The Problems with Intelligent Design

[wynn]

Standards of evidence need to be reasonable. I must take into account what is realm of possibility. For example one cannot use a paradox to show that some act is impossible.

Examples of evidence in favor of evolution (the idea that new form and function leading to derivation of all observed biological diversity is derived from observed non-teleological natural processes in operation today) would be:

1. direct observation of a contiguous multistep evolutionary pathway leading to derivation of any of a number of molecular subcomponents identified as necessary for new cell functions. These include new functional protein tertiary structures, new protein-protein binding sites, new gene expression controls, new functional developmental controls, new cell functional controls and circuits, new protein inventory and transportation systems, etc.

2. New functional systems require functional, specified information in order to construct, and instantiate and manage the components and processes that allow them to function. Examples of non-teleological natural systems that generate new functional information at a rate consistent with the timeframe estimated by the geologic record would support the evolutionary claims.

If the current evolutionary is correct, there would be hundreds and thousands of examples of these kinds of observations. As it is there seem to be none. Fruit flies have been mutated every conceivable way by non-teleological means with only three results; A) normal fruit flies, deformed fruit flies, C) dead fruit flies. Observed processes appear to be quite proficient at disabling and removing function but incapable of routinely deriving novel function other than the occasional single and double step mutations predicted by probability. There seems to be a limit to what observed processes can accomplish.

And all this clearly indicates that the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the one and only right one, and that the Protestants, Muslims, Hindus etc. etc. are wrong and deserve to burn in hell for all eternity. Yes.

 

[kx000]

And all this clearly indicates that the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the one and only right one, and that the Protestants, Muslims, Hindus etc. etc. are wrong and deserve to burn in hell for all eternity. Yes.

Impossible. All religions if wrong are equally wrong. The Holly Roman Catholic church? The church of that very nation the crucified Jesus Christ?

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church.[1] Led by the Pope, it defines its mission as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ,[2]

They are doing a terrible job at this.

administering the sacraments[3]

wiki

In other words teaching their followers to be pussies.

and exercising charity.[4]

For who? For their giant fancy building?

 

[billvon]

1. direct observation of a contiguous multistep evolutionary pathway leading to derivation of any of a number of molecular subcomponents identified as necessary for new cell functions. These include new functional protein tertiary structures, new protein-protein binding sites, new gene expression controls, new functional developmental controls, new cell functional controls and circuits, new protein inventory and transportation systems, etc.

We have seen several of these components come into existence as a result of evolution. We have not seen all of them directly in a single organism since we've only been observing biology scientifically for about 200 years. However, like geology, archaeology, paleontology and astronomy, we now have good proxy tools to determine what has happened in the past - and these tools reveal the results of such non-teleological evolution in fossils and biochemistry.

2. New functional systems require functional, specified information in order to construct, and instantiate and manage the components and processes that allow them to function. Examples of non-teleological natural systems that generate new functional information at a rate consistent with the timeframe estimated by the geologic record would support the evolutionary claims.

Yes. And one of the things we have discovered is that mechanisms to support that rapid development of functional, specified information do indeed exist. For example, it would be nearly impossible to evolve all the genes required for a completely new appendage (or set of appendages) if all the additional chemical gradients needed for development, maturation, senescence etc had to be created de novo.

However, evolution has provided tools to allow that to happen much more easily. The HOX genes, for example, allow an organism to add body segments as the result of very few mutations. We know that the HOX complex is ancient; a fly will develop normally if you replace a fly's HOX gene complex with a chicken HOX complex, so its evolution occurred quite far back in our evolutionary timeline.

So when you say that new functional systems require functional, specified information in order to construct, and instantiate and manage the components and processes that allow them to function - you are exactly correct. But that functional and specified information may be just a few simple mutations that are then 'interpreted' by the HOX complex as instructions for a creature with, for example, an entirely new body segment - an additional vertebra, or set of limbs, or eyes.

Fruit flies have been mutated every conceivable way by non-teleological means with only three results; A) normal fruit flies, deformed fruit flies, C) dead fruit flies.

Not even close to correct. A great many fully functional fruit flies (with altered body arrangements) have been created by manipulation of very few genes, thus demonstrating that such major structural changes are 1) simple, 2) heritable and 3) often functional.

Observed processes appear to be quite proficient at disabling and removing function but incapable of routinely deriving novel function

Again, incorrect. Indeed, there is a term, "neomorph," used to describe the addition of function via mutation. Examples:

Novel heat resistance in E Coli caused by forced selection (1992)

Novel phosphate synthesis (due to new expression of phosphatase) in Saccharomyces Cervisiae (1975)

Evolution from unicellular (Chlorella pyrenoidosa) to multicellular organism (Chlorella vulgaris.) (1983)

other than the occasional single and double step mutations predicted by probability.

