Complex Specified Information? You be the judge…

_{February 20, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This Google Ocean image is 620 miles off the west coast of Africa near the Canary Islands. It is over 15,000 feet deep and the feature of interest is about 90 miles on a side or 8000 square miles.

In another thread ID critics complain there is no rigorous definition or mathematical formula by which everyone can agree on whether or not something exhibits complex specified information. Believe it not, they say it like mainstream science isn’t chock full of things that not everyone can agree upon. Like duh.

Comments

Re #65 Wrong. Design was initially detected then non-design explanations were sought. Dave the first comment was: What are the coordinates of it? I’m assuming it is striations in the ocean floor, correct? Striations in the ocean floor are not design. Good luck finding a non-design explanation that holds water. Parallel straight lines are common in rock formations. It took 1 minute to find this image on Google. Until someone came up with an alternative design hypothesis something on these lines seemed much more plausible than a giant designer working on the sea floor.Mark Frank_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

Mark "Design was not initially detected." Wrong. It was initially brought to public attention because design was detected. Design was initially detected then explanations were sought, including non-design explanations. It's the same with living things. Good luck finding a non-design explanation that holds water and has empirical evidence to support it. DaveScot_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio #62 I am so glad you have joined the discussion. You are always respectful of alternative opinions and polite. It is certainly interesting and correct to ask who the designer is and how he did implement the design. It is equally true that we have not many scientific data to support our theories about that. And it is equally true that design detection does not need those answers (but in no way requires that they are not searched). I understand that you are prepared to conjecture on the designer and its methods. When I say ID does not permit this enquiry I mean that in practice ID proponents will not examine the plausibility of the design hypothesis. They will gladly examine what they believe to be current evolutionary theory in great detail and pick holes in how it explains various phenomena. But they are not prepared to subject ID to the same enquiry. I also disagree with your last sentence. If it is to say anything positive then ID does need these answers. This goes back to a long standing disagreement between us (which was interrupted last time because Barry called a halt to comments on that thread). I believe that without examining how ID is implemented then the evidence for design is nothing but attacks on alternatives. ID limits itself to attempting to disprove various specific chance hypotheses. In the past you have argued that ID includes positive evidence for design. I think the argument goes roughly like this: 1) Life includes patterns that suit a purpose (in your terms they are functionally specified) e.g hemoglobin suits the purpose of carrying oxygen. Outside of life we only find functionally specified patterns when things have been designed by people. Therefore we have evidence that life was created by a similar process. 2) Life includes symbols e.g. DNA bases are symbols for amino acids in that the relationship between base pair and amino acid appears to be an arbitrary choice. Outside of life we only find functionally specified patterns when things have been designed by people. Therefore we have evidence that life was created by a similar process. I believe both of these arguments to be fallacious – but before I proceed I want to give you a chance to agree or correct them (as briefly as you can please). Meanwhile I want to point out that you would not have to reply on these rather controversial and abstract arguments if you had a fully fledged hypothesis that included design which could be examined in the usual ways.Mark Frank_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

jerry: "Now FCSI is just the opposite. It is very concrete, not vague, not subject to debate and so obvious you could explain it to a school child." We are of one mind about that (see my post in the Nazca thread).gpuccio_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Adel and Mark: It is certainly interesting and correct to ask who the designer is and how he did implement the design. It is equally true that we have not many scientific data to support our theories about that. And it is equally true that design detection does not need those answers (but in no way requires that they are not searched). That is a common misunderstanding: when we in ID say that ID does not address the identity of the designer or the modalities or desing, we are not saying that those problems cannot be the object of scientific investigation: we are just saying that the ID theory, at present, has nothing to say about that. Many times I have suggested possible scenarios for the implementation of design (Mark, you should remember that). But I have no definite evidence for any of those scenarios. Regarding the identity of the designer, I will just say that there is no reason to restrict the field to human beings: the only qualities which are really required for a designer are: 1) He has to be a conscious, intelligent being 2) He has to have access to methods which allow the implementation of his conscious plans. Now, there is no reason to think that only human beings can do that. Aliens are a possible alternative. A classical God is a possible alternative. Some conscious intelligent force, at present not detectable by our scientific tools, is a possible alternative. And I am sure there are other possibilities. So, the point is: any being with a subjective consciousness, capable of intelligence and finality, and with some form of interface with matter, could do that. A lab is not needed in all cases. Biologists need it, but a God probably doesn't. For aliens, I don't know, but we can always inquire.gpuccio_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

