|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 9:47:51 AM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 48
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I never claimed it is impossible to form IC sysstems by natural processes, only that none have ever been demonstrated to result from them.
There have been several so called IC sytems that were claimed to be IC by cdesign proponentsists.
* Blood clotting (we don't hear the IDiots talking about htis on much any more). This should be right up your alley drmark. You are a medical doctor, correct?
* Photosynthesis
* Bacterial flagellum (the all time favorite)
* Immune system (another one in your field)
* The recent published results from the 20 year (so far) experiments by Lenski et al.
quote:
If you're trying to falsify ID, demonstrate one instead of regurgitating talkorigins propaganda!
How is the information on talkorigins propaganda?
I was under the impression that everything on the talkorigins website had actually undergone a considerable amount of review and criticism from both sides of the discussion... both from scientists and creationists/IDists.
quote:
I am a scientist, hhi, and just as I've explained to drj, we make observations of IC systems every day and none yet have been demonstrated to result from random, unguided processes. That's pretty strong scientific evidence for ID, is it not? How would you test for natural causes producing IC systems?
I'm sorry I must have missed that demonstration. Was it in this thread?
As a medical doctor (or even a kid with s skinned knee) you must deal with blood clotting every day.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 12:44:24 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 112
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
You're begging the question. You assume no intelligence existed prior to DNA.
quote:
It's possible.. but we don't have evidence of any. It's more than possible and begging the question alone disqualifies your statement. And this new statement is merely more of the same.
quote:
Or perhaps genetic information systems are the systems that make intelligence possible... hence, they predate intelligence. This seems like a better assumption to start with, seeing as how every known and observable intelligence is made possible through some sort of genetic information system. This implies the following assumption - no extra terrestrial intelligent life exists. It also implies that intelligence is purely material. It isn't.
quote:
Again, demonstrate a coded system that was not based on intelligent designers. quote:
You're hard pressed to take a step outside, without stepping on it... we call it life. More begging the question. Suggest you look up the term. It's a logical fallacy.
quote:
Looking for evidence of craftsmanship from some intelligence may be an endeavor worth looking into (philosopher's have been going at it for thousands of years, with no hope of resolution in sight). But the big guns behind the ID movement don't seem to be to interested in actually pursuing it. When the ID movement stops playing politics and starts producing evidence and research, I'll take them seriously. There is already plenty of evidence - you yourself are evidence and research based on ID theory is already under way but taking off very slowly due to Darwinian fundamentalist fanatical resistence.
BTW, What do you think SETI is doing?
What do you think forensics is all about?
quote:
Analogies taken way beyond the point of usefulness and then some. If you want to call DNA a 'symbolic language', then there it is. It predates any known intelligence. Begging the question again. Assuming no intelligence existed before or without DNA. And there are no analogies - DNA has it's own language with alphabet, semantics, syntax etc..
quote:
Genetic programming perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
Intelligently designed by humans very trivially and poorly trying to copy the DNA/RNA CCIS (complex coded info systems).
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 1:49:03 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
DNA has it's own language with alphabet, semantics, syntax etc..
Only metaphorically.
Instead of GTCA -- we could use 1,2,3,4. Obviously. Perhaps we need definitions of semantics and syntax. I will let you supply them if you like.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 2:41:30 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Here, I'll help the discussion:
Syntax as a concept has to do with structure -- but meaningful structure.
Semantics has to do with meaning -- no more, no less.
Typically, symbols are not directly connected to their referents; they mean what they mean only by convention. A stop sign does not stop a car and the letter 'g' does not actually go "gu" -- WE go "gu."
First of all, DNA does indeed display structures that by ANALOGY can be called syntax -- but not in the linguist's sense of the word.
DNA does not MEAN anything. Rather, it DOES (things.)
Similarly, programmers speak of their code as having syntax and so forth. This is in between the sense of syntax in the context of DNA and that of language. The program has meaning when written in alphanumeric code; however, it has no meaning as such to the computer. Rather it configures the computer to DO something. It requires no consciousness on the part of the computer. A computer, truly, is nothing more than a variant of an abacus that uses electrons. One could construct a machine that didn't use fancy, magical electricity to do the same thing, albeit slowly. Do you know what a punch card is?
