God, Man and Physics

"If not, then please, substantiate your ten individual claims in that post." -- Southack

The ten individual claims are taken verbatim from our previous exchanges. It is not my fault that you do not understand your errors as I have generously pointed them out to you several times. If there is a rule that I have listed which you are not purposely using I should be glad to hear of it. The record is clear that you have acted in precisely the manner described in those ten rules whether you realize it or not.

"Much like cars, Microsoft Word does not reproduce itself. We do not theorize that Excel evolved form Word because there is no mechanism that could be proposed: the code has no intrinsic ability to create copies of itself."

Software reproduces itself everyday. If you've ever had a virus emailed to you then you might have even seen software that reproduced itself on your very computer! Likewise, different software is derived from older programs every day. Does Evolution explain that behavior or does Intelligent Design explain it?

Word and Excel do not reproduce themselves, and thus do not evolve in the biological sense. Therefore, the fact that their code is substantially similar, and that they were designed, is not relevant to a discussion of biological evolution or design. That's all I was arguing. Do not try to shift the argument.

Computer viruses are a good example of where evolution might take place. However, the error-checking routines in computer copying programs are good enough that there are fewer opportunities for "mutation" in computer viruses than there are in nature. In addition, computer codes are far less robust than genetic codes (especially viruses, shich must exist in very precise and technical environments - e.g., get the wrong port number, and it won't get access), so minor changes are more likely to be fatal.

Finally, the observant will note how you cram two ideas together: the idea that software is reused and that it replicates. There are no self-replicating viruses of the size or complexity of Microsoft Word or Excel.

Why does it have to assume that? Where does Intelligent Design preclude Evolution as being mutally exclusive in its theory?

I know of no ID-ers who accept evolution above the micro level. You're welcome to put yourself in this position, but you're the first in my experience if you do. If you don't shoot down evolution, you simply don't need the Designer.

ID-ers spend so much time trying to shoot down evolution that there's essentially no other intellectual content to their literature.

"Fine, let me ask this question. In his calculations, he assumes that a monkey that makes a mistake would immediately start from the beginning. Do you think that this analogy is completely accurate when talking about chemical reactions? Why do you think so?"

He made that assumption because it happens by default. Once a monkey makes an error in Hamlet's first sentence, the data stream for the full sentence starts over. The monkey really just represents randomness. Once you find that one part of your random string of output doesn't match your first sentence, you re-start looking for that sentence again in the output. That's the same as saying that the monkey starts over. The monkey isn't really starting over, of course, it's just banging away on the keyboard, but we start over in the sense that we re-start looking for a match again in the monkey's output as soon as we find the first error.

This applies to the data stored in DNA just as easily as it does to the data stored in Hamlet. As soon as you see that the random sequence no longer matches your search pattern, you re-start at that point looking for a match on the first data byte.

"Any intelligent designer you propose would have to have powers that to us would seem as magic. How can you know what is easiest or quickest for such a being? Indeed, the easiest and quickest method would to do nothing at all: to let evolution (which you still do not disprove, but rather only say "me too" to) take its course." - cracker

I doubt that any geneticist in any lab on this planet would agree with your statement that letting Evolution run its course is the quickest and easiest method for creating new varieties of life that have medical use for humans.

My point was that you are trying to describe the abilities and preferences of a supernatural being beyond our ability to comprehend or measure. You have no way to know what is "easy" or "hard" for such a creature(s?), and your conjecture is the merest gossamer. It is even less of a scientific theory than ID. TO the extent that your theory relies for its explanatory power on the unknown and unknowable prefernces and predilictions of a supernatural being, it is myth or legend, not science.

"The platypus is basically a modern transitional from reptiles to mammals. It has a sketchy but long fossil history. Where in this history are you even claiming these sudden appearances happened? You have no data and no clue. You're just hiding in the data gaps, like Duane Gish. (Except he's still hiding in gaps that no longer exist.) There's no more to your game than that."

Those are all incorrect assumptions, not supportable by facts.

I used the platipus as an example of a big design change being introduced. That's what the current fossil record supports. This is predicted by Intelligent Design. If it's predicted by Evolution, then fine, but that's not the focus of that example.