CJYMan [58]: [I had more commentary in response to your remarks in 56, But it just didn't take shape like I wanted to (a lot of sarcasm) , so I'm leaving it off for now.]
Will background noise and an arbitrarily chosen set of laws (set of laws chosen with no regard for future consequences) create CSI, a highly improbable program of instructions, an EA, or intelligence?
I was aware that in some of Dembski's more current work regarding "Conservation of Information" "No Free Lunch" and evolutionary algorithms that there have been repeated reference to "arbitrarily chosen" sets of laws and supposed proofs regarding the inability of these to accomplish anything of significance. My personal opinion has always been that this seems like a cynical exercise in word play. The reason that I say that is that it is obvious that arbitrarily chosen laws will not accomplish anything, any more than pure randomness will accomplish anything, and you don't need a proof for that. Pick a random binary string. That's arbitrarily chosen laws. Everyone already agrees randomness doesn't accomplish anything. That was the whole point of Dawkins "Weasel", to point out that evo theorists don't believe that randomness creates things. So No, I don't think arbitrarily chosen laws will create "a highly improbable program of instructions" But I think that there's something else going on with this phrase "arbitrarily chosen" as well The intent seems to be to draw attention to the act of choosing which to ID is a transcendent act associated with their brand of intelligence. ----------------------------- Elsewhere it seems you want to say "laws" means really simple laws. And you say if you take away chance and really simple laws, what's left is "information". If you want to replace the term "necessity" with the term "information", and include "really simple laws" in that category as well, then I have no problem with that.JT_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

JT: "You said previously at one point “non-lawful/non-repetitive” so apparently you see those two concepts as equivalent. A set of program instructions would be laws. And to repeat Rob’s observation, What functional information does a prime number sequence contain." I think it's very simple: "non lawful" does not mean, as you seem to imply, "which does not work by laws": a set of program instructions works by laws. "Non lawful" means, in this context, as amy body who knows the ID theory should know very well, "which cannot be generated by laws of necessity, without any intervention of design". It's completely different, as anybody can see. A set of program instructions, if complex enough, cannot be generated by any law of necessity. No laws of necessity can generate this post. And so on. And the sequence of prime numbers has a lot of functions. Just ask a mathematicians. It's a definite information about definite mathematical objects, and it is extremely useful in a mathemathical context.gpuccio_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

