Evidence for God from Science

KBCid wrote:So as has been clarified in every possible manner in this thread, matter is being PRECISELY and REPETETIVELY moved in both time and space. The matter in question has no inherent reason for moving in this manner. There is absolutely no physical reason for it to move itself in this manner so the only logical causal reason to explain the observable evidence is that it is being systematically controlled in both time and space.

Proinsias wrote: This is where you drift from science to speculation. To state that there is absolutely no physical reason for matter to move in the ways you perceive it moving is pure speculation, it's not science, it's metaphysics.

This is where you want it to seem that I am drifting but as I have pointed out everything I assert is founded in physics. If you think there can be another answer than one from the known laws of physics then it would be you who infers a possibility not backed by both physics and engineering.
Science is based on what can be tested. The physics of the motion of matter is a law... proven so many times that it is a law and not a theory.
I would also point out that how the matter is moving is not simply my perception. It is the observable evidence shown in every paper referenced. You are of course free to assert whatever theory you wish to explain the motion but you will have to go outside of physical laws to do so.

Proinsias wrote:I can choose to agree with your leap of logic that biology is sufficiently complicated & repeating in time to such a degree of precision that intelligence is the only reasonable answer for it's origin and persistence through time, or I can reject it. Either way I'm no closer to understanding how proteins fold, embryos develop or why the orbits of some planets can be described as being closer to circles than others.

A leap of logic occurs when you can't tie two points together. My theory doesn't suffer from such a problem. Observable evidence is completely explained by the physics of how such precision and repeating motion is possible and nothing is left out. You can reject a logical explanation just as flat earthers deny the evidence today. A leap in logic would occur if you were to posit that natural cause could have by chance formed such an irreducible system since no one has ever observed such formations occuring naturally.

KBCid wrote:So to recap... this thread deals with "precision replication" of material formations in time and space. The theory to explain it is a spatiotemporal control system. The foundation of the theory is based on the 'known' laws of physics and the empirical application of those laws in our reality. If you feel that these laws of physics and their empirical applications are insufficient foundations to explain the observable evidence then you are welcome to define what does explain it.

Proinsias wrote:I would love to be able to define it, I'd be rather pleased with myself if I could explain even one of the issues that are confusing scientists in the examples you have brought up but I can't. Neither can the astronomers who are scratching their heads, or the biologists calling for more work to be done in the relevant areas. Or you.

Then you can show why the theory is inadequate to explain the observable evidence rather than simply denouncing what you refuse to consider.

KBCid wrote:It may be unknown to you because you don't have a firm grasp of physics but it is not unknown to a physics / engineering world.

Proinsias wrote:Come on, it's not a grasp of physics and engineering that's required, it's philosophy, metaphysics & logic. I presume that Stephen Hawking declaring that life is the result of chance and random mutation is due to him not having the firm grasp of physics that you display.

Sorry but there is no philosophy involved in how mechanics operates nor is it involved in physics. Either you can grasp these understanding or you can't. However, you can't simply assert that they don't exist or apply. This is what occurs when there is a belief or bias involved just as heavier than air flight was impossible. Hawking is not a portal of absolute truth unless you 'believe' it is so. What you have in front of you is a physics based argument and you are doing everyhting possible not to confront it head on. It is understandable as to why that is so though... you have an apriori commitment.

Proinsias wrote:The entire biological/physical argument is beside the point. You see yourself as intelligent and infer this intelligence must have come from a non-random source.

Red herring. attempting to redirect the focus.

I would argue that whilst your idea may be founded in physics you are using physics as a springboard for metaphysical speculation. To suggest there is no philosophy involved in physics, as you have done, is a bit of a stretch. I'm not presenting Hawking as a source of absolute truth but to be honest I hold his grasp of physics in higher estimation than I do yours, and his conclusions on the origin and persistence of life are strikingly different to yours. My theory for this is Stephen Hawking is an atheist and you are a Christian, that it has little to do with grasping the fundamentals of mechanics & an awful lot to do with one's philosophical and theological leanings in life.

I don't think I'm refusing to consider things. I've considered your theory and I don't see what it adds to any of the issues raised aside from unspecified, you either grasp it or you don't, intelligent design. Perhaps time and some specifications will tell otherwise. At the moment your theory suffers from no problems as it has no applications.

Once you've concluded there is absolutely no physical reason for matter to be moving in the ways we observe you are free, as you say, to assert anything.

Proinsias wrote:I would argue that whilst your idea may be founded in physics you are using physics as a springboard for metaphysical speculation.

My beliefs are a separate issue from mechanics and physics. You are the only one attempting to apply them to the point being made. This is a red herring issue.

Proinsias wrote:To suggest there is no philosophy involved in physics, as you have done, is a bit of a stretch.

my field of specialization is not grounded in philosophy. Every point of physics being applied is a law. Reproducible at will by anyone with interest. This woud be another red herring issue.

Proinsias wrote:I'm not presenting Hawking as a source of absolute truth but to be honest I hold his grasp of physics in higher estimation than I do yours, and his conclusions on the origin and persistence of life are strikingly different to yours.

You can hold a belief in whom you will that is not my business but you should ask yourself what laws of physics are being referenced by Hawkings and how many systems does he form on a regular basis using those laws of physics. I would also ask what a theoretical physiscist who has specialized in theories about black holes has to do with the precision replication of living systems?

Proinsias wrote:My theory for this is Stephen Hawking is an atheist and you are a Christian, that it has little to do with grasping the fundamentals of mechanics & an awful lot to do with one's philosophical and theological leanings in life.

I was a mechanical engineer long before I became a christian in my side beliefs. It is because of my findings in applied physics that brought me to that result but of course this thread is not about what I hold for a belief in ultimate cause. The thread is about applied physics to explain precision replication of 3 dimensional forms of matter.