And from such humble beginnings, evolution proceeds.

 

[wellwisher]

Cells also evolved proof reading enzymes, to make sure the DNA can not change in a completely random fashion. The DNA might try to start that way, but the proof readers will move along the DNA looking for typos and grammer errors. Is it possible, the proof readers allow certain typo's to remain but within a context?

Certain aspects of the DNA have stricter rules of proof reading and hardly change. While other aspects of the DNA seem to allow looser typo rules allowing more genetic change. I was always curious how the cell is able to assign different typo rules to different sections.

In terms of selective advantage the ability to regulate typos would provide an emormous selective advantage.

 

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --

Well if you're going to ask a question then ask the question, don't rely on vague, faulty comparisons.

I didn't - I was quite clear

And to answer your question, I don't know if it is or not but empiricism is the best tool that we've ever come up with for acquiring knowledge. Nothing else even comes close.

In epistemology there are no "best" methods, only methods that do and don't function in particular situations.

For instance empiricism is certainly not the best method for determining who one's biological mother is - the reason being of course that empiricism doesn't work well on problems that effectively contextualize our existence. Same holds when trying to determine key features of the origins of the universe etc.

 

[lightgigantic]

In the absence of a functional and meaningful socialization (such as when people nominally belong to a group, but are considered expendable; or when people live in a community where the leaders are free to abuse the trust of the members under threat of severe consequences),
knowledge claims become monopolized by naive empiricism, fundamentalist dogmatism, or irrationality.


Which is also known as "modern society", along with religion as it tends to be practiced nowadays.

hence religious principles tend to constantly be in a state of re-establishment by saintly persons etc

 

[Sarkus]

For instance empiricism is certainly not the best method for determining who one's biological mother is

:bugeye:
Care to suggest an alternative to empricism in this case, that would provide the knowledge?

 

[lightgigantic]

:bugeye:
Care to suggest an alternative to empricism in this case, that would provide the knowledge?

unless you got a dna test on your mother or unless you only go see an accountant or doctor after you are fully qualified in the field, you can already answer that.

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

For instance empiricism is certainly not the best method for determining who one's biological mother is - the reason being of course that empiricism doesn't work well on problems that effectively contextualize our existence.

Actually empiricism gives the best answers to that question, answers that can be trusted beyond any definition of a reasonable doubt. You won't get that from any other method of gaining knowledge that human kind has ever come up with.

It might not be the simplest method or the quickest, but that's nothing to do with the quality of the answer.

Same holds when trying to determine key features of the origins of the universe etc.

That's some claim there, it almost sounds as though you're putting arbitrary limits on what science can and can't tell us. You know what happened every single other time people tried to do that right? They were wrong.

 

[wynn]

In epistemology there are no "best" methods, only methods that do and don't function in particular situations.

For instance empiricism is certainly not the best method for determining who one's biological mother is - the reason being of course that empiricism doesn't work well on problems that effectively contextualize our existence. Same holds when trying to determine key features of the origins of the universe etc.

Along with others, I find your claim that "empiricism is certainly not the best method for determining who one's biological mother is" bizarre, to say the least.

I am trying to fathom what the basis of your claim is.

Given that you also said:

unless you got a dna test on your mother or unless you only go see an accountant or doctor after you are fully qualified in the field, you can already answer that.

I presume that your basis for establishing things like who one's biological mother is or what the origins of the Universe are, is trust.

A kind of holistic, ad-hoc conclusion along with the assumption that there exists a mutual relationship of love and giving between the mother and her child.

If this is what you think, then I need to remind you that these assumptions are not a given for all people, especially not for modern people.

As Attachment theory explains, there are different ways in which people become attached to others.

Your claims are aligned with the mode of secure attachment, but not with the other ones.

People may be attached to their biological parents, or the Universe, but they may be attached in an insecure way, such as avoidant, ambivalent/resistant or disorganized way.

Then we must also consider the attachment styles of adults, which apply to interactions between adults (such as us right here and now).
The way posters participate in a thread is also conditioned by their particular attachment style.

Traditional preaching approaches often take secure attachment for granted, but those approaches are often outdated by now.

You cannot reasonably expect people to "imagine what it would be like to have a secure attachment to their mother" and then work with that analogy in the rest of your preaching.
If people don't have this experience of secure attachment, they cannot just imagine themselves into it. Especially when it comes to the attachment with their mothers, which is emotionally intense (either positively or negatively).

 

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --



Actually empiricism gives the best answers to that question, answers that can be trusted beyond any definition of a reasonable doubt. You won't get that from any other method of gaining knowledge that human kind has ever come up with.

then if it is so effective why aren't even 1% of the population vaguely interested in applying it?

