Posted on 02/19/2002 2:59:38 PM PST by Cameron
Both posit the usual chemical mechanisms. Evolution essentially hypothesizes that this is all that is required for speciation (which could very well be true even if intelligent design turned out to be the truth). While mutation and selection can be observed, the connection to speciation is only hypothesized. Intelligent design posits a designer (an extra degree of freedom) in addition to the usual chemistry. Neither position can prove that their positions are in fact how speciation has occurred in the past, so Bayes' theorem gets discarded and we are stuck with Occam's razor for discriminating between the two. In this case, the only difference between the two positions is the argument of whether or not a designer was responsible for speciation (and doesn't even address the issue of whether or not a designer is REQUIRED for speciation, which is a different question). In this scenario, Occam's razor would select the hypothesis of speciation being caused by mutation/selection (i.e. evolution), as it does not have the open variable of a designer in the mix. For the audience, "degrees of freedom" is essentially a count of how many unverified premises are utilized in the construction of the hypothesis. With the verification of the existence of a designer, both hypotheses would be on equal footing with respect to what is the most likely cause of a specific case of speciation.
Everything you said was true but you did not address the old "Frankenstein" question. What animates that mass of DNA? Everything else can be explained in scientific terms and research but that "spark of life", is the "missing link". To carry it even further, why is man the only known living entity with actual self-awarness and the ability to even question his own origins? If the ONLY purpose of evolution is survival of the fittest then the Apes passed that test with flying colors. In nature ther is no requirement for any living thing to have true intellect just the ability to hunt and feed itself. To take the position that all the species are somehow the result of beneficial mutations ignores the fact that most mutations are malevonant and in the end produce inferior beings. If or when man discovers that element (spark of life) and can reproduce it from scratch, then man becomes God and the question is settled. I stand by my assertion that those in the scientific community that are the most dogmatic on this issue are of the opinion that to even hint at the concept of intelligent design is to somehow admit that there are things they may never understand. Hell, accepted "science" changes day to day.
You obviously know very little about programming. All computer languages eventually convert their instructions into machine code. These are a very small set of instructions each of which has a specific purpose such as to move a number from one place to another, increase the number by one or decrease it by one. It is indeed very similar to the DNA instruction set.
That is utterly ridiculous. The chance of DNA producing a single gene randomly is more than winning the lottery seven or eight times in a row. To produce the over 20,000 genes in a human being is almost impossible, lets call it infinity -1. To say that the probabilities of evolution having created the life we see all around us rather than admit that an intelligent designer did it, is just an admission of close minded atheism.
Your statement just amounts to saying that because it exists, evolution did it. It is a tautology and it is no proof of anything.
Specificity, uniqueness, fixity, and irreducible complexity to name just a few of the predictions that ID folks have been foolish enough to suggest. Because ID cannot preclude natural selection its predictive value is nonexistent (i.e., it is always confounded by the presence of natural selection). This means that its proponents have been unable to make a prediction that separates ID from natural selection without simultaneously condemning ID to failure. This should be your first clue that ID has no merit as a scientific theory.
"Intelligent Design has in fact been proven to be able to program DNA (e.g. gene-splicing). Clearly an Intelligent process can program DNA because Man is already doing that very thing!" -- Southack
Why don't you understand the logical fallacy of your argument? Where is the laboratory with the PCR machine of the Intelligent Designer of all living things? Because we do something does not mean anyone or anything else can do it or ever has done it either the way we did it or any other way. On the other hand, if you knew a little more about how we came to acquire some of our techniques you would abandon your foolish notion that somebody or something has been purposely and secretly fiddling with DNA.
The way we do gene therapy, for example, is based entirely on the way we have found genes being transferred in nature. This natural process occurs at a rate that precludes the fixity of the genome and it is only one of many such processes.
"If an Intelligent Designer can program DNA, then it follows that Intelligent Design could be responsible for any or all known and observable speciation, pending further data and study." -- Southack
It does not follow. Ring species alone make this highly unlikely. What appears to be a single species is in fact two or more separate species at the extreme of its range or across gaps in the range. Yet this group interbreeds continuously across the contiguous portions of its range. Design is not responsible for this effect. It is a result of isolation and the random walk. You would know these things and possibly refrain from falsehood if you would just sit down with a good biology textbook. While you are at it you might also want to disabuse yourself of the misconceptions you have concerning the "Base Four" DNA coding you are always referring to. DNA uses four bases taken three at a time but codes for only 21 different amino acids. That means three bits have 21 possibilities and no more. And, by the way, the use of binary code does not of itself limit the complexity of the instruction set nor diminish the amount of data that can be stored. With five bits you have 32 possibilities but you are free to use as many bits as you like (go ahead and calculate the possibilities for a 64 bit system). Memory is also theoretically unlimited for the computer. (Even twenty years ago the Navy was able to routinely predict the effects in real time of a nuclear explosion on the hull of a submarine.) Biological complexity is more a function of the quaternary structures of the proteins.
Garbage In = Garbage Out. Whether the program fails to compile or runs anyway, it will not produce the desired response. The mistake will virtually always have an effect. This is not true of the DNA code at the codon level.
