Posted on 11/01/2005 6:27:26 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
"Nothing you have said by way of criticsm is relevant or meaningful."
Yeah right. I wrote a sentence by sentence critique of your post. You just ignored it completely.
That's called a win in debate. The battle you eagerly anticipate, you just fought and lost big time. That is the battle my friend, produce real ideas and defend them, even if the people bashing them aren't nice about it. This isn't kindergarten, we aren't all equally right about things. Some people are wtrong. Period. You are one of them. And no matter how much you shout that you are right, it doesn't change things.
Why? There is this thing called reality, and it exists outside you. You can't make it into what you want just by saying it is so. You can't just repeat over and over that I am wrong and you are right. Which is what you're doing, only each time you're trying to use bigger words. Like when Betty Boop said explicate and she meant explain; she just wanted us to think she was smart by using a rarer word. That's you, except when you use the big words, (predicate) you tend to use them incorrectly.
Sorry, just saying I didn't substantivly address your hypothesis up there doesn't cut it. I did, everyone here saw it, and then they see you close your eyes and start repeating over and over "no no no no!"
Everyone here can see that your emporer is naked.
I think I saw Amos wearing a sandwich board on the street corner proclaiming the End of Days.
One more quickie.
"You use the sun as an illustration of increasing entropy. The sun's breakdown, however, is in the direction of another generation of suns. These increase the periodic table thus increase order and complexity. Our disagreement is a difference of perspective. A sort of chicken and the egg discussion. Where you see, if I understand you correctly, a balance I see an increase of orderliness. Stars may explode and energy dissipate but order follows these events."
No. Wrong.
Please don't use entropy, you have no idea what it really is. In science, as I said about, entropy is energy in space. So if space increases, as it is all the time, then entropy increases. Because the universe is expanding so fast ENTROPY IS ALWAYS INCREASE on the universal, level. What you said above pegs you as someone who really is ignorant about science. It is not a matter perspective or opinion, you don't know what your talking about... sentrences like this...
"These increase the periodic table thus increase order and complexity."
Are like wearing a sign that says "I don't know what these words mean" in letters big enough to read from ORBIT!
Scientific concepts like entropy are not fuzzy relativitic ideas that you can see any way you ant. They have a cold hard meaning that eludes you.
Stop. Please. Go read what entropy really is. Not the AiG summary, read it in a real science publication, from a REAL SCIENTIST.
Well, they ARE getting shorter for us Northern Hemisphere types.
I’m coming in late to the discussion but here are some points I’d like to raise in defense of Amos the Prophet and perhaps pave the way for a more helpful debate for the Lurkers:
For instance, an additional time-like dimension would allow for all particles in 4D space/time to be multiply imaged up to 1080 times from as little as a single particle in the fifth dimension. Here’s a recent discussion for more on the mysteries of mass.
Cellular Automata = beginning with an infinite grid of cells, each in a finite number of states with any finite number of dimensions – rules are applied within the cells such that a whole new grid results from each generation of rules being applied
Self-organizing Complexity = emphasis on self (in biological systems) – the system structures itself over time without explicit external pressure or involvement from outside the system. As the system evolves, it exhibits a hierarchy of emergent system properties. Hence, the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts, perhaps even something “new” requiring new language to describe it. Intelligence is often seen as an emergent property.
Functional complexity = for a system function, an assessment for which the environmental (input) variables have a complexity of C(e), and the actions of the system have a complexity of C(a), then the complexity of specification of the function of the system is: C(f)=C(a) 2 C(e)
Time complexity or the algorithmic complexity of a discrete function = O(n) where n is the size of the input to a function. It is a statement of linear complexity, like mowing a lawn – the bigger the lawn, the longer it takes to mow it. An example of a logarithmic form would be looking for a number in the phone book. You’d open it in the middle, and then open one side or the other and so forth to narrow the search to the name of the party you want to call.
Irreducible Complexity = “a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”
Specified Complexity = based on the notion that life is both complex and specified. “A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex (i.e., it conforms to an independently given pattern but is simple). A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified (i.e., it requires a complicated instruction-set to characterize but conforms to no independently given pattern). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.”
