic code is not 100% universal. There are some
interesting exceptions.
But the fact that the genetic code is so ubiquitous makes it *unlike*
languages.
It is like language. It is transcribed, edited, and translated. Try
describing the functions of DNA without using any terms applicable to
language.
It's more like Morse code. It's very much unlike even the simplest
computer language.
It doesn't matter the methodology - it's what's expressed that counts.
You can express the same ideas with morse code as you can with the 26
letter alphabet. What's expressed by the "four letter" genetic code is
nothing short of amazing.
Bats' wings are not organs that just sprang out of nowhere. So what
"systems" were you talking about?
The wing, the echolocation... you name it.
No. *You* name it. You brought up these "systems" that allegedly
have no connection to the rest of the animal world.
Umm, I think I just did.
So when you made this vague assertion about "systems", you just meant
wings and echolocation. Saying, "you name it" was just shorthand for
'I can't think of any more', right?
No. It was shorthand for - why are you acting like you don't understand?
The fact that you *assume* that bat wings had to be an "adaptation" from
similar forelimbs shows how steeped in the circular world of evolution
you are.
Until you understand the difference between observation and
assumption, we aren't going to get very far.
So you've "observed" a bat wing adapting from a non-winged forelimb?
I'll try again: All mammals have the same underlying structure in the
bones and tissues of their forelimbs. That's an observation. Bats'
wings, structurally speaking, are not unique, unexplainable, or
un-accountable. If it makes you more comfy, call them 'variations'
instead of 'adaptations'. The observable facts remain.
It's still A looks like B to me.
Because bat forelimbs and other mammalian forelimbs are similar does not
mean one evolved from the other. You're still *assuming* your conclusion.
No, I have not. If Big Juju waved his magic stick and turned a tribe
of rats into bats, it would still be plain as the nose on your face
that bat wings are a highly modified mammalian forelimb. If a bunch
of Elohim moulded bats out of clay, they took the "design" of the
mammalian forelimb and adapted it to make a wing.
Why isn't it the other way around? Why isn't the mammalian forelimb an
adaptation of a bat wing?
Because there's much more variation in mammalian forelimbs than in bat
wings.
What does this mean? You're comparing all mammalian forelimbs to bat wings?
Of course, there's more variation. You're comparing lots of different mammals
to bats.
I don't think you're replying to me here. My statement is the "Why isn't
it the other way around?" one above that.
I can say, without making any of those oh-so-icky evolutionary
assumptions, that when considering my arms, a dolphin's flippers, a
horse's forelegs, and a bat's wings, I would not consider the first
three to be variations on the last.
You're free to consider whatever you want, but what scientific evidence
do you have that arms, flippers, forelegs, and bat's wings aren't related?
Again, mistaken identity.
The fact that you consider any of them to be variations of the others is
the main "oh-so-icky evolutionary assumption".
It isn't an assumption. It's a conclusion from looking at their structure.
It's still an assumption. The evidence is in no way "conclusive".
A Ford looks like a Chevy, does that mean they come from the same plant?
What, are you suggesting that bats had a different Creator than the
rest of the mammals?
I'm suggesting that your "evidence" is that "A" looks like "B".
Isn't that exactly your argument?
"I think X looks designed because it looks like something humans did."
Why is it acceptable for you to use when comparing animals and cars and
not when evolutionary biologists are comparing mammalian forelimbs?
IMHO, mammalian forelimbs look MUCH more like each other than animals
and cars.
It's not that simple, as anyone informed enough to know that dolphins
aren't fish would know. There are specific patterns of similarity in
living things - patterns which aren't found in manufactured objects
like cars.
You're saying there aren't patterns of similarities among cars?
There aren't exclusively patterns of ancestry among cars. They
borrow from each other.
So? All cars can be traced back to a common ancestor. Must I remind you
that many biological traits are also "borrowed" in that their
evolutionary origin is unaccounted for and they reside in many divergent
"lines" of supposed evolutionary development.
Wow!! Have you driven much lately? Ever drive an unfamiliar car? Was it
a major feat requiring hours of retraining? Or was pretty much
everything in basically the same place as the car you're familiar with?
It isn't that cars aren't similar. They are. But the newer models don't
evolve from the older models. The EPA demands cleaner air (well, back
in the day), and then there are catalytic converters -- totally new components
with no relationship to last year's systems. One company puts fins on their
cars, and if it sell, the next year, every company has models with fins. Some
systems are refined over time, but you won't find a braking system in transition
from ordinary brakes to ABS.
And you won't find transitional systems between scales and feathers,
light-sensitive spots and eyes, mammalian forelimbs and bat wings, etc.
either.
It's precisely these ABs that are missing.
All I did was point out that you were wrong to say that "the bat" has
"systems" "not accounted for anywhere else". Bats' wings are no more
unaccounted-for than your arms or horses' front legs. They are very
different-looking appendages with deep structural similarities.
And that means what? That they all come from the same place? I can see
the similarities, I just see no evidence that one "became" the other.
You haven't provided any either except for "A" looks like "B".
You're shifting the goalposts. First you were making claims that
bats' wings are unique. I've pointed out that they are made from
essentially the same parts as other mammals. Now you're demanding
evidence of some kind of descent. Make your request clear and I'll
see if I can make a good response.
I made the claim that no mutations and reasonable transition from
forelimbs to bat wings can be made. And that no evidence for such a
transition exists - in the fossil record or elsewhere.
Basically, you're still stuck on "A looks like B, therefore A came from B."
A just doesn't look like B. A is structurally isomorphic to B, and A is genetically
related to B in a hierarchy of ancestry. And often there is an AB, which is
structurally isomorphic to A but more similar to A than B and structurally isomorphic
to B but more similar to B than A. And AB is related to A and to B genetically in
similar fashion.
If you want generation by generation biochemical videotape of the genome changing,
you'll never be satisfied. But evolution is the best scientific theory we have to explain
what we do see.
No it's not. When push comes to shove, evolution breaks down. It can't
account for even the "simplest" of functions such as protein synthesis
without resorting to - what amounts to - wild guesses.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
- From: Wall Of Sleep
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
- Prev by Date: Re: True Chimera?
- Next by Date: Re: Sail ho! But what the hell?!
- Previous by thread: Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
- Next by thread: Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
