I am reading Dawkin's book with the above title. A couple of thoughts occurred to me as I read the chapter entitled "Why there is almost certainly no God."
1. If Darwin was correct in highlighting the discovery of a complex organ which cannot be produced by numerous slight successive modifications as a real possible falsification of his theory then we cannot simply rule out any such proposed organ as a "God of the gaps" argument. If the God of he gaps protest is permitted then the possible falsification has gone. If the falsification is a genuine possible one then we must allow for the existence of real gaps.
2. Dawkins argues that an intelligent designer must be more complex than the evidence of his design and therefore requires a further explanation of an even higher level of complexity. He seems to indicate that this is a sort or killer punch as if the rule of the universe is that all complexity must necessarily come from simplicity. However the fact that he spends time on other arguments seems to indicate that he is not entirely happy that his killer blow has actually killed.
98 comments:
Well, indeed. Search for "Oolon Colluphid" on my blog for some of my thoughts. A fair number of atheists are pretty unhappy with the book as well, though of course a fair number are happy just to bleat their contentment and aver that it just about wraps it up for God.
Dawkins seems to think that the schoolboy quip 'Who made God?' is a killer punch. But that only works if an uncreated first cause by definition cannot be.
But he evidently believes in the cosmos (or whatever made the cosmos) as an uncreated first cause. Not very strong reasoning. The cosmos evidently exists0either it has always existed or someon or something made it. So there IS an uncreated first cause. Why can't it be God?
2 good responses to 'The God Delusion' which I have read and can recommend are 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alistair McGrath (ideally also read 'Dawkins' God-genes, memes and the meaning of life' by the same author) and 'The Dawkins Letters' by David Robertson. Both books in their own way dissect Dawkin's schoolboy ranting, logical errors and lack of objectivity.
David Robertson is more passionate and easier reading, McGrath as befits an Oxford theology professor who is also as well qualified a scientist as Dawkins is more clinical and intellectual.
I heard McGrath speaking at Southampton university 2 years ago-they had to use 2 large lecture theatres as he was so popular. he said that at Oxford, atheists were always coming up to him and apologising for Dawkins, saying 'we're not all like that'.
kind regards
Oh no Disaster has now turned to telling lies on OTHER peoples blogs.
No change there it would seem.
O nameless one, accusing someone of lying is a serious accusation.
Would you care to specify which of the statements I have posted here is a lie?
I'll come back in a couple of days and see if you have...
1) specified which of my statements above is a lie.
2) apologised for falsely accusing me of lying
3) made another cheap shot while hiding behind your mask of anonymity
I wonder which it will be?
"Both books in their own way dissect Dawkin's schoolboy ranting, logical errors and lack of objectivity."
Care to point them out oh Disaster?
Or are you still unable to engage and accept you are wrong on soooo many things, so you closed your blog?
8th May 2009
Hmm, there's an awful lot of godtalk around here.
Why is that?
I thought ID was supposed to be all about the science. It's not creationism at all, dontchaknow! Why this "Intelligent Designer" fellow just happens to have the same skill set as a deity. Pure coincidence, I say.
(insert innocent look here)
Oh well, on to more fun things...
Dissenter.
Welcome back!
:)
You ran away from me a few months ago in one of the previous threads here.
Let's pick up where we left off, shall we?
You said...
“In a nutshell, ID is basically saying that this assertion of ordered complexity arising from chaos by chance does not make sense. It is not mere personal incredulity to say this, there is a lot of biology and maths…”Biology and Maths! Yay.
Science at last. All this theology talk was making me sleepy.
Ok, so what biology experiments or mathematics support ID?
Please cite the papers produced.
The Discovery Institute claims to have hundreds of scientists that “Dissent from Darwinism” so some of them must have produced even a tiny bit of this “lots of biology and maths”.
It’s been over twenty years now. How much work has been done on ID in the realm of biology and mathematics?
Let’s have it. Please. Pretty Please.
:)
Later you claimed...
“Michael Behe …has meticulously set out several biological systems (blood clotting, immunity, intraflagellar transport etc) and demonstrated that THEY ARE too complicated to have self assembled without a designer.
I'll stop there, for now.”No, no, no. Don’t censor yourself. Don’t be shy!
I am willing to listen to you.
Where can I read these papers that Michael Behe produced that demonstrated to the scientific world his claims?
It sounds so fascinating and …well…sciencey.
Why didn’t he produce any of this stuff at the Dover trial?
Or if he did, what was the result. Please give details.
Let me help you out with that.
(giggle)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony
So, how about it?
Shall we discuss ID on this here ID blog or...do you want to avoid the subject altogether?
Hmm?
Nameless and Cedric.
I have pointed to several books which contain the facts and arguments set out in detail. You could read them if you like, or not, but name calling and sarcasm isn't going to provoke me into returning to an interminable discussion.
re the specific accusations of lying
'schoolboy ranting' The 'who made God?' quip counts as such. It is basically a denial of the possibility of an uncreated first cause as an a priori argument, a poor argument since Dawkins evidently believes in an uncreated first cause-the cosmos or whatever preceded it. As I have written elsewhere, its still up, he accuses others of relying on mantras while doing the same himself
'lack of objectivity'-complete denial of the evidence based health benefits of faith (see McGrath's book for this, I am not going to copy it out for you). Also, he majors on the loathesome Fred Phelps whose Westborough baptist church has fewer than 80 members, while ignoring the vastly more numerous mainstream Christians whose lives are given to charity. This amounts to loss of objectivity. McGrath documents this bias with many more examples, again I am not going to copy them out I have referred to a source of information for those who would like to check it out.
If you want to call me names, fine, Jesus said His followers could expect that and worse. Behe's arguments as set out in his books stand regardless of whether he was mugged in a hostile court.
To the host-sorry these trolls stalked me here, I'll push off.
PS Anomymous (assuming its the same one, namelessness is so tedious' finally, the question was not whether you and I agreed, but whether I had posted a lie on this blog.
You have cited disagreements but have in no way demonstrated that I lied. Therefore you are a person who falsely acuses opponents in a discussion of lying, either as a deliberate tactic or because you don't know the difference.
This is no surprise in an admirer (as I suppose you are) of Dawkins, who says that allowing evolution to be questioned in school is 'tantamount to child abuse.'
May 10th, 2009
I have pointed to several books which contain the facts and arguments set out in detail.Gee, thanks. That's very (um) 'limp' of you.
Maybe you should read those books yourself and then learn how to make a coherent argument? That's what an educated person should be able to do.
This, however, seems to be beyond you.
"Read these books" is a piss-poor reply. You should know better.
Behe's arguments as set out in his books...Books? Wha...?
No, that won't do.
Science doesn't care about any crappy coffee table books.
Any crack-pot can publish any kind of "book" they like. Crack-pots usually do. In fact, that's a very popular way for crack-pots to con cash out of the gullible.
Peer reviewed research however...
Well, there is none.
Behe is work-shy. He has done nothing since publishing "Darwin's Black Box".
Bugger all in fact.
Not one single experiment with the label "ID" on it.
He has yet to dirty a single solitary test tube working on ID.
Same goes for every single "ID scientist" for over twenty years.
No scientific definition of ID.
No field research.
No experiments.
Not even any PROPOSED experiments.
Just philosophical waffle.
Endless waffle and excuses.
.....and solicitations for more money.
ID is a fraud. Pure and simple.
It's not a scientific theory.
...stand regardless of whether he was mugged in a hostile court.Tut, tut, tut.
Sour grapes.
Behe got his ass handed to him.
He lost.
Pure and simple. The world saw it.
The ID movement had an opportunity to present their case under oath.
They had plenty of time to gather their best minds and evidence and present their case with legal counsel that they had full confidence in.
They were evicerated. Totalled.
Trashed. Thrashed. Sent behind the wood-shed and given six of the best.
They lost. Very publically.
They lost so badly that they didn't even have the heart to appeal.
After Behe gave his laughable testimony, he didn't say anything about being "mugged". In fact, he didn't have a word of complaint.
He was very upbeat about it.
He even BRAGGED about how effective his testimony was and how much "fun" it had been.
Thank you, Michale BeheThe court was not "hostile".
As a matter of fact, the ID crowd was very please with the choice of judge...BEFORE he gave his verdict.
(giggle)
Here's what DaveSot (Chief Moderater at the main pro-ID site "Uncommondescent") had to say...
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/life-after-dover/
The ID crowd was rubbing it's collective hands in glee at their expected victory. Nobody on their side said anything about it being a "hostile" court.
You are just a bitter, sore loser.
ID stinks because it's just scientific fraud.
You don't have "lot's of biology and maths on your side".
It takes WORK to produce biology.
It takes WORK to produce maths.
Biology and maths do not support ID.
Your claims to the contrary are ignorant, lying babble.
Shame on you.
ID proponents are ultimately lazy.
It's all talk, talk and more talk.
If you want to call me names, fine, Jesus said His followers could expect that and worse.You are promoting a fraud.
Therefore...you're a fraudster.
Or perhaps a grade-A class dupe.
It's not about "calling you names".
It's about calling a spade a spade.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan
Cedric
I have been arguimng with people like you for around 4 years. I posted a page on my web site about the various strategies you use to try to annoy, distract and befuddle people. Your last reply as well as being (predictably) abusive contains several gross errors of fact which I don't choose to spend much time correcting.
For example, where you say that Behe has done nothing since 'Darwin's black box' this is not just an error of fact, but a particularly inept one since I have cited his more recent book 'The Edge of Evolution'. An error as crass as this on your part invalidates anything else you have to say. You also accuse me of not having read books which I have cited, although I clearly state that I have read them. So you too are fond of calling people liars just for fun.
I have mentioned the 'peer review' jibe elsewhere. Look into the Sternberg case and find out what happens to editors who allow peer reviewed material critical of Darwin to be published.
I have given my reasons elsewhere for declining to be drawn into a bad tempered never ending game of claim and counterclaim concerning evidence against Darwinian evolution which I have already posted and/or linked to, but for the benefit of anyone passing through, I respond to Cedric’s challenge to produce a paper with some mathematic modelling of the intelligent design hypothesis as follows. Cedric has established his bona fides as a true believer in the Darwin mythos, whoi like darwin rules out evidence he doesn't like on spurious grounds. I seem to recall that Origin of Species was,,er,,a BOOK.
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html Professor Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. has posted a paper with detailed calculations showing why it is safe to assume that life cannot spontaneously generate itself. The figures are staggering.
Dr Vij Sodera in his book ‘one small speck to man-the evolution myth’ produces several pages of calculations, notably in the DNA and proteins chapter, showing that even with the most favourable possible assumptions, there has not been time (allowing for a 20 billion year old universe, oodles of concentrated ‘primal soup’ etc) for even a dingle molecule of a rather small protein to have assembled itself.
I refer again to Cornell university geneticist John Sanford’s book ‘Genetic entropy-The Mystery of the genome’ in which he shows with comprehensive evidence and citing Darwinian geneticists that not only can the genome not have created itself, but it is not even maintaining itself. Sanford argues that since intelligent design and natural selection acting on random mutations are opposites, evidence against the ‘null hypothesis’ of natural selection acting on random mutations is shown to fail, this constitutes evidence for the opposite hypothesis of intelligent design.
And I refer again unashamedly to Michael Behe’s book ‘Edge of Evolution’ in which he showcases the limits of what the unaided Darwinian mechanism can do, and establishes that the answer is ‘not very much at all’. This is all supporting evidence for ID.
On Behe, I continue to marvel that Darwinists think that any ruling made by any judge can affect the truth or otherwise of a fact based argument in a book. But if people find that kind of diversionary strategy works for them, hey-what can I do about it?
It is up to believers in spontaneous generation to show why Louis Pasteur, who DID use test tubes, was wrong. The directly observable evidence is on the side of life only coming from life.
It is also up to those who believe that random DNA mutations lead to an increase in useful, constructive DNA code information, when the direct, repeatable evidence goes the other way.
Call me any name you like, twist logic however you like, deny any evience you don't like-its not my responsibility.
I have been arguimng with people like you for around 4 years.Keep trying. Nobody can lose forever. Maybe you'll get lucky one day.
For example, where you say that Behe has done nothing since 'Darwin's black box' this is not just an error of fact, but a particularly inept one since I have cited his more recent book 'The Edge of Evolution'.Yes, he produced...a book.
Any nutjob can produce...a book.
Where's his...work?
As in his peer-reviewed scientific work presented in the scientific arena with the label "ID" on it.
There is none.
Producing a coffee table book to garner royalties from gullible fools such as yourself means absolutely nothing.
You also accuse me of not having read books which I have cited, although I clearly state that I have read them.Then where is your evidence in support of a coherent argument?
So far, all you have to offer are...excuses.
Lame excuses.
I have mentioned the 'peer review' jibe elsewhere. Look into the Sternberg case and find out what happens to editors who allow peer reviewed material critical of Darwin to be published.(stunned silence)
Are you daft?
That's your best shot?
Sternberg????
Ye Gods, that's dumb.
Sternberg was an embarrassment.
His case is well-recorded.
See here...I have given my reasons elsewhere for declining to be drawn into a bad tempered never ending game of claim and counterclaim concerning evidence against Darwinian evolution...No. No. No.
I dont' give a rat's arse about your delusional strawman arguments on modern biology. Your ignorance of the theory of evolution is strictly YOUR PROBLEM!
I want to talk about the "theory" (cough, splutter) of Intelligent Design. You seem to be very coy about it.
I didn't mention "Darwinian evolution" or whatever. I mentioned ID, savvy? This blog is dedicated to ID, comprende?
So let's start talking about...ID.
I seem to recall that Origin of Species was,,er,,a BOOK.Yes.
So?
It was published 150 years ago. The way science is presented in the scientific arena has changed a little since then.
It's called peer-review.
Here's why it's important.Crack-pots ALWAYS make excuses why they avoid the process of peer-review like the plague. Dembski, Behe et al. fit this mold perfectly.
