Intelligent design

[Edge]

That's not bad… interesting exercise. It reminds me of another scenario which I'll use to illustrate how it doesn't work, though. (what a stick in the mud I am, huh?) The salient point is that to get life you need the sequence "ILOSTFIFTYBUCKSINLASVEGAS" but you need it ALL AT ONCE. In essence, (and I mean no offense) you "cheated" by removing the letters you didn't want and, here's the kicker, you used your intelligence to do it!

Well, I was actually only working with letters, but I can include numbers and punctuation signs if you want to.

 

So, let's say: 26 letters, 10 numbers and 50 punctuation marks (I invented this last number). (I don't know how many "letters" are there on the DNA code).

 

26+10+50=86

 

1/86 chances for each specific letter:

 

"ILOSTFIFTYBUCKSINLASVEGAS" = 25

 

(1/86)^25 chances of getting that sequence on every key press. Which is equal to: 1/2.3038875670592253757118612605607e+48 (yeah, quite very, but very very very very low chances) to getting it...

 

Now, how many key strokes are there? There can be many as I want to? don't know how many chances nature had... so... in a context, is possible...

 

For example, the sequence might be: "POWER". It's quite easier, yet, if I have a low chances of key strokes... let's say 100, it won't happen, that's why that's important as well

 

Also, if natural selection works in there as well, it can eliminate the unneeded info.

 

Now, for the illustration. Imagine I'm a judge, and you're a criminal, and I'm going to sentence you. Imagine that I issue a very unconventional sentence: You can either stay in jail for ten years, or, if you choose, I'll give you a coin to flip and if you get 1000 heads in a row, you can go free. But notice that, under the terms of the sentence, even if you were to get 999 heads in a row and then you got tails on your next flip, you'd have to start over. The question is, should you accept the ten years, or take the coin?

 

How does that relate to your analogy? Well, to get out of jail, you need 1000 heads consecutively (or do your ten years) and to get life, you need "ILOSTFIFTYBUCKSINLASVEGAS" consecutively. You don't get the luxury of picking up where you left off. You don't have any function until you get exactly the right sequence in its entirety. Since there's no life without the entire correct sequence, there's no way to "collect" as you have done in your example only the letters that will eventually complete the sequence.

 

Now, you might point out that if you missed that sequence by, say, one letter, I would still be able to "read" the message and so your 'typo' is therefore tolerable. Well, not really… that's only true when the reader of the message is also intelligent and can 'figure out' (in most cases) what the author intended.

Good example as well... yet, its not under the same case... nature can take the 1000 heads coin chances, for it, time does not matter..

 

 

Extreme example:

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it.

 

Unfortunately, the molecular machines in a cell which "read" the DNA are not themselves intelligent. So they can't figure out what an incorrect code "should have" been.

True, that's why natural selection might eliminate the bad letters.

 

 

I'm glad you brought that up, though… it's a neat exercise. A good way, it turns out, to argue for Intelligent Design!! (relentless, ain't I?)

I'm not arguing for or against Intelligent Design, just explaining that there may be an explanation for DNA code being created by the Evolutionary Terms.

 

Maybe we should get a computer generation program that writes letters at random and let's establish a limit of characters for both the code and printing... B)

 

Also, the bad thing about analogies in arguments is that anyone can set the analogy to their cause and make it very helpful for their purpose. Also, let's remember that analogies should be direct to the point.

 

So, I guess we better establish on a fair way the parameters to it...

 

Finally: Do you recognize that even when it can be very minimal (an e+48 is quite minimal), there can be a possibility that life was created of random undirected acts or something like that?

[Boerseun]

It is not "preposterous" in the least to suggest that a vast array of complex, functional living organisms all of which employ a "universal" information handling system (DNA, etc) and use exactly the same genetic code were designed by a single superior intelligence.

TroutMac old buddy old pal:

 

I'm actually getting bored with this whole conversation.

 

But with the above, I hope to dog and the whole kennel that you're not trying to convince me of your objectiveness regarding this matter.

 

Why, exactly, would the above proposal of yours not be preposterous? Don't try to attack the scientific method with a priori arguments. You'll come second.

