What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

[gaara4158]

Anyone worth his or her salt IS a pre-Room 101 Winston Smith, unless they're saints. And the end you have in mind for me is no different from that desired by O'brien: you want to blind me to the obvious. The only differences are that circumstances make your methodology quite a bit more limited than his was, and that you don't know you're doing it.

Not at all. You obviously believe the theory of evolution to be a conspiracy by Big Brother. I have nothing against someone who questions mainstream science, but when you reject it simply because you think it's "laughable" without saying why... well, I have to inquire further.

All right, I'll condescend, possibly for the last time: you said my belief in my existence is faith-based, obviously believing faith to be irrational.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? Now I know why you're saying these things; you misunderstood. I never said your faith-based belief in existence was irrational. I just said it was faith-based. You're wrong to say that you have absolute knowledge of the truth of your existence; faith fills the gaps of uncertainty (ie the possibilities of this being a dream within a dream, or some other strange illusion). I even admitted that I had faith filling in my uncertainties.
There is rational faith, and there is irrational faith. Faith in your father's ability to catch a football, for example, is more rational than faith in the tooth fairy. Einstein wasn't insinuating the blind acceptance of whatever is written in an old book. He was simply saying what I've been saying: that we can't be absolutely certain of anything, so faith fills in the gaps.
Yet another example of a creationist failing to recognize multiple meanings of a single word. Perhaps it's a mental deficiency?

 

[yguy]

Einstein wasn't insinuating the blind acceptance of whatever is written in an old book.

What a coincidence. Neither am I.

He was simply saying what I've been saying: that we can't be absolutely certain of anything, so faith fills in the gaps.

You clean missed the point of that quote. He was saying we do not progress from that which is known to that which is yet to be known without what he called faith.

 

[gaara4158]

What a coincidence. Neither am I.

Oh? Then what empirical evidence do you have for it? Please present it, don't simply say "well if you don't see it you'll never see it" because that's BOLLOCKS.

You clean missed the point of that quote. He was saying we do not progress from that which is known to that which is yet to be known without what he called faith.

He basically defined faith as "that which is needed to progress from the known to the unknown." I've got nothing against that. That doesn't give you an excuse to go applying that definition to every use of the word.

 

[yguy]

don't simply say "well if you don't see it you'll never see it"

I would never say that; but nevertheless, the evidence is either inside you, waiting to be discovered, or it isn't. No sense asking me for it.

 

[ragarth]

I would never say that; but nevertheless, the evidence is either inside you, waiting to be discovered, or it isn't. No sense asking me for it.

And what is this terrible secret of space that lies only in the heart of man? Is it an organ undiscovered by science? Or perhaps you have proof of the immortal soul? How do you ever expect to convince anyone if you choose to play parlor tricks with your 'truth'?

 

[gaara4158]

I would never say that; but nevertheless, the evidence is either inside you, waiting to be discovered, or it isn't. No sense asking me for it.

...what???
You ignore my points, laugh at my other points, and accuse me of both internal and external dishonesty or deceit. You claim there are reasons to reject science and embrace creationism, but you consistently fail to present them, instead preferring to use cheap equivocations to attack my philosophy.
This is madness.

FAIL.

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by yguy

I would never say that; but nevertheless, the evidence is either inside you, waiting to be discovered, or it isn't. No sense asking me for it.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



This evidently is the key to falsifying evolution.

​

 

[yguy]

The key point is: Logical possibility refers to the set of all possible logically consistent worlds, not just the one you're actually in.

That's not the definition I was given. See post #175

But "I know there is a tree" is not a tautology.

Depends on your definition. I've seen it defined as a statement which is necessarily true. If the claim is, "It's noon on 1/29/09 and there is a tree outside my window", that will always be true even though time necessitates a change in tense.

If you paid any attention, it was whether the same kind of genetic differences underlie differences of colouration between and within species. If it's the same, that's a clue that nothing fundamentally different is going on with macroevolution.

It can be plausibly interpreted that way, but there is no way to test the interpretation.

Really, I don't understand this obsession with witnesses. Do you believe in paternity tests?

That methodology is testable, most obviously against the testimony of such witnesses as the parents. Same for fixing the time of death in autopsies.