Professor Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. has posted a paper with detailed calculations showing why it is safe to assume that life cannot spontaneously generate itself.Three questions for you.
1) Is the "paper" a peer-reviewed paper? If so, which scientific journal published it?
2) Did you notice that the "paper" doesn't mention ID at all?
3) Did you know that Chadwick believes that the Earth is 6000 years old? Do you really think it's a good idea to be getting science from a nutter like him?
Dr Vij Sodera in his book...Book? His "book"? Did you say..."book" again?
(giggle)
Let's talk about real science.
Where's the peer reviewed papers.
Where's the work?
I refer again to Cornell university geneticist John Sanford’s book...Book? Book?? Did you say "Book"???
Absolutely ANYBODY can say ANYTHING in a...book.
Even the nutters.
Where's the peer-review?
Where's the actual work?
Why doesn't anybody get off their bum and do an experiment or something?
And I refer again unashamedly to Michael Behe’s book ‘Edge of Evolution’Ah, that word again.
Book.
Yet, where's the work, Dissenter?
in which he showcases the limits of what the unaided Darwinian mechanism can do, and establishes that the answer is ‘not very much at all’. This is all supporting evidence for ID.Total pigswill.
This is a truely dumb thing to say.
Trying to poke holes in one theory does not magically create evidence for some other theory.
Scientists NEVER do this.
Here's why...
Fallacy of ID and creationism-False Dichotomy [Reloaded]
On Behe, I continue to marvel that Darwinists think that any ruling made by any judge...Behe and his ship of fools had all the time in the world to present their evidence.
They could have presented any biology or maths that they wanted.
Under Oath.
They failed to impress anybody.
Since that time, they have done nothing.
Four years have passed.
Behe has done NOTHING with ID.
There are no experiments forthcoming.
There is no research.
There is only waffle and hand-waving.
"ID scientists" are the laziest people on the planet.
Plenty of time to write books, of course.
(giggle)
Call me any name you like...Ok.
You're ignorant.
It is not mere personal incredulity to say this, there is a lot of biology and maths…”So far, you have produced exactly ZERO "biology and maths".
You are just a hand-waving blowhard.
You have no science.
You can cite no WORK!
No Disaster.
You have been told on your own blog and on other websites that you are wrong about certain things. You continue to print things which you know are wrong.
That is dishonest Steven.
"'schoolboy ranting' " Tell us Steven the answer to this question. You cannot other than to hide behind a faux shield of knowledge. Which is so transparent it’s pathetic. Considering your subsequent posts, I think we can see who is ranting like a child with a soiled nappy.
"lack of objectivity'" You caricature of Dawkins is dishonest and inaccurate. He specifically talks about morality. He demolishes McGrath.
One assumes you have overlooked the judgement, pain, abuse, bullying, sexual molestation, torture, murder, wars etc caused by your charitable chums.
Given that charity finds its home in any belief system, that kind of suggests it has little to do with ravings of an idiot delusional Jew two thousand years ago.
I am an admirer of Dawkins; if one compares his website with your blog .........well it is like comparing a gentleman with a turd.
Oh and you may like to observe the dishonesty and lies of your fellow ID'ers in the Dover case.
Judge Jones can see who was lying and dishonest. Can you?
Oh and Cedric he has been arguing for four years and people have been laughing at him for the same length of time.
I think Steven does think the world is only 6000 years old by the way.
Dontcha Stevie?
I think Steven does think the world is only 6000 years old by the way.Dissenter(Steve), is this true?
Do you actually believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old?
If so, then you have bigger problems than just rejecting the whole of modern biology.
You reject all of the physical sciences too.
Not good. Not good at all.
:(
Evolution vs. Creationism: The Age of the Earth
So Stevie is now a Coward as well as a purveyor of falsehoods.
Yep his blog has started again, but without comments!
14th May, 2009
Yep his blog has started again, but without comments!Wow.
The mouse squeaked and ran back to his hole and then...turned it into an echo chamber. Somebody has issues.
(Insert image of rolling eyes here)
What is it with ID supporters and echo-chambers?
Has anybody else noticed?
ARN-Echo chamber.
Telic Thoughts-Echo chamber.
Overwhelming Evidence-Very, very dead Echo chamber.
Australian ID Network-Echo Chamber.
And of course, the Echo Chamber of Echo Chambers....UncommonDescent.
UncommonDescent is one of the last ID web-sites around. It was supposed to be a "flagship" site of sorts for the ID movement but...the rest of the ID "navy" never materialized. Instead, the ID movement floundered on the treacherous reefs of reality.
Regular commenters there are an ever dwindling bunch of sad people who have no life. However, there are the...sockpuppets. Spotting a sock-puppet that's only pretending to be wacky from the bona-fine nutters is wonderful fun.
Sockpuppet action at UD"Vincent Edward St. Francis: Deep Cover Sockpuppet" is also another hilarious one but the link is down at the moment.
;)
- Calendar/ planner with SMS
- E-mail 20GB
- Business cards
- Greeting cards
- Free games
- Translator in 45 languages
http://www.multiboss.co.uk
I read the book, too and found it very good.
The thing that is really funny about Steven the 'dissenter' is that in almost every post he gets basic science wrong, which kinda reveals alot about the 'Intelligent Design Community'.
Once again the genetics of skn cancer gets the steven treatment in his latest post.
It's a shame he is such a coward that he cannot debate on his own paltry blog.
I wouldn't worry about whether or not God 'evolved.' He is not made of stuff, end of.
I wouldn't worry about "Disaster has now turned to telling lies" either. Whenever folk turn that way, it's becoz they have no argument.
Cedric Katesby
You said, "Behe's arguments..in his books..Books? Science doesn't care about .. books.Any crack-pot can publish any kind of "book" they like."
Like "On the Origin of Species.." perhaps? Would Behe's same arguments be more perusasive if they were in a Journal?
12/Aug/2009
Like "On the Origin of Species.." perhaps? Would Behe's same arguments be more perusasive if they were in a Journal?
There's this thing.
It's called "peer-review".
It's very popular nowadays with the scientific community.
It's not a fancy buzz-word. It's not some empty phrase that scientists made up just to confuse and exclude people like some secret club handshake.
The process of peer-review is important.
Do a google search.
Find out a little bit more about it.
While you are doing that, check out the date of when "On the Origin of Species" was written.
Notice anything?
Yeah?
No?
(sigh)
Ok, I'll spell it out for you carefully.
This book (that you have probably never read in your life) is...kinda old.
The way scientific literature is presented to other scientists has changed in the last century and a half. DUH!
You (sadly) have no idea how or why.
Once again, find out how the process of scientific peer-review works and why it's so important.
Enlighten yourself.
Behe is an nutter.
He used to be a scientist.
Now, he's just a creationist loon that shills for the vapourware known as "Intelligent design".
His collegues at Lehigh University want nothing to do with him. Behe's arguments are so bad that he can't even pursuade his fellow co-workers and friends in the Uni cafeteria.
Behe cannot and will not enter the scientific arena with his arguments. His position on ID is funtionally useless, scientifically speaking.
It's all sizzle and no steak.
He cannot give a scientific definition of ID.
He cannot dirty a single test-tube in an ID experiment.
He does no work.
Nothing.
Stuff all.
You are more likely to find peer-reviewed research on alien abductions than Intelligent Design.
Intelligent design is a joke.
Cedric Katesby
Indeed peer-review is very popular THESE DAYS. Popularity however is not a truth measure (except in politics). Einstein (I think) said if his ideas are wrong, he doesn’t need 200 people to point this out. 1 good one will do.
On subsequent revisions of Darwin’s “On the Origins...” without being factious, is your point that its truth has evolved? That would sure give truth a new meaning. But the fact remains it’s still a BOOK.
The rest of you post is a little hard to follow. I have to wade through hyperbola & jibes to extract points some of which, of course, could be valuable. Never mind. As I understand it, you say Behe’s “position is funtionally useless on ID.” OK, let’s say you are right. Is your focus Behe or is it ID? It sounds like you really don’t like the man at all. Otherwise you wouldn’t get so personal.
I’m afraid pointing me to “ID peer-reviewed research on alien abductions” does nothing to the truth or falsity of ID in biology The latter has obviously riled you. That may explain you falling prey to the fallacy of poisoning the well.
12/ August/ 2009
Indeed peer-review is very popular THESE DAYS. Popularity however is not a truth measure...
No, you don't get it.
You don't understand WHY the process of peer-review is important.
It's not a popularity poll.
Honest.
Educate yourself.
Einstein (I think) said blah, blah, blah...
Please don't embarrass yourself by invoking a dead scientist that you know nothing about.
Keep you posts on topic.
On subsequent revisions of Darwin’s “On the Origins...” without being factious, is your point that its truth has evolved?
Nope. That's not my point.
(Hint:Google "scientific peer-review")
Screw it. You are too lazy to do such a simple thing.
I'll just spoon-feed you the information. Here you go. Learn. The nice man speaks slowly and uses simple words.
The rest of you post is a little hard to follow.
No it isn't. You are just being dense. Grow up. Get a life.
As I understand it, you say Behe’s “position is funtionally useless on ID.” OK, let’s say you are right.
I am right and you know it.
You have nothing to counter my statement.
You have no choice but to let it stand. Deal with it.
Behe does no work.
Look for yourself.
The cupboard is bare.
The lights are on but there's nobody home.
The same goes for every other "ID scientist". No exceptions.
Is your focus Behe or is it ID?
I am comfortable with either topic.
They are intimately related.
It sounds like you really don’t like the man at all.
True. I do not like frauds and intellectually lazy people.
Behe richly qualifies as both.
He needs to get off his lazy butt and do some work.
I’m afraid pointing me to “ID peer-reviewed research on alien abductions” does nothing to the truth or falsity of ID in biology.
ID is a fraud.
It's not a science.
It's hokum, pure and simple.
There is no work.
There is no research.
No peer-reviewed literature.
There's not even a scientific definition of what ID is!
It's a pseudo-science, exactly like alien abductions.
Caderic Katesby
I’ll ignore rudeness. I’m not debating side issues e.g. peer-review. Call ID non-science all day, who cares? Is it true is what matters; I conclude it is true & here’s why.
(1) Life has codes & messages.
(2) All codes whose DE NOVO origin is KNOWN are traceable to intelligence.
(3) No natural process / law has ever been OBSERVED to ORIGINATE codes. Many e.g. natural selection, are PRESUMED to.
(4) Code choice is a conscious MENTAL process operating on but not based on natural laws.
(5) To clarify (4), ANY physical formation can be a code if a MIND so chooses.
(6) Messaging is a also a mental process.
Feel free to disagree with any or ALL the above. I may be wrong but this should be based on logic or empirical evidence, nothing else.
13/August/2009
I’m not debating side issues e.g. peer-review.
That's not what you said before.
:)
In your first post to me, you were full of piss and vinegar as you launched into your discussion with your silly references to "On the origin of species" and arguments being published in scientific journals.
Remember?
I do.
I even had to explain to you that peer-review was not a popularity poll.
Now that you've realised that you were hopelessly out of your depth talking about scientific literature, you want to drop it like a hot potato and call it a "side issue".
Oh dear.
:)
Let me make it clear to you.
Find out what peer-review means.
Before you can have a discussion with adults about science, you really need to understand how the peer-review system works.
Otherwise, you will fall victim to the next fanciful pseudo-science mumbo jumbo that comes along.
Look at what the ID movement has done in the way of hard work.
Take a good hard look.
You will find nothing.
It's an empty shell.
Call ID non-science all day, who cares?
You do!
IN YOUR VERY FIRST POST, you yourself make reference to Darwin and scientific journals and Behe and later you even try to invoke Einstien. You come here and try and talk all sciency but now you are forced to do some sadly desperate back-pedalling.
It's embarrassing to watch.
Do you seriously want to talk about the truth or falsity of ID in biology?
Well?
Think about it. Make up your mind.
Do you honestly value...logic or empirical evidence, nothing else?
Honestly?
Or were they just pretty words coming from you to make you sound good?
Are you here to troll and rehearse your own preconceptions or are you here for a solid no-nonsense discussion on ID?
If you want to engage seriously, then I'm up for it.
I've got plenty of resources at my disposal and I am prepared to carefully explain and support my position.
How about you? Are you game? Or are you going to be like all the other clueless mouth-breathers that have been here but are now long gone?
Caderic Katesby
I know what peer-review is & its limitations. By all means trumpet it as you please but I’m not going down cul de sacs. I apologise unreservedly for reminding you Darwin published in a book as did Behe that’s all. What’s source for the goose..
“The ID Movement” isn't ID. Maybe they are as lazy as you allege but truth isn't judged by its proponents' behaviour.
“Do you seriously want to talk about the truth or falsity of ID in biology? Do you honestly value...logic or empirical evidence, nothing else?”
...Now that gave me a chuckle; I thought it'd be followed by logic etc. Where is it? It can’t be this:... “here to troll and rehearse your own preconceptions” or “a clueless mouth-breather.” Surely not, you’re better than that.
Funnily enough you haven’t addressed a single point that I've made but I’m sure you will.
I know what peer-review is & its limitations.
It's...limitations? That's all you are comfortable focusing on?
(shakes head sadly)
How about it's importance in the scientific world?
Why is the process of peer-review now part and parcel of the scientific literature?
Do you understand that things have changed since Darwin's day?
Do you understand why?
Do you understand that any crackpot can write a book that sounds all sciencey to bamboozle a scientifically illiterate public?
If you want to understand the difference between science and pseudo-science then demanding to see the peer-reviewed literature is a necessary but not sufficient step in weeding out the crap.
Maybe they are as lazy as you allege...
Don't just take my word for it.
:(
Maybe I'm trying to fool you.
Aren't you even just a little bit curious for your own sake?
Read the links I've given you.
Double-check the information.
You really should. Trust but verify.
If you've read any of Behe's claims, don't you want to know if he is a fraud or not?
