Re: real theories vs imaginary tales such as natural selection

On 2008-02-24, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2008-02-23, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2008-02-23, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


bryce.topmind.jac...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 21, 1:39?am, topmind <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
An algorithm is an algorithm. A formula is a formula. At least put
forth a candidate that does not have large wiggle room.

Observe, hypothesize, predict, test, repeat. Observations must be
replicable. Hypotheses must be falsifiable. That's the scientific
method in a nutshell. Tens of thousands of working scientists use it
every day.

I gave examples of falsifiable tests for DNA-ID. Some here even
claimed it failed the tests. (Or do you merely classify them as big
stupid poo-heads, like you do to me? You never answer this, just
change the subject.) Something cannot be both falsified and not-
falsifiable at the same time. Please explain to me how that can be the
case here.

Your tests aren't tests, because you don't know what you are looking
for. Neither do any other ID theorists.

Prime numbers and other math series are candidates that scientists
such as Carl Sagan have proposed (for SETI-like exploration).

We were talking about ID. Well, to be fair, _I_ was talking about ID.
You keep pretending that you are talking about ID, but you actually do
so by only trying to draw analogies of your ideas to SETI. While the
analogy isn't completely forced, it doesn't actually help us all in trying
to develop tests for ID in DNA.

Perhaps the Behe mess is confusing the issue. Let's focus on whether
we can test for intelligent manipulation of biology. Let's NOT worry
about:

1. Whether it's gods or aliens doing it
2. Whether natural selection is also involved

Doesn't it seem silly to muse about design, if we can't tell the difference
between the design that a God might do and a design an alien might do?

Behe's view of ID is more specific than the bigger question of
intelligent manipulation.

They use words like "patterns"
and "specified complexity" and all sorts of other terms, but none of
these actually enable you to test DNA for intelligent influence.

Other people (myself included) tried to turn your ideas into tests, and
actually ran them on DNA sequences. We didn't find anything. This is hardly
surprising. To the degree that OUR tests were falsifiable, we falsified
ID.

So at least we established some aspects of ID as falsifiable. Do you
disagree with this statement?

I balk at the idea that ID as the term is generally understood makes any
such predictions. Behe certainly doesn't know of any way to test for ID.
Neither does Dembski. And, of course, neither do you.

I thought your friends here agreed it was "falsified". It cannot be
both falsified and non-testable.

I don't have any friends here. I'm not responsible for what other says.
You shouldn't assume I agree with anything someone else says, unless of course
I say I agree. I've explained myself clearly multiple times, that you choose
to ignore it is rude.

And there are further tests or further samples to test. It was hardly
an exhaustive search.

It was demonstrated to you that such a search cannot be exhaustive.

Then we can agree that such testing is not "finished"?

_Your_ proposed testing hasn't started, nor can start, until you think of
something to search for.

We've been over this ground before.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/979e6d5d7fb539a6

You assume that:

1. Zach's tests were exhaustive of all possible tests and samples.
This is utter bullshit.

I assumed nothing of the sort.

Zach seemed to feel that way (as I remember it).

Perhaps you should concentrate on what I say.

Although, he was
typically non-committal about explicitly agreeing to that.

And likely what he said.


2. You take minor errors of mine about side issues to imply that I am
wrong about everything. It is yet more Argument by Social
Intimidation.

You're wrong about lots.

Nothing pivotal to the main argument.

Yes. It is pivotal.

While that doesn't prove that you are wrong about
everything, it does mean that you are wrong about lots. When your mechanic
doesn't understand how spark plugs work, he still might be able to replace
a muffler, but frankly, I'd be skeptical of his ability to do that too.
And I'd be justified.

I believe YOU to be the amateur mechanic.

Of course you do. But you simply aren't qualified to comment.

You don't know how to
clarify and use logic. (Or, afraid of the scrutiny from commitment.)
You think science is a popularity contest.


This is not about me, but about truth.

It's about science actually.

