Re: Challenge for Ken Shackleton


"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145637807.596584.144520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Deadrat wrote:
"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145569559.164981.121520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

r norman wrote:
On 20 Apr 2006 13:30:46 -0700, "Seanpit"
<seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Actually, biology does not have such mechanisms at all. Mutations are
purely random, even multicharacter mutations are purely random.
Consider that a particular higher-level target is like a grain of sand
in the universe of non-beneficial options. Sure, a very large step can
be taken, but what are the odds that it will land on the right piece of
sand? Not good. Not good at all when such a multicharacter mutation
could just as easily have landed on a very vast array of other
non-beneficial sequence.

Just to pick one piece of absurdity from many: there is no "higher-level
target." You have erroneously assume that the particular genetic outcome
that we see was the somehow "intended" unique result. It's not; it's just
the "winner," the combination that managed to compete better than the others.
The odds that any one fool in my state will win the lottery is vanishingly small,
but like clockwork, some fool always wins. Your argument makes as much
sense as denying that anyone has won the lottery because the odds are so bad.

That's exactly right. I am saying that the odds against evolution at
higher levels of complexity are so bad that no one, not one person in
your state or the entire country or even the entire world would ever
win the lottery this side of trillions upon trillions of years of
trying. The gaps involved at these higher levels are just that huge
that no individual in a population, no matter how huge the population
was, would ever evolve such a functional system - ever.

Try reading for comprehension. I'm not saying that you don't believe the odds
against evolution are impossibly high. We both agree that's what you believe.
What I am saying is that your method of computing the odds is absurd. Read the
above paragraph again: assuming that some existing genotype is the intended
unique result of natural selection (and then computing the odds against that particular
result) is as fallacious as denying that anyone has won the lottery in my state because
the odds of any one person winning is so low.

Your "exponentially decreasing probabilities" are simply
wrong. You fail to understand that large scale changes can be
induced by gradual small steps leading to a rather significant
re-organization of the entire control system leading to a large jump
in result.

Not true. High-level functions are never realized via small-scale
changes because the intermediate small-scale changes are not selectably
advantageous. If you think otherwise, show me an example. I'm telling
you, there are no examples of evolution in action beyond very low
levels of functional complexity. Look it up.

There are thousands. Look it up. Unless, of course, what you mean by
"in action," is having the exact genetic steps for changes that took millions
of years.

By "in action", I mean actual demonstration in the lab or in nature so
that we can see it happen. Evolution does happen in real time.
Antibiotic resistance happens and so does the evolution of certain
single protein enzymes like lactase or nylonase. However, there is a
demonstrable stalling out of evolution as you move up the ladder of
minimum size and specificity requirements. Functions that require more
than a couple thousand fairly specified base pairs of genetic real
estate at minimum simply never evolve - ever.

There is no "stalling out." This is simply an invention of your own devising.
(There is no "ladder" of specificity, either, but I think that's a different topic.)
You're asking for a "demonstration in the lab ... so what we can see" changes
that take millions of years. If that is what it takes to convince you of the validity
of the theory, then you'll remain forever unconvinced. And that's fine. But
realize that this is about you and not the theory. You might as well claim not
to believe in nuclear fusion until we conduct experiments in the center of the sun.

You fail to
understand that the large evolutionary changes that we talk about have
left their unmistakable imprint on the genome, the biochemistry, the
developmental patterns, the morphology, and the ecology of living
things.

You fail to understand that the nested hierarchical patterns that you
see can just as easily be the result of deliberate design.

Nobody fails to understand this. The deliberate design thing just isn't
very useful. So there was deliberate design that mimics natural selection?
If so, we can't tell anything about it since it is always masked. What you're
positing is the perfect counterfeiter, which is something beyond scientific
study.

There is a way to tell the difference between deliberate and
non-deliberate creations. Consider an amorphous rock. I could have been
designed - right? I mean, humans have designed amorphous rocks
deliberately before - right? But, this rock could also have a
non-deliberate origin just as easily - correct? So, you can't tell for
sure if this rock was or was not designed.

Of course not. And that's the problem with IDiocy. Anything is consistent
with it. Amorphous rocks or perfectly polished granite cubes. Anything.
That doesn't mean the rocks aren't designed, just that it's not a scientific
theory.

Most likely then, depending
upon other factors, one can surmise that it was probably not designed.
Now, let's say you come across a perfectly symmetrical polished granite
cube with a carvings of a small circle, square, triangle, and other
perfectly symmetrical geometric shapes in each of the faces of this
cube. How easy would it be for you to propose a non-deliberate origin
for this granite cube?

Of course, it's easy. You've given an example of something we know to
have been designed by human beings (or something isomorphic to it). The problem
arises from things that don't have the hallmarks of human makers, like your body's
cells.

