The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

[Bobby]

However, there may be evidence that the structure of their crystals reflects some sort of innate intelligence within water. Here: -

http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm

I have seen some bizzare claims over the years but that one really is up there with the best of them.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Magpie

[PersianPaladin]

I have seen some bizzare claims over the years but that one really is up there with the best of them.

Life is bizarre. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I haven't said it's by chance or by random. It is driven from the environment. This is very basic stuff. I do not know who authored the wikipedia article, but they are clearly not up to the job. Whilst crossover locus might indeed be, at the cursory level, random, it is the environment in which the genome exists that decides whether or not the genome will reproduce. Which is not random. Which does not rely on mutation. Which does not rely on a designer.

Experience, my dear boy, experience. It is also the case that I can read.

How you can consider this possiblity is beyond me. I have to admit.

I shall do some reading on your environment-theory and get back to you. But you'll have to bare with me.

[pottyprof]

The second link in that FreeRepublic list is actually extraordinarily good. Here's a direct link for those who are interested:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05/coyne05_index.html

It took me bloomin' ages to read, partially because I'm not the fastest reader on the planet, partially because it's a pretty long article and partially because I have three children pestering me all afternoon However, I think it addresses every single one of PP's objections to Evolution and succinctly rebuts all of those objections.

CB

PS - I was going to make some pithy comments about intelligent water and vestigial organs, but I have thought better of it...

It's a great read.. But 'd better get to bed.

Have to say that the other stuff is the same "scientific" stuff that a certain "religion" has been offering as evidence when they come knocking. "earth is only 6000 years old" etc. Poor old Doris. I hope she knows how to use a computer the next time she calls and stuffs that magazine in my hand.. No disrespect to those who believe BTW. I've known the lady since i was knee high.

[VillagePlank]

But you'll have to bare with me.

I can provide source-code and other resources if you need it. PM me.

[VillagePlank]

Consider this, for instance (this is the ouput from a simple GA which starts with a population of 100, a crossover rate of 1, and 14 alleles in each chromosome) The fitness function (the pressure from the environment) is simply the sum of 1's in the genome with 14 being the most fit.

The Y axis is the mean number of runs (from 20 attempts) that the GA takes to make all of the alleles in the genome 1, the X axis is the mutation rate expressed as a value 0..1.

As you can see the success of the GA requires very low mutation rates, although if too low, the GA gets stuck on local minima, which takes a long time to get out of. Therefore, the mutation rate must exist, but its influence on success is very low, where in this experiment only 10% of the alleles are ever flipped. If you reduce the crossover rate (which means you keep more of the fittest chromosomes) the mutation rate for success goes even lower (but I wanted to keep a clean field so the crossover rate of 1 made everyone have sex - which is no bad thing)

One point to note is that all times where the run number equals 1 were omitted from this data, as this means that the result appeared in the initial population by random.

Incidentally, if you just loop through creating random populations which the same criteria as above then the mean is 300 (299.95) so for this particular GA, it can be configured to outperform random number generation by some significant factor - in fact, as a general rule, this GA outperforms random number generation by at least a factor of 3. Note that the higher the mutation rate the more closely it corresponds to the random test.

What can we conclude from this albeit not very scientific mini-test. Mutation is necessary (to stop the population getting stuck on local minima) but it is not the driver for evolution. In fact the higher the mutation rate, the closer it looks like simply being a random exercise. Which, of course, it is not.

I must also, retract my earlier statement, in the light of these tests, that one could effectively ignore mutation. This is, now, patently not true, and is required, albeit at a very small level, for the GA to function properly.

Anyone recognise the shape of the graph?

Edited July 12, 2007 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

Here's the datasheet for the above

Edited July 12, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Roo]

Right, OK then PP: intelligent design exists.

But, if this is the case, who created the intelligent designer?

[VillagePlank]

Right, OK then PP: intelligent design exists.

But, if this is the case, who created the intelligent designer?

Roo,

If there was an intelligent designer than one could reasonably presume that this guy is omniscent, and omnipresent. This, currently, cannot be described with the current laws of physics. However, if you persist, philosophically, along this line, you would need to conclude that if the guy does exist they he would need to exist primarily in a higher dimension which we cannot see.

