Design and falsifiability

Steve;

I'm struggling to understand how this is significant. If, for your own amusement, you wish to explore how 2 + 3 = 4 and does not equal 5 because 5 is immoral and is destroying our society and culture, that's fine. But I don't see how that contributes anything to the sum of human knowledge or better understanding of the world around us. Since 5 is fact, and 4 is belief retained in the teeth of all evidence, gaining an admission that, yes, 1 + 4 does equal 5 doesn't really help us at all. 2 + 3 = 4 shows a fundamental--even willful--ignorance, a profound misunderstanding of how mathematics work. The same prejudice--the same arrogance--is at work in the claim that Nature is under the control of an Over-Mind rather than a systematic process of evolutionary development. Luskin's concession is inherently meaningless; if evidence could convince him that Evolution is a fact (not even including Darwin's Theory) then he would have been persuaded thus long ago. He hasn't, and so we're just re-arranging the furniture in DI's castle in the sky.

Daffyd ap Morgen

Does anyone have an example of something which is not "intelligently designed"? In Paley's exposition of the "watchmaker" argument, he contrasts a watch with a stone. But the problem for a traditional theist is that God is the Creator of all things, including rocks. So, to be fair, I suppose that the request should include also unreal, hypothetical things. But the only unreal things that I can think of - centaurs, for example - are intelligently designed. (Which, by the way, shows that intelligent design is not sufficient to explain existence.)

So, what is the difference that intelligent design makes?

TomS said: Does anyone have an example of something which is not "intelligently designed"?

If the designer is omnipotent and has motives that are inscrutable then her work can be used to explain anything and everything, and hence invoking her activity is not a scientific explanation of anything. We see this when evolutionary biologists try to use bad-design arguments against her activity, and are told "oh but there might be some reason why she designed it that way, you don't know so you can't rule that out".

Meanwhile, advocates of Design try to have it both ways when they consider junk DNA and say that "design theory" predicts that there won't be (any, much) junk DNA. They can't actually point to what piece of "design theory" makes that prediction, as it actually is their own projection of the motives of the Designer that predicts that.

On the issue of falsifiability of common descent, I wish people would not use a framework of tests that supposedly can absolutely reject common descent. Yes, that is the way Karl Popper thought about scientific inference, but he was wrong about that, and later philosophers have moved away from this view of testing and adopted more probabilistic views. When we look at humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutangs and see, at some site in the DNA the letters G, T, T and G, we don't absolutely totally reject the tree (((Human,Chimp),Gorilla),Orang). It just becomes less likely than an alternative tree that gives Chimp and Gorilla their own common ancestor. So the trees make predictions, but probabilistically, so that absolute falsifiability is not the way to think about patterns of common descent.

I'm disappointed to not see Prof. Steve Steve there between Fred Astaire and Edgar Allen Poe. It would have been the perfect spot for him.

Joe Felsenstein said: If the designer is omnipotent and has motives that are inscrutable then her work can be used to explain anything and everything, and hence invoking her activity is not a scientific explanation of anything.

Steve,

A great post, but I respectfully beg to differ. "Intelligent Design Theory" as presented by the likes of Dembski, Luskin and Meyer, and their fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers is intellectual rubbish, and for them to insist that it is somehow a valid "scientific theory", merely confirms my belief that it is nothing more than mendacious intellectual pornography, especially given their ongoing zealotry in trying to assert that it is indeed a "valid" scientific theory. Am glad you ended your post by stressing the difference between it and commond descent with respect to falsifiability.

John said: Steve, A great post, but I respectfully beg to differ. "Intelligent Design Theory" as presented by the likes of Dembski, Luskin and Meyer, and their fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers is intellectual rubbish, and for them to insist that it is somehow a valid "scientific theory", merely confirms my belief that it is nothing more than mendacious intellectual pornography, especially given their ongoing zealotry in trying to assert that it is indeed a "valid" scientific theory. Am glad you ended your post by stressing the difference between it and commond descent with respect to falsifiability.

There is a heck of a difference between a watch and a stone. One serves a specific purpose, the other does not. Therefore, even if both were divinely created, only one can be used in support of an inference for ID.

But the classic example used by ID proponents would be that of Mount Rushmore. It is *possible* that natural erosion processes could have acted over millions of years to produce the profiles of the four U.S presidents. It *could* be a freak of Nature and the result of chance and natural law. But the probability of something like this happening naturally, is far too low to be taken into serious consideration. Likewise, we can apply the example of Mount Rushmore to the intricate architecture present in the cell and reach the same logical conclusion.

Since Dr. Felsenstein is an expert on statistical analysis, he should realize that the argument from extreme improbability is indeed a means of providing falsification (or rather verification) to the hypothesis of intelligent design.

How do you know that a stone doesn't serve a purpose? Are you saying that God doesn't create stones?

As far as the Mount Rushmore rhetoric, this is ignoring the issue that has been brought up. What sort of thing is not "intelligently designed". Nobody denies that lots of things are intelligently designed (like Mount Rushmore, designed by humans).

It would seem that you have to want the designer to be communicating with you in order to be able to determine that something was designed. If there is no such intent at communication there isn't anyway to determine if the object is designed.

http://airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/0530/pagea8.pdf
http://impcomic.com/2009/04/13/mickey-cow/

Are these attempts at communication by an intelligent designer that wants to advertise Disneyland?

Even their Mount Rushmore example is one of communication. A message is being sent. SETI pretty much depends on attempted communication. If we found three pulsars in close proximity giving ordered signals we still would not accept that as alien communication even if it was the only such example of three grouped pulsars in the known universe. The SETI researchers would have to be able to decode some message before it was determined to be a beacon or communication.

You can't see that in the blood clotting system, nor the flagellum. All you see is complexity that the IDiots see as unexplanable. The god of the gaps arguments have a 100% failure rate in science. Until they can come up with a verifiable example they are doomed by that simple fact. Their gap reasoning has never been shown to lead to anything.

When they find "made by YVHV" in an ancient alphabet inscribed on a created item Luskin can make his case. Until then they are just spinning their wheels because they can't tell design from the undesigned in nature.

If their designer has no intent to communicate, they are pretty much doomed to failure unless they can find the designer and learn what it is capable of and look for signs of the designer's handiwork. We can do that with stone tools and termite mounds because we know the designers and know how such things are manufactured. Since their designer can pretty much do anything they are stuck and can't get anywhere with their current scam junk. Even they know it or they would not be running a stupid bait and switch scam on their own creationist supporters. You don't sell the rubes the science of ID and then only give them a switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed if you really believed your own bogus arguments.

The bait and switch scam is a definite way of communicating something, so why are there still IDiot supporters of the ID perps? When you require your followers to be that dense, incompetent, and or dishonest there is absolutely no way that they will be able to understand any communication from anyone let alone a subtle god unless it is written on the baseball bat that whacks them over the head to get the message across.

TomS said: How do you know that a stone doesn't serve a purpose? Are you saying that God doesn't create stones?

As far as the Mount Rushmore rhetoric, this is ignoring the issue that has been brought up. What sort of thing is not "intelligently designed". Nobody denies that lots of things are intelligently designed (like Mount Rushmore, designed by humans).

Joe Felsenstein said: Meanwhile, advocates of Design try to have it both ways when they consider junk DNA and say that “design theory” predicts that there won’t be (any, much) junk DNA. They can’t actually point to what piece of “design theory” makes that prediction, as it actually is their own projection of the motives of the Designer that predicts that

I kind of agree, but I think there are a lot of design claims that could be falsified (if ID proponents ever made testable claims).

The primary statement of ID, 'that there is a designer' is theoretically falsifiable (but not in practice). The simple reason is that a designer must be a supernatural deity (http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/why-intelligent-design-must-be-religious/).

Of course, any supernatural deity, by definition, is not falsifiable by science.

However, we should be able to detect the effects of the designer in the natural universe. If the designer uses any method other than know scientific principles (which is what ID proponents constantly argue 'natural science can't do x'), then the design changes must be visible in the natural world.

The simple fact that we have not been able to actually detect design in the natural world, even after 210 years of looking means that it is either so well hidden that it's effectively impossible to find (which means ID is not falsifiable) or it doesn't exist (in which case ID is simply wrong).

