The Flawed Philosophy of Intelligent Design

Tech Central Station ^ | 11/17/2005 | James Harrington

[goldstategop]

Your handle is named after the most elegant postulate in the history of philosophy: Occam's Razor, better known as the Law Of Parsimony. In essence, if there are two explanations for some thing, the simpler explanation is most likely to be the correct one. Darwin's theory succeeds because it leaves out unnecessary "attractive" features. The simplicity of the explanation is what gives it staying power. We can understand the history of life on earth, not by reference to a deus ex machina as in Intelligent Design; we can deduce the processes that operate in the natural world directly from the study of Nature itself.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[goldstategop]

The problem with ID theory is there is no way to empirically verify its claims. With evolutionary theory, you have testable claims that show whether you can disprove it. To date no one has been able to falsify evolution as the key concept in our understanding of the organization of life on earth.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[goldstategop]

This goes under the rubric of Complexity Theory. There is an organized chaoticness to the way things work in the world and nothing is every completely straightforward. Life is messy and perhaps the biggest drawback to ID theory is that it ignores this facet of life on earth: that things do not seem to happen in a predictable manner. It goes back to that old question: does God play dice with the universe? If we have an Ultimate Designer, he doesn't seem to get every detail picture-perfect. Its a like a sweater that has a lot of kinks in it. If we pull at one thread, it unravels. None of this is a problem if we accept a naturalistic explanation. Imperfections are Nature's answers to the riddle of overcoming the challenges of existence.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Flawed Philosophy of Intelligent Design

Redundant headline.

[WildHorseCrash]

Don't call me a liar. These are your words.

I said you are either a liar or had a reading comprehension problem. I did not call you a liar. I was being charitable

You claimed that I "denied that DNA had information." That is clearly false. Your post 279 states my post to the effect that "Your majory error here is the belief that DNA is encoded information. It is not. It is one, big, long, complex biochemical problem." The next paragraph showing the context and later posts made perfectly clear that I am specifically stating that DNA is not coded information in same way that language is coded information.

There is a clear distinction between your statement that I denied DNA had information, and my statement that it was not coded information specifically coded information in the manner in which language is coded information. So you are clearly wrong, as I never claimed that DNA had no information.

When you pointed out the error I made, I accepted it. Now, you are clearly in the wrong, as you have said I made a claim I clearly have not made. If you persist in that claim from this point forward, I will have to conclude that you don't have a reading comprehension problem, but are, in fact, a liar.

[grey_whiskers]

Not for nothing does Civilization III require the discovery of Theology before you get any Education or Science.

And not for nothing does the "Disco" cheat on Warcraft II start up a soundtrack that includes the lines "I am a medieval man!"

;-)

[grey_whiskers]

I then went on to explain that if we use those random mutations to actually produce new programs using a mechanism similar to those found in nature (reproduction of the most fit plus small random mutations, or recombining best programs and picking bits from each one), those programs can display unbelievable complexity and fitness for the solution very rapidly.

That's probably where you lost him. In the genetic algorithm/ simulated evolutionary work, you have a known, constant goal the entire time; ecosystems do not suddenly appear and vanish; there is no predation nor disease; and there is never any extinction.

Not to mention that it begs the questions about "origins" etc. The sample code from which you start, the computer, the kernel of the algorithm which keeps the "best" solutions and discards the others, the very parameters used in the scoring function, did not spontaneously appear.

Perhaps a better illustration would be to start with a blank slate of memory, or random 1's and 0's, and not even a compiled program to start as the basis for your mutations. [Pre-amino acids, you know. ;-) ]

So as an illustrative example to point the capabilities, or a "thought experiment" put into practice, it's just dandy.

But the degree of similarity to biological systems might not be as close as you want for a well-formed simulation...

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Given the fact that too many creationists falsely believe that punctuated equilibrium is the same as the hopeful monster theory, I sometimes choose not to use the term

Howzabout if you patiently explained the difference to them?

For scientists and academics, intellectual one-upmanship is part of the game, and for some a source of pride and fun; but for those "in the real world", it just comes across as being an insufferable prick.

Cheers!

[RogueIsland]

LanaTurnerOverdrive

Love the handle!

[js1138]

Chemistry is not a blank slate. The trick in building computer simulations of evolution is to model the crucial features of chemistry with available computer resources.

That's one of the things the Santa Fe Institute was established to study. If they had "the" solution we'd have heard about it.

[AndrewC]

I said you are either a liar or had a reading comprehension problem. I did not call you a liar. I was being charitable

Don't call me a liar. You have done it twice now. Despite your attempts at obfuscation you used the word liar.

And you are still wrong. DNA has encoded information. Say it. DNA has encoded information. You may choose to attempt a tapdance, but you are wrong. DNA has encoded information.

Plus your context evidence was completely wrong.

One more time....

...DNA has coded information.

ADCY2

Official Symbol: ADCY2 and Name: adenylate cyclase 2 (brain) provided by HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee
Gene type: protein coding
Gene name: ADCY2
Gene description: adenylate cyclase 2 (brain)
RefSeq status: Reviewed
Organism: Homo sapiens
Lineage: Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Euteleostomi; Mammalia; Eutheria; Euarchontoglires; Primates; Catarrhini; Hominidae; Homo
Gene aliases: HBAC2; KIAA1060
Summary: This gene encodes a member of the family of adenylate cyclases, which are membrane-associated enzymes that catalyze the formation of the secondary messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP). This enzyme is insensitive to Ca(2+)/calmodulin, and is stimulated by the G protein beta and gamma subunit complex. It is expressed in brain.

