Intelligent Design & the tapeworm?

[Niklas]

When a quantum computer is made it will have falsified the notion of the human brain being the most complex system in the known universe and it won't be an argument from ignorance.

Why wait for that?
I'd wager that the Internet with all it's nodes beats the human brain in computing power by far.
It will be quite a task to combine them all into one computing entity tough.

 

[RandFan]

Why wait for that?
I'd wager that the Internet with all it's nodes beats the human brain in computing power by far.

It will be quite a task to combine them all into one computing entity tough.

Actually it is not that difficult and there are a number of such examples using a limited set of computers. Please see SETI@home and Folding@home for examples of distributed processing using interconected computers for problem solving.

I have considered these examples. I agree with your second sentance. Yes, interconected computers increase complexity but to what degree is the complexity practical. When a significant amount of the computers work together to solve problems, then the internet, IMO, will justify such a claim.

Good post, thanks.

RandFan

 

[Niklas]

Yes, interconected computers increase complexity but to what degree is the complexity practical.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the human brain is also composed of several more or less specialized networks.

 

[RandFan]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the human brain is also composed of several more or less specialized networks.

Yes but I don't understand the point. The brain demonstrably solves complex problems distributed amongst different processes. My point isn't that it is impossible for the net to do the same just that it doesn't and that complexity alone isn't the answer. Further the brain appears to be complex in a way the net isn't. Number of interconnected processors IMO isn't sufficient. I need to point out that I was once obsessed with these issues so I read every bit of data that was available. I am no longer obsessed and it is quite possible that my understanding is out of date.

I'm doing some research and I don't find as much information about the "Binding Problem" as I used to so I suspect that it isn't as significant as it once was. I am however reading some fascinating stuff that makes me think that serious progress is being made where it was stalled for awhile a few years ago.

We will see. We live in remarkable and fascinating times.

 

[Vagabond]

Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design & the tapeworm?

Standard ID argument from ignorance: 'I don't understand how this works, so a designer must have done it'. The official ID movement political correctness guidance handbook warns to avoid the mention of 'god' so as to make ID look sort of sciency and avoid those pesky separation of church and state laws.

By the way, the deepest measurement in the ocean to date is the Challenger Deep, at 35,838 feet. What conch species lives there and who observed it putting air into its shell and all the other cool stuff that I suspect you just made up?

No, I am not. I see no difference in using this arguement for ID and the one the fundies use all the time. God can do anything soooo...... I must be allowed to use my brain to analyze otherwise we have no basis for debate. Your argument and the fundies takes me and my brain out of the equation but doesn't replace it with anything but a fantasy. The fact I can't see how something works is a fact, none the less. Which is more than you offer with your arguement.

As to the conch I have no idea what species it is. I only saw it briefly while channel flipping. The only thing I know is it lives in the ocean, so deep no light gets down there. I would like to find out more about it myself. It is a facinating creature.

 

[Synapse Fire]

Re: Re: Intelligent Design & the tapeworm?

The tapeworm doesn't bother me much, but there are plenty of parasites like the aids virus that end up killing their host. This would seem to me to be contrary to the survival of the fittest rule.

Actually the HIV virus is a perfect example of survival of the fittest.

You notice that the ebola virus isnt infecting millions of people? That's because it comes quick and kills quick. Thereby not allowing itself to reproduce and thrive effeciently. The HIV virus however takes years to incubate before killing its host. As a result it thrives and spreads to multiple hosts.

Trust me, retro viruses are almost perfection when it comes to survival.

 

[Vagabond]

Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design & the tapeworm?

Actually the HIV virus is a perfect example of survival of the fittest.

You notice that the ebola virus isnt infecting millions of people? That's because it comes quick and kills quick. Thereby not allowing itself to reproduce and thrive effeciently. The HIV virus however takes years to incubate before killing its host. As a result it thrives and spreads to multiple hosts.

Trust me, retro viruses are almost perfection when it comes to survival.

This brings up a different question than the topic, but are virus' even life? They can't reproduce on their own. They don't use oxygen, nor carbon dioxide like a plant, nor any other kind of fuel that I know of. They are in my opinion an inert object that is able to create more of itself. Rather like a robot factory that makes more robots.

 

[roger]

evolution of the spinneret: (note, i am just making this up)

ancestor squirted out some kind of vaguely sticky goop to hold eggs together.

goop got sticky-er and stringy-er over time.

spider evolved a little tube to help aim it.

spider evolved a little hair like thing to help string it.

spider evolved ability to move that hair like thing.

spider evolved behavior to coat lair sides with silk

more hair like things are evolved to better control silk placement

spider evolved rudimentary web weaving skills

spinneret became more complex

webs became more complex.