Southack's Top Ten Rules for maintaining the Invincible Superstition:
1) Pretend not to comprehend any relevant information.
2) Compartmentalize all facts to prevent comparison.
3) Anything that can be easily understood by someone with a third grade education is automatically nonsense.
4) No lie is too big if it supports the superstition.
5) Keep the mind free of any knowledge of the basic subject matter so as not to lose sight of the superstition.
6) Take everything out of context.
7) The rules of logic and evidence were made to be broken.
8) Never discuss randomness and selection together.
9) Never doubt the superstition.
10) When in doubt, see rule #9.

You're doing pretty good, even if you're no gore3000. Did he teach you these?

I particularly like number 8. So many Cs like to chirp on "randomness doesn't go anywhere." (Yes it does, with the square root of the number of iterations/generations.) "Survival of the fittest is a tautology, 'The survivors survive.'" Algebra is full of tautologies, but you get to things you didn't know fooling around with them.

Anyway, the joint operation of variation and selection isn't really random and isn't a tautology.

Does Evolution explain how we grow organs in pigs for use in humans, or does Intelligent Design explain it?
"No, Intelligent Design does not explain it." - cracker

Oh please.

Indeed? Would you mind answering the post, and explaining why you can conflated I.D. with i.d.? IF you have forgotten my response, I can repost it here:

Intelligent design is a theory that the universe was designed and created by an intelligent being. I'm not sure how that necessarily predicts that individuals in lab coats will be mucking around with ribonucleaic acids. Unless you propose that the Designer independently and specially created thost scientists, lab coats and all.

You are correct that genetic engineering involves intelligence and design (lower case), but in that sense so does every creative endeavor man has ever undertaken. I am not sure you want to cite Beavis and Butthead as evidence for ID - it will be hard to get it in the curriculum.

I used the platipus as an example of a big design change being introduced. That's what the current fossil record supports.

And that's absolute bull.

In 1971, two fossil platypus teeth were discovered in the Tirari Desert in South Australia. They are about 25 million years old, and have been named Obdurodon insignis. The modern platypus has only vestigial teeth which are replaced by horny pads when it is still a juvenile. The fossil teeth are similar enough to these vestigial teeth to allow identification, and they show that ancient platypuses had teeth as adults.
Since then, central Australia has produced a few more isolated teeth, a fragment of a lower jaw, and a part of a pelvis.
In 1984, an opalised jaw fragment with three teeth in place, belonging to either a platypus or a platypus-like monotreme, was discovered at Lightning Ridge in New South Wales. This fossil was 110 million years old, and is named Steropodon galmani (Archer, Flannery, Ritchie, & Molnar, 1985). It was the first known mammal from the Mesozoic (the Age of Dinosaurs) in Australia. It may have been the largest mammal from the Cretaceous period anywhere in the world, although it is less than twice the size of the modern platypus.
A few fossil teeth were discovered in 1984 at the Riversleigh site in Queensland. This was followed in 1985 by a spectacular find: an almost complete skull of a fossil platypus about 15 to 20 million years old. This has been named Obdurodon dicksoni (Archer, Jenkins, Hand, Murray, & Godthelp. 1992; Archer, Hand, & Godthelp, 1994). Its skull is more generalized, and about 25% longer, than that of the modern platypus. Some other fossils, including a partial lower jaw, have since been discovered at Riversleigh.
In 1991 and 1992, Obdurodon-like teeth were discovered in Argentina in strata dated to 61-63 million years old. They have been named Monotrematum sudamericanum (Archer, 1995). South America, like Australia, was once part of the super-continent of Gondwana, and this find shows that platypuses existed in other parts of Gondwana besides Australia.

From Creationism and the Platypus.

Where and when are you alleging a sudden appearance of anything? What evidence do you have for it?

"TO the extent that your theory relies for its explanatory power on the unknown and unknowable prefernces and predilictions of a supernatural being, it is myth or legend, not science."

Rest assured, Intelligent Designers using gene-splicing to program DNA such that pigs grow organs that are useful to humans is fact and science, not myth, legend, or magic.

Once again, you conflate I.D. with i.d.. Note that HUMAN genetic engineers use gene-splicing to grow pigs in labs, and their motives and preferences are easily determined. The hypothesized Intelligent Designer of the Universe is a mythical or supernatural being who is totally beyond our comprehension.

You have yet to offer an explanation for why the former allows you to make claims about the latter.

From the same source:

Huse offers three reasons why the platypus should not be considered a transitional form:

"1. Platypus fossils are exactly the same as modern forms."

