If the facts were to show such, then fine, but the probability math for successfully modifying simian DNA into a sapien genome would cast a bit of doubt on that sort of claim.
Posted on 08/18/2005 7:39:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
If the facts were to show such, then fine, but the probability math for successfully modifying simian DNA into a sapien genome would cast a bit of doubt on that sort of claim.
Nobody said anything about probability. What does probability have to do with common descent? (Other than provide yet more evidence that you have but a weak grasp on the concept).
As I understand it, ID simply claims that the genetic modifications necessary to create a human from another primate were performed by an intelligent actor. That way, ID can avoid the most opbvious problems with young-Earth creationism.
Is that your theory? Or are you just a dishonest creationist trying to pretend you are scientific?
Please put your money where your mouth is: do you accept common descent, or not?
"I do not accept irreducible complexity as a given. Should you wish to use it as evidence for intelligent design, you'll have to detail how something can be proven to be irreducibly complex." - malakhi
In biological terms, irreducible complexity is a stage that must come with other simultaneous modifications in order to survive/replicate.
I'm not exactly sure how that you think that you can "not accept" such a term, stage, or phrase, however. Certain stages require several simultaneous changes from the prior state. Abiogenesis falls clearly into this range, as animating inanimate matter is an indisputable threshold for biological life to first begin (though due to the near constant cries and whines from Darwinists on numerous other threads, I'll throw in the obvious disclaimer that Evolutionary Theory, which I'm not talking about in the above comments in this post, doesn't apply to abiogenesis per them).
In that irreducibly complex stage, the first life form had to animate itself from inanimate matter **and** feed itself **and** replicate itself (otherwise, no survival of that species). So at a minimum, three simultaneous things had to happen before survival was possible for the very first life form.
There's precious little to debate there, too. That's an irreducibly complex stage, and it is a clear enough example to knock out most of the wishful guesses and straw men arguments typically thrown out by desperate Darwinists.
Young Earth and "creationism" are mere straw men that are easily knocked down. ID is neither. If you want to understand ID, read posts #515 and #517.
It is very sad to me that creationists have to resort to such dishonesty to get their supposedly Christian views into the schools. Do they really think that God needs them to lie for Him?
You are confusing yourself with assumptions galore such as acceptance of common descent is black or white, creationist, dishonesty, Christian, lying, that this debate is about God, etc.
Did you read posts #515 and 517 so that you would actually know ID? I see no evidence in your posts that you comprehended either post, from not reading or from not being intellectually capable I can't yet discern, however.
Here you go:
I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)
"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)
"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
[All quotes from Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species"]
And the same could be said for many transgenic lab animals a century and a half after Darwin stated the above, too.
Eh? It is fully general to ALL systems. Including complex organisms, molecular structures, and planets. There is no escape hatch of limited scope here.
While most people learn about this using simple low-order examples on one dimensional spaces (e.g. a literal analysis of DNA sequences), it is by no means limited to it. The various 'tape equivalence' proofs for Turing machines are direct evidence of this. It can be applied to very high-order algorithmic patterns in n-dimensional systems. Though not the kind of thing one is likely to spend time working on unless one is a masochist -- it is a serious brain twister -- such things are entirely possible and have been done in implementation. People generally don't do it because it is very, very hard, not because it can't be done. It happens to be an integral part of my research; extremely interesting in many ways when taken to that level and poorly explored in implementation, but also enough to give even the brightest people headaches very quickly. But I digress.
So no, you cannot escape the grasp of this by saying it does not apply to biological systems. In theory there is nothing to prevent you from applying it to the structure of biological organisms, though in practice that would be ridiculously intractable, particularly for the purposes of proving irreducible complexity.
In summary: Kolmogorov complexity is universal to all dynamic systems of any dimensionality, and a general mechanism for measuring it in any system exists. In short, there is no system in the abstract it does not apply to, and there is no system for which it cannot be measured/proven by extracting the MDL.
"Eh? It is fully general to ALL systems. Including complex organisms, molecular structures, and planets. There is no escape hatch of limited scope here." - tortoise
As I said, I was impressed that you applied that computer information theory to biological systems.
But for this discussion, Kolmogorov's theory of IC would merely be the minimum DNA code necessary for any given stage of biological life...which isn't necessarily the same thing as what biologists want from Irreducible Complexity, which is the minimum simultaneous events or changes required for that stage to survive and be replicated.
Kolmogorov's theory of IC would be satisfied with the minimum amount of DNA code for a 3 chambered heart, for instance, whereas biologists want to know what events/modifications were required for the 3 chambered heart with reverse blood flow to appear after the 2 chambered heart.
So Kolmogorov's computer information theory of IC is a bit different than the biological IC.
google was there:
Q: How many penguins does it take to cover a doghouse?
A: Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
What Darwin actually wrote on the subject of gradualism was true then and true under punk eek. What Darwin argued against was not variable rates of change, but rather against evolution via the hopeful monster.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/CDgradualism.html
I have nothing against science. I am against a philosphy that sets itself up as science that then declares its premises to be above correction. Big difference.
Unfortunately, all the examples the Good Moonie Dr. Wells cites come from mainstream research. Dr. Wells suggests ID researchers could have improved on the preformance of traditional researchers.
I'll believe that just as soon as I see one of Stalin's five-year plans outperform a capitalist economy.
Is ID anything other than Monday morning quaterbacking? Will anyone in the ID movement actually propose research, or will they continue to assert they could have done existing research better?
I didn't assume they were. I asked how a geologist would scientifically date the geology in that area, and that specimen in particlar. One of them happened to date it at 500,000 years. What method did he use? As far as I am concerned, geological dating is right up there with astrology in its capacity to be arbitrary.
Bottom line: Evolutionism can explain away anomalies as easily as creationism. It deserves equal credibility as science.
Let's face it, a flippant derision of God tends to help one assume the writer doesn't put much stock in God - your words, not my omniscience prompted the reply.
He got it perfectly right; we just ain't as dang smart as some of us would like to think.
You overlook a few key points here. Prior to Galileo (and others), the universe was studied by ID scientists. They assumed that orbits were circulat because that's the way God would have designed them.
The new breed of astronomer insisted that theories had to be modified to fit the data, regardless of where this leads. Galileo was wrong to assume circular orbits, but his visualization of the solar system is nearly identical to ours today. It's clever of you to play the roll of disrespected visionary thinker. But you are in a crowd that includes Moonies, NewAge claptrap, Scientology and thousands of other crackpot ideas. Being ignored does not make you right. The most important aspect of a theory is its ability to inspire or generate research proposals. ID has been on the books since 1802 and has generated exactly no research ideas that are different from what is being done in the mainstream.
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.