The proponents of ID claim to be doing science. For the last twenty years, they have been pushing a public relations campaign telling anybody who will listen that ID is a scientific theory that should be given time in the science classrooms.
They dress it all up in sciency sounding words and drag out the same old faces with some kind of education to "prove" that's it's real.
It's a fraud.
There's no work going on.
Funnily enough you haven’t addressed a single point that I've made but I’m sure you will.
So far, there's nothing to comment on.
You have yet to tell me about what you mean by ID.
I don't need your inner journey of discovery on how you came to "conclude that it's true" or something.
If we are going to have a discussion on ID then tell me exactly what you mean when you say "ID".
What is it?
Give me a definition.
Is Intelligent Design a scientific theory?
Caderic Katesby
Apart from:
(1) Peer-review adulation (& peer-review is a process, not a fact of nature. ID makes claims about nature – that’s the issue)
(2) A litany of complaints about ID personnel especially Behe
(3) Endless charges of pseudo-science, alien abduction etc
(4) Complaints about ID based on personal opinion & a crusade to “tell anybody who will listen that ID is a scientific theory that should be given time in the science classrooms.”
Have you got any logical or empirical reasons from which you conclude there is no deign in nature?
I gave you at least six reasons why design exists in nature. Deal with them. Whinging, whining, heckling are not forms of reasoning.
15/August/2009
Peer-review adulation...
So if somebody pays attention the peer-reviewed scientific literature it's...adulation?
Huh? Since when?
Would the reason you seem to be so keen on denigrating and ignoring the process of peer-review is because ID proponents...don't have any peer-reviewed work?
Do you acknowledge that all crackpots and peddlers of pseudo-science invariably fail the first hurdle of scientific scrutiny that is peer-review?
Instead of doing work, the crack-pots offer excuses or simply ignore the process of peer-review completely. They eagerly publish coffee table books and pocket the cash. The experiments and scientific work, however, never get done. Over twenty years of...nothing.
Over twenty years of milking the faithful of their money and political support.
Playing the Christians for suckers.
ID makes claims about nature – that’s the issue.
What do you mean when you say "ID".
Is it just an empty buzzword or can you define it properly?
Is ID a scientific theory?
Endless charges of pseudo-science...
Is there a difference between science and pseudo-science?
Is there a way for people to defend themselves from liars pretending to be real scientists?
Do you admit that crack-pottery regularly fails the process of peer-review? Sure, the process is not perfect (nothing man-made is) but it's worked very well so far.
Can you not see that the "science" of ID matches perfectly with all other pseudo-sciences out there?
Complaints about ID based on personal opinion...
Not true. It's not my personal opinion. Everything I have said about Behe and ID is easily verifiable.
I told you that Behe has done nothing with ID. Are you willing to double-check or do you just want to blindly believe me? Go ahead. Do some research for yourself.
You won't find anything new.
There's bugger all.
I've told you that ID is just vapourware. ID is not a scientific theory. There are no experiments. There is no "paradigm shift".
THERE'S NO DAMN WORK!
This is fact. Not just opinion.
Nothing stops you from doing your own research and digging up some "ID science". If it really is there, then present it.
I am telling you that you have been decieved.
ID is a fraud. ID is not science.
Do you have any idea where ID is originally from? Have you ever bothered to look at it's history?
I gave you at least six reasons why design exists in nature.
You gave me a meandering list of vague, poorly explained assertions that you seem to have made up on the spur of the moment without reference to any scientific literature.
From this list, you somehow conclude that ID is "true".
I have no idea why.
Support your conclusion.
Please.
I am ready to listen.
First order of business...
What do you mean when you say "ID"?
Is ID a scientific theory?
Caderic Katesby
Read my lips - Some ID people DO NOT have peer-reviewed work. Now can we get on with what ID, whatever the conduct of its practitioners, actually says?
“What do you mean when you say ID?”
....Given your strong opinions I assumed you knew what you had strong opinions of. Anyway – I.D. asserts that:
(A)Some parts of nature are better explained as results of intelligent cause.
(B)It's possible to empirically tell apart intelligent products from unguided natural processes.
“Is it a scientific theory?”
Here is how it is:
(1)Insurers separate natural causes (accidental fire) from intelligent ones (arson).
(2)S.E.T.I. separates natural radio signals from intelligent ones (E.T.).
(3)Discovery Institute separates natural causes in e.g. in biology from purely natural ones.
QUESTIONS: Does Direct Line do science or pseudoscience? Does S.E.T.I. do pseudoscience or alien abductions? Does Disc Institute do science?
ANSWER: Who cares? Frankly, I don’t. Those wishing to box things are free to argue the toss. I just want the truth what ever box it's from.
“Do you have any idea where ID is originally from?”
....‘Originally’ is hard to say. Idea of intelligence in nature traces from Greek Philosophy, Francis Crick (Panspermia), Bradley Thaxton (1984), Disc. Institute (1994) thru to Richard Dawkins (life’s designed by aliens, 2008).
“Support your conclusion”
.....Which part of
2) "All codes whose DE NOVO origin is KNOWN are traceable to intelligence.
(3) No natural process / law has ever been OBSERVED to ORIGINATE codes."
did you not understand? Whether Behe, Dawkins, Gordon Brown said it or I made it up is totally irrelevant. Are you going to deal with or are you going to continue whingeing & whining? I hope are alright, you seem really upset about something.
Some ID people DO NOT have peer-reviewed work.
Totally wrong.
There's no "some" about it.
There is no ID peer-reviewed work available.
None.
Not some.
There's none at all.
Nada.
Zip.
Not a sausage.
Given your strong opinions I assumed you knew what you had strong opinions of.
Certainly.
Yet for all I know, you may may have a totally different version of ID than the one touted by the Discovery Institute.
I want to know exactly what YOU mean when you use ID.
No point in me attacking a strawman, is there?
(A)Some parts of nature are better explained as results of intelligent cause.
Ok. How?
Can you give an example or two?
(B)It's possible to empirically tell apart intelligent products from unguided natural processes.
Ok. How?
Please give an example or two.
Break it down.
Is Intelligent Design a scientific theory?
Yes or no?
Who cares? Frankly, I don’t. Those wishing to box things are free to argue the toss. I just want the truth what ever box it's from.
So if somebody claims to be doing ID science and they are not, you're fine with that?
If somebody claims to have emperical evidence for ID but they really don't have anything but lies, you will still accept it as "truth"?
How do you go about telling if somebody is lying to you?
Do you care about that?
Hmm?
Or do you think that accepting lies wholesale is a good way to discover "the truth"?
Is there a way, some mysterious way, for you to find out if the Discovery Institute is lying to you by claiming that it is doing science?
Or are you totally helpless?
Is there a very simple way to find out if Intelligent Design is a scientific theory or not?
Or must we just shrug our colllective shoulders and say "Dunno"?
On ID itself, all I have from you is vague hand-waving.
What exactly is ID?
Can you give just a little more detail. A defintion, perhaps?
Something that a scientist could potentially take to the lab and get cracking on some work.
Is it a scientific theory?
Caderic Katesby
ID is a search for intelligently caused effects e.g. S.E.T.I.
“How (differentiate intelligent from non-intelligent causes)? Can you give an example or two?”
...Look for effects that can only be produced by intelligence e.g. language.
ID is a search for intelligently caused effects e.g. S.E.T.I.
Wow. Such economy with words.
You claim that ID is a "search".
That's...nice.
Care to expand a little on that?
How exactly is this search conducted?
What is the methodology?
Explain this a little.
Imagine that you have a friend who is a scientist who will take your instructions and follow them faithfully.
Scientist guy has a lab.
Scientist guy wants to do some research.
Scientist guy has plenty of time and money.
Scientist is willing to search for ID because as you have so carefully explained...ID is a "search".
(...scratches head thoughtfully...)
OK. How?
You value empiricism, right?
That's top dog in your book, right?
So...how is it possible to empirically tell apart intelligent products from unguided natural processes.?
Please give a few examples.
Break it down for me.
How is it empirically possible to look for effects that can only be produced by intelligence e.g. language.?
Please give a few examples.
Pretty please.
Share a few details.
Before you answer, find out what empiricism is.
:)
It also might pay for you to understand the intimate connection between empiricism and...a scientific theory.
...empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.
Just in case you still don't get it, here's a video on scientists and empiricism and knowledge and ID and all that good stuff.
Learn.
Didn't get it? Ok, here's another one.
Caderic Katesby
Yes ID is a search; it is not only a search and you know it. There isn’t a singular method of ID neither is there a singular one of investigating anything else, you know this too. ID uses natural data as everyone else but doesn’t arbitrarily rule out intelligence causes a priori.
I am not going to click on any of those websites. If there’s something you feel can inform this discussion in them I’m sure you can summarise it. I’m not a fan of logic by citation. In my experience one ends up with nothing but citation chaff.
I am also not going to waste time finding out what empiricism is or “what a scientific theory is.” I’m not playing games.
Now I have already given you examples, e.g. the language in DNA, of how one can infer to an intelligent cause. If you choose to ignore that then it is up to you. Again, DNA is a language; there are NO languages without intelligence cause.
Yes ID is a search; it is not only a search and you know it
Nope, I don't know.
Honest.
You have explained bugger all.
You describe it only as a "search".
You said..."ID is a search for intelligently caused effects e.g. S.E.T.I."
Not much to go on really. What is an "intelligently caused effect"?
Care to define that wierd phrase scientifically?
Or is that another way of saying "ID"?
That would be fun.
That would complete the circle.
ID is the search for...ID.
Hmmm.
:)
There isn’t a singular method of ID neither is there a singular one of investigating anything else, you know this too.
Not according to you.
From you, there is no evidence that there is ANY method of ID; multiple or singular!
Describe one. Lash out at actually describe one. Your favourite one.
Choose the easiest and the best method and describe it.
Your friendly scientist is waiting.
I am not going to click on any of those websites.
One's just the wikipedia definition of empiricism. The other two are just a couple of short videos. Don't be afraid.
I am also not going to waste time finding out what empiricism is or “what a scientific theory is.”
Oh dear. Pearl clutching.
For someone who is a stickler for empiricism, you don't seem to demand any of it from ID.
(shrug)
Now I have already given you examples, e.g. the language in DNA, of how one can infer to an intelligent cause.
DNA? This is good example of how "ID science" works?
Wonderful. Yay.
Let's get to it!
As it happens, our friendly neigbourhood scientist is a world class geneticist and has done a lot of work on the Human Genome Project.
He knows an awful lot about DNA.
He has access to a lab.
He has money and time.
He wants to investigate this new ID thingy that all the kids are talking about nowadays.
He's a close personal friend of yours.
He's willing to follow your instructions to the letter.
So...how exactly can he do an experiment or something?
What actual work can he do?
How can he pro-actively start this "search"?
How?
Give details.
Spell it out.
:)
Caderic Katesby
There are no experiments for ID & experiments for non-ID. There are experiments.
Like I said, DNA is a language & NO natural process produces language. When you refute this either empirically or logically, we can re-examine the conclusion it was intelligently produced.
The rest e.g. definitions is politicking. It’s not as if there is ‘natural’ definition of science. Explain (to self or others) why we must not think DNA-language requires intelligent causation. Otherwise, also conclude intelligence.
Will you please say something about ID that a science-literate person would recognise?
I have no idea why you want to play these word games.
You describe ID as a "search".
"ID is a search for intelligently caused effects e.g. S.E.T.I."
That's how YOU chose to explain it.
Nobody made you.
I did not hold a gun to your head.
I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. Yet I'm trying to work with what you give me.
Later you get all huffy and say...
...it is not only a search and you know it.
No I don't. Seriously.
You have given me no other information on the definition of ID. Nothing.
I can't read your mind.
The only thing I can do is try and wheedle information from you, one painful, tediously slow step at a time.
If ID is not defined as a search...then give me more information. Please.
Pretty ,pretty, please.
If ID is only partly a search, then please explain at least the "search" part of ID. How do you do this "search"?
What's the methodology?
You wake up in the morning.
You go the lab and you start your search....how?
Light up the bunsen burner?
Switch on the spectrometer?
Fart?
WHAT?????
What is ID?
I tried asking you if ID was a scientific theory.
That didn't work.
You just retorted with "I don't care".
(That tells me nothing about ID but it's a shameful reflection upon you. It's on par with "Not telling. So there. Nyah nyah!")
You could have said "No, it isn't"
That would have been sane and easy to understand.
You could have said "Yes, it is".
That would have made sense and would have lead to other sensible, routine questions about how the theory of ID works.
You seem obsessed with side-stepping every single question I ask you.
What are you trying to prove?
Any "politicking" that is going on here is strictly from your side of the conversation.
Asking you about "peer-review" is a normal scientific question.
It's not a trick question.
It's a normal, standard question.
Scientific definition of ID?
Basic stuff. Nothing spooky there.
Or at least, it should be. With you, however, it becomes this endless melodrama.
Scientific definition of ID?
Once again, not a trick question.
It's the kind of question that any high school science text-book will have.
It's got nothing to do with "politicking".
I ask for an example of how to differentiate intelligent from non-intelligent causes.
So you unhelpfully tell me to look for effects that can only be produced by intelligence e.g. language.
(Gee, thanks. Don't go out of your way or anything.)
Which of course means I am forced to ask you for an example of what that is supposed to mean.
Why are you doing this?
Can you please stop playing silly buggers?
Let's try again with your latest missive, shall we?
Can we have an honest answer from you?
(...dramatic pause...)
There are no experiments for ID & experiments for non-ID. There are experiments.
Great. Fine. Wonderful.
Get on with it already.
How does somebody, ANYBODY, conduct a search for ID using any sort of experiment you care to specifically mention?
Or (different wording) how does, somebody, ANYBODY conduct an ID search using any sort of experiment you care to specifically mention?
(crosses fingers)
Caderic Katesby
“How does somebody, ANYBODY, conduct a search for ID using any sort of experiment..?”
...S.E.T.I.'s been at it for decades: ‘S’ stands for search, ‘I’ for intelligence. What scientific problems have you got with their work?
