Judge Rules in "Intelligent Design" Case

Originally posted by KellyJay
Exactly how do you prove design, I can give you setups where we
would/could know that what was there was designed; however, just
like the marbles, you can always say maybe not, no matter what
side of the fence you find yourself on when looking at what is
before us. Without being in the factory, looking at something
there requires specific knowledge on ...[text shortened]... change, or by design either through processes, or by
an extremely power act of creation.
Kelly

Absolutely, at that point it comes down to probabilities - that being why we use them in science. Since we have no direct, irrefutable, proof for god, but we do have evidence for evolution, the probabilty has to be that evolution is the way the world came to be the way it is.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I disagree that ID is backwards, or at least that is always backwards, it
can be at times, but that doesn't mean we cannot see something and
deduct that it is by design, and not by mere chance through natural
processes.
Kelly

I'm going to take issue with "'mere' chance". Mere chance is an entirely apt description when dealing with purely physical processes, however biological evolution does not work that way. Perhaps if we said something along the lines of 'constrained chance' might be more appropriate really. I say constrained chance since things are not created uniquely from no precursor in evolution, but have to stick basically to the plan already in place, changes represent alterations around an already established system. Kinda like swapping varieties of spark plugs in your car and it providing either improved or decreased performance. Eventually the performance decreasing plugs will be phased out, the way sulphinated diesel is being phased out here, since sulphur is not required in todays diesel engines.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Absolutely, at that point it comes down to probabilities - that being why we use them in science. Since we have no direct, irrefutable, proof for god, but we do have evidence for evolution, the probabilty has to be that evolution is the way the world came to be the way it is.

Listen, I do believe in what some call evolutionary change, I do not
agree it has been shown to occur in the large degrees that many
think it has, such as going from something like a single cell to the
vast array of life we see today from a blade of grass to a whale.

Small changes are viewable, they are testable, but do they add up to
take a single cell creature to one that has myriad of systems that all
work together within, that also require another similar creature of a
different sex to have off spring, that lives in niches that have such a
balance of food supply that the niches sustain life over centuries, or
billions of years? Life allows for small changes or fluctuations,
much like in an electronic circuit, you will get small variations of
voltage, it is allowed and designed for; however, if the fluctuations
becomes to extreme or in an area where such changes can cause
error, within life you could end up with either sterility or death.

We have discussed changes over time before, and you have told me
that you believe that evolutionary changes occur in small increments
over time. The discussion on ID is that shouldn't even be discussed,
because we can come up with different scenarios on what we are
looking at with life. I’m not out to change your mind on anything, but
I would like you to entertain this thought, you telling me that
evolutionary occurred in small changes over billions of years, is like
me showing you a penny on a table with heads showing. I tell you
that I had just flipped that coin 80 times, and each and every time it
landed on heads. You either take my word for it or don’t, if you
disagree with me, I point out to you, well each roll was simply a
small 50% chance of occurring, I took my time when I flipped the
coins. Does my explanation settle it is possible that the coin was
flipped 80 times in a row, and each time it landed on heads, or do
you have to look at the odds against a string of flips and say, no it
did no happen?
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm going to take issue with "'mere' chance". Mere chance is an entirely apt description when dealing with purely physical processes, however biological evolution does not work that way. Perhaps if we said something along the lines of 'constrained chance' might be more appropriate really. I say constrained chance since things are not created u ...[text shortened]... hinated diesel is being phased out here, since sulphur is not required in todays diesel engines.

I see your point, but my disagreement has to do with all the right
pieces, being in the right area, under the right conditions, in the
right amounts, hooking up in the right way, and so on. That is
either the grandest amount of luck, or design if I were to accept
abio-genesis (sp) and afterwards evolutionary change to the degrees
many accept today.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I see your point, but my disagreement has to do with all the right
pieces, being in the right area, under the right conditions, in the
right amounts, hooking up in the right way, and so on. That is
either the grandest amount of luck, or design if I were to accept
abio-genesis (sp) and afterwards evolutionary change to the degrees
many accept today.
Kelly

Okay Kelly, I'm going to respond to both your posts here. You have good points on both. The chances of flipping any coin 80 times in succession and getting all heads is unlikely. But evolution is more like this scenario.

Start out with 10 coins and flip them. 5 should come out as heads. take these 5 coins and add an extra 5. Count all coins as having flipped heads the first time (the 5 you added are the progeny of the original 5, and therefore share the result of the original flip (or gene in real life)). You now have 10 coins again. Repeat until you've flipped 80 heads. It becomes impossible to not flip 80 heads, provided that you only ever keep ones that won the previous toss, and replace the losers with more winners. That's how evolution works.