[paultrr]

It is not "preposterous" in the least to suggest that a vast array of complex, functional living organisms all of which employ a "universal" information handling system (DNA, etc) and use exactly the same genetic code were designed by a single superior intelligence. You draw that same inference every day when you recognize things which are designed by intelligence.

 

 

The central problem in that statement is there simply is no scientific crediable evidence that such a single superior intelligence exists in the first place. Boil it all down and you really think there is one because you believe. Most of the rest of us are not believers. With the lack of evidence for such a single superior intelligence we find resorting to one as the root cause to be founded upon assumption instead of fact which logically following scientific methods and principles we must reject. If you're assumption had sound provable facts backing it up you might have a case. But, again, the faith most of you possess stands even when there is no evidence which is something science is not designed to address. It is that faith presupposition that makes the rest you state seem at odds with what science is about. Divorce the faith issue, address the actual record proof of their being such a single superior intelligence and perhaps we could talk.

[TRoutMac]

I'm actually getting bored with this whole conversation.

 

Yeah, that's usually what happens when the naturalist side is faced with arguments they're not able to counter. They suddenly become "bored with the conversation".

 

But with the above, I hope to dog and the whole kennel that you're not trying to convince me of your objectiveness regarding this matter.

 

I don't know why you would "hope" such a thing since I was quite clear when I said "Of course, I realize you think that my conclusions are restricted by my presuppositions as well, but I can easily demonstrate otherwise" and then went on to explain exactly why my position is more objective. Yes, I was arguing that my position is more objective, more open-minded, more scientific. You may remain unconvinced if you wish.

 

Why, exactly, would the above proposal of yours not be preposterous? Don't try to attack the scientific method with a priori arguments. You'll come second.

 

I'm not trying to attack the scientific method. You are. You're saying it's okay to let your presuppositions restrict the hypotheses you're willing to explore. I'm saying it's not okay. I'm actually defending the scientific method. Intelligent Design proponents, it turns out, are more respectful of the scientific method than naturalists are.

 

As for your other question, it is not preposterous because as intelligent designers ourselves, we do precisely the same thing. Example… in architecture, there is a set of protocols and standards which architectural drawings follow to communicate to builders every aspect of building a given house. (compare that to the UGC) If every architect drew houseplans according to his own set of conventions, using his own symbols, carpenters would have a very difficult time reading the drawings and knowing how to build a particular house. Furthermore, now that these drawings are all produced and stored on computers, (in a digital code… kinda like DNA) there has to be a common file format (.dxf or .dwg) that everyone's software can read. So, it's quite easy to imagine ourselves (or organisms in general) as "the house" and the designer as, well, the designer. That designer used a common "file format" (the Universal Genetic Code) and a universal information storage and processing system upon which all life is built. If all life evolved from different one-celled animals which appeared independently of each other due to mere chance, then you would expect that those original organisms might have all operated on different schemes of information storage and processing.

[TRoutMac]

TroutMac, I have been enthralled by most of your arguments. They are sharp and clean and beautiful and you have kept to the high road for the most part. Thank you.

 

Thank you for the very generous words.

 

What we don't have and need is a logic based religion

 

I agree to a large extent with your distaste for "religion". It's my observation and opinion that religion in general can be summarized as follows: 1) Peoples' efforts to impress other people with how "good" and "spiritual" they are and/or 2) Peoples' efforts to earn God's favor (salvation) by virtue of their morality, good works, and a sticky-sweet demeanor.

 

And I freely admit, as a Christian, that there's no shortage of Christians that fall into either or both of these categories. (I might place Pat Robertson there, for example). This produces, even within Christianity, people who are inclined toward making a big deal out of everyone else's lack of morality, etc. while ignoring their own. Does that sound about right?

 

The Catholic church is not doing the concept of "religion" any good with it's problems. Catholic priests are thought to serve as an intermediary between the members of their congregation and God Himself, but how can priests be worthy of representing other people if they can also be pedophiles? How does that make sense? Obviously, I realize that not ALL priests are "that way", but the point is simply that it's also obvious that priests aren't necessarily any more "holy" than any of us.