“I ask for e.g. of how to differentiate intelligent from non-intelligent causes.”
....Again, S.E.T.I. Anyway we know languages only have intelligent causes. So we can look at existing data & apply principles used by Charles Lyell & Isaac Newton: – ‘We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.’–
As for DNA Watson, Crick & Rosalind + later workers did wonderful experiments. It’s clear from this DNA’s vera causa is intelligence. What is it you have problmes with: Watson's work or it's ID interpretation?
I’m not getting drawn further into micro-minutiae & rabbit trails of definitions.
...S.E.T.I.'s been at it for decades.
You horrid little liar.
S.E.T.I has been around long before the phrase "Intelligent Design" was ever muttered by some cretin at a schoolboard meeting.
No ID money has ever helped pay the electric bill at an observatory where S.E.T.I research is being conducted.
No "ID scientist" has ever lifted a finger conducting S.E.T.I research. No "ID scientist" has ever done "ID research" using the methods that S.E.T.I employs.
S.E.T.I does real work.
S.E.T.I has a...methodology.
S.E.T.I can happily answer the question "Is S.E.T.I a scientific theory or not?".
Scientific definition?
No problemo.
They can provide one in a heartbeat.
S.E.T.I. doesn't sit around all day and do nothing.
You have nothing.
So you take REAL WORKING SCIENTISTS and try and cling to their shirt-tails.
How deceitful. Shame on you.
Do your own bloody work.
S.E.T.I scientists think that ID is a joke and a fraud, just like the rest of the scientific community.
Have you ever actually read anything written by a S.E.T.I scientist commenting on ID?
(Anonymous shakes his head sheepishly. It never occured to him to do something so simple. The google seach remains a forbidden mystery to him.)
However, I have.
As for DNA Watson, Crick & Rosalind + later workers did wonderful experiments.
The same goes double for DNA research.
The scientific community has absolutely no problem with the field of genetics and DNA research in particular. It's all good.
Solid science.
Real people doing real research.
The old fashioned way.
Producing peer-reviewed papers and all that good stuff.
Winning Nobel Prizes.
Then a mouthbreather like you comes along, gets out his crayon and writes at the bottom...
...so dat means ID is troo!
Get a life, you loser.
I’m not getting drawn further into micro-minutiae & rabbit trails of definitions.
What do you mean, "further"?
You don't have a definition of ID worth pissing on.
You couldn't define ID if your life depended on it.
Caderic Katesby
As you rightly say, genetics is real science. Now would you care to explain how DNA got its coded information?
21/August/2009
As you rightly say, genetics is real science.
Oh please. Don't stop there.
You haven't addressed the other things that I rightly said but I'm sure you will.
Remember:
1) You are a horrid little liar.
2) Genetics and S.E.T.I are universally acknowleged as real science done by real scientists. There is not, never has been and never will be ANY connection with them and the pseudo-scientific handwaving known as "ID".
None.
3) S.E.T.I scientists and geneticists think that "Intelligent Design" is a fraud and a joke. Read what they say themselves. They spell it out nice and clear.
Very clear.
4) You don't have a definition of "Intelligent Design" worth pissing on.
Now would you care to explain how DNA got its coded information?
*Facepalm*
Crap. How do you get through life being this ignorant?
Take a good hard look at the question you asked me. Do you see any problem with it?
(Anonymous re-reads the question. It's looks O.K. to him. Just like that creationist web-site he got it from.)
Still can't figure it out?
(Beep)
Fail.
Try again. Think hard, Anonymous.
Put that brain of yours to good use for once.
Read the question again even if you have to move your lips at the same time.
Here's your question again:
Now would you care to explain how DNA got its coded information?
Notice anything wrong?
(A glimmer of understanding begins to slowly dawn.)
Congratulations! You've got it.
The question doesn't make any actual damn sense.
It's founded upon a false premise.
So how did this happen?
This is how.
I am also not going to waste time finding out what empiricism is or “what a scientific theory is.”
And later...
Definitions is politicking.
And still later...
I’m not getting drawn further into micro-minutiae & rabbit trails of definitions.
Your own words.
You don't know anything about science and (more importantly) you refuse to learn.
Finding out what "empiricism" means is a...waste of time.
Your words.
You are proud of your ignorance.
Finding out what a scientific theory is, is a...waste of time.
Your words.
That's sums you up well.
You are too lazy to get your facts straight about the meanings of words. A science dictionary is a stranger to you. Finding out the definitions of words is "going down rabbit holes" and "politiking".
Your words. How very sad.
As you are lazy and ignorant, you go off and say lazy and ignorant things.
This question of yours is a lazy and ignorant thing to say.
Now would you care to explain how DNA got its coded information?
You need to get rid of the false premise.
To do that, you need to discover what is DNA, as opposed to what you "think" is DNA.
You need an accurate scientific definition of DNA.
Plus you need to discover what is a code, as opposed to what you "think" is a code.
You need an accurate scientific definition of a code.
Don't just brush it off as "politiking".
Cracking open a book is not "politiking".
Do a google search.
Banishing profound ignorance is not "politiking".
I'd provide you with the information myself but, sadly, we both know that it would be a waste of time.
After all, you yourself said..."I am not going to click on any of those websites."
So go off and do some clicking for yourself.
I'll be here when you get back.
Learn.
Caderic Katesby
When you're done with complaints & appeals to ridicule just tell us how DNA got its info lest we think you don’t actually know. Either way, let’s hope you don’t stress too much, you seem really upset.
So in your own time, if you would please?
22/August/2009
...just tell us how DNA got its info lest we think you don’t actually know.
There is no "us" here, Anonymous.
It's just you and me.
Nobody visits this site any more.
"ID" is very much yesterday's news.
It's the "paradigm shift" that never was.
...how DNA got its info
Naughty, naughty.
You've changed the question.
I'm shocked.
:)
Don't fiddle with the wording.
Keep it as a monument to your ignorance.
Here's your original question:
Now would you care to explain how DNA got its coded information?
Remember now?
Did you want to re-word it perhaps?
:)
You can re-word it if you want but don't do it on the sly.
Don't just abandon your question like an unwanted ugly, half-wit child.
I'm watching you.
If you want to re-word it and ditch the false premise then do so but do it openly and honestly.
First, find out what is DNA.
Second, find out what is a code.
Now would you care to explain how DNA got its coded information?
So how about it, Anonymous?
Would you like to ditch the false premise in your question so that it makes sense?
The question is simple, straight forward & fundamental to THIS debate. If you don’t know this, you could not rationally here participate. In a sense a lot of your frustration is understandable but is no excuse.
Now it’s either you know the answer or you don’t. So far it’s looking like you don’t otherwise you’d have said. Not knowing the answer any question however simple can be remedied. But failure to understand questions is altogether different & very serious.
Decide for yourself where you are to be: (A) Forever closed giving yourself high fives for discovering the doctrine of evolution. (B) Consider if, like everything else, neo-Darwinian evolution could be incomplete if not actually wrong.
I have asked you a very simple question – stop playing games!
22/August/2009
I have asked you a very simple question – stop playing games!
I'm not the one playing games.
You are.
This discussion is supposed to be about Intelligent Design.
Not DNA.
Not the field of Genetics.
Intelligent Design.
This site is called "ID in the UK".
It's not called "DNA in the UK".
Why am I here?
I'm here because I want to talk about ID.
When do you think we can start?
How long do I have to wait for you to get your act into gear?
In you're last few posts, you have not mentioned ID once.
You've totally dropped it as a topic.
Suddenly, the subject of conversation becomes DNA.
(?????)
No good reason.
You just decided to switch gears.
:(
You have nothing interesting to say about ID.
ID is a non-topic.
You know it. I know it.
Everybody has figured it out too.
That's why nobody else is here.
Check out any other site devoted to ID. They are all heavily censored echo-chambers with a small, ever-decreasing number of aging creationists. They had their moment of fame. Now they are just a minor curiosity in the museum of pseudo-science and crackpottery.
No definition of ID.
No ID scientists.
No ID research.
No methodology.
No scientific theory of ID.
No peer-reviewed research of ID.
No work.
Not some work.
No work at all.
STUFF ALL.
Can you link DNA to ID in your argument?
Nope.
You avoid talking about ID because...there's nothing to talk about.
ID is an empty vessel.
The question is simple, straight forward & fundamental to THIS debate.
You mean this question?
Now would you care to explain how DNA got its coded information?
The question you tried to slyly re-word and hope I didn't notice?
This question?
Now would you care to explain how DNA got its coded information?
I'm not playing games.
You are.
How does talking about DNA save your bacon in this argument except to act as a smokescreen for your abject failure to explain ID?
If you want to talk about DNA in the context of a discussion on ID then do so...AFTER you've explained how DNA is even remotely connected to ID.
There is no connection.
There are brilliant people working on DNA.
People who have won Nobel Prizes in the field.
If they thought for a moment that DNA was evidence for Intelligent Design then it would be all over the news by now.
It would change everything.
Yet geneticists (the people who work with DNA all the time) think that Intelligent Design is a joke.
Do you have some secret information about DNA that Geneticists have not yet discovered?
Great. Share!
:)
Or...or are you just going to spout off an old creationist talking point that any respectable Geneticist would laugh at?
Caderic Katesby
Central to Intelligent Design is INFORMATION. DNA is the ultimate none man-made info; it has *everything* to do with ID.
If you can’t understand the significance of Info you do not, cannot & will not understand ID. That's why you keep veering off at targets & getting abusive. If showed my dog text, it won’t understand it & will just bark – sound familiar?
Now pick yourself up, dust yourself off & deal with ID. If you can’t explain origin of DNA info, explain origin of ANY semantic or functional or usable info of your choice in nature.
Get a grip on yourself & stop saying silly things like, “Geneticist would laugh at.” Laughter is not a scientific argument!!
Central to Intelligent Design is INFORMATION.
Excellent! You have just said something new about what you mean by the phrase "Intelligent Design".
Now we are getting somewhere.
Hurrah.
What do you mean by "information" in the context you are using it?
Why is this "information" central?
If it's so central, why did you keep it a secret until now?
Why not reveal the entire nature of ID at the beginning of this discussion?
Remember when you defined ID as "a search"?
Yes ID is a search; it is not only a search and you know it.
When you said that ID is not only a "search", were you refering to the central nature of information? Was that the "not only" part? Or is there still more?
If so, what?
If you can’t understand the significance of Info you do not, cannot & will not understand ID.
Oh but I agree.
I fully agree.
I don't understand ID.
Nor do I understand what you mean by "information" in the context of DNA.
Neither do you, judging by your unwillingness to explain ID.
I don't understand what DNA "information" has to do with "ID science".
Neither do you, judging by your unwillingness to explain ID.
Anybody unfortunate enough to pick through your rambling evasions will have next to nothing to go on.
Trying to understand what exactly is ID from your non-answers is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
Now pick yourself up, dust yourself off & deal with ID.
ID is a meaningless buzzword.
You have yet to define it.
I don't even know if you think it is a scientific theory or not!!
You have demonstrated no way to test for it.
What the hell is Intelligent Design?
Say something scientifically coherent about it.
Please.
Preferably before we all die of old age.
Remember: You have the awesome power of the Internet at your disposal.
Feel free to cut and paste the best scientific definition of ID that you can find.
Nobody is stopping you.
One that you think is crystal clear and that you completely agree with.
It's not like I'm not asking you to re-invent the wheel.
Get on with it.
Choose one.
Choose the very best one.
You can even tweek it to suit your own personal taste. That's only fair.
After all, for every two ID supporters, there seem to be three definitions of ID.
:)
Laughter is not a scientific argument!!
Yet geneticists do laugh at you.
Geneticists do indeed think that ID is a fraud.
The double-helix, molecular model of DNA has been around for almost 60 years.
Intelligent Design liars have been fraudulently claiming to be real science for over 20 years.
So....
Where are your legions of geneticists who believe that DNA is evidence for ID?
Where is your football stadium of geneticists who believe that DNA is evidence for ID?
Where is your bus queue of geneticists who believe that DNA is evidence for ID?
Where is your modest dinner party of geneticists who believe that DNA is evidence for ID?
(insert sound of crickets chirping here)
Geneticists and S.E.T.I scientists laugh at you because you do no science.
None at all.
It's all a fraud.
You never, ever get off your collective lazy backsides and do anything.
The only appropriate response by sane people is laughter.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan
Caderic Katesby
It’s easier to say what information is not! It’s neither matter nor energy but an entity unto itself. I don’t know any single catch all definition & there’re different kinds of info. Crudely speaking there are:
(1). Any odd info e.g. all objects will have info about themselves such as shape, colour, mass etc.
(2). Special or specific information e.g. in codes / languages
ID’s concerned only with the latter (2) as it’s a marker of intelligence. Many of its features are relevant to ID. Let’s start with one – “Symbolic representation of functional form prior to embodiment.” Achieving this feature requires an act of mind or intelligence. Matter & energy alone don’t have this capability. Here’s one reason why: Accurate representation of an as yet un-embodied form requires prior knowledge (a mental process) of that form or ability to conceptualise it (also a mental process). An in-principle example is any blue-print & an in-practice example is DNA which why I chose it.
Geneticists can laugh or cry; it makes no difference. We can call it science or pseudo-science; I don’t care. It’s true, that is what matters. Anything that shows symbolic representation that precedes embodiment of functional form must have (or HAS) been designed by a mind. Is this a dogged claim not amenable to refutation or disproof? Absolutely not. Should it be taught to anyone? That’s not a scientific call but a socio-political one – that’s why I don’t care for definitions or the social status of ID.
I’ve heard refutations that say DNA is not a code or blue-print! May be so but, come’on. What I'd view as rational rebuttal is demonstrating that unguided natural processes can produce the ‘special information.’
No barbs?
No taunts?
No bizzarely worded questions loaded with false premises?
You are actually trying to articulate your thoughts on ID?
Hmmmm.