Sorry, I'm going to have to go with Vercingetorix on this one. But then, you knew that when you brought me into the debate, didn't you?
Since I'm here, my two-cent-addition is that Vercingetorix and Southack are not relying on the same assumptions with respect to computer code generation and mutation. I think Eric S. Raymond would characterize Southack's perspective as "The Cathedral" approach and Vercingetorix' perspective as "The Bazaar" approach.
(You're not gonna make me hit you over the head with Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar again, are you?)
At any rate, thanks for the bump. The insults on this thread are so much more exquisite than those on the "I Hate Hilary" threads.
You are clear, and you are wrong. In the case of cars, we have evidence of their purposeful design. We can actually know the designers and observe the process. So the "hypothesis" of ID for cars is a slam-dunk no-brainer. It's fact. But there is zero evidence for ID in the domain of biology (except for those recent occasions when we ourselves go around transplanting genes). Now then, a scientific theory must be based on observable evidence. If there is none, it isn't a theory, it's mere conjecture. Which is why I said that evolution is the only [scientific] game in town.
It most certainly is. But this "sweet code" just happened all by itself, didn't it? < /sarcasm>
And yet we see evidence of Intelligent Design when we look at a junkyard filled with buried cars. We can also observe the evidence of intelligent design when we watch Man program DNA via gene-splicing.
In contrast, when we look at the fossil record, we can't tell if speciations were caused naturally (ala Evolution) or by un-natural processes (ala Intelligent Design).
With such admitted evidence in hand, clearly there is more than "one game in town" to explain the origin of Life.
Except, Intelligent Design does make such a prediction.
Intelligent Design predicts that speciation will occur rapidly (i.e., a designer introduces a new model).
Early Evolutionists refuted ID by showing that the fossil record recorded long periods of time between speciation events, but as more fossils were uncovered, they had to abandon their original "glacial" view of speciation in favor of a new variant of Evolution: Punctuated Equilibrium.
In contrast, the prediction of Intelligent Design has remained constant.
The sheer existence of Punctuated Equilibrium as a replacement theory to Darwin's Evolution demonstrates that it was Darwinism which failed the first scientific test, not Intelligent Design.
"Why don't you understand the logical fallacy of your argument? Where is the laboratory with the PCR machine of the Intelligent Designer of all living things? Because we do something does not mean anyone or anything else can do it or ever has done it either the way we did it or any other way." - Vercingetorix
There is no logical flaw in saying that an Intelligent process can modify DNA because we have conclusive proof that Man has and can program DNA via gene-splicing.
In other words, Intelligent Design has been proven to be responsible for certain varieties of Life (i.e., those life forms for which Man has used his gene-splicing techniques).
Yet you rule out Intelligent Design as impossible because you say that it fails all scientific tests.
That's ridiculous, as I can show you Life form variants that have already been created by Intelligent Design (e.g. growing human organs in pigs).
That's what you based your Occam's Razor conclusion upon?
Most Darwinians claim that Evolution is dependent upon:
1. Appropriate environment,
2. Natural Selection, and
3. Random Mutations.
Most ID-er's claim that ID is dependent upon:
1. Appropriate environment and
2. Intelligent Designer.
3 degrees of freedom versus 2, yet you picked the loser and wrongly ascribed Occam's Razor as your reasoning.
That's not very scientific...
That doesn't mean a thing. We still see Base-4 programming in DNA because we see four different codons (A, C, G, and T). Whether or not all possibilities of combinations and permutations of Base-4 are used changes nothing.
See my private freepmail.
I am in the position of wanting to believe in free will, but believing so strongly in causality that I cannot.
Of course everybody--including me--behaves as if free will is the case.
As I have said before, when someone claims to have free will, my translation is: "My outputs are not functions of my inputs," a remarkable claim. The natural rejoinder: "Very well, what are your outputs functions of?"
Randomness and Heisenberg do not rescue free will: a random robot is still a robot.
I order chocolate; you order vanilla. Why? "We chose our flavors." But a hide-bound determinist (sort of, like, well, me) would ask: "Did not your entire past history conspire to ensure that you would order vanilla today?" And that past history stretches in an unbroken chain back to the big bang.
Can causality and free will coexist? I cannot imagine how. If there is a realm or subset of reality in which causality is not regnant, then how can there be any subset in which one is certain that is is regnant?...
Just more confusion from a confused mind.
--Boris
The problem with your argument is that ID is not a valid candidate for Occam's Razor - it's not a scientific theory. In order for it to become one you need to produce the Intelligent Designer. We know what the 3 things are you said evolution depends on. What/who in the world is the Intelligent Designer?
Regards.
On the contrary, it wasn't MY argument (i.e., Occam's Razor was Tortoise's argument and I merely showed the fallacy in his data by writing up the degrees of freedom for both theories in question) and Intelligent Design IS a valid scientific theory.
In fact, we have conclusive evidence and even proof that Intelligent Design is responsible for new varieties of life via gene-splicing, computer programs (the only thing in the known universe other than DNA to store data, process data, and replicate), as well as fossil-style evidence (e.g. cars buried in junkyards).
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.