Unicorns and the ToE

[Occam's Aftershave]

Reproduced by request,

AFDAVE'S FIVE LAWS:

Afdave's First Law: All evidences for evolution are speculative. All speculations for creationism are evidential.

Afdave's Second Law: One may escape intellectual responsibility on any issue merely by stating an intent to pursue it.

Afdave's Third Law: If you have an objection to any point I've raised, I've already addressed it. No, I won't tell you where.

Afdave's Fourth Law: Unanswerable questions are invisible.

Afdave's Fifth Law: The truth of all previously established facts and conclusions are subject to their being convenient to the argument I am presently making.


Virtually every post Dave "people mistake me for Jesus" Hawkins makes can be sorted into one of these five categories. Try it at home, see how many examples you can find!

[Martin B]

Martin B ...

Something you said is very interesting ... You wrote

Quote:
He wrote a book entitled Theory of Self-reproducing Automata in which he argued that once we developed machines that could self-reproduce, then they could evolve.

I highlighted two very important words there. WE DEVELOPED. Do you see why this is important? Yes! Of course if WE develop self-reproducing machines, then they would be able to evolve (that is, in the narrow sense ... i.e. microevolution).

Several points here ...

1) No, I don't concede that my analogy is flawed. I believe it is appropriate as I hope you will soon see.

Yes, but you're admitting in that statement that if and when we produce machines capable of auto-replication, they will then evolve. You're therefore admitting that objects that don't auto-replicate don't evolve. By extension, the fact that machinery do not have ancestors or descendents means that the distribution of their similarities and differences is irrelevant to the question of whether or not all living things (objects which can have ancestors and descendents) are related to one another.

The analogy is flawed in not even accounting for the principal criterion required to have common ancestors.

It's like comparing apples and paint brushes (literally and figuratively).

2) You seem to contradict yourself when, on the one hand, you say that "autoreplication isn't a highly sophisticated process" yet on the other hand, you say 'that they couldn't even do so [evolve] in principle.' I ask you ... if you agree that "autoreplication isn't a highly sophisticated process" then what is so sophisticated about 'evolving' (microevolving that is) that human machines of the future couldn't do it? Microevolution (in both 'living' machines and 'non-living' machines* is nothing more than pre-programmed machine intelligence which allows the automaton to adapt to changing environments. Why would this be difficult to program into future man-made automatons? We're probably already doing it.

I fail to see the contradiction. How is the ability to reproduce a function of complexity? (That's not a rhetorical question). A Swiss Army knife is (arguably) more complex than a napkin, but does that mean the knife must also carry some property that allows it to wipe your nose? The properties an object has are not an additive linear function of complexity.

Secondly, evolution is a statistical outcome of autoreplicators under growth-limiting conditions, not a pre-programmed property. Evolution happens because variation is introduced to a population through the autoreplication process. This creates new varieties of autoreplicators, but all (by definition) can still continue to exist and replicate. Because the replication is self-replication, the accumulation of variation is additive over generations. That is why evolution happens.

I do think one day humans will invent machines that auto-replicate and evolve. But we don't have these now (unless you count some computer viruses), so they don't evolve. Anything that doesn't reproduce is irrelevant to the question of evolution because it cannot even in principle have descendents (we only have figurative ancestors and descendents, but they're not true parents and offspring).

3) Just to reiterate an earlier point ... you are correct that the nested hierarchies could in principle be explained by Universal Common Ancestry. But we do not possess the evidence that this Universal Common Ancestry actually occurred. But we do have evidence that Universal Common Design occurred because of the valid analogy between manmade and biological machines. Also, as Denton (a non-creationist genetics professor) pointed out 20 years ago ... the nested hierarchies that we see in nature are very similar to artificial (that is, man made) nested hierarchies.

You're forgetting that creationism is not an explanation at all. Of course common ancestry explains nested hierarchies in principle, that is precisely what the proposition is: a principle by which nested hierarchies could be expected to arise.