Interesting.
You keep this up and this could turn into a fruitful discussion as opposed to the useless crap that has come before.
Geneticists can laugh or cry; it makes no difference.
This needs to stop.
You brought up genetics and DNA by yourself.
Not me.
You did.
I merely pointed out that the people who actually earn a living by doing research on DNA don't agree with your claims.
Same goes for S.E.T.I.
When you manipulate the reputation of legitimate scientists and real scientific work to bolster the credibility of a fraud like ID, you are promoting a lie.
That's rank dishonesty.
Pure and simple.
The truth is that geneticists and S.E.T.I scientists roundly reject ID.
If you care about the truth, then acknowledge it and...move on.
Please leave real science alone.
We can call it science or pseudo-science; I don’t care. It’s true, that is what matters.
I don't understand this mentality.
If you care about the truth, then why would you put artifical barriers about the truth?
Why do you refuse to look closely at ID?
If you care about the truth then you must openly and honestly investigate what is Intelligent Design.
Don't give it a free pass.
You are being lied to.
What I'd view as rational rebuttal is demonstrating that unguided natural processes can produce the ‘special information.
No.
Think about it.
Science doesn't work that way.
It can't.
1)If you are going to make a claim about Intelligent Design...then you need to define it.
Otherwise, you are fighting shadows and playing meaningless word games.
2)If you want to make a claim about Intelligent Design, then POSITIVE EVIDENCE must be presented FOR Intelligent Design.
All science follows this basic rule.
Chemisty, Biology, Geology etc.
No exceptions.
Effectively, you are saying...
"I choose to believe this, now prove me wrong".
That's flawed thinking. I don't mean that as a taunt or an insult.
Anybody who is interested in critical thinking will tell you the same.
It is illogical to believe that something must exist simply because there is no evidence to the contrary.
It's the motto of the pseudo-scientist, the Elvis sighter, the conspiracy theorist.
You get to sit back and relax while others run around and investigate a claim that may very well be spurious.
If somebody is going to make a claim, then that person must do the legwork themselves.
All science follows this basic rule.
No exceptions.
What I'd view as rational rebuttal is demonstrating that unguided natural processes can produce the ‘special information.
I presume that you are making reference to the Theory of Evolution?
Bad idea. Don't go there.
(No, that's not a jibe at you to get you all riled up so just calm down and hear me out. Ok?)
Try this as a thought experiment:
Flush everything about Evolutionary Theory down the toilet.
EVERYTHING.
Press a magic button and make every fossil and DNA sample disappear.
Erase even the very word "Evolution" from all human speech.
Make it so Wallace and Darwin and all the other generations of biologists simply never existed.
It's all gone.
Yet in it's absence...Intelligent Design will not magically become a real science.
No experiments will just spring up by themselves from nowhere.
It will not somehow, mysteriously become "Truth" with a capital "T".
ID will still remain a pseudo-science.
ID will still remain a sterile, scientific dead-end.
I know that you don't do links, but in this case I really think you should.
Please look at this.
It could possibly clear up a lot of confusion.
Tell me what you think.
Caderic Katesby
“If you want to make a claim about ID, POSITIVE EVIDENCE must be presented FOR ID.”
...DNA is POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR ID! It's got design fingerprints i.e. the genome is a symbolic representation of the unembodied functional organism. Clear?
"I choose to believe this, now prove me wrong.”
.....Yes. Just like I choose to believe 1 + 1 = 2, prove me wrong. Symbolic representation = mental processes, if you know any better prove it. Put up or shut up.
“It's illogical to believe something must exist simply because there's no evidence to the contrary.”
.....Sorry, the evidence is affirmative. We KNOW of zillions of other blue-prints (for cars, ipods etc). They were ALL produced by intelligence. As Newton, Lyell & Darwin said, we defer to causes in operation today. Conceptually, a blue-print is the same thing be it ipod-technology or cellular nano-technology; it requires a mind. Call this pseudo-science or whatever label you get off on but remember this: Blue-print = Intelligence. Any questions?
And when you’ve got something to say re: intelligent Vs unguided natural production of functioning units (living or non-living), we’ll take you seriously. Otherwise you're just a disaffected so & so.
Either you continue being disaffected or we can have intelligent dialogue - your call. If you elect dialogue please stick to the subject of DESIGN for a change. Another thing, don't post stupid you-tube clips, think for yourself - also for a change.
24/August/2009
ID! It's got design fingerprints i.e. the genome is a symbolic representation of the unembodied functional organism. Clear?
No. Not in the slightest.
What do "design fingerprints" look like?
Who says that "the genome is a symbolic representation of the unembodied functional organism"?
Are you just making stuff up?
Just like I choose to believe 1 + 1 = 2, prove me wrong.
You don't "believe" that one plus one equals two.
It's possible to actually DEMONSTRATE that this is true.
No belief system is required.
Symbolic representation = mental processes, if you know any better prove it.
DNA is not a symbol. It has no abstract meaning.
We KNOW of zillions of other blue-prints (for cars, ipods etc). They were ALL produced by intelligence.
No. They were not produced by "Intelligence".
"Intelligence" cannot drink a cup of coffee or have sex or do much of anything.
When scientists use the word "intelligence" it's always within a context.
We KNOW of zillions of other blue-prints (for cars, ipods etc). They were ALL produced by intelligence.
The examples you give are all from...human intelligence.
We know what human intelligence can do. We see it first hand.
Everyday.
I have no idea what an "intelligence" can do.
Blue-print = Intelligence. Any questions?
Yep. Why do you think that DNA is a blueprint?
Geneticists don't.
DNA is no more a blueprint than a human brain is a computer.
...intelligent Vs unguided natural production of functioning units (living or non-living), we’ll take you seriously.
(Cedric looks around the empty room)
Um, Anonymous?
Who is this "we" you keep referring to? Are you possessed by demons or something? A case of multiple personality disorder?
Anonymous, it's just you and me.
Nobody else is here.
Intelligent Design has been and gone.
Nobody gets very excited about it any more.
...intelligent Vs unguided natural production of functioning units
How does Intelligent Design distinguish between the two?
Can you give a few examples of some things from nature that are "intelligently produced" and a few things from nature that are "naturally produced"?
(I get the picture that you think that DNA is ID, so some fresh examples would be useful.)
Either you continue being disaffected or we can have intelligent dialogue - your call.
I'm not disaffected.
I'm just asking the kinds of simple questions that anybody can ask if they have a high school level science text book.
Is ID science or is it only a pseudoscience?
Does ID have a scientific definition?
Is ID a scientific theory?
Does ID have a methodology?
Does ID have any active research going on?
Any kind of experiment in the name of ID?
Even a proposed ID experiment?
Does ID produce peer-reviewed literature?
These are not disaffected questions.
They are very reasonable, sane and sensible.
Before anybody goes off and buys a second-hand car, they should ask to see the paperwork and pop the hood and take it for a test drive.
That's common sense.
So far, "Intelligent Design" (whatever it is) doesn't seem to be a good buy.
Another thing, don't post stupid you-tube clips, think for yourself - also for a change.
I do think for myself.
That's why I'm asking the sensible questions.
All you've got is handwaving. Not only do I think for myself, I am also smart enough to listen to people who are specialists in their field.
I don't desperately ignore them like you do.
If I want to understand something about DNA (for example) I'll ask the DNA experts themselves.
Do they think that DNA is positive evidence for ID?
Nope. The don't.
Remember:
Is ID science or is it only a pseudoscience?
Does ID have a scientific definition?
Is ID a scientific theory?
Does ID have a methodology?
Does ID have any active research going on?
Any kind of experiment in the name of ID?
Even a proposed ID experiment?
Does ID produce scientific peer-reviewed literature?
Caderic Katesby
“What do design fingerprints look like?”
....If you don’t know, on what basis could you ever say DNA (or anything) does or doesn't have them? To affirm or deny anything one has to know what it is they agree or disagree with.
“How does ID distinguish between the two, (Intelligent Action Vs Unguided Natural Process?)”
.....Again, if you don’t know how, how can you evaluate ID?
These are basics & are fundamental. If you haven’t grasped them, I don't see how you can intelligibly comment on ID. Unless of course your rejection is emotional & psychological. This would explain 2 things:-
(1) Your abusiveness
(2) Irrelevancy of the rest of your questions.
Incidentally its why I now ignore these questions. Notwithstanding I answered them a while ago. I’m sure they have socio-political traction but I'm not into that.
Think carefully before you respond.
Question: What do design fingerprints look like?
Retort: If you don’t know, on what basis could you ever say DNA (or anything) does or doesn't have them?
Exactly.
:)
You have finally figured it out.
Congratulations.
Statement: DNA is POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR ID! It's got design fingerprints.
Here, once again, you are spouting meaningless gibberish.
ID is an empty buzzword and "Design fingerprints" is also an empty buzzword that you just pulled out from your own arse.
You have NO WAY to define or demonstrate "design fingerprints" any more than you can define or demonstrate "Pixie Dust".
Switch the words around. Examine the total lack of logic.
Statement: DNA is POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR ID! It's got Pixie Dust.
Question: Pixie Dust? Hmm, there's something you don't hear mentioned in science circles every day! So, um, what does Pixie Dust look like?
Retort: If you don’t know, on what basis could you ever say DNA (or anything) does or doesn't have Pixie Dust?
Welcome to the wonderful, fuzzy world of "Intelligent Design".
Question: How does ID distinguish between the two, (Intelligent Action Vs Unguided Natural Process?).
Answer: If you don’t know how, how can you evaluate ID?
Perfect. I agree 100%.
Statement: We can call it science or pseudo-science; I don’t care. It’s true, that is what matters.
With no method of evaluation, you've got no way of determining if something is "True" (with a capital "T") or not.
Jumping up and down and repeating "DNA, DNA, DNA, DNA" like some Hindu mantra is not a method of evaluation.
Honest.
It's just very silly.
You have no methodology to separate "Intelligent Action" (whatever that means) from "unguided natural processes" (whatever that means).
None at all.
Yeah, I get that you think "IDisTrooIDisTrooIDisTrooIDisTrooIDistroo etc".
However...
Nobody with any brains is just going to take your word for it.
Science DOESN'T work that way.
Science CAN'T work that way.
A scientist will DEMAND THE MEANS TO DEMONSTRATE FOR THEMSELVES that ID is "true".
That's why you've got to cough up 1) a coherent scientific definition of ID
2)a detailed explanation of ID methodology
3) a few experiments and
4) a scientific theory if you've got one.
These are not optional.
They're...compulsory.
Otherwise, the other kids get to give you a wedgie in science class while the teacher looks on approvingly.
Now about my basic science questions that you can find in any highschool level science textbook.
Notwithstanding I answered them a while ago.
Yeah, you "answered" them, all right. Heck yeah!
Your "answers" are perfect examples of the thinking of a typical ID supporter. Classic really.
:)
Let's review them in loving detail...
(giggle)
Q: Is ID science or pseudoscience?
A: We can call it science or pseudo-science; I don’t care.
Q: Does ID have a scientific definition?
A: ID is a search for intelligently caused effects...but..yes ID is a search; it is not only a search and you know it. Central to Intelligent Design is INFORMATION. Definitions is politicking.
Q: Is ID a scientific theory?
A: Who cares? Frankly, I don’t. I am not going to waste time finding out what a scientific theory is.
Q: Does ID have a methodology?
A: There isn’t a singular method of ID neither is there a singular one of investigating anything else, you know this too.
Q: Does ID have any active research going on?
A: S.E.T.I, DNA, S.E.T.I, DNA, S.E.T.I, DNA etc.
Q: Any kind of experiment in the name of ID?
A: There are no experiments for ID & experiments for non-ID. There are experiments.
Q: Even a proposed ID experiment?
A: (insert sulky glare here)
Q: Does ID produce scientific peer-reviewed literature?
A: You "allege" that it doesn't. Adulate peer-review all you want. I know it's limitations.
Welcome to the science of Intelligent Design.
All science. All the time.
Caderic Katesby
Which part of the following do you not understand? It’s not rocket science.
“.... Symbolic representation of a functional form that precedes embodied of that form is, in ALL experience due to intelligence. It works like this; to accurately represent (i.e. encode) anything with other than itself requires advance knowledge or concept of that which is represented. This is a mental process & matter or energy alone are incapable of it. In any case, they have NEVER been seen to produce it. It's therefore a bona fide marker of intelligence...”
The rest of what you’ve written is nonsense. Deal with the above & we can have mature dialogue.
26/August/2009
“.... Symbolic representation of a functional form that precedes embodied of that form is, in ALL experience due to intelligence.
Two words.
1)Symbol.
2)Intelligence.
First: Symbol
DNA is not a "symbol".
Honest.
Nor is DNA a "code".
Nor is it a "message".
Nor is it a "language".
Nor is it a "blueprint".
It's none of these things, any more than the human brain is a computer.
DNA is...nucleic acid. It's an organic molecule.
This is not hard to find out.
The information is freely available by actually asking a geneticist or read an introductory science text or just spending a few seconds on the Internet.
Second: Intelligence
We have no knowledge of what "Intelligence" can do.
When a scientist used the word "Intelligence" it is always within a context.
There is no disembodied "Intelligence" floating around that we can notice.
Human intelligence?
That's a different story.
No problem there.
We can observe HUMAN intelligence.
Easy stuff.
HUMAN intelligence can do all sorts of things.
E.g: It can build zillions of Ipods and cars.
"Intelligence" by itself, without context, can't do much of anything.
Nobody has ever seen "Intelligence" drink a cup of coffee or fart or leave a fingerprint.
What would a fart by an "Intelligence" smell like?
No idea.
What would a blueprint made by an "Intelligence" look like?
No idea.
The rest of what you’ve written is nonsense.
Then it's lucky for me that you didn't demolish my arguments.
(Whew, I really dodged a bullet there.)
Thank you for such dignified restraint and allowing my arguments to remain unchallanged.
(smirk)
But um, there's still the matter of your claims. Don't abandon them. Please.