All that was made up by me on the spot, based on the knowledge that scientists suspect the start of the evolutionary process was in fact making an egg sac.

http://www.earthlife.net/chelicerata/web-evolve.html


No doubt my details are vastly wrong. But it's a reasonable, step-by-step path. For a real answer, consult a biologist.

Easy peasy.

 

[nabiscothejerd]

Synapse Fire -

Actually the HIV virus is a perfect example of survival of the fittest

Dr.Adequate -

There is no "survival of the fittest rule". This is a creationist straw man. The phrase you want to look up is "natural selection". It's not about "survival" --- it's about differential reproductive success. Ask any salmon.

Learn, He helped me learn so you might want to too. No offense but Dr. Adequate clearly stated that there is no survival of the fittest rule. This is a ploy by creationists that I've heard many times myself but have not been able to get it through to their faith and rhetoric.

 

[Vagabond]

ancestor squirted out some kind of vaguely sticky goop to hold eggs together.<<<<


Once you reach this step you have a spinnerett already. I don't care what stages you bring up. The bottom line is you cannot have a complex organ develop to an end purpose by accident.

During all the transitional stages the organ would be working contrary to the laws of evolution you are claiming. It would use up calories and would have to be supported by the life form, would be subject to disease and damage yet contribute nothing significant to the organism's survival. It would atrophy and disappear from disuse not proceed forward to an unknown end without guidance.

There are plenty of other examples the spinneretts are just the most obvious and well known to most people. Also nobody ever bothers to try and answer the question as to how the first spider with a spinnerett would know? Or know what to do with it?

 

[arthwollipot]

Seems to me that this is the old bombardier beetle argument in a slightly different context.

If a natural evolutionary scenario can be imagined for the bombardier beetle, why should the orb-weaving spider be any different?

And the second thing that got me about Vagabond's proposal is why should there be two mechanisms to account for the diversity of life (ID and evolution) when one clearly suffices? Let's have a little shave, Mr Occam.

 

[nabiscothejerd]

And the second thing that got me about Vagabond's proposal is why should there be two mechanisms to account for the diversity of life (ID and evolution) when one clearly suffices? Let's have a little shave, Mr Occam

But the argument is that god could have used evolution as his building blocks. Now I would disagree with that since evolution is the theory and ID is the hypothesis. But those darned to be damned pesky creationists say that since evolution is so clearly wrong then creation is the key (hence, using the old you're just wrong and i'm right by virtue of god argument).

But it is a hypothesis that god used evolution and would be plausable if god was real but many people seem to be too moderate and do not like to tell anybody that they're wrong. If i'm wrong then state in a good argumentative case, but i agree with you Arthwollipot, that evolution clearly does suffice.

I challenge vagabond to state a more argumentative case for ID and evolution intertwined since he doesn't really have a good convincing argumentive case at the moment. Although I do think he's alot smarter than The Center For Creation Research (or whatever it's called, it doesn't matter cause they don't know jack).

 

[arthwollipot]

But the argument is that god could have used evolution as his building blocks. Now I would disagree with that since evolution is the theory and ID is the hypothesis. But those darned to be damned pesky creationists say that since evolution is so clearly wrong then creation is the key (hence, using the old you're just wrong and i'm right by virtue of god argument).

But it is a hypothesis that god used evolution and would be plausable if god was real but many people seem to be too moderate and do not like to tell anybody that they're wrong. If i'm wrong then state in a good argumentative case, but i agree with you Arthwollipot, that evolution clearly does suffice.

I challenge vagabond to state a more argumentative case for ID and evolution intertwined since he doesn't really have a good convincing argumenttaive case at the moment. Although I do think he's alot smarter than The Center For Creation Research (or whatever it's called, it doesn't matter cause they don't know jack).

OK, so God used evolution to create life in its current form. But life's current form isn't anything special - it's just its current form. Life has evolved, and will continue to evolve, on its own. We are just a waypoint, not something that nature has strived to produce.

It's pretty clear (to me at least) that evolution works without any divine intervention. So this means that God isn't necessary to life now, but he may have been necessary in the past to get life started.

You see how the God of the Gaps shrinks in potency and power? The more we understand about the way things work, the less room there is for God. I happen to believe that since most other phenomena can be explained without God, the origin of living organisms on earth can also be explained without God. So God disappears from another domain.

The only place I can see for God in our universe is a Tao-like personification of nature. Many natural phenomena have in the past been attributed to the actions of a deity. Then we understand how the process works, and the deity is reduced from being a vast, omnipotent conscious entity to being a mere description of natural laws.

I can't see any scenario where God might "use evolution" to further his or her own ends.

 

[nabiscothejerd]

Nice point, since it is true that most things are explained without god. I don't know if vagabond will respond, and if he does he will probably make very, very, very little sense.