Proinsias wrote:I don't think I'm refusing to consider things. I've considered your theory and I don't see what it adds to any of the issues raised aside from unspecified, you either grasp it or you don't, intelligent design. Perhaps time and some specifications will tell otherwise. At the moment your theory suffers from no problems as it has no applications.

Intelligent design is posited as the cause of the system being discussed. You don't have to hold the same belief as I do about what may have originally formed the system. You are free to assert any cause you feel has the potential to form an irreducibly complex spatiotemporal control system. What the theory and this thread was intended to do was to bring to realisation just what has to be involved in the precision replication of living systems and you have not addressed even one point that actually deals with the points given for that subject. Instead you have attacked everything else including my beliefs which are not the subject of the thread. The subject of this thread is about a 3 dimensional spatiotemporal system controlling matter spatially and temporally and how it can do it.

Proinsias wrote:Once you've concluded there is absolutely no physical reason for matter to be moving in the ways we observe you are free, as you say, to assert anything.

It is not just me making the conclusion. The same conclusion is asserted by many of the researchers because there are no laws of physics to justify the observable evidence. They know as well as I that matter doesn't form itself into living systems without a control system. You can certainly assert that it all happens by chance but you woud be in the minority even among atheist scientists. We all observe and know that everything about the forming of the living system is controlled. Their only question still being researched is the extent of the pathways for how the control is implemented. There is no evolution without precision replication. There is no physical possibility of precision replication without a complex control system. Did such a system form by chance? you can absolutely assert that you believe it is possible and I can ask for any evidence you have that the possibility exists.

How would one rule out the possibility of things occurring by chance? I'm not aware of a working method, the one I'm familiar with from fine tuning and creationism is when I am presented with a series of numbers which somehow prove that life, the universe and everything cannot have occurred by chance. Is there a mathematical limit to the complexity that can be produced in a universe this size over a period of say 13 billion or so years that biology has breached? Is there an accepted mathematical proof for when complexity becomes irreducible complexity?

You speak as if irreducible complexity & intelligent design follow on from the known laws of physics. They don't. Physics, nor biology, provides one with a foolproof, or any, method to prove irreducible complexity or intelligent design. These concepts flow not from Newton's first law but from Behe. Behe's views are dismissed by the scientific community and centres of education, even his own employer has a disclaimer on their website to distance themselves from his non-scientific views involving irreducible complexity & intelligent design - it's not just the worldwide scientific and educational communities, even in the USA where they won't take no for an answer from the scientific community we have a Christian judge declaring it an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources", before ruling in favour of keeping Behe's idea out of the scientific curriculum.

Perhaps I am mistaken and concepts such as ID, irreducible complexity & 3d spatiotemporal control are clearly defined in the laws of physics. Perhaps there are simple repeatable experiments based on the laws of physics which undeniably confirm your conclusions, I don't see them. Newton's first law, which you seem rather fond of, doesn't outline a method to determine design, control or complexity.

I don't think I'm alone in thinking these idea are grounded in religion and serve no benefit to science aside from to create a space termed 'intelligent cause' which can comfortably, as your own beliefs demonstrate, house the Christian creator God. I've studied biology and can say that over the past 11 pages you haven't shed any light on anything, the only thing I can see that I would gain from accepting your theory is a place for God.
If it turns out there is some truth in intelligent design by us discovering life on earth was designed by the fire breathing mushrooms of the planet zorg, it just becomes an argument as to the source of their intelligence. The only end to this is the one you have found - God. Whilst I'm sure it's immensely satisfying to you, it's currently providing nothing for biology.

I'm beginning to think you might be happy if a degree in biology was kicked off with "Everything you are about to study over the next few years is spatio-temporal controlled, for the first lesson we will be removing the words random & natural from the textbooks & unknowns will no longer be described as unknowns but as spatio-temporal control issues, now that KBCid is happy we can proceed as normal".

It seems at some point, possibly though the works of Behe combined with your own work, you have had a moment of clarity. Unfortunately you have brought nothing back from this insight aside from a novel phrase. From what I can see when an engineer is taken with the idea of intelligent design and irreducible complexity he has a compulsion to frame these ideas in engineering terminology.

Proinsias wrote:How would one rule out the possibility of things occurring by chance?I'm not aware of a working method, the one I'm familiar with from fine tuning and creationism is when I am presented with a series of numbers which somehow prove that life, the universe and everything cannot have occurred by chance. Is there a mathematical limit to the complexity that can be produced in a universe this size over a period of say 13 billion or so years that biology has breached?

The scientific method is not a method of inquiry used to prove what is impossible. It is all about finding evidence to back what is possible so your point of view that I would need to have a method to rule it out to eliminate its use as an explanation is an erronius conclusion of logic. Such a position is no different than the creationist position that atheists must disprove the existence of God before they can rule out God as an answer to explain things. This is why I specifically stated;

"Did such a system form by chance? you can absolutely assert that you believe it is possible and I can ask for any evidence you have that the possibility exists"

Since the scientific method demands repeatable empirical evidence for proper backing of an assertion I have properly pointed out to you that you are indeed free to make the assertion of there being a possibility and I followed that understanding with show me the evidence to back it. This is how proper scientific inquiry works.
So until you can provide the proper scientific evidence that chance can form such a system then your assertion that it can is properly understood to be your own personal belief no different than any other religious belief in existence and I am not under obligation to disprove it.

Proinsias wrote:Is there an accepted mathematical proof for when complexity becomes irreducible complexity?