 

What if there was a "religion" which based the idea of salvation entirely upon what you believe in the privacy of your own mind? In other words, suppose that "salvation" was completely unrelated to good works or morality, and in fact unrelated to any visible or outward activity, ritual, etc. And what if there was a "religion" which allowed you to be your own representative to God? What if this "religion" said that basically we're all equally screwed up, no matter how "good" we think we are? Wouldn't that tend to produce an attitude of humility in a person who might subscribe to this "religion"? Wouldn't that remove the motivation for grandstanding and trying to "show people up"? Wouldn't you think that this person would generally have very little motivation for pretense? Wouldn't you think that this person would be relatively genuine?

[paultrr]

Thank you for the very generous words.

 

 

 

 

What if there was a "religion" which based the idea of salvation entirely upon what you believe in the privacy of your own mind? In other words, suppose that "salvation" was completely unrelated to good works or morality, and in fact unrelated to any visible or outward activity, ritual, etc. And what if there was a "religion" which allowed you to be your own representative to God? What if this "religion" said that basically we're all equally screwed up, no matter how "good" we think we are? Wouldn't that tend to produce an attitude of humility in a person who might subscribe to this "religion"? Wouldn't that remove the motivation for grandstanding and trying to "show people up"? Wouldn't you think that this person would generally have very little motivation for pretense? Wouldn't you think that this person would be relatively genuine?

 

The problem there is how the leaders of religion tend to control everything. Most of my own problem is not with those who believe and tend not to force their belief upon anyone else. I respect them and their own views in general. But what I have all lack of care for is a certain religious minority or majority (people debate that issue a lot) who tend to want everyone to conform to their point of view. If you don't interpret the meaning of scripture their way. except their point of view, etc then they reject you are use their places of power to try and force you to see things that way. I may not be a believer anymore. But I have read the scriptures they claim as their authority enough to know that version of Christianity is anything but the type religion their founder had in mind.

 

I watch the current events in the world unfolding and while the Bible speaks of the anti-christ heading us to that last great battle, it speaks of loss of freedoms in the end times covered by the promise of peace, etc that the only ones I see bringing all that about is the very one's who in political power talk of their evangelical beliefs. Sorry if I am stepping on some toes out there. But be honest and actually take a look at what is going on with these guys and the people they have in power at the present in relation to who was supposed to do what in Biblical prophecy and ask yourself who is actually on the side of the devil if one does exist. You might also ask who is the real church anymore. Putting all of that in with this religious attempts at redefining what is valid science and I am sorry but the moment you mention God in the equation you have lost me and a whole lot of others out here today irrespective if we have some belief of our own or not.

 

I keep getting more and more reminded of a certain passage I first read long ago about the so-called church in the latter days having a form of godliness but denying the real power. Basically that verse tends to fit a lot of present day christianity or at least the most vocal and powerful of it out there.

[TRoutMac]

The central problem in that statement is there simply is no scientific crediable evidence that such a single superior intelligence exists in the first place. Boil it all down and you really think there is one because you believe. Most of the rest of us are not believers. With the lack of evidence for such a single superior intelligence we find resorting to one as the root cause to be founded upon assumption instead of fact which logically following scientific methods and principles we must reject. If you're assumption had sound provable facts backing it up you might have a case. But, again, the faith most of you possess stands even when there is no evidence which is something science is not designed to address. It is that faith presupposition that makes the rest you state seem at odds with what science is about. Divorce the faith issue, address the actual record proof of their being such a single superior intelligence and perhaps we could talk.

 

Have you been reading this thread? It seems you have not been. You can recite all the talking points you want, but there is evidence of the existence of an Intelligent Designer all over the place. Information in DNA. Irreducibly complex molecular machinery. All the evidence I've cited for Intelligent Design is itself evidence of an Intelligent Designer. I realize that's a little redundant, but apparently redundancy in necessary to drive the point home. We may not be able to directly observe this Intelligent Designer, but there is definitely evidence to support the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

 

I've gone over the presupposition angle with Boerseun in some detail and the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached is that naturalists have the presuppositions which prevents scientific inquiry into certain hypotheses and IDers do not. Methodological naturalism is at odds with the scientific method and I've very carefully explained why numerous times in this thread. Methodological naturalism, that is, restricting explanations of natural phenomena to "natural" causes, is a vicious circle. It can literally never answer the questions of origins. It's a sentence to an infinitely long chain of explaining one natural phenomenon with another natural phenomenon, which then needs to be explained by another natural phenomenon, and so on, ad infinitum. There can be no end to that sequence under methodological naturalism. So to restrict science to that standard is to turn away from any effort to actually discover truth.