ID! It's got design fingerprints
So, what do do design fingerprints look like?
Granted, I don't know but...YOU do.
Right?
So how about sharing your knowledge?
Please.
Give a few practical, specific examples.
Same goes for...intelligent Vs unguided natural production of functioning units.
It sounds fascinating.
I have no idea how somebody can do this. None at all.
I confess my ignorance completely and utterly. How exactly does one distinguish between intelligent Vs unguided natural production of functioning units..
(scratches head thoughtfully)
Nope. I've got nothing. Darn it all to heck.
It's up to you, Anonymous!
Enlighten me. I'd love to know.
Please give a few examples of "unguided natural production" and "intelligent production" in nature.
How do you go about distinguishing between the two?
Be as specific as you like.
Don't be stingy on the specific examples.
;)
Caderic Katesby
Of course DNA by itself isn't a symbol neither is any physical object by itself. It only becomes a symbol if arranged in such a way as to represent something other than itself. You'll agree the base sequence on the gene for say blue eyes represents blue-eyes. The DNA itself is not an eye, it a symbol of one. Think about it.
“We have no knowledge of what 'Intelligence' can do.”
....Wrong. You used intelligence just to say that. And no material process could generate that sentence, ever.
"Intelligence by itself, without context, can't do much...”
.....Who said it could? As far as we know it acts through & on matter or energy.
“What would a fart ‘Intelligence’ smell like?”
...I’m sure you know from your own intelligence acting through matter & energy.
“There's no disembodied Intelligence floating around that we can notice.”
....You are assuming I said there is one, I never did. Tell me, when Francis Crick said life was designed by intelligent beings, did anyone ask him if these beings were unembodied or embodied?
I detect unfamiliarity with ID. If you ever read up on knowledge of it that you clearly lack (not a criticism), can I suggest you be open minded?
27/August/2009
Tell me, when Francis Crick said life was designed by intelligent beings, did anyone ask him if these beings were unembodied or embodied?
That's not what he said. If you want to know what he claimed and what he just speculated about, all you have to do is do a quick search on the Internet. It's very easy.
How about you and I not worry too much about Francis Crick. He's dead.
Let's keep this discussion on topic.
Back to Intelligent Design.
The DNA itself is not an eye, it a symbol of one.
No it's not.
It's not a symbol.
Not even a little tiny bit.
Any geneticist will tell you the same.
Ask them.
DNA has function.
It's not a symbolic representation of anything.
You are abusing the English language.
....Wrong. You used intelligence just to say that.
Yeah. I used...HUMAN intelligence.
Not "intelligence".
HUMAN intelligence.
The key word here is "HUMAN".
As far as we know it acts through & on matter or energy.
Arrrg. The stupid. It burns!!
No, you're not getting this.
There is no "it".
There is no "intelligence" all by itself that then acts through something else.
No "it".
When a scientist talks about intelligence it's always in context.
I said...“What would a fart from ‘Intelligence’ smell like?”
You replied...I’m sure you know from your own intelligence acting through matter & energy.
No.
I only know what farts smell like based upon REAL LIFE OBSERVATIONS.
(Just like everybody else.)
I really and truely don't know what farts from "intelligence" smell like.
Neither do you. Neither does anybody else.
I detect unfamiliarity with ID.
Maybe you could provide some information?
Help me out?
Let's start here...
Is ID science or is it only a pseudoscience?
Does ID have a scientific definition?
Is ID a scientific theory?
Does ID have a methodology?
Does ID have any active research going on?
Any kind of experiment in the name of ID?
Even a proposed ID experiment?
Does ID produce scientific peer-reviewed literature?
Once we've gone through that we can get into some details..
ID! It's got design fingerprints.
So, what do do design fingerprints look like?
Share your knowledge
Please.
Give a few practical, specific examples.
Same goes for...intelligent Vs unguided natural production of functioning units.
How exactly does one distinguish between intelligent Vs unguided natural production of functioning units..
It's up to you, Anonymous!
Enlighten me. I'd love to know.
Please give a few examples of "unguided natural production" and "intelligent production" in nature.
How do you go about distinguishing between the two?
Be as specific as you like.
Don't be stingy on the specific examples.
Any time you are ready.
Is now a good time for you?
Caderic Katesby
All I need a geneticist to say is DNA is a code & how so. After that & based on knowledge of codes, logical conclusions follow from the understanding of information, any information. It doesn’t matter where that inform is housed; the same basic principles for ALL inform apply. It’s a fundamental mistake to think only geneticists can arbitrate on biological information.
Instead of citing "www.scientificblogging.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code" perhaps you should start reasoning for yourself.
If the word “symbol” upsets you try “represents,” “stands for,” “can be decoded to” or “translates to” etc. The point conveyed here is an idea of something & obviously I have to use words. I’m sorry the word “symbol” riles you.
“Yeah. I used...HUMAN intelligence. Not "intelligence". ”
....Please explain the difference between “Human intelligence” and intelligence. I don't make such a distinction but would be keen to be educated in case I missed something.
“How exactly does one distinguish between intelligent Vs unguided natural production of functioning units..”
....I’ve told you several times. As long as you remain tone deaf & steeped in pre-supposition, you’ll never hear the answer no matter what size megaphone I use.
I’ll deal with your pre-supposition instead of repeating something you may not even hear: If to start with you *believe* there’s NO INTELLIGENCE, is there even a point to the question? So 1st of all, do you consider it possible that naturally occurring structures could be intelligently designed? If yes then I’ll be happy tell you (again). But if not, there’s really no point.
“When a scientist talks about intelligence it's always in context.”
...When ID talks about intelligence, it's in context. If you know any different please say how.
All I need a geneticist to say is DNA is a code & how so.
Geneticists don't think that DNA is a code.
Why don't you understand this?
Don't confuse the metaphor with reality.
DNA is...nucleic acid. It's an organic molecule.
Look it up.
Learn.
Perhaps you should start reasoning for yourself.
I reason for myself all the time.
That's why my arguments are sound and you are forced to let them stand unassailed.
You have nothing to counter them except your own evasions and hapless handwaving.
If I want to know about DNA, then...I look it up. Duh!
It's very easy.
You should try it one day.
DNA is not a code.
Get a grip on reality rather than just making stuff up.
If the word “symbol” upsets you...
No.
It doesn't upset me.
When you claim that DNA is a symbol, you're just being ignorant.
DNA is not a "symbol" of anything.
Geneticists don't claim that DNA is a symbol.
Look it up. It's really easy.
Please explain the difference between “Human intelligence” and intelligence.
Ok.
(Insert loud voice speaking very slowly to dull-witted redneck.)
"Intelligence" no meanie anythingee without contexteee.
No contextee, no meaningee.
No find "intelligence" under rock.
No see "intelligence" drinkee coffee.
It no happen.
Understandeee?
Your OWN EXAMPLES illustrate this:
Ipods.
Ipods are build by...PEOPLE.
i.e: HUMAN intelligence.
"Intelligence" without context does not build ipods.
Cars.
Cars are build by PEOPLE.
i.e HUMAN intelligence.
"Intelligence" without context does not build cars.
Wow. Hey, did you just notice something? What a funny coincidence.
Two examples provided voluntarily by you of items being "intelligently designed" and they BOTH happen to come from human intelligence.
Observable, verifiable human intelligence.
What were the odds? Golly.
:)
I said...“How exactly does one distinguish between intelligent Vs unguided natural production of functioning units..”
Your reply: I’ve told you several times.
Why are you lying?
What's the point?
Anybody can just scroll up the page and see that you have said nothing worth a damn.
You can provide no examples.
None.
No method of discrimination.
You've got bugger all.
Remember the "design fingerprints" silliness?
You never got around to giving details on that.
Why not?
Don't be coy. Share.
If to start with you *believe* there’s NO INTELLIGENCE, is there even a point to the question?
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Learn what "intelligence" means.
So 1st of all, do you consider it possible that naturally occurring structures could be intelligently designed?
You can't even tell me in simple English what is "Intelligent Design".
I keep asking you simple scientific questions about it.
You keep dodging them.
I asked you if ID was a scientific theory.
Simple question. Straightforward.
Instead of answering the question like an adult, you decided to play silly buggers.
Remember your answer?
"I don't care"
Fat lot of good that answer is.
Tells nobody anything at all.
It's just a juvenile retort that makes you sound like a tool.
Grow a pair.
Give an honest answer for once in your life.
Is ID a scientific theory?
Yes or No?
Caderic Katesby
“Geneticists don't think that DNA is a code. Why don't you understand this?”
.....I understand it perfectly. Geneticists taught THE CODE for years & celebrated its discovery. Now a few try to backtrack to avoid implications. Metaphor my foot! Since when did metaphors translate into organisms?
“DNA is...nucleic acid. It's an organic molecule. Look it up.”
...I refuse to accept you are that thick, just blinkered or indoctrinated: Newsprint on paper is just ink but it doesn’t end there does it? The black strip on a credit card is some magnet but that’s not all it is as any fraud star will tell you. Do I detect you are ignorant of the concept of INFORMATION?
“Geneticists don't claim that DNA is a symbol.”
....That doesn’t mean it’s not a symbol. It means your geneticist don’t realise it. They are too busy working with implementation of the code, not its de novo origin & INFORMATION bearing properties. The INFORMATION on DNA is not just a genetics problem. 'Ever heard of the pigeonhole principle?
Your explanation of any alleged difference between “Human Intelligence” & “Intelligence” is unintelligible. What psychology books do you read? Please clarify, what is the difference if any?
And “Human Intelligence” is NOT verifiable. You confuse verification of effects of intelligence (i.e. ipods, cars in other words its markers or FINGERPRINTS etc) with the intelligence itself. Intelligence is not a “thing” with mass or velocity directly amenable to empirical detection. You need to think about this carefully and without prejudice.
“I keep asking you simple scientific questions about it.”
.....There is NO demarcation line between science & non-science. Again, you need to read up on this – the so-called ‘Demarcation Problem.’ The only utility for these arbitrary demarcations is socio-political mileage.
“Is ID a scientific theory?”
...Please see above & yes, which part of ‘I don’t care’ do you not understand? I told you I care about what’s true & what’s false, not what arbitrary box we throw in. The latter is for politicians to decide & I’m not sinking that low; today they say one thing, tomorrow the opposite. Let’s stick with the facts of nature.
Now that you can see intelligent effects (or fingerprints) can be seen with things like ipods, translate that to living organisms. It’s not that hard of a conceptual leap & there no barriers except psychological. Once they are gone, the fog clears.
I hope you’ve learned something about ID today, without prejudice.
Now a few try to backtrack to avoid implications. Metaphor my foot! Since when did metaphors translate into organisms?
Paranoid delusion.
There is no "backtracking".
Scientists use metaphors and analogies and similies all the time.
Here's a few examples to demonstrate how scientists pepper their speech with metaphors all the time.
The world we live in is a complex space ship. (0:29)
Actually the world we live in is a planet. "Complex space ship" is just a metaphor. That means that he doesn't really think that the Earth is a gigantic flying saucer.
Metaphor.
It's just a metaphor.
>...written in a language billions of years older...(0:18)...a letter in the genetic alphabet of the language of life...(0:24)...Amoeba are giants..(1:47)...an encyclopedia of life in the nucleus of every one of our cells (2:24)...our separate gene libraries (4:20)...
Wow.
The great Carl Sagan is a creationist.
Who knew?
(giggle)
That doesn’t mean it’s not a symbol. It means your geneticist don’t realise it.
Either that or...you are just some anonymous ignorant cretin making stuff up on the Internet.
Hmm.
What to believe?
Hmmmm.
You confuse verification of effects of intelligence...
You brought up the phrase "design fingerprints", not me.
How do you go about verifying the effects of Intelligent Design?
Put up or shut up.
There is NO demarcation line between science & non-science.
(...stunned silence...)
THAT'S A KEEPER!
Anonymous, you are the PERFECT representative for Intelligent Design.
This blog was made for people like you.
Seriously, that's a great quote.
No wonder you like Behe so much.
Thank you.
:)
I told you I care about what’s true & what’s false.
Then why don't you care if ID is a scientific theory or not?
Either it's true or...it's a lie.
A whopping great fat lie.
The really good thing about this particular lie is that it's easily checkable.
Scientists have helpfully written down what a scientific theory is.
Politicians have nothing to do with it.
Really.
"Let’s stick with the facts of nature."
Asking you if ID is a scientific theory IS talking about FACTS and NATURE, you dummy.
Learn English.
Find out what is a scientific theory.
Find out what is a fact.
Learn.
Now that you can see intelligent effects (or fingerprints) can be seen with things like ipods, translate that to living organisms.
Living organisms? Really?
Caderic Katesby
Say DNA is a metaphor (it’s not!). Coding, software & messaging are NOT limited to it. They pervade life: hormones, neurotransmitters, biochemical cascades etc ALL use codes. The ribosomal factory uses codes nothing to do with DNA. Are those metaphors too?
And saying “metaphor” doesn’t decouple from function or intelligence. Yet it is FUNCTION that requires intelligence & absolutely. Next time you upgrade a computer give it “metaphorical” codes & see what happens. Yes, it won't work.
You appealed to geneticists with your ‘metaphor’ claim now you back it with Carl Sagan, an Astronomer! Have you actually watched his You-tube attachment or read the letters on the web address? If you paid attention, you’d have found these words on both:
“LANGUAGE, ALPHABET, ENCYCOPAEDIA, LIBRARIES, INSTRUCTIONS, BOOKS & INFORMATION.”
If you want to call those metaphors too, be my guest I can’t make any horse drink.
Talking of geneticists, Francis Collins, better authority on genetics than Carl Sagan or Talkorigins.com., says DNA is a CODE. Please think for yourself & stop using dodgy authorities. After all Sagan said there were billions of Alien civilisations? Indeed, just name ONE.
The reason you are stunned into silence to learn that there is no demarcation line between science & non-science is because you must not have studied any philosophy. This fact has been known for decades!