Metatransition = “Consider a system S of any kind. Suppose that there is a way to make some number of copies from it, possibly with variations. Suppose that these systems are united into a new system S' which has the systems of the S type as its subsystems, and includes also an additional mechanism which controls the behavior and production of the S-subsystems. Then we call S' a metasystem with respect to S, and the creation of S' a metasystem transition. As a result of consecutive metasystem transitions a multilevel structure of control arises, which allows complicated forms of behavior. “
Correspondents on both sides tend to use some “sleight of hand” when discussing probability by asserting combinations when it suits their prejudice.
An atheist for instance would lean heavily on a combination - 1 in 1080 as the probability of this particular universe in a chaotic inflation or multi-verse model.
A theist for instance would lean heavily on a combination – 10390 as the probability of a typical protein (300 amino acids with 20 common amino acids in life).
Phenomenon would include both emergent properties of self-organizing complexity as well as fractal intelligence (self-similar).
Agents would include God, aliens, collective consciousness, Gaia, etc.
That we notice a bunch of storks in a town at the same time a bunch of babies are born does not establish a causal link.
Likewise we cannot say that intelligent design is a Christian theory because of the correlation. Likewise we cannot say that evolution is an atheist theory because of the correlation.
Except when cause is correlated with effect. Perhaps we should say, not all correlations are causally related.
Great reply, AG.
I will agree with you definitions of IC and specified complexity, provided you affirm that neither of those concept have met their burden of proof, and therefore are fictional.
As you your hypothesis, I will agree with you that that is the formulated ID hypothesis, provided you agree that it is not a real scientific hypothesis. It provides no specificity of designer, mechanism, or features too complex. It contains an irelevant caluse about randomness, irrelevant because proving randomness as capable or incapable is not the same as proving ID. You must prove ID to meet the burden of proof and not disproved the modern synthesis. Finally it has zero expanatory power. Ben Franklin could have used you hypothesis to study lightening, and we would still be reading by candle light.
Of course you didn't come up with that hypothesis, which is fine. But is recycling it, you must also have encountered the fact that it has been dismissed by every serious researcher who has examinied, save its own authors (and I'm calling them serious researchers out of deference to you).
I'll agree with these terms, provided that you agree that what the terms describe, is fictional. Otherwise, get out there and prove the things... or in the case of the hypothesis, formulate one that can be proven, and when proven, has some kind of explanatory value.
Here is a test by which you can easily prove me wrong. List one instance of IC or come up with one new scientific discovery that is a result of ID.
However, thank's for a civil post, and one that has substance. Please don't duck the hard questions though.
" Except when cause is correlated with effect. Perhaps we should say, not all correlations are causally related."
Saying cause is correlated with effect, is the same as saying cause. That is what cause means. The idea of correlation exists prior to the idea of causation. Ergo, if you are trying to determine causeation, you can not use correlation as the indicator.
Correlation is not causation is what we should say.
The challenge though is for all of the correspondents to choose one for our debate. The mathematicians around here usually lean to Kolmogorov or Cellular Automata. The mathematicians who work in biology (Rocha, Kauffman, etc.) usually lean to self-organizing complexity.
Some of the punctuated equilibrium school prefer metatransition. Some physicists prefer algorithmic complexity of a discrete function (time complexity). And a lot of the non-technical types prefer irreducible complexity, specified complexity and functional complexity.
I would suggest however that self-organizing complexity is probably the best pick if anyone wishes to assert advances being made at Santa Fe. However, it doesn't matter to me as long as we are communicating. So please just let us know which one you prefer.
A hypothesis (foundation from ancient Greek hupothesis where hupo = under and thesis = placing) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and based on previous observations or extensions of scientific theories.
In early usage, a hypothesis was usually a clever idea or convenient mathematical approach that simplified cumbersome calculations; it did not necessarily have any real meaning. A famous example of the older sense is the warning which Cardinal Bellarmine issued to Galileo, that he must not treat the motion of the Earth as a reality, but merely as a hypothesis.
In common usage at present, a hypothesis is a provisional idea whose merit is to be evaluated. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In the hypothetico-deductive method, a hypothesis should be falsifiable, meaning that it is possible that it be shown false, usually by observation. Note that, if confirmed, the hypothesis is not necessarily proven, but remains provisional.
The term hypothesis was misused in the Riemann hypothesis, which should be properly called a conjecture. As an example, someone who enters a new country and observes only white sheep, might form the hypothesis that all sheep in that country are white. It can be considered a hypothesis, as it is falsifiable. It can be falsified by observing a single black sheep. Provided that the experimental uncertainties are small (for example that it is a sheep, instead of a goat) and that the experimenter has correctly interpreted the statement of the hypothesis (for example, does the meaning of "sheep" include rams?), the hypothesis is falsified.