 

Once again, I find myself in the position of defending science.

[Erasmus00]

Try this. Grab a book or any product with a UPC barcode on it. Now, compare the pattern of black and white stripes on the barcode with an ice core sample. They look similar, don't they? Both look like a random arrangement of dark or light stripes which vary in thickness. Right?

 

On a barcode, the relative thickness and spacing of dark and light stripes correspond with a number. Together, the series of dark and light stripes encode a SKU number or ISBN number which identifies the product its attached to. This is complex and specified information because the arrangement of stripes follows a set of protocols which exist independently of the barcode and which assign meaning to the stripes. Those protocols are devised, and exist, before the barcode is printed on the package. Then, with the aid of a barcode scanner, we compare that series of stripes against those protocols to derive the meaning.

 

An ice core sample does convey information about past weather events. But, is there a set of protocols set up independently to which every possible combination of light and dark, thick and thin bands correspond?

 

Yes, there is. I can write a computer program the interprets ice cores. In this I say a bar this thick means this much winter, a bar this thick means a light summer. A bar like this means heavy radioactivity. A bar like this means heavy industrial activity. This code exists INDEPENDANT of the particular ice core I'm looking at, same as the code to read a UPC symbol exists independantly of the UPC symbol. The only difference is that UPC symbols are man made.

-Will

[Boerseun]

Yeah, that's usually what happens when the naturalist side is faced with arguments they're not able to counter. They suddenly become "bored with the conversation".

:naughty: ...and you're quite often on the receiving end, aren't you?

 

I'm actually tired of explaining the same things over and over to you, writing long posts with valid arguments which seem to be ignored by the ID side, trying to explain the difference between objective science and subjective fairytales to the ID crowd who seem to believe exactly what they want to without the tiniest inkling of evidence. You don't seem to understand what constitutes evidence, and you back that up by an endless string of non-appliccable and irrelevant analogies.

 

It's entertaining, though - but I've had it.

[paultrr]

Have you been reading this thread? It seems you have not been. You can recite all the talking points you want, but there is evidence of the existence of an Intelligent Designer all over the place. Information in DNA. Irreducibly complex molecular machinery. All the evidence I've cited for Intelligent Design is itself evidence of an Intelligent Designer. I realize that's a little redundant, but apparently redundancy in necessary to drive the point home. We may not be able to directly observe this Intelligent Designer, but there is definitely evidence to support the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

 

I've gone over the presupposition angle with Boerseun in some detail and the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached is that naturalists have the presuppositions which prevents scientific inquiry into certain hypotheses and IDers do not. Methodological naturalism is at odds with the scientific method and I've very carefully explained why numerous times in this thread. Methodological naturalism, that is, restricting explanations of natural phenomena to "natural" causes, is a vicious circle. It can literally never answer the questions of origins. It's a sentence to an infinitely long chain of explaining one natural phenomenon with another natural phenomenon, which then needs to be explained by another natural phenomenon, and so on, ad infinitum. There can be no end to that sequence under methodological naturalism. So to restrict science to that standard is to turn away from any effort to actually discover truth.

 

Once again, I find myself in the position of defending science.

 

Again, every bit of evidence you have attempted to quote is not considered as scientific evidence and all relies upon a house of cards based upon a faith presupposition. One aspect of real science that ID fails on has been well highlighted by the National Academy of Science. It cannot be tested by experiment and secondly its general claim about there being no evidence in the record of simplier evolving into more complex is simply false as many here have tried to point out.

 

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

 

Consistent (internally and externally)

Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)

Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)

Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments

Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)

Progressive

 

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The objections to defining Intelligent Design as science are:

 

Intelligent Design lacks consistency.

Intelligent Design is not falsifiable.

Intelligent Design violates the principle of parsimony.

Intelligent Design is not empirically testable.

Intelligent Design is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.

 

In the 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals opinion, the United States Supreme Court articulated a set of criteria for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

 

The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.

 

The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.

 

The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

 

Intelligent Design also fails to meet the legal definition of science on each of the four criteria.

