Measuring Design

[Cisco Qid]

Right, so this is a different definition of meaning you are trying to smuggle into the discussion.

Suppose we have a colony of bacteria, all with the same DNA, but then there is a point mutation, so now some cells in the colony have the mutation and some do not. Has the information in the colony increased? Previously you said yes.

So now I wonder if the valid information has increase? I suspect you will say no. And if so, then I have to ask exactly how you are measuring valid information.

I think it is unlikely I said yes without knowing the nature of the point mutation. If the point mutation simply changed one amino acid for another there is no increase in information - bit count remains the same. If it affected a stop or start codon or caused a frame shift then the situation would be different. In any case, the bit count determines the amount of information while the functionality, meaning of purpose determine the specification..

In what sense is the mutation beneficial if it has no function?

Your argument here seems to be dead in the water from the first sentence.


You need to decide it it was really a beneficial mutation or one with no function. Then we can discuss.

You just admitted that without a starting functionality, there can be no natural selection which makes evolution dead in the water and makes my claim valid. Natural selection must begin with an already in place living environment or else it is a no go. And that has been the death keel for evolution from the beginning. Before you have can evolution, life must already be place and before you can have natural selection you must already have functional DNA sequences. And all this with no ideal of how this functionality came into existence in the first place. Is it any wonder why you are losing more and more members to the ID side?

Sure, because evolution has co-opted TEs for other things.

Are you saying that this is God's design? What is the ID position here? Why would an intelligent designer build human DN A around infectious code? To use the computing analogy, this is like a Microsoft software engineer using a computer virus as the basis for the next version of Windows! Just repeat the code a thousand times, and then just tweak it from there.

Of course, it is God's design. TE's have function and are inscribed into RNA and I would be careful about using the term, "Why would an intelligent designer...", seeing that we know so little on the subject and researchers are stilling find function for TE's.

So are you saying creationists were NOT caught off guard? Did they expect it?

Or did they have no clue what to expect because creationism is just so far divorced from science?

ID proponents are not as easily surprised by creation as their counterparts. For example, they predicted function in so called, "junk DNA" which caught Neo-evolutionists by surprise. They also predict more functionality in TE's.

From the article:

Perhaps not surprisingly, retrotransposition events are often disruptive, frequently transformative, and in some cases, even desirable. Retrotransposons have a penchant for opportunistic integration into sites of existing DNA damage, like, for example, at double-stranded breaks. In a recent review published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, researchers describe how retrotransposons can also go a step further and actually initiate DNA damage, damage that, in fact, appears to underlie many common and uncommon neurodegenerative diseases.​

So again, I will ask you to answer the question: Why would a designer...?
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-01-retrotransposons-brain.html

Your question calls for knowledge of the operation of another mind which is not possible. But we do know that one thing is predicted and that is that TE's will prove useful and functional just as it was with "junk DNA".

But again this is your strawman calculation when everything assembles in one event.

There is no natural selection in your model. There is no stepwise process. There is no evolution in your model of evolution.

How do you consider 500 bits of information all one event. You are still under the delusion that RMNS can build life from nothing and without pre-established functionality.

 

[rossum]

the functionality, meaning of purpose

There is nothing special about functionality. A simple chemical like water functions to dissolve salt. Wind functions to blow dust around. Gravity functions to make things fall down.

I have already shown why meaning is not a scientific measure above, post #279. It is subjective, not objective.

You just admitted that without a starting functionality, there can be no natural selection which makes evolution dead in the water

That is why abiogenesis is a separate subject, with separate mechanisms. Abiogenesis gets us from zero life to a single very simple just-about-living cell. Evolution takes us from that first primitive unicellular species to the many species we see today.

Individual chemicals have functions. For abiogenesis, that functionality can be found in short RNA chains, short proteins and elsewhere. For example, see Ekland et al (1995) Structurally Complex and Highly Active RNA Ligases Derived from Random RNA Sequences. That shows that random RNA sequences, as expected during abiogenesis, can have function.

 

[The Pixie]

I think it is unlikely I said yes without knowing the nature of the point mutation. If the point mutation simply changed one amino acid for another there is no increase in information - bit count remains the same. If it affected a stop or start codon or caused a frame shift then the situation would be different. In any case, the bit count determines the amount of information while the functionality, meaning of purpose determine the specification..