But I don't get the last paragraph

The only place I can see for God in our universe is a Tao-like personification of nature.

What does tao-like mean?

 

[arthwollipot]

What does tao-like mean?

I'm no expert on Taoism, but from what I gather the Tao is basically the way that things work. Tao is deterministic, so whenever something happens, it happens because of Tao. Someone runs over your dog - it's Tao. You win a million on the lottery - it's Tao. Tao is neither good nor evil, it just is.

When I said "a Tao-like personification of the universe" I was referring to the tendency for humans to anthropomorphise nature. Basically it is nature itself that is the deity.

Did that help?

 

[nabiscothejerd]

Yeah, so tao is like god supposedly doing something but instead of a god they call it tao. But the nature doing it, what does control nature do you suppose?

 

[Vagabond]

Seems to me that this is the old bombardier beetle argument in a slightly different context.

If a natural evolutionary scenario can be imagined for the bombardier beetle, why should the orb-weaving spider be any different?

And the second thing that got me about Vagabond's proposal is why should there be two mechanisms to account for the diversity of life (ID and evolution) when one clearly suffices? Let's have a little shave, Mr Occam.

Doesn't matter what you use as an example. The bombardier might even be better since it's system is more complex than a spider spinnerett. The fact you can imagine a scenario doesn't make it so anymore than my not being able to imagine one make me right. I am argueing that one doesn't clearly suffice. That both take place.

 

[Vagabond]

But the argument is that god could have used evolution as his building blocks. Now I would disagree with that since evolution is the theory and ID is the hypothesis. But those darned to be damned pesky creationists say that since evolution is so clearly wrong then creation is the key (hence, using the old you're just wrong and i'm right by virtue of god argument).

But it is a hypothesis that god used evolution and would be plausable if god was real but many people seem to be too moderate and do not like to tell anybody that they're wrong. If i'm wrong then state in a good argumentative case, but i agree with you Arthwollipot, that evolution clearly does suffice.

I challenge vagabond to state a more argumentative case for ID and evolution intertwined since he doesn't really have a good convincing argumentive case at the moment. Although I do think he's alot smarter than The Center For Creation Research (or whatever it's called, it doesn't matter cause they don't know jack).

There is no way to prove myself right, just as there is no way for you to prove yourself right. However, if we find an air conditioner sitting on the surface of Mars when we finally get there, will we think that was a matter of evolution? That GOD put that air conditioner there or that perhaps John Carter had access to an air conditioner for his journey. If something logically cannot be created by accident, it must have been created by intelligence. This is not a hypotheisis, if you argued for the spontanous creation of an air conditioner you would be considered a fool. No difference claiming the same for things many times more complex.

This is not a matter for facts or anything else it is a matter of ego. I have asked many times exactly what it would take to convince somebody who doesn't believe in creation, that creation took place. Would parting the Red sea be good enough? Nobody will ever answer because the answer is for them NOTHING would be good enough to convince them. That is the ego. How can parting the Red sea be a miracle but the Red sea itself not be? You want to see a miracle look around you. Life is a miracle.

 

[Vagabond]

I'm no expert on Taoism, but from what I gather the Tao is basically the way that things work. Tao is deterministic, so whenever something happens, it happens because of Tao. Someone runs over your dog - it's Tao. You win a million on the lottery - it's Tao. Tao is neither good nor evil, it just is.

When I said "a Tao-like personification of the universe" I was referring to the tendency for humans to anthropomorphise nature. Basically it is nature itself that is the deity.

Did that help?

I see no difference in calling nature a god or nature being a manifestation of god. Thoreau, and most of the existentialists believed you could discover truths about GOD by exploring his creation, just like you can learn about an author by reading his book. Whether you are learning about him directly because he is nature, or the creator of it, doesn't matter. You gain the same knowledge either way.

Taoism believes things happen, but not indescriminately. They believe you earn good karma by doing good deed and bad by doing bad deeds and that whether you do good or bad determines how you things will go for you in the future. There is a moralistic aspect of it. I think it is more a facet of people simplistically thinking of everything that affects them poorly as "Bad" and vice versa when normally things are much more grey and good that happens to you often means bad for others. Not sure what this has to do with ID or evolution however.

 

[Vagabond]

Synapse Fire -



Dr.Adequate -

Learn, He helped me learn so you might want to too. No offense but Dr. Adequate clearly stated that there is no survival of the fittest rule. This is a ploy by creationists that I've heard many times myself but have not been able to get it through to their faith and rhetoric.

I don't understand what you mean. It would seem to me to be a given that an organism more well suited to it's enviroment will live longer thus have a better chance of reproducing that one that isn't as well suited.