Consider This Article

[Anguspure]

Except that nobody uses vague buzz-phrases like "high levels of functional coherence" when identifying design.

Functional coherence has been defined previously and repeatedly, nothing vague about it.

 

[Anguspure]

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A "Kind" lie when speciation is the development of new species.
But a bit of truth: We have maybe millions of examples of speciation, e.g. from the fossil record, so it is not novel.

Speciation never ever created anything new. There are numerous examples of new and useful things appearing without antecedant in the fossil record. Everything from flowers to feathers to theenucleate blood cell to the pentadactyl limb all appear suddenly and without precedence of any kind.

15 June 2018 Anguspure

: A lie that Neo-Darwinism includes any design.
Neo-Darwinism is an emphasis on the Darwinian part of the modern synthesis of evolution, e.g. a "gene-centered view of evolution".

14 June 2018 Anguspure: Unthinking parroting of Darwin's finches lies from the creationist/ID Discovery Institute.

A designer may use any tool that it see's fit to further his own ends. Even human designers use natural selection to weed out unfit developments.

 

[pitabread]

Functional coherence has been defined previously and repeatedly, nothing vague about it.

It hasn't been defined in a manner allowing for methodological use of this term.
One of the problems with the definitions that I see is the use of different "levels" of hierarchy, but no specific manner in how to define those. If I gave three different people the same object, could they apply some sort of definition of "functional coherence" and come up with the same results?

You claimed "yes", but I've asked you for examples and you haven't provided any.

On top of that, the definition you have provided just seems like a re-branding of emergent properties (i.e. where the sum of parts is greater than the individual parts). So I'm not even sure why we need another term for something which already has defined terminology.

 

[Anguspure]

SETI has nothing to do with "functional coherence" or any other ID buzz-phrases.

SETI is about searching for narrow-band radio transmissions for which the only known source is artificially manufactured radio transmitters. In other words, scientists are inferring how the transmissions would be created and then attempting to detect the output of those transmitters.

Therefore SETI is recognising a functionally coherent system (artificially manufactured radio transmitters) in order to infer design.

In order to have an equivalent for detecting design in biology, you'd first need to infer how the designer created or modified biological life forms on this planet. But you don't have that, do you?

Well if I was reffering to the Bible I would say that God "said" and it became.
Whether you like that as a simple hypothesis or not, it makes a whole lot more sense and is imanently more explorable as a theory than the "it appeared by chance, inspite of the more than fantastically improbable odds, for no particular reason" of Abiogeneisis.

 

[pitabread]

Therefore SETI is recognising a functionally coherent system (artificially manufactured radio transmitters) in order to infer design.

They're inferring the source based on pre-existing knowledge of the manufacture and operation of human-built radio transmitters. They aren't assuming something they don't already have knowledge of.

That's the fundamental difference between something like SETI versus something like ID advocate claims about detecting biological design in Earth's life.

Well if I was reffering to the Bible I would say that God "said" and it became.

Which means you've immediately left the scientific arena and are advocating a religious belief.

Whether you like that as a simple hypothesis or not, it makes a whole lot more sense and is imanently more explorable as a theory than the "it appeared by chance, inspite of the more than fantastically improbable odds, for no particular reason" of Abiogeneisis.

"Goddidit" is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. Ergo, it is a non-starter as compared to any scientifically testable hypothesis (whether you like them or not).

"Goddidit" is where ID ends.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Speciation never ever created anything new.

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A "Speciation never ever created anything new" lie because speciation creates new species!

The trivial fact that we do not find an ancestral species for every observation of a new species does not mean that those observation do not exist!

This has nothing to do with:
15 June 2018 Anguspure: A "Kind" lie when speciation is the development of new species.
15 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie that Neo-Darwinism includes any design.
14 June 2018 Anguspure: Unthinking parroting of Darwin's finches lies from the creationist/ID Discovery Institute.

 

[RealityCheck01]

A designer may use any tool that it see's fit to further his own ends.

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie about intelligent design (no designer specified = no "his own ends" and no tool selection).
Intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins",[1][2] though it has been discredited as pseudoscience.[3][4][5]
...
The contemporary intelligent design movement formulates its arguments in secular terms and intentionally avoids identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit.

 

[Speedwell]

Therefore SETI is recognising a functionally coherent system (artificially manufactured radio transmitters) in order to infer design.