Indeed there is. Mathematically 3 cannot be the answer to 1+1. If you want to make the answer to the addition problem equal 3 then you are irreducibly bound to have at least one number greater than 1. Such is the nature and meaning of irreducibility.

irreducible
1: impossible to transform into or restore to a desired or simpler condition <an irreducible matrix>; specifically : incapable of being factored into polynomials of lower degree with coefficients in some given field (as the rational numbers) or integral domain (as the integers) <an irreducible equation>
2: impossible to make less or smaller <an irreducible minimum>

Proinsias wrote:You speak as if irreducible complexity & intelligent design follow on from the known laws of physics. They don't. Physics, nor biology, provides one with a foolproof, or any, method to prove irreducible complexity or intelligent design.

Irreducible complexity and intelligent design are not tied together nor do I imply that they are. The understanding that a system can be and is irreducible is a foundational understanding of math and physics. In the laws of motion defined by Newton;

First law: If an object experiences no net force, then its velocity is constant: the object is either at rest (if its velocity is zero), or it moves in a straight line with constant speed.

Being able to affect the motion of matter minimally requires that there be matter and that there is a force available to be applied against it. This is an irreducible complexity. You are of course free to assert that matter can be affected without the application of a force on it and I will still properly ask for the evidence for your assertion just as the scientific method demands. However, I am not required by the scientific method to disprove your assertion as a possibility to eliminate its use since you must first provide evidence to back your assertion before it can be considered a relevant assertion.

Proinsias wrote:These concepts flow not from Newton's first law but from Behe. Behe's views are dismissed by the scientific community and centres of education, even his own employer has a disclaimer on their website to distance themselves from his non-scientific views involving irreducible complexity & intelligent design - it's not just the worldwide scientific and educational communities, even in the USA where they won't take no for an answer from the scientific community we have a Christian judge declaring it an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources", before ruling in favour of keeping Behe's idea out of the scientific curriculum.

Unfortunately the refernce to Behe that you think plays on the validity of irreducible complexity itself was not about whether irreducible complexity is a real understanding. It was entirely about 'how' it was being applied for whether a mechanism could be formed in a stepwise fashion with a conceptual forming mechanism being applied.
The scientific communities position that Behe is wrong in his application of irreducible complexity to the formation of a flagellum within the operating mechanism of evolution is only debated from their POV by the inclusion of the evolutionary mechanism as a specific minimal necessary component in the formation process. Thus, their arguement properly understood is that Behe is not factoring in the ability of the mechanism of evolution to be capable of forming a mechanism piece by piece over time.
So their position just as Behe's is dependand on a minimal complexity being available to cause the specific formation to occur. They simply don't agree with what irreducibly complex cause could acheive the result.
Do you know what their minimal / irreducible complexities are? I do.
1) energy
2) matter
3) a replication system
4) a funtioning evolutionary mechanism being applied to a replication system

This is their irreducibly complex cause. If you remove any one of these from the formula then you won't get a flagellum. Of course you would have to have an understanding of what irreducible complexity means to properly understand how they apply their view in contrast to Behe's. Would you feel comfortable in assert that their POV is incorrect and that a flagellum can be formed without the minimal / irreducible complexity they rely on (defined in the 4 points above)? Tell me which of the 4 points above is not a necessary / irreducible component for a flagellum to be formed?

To argue the point about irreducibe complexity you must first understand what it is and how its applicable. so far you have not shown that you have this understanding since you are attempting to argue against irreducible complexity itself and not simply how it's applied. You somehow reason that because Behe's application of it in regards to a mechanism formation is not accepted by the scientific community then the concept of irreducible complexity itself is not real when in fact it is not a question of whether it's real or not but rather, how it is being applied.

Proinsias wrote:Perhaps I am mistaken and concepts such as ID, irreducible complexity & 3d spatiotemporal control are clearly defined in the laws of physics. Perhaps there are simple repeatable experiments based on the laws of physics which undeniably confirm your conclusions, I don't see them. Newton's first law, which you seem rather fond of, doesn't outline a method to determine design, control or complexity.

Perhaps you are attempting to lump all these concepts together incorrectly since the point about ID is not part of the theory of how life currently functions via a spatiotemporal control system. I have properly pointed out that the belief in ID as a necessary cause for the origination of such a system is not a consideration for how it is currently functioning. Id is posited by me as necessary in contrast to chance only as it concerns the origin of the system.
If you don't like my assertion of ID being necessary then as I have stated many times you are free to assert how chance could form such an irreducibly complex system by itself. Unlike the opponents to Behe's theory you don't have two of the minimal necessary components to conceptually assert a cause for it formation. Without a replication system and an evolutionary mechanism to apply to it you have only chance as an alternative assertable cause and you would have to provide the scientifically repeatable evidence that it is capable of causing the system to occur.

Proinsias wrote:I don't think I'm alone in thinking these idea are grounded in religion and serve no benefit to science aside from to create a space termed 'intelligent cause' which can comfortably, as your own beliefs demonstrate, house the Christian creator God.

You are quite free in what you wish to believe. If you had understood what is being argued then you would know that the religious part is entirely defined for the origin of the system being discussed and that it is not limited to an assertion for a specific cause such as the Christian God. What I have minimally asserted is it requires intelligent agency. If you feel more comfortable with aliens or budda or zeus you are free to assert anything that would minimally house an intelligent agency. Proving who the agent is though is not part of the concern in this thread. That is an arguement for philosophers. I have made a choice for myself by myself that has no bearing on the topic of this thread no matter how much you would like to make it a hinge point on the theories validity.

Proinsias wrote:I've studied biology and can say that over the past 11 pages you haven't shed any light on anything, the only thing I can see that I would gain from accepting your theory is a place for God.