[WildHorseCrash]

Well, I see by your post that you refuse to concede that your statement was a mistake, so I must concede you are a liar. Since I have no business with liars, I will leave you to continue to lie with others, liar.

Farewell, liar.

[jwalsh07]

For scientists and academics, intellectual one-upmanship is part of the game, and for some a source of pride and fun; but for those "in the real world", it just comes across as being an insufferable prick.

Ouch.

[AndrewC]

Well, I see by your post that you refuse to concede that your statement was a mistake, so I must concede you are a liar.

Goodbye Mr. Dimwit. You can run but you can't hide. Thanks for running and proving your idiocy.

Initially you replied to post 170 which made no mention of language. After asserting that Your majory error here is the belief that DNA is encoded information. It is not. It is one, big, long, complex biochemical problem. (Note-- no limiting of your denial of coding of information) You attempt a red herring with Language, include binary computer language, is coded knowledge. The word "cat" in English is an arbitrary code to stand for the animal, as is "gato" in Spanish, "Katz" in German, "chat" in French, etc. It is simply encoded knowledge. We've agreed that the code "cat" will stand for the fuzzy little carnivore.. So what? What does that have to do with encoded knowledge in DNA. Nothing. Your next statement is an attempt to eliminate genetics from a universe you have yet to describe. Not so in genetics. For example, the RNA codons "GGA GGC GGG GGU" stands for "glycine," not because it is some arbitrary code like language (like, in fact, the sequence of Latin letters G-L-Y-C-I-N-E is an arbitrary code, standing for the amino acid), but because when you line up the nucleobases guanine, guanine, adenine, guanine, guanine, cytosine, guanine, guanine, guanine, guanine, guanine, and uracil, in that order, run it through the magical RNA machine, you actually get the amino acid glycine. You actually create the stuff. It doesn't stand for it, it actually makes the actual thing. It is not a code, it is not coded information. It is chemistry.

Your statement is complete feces, especially the highlighted stuff. That is not limited. LIAR yourself.

One more time....

...DNA has coded information.

ADCY2

Official Symbol: ADCY2 and Name: adenylate cyclase 2 (brain) provided by HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee
Gene type: protein coding
Gene name: ADCY2
Gene description: adenylate cyclase 2 (brain)
RefSeq status: Reviewed
Organism: Homo sapiens
Lineage: Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Euteleostomi; Mammalia; Eutheria; Euarchontoglires; Primates; Catarrhini; Hominidae; Homo
Gene aliases: HBAC2; KIAA1060
Summary: This gene encodes a member of the family of adenylate cyclases, which are membrane-associated enzymes that catalyze the formation of the secondary messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP). This enzyme is insensitive to Ca(2+)/calmodulin, and is stimulated by the G protein beta and gamma subunit complex. It is expressed in brain.

[WildHorseCrash]

Hey, liar, that's pretty funny. Being called a dimwit by a creationist is pretty ironic, don't you think, liar? After all, being a creationist is pretty much the definition of being a dimwit. Isn't it, liar? (Or, liar, are you one of those creationist retards who prefers IDer? Which is, liar?)

Well, liar, I am not "running." As I said, liar, I have no dealings with liars, I am no longer interested in discussing this matter. So, liar, if you continue to respond, I will continue to point out that you lie, liar, all you want. So, liar, that is the situation.

[AndrewC]

Liar yourself. Your statement has been shown to empty. Tell us again how glycine is actually formed from that sequence. Har! Har! Liar yourself Liar. I can do name calling too. However, I have plenty of evidence that...

One more time....

...DNA has coded information.

ADCY2

Official Symbol: ADCY2 and Name: adenylate cyclase 2 (brain) provided by HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee
Gene type: protein coding
Gene name: ADCY2
Gene description: adenylate cyclase 2 (brain)
RefSeq status: Reviewed
Organism: Homo sapiens
Lineage: Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Euteleostomi; Mammalia; Eutheria; Euarchontoglires; Primates; Catarrhini; Hominidae; Homo
Gene aliases: HBAC2; KIAA1060
Summary: This gene encodes a member of the family of adenylate cyclases, which are membrane-associated enzymes that catalyze the formation of the secondary messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP). This enzyme is insensitive to Ca(2+)/calmodulin, and is stimulated by the G protein beta and gamma subunit complex. It is expressed in brain.

Joe Isuzu has nothing on you.

[WildHorseCrash]

Joe Isuzu... wow, liar, not only are you a lying creationist retard, but you're a dork, too.

[bmwcyle]

Read tag line.

[AndrewC]

WildHorseCrash ---- You claimed that I "denied that DNA had information." That is clearly false

[NOTE.. WHC leaves out coded]

WildHorseCrash --- you actually get the amino acid glycine. You actually create the stuff. It doesn't stand for it, it actually makes the actual thing. It is not a code, it is not coded information.

Liar, Liar pants on fire.

[jwalsh07]

How many amino acids can a 4 base codon code for?

Answer below.

None.