You see, whenever a phenomenon goes significantly beyond what known
mindless processes are capable of achieving one can reasonably
hypothesize a deliberate origin.

But this isn't a continuation of your hallmark argument. You've swerved into
complexity, some "phenomenon" that goes "significantly beyond" what you
think natural processes can do. First of all, studies of genetic algorithms have
shown that they're capable of complex results. Secondly, you've simply
assumed what you're trying to show. You need evidence that complexity
implies a designer, but you simply assume that complexity requires one.

It is because of this that even those
who proposed an alien intelligence as the origin for the crop circles
in England were more logical than those who tried to propose some
mindless natural cause. Clearly such intricate geometric circles cannot
have a mindless origin in crops - not even close. Therefore, their
existence supports the hypothesis of some sort of deliberate cause.

That's your best evidence? That fools who fell for the crop circle hoax
were somehow more logical than those who posited the weather or some
other natural cause? Bar was pretty low, wouldn't you say?

Telling the
difference between the possibilities of evolution vs. design has to do
with the creative potential of the mechanism behind each possibility.
Is the mechanism capable of producing the functional system that we
see? Just because a particular mechanism is capable of producing a
nested hierarchy does not mean that this mechanism is also capable of
producing the systems in question. Many evolutionists think that just
because the mechanism of evolution is in fact capable of producing
nested hierarchies that evolution must therefore be responsible for all
such hierarchies. This is a common, but mistaken, conclusion.

In logic, sure. But in science the mechanism of evolution is the best
explanation we have with the evidence at hand.

Really? Based on what? What evolutionary mechanism is there that can
explain the existence of flagellar motility systems?

Didn't follow the Dover trial, eh? It might have done you a world of good.
Scientific theories aren't perfect, and except in your own mind, they don't
have to be. It's not the best theory possible; it's the best theory given the
evidence at hand. We may never have a step-by-step, base pair by base
pair mechanism for the flagellum. If that's what you need to be convinced,
then, as I said, fine. What's your scientific alternative? An intelligent designer
who may or may not be supernatural or even intelligent or even an individual
(as opposed to a committee), who may or may not be operating now or even
in our own temporal flow?

You talk about a
"creative potential of the mechanism behind each possibility," but
these are just words, not amenable to scientific scrutiny.

What do you think made the crop circles in England or the polished
granite cube on my desk? Are you saying that Science has nothing to say
about the orgin of such things?

Of course, not. The crop circles were a hoax, and the cube on your desk
was made by the Granite Cube Novelty Company. Look on the bottom.
You'll see the name and phone number of the company. You can call them
up and ask to talk to the designer.

The trouble
with this "creative potential" is that it is simply too powerful, there being
no possible evidence that it cannot explain. It will explain a nested
hierarchy, but then again it will explain any organization.

Yes, that's true. But, is it therefore not detectable?

Not by scientific means. If every phenomenon, including the mutually
exclusive, may be attributed to this "creative potential," then *science*
has no means to detect it.

You see, ID is
detectable even though it is limitless. It is detectable because of the
very limited nature of other possibilities. That is why you can know
that a fixed window

as opposed to a broken one or a movable one?

has an intelligent origin, as do crop circles, as
does a polished granite cube with geometric shapes in each face. The
same is true of the bacterial flagellar motility system.

Those things that are made by human beings are designed by human
beings. That you think the "bacterial flagellar motility system" is one
of those says more about you than the bacteria.

No mindless
evolutionary mechanism comes remotely close to explaining the origin of
such a system. Only ID can do it.

IDiocy cannot even get out of its own way. Assertions are cheap. Show
me the evidence *for* IDiocy. Even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't make
IDiocy right.

Deadrat

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: lets ignore bvallelys political postings
    ... ntelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher ... In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology ... form first arose during the evolution of life. ... and classes of animals also arose at this ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: OT: lets ignore bvallelys political postings
    ... ntelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher ... In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology ... form first arose during the evolution of life. ... and classes of animals also arose at this ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: Steven & Mark: Faith has an object
    ... Acceptance of material causation instead of Divine casuation refutes ... claims of evolution or the Bible. ... As explained over, and over, and over, the appearance of design is not evidence of either a designer, or "divine causation". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mischaracterization of ID?
    ... > mischaracterization of what constitutes Intelligent Design. ... > creationism as it is an attempt to, using scientific methodology alone, ... evolution, nor those offered against it, but are convinced that ID is based ... Johnson), or progressive separate creations, or recent ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... The point here seems to be that a non-functioning system will result in "accelerated evolution" in order to become functional. ... If it's possible for a flagellum ... You seem to be excluding from 'science' the possibility of intelligent design. ...
    (talk.origins)