Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft

Deadrat wrote:

"Wall Of Sleep" <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:q22Nf.8824$XE6.3107@xxxxxxxxxxx

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.


Who's "we"? You can't. All of your efforts to be precise about specificity
and complexity have come to naught. The best you can do is "I know it when
I see it."


If you want much more detailed analysis of the subject of biological
information and specified complexity, I'd suggest starting with the
scientific journal dedicated to the subject:
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php



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?


Because it amounts to assuming what you must demonstrate.

Intelligence => Appearance of Design

does not imply

Appearance of Design => Intelligence

Do you not understand that the converse of an implication does
not follow from the implication?


I understand your argument, but it does not rule out intelligent agency.
The *fact* that intelligent agency is *known* to produce the "appearance
of design" is evidence that any "appearance of design" is also a likely
product of intelligence. It's not a "proof" in the mathematical sense.
AFAIK, science doesn't require that level of evidence.



How does SETI work?


SETI is looking for nonterrestrial signals with a particular signature.
That's it. They think these are candidates for ETI. When and if
they find any candidates, they'll have some work to do. Now all
they do is match signals with signatures.


And what are these "signatures"? Is there some test to distinguish these
signals from random noise? I'd be willing to bet that the test involves
a property of specification that forces a signal to stand out amongst
the complexity of random noise.


Maybe you should inform them that they're wasting their time.


I don't have to. Many more credible people than I have told them
exactly that.


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?


Which is pretty much why some people think its a waste of time.
But remember, SETI's search isn't for "intelligent" signals. It's for
narrowband signals.


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.


There aren't "real" canals on Mars, so we don't have to worry about this.
And note that evolution is about our biosphere.

I'm not trying to deprive you of your opinion. But it's a particularly uninformed
opinion with no implications for science.


Nice dodge.


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?


The same one I use on this planet. I'd ask the designers to show me their
plans.


Right. It's amazing the lengths you'll go to to *not* consider design!
You're even willing to say that science should not evaluate any signs of
intelligent design on other planets if they can't ask the designers for
their "plans".

A potential earth shattering scientific discovery and deadrat says
"Wait! It can't be the product of intelligent agents because I haven't
talked to them and therefore haven't had the opportunity to review their
plans.".

Wow!



Would you use *any* criteria used to determine intelligent design among
humans? Why or why not?


I use the same criteria that you use. I look at the logo, find the manufacturer,
go to the headquarters, and ask the designers to show me the plans.


You're hopeless.


Anthropologists, archaeologists, forensic scientists


all use the method outlined above


and searchers for extra-terrestrial intelligence


If you mean SETI, then no. They don't have anything to examine in that way.


all use similar methods.


I'm sorry, but I don't think you've read even the most introductory texts
in anthropology, archeology, or forensics.


Apparently you haven't either. I doubt seriously they had to "look at
the logo, find the manufacturer, go to the headquarters, and ask the
designers to show them the plans" of the pyramids to deduce design.




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.


Do you not understand that this is merely an argument from personal
incredulity? OK, I agree; it's amazing. So what?


A sequence of information utilizing a four letter alphabet is translated
into another sequence utilizing a twenty letter alphabet and from this
all life is produced. The implications are astounding. If such a four
letter alphabet was found to be the foundation of some other structure,
all of science would immediately conclude design. Only their pet theory
stands in the way.





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.


Because the genetics and fossil evidence show otherwise.


Unfortunately the "genetics" is often in disagreement with the fossil
record.

?The cytochrome c phylogeny disagrees with the traditional one in
several instances, including the following: the chicken appears to be
related more closely to the penguin than to ducks and pigeons; the
turtle, a reptile, appears to be related more closely to birds than to
the rattlesnake, and man and monkeys diverge from the mammals before the
marsupial kangaroo separates from the placental mammals.?
Ayala, Francisco J. 1978. The Mechanisms of Evolution. Scientific
American 239:56-69



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.


I said *scientific* evidence. Your considerations about mistaken identity
need to be based on some evidence that contradicts what scientists have
found. If you want to claim that you have something to replace evolution,
that is.


By "mistaken identity" I meant that you were replying to someone else -
not me (again). Look back at the thread - you'll see.



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".


You haven't studied even the most basic science relevant to the matter,
but you feel that your naysaying is an argument. Biologists make inferences
and come to conclusions based on the evidence that they find. These things
aren't "conclusive" in the way that you want. They never will be. But that
level of evidence isn't required. That's one reason why all science is tentative.


Yet you seem to require "proof" of ID. Interesting.



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".


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.


I don't believe this to be true. Many car companies sprang up independently
at the start of the automotive age.


So nobody invented the car?


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.


There are a very few and limited ways in that biological traits are "borrowed."
You don't know what you're talking about.


"Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not
hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced
relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea."
W. Ford Doolittle, Science 286, 1999

Hmm...


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.


You will find numerous transitional systems. Many are documented on
talkorigins.org. You won't find them all, and I predict that whatever ones
are documented won't be sufficiently "close" enough for you. But that's
you. It doesn't affect the scientific conclusions.


Of course not. Evolutionists require no conclusive evidence in support
of their theory. No falsifiable, testable hypothesis exist to explain
the origin of feathers, just a lot of "it could be" and "maybe", or "it
looks like".



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.


It's precisely these ABs that are missing.


No, and if you'd studied the subject, you'd know that. There are lots of ABs around.
Of course, there are lots of extinct ABs that are missing (i.e., for which we have no
fossil evidence). The point is that all organisms are ABs, much like their ancestors
(but not exactly) and much like their descendants (but not exactly).


Since "all organisms are ABs" how can your theory be falsified? There is
no scientific method to falsify a theory that assumes it's conclusion.



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.


It may not be good enough for you. But you're demanding an impossible level of
evidence. That's fine for you. That's not what science requires. If you've got a better
scientific theory, let's hear it. You've had plenty of requests to make your ideas
about specificity and complexity precise. But you can't even take the first step.
That's not a criticism of you. None of your fellow travelers can either. Why do you
think that is?


On the contrary, the subject is being studied in great detail - by minds
far beyond mine.
http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2005/4/2/pcid_contents_2005_4_2.php



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.


Science cannot satisfy your impossible request for evidence. But its theories
don't have to do that to be the best possible with the evidence at hand.


What's so "impossible" about a falsifiable hypothesis for the evolution
of a novel feature? If it's "impossible" to produce a testable
hypothesis for something as basic as protein synthesis, what value does
your theory hold?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... languages are human products, but that does not make them "designed". ... natural languages has nothing to do with design. ... wings and echolocation. ... that bat wings are a highly modified mammalian forelimb. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... languages are human products, but that does not make them "designed". ... natural languages has nothing to do with design. ... wings and echolocation. ... that bat wings are a highly modified mammalian forelimb. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... languages are human products, but that does not make them "designed". ... natural languages has nothing to do with design. ... wings and echolocation. ... Because the genetics and fossil evidence show otherwise. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How old was Methuselah?
    ... There's plenty of evidence which can be *interpreted* as pointing ... as good a job of explaining them as common ancestry does. ... were equipped with second wings (like the biplane design of the ... That wouldn't make it good design and would lead ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Overview Of New Intel Core i7(Nehalem) Processor
    ... people settled down and started doing more disciplined design. ... apps will still need mathematical, disciplined, unambiguous languages. ... See, tha tis wha tI mean, yo udo not knwo C, and yet yo uhave more opinions ... I wrote my first EPROM programmer with zeros and ones in machine code, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)