c'est moi said:Will somebody here explain the evolution of the knee?
What's the problem with your knee?
c'est moi said:Will somebody here explain the evolution of the knee?
Of course I am stalking you. I want to have your babies.leopold99 said:ophiolite, are you stalking me?
you are supposed to answer this so i can accuse you again.
c'est moi said:Another often cited argument is: We can't study these designers, we don't know how they did it, etc. hence, it's unscientific. It's a sham objection again. Indirect evidence is evidence as well. People in court get convicted on the basis of this all of the time. Why? because indirect evidence is evidence. If to design life is a crime, a court could convict them. simple.
I think a clear reason to reject ID is that's unfalsifiable, as many things that anyone can invent to "explain" lots of things.c'est moi said:to conclude: no I'm not an Id adept. It's just a pitty to see that people are easily satisfied with their arguments when in fact they themselves have little ground to stand on. Will somebody here explain the evolution of the knee? Of life in general? I'm reading stuff by people combining cybernetics, information theory, systems science and biology in order to find it out. I don't have the feeling they're getting anywhere. Unless we find a universal law which clearly dictates that the formation of life is unavoidable in certain circumstances, we have nothing. It's not a reason to adopt ID, but it's no reason to reject ID either.
Danniel said:But then if a mysterious designer or an infinite chain of mysterious designers with their mysterious ways is an valid, scientific explanation, a mysterious "energy" that mysteriously creates design, somehow, without being intelligent, is a vallid and scientific explanation as well. Maybe better, more parsimonious, because doesn't assume an unnecessary trait, intelligence. All that's necessary is to "somehow" design/adaptation/phenomena-to-be-explained appear......
I think ID isn't unscientific because we can't study the intelligent designers. In fact, we could, if we assume that there was "intelligently designed designs" in the natural world. More or less like if we found artifacts somewhere we can examine for what they're made, their purposes and thus the designers intentions and etc.
ID is unscientific, at least as the way it's been recently proposed because it can't be tested. And if we can think of something that would refute ID, it always does, but ID defenders always will come with some sort of ad hoc.
For example, if there's an ID of living beings. Is very reasonable to expect that "chimeras" would abound. Even if we accept universal common ancestry. But somehow, not only there are the natural lineages, but all known genes are always distributed along them in a way that never conflicts with either vertical or horizontal genetic transmission, while we could expect that genes, at very least, would appear anywhere thy would be useful, not restricted by the known natural means of transmission.
For example, there are fishes in both poles which have similar "anti-freezing" proteins in their blood (or something like that); if they're designed by the same designer, one would reasonably expect that there would be the same protein coded by the same gene in both cases, since the genetic code is the same for both fishes, that would work.
But that's not what happens. If I recall correctly, there are similar proteins, coded by similar genes. Convergent evolution fits well with the fact, and doesn't require nothing unknown and mysterious in his/their purposes.
I don't know the actual ad hoc used by ID defenders for this sort of thing, but I can invent several myself, and it's all "valid" since no one knows if there's an ID. Could be that there are poly-ID-ism and each protein and it's respective gene is owned and patented by a different ID, or group of IDs.
I think a clear reason to reject ID is that's unfalsifiable, as many things that anyone can invent to "explain" lots of things.
I am not an expert in comparative biology, in fact know little about it, but there are cases where many different creatures seem to have exactly (well almost so) the same genetic sequences. For example, say 80% of A is the same as B. Likewise B matches exactly 75% of C etc. Also for reasons developed well before anything about genes was even known, the evolutionists that were working "knew" that A was an "offshoot" of B and B was an "offshoot" of C etc. For me this is strong evidence that the pre genetic knowledge of "evolution" is correct. (but in a few instances, the gene data show they had the evolution chain wrong.)c'est moi said:....If one kind of configuration (macro or on genetic level) is the best possible, explaining why it evolved seperately more than once, then there should be a lot of configurations around that failed. Convergent evolution is just a term. It has nothing to do with facts. Facts would be explaining the observed phenomenon adequately and in detail....
c'est moi said:mysterious, heh? ... seems like some sort of trick to make it seem improbable, I'd say
Maybe yes,for you as an insignificant small thing in the universe, this is all mysterious. You are part of a generation of scientific revolution now lasting like hardly a few centuries, yet you feel confident enough to rule out anything "mysterious". I'm sorry, not argument there.