Since the most important platypus fossils were found after Huse wrote his book in 1983, one can only wonder what fossils he is referring to. It seems unlikely, given the general level of scholarship of his book, that Huse would have known of the few obscure platypus fossils that had been found at the time (1983). If he did, it should have been apparent that his statement was not only wrong, but the exact opposite of the truth: in the only feature in which they could then be compared, fossil and modern platypuses were significantly different, since the fossil forms were toothed.
As for the rest of the body, Huse's statement is totally unsupported. It would be reasonable to guess that fossil and modern forms might have differed elsewhere in the body, and later finds have confirmed this, at least for the head.

"Where and when are you alleging a sudden appearance of anything? What evidence do you have for it?"

The evidence of a big design introduction is the platipus. No one disputes that we have said evidence. Is it unique? It's the only mammal in history that is poisonous and probably the only mammal with an electro-sensing bill.

That's representative of a big design introduction, as predicted by Intelligent Design.

If you have evidence that contradicts that prediction, please present it.

"Once again, you conflate I.D. with i.d.. Note that HUMAN genetic engineers use gene-splicing to grow pigs in labs, and their motives and preferences are easily determined. The hypothesized Intelligent Designer of the Universe is a mythical or supernatural being who is totally beyond our comprehension."

You are trying to debate a straw man of your own creation rather than my posts. If you want to talk about a mythical, supernatural being beyond our comprehension and shoot down said hypothesis, feel free. Just don't confuse your straw man with any content in my posts, and don't drag me into such ridiculous debates.

"No, the difference is that you have added INTELLIGENCE to your process. It is no longer either random or natural." -- Southack

You are obeying Southack's Rules #1,6,7, and 8 (you always obey rules #9 and 10).

You are still mightily confused. Grammar is an arbitrary set of rules. Matching can be done without intelligence. You can use a sieve to sort objects by matching size for example. The fact that you are a purposeful liar is evident. Here is the proof:

"In no way, shape, or form can complex programs or works of Shakespeare EVER be demonstrated to appear out of randomness no matter how much finite time you have, no matter how much computing power you throw at it, no matter what you do." -- Southack to Tortoise

Then you are so bold as to assert that simple sequence recognition software is somehow "INTELLIGENCE" and therefore out of bounds.

I have been overly generous in attributing your faults to simple ignorance and the enthusiasm of the misguided zealot. I was wrong. You are intentionally deceitful and, even worse, you lack the means and the desire to effect an improvement in your character. You also have no desire to add one whit to the present meager sum of your knowledge.

That's representative of a big design introduction, as predicted by Intelligent Design.

You're just repeating the already discredited. I'm not going to go around in circles with you. The platypus isn't the only monotreme. It has two distant-cousin species of echidna. You have nothing that suggests a designer or the lack of an evolutionary tree. In fact, you have nothing at all but the old creationist gap game.

I see. So let me ask you this. How does this have an analogy in the chemical processes that might occur to create DNA? I don't think Mr. Watson appreciates the differerences between reality and the statistics he generates, and I wish to see if you understand the fundamental differences between his argument and how the world really works. Do you?

If you want to talk about a mythical, supernatural being beyond our comprehension and shoot down said hypothesis, feel free.

I wa just clarifying your imprecision. You identified intelligent desingers in biotech labs genetically engineering pigs. I pointed out that they are human. Could you explain how it is that human biologists are proof for a supernatural being? You have yet to do so, and it would seem central to your argument that genetic engineering supports ID as a explanation for the origin of species.

Please answer the rest of the post:
You have yet to offer an explanation for why the former allows you to make claims about the latter.

Yes, but our universe has only been around for 17 Billion years. You'll have to work within that time period for any finite-time-based theory such as Evolution.

That was not at issue. You are shifting again.

Go back and re-read the argument you had. All that was claimed was that mathematcially, the principle in the typing-monkey problem was valid: that events of even low probability can be shown to occur within a finite (though very long) period of time. You argued that it was not valid. It has been shown to be valid, and your ignorance laid bare. Now you raise, for the first time, a new argument about evolution and the finite age of the universe as an effort to dismiss your mistake. Why? Maybe you should restate your argument with more clarity.

I note that you have not responded to this:
2. It is plain for all to see that you are wilfully avoiding precise definitions. You have confused the definition of "trivial," as has been pointed out to you. You have confused the definitions of "improbable" and "impossible." You have confused "large but finite" with "infinite". This has been pointed out ot you, and you fail to respond or acknowledge. Why?

NO response.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.