Anyone who makes an argument about the detection of design by humans or SETI, obviously doesn't even understand what their own notions are about. SETI is the clearest example of what ID proponents should be doing and are not. SETI is looking for changes in the EM spectrum that cannot occur by natural means. Of course, forensics, anthropologists and the like KNOW who their designer is.

ID, specifically avoids looking for the designer, which is unfortunate, because that's the one thing that could help them out.

So anyway, I do agree that, based on the arguments of ID proponents, ID is unfalsifiable. The ID proponents specifically avoid ANYTHING that might result in a falsifiable proposition, because they know what the result will likely be.

On the other hand, I think ID can be falsifiable. I think it has been falsified. Every time an ID proponent says "This can't happen naturally" and someone finds a natural mechanism that can do it, then it's falsified.

1) Are you saying that God does not create stones?

2) If we find something in the world of life which serves no clear specified purpose, then you will say that it is not intelligently designed? For example, the blind spot in vertebrate eyes? For example, the location of Homo sapiens on the same branch of the tree of life as chimps and other apes? clear, specified purpose?

3) What laws of nature are violated in the manufacture of a laptop computer? Mount Rushmore? In the reproduction and growth of a living thing?

4) "Design without magic"? What is design with magic?

One the "stones" question: I remember a while back, someone on this site mentioned something about pseudorunes -- these natural formations in stone, formed by erosion, that the experts of the time swore up and down were some sort of indecipherable lettering. Alas, it appears that's not what they were called, because I can't find more detailed information about them; anyone know what I'm talking about?

Consider his flower-based message example. He’s quite right that a person (let’s call him Steve) looking at a bed of flowers that spells out a message in English can and should conclude that the flower bed is the product of design.

Casey himself has previously posted at the Discoveroid blog that even bad design can nevertheless be design: Craig Venter's Typo Shows Poor Design is Still Design. If what we see as poor design can nevertheless be the work of the magic designer, then how does an ID “researcher” know when he’s looking at evidence of ID?

Atheistoidiot said: There is a heck of a difference between a watch and a stone. One serves a specific purpose, the other does not. Therefore, even if both were divinely created, only one can be used in support of an inference for ID. But the classic example used by ID proponents would be that of Mount Rushmore. It is *possible* that natural erosion processes could have acted over millions of years to produce the profiles of the four U.S presidents. It *could* be a freak of Nature and the result of chance and natural law. But the probability of something like this happening naturally, is far too low to be taken into serious consideration. Likewise, we can apply the example of Mount Rushmore to the intricate architecture present in the cell and reach the same logical conclusion.

Since Dr. Felsenstein is an expert on statistical analysis, he should realize that the argument from extreme improbability is indeed a means of providing falsification (or rather verification) to the hypothesis of intelligent design.

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Casey himself has previously posted at the Discoveroid blog that even bad design can nevertheless be design: Craig Venter's Typo Shows Poor Design is Still Design. If what we see as poor design can nevertheless be the work of the magic designer, then how does an ID “researcher” know when he’s looking at evidence of ID?

Well, the use of stone tools is a serious issue for palaeontologists and archaeologists. They infer “intelligent design” by examining them for evidence of purpose. However, what I said is that your ordinary lump of rock serves no clear “specified purpose”. A watch, on the other hand, clearly does - telling the time.

The point about Mount Rushmore is that it could have been produced simply by the laws of Nature whereas your laptop could not have been. But the extreme improbability of this sculpting happening by chance and physical laws means that intelligent design is a much better explanation. We should likewise logically infer design in the case of many cellular and organismic structures/systems.

But it is also true that natural processes could be manipulated by a designer to achieve the same effect. That is what we humans have been doing with artificial selection and experiments in directed evolution. It is design without magic.

That is the other major issue. No ID proponent has ever responded to a challenge I have of determining which gene sequence is designed.

I propose to give them a gene sequence that we know is designed (because a human designed it) and a gene sequence made from random arrangements of nucleotides (with the sole provision that Stop codons only appear at the end) and see if they can determine which is designed and which is not.

If they can't do that, then how can they possibly tell which sequence is designed vs. evolved?

The other side of the coin, of course, is that the designer could simply be chemistry and physics and evolution. If that's the case, then IDists are arguing against their own argument.

Alas, as has been pointed out, the only things that we know for certain are designed are things which have been designed by humans. Which leads to two problems for those claiming to identify design in what we otherwise would judge as natural:

- If natural objects resemble human designs in some sense, it would be reasonable to assume it's a case of humans imitating nature, but not so reasonable to think that nature is imitating humans.

- Since the only designers that we know about are humans, that leaves as the only specific candidate for designers of natural objects as humans as well. Any other designers would have to be judged speculation unsupported by any evidence.

John Pieret said:

But it is also true that natural processes could be manipulated by a designer to achieve the same effect. That is what we humans have been doing with artificial selection and experiments in directed evolution. It is design without magic.

If the designer is using natural processes, why would we think natural processes are an insufficient explanation? When IDers can tell us how and why their "designer" manipulates the natural processes, the way we can for artificial selection and experiments in directed evolution, then maybe they'd have a start, at least, on a science of ID. Until then, all they are invoking is unknown magic.

John Pieret said: The position, orientation, size, shape, etc. of any one rock is also extremely improbable ... literally one out of X, where X represents every rock in the universe. For all we know, the position of that rock in the field was part of a group, spelling out in an extraterrestrial language, "Welcome to Earth."

apokryltaros said: But one of the problems is that Intelligent Design proponents are both reluctant and incapable of doing anything beyond invoking DESIGNERDIDIT as an alternative to doing any sort of investigation.

TomS said:

apokryltaros said: But one of the problems is that Intelligent Design proponents are both reluctant and incapable of doing anything beyond invoking DESIGNERDIDIT as an alternative to doing any sort of investigation.

(Sorry for the bad post) Perhaps the proponents of ID have learned from the dismal failures of "scientific creationism" and such. It is a lot safer to say nothing, than to take the risk of formulating an alternative...

When we speak of an artificer or an architect, we talk of what is comprehensible to our understanding, and familiar to our experience. We use no other terms, than what refer us for their meaning to our consciousness and observation; what express the constant objects of both; whereas names, like that we have mentioned, refer us to nothing; excite no idea; convey a sound to the ear, but I think do no more. Natural Theology (from chapter titled "Of the Personality of the Deity")

Features that strike us as odd in a design might have been placed there by the designer for a reason–for artistic reasons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason–or they might not. Darwin's Black Box, 223

Aside from any metaphorical uses of the word “design,” the only reason the ID/creationists invoke design in the first place is that they simply don’t understand physics and chemistry. Design and “information” are not “forces” or “agents” that assemble things despite the mistake notion is that “it is the natural tendency of everything is to fall all apart.”

Watches and stones are completely different in the way they are assembled. Atomic and molecular forces assemble stones according to the rules of quantum mechanics. The patterns that emerge in the assemblies of atomic and molecular systems are the result of underlying “templates” in the allowed quantum mechanical states among atoms and molecules. We know what these rules are.

Quantum mechanical rules do not carve out gears, springs, and inscribed faceplates in macroscopic systems. They don’t carve faces in rocks. The energies involved in assembling atoms and molecules into patterns are on the order of electron volts and less. The energies involved in the carving of rocks and metals into non-quantum mechanical shapes are on the order of joules, and quantum mechanical rules are not involved in any significant way.

Systems evolving from atomic and molecular assemblies build on underlying allowed states or on emerging states as the assemblies get more and more complex.

Watches and rock faces are carved out of condensed matter by forces guided by intelligence and purpose. That is how we can identify the intelligence behind the “design.”

Naturally occurring assemblies are from the bottom up and rely on atomic and molecular forces and patterns. When the systems get large enough to be affected by gravity and interactions with other large systems, we begin to see the constraints imposed by these as well.

Designed systems are “hacked out of” condensed matter; and they usually follow patterns that are not intrinsic to or built upon the atomic and molecular arrangements of matter.

Mike Elzinga said: Aside from any metaphorical uses of the word “design,” the only reason the ID/creationists invoke design in the first place is that they simply don’t understand physics and chemistry. Design and “information” are not “forces” or “agents” that assemble things despite the mistake notion is that “it is the natural tendency of everything is to fall all apart.”