I don’t know what your educational background is but the fact you rely on web attachments like You-tube, blogs & talkorigins betrays very deficient literature sources. Of equal bad is also an inability to think for yourself. Sure keep recycling cheap anti-intelligent design internet chit-chat if it gives you kicks. But if you want objective discourse on anything, think again.
You are seriously misinformed.
30/August/2009
Say DNA is a metaphor (it’s not!).
Imagine how much more powerful your argument would be if you could actually back it up.
Don't fight reality.
Reality wins every time.
Next time you upgrade a computer give it “metaphorical” codes & see what happens. Yes, it won't work.
Computer codes are...codes.
Codes use by spies are...codes.
The word "code" is not always used as a metaphor. Sometimes the word code is used in it's literal meaning. Codes do exist in the real world.
If they didn't, then they wouldn't be very effective as metaphors. When scientists talk about DNA, they often describe it as a language or a code.
They are using a metaphor.
They are drawing an analogy.
They are making a comparision.
On planet Earth, this is...normal.
When you deliberatily choose to take their words and apply a literal meaning, you are abusing the English language.
“LANGUAGE, ALPHABET, ENCYCOPAEDIA, LIBRARIES, INSTRUCTIONS, BOOKS & INFORMATION.”
Umm, yeah.
That's why I deliberately pointed them out to you them to illustrate how scientists describe things.
DNA is very complicated.
DNA is very small.
It's not easy to visualise or quickly comprehend.
So if a teacher is trying to simply explain what DNA is then...they reach for a metaphor or an analogy.
Happens all the time.
Honest.
There is no library in your DNA.
There are no little librarians running around musty corridors saying "No talking" to all the ester bonds.
There's no shy, solitary nucleoslide that is furtively reading a dirty book behind the shelves.
DNA isn't really a library.
Carl Sagan was using a metaphor.
Talking of geneticists, Francis Collins...says DNA is a CODE.
Actually, his book on the subject, is called The Language of God.
Sadly, this is another book that you have never read and never will.
Francis Collins is a devout evangelical Christian who sees no conflict with his faith and his work.
He's a theistic evolutionist.
When he uses works like "language" and "code", himself and other scientists understand that it's a metaphor.
Nothing to be shocked or wierded out by.
As you rightly say, Francis Collins is an authority on DNA.
However, when it comes to talking about Intelligent Design, he's with all of his other collegues in the field of genetics.
He makes it quite clear that he does not support "Intelligent Design".
The reason you are stunned into silence blah, blah, blah,
No. The reason why I am stunned into silence is because you said something that was batshit crazy.
Learn about science.
It's nothing to be afraid of.
Two items for you:
Empiricism
and
The scientific method
...the fact you rely on web attachments like You-tube, blogs & talkorigins betrays very deficient literature sources.
Don't be silly.
On planet Earth, people link to various resources available on the web all the time.
When I say something, I can link to a cool video or a science blog to support my statements.
It's an effective way to illustrate what I am saying and demonstrate that my position is grounded in reality.
Of equal bad is also an inability to think for yourself.
I do think for myself.
That's why when you say stupid things I gleefully rebutt them and then grab a video or two to display you as a moron.
It's fun.
Sure keep recycling cheap anti-intelligent design internet chit-chat if it gives you kicks.
Actually, the best "anti-intelligent design chit-chat" I found so far are your own comments.
That's why I keep them.
There is NO demarcation line between science & non-science.
Now a few try to backtrack to avoid implications. Metaphor my foot! Since when did metaphors translate into organisms?
You are the gift that keeps on giving.
DNA is not a code. In any case metaphors also require intelligence. Anyway oligossacharides have a larger info capacity than DNA, RNA or proteins & deploy an even more sophisticated messaging system. Perhaps you wish to explain the “metaphor” in those messages. You do know that messaging cannot occur without intelligence.
DNA has an exquisite error minimisation capacity, an engineering principle. It’s ordered into syntax, semantics & pragmatics; there are no semantics without minds. It’s got bar codes.
“There's no shy, solitary nucleoslide thats furtively reading dirty book behind shelves.”
.....Only someone who does NOT understand information would say a thing like that. Of course if you can’t see the info principles you can’t see intelligence causation either. So I don’t blame you for coming up with such howlers.
“Sadly, this's another book you never read & never will. Actually, his book on the subject, is called The Language of God. ”
....On what page does Collins say DNA code is a metaphor? I’ve not seen it in my copy (ISBN 978-1-4165-4274-2, US$15.00). Saying “language” makes your position worse. There are no metaphorical languages; no languages without intelligence, ever.
“The reason why I am stunned is you said something that was batshit crazy.”
....If you have never heard of it, it will sound that. Unfortunately for you, incredulity is no argument. You need to read up stuff.
You cry ID's not peer-reviewed & then use talkorigins & You-tube!!!!
30/August/2009
DNA is not a code.
Congratulations.
You finally figured it out.
Perhaps you wish to explain the “metaphor” in those messages. You do know that messaging cannot occur without intelligence.
The use of the word "message" in this context is a metaphor, dummy.
There is no "message".
No "language".
No "alphabet".
No "library".
No "encyclopedia".
No "symbol".
They are all...(wait for it, WAIT FOR IT!!!)..................................METAPHORS.
Stop abusing the English language.
DNA is...nucleic acid. It's an organic molecule.
Look it up.
Learn.
It’s got bar codes.
No, it bloody well doesn't.
That's a bloody metaphor, you steaming ninny.
If you run DNA through the supermarket checkout laser-scanner, you'll get nothing.
Nothing at all.
Only someone who does NOT understand information would say a thing like that.
No, really.
DNA is not a library.
I promise you.
You can't borrow books from it.
It's not something that ordered according to the Dewey Decimal System
Honest.
(giggle)
Unfortunately for you, incredulity is no argument.
Which is why I don't argue from incredulity. Duh!
You said that...There is NO demarcation line between science & non-science.
That's insane.
There's no other word for it.
You have a screwy viewpoint of what science is.
You believe that scientists really, truely think that DNA is a "design fingerprint".
Yet, somehow, there's a minority that are trying to "backtrack".
That's not rational.
That's just creationist paranoia.
In the real world, the scientific community doesn't work that way.
Most scientists happen to be religious.
Those that are religious have nothing to gain by pretending that DNA isn't really a "code" or "language" or "symbol" or some other naive rubbish.
Francis Collins is a perfect example of this.
He spends quite a bit of time pointing out that Intelligent Design is bunk.
Here are his own words.
(Wait. Let me guess. He's not a "Real Christian", right? Therefore, you get to dismiss him, right? Eeww.)
"You cry ID's not peer-reviewed & then use talkorigins & You-tube!!!!"
Easy fix.
How about if I just hand you a snappy retort?
If I was going to pretend to be brain-dead I could always just poo-poo the idea of peer-reviewed research.
That would get me off the hook, yeah?
How did you do that stunt again?
Let's take a trip down memory lane and take a page from your sleazy tactics.
1) Indeed peer-review is very popular THESE DAYS. Popularity however is not a truth measure...
2) I’m not debating side issues e.g. peer-review.
3) I know what peer-review is & its limitations.
4) (1) Peer-review adulation (& peer-review is a process, not a fact of nature.
Smooth. Real smooth.
So much for you valuing peer-review.
(shrug)
Here's a head's up.
When you flush peer-review down the toilet then...it's open season!
ANY source of information is just as good as another. There's no process of sorting out the wheat from the chaff.
The scientifically illiterate public has no chance at all of figuring out what is real science from flim-flammery.
They are helpless.
As long as the proponent offering the sources loudly protests "ItsTrooItstrooItstrooItstrooItstroo etc." then it's all good. After all, if it's true then...it's true.
Because...it's true. Really true.
Except when it's not, you clueless mouth breather.
When I grab a youtube video, I do it to illustrate a point.
A picture paints a thousand words and all that.
However, I don't use the videos just because they are pretty.
I use them because they fit comfortably within what scientists themselves say. Scientists who do real work and produce peer-reviewed research.
It's all verifiable.
It's all checkable.
ID is a fraud. It's a joke.
You have nothing.
Caderic Katesby
“DNA is...nucleic acid. It's an organic molecule. Look it up.. DNA is not a library. You can't borrow books from it.”
.....Ink too is an organic molecule. Look up its chemistry all day long & that'll never explain origin or meaning of any info in any book. Ink, like DNA carries the info - cased closed.
A library is an info store regardless of storage medium (books) or supporting structures (shelves or librarian). DNA stores info – case closed.
Suppose DNA code is a metaphor. To generate a correct metaphor (of anything) requires PRIOR knowledge of that for which the metaphor is. It can only be done on purpose.
It's harder intellectually to produce metaphors than the literal McCoy – case closed.
31/August/2009
Ink, like DNA carries the info - cased closed.
This is getting sad.
Ink is not DNA.
They are not the same.
DNA and ink are not synonymous.
DNA is in living cells.
Ink goes in your pen.
When you compare the two, you are drawing an analogy. This technique only goes so far before the differences between the two items cripple the analogy's value as a description.
A library is an info store regardless of...
On planet Earth, when people want to find out what the word "library" means they can look it up for themselves.
A library is not the same as DNA.
Really and truly.
(shrug)
Suppose DNA code is a metaphor.
There's no "suppose" about it.
You are grasping at straws in your desperation. Scientists use metaphors and similies and analogies to simply describe very, very, very complicated things in science.
It's a descriptive technique that's accepted and well understood by educated people all around the world.
To mindlessly latch onto metaphors and concoct fanciful conspiracy theories about "backtracking scientists" just so you can twist words to fit a bizzare literalist meaning is a shameful exercise in self-deception.
It's woefully dishonest and as a ploy will only garner those who are thick or pre-disposed to being conned.
Metaphors of DNA: a review of the popularisation
processes
Author: Sergi Cortiñas Rovira
The most popular metaphor is the one of information (DNA = information). It is an old
association of ideas that dates back to the origins of genetics, when research was carried out into the
molecule (initially thought to be proteins) that should have contained the information to duplicate cells
and organisms. In this type of popularisation model, DNA was identified with many everyday-use
objects able to store information: a computer file of living beings, a database for each species or a library
with all the information about an individual. To Dawkins, the human DNA is a “user guide to build a
living being” or “the architect’s designs to build a building”.
Read the whole thing. It's very well written and has loads more information on how scientists have used metaphors to explain DNA over the last sixty years.
Learn. Please learn.
Give up your life of cretinhood.
Embrace reality.
Caderic Katesby
“This is getting sad. Ink is not DNA.”
.....I agree it’s very sad people elevate DNA unduly. It too is just matter like paper, silicon, cellophane or hieroglyphic-bearing stone tablets. There's nothing so sacred about it it has to be defended with religious zeal.
No Cretin (you now call me one) worth his Thyroxine for life pills thinks ink is DNA – that’s totally stupid even for the mentally handipcapped. On that note, I’ll leave you to debate only those with superior intellect like yours. I wouldn’t want you to waste your valuable time with the lesser. Good luck deifying DNA.
31/August/2009
I agree it’s very sad people elevate DNA unduly.
Creationists like you do it all the time.
Stop. Get a life.
It too is just matter...
Yeah, DNA is matter.
Nobody is disputing that.
Duh!
No Cretin (you now call me one) worth his Thyroxine for life pills thinks ink is DNA – that’s totally stupid even for the mentally handipcapped.
You are indeed a cretin.
Behold, here are your own words...
Ink too is an organic molecule. Look up its chemistry all day long & that'll never explain origin or meaning of any info in any book. Ink, like DNA carries the info - cased closed.
I'm the one that closed the case. You are forced to abandon the field with your tail between your legs. Loser.
On that note, I’ll leave you to debate only those with superior intellect like yours.
It's not just that I have a superior intellect.
I also have a superior education.
Right from the word go, I had you pegged as a clueless mouthbreather.
Your wonderously stupid comments are prime examples of a typical creationist supporter of "Intelligent Design".
Remember:
Q: Is ID science or pseudoscience?
A: We can call it science or pseudo-science; I don’t care.
Q: Does ID have a scientific definition?
A: ID is a search for intelligently caused effects...but..yes ID is a search; it is not only a search and you know it. Central to Intelligent Design is INFORMATION. Definitions is politicking.
Q: Is ID a scientific theory?
A: Who cares? Frankly, I don’t. I am not going to waste time finding out what a scientific theory is.
Q: Does ID have a methodology?
A: There isn’t a singular method of ID neither is there a singular one of investigating anything else, you know this too.
Q: Does ID have any active research going on?
A: S.E.T.I, DNA, S.E.T.I, DNA, S.E.T.I, DNA etc.
Q: Any kind of experiment in the name of ID?
A: There are no experiments for ID & experiments for non-ID. There are experiments.
Q: Even a proposed ID experiment?
A: (insert sulky glare here)
Q: Does ID produce scientific peer-reviewed literature?
A: You "allege" that it doesn't. Adulate peer-review all you want. I know it's limitations.
plus the bonus extras...
There is NO demarcation line between science & non-science.
It's like the Enlightenment never happened.
Now a few try to backtrack to avoid implications. Metaphor my foot! Since when did metaphors translate into organisms?
Ignorant of not only science, Anonymous displays how he flunked English class too.
You are a joke.
A sad, miserable, joke that relies exclusively on ignorace, lies, evasion and hapless handwaving.
Just like "Intelligent Design".
Intelligent Design is a fraud.
Intelligent Design does no work and never will.
Intelligent design will only ever attract creationist mouthbreathers.
It's had it's fifteen minutes of fame. Nobody cares anymore.
That's why this site and other ID friendly sites are quietly fading into obscurity. Not even the host can be bothered to post any more.
Who can blame him?
There's a limit to a reasonable person's patience. No matter how slick the patter, the faithful eventually get bored and...move on.
Nobody likes to be endlessly played for a sucker.
Don't let the door hit your worthless lying ass on the way out.