Indeed you have consistently asserted that you understand biology and have consistently shown that you don't comprehend mechanics. I would question your actual understanding of biology since all life operates mechanistically. I would also point out that nothing in biology makes sense without a proper understanding of both physics and mechanics.
Anyone can say something like "I have studied astronomy" and try to infer that because you studied what is currently taught about a subject it gives you the power to assert truths that others wouldn't inherently know but you should keep in mind that for 1500 years the geocentric theory predominated and its 'students', who studied it, generally believed what was taught and taught others the same.
If you wish to impress upon me your understanding of biology then define exactly how a code transforms into 3 dimensional formations repetetively. That is what every biological form does right?

Proinsias wrote:I'm beginning to think you might be happy if a degree in biology was kicked off with "Everything you are about to study over the next few years is spatio-temporal controlled, for the first lesson we will be removing the words random & natural from the textbooks & unknowns will no longer be described as unknowns but as spatio-temporal control issues, now that KBCid is happy we can proceed as normal".
It seems at some point, possibly though the works of Behe combined with your own work, you have had a moment of clarity. Unfortunately you have brought nothing back from this insight aside from a novel phrase. From what I can see when an engineer is taken with the idea of intelligent design and irreducible complexity he has a compulsion to frame these ideas in engineering terminology.

You can certainly posit that there is no need to understand physics or mechanics when studying biology. That is your choice to make just as its anyones free choice to pick and choose what they think is applicable to understanding something. My position will remain that nothing in biology makes sense without a proper understanding of both physics and the mechanics of its application.

Wow, that's a meaty post KBCid. I'm gonna be a busy bee for the next few days at least but will digest this and get back to you soon.

I really don't see how one plus one not equaling three or Newton's first law back the notion of irreducible complexity.

KBCid wrote:Being able to affect the motion of matter minimally requires that there be matter and that there is a force available to be applied against it. This is an irreducible complexity.

And therefore anything that can be thought of in terms of matter or energy, which are relative terms, is irreducibly complex. It's back to the prime mover.

KBCid wrote:You are of course free to assert that matter can be affected without the application of a force on it and I will still properly ask for the evidence for your assertion just as the scientific method demands.

I'm not suggesting that at all. To conceive of matter without considering movement or force is folly, matter creates forces and forces creates matter, two sides of the coin n all that.

KBCid wrote:However, I am not required by the scientific method to disprove your assertion as a possibility to eliminate its use since you must first provide evidence to back your assertion before it can be considered a relevant assertion.

My entire issue with this thread is that you have provided nothing which would eliminate your assertion. I have no issue with biology, chemistry or physics - you seem to have a rather big issue with the conclusions of biology and from what I can see have provided nothing to back it up.

Do you know what their minimal / irreducible complexities are? I do.
1) energy
2) matter
3) a replication system
4) a funtioning evolutionary mechanism being applied to a replication system

1&2 are necessary considerations for anything in the physical world, but last I heard matter can be reduced to energy. 3&4 seem to be a rather arbitrary distinction which suits your theory - an evolutionary mechanism is a replication system, it does not need to be applied to one.
I will attempt to reduce your minimal requirements:
1)stuff
2)changes

KBCid wrote:If you don't like my assertion of ID being necessary then as I have stated many times you are free to assert how chance could form such an irreducibly complex system by itself.

That's the beauty of your idea, unless some can prove chance, which as you've said is about as easy as disproving God, your idea will stand. The only thing that could bring down your theory is a logical rational proof that there is no logic or reason for things in general, you're bulletproof. Anything that makes sense confirms your intuitions, anything that doesn't will in time. The only way I can imagine you would concede you are wrong postdates the point where all matter goes crazy to the point you are no longer able to exist logically in the physical world.

That's what I mean when I say that as you view yourself as intelligent, you view your source as intelligent. Some people see the source as loving, hating, humorous, random or whatever. You infer intelligence, as a mathematician once said: "God is a mathematician", good for him.

KBCid wrote:If you had understood what is being argued then you would know that the religious part is entirely defined for the origin of the system being discussed and that it is not limited to an assertion for a specific cause such as the Christian God.

My personal experience is that all the people I've come across arguing for intelligent design or irreducible complexity have been doing so on with the basis of some sort of Abrahamic creator God, a prime mover if you will.

KBCid wrote:If you feel more comfortable with aliens or budda or zeus you are free to assert anything that would minimally house an intelligent agency

Why should intelligence and agency be a factor?
I'm as comfortable with the idea of chance as I am with other religious & philosophical explanations. As you say you are free to assert whatever you want, even 3d spatio-temporal control!

KBCid wrote:I would also point out that nothing in biology makes sense without a proper understanding of both physics and mechanics.

I would go one further and say that nothing in biology makes sense without a proper understanding of biology. It's along shot but I think that reason you disagree with the majority of biologists is because you don't understand biology.

Is it at all possible that the misunderstanding is due to your misunderstanding of biology moreso than it is my misunderstanding of physics?

Proinsias wrote:I really don't see how one plus one not equaling three or Newton's first law back the notion of irreducible complexity.

Then in your world you don't understand mechanically why everything can't happen from nothing and 1+1 can equal anything.

KBCid wrote:Being able to affect the motion of matter minimally requires that there be matter and that there is a force available to be applied against it. This is an irreducible complexity.

Proinsias wrote:And therefore anything that can be thought of in terms of matter or energy, which are relative terms, is irreducibly complex. It's back to the prime mover.

In sciences current understanding of energy and matter, energy preceeds matter since all matter is in a constant state of losing energy. The missing part of the understanding is how energy transformed into matter. Do you know?
According to your understanding on this point energy can simply become matter at its own whim without any other cause making it the only necessary irreducible cause for the formation of matter. Have you actually seen energy... on its own without outside influence simply convert into matter?

KBCid wrote:You are of course free to assert that matter can be affected without the application of a force on it and I will still properly ask for the evidence for your assertion just as the scientific method demands.

Proinsias wrote:I'm not suggesting that at all. To conceive of matter without considering movement or force is folly, matter creates forces and forces creates matter, two sides of the coin n all that.

