tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post7248178106978918650..comments2024-02-17T19:58:47.311-05:00Comments on Textuality: At Last, What Intelligent Design Theory Advocates!Larry Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-76325178323858300982019-09-13T07:57:05.035-04:002019-09-13T07:57:05.035-04:00bangalore independent escorts
bangalore escor... <a href="https://www.bangalorebeauties.com/" rel="nofollow">bangalore independent escorts</a><br><br /> <a href="https://www.lonelydesires.com/" rel="nofollow">bangalore escorts</a><br><br /> <a href="http://chennaiprettygirls.com/" rel="nofollow">chennai escorts</a><br><br /> <a href="http://callgirlchennai.com/" rel="nofollow">call girls in chennai</a><br>Lonely Desireshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03484872764612458502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-81853275766252052962012-07-09T14:58:54.392-04:002012-07-09T14:58:54.392-04:00F/N: Paley in Ch 2 on the time-keeping, self-repli...F/N: Paley in Ch 2 <a href="http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/origin-of-life.html#paly_slfrep" rel="nofollow">on the time-keeping, self-replicating watch</a>.GEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-80236539477097311862012-07-09T14:51:07.347-04:002012-07-09T14:51:07.347-04:00Cont'd:
If you want to overturn it, show us a...Cont'd:<br /><br />If you want to overturn it, show us a good counter-example, the equivalent of: to overturn thermodynamics, show us a real perpetual-motion machine.<br /><br />What that means is that from the root of the supposed tree of life, design is involved; with 100,000 bits or more of info involved, just from D/RNA. That is going to shift our estimate of whether design could be involved at following levels.<br /><br />Beyond that, major body plans require increments of 10 - 100 mn, per comparisons of genome size. This makes design again the best candidate to explain the origin of such plans.<br /><br />As to mechanisms, there are always many ways to skin a cat-fish.<br /><br />That is, design is a generic mechanism, and the specific implementation can and does vary. <br /><br />For instance, front loading has been discussed, with probably an initial population having sufficient diversity to get a head start on adaptation to niches, not just dependence on lucky mutations. That way, there is robustness and adapatability built in, similar to how much of the range of dogs is due to specialisation and selective pressures, not so much to novelties introduced by mutations. Though of course some mutations are involved. <br /><br />That is just a suggestion for illustration, not a theory.<br /><br />The fundamental issue design theory is putting on the table is, in effect, an audit. Some pretty grandiose claims have been made concerning the information and function-creating powers of chance variations and differential reproductive success. Do those claims hold good on empirical and analytical examination per the observed or analytically credible powers of such?<br /><br />The answer is, no.<br /><br />And since the only empirically warranted and analytically credible source of FSCO/I is design (this is a summary of massive experience and sufficient analysis to back it up), it is reasonable to infer that it is in fact a reliable sign of design. In particular, the only known source of languages, digital codes, algorithms and organised executing machines, is design. Which are what we see in the heart of the living cell per the work since 1948 - 53.<br /><br />Beyond that, we should be willing to acknowledge when our theorising has outrun our evidence.<br /><br />And, be willing to back-track on excessive claims.<br /><br />For just one instance, there is an estimate that some 50,000 step changes would be required to turn a cow-like animal into a whale-like one. Where are the incremental, functional, niche dominating steps to do that, where are the populations big enough to propagate and fix the steps in succession, and then to do so in the available time on the conventional timeline? Especially, when we see the very modest results obtained with Malaria parasites under drastic selection pressure and with vastly more reproductive events than would be available for the sort of transition we are talking about, etc.<br /><br />In short, it looks like time to prune back some excessively luxuriant kudzu-growth of empirically ungrounded hypotheses on the imagined powers of suggested chance and necessity mechanisms!<br /><br />For sure, we have no warrant to impose a priori materialism by the back door, infer it's logical consequent then present it with exaggerations of what we do observe -- minor adaptations -- as a final, practically certain answer. <br /><br />And certainly, not as a "fact." >><br />_________ <br /><br />Finally, the very Creationists themselves will be the first to tell you that creationism and design thought are quite different. Many of the creationists are not happy with the difference, as they reject reasoning on anything that looks like uniformitarianism -- though Newton's uniformity principle in his rules of reason is not quite the same. <br /><br />KFGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-29191521525831125912012-07-09T14:48:40.984-04:002012-07-09T14:48:40.984-04:00LT:
Since you asked me to comment by email, I wil...LT:<br /><br />Since you asked me to comment by email, I will comment here with the same that I emailed.<br /><br />Kindly, note that say a Behe believes in common descent, just not by unintelligent mechanisms. So did Wallace, co-founder of modern evolutionary theory, from 1869 on.<br /><br />I think there is an error of projection, expecting design thought to be substantially parallel to rather than overlap with the grand evolutionary narrative. When, in fact, it is far narrower in this context, a reasoned and empirically validated account of how certain commonly observed phenomena are best explained on intelligence. That is a modest claim, but it is enough to prune back overly optimistic claims on the powers of blind chance and mechanical necessity to originate life and to elaborate it into the diverse body plans we see. Design theory is really a theory about technology detection and linked technological evolution; seeking objective, empirically warranted criteria to recognise technology at work from its traces! (It also has implications for codes, and forensics, etc. That twerdun is prior to whodunit, how and why.)<br /><br />If you want a design centred elaboration on how the world of life may have come to be, go look at the front-loaded hypothesis championed by Mike Gene et al or something like that. This sort of thing incorporates the design inference, but goes far beyond it.<br /><br />My wider comment is:<br /><br />_________<br /><br />>> I have a moment now, at a library.<br /><br />Design theory, sensu strictu, is a study of signs of intelligence per empirical warrant and related analysis. <br /><br />This is the context of the parallel discussion that happened at UD with Sal C. The context of statistical thermodynamics allows us to analyse configuration spaces (strictly, phase spaces, but here we do not need to think about motion), and how information and/or organisation is expressed in such a space. (Organisation can be reduced to in effect a list of components, orientations, connexions and resulting nodes and arcs, similar to how say Auto Cad or a printed circuit routing program work.)<br /><br />Once we have a certain degree of complexity and specificity to achieve function, the implication of isolation of such zones of function as islands in the sea of possible but overwhelmingly non-functional configs, arises. As a consequence, the number of Planck-time states searchable by the 10^80 or so atoms of our observed cosmos, would only search about 1 in 10^150 of the possibilities for 1,000 bits. A supertask.<br /><br />That is why we see the reduction to the simplified expression:<br /><br />Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold.<br /><br />That is, within our solar system (the effective universe for chemical level interactions -- the fastest of which take up about 10^30 Planck-times) once we see something with information that is functionally specific, and complex beyond 500 bits, the best basic causal explanation is design. 501 coins tossed in no particular order would not lead to an inference of design, but if they encoded the first 72 or so characters of this post, that would strongly point to design.<br /><br />Intelligence does not blindly search per blind chance plus necessity, it composes functional configs on heuristics and creative imagination, as we experience and observe routinely. <br /><br />For the world of life this supertask issue becomes most easily relevant at OOL, the root of the tree of life. <br /><br />There is no pre-existing reproductive ability to cloud the waters. <br /><br />We have to get to a code based von Neumann kinematic self replicator that replicates a metabolising system that has in it a constructor and of course mechanisms for controlled energy and materials flows etc. So, as with Paley's thought exercise in Ch 2 of his Nat Theol, the reasonable inference to explain this is design, given the limited powers of chance based blind searches rewarded by trial and error success on the gamut of our observed cosmos and an empirically reliable inference on observed sign to signified. <br /><br />[ . . . ]GEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.com