Right conditions etc.

Well Kelly, most of the species that have evolved are already dead. Most of the time the planet didn't have the right conditions, or there was a better competitor or a meteor smacked into the planet. However, one thing is universal - it there is energy in the system for life to use then you will find life. You'll find it in oceanic hot vents and in volcanic craters, you'll find it in geothermal hot pools at a temperature of 120C at pH 3. It's amazing. If there is energy there will be life. After mass extictions it's little wonder that life recovered.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Okay Kelly, I'm going to respond to both your posts here. You have good points on both. The chances of flipping any coin 80 times in succession and getting all heads is unlikely. But evolution is more like this scenario.

Start out with 10 coins and flip them. 5 should come out as heads. take these 5 coins and add an extra 5. Count all coins as ...[text shortened]... re is energy there will be life. After mass extictions it's little wonder that life recovered.

lol, Its amazing how you can turn odds of somthing "impossable" to happen, to "possable"

your saying that you throw 80 coins, keep the ones that are heads and just re-throw the rest, however it needs a human
(deisgner) to look at which ones are heads, and which ones isnt,

Its inpossable for somone to get 80 coins with heads if they are blind

Originally posted by flyUnity
lol, Its amazing how you can turn odds of somthing "impossable" to happen, to "possable"

your saying that you throw 80 coins, keep the ones that are heads and just re-throw the rest, however it needs a human
(deisgner) to look at which ones are heads, and which ones isnt,

Its inpossable for somone to get 80 coins with heads if they are blind

Actually it is a pass fail choice, if something ends up heads it moves
on, if it ends up tails it dies and does not carry on in life. The issue
with coins is simply, can we just say taking it to a basic level of yes/no
can it happen? It is actually much more complicated than a coin
flip the odds of certain changes occurring just right, are far greater
than 50%, and others much less. Now the numbers of coins required
to guarantee 80 successive coin flips using either model I imagine is
much greater than 10. I’m not sure how to come up with that figure,
maybe someone can come up with the starting number required for
both models to take the odds to 1 using either model.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Actually it is a pass fail choice, if something ends up heads it moves
on, if it ends up tails it dies and does not carry on in life. The issue
with coins is simply, can we just say taking it to a basic level of yes/no
can it happen? It is actually much more complicated than a coin
flip the odds of certain changes occurring just right, are far greater
...[text shortened]... h the starting number required for
both models to take the odds to 1 using either model.
Kelly

If you are talking blind coin flips you'd require 6*10^23 flips. Nearly as many atoms are there are in 12 grams of carbon. (2^79).

If you are taking the scenario that I describe then you should get approximately 5 heads at the end. I used the scenario I did because it has certain properties that we observe in nature. One, the 'niche' remains full during consecutive generations. Two, there is a selection force present, in this case it is a human looking at the coins, but in the case of nature it would be selective death of less 'fit' individuals. Three, it accurately represents the way that an unlikely thing (such as flipping 80 heads) can be built up from simpler components (individual coin tosses) provided that we have conservation of positive features. Perhaps it would be more appropriate were not all the 'unfit' coin tosses to die out, but only a certain percantage (80%?) dies out. This would mean that over time a small population, such as the 10 individuals here would 'die out', but a larger population would come to a point where both 'good' and 'bad' individuals would be able to exist in the environment (both 'better' than the starting point of 1 coin flip) in the way we get stable community structures and ecosystems in the real world.

Anyhoo, that's just me off on a little theoretical tangent, but one that works mathematically and explains evolution. I may write up an excel spreadsheet with these calculations in it and post a link, or allow people to email me for a copy.

[edit] oh, i forgot to point out that we have noticed this pattern of successful mutations being favoured in nature - look at MRSA. A steady accummulation of mutations, provided there is the correct stressor (antibiotics), a mutation pops up that allows those bacteria that possess it to survive. This mutation is selected by differential death until the whole population (of billions in this case) have that mutation.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Actually it is a pass fail choice, if something ends up heads it moves
on, if it ends up tails it dies and does not carry on in life. The issue
with coins is simply, can we just say taking it to a basic level of yes/no
can it happen? It is actually much more complicated than a coin
flip the odds of certain changes occurring just right, are far greater
...[text shortened]... h the starting number required for
both models to take the odds to 1 using either model.
Kelly

