Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Guy Threepwood]

So the spiral layout was the only construction technique you noticed?

of course not, I just mentioned that key one to illustrate point. You don't need to know how to build something to tell that it is artificial

How much does a 10yr old know about building a car?
how much trouble do they have determining that they are man made?

not really controversial stuff here!

 

[Speedwell]

Of course, some features are just more obvious than others- I climbed the dome on the Vatican when it was still possible to do so- considering the difficulties people get into on far smaller projects with CAD, cell phones, and a world of knowledge at their fingertips, it is pretty mind boggling, call me easily impressed!

I built an igloo (dome) with my nephews a few years ago, - just on the spur of the moment, for fun, we did not 'research' igloo building! And so we got to the point where starting a new row of blocks was very hard- they would just fall in. The key technique we missed, was using a smooth spiral from the foundation up, so that you never have to start a new row.- different material and different technique

Point being: not knowing construction technique, does not mean we could not recognize an igloo or cathedral dome, that it was a human construct- so construction technique is clearly not the ultimate 'fingerprint' of design- but the design itself

If I go out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have designed a hammer. If you come along after I leave, how would you tell which rock I had used? Even if I intentionally shaped it for the purpose by banging it into another rock you might have trouble--as any paleontologist looking for stone tools could tell you. Where is the design?

 

[Speedwell]

of course not, I just mentioned that key one to illustrate point. You don't need to know how to build something to tell that it is artificial.

Yes, and it is the evidence of artifice which allows us to conclude design. Design itself is not directly detectable.

 

[pitabread]

People still debate how the pyramids, Stonehenge, were created- I do a lot of work in architecture and love visiting Gothic cathedrals, it amazes me how some of these structures could be built with the technology they had..

Does this cause any confusion whatsoever, over the necessity of creative intelligence being involved?

In the context of structures from ancient civilizations, design is inferred based on relative comparison of natural forming objects with specific human construction. In the case of something like ancient Egypt, we have ample evidence of human civilization and construction techniques. Even if the specific techniques are not known for a particular structure, we have enough evidence to infer such.

IF a UFO as in 'independence day' hovered over NY city, then zipped away again receeding at the speed of light- would we be forced to conclude 'natural phenomena' until we figured out their warp drive?

This is a silly example, since any and all envisioning of alien spacecraft is entirely based on human imagination. IOW, we're inventing what we think those things look like.

The truth is, we have no idea what a real alien spacecraft would really look like. And for things like SETI where we are trying to detect alien signals, we infer such based on our own technology.

There are many objects that have puzzled archeologists over the years re. their construction, but the construction technique is not the fingerprint of design- the information represented by the design is.
The 'process' for the design is 'creativity'

There is no measurement of information in inferring design in these instances. And "creativity" is not a process.

The typical methods for inferring design is looking for signs of deliberate manufacture (relative to naturally forces). And that itself relies on foreknowledge of what that manufacture could look like and basic pattern recognition.

Nobody is looking at a pyramid and thinking, "hmm, I wonder what the information content of that structure is".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If I go out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have designed a hammer. If you come along after I leave, how would you tell which rock I had used? Even if I intentionally shaped it for the purpose by banging it into another rock you might have trouble--as any paleontologist looking for stone tools could tell you. Where is the design?

I agree, the quality and quantity of design information is important.

And so the more information you impart on the rock, the more easily I would be able to detect your intelligent design.

If you made no alterations yet, just put the rock on a stump and said 'that will be my hammer'
- then no, the form of the rock is no more 'intelligently designed' than it was before you picked it up is it?

But if you then left and never used it, the location of the rock now does confer some information- that someone quite likely put it there, for some purpose..

That's akin to your 'unnatural wavelength' analogy for SETI, that choice of wavelength location is information in itself- however it was achieved - even if not definitive in itself.

If you wrote your initials on it to recognize it again, that would impart enough to be fairly definitive- it doesn't take much.. because such specifying information so rarely appears by chance. hence 'WOW' in the margin for such a small anomaly

 

[pitabread]

And so the more information you impart on the rock, the more easily I would be able to detect your intelligent design.

What information would that be?

(I feel you're heavily equivocating with the term "information" here.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In the context of structures from ancient civilizations, design is inferred based on relative comparison of natural forming objects with specific human construction. In the case of something like ancient Egypt, we have ample evidence of human civilization and construction techniques. Even if the specific techniques are not known for a particular structure, we have enough evidence to infer such.

and even before we did, as a complete mystery- people still recognized they were built- even if 'by aliens' as some might claim because although they are extremely simple, the design represents information which specifies something beyond a heap of sandstone- or anything nature might create in this context
to be precise, it specifies 'this is a pyramid'

This is a silly example, since any and all envisioning of alien spacecraft is entirely based on human imagination. IOW, we're inventing what we think those things look like.

The truth is, we have no idea what a real alien spacecraft would really look like. And for things like SETI where we are trying to detect alien signals, we infer such based on our own technology.

"we infer such based on our own technology." well yes, as we might 'infer' intelligence for hierarchical digital information systems we see in biology! but I'm saying that similarity is not good enough for my argument- that it is far too easy to see faces in clouds.. That we can refine the evidence to something far more definitive and objective than mere familiarity. Where the key fingerprint is information itself- no matter how exotic, mysterious familiar or unfamiliar, the medium, source, construction technique -- all these may or may not seem to 'infer' artificial or natural mechanisms from our common experience. But we can put this subjectivity aside and look at the pure mathematical value of the information, the signal to noise ratio, what is more objective than math itself?

The typical methods for inferring design is looking for signs of deliberate manufacture (relative to naturally forces). And that itself relies on foreknowledge of what that manufacture could look like and basic pattern recognition.

Nobody is looking at a pyramid and thinking, "hmm, I wonder what the information content of that structure is".

I agree entirely, we don't consciously evaluate the information quality and quantities in Mount Rushmore v the Old Man of Hoy before concluding that one is artificial and the other is natural

we intuitively know this from familiarity of precedent in such obvious cases.

But what if the context is unprecedented? the only instance of a particular phenomena we have ever encountered? like life, the universe and everything as Adams would put it?

We need an objective measure that utterly discounts what merely seems familiar or 'looks' natural or artificial to us- how else to approach this?

 

[Ophiolite]

But if you then left and never used it, the location of the rock now does confer some information- that someone quite likely put it there, for some purpose..

Here are some more likely explanations:

• It fell from an adjacent rock face
• It was carried there by flood waters
• It was carried there by an intermittent stream
• It was left in place after surrounding rock was eroded away
• It was kicked there by a burrowing animal
• It is a meteorite

It is interesting that your conclusion on seeing the rock is "that someone quite likely put it there, for some purpose" when there are so many more natural explanations. I admit it is consistent: you look at biology and palaeontology and genetics and you conclude it isn't natural, its design.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What information would that be?

(I feel you're heavily equivocating with the term "information" here.)

again information which specifies something beyond being 'just a rock'

if he carved a hole in it, inserted a stick and wrote 'this hammer belongs to Speedwell' on the side.
Clearly there is enough specificity in this to determine intelligent agency,

Again of course it may be more ambiguous - inconclusive- a couple of chips that makes a kinda convenient hand hold- and we can't say- but the relevant evidence can still be boiled down to information of some kind, rather than mere familiarity- which is more subjective

 

[pitabread]

again information which specifies something beyond being 'just a rock'

This doesn't mean anything as it still doesn't tell me what that "information" actually is.

You've been using the terms information in varying contexts without specifying what you're actually referring to. Using information as a synonym for observations or data doesn't really help us here.

Claiming something has "specified information" is meaningless if we don't know what that is supposed to mean.

So let's stop beating around the bush and get to the real point: what is information (or specified information) in these contexts? How is specifically defined, quantified and measured? And no analogies, vague examples, or circular definitions either; I want to know exactly what it is you are trying to refer to.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Here are some more likely explanations:

• It fell from an adjacent rock face
• It was carried there by flood waters
• It was carried there by an intermittent stream
• It was left in place after surrounding rock was eroded away
• It was kicked there by a burrowing animal
• It is a meteorite

It is interesting that your conclusion on seeing the rock is "that someone quite likely put it there, for some purpose" when there are so many more natural explanations. I admit it is consistent: you look at biology and palaeontology and genetics and you conclude it isn't natural, its design.

That's why i said 'likely', it was meant to be an inconclusive example

But you tell me, if you saw a rock placed in the middle of a stump- is your best guess really a meteorite??

how about several rocks in the shape of a heart- flood water is still possible, but what is the most probable??

by this analogy - I'd say biology is more like the entire works of Charles Dickens being laid out in stones, that would be selling it short still I think-

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I take your point, though I'd say 'punctuated equilibrium' at least finally acknowledged what skeptics had been saying all along- that phenomena like the Cambrian explosion were real, that we CAN trust the evidence in the fossil record- not dismiss it as some illusion- i.e. let the evidence guide the theory, not the other way around

The idea of punctuated equilibrium has been controversial for a number of reasons, e.g. competing ideas, ambiguous evidence, exaggeration, its variation across the phyla, and the possibility of migration producing gaps in the fossil record, and the idea that it was somehow denying gradualism. Early scepticism of such ideas is reasonable, particularly if there are a number of ways to interpret the data; and the bar for scientific acceptance is rightly set high.

"the fossil record around these periods is likely to be correspondingly sparse."

perhaps, and perhaps the dog really did eat the kid's homework, but that does not earn an 'A' grade- i.e. constitute 'undeniable' evidence as some claim for ToE..

It's simply a question of probabilities; the shorter the timescale in question, the fewer exposed fossil beds there are likely to be.

 

[Tinker Grey]

by this analogy - I'd say biology is more like the entire works of Charles Dickens being laid out in stones, that would be selling it short still I think-

Well, it's not. At minimum, because Dickens sucks.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Creative intelligence leaves objective fingerprints, as recognized by archeologists and forensic scientists.

Is recognizing intelligent agency in the Rosetta Stone an argument from 'incredulity' that natural erosion did it? To some extent yes, but not the entire argument

Mistaken analogy. In the case of the Rosetta Stone we had prior knowledge of the human origins of languages, carving, translation, etc., and no plausible natural explanation for it.

The complete opposite is the case for the diversity of life.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This doesn't mean anything as it still doesn't tell me what that "information" actually is.

You've been using the terms information in varying contexts without specifying what you're actually referring to. Using information as a synonym for observations or data doesn't really help us here.

Claiming something has "specified information" is meaningless if we don't know what that is supposed to mean.

So let's stop beating around the bush and get to the real point: what is information (or specified information) in these contexts? How is specifically defined, quantified and measured? And no analogies either; I want to know exactly what it is you are trying to refer to.

if it specifies something beyond itself- it is specified information

So that of course opens up a vast range of possibilities, which is why I give some examples (as opposed to analogies)

it is also a useful way to distinguish between mere 'complexity' and information:

the pattern in 100 bricks dumped from a loader, specifies nothing beyond a random pile of bricks

while a 10 by 10 stack of bricks, specifies 'a wall' - evidence of specific design information, even though the pattern is simpler- even though it has far less total information (including unspecified) if you see what I mean

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This doesn't mean anything as it still doesn't tell me what that "information" actually is.

You've been using the terms information in varying contexts without specifying what you're actually referring to. Using information as a synonym for observations or data doesn't really help us here.

Claiming something has "specified information" is meaningless if we don't know what that is supposed to mean.

So let's stop beating around the bush and get to the real point: what is information (or specified information) in these contexts? How is specifically defined, quantified and measured? And no analogies, vague examples, or circular definitions either; I want to know exactly what it is you are trying to refer to.

Not even the originator of the term was able to do this effectively.

 

[pitabread]

Not even the originator of the term was able to do this effectively.

Oh, I know. Being with familiar with the origins of these terms, I already know this discussion is a dead end.

I just want to see if Guy Threepwood knows that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Mistaken analogy. In the case of the Rosetta Stone we had prior knowledge of the human origins of languages, carving, translation, etc., and no plausible natural explanation for it.

The complete opposite is the case for the diversity of life.

"no plausible natural explanation for it."

there's your argument from incredulity!

my point exactly- it's okay to be incredulous where something has been shown to be viable through creative intelligence, but not through natural mechanisms.

like encoded hierarchical digital information systems I would submit to you!

So we come down to 'context' to determine what we deem to be already demonstrated ... that gets awfully subjective- which is why you need an objective measure- the quality and quantity of new specifying information being generated

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"no plausible natural explanation for it."

there's your argument from incredulity!

It's not an argument from incredulity to accept that you don't have a natural explanation.

The argument from incredulity denies an explanation, generally through ignorance or incomprehension.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh, I know. Being with familiar with the origins of these terms, I already know this discussion is a dead end.

I just want to see if Guy Threepwood knows that.

c'mon don't give up so easily!

Actually I disagree with Meyer on this- whether or not he coined the term 'specified' I honestly don't know- maybe 'specifying' would be less confusing - but that's all semantics

he essentially makes the same argument you are in terms of 'inferring from familiarity' to conclude origins

I'm saying something different- that information which specifies something beyond itself, is not merely a familiar product of creative intelligence, but that it more fundamentally demonstrates a capacity for anticipation- (where of sufficient quantity and quality) - a phenomena unique to a conscious mind- no matter how profound that implication might be- we have an objective measure for it.

The words on the Rosetta Stone or a book or pits on a disc, only exist by virtue of anticipation- that the info will bring about some future consequence - rather than phenomena that are bound to simply react to past events

These words appear here by virtue of my anticipation,
that you will all soon concede the debate and renounce your atheism!

(kidding )

must run but much appreciate the interesting discussion