"Not sure what the function of a prime number signal is" Once again we say something and one of our anti ID buddies tees it up so we and smack it right out of the park. It's so easy. First of all, the sequence points to a series of prime numbers and what does that series communicate. Prime numbers are such that they are not found anywhere in nature as a series so if someone wants to communicate they are not of nature, then step right up and swing the prime number bat. It functions as a indication of intelligence. The series of prime numbers can mean or function on several levels to another intelligence just as a word or a series of words causes another to think in a certain way. For example, it communicates to me a symbol of what two disparate intelligence might have in common. Now there are apparently some uses of prime numbers in life but they do not appear due to law or chance in nature anywhere as a series so that would indicate that the sender was not from a chance or law phenomena. The use of prime numbers versus another popular set of numbers such as Fibonacci numbers is a safer set of numbers because the Fibonacci numbers appear more in life and while I am not aware of any non life examples this set would be more problematic. So the use of prime would be a clincher. It is a good choice though some other series might work just as well. Prime numbers do keep some mathematicians busy just figuring if there is any pattern to them. But prime numbers have some function besides a mathematical curiosity. Cryptography uses prime numbers in certain types of codes. Prime numbers function as a way to get less repetitive phenomena. Well thank you for helping us again. I am sure we can count on you in the future to contribute some more help. As example of my outreaching to the anti ID people, I believe that CSI is a millstone around the ID evolution movement. CSI has never been adequately defined to cover all cases and that is why we seem to have such contradictory discussions on it. Read the first FAQ from a couple weeks ago and you will see my comments on it. It has been discussed here for almost 3 years and I have not seen any resolution of it. It is too general a term and I have not seen a definition that encompasses all the examples one provides. Dembski seems to want a generalized approach to all design detection and the result is what I consider too vague a concept. The complex and information is easy to understand but the specified defies description. Is it specifying or being specified? I would like to be proved wrong and await the description that will put the controversy away but I have been asking for over two years and I am still in the dark. Now FCSI is just the opposite. It is very concrete, not vague, not subject to debate and so obvious you could explain it to a school child. So if one thinks they can score points by attacking CSI, then they will get run over by how simple FCSI is as a concept and how ultra relevant it is to the evolution debate. So I judge sincerity on this debate by honest befuddlement with CSI which I can understand wholeheartedly but complete acknowledgment that FSCI is easy to understand and apply. Befuddlement is not an option here. Those who try to undermine FCSI are just here as obstructionist. It is one of the criteria I personally use. There are lots of ways to judge sincerity and this is one of them. People should look up the social psychology concept, attribution. It is one of the strongest drivers of assessment of others in this world.jerry_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Laws = mathematical descriptions of observed regularities. ie: [equation for gravity] Chance = the word used to describe an end product which has no discernible causal factor and no discernible pattern. ie: background noise; correlates with statistical randomness It is thus obvious that a program of instructions are more than just law and chance. Information (CSI) describes the difference. Where does this information come from? Previous laws and chance? Will background noise and an arbitrarily chosen set of laws (set of laws chosen with no regard for future consequences) create CSI, a highly improbable program of instructions, an EA, or intelligence?CJYman_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

JT: "You said previously at one point “non-lawful/non-repetitive” so apparently you see those two concepts as equivalent. A set of program instructions would be laws." ... and information (measurable as both shannon information as a decrease in uncertainty/distance from thermodynamic equilibrium/uniform probability; and as CSI). Unless the program is merely background noise and/or regularities, it also contains information. It is the non-regular, specified, and complex nature of the program which needs to be explained and which is not merely law and chance. JT: "And to repeat Rob’s observation, What functional information does a prime number sequence contain." Are you asking how much information or what criteria of specificity is being employed? If criteria, then I will repeat my answer, "A prime number signal would fit into the category of FSCI as a mathematically meaningful yet non-repetitive pattern — *given that meaningfully specified complex information is either a subset of or equivalent to functionally specified complex information.*" And in this case, meaningful would mean describable. ie: prime numbers are "all numbers which can only be divisible by themselves and one." I'm not sure what the mathematical notation would be for such a sequence. As to a quantity of FSCI, I'm not sure, as you would have to measure it against an approximation of all non-repetitive mathematically meaningful/describable sequences of same length. This would be a daunting task, however, I'm sure there's some crazy russian mathematician out there just ready to take on such a challenge. LOL!CJYman_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Comes from the works of both Hubert Yockey and Michael Polonyi, among others. “A shaping of boundaries may he said to go beyond a mere fixing of boundaries and establishes a ‘controlling principle.’ It achieves control of the boundaries by imprinting a significant pattern on the boundaries of the system. Or, to use information language, we may say that it puts the system under the control of a non-physical-chemical principle by a profoundly informative intervention.” --Michael Polanyi, “Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry,” Chemical & Engineering News (21 August 1967): 64. But, yes, I did realize this simple truth before I read about it in their work. If you are doubting the validity of what I am stating, then just check into it yourself. The sequence of amino acids is not determined by any physical/material properties of the amino acids, else it would merely be a repetitive chain without the ranging ability to store information (in both the shannon sense [as a decrease in uncertainty] and FSCI). Think of it as letters written on a page. If the letters could only be written according to rules defined by their physical properties, we may only be able to write down something such as AJFDAJFDAJFD or RERERERERE, etc. Does this allow the transfer of information in the functional sense? Maybe some, but extremely limited. In the case of life, it would be even more limited. We would merely end up with a repetitive string of ATCGATCGATCG. Information is the opposite direction of thermodynamic equilibrium. For a code to carry information, the medium must be in a constant struggle against thermodynamics, through the use of repair mechanisms which themselves require further coded information. “In the face of the universal tendency for order to be lost, the complex organization of the living organism can be maintained only if work – involving the expenditure of energy – is performed to conserve the order. The organism is constantly adjusting, repairing, replacing, and this requires energy. But the preservation of the complex, improbable organization of the living creature needs more than energy for the work. It calls for information or instructions on how the energy should be expended to maintain the improbable organization. The idea of information necessary for the maintenance and, as we shall see, creation of living systems is of great utility in approaching the biological problems of reproduction.” George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge and Kegan, 1965), 145.CJYman_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