 

Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the Intelligent Design, stated that the goal of Intelligent Design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept. From its very origin the whole idea was based upon a presupposition of faith as several of us have tried to point out. Faith by definition cannot be made to be testable via experiment that science can varify. Science relies upon logic. Faith equals belief which can transcend logic and by definition requires no proof.

 

ID at present is simply neocreationist pseudoscience with its very origins and founders being creationists. It is the by-product of creationist having lost the battle over the age of the earth on many fronts resorting to trying to cloak the story of creation in a poor man's attempted equal to science yielding a house of cards built upon quicksand that cannot even stand up in our court system as evidence.

 

Taking all of that into account as far as what science and the United States Court system considers as valid evidence this whole issue of the Kansas State school system being made to teach such as science is an afront to the very laws of this country and simply a forced attempt by creationists (which in this country are mostly evangelicals) to turn our public schools into church schools which is rather totally in opposition to the seperation of Church and State founded upon our constitution. It is evidence of religious motivated stiffling of truth in favor of church dogma that was at the roots of oppression during the Middle Ages and lead to some of the darkest aspects of human history which even the Catholic church has admitted was wrong. If that is not evidence of the religious agenda behind this whole ID proposal and what all the so-called evangelical movement has in mind for this country I do not know what is. I can only hope that the logic that has prevailed in other states against such a push will hold for the rest of the Nation.

[Boerseun]

Well said, Paul. And if only I knew how this Rep system works now after the upgrade, I would've given you some serious rep points for that.

 

Paul for President! (In stead of rep points - for the time being that's gonna have to do!)

 

Cheers,

 

Boerseun

[TRoutMac]

So, let's say: 26 letters, 10 numbers and 50 punctuation marks (I invented this last number). (I don't know how many "letters" are there on the DNA code).

 

There are four different nucleotide bases on a DNA strand. Adenine, Thymine, Guamine and Cytosine. These are represented with the letters A, T, G and C respectively. However, they appear in pairs and A can only pair with T and G can only pair with C. The structure of the molecules dictates this. So, it's really each base pair that is the code character, and there are four possibilities. AT, TA, GC and CG. But remember that your "ILOSTFIFTYBUCKSINLASVEGAS" is 25 characters long, while a DNA strand even for a single-celled animal is millions of base-pairs (characters) long.

 

26+10+50=86

 

Also, if natural selection works in there as well, it can eliminate the unneeded info.

 

I don't see how it can possibly do this, because until it's eliminated the unneeded info, the organism can't live. Natural selection presupposes the existence of a living, functional organism, and you don't have that unless the sequence is right, therefore without the right sequence, you've got nothing for natural selection to act upon.

 

Good example as well... yet, its not under the same case... nature can take the 1000 heads coin chances, for it, time does not matter.

 

Well, sure… time may not matter for nature. But I think the probability angle is misleading. Take my coin flip example. There is a certain probability attached to flipping 1000 heads in a row… I've got no idea what that is… let's just say it's one in a billion. The point is, when you express a probability in that way, it doesn't mean you "will" get 1000 heads in a row on the billionth try. The point of the coin toss is that, well, you really, really do not want to stay in jail any longer than you have to. It's a miserable place. So as a probablistically astute criminal, you're going to choose the option that's going to get you out in the least amount of time and with the most certainty. That means, you take the ten years. No matter what the odds of flipping 1000 heads in a row are, no matter that there may be 1 chance in some outlandish number, in reality we can see that it would never happen.

 

that's why natural selection might eliminate the bad letters.

 

Again, can't work. Gotta get the entire sequence right outta the box.

 

Also, the bad thing about analogies in arguments is that anyone can set the analogy to their cause and make it very helpful for their purpose. Also, let's remember that analogies should be direct to the point.

 

Analogies are useful because they illustrate and establish what is considered reasonable and logical in a given scenario. Like the Easter Island thing. It's reasonable and logical to invoke Intelligent Design, and in fact, it's not even questionable. The trouble is, the people you're using the analogy on have to be honest and objective enough to see the relationship. Around here it would seem, most aren't.

 

Do you recognize that even when it can be very minimal (an e+48 is quite minimal), there can be a possibility that life was created of random undirected acts or something like that?