Symbols, to recap, exist to represent a referent in a MIND or subjectivity. If DNA is intended to do the same, I ask all of you babblers what the sense of what it is saying is.
If, on the other hand, that you can see that it is unlike a stop sign in that it does not say "stop" or "go" but actually INDUCES action, then we can now move away from the notion that it is semantic, and allow the linguists to have back their battered and bruised word.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 3:26:31 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
It's more than possible and begging the question alone disqualifies your statement. And this new statement is merely more of the same.
Please elaborate. Does assuming the non-existence of pink unicorns beg the question?
Using the logic of ID, every single human designed invention that mimics or operates similar to something in nature must lead us to assume that something in nature be a product of intelligent design. We can build a canal? Damn, all rivers must be intelligently designed. We can build solar panels to harness energy from light? That means plants must have been intelligently designed. Early humans chipped stones to make tools, therefore every chipped stone must be intelligently designed. Humans invent 'complex information systems', therefor any 'complex information system' must be designed (by intelligence).
quote:
This implies the following assumption - no extra terrestrial intelligent life exists. It also implies that intelligence is purely material. It isn't.
Where is this law that says that any possible extra-terrestrial life can't be based on some sort of genetic code?
So far as we know, a tangible material construct is a requirement in order for intelligence to exist. Stating that we have no objective evidence of an intelligent being that existed prior to (and made possible by) DNA isnt begging any question, it is simply a fact. DNA being loosely analogous to a computer human machinery doesn't warrant the assumption that intelligence predates life.
quote:
quote:
Again, demonstrate a coded system that was not based on intelligent designers.
quote:
You're hard pressed to take a step outside, without stepping on it... we call it life.
More begging the question. Suggest you look up the term. It's a logical fallacy.
No, its just a side effect of your unusual phrasing of the question that does this. Your starting from the premise that intelligence is pre-existant (at least before life) and the onus is on us to prove a negative.
Summary of my argument:
1. No known intelligence has been observed that predates life / all observed intelligence is made possible through genetic information systems.
2. It is not reasonable to assume intelligence predates life / it is not reasonable to assume complex information systems require intelligence.
Summary of your argument:
1. Intelligence is pre-existant and formed life (complex info systems)
2. The formation of life (complex info systems) is evidence that intelligence is pre-existent
Now which one begs the question?
quote:
There is already plenty of evidence - you yourself are evidence and research based on ID theory is already under way but taking off very slowly due to Darwinian fundamentalist fanatical resistence.
The DI has plenty of time and money to lobby politicians and help draft legislation, and they are just now getting around to doing research to back up their claims? Sorry, there is no excuse for this. The DI has been around for nearly 20 years, and theyre just now getting around to publishing papers? If you look at the papers released from the BI (Biologic Institute, of the DI), they haven't got much of anything to do with ID at all. No one has gone to the DI and chained them up to prevent them from doing research.
The more ID'ists yell "conspiracy theory" the more they look like tin foil hat wearing 9-11 truthers and UFO conspiracy loons.
quote:
BTW, What do you think SETI is doing?
Most likely wasting time and money.
quote:
quote:
Analogies taken way beyond the point of usefulness and then some. If you want to call DNA a 'symbolic language', then there it is. It predates any known intelligence.
Begging the question again. Assuming no intelligence existed before or without DNA. And there are no analogies - DNA has it's own language with alphabet, semantics, syntax etc..
Not jumping to conclusions about supposed pre-existent intelligence is not begging the question.
How many alphabets do you know of that are made possible through chemicals that have affinity for bonding with each other and reproduce with variation? How many computers do you know of that operate that way?
quote:
Genetic programming perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
Intelligently designed by humans very trivially and poorly trying to copy the DNA/RNA CCIS (complex coded info systems).
Ah but the question is, if these computer programs operate by mimicking evolution observed in nature, should we then assume evolution is intelligently designed? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 5:00:34 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
You're begging the question. You assume no intelligence existed prior to DNA. But DNA exhibits extreme intelligence in it's coded info.
If ID is science then it could demonstrate that an intelligence did exist independent of DNA.
quote:
Again, demonstrate a coded system that was not based on intelligent designers.
DNA.
I can beg the question, too.
quote:
Show me a complex coded info system that does not require any intelligence.