If I can find
truths about the scientific-ness of ID even IF I make mistakes along
the way, then I have achieved my goal even if the road was bumpy.

I see no evidence that you are trying to find the truth. You seem to be
much more concerned in convincing others that you are right.

You make it sound like those are mutually-exclusive.

They often are, and in your case, actually are.

Ironically,
whether you are actually right or not.

It honestly appears that gaining "points" off of social intimidation is
more important to you guys than establishing truths. You are
disingenuous when you do that. Grow Up! Stop acting like Junior High.

Says the person who has threatened people with fist fights, throwing crap,
and just general whining? Physician, heal thyself.

Where did I threaten somebody with a fist fight? I may have said they
deserved a fist, but that is not the same as threatening them.

Isn't it?

I was
pointing out that the threat of physical violence often makes people
more amiable in real life. That check is missing on the web.

For someone who likes to read vague implications into others, you seem
disinclined to observe your own.

And RAM talked about using a "clue stick" on me. You don't seem that
interested in reigning in your buddies. Enron culture.

I'm not responsible what for what others say. I'm responsible for what
I say. Perhaps you should limit your comments to what I say.

Zach had a gift for magnifying irrelevancies and I fell for it.

His points aren't irrelevent, and neither are mine.

Most of them were.

No.



Whether such tests are a "waste of time" is an economic argument, not
a scientific one.

You seem to have a gift for making up objections for your opponents. I've
never said any such absurd thing, and if I recall correctly (granted, it's
been a while) neither has Zach. You are tilting a strawman.

I don't have to make them up because all kinds of stupid logic has
already been given. I only have to tap it. If it was not your specific
point, then ignore it. I'd need a database to keep track of who made
up what stupid reason to dismiss DNA-ID.


The truth of the universe does not care if humans
spend their money/time on long-shots. ID is a long-shot but PROVEN
TESTABLE. If that bothers you, too bad. Truth can hurt.

To the degree that it is testable, it has been shown time and time to be
false. Long ago, people thought lightning and thunder where intelligently
designed. They acquired the ability to test it, and it was found to be false.
Every time we look for intelligent design and develop a real test, it has
been shown to be false.

Not entirely true. Farmers have noticed oddities in their crops, and
sent it to the labs. It turned out that their crops were "infected"
with artificial genetically-modified crop genes from nearby fields. In
that case, the Intelligent Designer was Monsanto.

Let's examine this claim. Can you give me a citation for this supposed
occurrence?

The simple fact is that you don't know how to look for intelligent design.

I thought your friends here agreed it was "falsified". It cannot be
both falsified and non-testable.

I'm not responsible for what others say. If you have some specific criticism
of something that I have said, I urge you to focus your attention on it, and
not what you think others have said.

Until you do, you aren't proposing anythign scientific.

Because you keep moving the goal-posts. Keep them still (and clear)
for a month, and then we could finally nail this.

Keep tilting.

Mark


Mark


-T-


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: real theories vs imaginary tales such as natural selection
    ... Observe, hypothesize, predict, test, repeat. ... Doesn't it seem silly to muse about design, if we can't tell the difference ... I see no evidence that you are trying to find the truth. ... No. Threatening them is saying, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... "Science works a certain way, if you have a better way, let us see it." ... Intelligence implies Design ... be in no way practicing science, while SETI scientists can. ... criteria of high complexity and high specificity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Case for a Designer
    ... Moreover, I will claim that the fact of design is not only true, it is ... Methodological naturalism, ... beliefs, is essential to science. ... science or why scientists should suspend the practice in some cases. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... > biological life and diversity were products of intelligent design ... but do wish to take issue with the context of that debate ... option to scientists and naturalists at the time was to consider the _how_ ... > science and not religion before engaging them in any public forum. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My views on evolution
    ... >science, but some good philosophical points, whereas the Darwinianists ... >have good science but tend to overstate their case. ... no scientists says it is pure chance. ... What about it says design? ...
    (talk.origins)