Atheistoclast said: No.The problem with you folks is that you believe the laws of physics and chemistry are alone a sufficient cause with which to explain the appearance of design in life. Information does not arise spontaneously. Covalent bonding may explain why atoms interact with each other, but not how complex molecular structures arise. The laws of physics and chemistry govern the operation of the transistors in my computer's CPU. But they don't explain how the CPU got there in the first place. You seem to think that the former and the latter are the same thing. And therein lies your lack of understanding.

circleh said: No, because natural selection works over time to eliminate mutations that are harmful and keep most of those that are beneficial. The longer it operates, the more improbable its products. Mountains are not living things, they do not reproduce and they don't have nucleic acids to transmit traits from one generation to another.

Atheistoclast: What separates biology from other fields is feedback. Pandas and trees and bacteria produce similar, but not identical, copies of themselves. That is why watches and buildings have nothing to do with evolution: when a mommy watch and a daddy watch love each other very much, nothing happens.

Mike Elzinga said: As someone has already mentioned, you really do need to take a course in reading comprehension. And you also need to learn some physics and chemistry.

As you preempted my comment, let me add: and certain biochemicals also produce similar, but not identical, copies of themselves. (Plus, feedback is more powerful than is initially apparent.)

mharri said: Atheistoclast: What separates biology from other fields is feedback. Pandas and trees and bacteria produce similar, but not identical, copies of themselves. That is why watches and buildings have nothing to do with evolution: when a mommy watch and a daddy watch love each other very much, nothing happens.

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: As someone has already mentioned, you really do need to take a course in reading comprehension. And you also need to learn some physics and chemistry.

No. I repeat, you think that the laws of physics and chemistry are sufficient to generate information and complex structures and systems invested in living organisms. You think it is all a matter of self-assembly. The atoms just interact inevitably to produce complex forms.

Atheistoclast said:

mharri said: Atheistoclast: What separates biology from other fields is feedback. Pandas and trees and bacteria produce similar, but not identical, copies of themselves. That is why watches and buildings have nothing to do with evolution: when a mommy watch and a daddy watch love each other very much, nothing happens.

Sorry. But imperfect reproduction is not a viable explanation for how something more complex than a watch can arise naturally. It is not even close. It is just an excuse.

Mike Elzinga said: Define "information." Explain how "information" pushes atoms and molecules around.

'Clast, 'Clast, 'Clast. Where to start.

Once again you're inching toward the abiogenesis discussion, not evolution. As far as abiogenesis goes, for the n^th time, "We don't know" != "Goddidit". Okay?

Moving on:

Nature does NOT "eliminate all suboptimal mutations". I have no idea where you got that notion. It's "survival of the fit enough". And what is sub-optimal in one circumstance may be superior in another (viz. sickle cell gene).

No one said anything about "inevitability". Nature has tendencies. And contingencies.

You have never shown how natural forces and emergent properities are insufficient to do... whatever it is you're claiming. Information? Purpose? You are inserting teleology and philosophilcal "meaning" where none is needed.

There's "information" in everything. It just depends on what you're looking for. A rock has "information" about its origin and possible history... vulcanism, metamorphosis, glaciation, w.h.y.

If you say there's no "information" in a rock, you're just saying "that's not the information I was looking for".

So, what "information", exactly, are you looking for?

ogremk5 said: I kind of agree, but I think there are a lot of design claims that could be falsified (if ID proponents ever made testable claims).

ID, specifically avoids looking for the designer, which is unfortunate, because that's the one thing that could help them out.

Joe Felsenstein said: On the issue of falsifiability of common descent, I wish people would not use a framework of tests that supposedly can absolutely reject common descent. Yes, that is the way Karl Popper thought about scientific inference, but he was wrong about that, and later philosophers have moved away from this view of testing and adopted more probabilistic views. When we look at humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutangs and see, at some site in the DNA the letters G, T, T and G, we don't absolutely totally reject the tree (((Human,Chimp),Gorilla),Orang). It just becomes less likely than an alternative tree that gives Chimp and Gorilla their own common ancestor. So the trees make predictions, but probabilistically, so that absolute falsifiability is not the way to think about patterns of common descent.

fnxtr said: 'Clast, 'Clast, 'Clast. Where to start.

I think creationist thinking goes like this: The Universe could not exist without God. The Universe, therefore God. Why does the Universe exist? Because God made it - because of God, the Universe. Circular reasoning, pure and simple, and therefore non-falsifiable. Design presupposes a designer, so you are assuming that which you are trying to prove.

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: Define "information." Explain how "information" pushes atoms and molecules around.

Information is data that is specific and organized for a purpose. It is fundamentally a form of communication. The highly specific and syntactic arrangement of protein molecules is because they convey and communicate biological information to the cell. The laws of chemistry do explain the peptide bonds between the amino acids but not the composition and order of these amino acids. The latter is the work of a designer. Sorry.

Atheistoclast said:

mharri said: Atheistoclast: What separates biology from other fields is feedback. Pandas and trees and bacteria produce similar, but not identical, copies of themselves. That is why watches and buildings have nothing to do with evolution: when a mommy watch and a daddy watch love each other very much, nothing happens.

Sorry. But imperfect reproduction is not a viable explanation for how something more complex than a watch can arise naturally. It is not even close. It is just an excuse.

Natural selection eliminates all suboptimal mutations thus serving as a force for conservation in biology.

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: Define "information." Explain how "information" pushes atoms and molecules around.

Information is data that is specific and organized for a purpose. It is fundamentally a form of communication. The highly specific and syntactic arrangement of protein molecules is because they convey and communicate biological information to the cell. The laws of chemistry do explain the peptide bonds between the amino acids but not the composition and order of these amino acids. The latter is the work of a designer. Sorry.

Ok, so you really don’t know what you are talking about. Try learning some physics and chemistry. Just making up crap is not helping you.

Mike Elzinga said: Ok, so you really don’t know what you are talking about. Try learning some physics and chemistry. Just making up crap is not helping you.

Steve Matheson said: If you write just one more ludicrous falsehood on this thread, you and those foolish enough to respond will find yourselves scribbling on the Bathroom Wall.

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: Ok, so you really don’t know what you are talking about. Try learning some physics and chemistry. Just making up crap is not helping you.

Is that all you have to say? Go away and learn some science? How about actually offering a counter-argument. Do you know how to do this?

Atheistoclast said: Information is data that is specific and organized for a purpose. It is fundamentally a form of communication. The highly specific and syntactic arrangement of protein molecules is because they convey and communicate biological information to the cell. The laws of chemistry do explain the peptide bonds between the amino acids but not the composition and order of these amino acids. The latter is the work of a designer. Sorry.

But Casey left out the key word - “human design”. We recognize human design, insect design, bird design, etc. But we can only do so because we know about the designers.

DS said: What is the purpose in the information in the periodicity of a pulsar? IS it trying to communicate with us?

What is the purpose in the information in the rate at which the universe is expanding? Is it trying to tell us something? What is the purpose in the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities that we see among living organisms, including nonfunctional characters such as SINE insertions and thrid base substitutions in coding regions?

Are the sequences trying to tell us something? You have a hopelessly teleological bias that you just can't seem to get over. You should watch the Dawkins video to see what he has to say about that.

All you have is a conviction that evolution could not produce life, that's it.

Steve called it. Now that your fallacies have been exposed, you have once again resorted to name calling. Time for the bathroom wall - again.

What would correspond to that debitage dump in the ID notion?

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: What is the purpose in the information in the periodicity of a pulsar? IS it trying to communicate with us?

Not according to SETI's tests for artificiality. http://www.springerlink.com/content/78158t60802l6wn6/

What is the purpose in the information in the rate at which the universe is expanding? Is it trying to tell us something? What is the purpose in the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities that we see among living organisms, including nonfunctional characters such as SINE insertions and thrid base substitutions in coding regions?

SINEs and LINEs are not non-functional. They have been observed to donate important cis-regulatory information to promoter regions.

Are the sequences trying to tell us something? You have a hopelessly teleological bias that you just can't seem to get over. You should watch the Dawkins video to see what he has to say about that.

Without the specified and complex information encoded in DNA and manifested in proteins and RNAs life is just not possible.

All you have is a conviction that evolution could not produce life, that's it.

Has natural evolution been observed to produce biological information? No.

Steve called it. Now that your fallacies have been exposed, you have once again resorted to name calling. Time for the bathroom wall - again.

No. He asked me for my definition of information. I gave it, but he didn't like it...because it points to only one possible source. I'm sorry.