The burden of proof is on you, my friend. If you claim that DNA came from an intelligence then you must demonstrate this. Asking people to prove your wrong without ever offering positive evidence is a logical fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 10:20:09 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 112
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Syntax as a concept has to do with structure -- but meaningful structure.
Semantics has to do with meaning -- no more, no less.
Typically, symbols are not directly connected to their referents; they mean what they mean only by convention. A stop sign does not stop a car and the letter 'g' does not actually go "gu" -- WE go "gu."
First of all, DNA does indeed display structures that by ANALOGY can be called syntax -- but not in the linguist's sense of the word.
DNA does not MEAN anything. Rather, it DOES (things.)
Several of your own points should give it away that what you say is either wrong or, when right, supports ID theory.
First off there is no analogy.
Hubert Yockey’s paper (1981) says that there is a structural identity between the nucleotide sequences in DNA and the alphabetical letter sequences in a book.
Yockey (an evolutionist) wrote, quote:
It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.
Sorry but analogy defenders lose on this. Indeed, most lucid scientists know that it is not analogous but mathematically identical.
Not in the linguistics sense? Did you just make that up? Certainly did or you got it from someone else who did. Don't you that linguistics algorithms and software are used to study DNA?
Then you say "they mean what they mean only by convention" - do you realize that convention is exactly what we're talking here? And indeed DNA's intelligently designed code is supported by that very word? Code requires convention and convention only exists between intelligent agents. So how did this happen between DNA and RNA? By accident? Please spare us the folly!
quote:
... The program has meaning when written in alphanumeric code; however, it has no meaning as such to the computer. ... A computer, truly, is nothing more than a variant of an abacus that uses electrons. One could construct a machine that didn't use fancy, magical electricity to do the same thing, albeit slowly. Do you know what a punch card is?
Symbols, to recap, exist to represent a referent in a MIND or subjectivity. ...
My profession is that of a computer scientist. So you'll get no where trying to tell me your incorrect version of fact.
Btw, virtually no one uses punch cards anymore.
DNA contains more information than 1000's of volumes of encyclopedias. It's information content is not about itself. It is an instruction book on building living organisms.
Your points here are way wrong. Computers must be built by intelligent designers for a purpose. Computers need to be programmed by intelligent software designers. DNA comes programmed. Whether you like it or not DNA is the worlds most complex and sophisticated computer ever discovered. Nothing human built even comes within light-years.
All of us babblers are happy to tell what DNA says - it says, "this is how to make a specific organism".
You're so far off in this it isn't funny. And linguists have been and are more than glad to lend their very pertinent knowledge to the study of DNA.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 10:28:42 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
First off there is no analogy.
Hubert Yockey’s paper (1981) says that there is a structural identity between the nucleotide sequences in DNA and the alphabetical letter sequences in a book.
Yockey (an evolutionist) wrote,
quote:
It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.
I fully understand that published scientist are sometimes foolish or even simply liars, as you say. I believe the above is such an example.
I don't care to talk to you anymore.
bye
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 10:58:28 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 112
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
First off there is no analogy.
Hubert Yockey’s paper (1981) says that there is a structural identity between the nucleotide sequences in DNA and the alphabetical letter sequences in a book.
Yockey (an evolutionist) wrote,
quote:
It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.
I fully understand that published scientist are sometimes foolish or even simply liars, as you say. I believe the above is such an example.
I don't care to talk to you anymore.
bye
Fine. But you obviously haven't understood.
Where did I say anyone is a liar or even foolish? I merely quoted Yockey!
Perhaps I should quote the Nobel prize organization?
Or any of a few dozen other scientists who say exactly the same as Yockey.
And they're right! It is not analogy. DNA is an instruction book. It is real code. Not pretend.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 11:22:11 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Several of your own points should give it away that what you say is either wrong or, when right, supports ID theory.
First off there is no analogy. Sorry but analogy defenders lose on this. Indeed, most lucid scientists know that it is not analogous but mathematically identical.
Not in the linguistics sense? Did you just make that up? Certainly did or you got it from someone else who did. Don't you that linguistics algorithms and software are used to study DNA?
Then you say "they mean what they mean only by convention" - do you realize that convention is exactly what we're talking here? And indeed DNA's intelligently designed code is supported by that very word? Code requires convention and convention only exists between intelligent agents. So how did this happen between DNA and RNA? By accident? Please spare us the folly!
Language is arbitrary. We could just as easily decide to call a dog a zapwoofstolbargin and it has no effect on the real world, or the words ability to convey its meaning. DNA on the other hand, operates according to physics and chemistry and different configurations have real consequences affecting its ability to survive and reproduce. With language, we could just as well have represented the letter "x" with what is currently agreed upon as the letter "y", and even pronounce it with the sound that we use for "b". Language will still work. Language is arbitrary, DNA is not. Specific configurations have real world consequences. Those consequences either allow the DNA to reproduce a varied copy of itself, or it ceases to exist. This is what we observe.
Saying DNA is proof of intelligence is like saying, "Since math works, it is proof of intelligence". Some philosophers certainly think that's the case, but there's no hard evidence in sight, beyond philosophical speculation.
quote:
DNA contains more information than 1000's of volumes of encyclopedias. It's information content is not about itself. It is an instruction book on building living organisms.
Your points here are way wrong. Computers must be built by intelligent designers for a purpose. Computers need to be programmed by intelligent software designers. DNA comes programmed. Whether you like it or not DNA is the worlds most complex and sophisticated computer ever discovered. Nothing human built even comes within light-years.
Again, analogies taken to far leading one astray. Computers don't self-replicate. They don't reproduce with variation. They arent subject to natural selection.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 7/7/2008 11:40:24 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 7:16:03 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
As a medical doctor (or even a kid with s skinned knee) you must deal with blood clotting every day. Yes indeed, Embedded, it is a wonderfully designed (and created) IC system!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 7:36:48 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
As a medical doctor (or even a kid with s skinned knee) you must deal with blood clotting every day. Yes indeed, Embedded, it is a wonderfully designed IC system that evolved in small successive steps!
There, fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 7:38:52 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Evolutionism is not science
There, title of thread - fixed!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 7:43:06 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Evolutionism is not science
There, title of thread - fixed!
DrMark continues to prove that you don't have to understand science to be a medical doctor!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 7:47:20 AM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 48
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
As a medical doctor (or even a kid with s skinned knee) you must deal with blood clotting every day. Yes indeed, Embedded, it is a wonderfully designed (and created) IC system!
Since you claim the blood clotting system to be an IC system, does that mean that none of the components of the system can be removed and the system still function?
And to repeat my earlier questions:
How is the information on talkorigins propaganda?
and
quote:
I am a scientist, hhi, and just as I've explained to drj, we make observations of IC systems every day and none yet have been demonstrated to result from random, unguided processes. That's pretty strong scientific evidence for ID, is it not? How would you test for natural causes producing IC systems?
I'm sorry I must have missed that demonstration. Was it in this thread?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 8:18:18 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
DrMark continues to prove that you don't have to understand science to be a medical doctor! Sorry, drj, but I merely prove that one does not have to be an adherent of scientism to be a (darn good) medical doctor. Understanding science remains a critical element of the rational practice of medicine. Evolutionism is NOT science!
quote:
quote:
we make observations of IC systems every day and none yet have been demonstrated to result from random, unguided processes. I'm sorry I must have missed that demonstration. No Embedded, the only thing you missed was comprehension of my statement. No IC systems have ever been demonstrated to result from random, unguided processes. Feel free to devise your own experiment if you wish to refute the fact.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 8:40:52 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
DrMark continues to prove that you don't have to understand science to be a medical doctor! Sorry, drj, but I merely prove that one does not have to be an adherent of scientism to be a (darn good) medical doctor. Understanding science remains a critical element of the rational practice of medicine. Evolutionism is NOT science!
quote:
quote:
we make observations of IC systems every day and none yet have been demonstrated to result from random, unguided processes. I'm sorry I must have missed that demonstration. No Embedded, the only thing you missed was comprehension of my statement. No IC systems have ever been demonstrated to result from random, unguided processes. Feel free to devise your own experiment if you wish to refute the fact.
I already showed you a link with an example. You just called it circular reasoning for some baffling reason and then promptly forgot it.
There is very solid evidence which gives scientists a darn good picture of the evolution of all of ID's poster children 'IC' systems. The resulting theories also make some very specific predictions.. many have proven accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 8:46:18 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
DrMark continues to prove that you don't have to understand science to be a medical doctor! Sorry, drj, but I merely prove that one does not have to be an adherent of scientism to be a (darn good) medical doctor. Understanding science remains a critical element of the rational practice of medicine. Evolutionism is NOT science! I fail to see what knowledge about evolution has to do with being a good doctor? I am sure you are a very good MD but that's got nothing to do with your views on evolution.
My high school chemistry teacher (who really was a scientist) was a fervent creationist. He was a terrific chemistry teacher. It made no difference whatsoever what he believed with regard to evolution.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 8:51:06 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
I am like a broken record, but...
What I don't understand about the idea "irreducibly complex" is that it in calling things "irreducible" isn't it saying also that we can't ask specific questions about the system, such as the proximal mechanism behind its development? (I am saying that "reductionism" implies the drive to ask more and more specific questions. Holism is nice, but I find it hard to formulate holistic experiments unfortunately. SImple as that. Holism is still important though -- I would give it a place in natural philosophy, which would hopefully grow in importance as a companion to science.)
I think if a question can be conceived of, science is the process of asking it. Philosophy might be there to help make sure it is asked sensibly, though.
Now, I think the idea of IC is quite valid, but I do not think it is scientific, because it suggests a halting of inquiry rather than a platform to launch it. To be fair, QM may also drift into the unscientific whenever answers are brought to bear on a problem that state that there is no answer. That is the appearance of it, I'll admit, but I do not know for sure if that is the true sense of their statements. It seems they have a technical understanding of all their poetic statements -- or rather, they have thrown out common sense so that they can concentrate on math; I have no problem with that.
I know IC is obviously ABOUT science, but it is more philosophical or meta-scientific, I contend. Simply, as I say, because it does not appear to ask questions to me, but to discourage them.
And by questions, of course, I mean testable questions -- propositions the truth of which are not known but which one can formulate an experiment to falsify or, if it is worded correctly, confirm this. (Don't flip out that I think science can confirm things, because I mean it in the most trivial sense. Such as, if a scientist HAD said, I believe some swans are black. James Cook, I presume, would have eventually confirmed this.)
I don't care about all the politics surrounding ID and evolution. As far as I can tell, both sides go to far and try to hijack science. I was annoyed at statements made by evolutionists long before I was even interested in Christianity. So please, if you will, let's get past the rhetoric and please answer my legitimate question, or allow me to rephrase it, if you find it nonsensical or unfair in some way.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 9:04:23 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
p.s: The "other side" of the argument that ID's are fond of talking abotu does not have to be a coherent hypothesis; it could simply be a question about existing ones.
The problem with evolution and all science if there is one is not that it may be false, but if it is sometimes taught dogmatically. If a grade school teacher is to say "we know that man evolved from apes," then they are taking a fairly subtle liberty with language. However, they are probably also lying, if one can assume that, being a grade school teacher, they may not have thoroughly learned (by questioning) the TOE themselves. I mean, I personally can think of no other scientific hypothesis for the origin of man than evolution within the primate family. It seems obvious to me, but, then again, I must say I am not being scientific if I just accept it carte blanche. We must understand and QUESTION the details.
If people then want to take statements made by the TOE or by scientists published in magazines and apply them to the way they conduct their lives, then they are simply grasping for an ideology or an apparently authoritative way to guide themselves -- looking from without, cleverly disguised as within via nature, for their criteria. I would be glad to talk more about the fallacy of moving from "is" (slash appears to be) to "ought"!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 9:09:02 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Also, I understand that many ID's have a concern that the TOE assumes an hypothesis and then looks for evidence. I think one of their specific complaints is that evolutionists regularly engage in constructing ad-hoc hypotheses.
I don't know if I personally have a problem with these behaviors, though it is important to be aware of them. So, I welcome such discussion.
However, I think it is also honest to admit that these considerations fall under philosophy of science -- into the "meta" -- rather than into science itself. There's nothing wrong with that! Perhaps science needs this critique. I am not entirely sure.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 9:13:37 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Also, what's the deal with one another telling us "you're wrong."
So what?
Arrogance and attitude are simply a waste of time -- one could simply spend one's posts expressing one's views. I think we are all smart enough to get one another's positions and discuss them. I do not know if I am more knowledgable about somethings or if some of y'all are. Furthermore, i don't care -- if something novel needs to be brought to the table, let it. There is no sense in saying, "well, obviously, you just don't know. You are way off," and so on. If I am, I stand in NEED and ready for correction. Please do your best to serve it to me humbly. If, on the other hand, I have some novel ideas, I except you all to listen with the same humility and patience -- in fact, if I am in error with my so-called "novel" ideas, it will indeed require patience to listen to them! I know how that is!
And so on.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 10:56:01 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I fail to see what knowledge about evolution has to do with being a good doctor? Since knowledge about evolution includes understanding certain principles of genetics and reproductive physiology, there are some medical specialties in which this knowledge would presumably lead to better application of medical science related to these disciplines. My original statement was that I do not have to adhere to scientism to be a good physician.
quote:
I am sure you are a very good MD but that's got nothing to do with your views on evolution. I doubt we have ever met, Ian, so it is frankly impossible for you to be sure I'm even an MD, much less a very good one! However, my views against evolution actually do allow me to function with a more compassionate and godly worldview than those who believe we are merely evolved apes. Whether or not that makes me a better physician depends on which particular outcomes are measured.
quote:
It made no difference whatsoever what he believed with regard to evolution. I'm sorry, please clarify. It made no difference in the quality of his teaching style or the accuracy of his curriculum or the impact he had on your secondary education?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/8/2008 12:50:49 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 112
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
Language is arbitrary. We could just as easily decide to call a dog a zapwoofstolbargin and it has no effect on the real world, or the words ability to convey its meaning. DNA on the other hand, operates according to physics and chemistry and different configurations have real consequences affecting its ability to survive and reproduce. With language, we could just as well have represented the letter "x" with what is currently agreed upon as the letter "y", and even pronounce it with the sound that we use for "b". Language will still work. Language is arbitrary, DNA is not. Specific configurations have real world consequences. Those consequences either allow the DNA to reproduce a varied copy of itself, or it ceases to exist. This is what we observe. You are greviously mistaken on this. But I understand why.
But first, Please explain why linguistic algorithms are used in DNA study?
As Yockey stated, and most scientists already recognize, the genetic code is real code and it's letters are ACGT. It has syntax and semantics. You can pretend it isn't so, are just analogous all you please it won't change the facts. The genetic code is binary in the sense of nucleotides or base pairs.
quote:
The genetic code is 'written' in a linear sequence in four letters corresponding to two purines, A and G (adenine and guanine), and two pyrimidines, C and T (cytosine and thymine); in mRNA, U (uracil) replaces T. The words of the alphabet comprise 3 letters, thus there are 4^3=64 permutations or words which are called codons. 61 of the 64 codons code for 1 of 20 amino acids. Since more than one codon codes for a particular amino acid the code is said to be redundant. Four of the 64 codons punctuate the message; one, AUG, is the start signal and three, UAG, UAA and UGA, are stop signals. Free Dictionary def.
Problem - You have conflated code & language and argued against both as one. An fairly common and easy mistake to make.
Code needs symbolic convention to work. Code is always a subset of language.
DNA code has just that and it won't work just any old way as you state.
Sure in human language you can call a cat a stinzy if you like - probelm is, no one else on the planet will know what you mean. So does your own analogy really work? No.
In computer code, which is based on symbolic language, you cannot just call a cat a stinzy so to speak! Your program will crash if you do because code has syntax. It has rules, just like language, only more concisely defined and limited to specific meanings.
Again - Yockey wrote, quote:
It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.
Information theorist Hubert Yockey also recognizes the non-physical character of messages: quote:
the meaning, if any, of words, that is, a sequence of letters, is arbitrary. It is determined by the natural language and is not a property of the letters or their arrangement ... For example, "O singe fort!" has no meaning as a sentence in English, although each is an English word, yet in German it means, "O sing on!" and in French it means "O strong monkey". Like all messages, the life message is non-material but has an information content measurable in bits and bytes
The information contained in the genetic code is matter or energy. The meaning contained in it is not a property of the arrangement of the | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