But they can infer at least something about the designers. For example, that weapons of the different tribes or cultures are made by different tribes or cultures to attack each other and defend from each other.c'est moi said:This is a bad analogy. Are you suggesting that archeologists know the intention of the artifacts they find? I know they don't. I am one
All we (they) can is think of possible explanations. It can never be an exact science in that way.
I surely won't say that anything any evolutionist says is good because it's evolution. But I think that the discussion between evolutionists is far away from the discussion about nothing between defenders of different creationisms.I'm not here to defend the ID adepts, but I do know, that evolutionists are very good at this as well. They don't make any clear predictions and can accomodate nearly any situations. Nothing is a real problem to them. In one publication, a certain problem will be handled in a certain way, while another evolutionist will state something completely different (like, 'this would be a fundamental proof against evolution theory', whilst the other guy solved it by saying, 'it's no problem at all we could explain it'). I can give you many examples. Most of their arguments are based on discussions with creationists - originally, as we all know, darwinism was not conventional. This is part of the problem as well cause you get flawed logic all over the place. Arguments against creationism are not necessarily pro- evolution.
I didn't quite understand what you think that would be a real explanation, or how darwinism isn't evidenced by convergent evolution...I wouldn't call convergent evolution a strong evidence in favour for darwinism.
If one kind of configuration (macro or on genetic level) is the best possible, explaining why it evolved separately more than once, then there should be a lot of configurations around that failed. Convergent evolution is just a term. It has nothing to do with facts. Facts would be explaining the observed phenomenon adequately and in detail. You can't just say that it firs with the facts. It's a circular reasoning.
I understand your criticism. It's a problem. But not only for ID. As I said already, you can observe the same shit within evolutionist's literature. It's not my problem though. Just wanted to point out that human beings are bad at science. They're better at preaching
I am not an expert in comparative biology, in fact know little about it, but there are cases where many different creatures seem to have exactly (well almost so) the same genetic sequences.
Also "convergent evolution" does have many "failures." Despite being very sensitive, wavelength responsive, etc, the human eye is one. (You know retina is behind blood vessels and layers of processing nerves - "built backwards" - from an optical point of view.)
(Or do not know what you were trying to say. If that is the case, give me an example of whatr you mean by a "failure." What would you consider a failed eye?)
Quasi "convergent evolution" is not just "term" but is a fact. (There is slightly divergent evolution also - sometime in the not too distant past, one of the human retinal pigments diverged a little. I forget which but one of the three, but now humans come with two distinct, but very similar, absorption curves retianal pigments - two sub species if you like, but fortunately not obviously different so they can go to the same schools etc. )
Also it is a fact that in creatures that have indeed evolved from a common prior one, Nature has usually kept the old designs, which could be because an ID used the best one, I agree, but in view of 1000 failures in eyes alone, either there were a 1000 independent IDs, each with his/her idea as to what is "best," or the trial and error process at the heart of evolution has a lot of support outside of the fossil record also.
You said: "Facts would be explaining the observed phenomenon adequately and in detail" and I agree. When this is done, as I have tried to briefly illustrate with "eye facts and failures," the evolution position is strongly supported.
The problem isn't just being "mysterious".
Is that if something totally unknown is proposed as an explanation of a fact, supposedly an effect, any other unknown thing can be as well.
Like an "designing energy", or "designing principle" of the universe. It doesn't need to be intelligent. It just have the effect of creating design, however it works.
But they can infer at least something about the designers. For example, that weapons of the different tribes or cultures are made by different tribes or cultures to attack each other and defend from each other.
I didn't quite understand what you think that would be a real explanation, or how darwinism isn't evidenced by convergent evolution...
If intelligent evolution/design were to be defended there, all we cold say that the ID is doing is forcing some pattern of mutations. Or increasing the rate of mutations in order to the right ones be selected. But it doesn't quite requires intelligent guidance, and why add stuff that is totally inutile to explain? Things that would be "Occam razored".
Other thing was of birds losing their teeth as it would make the animal less heavier and more easier to fly. But then any bird wouldn't be able to fly before eating one or two moths. If teeth weight was the problem, perhaps just slightly bigger wings would solve. Toothless birds more probably are the only ones we see because all of them descend from a bird that were once adapted to an herbivorous diet, or that loose the teeth for any reason more probably related with the diet, anyway.