Atheistoclast said: There is a heck of a difference between a watch and a stone. One serves a specific purpose, the other does not. Therefore, even if both were divinely created, only one can be used in support of an inference for ID.

Richard B. Hoppe said: What would correspond to that debitage dump in the ID notion? The millions of extinct species in the fossil record? The existence of junk DNA in (most) genomes? (That last would undercut the current ID blather about "junk" DNA.) Human designers leave evidence of the manufacturing process that we can test; ID creationism provides nothing comparable.

And that, at best, could be an “argument” for deism (one or many deities) or “front loading,” but who needs it?

— Mike Elzinga

DS said: As you have been told repeatedly, random mutation and natural selection can produce information. It just isn't trying to communicate with us or anything else. You don't want to believe it, that's too bad. Deal with it.

Something similar happened last weekend: I was at a party where the topic of astrology came up, and I was apparently the lone skeptic of the group. After a long time of talking in circles (and crashing repeatedly in the latest Mario Kart), I finally explained the difference between a concept being false, and a concept being unscientific; and the guy said he agreed with me on that -- that something can be true, and not at all demonstrable. I decided not to press the issue. I think the difference is whether someone believes an idea should be considered until proven false, versus rejected until proven -- not so much true, as useful, I guess.

DS said: So pulsars have no purpose. Thanks for admitting that.

The fact is that the vast majority of SINE and LINE insertions are nonfunctional, along with millions of other endogenous retroviruses. They have no purpose at all, let alone communication. Of course you have no explanation whatsoever for the nested hierarchy, thought not.

As you have been told repeatedly, random mutation and natural selection can produce information.

It just isn't trying to communicate with us or anything else. You don't want to believe it, that's too bad. Deal with it.

mharri said: Something similar happened last weekend: I was at a party where the topic of astrology came up, and I was apparently the lone skeptic of the group. After a long time of talking in circles (and crashing repeatedly in the latest Mario Kart), I finally explained the difference between a concept being false, and a concept being unscientific; and the guy said he agreed with me on that -- that something can be true, and not at all demonstrable. I decided not to press the issue. I think the difference is whether someone believes an idea should be considered until proven false, versus rejected until proven -- not so much true, as useful, I guess.

3) Incidentally, the “prediction” about “junk” DNA is a dodge, similar to the one that medicine-denying quacks use when they incorporate some good advice that responsible physicians would agree with into their quack systems. Let’s take ERVs as an example of “junk” DNA (a term I hate but have to use). We have a very good scientific idea of how they got into eukaryotic genomes. But not all ERVs are entirely functionless to mammals, by any means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endoge[…]s_in_mammals. There was also an example a few years ago of a “junk” non-coding region in corn gaining regulatory elements and being expressed as a gene. The detected “function” in that case was that it made some strains of corn vulnerable to a fungal infection (which is what triggered the research). I am NOT suggesting that all or much of “junk” DNA will ever be found to have a function, as the term “function” would be understood by a reasonable person - evidence suggests the opposite. What I’m doing here is pointing out the weaselly nature of that “prediction”. If any segment of a genome currently considered “junk” DNA is ever found to have any relevant biological activity whatsoever, ID advocates will falsely claim that their fake prediction is in some way validated. (*In reality, it’s the opposite - it’s actually that as long as there is any DNA whatsoever that has no known important function for the phenotype, their prediction remains unfulfilled. But it isn’t designed as a valid prediction. It’s designed as a weaselly word game, to let scientists make discoveries, and then allow them to falsely claim victory.*)

No. Their function has not been determined. But there is good evidence that they do serve a purpose: Long-range function of an intergenic retrotransposon http://www.pnas.org/content/107/29/12992.full

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: So pulsars have no purpose. Thanks for admitting that.

No, that's not what I said. I stated that their regular emissions do not constitute or convey any information.

The fact is that the vast majority of SINE and LINE insertions are nonfunctional, along with millions of other endogenous retroviruses. They have no purpose at all, let alone communication. Of course you have no explanation whatsoever for the nested hierarchy, thought not.

No. Their function has not been determined. But there is good evidence that they do serve a purpose: Long-range function of an intergenic retrotransposon http://www.pnas.org/content/107/29/12992.full

As you have been told repeatedly, random mutation and natural selection can produce information.

And you have consistently failed to show how this process generates information, in theory or in practice. I dealt with this in my own paper which I suggest you read: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract

It just isn't trying to communicate with us or anything else. You don't want to believe it, that's too bad. Deal with it.

This is absolutely inane. Please learn something about both intracellular and intercellular communication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_communication_%28biology%29 It does help.

SETI is looking for changes in the EM spectrum that cannot occur by natural means. Of course, forensics, anthropologists and the like KNOW who their designer is.

I prefer “testable” to “falsifiable,” and it’s questions like those that provide predictions one can test by going out into the field and/or laboratory and looking.

A watch, on the other hand, clearly does [serve a specific purpose] - telling the time.

4) “Design without magic”? What is design with magic?

That is why watches and buildings have nothing to do with evolution: when a mommy watch and a daddy watch love each other very much, nothing happens.

harold said: Steve Mattheson - A nice exposition ... If you claim to know nothing about the designer - and that's what Casey has to do, because the original point of ID was to "court proof" creationism for inclusion in US public school science curricula - then you CANNOT ever infer that anything is the product of design. As Steve notes, what Casey actually does is project human values onto a perfectly magical designer. If you didn't know anything about the designer to begin with, why would something seeming "improbable" or "highly functional" or "irreducibly complex" imply design? Of course, ID implicitly refers to the Christian God, often referred to as Jehovah (for some odd reason some people have been offended when I used that term, even though I was raised in a traditional Christian church, one that did not traumatize or offend me even though I have never been religious, and that term for God was perfectly acceptable). However, in addition to the legal reasons for hiding this (thereby, ironically, breaking the commands of the Biblical God), conceding it merely brings up back to problem "1)". The Christian God can always do anything and is inscrutable. I personally strongly support the right of anyone to worship any gods they want, as long as they respect my rights, but that doesn't make magical explanations scientific explanations, and it certainly doesn't make magical explanations that contradict observed scientific reality valid. ...

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: Wrong again oh sultan of wrongness. The periodicity of a pulsar can contain information allowing the determination of the mass of the pulsar, what type of pulsar it is, whether it orbits a neutron star or not and can even contain information about the interior of the pulsar. Here is a reference if you don;t believe it.

Oh, for goodness sake! The pulsar cannot convey information like an artifical sinusoidal signal can. You are confusing information about an object with the ability of an object to communicate information. But am I not surprised.

As for endogenous retroviruses, they serve no purpose, They are inserted randomly into the genome.

The PNAS paper I cited shows you to be dead wrong: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/29/12992.full Here we show that an LTR retrotransposon of ERV-9 human endogenous retrovirus located 40–70 kb upstream of the human fetal γ- and adult β-globin genes serves a long-range, host function. Got that?

If you disagree you will have to prove a function for all of them.

Science is working on that. You are just asserting your ignorance as fact.

There is information in the allele frequencies of different genes in natural populations. The information is not there to be discovered by humans. The organisms are not trying to communicate the information to anyone. Grow up and learn some biology already.

Grow up and learn the difference between the data/information about something and the means to convey information for the purpose of communication.

By the way, on the same page as a the Dawkins video on teleology, there is also a video on the fallacy of perceived design. I suggest you increase your knowledge.

Dawkins is an idiot. Here is my favorite video of him talking about mutations and information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfISG2-8Bxs Classic!

Steve,

You need to reference this. Fit it in somehow.

DS said: Information about an object is information. You can't redefine it away. That's your whole problem, you only seem to want to count one type of thing as information. Get over it already. The Nature paper proves that you are wrong. There is information about the structure of the pulsar in the changes in periodicity.

Thanks for the reference about the retrovirus. That is indeed an example of a retrovirus with a function. One down, 888,888 to go.

Of course you still have no explanation for the information in the distribution of retrovirus insertions. These are nearly perfect phylogenetic markers that have been used extensively to reconstruct phylogenetic relationships. But then you'll probably just come up with a reason why that doesn't count as real information either now won't you?

There is no need for any information to communicate.

The information exists whether it is communicated to anyone or understood by anyone. The entire field of population genetics is based on the idea. Get a clue already.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity? Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr

Joe,

You are obviously the one who is confused. Communication requires information, information does not require communication.