:)
I have NOT read most of your last post & I am not going to.
I discerned the tone very early on. It's typical. Insults, hyperboli, self-adulation etc - the only weapon left against ID. If you tried to take it on on grounds of reason, you know full well what the result will be.
Find someone else to heckle. I have better things to do. Bye!!
Cedric Katesby,
Is "Human Itelligence" a by-product of "Human DNA" or did it come from somewhere else?
1/Sept/2009
Suckerspawn, welcome. Surprised to see a new face.
Is "Human Itelligence" a by-product of "Human DNA" or did it come from somewhere else?
Well, first let me say that I'm not a geneticist.
I'm just some mysterious individual roaming the Intertubes.
Anything I say should not be treated as the final word. Double check everything.
I always do.
From what I've read, scientists don't describe human intelligence as a "by-product" of DNA. Any more than your hair colour or eyes is a "by-product" of DNA.
That sounds reasonable to me.
As for human intelligence coming from somewhere else...well...who knows?
Technically, all science is tentative.
The field is still wide open and anybody with evidence that can demonstrate a new "somewhere else" should stand up and present it.
Yet, such evidence will be subject to scientific scrutiny.
Idle waffle and word games will not be seriously considered.
If somebody has a scientific theory that "something else" is responsible for human intelligence then...great.
Lets' see some work.
I am always willing to be swayed by genuine scientific research and hard work.
"Intelligent Design" however, produces none.
Is "Human Intelligence" a product of DNA, like eye color or hair color?
1/September/2009
Is "Human Intelligence" a product of DNA, like eye color or hair color?
Well, like I said, I'm not a geneticist.
You are asking the wrong person.
I've never seriously studied human intelligence or DNA.
Both are amazingly complicated fields that I truely, deeply madly know nothing about.
Whatever I know about human intelligence and it's connection to DNA would come from publically available resources.
However, having just done a quick google search, there seems to be a variety of issues surrounding the question of the origins of human intelligence.
The first problem is how to define "human intelligence".
Intelligence itself is a poorly defined concept that is slippery to quantify.
How do you detect human intelligence? Can you accurately measure it? Where is it from?
They are important questions but I don't have any easy-fix answers at hand because...it's not my field.
I just don't know.
I've never devoted years of my life to the study of the origins of human intelligence.
However, there are people who have done precisely that.
According to them, human intelligence is dependant on two factors: biological and environmental.
Which has the greater emphasis is still up for grabs. I have no strong opinions either way.
Just now, I found a video that explains how scientists are trying to find out about human intelligence and it's connection to DNA. This kind of research is important because it can lead to helping people with learning disabilites and understanding tragic genetic disorders.
If you have a scientific theory that has a better explanation for the origins of human intelligence,with or without DNA, I'd be very interested in hearing it.
A revolutionary and effective new approach to our understanding of DNA and intelligence could transform medical science and offer fresh hope to people with mental disabilites.
What have you found out that makes you think that it's "something else"? Is it "Intelligent Design"?
Cedric,
Let’s compare dog intelligence. Wikipedia defines, “Dog intelligence is the ability of a dog to learn, think, and solve problems.”
http://petrix.com/dogint/intelligence.html
Border Collies are ranked at the top of “brightest dogs” and Bulldogs near the bottom of “Lowest Degree of Working/Obedience Intelligence”. Environment cannot account for the differences in intelligence. Both dogs possess the organic molecule DNA. Would it be reasonable to postulate that the difference in intelligence is the result in differences in their respective DNAs? Would these differences be simple and random or would they be complex and specific. May I suggest there is nothing simple and random about DNA?
“ontiamfnroi” is nearly as complex as any other 11 letter sequence, but it has no specificity. If I rearrange the letters in a specific order I get “information”. DNA contains “start” commands, thousands and thousands of them, and “stop” commands, thousands and thousands of them. It contains “go here or there” commands, thousands of them. When we look at a DNA sequence from a human point of view we may see something like “ontiamfnroi” but the cell sees “information”.
If I understand cloning, it is possible to take the DNA from an organism and place it in an environment that will allow the DNA to produce a copy of the organism. I may call it “information” or “instructions” or “code”. You may not like those words but it is something very specific and complex. When we see specificity and complexity is it unreasonable to attribute it to an intelligent source?
If I understand evolutionary theory, time and chance, are essential components. Have “time and chance” tests been done on abiogenesis and random mutations? Did those tests show abiogenesis to be “very likely” or next to impossible? Did those tests show 4.5 billion years is enough time to account for enough random mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth today? Have any mutations been observed to increase the specificity and complexity in DNA in order to produce new, specific, complex structures in organisms?
1/Sept/2009
Let’s compare dog intelligence.
Woah up there.
Dog intelligence? What the...
Why are you switching topics like this?
Previously, you said..."Is "Human Itelligence" a by-product of "Human DNA" or did it come from somewhere else?
Could we settle this question before moving on to other topics?
After all, you were the one that brought it up.
How is this all connected with "Intelligent Design"?
What do you mean when you mysteriously say... somewhere else?
3/August/2009
(....time passes...)
Hello?
Suckerspawn?
Still there?
Hmm.
Intelligence is an entity unto itself. There’s no such thing as ‘dog intelligence’ or ‘human intelligence.’ The difference (dog, Man, cat etc) is quantitative i.e. how much of it there is. It is not qualitative – it’s the same stuff.
Traits of intelligence include ‘intent,’ ‘foreknowledge’ or ‘acting in such a way to.’ Matter on the other hand has no such capacities. It cannot intend & does not act, it only re-acts. Re-action is always predictable according to fixed laws. Intent is wholly autonomous & independent of natural laws governing matter. It is therefore no hard to conceive of how intelligent action can be separated from mechanical law-like material action.
Given you (Katesby) say you have NOT actually studied Intelligence or DNA one wonders how you have such strong opinions on either.
3/August/2009
Yet another Anonymous?
Or is this the same Anonymous?
How hard can it be to adopt a name tag?
Given you (Katesby) say you have NOT actually studied Intelligence or DNA one wonders how you have such strong opinions on either.
I don't have strong opinions on them.
I never bring them up in conversation.
Other people do.
I'm only interested in "Intelligent Design".
8/Sept/2009
Well, here I am.
All alone on a forlorn blog.
Waiting for somebody to start talking about "Intelligent Design".
Hmmm.
(...time passes...)
Hmmm.
(...more time passes...)
Not much happening really.
Oh well, might as well watch a video on Intelligent Design.
Enjoy.
I had an earlier debate with you & you were quite insulting. May be people just want a mature discussion.
9/August/2009
I had an earlier debate with you & you were quite insulting. May be people just want a mature discussion.
Perhaps I was insulting to you because you were a cretin that was incapable of a mature discussion?
What kind of an idiot doesn't understand that scientists use metaphors to describe DNA?
Remember these gems?
Q: Is ID a scientific theory?
A: Who cares? Frankly, I don’t. I am not going to waste time finding out what a scientific theory is.
Q: Does ID have a methodology?
A: There isn’t a singular method of ID neither is there a singular one of investigating anything else, you know this too.
Q: Does ID have any active research going on?
A: S.E.T.I, DNA, S.E.T.I, DNA, S.E.T.I, DNA etc.
Q: Any kind of experiment in the name of ID?
A: There are no experiments for ID & experiments for non-ID. There are experiments.
Q: Even a proposed ID experiment?
A: (insert sulky glare here)
Q: Does ID produce scientific peer-reviewed literature?
A: You "allege" that it doesn't. Adulate peer-review all you want. I know it's limitations.
This is your idea of a "mature debate"?
There's nothing "mature" about it.
Your answers are worthless evasion and nonsense.
ID is a joke and a fraud.
"Perhaps I was insulting to you because you were a CRETIN that was incapable of a mature discussion?"
CRETIN? That does it. I have no time for this. You can debate others.
Annon,
Cedric seems to have an inexhaustible supply of time to write insulting comments on other peoples blogs.
I wonder sometimes whether he is paid for it!
He is the sort of commenter who tempts ID blog writers become moderated in their comments.
I enjoyed your comments though!
10/August/2009
Andrew.
You're back!
Long time no see.
Haven't noticed you here in months.
I enjoyed your comments though!
Really?
Quote one.
What dazzling piece of ID science did Anon impress you with?
Was it this one?
Q: Is ID a scientific theory?
A: Who cares? Frankly, I don’t. I am not going to waste time finding out what a scientific theory is.
:)
Andrew Rowell
Thanks. I won’t be reading the honourable’s postings again.
What I was seeking are rational challenges to specific ID claims per se. The usual objections are nothing but complaints about personnel in ID, social status of ID, Court rulings, No. of publications on ID etc. Once that fails then it is button ‘A’ for Ad hominem.
Let’s say we grant the allegations along the lines above (excluding ad hominem). It tells us nothing about the truth or otherwise of ID claims. My position is that there’s sufficient evidence to rationally conclude Design. But, like any position, you always want to test it against rational counter claims. For those, it looks like I have to find another blog.
I'm struggling to find some science here. I'm not a scientist but from what I can gather about it, you observe something and then make suggestions about it, testing as you can. I can't see scientific responses to the scientific comments being posted by 'dissenter'/the latter 'anonymous'. 'Cedric...' reads more like a poet to me with some not such fine language thrown in. I saw some questions but I didn't see any reasons from Cedric about why the world isn't designed. Universe too. Presumably the fact that we have science is because there is predictability in the world, which is the opposite of non-designed and therefore non-created mindlessness.
28/September/2009
I'm struggling to find some science here.
Join the club.
Decode, are you an ID believer?
If so, do you think it's a scientific theory?
29/September/2009
Decode, in case you are still out there, there's a new video on "Intelligent Design" that shows how the whole movement is a fraud.
Let me know what you think of it.
Intelligent Design vs. Alien Intervention
...yes, I do think ID is a scientific theory. I think it says: this (e.g. wings) operates in this place and not in the other (e.g. air and not water); birds have so many other parts of them that meet their needs for their environment - third eyelid, cold-bloodeness to live outside, lightness of their feathers some of which (feathers) we don't see in fish or reptiles, which I presume they were supposed to come from that I can't see that these things happened 'by chance'. Machines which are far more 'clumsy' than living things are designed and we don't have a problem with that. Why do we have a problem with something far more sophisticated being designed? (compare the eye and the camera).
I have just read of some problems of origins in terms of Darwinian theory.
:according to Darwin, apparently (I’m no scientist),: - all – living things have evolved by natural processes.
(My immediate observation – evolved presumably from non-living things).
So here are steps I’ve read about and problems:
1) In the 1950’s amino acids were made by passing sparks through the type of gases which were thought to be present originally.
:A made.
2) So the theory was proposed that these had collected in some primordial soup originally, and linked together to form proteins. (My second observation: problem with where these materials came from).
?A + A to make P?
anyway, to continue:
3) It was then found that amino acids do not join together in water unless catalysts are present.
A + A needs C = P
4) Not only that. The protein molecules, to function, have to fold up (twist I think) according to the different (?alarm bells from me) amino acids present.
(A + A + C) (2A + 2A + C) folded = P
5) P needs to reproduce itself (that’s what life does). For that, it needs a nucleic acid like DNA. So P (which is several steps) + NA (nucleic acid) needed chemically, for life.
Problem is, where do any of these come from ? where does the soup come from; where do the rocks on which the soup is, come from? where does the sun shining on it come from? I take it these things are not going to interact without power from the sun.
So we have P + NA + light needed for life.
P + NA + light (power)
6) The NA, I then gather, has to be a DNA double helix molecule. So we have:
P + DNA + light (power) necessary for life.
The DNA – (at this point I’m following the thoughts of the intelligent designer who thought of all this: this is thought out…..)
There are 4 bases making up DNA. They form together like steps on a spiral staircase. (Decode cannot help adding in here, reminds me of steps to heaven, however, to continue),
The pattern of the bases determines what needs to be done – the instruction being given. Only certain arrangements of these are meaningful - intelligence needed here (not my words). Random combinations are meaningless and will not produce any action. They have to follow rules to work (not my thoughts again). (Who said religion’s got nothing to do with science? What does the word religion mean? something to do with repetition? rule? regularity?
anyway:
7) Finally, biological machinery found in all living cells, even the simplest, is needed to read the information generated by the codes, and make the proteins.
So here we have it:
intelligence, power, materials, biology, chemistry, physics, maths, engineering, language and laws. . . are all needed for life.
(Scientists, you need others to work with you!)
---
There’s a book out, which I haven’t read, but this is taken from an article by the author and I think the book is a light, humourous, non-scientiests-friendly expansion of the above.
“Intelligence, power, materials, biology, chemistry, physics, maths, engineering, language and laws. . . are all needed for life.”
.....I’ve degrees in science. I agree with the above. Life uses a language. In all our experience, language exclusively comes from intelligence. If anyone disagrees all they need do is supply an example of a natural unintelligent process that’s been observed to produce language. So far, none has ever been produced. All I hear is ID is not science & then the usual insults.
I’ve heard the claim DNA is not really a language but functions like one. OK. But to produce what “functions like” still requires prior knowledge of what it is it is to function like; that’s the preserve of mind. Matter can’t “know” & we still need an example of nature being observed (not speculated) to produce metaphors or what “functions like.” Claiming DNA is the example begs the question.
I really wish ID opponents, rather that engage in personal attacks would deal with specific questions that fascinate all of us.
Can anyone explain this?
B - "an uncaused cause"
Richard Dawkins - "that's fine"
Richard Dawkins - "if you want to define God as the singularity in physics that gave rise to the first fundamental particle - that's playing with words and I don't mind playing with words but don't [parenthesis - add the virgin birth, the resurrection, forgiveness of sins....]"
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand?mediaid=%7BFFAD6F7D-9F77-4045-9416-7D92377F84C6%7D
about 6.15 minutes in.
"if you want to define God as the singularity in physics that gave rise to the first fundamental particle”
......God is not that.
How is it that he defines God at all?
Post a Comment