I do, thanks.

Then you understand that it was the extrapolations I called absurd and not the evidence, right?

Now that we've clarified our concepts, can you please address the evidence used to infer common descent that is not just extrapolating microevolution?

First I need some reason to think the inference is testable - i.e., that there is some way of determining that the various genetic correlations could not possibly result from anything but common descent.

 

[shernren]

I would never say that; but nevertheless, the evidence is either inside you, waiting to be discovered, or it isn't. No sense asking me for it.

Yes, yes, people, the evidence of truth lies deep within your souls.

You know you are a thetan.

 

[Baggins]

If you by that you mean trying to prove it, I agree. However, it's clear from his own words that the idea undergirded his approach to every scientific inquiry.

That's just rubbish; Einstein was a scientist and ID isn't science, even its supporters like Behe recognise that admitting that it is as scientific as astrology.

ID is unfalsifiable I think Einstein would have recognised a crock when he saw it, he wasn't a religious man, beyond recognising his beliefs chimed with Spinoza's and he was an intelligent man what possible reason would he have had for accepting ID which is at base an appeal to stop investigation and accept the supernatural?

 

[MoonLancer]

Yes, yes, people, the evidence of truth lies deep within your souls.

You know you are a thetan.

HIS THETA LEVELS ARE OVER 9000!!!!

 

[Naraoia]

That's not the definition I was given. See post #175

Yes it is. Read for understanding, for heaven's sake.

(The definition is not even in that post. It's in a link you quoted in that post.)

The definition gives you a very helpful example. "The sky is green" is logically possible. How can that be l.p. and "there is no tree" not?

Depends on your definition. I've seen it defined as a statement which is necessarily true. If the claim is, "It's noon on 1/29/09 and there is a tree outside my window", that will always be true even though time necessitates a change in tense.

(1) If time necessitates a change in tense then the original statement is NOT always true. Changing the tense makes it a different statement. In any case, even if you phrased it in a way that time doesn't change its truth (I think "there is a tree outside my window at [point in time]" would work, for example)...

(2) ...that statement is still only true in some possible worlds. There can be worlds in which there is no tree outside your window at that point in time.

It can be plausibly interpreted that way, but there is no way to test the interpretation.

I think I didn't explain the situation quite correctly. The broader claim being tested (= attempted to falsify) is that macroevolution can be extrapolated from microevolution. Now, you can't test such a broad claim with a single experiment, so only one very specific part of it is actually tested: that the underlying genetic changes are the same in the specific case of, what was it?, plumage colour in swans.

The null hypothesis is, as usual in science, a hypothesis of "no effect" or "no difference":

H[sub]0[/sub]: the same kind of genetic change underlies within- and between-species colour variation in swans.

The alternative hypothesis is, then:

H[sub]1[/sub]: within- and between-species colour variation in swans is caused by different kinds of genetic changes.

Investigation of the genetic basis of colour gives fairly straightforward support to either H[sub]0[/sub] or H[sub]1[/sub]. It doesn't, strictly speaking, confirm the grand hypothesis (that you can extrapolate), but it does tell you that in this particular case, the two processes are not qualitatively different.

The more such particular cases fail to reject H[sub]0[/sub], the more confidence you have that the extrapolation can be generalised.

Hypothesis testing and inductive reasoning, that's what science is all about. Never 100% certain, for sure, but often very confident.

That methodology is testable, most obviously against the testimony of such witnesses as the parents.

Because witnesses are so reliable?

Do you know how easy it is to plant false memories in someone's head? (People do it to themselves, IIRC) To forget or distort memories, especially if they are emotionally loaded? To have an agenda? To simply not know who the most likely father was? Witnesses are to be taken with a pinch of salt, even if they are perfectly sane, unbiased adults.

I think you have a general problem with abstract reasoning, what with the inability to understand logical possibility and the obsession with witnesses

Then you understand that it was the extrapolations I called absurd and not the evidence, right?

It seemed to me that you think the extrapolation is the whole basis of common descent. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

First I need some reason to think the inference is testable - i.e., that there is some way of determining that the various genetic correlations could not possibly result from anything but common descent.

Being testable does not mean that. Being testable is essentially the same as being falsifiable. It means the logical possibility of being proven false, not that of being proven right.

"Right" is what remains after you've excluded everything else you could think of.

The case for common descent is so strong because it comes from so many independent lines of evidence, all of which could have proven it wrong, and none of which have (that I know of).

 

[Athrond]

You realize that your question is vacuous, right?What are you talking about?It's pretty clear Einstein wouldn't have disagreed substantially; but I guess there's no sense he could hang with you guys intellectually, huh?

Not any more vacuous than your "argument" - that's the point.

What does einstein have to do with anything?

 

[yguy]

Yes it is.

No, it isnt'.

Read for understanding, for heaven's sake.

(The definition is not even in that post. It's in a link you quoted in that post.)

It most certainly is. Try to pay attention. Here it is again:

A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction.​

Read the rest of that post and you can see why your position is nonsensical, if you're of a mind to.

The definition gives you a very helpful example. "The sky is green" is logically possible. How can that be l.p. and "there is no tree" not?

For one thing, the observer could be looking at the sky from another planet, where as the tree is on Earth by implication.

(1) If time necessitates a change in tense then the original statement is NOT always true. Changing the tense makes it a different statement.

False. The ontological value of the statement is the same regardless of the observer's temporal POV.

possible worlds.

This idea is not a necessary inference from the definition. The clarification following it says as follows:

This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true.​

Note that it refers to objective reality, not anyone's imaginings. We have no way of knowing whether it's physically possible for our sky to be green, so we cannot call it a logical possibility.

Because witnesses are so reliable?

No, because under competent questioning the truth can be extracted in most cases, because it's there to be extracted.

Do you know how easy it is to plant false memories in someone's head? (People do it to themselves, IIRC) To forget or distort memories, especially if they are emotionally loaded? To have an agenda? To simply not know who the most likely father was?

Yes. What's your point? That 90% of witnesses in such cases can't yield reliable information under competent examination?

I think you have a general problem with abstract reasoning,

Believe me, I know the feeling.

"Right" is what remains after you've excluded everything else you could think of.

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. Who'd have thought lack of imagination could be an asset in a scientist?

 

[Naraoia]

No, it isnt'.It most certainly is. Try to pay attention. Here it is again:

A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction.​

Read the rest of that post and you can see why your position is nonsensical, if you're of a mind to.

A logical contradiction is not a contradiction with the actual world.

For one thing, the observer could be looking at the sky from another planet, where as the tree is on Earth by implication.

Now you are twisting the example to mean what you want it to mean. It didn't say that the sky could be green if it's another planet, and I think if it was only logically possible on that condition, there would have been some mention of that.

False. The ontological value of the statement is the same regardless of the observer's temporal POV.

I'm sorry, what is an ontological value? It doesn't exist on Wikipedia, and the Google hits seem to use it in a sense that doesn't make sense in this context.

This idea is not a necessary inference from the definition. The clarification following it says as follows:

This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true.​

Note that it refers to objective reality, not anyone's imaginings.

Are you essentially saying that there are many ways for this one objective reality to be at any one moment? I have no idea how logical possibility could only refer to objective reality and not be the same thing as truth.

Indeed, this is the whole green sky example:

But this "way for the world to be" need not be the way the world actually is; it need only be logically coherent. So, for example, the false proposition the sky is green is also logically possible, so long as we are able (as we indeed seem to be) to conceive of some logically coherent world in which the sky is green.

This (1) quite clearly refers to this particular sky of ours - otherwise "the sky is green" would not simply be a false proposition; (2) quite clearly refers to all conceivable worlds, not just this one reality. (note my bolding)

We have no way of knowing whether it's physically possible for our sky to be green, so we cannot call it a logical possibility.

You are grasping at straws. If you don't like the sky example, substitute "earth has no moon". Same kind of false statement, but definitely physically possible.

No, because under competent questioning the truth can be extracted in most cases, because it's there to be extracted.

I have my doubts, but I haven't read a lot on this (and no primary literature). If you give me good scientific literature to support that, I'll concede the point.

Yes. What's your point? That 90% of witnesses in such cases can't yield reliable information under competent examination?

My point is that witnesses are unreliable, and placing more confidence in them than in mind- and emotionless physical evidence is not wise.

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. Who'd have thought lack of imagination could be an asset in a scientist?

You know I didn't mean that. Lack of imagination is bad, because you'll waste your time coming to conclusions that wouldn't stand if you looked just a bit more carefully. If you do a poorly controlled study, someone else is bound to find other possible explanations (which is good).

By the way, either I missed something you wrote, or you weren't clear enough. What exactly do you think about the evidence for common descent?

You think it's unreasonable to extrapolate from the evolutionary processes we can observe directly. (That was clear enough, even if I only agree with qualifications). However, WRT the other lines of evidence, I can't recall if your only problem is the lack of witnesses, you also have other objections or you have no problem with it. Which one is it, again?

 

[MoonLancer]

well speciation has been observed in fruit flys. So macro evolution has been observed.

yguy, it must suck to be wrong AND to have a ridged theology that must be right. talk about being torn asunder.

 

[yguy]

A logical contradiction is not a contradiction with the actual world.

It is if the statement is about the actual world.

I'm sorry, what is an ontological value? It doesn't exist on Wikipedia, and the Google hits seem to use it in a sense that doesn't make sense in this context.

"Objective" substitutes well enough.

Are you essentially saying that there are many ways for this one objective reality to be at any one moment? I have no idea how logical possibility could only refer to objective reality and not be the same thing as truth.

Neither do I have any idea how you could have gotten that out of what I said, so we're even.

Indeed, this is the whole green sky example:

I don't care about the examples. I'm going by the definition, not what some bozo on wikipedia says the definition implies.

You are grasping at straws. If you don't like the sky example, substitute "earth has no moon". Same kind of false statement, but definitely physically possible.

Not if I happen to be looking at what I know is the moon, it isn't.

I have my doubts, but I haven't read a lot on this (and no primary literature). If you give me good scientific literature to support that, I'll concede the point.

For crying out loud, don't you have any common sense? Do you think paternity testing methodology was assumed to be valid the moment it left the lab?

And anyway, how would the majority of us have any confidence in it save for the witness of those who actually do the testing?

My point is that witnesses are unreliable, and placing more confidence in them than in mind- and emotionless physical evidence is not wise.

Then perhaps you shouldn't place so much confidence in those who interpret data and bear witness to their findings.

You know I didn't mean that. Lack of imagination is bad, because you'll waste your time coming to conclusions that wouldn't stand if you looked just a bit more carefully. If you do a poorly controlled study, someone else is bound to find other possible explanations (which is good).

What's really amazing is that you think this elaboration makes the original gaffe seem less ridiculous. Do you really not see the implicit subjectivism here?

By the way, either I missed something you wrote, or you weren't clear enough. What exactly do you think about the evidence for common descent?

I don't know much about it, and I'm not going into it just now.

 

[gaara4158]

Then perhaps you shouldn't place so much confidence in those who interpret data and bear witness to their findings.

This is incredible. Yet again you're taking one definition of a word and applying it universally to every use of the word. If you don't know you're doing this, then you're pathetic.
Witnesses aren't reliable, this is true. This pertains to people who witness a crime being unable to recognize the culprit in a lineup.
When scientists "bear witness" to their findings, it's not simply a matter of recalling a face they saw for 5 seconds. It's the result of serious research and rigorous studies. The two aren't comparable, let alone the same thing.

Fail.

 

[Naraoia]

It is if the statement is about the actual world.

Logical contradictions arise between two statements (or, in logical technobabble, propositions). The world is not a statement. Something that contradicts (different meaning!) the real world is simply a false statement.

"Objective" substitutes well enough.

So you mean truth value?

BTW, I still don't think "it's Christmas" remains true if I say it in May.

Neither do I have any idea how you could have gotten that out of what I said, so we're even.

Then maybe you could clarify.

I don't care about the examples. I'm going by the definition, not what some bozo on wikipedia says the definition implies.

One, the definition we are discussing is from wikipedia. Two, the examples are meant to clarify that very definition, and I don't see how they mean anything different from what's implied in the definition.

Not if I happen to be looking at what I know is the moon, it isn't.

So you do equate "true" with "logically possible".

For crying out loud, don't you have any common sense? Do you think paternity testing methodology was assumed to be valid the moment it left the lab?

I don't know how exactly these methods were approved first. But. For two of them I know of, you don't need witnesses to verify anything.

(1) Blood groups: the genetics of the ABO blood group system is simple and well known. You quite simply can't have, say, O kids if you are AB.

(2) DNA fingerprinting: this technique is applicable to anything with DNA, not just humans. So it can be easily tested in organisms you breed under careful control and know with the highest possible certainty who the parents are.

And anyway, how would the majority of us have any confidence in it save for the witness of those who actually do the testing?

Except tests can normally be repeated. Conception of a particular child rarely can

Then perhaps you shouldn't place so much confidence in those who interpret data and bear witness to their findings.

Taking a photograph of an embryo or saving the numbers that pop up on a computer screen and then reporting these are a slightly different kind of witness than trying to recount events that happened a while ago without any immediate data collection, don't you think?

What's really amazing is that you think this elaboration makes the original gaffe seem less ridiculous.

What's even more amazing is that you can keep sneering at me like that after misrepresenting my point and being corrected on it.

Do you really not see the implicit subjectivism here?

No observation/interpretation that humans make can be entirely objective (and I don't think I've ever said it can). However, something that many humans do with active efforts to reduce the subjectivity comes closer than other kinds of observations.

I don't have to place faith in anyone's interpretations anyway, as scientific papers tend to come with nice detailed "materials and methods" and "results" sections before the "discussion" of said results. It's possible to make up your own mind about the data.

I don't know much about it, and I'm not going into it just now.

Fair enough.

 

[yguy]

Logical contradictions arise between two statements (or, in logical technobabble, propositions). The world is not a statement. Something that contradicts (different meaning!) the real world is simply a false statement.

And...?

So you mean truth value?

Yes.

BTW, I still don't think "it's Christmas" remains true if I say it in May.

No, but the truth of it having been Christmas during Christmas is. Obviously your problem is that you think the truth changes because of where you are, spatially or temporally. It doesn't.

Then maybe you could clarify.

I have no idea how to make it any plainer.

One, the definition we are discussing is from wikipedia. Two, the examples are meant to clarify that very definition, and I don't see how they mean anything different from what's implied in the definition.

All I know is, nothing you've posted is consistent with that definition.

So you do equate "true" with "logically possible".

No, I equate "logically possible" with the previously stated definition.

I don't know how exactly these methods were approved first. But. For two of them I know of, you don't need witnesses to verify anything.

(1) Blood groups: the genetics of the ABO blood group system is simple and well known. You quite simply can't have, say, O kids if you are AB.

(2) DNA fingerprinting: this technique is applicable to anything with DNA, not just humans. So it can be easily tested in organisms you breed under careful control and know with the highest possible certainty who the parents are.

If you think lab technicians aren't witnesses, you need to think again.

Except tests can normally be repeated.

And how do we know that they HAVE been repeated without witnesses?

Taking a photograph of an embryo or saving the numbers that pop up on a computer screen and then reporting these are a slightly different kind of witness than trying to recount events that happened a while ago without any immediate data collection, don't you think?

In this context, no. Why should I?

What's even more amazing is that you can keep sneering at me like that after misrepresenting my point and being corrected on it.

I haven't done that, just exposed its hidden premise.

No observation/interpretation that humans make can be entirely objective (and I don't think I've ever said it can).

You plainly implied it here:

"Right" is what remains after you've excluded everything else you could think of.​

However, something that many humans do with active efforts to reduce the subjectivity comes closer than other kinds of observations.

You can no more get "close to" objectivity than an an electron can be halfway between two discrete energy levels in QM. In strictly probabilistic terms you can increase your chances of getting it right from ten out of trillions to eleven out of trillions.

I don't have to place faith in anyone's interpretations anyway, as scientific papers tend to come with nice detailed "materials and methods" and "results" sections before the "discussion" of said results. It's possible to make up your own mind about the data.

And you've read every paper that has bearing on evolution and made up your own mind?