Still no ideas about the pattern of retrotransposon insertions and the phylogenetic information it contains? Well, you had your chance.

If you want to discuss information theory further, please try to find someone who is willing to discuss it on the bathroom wall. I have no interest whatsoever in discussing information theory with someone who defines information as the dog whispering in your ear in english that god made it.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: So pulsars have no purpose. Thanks for admitting that.

No, that's not what I said. I stated that their regular emissions do not constitute or convey any information.

rossum said:

TomS said: Does anyone have an example of something which is not "intelligently designed"?

The designer herself is, presumably, not intelligently designed. Hence her existence disproves ID because a non-designed living thing exists. Of course, conversely, her non-existence would show that all living things are designed and hence that ID is true. :) rossum

But the classic example used by ID proponents would be that of Mount Rushmore .... the probability of something like this happening naturally, is far too low to be taken into serious consideration.

No.The problem with you folks is that you believe the laws of physics and chemistry are alone a sufficient cause with which to explain the appearance of design in life.

“The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them.”

And you also need to learn some physics and chemistry.

ID was literally “designed” to contradict evolution and support creationism, while keeping the religious motivation hidden for legal reasons.

— harold

Has anyone noticed that the length of a Casey Luskin response is proportional to the number of fallacies, misrepresentations, and disinformation pointed out by his interlocutor?

Steve Matheson was saying some very simple--evidence that something is functional has no bearing on whether that something was inherited from a common ancestor. And he said it several times and Luskin just got more and more tl;dr each time. It's just another form of Gish Gallop. And all Casey has to say, ever, is that if some evidence for evolution is weaker, that somehow becomes evidence of design. This would be a logical fallacy even if evolution and design were the only two possible explanations, which of course they aren't.

You find nothing new in the arguments or tactics of creationists.

gabrieljhanna said: Has anyone noticed that the length of a Casey Luskin response is proportional to the number of fallacies, misrepresentations, and disinformation pointed out by his interlocutor? Steve Matheson was saying some very simple--evidence that something is functional has no bearing on whether that something was inherited from a common ancestor. And he said it several times and Luskin just got more and more tl;dr each time. It's just another form of Gish Gallop. And all Casey has to say, ever, is that if some evidence for evolution is weaker, that somehow becomes evidence of design. This would be a logical fallacy even if evolution and design were the only two possible explanations, which of course they aren't. You find nothing new in the arguments or tactics of creationists.

If I may ask; is not a rearrangement, flipping one or more bits in a binary string, equivalent with creating new information?

It is tiresome to see a creationist once again hijack a thread.

— TomS

You find nothing new in the arguments or tactics of creationists.

— gabrieljhanna

You can say the same thing about dogshit. It “contains information” about what the dog ate. But that is not what is meant by information in the context of communication theory and molecular biology.

harold said: Shit is a rich source of information is many, many contexts.

mrg said:

harold said: Shit is a rich source of information is many, many contexts.

A recent article, I forget where, described how the management of an apartment block required that the tenants submit their dogs to swabbings for DNA. It was to allow identification of dog droppings.

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: Define "information." Explain how "information" pushes atoms and molecules around.

Information is data that is specific and organized for a purpose. It is fundamentally a form of communication. The highly specific and syntactic arrangement of protein molecules is because they convey and communicate biological information to the cell. The laws of chemistry do explain the peptide bonds between the amino acids but not the composition and order of these amino acids. The latter is the work of a designer. Sorry.

Ok, so you really don’t know what you are talking about. Try learning some physics and chemistry. Just making up crap is not helping you.

"Information" is such a dodgy concept. We can unarguably say there is "information" in a blueprint -- but can we say there is "information" in the machine or structure that we build from the blueprint? The answer to that question is the answer to the question: what more do we honestly know if we say the machine contains "information" or not? The answer is: Nothing we didn't know about the machine otherwise, which suggests the question is meaningless.

Certainly it's not a property of ordinary physical objects like "color".
I don't think it's all that different from asking if a physical object has
"numbers". It has quantities -- we have ten toes -- and sometimes curves following well-defined math functions -- but what sense does it make to ask if it has "numbers", and why bother?

dornier.pfeil said: Mike Elzinga, Can I try? Information is the symbolic representation of physical objects and their interactions. A description. As such it is a human invention. Information has no meaning outside of the context of the humans who made and use it. A DNA molecule actually possesses no information as humans understand it. It is simply reacting with its envionment. The information arises only when a human starts describing the DNA molecule. You may not want to spoonfeed 'clast but I am eager to know.

harold said:

You can say the same thing about dogshit. It “contains information” about what the dog ate.

DS said:

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: So pulsars have no purpose. Thanks for admitting that.

No, that's not what I said. I stated that their regular emissions do not constitute or convey any information.

The fact is that the vast majority of SINE and LINE insertions are nonfunctional, along with millions of other endogenous retroviruses. They have no purpose at all, let alone communication. Of course you have no explanation whatsoever for the nested hierarchy, thought not.

No. Their function has not been determined. But there is good evidence that they do serve a purpose: Long-range function of an intergenic retrotransposon http://www.pnas.org/content/107/29/12992.full

As you have been told repeatedly, random mutation and natural selection can produce information.

And you have consistently failed to show how this process generates information, in theory or in practice. I dealt with this in my own paper which I suggest you read: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract

It just isn't trying to communicate with us or anything else. You don't want to believe it, that's too bad. Deal with it.

This is absolutely inane. Please learn something about both intracellular and intercellular communication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_communication_%28biology%29 It does help.

Wrong again oh sultan of wrongness. The periodicity of a pulsar can contain information allowing the determination of the mass of the pulsar, what type of pulsar it is, whether it orbits a neutron star or not and can even contain information about the interior of the pulsar. Here is a reference if you don;t believe it: Nature 359:616-618 Pulsar glitches as probes of neutron star interiors. As for endogenous retroviruses, they serve no purpose, They are inserted randomly into the genome. There are literally millions of them. They do not serve as promoters. In most cases they are defective or partial copies that can't even function in their own replication and transposition. They are they because they are there, period. If you disagree you will have to prove a function for all of them. Besides, the point was that there is information in the pattern of there occurrence in different species. Still no explanation for that observation I guess. There is information in the allele frequencies of different genes in natural populations. The information is not there to be discovered by humans. The organisms are not trying to communicate the information to anyone. Grow up and learn some biology already. By the way, on the same page asa the Dawkins video on teleology, there is also a video on the fallacy of perceived design. I suggest you increase your knowledge.

Bill said: Didn't one or both of the old Voyager deep space probes have a gold plaque with references to pulsars with spin period data and directional reference to our solar system? Sounds kinda like information to me...

dornier.pfeil said: Mike Elzinga, Can I try? Information is the symbolic representation of physical objects and their interactions. A description. As such it is a human invention. Information has no meaning outside of the context of the humans who made and use it. A DNA molecule actually possesses no information as humans understand it. It is simply reacting with its environment. The information arises only when a human starts describing the DNA molecule.

vreejack said: It would be meaningful to interpret the information in DNA as being information about the DNA's environment, as selected by that same environment.

vreejack said:

dornier.pfeil said: Mike Elzinga, Can I try? Information is the symbolic representation of physical objects and their interactions. A description. As such it is a human invention. Information has no meaning outside of the context of the humans who made and use it. A DNA molecule actually possesses no information as humans understand it. It is simply reacting with its environment. The information arises only when a human starts describing the DNA molecule.

It would be meaningful to interpret the information in DNA as being information about the DNA's environment, as selected by that same environment. There may also be information about recent environments which is no longer correct, and there may be a lot of random rubbish which could become information if the environment selects for it in the future. DNA that has been selected by the environment (natural selection) is information about that environment. DNA that has been selected against is information about what does not work in the environment (though this is not retained). DNA that does not feel selection pressure might be information about past environments or it might be random gibberish. The information is created by the act of selection.

Mike Elzinga said: One can consider a much simpler system to get the general ideas.

Incidentally (or maybe not so incidentally), the next shoe that is often dropped by ID/creationists is “function” or “functionality.”

Implicit in this is that complex systems evolve toward a “purpose;” i.e., a feature of complex living organism “serves a purpose.” Therefore evolution can’t explain function.

Here again one looks to simpler “soft” systems and considers the fact that when such systems are immersed in an energy and matter bath and are kept “soft,” there are flows of matter and energy through the system. (That’s why living systems don’t work when frozen, or when heated to the point where their most delicate structures start going chaotic and coming apart.)

