Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 21A

message: Vatican official astronomer sayd ID is not science and does not belong in science classrooms http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051118.wvati1118/BNStory/International/
and a version which doesn't require paying $16.00 to access: Yahoo news or ABC news KillerChihuahua 14:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious views on ID 

message: I still have not located the article (still looking, though) where I saw at least 4 different definitions of IC given by Behe and Dembski. However, I have located these, which may help:
*Irreducible Complexity 3 definitions: Behe's original, Dembskis, and Behe's "Evolutionary" definition. From the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.
*ID's irreducible inconsistency revisited a new definition of IC given by Dembski, contradicting his earlier definition, from TalkReason.
*Definitional complexity from EvoWiki.
Which at any rate shows there is some modification of, and disagreement of, the definition of IC. KillerChihuahua 13:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but largely needs to be fenced off into the irreducible complexity page which apart from not being good on the definitions, includes examples that Behe doesn't think are IC, but which Gish (etc) do. — Dunc|☺ 14:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I was looking for a ref I mentioned to Wade, but they might want this over at the IC page... taking it there now. KillerChihuahua 14:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irreducibly complex

message: See personal essay at User:Jim62sch/essay01
::This is wonderful, and obviously a great deal of work. I hope you don't take it amiss if I suggest that it might be better placed on your talk page, or a sub of your talk page, rather than on the Intelligent design talk page. KillerChihuahua 01:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we allowed to edit it, to fix spelling/syntax and or factual errors? -- Ec5618 09:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay: In Principio Creavit Homo Deos -- Pt I 

message: 12 As Professor Behe testified, there are no
 13 peer-reviewed articles in science journals reporting
 14 original research or data that argue for intelligent
 15 design. By contrast, Kevin Padian, by himself, has
 16 written more than a hundred peer-reviewed scientific
 17 articles.
 18 Professor Behe's only response to the
 19 intelligent design movement's lack of production was
 20 repeated references to his own book, Darwin's Black
 21 Box. He was surprised to find out that one of his
 22 purported peer-reviewers wrote an article that
 23 revealed he had not even read the book.
Closing statements (Pg. 47) - RoyBoy 800 18:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents]] 

message: People consciously design such things as houses, chairs, meals, gardens, etc.
I hoped that this "intelligent design" thing would help me do a better job designing things.
I hoped it would somehow be related to the "design science" Buckminster Fuller talked about.
Perhaps by describing some way of inspecting a chair (or other designed object) and finding out whether it was intelligently designed, or simply slapped together without much thought.
I would find this useful even if it gave nonsensical results for non-designed objects.
The current article claims
: The scientific method is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world,
which seems to imply that the scientific method cannot be used to "study and explain" unnatural objects such as chairs and rockets.
Well, OK, that's fine -- I can study and explain those things under the heading of "engineering" and "crafts" and "art".
Does this really lead to the conclusion that "analyzing how chairs are designed" is "unscientific", although "artistic"?
--DavidCary 04:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  general design theory 