Again have you seen energy / forces create matter on its own? Then define why intelligence has been necessary in the formation of 3 dimensional formations? By your rationale a watch or a car should be able to form just from the presence of energy and the energy can simply translate into such a material form on its own.

KBCid wrote:However, I am not required by the scientific method to disprove your assertion as a possibility to eliminate its use since you must first provide evidence to back your assertion before it can be considered a relevant assertion.

Proinsias wrote:My entire issue with this thread is that you have provided nothing which would eliminate your assertion. I have no issue with biology, chemistry or physics - you seem to have a rather big issue with the conclusions of biology and from what I can see have provided nothing to back it up.

You have consistently avoided what I have said could be shown to disprove what I am asserting in this thread. Chance is the only other rationale that could be used to explain how 3 dimensional form occurs. I have told you directly several times that if you can bring evidence for chance being causal then you would have the only other way of explaining it.
According to all the papers I referenced and my own understanding of physics you cannot get the matter in a living form to move the way it does by chance but, again... for the multiply restated time if you can bring evidence that it is possible for chance to cause such movement then you would have a rational foot to stand on for such an assertion.

KBCid wrote:Do you know what their minimal / irreducible complexities are? I do.
1) energy
2) matter
3) a replication system
4) a funtioning evolutionary mechanism being applied to a replication system

Proinsias wrote:1&2 are necessary considerations for anything in the physical world, but last I heard matter can be reduced to energy.

We all know that matter on its own will eventually reduce to energy. Can you define exactly how matter can occur without energy? Do you think that matter could come first and then energy came from its breakdown?

Proinsias wrote:3&4 seem to be a rather arbitrary distinction which suits your theory - an evolutionary mechanism is a replication system, it does not need to be applied to one. I will attempt to reduce your minimal requirements: 1)stuff 2)changes

Define how a replicating system is arbitrary?
Define how a evolutionary mechanism being applied is arbitrary?
Then define how energy and matter on thier own can form a watch, car, cell or a flagellum.
You seem to think that such things as replication systems are a product of my own imagination but science in general and actual scientists understand what it means. You could read some of the research by Craig Venter et al. They are working to define what the minimal complexity of a self replicating living system is;

Mycoplasma laboratorium is a planned partially synthetic species of bacterium derived from the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium. This effort in synthetic biology is being undertaken at the J. Craig Venter Institute by a team of approximately 20 scientists headed by Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, and including DNA researcher Craig Venter and microbiologist Clyde A. Hutchison III.

Minimal genome project
The team started with the bacterium M. genitalium, an obligate intracellular parasite whose genome consists of 482 genes comprising 582,970 base pairs, arranged on one circular chromosome (the smallest genome of any known natural organism that can be grown in free culture). They then systematically removed genes to find a minimal set of 382 genes that can sustain life.[a 12] This effort was also known as the Minimal Genome Project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium

Of course based on your current POV with me you would argue with Venter that a replication system is just an arbitrary concept in his own mind and that there is no reason to assert a necessity in minimal size because energy can just change on its own into M. genitalium. Look ma "no hands" lol.

KBCid wrote:If you don't like my assertion of ID being necessary then as I have stated many times you are free to assert how chance could form such an irreducibly complex system by itself.

Proinsias wrote:That's the beauty of your idea, unless some can prove chance, which as you've said is about as easy as disproving God, your idea will stand.

Well looky here. Remember just above where you said;

Proinsias wrote:My entire issue with this thread is that you have provided nothing which would eliminate your assertion.

And here you are just a few paragraghs down saying exactly the opposite. Nice!

Proinsias wrote:The only thing that could bring down your theory is a logical rational proof that there is no logic or reason for things in general, you're bulletproof. Anything that makes sense confirms your intuitions, anything that doesn't will in time. The only way I can imagine you would concede you are wrong postdates the point where all matter goes crazy to the point you are no longer able to exist logically in the physical world.

Indeed the theory is "bulletproof" because every effect has a cause and scientific inquiry is in the business of defining them. The logic I apply is in harmony with those understandings and it is becoming clear that you don't agree with the conclusions because you don't agree with the conclusions of science in general.

Proinsias wrote:That's what I mean when I say that as you view yourself as intelligent, you view your source as intelligent. Some people see the source as loving, hating, humorous, random or whatever. You infer intelligence, as a mathematician once said: "God is a mathematician", good for him.

For every effect there is a cause. Can you define how intelligence is not causal to a multitude of effects? Can you show how a car can be formed without intelligent agency? I don't assert the ultimate former of the system to be intelligent agency on a whim. We have all the evidence from reality that shows the cause and effect relationship between Intelligent agency and 3 dimensional formations as well as the systems designed to form them. Have you observed another causal explanation that can eliminate intelligence as the cause for the effects observed?
This is the great thing about having the freedom to disagree. You can disagree with a conclusion and provide a repeatable test that backs your countering position. Thus disproving the first conclusion you disagree with. Welcome to the stanadard method of scientific inquiry. So here is what we have empirical observable evidence for, Intelligent agency causes the arrangement of matter into specific 3 dimensional formations and intelligent agency arranges systems that can perform specific arrangements repetitiously in both time and space. Your mission should you decide to accept it is to show by repeatable experiment that you can remove the intelligent agency and still get the same effect. Of course you are free to assert that the current evidence is just an illusion and not actually evidence at all.

KBCid wrote:If you had understood what is being argued then you would know that the religious part is entirely defined for the origin of the system being discussed and that it is not limited to an assertion for a specific cause such as the Christian God.

Proinsias wrote:My personal experience is that all the people I've come across arguing for intelligent design or irreducible complexity have been doing so on with the basis of some sort of Abrahamic creator God, a prime mover if you will.