It's nearly saying "he did it"; but yet there's the huge difference that natural selection is an actual mechanism.
valich said:Ophiolite has continuously defamed me, stalked me on multiple forums to do so, belittled me, condemned me, you name it and he's done it. I could easily file a civil law suit against him for defamation of character but I'm not about to waste my time in doing so. Now he's giving me a direct physical threat against my life. Isn't that enough?
Not, I don't think that's implied. But ID is more or less like saying that a demon or a ghost did the murder or the stealing, or that the murder is just inherently mysterious, and we don't have means to really know how that really happened so one can be guilty or innocent just as we like it to be or not, then we invent some sort of "explanation" that gives the result we want.c'est moi said:Then following your line of argument, you would never judge someone in court on the basis of indirect evidence?
Yes, unknown things can exist. But anyone can invent some thing that is just inutile and impossible to be tested, and just "explain" things because it's in the definition of that thing.Who doesn't say there is such a force in nature? No one can explain the origin of life. It's against many many odds for it to occurred. It should be an obvious thing for it to evolve out of ... matter. We are the ones who have created the barrier between matter and "life". Maybe this demarcation problem is nonexistent in nature. Always remember that in reality, there are never problems. Everything merely happens. It is our conceptions of reality that face problems because they are always based on a fragmentary "look". We were obviously not designed nor evolved to explore reality to the core. That's my opinion.
I'm not arguing here against indirect proof, but that, assuming that ID is indirectly proven or worthy of being considered, then there would be some indirect clues to the nature of the designer(s), wouldn't be just a religious/personal opinion. See the "multiple designers theory".But where are the designers? Has anyone of us seen them making these tools? It's indirect proof, sustained by current observations and logic inquiry.
I have yet to see anyone explaining in detail how irreducible complex systems arise. It is again a pitty that this concept comes from an "outsider" (Behe) and is not seriously taken. It should be. Whether there are no such systems (i doubt that) or there's something wrong.
Yeah, it's not the best possible, but I prefer a doctor saying that perhaps someone died from some heart disease or whatever, even if he or she isn't 100% sure, just the best (even dull) guess, than saying it was by "intelligent murdering" - which in this case wouldn't be an human intelligent murderer, but something else, or "he died from magic".but it's all ad hoc explanations
bad science as well
Not always true. It took smart people to invent "string theory" but I guess this reply belongs in the Physics and Math forum.Danniel said:....anyone can invent some thing that is just inutile and impossible to be tested, ...
Given my own jaundiced view of string theory [it's crap like this that gives the word theory a bad name] I would have to say they may have been intelligent, but they were not smart, practical or wise.Billy T said:It took smart people to invent "string theory"
How do you know this, and show us your calculations to show the odds.c'est moi said:It's against many many odds for it to occure.
Indeed, that is what it looks like.c'est moi said:It should be an obvious thing for it to evolve out of ... matter.
Near enough.c'est moi said:Maybe this demarcation problem is nonexistant in nature. Always remember that in reality, there are never problems. Everything merely happens. It is our conceptions of reality that face problems because they are always based on a fragmentary "look".
When will you know whether we have reached the core or not?c'est moi said:We were obviously not designed nor evolved to explore reality to the core. That's my opinion.
Indeed, observations and inquiry. Yet the ID crowd have not observed anything at all, and expect us to take them seriously?c'est moi said:But where are the designers? Has anyone of us seen them making these tools? It's indirect proof, sustained by current observations and logic inquiry.
Obviously you have been looking at the wrong places. Please browse the talkorigins website, and www.pandasthumb.orgc'est moi said:I have yet to see anyone explaining in detail how irreducible complex systems arise.
The idea will be taken seriously when it is shown to have merit. At the moment it has not yet even been shown to distinguish true and false positives.c'est moi said:It is again a pitty that this concept comes from an "outsider" (Behe) and is not seriously taken. It should be. Whether there are no such systems (i doubt that) or there's something wrong.
I don't ever recalledthat I ever liad on any post. And we have taken the quarrel to "private dimenensions." If you've read some of Ophiolites and Inverts posts on other thread, you'd be aware that he was stalking, and they have been warned by the admininstrator to stop doing so else he will be suspended from these forums. Also, I never said stalking was physical threatening - so you are the "liar" - but he has done both, and the adminstrators and I know this.c'est moi said:Aren't you a liar? Do you know what stalking is? That's not a physically treathening!
Take your quarrels into private dimensions.