 

As I said, I think probabilities are misleading because, well, they're sort of theoretical. Remember the exercise with spelling the word "GOOSE" with DNA base pairs according to my little code? You said the odds were 1 in 1024. Again, you're not going to spell "goose" on the 1024th try. Even though that probability could be much, much lower, we can say with a large degree of confidence that you will probably never spell the word "GOOSE" with randomly chosen letters. I'm not sure how well I'm expressing this thought…*probably not very.

[Edge]

I don't see how it can possibly do this, because until it's eliminated the unneeded info, the organism can't live. Natural selection presupposes the existence of a living, functional organism, and you don't have that unless the sequence is right, therefore without the right sequence, you've got nothing for natural selection to act upon.

Natural selection would take out the "unfit" info and just let the needed info in. Now, this is just an hypothesis...

 

Maybe you are right, though.

 

 

Well, sure… time may not matter for nature. But I think the probability angle is misleading. Take my coin flip example. There is a certain probability attached to flipping 1000 heads in a row… I've got no idea what that is… let's just say it's one in a billion. The point is, when you express a probability in that way, it doesn't mean you "will" get 1000 heads in a row on the billionth try. The point of the coin toss is that, well, you really, really do not want to stay in jail any longer than you have to. It's a miserable place. So as a probablistically astute criminal, you're going to choose the option that's going to get you out in the least amount of time and with the most certainty. That means, you take the ten years. No matter what the odds of flipping 1000 heads in a row are, no matter that there may be 1 chance in some outlandish number, in reality we can see that it would never happen.

Actually it's (1/2)^1000 = 1.07150860718626732094842504906e+301... which is way more smaller than 1 in 1 billionth.

 

Now, mathematically it's possible... practically... maybe don't. And again you are taking the prisoner example, when in really nature does not have a chance for that.

 

Also, even if it were 1 in 1 billionth does not mean that you necessarily need a billion tries... you could get it before... or after that...

 

 

Analogies are useful because they illustrate and establish what is considered reasonable and logical in a given scenario. Like the Easter Island thing. It's reasonable and logical to invoke Intelligent Design, and in fact, it's not even questionable. The trouble is, the people you're using the analogy on have to be honest and objective enough to see the relationship. Around here it would seem, most aren't.

Analogies are useful, but not exactly accurate... unless you specify which is the point you are refering too... however, it can be falacious as well.

 

I never said analogies didn't work.

 

However, if that's the case... then the "Diamonds" example can be used to explain that DNA might be the result of natural processes.

 

As I said, I think probabilities are misleading because, well, they're sort of theoretical. Remember the exercise with spelling the word "GOOSE" with DNA base pairs according to my little code? You said the odds were 1 in 1024. Again, you're not going to spell "goose" on the 1024th try.

you are right, I might spell it before... or after... the chances of any random combination are the same for each...

 

Even though that probability could be much, much lower, we can say with a large degree of confidence that you will probably never spell the word "GOOSE" with randomly chosen letters. I'm not sure how well I'm expressing this thought…*probably not very.

I see your point in here. And it's valid... practically, we can conclude that it's null... that it can't happen...

 

but again... when people buy lottery tickets they know there's few chances of winning... very few... yet, someone does win...

 

this last analogy is not supportive of evolution, I reiterate... just supportive that every combination, as complex or specified it may seem to be... is equally possible as the other ones.

 

Finally, you gotta remember that many of them state that DNA formation happened after million of years or something like that... not that it was created just spontaneously... :naughty:

 

By the way, can you give me some links to sites where Intelligent Design theory is explained better?

[TRoutMac]

Actually it's (1/2)^1000 = 1.07150860718626732094842504906e+301... which is way more smaller than 1 in 1 billionth.

 

Yes, well, I didn't bother to do the math, obviously. Whatever the number, the probability in no way 'guarantees' the occurence in that many attempts.

 

However, if that's the case... then the "Diamonds" example can be used to explain that DNA might be the result of natural processes.

 

Well, not really. It would be true if diamonds exhibited complex and specified information. But they don't.

 

but again... when people buy lottery tickets they know there's few chances of winning... very few... yet, someone does win...