CJYMan: "A prime number signal would fit into the category of FSCI as a mathematically meaningful yet non-repetitive pattern" You said previously at one point "non-lawful/non-repetitive" so apparently you see those two concepts as equivalent. A set of program instructions would be laws. And to repeat Rob's observation, What functional information does a prime number sequence contain.JT_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

CJYMan [50]:
Of course, though, FSCI... is non lawful... In fact, codes must be non-lawful in order to carry any information. They must not be hindered by any lawful restraints brought on by physical/material properties of the units being utilized.
Where are you getting this from? Is this something you came up with?JT_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Rob does have a point here in that a criteria of algorithmic compressibility can be used to define a specified pattern. As such, a long enough string of a regular pattern will eventually yield an amount of CSI. Thus, a pulsar signal will eventually yield CSI and a long enough set of heads up coin flips will also yield CSI. But, there is a significant difference in these two cases. When we go through the EF and discover that something is caused by physical/material properties and can be described by mathematical descriptions of regularity then we may be dealing with the effects of law. In this case, further research needs to be done. The pulsar signals were discovered to be the result of law, just as a long chain of carbon atoms or the repetitive pattern found in a snowflake. That is why, when discovering a regular/repetitive pattern we normally default to law as a causal explanation. Thus, algorithmic compressibility as a criteria for specification is not always reliable since it also describes the effects of law. Of course, though, FSCI doesn't come across that problem. It is both specified, complex, and non lawful/non-repetitive. In fact, codes must be non-lawful in order to carry any information. They must not be hindered by any lawful restraints brought on by physical/material properties of the units being utilized. A prime number signal would fit into the category of FSCI as a mathematically meaningful yet non-repetitive pattern -- given that meaningfully specified complex information is either a subset of or equivalent to functionally specified complex information. Thus, the EF needs to be taken into account alongside CSI to reliably signal previous intelligence. Of course, the discovery of an IC core along with CSI and the EF would pretty much "blow the case out of the water" in favor of ID.CJYman_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