I see this as a strength, not a weakness, of the hypothesis - because it will hold regardless of the origin of intelligent cause. The theory of evolution does not address origins either, nor does it ask or answer the root question: what is life v non-life/death in nature.
The hypothesis does not however, as you suggest, contain a clause about randomness. It says that “certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.”
It does not dispute evolution theory nor does it replace it – it only speaks to “certain features”. Thus, neither apparent randomness nor mutation are addressed even indirectly in the hypothesis.
If it spoke to "all features" it would be a substitute for evolution theory and/or philosophy/theology.
Also, contrary to your assertion, the intelligent design hypothesis does have considerable explanatory power. For instance, intelligent cause (choice of mates based on color or plumage) might be a better explanation for variation among tropical birds. Swarm intelligence might be a better explanation for survival advantage of army ants, etc.
Many hypotheses were not initially well-received in the science community, e.g. Heliocentricity, Big Bang, String Theory
Also, the Intelligent Design hypothesis can be (and most likely will be) vindicated by further research in autonomous biological self-organizing complexity – since intelligence is an emergent property in that model and creatures are known to choose their mates, thus effecting variation, survival advantages (or disadvantages) etc.
That the investigators do not consider themselves to be intelligent design theorists is moot.
I must have missed it, where did any of that have anything to do with the idiocy that Amos spouted?
And, to be picky, what is wrong with the definitions that science already uses?
The definitions I've posted are all in the mainstream. And concerning Amos, I protest strongly your use of the pejorative "idiocy" to describe his posts. Neither he nor I will be dismissed by such statements.
My above post is supportive of Amos’ hypothesis as stated at post 127 as follows:
Why is it that the notion of higher and lower orders is predicated? On what basis is this apparent natural phenomenon determined? This is an area of research that has gone unexamined.
I propose that it be examined to determine laws of nature which seem to impose order on existence. Why should there be order? Why not rampant disorder?
If order, then, and more so, if processional - lower to higher - order there must be determinative dynamics that make it so. What is the nature of these dynamics?
This line of reasoning from natural observation must necessarily discard random selection or random processes as not capable of explaining phenomenon.
If I may jump to a possible conclusion, ID is a perfectly legitimate proposition to explain the phenomenological issues raised above.
It follows that randomness cannot be a primary causation in evolution, etc. – indeed, as my point #1 avers:
If you want to try to defeat me on either statement, please go right ahead. You'll find that science is not on your side.
To defeat the first, find any physical system wherein order can arise from chaos without a guide. You will have to show how order (or anything for that matter) could arise without space/time, physical laws, physical constants, energy/matter and especially physical causation.
To defeat the second, disclose which of all the geometric physics models and cosmology models has been selected by all of science as the one which tells us what the system "is" - complete with all dimensions, cosmology, energy/matter, etc.
The challenge though is for all of the correspondents to choose one for our debate It's impossible to work in and through an infinity, so its good to set them out in order a basic order. Some of the discussion hinges on difference of perspective, as you describe. Concerning correlation, for example, if speaking with curiosity he says "I don't know about causality, but there is only one kind of correlation, and I defined it above." Of course, this is one of the drawbacks of an open forum, where the good and bad is in the mix.
As has been pointed out several times, this is false. As such, nothing derived from such a statement is valid. Likewise, posting such incorrect comments (when the correct comments are easily available) casts doubt on the poster's integrity.
No. Tapeworms are descended from free-living platyhelminthes, and are less complex. Mycoplasmas are descended from free-living gram positive bacteria, and are considerably less complex. Cave fish lose eyes; birds on islands with no predators lose the ability to fly; humans and the great apes lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C.
Negations by the dozen. It's a logical feat.
Something ought to explain it.
This is nonsense. Thus everything that he states based on this is nonsense.
To paraphrase, the heart of his observation is that order cannot rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system. That is an unequivocal statement.
It also utterly wrong. Order always arises out of chaos.
You snipped out the vital conditional... If this, or some version of this, is true then there must be some principle that allows it to be so.
It isn't true. Under some circumstances, complexity leads to reproductive success. Not under all circumstances. In fact, you could argue that some extremely successful self-replicating entitites have decreased their complexity so much they aren't generally recognized as living entities: example, transposons.
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.