Apologies, I have gone back and checked, and I was wrong - you did not say the information increased. Instead, you just ducked the question.

So here it is again. We have one population of bacteria, A, with all the same DNA. We have a second population of bacteria, B, where some cells have the same DNA as A, but some of them have different DNA, having undergone a point mutation.

Now you are clear that each individual cell has the same information as it has the same number of base pairs, but what about the total information is the population?

You just admitted that without a starting functionality, there can be no natural selection which makes evolution dead in the water and makes my claim valid. Natural selection must begin with an already in place living environment or else it is a no go.

When did I say that?

I agree that biological evolution needs a living system, but chemical evolution may pre-date it, and arguably that is just semantics. All evolution needs is replicators. If you are talking about how they arose, that is another topic. Research is underway, but studying something that happened 4 billion yeas ago is not trivial.

And that has been the death keel for evolution from the beginning. Before you have can evolution, life must already be place and before you can have natural selection you must already have functional DNA sequences. And all this with no ideal of how this functionality came into existence in the first place.

Why the death keel for evolution?

A plausible scenario is God created the first cells, and evolution did the rest. I think that unlikely, because we have no evidence for such a god, but it fits the evidence we do have.

Is it any wonder why you are losing more and more members to the ID side?

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? I see the closing of the Biologic Institute as evidence that ID is winding down.

Of course, it is God's design. TE's have function and are inscribed into RNA and I would be careful about using the term, "Why would an intelligent designer...", seeing that we know so little on the subject and researchers are stilling find function for TE's.

So all you can do is assert it is design, with no clue why that design would be what it is.

Yes, researchers are still finding function for TEs, but they are also very detrimental. Why would a designer design a system that uses a system that is inherently flawed? Is he just a very poor designer?

This is the point IDists just declares "Your question calls for knowledge of the operation of another mind which is not possible".

ID proponents are not as easily surprised by creation as their counterparts.

Of course not, because ID makes no predictions.

For example, they predicted function in so called, "junk DNA" which caught Neo-evolutionists by surprise. They also predict more functionality in TE's.

And did they predict TEs would cause diseases?

Talk me through why that would be an ID prediction. Oh, wait, ID does not make predictions, and just declares "Your question calls for knowledge of the operation of another mind which is not possible" .

Your question calls for knowledge of the operation of another mind which is not possible.

So ID is not science. It is just something we stick on a problem, and declare we cannot investigate further.

Your question calls for knowledge of the operation of another mind which is not possible.

And yet archaeology and forensic science do this routinely.

But we do know that one thing is predicted and that is that TE's will prove useful and functional just as it was with "junk DNA".

So ID predicts TSs will prove useful and that they will cause diseases?

How do you consider 500 bits of information all one event.

The calculation is for all the DNA to assemble the right sequence in one go, rather than stepwise over countless generations. In that sense, all one event.

You are still under the delusion that RMNS can build life from nothing and without pre-established functionality.

You are still claiming it is a delusion based on a calculation that ignores RM&NS.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Apologies, I have gone back and checked, and I was wrong - you did not say the information increased. Instead, you just ducked the question.

So here it is again. We have one population of bacteria, A, with all the same DNA. We have a second population of bacteria, B, where some cells have the same DNA as A, but some of them have different DNA, having undergone a point mutation.

Now you are clear that each individual cell has the same information as it has the same number of base pairs, but what about the total information is the population?

I'm not really sure. But the question is, can information increase and I would say, no. This is because you are only allowed a very limited number of mutations to any gene before it becomes non-functional regardless of beneficial, innocuous or deleterious. Functional genes are not common in gene sequence space and it doesn't take many mutations to destroy a gene.

When did I say that?

I agree that biological evolution needs a living system, but chemical evolution may pre-date it, and arguably that is just semantics. All evolution needs is replicators. If you are talking about how they arose, that is another topic. Research is underway, but studying something that happened 4 billion yeas ago is not trivial.

When you admit that you need a living system.

And you are not studying something that happened 4 billion years ago, you are merely attempting to develop a plausible theory. The current state is that there is no plausible theory of how life might have come about on the planet. And replicators does not fit the bill.

Why the death keel for evolution?

A plausible scenario is God created the first cells, and evolution did the rest. I think that unlikely, because we have no evidence for such a god, but it fits the evidence we do have.

Then why is intelligent design not allowed?

So all you can do is assert it is design, with no clue why that design would be what it is.

Only that it is prediction to have more functionality than what is expected and it is always the Neo-darwinist way to criticize what they don't understand.

Yes, researchers are still finding function for TEs, but they are also very detrimental. Why would a designer design a system that uses a system that is inherently flawed? Is he just a very poor designer?

This is the point IDists just declares "Your question calls for knowledge of the operation of another mind which is not possible".

Just because you don't know the operation of another mind does not mean that you can not know that an intelligent mind is capable of design.

Of course not, because ID makes no predictions.

Apparently, ID make better and more accurate predictions than Neo-darwinism or materialistic naturalism which makes none.

And did they predict TEs would cause diseases?

What disease? People go their entire life without disease from jumping genes and the vast majority of people life well past 70 years minus any accidental injuries. People die from smoking and alcohol more than jumping genes. I thing that it is amazing that you can have as many jumping genes as stated and still have so many healthy people. But of course your life is limited and you won't live forever.

Talk me through why that would be an ID prediction. Oh, wait, ID does not make predictions, and just declares "Your question calls for knowledge of the operation of another mind which is not possible" .

Intelligence design is a detectable quality that does not call for knowledge of the operation of another mind but rather on the capabilities of intelligence.

The calculation is for all the DNA to assemble the right sequence in one go, rather than stepwise over countless generations. In that sense, all one event.

Not all all. You can have as many steps as you need within the frame work of the universe working from the beginning of time. The 500 bits of information is just a lower bound to the amount of information that can be achieved. And just for giggles, you can start with the origin of information where all that you have to rely on is dead matter and stochastic processes.

You are still claiming it is a delusion based on a calculation that ignores RM&NS.

I can ignore RMNS because they rely on an already existing living planet.

 

[rossum]

But the question is, can information increase and I would say, no. This is because you are only allowed a very limited number of mutations to any gene before it becomes non-functional regardless of beneficial, innocuous or deleterious. Functional genes are not common in gene sequence space and it doesn't take many mutations to destroy a gene.

You are forgetting the effect of a population. Every member of a living population is descended from a parent, or parents, with functional genes, functional enough to produce viable offspring. If an important gene is made non-functional due to a mutation, then there will be no offspring, and hence no copies of that non-functional mutated gene. Less important genes may be made non-functional and persist, such as the human inability to manufacture vitamin-C.

Once you have multiple copies of a mutation in the population, then you can have multiple mutations in parallel. Doting a parallel search of sequence space is faster than doing a serial search. With a human population of 8 million, there are 8 million searches running in parallel.

As to increasing functional information, about one third of the human population have mutations that allow adults to digest milk; lactase persistence. That is an increase in functionality due to a mutation, hence an increase in functional information due to those mutations.

Intelligence design is a detectable quality

ID claims that it is detectable, but those claims have not been substantiated. Where are the double-blind research papers showing accurate detection of design in a mixture of designed and undesigned objects? I have not seen any such papers, have you?

Where is your scientific evidence that design is detectable?

 

[The Pixie]

I'm not really sure. But the question is, can information increase and I would say, no. This is because you are only allowed a very limited number of mutations to any gene before it becomes non-functional regardless of beneficial, innocuous or deleterious. Functional genes are not common in gene sequence space and it doesn't take many mutations to destroy a gene.

This seems a bit confused. We all agree most mutations will destroy a gene, but you seem to be using that to argue that therefore they all must.

When you admit that you need a living system.

Biological evolution needs a living system because otherwise it is not biology. Previously it was chemical evolution. All it needs is a replicator.

And you are not studying something that happened 4 billion years ago, you are merely attempting to develop a plausible theory. The current state is that there is no plausible theory of how life might have come about on the planet.

It is on-going research.

So one up on ID...

And replicators does not fit the bill.

Why?

Then why is intelligent design not allowed?

Because it is not science. It cannot make predictions.

Only that it is prediction to have more functionality than what is expected...

It predicts there will be more than predicted? Did you think about this?

What is the range it predicts? How was that range determined? If you cannot say, they all you have is guesswork and faith, not science.

... and it is always the Neo-darwinist way to criticize what they don't understand.

So it is incumbent on IDists to make clear what they are saying.

I look forward to you explaining to me the range of functionality that ID predicts.

Just because you don't know the operation of another mind does not mean that you can not know that an intelligent mind is capable of design.

I never said that.

Apparently, ID make better and more accurate predictions than Neo-darwinism or materialistic naturalism which makes none.

I look forward to you explaining to me the range of functionality that ID predicts.

Meanwhile, evolution predicts the nested hierarchy.

What disease? People go their entire life without disease from jumping genes and the vast majority of people life well past 70 years minus any accidental injuries. People die from smoking and alcohol more than jumping genes. I thing that it is amazing that you can have as many jumping genes as stated and still have so many healthy people. But of course your life is limited and you won't live forever.

See here for example:

Neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), including the most prevalent Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson disease, share common pathological features. Despite decades of gene-centric approaches, the molecular mechanisms underlying these diseases remain widely elusive. In recent years, transposable elements (TEs), long considered ‘junk’ DNA, have gained growing interest as pathogenic players in NDs. Age is the major risk factor for most NDs, and several repressive mechanisms of TEs, such as heterochromatinization, fail with age. Indeed, heterochromatin relaxation leading to TE derepression has been reported in various models of neurodegeneration and NDs. There is also evidence that certain pathogenic proteins involved in NDs (e.g., tau, TDP-43) may control the expression of TEs. The deleterious consequences of TE activation are not well known but they could include DNA damage and genomic instability, altered host gene expression, and/or neuroinflammation, which are common hallmarks of neurodegeneration and aging. TEs might thus represent an overlooked pathogenic culprit for both brain aging and neurodegeneration. Certain pathological effects of TEs might be prevented by inhibiting their activity, pointing to TEs as novel targets for neuroprotection.​

https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1873-3468.14205

You seem to be saying that designing human DNA with these transposons is a good design because most people will die of something else first. Have I understood that right? That would be like a silicon chip manufacture deliberately designing chips that will fail in just a few years on the basis that other components of your computer will likely fail first.

Intelligence design is a detectable quality that does not call for knowledge of the operation of another mind but rather on the capabilities of intelligence.

Everything is within the capabilities of an all-powerful God, and when you say anything else is off the table, you successfully ensure ID is not falsifiable.

Not all all. You can have as many steps as you need within the frame work of the universe working from the beginning of time. The 500 bits of information is just a lower bound to the amount of information that can be achieved. And just for giggles, you can start with the origin of information where all that you have to rely on is dead matter and stochastic processes.

Show me where the stepwise nature is modelled in your calculation.

I can ignore RMNS because they rely on an already existing living planet.

Then your calculation is not modelling evolution.

Why did you not just admit that at the start?

 

[Cisco Qid]

This seems a bit confused. We all agree most mutations will destroy a gene, but you seem to be using that to argue that therefore they all must.

A functional folding protein is achieved by a very specified arrangement of nucleotide pairs. Anything that alters that sequence of pairs is in danger of destroying the functionality of the protein even if that mutation could have proven innocuous or beneficial. This would be due to the accumulation of mutations.

Biological evolution needs a living system because otherwise it is not biology. Previously it was chemical evolution. All it needs is a replicator.

My point exactly and replicators don't work as a theory because they have not been observed. Replicating RNA have been bio-engineered in the lab with a great deal of intelligent intervention but still don't work because they are not self-sustaining. RNA will always degrade rather than become more complex. And in the real world replicating system don't get more complicated but will always recombine in the same way under the same initial conditions such as in molecules. And crystals are repeating lattice structures that don't increase in information or specification because they are the same lattice repeated over and over. All evidence in the observable world points to the concept that complex and specified information has only historically been achieved by intelligence.

It is on-going research.

So one up on ID...

ID already has a theory that explains the data which is one up on materialism.

Because it is not science. It cannot make predictions.


It predicts there will be more than predicted? Did you think about this?

What is the range it predicts? How was that range determined? If you cannot say, they all you have is guesswork and faith, not science.

There is no range on a nebulous term such as functionality. It predicts that more functionality will be found where none was expected. This was the same for "junk DNA".

See here for example:

Neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), including the most prevalent Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson disease, share common pathological features. Despite decades of gene-centric approaches, the molecular mechanisms underlying these diseases remain widely elusive. In recent years, transposable elements (TEs), long considered ‘junk’ DNA, have gained growing interest as pathogenic players in NDs. Age is the major risk factor for most NDs, and several repressive mechanisms of TEs, such as heterochromatinization, fail with age. Indeed, heterochromatin relaxation leading to TE derepression has been reported in various models of neurodegeneration and NDs. There is also evidence that certain pathogenic proteins involved in NDs (e.g., tau, TDP-43) may control the expression of TEs. The deleterious consequences of TE activation are not well known but they could include DNA damage and genomic instability, altered host gene expression, and/or neuroinflammation, which are common hallmarks of neurodegeneration and aging. TEs might thus represent an overlooked pathogenic culprit for both brain aging and neurodegeneration. Certain pathological effects of TEs might be prevented by inhibiting their activity, pointing to TEs as novel targets for neuroprotection.​

https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1873-3468.14205

You seem to be saying that designing human DNA with these transposons is a good design because most people will die of something else first. Have I understood that right? That would be like a silicon chip manufacture deliberately designing chips that will fail in just a few years on the basis that other components of your computer will likely fail first.


Everything is within the capabilities of an all-powerful God, and when you say anything else is off the table, you successfully ensure ID is not falsifiable.

When you make a statement such as, "Why would an Intelligent Designer design something that could create disease, you are essentially attempting to falsify ID and contradicting your statement that ID is not falsifiable.

Show me where the stepwise nature is modelled in your calculation.


Then your calculation is not modelling evolution.

Why did you not just admit that at the start?

I guess that you are under the impression that this calculation is attempting to model evolution which is not the case. It simply places a lower limit on the amount of information that a random process is able to achieve. The number of seconds since the big bang, times the number events that are possible in a second, times the number of atoms in the known universe.

 

[rossum]

ID already has a theory that explains the data which is one up on materialism.

In scientific terms, all ID has is a hypothesis. It does not have the supporting research needed to make their hypothesis a scientific theory.

For example, ID does not have a tested design detector. I have not seen any double blind tests of any of the ID proposals for design detectors. All you have are untested proposals for such detectors. An untested proposal is no basis for a scientific theory. Absent those tests, all ID has is a hypothesis.

It is not difficult to design a design detector, I have proposed one myself, here. The difficulty is testing it. Specifically finding something that is not designed to test that the detector is operating correctly.

I guess that you are under the impression that this calculation is attempting to model evolution which is not the case.

If the calculation is not a model of evolution, then how is it relevant to evolution?

It simply places a lower limit on the amount of information that a random process is able to achieve. The number of seconds since the big bang, times the number events that are possible in a second, times the number of atoms in the known universe.

All you are doing here is modelling a random process. Evolution is not a random process; natural selection is not random. Abiogenesis is not a random process; chemistry is not random.

You have constructed a model that is not relevant to either evolution or abiogenesis.

 

[Gus Bovona]

When you make a statement such as, "Why would an Intelligent Designer design something that could create disease, you are essentially attempting to falsify ID and contradicting your statement that ID is not falsifiable.

I thought you had a great point until I pondered this further. A claim can be unfalsifiable with regard to one aspect of it, and falsifiable with regard to another aspect of it, and that is what is going on here.

Take Sagan's dragon, the classic case of an unfalsifiable claim. If we also hypothesize that Sagan's dragon is both greater than 20 feet long and less than 20 feet long, we can falsify the claim (or that part of the claim) right there because being greater and less than 20 feet long is logically contradictory. That doesn't affect all the other unfalsifiable parts of the claim.

 

[The Pixie]

A functional folding protein is achieved by a very specified arrangement of nucleotide pairs. Anything that alters that sequence of pairs is in danger of destroying the functionality of the protein even if that mutation could have proven innocuous or beneficial. This would be due to the accumulation of mutations.

Right, "in danger of". But it is not inevitable. There is some flexibility. We know that because there are variations between amino acid sequences. They are not binary. It is not a case of either 100% functionality or none at all. There is a range of functionality possible, and a mutation could lead to an improvement. It is unlikely, but possible.

When the mutation causes the protein to fail, the organism dies, and the mutation dies with it.

When the mutation causes the protein to increase functionality, the organism thives, and the mutation spreads.

My point exactly and replicators don't work as a theory because they have not been observed.

If you mean in nature, no, because there are so many better replicators out there, i.e., living things, that compete better for resources. Plus, we live in an aggressive atmosphere with free oxygen.

Replicating RNA have been bio-engineered in the lab with a great deal of intelligent intervention but still don't work because they are not self-sustaining. RNA will always degrade rather than become more complex.

How do you know?

And in the real world replicating system don't get more complicated but will always recombine in the same way under the same initial conditions such as in molecules. And crystals are repeating lattice structures that don't increase in information or specification because they are the same lattice repeated over and over.

Agreed; crystals are quite different.

All evidence in the observable world points to the concept that complex and specified information has only historically been achieved by intelligence.

Actually we have zero evidence that life was achieved by intelligence.

ID already has a theory that explains the data which is one up on materialism.

Right "God did it".

Get back to me when you have one that is falsifiable.

There is no range on a nebulous term such as functionality. It predicts that more functionality will be found where none was expected. This was the same for "junk DNA".

More than what? You just admitted you do not know. A nebulous prediction then.

When you make a statement such as, "Why would an Intelligent Designer design something that could create disease, you are essentially attempting to falsify ID and contradicting your statement that ID is not falsifiable.

ID could be done as science. IDists could propose why God did it, and suggest a timeline. You could then use that to make predictions, and that would make it falsifiable. ID could be falsifiable.

IDists choose not to do that. ID as it is actually done is deliberately vague, deliberately nebulous to use your term.

I think that is because if the make ID falsifiable, it will very quickly get falsified.

I guess that you are under the impression that this calculation is attempting to model evolution which is not the case.

And you could not have said that weeks ago!

But what you did say was (pot #154):

​

"Is not merely probability but rather the preponderance of non functional sequences that need to be sequenced through by random mutations that make it unlikely. So you are not dealing with just probability but rather a vast array of non-functional DNA sequences that the random mutations needs to provide to natural selection in order for it to make a selection."​

So you - at least back then - were claiming it models random mutation and natural selection. Can you see why I thought you were talking about evolution?

On a positive, however, we do both agree that your calculation does not model evolution.

It simply places a lower limit on the amount of information that a random process is able to achieve.

... In a single step.

The number of seconds since the big bang, times the number events that are possible in a second, times the number of atoms in the known universe.

But as it is not modelling evolution, which posits innumerable small steps, it is not a problem.

 

[Cisco Qid]

I thought you had a great point until I pondered this further. A claim can be unfalsifiable with regard to one aspect of it, and falsifiable with regard to another aspect of it, and that is what is going on here.

Take Sagan's dragon, the classic case of an unfalsifiable claim. If we also hypothesize that Sagan's dragon is both greater than 20 feet long and less than 20 feet long, we can falsify the claim (or that part of the claim) right there because being greater and less than 20 feet long is logically contradictory. That doesn't affect all the other unfalsifiable parts of the claim.

I don't understand your example or how it applies to the subject at hand. First off, you can have more than one dragon some are greater than 20 feet long and some are less. The claim made by the Pixie kid is that the theory of an Intelligent Designer can not be falsified. But then he goes off and attempts to show that there is no intelligent designer because why would an ID design such and such. A clear attempt to show that there is no ID or rather add evidence to the case that there can be no Designer. And, as we know, the accumulation of such evidence is in fact a case for falsification of the said theory. Not long ago ( a story I have repeated many times) "junk DNA" was considered a falsification of ID. I know because I was in the middle of the conflict. The case was that stochastic random processes would leave a sea of discarded DNA remnants from a trial and error process as would be predicted by a materialistic random process. To many this was a falsification of a Designer and used as a leading argument against ID which was declared falsified because why would a Designer design junk. The Discovery Institute stuck to their guns and claimed that function would eventually be found in junk DNA. The ENCODE program provided the evidence needed by ID and currently there is no part of the genome that can be declared as junk with any degree of certainty.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I don't understand your example or how it applies to the subject at hand. First off, you can have more than one dragon some are greater than 20 feet long and some are less. The claim made by the Pixie kid is that the theory of an Intelligent Designer can not be falsified. But then he goes off and attempts to show that there is no intelligent designer because why would an ID design such and such. A clear attempt to show that there is no ID.

Sorry, I thought you might be familiar with Sagan's dragon. This link will explain it, it is the excerpt from Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World" in which he explains what it is. It should also make your other points moot.

 

[rossum]

The ENCODE program provided the evidence needed by ID

No it does not. Why is the proposed designer incapable of designing a high proportion of useless DNA? What known properties of the designer make this prediction inevitable? What prevents the designer making DNA with more than, say, 20% useless base pairs?

 

[Cisco Qid]

Sorry, I thought you might be familiar with Sagan's dragon. This link will explain it, it is the excerpt from Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World" in which he explains what it is. It should also make your other points moot.

When I click on your link it says, "file not found potential security risk".

 

[Pogo]

When I click on your link it says, "file not found potential security risk".

Here, a video

so it must be true.

BTW, I admit that is not
Sagan's garage, his was only a single car, I have seen it.

 

[Gus Bovona]

When I click on your link it says, "file not found potential security risk".

Yikes! Sorry about that. Lemme try again, try this link. Scroll down to "Overview of the analogy."

 

[Cisco Qid]

Yikes! Sorry about that. Lemme try again, try this link. Scroll down to "Overview of the analogy."

But the case for ID is that there is evidence of a Designer because we can detect the design both in informational and structural specifications. Just because you don't detect the Designer does not mean that the design did not take place. An example is a wrecked space ship on the dark side of the moon. This space ship has no traces of its makers or where it came from but only that it was once capable of flight as ascertained from its engines and navigational systems which have technology far above our own. The natural conclusion is that it is not of human origin because no such technology exists on our planet and that the space ship was designed by an intelligence which we are unable to detect and that we are not able to detect the source of that intelligence. The same argument might be made for SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) which searches for specificity in EM waves.

ID posits that there is evidence of a Designer based on the detection of a design even though the Designer is not detected. In theory it does not claim to know the identity of the Designer but that such a designer must exist. And I know most of the Richard Dawkins objections which I believe that I have answered adequately on the board.

 

[Temujin]

But the case for ID is that there is evidence of a Designer because we can detect the design both in informational and structural specifications. Just because you don't detect the Designer does not mean that the design did not take place. An example is a wrecked space ship on the dark side of the moon. This space ship has no traces of its makers or where it came from but only that it was once capable of flight as ascertained from its engines and navigational systems which have technology far above our own. The natural conclusion is that it is not of human origin because no such technology exists on our planet and that the space ship was designed by an intelligence which we are unable to detect and that we are not able to detect the source of that intelligence. The same argument might be made for SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) which searches for specificity in EM waves.

ID posits that there is evidence of a Designer based on the detection of a design even though the Designer is not detected. In theory it does not claim to know the identity of the Designer but that such a designer must exist. And I know most of the Richard Dawkins objections which I believe that I have answered adequately on the board.

The problem with your analogy is that we haven't found the equivalent of a space ship on the dark side of the moon. Nothing, absolutely nothing observable in this universe is beyond natural explanation. A closer analogy would be the recent unidentified objects shot down over US and Canadian air space. Just because they are (as yet) unidentified does not make the leap to assuming that they are of alien origin justified.

 

[The Pixie]

.... The claim made by the Pixie kid is that the theory of an Intelligent Designer can not be falsified. But then he goes off and attempts to show that there is no intelligent designer because why would an ID design such and such....

Not quite. Here is what I said:

ID could be done as science. IDists could propose why God did it, and suggest a timeline. You could then use that to make predictions, and that would make it falsifiable. ID could be falsifiable.​

​

IDists choose not to do that. ID as it is actually done is deliberately vague, deliberately nebulous to use your term.​

​

I think that is because if the make ID falsifiable, it will very quickly get falsified.​

 

[rossum]

ID as it is actually done is deliberately vague, deliberately nebulous to use your term.

I think that is because if the make ID falsifiable, it will very quickly get falsified.

I suspect also that getting specific about dates will cause a lot of problems within ID between the 6,000 year YEC people and the 5 billion year science people.

They currently seem to have both, and want to keep them all on board.