On this presumption, we can infer that he was also responsible for the big-bang. Given that space and time are uniformly connected (Einsteinian spacetime) we can therefore presume that he also created space and therefore time.

If the guy created time, then there doesn't need to be a before. The act of creation implies the beginning of something which needs time. This intelligent designer would clearly be the equivalent to the Christian alpha and omega. Something that always has existed and always will.

Therefore our intelligent designer does not need to be created nor, I might add, given what we know, could be created on the basis of the context of the question you ask.

If you believe in a creator it is a matter of faith. If you do not believe in a creator it is also a matter of faith. It is not a question that is demonstrable either way.

Edited July 12, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Roo]

Only a fool precludes the existence of a creator as it cannot be shown demonstrably one way or the other.

Well, I'm the fool then, because I'd go with the evolution argument any day. And I do think it has been shown to be one way, and not the other.

Anything else is superstition and is substantiated by faith alone.

[VillagePlank]

Well, I'm the fool then, because I'd go with the evolution argument any day. And I do think it has been shown to be one way, and not the other.

Anything else is superstition and is substantiated by faith alone.

I did modify the post to be less extreme.

[PersianPaladin]

Genetic algorithms as computerized hypotheticals are not evidence for evolutionary mechanics: -

http://www.trueorigin.org/geneticalgorithms1.asp

What can we conclude from this albeit not very scientific mini-test. Mutation is necessary (to stop the population getting stuck on local minima) but it is not the driver for evolution. In fact the higher the mutation rate, the closer it looks like simply being a random exercise. Which, of course, it is not.

I must also, retract my earlier statement, in the light of these tests, that one could effectively ignore mutation. This is, now, patently not true, and is required, albeit at a very small level, for the GA to function properly.

Anyone recognise the shape of the graph?

But mutations are a random exercise, no?

[VillagePlank]

Genetic algorithms as computerized hypotheticals are not evidence for evolutionary mechanics: -http://www.trueorigin.org/geneticalgorithms1.asp

The guy's a loon. I'll reply in detail next week as I'm off for a few days shortly. Almost his first sentence is wrong: GA are only qualitatative? The guy is a moron.

But mutations are a random exercise, no?

No they aren't.

I'm sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over ago for you to ask the same questions. Earlier in this thread I detailed a couple of books. Try reading them not some wacko off the mis-information highway.

Besides, I note that you haven't proffered any evidence that life around was directed. Not one bit.

Over to you.

(oh and if you believe that computer simulation is irrelevant for evidence, you need to sit at your computer for the next year and explain every post you've ever uttered in a pro-AGW stance)

** EDIT: I'VE CHANGED MY MIND. I WILL NO LONGER POST ON THIS THREAD, UNLESS IT IS DIRECT CRITICISM OF WHAT I HAVE POSTED AND OF MY WORK. I COULD DELVE FURTHER INTO THE DETAILS BUT I CAN SEE NO SUCH POINT. IT IS EASY TO FIND A DISSENTING OPINION ON THE INTERNET IT REQUIRES ONLY THE SKILL OF USING GOOGLE, AND IS OF NO INTELLECTUAL CONSEQUENCE. ONE CANNOT, NO MATTER HOW HARD ONE TRIES, ARGUE WITH THE NOTION OF FAITH, RATHER IT IS, IN MY OPINION, BEST TO LET THOSE WHO HANG WITH THEIR FINGERTIPS OVER THE CLIFF OF REALITY LIVE, RATHER THAN DESTROY THEM BY STEPPING ON THEIR FINGERTIPS **

Edited July 12, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Bobby]