And the key word there is manufactured.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, nonsense because there is none.

15 June 2018 Anguspure: Nonsense question about a "metric" of abiogenesis
Mere nonsense becomes a delusion that that abiogenesis needs an undefined "metric".
15 June 2018 Anguspure: Nonsensical or deluded question about an undefined "metric" of abiogenesis.

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A delusion that "a natural law acting on it's own" cannot produce living beings.
Abiogenesis is the laws of physics and many known chemical reactions in different environments producing living cells. Experts in abiogenesis state that there are many plausible mechanisms to go from chemicals to cells.

Unsupported and ignorant fantasies do not invalidate science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Speciation.

Yes, evolution results in speciation.

Precious little beyond speciation within kind has ever been shown

What is a "kind" and what does that sentence mean?

Speciation through natural selection has been going for this length of time, obviously.

Furthermore this natural breeding program is demonstrable as a process that is happening all of the time.

It is special pleading to then claim that we should not be able to see evolution over an experimental time frame.

We do see evolution over an experimental time frame.
You even acknowledged that yourself in this very post....................................

Observed speciation = observed evolution.

50 000 generations of E-Coli show us a degree of evolution that would take +/- 2 000 000 years for anthropic kinds to achieve so one could expect something beyond molecular fiddling to be evident.

The bolded part makes no sense.
Secondly, the e-coli experiment demonstrated the evolution of novel metabolic pathways.
One of the populations evolved the ability to directly grow on citrate.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ahh yes, a version of Mount Improbable.

There's literally nothing "improbable" about 1+1+1+1+...+1+1 resulting in a large number.
It's the inevitable result of the accumulation of small steps.

Very simplistic and neglects the actual heirachy evident in biological forms.

No. It actually does the opposite: it explains the (nested) hierarchy evident in biological life.

For a start off the basic building blocks are not 1+1, are they? Rather they are a complex string of specific amino acids.

1. the origins of life are not within the scope of evolution theory
2. complex organic molecules happily form in nature all the time. even in space rocks.

So we have hundreds of numbers to choose from, only 20 of them can be considered organic (in so far as they are used for proteins), and they must all have the correct handedness when they are used.

You can wait for a big number to form in your pre-biotic soup all day long (A day being 15 billion years in this case) but the lilklihood that it will be useful for any purpose (even one little protein) is vanishingly small.
To posit enough proteins to build a self replicating living thing (let alone build it) is just blithering craziness.

The origins of life are not within the scope of evolution theory.
And your argument from ignorance / incredulity, is fallacious.

A person who has won the lottery 20 times this morning is have a bad luck day by comparison with this sort of expectation.

Ow, so you like probabilities?

Here's another one...

There are about 3000-ish known retroviruses.
In humanoids, there are about 3 billion potential insertion spots in the DNA when infected.

So the chance of 1 specific ERV to end up in a specific spot in the DNA, are about 1 in 3000* 3 billion.

For the exact same ERV to end up in the exact same spot in the DNA of 2 different organisms without them sharing ancestry (and thus inheriting that ERV from that ancestor), that becomes 1 in (3000*3 billion)²

Do you know how many ERV's are shared between humans and chimps?
If you wish to claim that this is the result of all individual insertion events, then you're not talking winning the lottery 20 times in a row. Then you're talking about winning it thousands of times in a row.

Unless humans and chimps share ancestors that had the initial infection and passed it on to off spring. In that case, the chances of us sharing those ERV's with chimps is exactly 1 in 1.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So no mechanism has been identified, and yet it is a fact that it happened in a way that satisfies materialism? Somebody has an apriori commitment to something here.

Knowing an event happened and understanding how it happened, are two different things.
Life didn't always exist. So it factually began to exist at some point.
So yes, it is a fact that life originated in some way, at least some 3.8 billion years ago.

Not a very scientific position to hold.

You don't think it's scientific to say that life factually exists? Wut?

There are numerous taxa defining traits that contradict this assertion.

Such as?
And don't forget to mention the evidence that supports your assertions. Merely asserting such traits will not do.

Design is evident and aknowledged widely

0.01% of biologists, doesn't exactly justify the term "widely".

, it is only a naturalism that demands that it is willfully ignored.

Nothing is being ignored.
Naturalism also has nothing to do with it.
It's all about the evidence. The evidence supports evolution. There is no evidence of any designers or of design with intent/purpose.

Well.....I do live in NZ so pretty familiar with the concepts....your point is?

That you might want to update your information. Quite some things have been discovered since Pasteur died some 120 years ago.

ID does not make any commitment beyond the inference to design.

lol!
cdesign proponentsists disagree.

So does the conservative christian judge of the Dover trial who, after reviewing the evidence and listening to the testimonies, ruled that ID isn't science but rather religious creationism disguised in a lab-coat.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In the absence of evidence to the contrary it remains a reasonable hypothesis. On the level of material causality (the kind that science studies), God appears to have created the universe as a self-contained system. Why could not that include abiogenesis?

Because his a priori religious beliefs doesn't allow that option.

 

[DogmaHunter]

High levels of functional coherence are best explained by the influence of a designer.

What is the unit in wich such "levels" are measured?
And what is the value that, when exceeded, concludes design?
How was this value determined?
How can we test this?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is evidence for design, and it does not require us to entertain the possibility of non-material causality.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/w...ion-scientists-reach-literally-for-the-stars/​

Ow goody.... another one who fell for the dishonest trap of the infamous edited clip that makes it sound as if Dawkins actually believes that life is designed and that aliens did it.

I guess you don't know the backstory of this gem of creationist dishonesty?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, nonsense because there is none.

There is no plausible method by which a natural law acting on it's own can ever produce anything new and useful like a living thing.

Creationists used to say that about the building blocks of life as well, like amino acids.
And then it was discovered that amino acids even happily form in space rocks, simply through chemistry.

You're making a gigantic argument from ignorance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Speciation never ever created anything new.

LOL!
The very implication of speciation is that a new species arose.

There are numerous examples of new and useful things appearing without antecedant in the fossil record.

Are you aware that fossilization is rather rare and that we are lucky to even have as many fossils as we do?

What did you expect? To find a fossil of every generation from now till the very beginning?

A designer may use any tool that it see's fit to further his own ends. Even human designers use natural selection to weed out unfit developments.

And yet, no human designed product line falls into a nested hierarchy.
While nested hierarchies are the only possible outcome of the evolution process.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well if I was reffering to the Bible I would say that God "said" and it became.
Whether you like that as a simple hypothesis or not

That's not a hypothesis.

, it makes a whole lot more sense and is imanently more explorable as a theory than the "it appeared by chance, inspite of the more than fantastically improbable odds, for no particular reason" of Abiogeneisis.

How is a religious assertion of an unsupportable, undetectable, unfalsifiable, undemonstrable, untestable,... supernatural entity doing anything at all - or even just existing - "explorable"???

 

[Astrophile]

is imanently more explorable as a theory

Is the word 'imanently' derived from the adjective 'immanent' (indwelling, inherent, permanently pervading the universe), from 'imminent' (impending, soon to happen), or from 'eminent' (exalted, distinguished, remarkable in degree)? As it stands, the word appears to have no meaning and to contribute nothing to the sentence.

 

[RealityCheck01]

There is evidence for design...-.

A couple of lying links. For a start neither link has any evidence for Intellegent Design.
First we have a 2 minute clip from the lying Expelled film: Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and science author.
That clip has a Stein question about the posibility of ID explaining some things that evolution does not explain.
Dawkins: It could come about in the following way... aliens eolved by Darwinian means .... and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet.
That is not intelligent design. It is a form of panspermia - abiogenesis by life evolving on other planets and migrating to Earth via aliens in Dawkins example.

Next we have the creationist/ID Design Institute ranting about panspermia . They lie about proponents of intelligent design talking about the paper because the paper is is about life originating and evolving elsewhere and accidently getting to Earth. No design. No intelligence.

The paper is Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic? and its conclusion of of panspermia is dubious. An evolutionary biologist with an interest in Cephalopods replied: Squids from SPAAAAAAAAACE! The auhors are panspermia fans whose enthusiasm has made them commit several mistakes. The authors think that "enzymes to modify a few of the bases in RNA before it is translated into protein" (gene editing) is unique to cephalopods when it is widespread. The paper speculates that actual ova (eggs) survived space to travel here but then cephalopods would be totally alien.

18 June 2018 Anguspure: Parrots a couple of lying ID links on panspermia being evidence of intelligent design pseudoscience.

Anguspure: you should stop digging deeper into a pit and address some of these:
25 items of ignorance, nonsense, lies about ID and evolution, and parroting of ID lies from 11 June to 15 June.