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

(I replied to this already, but for some reason the reply didn't take.
If the original shows up later, I apologize.)

Mark VandeWettering wrote:
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?

That is not an answer, but an insult. I think you are not smart either,
but I don't bother to keep pointing out my assessment of you. It is
childish to do such.


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.

I gave plenty of examples already. Nobody has claimed it not possible.
Until some do, I am under no obligation to prove such. Why bother to
prove a chair exists if nobody claims it doesn't? Curiousity is not
enough.


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.

That is one of the few things we agree on. However, how exploration
time/effort is spent is an economic question, not a scientific one.


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?


Why do you claim it "stupid"? You are not making sense. Perhaps you
shouldn't try to reply when you are in a bad mood. You come across as a
Junior High kid when you are.

They implied their listed links of algorithms were good at finding
potential "intelligent" signals. Thus, I proposed a test (Mona Lisa),
and nobody seems to want back it. What else am I supposed to conclude?
They claim stuff about some tools, but back off of the claims when
given a specific test.

It appears they chickened out. If you have an alternative
interpretation for their (lack of) response, I am all ears (besides
"they got tired of debating an IDiot like you".)


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.

Under such circumstances, one could conclude that was the first mammal,
and genes from it later spread to other organisms through cross
contamination. Who knows; if rabbits were artificially introduced into
the precamb, that is exactly what might happen over time.


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.

That is a different topic. The question is what would falsify evo.
Tree-jumping of genes is NOT a falsifier because of the potential of
cross-contamination of genes. (Sharing genes could also indicate a
creator barrowing "programming code" from another species.)

Nothing in evo rules out cross-species gene contamination, and if it
gives critters an evolutionary edge, the critter's mechanisms might
evolve to welcome foreign visitors (which we know happens in simpler
organisms).

Again I ask, what observation would falsify evo?


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.

No, YOU gave an example of true-ification. I did not prod you.

Regardless, let's seperate "negative" tests from "positive" test for
right now to keep things organized. That is, let's separate detractive
evidence from addative (boosting) evidence.

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir ?)
    ... Almost everything we think we know about genes is based on indirect ... evidence (Plus, our theory of genes involves molecules of DNA that are ... DNA and to regulate genes. ... new protein with the corresponding sequence. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... >>> resistant genes. ... >> of evolution, mutation and selection, do their work. ... >> differences in DNA sequences. ... the evidence from the fossils and DNA is overwhelming that new species ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • DOJ Report: false rape convictions
    ... Case Studies in Use of DNA Evidence ... Series: NIJ Research Report ... Message from the Attorney General ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: The Cosmological Argument
    ... Evidence is made irrelevant. ... You have to explain why DNA is evidence of design. ... unspecified but non-reproductive feature of living organisms are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: JonBenet Case on Forensic Files
    ... So all of these documentaries are skewed toward the Ramseys? ... indictment (and they saw all the evidence) and a civil verdict handed ... this program stated that the DNA in the panties matched ... Grant the former DA, and others with good knowledge of the case). ...
    (alt.true-crime)
Loading