** EDIT: I'VE CHANGED MY MIND. I WILL NO LONGER POST ON THIS THREAD, UNLESS IT IS DIRECT CRITICISM OF WHAT I HAVE POSTED AND OF MY WORK. I COULD DELVE FURTHER INTO THE DETAILS BUT I CAN SEE NO SUCH POINT. IT IS EASY TO FIND A DISSENTING OPINION ON THE INTERNET IT REQUIRES ONLY THE SKILL OF USING GOOGLE, AND IS OF NO INTELLECTUAL CONSEQUENCE. ONE CANNOT, NO MATTER HOW HARD ONE TRIES, ARGUE WITH THE NOTION OF FAITH, RATHER IT IS, IN MY OPINION, BEST TO LET THOSE WHO HANG WITH THEIR FINGERTIPS OVER THE CLIFF OF REALITY LIVE, RATHER THAN DESTROY THEM BY STEPPING ON THEIR FINGERTIPS **

Probably right, faith in inherently illogical and using logic to try to disprove it just isn't going to work. I've learnt that also recently after getting into to debates with Christians and so on, it's not worth it. They will never change their beliefs, how can you use logic on people who think illogically? Won't work.

[PersianPaladin]

The guy's a loon. I'll reply in detail next week as I'm off for a few days shortly. Almost his first sentence is wrong: GA are only qualitatative? The guy is a moron.

No they aren't.

I'm sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over ago for you to ask the same questions. Earlier in this thread I detailed a couple of books. Try reading them not some wacko off the mis-information highway.

Besides, I note that you haven't proffered any evidence that life around was directed. Not one bit.

Over to you.

(oh and if you believe that computer simulation is irrelevant for evidence, you need to sit at your computer for the next year and explain every post you've ever uttered in a pro-AGW stance)

Qualitiative means that it functions as a coherent whole. What is wrong with that assertion?

And with such GA's...these are programmed with set parameters and assertions about the number and interaction of variables involved. In reality....nothing can programme itself. This is what humans need to realise.

And weather models use real-world processes that we can actually measure in the data-sets....computerized hypotheticals within evolutionary theory are not about real-world processes. They are theoretical assumptions which do not reflect real-world present reality. Although one must admit that at long-range....models become pure conjecture.

Edited July 12, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[calabrone]

If you believe in a creator it is a matter of faith. If you do not believe in a creator it is also a matter of faith.

Really enjoyed your posts in this thread VillagePlank but is this really true? Belief in a creator is indeed a matter of faith but absence of belief? I don't believe in a creator but I would change my mind in a second if he/she/it decided to interfere in our universe again. Surely if I had faith in his/her/its non existence I would continue to hold this position regardless of available evidence. Faith, to me at least, is an unshakeable conviction that something is true regardless of proof.

PS just realised that you won't be posting again on this thread! Don't blame you really...

[VillagePlank]

Just so we can be absolutely clear, here:

Qualitiative means that it functions as a coherent whole. What is wrong with that assertion?

No it doesn't mean that. Look in a dictionary - it means it relates to quality or kind - it's antonym is quantitatively. See more your total failure to comprehend what is going on below.

And with such GA's...these are programmed with set parameters and assertions about the number and interaction of variables involved. In reality....nothing can programme itself.

What do you think is programming the genome or the GA? Sure I wrote the process in the GA, and for all I care you can attribute the process in nature to God. But in both cases external forces act on the genome. External. That means environment.

This is what humans need to realise.

No. You need to realise that you need to read others posts, not to ignore them, and provide argument against them.

And by the way it is perfectly feasible to have a computer program itself. The very start of the process is the notion of reflection (but it goes way deeper than that) and the sum really does exceed the value of its parts. Now whilst I am quite flattered that you would attribute my status to some form of god-like creature, I am, unfortunately, not that conceited. I am afraid that this is an area that you will actually need to research into as I cannot divulge much more as it constitutes commerical information. Of course, that you think you are in a position to speak for what 6 billion other members of your species 'need to realise' presumes the notion that in fact you are the intelligent creator, if not, at least, the mildly ill-mannered benefactor that millions worship on a daily basis.

However, I do understand that you have a reasonable defence because you, like many others of your ilk, do not understand how it is possible, you are left with either presupposing the existence of something metaphysical or using google and find differing opinion, and just post without reading what it is that you are posting.

A claim I'm sure you wish to deny, but the fact remains that article you just posted claims that GA was quantitative, not qualitative (he says with a 'GA a trait can only be quantitive'), so with reference to your previous question, I think there's nothing wrong with that assertion - I agree with it (although you and the moron clearly do not) A childish trick on my part, I agree, but nevertheless it illustrates exactly what standpoint you are actually arguing from.

And weather models use real-world processes that we can actually measure in the data-sets

So do GA, and GP's (do a bit of research on genetic programming - that is the notion that you can use genetic mechanics to write software. That works, too, but I'm not going to waste my time on telling you how, but there is plenty of reference material available through your favourite search engine)

....computerized hypotheticals within evolutionary theory are not about real-world processes.

Yes they are.*

They are theoretical assumptions which do not reflect real-world present reality.

Yes they do*

*For the short answers please refer to previous posts

I did try to pass it 'over to you' to give you space to describe the assertion, and theory that everything in life is designed. It is disappointing (amogst other things) that you have failed, once again, to provide anything but ill-advised reactive comment, which, even by my pet cat, can easily be torn to shreds

Edited July 12, 2007 by Paul

[Red Raven]

As I think Mr Plank has clearly won the argument I am prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with VP and will fight any such ban should it be deemed necessary by the great NW creator.

[flagpole]

EDIT: And I know I'll probably be banned for this, but you need to be told, in public, what a pillock you really are, PP

You think you're the first? :lol:

[VillagePlank]

Really enjoyed your posts in this thread VillagePlank but is this really true? Belief in a creator is indeed a matter of faith but absence of belief? I don't believe in a creator but I would change my mind in a second if he/she/it decided to interfere in our universe again. Surely if I had faith in his/her/its non existence I would continue to hold this position regardless of available evidence. Faith, to me at least, is an unshakeable conviction that something is true regardless of proof.

PS just realised that you won't be posting again on this thread! Don't blame you really...

I don't think that absence of belief is a valid standpoint, though. In my opinion, it is belief that a creator does not exist despite what you say, because, as a general rule, those who chose not to believe in a creator do not attribute 'miracles' to a creator, rather it is attributed to hitherto unknown scientific law.

You think you're the first? :lol:

Ahh. I feel bad now, and reported my own post. Hopeful the mods will edit it accordingly.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

You know what, I'm going to give VP a pardon!

I'll edit it if you want, but I think based on what's gone before, it could have been far worse, and I'm sure PP will take it on the chin.

[VillagePlank]

I'll edit it if you want, but I think based on what's gone before, it could have been far worse, and I'm sure PP will take it on the chin.

Do you think I'd be pushing it a bit too far if I printed PP's post, covered it in cat-food, and posted the photograph of my lovely Cassie tearing it to bits?

We have to paint the local rodents like zebra's primarily because evolution works too slow, otherwise they'd all be dead.

EDIT: I dread to think what 'I wouldn't say' will be posted in the next few days

Maybe Lady P will give be solace? :lol: I hope so. Can someone tell her that I'm rich?

Edited July 12, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Guest Viking141]

You know what, I'm going to give VP a pardon!

I'll edit it if you want, but I think based on what's gone before, it could have been far worse, and I'm sure PP will take it on the chin.

:lol:

[calabrone]

I don't think that absence of belief is a valid standpoint, though. In my opinion, it is belief that a creator does not exist despite what you say, because, as a general rule, those who chose not to believe in a creator do not attribute 'miracles' to a creator, rather it is attributed to hitherto unknown scientific law.

Ok, but how is non belief in something a matter of faith? If a person asserts something that i think there's insufficient evidence for then a logical position is to not believe until new evidence comes to light. I can choose to believe in a creator if I wish and then close my ears and eyes to other arguments and have faith in my choice of belief system. I don't see how suspending judgement or saying I don't know is a matter of faith.

PS happy that the great NW creator saw fit to grant you a pardon!

[VillagePlank]

Ok, but how is non belief in something a matter of faith?

That's my point. It is not non-belief, it is a positive choice of belief (in this case)

[Osbourne One-Nil]

PS happy that the great NW creator saw fit to grant you a pardon!

Arise, Sir Calabrone.