"Should SETI come across unusual signals from space one of the first things they would investigate would be how might they have been generated. As happened in the case of pulsars." Another irrelevant but useful comment for us because it is such a softball. The SETI example depends on the nature of the signal. If the signal was the series of prime numbers as in Contact, no one would care a rats rear end how it was generated in order to believe it was from an intelligent source. Oh after a while they might be interested what kind of device did the transmitting but no one would question that it was not an intelligent transmission until they could identify the transmitter. They would know it was designed. There would be a thousand questions but no one would question if it was intelligence behind the signal. They would want to know the nature of the intelligence, where it came from, how long it took to get here and what else might be transmitted. But they would not question the design. And they would be all sorts of speculation about who it was, how intelligent it was, the late night tv shows would be populated with known experts on extra terrestrial life etc. But they would not say that because we do not know the motives of the sender, or how they did it, or when they did it, that it must be a non intelligent source. There would actually be research to see if nature could generate the prime numbers by lawful processes and so be it. In your pulsar case the question is not how it was transmitted or not but was it designed. The signal did not reach the quality of certain design but it could have been. So what they got was an iffy signal which was then attributed to a lawful origin as opposed to an intelligent origin when they found the pulsars. Your pulsar example does not reach the level of FCSI but the prime numbers does. The pulsar signal doesn't even come close. It is the EF at work. Thank you for your comment that shows that we have no need to know the motive of the intelligent source or the means by which they act to conclude that the artifact, the signal, is the result of intelligence just as we have no need to know the method and motive to conclude that the artifact, DNA, is the result of intelligence . As I said you make our jobs here easy. You do not have to answer this, because I don't expect it. I am just using comments from the anti ID people to show how weak their arguments are and yours have been unusually fruitful. So thank you for helping us and keep on contributing.jerry_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Re #38 Dave I know that ID offers nothing in this respect which is precisely why I don't think it is serious science. "Design detection" is nothing but attempts to eliminate chance based theories - that's what the EF says. ID proceeds by challenging various chance theories to explain step by step how in detail those theories can account for certain outcomes e.g the infamous flagellum. The challenge is fair enough. All science should be open to criticism and doubt and anyhow scientists want to understand such things. Scientists supply some of the answers, some with relative certainty, some as conjectures. However, life is a very long story mostly told at the molecular level. Not surprising not all the details are known. So ID announces that the explanation is incomplete and the answer must be "design". no other evidence is offered. When asked to give even the slightest detail about how the design works ID bows out and says "design has been detected" that's all. Your example is a great one. It shows how design detection should work - which is just like any other hypothesis. Look at the comments above. Design was not initially detected. In fact uoflcard assumed it must have a natural explanation. There was no plausible account of how design might have implemented that pattern in the ocean. The Atlantis hypothesis was put forward and dismissed. It was only when someone proposed a plausible method for design (idiosynchrosies in the Google software as I understand it) that design was preferred to natural explanations. There were real design hypotheses on the table to be evaluated.Mark Frank_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

#45 Not knowing the mechanisms used to accomplish something does not invalidate a theory. Your criticism or assumption seems to be that if there is not a naturalistic mechanism to explain it, then it is not explained. I have no idea how your words came to be at Mark Frank [37] but I still can infer an intelligent mind did it. How, whether via pda, iphone, laptop, pc or mac is irrelevant to ID theory. SETI finding intelligent signals from outer space would be right to careless about the how it was done. The fact is, there is self-evident intelligence. Absolutist Well of course this is exactly the issue at stake. It it not so much that that failing to specify the mechanisms invalidates the theory - it is more that without the mechanisms you don't have a theory. You just have the believe that Darwinism doesn't crack it therefore it must be something else - give it the label "design". You have a lot of ideas about the words in 37. You believe they were generated by a live human being using the internet. And this is by far the most probable explanation for the words. Importantly you can test the truth of this hypothesis. You can examine the ability of the internet to carry such a message. You can examine other things I have written to see if they are typical of human beings etc. You can ask yourself why would a human have written such things. Should SETI come across unusual signals from space one of the first things they would investigate would be how might they have been generated. As happened in the case of pulsars. "Self-evident" is broad term that needs a little detail behind it.Mark Frank_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank [37] About "inquiring into the designer’s methods." Not knowing the mechanisms used to accomplish something does not invalidate a theory. Your criticism or assumption seems to be that if there is not a naturalistic mechanism to explain it, then it is not explained. I have no idea how your words came to be at Mark Frank [37] but I still can infer an intelligent mind did it. How, whether via pda, iphone, laptop, pc or mac is irrelevant to ID theory. SETI finding intelligent signals from outer space would be right to careless about the how it was done. The fact is, there is self-evident intelligence.absolutist_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Seversky, Atlantis if it exists at all is probably in the Eastern Mediterranean or possible the Black Sea. Two likely candidates are Thera or the modern day island of Santorini which blew up 3500 years ago or when the Black Sea flooded as the Ice Age ended. This raised the level of the Mediterranean which then flowed massively into what is now the Black Sea. This is thought to be the origin of a lot of the flood myths that persist in many cultures. Makes great stories to tell your children and some may actually be true. By the way, Santorini is a very pretty place and I recommend all go there to visit if they can. There is an active volcano just opposite the island about 1 km away across the harbor. It blew twice in the 20th century and more than likely will blow again some time soon. You can hike this volcano and feel the heat in various places. There are even hot springs on this volcano opposite Santorini.jerry_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Personally, I rather hope it is Atlantis and that, when we get down there, we find an operational Stargate. Not only will it be evidence of the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence in life on Earth but it would give us a much cheaper way of getting to other stars and planets than prohibitively expensive spaceships.Seversky_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