message: Abstract - Gene duplication is thought to be a major source of evolutionary innovation because it allows one copy of a gene to mutate and explore genetic space while the other copy continues to fulfill the original function. Models of the process often implicitly assume that a single mutation to the duplicated gene can confer a new selectable property. Yet some protein features, such as disulfide bonds or ligand binding sites, require the participation of two or more amino acid residues, which could require several mutations. Here we model the evolution of such protein features by what we consider to be the conceptually simplest route—point mutation in duplicated genes. We show that for very large population sizes N, where at steady state in the absence of selection the population would be expected to contain one or more duplicated alleles coding for the feature, the time to fixation in the population hovers near the inverse of the point mutation rate, and varies sluggishly with the {lambda}th root of 1/N, where {lambda} is the number of nucleotide positions that must be mutated to produce the feature. At smaller population sizes, the time to fixation varies linearly with 1/N and exceeds the inverse of the point mutation rate. We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 108 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 109.
* Neither the words "intelligent" nor "design" appear anywhere in the article
* "We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the efficiency of other possible pathways.  Thus, for example, the present study that examines the evolution of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate genes does not indicate whether evolution of such features by other processes (such as recombination or insertion/deletion mutations) would be more or less efficient."
* This is a simulation modelling paper - it's results are only as good as the equations used to produce it.
**Lynch (Protein Science (2005), 14:2217-2225) replies to this paper: 
***"It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic"
***"Although the authors claim to be evaluating whether Darwinian processes are capable of yielding new multi-residue functions, the model that they present is non- Darwinian (King and Jukes 1969). Contrary to the principles espoused by Darwin, that is, that evolution generally proceeds via functional intermediate states, Behe and Snoke consider a situation in which the intermediate steps to a new protein are neutral and involve nonfunctional products. Although non-Darwinian mechanisms play an important role in contemporary evolutionary biology, there is no logical basis to the authors’ claim that observations from a non-Darwinian model provide a test of the feasibility of Darwinian processes. Moreover, given that the authors restricted their attention to one of the most difficult pathways to an adaptive product imaginable, it comes as no surprise that their efforts did not bear much fruit."
**Behe and Snoke reply to Lynch:
***"We subscribe neither to triumphant views in some circles that our paper disproved Darwinism, nor to overwrought ones that it supports some grand anti-science conspiracy."
***They also claim that some of his criticisms were misleading.  It's not for me (or us) to evaluate that claim.
When it comes down to it, simulation modelling is simulation modelling.  It presents an interesting "what if" scenario if you choose your parameters carefully.  It creates a region of possibility, but it's only really meaningful when it can be supported by experimental or observational data.  If your model fails to support the "reality" of established theory, the first question is whether your model is right.  Behe & Snoke do not claim that "reality" is wrong, they simply present an interesting modelling result.  Lynch rather effectively takes down their model.  It remains to be seen whether Behe & Snoke pursue this further and address Lynch's concerns about model selection, etc.
For our purposes, it doesn't matter whether Behe & Snoke are right or wrong.  The question is whether this paper can be considered a publication related to intelligent design.  DI claims that it supports DI.  Behe & Snoke make no such claims.  In short, the DI summary appears to be misleading.  So should you take their word on it?  Guettarda 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, steady on.  While the above criticisms of modelling are perfectly sound, let's not whale on modelling too much.  Only by modelling something successfully can we really claim to have understood it.  Observations are fine and dandy (and the cornerstone of science), but if you can't tie them together into a coherent model of the world, you're probably missing something somewhere.  Of course, I say this as a modeller ...  ;)  --Plumbago 10:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No worries.  I'm just teasing really.  Modelling, especially in the biological sciences, involves a fair bit of educated guesswork at times because the processes involved (and even entities involved) are typically poorly understood (at least at the level one would like).  So most modellers I know are well aware of the limitations of what they do (and what they can get away with).  When in doubt, use a linear function until you know better.  It's no accident that one of my colleagues refers to us as "muddlers".  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Behe & Snoke article

message: Something I can;t understand is why a God who marks the sparrow's fall (Matthew) can't produce species by judicious pruning like a divine gardener rather than having to pop up with another miraculous bodge every time an ecological niche changes....dave souza 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's perfectly reasonable within intelligent design.  One way of designing is by selection.  Humans design superior dog, horse, corn, and soybean breeds by selecting and mating.  (If you recall, Darwin's book about natural selection begins its point by explaining artificial selection like this... then make the claim that nature goes about selecting fast dogs and horses in its own way: by killing the slow ones before they reproduce.)  You and I design wikipedia posts by selecting latin characters.  Design isn't always an engineering task, selection is a method of design, too.  David Bergan 20:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd better get started on that 'supernatural selection' article. FeloniousMonk 21:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  But you need sources more notable than me, though... David Bergan 22:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: To the extent that ID has an argument, it's that there are features that could not be selected for by piecemeal, but instead have to be created magically all at once.  When you take this away, you're left with supernatural selection, which immediately slits its own throat with Occam's razor. Alienus 01:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: See Charles Darwin#Religious views for young Darwin getting just that feeling about the nasty wasp that leaves its young to feed on live but paralysed grubs. Interesting links and comment about IC failing and IDers turning to SETI at Ars Technica, I see that we already have the SETI team refutation footnoted..dave souza 11:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Clearly, it's to test your faith. Alienus 13:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not an intelligent selector?

message: Chad, where did you find the basis for this edit []? I can find nothing which confirms this statement. KillerChihuahua 14:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged allegations