As for Denton, could you supply a reference for this? I'd like to know what he's actually saying, but it is of little consequence. Even if this is what he's saying, he's wrong. The majority of systematists would disagree with this opinion you've attributed to Denton: the hierarchies we can generate to classify machinery and other non-living things are distinctly non-nested and non-real. Even if we do come up with nested hierarchies for our machinery, they are non-real. They exist only in our minds. We've already been through this with the case of Ford vehicles.

I have a wooden mallot, a paper cup, a plastic mechanical pencil, a ceramic pot, a chuckwagon (wooden wheels and paneling, but with metal fasteners), and the space shuttle Atlantis. Please create a nested hierarchical classification for these objects and list the homologies that define the groups.

EDIT: For this latter challenge, feel free to include any additional man-made objects you think might be helpful in establishing a meaningful hierarchy, but keep it within reason so that people can follow your argument. But don't forget to list the homologies!

[RAFH]

Reproduced by request,

AFDAVE'S FIVE LAWS:

Afdave's First Law: All evidences for evolution are speculative. All speculations for creationism are evidential.

Afdave's Second Law: One may escape intellectual responsibility on any issue merely by stating an intent to pursue it.

Afdave's Third Law: If you have an objection to any point I've raised, I've already addressed it. No, I won't tell you where.

Afdave's Fourth Law: Unanswerable questions are invisible.

Afdave's Fifth Law: The truth of all previously established facts and conclusions are subject to their being convenient to the argument I am presently making.


Virtually every post Dave "people mistake me for Jesus" Hawkins makes can be sorted into one of these five categories. Try it at home, see how many examples you can find!

Heck, I've found two or three in many of davey's posts, do I get extra credit?

[ericmurphy]

Febble ... Can you tell me what you are looking for from creationists that will satisfy you that we have demonstrated that intelligence is absolutely required to explain life?

Proof that life cannot, even in principle, have arisen without intelligent guidance. Good luck.

Also, the reason I say that intelligence always requires higher intelligence is because this is our universal experience. Do you know of any exceptions? I mean actual exceptions ... No Darwinist storytelling?

Dogs are intelligent. Where's the evidence that dog intelligence comes from a "higher intelligence"? Dolphins are intelligent. Where's the evidence that dolphin intelligence comes from a "higher intelligence." Chimps are intelligent. Where's the evidence that chimp intelligence comes from a "higher intelligence"? Humans are intelligent. Where's the evidence that human intelligence comes from a "higher intelligence"?

Where is the evidence that any intelligence requires a "higher intelligence"? You don't have any, do you?

Can you answer these questions?

I just did. Can you answer mine?

[ericmurphy]

A computer chess game is not more intelligent than it's human creator. More adept at the single task for which it was designed, yes, but not more intelligent. This is nonsense.

No it's not, Dave, since you haven't provided a definition for "intelligence." Until you've defined how you're using the term, anyone else is entitled to use the term however they want to use it.

A definition of intelligence is not needed in order for Febble to specify some convincing proof that life requires intelligence. You don't need a definition in order to know that human technology requires intelligence. Why do you make special requirements for biological technology? Biological technology is not fundamentally different from human technology ... It's just higher tech.

It is, if you want to compare intelligences. If you want to say one thing is more "intelligent" than another, you need a measurable quantity called "intelligence." Without that, you cannot compare two things, and say which is more intelligent.

For a former engineer, you sure do shy away from quantifiable measures, Dave.

It's also needed if you want to support your claim that life requires intelligence. If you think natural selection is intelligent (and by WMD's definition it is), then the intelligence necessary for life already exists: it's "natural selection."

[ericmurphy]

But wait just a minute. If you are an intelligent entity and your intelligence (whatever your formal definition is) can invent high tech machines, then what could we infer from our observation of higher tech machines in the biological world?

No, Dave, you can't infer that. That's bozo logic. Just because intelligent agents can invent "high-tech machines" (and you haven't gotten anyone to agree that living organisms are "high-tech machines," in case you've forgotten), doesn't mean only intelligent agents can make such things. I can make a trench in the dirt with my hands; that doesn't mean any trench in the dirt must have been made by an intelligent agent?

Jesus fucking Christ, Dave, this is logic a seven-year-old could poke holes in.

Could this not indeed be evidence of an alien intelligence? If not, then what type of artifacts should we look for to give us evidence of an alien intelligence?