And them you found my thread and I have told you that you are free to fill in the blank with any intelligent agency you can conceive of as the cause because in this excercise it is not important that we define the who, it is minimally important that we define what type of causal agency could be responsible for the effect.

KBCid wrote:If you feel more comfortable with aliens or budda or zeus you are free to assert anything that would minimally house an intelligent agency

Proinsias wrote:Why should intelligence and agency be a factor?

Indeed why does anyone assert that intelligent agency is a factor in anything?

Proinsias wrote:I'm as comfortable with the idea of chance as I am with other religious & philosophical explanations. As you say you are free to assert whatever you want, even 3d spatio-temporal control!

So you are comfortable with asserting that a 3d spatio-temporal control is its own cause. lol nice.

KBCid wrote:I would also point out that nothing in biology makes sense without a proper understanding of both physics and mechanics.

Proinsias wrote:I would go one further and say that nothing in biology makes sense without a proper understanding of biology. It's along shot but I think that reason you disagree with the majority of biologists is because you don't understand biology.

Well you can try that type of irrational thought but then you would be asserting that biology isn't foundationally built on physics and mechanics. Tell me at what point does anything in biology operate beyond the boundaries of physics and mechanics?

Proinsias wrote:Is it at all possible that the misunderstanding is due to your misunderstanding of biology moreso than it is my misunderstanding of physics?

That must be the answer. If I don't agree with you then my understanding of physics and mechanics is insufficient to understand biology because physics and mechanics themselves are insufficient to explain biology according to your POV. Again Nice.

KBCid wrote:Indeed why does anyone assert that intelligent agency is a factor in anything?

Yes.This.

Asserting intelligent agency, especially based on complexity, is a mystery to me. It's more in the realm of speculative philosophy than science from what I can see. If you show me a car or a factory I don't infer intelligent agency or chance, I infer humans. If I see a nest I may infer a bird, if I look at the yonaguni formation I'm not sure whether to infer the ocean currents or humans. The idea of looking at something and inferring intelligent agency is an alien concept I can't get my head around, as I'm sure you've gathered by now. The only organisation I'm aware of aside from the ID movement that is hunting for general signs of intelligence outwith the known framework of biology and its products is SETI and the SETI article I linked to earlier is distancing itself from the ID movement which it characterises as inferring intelligence agency at work when a potato looks a bit like someone's face - I can sympathise with the author of the article. They've also never claimed to have found intelligence, it's a hope of discovery as opposed to intelligence just being obvious and attributable to fairies or Zeus or whatever. They are, just like you, in need of specifics. Unlike you, they are rather reserved in speculation without specifics. They seem keen on finding intelligence, you just want to assert it.

I can't help but link the comment you made earlier about orbits which were closer to circles than others to the Egyptian notion of a God riding his sun chariot across the sky, they thought the sun's movement was consistently the work of a, presumably intelligent, agent. A few thousand years on and you're attributing almost circular orbits to an intelligent agent.

Venter is quite the character, I applaud his efforts into genetic minimalism but it's hardly proof of irreducible complexity. His work to define minimal complexity of genes is interesting but if it's anything like his work on the human genome it's hardly conclusive. Working to find the smallest gene that is functional in a is lab hardly the be all an end all of what is possible, but it's certainly interesting, if yet inconclusive, work.

KBCid wrote:We all know that matter on its own will eventually reduce to energy. Can you define exactly how matter can occur without energy? Do you think that matter could come first and then energy came from its breakdown?

I don't know this. The proof of the pudding will be when there is no matter left and only energy, which kinda gets in the way of typing a response. The idea of matter on its own is rather meaningless to me, as I said in all practical experience matter and energy co-exist. As I've said before the idea of thinking about matter without energy or vice versa is about as useful as contemplating up without down.

KBCid wrote:For every effect there is a cause.

And for every cause there is an effect, so the logic goes. If you define a back you imply a front, that sort of thing. It's not to say the definition is correct just that in dualist thinking to consider one extreme without the other is shaky ground imo - much of the reason I reject the prime mover arguments which involve an uncaused agent or some elaborately worded spin on the idea. To extend it a little everything in the physical world can be viewed as both an effect and a cause. To classify something as solely either an effect or a cause is to miss the point in my opinion.



I think we're well off-topic from the thread by this point. This tends to happen quite often to me here, regardless of the subject matter the thread always seems to end up as a debate on the existence, and nature ,of everything - generally that the nature of everything is not natural, or at least that some things are not natural. I just finished reading "The Object of Morality", towards the end he mentions religion in relation to morality and suggests that the involvement of religion is not merely a different angle on the picture but an entirely different picture. Looking over the other evolution threads and the ones on morality it's full of people who think they are making logical straight forward steps which, to those who don't agree, is simply the other person running in circles. Two people driving in straight lines at each other never hit each other as from each point of view the other is just going in circles whilst they are driving straight ahead.

KBCid wrote:And them you found my thread and I have told you that you are free to fill in the blank with any intelligent agency you can conceive of as the cause because in this excercise it is not important that we define the who, it is minimally important that we define what type of causal agency could be responsible for the effect.

Fill in the blank is the issue. From what I gather one school of thought is of the opinion intelligence, and the definition of it, arose by chance - the other school claims that intelligence must have it's origin in intelligence. That intelligence can't have arisen by chance as humans build cars and think they are clever isn't much of an argument to me.

KBCid wrote:Well you can try that type of irrational thought but then you would be asserting that biology isn't foundationally built on physics and mechanics. Tell me at what point does anything in biology operate beyond the boundaries of physics and mechanics?

I'm not sure where mechanics comes in, but biology to me is built upon physics and chemistry. It doesn't violate the idea of physics or chemistry and thus seems pretty natural to me.