It might not be the simplest method or the quickest, but that's nothing to do with the quality of the answer.

You think people aren't interested in the quality of the answer to the question "who is one's biological mother?"

That's some claim there, it almost sounds as though you're putting arbitrary limits on what science can and can't tell us. You know what happened every single other time people tried to do that right? They were wrong.

unless you can explain how empiricism can ever have the scope beyond metonymic investigation it is far from arbitrary - although arbitrary would certainly be a an apt word to use your estimations of it usage

 

[lightgigantic]

Along with others, I find your claim that "empiricism is certainly not the best method for determining who one's biological mother is" bizarre, to say the least.

I am trying to fathom what the basis of your claim is.

Given that you also said:



I presume that your basis for establishing things like who one's biological mother is or what the origins of the Universe are, is trust.

trust is there but there is also the element that an individual is unqualified to investigate the problem - much like we seek the assistance of qualified people when we go about solving tasks in everyday life (eg - doctors, accountants etc) - the basis for being unqualified to investigate issues of the universe is our limited senses - IOW the answer requires access to a knowledge systems that is not metonymic

 

[Sarkus]

then if it is so effective why aren't even 1% of the population vaguely interested in applying it?

Because, contrary to your opinion, most people do not need the definitive knowledge that comes with such testing, but are prepared to accept the empirical evidence of the care they receive during their upbringing that the maternal figure in their life, if not told to the contrary, is also their biological mother. It can be strengthened by any physical similarities between mother and child.

But such is not always the case - some only find out much later in life that the maternal figure in their life, who they thought was their biological mother, in fact wasn't. And then the only way to cut through any doubt would be a DNA test.

You think people aren't interested in the quality of the answer to the question "who is one's biological mother?"

Most might superficially say that the "quality of the answer" is important. But for most it is taken for granted, and then reinforced with the empirical evidence they receive day in day out. Until there is a point where they no longer doubt it (if they ever did)... unless some significant new information is provided (the "You're adopted!" bombshell, for example).

Knowledge needs to be true.
The truth can certainly be assumed up front and only questioned when evidence to the contrary is raised (which seems to be your approach in your example - reliant on trust but then ignoring the plethora of empirical evidence that helps build reinforce the picture), but to actually establish the truth... and thus the knowledge... :shrug:

You need to do better with your examples, LG.

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

then if it is so effective why aren't even 1% of the population vaguely interested in applying it?

Because for most people it's not a very important question. Effectiveness isn't what matters to people in their daily lives, it's comfort and convenience that drive most of our actions. Just look at us, we're here debating things from the comfort of our own home using the convenience of the internet rather than seeking out actual people to discuss things with.

Also, whether or not people are interested in something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it works well. A process either works well or it doesn't based on the evidence, not on it's popularity. You'd do well to drop the logical fallacies.

You think people aren't interested in the quality of the answer to the question "who is one's biological mother?"

Because for the most part they're not. Under most circumstances the statement "my mother is the woman who raised me" is more than enough for the overwhelming majority of people. To put it simply, it just isn't an important question to most people so most people aren't willing to put in the effort(which is really a minuscule amount these days, what with paternity and maternity tests being available over the counter now) to get quality answers to the question.

Hence why your comparison fails. The question of the existence of god is an important one that people genuinely seek answers too, and since it's a question of existence(and therefore the state of reality) it is a question that science can have some say in. And the current consensus is that no god or creator of any kind is needed to explain anything from the origin of the universe to the origin of love, none at all.

unless you can explain how empiricism can ever have the scope beyond metonymic investigation it is far from arbitrary - although arbitrary would certainly be a an apt word to use your estimations of it usage

Hey, I'm just basing that judgment on past performance. Science has either successfully tackled or is in the process of tackling every single problem that's ever been thrown at it. Hell, we're even making remarkable progress in studying free will and naturalistic origin of religion and theism. Every time someone has said that something was just plain out of the reach of science, from the difference between living and nonliving matter to the origin of altruism and morality, they've been proven to be dead wrong.

Why should I consider this case to be any different?

 

[wynn]

trust is there but there is also the element that an individual is unqualified to investigate the problem

Sure. But simply us being unqualified doesn't make anyone who claims to be qualified, indeed qualified, nor does us being unqualified make it easier to distinguish who may be qualified and who isn't.

- much like we seek the assistance of qualified people when we go about solving tasks in everyday life (eg - doctors, accountants etc)

- the basis for being unqualified to investigate issues of the universe is our limited senses - IOW the answer requires access to a knowledge systems that is not metonymic

With this approach, I still think you are trivializing theism. That in the sense that you are presenting it as "yet another field of knowledge and practice."

Theism, however, is unique in that it contextualizes all other fields of knowledge and practice, and as such, cannot be treated as yet another one of them.