How about tool marks, Dave? Or better yet, how about evidence that an alien intelligence exists that is capable of such a thing?

And how about this: if you're going to hypothesize that life is the product of intelligent agency, then you'd better fucking come up with a test for that hypothesis. We've only been telling you for a year that you need one.

Have you come up with one yet?

[ericmurphy]

3) Just to reiterate an earlier point ... you are correct that the nested hierarchies could in principle be explained by Universal Common Ancestry. But we do not possess the evidence that this Universal Common Ancestry actually occurred. But we do have evidence that Universal Common Design occurred because of the valid analogy between manmade and biological machines. Also, as Denton (a non-creationist genetics professor) pointed out 20 years ago ... the nested hierarchies that we see in nature are very similar to artificial (that is, man made) nested hierarchies.

You're forgetting that creationism is not an explanation at all. Of course common ancestry explains nested hierarchies in principle, that is precisely what the proposition is: a principle by which nested hierarchies could be expected to arise.

As for Denton, could you supply a reference for this? I'd like to know what he's actually saying, but it is of little consequence. Even if this is what he's saying, he's wrong.

Dave already knows Denton is wrong. I've quoted this section from " 29+ Evidences" on objective vs. subjective nested hierarchies twice already:

As seen from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as "groups within groups", otherwise known as a nested hierarchy. The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains. Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously proven that branching Markovian replicating systems produce nested hierarchies (Givnish and Sytsma 1997; Harris 1989; Norris 1997). For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, including complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions of surnames in populations (Galton and Watson 1874), and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.

The nested hierarchical organization of species contrasts sharply with other possible biological patterns, such as the continuum of "the great chain of being" and the continuums predicted by Lamarck's theory of organic progression (Darwin 1872, pp. 552-553; Futuyma 1998, pp. 88-92). Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Real world examples that cannot be objectively classified in nested hierarchies are the elementary particles (which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc.

Although it is trivial to classify anything subjectively in a hierarchical manner, only certain things can be classified objectively in a consistent, unique nested hierarchy. The difference drawn here between "subjective" and "objective" is crucial and requires some elaboration, and it is best illustrated by example. Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically—perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc. The particular classification scheme chosen for the cars is subjective. In contrast, human languages, which have common ancestors and are derived by descent with modification, generally can be classified in objective nested hierarchies (Pei 1949; Ringe 1999). Nobody would reasonably argue that Spanish should be categorized with German instead of with Portugese.

The difference between classifying cars and classifying languages lies in the fact that, with cars, certain characters (for example, color or manufacturer) must be considered more important than other characters in order for the classification to work. Which types of car characters are more important depends upon the personal preference of the individual who is performing the classification. In other words, certain types of characters must be weighted subjectively in order to classify cars in nested hierarchies; cars do not fall into natural, unique, objective nested hierarchies.

Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees.

Interestingly, Linnaeus, who originally discovered the objective hierarchical classification of living organisms, also tried to classify rocks and minerals hierarchically. However, his classification for non-living objects eventually failed, as it was found to be very subjective. Hierarchical classifications for inanimate objects don't work for the very reason that unlike organisms, rocks and minerals do not evolve by descent with modification from common ancestors.

—and I know Dave has read it, because I know he reads my posts.

That Dave continues to insist that man-made objects also sort into objective nested hierarchies is disingenuous in the extreme, after he's been shown how his claim is wrong twice already, this being the third time.

[Pappy Jack]

But wait just a minute. If you are an intelligent entity and your intelligence (whatever your formal definition is) can invent high tech machines, then what could we infer from our observation of higher tech machines in the biological world? Could this not indeed be evidence of an alien intelligence? If not, then what type of artifacts should we look for to give us evidence of an alien intelligence?

Dave, you are assuming your conclusion. Your analogy that machines and life are in some way similar to each other is not evidence that both are the product of intelligent action (and I note that you are still dodging a definition of intelligence in the same way that you are avoiding any effort to tell us from whence higher intelligence arises). You cannot infer that biological 'machines' are evidence of alien intelligence, because you have not in any way, shape or form provided any evidence that those 'machines' have been 'designed' - once more analogy is not evidence and neither is personal incredulity or ignorance.

