Re: Developing a focused set of questions for IDists - Comments encouraged

On 2006-04-16, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145171123.646641.293230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145086740.731692.74000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Desertphile wrote:
noctiluca wrote:

Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at
Biola
Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their
harshest
critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.

As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by
kicking
them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions.
The
point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal
an
actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept
that
there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.

All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as
well)
but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time
here.

And so, off we go with the first question,

1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
fashion.

Some questions I would like to see ID proponants answer:

o) What tests have you applied to your ID hypothesis to prove it
false?

It could be given evidence by finding hidden messages or images inside
of DNA. (Not a Christian doctrine, but not outside of "pure" ID.)



If you find such messages, let us know. You have the technology at your
fingertips to analyze the data. Not bothering to look or to research what
others have already done is considered poor scientific practice.
Meanwhile,
it is just unsupported speculation mixed with a dose of handwaving. But
please keep us informed of your progress.

Irrelavent. I am only pointing out ways to test it. The question is not
about my own plans.


I reread your comments.

It could be given evidence by finding hidden messages or images inside
of DNA. (Not a Christian doctrine, but not outside of "pure" ID.)

Waving your hands does not constitute "pointing out ways to test it."
Rather, you have created a strawman. If an artificial message were ever
found in a genome, it would be considered evidence of artificiality. Duh!

So you agree ID is testable. Good start.

You really aren't the sharpest pencil in the box, are you?

So yes, someone could look for patterns in the genome. And, in fact,
scientists have done just that. No discoveries of artificiality yet. That
should end this portion of the discussion unless you propose a methodology
that has not been tried before, or (gasp) actually look at the evidence
yourself.

This came up before and nobody provided good evidence that a thorough
search had been done.

You are the one proposing such a search, but are being very coy about how
to do it. Tell us, what would you consider to be a "thorough search"? How
can we tell that we are done.

The vast majority of researchers are doing biological research, not
trying to do DNA SETI.

It's probably a good thing, given how unlikely the utility of such an
endeavor would prove to be.

I challenged them to show how catalogs of tried algorithms that they
linked to would detect an image of Mona Lisa embedded in DNA. Nobody
answered (that I saw).

What exactly is the appropriate answer for stupidity?

As far as falsifying it, even evolution by natural selection cannot be
universally falsified.


Natural selection is posited as a mechanism to explain adaptation of life
on
Earth. Natural selection, variation, adaptation have all been observed.
There are other known mechanisms at work, as well.

Irrelavent. The question is whether it *could* be falsified.


Natural selection, variable reproductive success due to inheritable
characteristics, can be directly observed.

That would not falsify it. Perhaps it would true-ify it, but we are
talking falsification here.

Jibberish.

And natural selection is not the
only mechanism of evolution. Adaptation by natural selection working in
heritable variations has also been directly observed.



I would also point out that observations of microevelotion don't
necessarily extrapolate to macroevolution. There is a huge leap between
beaks changing color and between eyes and brains forming.


Common descent, natural selection, adaptation, variation. These are the
primary elements of evolution. You haven't actually posed any signficant
challenge based on the evidence. Common Descent is inferred from the nested
hierarchy. That you don't understand the nature of this evidence is
irrelevant to its importance. Start with the succession of fossils.

Again, that is true-ifcation, not falsification.

You keep using that word as if it were significant.

"From geology, the Principle of Superposition ... allows the relative
ordering by time of fossils found in the strata."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/principle-of-superposition.html





Showing that evo did not happen in a particular
spot or planet does not prove that it cannot happen ever anywhere.


That is called handwaving. The domain at issue is life as it naturally
occurs on Earth. It doesn't explain the evolution of dog breeds, which is
due to artificial selection. It may not explain robotic evolution on the
planet Zorg.

Again, the question was, "can evo be falsified?" What observation would
falsify it?


I assume here you mean Common Descent. I have already indicated that a
signficant violation of the nested hierarchy would represent a challenge.
This could be a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian, a centaur, a pig with wings. New
species, extinct and extant, are continually being discovered. Find one that
violates the nested hierarchy and then you will have evidence.

That would not rule out evo from happening at all.

Well, it would be hard for it to rule out evolution happening at all, but
that isn't surprising, given that we observe evolution, and presumably those
observations are reflections of actual phenomena. But such an obvious
chimera would certainly be a more credible candidate for intelligent design
than the life forms we've observed to date.

Plus, microbes can cross-infect other organisms with DNA such that a
duck could get cow genes. Cross-infecting DNA is not outside of evo
and has been observed in simpler organisms, especially bacteria who
use it as an adaption technique on a large scale.

This would not explain rabbits in the pre-cambrian.

Thus, non-trees does not falsify evo because evo does not exclude
cross-species contamination of DNA.

In the case of living creatures, we can actually analyze DNA to determine
if that actually occurred.

Here's a new species, discovered in a predicted strata by scientists who
spent years in an Arctic wasteland, Tiktaalik roseae.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060405_tiktaalikfrm.htm

Of course, it is hard to know exactly what you are asking to be falsified. I
have provided a working definition several times, but will do so again.

Evolution is the observed change in allele frequencies in populations over
time. The Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms of evolution,
including mutation, variation, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic
drift, speciation, hybridization, contingency, common descent, etc. The
primary areas of evidence are as follows:
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html

True-ifiable is off topic.

Since he didn't mention that, it is obvious that you are dragging the subject
off topic.

I don't think there is such a test, but am giving you the opportunity
give one. Note that proving that mechanism B happened in spot X does
not rule out other mechanisms, such as evo, from having occurred
somewhere else on Earth.


To paraphrase: Proving gravity B happened in spot X does not rule out other
mechanisms than gravity B from occurring somewhere else.

And?


You clearly do not understand how the scientific method creates valid
generalizations about the natural world.


You clearly do no understand the buzzwords you fling around, such as
"falsifiable" without thinking through the *implications* in an
evenhanded way. ID is indeed a weak theory, but you guys use crippled
logic to bash it. Bash it right or say nothing.

Is that a 2x4 in your eye?

"The scientific method: hypothesis,
prediction, observation, validation, repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html



--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/

-T-


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... Evolution was accepted in 1859 as a ... happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence. ... I would define "random mutation" as the idea that "permanent changes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez: evolution refuted.
    ... Which assumption of the process of natural selection is wrong, ... Evidence that genetic variation is not ultimately due ... Once again, Ray, you are just arguing by assertion here. ... evolution works on it's own. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Developing a focused set of questions for IDists - Comments encouraged
    ... It could be given evidence by finding hidden messages or images inside ... Natural selection, variation, adaptation have all been observed. ... There are other known mechanisms at work, ... primary elements of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Developing a focused set of questions for IDists - Comments encouraged
    ... It could be given evidence by finding hidden messages or images inside ... Natural selection, variation, adaptation have all been observed. ... That would not falsify it. ... primary elements of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez: Lets talk about natural selection
    ... he claimed he had the evidence to refute evolution from the very ... evolution is so good, it should stand by itself without the need to be ... Behe or a Jonathan Safarti assert natural selection to have positive ... natural selection does what Darwin and his modern day supporters say ...
    (talk.origins)