 

Yes, don't I know it. We went through that with the birth of our son, who passed away at 18 days old. My wife and I (age 27 and 32 at the time) had approximately a .25% (one quarter of one percent) chance of conceiving a child (no more than any other couple in that age group) with Trisomy 13 and yet, and despite the fact that it was our first child, we conceived a child with Trisomy 13. Go figure.

 

Finally, you gotta remember that many of them state that DNA formation happened after million of years or something like that... not that it was created just spontaneously... :naughty:

 

Yes, and we can't even be certain that we can give them that much time. This illustrates how incredibly precarious their position really is.

 

By the way, can you give me some links to sites where Intelligent Design theory is explained better?

 

Quite happily:

 

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

 

http://www.idthefuture.com/

 

http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm

 

http://www.nmidnet.org/8questions.html

 

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-idesign.html

 

http://www.designinference.com/

 

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Intelligent_Design

 

And here is an assortment of excellent articles by Jonathan Wells:

 

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/articles.php3

 

Thank you. I think you know that when I said that it appears that most participants in this discussion are neither honest nor objective, I was not referring to you. While you may be unconvinced of Intelligent Design, it certainly appears that you are giving it "fair" consideration. I appreciate that tremendously.

[TRoutMac]

:naughty: ...and you're quite often on the receiving end, aren't you?

 

Well, to the extent that I converse with people who are not prepared with rational arguments for their position, yes. I am.

 

It's entertaining, though - but I've had it.

 

Rather than bail out, why don't you instead step up to the plate and explain to me why it is more objective to operate from presuppositions which narrow the field of hypotheses you're willing to explore?

 

Why don't you explain to me why considering a more broad field of hypotheses can possibly be described as "subjective"?

 

And why oh why can't any of you explain to me how you're ever going to escape from the naturalist box you've stuck yourselves in? Assuming you find a natural explanation (which, by definition, must be natural phenomenon) for the natural phenomenon of life, how then do you expect to explain that natural phenomenon? And if you explain that natural phenomenon with another natural phenomenon, how are you then going to explain that natural phenomenon? Where (and how) does it end?

 

How can intelligent people such as yourselves overlook such an embarassing logical defect and then point the finger at IDers and, with a straight face, say that we are employing "logical fallacies"? How is that possible?

[Erasmus00]

As I said, I think probabilities are misleading because, well, they're sort of theoretical. Remember the exercise with spelling the word "GOOSE" with DNA base pairs according to my little code? You said the odds were 1 in 1024. Again, you're not going to spell "goose" on the 1024th try. Even though that probability could be much, much lower, we can say with a large degree of confidence that you will probably never spell the word "GOOSE" with randomly chosen letters. I'm not sure how well I'm expressing this thought…*probably not very.

 

On average, for every 1024 tries, he'll spell it once. So if he tries a million times, its almost certain he'll spell it at least once.

-Will

[TRoutMac]

On average, for every 1024 tries, he'll spell it once. So if he tries a million times, its almost certain he'll spell it at least once.

 

First of all, if the mathematical expression "1 in 1024" can be referred to as an "average", how do you know this "average" is calculated from only 1 million attempts? An average is always drawn from a finite pool of numbers or events. How do you know it's not calculated from 17 quadrillion attempts? Probabilities like the one Edge calculated do not factor in a finite number of tries from which to get this "average" as you call it. And perhaps that's what's misleading about it. If you had 17 quadrillion total attempts, then to get an "average" distribution of 1 in 1024, you may have many stretches of even billions upon billions of unsuccessful attempts, and, to be fair, occasionally the successful attempts may be clustered together. Even if you have a million total attempts, there's no guarantee you'll hit the sequence once. Probabilities carry no guarantees.

 

The point is, in reality, the occurrence of "GOOSE" will be distributed randomly across the total record of attempts--however many total attempts there are--which we can't even know. There is absolutely no guarantee that you'll spell the word "GOOSE" once in even a billion attempts.

 

Again, I'm not as articulate with mathematics as I should be, so I hope I've explained that correctly. Perhaps Edge is more conversant in this area and can correct me if required.

 

Secondly, we're only talking about a 5-base pair sequence. We should be talking about a sequence which is something like a billion base pairs long. If it's that difficult to spell "GOOSE" at random, then as they say, "you do the math" on the billion-base-pair sequence.