[Virginia-American]

But wait just a minute. If you are an intelligent entity and your intelligence (whatever your formal definition is) can invent high tech machines, then what could we infer from our observation of higher tech machines in the biological world? Could this not indeed be evidence of an alien intelligence? If not, then what type of artifacts should we look for to give us evidence of an alien intelligence?

The obvious answer would be artifacts that in some way mimic human artifacts, and, as has been discussed at length, one distingusihing characteristic is the way that huiman artifacts don't fit into nested hierarchies.

So if some imaginary planet were to have life similar to Earth's, but the whales and penguins had gills, the bats had avian-style lungs, but all the other mammals had mammallian lungs and the other birds had avian ones, primates and hawks had cephalopod-stye (retina correctly aligned) eyes but the other tetrapods had the retina behind he nerves (like we do), and so forth, so that a nested hierarchy was impossible, we'd conclude that they hadn't evolved, and were nost likely designed.

May I recommend James Hogan's Code of the Lifemaker. It's a science fiction story about machines evolving.

[Elká]

From Sari's abstract ...

By taking a bird's eye view of the cell cycle, we demonstrate how the modular organization of cellular systems possesses a built-in flexibility, which allows evolution to find many different solutions for assembling the same molecular machines just in time for action.

Please notice the two highlighted words. I agree that "evolution" operates very well. Creationists understand that microevolution works great. But we assert that this "microevolution" is designed adaptability, programmed into the originally created kind by the Creator, not mindless increase in technological sophistication due to random process. Those two words
"built in" are very important. Note that no attempt is made by these authors to explain how this flexibility became built in. Why don't they attempt to explain this? Well because they can't.

How the heck would you know that davey? Did you read the entire article? Did you comprhend what was written davey?

It is becoming increasingly clear that THE LIVING WORLD IS AN ARTIFACT OF AN ALIEN INTELLIGENCE.

>snip extraneous BS<

The question is HOW did this intelligence arise?

I say it arose from the place intelligence ALWAYS arises ... HIGHER INTELLIGENCE.

So it's just ALIEN INTELLIGENCE all the way up right davey?

Elká

[Elká]

Also, the reason I say that intelligence always requires higher intelligence is because this is our universal experience.

When do you hit the ceiling davey and how would you recognize it?

Elká

[Elká]

If intelligence always arises from higher intelligence, what even higher intelligence did god arise from?

Heh, it's aliens all the way up Jack.

Elká

[Elká]

Febble ... Are you an intelligent entity? I hope you say yes. And my next question will be ... How do you know that you are intelligent?

Don't go there, dave. Self-awareness exists ONLY in biological entities like humans, and you can't say that we know from our experience that they require a HIGHER INTELLIGENCE, because then you are assuming what you are supposed to try and prove. Again.

Your logic is not just full of holes, dave. It's ALL hole.

Aerowipe® Faid.

Elká

[Faid]

Febble ... Are you an intelligent entity? I hope you say yes. And my next question will be ... How do you know that you are intelligent?

Yes, I am an intelligent entity. I know that I am an intelligent entity because what I consist of - what I refer to by the pronoun "I" - is an abstract representation of an agent that makes choices about how to act.

That means that not only am I an intelligent agent but I am a conscious intelligent agent - I not only represent my options as abstractions, but I have an abstract representation of myself as the chooser.

I am a Strange Loop, in other words (Hofstadter's, to be precise).

So, if we use my definition as the operational definition, in order to demonstrate that such an entity exists I would need you to demonstrate that in the universe there is an entity that represents abstract future choices as well as representing the chooser him/herself.

Can you do that?

But wait just a minute. If you are an intelligent entity and your intelligence (whatever your formal definition is) can invent high tech machines, then what could we infer from our observation of higher tech machines in the biological world? Could this not indeed be evidence of an alien intelligence? If not, then what type of artifacts should we look for to give us evidence of an alien intelligence?

For the zillionth time, dave:

You are assuming what you are supposed to prove.

Provide evidence that those ARE "higher-tech machines". A "machine" presumes a creator; you cannot use the term loosely, and then present it as evidence for a creator.

