Posted on 02/07/2005 8:16:39 AM PST by metacognative
Behee = Behe.
Hee hee.
You really don't need an explanation, do you?
No. Just curious why.
But what does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have a point.
If your point is that the program was designed by evolutionists and that therefore it should not be trusted, you have made a circumstantial case for distrusting the program.
But you need to do better than that. "It's made by evolutionists, therefore it's false" just doesn't work. If you think there is something logically wrong with the program, find it and say so.
Remember that Michael Behe does not deny microevolution of the sort that takes place in the program. He does not deny that organisms can adapt to their environment. He denies that the type of small changes that take place in that computer program could end up producing something with irreducible complexity. There may be other reasons to reject evolution, but they're outside the scope of this thread. This thread is only about Michael Behe's theory that IC cannot be evolved.
The program has done exactly what Michael Behe says is impossible: it's shown so-called "irreducible complexity" can be evolved by making small changes to a "design DNA," like the kind of mutations scientists have observed in animals, the kind of mutations Michael Behe admits take place in nature.
There has been absolutely no "moving of the goalposts." If you wish to discuss something separate (like speciation, or the origins of life itself), that's for a different thread. I'm not trying to be rude (well, I was last night hehe) but it's important not to lose focus on a single issue at a time.
I can not argue with someone who makes up quotes.
Putting things in quotation marks doesn't always mean a direct quote, it can mean a paraphrase. In this case, I wasn't even paraphrasing you (because I don't know what your argument is), I was paraphrasing a possible explanation for your argument. Perhaps I could have been clearer, because I did not mean to imply that you said those exact words, or even that you meant something similar to those words.
I'm trying to figure out why the fact that the program was "designed" matters. Why? I'm trying to figure out how that has any bearing at all, and you won't say!
Is it because the program was designed by evolutionists, therefore you don't trust it?
Is it because the program was designed in general, and did not evolve on its own, that you distrust it?
Are you just making a general throwaway insult by pointing out that evolutionists sometimes design things?
What??? What is the point of your post? You leave me guessing. If you'll just say your post has no point, that it was just meant in jest, and that there's nothing wrong with the evolutionists' computer program, I'll leave it alone. (in fact, if you don't respond to this post at all, I'll leave it alone... but if you come up with a valid reason to doubt AVIDA, then by all means I will treat it seriously and carefully)
Using a designed computer program to disprove Michael Behe's theory is in no way illogical or inconsistent.
Let me put it to you another way: Creationists claim that ONLY intelligent design can be responsible for "Irreducible Complexity"
Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe Intelligent Design AND Evolution are BOTH capable of producing things with irreducible complexity. Scientists would never argue that intelligent designers couldn't design things, or that God couldn't have created the Earth, or that it's impossible for God to have designed all of the species. They argue that there is no scientific evidence to believe Intelligent Design theories, and that ID is based on illogical and unscientific claims.
I'll make a table: this is what the two groups believe
| Intel. Design | Evolution | |
| Creationists | CAN create IC | CANNOT create IC |
| Evolutionists | CAN create IC | CAN create IC |
Scientists have never denied that ID can produce IC (it would be absurd to do so).
The difference, as you can see, is whether the two groups believe evolution can ever produce IC.
The program was designed to show that evolution can. There is nothing illogical at all about that. The fact that ID can ALSO create IC is irrelevant, because both scientists and creationists agree that it can.
Irony can be painful I guess.
I was not saying the program could not be trusted because it was designed by evolutionists.
I was not saying that evolutionists *always* believe in spontaneous generation of life, although the mutation that goes from a blob of non-life into a self-replicating entity could certainly be considered "spontaneous".
I was trying to highlight the irony of a computer program that proves evolutional theory of human beings having evolved from random evolution of life through mutation and natural selection... as opposed to an intelligent design... that was infact, an intelligent design.
I still think the Creator of this program should have relied upon a random defect in some computer memory somewhere to have sprung the fundamental program element..then, it could have evolved itself within the memory of computers throughout the Ethernet and eventually outgrow MicroSoft in market share...oops..there I go again!
>>Inteligent Design and Science are mutually exclusive
"If a watch proves to the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect I consent to be called a fool.": Voltaire
“Entropy in a closed system must always increase until it reaches a maximum.”: The second law of thermodynamics
Bicycles rust, the reverse never happens (Rust turning into bicycles) Darwinists just want to play the movie backwards and state that order is not important. They are wrong. The question should be WHY do they do this, what makes evolutionists disregard obvious laws? (my two year old both understands and causes entropy.)
The answer is slightly different for each person, but it boils down to they have a reason not to want a supreme being in the universe.
That said, I believe :-) that true science (Science without preconceived notions) is merely another form of theology (Since we are studying what was left for us to study by our creator.)
Twist this, as you will. Since open mindedness in some arguments (Like whether or not I exist) gets boring after a few initial excursions. Having considered the alternatives and crashed powerful computers making calculations on evolution’s probability, I conclude that the basic laws of this universe do not allow for me to exist without creation taking place.
My mind is made up therewith.
> Can crystals form naturally?
Yes, Quartz, Salt, or, Sugar Crystals in honey...
You do realize that this is a reduction in entropy, right?
Huh? What school did you go to?
Quotation marks are placed around a QUOTE.
NOT a paraphrase.
But what does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have a point.
It was an excellent point illustrating the utter blindness and hypocrisy of evolutionists. A point that obviously went over your head.
By the way, you spend far to much time, and too many words attempting to defend your positions. It's boring.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
I was curious about the crystals imaged in posts 106, 114 and 131.
Your lottery example goes right over my head. Without knowing all the possible mechanisms it is not possible to compute probability. We observe things happening. Improbibility does not prevent them.
Over on another thread we have someone presenting another vision of ID, on in which genes are frequently swapped or inserted between species. This is known to happen in bacteria, and it is known that certain kinds of viruses can insert their genes into their host's genome. Mutation is not the only kind of variation. You can't calculate probability if you don't know the rules of the game.
In the paper I was considering information flow between systems. I wrote "H" for the informational energy of a system receiving some quanta of information, dH. Then the record skipped. It occurred to me that I had no idea -- despite Shannon's work, and despite Chomsky's perceptrons what information was. What is information? What is order?
Yet it seemed to me then that something like Chomsky's bit-pattern perceptron was at work with some mixture of quantum levels of atoms -- that just as an atom will aborb only certain frequency quanta of light, so to does any distinct information subsystem only absorb certain characteristic quanta of information. That is the system must be preconditioned, ready to identify that pattern, or whatever information is. I didn't care whether it was a pattern, its more general.
In other words the system must somehow already be aware of any new information it can possibly later receive. It needs that awareness to receive it at all.
Yet I still am not sure what information is, or what order is, I only wrote then and know now that there is a place and a time for everything under the sun. And not until that time and place is it even knowable.
* * * * *
The lottery example was to show an extension of MacKay's 1841 work. How easily and readily and generally and deeply people are led astray by statistics.
Mixing genomes can not increase the informational energy in a system. It makes things broader but shallower.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.