KBCid wrote:That must be the answer. If I don't agree with you then my understanding of physics and mechanics is insufficient to understand biology because physics and mechanics themselves are insufficient to explain biology according to your POV. Again Nice.

I've said from the start that my understanding of chemistry is pretty poor, I struggled with a lot of the organic chemistry in molecular biology classes. Chemistry, from what I gather, is the big stepping stone between physics and biology and has been a stumbling block for me. Perhaps we're missing some common ground, to my knowledge most pre-evoltionary models are not so much based on knowledge of mechanics, physics & biology as they are on the subtleties of organic chemistry.

Proinsias wrote: The idea of looking at something and inferring intelligent agency is an alien concept I can't get my head around, as I'm sure you've gathered by now.

But it's so simple... Most of the things around us are formed either by blind natural forces or intelligent beings (most notably humans). If you can't tell which one is the intelligent one - a piece of rock or a human being, then perhaps you should reconsider what intelligent means to you. For example, you see a car and you know, based on your own experience and knowledge, that such an object does not occur naturally by itself. It has so many essential parts that have to be arranged in a very specific manner, that you cannot simply put the components into a box, shake it and expect for a car to form inside it at some point. It actually requires intelligence to be assembled, it requires understanding of each and every part and its function - understanding, that only humans have shown to possess, as you surely must have noticed. That's how you tell it's intelligently designed, you do it every day of your life.

Proinsias wrote:If you show me a car or a factory I don't infer intelligent agency or chance, I infer humans. If I see a nest I may infer a bird, if I look at the yonaguni formation I'm not sure whether to infer the ocean currents or humans. The idea of looking at something and inferring intelligent agency is an alien concept I can't get my head around, as I'm sure you've gathered by now.

Next time you have a headache place an aspirin and a pebble of equal size next to it and have a monkey choose for you which to take. Or perhaps you should rely on your knowledge of intelligence and surmise that the aspirin is probably the best option. Come on Proin, though I disagree with them, I respect your opinions a great deal. You've now, however, descended into the abyss of absurdity.

Asserting intelligent agency, especially based on complexity, is a mystery to me.

Pros,
My honest assessment is that ID is wasting their time with complexity. scissors are NOT complex, but there is absolutely no question they are intelligently designed. How would you KNOW this? Function. If you need to cut paper, and there is a stick and a pair of scissors, you don't have to stop and think, "one is intelligently designed." Because you are intelligent, you recognize function.
Humans can look at situations and concieve functions for solutions. Flying. Breathing underwater. (SCUBA) "Hmm, I'd like to be able to breath under water. (problem) Ok, I need a device (conceived) to allow me to breath under water." Design follows. Everything to this point is 100% abstract. Nothing exist. You then have to devise (in 3D) and gather the materials and processes for building such a device. Then the device comes into existance. Function isn't accidental.
In another thread today, a Darwinist said that hiccups were the remants of us living in the sea. He said, humans NEEDED to breath.......
Nature is indifferent. It doesn't care if the fittest survive or if you have functioning lungs to breath with. It can't evaluate the environment and then conceive anything. Nature is material. Period. To presume a SCUBA system occurred by accident is nothing short of stupid. Yet, many presume the pulmonary system is just that. What does that make those people?

Neige wrote:But it's so simple... Most of the things around us are formed either by blind natural forces or intelligent beings (most notably humans). If you can't tell which one is the intelligent one - a piece of rock or a human being, then perhaps you should reconsider what intelligent means to you. For example, you see a car and you know, based on your own experience and knowledge, that such an object does not occur naturally by itself. It has so many essential parts that have to be arranged in a very specific manner, that you cannot simply put the components into a box, shake it and expect for a car to form inside it at some point. It actually requires intelligence to be assembled, it requires understanding of each and every part and its function - understanding, that only humans have shown to possess, as you surely must have noticed. That's how you tell it's intelligently designed, you do it every day of your life.

I don't see it as an either/or situation between intelligent design and blind natural forces. In my view humans are natural, just as rocks are. Intelligence is way of classifying the natural world, of which I believe we are a part of. We come up with, often controversial, ways to measure or quantify intelligence just as we come up with, often controversial ways, to determine or quantify say the hardness of a rock. We can classify people in terms of intelligence as we can classify rocks in terms of hardness. I don't see the fact the humans assemble cars as proof of something supernatural, sub natural, or against nature - I find it a little odd that people point to what seems to me to be human nature as proof that humans are something other than natural.

Byblos wrote:Next time you have a headache place an aspirin and a pebble of equal size next to it and have a monkey choose for you which to take. Or perhaps you should rely on your knowledge of intelligence and surmise that the aspirin is probably the best option. Come on Proin, though I disagree with them, I respect your opinions a great deal. You've now, however, descended into the abyss of absurdity.

I'll leave it to my consultant to determine which medication I should stick with, I don't plan on consulting a monkey. Whilst I hope you know I have a great deal of respect for your opinions too, I also find this a venture into absurdity - I've often proclaimed the idea that gravity is a manmade concept and been told to go jump off a cliff. Suggestions to take medical advice from a monkey as I don't agree with inferring ID in biology or its products is pretty absurd to me - that if I believe humans are natural I should go against what seems natural to me and put into practice anything silly that an ID proponent can think up is an odd notion to me which I will politely decline to pursue.

Pros,
My honest assessment is that ID is wasting their time with complexity. scissors are NOT complex, but there is absolutely no question they are intelligently designed. How would you KNOW this? Function. If you need to cut paper, and there is a stick and a pair of scissors, you don't have to stop and think, "one is intelligently designed." Because you are intelligent, you recognize function.
Humans can look at situations and concieve functions for solutions. Flying. Breathing underwater. (SCUBA) "Hmm, I'd like to be able to breath under water. (problem) Ok, I need a device (conceived) to allow me to breath under water." Design follows. Everything to this point is 100% abstract. Nothing exist. You then have to devise (in 3D) and gather the materials and processes for building such a device. Then the device comes into existance. Function isn't accidental.
In another thread today, a Darwinist said that hiccups were the remants of us living in the sea. He said, humans NEEDED to breath.......
Nature is indifferent. It doesn't care if the fittest survive or if you have functioning lungs to breath with. It can't evaluate the environment and then conceive anything. Nature is material. Period. To presume a SCUBA system occurred by accident is nothing short of stupid. Yet, many presume the pulmonary system is just that. What does that make those people?

Thanks jlay. The simplicity/complexity issue is an intriguing one. I have a keen interest in sharp things. Back in the ye olden days before scissors, and in our current time, as the theory goes, people, or hominid type things, would simply pick up a sharp thing like a piece of stone or obsidian to cut stuff. It's at this point I think things start to blur:
"I want to cut meat off the carcass"(problem)
"I need a sharp thing" (conceiving)
"I'll use this sharp thing I found" at this point there doesn't seem to be much design or the creation of a new contraption but a solution to a problem has been found
From there things move to coming across a better sharp thing for a job, perhaps slight modification, whether intentional or not, as we see in stone axes and onwards with slight modifications all the way too the electric meat stripper they use in my local kebab shop. I can see your point but as a bit of a fan of the evolutionary idea in general I also feel it's fits in with my view that stuff evolves, be that biological organisms or the products that issue forth from them - it's trial and error and the retention of what works to me moreso than intelligent design. Scissors to me are not so much obviously the work of intelligent design and moreso one of the, ever evolving, products of many generations trying to cut stuff.
A knife is perhaps even more simple than a pair of scissors, to the point that a preexisting fairly inanimate object can become a knife simply by picking it up and cutting something with it - on the other hand one can spend one's whole life pursing the construction of the perfect cutting implement - one man's trial and error is another man's intelligence. This seems to cut to the heart of the debate as one school is viewing biology, including human development and technology, as one of trial and error building on successes and another views it as intelligent design. Much of the issue I'm having with KBCid is that regardless of stance he's proposing a system which has no specifics as yet - if knife making is intelligent design or evolution in action I'm not too bothered about, what is of interest is the way in which one makes a knife. Telling me that knife making is the result of intelligent design and 3D spatio control doesn't really forward my understanding of knife making without any specifics or experiments to do, much like telling me biology is obviously an intelligently designed 3d spacio-temporal control system which is only lacking in specifics doesn't really forward my understanding of biology - in contrast I would say that evolutionary theory has revolutionised biology regardless of it's truth or falsehood. It seems to me that ID was something which has been long assumed within the hugely influential Abrahamic cultures, when the idea of evolution came along the hunt was on to find a mechanism of inheritance and one was found, if evolution turns out to be a load of bull it's at least led to a huge increase in the understanding of how biology persists.
I think much of the scientific communities contempt for ID would be ameliorated if it revolutionised our understanding our understanding of biology in the way that evolution has done, as it stands it seems little more than a fountain of objections and challenges. KBCid's notion caught my interest as he was talking about a novel mechanism, but a mechanism with no specifics using mysteries as support is in my opinion sorely lacking. Evolutionary theory began the hunt for an mechanism of inheritance, I now owe the past nine months of my life to the discovery and knowledge we have amassed of this mechanism. To propose a mechanism that is generally responsible for all life and some planetary orbits whilst providing no specifics for the mechanism seems of little benefit or interest to anyone. I could propose a mechanism that solves mysteries in the behaviour of water and also explains planetary orbits which veer way of circular, but without any specifics it's of little consequence.

The idea that humans need to breath is an interesting one. One can certainly stop breathing for a short period of time and still be considered human but any prolonged non-breathing is likely to be the end of what I would consider a human. If a dead human is still a human is hurting my head and brings in theological issues too, imo. As for nature being indifferent, I don't agree, in my opinion nature in the form of a human is often not indifferent whereas nature in the form of a rock appears to me to be indifferent. If myself or yourself have purpose, love, hate, intelligence, ignorance, humour etc then to me nature, in some of it's manifestations is purposeful, loving, hating, intelligent, ignorant & humorous. It's not so much a case of nature being intelligent or not, more that nature on occasion can be described as intelligent. That I can refer to certain biological organisms or their products as intelligent is not for me obvious proof that the source of everything must be intelligent any more than declaring a rock is hard therefore the source of all things is hard - hardness whilst somewhat controversial seems at least far more concretely defined than intelligence. I was speaking to an interesting lady whilst waiting on a train a few days ago who was informing me that the creator was a spiritual loving being as she feels she is a spiritual loving being.

And again my attempt at brevity fails, half an hour ago this post was pretty concise

edit: for clarity

If you have a hard time understanding intelligent design and 3D spatio control, then...

Intelligent Design: When a conscious being develops a plan for a working model of a functional object or thing.

3D Spatio Control: A method or means, way, of producing the shape or shapes, structure, of an object or thing physically in three dimensions.

(Pretty simple to understand.)

The thread assumes that there is a mechanism or mechanisms responsible for the replication and forming of life in three dimensions, which has only thus far been known to be possible by intelligent efforts to shape and produce something. DNA and some internal cell functions are the assumed mechanism for replication (that is, continuous shaping and formation of a living structure in three dimensions according to some internal timing schedule for the formation process.)

Best I can understand from what I've read. Hope that it might help somewhat.

And Pro, you're arguing from a different definition of nature than KCB, so... Just wanted to point that out.

FlawedIntellect wrote:And Pro, you're arguing from a different definition of nature than KCB, so... Just wanted to point that out.

Yeah, everything seems pretty natural to me. It's interesting to here from people who can isolate things they see as something else.