This is Logic 101. WHEN will you get it?

[Pappy Jack]

Heh, it's aliens all the way up Jack.

Elká

Yes. Dave's strategy seems to be to find someone somewhere outside the fundy community who will agree that there may be a 'higher' alien intelligence out there that may be capable of creating biological machines (FWIW, I for one am more than prepared to allow both of these 'mays', but I'd need a whole pile of 'fingers-in-the-wounds' evidence before I'd move from 'there possibly may be' to 'there definitely is'). Once that is admitted, Dave can segué this into an acknowledgement that such or a similar 'higher' alien intelligence could have created life on Earth, thus humanity and, by a desperate leap, the Universe and everything else too. To our puny intellects, such a powerful intelligence would be indistinguishable from god, therefore god exists, therefore the bible is right, therefore Dave wins.

The number of questions this strategy begs are numerous, not the least being the one you've pointed out above - it really does have to be aliens all the way up and, if not, why not, Dave?

[Faid]

That Dave continues to insist that man-made objects also sort into objective nested hierarchies is disingenuous in the extreme, after he's been shown how his claim is wrong twice already, this being the third time.

When the subject was brought up at IIDB, dave chickened out. I asked him to address it in a PM, since he was so confident in his claims... But he said he couldn't because the thread where it was discussed had been closed. He then kept arguing about irrelevant issues.

I wonder what kind of excuse he'll come up with this time...

[Pappy Jack]

For the zillionth time, dave:

You are assuming what you are supposed to prove.

Provide evidence that those ARE "higher-tech machines". A "machine" presumes a creator; you cannot use the term loosely, and then present it as evidence for a creator.

This is Logic 101. WHEN will you get it?

Never?

[Febble]

Febble ... Are you an intelligent entity? I hope you say yes. And my next question will be ... How do you know that you are intelligent?

Yes, I am an intelligent entity. I know that I am an intelligent entity because what I consist of - what I refer to by the pronoun "I" - is an abstract representation of an agent that makes choices about how to act.

That means that not only am I an intelligent agent but I am a conscious intelligent agent - I not only represent my options as abstractions, but I have an abstract representation of myself as the chooser.

I am a Strange Loop, in other words (Hofstadter's, to be precise).

So, if we use my definition as the operational definition, in order to demonstrate that such an entity exists I would need you to demonstrate that in the universe there is an entity that represents abstract future choices as well as representing the chooser him/herself.

Can you do that?

But wait just a minute. If you are an intelligent entity and your intelligence (whatever your formal definition is) can invent high tech machines, then what could we infer from our observation of higher tech machines in the biological world? Could this not indeed be evidence of an alien intelligence? If not, then what type of artifacts should we look for to give us evidence of an alien intelligence?

Well, nothing, because you are making a logical error. You are saying:

• People are intelligent
  
• People invent machines
  
• Therefore all machines are invented by intelligence.

Compare the above with:

• People have two legs
  
• People eat food
  
• Therefore all food is eaten by creatures with two legs.

What might work better is:

• People-made machines result from a process of trial and error, in which what works is repeated, sometimes with modification, and what doesn't work is abandoned.
  
• Living things look a bit like people-made machines
  
• Living things probably resulted from a process of trial and error in which what works was repeated, sometimes with modification, and what doesn't work was abandoned.

At which point we might say: but people take shortcuts - they don't make an entire square wheel, then find it doesn't work, then try a triangular one, find that doesn't work, then eventually hit on a circular wheel. They think about it, and figure out that a circular one might work, then try that.

And this is true. We have the capacity to simulate our ideas in our imagination - that's what our imagination does. Or, if you prefer, to represent options as abstractions. So we'd expect people to invent things rather quickly - for flying machines to evolve from a rickety biplane to a space ship within less than a century. The postulated process for the invention of modern life forms would be expected to take much longer, because we have no evidence that life forms are simulated first.

And that is precisely what the evidence suggests - that modern life-forms are the result of billions of years of evolution.

So my answer is: if you want to demonstrate that we are invented by an intelligence that is, like us, capable of representing its designs as abtractions before they are built, you need to demonstrate how those abstractions might be represented.

As I neuroscientist I can give you a hypothesis about how it's done in brains - options are represented as patterns of neural firing.

How does the Intelligent Designer of Life do it?

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble ...

Well, nothing, because you are making a logical error. You are saying:

* People are intelligent
* People invent machines
* Therefore all machines are invented by intelligence.


Compare the above with:

* People have two legs
* People eat food
* Therefore all food is eaten by creatures with two legs.

No. I believe you are the one making the logical error. Let's break this down.

It is very important to understand EXACTLY what I am saying. I do NOT say ...

* People are intelligent
* People invent machines
* Therefore all machines are invented by intelligence.

What I say is ...

1) All machines that we know of require intelligence (like what you have, however you wish to define it) to create
2) Thanks to the recent molecular biological revolution, we have now discovered nano-machines within cells
3) Therefore, it is a reasonable inference to propose that these nano-machines also required an intelligence to create
4) Of course we should ask if there is some as yet undiscovered process by which these machines can create themselves
5) But to date, no process has been found although reams of speculation have been written
6) Therefore, why not adopt the ID paradigm until some process can actually demonstrated which eliminates the need for the ID paradigm?

Here's another way to look at this, Febble. You are aware that we've been looking for life in outer space for decades, right? There have been urban myths about alien space ships landing in Roswell, aliens abducting people, etc. Let me ask you ... what clues would lead you to believe that an alien race really did land in Roswell? Weird looking space ship? Strange technology that humans do not possess perhaps? Highly efficient, innovative energy systems maybe?

May I submit to you that ...

THE ALIENS HAVE "LANDED"

We find every kind of weird, high tech gizmo imaginable ... inside of every living cell!! Inside the living cell, we find precisely the kinds of things we are looking for to identify an alien intelligence, do we not?

We did not watch these aliens land. They (It?) did not arrive in a space ship. They (It?) are not visible now. We only have their (it's) "artifacts."

Now, can you please tell me what's wrong with my logic here? (Now that you understand what I am actually saying.) I see nothing wrong with it. And if you disagree with my 5th point above, I would ask you to provide an example which demonstrates this process. Microevolution doesn't count ... as we have seen, this variability is "built in" to the organism.

As for your question

How does the Intelligent Designer of Life do it?

I don't know and I don't have to know in order to know that an intelligence was required any more than I have to know how the designers of the Great Pyramid did it. Just because I don't know how they did it, does that mean I am wrong for saying an intelligence was required to build that edifice?

[Dave Hawkins]

Hi Martin--

You wrote

I have a wooden mallot, a paper cup, a plastic mechanical pencil, a ceramic pot, a chuckwagon (wooden wheels and paneling, but with metal fasteners), and the space shuttle Atlantis. Please create a nested hierarchical classification for these objects and list the homologies that define the groups.

Easy.

MAN MADE INNOVATIONS
-Innovations for Communicating
--Verbal Communication
---Telephone
---Radio
--Written Communication
---Pencil
---Pen
---Typewriter
--Visual Communication
---Television
---Internet
-Innovations for Transportation
--Ground Transport
--Air Transport
--Space Transport
---Space Shuttle
-Innovations for Dining
--Chuck Wagon
--Paper cup
--Ceramic pot
-Innovations for Building
--Wooden mallet
--Saw
--Measuring tape

As Michael Denton and I agree, nested hierarchies are ideally suited for artificial objects. The Denton reference for nested hierarchies describing artifical objects is Chapter 6 of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Do you have the book?

More later.

[Shirley Knott]

...
As for your question

How does the Intelligent Designer of Life do it?

I don't know and I don't have to know in order to know that an intelligence was required any more than I have to know how the designers of the Great Pyramid did it. Just because I don't know how they did it, does that mean I am wrong for saying an intelligence was required to build that edifice?

Yes, it does mean exactly that. You do not know intelligence was required. Check out Maldon Sea Salt, dave, perfect pyramids, no signs of intelligence involved.
Absent knowledge of a mechanism, you know nothing the process of creation.
Absent knowledge of the process of creation, you nothing about how a thing came to be.
Absent knowledge of how a thing came to be, you lack any basis for asserting that X was or was not required to produce that thing.

you blithering idiot.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

[Lucretius II]

With all this talk of an "Alien Intelligence " are we seeing Dave convert from a Creationist (dare I say "evolve" ) into a Raelian ?

http://www.rael.org/rael_content/index.php

[Febble]

Febble ...

Well, nothing, because you are making a logical error. You are saying:

* People are intelligent
* People invent machines
* Therefore all machines are invented by intelligence.


Compare the above with:

* People have two legs
* People eat food
* Therefore all food is eaten by creatures with two legs.

No. I believe you are the one making the logical error. Let's break this down.

It is very important to understand EXACTLY what I am saying. I do NOT say ...

* People are intelligent
* People invent machines
* Therefore all machines are invented by intelligence.

What I say is ...

1) All machines that we know of require intelligence (like what you have, however you wish to define it) to create
2) Thanks to the recent molecular biological revolution, we have now discovered nano-machines within cells
3) Therefore, it is a reasonable inference to propose that these nano-machines also required an intelligence to create

OK, let me do this again:

• All machines that we used to know of are created by intelligence
• Now we know of some more
• Therefore these must have been created by an intelligence too.

which is like saying

• All swans that we know of are white
• We have just discovered some swans of unknown colour
• Therefore these swans must be white.

4) Of course we should ask if there is some as yet undiscovered process by which these machines can create themselves
5) But to date, no process has been found although reams of speculation have been written

And this is what you consistently dodge. We have identified a perfectly good process by which machines can create themselves. Far from failing to find it, we have actually watched it happen, in the field, in the lab, and in computer simulations. You yourself agree that it happens, because you agree that microevolution happens by that mechanism. We know the mechanism exists, and that it works. We also know that, using Dembski's definition of "intelligence" it is actually very intelligent, which probably why its products share characteristics with the products of our own intelligence.

But look here - I said this in my post above - why am I saying it again? Did you not read what I wrote?

6) Therefore, why not adopt the ID paradigm until some process can actually demonstrated which eliminates the need for the ID paradigm?

What "ID paradigm"? Dembski's? Sure. It works. The trouble for Dembski is that it means we already have an identified designer.

Here's another way to look at this, Febble. You are aware that we've been looking for life in outer space for decades, right? There have been urban myths about alien space ships landing in Roswell, aliens abducting people, etc. Let me ask you ... what clues would lead you to believe that an alien race really did land in Roswell? Weird looking space ship? Strange technology that humans do not possess perhaps? Highly efficient, innovative energy systems maybe?

May I submit to you that ...

THE ALIENS HAVE "LANDED"

We find every kind of weird, high tech gizmo imaginable ... inside of every living cell!! Inside the living cell, we find precisely the kinds of things we are looking for to identify an alien intelligence, do we not?

We did not watch these aliens land. They (It?) did not arrive in a space ship. They (It?) are not visible now. We only have their (it's) "artifacts."

Now, can you please tell me what's wrong with my logic here? (Now that you understand what I am actually saying.) I see nothing wrong with it. And if you disagree with my 5th point above, I would ask you to provide an example which demonstrates this process. Microevolution doesn't count ... as we have seen, this variability is "built in" to the organism.

Of course microevolution counts. If you want to argue that it doesn't, you will have to explain what you mean by "this variability is "built in" to the organism" and why you deduce from whatever you mean by this that "microevolution doesn't count".

Right, back to your aliens. Your question is: what clues would convince me that aliens had landed in Roswell? Well, if I found an complex apparently functional object that did not appear to have a terrestrial origin (unknown technology; not biological) I'd think it was evidence that it was either an extraterrestrial form of life or designed by an extraterrestrial form of life. If it didn't show signs of being able to reproduce itself, I'd assume it was designed. If it did, I wouldn't know - I might speculate that it itself was a life-form.

How's that?

As for your question

How does the Intelligent Designer of Life do it?

I don't know and I don't have to know in order to know that an intelligence was required any more than I have to know how the designers of the Great Pyramid did it. Just because I don't know how they did it, does that mean I am wrong for saying an intelligence was required to build that edifice?

No, this is not correct. We do not see the Great Pyramid reproducing itself, and we do not see any mechanism by which known natural forces could have produced it. On the other hand we do have evidence that human beings built it. On the other hand I have some pyramidal salt crystals that seem to have grown themselves under the influence of completely explicable natural forces. I can therefore infer that the Great Pyramid was designed and built by human beings, and that my salt crystals resulted from a natural crystalisation process.

We cannot, and do not, infer a conscious intelligent designer (I'm assuming you are not using Dembski's definition, but something closer to mine) from attributes of the object. We infer it from what we know of the processes that produced it. And if the object itself produces another similar object (i.e. replicates itself) we have a strong clue that the origin of the object was something a bit like itself. And because of natural selection, we also know that the grandparent and great-grandparent objects may have been simpler, or less functional, or less apparently well designed than the object we are inspecting.

It amazes me that people who claim that biological objects look like man-made machines and that therefore they must have been designed overlook the fact that biological objects have parents. It's one heck of a difference.

[Febble]

Hi Martin--

You wrote

I have a wooden mallot, a paper cup, a plastic mechanical pencil, a ceramic pot, a chuckwagon (wooden wheels and paneling, but with metal fasteners), and the space shuttle Atlantis. Please create a nested hierarchical classification for these objects and list the homologies that define the groups.

Easy.

MAN MADE INNOVATIONS
-Innovations for Communicating
--Verbal Communication
---Telephone
---Radio
--Written Communication
---Pencil
---Pen
---Typewriter
--Visual Communication
---Television
---Internet
-Innovations for Transportation
--Ground Transport
--Air Transport
--Space Transport
---Space Shuttle
-Innovations for Dining
--Chuck Wagon
--Paper cup
--Ceramic pot
-Innovations for Building
--Wooden mallet
--Saw
--Measuring tape

As Michael Denton and I agree, nested hierarchies are ideally suited for artificial objects. The Denton reference for nested hierarchies describing artifical objects is Chapter 6 of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Do you have the book?

More later.

You really haven't understood what the term "nested hierarchies" means. I suppose that is understandable, because it's not that great a term. "Tree-hierarchy" would be better.

The point being that artificial objects are best fitted on a Venn diagram. Venn diagrams allow objects that transcend category boundaries to be represented. For example, where, in your Tree-hierarchy would you place a hovercraft? Or a Swiss Army knife? Or a teleporter? But a Venn diagram would handle all three just fine.

The point about a objects that descended from a common ancestor is that they shouldn't need a Venn diagram. They should be able to be fitted on the more demanding tree hierarchy. To bring up chimeras again, if chimeras were found, we would need to use a Venn diagram to represent life forms, not a tree-hierarchy. A Venn diagram would work fine. Centaurs would occupy the overlapping portion of the two circles representing primates and equids. Mermaids would occupy the overlapping portion of the circles representing primates and fish. In the same way, a hovercraft occupies the overlapping portion of the circles representing air transport and surface transport. And a Swiss army knife occupies the overlapping portion of the two circles representing cutting instruments and things for taking stones out of horses hooves.

Bu there is nowhere on a tree-hierarchy for a centaur, or a mermaid, or a hovercraft, or a Swiss army knife. Yet we observe hovercrafts and Swiss army knives. We do not observe centaurs or mermaids.

[damitall]

I'm intrigued by this argument.
In my view, "design" infers "purpose". When man designs something, it's done with a purpose, to achieve some end. That end might be as trivial as a bit of decorative jewellery, or it might be as significant as an internal combustion engine, but there is always a purpose. Design cannot happen without purpose - the designer must perceive a need for the thing designed.

What is or was the purpose of this "higher intelligence" in designing those "machines", processes, and so on that result in life as we know it? Was it because the HI thought it would decorate the surface of this planet? What was its purpose in designing such as Plasmodium falciparum, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the smallpox virus? What was its purpose in designing the processes that resulted in Mr Hawkins?

What, indeed, is the purpose of the planet itself?- and considering the significant flaws in its design, why has there been no product withdrawal and redesign process?

So, come on, please, IDers -what is the purpose behind ID?