Highly complicated systems, even far below the complexity of living organisms, display coordination and the appearance of “function” in many of their subsystems. This is not an unusual occurrence that is characteristic only of living organisms. Convection cells “serve” to more efficiently distribute energy and matter from one part of a system to another. So we have an example of an organized, functioning structure within a complex system that appears to have a purpose.

So the main question that ID/creationists have to answer is, “Why rule out evolution in the presence of natural selection when everything in chemistry and physics and biology points in that direction?”

Even more to the point; what evidence do ID/creationists have that the laws of chemistry and physics - that we now know and have considerable experience with – stop working at some level of system complexity? Where is the famous and bogus “entropy barrier?”

Mike Elzinga said: Incidentally (or maybe not so incidentally), the next shoe that is often dropped by ID/creationists is “function” or “functionality.” Implicit in this is that complex systems evolve toward a “purpose;” i.e., a feature of complex living organism “serves a purpose.” Therefore evolution can’t explain function. Here again one looks to simpler “soft” systems and considers the fact that when such systems are immersed in an energy and matter bath and are kept “soft,” there are flows of matter and energy through the system. (That’s why living systems don’t work when frozen, or when heated to the point where their most delicate structures start going chaotic and coming apart.) Highly complicated systems, even far below the complexity of living organisms, display coordination and the appearance of “function” in many of their subsystems. This is not an unusual occurrence that is characteristic only of living organisms. Convection cells “serve” to more efficiently distribute energy and matter from one part of a system to another. So we have an example of an organized, functioning structure within a complex system that appears to have a purpose. So the main question that ID/creationists have to answer is, “Why rule out evolution in the presence of natural selection when everything in chemistry and physics and biology points in that direction?” Even more to the point; what evidence do ID/creationists have that the laws of chemistry and physics - that we now know and have considerable experience with – stop working at some level of system complexity? Where is the famous and bogus “entropy barrier?”

Steve P. said: Entrophy barrier? Well, that would be Mike Elzinga. A simple observation: Ice melts when put directly in the sun, increasing its entrophy. It has never been observed to stay ice when put directly in the sun. In contrast when we put Mike Elzinga under the sun, for some reason his entrophy does not increase. This could very well be because he has been observed to put on a hat, rub suncreen on his skin, and drink more water than usual. Mike has not been transformed by the difference in temperature.

Frank Lambert says that life has been 'obstructing' entrophy for millions of years. Actually, as far as we know, it has been obstructing entrophy for some 3.5 billion years now. And with Mike Elzinga's ingenuity, life just may continue to 'obstruct' entrophy for billions more years.

? So the question remains, how long does life have to 'obstruct' entrophy before we can safely conclude that life is in fact violating the SLoT? 3.6By, 10By,1Ty?

Steve wrote:

"Frank Lambert says that life has been ‘obstructing’ entrophy for millions of years. Actually, as far as we know, it has been obstructing entrophy for some 3.5 billion years now. And with Mike Elzinga’s ingenuity, life just may continue to ‘obstruct’ entrophy for billions more years.

So the question remains, how long does life have to ‘obstruct’ entrophy before we can safely conclude that life is in fact violating the SLoT? 3.6By, 10By,1Ty?"

I'd say one second after there are no more increases in entropy anywhere else in the universe, including the sun. When the sun ceases to shine, it's a good bet that life on earth will not last long, unless of course it can find another energy source.

Steve P. -

One quick question for you.

Mike Elzinga is a physicist. He has extensive training as a physicist, he's been a physicist for years, and he was in the submarine service, where I'm guessing his knowledge of physics was very helpful. Please note that I am not describing "authority" here, but expertise.

If all the physicists in the world are wrong about physics and an uneducated boob like you is coincidentally the only person right about it, then all the planes should be falling from the skies, all the nuclear reactors should be blowing up, bridges should be collapsing even when properly maintained, and so on.

Why do you think these things aren't happening - is it possible that YOU are the one who can't (won't) understand thermodynamics, rather than the physicists?

It would be meaningful to interpret the information in DNA as being information about the DNA’s environment,

And Stevie? Ice does NOT melt "when put directly in the sun." You think there are no clear days in December (high summer) in Antarctica? Dang, that ice just STAYS there!

Where I grew up, the COLDEST days in winter were the brilliantly sunny ones, without that nice insulating blanket of cloud cover. Spit on the sidewalk, in the sun, froze. It might eventually sublimate, but it did not melt at -10F.

Stevie, you just make crap up, thinking it "disproves" evolution. But it always turns out to be made up crap.

Steve P. said: So the question remains, how long does life have to 'obstruct' entrophy before we can safely conclude that life is in fact violating the SLoT? 3.6By, 10By,1Ty?

SWT said: Entrophy? what kind of contest do I have to win to get one of these?

You crack me up ...

This could very well be because he has been observed to put on a hat, rub suncreen on his skin, and drink more water than usual. Mike has not been transformed by the difference in temperature.

SWT said: You crack me up ...

After reading through some of the comments I remembered a post I made a bit ago:
http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/scientific-vs-unscientific-notions/

The original article was talking about the possibility of the multi-verse and, indeed, it is potentially testable. Even if it's testable in theory, then it can be considered a scientific hypothesis.

Evolution can be (and is) tested. If allele frequencies didn't ever change, then evolution would be falsified. Even common descent is testable (falsifiable).

ID is not. There is nothing that can be said where an ID proponent cannot (or will not) say "But the designer made it that way."

So, even in theory, ID is untestable and therefore unsceintific.

Steve P. said: A simple observation: Ice melts when put directly in the sun, increasing its entrophy. It has never been observed to stay ice when put directly in the sun.

Steve P. said:

Mike Elzinga said: Incidentally (or maybe not so incidentally), the next shoe that is often dropped by ID/creationists is “function” or “functionality.” Implicit in this is that complex systems evolve toward a “purpose;” i.e., a feature of complex living organism “serves a purpose.” Therefore evolution can’t explain function. Here again one looks to simpler “soft” systems and considers the fact that when such systems are immersed in an energy and matter bath and are kept “soft,” there are flows of matter and energy through the system. (That’s why living systems don’t work when frozen, or when heated to the point where their most delicate structures start going chaotic and coming apart.) Highly complicated systems, even far below the complexity of living organisms, display coordination and the appearance of “function” in many of their subsystems. This is not an unusual occurrence that is characteristic only of living organisms. Convection cells “serve” to more efficiently distribute energy and matter from one part of a system to another. So we have an example of an organized, functioning structure within a complex system that appears to have a purpose. So the main question that ID/creationists have to answer is, “Why rule out evolution in the presence of natural selection when everything in chemistry and physics and biology points in that direction?” Even more to the point; what evidence do ID/creationists have that the laws of chemistry and physics - that we now know and have considerable experience with – stop working at some level of system complexity? Where is the famous and bogus “entropy barrier?”

Entrophy barrier? Well, that would be Mike Elzinga. A simple observation: Ice melts when put directly in the sun, increasing its entrophy. It has never been observed to stay ice when put directly in the sun. In contrast when we put Mike Elzinga under the sun, for some reason his entrophy does not increase. This could very well be because he has been observed to put on a hat, rub suncreen on his skin, and drink more water than usual. Mike has not been transformed by the difference in temperature. Frank Lambert says that life has been 'obstructing' entrophy for millions of years. Actually, as far as we know, it has been obstructing entrophy for some 3.5 billion years now. And with Mike Elzinga's ingenuity, life just may continue to 'obstruct' entrophy for billions more years. So the question remains, how long does life have to 'obstruct' entrophy before we can safely conclude that life is in fact violating the SLoT? 3.6By, 10By,1Ty?

SWT said: You crack me up ...

Steve Matheson said And I want some feedback on my argument. Here’s what I wrote on ENV: Design is unfalsifiable to whatever extent the postulated designer is capable of acting in the world. If the designer (like the Creator God) is omnipotent, then it is impossible to rule out deliberate design in any place at any time. This is a necessary conclusion that can only be avoided by restricting the expected actions/motives of the designer. [Luskin] claim[s] that “shared non-functional similarities” can falsify “common design,” and that’s true only if you have defined “common design” in a fairly restricted way. What such similarities don’t do - cannot do - is rule out the action of a designer. (That designer could have other reasons for doing things the way she does, meaning that “shared non-functional similarities” could evince design just as strongly as any other genomic feature.) That’s what I mean when I say that design is unfalsifiable, and I hope that clarifies things.

bigdakine said: Hallelujah! Its a miracle! Its proof of an unknow designer! Naaah. Life maintains itself through metabolism. It uses energy and in the process generates entropy, in full compliance with the SLOT. There's no mystery here. Except to maybe a stubborn creationist.

