Human evolution: The spin machine in top gear

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

For a fascinating misreading of what the recently announced Messel Pit fossil really shows, go here:

Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil, described as Darwinius masillae, is 20 times older than most fossils that explain human evolution.

That fossil doesn’t “explain” human evolution; it complicates the picture.

The theory that was gaining ground was that humans were descended from tarsier-like creatures, but this fossil, touted as a primate ancestor, is a lemur-like creature.

Often, I hear from people attempting to patch the cracks in the unguided Darwinian evolution theory, as follows: “We have more information than ever!”

Yes, but what if it is – as in this case – the evidence is contradictory?

Evidence for Theory A subtracts from evidence for Theory B. So if A is right, B must be subtracted from the total. If B is right, A must be subtracted from the total.

Surely, that is pretty obvious. But watching the spin machine in high gear is a fascinating exercise anyway.

No wonder fewer and fewer believe Darwinism.

Comments

I didn't run away, I am not going to waste my time looking for your already refuted nonsense. What part of that don't you understand? And why don't you answer just fill in the blanks: “If natural selection is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then natural selection is at risk of disconfirmation.” “If random variation is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then random variation is at risk of disconfirmation.” Diffaxial runs away... (meaning he? will not fill in the blanks)Joseph_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Joe @ 64:
diffaxial had tried to answer those pertaining to the theory of evolution but the answers were so far off base they were pathetic.
Diffaxial @ 69:
Please reproduce that exchange here.
(Joe runs away). (Then Joe comes back) Diffaxial @ 121:
Now that you are back, earlier you stated
diffaxial had tried to answer those pertaining to the theory of evolution but the answers were so far off base they were pathetic.
I asked you to reproduce that exchange. But you ran away.
(Joe runs away). (Then Joe comes back) Diffaxial @ 169:
I asked you to reproduce that conversation (a link to it will do), but you ran away. You returned, I asked again, but you ran away again. Please reproduce the exchange in which I made these pathetic remarks.
Joe @ 178:
Answer the questions again and most likely your earlier tripe will be repeated. I do not have time to search for your already refuted nonsense.
IOW, Joe runs away.Diffaxial_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, Answer the questions again and most likely your earlier tripe will be repeated. I do not have time to search for your already refuted nonsense. One of the nonsensical things you said was that humans have a disabled gene for making vitamin C- as if that was evidence for the theory of evolution. That is a moronic claim. “If natural selection is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then natural selection is at risk of disconfirmation.” “If random variation is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then random variation is at risk of disconfirmation.” So here is your chance to demonstrate that you are not FoS. However I have noticed that you would rather dwell of your past mistakes. And here I am giving you a chance to prove yopu didn't make any mistakes. So have at it.Joseph_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

"and minds on either end of the message" Or more precisely, living things. Here I am obviously using humanity as a model but it applies in the animal world as well.tgpeeler_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Rob #171 "I’m not Diffaxial, but I’m guessing the flapdoodle would include claims like, “Information requires language.” Perhaps you can cite some support for that claim from the information theory literature." This is rich. ARE YOU SERIOUS?? I'll do better than that. I'll give you a chance, as many chances as you like, all for free, to falsify my statement and PROVE me wrong. So all you have to do is come up with one instance of information that does not require language (symbols, vocabulary of some kind, rules of grammar and syntax, and minds on either end of the message). Go ahead. But do it quickly if you can because my curiosity is killing me. Quite frankly, I thought I was stating the obvious. No, really. Go ahead and communicate information without the use of a language. And if you can't come up with a way, maybe you could tell me how you could imagine that it would work conceptually. Only because I'm interested in understanding why someone would even question that claim once they've thought about it for a second or two. Hmmmmm. Maybe that's the problem.tgpeeler_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Rob, are proteins made of nucleotides?Upright BiPed_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

"Moreover, while a completely accurate simulation of the 2005 season may be possible in principle, it should be obvious that were it to fail it wouldn’t follow that intelligence is responsible hurricanes." So models won't be provided because, if they fail, ID'ers will claim that they failed? "Your request is rather like an advocate of “intelligent weather theory” demanding of meteorologists (and their vile materialist accounts of the weather) a completely accurate simulation of the 2005 hurricane season, culminating in Katrina, accompanied by the claim that the failure to supply such a simulation is evidence for intelligent weather theory" I don't follow this argument. There is no demand that a completely accurate simulation of the hurricane season of 2005 is required. It would just be nice to know that we understand how hurricanes are formed by natural processes. Which we do. Thus, no design required.NSM_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Diff, You are clinging to a sinking ship - and asking me to address your earlier post is asking for more rain, a glass of water, and a wet towel.
Seems to me that your prediction requires a solution to the origins of life before it can be tested.
Okay, so you want to ignore the correction made (origins > function), that’s fine. In any case, this is nothing more than a blind assertion without merit. I ask you: "Why" would we have to solve OOL before we could “test” whether the information in DNA was actually information after all? Or that it is physically inert? Or that it is driving living systems? Does the information in DNA do anything? Are proteins made up of nucleotides? Are you saying that until we know the answers to the origin of information and how that information came about, then Francis Crick cannot assume that he has found something? Are you then saying that all the scientist working on the Information Paradox are wasting time because the information that drives living systems cannot be recognized as information until we know how it came about? Is it that no one can know anything about the qualities of the information until then? Shall we then make a list of all the other things we make assumptions upon without knowing how they came about? No, of course not. What you are saying is that you need to say something that sounds good, even if it is logically vacant. Not to worry though, this is a common problem whenever you’re defending ideological assumptions which are incompatible with the evidence. The only thing I can suggest to you is to drop the ideological assumptions and simply address the evidence. - - - - - - - - - While I am here, please allow me to also help you along with your “circular argument” argument. A circular argument is something like “you can believe what I say, because I said so”, where the conclusion assumes the premise. But this is not the type of comment you asked for. You asked a very specific question about observations: “If x, then y”. Notice that word ("then") between the x and the y? It plays an important role in your question. Along with the “If” at the start of the sentence, the two words are essentially asking for a meaningful equality to be placed both before and after the “then”. “IF x THEN y”. In other words, the qualities inherent in the theory should be equated with the qualities seen in the observations. If that meaningful equality exist, then it does not make it a circular argument, it makes the IF part valid by virtue of having a meaningful equality with the THEN part. If your logic leads to believe otherwise, then every “If x then y” question in science is wrong. Now, if I say “If design is true, then design will be observed” then I have not so much made a circular argument, but have made a completely meaningless comment. Actually, no argument exists at all because there is no meaningful relationship between the IF and the THEN (instead, they are simply the same). Equality is then a given, and any inequalities cannot be accessed. But that is not what I said - I said “If the theory of design is true, then we should observe physically inert meaning in the function of Life” In this comment I have allowed for a meaningful relationship to be made between the “IF” theory and the “THEN” observation. Hence, there is nothing circular about it. - - - - - - - - Finally, I like to you to understand that many in ID already know that the physically inert nature of biological information cannot be explained by physical law and chance. It’s the death knell to ideological materialism. The questions I would ask of you I’ve already asked (often face to face) with proponents on both side of the argument (McNeil, Behe, Kraus, Elsberry, Gene, Moran, Alexander, Myers, etc). It’s always the same ole shuck and jive maneuver when it come right down to it. We also know that Behe has never been answered. We know that Dembski is willing to stand in the torrent of the mathematical trivialities thrown at him while the point he makes is trampled upon. So be it. We watch as the explanations grow bigger and more profuse instead of becoming streamlined into elegance and parsimony. For some of us (speaking for myself) we watch not just what you say, but what you are saying. By this I mean, your argument must act within the rules of opposing force. When you deflect a direct question and flank off into the weeds - we see it for what it is. If you had a defense against the argument that chance and necessity cannot account for information and language, then you would have made it a thousand times over. If you had an argument that a volitional act is not inferred by the evidence, you would have made that as well (and would have done so with the observation that chance and necessity can indeed lead to physically-inert language and information). In this regard, your presence here (along with Beelzebub and Nakashima, and Hazel, and a thousand others) has been most helpful. I hope you’ll hang around.Upright BiPed_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

And another thing. How in the world did we come to the point where design needs to be justified? Or that the idea that it can be detected is controversial in any way, shape, or form? It's insanity to be arguing with people who, on the one hand, purport to be paragons of rationality and devotees of empirical evidence but abandon reason at the drop of a hat and ignore any evidence (which, ironically, is ALL the evidence) that is inconvenient, or more accurately, challenges their worldview. I suppose when "they" are reduced to name calling and refusing to engage because they are "too busy" that is some kind of progress. Because we ALL KNOW, don't we? There is no way this is about "science." This is about rebellion against reality. People are free to do that, of course. But the man who jumps off a building can claim to be flying for only so long. Why he would do that, or think he can avoid reality by insisting to the death that he really is flying, however, is beyond me. And to ingore or hurl insults at the people who are screaming "hey Dude, you're not flying, you're falling" is perhaps the saddest aspect of the whole deal.tgpeeler_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler:
At least you could enlighten me as to WHY my question to you is “flapdoodle.”
I'm not Diffaxial, but I'm guessing the flapdoodle would include claims like, "Information requires language." Perhaps you can cite some support for that claim from the information theory literature.R0b_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

re #163 "Don’t go holding your breath, peeler, because I have a day packed with professional obligations and probably won’t be able to get to it until this evening, if at all. Plus murky flapdoodle of the kind you and Upright manufacture takes more time to address than do assertions that make sense." Aah. The old I'm too busy and you're too stupid argument. Wow. I AM impressed!! Two for the price of one!! Well, whenever you get around to it I'll be waiting (and breathing all along). At least you could enlighten me as to WHY my question to you is "flapdoodle." That is, why explaining information is not important. Other than that you can't do it, that is.tgpeeler_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Joseph: Since you are back, earlier you stated:
“If natural selection is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then natural selection is at risk of disconfirmation.” “If random variation is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then random variation is at risk of disconfirmation.” diffaxial had tried to answer those pertaining to the theory of evolution but the answers were so far off base they were pathetic.
I asked you to reproduce that conversation (a link to it will do), but you ran away. You returned, I asked again, but you ran away again. Please reproduce the exchange in which I made these pathetic remarks.Diffaxial_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
The theory of evolution does NOT provide any predictions based on the proposed mechanisms.
Excellent point. In contrast with ID, ToE is merely a bunch of just-so stories. NO Darwinist has ever listed the specific mutations which can change a fish into an ape.herb_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial you have not answered anything. You did in 163 as you did in 111. Nothing. Evidence is tough - ain’t it.
OK - explain to us how your original proposal can work, even in light of its circularity. For your convenience:
If the theory of design is true, then we should observe physically inert meaning in the origin of Life.
Seems to me that your prediction requires a solution to the origins of life before it can be tested. But were the solution to the origins of life in hand, we would already know whether or not life was designed - and we would of necessity have attained that understanding without research guidance from your prediction. So that’s not a prediction that is very useful.
Diffaxial_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial you have not answered anything. You did in 163 as you did in 111. Nothing. Evidence is tough - ain't it.Upright BiPed_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

As for the contributions of ID one MAJOR contribution is that living organisms are NOT reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. And that tells us there is something more to living organisms than just their chemical reactions.Joseph_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, The theory of evolution does NOT provide any predictions based on the proposed mechanisms. That you continue to harp on ID predictions demonstrates you haven't a clue as your position doesn't predict anything beyond change and/ or stasis.Joseph_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Upright:
And CJY corrected me (rightly so) with what I intended to say:
No, Upright, I corrected you in 111, by pointing out the abject circularity of your original proposal.
I eagerly await his response to either of us.
Don't go holding your breath, peeler, because I have a day packed with professional obligations and probably won't be able to get to it until this evening, if at all. Plus murky flapdoodle of the kind you and Upright manufacture takes more time to address than do assertions that make sense.Diffaxial_{May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

Spectacular post. I wish I could have written it. I eagerly await his response to either of us. As an aside, in the movie the Wizard of Oz there is a scene when Dorothy is in the Emerald City and the Wicked Witch of the West (WWW) skywrites "SURRENDER DOROTHY." On any naturalistic account of the existence of those letters, the WWW will be ignored. Because if we have described all the physical facts then all the facts are fixed. Or so they claim. Yet I could describe the composition of the smoke, the wind currents, air pressure, humidity, etc... in exhausting detail (well, I couldn't but some weather person could) and I've still said nothing about the WWW, Dorothy, the symbolic nature of the letters, the rules of the language, or the message. In other words, anything that matters. Doesn't that kind of sum up the whole naturalistic enterprise? They have NOTHING to say about anything that matters. Yet various versions of naturalism, materialism, and physicalism still hold sway over the "scientific" community. WFT is up with that? It astonishes me that this farce isn't consistently held up to the public ridicule and scorn it so richly deserves. Anyway, great post.tgpeeler_{May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial, you asked for someone to fill in the blanks:
If my theory is true, then we should observe _____. If we fail to observe ______, then my theory is at risk of disconfirmation.”
And I obliged:
If the theory of design is true, then we should observe physically inert meaning in the origin of Life. If we fail to observe it, then the theory is at risk of disconfirmation.
And CJY corrected me (rightly so) with what I intended to say:
If the theory of design is true, then we should observe physically inert meaning in the function of Life. If we fail to observe it, then the theory is at risk of disconfirmation.
The reasoning behind my comment is rather simple: physically inert meaning that leads to function is the very essence of design. If design is true, we may expect to find artifact(s) of physically inert phenomena that confers meaning and leads to life’s function (which is exactly what we find at the molecular level of all living systems). As I’ve stated before, a red plastic ball is a physically inert object. Certainly all of the hydrocarbons contained in the ball are obeying the physical laws that govern this Universe, but there is nothing in those physical laws that says “dye yourself red and form a sphere”. That requires a physically inert something else - a result beyond what the molecules must do themselves. The amino-acid serine is necessary for Earth’s living systems. However, serine does not come about by combining the nucleotides adenine, guanine, and thymine. Instead, it’s the order of these nucleotides along a linearly-read sequence of other nucleotides that leads to the production and use of serine in the body. That is, produced and used after the DNA symbol is first transcribed into messenger RNA, which is then transported elsewhere so it can be translated into what the original sequence had instructed from the start - serine. One thing represents another, but is not physically connected to it. So the symbol system in Life is like all true symbol systems, they are physically inert. There is no analogy in this observation; it is what it is. Think of this in terms of seeing an apple and saying the word “apple”. In reality, an apple does not come out of your mouth, but a symbol does. That symbol is the word “apple” (in another language the word would be something else). In fact, materialists have come on this site and conceded the inert quality of the symbol system (citing codon reassignment experiments as a falsification of the contrary view). So the symbol is not bound by law; it is instead bound by an agreement of what the symbol means. It’s an agreement between non-physically-coupled objects or entities (such as DNA, messenger RNA, and the resulting amino acid, protein, or process). Instructions inherently have meaning, and that meaning leads to function in living systems. All of this is evidenced by the fact that to discover the code within DNA we observed the input, compared it with the results, and deduced the meaning of the symbols being used. The symbols did not create the proteins themselves, but they represented them in the language used to confer meaning. So there is, in fact, physically-inert meaning imbedded in matter which leads to the functioning of all living tissue. And to be perfectly clear, the language is just the container of the information. The container is physically inert, and so is the information it contains. Notice I’ve said nothing about intelligence, or observers, etc. I don’t have to. Information was imparting meaning into physical objects and driving life long before we were around to observe it. If there were not a single humanoid ever born onto this planet, information, language, symbols, and meaning would have still been in full use. Our casual observation of it has no impact on the reality of its existence. You can’t logically (or reasonably) challenge that reality as far as it being physically inert, you can’t challenge it as far as being meaning, and you can’t challenge it as far as leading to function. However, because you are a metaphysical materialist (living in an age when advanced knowledge has shown your ideology to be indefensibly falsified) you have become necessarily adept at parsing trivial nonsense from cold hard observable facts. The preceding thread is a monument to your ability to bullshit your way through a conversation. So be it. The glaring difference between our positions is that I rationally incorporate what we observe in nature, while you irrationally ignore it.Upright BiPed_{May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Re. Cabal @ 149 The only point I was making is that Dawkins is irrational. Evolution MUST be gradual even if it is NOT ALWAYS GRADUAL. How can that be taken seriously by anyone?tgpeeler_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

above post references Diff @ 151tgpeeler_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

"Many biological structures the equivalent of which people must use planning and foresight to construct have arisen through selection." A list, please. And aren't we really talking about the "plan" for the structure? So what you really need to explain, still, is the language and information that builds those structures. No? So back to my original point which renders all of this discussion about what science is and isn't and what ID is and isn't moot, still must be addressed. You have implicitly claimed that "nature" (you say selection) can create this novel biological information which creates these structures that would otherwise need planning and foresight to build. No? If information is the distinguishing factor between living and non-living things, and it is. Then whatever method of investigation you want to espouse must be able to account for that information. No? If not, then you are not explaining anything. Just so stories about how "natural selection" (I use scare quotes deliberately because n.s. is a fiction - it is a literary device that has fooled many, many people - it means only living things reproduce. And it is based upon three false premises.) "builds" things needs to really explain how this is done. That means details. And within the methodological naturalism that you propose, you don't have the explanatory resources to explain that information. Not now. Not ever. You are bailing on a sinking ship. I'll shut up forever if you can just show me how undirected physical forces can create information. For that is what you are claiming. But you can't do it and so you avoid addressing the issue. I'm sure there will be some point in this post that you will seize upon in order to avoid the discussion once again. So, just to be clear. I think you owe an explanation of how information is created through "selection" or "natural selection" or "natural processes" or "physics." In other words, without mind. And if you don't think you owe such an explanation, please say why.tgpeeler_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial: "Such a simulation would be extremely difficult to attain for reasons that have no bearing upon whether the system simulated requires intelligence. Your request is rather like an advocate of “intelligent weather theory” demanding of meteorologists (and their vile materialist accounts of the weather) a completely accurate simulation of the 2005 hurricane season, culminating in Katrina, accompanied by the claim that the failure to supply such a simulation is evidence for intelligent weather theory (hurricanes are initiated by intelligent agents)." Your statement makes absolutely no sense, as the types of patterns produced are fully definable by chance and law and indeed would be produced by the test I outline. I am not asking for a simulation of exact occurrences. I am merely asking for a simulation which provides a certain type of pattern which is readily available to evolutionary algorithms. Will the test I propose produce such results? Anyway, there you have it. Hopefully that helps you gain a better understanding of my points which it seems that you are having a hard time (either purposefully or not) grasping. I will be off to work for a while and may not be able to join back in discussions for a few months. Hopefully you'll be around when I get back and then we can begin to discuss the fundamentals of ID Theory again.CJYman_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial: “Further, this doesn’t respond to my comment, which addresses your assumption that abstract computational systems are necessarily more difficult to attain than complexity that depends upon the physical properties of the underlying substrate. I described reasons to expect otherwise. A response would address those." In further response to this statement of yours, I have not yet dealt with "difficulty" as such. I have merely provided the observation that a highly contingent system which is correlated with a function is neither defined by law nor by chance. Thus, how could we expect it to be caused by either when there is a better alternative?CJYman_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial: "By including, “which you must use your own foresight to produce,” you create a test that by definition can’t be attained by natural processes. That’s no test." Ummm ... no ... the test you are referring to is a perfectly viable test of what law and chance will/will not produce. The rest of the question addresses the fact that you do use your foresight to produce certain patterns. It is quite straight forward to ask if a certain test will also produce those patterns. Are you stating that those patterns produced by foresight aren't attainable by natural processes? Are you denying that you have ever used your foresight to produce certain patterns. Diffaxial: "Moreover, however often repeated by ID advocates, your assertion is a negative assertion about another theory, not a positive assertion that tests and ultimately supports ID theory - the very thing I have been requesting throughout." If what you say is true then you are stating that if chance and law can produce certain patterns which ID Theory states that only intelligence will produce, then intelligent design theory will not be falsified. Again, think a bit about what you are writing. I have provided both a positive inference based on observation which can be used as a prediction in future cases (ie: if system contains "x" then it is intelligently designed), and a negative prediction which has the potential to falsify a crucial aspect of ID theory. Also, the negative prediction is essential to being able to use the positive prediction. And I have explained very clearly many time that in order for ID Theory to be correct: 1. Certain patterns mustn't be able to be generated by chance and law absent intelligence. 2. It must be true that intelligence does indeed produce those patterns. Logically, that is all that is necessary, unless you can point to another causal mechanism not defined in terms of either chance, law, or intelligence. BTW, faith based assertions don't count for science. Diffaxial: "Your insistence that there is a necessary dichotomy such that the failure of one theory supports the other is simply mistaken, for reasons you have never addressed (e.g., “we don’t know” is a third option)." Are you sure you are debating with me here? I have never denied that there could be a third option. I am merely ruling out one option and making an inference to an observed second option. You are familiar with basic scientific methods are you not? Why would we choose "I don't know" above something already observed? I am not relying in any way on a dichotomy. I am relying on the observation that intelligent system generate certain patterns. I am also relying on the fact that in order to be able to separate chance and law from chance, law, and intelligence we need to show that chance and law will not produce what chance, law, and intelligence can produce. The fact that you seem to not be able to understand this is incredible. Diffaxial: "Further, this doesn’t respond to my comment, which addresses your assumption that abstract computational systems are necessarily more difficult to attain than complexity that depends upon the physical properties of the underlying substrate. I described reasons to expect otherwise. A response would address those." You must be arguing with someone else since I made no such statement. Focus a bit. I am providing clear cut observation, inference, prediction, testing, and potential falsifiability. Can you follow along or not?CJYman_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial: "Google searches for “physically inert language” and “physically inert symbol” and “physically inert meaning” yield few hits, and ALL occur within UD. If uniqueness to UD doesn’t make these phrases idiosyncratic, what would?" So then you must have read the paper I recommended above -- p.p.s. “Physically inert” can also be replaced with “formally organized,” as explained in David L. Abel’s published article, “The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity” to provide a more detailed prediction. That paper above discusses physically inert switches.CJYman_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial: "It is rather my point that observation that the sky is blue is NOT a prediction, as you correctly observe. " I did no such thing. I correctly observed that the connection between your "inference and prediction" and the actual inference and prediction which I have provided based on Aristotle is "shaky at best. In fact, you only provided an observation absent any inference and prediction so in order for you to back up your assertion of similarity, you will have to answer a couple of the questions I posed. I gave you two options to choose from and a couple of questions which you must answer in order for your assertions to stand. As it stand, you merely provided the observation part of the package and if your point is to stand then it must be true that "as we observe that the sky is blue, so we can observe that physically inert function is derived from intelligence." And you continually ignore the fact that the observation of the connection between intelligent systems and their physically inert designs was made before the foundation of life was discovered to contain such physically inert aspects. Thus, you have completely ignored my response and twisted my reply -- a reply which shows that your argument fails in two different ways. So, I re-post my comment: "First, you misunderstand the inclusion of Aristotle. It was his observation re: intelligence and its effects, made long before life was understood, which can now be applied to our understanding of life. Aristotles’ observation of the connection between designs and intelligence being used as a prediction for future cases (such as with life) is merely an example of an inference from an observation — which is precisely how an historical examination of evolution itself proceeds. As well the connection, on a level of inference and prediction, between my example and yours is shaky at best. How is your observation that the sky is blue a prediction for future cases? What is the question you are attempting to answer in your scenario? After the observation is made, how is it applied as an inference in future cases? Furthermore if, on an observatory level, your observation of the sky being blue is in any way similar to the connection between physically inert function and intelligence (as you are claiming or your point would be moot), then we would have to say that it is completely obvious to everyone that as the sky is blue, so does physically inert function derive from intelligence. So, your argument fails either way." Thus, if inferences and extrapolation of observation (either forward or backward in time) can not be utilized, then an historical examination of evolution itself will not qualify as science. Take your pick.CJYman_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Many biological structures the equivalent of which people must use planning and foresight to construct have arisen through selection.
That's a woebegone sentence if ever the was one. But it can be parsed with effort.Diffaxial_{May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

Quoting myself above:
By including, “which you must use your own foresight to produce,” you create a test that by definition can’t be attained by natural processes. That’s no test.
I've thought a bit more about his. Were it phrased, "that requires foresight to produce" my criticism would stand. because evolution does not employ foresight. However, "which you must use your own foresight to produce" is not the same thing. It is a weaker assertion. Many biological structures the equivalent of which people must use planning and foresight to construct have arisen through selection.Diffaxial_{May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply