Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Exactly. So because we have intelligent life in our universe the conditions must be conducive for intelligent life. So at least in our universe and if there was only our universe we have specific physical parameters for producing intelligent life.Then there wouldn't be any life, duh! And nobody sitting around wondering why there wasn't any.
For me mindfulness of strokes would be like seeing brush strokes that have created a landscape compared to no mindfulness such as a tin of paint that spilled onto a canvas.Yes, characteristics like tool marks, drilled holes which supported scaffolding, things like that. Evidence of intentional design never resides in the object itself, only evidence of intentional manufacture from which intention can be inferred. "Mindfulness of the strokes" is just woo.
Those are all interesting papers, but none of them appear at first glance to support ID. Can you discuss them, or did you just link them off some ID website?Here are some examples
Measuring meaningful information in images: algorithmic specified complexity
We have estimated the probability of various images by using the number of bits required for the PNG encoding. This allows us to approximate the algorithmic specified complexity (ASC) of the various images. We have shown hundreds of thousands of bits of ASC in various circumstances. Given the bound established on producing high levels of ASC, we conclude that the images containing meaningful information are not simply noise. Additionally, the simplicity of an image such as the solid square also does not exhibit ASC. Thus, we have demonstrated the theoretical applicability of ASC to the problem of distinguishing information from noise and have outlined a methodology where sizes of compressed files can be used to estimate the meaningful information content of images.
https://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/iet-cvi.2014.0141
Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity
Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of function.
Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families. Considerations were made in determining how the measure can be used to correlate functionality when relating to the whole molecule and sub-molecule. In the experiment, we show that when the proposed measure is applied to the aligned protein sequences of ubiquitin, 6 of the 7 highest value sites correlate with the binding domain.
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
And do your realize what that means? Your legs are fine-tuned to be exactly the right length. If they were any longer you would have to walk around with your knees bent, and if they were any shorter your feet wouldn't touch the ground.Exactly. So because we have intelligent life in our universe the conditions must be conducive for intelligent life. So at least in our universe and if there was only our universe we have specific physical parameters for producing intelligent life.
I never said evolution is rand. I said blind natural selection acting on random mutations. Is has no purpose or direction. What can be regarded as beneficial for one generation for reproduction can become something that wipes out creatures in the next. Evolution has no way of knowing that and seeing ahead of time. So it can continue to produce creatures that end up sick and dying out as much as those who go on to reproduce. I also introduces deadly mutations into a finely tuned and already working genetic network that needed to maintain its current status. Despite selection being said to weed these out the damage can already be done and not all gets weeded out. So in that sense it is random because there is no direction for ensuring fitness.You know, considering how many times you've been told that evolution is not random, I just have to assume that you are deliberately ignoring it so you can hold onto your strawman argument.
And if that's the case, why should anyone bother discussing it with you?
I thought we'd been over this already. You can't falsify purpose by examining the process itself.I never said evolution is rand. I said blind natural selection acting on random mutations. Is has no purpose...
It has the direction of increasing adaptedness....or direction.
If creatures with a certain trait fail to reproduce, then that trait will be rapidly extinguished.What can be regarded as beneficial for one generation for reproduction can become something that wipes out creatures in the next. Evolution has no way of knowing that and seeing ahead of time. So it can continue to produce creatures that end up sick and dying out as much as those who go on to reproduce.
And that is just word salad.I also introduces deadly mutations into a finely tuned and already working genetic network that needed to maintain its current status. Despite selection being said to weed these out the damage can already be done and not all gets weeded out. So in that sense it is random because there is no direction for ensuring fitness.
No these are papers I have come across in my studies from mainstream journals. There are journals full of these types of papers. This is a growing area of study. The first paper is about measuring the algorithmic specified complexity in images. This is done by determine if an image contains randomness or patterns and meaning. Portable network graphic file format’s compression is used as I guess this is easier format to measure images for meaningful content. I guess images are a good way to measure complexity as you can use many different formats and subjects to compare. I am not a specialist in Systems science but have a basic understanding. But I like this paper as it is a bit easier for me to get my head around in understanding how to measure specified complexity as opposed to bioinformatics.Those are all interesting papers, but none of them appear at first glance to support ID. Can you discuss them, or did you just link them off some ID website?
why would you have to walk around with your knees bent if legs were any longer.And do your realize what that means? Your legs are fine-tuned to be exactly the right length. If they were any longer you would have to walk around with your knees bent, and if they were any shorter your feet wouldn't touch the ground.
Then why do supporters of evolution say that evolution is a blind and purposeless process.I thought we'd been over this already. You can't falsify purpose by examining the process itself.
Adaptive evolution has been questioned as being the reason creatures change. Other processes such as developmental bias, plasticity and niche construction are responsible for giving direction to evolution because they can dictate what selection can and cannot do. Also adaptive evolution is said to be insufficient for producing the network structures that produce complex organisms. So I am not sure adaptive evolution has as much influence as people think.It has the direction of increasing adaptedness.
Because the process itself is, but that does not falsify purpose. The notion that a contingent process like evolution defeats or impairs divine providence is theologically insupportable.Then why do supporters of evolution say that evolution is a blind and purposeless process.
No, they do not dictate selection. Natural selection selects what works. The processes hypothesized by EES influence variation.Adaptive evolution has been questioned as being the reason creatures change. Other processes such as developmental bias, plasticity and niche construction are responsible for giving direction to evolution because they can dictate what selection can and cannot do.
What you think other people think about it seems not very accurately informed and in any case has no bearing on the discussion.Also adaptive evolution is said to be insufficient for producing the network structures that produce complex organisms. So I am not sure adaptive evolution has as much influence as people think.
10^30 is still a huge number and if a tipical new system will need so much mutations i dont think that it can happen even in billions of years.
the difference is in the size of the population. bacteria can reach about 10^30 mutations per day. when for say a reptile it may take about the whole age of the earth.
They are increasingly few as time goes on. Most theists have come to recognize ID as a failure.I don't want to be the only one for the proposal, where is everyone else on my side. Help.
So what about the machinery I posted that builds proteins. Proteins are the building blocks for living things. These can be the mechanisms that an intelligent agent uses for design.
It support comes from the fact that the level of specified and functional complexity can only be provided by an intelligent agent.
Just like we know that the level of info and complexity in a computer program or machine comes from an intelligent agent (humans). The same with a protein that builds organs and bodies.
It is more about a humans intuition rather than going into any depth of inquiry. As humans we know design when we see it. If we find a carving on a beach we know it is designed as opposed to something the result of chance.
Having knowledge and showing how evolution can account for that level of design is another thing. That's when we can begin to see that evolution cannot account for what we see and that there may be other ways to account for how life came about.
If we find a carving on a beach we know it is designed as opposed to something the result of chance.
I don't want to be the only one for the proposal, where is everyone else on my side. Help.
Two of those articles don't actually measure anything, one of them claims to measure functional complexity. Where is any measure of specified complexity? And then where is any link to ID?Here are some examples
Measuring meaningful information in images: algorithmic specified complexity
We have estimated the probability of various images by using the number of bits required for the PNG encoding. This allows us to approximate the algorithmic specified complexity (ASC) of the various images. We have shown hundreds of thousands of bits of ASC in various circumstances. Given the bound established on producing high levels of ASC, we conclude that the images containing meaningful information are not simply noise. Additionally, the simplicity of an image such as the solid square also does not exhibit ASC. Thus, we have demonstrated the theoretical applicability of ASC to the problem of distinguishing information from noise and have outlined a methodology where sizes of compressed files can be used to estimate the meaningful information content of images.
https://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/iet-cvi.2014.0141
Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity
Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of function.
Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families. Considerations were made in determining how the measure can be used to correlate functionality when relating to the whole molecule and sub-molecule. In the experiment, we show that when the proposed measure is applied to the aligned protein sequences of ubiquitin, 6 of the 7 highest value sites correlate with the binding domain.
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
Or it could be the other way around where a carving has certain characteristics that are not present in something caused by erosion. Those characteristics are what determine design. The certain angles and lines, the mindfulness of the strokes.
So if you wanted to verify something like God how would you do that considering that you can never see God directly as He is in some other dimension. It is a bit like the multiverse and I agree that neither can be verified directly. But just like some scientists want to verify some ideas that stem from quantum physics use indirect support I think this should be also applied to God with ID.
That's why we don't try to explain or verify who the designer is as it can go on and on and is futile. It is not relevant to verifying ID as ID can be verified through its level of specified and functional complexity. There are criteria for it to measure things and to determine if it meets that criteria.
As opposed to something that is caused by blind chance.
But if it states that it uses the scientific method how can it then include the super-naturalism of creationism. Its like saying that evolution includes a supernatural component that causes life to evolve. You cannot just claim that the founders of ID who claim that ID does not include the supernatural and then say it does without showing how it does. As I posted earlier ID has predictions and tests observations in life to see if they meet specified and functional complexity which has the level of info that intelligence has rather than being the result if blind chance processes.
Intelligent design theory detects design through only the scientific method. Intelligent design theory tells us (i.e. "knows") that life was designed by using the scientific method and uses no reliance upon faith or divine revelation.
FAQ: Is ID just a religious or theological concept?
not really. How is that.
But the other other universes in a multiverse only come into play to counter the fine tuned argument because we have accepted that our universe is fine tuned.
The original puddle analogy that you are using is only about our world and universe and is only looking at cause and effect in our universe. You are changing the puddle example by introducing other puddles in other universe. I accept that you can change the analogy to include a puddle multiverse but that is different to the thinking is with the puddle original puddle example. That is why it can be shot down because it cannot appeal to other puddles in other dimensions.
Such as. Lines of evidence about ideas/hypothesis are one thing but direct verifying evidence that disproves God is another. Just like a multiverse that occupies other dimensions God occupies another dimension so we can never occupy that space to directly know that either are verified.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?