A funny way to look at ID

[Mojo]

Their chances of survival and reproduction would be reduced if it weren't for the intervention of their human handlers. They have traits which are detrimental to themselves but benefit humans, in comparison to related "wild" species. The fact that humans are part of the environment is irrelevant to the point being made.

They also benefit the (genes of) the individuals possessing them if they enable them to produce more viable descendants.

 

[Mojo]

If it's a trait selected for by the human handlers, it increases their chances of having successful offspring.

Compared to the original? Not necessarily at all.

If it reduces the chances of producing successful offspring, the trait will die out.

 

[McHrozni]

If it reduces the chances of producing successful offspring, the trait will die out.

Unless there was an deliberate effort to keep it around, which is, I believe, what we're trying to prove in the first place.

McHrozni

 

[sphenisc]

It is not good because it is in now way descriptive.

It describes certain features of the universe and of living things as being best explained by an intelligent cause. Ergo it is somewhat descriptive - if very vague. The fact that it is vague doesn't preclude it from becoming more precise in future. Which is exactly what McHrozni's example appears to be attempting to do.

One of the reasons ID fails is that it makes no predictions.

It predicts an intelligent cause. In post #54 McHrozni describes a scenario where certain attributes of a pair of species could indicate intelligent design. If a pair of species is found with such properties then there is a greater probability that intelligent design is involved, in comparison with two randomly selected species. That is a prediction.

Take a look at the Dover case, it found that ID is religion. So clearly the way McHrozni is using ID is different from what the ID proponents use it, unless he really does mean that flowers are god.

Not exactly , he's using the definition in a way which is different from the vast majority of other ID proponents, in a way which avoids any of the religious aspects which were discussed in the Dover Case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not quite. Virtually all domesticated animals show st least some mutations that make them dependent on their human handlers.

And many flowers are dependant on very specific insects to polinate them. Was this design or not?

This reduces their chances of having a successful offspring, and puts their fates in the hands of another species.

Did the insects design the flowers or the flowers design the insects? The flowers certianly can not have offspring with out the insects.

In most examples their numbers are kept at a steady level.
They do survive to see another day, and to live another generation, but that's it.

In the wild numbers tend to be stable as well. They are successfully adapted to their enviroment, which includes the other species in it like humans.

I probably can't find such arrangement without human interference, but if we would find something like that, it would certainly be indicative of intelligent design.

I have given you examples here that you have ignored, see the whole flower thing. If a flower is dependant on one species of polinator to the exclusion of all others, is that an even better example of design?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Their chances of survival and reproduction would be reduced if it weren't for the intervention of their human handlers.

And flowers would have no chance of reproduction if they had no pollinators, so why are you ignoreing flowers in this debate? They are so much worse than spores like ferns use. BUt the insects designed plants that way right? It is the artificial enviroment that the insects created that permitted the flowers to ever succeed.

They have traits which are detrimental to themselves but benefit humans, in comparison to related "wild" species. The fact that humans are part of the environment is irrelevant to the point being made.

Again define detrimental to themselves. It makes them better adapted for the enviroment that they live in. Flowering plants are worse than spore spreading plants like ferns and evergreens because they need another species to polinate them, they do not depend on the natural enviroment like the wind, but on the artificial enviroment created by the insects.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"...What aphids have to gain from the relationship is apparently protection from their natural enemies. Like our own dairy cattle they lead a sheltered life, and aphid species that are much cultivated by ants have lost their normal defensive mechanisms."

The Selfish Gene

This shows that Ants are an intelegent species of course.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Compared to the original? Not necessarily at all.

McHrozni

Sure it is. It makes them more successful in their enviroment. You are viewing humans as something other than a species in their enviroment, that is where your mistakes in thought are coming from.

There are plenty of examples of species that depend on another species for a part of their life cycle. Parasites, flowering plant, and so on. Being dependant on humans is no different than becomeing a specialist at eating ants and termites, but no one says ant eaters are designed.

 

[Mojo]

Unless there was an deliberate effort to keep it around...

...in which case it would be selected for. You're not going to make selection into design merely by invoking conscious choice.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Unless there was an deliberate effort to keep it around, which is, I believe, what we're trying to prove in the first place.

McHrozni

What is a deliberate effort? If the trait makes them better adapted to their current enviroment it is beneficial, it does not matter if it would be detrimental in other enviroments.

You are making a mistake that you can think of the enviroment as some abstracted constant that they are either better or worse at surviving in. This is wrong, the enviroment is a dynamic place, and it is dependant on what the other species in it are and how they behave.

Dogs are much more successful than wolves, they are each adapted well to their enviroment, but there are many dogs in places that wolves have died out from.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It describes certain features of the universe and of living things as being best explained by an intelligent cause. Ergo it is somewhat descriptive - if very vague. The fact that it is vague doesn't preclude it from becoming more precise in future. Which is exactly what McHrozni's example appears to be attempting to do.

But his examples make no sense, other than proving that insects are truely inteligent. He has a mistaken understanding of what the enviroment is and what is an adaptive trait vs a maladaptive trait.

It predicts an intelligent cause. In post #54 McHrozni describes a scenario where certain attributes of a pair of species could indicate intelligent design. If a pair of species is found with such properties then there is a greater probability that intelligent design is involved, in comparison with two randomly selected species. That is a prediction.

So when Darwin predicted the existance of the lepidoptera moth, he was actual supporting inteligent design now?

Not exactly , he's using the definition in a way which is different from the vast majority of other ID proponents, in a way which avoids any of the religious aspects which were discussed in the Dover Case.

Cool I define god as my hamster then I can prove all atheists are wrong, as god exists, just look at my hamster.

 

[sphenisc]

But his examples make no sense, other than proving that insects are truely inteligent.

That's a use of "other than" of which I wasn't previously aware.

There's a difference between "proving" and "being indicative of". The existence of counter-examples shows that his approach is inadequate for identifying intelligence, not that it "makes no sense". It may be possible to refine it, improve it in some way to make itmore strongly indicative. It may not. But I'm fairly certain that intelligence exists in the universe. If there is no scientific way of identifying it then I suspect the fault lies with science, not the universe.

He has a mistaken understanding of what the enviroment is and what is an adaptive trait vs a maladaptive trait.

No, it's quite clear what he means in context.

So when Darwin predicted the existance of the lepidoptera moth, he was actual supporting inteligent design now?

Possibly, though his work on pigeons is a better example. It's Xanthopan morganii praedicta BTW.

Cool I define god as my hamster then I can prove all atheists are wrong, as god exists, just look at my hamster.

Of course you can. However unless you can demonstrate McHrozni has introduced a new definition, rather than providing a different interpretation of the current one, then that looks like a false analogy.

 

[Mojo]

No, it's quite clear what he means in context.

And it's quite clear that he is mistaken.

 

[sphenisc]

And it's quite clear that he is mistaken.

No it isn't.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's a use of "other than" of which I wasn't previously aware.

There's a difference between "proving" and "being indicative of". The existence of counter-examples shows that his approach is inadequate for identifying intelligence, not that it "makes no sense". It may be possible to refine it, improve it in some way to make itmore strongly indicative. It may not. But I'm fairly certain that intelligence exists in the universe. If there is no scientific way of identifying it then I suspect the fault lies with science, not the universe.

Look at all the ways that insects have proven their inteligence, farming mold, domesticating other insects, altering plants to their personal advantage. If you are looking for evidence of inteligence through selective breeding bugs win.

The point is that it is clearly not indicative of inteligence in the selective breeding, but a fautly view of evolution.

No, it's quite clear what he means in context.

No he hasn't. It requires a very strange view of enviroment to make anysense at all.

Possibly, though his work on pigeons is a better example. It's Xanthopan morganii praedicta BTW.

Nonsense the flower clerarly intelegently designed the moth. Or was it the moth inteligently designing the flower?

 

[sphenisc]

Look at all the ways that insects have proven their inteligence, farming mold, domesticating other insects, altering plants to their personal advantage. If you are looking for evidence of inteligence through selective breeding bugs win.

Okay..., so you're convinced insects are intelligent. So which specific attributes of the ant/aphid system we can look at to help determine if this is a case of intelligent design? What criteria are you using to identify intelligence and how do these examples meet those criteria?

The point is that it is clearly not indicative of inteligence in the selective breeding, but a fautly view of evolution.

I don't know what you mean? Simply stating he's mistaken or has a faulty view is inadequate as an argument - if everything is so "clear" you should be able to say why.

No he hasn't. It requires a very strange view of enviroment to make anysense at all.

Then you should be able to provide evidence ofthe "standard" view and point out where it is strange.

Nonsense the flower clerarly intelegently designed the moth. Or was it the moth inteligently designing the flower?

Why do you have a problem identifying which is the intelligent partner? Do you lack clear criteria for recognising intelligence?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Okay..., so you're convinced insects are intelligent.

I am convinced that the definitions used here prove insects are inteligent enough to be inteligent designers.

So which specific attributes of the ant/aphid system we can look at to help determine if this is a case of intelligent design? What criteria are you using to identify intelligence and how do these examples meet those criteria?

What specific traits are you looking at in domesticated animals? A total or near total dependence of one for the other for procreation was mentioned, flowers and their pollenators fit that.

I don't know what you mean? Simply stating he's mistaken or has a faulty view is inadequate as an argument - if everything is so "clear" you should be able to say why.

He is missusing the worlds enviroment and inteligent design. As well as not clearly defining what really is harmful.


Then you should be able to provide evidence ofthe "standard" view and point out where it is strange.



Why do you have a problem identifying which is the intelligent partner? Do you lack clear criteria for recognising intelligence?[/QUOTE]

 

[McHrozni]

And many flowers are dependant on very specific insects to polinate them. Was this design or not?

Did the insects design the flowers or the flowers design the insects? The flowers certianly can not have offspring with out the insects.

I believe I didn't define a symbiotic relationship or dependancy on another organism as potential intelligent design.

In the wild numbers tend to be stable as well.

No, they don't. They tend to fluctuate considerably.

I have given you examples here that you have ignored, see the whole flower thing. If a flower is dependant on one species of polinator to the exclusion of all others, is that an even better example of design?

No, it isn't. I have explained to you why, several times, and I see no reason to do so again. Read my proposal as to how this could be used to find intelligent design. If you can't see why such relationships are automatically excluded, without even being an exception and without stating so, you really shouldn't participate in this debate.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

What is a deliberate effort? If the trait makes them better adapted to their current enviroment it is beneficial, it does not matter if it would be detrimental in other enviroments.

The deliberate effort would be the effort by the species that benefits from the change to nuture and sustain members of the species that were affected by the change, in order to cultivate that trait.

Dogs are much more successful than wolves, they are each adapted well to their enviroment, but there are many dogs in places that wolves have died out from.

Unless you're going to claim now that there was no intelligent, deliberate effort to sustain dogs in the form as they are now, this is fairly meaningless.

McHrozni

 

[Wolfman]

I don't quite get the argument here.

We start with a statement that, "It is an indusputable fact that the principle of intelligent design works and that intelligent design is taking place right now". A statement which, if it is actually referring to intelligent design as described and defended by ID proponents is 100% false. But wait...we're going to change our definitions of "intelligent design"...but continue using the same language. So when we're talking about "ID as evidenced in intentional breeding programs" and "ID as evidenced in evolution", it becomes very confusing, and often difficult to impossible to differentiate which is being discussed.

Not a good start.

Let me use an illustration here. It is an undeniable, proven fact that nature is able to create incredibly beautiful and intricate crystaline structures. It is also an undeniable, proven fact that humans are able to manipulate crystal formation to either copy natural crystal formations, or to make entirely new, unique structures.

Does the fact that we are able to deliberately manipulate this natural process mean that the original process must also be the result of deliberate manipulation and planning?

Of course not.

You can talk all you want about genetic manipulation, breeding programs, etc. These are well documented and studied phenomenon. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with "Intelligent Design". And your attempt to use the same term to describe what are, in fact, two entirely different concepts (one completely rational, the other completely irrational) only makes the argument even more confusing.

So please clarify.

Are you arguing that men are capable of manipulating animals/plants in a deliberate effort to achieve specific results? If so, I don't think there's anyone here who would agree with you...its kind of like starting a thread to say, "I breathe". It is pretty much self-evident.

If you are arguing, on the other hand, that the fact we can do such manipulation lends some sort of support to Intelligent Design theories, on the other hand, you're going to find an awful lot of disagreement. Unless you're also going to argue that crystal formation, and numerous other natural phenomenon, must also be 'guided' by some mysterious intelligent force...based on the fact that we are likewise able to manipulate and control such processes ourselves.