Steve P. said: So the question remains, how long does life have to 'obstruct' entrophy before we can safely conclude that life is in fact violating the SLoT? 3.6By, 10By,1Ty?

Thanks for displaying your woeful ignorance of science again, Ray. One need not infer the existence of an Intelligent Designer to see Design in nature. The construction of elaborate ant hills, and of beaver dams, are actions ruled by instinct or intelligence present within the animals themselves, not through some Intelligent Designer who could be not the Christian GOD, but maybe instead, a Lakota (Sioux) GOD, Ahura Mazda, Rama, Shiva or some Klingon GOD:

What Matheson has forgotten is the fact that design is an observation, and based on said observation, Intelligence is inferred. The reason Matheson has forgotten these claims is because he is engaging a pseudo IDist (Casey Luskin). He is as such because he accepts micro/macro evolution, common descent and limited natural selection (which are the major claims of his opponent). Luskin’s claims concerning design are subjective, without foundation or precedence in the history of science.

In Darwin’s time the debate was restricted to causation or agency. IF God is causing biological production then effects must be described as designed. IF material nature is causing biological production then effects must be described as evolutionary. “Evolution” and “Design” are antonyms. Effects produced by material nature cannot be described as designed because material nature does not have a mind. Effects produced by God (invisible Intelligence) cannot be described as evolutionary because God, of course, has a mind. This is why Darwin and his converts argue vehemently against the effect of design existing in nature. They do so based on the claim of fact that natural/material agency is operating in nature, causing biological production.

Design, therefore, is falsifiable: If material nature is causing biological production then no effect can be described as designed. Conversely, if God/Intelligence is causing biological production then no effect can be described as evolutionary.

Ray Martinez said:

Steve Matheson said And I want some feedback on my argument. Here’s what I wrote on ENV: Design is unfalsifiable to whatever extent the postulated designer is capable of acting in the world. If the designer (like the Creator God) is omnipotent, then it is impossible to rule out deliberate design in any place at any time. This is a necessary conclusion that can only be avoided by restricting the expected actions/motives of the designer. [Luskin] claim[s] that “shared non-functional similarities” can falsify “common design,” and that’s true only if you have defined “common design” in a fairly restricted way. What such similarities don’t do - cannot do - is rule out the action of a designer. (That designer could have other reasons for doing things the way she does, meaning that “shared non-functional similarities” could evince design just as strongly as any other genomic feature.) That’s what I mean when I say that design is unfalsifiable, and I hope that clarifies things.

“Design is unfalsifiable to whatever extent the postulated designer is capable of acting in the world” (S. Matheson). Matheson states his claim of fact. “If the designer (like the Creator God) is omnipotent, then it is impossible to rule out deliberate design in any place at any time. This is a necessary conclusion that can only be avoided by restricting the expected actions/motives of the designer” (S. Matheson).

What Matheson has forgotten is the fact that design is an observation, and based on said observation, Intelligence is inferred.

The reason Matheson has forgotten these claims is because he is engaging a pseudo IDist (Casey Luskin). He is as such because he accepts micro/macro evolution, common descent and limited natural selection (which are the major claims of his opponent). Luskin’s claims concerning design are subjective, without foundation or precedence in the history of science.

In Darwin’s time the debate was restricted to causation or agency. IF God is causing biological production then effects must be described as designed. IF material nature is causing biological production then effects must be described as evolutionary. “Evolution” and “Design” are antonyms. Effects produced by material nature cannot be described as designed because material nature does not have a mind. Effects produced by God (invisible Intelligence) cannot be described as evolutionary because God, of course, has a mind. This is why Darwin and his converts argue vehemently against the effect of design existing in nature. They do so based on the claim of fact that natural/material agency is operating in nature, causing biological production. Design, therefore, is falsifiable: If material nature is causing biological production then no effect can be described as designed. Conversely, if God/Intelligence is causing biological production then no effect can be described as evolutionary.

"[Luskin] claim[s] that “shared non-functional similarities” can falsify “common design,” and that’s true only if you have defined “common design” in a fairly restricted way. What such similarities don’t do - cannot do - is rule out the action of a designer. (That designer could have other reasons for doing things the way she does, meaning that “shared non-functional similarities” could evince design just as strongly as any other genomic feature.) That’s what I mean when I say that design is unfalsifiable, and I hope that clarifies things" (S. Matheson). Matheson is correct: no effect can rule out the work of an invisible Designer. THIS IS WHY (like I said) THE HISTORIC DEBATE IS ABOUT causation or agency. The same is true concerning evolution (no effect can rule out evolution (even though IC phenomena does in the minds of objective persons)). Darwinism says similarity implies divergence and common descent (species producing species). Paleyan IDism says the evolutionary explanation is illusory, caused by the work of one Divine Mastermind (God creating each species).

RM (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

It is a rare thread that has two OECs (Steve P. and Ray M.), let alone two who differ radically on common descent and (I think) the age of life.

Please, let's all stop the feeding and encourage Steve and Ray to have a spirited debate on their mutually-contradictory "theories," here or on the Bathroom Wall.

"Yet you cannot show us anything in biology that is truly designed and compare it with something in biology that isn’t, can you?

Darwinism has the same problem.

You cannot show us anything in biology that truly evolved and compare it with something in biology that was designed (didn't evolve).

RM (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Frank J said: It is a rare thread that has two OECs (Steve P. and Ray M.), let alone two who differ radically on common descent and (I think) the age of life. Please, let's all stop the feeding and encourage Steve and Ray to have a spirited debate on their mutually-contradictory "theories," here or on the Bathroom Wall.

Oh no, they're talking about the "Ray" again. C'mon people, a joke's a joke, but this is getting pretty old. If you've got to play this game, at least add a little variety and make up "Wilbur" or "Chester" or "Moe" or somebody new.

They can compare biology from nature to biology that was genetically engineered by people.

Frank J said: It is a rare thread that has two OECs (Steve P. and Ray M.), let alone two who differ radically on common descent and (I think) the age of life. Please, let's all stop the feeding and encourage Steve and Ray to have a spirited debate on their mutually-contradictory "theories," here or on the Bathroom Wall.

Ray,

I have a response for you on the bathroom wall. Although actually somewhat on topic, your transparent attempt to derail this thread is not going to work.

Frank J said: It is a rare thread that has two OECs (Steve P. and Ray M.), let alone two who differ radically on common descent and (I think) the age of life. Please, let's all stop the feeding and encourage Steve and Ray to have a spirited debate on their mutually-contradictory "theories," here or on the Bathroom Wall.

Mike Elzinga said:

Frank J said: It is a rare thread that has two OECs (Steve P. and Ray M.), let alone two who differ radically on common descent and (I think) the age of life. Please, let's all stop the feeding and encourage Steve and Ray to have a spirited debate on their mutually-contradictory "theories," here or on the Bathroom Wall.

Yea! A dope-slapping contest for the centuries. Should they “weigh in?”

Mike Elzinga said:

Frank J said: It is a rare thread that has two OECs (Steve P. and Ray M.), let alone two who differ radically on common descent and (I think) the age of life. Please, let's all stop the feeding and encourage Steve and Ray to have a spirited debate on their mutually-contradictory "theories," here or on the Bathroom Wall.

Yea! A dope-slapping contest for the centuries. Should they “weigh in?”

sweet, everything is ID, and nothing can be shown to be NOT ID as there is nothing to measure.
and with this brilliant "theory" we therefore have the ability to make such testable predictions as.... oh... NOTHING. ZERO
pseudo-information for information sake?

use ID to fill in the blank
Question 1) since god intelligently created cancer only _________ get it when _______.
be sure to show your work.

hey DI did you know a magic teapot orbits the sun?

Kevin B:A completely irrelevant analogy. (And you can’t spell “entropy” either.)

It would be more illuminating to note that life manipulates energy (entropy being merely a component of the total energy.) Life cannot actually decrease the total entropy of the Universe, but it can move available energy (enthalpy) to compensate locally.

Steve P. said:

It would be more illuminating to note that life manipulates energy (entropy being merely a component of the total energy.) Life cannot actually decrease the total entropy of the Universe, but it can move available energy (enthalpy) to compensate locally.

Maybe you would like to take up that conversation with Lambert.

Steve P. said: At any rate, you (pl) miss the forest for the trees. Life manipulates, obstructs, violates entropy (hey, hey) in order to be life. Life's highest state of entropy is death. Isn't that why we celebrate life; cuz its so damn special?????? Because it defies entropy. It ducks the entropic scythe. If entropy has its way, no life would exist. But here we are, in defiance of the laws of nature.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: At any rate, you (pl) miss the forest for the trees. Life manipulates, obstructs, violates entropy (hey, hey) in order to be life. Life's highest state of entropy is death. Isn't that why we celebrate life; cuz its so damn special?????? Because it defies entropy. It ducks the entropic scythe. If entropy has its way, no life would exist. But here we are, in defiance of the laws of nature.

Well, at least we have established beyond any doubt whatsoever that you know absolutely nothing about entropy.

SWT said: I believe that was already in evidence.

Perhaps a design proponent active in this thread (yeah, I'm talkin' to you, Steve P.!) could address the actual topic of this thread: Design and falsifiability.

N.B.: Steve Matheson's post didn't discuss entropy at all.

SWT said: Perhaps a design proponent active in this thread (yeah, I'm talkin' to you, Steve P.!) could address the actual topic of this thread: Design and falsifiability. N.B.: Steve Matheson's post didn't discuss entropy at all.

Yeah; he latched onto the very last sentence in one of my posts on organization and function that was directed against the notion of design.

Well, I don’t need to pursue it any farther. He is just taunting anyway.

Ray Martinez said: You cannot show us anything in biology that truly evolved and compare it with something in biology that was designed (didn't evolve).

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: You cannot show us anything in biology that truly evolved and compare it with something in biology that was designed (didn't evolve).

Artificial hybrids, transplants, grafts. Triticale, mules. Artificial DNA with a non-standard base. Artificial bioluminescence.

Ray Martinez said: Tom has misunderstood the issue. There is no dispute as to the origin of man-made design (obviously).

Tom: Perhaps he could be talking about non-human tool use?

Ray Martinez the psychotic mendacious Xian creobot decreed:

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: You cannot show us anything in biology that truly evolved and compare it with something in biology that was designed (didn't evolve).

Artificial hybrids, transplants, grafts. Triticale, mules. Artificial DNA with a non-standard base. Artificial bioluminescence.

Tom has misunderstood the issue. There is no dispute as to the origin of man-made design (obviously). It is Darwinists here and elsewhere who argue that unless something is NOT designed (in nature) no objective criteria exists by which to ascertain design. The argument requires Paleyan IDists to admit to falisification (acknowledge the concept of evolution as existing in nature). In response I readily admit inability to comply---then, in this precise context, I point out that Darwinism/ToE has the same problem. Darwinists would also have to admit to falsification (acknowledge the existence of the concept of design as existing in nature) in order to have an objective criteria by which to ascertain evolution (non-design).

Ray Martinez said: Tom has I have deliberately misunderstood the issue.

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: Tom has misunderstood the issue. There is no dispute as to the origin of man-made design (obviously).

I quite admit that I may have misunderstood what you mean by non-man-made-design. Please help me to understand. Tell me something about what sort of thing happens when non-man-made-design takes place. What sorts of things are non-man-made-designed and what sorts of things are not. What the rules or principles or materials or methods of non-man-made design are.

Ray wrote:

"Darwinists would also have to admit to falsification (acknowledge the existence of the concept of design as existing in nature) in order to have an objective criteria by which to ascertain evolution (non-design)."

So the premise is that there is nothing that has not evolved which can be compared to that which has evolved. And this somehow magically disproves evolution. Right.

"Darwinism does not allow effects to be identified as designed because the theory rejects the concept of Intelligence to exist in nature."

No, there is plenty of intelligence in nature, just not in creationists.

DS said: Ray wrote: "Darwinists would also have to admit to falsification (acknowledge the existence of the concept of design as existing in nature) in order to have an objective criteria by which to ascertain evolution (non-design)." So the premise is that there is nothing that has not evolved which can be compared to that which has evolved. And this somehow magically disproves evolution. Right....

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray wrote: "Darwinists would also have to admit to falsification (acknowledge the existence of the concept of design as existing in nature) in order to have an objective criteria by which to ascertain evolution (non-design)." So the premise is that there is nothing that has not evolved which can be compared to that which has evolved. And this somehow magically disproves evolution. Right....

I was RESPONDING to an argument made by one of your evo brothers. That argument says design, as a claim, cannot be verified unless a baseline of non-design exists for comparison. The argument requires Paleyan IDists (like myself) to admit the concept of evolution as existing in nature (the baseline). But I readily admit my inability so, according to the argument, design is a subjective concept, unavailable for all to confirm, however. Evolutionary theory has the same problem in reverse. You guys would have to admit design in order to affirm non-design (evolution).

Ray Martinez the delusional psychotic Xian creotard lied: When Ken Miller (and others) admit design the same is a reaction to the perceived success of DI IDism. As someone else upthread has noted, the admission comes in the context of having been produced by material nature itself; so the admisson is ad hoc. Darwinism rejects the concept of design to exist in nature.

The concept of "design" has been shelved in biology simply because it hasn't been found to explain anything.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray wrote: "Darwinists would also have to admit to falsification (acknowledge the existence of the concept of design as existing in nature) in order to have an objective criteria by which to ascertain evolution (non-design)." So the premise is that there is nothing that has not evolved which can be compared to that which has evolved. And this somehow magically disproves evolution. Right....

I was RESPONDING to an argument made by one of your evo brothers. That argument says design, as a claim, cannot be verified unless a baseline of non-design exists for comparison. The argument requires Paleyan IDists (like myself) to admit the concept of evolution as existing in nature (the baseline). But I readily admit my inability so, according to the argument, design is a subjective concept, unavailable for all to confirm, however. Evolutionary theory has the same problem in reverse. You guys would have to admit design in order to affirm non-design (evolution).

And now I am RESPONDING to you. That is nonsense. All you have to do is find something that is not designed. Anything will do. A rock. A pond. A snowflake. Oh wait, that's right. You think all of that stuff is designed. Therefore, it is impossible to find any example of anything that is not designed. GODDIDIT explains everything and consequently nothing. On the other hand, it's easy to find something that has not evolved. A rock. A pond. A snowflake. Now you can easily see the difference between something that has evolved and something that hasn't.

John said:

Ray Martinez the delusional psychotic Xian creotard lied: When Ken Miller (and others) admit design the same is a reaction to the perceived success of DI IDism. As someone else upthread has noted, the admission comes in the context of having been produced by material nature itself; so the admisson is ad hoc. Darwinism rejects the concept of design to exist in nature.

No Ken Miller is staking out this position merely to undercut yours, that Design in Nature means the existence of an Intelligent Designer. "Darwinism" can and does work - I am referring of course to the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution - without rejecting the concept of design. As Ken noted in "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul", design can be viewed as an emergent property of events like mutation and processes such as Natural Selection.

Henry J said: The concept of "design" has been shelved in biology simply because it hasn't been found to explain anything.

Ray Martinez said:

Henry J said: The concept of "design" has been shelved in biology simply because it hasn't been found to explain anything.

False. Design is rejected/denied simply because acceptance renders evolution superfluous.

harold said:

You can say the same thing about dogshit. It “contains information” about what the dog ate. But that is not what is meant by information in the context of communication theory and molecular biology.

YES IT IS. In the context of communication theory, the observer defines what information is. Shit is a rich source of information is many, many contexts.

Jumbuck gets the Poe Award of the day. Even The Ray couldn't top that.

Science Avenger said: Jumbuck gets the Poe Award of the day. Even The Ray couldn't top that.

A Poe little lamb lost it’s way from Queensland.

He's ignoring being called out on being a Loki troll. That's a sign. I'm assuming he's "taking the mickey" on us.

Mike Elzinga said: A Poe little lamb lost it’s way from Queensland.

Ray M has been posting the same nonsense at talk.origins for more that ten years, no use in responding! Science definitely is not his cup of tea!