"They criticise them for not being able to give a detailed plausible account of the origin of life or major innovation." A disingenuous question like this deserves a sarcastic response. The labs were destroyed by subduction. Now I ask you a couple questions. 1. If there was a lab and there were documents that described the process 3.8 billion years ago, do you think they would still be around today. 2. The process of subduction and weathering would smash nearly every bit of forensic evidence for whatever was here. What could you possibly expect from such a question? It is not a serious question. It is a fools errand. Are we to go into the mantle to see what might still be left. Would you recommend such a research project to the governing bodies of science. How much would you be willing to spend? Now in the future when science understands the nature of the genome much better, more reasonable questions will arise as to why the structure, the methods to control processes and systems etc. The questions that are necessary to get to those questions are being addressed at the moment and may take hundreds of years to answer. But to expect these answers to be readily available now is as I said to Adel at best silly. To demand they be answered reflects a dishonest approach to the dialogue. The intelligent answer is to say we do not know and we give the intelligent answer and get childish reactions in turn.jerry_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Adel, Your are using stereotypes and from those stereotypes making bigoted judgments. My experience here is that those who oppose ID are the narrow minded as your comment indicated. The reason they are narrow minded is that they are ideology driven and as such cannot accept a wide range of answers to their questions. So your ignorance about those who advocate ID is showing and your comments reflect it. You have no idea as to what I think but take one comment made in sarcasm at a silly comment by Mark Frank and make a judgment. To give you an example, there is nothing in the Darwinian paradigm or whatever the latest synthesis is called that is objectionable to ID. ID's only problem is the lack of evidence for a lot of the conclusions made by those who profess to be objective. They are anything but objective. So it is ID that has a broader perspective and those who argue against it are the narrow minded as your comments indicate. That you continue to go on with this and the witless comments from Mark Frank asking about how did the designer do it are disingenuous at best. They are not meant to inform or advance anything but desparate attempts to find minor flaws in an argument and thus ride off triumphant at the stupidity of those who support ID. Otherwise the questioning would proceed on an entirely different basis. Civility would take an entirely different route. So when that route is not taken, it is a red flag. So sorry, your behavior is of an ill bred child and one who should be disciplined.jerry_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

jeery at #31:
Adel, if you make a negative comment or exhibit a negative attitude then expect the essence of your negative comment to be dealt with in some way.
How about dealing with the comment constructively, rather than with anger? Anyway, what was negative about my comment? Here is what I wrote:
jerry: "I am not interested in how exactly the designer did it…" That’s a position that seems to distinguish ID believers from scientists. The former consider identifying design the end of inquiry. The latter would consider such a discovery just the first clue in a search for further explanation.
I simply made an observation that is critical of the ID position. What is wrong with criticism? Is my observation false? Did I use a sarcastic or disparaging tone? What I said distills for me the essence of a difference in attitude between persons like yourself who are satisfied to rest their curiosity and scientists, who are enthusiastically curious.
I would not let any of my children make a comment such as yours without being sent to their room.
You must be joking!Adel DiBagno_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Mark at #37, Thanks for your support. DaveScot at #32, Thanks for your civil comment. You also wrote:
All we can do is speculate. One possibility is by using viral vectors to insert new genetic information quickly through a large population. That’s how I’d do it.
That should be amenable to study. If true, there should be evidence in genomes sequences. Seems like something worth continuing to spend resources on.Adel DiBagno_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Mark Go ahead and ask who, how, when, where, and why living things were created. Just be aware that design detection provides no guidance in that regard. This exercise with the Google Ocean is an example of that. Design was detected but after that other means of investigation must be utilized to learn more about the design. ID doesn't answer all questions but neither does it inhibit further investigation by other means. Why do critics have such a difficult time accepting this limitation? General relativity won't lead to a cure for the common cold. Do you have a hard time accepting that too? Plate tectonics won't give us guidance to build faster microprocessors. Is that a problem for plate tectonics? Design detection won't tell us how the design was accomplished. Is that a problem for ID? DaveScot_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

#27 Adel - the thing to do with Jerry is ignore the abuse and carry on making the arguments. I suspect he is one of the younger members of the ID community. #31 Jerry – 1) We are not just talking about the origin of life. ID proposes design as the explanation of major new innovation through the history of life. You may believe in front loading. That somehow the designer anticipated the life cycle of the fig wasp and placed the appropriate DNA in the first prokaryotes (that at least is the beginnings of a hypothesis to be explored). But in general ID theorists refuse to even go that far. 2) You have a fine line in sarcasm about the silliness of inquiring into the designer’s methods. But ID proponents demand just that kind of account from “conventional” scientists. They criticise them for not being able to give a detailed plausible account of the origin of life or major innovation. And scientists do indeed investigate both. I know you will disagree as to whether they have succeeded - but the point is they work on it. They form hypotheses. They experiment. They assess the consequences of their hypotheses. They see how those hypotheses match up to known natural laws. ID on the other hand says that it was a designer of unknown powers and motives and leaves it at that. This gives no scope for assessing the plausibility of the design hypothesis. Now compare this to how we would investigate whether lines on the Google Ocean map were the result of design. We would ask who, how, when, why?Mark Frank_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

faithandshadow, If it is a mapping grid related error it does in no way invalidate CSI. CSI can only test for design or not. Since a mapping grid is designed it returned back design by mere intuition, CSI is like that since it works even without plugging in any numbers in any mathematical applied context (This is the whole point DaveScot, Borne and many others have rightfully made). Its not important whether the patterns are "Altlantis" or whether they are part of a mapping grid semantic related software error, they are simply patterns that can be measured and distinguished from purely natural causes. The mapping grids are evident in other places as well, those places were not considered since they did not have the requirement for CSI. Its safe to say before any considerations were made about potential "Atlantis", all other parts were examined and none exhibited the same instance of pattern type complexity. It simply comes down to if its not a designed city its a designed something else.ab_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

I think it would be better to rule this out as a con or a mapping grid than even remotely considering it is Atlantis or some other human construction, right? I might be a Christian, but a healthy skepticism goes a long way.faithandshadow_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/pi/ppc/varroa-bee-mite-folder/mite-surveys/mite-suveys-november-2007/varroa%20kauai%20111507.jpg http://earthcomesalive.multiply.com/mentok_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Although the prospect of some giant underwater ancient feature is attractive, the explanation given by Google, that the lines are related to ship tracks, is correct. Google gets a lot of their information on undersea topography from sources such as the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO). There is a webpage with information on GEBCO at: http://www.gly.bris.ac.uk/www/TerraNova/gebco/gebco.html Figure 4 on this webpage shows a typical map of ship tracks west of North Africa. Unfortunately, the map doesn’t cover the area of the so-called Atlantis, but there is a patch with a rather similar pattern of ship tracks overlapping at right angles in the north-central part of the map. Along ship tracks, side-scan sonar has been used to record a detailed picture of the ocean bottom terrain. However, the side-scan sonar can only record a narrow strip of ocean floor a few miles wide. These strips show bottom irregularities in much greater detail than in the adjacent areas, which are often based on satellite gravity measurements. Because of the way the topography is shaded on the Google ocean bottom maps, the long narrow lines with detailed terrain information tend to show up as darker in color. In fact, if you browse around the Google oceans, you will see a lot of long straight lines in all sorts of directions across otherwise featureless areas. These lines are all narrow strips with detailed side-scan sonar information measured along the tracks of ships. So, yes, the pattern does represent human design - the grid layout used for ocean floor mapping of a particular area.leenibus_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply