Annoying creationists
- Thread starter Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
- Start date
- Status
Your attempt to drag things into philosophical discussion has been easily noticed and rejected.
You said
"What you describe is the fundamental purpose of ev:... (blah blah)"
so we're talking about this specific intelligently designed computer program. Now will you answer how this intelligently designed computer program disproves intelligent design?
How can you be so dishonest and say "No" when the person to post immediately before you, Articulet (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2564717&postcount=3809), did say that DNA disproves the concept of a designer?
I am going to regret this, because Dr. A. has such a better way with words...
Your fundamental misunderstanding of the process of science is once again at center stage... The program does not disprove ID. It is not intended to, and it could not possibly. Remember, ID is unfalsifiable. What this program does is fail to disprove evolution by natural selection. That the program is designed by humans is utterly irrelevant; it could have demonstrated that its model of natural selection was insufficient to account for information gain. It could have falsified natural selection. It did not (sorry, Kleinman, but that's the truth). Does it prove natural selection is right? Of course not--that is not how science works. It could have disproved it, but it could not have proved it. (If it had demonstrated that natural selection could not account for information gain, would you have complained that it was intelligently designed? Just curious...)
You statement presumes that ev is intelligently designed. Prove it.
And again, Tai-Chi,
That a model of a natural process is programmed by an intelligent, sentient, designer, says nothing to the effect that the natural process so described and modeled is the work of an intelligent sentient designer itself.
Apples and oranges.
You'll notice though that a computer model of say, crystal formation, doesn't posit the need of some conscious being delberately designing and shaping the crystal. It models a natural process that happens all the time without any sentient intervention or interferance.
Of course it doesn't prove there is no Cosmic Tinkerer or Master Programer, but it does indicate we are not rationally obliged to posit such.
Dr. Schneider's EV Program suceesfully models Natural Selection. Even Dr. Klienman doesn't dispute that. He just disputes it can account for macroevolution. It models a process of Natural Selection, not Sentient Selection, and that the program itself was designed by a sentient being, is inedependent of questions about how natural or supernatural the workings of nature are. That the program is the work of an intelligent designer says zip about the natural process it models.
So, then you'll want to look at natural processes and the results of Natural Selection in nature and see if what is there exhibits the crafting of a clever inventor or smart adaptive biological processes.
From what I've seen, it looks like the non-sentient but smart process, though for all those errors and bad DNA code, it could be the work of Microsoft.
That a model of a natural process is programmed by an intelligent, sentient, designer, says nothing to the effect that the natural process so described and modeled is the work of an intelligent sentient designer itself.
Apples and oranges.
You'll notice though that a computer model of say, crystal formation, doesn't posit the need of some conscious being delberately designing and shaping the crystal. It models a natural process that happens all the time without any sentient intervention or interferance.
Of course it doesn't prove there is no Cosmic Tinkerer or Master Programer, but it does indicate we are not rationally obliged to posit such.
Dr. Schneider's EV Program suceesfully models Natural Selection. Even Dr. Klienman doesn't dispute that. He just disputes it can account for macroevolution. It models a process of Natural Selection, not Sentient Selection, and that the program itself was designed by a sentient being, is inedependent of questions about how natural or supernatural the workings of nature are. That the program is the work of an intelligent designer says zip about the natural process it models.
So, then you'll want to look at natural processes and the results of Natural Selection in nature and see if what is there exhibits the crafting of a clever inventor or smart adaptive biological processes.
From what I've seen, it looks like the non-sentient but smart process, though for all those errors and bad DNA code, it could be the work of Microsoft.
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Stated another way, computer simulations in this case are recreations, of observed designs, not creations of new designs.
Just popping back in to see if Kleinman has learned anything about population or evolutionary genetics. Looks like he hasn't. Kleinman, go away, pick up a text book, and learn something about the genetics of evolution. Then you will see why you are wrong, why reality does not show what you think it does, and why ev does not show what you think it does.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Well here's your problem, (in addition to my comment in the above post). Science isn't out to prove there is or isn't a designer. The evidence for evolution theory merely provides an explanation for what we observe that does not require a designer.So you're aruging that a simulation, intelligently designed, proves that a simulation of evolution is possible.
You cannot possibly see why this is not taken seriously as a firm argument for evolution in real life, as well as for evidence against a designer. It is amusing to see you try though.
It does happen to support the case if no designer was needed, then why bother believing in one, but that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Unfortunately, here's the problems for Christians. It's one thing to apologize for the other mistakes in the Bible such as the creation of the Universe itself. You can simply claim 7 days could have meant something else and you can claim the more bogus excuse IMO, that the description of the creation of the Universe in the Bible was limited by the conceptualization of the people at the time. I say bogus because how hard could it have been if they were supposedly getting information from God?
But when it comes to Creation of humans, now you are going to the heart of the entire religion, the story of Original Sin. Without the Biblical description of Creation, just how do you explain Original Sin? And if you cannot explain Original Sin, how do you have the Jesus story? And obviously, no Jesus, no entire Christian religion. This is a much bigger problem than just fudging dates and time frames and a few misc. details.
The Christian church survived Copernicus and Galileo. How is it going to survive Darwin's dangerous idea? That is a problem science doesn't have.
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
You should argue that point with Articulett. It isn't the position of mainstream science. Mainstream science's position is the scientific process is not a tool which can test for a designer. At least not unless you can devise a test for the null hypothesis.
How do the anti-evolution Evangelicals test for a designer? They don't. Everything they claim goes to disproving evolution. Nothing goes to proving a designer. They've tried using irreducible complexity. Their evidence is overwhelmingly refuted by genetic science, but even if you proved irreducible complexity, you would merely be adding a layer of complexity to the theory of evolution that needed further study. You would not be proving a designer.
Which brings me to the stupid argument that one can supposedly disprove evolution by showing there hasn't been enough time for evolution theory to account for the observed lifeforms on Earth today. Some people who haven't taken the time to learn about the flood of discoveries in genetic science like to think they have some 'proof' evolution theory is 'impossible'. It may be a comforting piece of flotsam to cling to in a sea of fading hope, but it does nothing to discredit evolution.
Why? First, because genetic science left that nonsense in the dust. We can see the blueprints now and can trace the changes from one species to the next. We have such a clear understanding of the mechanisms of natural selection pressures and evolution theory that there is no question such as, was there enough time for evolution to account for observed life on Earth? Any claim of 'impossible' is simply refuted by overwhelming evidence.
But even if it weren't yet understood. Say we didn't know the details of evolution that we now know through a flood of genetic science research. And say that someone did some calculations which showed there was a disconnect between the theory and the time it would take to account for life as observed today. What would that mean?
It would mean the theory needed some missing details. It would not in any way 'disprove' the theory. Nor would it in anyway 'prove' a designer was needed to complete the theory. It would merely mean there was something about natural selection pressure we had yet to discover.
But, that isn't the case. Genetic science has explained the details for us, including how evolution easily fits into the timeline which the evidence in the geological record provides. It all fits together nicely. Evidence from a wide variety of different sciences all fits together nicely confirming the picture which has emerged is indeed the correct picture.
Christians are eventually going to have to reconcile their Original Sin myth with the evidence. It's only wishful thinking delaying that now. The Catholics can't make up their mind. First the Pope declared evolution was supported by the evidence but now this Pope is balking. Either way, no amount of faith or wishful thinking is ever going to change the evidence. Might as well start working on the apology. If the DI spent as much time coming up with a way to reconcile the myth with the science instead of trying to reconcile the science with the myth, perhaps this whole stupid affair would have ended long ago.
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,240
I'm afraid that I must disagree. I think you are skating dangerously close to the non-falsifiability issue of ID with such a statement. While it might be true that calculations would not disprove the theory, if, for instance, we had timing issues wrong as was the case in Darwin's age or we didn't understand some aspect of genetic transmission, it could also be the case that the theory is just plain wrong. We could not tell ahead of time what the explanation is without more information, but we must always be open to the possibility that the theory is wrong. That is one of the main reasons I am always drawn to such discussions and the whole reason I bought and read Darwin's Black Box. I wanted to see how it was that a scientific discovery was going to be overturned and a new revolution dawn. I was sorely disappointed. Just as I have been thoroughly disappointed by this discussion. More of same. A creationist claims that evolution is impossible and cannot support his case. Old story.
Behe's method of attack was sound. If he found something that could not be accounted for by means of mutation and natural selection or some other genetic input, then he would have made a strong case. Same with Kleinman if he had actually shown that evolution is impossible. Both fail for the simple reason that their arguments rest on a straw man characterization of evolution.
This is really just a long-winded way of saying, please add the word 'necessarily' to the sentence:
so that it reads "it would not necessarily disprove the theory." It might disprove theory.
Last edited:
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
I would accuse you, in turn, of dishonesty, except that it seems more likely that there's something wrong with your head.
Articulet said that naturally occurring, undesigned DNA disproves intelligent design.
I said that no-one had worked out how an intelligently designed program could disprove intelligent design.
These two statements are not in conflict, but even if they were, the definition of "dishonesty" is not "disagreement with articulet".
Are you insane?
Last edited:
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
For the sane people:
The question of what computer simulations of evolution can or can't prove about Intelligent Design depends on what it means (which varies according to the taste of the person using the phrase).
If it is an assertion of Deism --- of a creator who set up the Universe and then let it run its course (including evolution) then of course a simulation of evolution does not distinguish between this case and the case where the Universe just exists.
If, on the other hand, Intelligent Design is the practice of whining about how evolution is impossible so goddidit by magic, then such simulations are indeed a small part of the vast body of evidence falsifying Intelligent Design.
In order to debate Tai Chi on this issue, it is therefore necessary that the crawling little coward should do what he is obviously terrified of doing and tell us his opinion. But he's been ducking and dodging such questions for so long that it seems safe to predict that he never will.
The question of what computer simulations of evolution can or can't prove about Intelligent Design depends on what it means (which varies according to the taste of the person using the phrase).
If it is an assertion of Deism --- of a creator who set up the Universe and then let it run its course (including evolution) then of course a simulation of evolution does not distinguish between this case and the case where the Universe just exists.
If, on the other hand, Intelligent Design is the practice of whining about how evolution is impossible so goddidit by magic, then such simulations are indeed a small part of the vast body of evidence falsifying Intelligent Design.
In order to debate Tai Chi on this issue, it is therefore necessary that the crawling little coward should do what he is obviously terrified of doing and tell us his opinion. But he's been ducking and dodging such questions for so long that it seems safe to predict that he never will.
Ichneumonwasp
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,240
Strangely, in a dream last night, this thread spoke to me. It said, "I am the Cumean Sybil. I just want to die."
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,546
Annoying Meager Evidence for ID
These two remarks, especially because they are in the same posting by Dr. Alan Kleinman, suggest to me they are connected. Dr. Kleinman may have unconsciously wanted to leak to us the primary reason he is "doing" this thread. Is he hoping he will be responsible for medical "breakthroughs" that surely must result from the falsification of Darwinian evolution?
The scenario I see working in his mind:
1) Darwinian evolution is false.
2) Darwinian evolution is believed by the mainstream medical and biological community to be true.
3) Treatment of infections is hampered because the understanding of adaptation of infectious agents to therapies is founded on this false premise.
4) The correct foundation of biological science must agree with a literal interpretation of the bible, and the evidence for this is obtainable. Ev provides some of this evidence.
5) This correction, the successful undermining of Darwinian evolution, will result in improved therapies for infectious diseases and no doubt uncountable other advances in the biosciences.
6) I, Dr. Alan Kleinman, am to likely receive credit in this world, and certainly in the next, for putting god back into medicine and curing many of the sick.
I'd like to know if Dr. Alan Kleinman has more evidence than what he believes he's found in Ev, since Ev does not model many critical processes of evolution. These other processes could answer the "too slow to be real" objection to Darwin's theory, so his results from Ev cannot reasonably be interpreted as the "proof" he claims it to be.
If, indeed, #6 comes close to Dr. Kleinman's thoughts, then his real reason for "doing" this thread is to use the skeptics here like a "murder board" in preparation for his coming public presentation.
These two remarks, especially because they are in the same posting by Dr. Alan Kleinman, suggest to me they are connected. Dr. Kleinman may have unconsciously wanted to leak to us the primary reason he is "doing" this thread. Is he hoping he will be responsible for medical "breakthroughs" that surely must result from the falsification of Darwinian evolution?
The scenario I see working in his mind:
1) Darwinian evolution is false.
2) Darwinian evolution is believed by the mainstream medical and biological community to be true.
3) Treatment of infections is hampered because the understanding of adaptation of infectious agents to therapies is founded on this false premise.
4) The correct foundation of biological science must agree with a literal interpretation of the bible, and the evidence for this is obtainable. Ev provides some of this evidence.
5) This correction, the successful undermining of Darwinian evolution, will result in improved therapies for infectious diseases and no doubt uncountable other advances in the biosciences.
6) I, Dr. Alan Kleinman, am to likely receive credit in this world, and certainly in the next, for putting god back into medicine and curing many of the sick.
I'd like to know if Dr. Alan Kleinman has more evidence than what he believes he's found in Ev, since Ev does not model many critical processes of evolution. These other processes could answer the "too slow to be real" objection to Darwin's theory, so his results from Ev cannot reasonably be interpreted as the "proof" he claims it to be.
If, indeed, #6 comes close to Dr. Kleinman's thoughts, then his real reason for "doing" this thread is to use the skeptics here like a "murder board" in preparation for his coming public presentation.
Last edited:
Annoying Creationists
My goodness, hasn’t the whining level picked up a bit on this thread!
And Myriad, where have you been, there are plenty of evolutionists who don’t understand the effects of increasing population on the probability of a beneficial mutation hitting a particular locus. They are making the same error that I did before you corrected me. The effect on increasing population is less than additive on this probability. It explains why the slope for the generations of convergence/population curve drops off so quickly in ev and why huge populations don’t cause a marked decrease in the rate of evolution.
My goodness, hasn’t the whining level picked up a bit on this thread!
If you evolutionists had written a decent text book on the mathematics of mutation and selection, you would realize your theory is mathematically impossible. Some evolutionists got close to understanding this when you read Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the reference to fitness landscape. If you ran a few cases with ev it would become readily apparent that it is the multiple selection pressures that slow the convergence of the model. This effect is seen in many different real situations such as combination therapy for the treatment of HIV, combination therapy for the treatment of TB, combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapies. All of these examples slow the evolution of resistant strains. This is how mutation and selection works. You don’t have millions of selection pressures (as Paul has said) all working together in unison to evolve complex creatures. This is mathematically impossible. You evolutionists need a new text book and a new theory.Taffer said:
Why should you be disappointed in this discussion? This discussion is simply the application of hard mathematical bookkeeping to the concept of mutation and selection. Dr Schneider has written a bookkeeping tool and we have obtained results from this bookkeeping tool. I contend that mutation and selection becomes profoundly slow when you have multiple selection pressures on realistic length genomes. This is a mathematically testable hypothesis and you can look for real examples of this type of behavior which either refute or support this contention. If you are a scientist, you should not be disappointed because it explains a clinically important medical principle that affects the treatment of infectious diseases. It also has application to many other scientific arenas. You will only be disappointed if you are an evolutionary dogmatist who has a social agenda tied to the theory of evolution.skeptigirl said:
Professor Behe’s method of attack is still sound. Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity and the example of the flagellum was weakly challenged by Professor Miller’s Flagellum Unspun argument. I asked Professor Miller if he could apply his argument to the DNA replicase system. He could not. Hard science requires mathematical precision. This is something that has always been lacking in the theory of evolution. Dr Schneider applied hard mathematical bookkeeping to the concept of mutation and selection and it reveals how this mechanism works. Unless you are going to retreat to the position that all the complex genetics that we see today developed on short genome life forms with few selection pressures, you are not going to be able to explain the bookkeeping. And you still haven’t told us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo.Ichneumonwasp said:
You mean to say you aren’t going to complain that I have moved the goalposts. You only can wish that my arguments are delusions. Dr Schneider’s computer model shows why mutation and selection is such a profoundly slow process; it is the multiple selection pressures. And Cuddles, my argument has evolved. It started with the contention that ev shows that mutation and selection is a profoundly slow process, too slow to allow for the theory of evolution to be mathematically possible. My argument then evolved to include a reason for the mathematical impossibility for the theory of evolution, which is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process.Cuddles said:
The theory of evolution is dead!Ichneumonwasp said:
There is plenty of selection pressure; the theory of evolution has gone extinct.Cuddles said:
And Myriad, where have you been, there are plenty of evolutionists who don’t understand the effects of increasing population on the probability of a beneficial mutation hitting a particular locus. They are making the same error that I did before you corrected me. The effect on increasing population is less than additive on this probability. It explains why the slope for the generations of convergence/population curve drops off so quickly in ev and why huge populations don’t cause a marked decrease in the rate of evolution.
andKleinman said:
Neither annoying evolutionists nor achieving a medical breakthrough by explaining how mutation and selection works are my primary motives for writing this thread, though I find both these reasons have merit. Keep on guessing pussycat.Kleinman said:
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
This concept only works if he actually developed and improved his arguments. As it stands, he repeats the same defunct lies in perpetually less creative ways.
... mathematically impossible...probability greater than 1...
- Status