Spontanoeus mutation rate for the average gene is 0.000000001, or 1 in a million

The presence of a mutagen increases the rate of mutation to anywhere from 0.00001 to 0.001. (1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100)

This isn't all that unlikely when you think of how many gene replications happen. Plenty of your own sperm or eggs will have mutations in them, and remember that not only is the presence of mutagens in the environment quite high, but also, each mutation only needs to happen once. Granted, it has to be the "right" mutation, but still, when you consider the number of individuals in a population and the amount of time we are allowing, it isn't all that hard to believe. I think somewhere, someone calculated that the rate of mutation we see in a species is faster, not slower, than we would need for evolution. I can't remember the source for that, but I will try to find it and get back to you.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Spontanoeus mutation rate for the average gene is 0.000000001, or 1 in a million

The presence of a mutagen increases the rate of mutation to anywhere from 0.00001 to 0.001. (1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100)

This isn't all that unlikely when you think of how many gene replications happen. Plenty of your own sperm or eggs will have mutations in them, and tion. I can't remember the source for that, but I will try to find it and get back to you.

yeah, i heard something similar. def rings a bell...


bearing in mind you have some 4 billion DNA bases, that means something in the region of 4000 mutations every time, assuming that all DNA was coding DNA (junk accummulates mutation faster, because they're not fixed).

Originally posted by KellyJay
I disagree that ID is backwards, or at least that is always backwards, it
can be at times, but that doesn't mean we cannot see something and
deduct that it is by design, and not by mere chance through natural
processes.
Kelly

Sure, you can look at something and come to the conclusion that it had to have been designed, but if you keep on looking and evidence arises that points to it having arisen through natural processes, you might have to conclude that your original assessment was wrong.
If you reject any evidence that doesn't support your original hypothesis, then you aren't "doing science."
This is why ID and Creationism should be kept out of science classes.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Sure, you can look at something and come to the conclusion that it had to have been designed, but if you keep on looking and evidence arises that points to it having arisen through natural processes, you might have to conclude that your original assessment was wrong.
If you reject any evidence that doesn't support your original hypothesis, then you aren't "doing science."
This is why ID and Creationism should be kept out of science classes.

I'm not one for pushing ID in science class as I have stated before.
I'm simply saying that ID comes to a point where it makes a
conclusion, be it before the data is looked at or afterwards it is still
making a stand on what is being seen. Stating that you may get the
same thing through natural processes is also making a stand too in
my opinion, just a different conclusion, but a conclusion nonetheless.
You cannot say anyone has seen life arise from non-life, it has not
been recorded; life is simply here, and we are looking at it wondering
about the source/cause/process of it. Science is the search of an
answer to the truth, it isn't about finding it, if I take what you say as
the goal of science.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If you are talking blind coin flips you'd require 6*10^23 flips. Nearly as many atoms are there are in 12 grams of carbon. (2^79).

If you are taking the scenario that I describe then you should get approximately 5 heads at the end. I used the scenario I did because it has certain properties that we observe in nature. One, the 'niche' remains full ...[text shortened]... death until the whole population (of billions in this case) have that mutation.

I'll look forward to your spread sheet and the formula that you use.
I would say that 80% is quite low, since we are attempting to look
at life, there are more than a coin flip of variables at play, food
supply, environmental, bad mutations and so on. You’re not going to
be able to put them all in which is good for you since it would only
decrease your odds.

If you are going to do add numbers by nearly guaranteeing that you
have a positive result by adding an additional percentage of 20%
of the failures you may succeed. It isn’t what I was talking about,
but this is your formula. I’m interested in what formula you come
with and its results. If you require an additional 20% of the failures
to pass no matter what, than that is what you require.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not one for pushing ID in science class as I have stated before.
I'm simply saying that ID comes to a point where it makes a
conclusion, be it before the data is looked at or afterwards it is still
making a stand on what is being seen. Stating that you may get the
same thing through natural processes is also making a stand too in
my opinion, just a ...[text shortened]... the truth, it isn't about finding it, if I take what you say as
the goal of science.
Kelly

OK
I'm not talking about the ideas contained within ID here, just about what it is and what it isn't and it seems that we agree.
We don't agree on what science is, but that's another topic.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
OK
I'm not talking about the ideas contained within ID here, just about what it is and what it isn't and it seems that we agree.
We don't agree on what science is, but that's another topic.

In light of ID, I'd like to hear your view on science is and is not, if
you do not mind?
Kelly